The Artist (2011): Flashback to 1927

Overall Rating: B+

It was the roaring twenties.  It was an era of artistic revolution in nearly every field, none so much as film.  The cinema was approaching a revolution.  One year, WINGS would be a silent film to win best picture winner.  Its successor was A BROADWAY MELODY, a musical with coordinated sound.  The industry turned just like that.  No one hesitated to follow Al Jolson to the talkie revolution, leaving silent stars to either adapt or fade into obscurity.

Meet George Valentin, the fictional actor who rose to superstardom in the 1920s as a silent comedian.  He was at the pinnacle of the profession, adored by fans and executives alike.  He is wealthy and, along with his trusty dog, is box office gold. Now the talkies begin to take over the Hollywood scene. Valentin is stubborn, refusing to change his ways and is essentially afraid to talk.  He decides he will make his own movies separate from the studio system that brought him fame and fortune, but audiences were no longer interested in pantamiming on screen. They wanted to hear movies, not just look at them.

Jean Dujardin had his work cut out for him as Valentin.  He remains silent for nearly the entire film, having to focus on facial expressiveness to reach audiences.  He is almost too expressive for sound I might  imagine, but he was perfectly cast as the man who was afraid to speak.  More challenging than keeping his mouth shut was portraying all of the angles of his character.  George Valentin is a performer first a foremost, so Dujardin had to be able to act as an actor and capture Valentin’s charisma and beaming energy.  He also had to play the man himself, who at the top of his game was blissful and fancy-free.  Then, as his narcissism pushed him closer to rock bottom, Valentin becomes a deeply depressed individual who sees the world as out to get him.

He is saved from himself and his anger by the young Peppy Miller, who he had once stood behind s she tried to reach the big stage.  Peppy, with a unique beauty spot that was first penciled on by Valentin, is not afraid to speak.  She becomes one of thee biggest names in Hollywood and signs a deal with the studio that was once led by none other than our protagonist.  Valentin grows scornful of Peppy’s success, at least on the surface, but she remains loyal to the man she once had a girlish crush on and helped her become the star she was.

The rise and fall of these stars respectively may be the center point of the plot, but what was really the goal of the film is to capture the spirit of the end of the silent era.  That is the ultimate downfall of THE ARTIST. It tries much too hard to be an old film.  It feels like a remake, totally lacking originality or creativity.  It succeeds admirably at recreating the atmosphere of the 1920s in film, but nothing more.

Michel Hazavanicius is a wonderful writer and director, so I cannot wait until he grows beyond his silent hit to try to make some movies of his own. THE ARTIST is a fun movie and was truly enjoyable to watch but it left me wondering “is that it?” with an ending that seemed to lack integrity.  It is not a silent film in all. There is some speaking in the final act, and coordinated sound dispersed throughout the narrative.

Where THE ARTIST succeeds in enjoyment and atmosphere, it fails in other places.  The dog and other numbers were parts where it was thew writing that made it impossible not to smile, and the cinematography made George Valentin’s polarity that much more exaggerated.  On the other hand, the costume design was inaccurate to the period and technology was simply fictitious.  Seeing some of the outfits and set  pieces reminded me of the chariot race scene in BEN-HUR, where a gas tank becomes clearly visible on the back of one of the carts, which clearly were not around at the time.  Also, the editing was annoying.  Really there are two possible reasons for this.  The first is that the producers and editors are lazy and bad at their job. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s not that one.  The second is that they were trying to make it poorly edited to remind audiences of how movies looked in 1927, but in 2012 the industry has progressed to such a degree that I pay to no longer have to see poorly edited movies and would prefer one that is up to the times.  If it wants to be a 1920s silent film, then it is just another picture that the studios were churning out a dime a dozen. If it wants to be a well-made 2012 feature, then it is sloppy and lacking innovation.

The one part of THE ARTIST, besides Dujadin’s performance which I cannot say enough about, is the music.  Ludovic Bource’s original scoring of the movie was phenomenal.  It is an up-and-down score like I have never heard before and it really furthers the material greatly.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked THE ARTIST. It was fun and succeeds as a love letter to the shift in filmmaking methods.  One must respect the courage it took to make an almost silent film in the twentifirst century and hope to make it a success.  The Weinsteins certainly helped in that regard, but even with great marketing, THE ARTIST promises to become the second lowest grossing Best Picture winner ever (adjusted for inflation) proving that Valentin would not survive in silent movies even today.

Rango (2011): Alone in a Crowded Room

Overall Rating: A-

Rango is your average, ordinary domestic lizard.  As a pet chameleon, he ran the show in his lonely tank, occupied only by himself and assorted plastic ornaments.  Just as he has hit rock bottom, realizing just how isolated he is, catastrophe strikes and Rango is left behind in the middle of an anonymous roadway cutting through the desert.  In desperation avoid premature death either by dehydration or by hawk attack, Rango seeks refuge in the town of Dirt. You read that right, the old west style lawless setting of this film is none other than Dirt.

Voiced astonishingly by the versatile Johnny Depp, Rango essentially lies his way to the top, making things up as he goes.  Of course, he doesn’t really know better because he has never previously actually interacted with any living animals before.   Soon, he has formed relationships with some of the townspeople, namely a little girl with big goals, and a sassy lizard named Beans.

Beans, and the rest of the citizens of Dirt are facing hard times.  The town is in a serious economic setback, and with the bank near empty there seems no chance of a reversal.  What makes this situation unique is that the town’s financial transactions are not executed with some traditional form of currency, but with water.  The large jug of water in the bank is dangerously close to losing its last drop, and no one is sure what will happen if that does.  In their fear and desperation, the townspeople make Rango their new sheriff, and the story really starts rolling. Rango leads the people on a chase for stolen water, while at the same time trying to combat the corrupt powers that be that control lives in Dirt.

RANGO is the type of movie that just is not made any more.  It is a very smart film, with a great story.  RANGO would have been just as effective in live action, but the feel may have been different.  It is animated as honestly as it is written.  The graphics are so devastatingly realistic that there are times when one must look away because the vermin 0n screen seems like the real thing right in front of you. Rango himself is portrayed as the usual green lizard, with long tail and protruding eyes. He is an architypal figure in more ways than just his accent you could say.  The animation of other creatures, like the hawk and snake for example does not take any short cuts.  These animals are not personified, making them look very real.

Despite its being animated, RANGO plays like an adult movie more than a family movie.  It has a strong moral and clever comedy that many youngsters may not appreciate, but the won’t care because of all the laughs they’ll be enjoying.  RANGO is the best animated movie in a very long time that was not made by Pixar, and should but uncontested for that Oscar this weekend.  Oh! Also worth noting, RANGO was not shot in three dimensions.  It is wonderful to see an animated film that relies heavily on modern technology for its look to remain in stunning 2-D, proving to the industry that bigger is not always better.

Margin Call (2011): Historical Drama Coming Off As A Monster Movie

Overall Rating: A

The butterfly effect, originally coined in meteorology, dictates that one seemingly isolated occurrence could potentially resonate and influence life across the planet. When, in late 2007 Wall Street corporations like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns sought to free themselves from risky toxic assets from the peaking housing bubble, they jump started one of the worst international financial crises since the 1930s.  This collapse may not seem all that cinematic, but the result of retelling this story at Sundance last year was a wonderfully honest and painful depiction of what got the global markets to where they currently stand.

Financial firms associated with the Wall Street system in the late-2000s were at an unprecedented level.  The housing market was as high as ever and the stock market was also breaking records.  This bull market can only last so long however, and with much of the financial success of these corporations tied up in mortgage and other high risk accounts, sudden downfall felt inevitable.  This is where MARGIN CALL opens.  A fictional trading firm in New York understands that the market is approaching an impending period of bearish recession.  For this reason, they are laying off roughly half of their employees.  The surviving members are relieved to still be there at the end of the day, but are shocked to see who has been let go. The most apparent of these  moments is when risk assessment manager Eric Dale is clearing out his office, while inexperienced 20-somethings that once under him ponder their own fates. One of these younger employees is Pete Sullivan, who is being tasked to finish a file Dale was working on, with the instruction to “be careful.” What the file reveals early thee following morning to Sullivan is what sent the financial market spiraling out of control.

The firm brings in all of its top guns. Floor manager Sam Rodgers, division head Jared Cohen, and even CEO John Tuld must make a decisions.  How are they to deal with the decidedly negative outlook of their company.  Eventully, after meetings through the night and into the following morning, they realize that there are only two options.  The firm can sacrifice itself by holding onto its toxic assets until it can no longer be sustained, thereby killing off all of its influence and wealth, or they can attempt to sell everything to other firms, which would alienate clients and ultimately ruin the financial planning of the purchasing firms.

The thirty six hour period that changed the way the world works once seemed very distant, but the brilliant screenplay of MARGIN CALL by JC Chandor. Once resolved to be held only to commercials and documentary shorts for a living, this is Chandor’s first feature film both as a writer and as a director.  He masters the art of sharp dialogue, which is able to keep the audience a bit on edge the entire film even though virtually nothing physical actually happens.  The script is heavily, no heavily seems like  an understatement, reliant on dialogue and the viewers attention.  While it does not necessarily need you to be an expert in the inner workings of Wall Street and accounting, but Chandor was making the fair assumption that everyone knows the end result of this mess.

Notice I never mentioned any actors.  MARGIN CALL is carried by a star studded cast, but an emsemble cast of great artists, and I would find it unfair to single out any performances when none truly stood out amongst the rest.  Rather, I think that immense credit is due to Chandor, who in addition to writing a marvelous and revolutionary screenplay, directs his stars to deliver his lines with shrewd honesty.

Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen has Finally Left New York

Overall Rating: A

It really does sound like a punchline: “What happened New York’s biggest advocate in film decided to take on Europe?” Actually, there is no joke here.  When Scorsese and Lumet painted horrific images of America’s cultural hotbed, it was Woody Allen who came to the rescue with ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, and HANNAH AND HER SISTERS pronouncing to the world that New York was safe again.  There has always been a bond between the great comic filmmaker Allen and his primary muse, the city he called home. Now, he was pioneering across the pond, and the result is one of the most delightful of his 41 films.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is an psychological exploration of sorts, and we can all relate to the main character Gil.  The primary theme here is nostalgia.  This is a more powerful force than simply memory and longing, as it can act independent of memory.  Remembering good times brings happiness, while a nostalgic reaction to such a fantasy can even be painful.  Gil is in a rough situation, where he lust for the past is actually ruining his present.

Gil is played by Owen Wilson with just the right amount and mix of humility and childish exuberance. He is happily engaged to Rachel McAdams’ Inez.  I use that description lightly, because in all reality it is apparent that both are wary about the future of their relationship.  She would prefer to live in a Malibo beach house when they are married. He thinks that a loft in Paris would be a better fit. The level of chemistry between our two stars, or lack thereof, that has plagued their films for a decade works for the better here, and we are forced to wonder how the characters ever ended up together in the first place.

Gil is a hack screenwriter who still has aspirations to become the next great american novelist.  He idolizes the likes of F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway.  While Gil is often upstaged by the intellectual friend Paul, he clearly has quite the trivial pursuit brain himself.  That is what MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is: a combination of dreamy lifelong realizations, and a brief history of the jazz age in Paris.

I think that the filmmakers and distributors would prefer the rest of the premise to remain discrete, but I truly cannot dance around it.  One night, incapable of becoming motivated to write or entertain his fiance, Gil goes for a lonely walk through the streets of Paris.  The bell strikes midnight, and Gil is invited to join a party in an old automobile.  Next thing he knows, he is having drinks with Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.  Over the course of these evenings, any literature or french studies major would have a field day.  The remarkable ensemble cast with too many superstars to mention goes on to bring back to life the likes of Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, TS Elliot and a host of other artistic geniuses from the 1920s in Paris.  As a movie guy, my personal favorite encounter included Gil, with knowledge gained in the twentifirst century, giving Luis Bunuel the concept that would turn into the revolutionary psychological film THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL in 1962.

The troubles of cross generational relationships that you might expect arise, as Gil falls for Adriana, the once mistress of Modigliani and Picasso with her own obsession with the Parisian Golden Age.  The love affair that contemporary individuals have with the past, charmingly referred to as nostalgia, proves only to be a trap preventing people from moving forward.

Some people had an issue with the way the film ended. It was somewhat cliche, but I found it appropriate and uplifting. I will not go further than that because the build up is really what makes it special.  What there is to love about the screenplay beyond its clearly charming and uplifting pieces is its focus on what really matters.  This is a movie about the past, and one man’s quest to live it in the present, and this goal is achieved admirably by Woody Allen. It is not a film about time travel or schizophrenia, so there was no need to go into any explanation of how Gil shifted through time, or whether or not it was all imagined. I honestly do not care about these details, as the audience is simply content to be along for the ride.

 

My Week With Marilyn (2011): Time Travel With Some Legends of The Industry

Overall Rating: B-

Everyone knows about those figures that are truly once in a generation. They can come in the form of unmatched artistic geniuses, or perhaps a one person pop culture phenomenon.  Then, on an infinitely rarer occasion, there is someone like this that is not only once in a generation, but irreplaceable and one of a kind.  Sir Lawrence Olivier is certainly the type of artist that comes only once a generation and leaves an indelible mark on their field.

That said, Marilyn Monroe was and still is the type of iconic figure that does not only influence their closest followers, but truly becomes a staple of an entire culture. If Marilyn were to walk down the street in 1960 with Senator Kennedy and Mickey Mantle, my bet would be that most people recognized Marilyn. She was the type of charismatic figure that every woman wanted to be, and every man wanted to be with. She was, in fact larger than life, and recreating that on screen nearly fifty years after her tragic death was a hit or miss quest. Michelle Williams was tasked with this tall order. Really, if they were to be successful then audiences of all ages would love it, but if they were off then everybody who idolized Marilyn would be alienated.

All there is to say here is Bravo.  The recreation of these two legends of cinema were done uncannily.  There were times when I simply forgot that I was not watching footage of the woman herself. Williams was uncanny as the lead. Even down to her expressions and her voice, it felt like that really was Marilyn on the screen. Credit is also due to the costume designers and her make up artist, but it was Williams’ touch that brings everything together.

The second stud here was Sir Lawrence Olivier.  The man behind great adaptations such as HAMLET and HENRY V was one of the most celebrated filmmakers and theater directors of all time.  To gain the approval of the film industry today, they could not go wrong on this sort of figure either. So, they went with one of the great common sense casting jobs to memory. Kenneth Branagh is a british actor and filmmaker that got his start on the stage and made it big with adaptations of Shakespeare’s work. Sound familiar? It should.  Branagh’s career has been inspired by Olivier’s in many ways, so it was only logical to have him take over the role of his forefather in this movie.  While he will not be recognized as much as Williams, Branagh’s work was incredible as well.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN is a performance driven film with relatively little other purpose.  Colin Clark is detailing the short stint he had working as an assistant to Mr. Olivier on the set of THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL. That movie starred Monroe and Olivier as a youthful American and the eastern royalty who tries to seduce her. Really, the newer film is a parable for this story. Olivier tried to appeal to the young American woman of Monroe, that is until he pealed her layers and found her childish demeanor borderline unbearable. Colin does not see her this way.  He feels that she is a fun and loveable individual. She even fancies him to an extent, and the boy falls hopelessly in love.

The screenplay is directly designed to play into Williams’ performance, and really lacks any depth.  It seems as if the writers were uncertain at first as to whether they were creating a comedy or drama.  Most scenes appear to have the dramatic effect of a serious period piece, but then abruptly lose any structure and fall into frivolity that I am used to in low production comedies.  The other supporting turns are very weak, but really we are distracted by how uncanny the two stars are.  I commend the film for doing exactly what it strives for to a tee, but next time they ought to aim a little higher.

Moneyball (2011): Not a Baseball Movie, I swear.

Overall Rating: B+

MONEYBALL is a smart movie, for smart people.  Before we can get into the subject of the film, you must first understand the issues at hand.  Over the past decade or so, the once revered national pasttime that is the great game of baseball has been rocked by a new wave of business men instead of sports men.  Player salaries are through the roof and traditional practices are falling into obscurity.  The most significant of these methods has come in the field of player scouting.  There was a time where the scouting process included watching people play and observing technique to find a measure of potential. Now, while these practices are still prevalent in today’s game, but it has new competition in the form of sabermetrics. This is a relatively new system of statistical analysis used to examine a player’s productivity.

Now that we are all caught up to speed, there is entertainment in there somewhere. Scribed by Michael Lewis, Moneyball was originally written as a non-fiction book on the evolution of Oakland Athletic’s general manager Billy Beane’s use of sabermetrics in the major leagues. Billy is played by a perfectly cast Brad Pitt, who seems like a natural no matter what role he plays.  Billy was not alone in this revolution, and his vast array of assistants and influencers are combined into a single role as Peter Brand by comic Jonah Hill.

Billy was a heavily scouted amateur ballplayer in his own right, but nothing ever came of his professional career.  He was a good looking, smooth, athletic figure that the traditional scouts loved.  Now, Pete says that with proper analysis of Billy’s career, he should never have even been drafted. Beane understands that the system is overdue for change, and now has an assistant he can trust to help him engineer the change. He is obviously met with the opposition that comes with regime change, as coaches and scouts are insulted when they are replaced by computers in the decision making process.

The work done by the A’s front office during the 2002 season changed baseball for ever, and possibly for the better.  The movie does its very best to shift from happy to bitter-sweet and back again, and the screenplay is up to par.  By this, I mean that Aaron Sorkin has earned my trust that anything his pen grazes turns to gold at this point. The task of shifting from a strictly non-fiction, non-narrative book that primarily focuses on numbers rather than words to a story to be unraveled on screen is no short order.  The dialogue is solid, and considering this challenge Sorkin did a very good job.

The way in which the film was edited gives the false illusion of subtlety , and is really the primary thing that turned me off on this film.  It is inconsistant and sometimes sloppy, which can  be disguised as art for the less tried viewer.  Performances are stellar, with Hill at his career best and right to par with the other good supporting turns by Chris Pratt as Scott Hatteberg and Kerris Dorsey as Beane’s daughter.

All of these acting jobs were good, but all were overshadowed by the magnificent turn by Brad Pitt. he is beginning to crank out great performances so frequently now that we may get caught taking it for granted, but there is no way I can imagine a better performance for Billy Beane than Brad Pitt. He plays every scene with honestly, as we are able to feel his humility, anger, enthusiasm and all other emotions that come with the ride that was tha season for the A’s.

I have never seen any industry stand behind a movie as much as baseball supported marketing MONEYBALL this summer.  Brad Pitt was featured on a Sports Illustrated Magazine cover, Major League Baseball.com held contests for free tickets, and ballparks across american displayed posters.  This is incredibly ironic because the people involved in baseball are not happy with the way that their traditional methods being stomped on by filmmakers that have no business in the subject.

The Help (2011): Civil Rights Drama Actor’s Showcase

Overall Rating: B+

Every now and again there is a film that appies to all types of viewers. Audiences love it. Critics love it. The Awards revere it. THE HELP almost gets there. Everyone seems to really like it, but there is something that does not quite push it over the top.  It is a well thought out period peice with a strong moral, starring successful yet unrealized actors, and based on a highly successful book. This is a formula for the perfect critics’ darling.

Kathryn Stockett’s highly successful novel about the civil rights era comes to screen taking few short cuts, but it is not the shocking tell all that the book was upon its release, meaning that the filmmakers had to rely on other pieces to make it successful.  This was left to director Tate Taylor, for whom this was a passion project. The root of the success of the film comes from the massive following that the book garnered, and the hype was certainly well deserved. THE HELP won the box office several weeks in a row, but fell flat when it went to home release.  This is because I do not see this as an easy film to watch over and over again, without much to really appreciate besides the performances.

We meet the charming but ill-cast Emma Stone as the chief protagonist and eventual author of The Help, Skeeter Phelan, who is at a cross roads in her life. She has recently graduated from university and is determined to become a writer.  Her mother would prefer she put off ambitions of becoming a working woman and simply pursue trying to get married. They live in Jackson, Mississippi, one of the more overtly racist cities in America at the time.  Skeeter, fresh off of a liberal experience in college and with a deep bond with her former african american nanny, is the only one passionate enough to take a stand against prejudice.  She secretly begins to meet with the black women in the area to publish a tell-all piece to accomplish two of her goals: achieve success as a writer, and help bring equality for colored people.

The thing about the book that I really appreciate is that is not solely a scandalous exposee about the terrible system that these people lived in. Rather, Skeeter, along with maids Aibileen and Minny, set out to tell how life really was for the hired help. Sure, this includes the awful treatment they must endure, but also the good times. These women essentially raise white children and create a bond just outside of family.

While I cannot say that I loved THE HELP, I will stand by the presumption that the performances were off the charts.  The minor characters like Jessica Chastain’s Cecilia and Brice Dallas Howard’s Hilly are very well done and with the ease that can only come from these great stars.  Emma Stone plays the co-lead very well. I’d say even as well as she possibly could but this is not really the role for her. On the other hand, the casting of Viola Davis as the other lead Aibileen was spot on.  She gives her career best performance as the down to earth maid who is always in control of her being.  She is complimented by Octavia Spencer as the hot headed and relentlessly hilarious maid Minny.

Frankly, with such splendid performances and a guaranteed following, I expected a lot more from Taylor’s film.  THE HELP plays like just another civil rights drama.  Every stereotype about the south and lives of the blacks and the 1960s is present.  The flashback sequences are really poorly done and the dialogue is bland. Also, as a viewer that prefers to focus on the visual aspects of film, the cinematography was decidedly sub-standard, but other artistic pieces were well done.  This is especially costume design and production, which really remind the audience that this is in fact a civil issues movie.  There is nothing here that is fresh, but I get the sense that fresh was not really what they were going for.

Pariah (2011): Coming of Age for the Politically Correct Generation

Overall Rating: B

They key to the final realization of a filmmaker’s passion project is patience and a little good fortune.  In 2007, Dee Rees released a controversial short film about a New York teen seeking to break from societal restraints and achieve sexual freedom.  This shirt received near universal critical acclaim, but this did not quite satisfy Rees’s fire for this project.  She brought back her lead cast, including main actress Adepero Oduye, in order to finish what she had started.  The result was this year’s Sundance feature PARIAH.

“Pariah,” as the film’s tagline advertises, refers to a social outcast who does not belong to any group.  The protagonist is Alike, who may belong to denominations, but not the most privileged in our world.  She is an adolescent, african american, homosexual from New York City.  In the world we live in, this is not a fair hand to be dealt.  People are not welcoming, and accepting as the advertise to be, and Alike is at or near the very bottom of the social ladder in this respect.

She is trapped.  Not necessarily by her sexuality, but by her home situation.  She has an overbearing mother, obnoxious sister, and working father.  Living in the city, she struggles to become close to any of her peers, and has trouble finding ways to meet curfew.  These traits only make home life that much more stressful for the poor girl, and as her family begins to predict that she may not bat from the usual side of the plate, their worlds begin to fall into confused states as well.

Alike has her heart broken several times, but it is difficult for anyone to relate to her in quite the way she feels.  Her father is excited about a relationship of her’s but simply assumes that it is with a boy.  There is no one for Alike to confide in, even her closest friends sometimes look down on her.  Alike is truly alone, and once she starts to grow close with someone new, it all falls apart at the seems yet again.  So, like so many lonesome protagonists before her, Alike searches for solace in another form of personal expression – poetry.  She is a brilliant writer and straight-A advanced scholar, but something leaves her unfulfilled.

The beauty of Rees’s screenplay is that these issues are felt by all people whether the audience realizes it or not.  One does not have to be black or gay to understand the state Alike is in, but that does add an element of distance to it.  While the dialogue between the girls seems forced and dated for modern teens in the city, her interactions at home with the parents is visceral and down to earth.  This includes both the good times, like late night bonding with daddy, or not so good times, like uncomfortable meals as a torn apart family unit.

Beginners (2011): Well-Natured Fun With a Potent Message

Overall Rating: A

Right off the bat, BEGINNERS is one of those American movies that ventures where most other Americans are willing to go.  The plot is fresh but not exactly risky, but it is the style of the picture that really allows it to transcend traditional fair this time of year.  To me it seemed utterly similar to the type of film that a french master like Jean-Pierre Jeunet might make, and hopefully that is the direction Mike Mills was going for.  If so, then I cannot wait to see what other material he can produce down the road, but for now let us discuss his most recent success.

Oliver is not a happy person as we meet him at the beginning of this movie. Really, we must ask ourselves, who really is? He is such a grounded figure that he could be anyone; therefore, any one with only a touch of luck can replicate his story.  He is unhappy because he is, like so many anti-heroes before hime, alone.  He is good friends with a couple from work, and is becoming companions with his late father’s dog, and that’s just about it.

Oliver is in mourning. Literally, he is trying to cope with the loss of his father Hal – brilliantly portrayed by Christopher Plummer.  Figuratively, he is regretting the state he has been launched into. He had a lot thrown at him late in his father’s life, confusing the memories he had of his parents’s marriage.  Yes, Hal is a homosexual.  He comes out to his son only months after his long time wife’s death, and Oliver’s recollection of that moment is one of the most hilarious points in the movie.  It is told in a series of transitions between the now and Oliver’s flashbacks. Some of these flashbacks are basic, such as meeting his father’s young male lover, while others appear simple but can be more telling, such as his shadowy imagery of his parents’ marriage as a series of goodbye kisses.

Presently, he has met a girl.  His social interactions gain meaning as the film goes on and we understand more about Oliver’s psyche, but the way in which he interacts with the lovely Anna only reflects our own hopes and fears about commitment. This is only accentuated by the “talking” dog Arthur, but I won’t get into that.

Nothing in BEGINNERS seems forced.  It is all so very real. Part of this is the writing, and part is the acting.  Mike Mills’s screenplay allows for the protagonist’s thoughts and instincts to be brought to the screen as purely as they could be.  While some scripts use the narration of a protagonists as a means to essentially hear the character’s thoughts, it seems hear that Oliver is just talking to himself the entire time. It’s like he has a lot to say and knows exactly how he wants to say it, but without an audience.

The performances were also stellar.  I feel like at the end of every film discussion is the comment about the solid acting, but in a story like this is it absolutely essential. The plot and dialogue could not carry themselves in this one, and the audience needed to sincerely believe every moment to truly appreciate the narrative.  Ewan McGregor is, for once, properly cast.  He has always been a wonderful actor, and I think that he has finally found a proper niche to let himself go in. This lead take was certainly phenominal, but it was the supporting takes that blew me away. Melanie Laurent brings a touch of innoence to Anna that seems to defy convention.  She is introduced as unable to speak, and that giggling, reserved demeanor remains for the vast portion of the movie.  Nothing taken from these two, Christopher Plummer – yes, THAT Christopher Plummer for so many great films of yesteryear – brings forth the best showing of his storied career.  He is so subtle in his approach to Hal that the brilliance may be overlooked, but with a character that unique on the surface it is easy to point out his idiosyncracies.  It is the performance of the average aging man that blew me away though, and Plummer may finally get a much overdue Oscar statuette for this one.

War Horse (2011): Remebering Why We Love Movies

Overall Rating: B+

When people first heard of this movie, I heard complaints about how boring the life story about the farm horse turned infantry mount would be. I always protested that this was Speilberg making a World War One film. Truth is, it is some where in between, which is good enough for me.  It is elegant and moving, while feircely attentive to detail and gritty when it needs to be. Vintage Stephen Speilberg in almost every way. It is a crowd pleaser. It is extremely visual. It deals with non-humans. It takes simple subjects to a massive scale. I never said it was one of his best, because it is not even close to his numerous masterworks, but it is certainly a case study in what makes him so great.

While THE ARTIST and HUGO blatantly put their creators’s admiration of the classics of cinema on the screen, WAR HORSE is much more subtle.  It is truly inspired by older works from the likes of Ford and Fleming, but with a feel that has become unmistakably Speilberg.  Most of his serious films (let’s forget about Jurassic Park for the moment) are adapted from stories that inspire him.  Take that emotional story book and throw in some visceral battle scenes and creative imagery, aling with  a John Williams score and there is no doubting that it is a Stephen Speilberg production.

While all of this extra stuff is well and good, there is still a story to be told.  With the wonderful cinematography, well-crafted score, and sold character build up, it is the story that brings WAR HORSE down so much.  Albert, a teenager living on his father’s farm in rural england, falls in love with his neighbor’s horse.  By sheer dumb luck, his father purchases the horse at a very high price, ricking losing the farm.  Joey, as Albert decides to name the beast, has to work to make his due, but is able to exceed all expectations and is truly a help on the farm.

Moving on from the backstory, the family is broke anyway and sells the horse into service for the impending war with Germany.  The remaining portion of the film is dedicated to following Joey’s many exploits in europe during the Great War.  He is the mount for an english officer at one point. Runs abandoned through no-mans-land at another. He evens finds breif peace in the french country-side in the care of a little girl and her grandfather.  Albert also has some travails in the grusome fighting, seeknig desperately to acheive the impossible and track down his single horse near the conclusion of the bloody war.

Besides the weak plot to follow, which the magical director’s touch salvages to some degree, it seems as if the writers did not know how to end the movie.  I have never seen the original stage production, so I am not sure if it is the fault of the screenwriter or stagewriter, but they bounce back and forth between giving us a happy ending and breaking our hearts, before dragging on an oversimplified conclusion.  Let it be known, poorly acted eye-candy cannot properly raise a horse, and probably has no place in a war.

Once you are able to get past the thin plot and bad casting, WAR HORSE is a wonder for the cinematic eye.  The mats and landscapes capture the imagination and draws the audience in through the emotion that Speilberg pulls from the story.  While it may not be the best score for this legenary combination, the music paints a complimentary back drop that the imagery works with triumphantly.  It really is a wonderful recreation of the classics of yester-year, just not the next great one in that long line.

It is, in short, a truly epic depiction of a war that has long been forgetten by the studios, with a sentimental tale that allows the audience to focus in on one peaceful sub-plot within this major point in human history.