Showing posts with label Thoughts I Had.... Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoughts I Had.... Show all posts

Monday, January 3, 2011

A Second Look At "True Grit"

Last night, I began what I thought would be a live-blog of True Grit. I scrapped it without posting as it was basically a series of line quotations; presumably you don't come to the blog to watch me take dictation.


It's a testament to the Coen Bros singular voice and gift with language that they can launch a movie with a particularly evocative scriptural quotation
"The wicked flee when none pursueth."Proverbs 28:1
...and begin topping it straightaway with their own words. Or what one assumes are their own words since this is an adaptation. Confession: I have not read the Charles Portis novel or seen the John Wayne film. I've been allergic to John Wayne for as long as I can remember and the only successful antihistamine I've yet encountered is Montgomery Clift (see Red River. Literally. See it. What a film!)

True Grit is an extremely mannered film. That's not a qualitative judgment, just an observation. As I stated in my 7 word review "even the horses act with meticulous predetermination." Which is to say --  here comes the qualitative judging -- this particular movie could stand to breathe in a little of its cold night air or just to stumble from its saddle, the way Rooster does once he's fallen to drink. True Grit doesn't feel entirely human. No Country For Old Men benefitted enormously from the Coen Bros machine-like control of cinema. It made the whole film feel malevolent and underlined its thematic death march. That level of inhuman control is not as much to your advantage when you're telling a story about a little girl out to avenge her father's death.

The plot setup, in case you haven't yet seen it, is that Cheney (Josh Brolin) has killed Mattie Ross's (Hailee Steinfeld) father and fled. Since the law doesn't seem to care Mattie hires a Marshall Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down her daddy's killer. A Texas ranger (Matt Damon) accompanies them. Mattie admires men with grit and she's got the stuff herself, but none of the characters (including Mattie) have much in the way of emotional depth. Some, like the villains, are straight up types / cartoons.


 The performances are often amusing but these roles are but tiny sandboxes in which the actors can play. Matt Damon is quite funny in that casual fraternal way of his. Josh Brolin and Hailee Steinfeld don't fare as well, especially on second viewing, adding a stiff "I'm acting now" vibe to the film's already overt mannerisms. These can't be the easiest lines to say -- think for a moment on how hard it is to speak naturally without contractions -- but sometimes, particularly with Steinfeld, the dialogue is spoken as if it were lines rather than verbalized thoughts. Even in two-character scenes, she's monologuing rather than conversing. I continue to be bewildered by the intense praise and awardage Steinfeld is receiving for what is, at best, a solid performance of an endearing lead role, and what is, at worst, an adequate reading of a role that could have elevated the film if there were more complex subtext. There's precious little nuance or backstory teased out which keeps the role in its one dimensional origin space. Arguably Steinfeld also hits those non-verbal notes to convey Mattie thinking or scheming a bit too hard. Is she telling us that Mattie is less clever than she thinks she is or is this merely overplaying?

Best in show, and by an enormous margin with a star turn that deepens on second viewing, is Jeff Bridges as the sozzled Rooster Cogburn. The actor knows that this already iconic role is a rich opportunity for showmanship and understands its imitations otherwise, so he zeroes in on the voice and the physicality, both of which can be readily aped at home to further endear people to the character and actor. (Pop culture statisticians tell us that "I can't do nuthin' for you, son" has already been quoted with amateur approximations of Rooster's voice at least 36,230 times since December 22nd from people of both sexes and of all ages in over 4 different countries. I'm rooting for "performin' his necessaries" to also hit it big.)

Bridges' best decision is that tilted stare, sometimes with his head just slightly yanked backwards; is Rooster trying to refocus his eyes? 'I mean his eye.' He continually holds that stare a shade too long. There's just so much humor in the way Rooster sizes up each character. Even better is that Rooster has the same reaction to surprising lines that are lobbed his way. He treats them like verbal pistol-cocking and he'd best locate a target.

The Coen Bros are beloved of cinephiles and it's not hard to understand why. Filmmakers like the brothers force you to think about the construction of films, because you suddenly notice that every shot, every cut, every moment represents a choice. The dark side of this is that the mannered films perpetually risk devouring themselves like an oroborus or, be they less aggressive or more pretentious, merely sticking their head up their own arse. Excessive stylization is also anathema to viewers who don't like to be confronted by the man (or men) behind the curtain while they're watching films. But on second viewing, the belabored filmmaking proves more boon than bane though and makes the movie quite a lot funnier.

And as everyone has noted, the technical elements are lovely. Roger Deakins' cinematography is beautifully expressive as well as just being plainly beautiful and the editing is top notch. (It's less discussed than their writing skills but aren't the Coens just as gifted in the editing bay?) Nick once called the dissolve a more "soulful" option than a cut and the Coen Bros lean on it a lot here. It works well for the film.  What True Grit lacks in heart and warmth it nearly makes up for in cool soul.

Best line in the movie? It comes during a fade to black near the beginning of the picture as Mattie crashes at the local undertakers before beginning her trip with Rooster.
"If you would like to sleep in a coffin, it would be all right."
It's a comic line in direct context but it's so much more, too. Could there be a slyer preceding line for such a willful march towards vengeance? And could there be a more perfect line to illustrate the often morbid comic sensibility of the Coen brothers?

Speaking of death...



True Grit really sticks its landing which is so important and so hard for movies to do. [VAGUE SPOILER] The climactic nighttime run, which needs to be the most operatically emotional moment in the movie, is just that. Bridges lends the scene natural gravitas and the brave surreal length of that race against the clock is superbly handled. The 25 years later coda, which we also need, is more surprising but ends the movie on just the right note of starch. Mattie (now played by Elizabeth Marvel, the acclaimed stage actress who we're betting is the new Coen regular) has never been a particularly emotional or fun-loving girl and though "time gets away from us" we know it hasn't actually changed her all that much.

B (up from B-)

Monday, December 20, 2010

Mary-Louise Parker Is... Mary Louise Parker!

Thoughts I had while watching... RED (2010)

A few years ago I attended one of those New Yorker festival interviews that featured Mary-Louise Parker and the writer/moderator called her "a chameleon" after showing a clip of her from a movie I didn't recognize in which she wore a blond wig. It was the most ridiculous thing I heard that entire movie year.


Mary-Louise Parker is not a chameleon. Mary-Louise Parker plays Mary-Louise Parker. Like most enduring star actors, she's very very good at her one role.

This random memory came to me while watching RED, the October action comedy (yes, I'm two months late.) about Retired and Extremely Dangerous operatives, that the Golden Globe and Satellite voters unfortunately tossed into the precursor-mandated viewing schedule.

In the film Mary-Louise Parker plays Mary-Louise Parker with a headset. She works a boring job answering phones in some payroll divison of government and she enjoys flirting with retired killer Bruce Willis played by not-retired action star Bruce Willis. Once someone takes a hit out on Willis, MLP gets caught up in the madness.

All of the delightful MLPisms were there: the stoned line-readings, the sly smiles, the wide eyed narcisstic "this is happening? to me ???" wonder, that improbably unique fusion of frazzled and narcotized performance energy as if her body and mouth have never quite decided which brain  chemicals or illegal substances are in power during that moment.

The movie is not good. But I can't lie and say I didn't enjoy it at all. Here are the things I enjoyed about it most in descending order.
  • Mary Louise Parker playing Mary Louise Parker.
  • Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis.
  • Mary Louise Parker mumbling "pizza" from beneath duct tape after much unintelligible screaming about being tied up and duct-taped. It's true, I LOLed.
  • Mary Louise Parker hiding behind Bruce Willis when confronted with John Malkovich playing John Malkovich. My what big teeth he has. "All the better to chew scenery with, my dear"
  • Karl Urban being sexy, especially whilst wounded. 
  • Bruce Willis casually stepping out of a madly spinning car, as if it's in park and he's just running errands... with loaded firearms.
But mostly I did not enjoy it. For these reasons.
  • Brian Cox mangling a Russian accent. 
  • Rebecca Pidgeon being cast as someone who you're not supposed to know is sinister, because she's always sinister.
  • This is a personal thing but I have a super low tolerance for "comedies" that think rapidly escalating body counts are hilarious. And seriously this thing is vile with the 'killing people is fun and wacky! twinkly cheer.
  • That neighborhood where not a single house lights up or neighbor emerges while a group of men machine gun a house for what feels like an hour.
  • General laziness.
  • The pervasive feeling that it might never end.
  • The joke with the stuffed pig did not work. The set up, punchline and execution didn't feel at all in synch for what was, I can only presume, supposed to be a big takeaway gag. I mean, they even sent awards voters that very pig (albeit in miniature form).
Monty, who attacks stuffed animals on sight, was weirdly docile
when confronted with "the pig".

Lastly, I did not enjoy Morgan Freeman as Morgan Freeman or Helen Mirren as Helen Mirren because they both seemed to be phoning it in for a quick buck and both are capable of so much more. Seriously, do these two ever say "no" to an offer? Did any big-salaried actors make easier paychecks this year?

Even if you didn't see the movie... (you dodged a bullet --- thousands of them actually) do you like it when Mary-Louise Parker plays Mary-Louise Parker?
*

Monday, July 12, 2010

Thoughts I Had While Watching... Alice in Wonderland

[Sigh]. You guys...

"Where have you been lurking?"

I've been meaning to write about Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland for weeks now. But every time I so much as thought about doing so I felt a pit in my stomach as deep as that rabbit hole to Underland. I hate the movie sooooooo much. The flames... breathing... on the side of my face.

Why must it exist to taunt me with its billion dollar gross? Way to reward a filmmaker for lazy stagnation. Just pick a famous property, collect your usual coconspirators and then throw shit at the screen. Literally! You can convert it to 3D later. A billion dollars will be yours! As long as the masses recognize the title and you have a bankable star, you're gold. (See also: Sherlock Holmes).

I can't bear to watch the movie a second time. I usually skim back over when I write about films -- so these are just a few scattered thoughts expanded from my notes and my tortured memories of the nightmare witnessed.

<--- Alice sees a green spotted pig because, why the hell not? Nothing has to make any sense. The very essence of the property robs the lazy of having to pick which of their visual ideas to use.

Underland

What was with the "Underland" thing anyway? If you wanna get cute about messing with the title, at least have the balls to change it. Tim Burton's Alice in Underland would still be a stinking pile, but a rose by any other name would not smell as rancid. It can be quite enjoyable and fascinating to see artists riff on past stories, concepts and ideas from previous artists which is why we should all be thankful for the public domain (which greedy corporations are always trying to end... as if they had any hand in the original blood sweat and tears creativity). Once a story has been around for 50-75 years, shouldn't it belong to the world in actuality the way it belongs to the world in the abstract sense?

But just because you can riff on a past work, doesn't mean you should. Especially if you have nothing of value to add.

Ugliness
Mia Wasikowska is a pretty young thing but Alice is a dud. And she's even slightly ugly of personality at the end. Why does the screenplay make her mean spirited? At the end of the movie she actually humiliates her suitor by mentioning an unattractive health problem he has (I forget what it was). Yes, she is right to refuse the marriage offer from Lord Doofus (I don't care what his character name is, it matters not). But to humiliate him while doing so? Most lazy pandering movies present the unsuitable suitor as SO unsuitable that virtually no one should ever marry them. Said suitor should die miserable and alone. Remember WAY back in the day (a decade back, I guess) when movie women did not have hateful suitors or fiancees? As recently as the 90s filmmakers used to trust the audience to understand the nuance of "this guy is not right for her, which is too bad because he's kind of cool/nice." (see Reality Bites, Sleepless in Seattle and others). It wasn't always "this guy MUST be humiliated because he is so awful and oh, the very thought of her with him! You go girl, dump his ugly/insufferable/rude/unfeeling/cheating ass!" I swear to God Hollywood thinks we all have the EQs of lint. "This character good *grunt*. This character bad *grunt*."

Wouldn't her film-ending decision have had more gravitas if she had to say no to a good guy because, the dull domestic life wasn't for her. She's made for larger world travelling ambitions. Wouldn't that be more stirring? Something to actually think about while the credits played? I mean who wouldn't run from the life choice presented her? What kind of a character arc is that?

But her ugly insult and lame story arc is only a tiny thing. Everything in the film is ugly, whether by design, color combinations or sheer excess: The sets, the busy costumes, the special effects. Even Anne Hathaway is ugly and how is that possible exactly? That's not possible without the aid of hideous lighting and makeup design.

It's hard to feel bad about The Court and its way of life being destroyed in The Mad Hatter's backstory exposition flashback scene because that is ALSO garish. Sure, burn it down. No one will miss it.

Johnny & Helena & Alan
Johnny Depp has starred in seven Tim Burton films. The first two collaborations are classics (Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood) The third is solid (Sleepy Hollow). Thereafter its tough to argue that he was necessary or even right for any of the roles. You can't be a daring unpredictable weirdo icon if you become totally safe, predictable and familiar in your daring unpredictable weirdness. These things don't go together. MOVE ON.

The only actors who seem to be working above the material are Alan Rickman, a droll voice choice for the stoned caterpillar with that resonating slightly phlegmy bass of his and Helena Bonham-Carter. Her red queen is the saving grace of the film. Or rather the life raft. The film is not saved but her impeccable timing and focused stylization generally make her scenes tolerable. It's even hard to be annoyed by the nonstop CGI "help" because she knows what she's doing and she's doing it skillfully.


"You've lost your muchness."
This line, spoken by the Mad Hatter to Alice is a good one. It could well apply to Tim Burton, though. He has definitely lost his muchness. In its absence, he compensates with MUCH. The film is always always always too much. Every scene is tricked up with gaseous CGI swirls as if the celluloid can't stop farting.

Even the Chesshire Cat, usually a textbook example of the simplicity of great illusions, doesn't really disappear so much as dissapate into computer generated fumes. Adding to the smell is the distinct impression that the print had been urinated on by someone with a Jabberwocky sized bladder. Why was garish yellow their color of choice?

The movie's over compensating muchness, most obvious in its hideous color palette, busy f/x detailing (wait, this quarter of the frame is empty... throw some weird animal into it! Hurry!!!) and super long redundant sequences which manage to convey exactly one idea each -- fall, chase, fly, fight, etcetera -- reminded me of four other movies. George Lucas's entire ugly Star Wars prequel trilogy has a similar redundancy of one note scenes as well as a shared affinity for grotesque but unappealing creature designs. And most of the action sequences, lamely executed to a one, reminded of that patience testing dinosaur run in King Kong. King Kong was a fairly successful remake but that one scene stuck out like a sore thumb. It added virtually nothing to the story, it was redundant visually, it was OBVIOUSLY special effects (so the film stopped feeling seamless) and it went on forever... at least twice its justifiable length.

These are not good things to be reminded of.
F

<--- "Goodbye sweet hat"

Some final statistics & observations
  • Running time in Underland: 108 minutes
  • Running time in Nathaniel's apartment: 108 hours
  • Length of time before I became annoyed: 41 seconds. I blame the absolutely unsurprising score by Danny Elfman. Same as it ever was. I liked his score for Milk a lot recently. Step away from the Burton, Danny Elfman, Danny Elfman.
  • Standard length of time before Nathaniel usually starts shifting uncomfortably in his seat hoping that the movie will soon end: 91 minutes (comedy) / 109 minutes (drama) / never (A/A- minus level movies. I just watched The Best Years of Our Lives which is 172 minutes long and I could have watched an additional 220 minutes if William Wyler had only let me. But that's a topic for a forthcoming post.)
  • Moment in which I stopped hating the movie briefly but can't for the life of me remember why: Something about the Mad Hatter in his new office making hats for The Red Queen.
  • Percentage of scenes with more f/x than there needed to be: 89%
  • Missed opportunities for subtext: ∞

  • Last time it was super easy to love a Tim Burton live-action movie without reservations: 1996's Mars Attacks!
  • Last time Tim Burton made a truly excellent movie: 1994's Ed Wood
  • Moment I began to suspect that Alice was by far the worst movie Tim Burton had ever made: The 43 second sequence in which Alice falls down through the green scree -- rabbit hole and keeps on falling. And keeps on falling. And kept on falling through sloppy green screens and random imagery, furniture and obstacles that she had to duck or collide with. Was it a movie? A video game level? A test reel? A bad drug trip? Whatever it was, it was pointless. I don't know if you've ever timed other big movie sequences but 43 seconds is a really long time. You can fit a lot into 43 seconds if you aren't phoning it in or editing on quaaludes.
  • Offscreen moment of which I am most ashamed: Wishing Helena Bonham-Carter and Tim Burton would have a horrible row and break up for good. One should never wish ill on happy couples. But she's such a good actress and she's just stuck in ever worsening movies.



  • Number of times I wished that Anne Hathaway had never seen Amy Adams' Enchanted performance: 1,194
  • Number of times you miss something 3D cool if you watch it in 2D: 0
  • Number of times I thought about great Tim Burton films wistfully: 94
  • Number of times I even wished I was watching Planet of the Apes or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: 4
  • Number of times I lost the will to live: 1*
  • Number of times I actually died: 0
  • Number of future films by Tim Burton I'd like to see: ...guess.

*I made it all the way through this article without once mentioning Johnny Depp's breakdancing. Wait, oops!
*