Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Darjeeling Limited
(and some thoughts on Wes Anderson)

The new film from Wes Anderson is both the most mature film he's ever done and unlike anything he's ever done before. The Wes Anderson "style" is still evident (perfectly-framed, close-up insert shots; slow-motion sequences set to music; whip-pans), but the trademark quirkiness we've come to expect from an Anderson film has been considerably toned down here. In my opinion, it's for the better.

Don't get me wrong, I love his work. Bottle Rocket and Rushmore are two of the best films of the 90's, and I was one of the few who thought that The Life Aquatic was a great movie. But it seems as if some people are distracted by the zany surface of Anderson's films and therefore have trouble connecting to the emotional layers within. I'm not one of them, but I understand their feelings. Anderson has such an overly-self-conscious style that some people are turned off. With The Darjeeling Limited, he has finally created a film which unabashedly shows its hand instead of hiding behind the poker face of Anderson's usual tricks, and confidently wears its heart on its sleeve. And it's a better film for it.

Before the film, we are treated to a short film entitled Hotel Chevalier, which directly ties in to the feature (which screens immediately after). The history of this short film has been strange: for festival screenings, the short was shown before the film, but for the early limited release, it was removed, and instead was made available for download on iTunes. Now, for the wide release, the short is back. I honestly can't imagine seeing this film without it included. It provides much-needed backstory for Jason Schwartzman's character, and actually gives lines to Natalie Portman (who is relegated to one single shot - and no lines - in the film proper). Without giving too much away, the removal of it also renders Schwartzman's last lines in the film meaningless, as they refer directly to the events of the short.

Anderson usually closes each of his films with a slow-motion shot, set to music. Not in this film. As if he somehow realized he was making an artistic leap of maturity with this film, he has chosen to instead use the slow-motion device throughout various parts of the movie, starting with a beautiful shot at the end of the short set to Peter Sarstedt's "Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)", and moving on to several others, including two great sequences set to Kinks songs. Anderson has always used this shot to underscore emotion, and this time he experiments by placing it within the film, instead of at the end. It works wonderfully every single time.

Without going on too much longer, I will point out the great characterization in the film (for example, Owen Wilson's character's ordering of food... when you see it, you'll know) which always felt spot-on and never forced, and of course the great caliber of the acting. These three people feel like brothers - the way they talk, the way they interact. It may seem simple, but it's an extremely difficult thing to pull off. All three are exceptionally cast for their roles, and the result is great chemistry.

The critics' attitude toward Wes Anderson has always puzzled me. We all seemed to agree on Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, and then, at some point, everyone went insane. The Royal Tenenbaums, while containing great moments, was saddled with a muddled narrative, too many characters for the running time, and frankly, was a complete mess. The result? Near unanimous critical praise, and an Oscar nomination for the screenplay. His next two films, The Life Aquatic and now The Darjeeling Limited, were two films that I thought were exceptional and yet are receiving mixed-to-negative reviews. Did you people watch the same film as me? Are people unable, or unwilling, to look past the stylistic surface and see what's underneath? Unfortunately, the popularity of Anderson among college-aged kids as a new, "hip" filmmaker have turned some people off even at the start. Who can blame them? The youngin's are in love with the Anderson style and quirks and don't care about much else. There is substance in these movies. Lots of substance. Film has a long history of dressing up hard-to-swallow subjects to make them more palatable. Why should Anderson get punished for it? Rant over.

Below I have posted the entire 13-minute short film Hotel Chevalier (which plays before The Darjeeling Limited). Warning: contains nudity. So, obviously, it's NSFW. Enjoy!

Click to watch "Hotel Chevalier"

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Gone Baby Gone

Holy fucking shit... Ben Affleck can direct.

Most people seem to agree, especially after this movie, that Ben Affleck should step away from in front of the camera - where he's frequently criticized - and get behind it. While I think he's underrated as an actor (case in point: Chasing Amy), I wholeheartedly agree that he should explore this other side of his talent, which has unfortunately taken a back seat to his numerous action duds over the years.

If anyone had any doubt that Good Will Hunting was actually written by Affleck and Matt Damon (and there were some doubters early on), one only has to hear the words emerging from characters mouths in this movie. Containing several well-written speeches which are a joy to listen to, the dialogue in this movie is excellent. In addition to the great speeches involving admittedly dark subject matter, the film is unexpectedly funny, in addition to being affecting and involving. I believe you should go into this movie with as little known about it as possible, so I will end this review here, suffice to say that the direction (Affleck's debut film as director) is tight and assured, the script (co-written by Affleck and Aaron Stockard) is entertaining and affecting, and the ending - somewhat refreshingly - doesn't give you any definitive closure. Gone Baby Gone is something you need to see.

I will leave you with a speech between the characters of Detective Bressant (Ed Harris) and Patrick (Casey Affleck). It contains a minor spoiler, but not really because it isn't detailed enough to give anything away. I figured I'd warn you anyway. I couldn't remember the entire speech from memory, of course, so I downloaded a bootleg of the movie so I could transcribe it for you word for word. Enjoy.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
You should be proud of yourself. Most guys would've stayed outside.

PATRICK
I don't know.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
What don't you know?

PATRICK
A priest says shame is God telling you what you did was wrong.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Fuck him.

PATRICK
Murder's a sin.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Depends on who you do it to.

PATRICK
Ain't how it works. It is what it is.

BEAT.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
I planted evidence on a guy once. Back in '95... we were paying a hundred an eight-ball to snitches. Got a call from our pal Ray Likanski. We couldn't find enough guys to rat out. Anyways, he tells us there's a guy pumpin' up in an apartment up in Columbia Point. We go in, me and Nicky. Fifteen years ago, when Nicky went in, it was no joke. So, it's a stash house - the old lady's beat to shit, the husband's mean, cracked out. He tries to give us trouble, Nicky lays him down... We're doing an inventory, and it looks like we messed up because there's no dope in the house and I go in the back room... And this place was a shithole, mind you. Rats, roaches all over the place. But the kid's room in the back... was spotless. He swept it, he mopped it. It was immaculate. The little boy's sittin' on the bed holdin' on to his Playstation for dear life. There's no expression on his face. Tears streamin' down. He wants to tell me he just learned his multiplication tables.

PATRICK
Jesus.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
I mean the father's got him in this... crack den, subsisting on twinkies and ass-whippings. And this little boy... just wants someone to tell him that he's doing a good job. You're worried what's Catholic? Kids forgive. Kids... don't judge. Kids turn the other cheek. What do they get for it? So I went back out there, I put an ounce of heroin on the living room floor, and I sent the father on a ride... seven to nine.

PATRICK
That was the right thing?

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Fuckin' A! You gotta take a side. You molest a child... you beat a child... you're not on my side. If you see me comin' you better run because I'm gonna lay you the fuck down. Easy.

PATRICK
Don't feel easy.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Is the kid better off without his father? Yeah. But ok, I mean, he could be out there right now, pumpin' with a gun in his waistband. It's a war, man. Are we winning? No.

BEAT.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Would you do it again?

PATRICK
No.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Does that make it right?

PATRICK
I don't know.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
It doesn't make it wrong, though, does it?

Friday, October 19, 2007

Across the Universe:
A beautiful failure

Julie Taymor's Across the Universe is a bold experiment - an experiment gone terribly, horrifyingly wrong. It is an irritatingly inconsistent film that contains several brilliant sequences, but unfortunately not enough of them to keep the film from falling apart.

The story is this: Set during the 1960's, we follow several young people throughout their entrance into the new decade, amid the backdrop of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. The film is structured as a semi-musical. Throughout the story, the characters frequently break into song - in this case, Beatles songs. Sounds great, right? It really, truly could have been. And worst of all, the first half of the movie is almost uniformly wonderful. One great sequence after another - a raucous dorm-room sing-a-long to "With a Little Help From My Friends", a breathtaking, immensely powerful re-imagining of "Let It Be" set amongst the Civil Rights Movement, and a darkly satirical take on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" in which newly drafted soldiers are seen literally carrying the Statue of Liberty. I was also elated to see the inclusion of my favorite Beatles song, "I've Just Seen a Face".

Shortly after this, however, the film quickly spirals out of control. Any semblance of pacing completely goes out the window, as one agonizingly slow sequence follows another. Several early Beatles songs are re-composed as sparce, somber ballads, and while the changes were an interesting choice, there are simply way too many of them strung together. I've always seen the movie musical as the filmic equvilant of the mix-tape: start off with a bang, build up momentum, slow it down, and then alternate throughout the rest of the runtime with a similar sequence. The idea is to keep your listener listening, or, in this case, keep the viewer watching. By the end of the film, I didn't care. I just wanted to go home and listen to a real album, where the track order made some semblance of sense. The biggest problem with the music in the film is there's simply too many songs (34 in all) featured in the just over two-hour runtime. The Beatles-music idea was handled much better in I Am Sam (another film which uses covers of Beatles songs, as the original recordings are much too expensive to use).

One word of note: There are reports that the studio had attempted to take the film away from the director, Julie Taymor. While I'm not usually for that kind of thing, this is one case where it makes sense. The film is a complete mess in its second half. There are entire sequences here that could have been omitted. Particularly the horrible "I Am the Walrus" and "Mr. Kite!" scenes, which add nothing at all to the film. Taymor was reportedly under pressure to get the film under two hours, and she refused. Well, you could truthfully remove a half hour from this film and not even notice. This is one of the few cases where the studio was totally and completely right. Usually the studios are overstepping their bounds when they try to interfere. Usually. There are situations like The Magnificent Ambersons, and then there's this.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Random thoughts about a great show

I've always thought that the real way to gauge the quality of something is if you’re immensely thankful that it actually exists. When it comes to my all time favorite things, every time that I pop in that CD or DVD, it occurs to me that no matter what happens, it will always exist. Long after all of the people involved have left this earth, what they have created will always be here. It happens every time I put in a Dylan album or watch something like The 400 Blows.


Case in point: Freaks and Geeks. I watched the show during its brief run, and, since it was many years before it was officially released, I ended up buying copies of the show on eBay. Back then, I figured this would be the only way I’d ever get to own the show. I didn't care about the shitty quality – the fact that I was even able to watch it was a great thing. I vehemently recommended the show to friends, and I estimate that in my first few years of high school I made over 25 copies of the show for many people.


It was to my immense surprise and joy, of course, that the show was released on DVD in my senior year. The excitement of being able to have perfect copies of this show may seem silly, but it’s great to know that it will always be there -- it’s a strange comfort thing, I suppose.
As with most of your favorite things, you can’t wait to share them with others. I’ve done that with this show already, of course, but it’s great to know that when my kids are high school age, I can pull this out and give it to them their freshman year. This show means a lot to me, and it truly informed my high school years in a way that nothing else did. It’s only fair to try to provide that experience for someone else.

Clips from the series: