PTA article on Slate

I've never been fond of Slate and its movie commentary... they usually have no idea what they're talking about. But today I found a great article about Paul Thomas Anderson on their website. It's a well-written piece, and it explains - in a concise and easily comprehensible way - why I love his films. Read it for yourself, and you just might understand why I'm obsessed with his work.

Click here to read the article

Juno

This movie isn't quite the revelation that everyone's saying it is, but it's a very solid film. Ellen Page is wonderful - truly a breakout star. The supporting cast is pitch-perfect and everyone is well-cast in their roles. The screenplay is lightly comic without going overboard, and the dramatic moments work because they're earned. The biggest surprise for me was the direction of Jason Reitman (son of director Ivan Reitman) - it is quite simply the reason the film works. He conveys a sense of longing and quirky melancholy that might have been lost amongst the humor. This is his second feature, his first being 2006's Thank You for Smoking, a film I was less-than-impressed with. It was unfocused, with little-to-no narrative drive and a group of characters that weren't interesting enough to want to spend time with. Reitman wrote that screenplay. He didn't write this one. The screenwriter this time is Diablo Cody, and although her script relies a little too much on hip wordplay and self-consciously clever dialogue, this aspect of the film is diminished after the first half hour, and we settle into this nice little world she has created. The script's greatest accomplishment is it's structure: not a scene is wasted, and every sequence is there for a reason.
There's really nothing more to say... go see this film. If you're like me, the first half hour or so will be a little grating (it's like a screenwriter screaming in your face "Look at me! I'm here!"), but it's quickly over with and you'll discover a charming little story with a little something for everyone. (And I have to say, I LOVE the last shot of the film... I know, I know, it might not seem like much to some people, but it's simple, graceful, and - my favorite part - it goes on forever...)

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Forget No Country for Old Men - this is the real great crime film of 2007. Don't get me wrong, No Country was good, but this film has it beat. It gives us an interesting plot and great characterization, not to mention a satisfying ending (you listening, Coen brothers?). Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is the latest film from Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, Network), an old-timer who still knows how to tell a story, and to tell it well.
An interesting sidenote: the movie was filmed on HD video, but I couldn't even tell until I read an article which mentioned it. Apparently, Lumet will never shoot on film again, and predicts that everyone will abandon film within five years. Remember my little talk about Zodiac and how film is dead? Well, when veterans like Lumet and Altman (who shot his last few features on video) decide to give up film, that really says something.
Great movie, don't hesitate to see it.

I'm Not There

"That's when she knew it was over for good. The longest-running war in television history. The war that hung like a shadow over the same nine years as her marriage. So why was it suddenly so hard to breathe?..."

Holy shit. This movie is truly an original. Part experimental film, part documentary, and part biopic, the new film from Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is nothing less than perhaps the greatest biographical film of all time.

Biopics (an industry-coined term, short for "biographical picture") have become all the rage lately, especially ones about musicians. While most of them have been good (Ray, Walk the Line), there's no denying the fact that they all follow a similar structure and formula. Bob Dylan, always the innovator, wisely decided to wait until a script came along that broke the mold. This film, to which Dylan has given his stamp of approval (by allowing the use of his music) is the first non-documentary telling of his life.

No less than six actors play Dylan at different stages of his life (although none are actually given his name):

1. Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black boy, plays Dylan's younger self. He calls himself "Woody Guthrie", an obvious allusion to the fact that Dylan not only worshipped Guthrie, but also (in his younger days) tried to emulate him in every way.



2. Ben Whishaw (who has the smallest Dylan role) plays Arthur Rimbaud, a sort of narrator of our story, although, in true Dylan fashion, he is reluctant to explain himself beyond vague phrases and riddles.



3. Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, the character which represents Dylan's transition from simple folk singer to a recognized performer of "protest songs" (more specifically, the time period surrounding his album "The Times They Are a-Changin'"). This story in the film differs from the others in that it is told in a faux-documentary form, with fake interviews of actors playing characters based on real people (such as Julianne Moore, who plays a character based on Joan Baez). Bale's character also returns later on, as we view Dylan's brief Christian reform.



4. Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn, based on the Don't Look Back-era Dylan. As such, this section is filmed in black and white, like that film. Blanchett, while female, probably gives the best performance as Dylan. It is just simply spot-on.



5. Heath Ledger plays Robbie Clark, who represents Dylan during the time his marriage was falling apart (AKA, the Blood on the Tracks period). One of the best uses of Dylan's music in the film is during this section. "Visions of Johanna" plays over the sequence where his wife first realizes it's over. The whole sequence is great, but the best part of it is the beginning - the song fading in, the simultaneous push-ins, the 4 flash cuts, and Ledger's hushed voice-over. Perfect.



6. And finally, Richard Gere plays Billy, an aged outlaw and the literal manifestation of Dylan's fascination with Billy the Kid.

I will begin to talk about the complicated narrative structure of the film, which often does not reference events directly, but relies on the audience's prior knowledge of Dylan to fill in the blanks. I must stress this point here: do not attempt to watch this film unless you've seen at least the two main Dylan documentaries, Don't Look Back and No Direction Home, and have read a brief history of his life (this is a good place to start). I say this because the film will make little-to-no sense for someone without a primer in Dylan 101.

Take the scene below, for instance. In this wonderful sequence, the Dylan character who calls himself "Woody Guthrie" goes to visit a dying music legend in the hospital. Only Dylan fans would know that this was based on a true event - Dylan visited his idol and musical inspiration Woody Guthrie as he lay dying in his hospital bed. It was a main turning point in his life, and it allowed him to put down the Guthrie persona and become his own being. Thus, after this scene, the black Dylan character disappears from the film.

Even more potentially confusing is the Gere character, who not only embodies the Billy the Kid persona Dylan took on while working on the film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid and its soundtrack, but because the film makes liberal use of non-linear structure and cross-cutting, this section is actually a direct comment on the Heath Ledger storyline which is happening right alongside it. As his marriage is breaking up, and Dylan becomes more withdrawn, it's almost as if this Billy character is his fantasy - becoming someone who no one knows, living in a small, simple town and being content with himself. As the town is threatened with destruction, this is representative of Dylan waking up from his depression and finally moving on, as the character hitches a ride on a train (echoing the beginning) and rides away. This makes little sense as we're watching it, but as Billy's dog - his one true companion - struggles to catch up with the fleeing train and fails, Gere mutters "Goodbye, my lady", and we're suddenly aware that he's talking about his wife. We sense his character's loss, and therefore, also Dylan's. It's a brilliant way of portraying something not easily conveyed on screen.

The more I talk about this film, the more amazing I realize it is. It's a must-see for Dylan fans, and even for people who don't know about him - do a little Dylan research and then see this film. It won't be nominated for it, but it deserves the Best Screenplay Oscar. And I haven't even seen There Will Be Blood yet. That's how good it is.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Two of the best performances of the year, bright and persuasive direction from a relatively unknown filmmaker, and one of the best music scores of recent memory, all collide in this must-see film.

I will say, first and foremost, that this film is not for everybody. It runs nearly three hours, and it is a slow and meditative film. It takes patience and energy to view this film, and it's not something for a casual viewing. It was completed in 2005 and not released until now, so that should tell you just how unsure of this movie the studio was. Stylistically, the film is equal parts Terrence Malick and Ingmar Bergman, and its main priority is slowly building character and plot through narration and nuance. Truthfully, this thing could be a half hour shorter, and there were times I grew weary of the slow pacing, but by the end, I was eternally grateful for every second of screen time beforehand, as it helps build into a breathtaking, emotional finale.

This is director Andrew Dominik's second film, and he is truly one to watch. His only previous film was a little Australian picture from 2000 entitled Chopper. I have no idea how he was able to get the job of writing and directing this film, but I'm glad he did. His directing is simple and unobtrusive, and his camerawork is fluid and precise. Reminds me a lot of the work of Paul Thomas Anderson. He doesn't quite have the gift for writing that PTA does (scenes drag on too long, etc.), but his deft handling of the material more than makes up for it.

Both of the two leads in this film - Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck - are exceptional. Pitt is menacing and frightening but also likable and sympathetic, something that is required for his character. But the real shining star here is Casey Affleck. We had two films this year - Gone Baby Gone and now this - in which he was absolutely amazing. He's subtle, believable, and altogether brilliant. He's no longer just the "other Affleck" from Good Will Hunting... he's a damn good actor. It's a pretty tight Supporting Actor race at the Oscars this year, so I doubt he'll get a nomination, but he won Best Supporting Actor from the National Board of Review, and it's richly deserved.

The score is by Nick Cave (yes, that Nick Cave) and Warren Ellis, and it's haunting, evocative, and just right. The cinematography is beautiful, as the film was shot by Roger Deakins, the Coen Brothers' frequent DP. But the real gem here is the story. As the title tells you, it's the true story of the assassination of Jesse James by Robert Ford. That detail is given to you right in the title, right up front, and it's obvious that's what the film is about. But the film is really about the desire for fame and infamy, and the resulting consequences. That's all I'll say, but that's where the ending of the film takes you, and it's beautiful, touching, and perfect.

One of the best films of the year. Don't go into this expecting action, or even a western. If you're a fan of the Terrence Malick style of filmmaking, you'll be right at home.

No Country for Old Men

The Coen Brothers' new movie, No Country for Old Men, is a rousing thrill-ride for much of its running time, but with an ending that, well... just simply sucks.

As I understand it, the film follows the novel quite closely, and the ending is the same as in the book. Well, this would have been a great chance to do some re-writing, because the ending comes out of nowhere, and not in a good way. People praise the ending of No Country as clever, as it is not only unexpected, but stylistically different from the rest of the film/novel. I simply see it as someone not knowing how to end their story. Without giving too much away, I will say that the last 10 minutes go in a completely different direction from the rest of the film, characters disappear, the momentum that has been growing throughout the film suddenly drops into nothingness, and we have been cheated as an audience.

You really have to see the film to understand what I'm saying here - and I don't want to give away any spoilers - but the story has some serious narrative problems, the ending chief among them. The film itself is great - one of the Coens' best - but that ending... it's just a sore spot with me. You can surprise your audience - even anger and upset them - but it has to come from somewhere meaningful, and it has to (for lack of a better word) jive with the rest of the film. If something feels like it doesn't belong in a film, chances are it shouldn't be there. I understand the attempt to do something different, but sometimes it's better to give what's expected than to fail your audience.

Some more Loveline clips