The Great Gatsby (2013): 100 Year Old Story, Meet Breakthrough Techniques

Overall Rating: A

Friday night, I went to see the movie The Great Gatsby by Baz Luhrmann. Previously, I had read the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. These two are totally different entities. Often, a film is lambasted for veering too much from the source material, which is and has always been an unfair treatment, especially when it is clear that the film simply has no interest in adapting a book, but instead is stealing a plot. The Great Gatsby (2013), if measured as an adaptation of Fitzgerald’s timeless work, which in my amateur opinion is the perfect novel, is a disgrace. It is an insult to the novel by undermining some of its key plot points and retooling its most well constructed characters. It is an insult to Scott Fitzgerald by tearing his touch from a story of his imagination, and even to the less educated viewer it refuses him any credit for the novel by attributing it to someone else. (At least they put his name on the poster.) Lastly, it is an insult to the audience by delivering with childish simplicity some of the wonderfully subtle and intuitive points that made the original story what it is; a timeless classic that no one will deny.

If even a small part of the standard by which we measure Luhrmann’s project is its relationship to the source, then it is a tragedy of a film. The talent and resources that went into it we simply put to waste. The 1976 version which catastrophically miscast Mia Farrow and Robert Redford (Sam Waterson was actually a very good Nick Carraway and the supporting cast was appropriate, but if you miss Gatsby then nothing else works) is the far superior picture. Its major downfall as a film may have actually been that it was too true to the novel to work on screen, an issue that the new one avoided emphatically.

Luckily for Baz Luhrmann as the rest of the 2013 The Great Gatsby bunch, many will be able to look past this, even more will be able to try and see it as an independent work, and even more are the scum of the earth and have never picked up Fitzgerald’s book. The reason that film is the greatest medium for storytelling there is, and why I defend it as simply the highest art form, is that there is so much more than plot. Only the plot is true to the novel (mostly), but every bit of the movie reflects the talents of those involved in making a great film. Yes, after lambasting it for its relationship to a great novel, I called The Great Gatsby a great film.

The first and foremost thing about a movie toward making it work for the audience is casting. In the whole, The Great Gatsby could have had a lot better casting, beginning with virtually the entire supporting cast centering on George Wilson’s and Jordan Baker’s characters. The casting selection for Myrtle Wilson bewildered me at first, but made more sense having seen how the film was handled so differently from the character in the novel. Trying to ignore how out of place some of these cast members feel leaves us goggle eyed at the big three. Robbed, absolutely robbed of an Oscar for her breakout turn in An Education, Carey Mulligan keeps her streak alive with consistently phenomenal turns. No, she is not perfectly cast as Daisy Buchanan, and maybe a little strangely considering the rest of the movie she seems more like the book’s character than the film’s. Also, no, Daisy is not everyone’s favorite character and her part is written in such a way that perhaps no actress is perfect. Mulligan took the fact that all of this conventional wisdom was against her and did what she could with the role, and what she can do is act. Secondly, the perfect everyman actor in this generation may very well be Tobey Maguire. In films like Seabiscuit and of course Spiderman, he was cast to show that wonderful things can happen to shy, unexceptional people. In The Great Gatsby, he is cast to show that while this unambitious character can find himself in great moments with great people, this does not always lead to greatness. Lastly, enter Leonardo DiCaprio. Arguably the best actor of his generation, DiCaprio was quite simply born to play Jay Gatsby. Sly Stallone was born for Rocky, Bob DeNiro was born for Raging Bull, Jamie Foxx was born for Ray, and Leo DiCaprio was born for The Great Gatsby. It is as simple as that. No one could do this role any better than Leo could on an off day with his hands tied behind his back, but he was as on the money as he has ever been. The complexity of his acting stigma matches that of the Gatsby character to a tee. He reflects the tragedy of Gatsby’s prior life, the hope for his future life, the lost confusion and raw desperation of his present life, and the grandeur and prestige with which he conducts his every act. I have trouble believing still that Fitzgerald was not expressly thinking of DiCaprio when writing the book. Frankly, I am unsure whether to call the casting brilliant, or dismiss it because it was so obvious that even a monkey could have pieced it together.

While casting is one of the most important and overlooked aspects of filmmaking, there is more to a movie than the names that run at the end. The Great Gatsby is a movie about the delusional memories of a reflecting recovering alcoholic who is more or less writing in stream of conscious, and a lot about the movie reflects that. The visuals of the film are unforgettable. The colors are hyperbolized, the angles are unconventional, and the sets seem to emerge from fantasy. The conventional, age old idea of a picture, including a motion picture, is that it acts as a window. The Great Gatsby is one of the movies that stray from that. The film is not to show events as they happened, it shows them as Nick Carraway, a biased and often intoxication unreliable narrator, happens to remember them. If you piece the unrealistic moments from the film with what we can safely assume Nick is thinking then some of the absurdity makes more sense. Imagine Nick describing the yellow car, with the gift of hindsight of course, and saying something to the effect that it was the fastest and wildest car he had been in, but Gatsby drove it was assertiveness and grace. This idea makes the fact that the car is always shot as if it is racing, darting in and out of traffic, stopping on a dime, and cruising at high speeds while the driver never bats an eye and never risks losing his loosely applied straw hat make a lot more sense. Imagine Nick explaining that at one of the parties he felt like Jordan was right with him in spite of the crowds. Now the strange use of close ups to show Jordan even when she is far from Nick fit, as they reflect his memory instead of actual events. Even in one scene in the film, Gatsby is seen waiting outside Nick’s house simply staring upward. Nick probably remembers this as him pulling up and Jay standing amongst the trees, so this is exactly what the movie chooses to show. Similar things occur throughout the narrative, also reflecting Nick’s benefit of hindsight allowing him to emphasize forgettable things that he had since realized were important. These themes, along with the brightened colors and two dimensional minor characters are true to the idea of the film as a string of memories, and it is one of the best representations of memory on screen that there has been in a while. Films being told by a character in the past tense are common, but very rarely is a movie truly allowing the audience to see the distortion of memory this clearly. It is a brilliant touch by the filmmaker who had already made his name in visual presentation and bringing out emotion.

The lack of love that it seems the filmmakers have for Jay Gatsby is erased by the immense love shown to him from Nick Carraway. In real life, Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio are great friends, having worked together in television decades ago. The admiration that Nick has for the Great Gatsby  is a central theme, and in fact is the driving point of the plot that initiated Nick’s being asked to tell the story. We are left only slightly heartbroken for Gatsby for the misfortune he endures, but even moreso for Nick for having to see his admired neighbor like he does.

I do not have enough pluses for the grade I would give Fitzgerald’s novel, and it is a shame there is yet to be a great adaptation in the works. Maybe this same bunch ought to do a strict adaptation instead of a creative reinterpretation, which is how I would describe this film. It is a masterpiece of the brushwork of the director and set designers, a great example of what new film technology can do in terms of coloring and visuals, and a revolutionary project on the capabilities film has in portraying memory aside from strict retelling of facts. Tim O’Brien, author of The Things They Carried, suggests that fictional stories better recreate the atmosphere and sensation of the truth better than simply repeating the facts does. Maybe, by that logic, Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby is better at representing the complexity of the characters and charm of the setting than a direct adaptation would have been, but maybe now we are thinking too much.

Skyfall (2012): Bond 3.0

Overall Rating: A-

The trick to being a great agent, recites the legendary James Bond in this the 23rd original installment in his franchise, is being able to decide whether to take a shot or not.  This is what separates him from the computers, and makes him irreplaceable by younger agents.  Experience, which cannot be taught, is the true attribute that keeps the great ones above the rest long into their careers.

To defend this concept, look no further than SKYFALL. Not only does the aging 007 continue to dominate his adversaries, and even visibly Daniel Craig is fighting his own years and slowly proving himself among the great Bond actors, but old dogs were rocking their old tricks behind the camera as well. Then minds behind SKYFALL leave you wondering why you ever so much as questioned whether it would be a worthy installment in the Bond legacy.

From the top down, SKYFALL was the product of a number of seasoned veterans. Believe me, after all of that build up, the star studded brains still lives up to the anticipation.  This list is headlines by the one and only Roger Deakins, director of photography.  Deakins is a legend in the film community for his body of work behind the camera, and his talents were on full display in SKYFALL.  He is the man behind much of the Cohen brothers’ films such as Barton Fink and best picture winner NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and contemporary classics including THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, and DOUBT.  Over his illustrious career, Deakins has garnered ten Academy Award nominations, with SKYFALL putting him into double digits this year.  His touch is clearly visible.  He has long championed forced perspective, and in this bond film this old trick works wonders.  The aura of mystery that some of his unique angles creates seems to have been what the newest generation of Bond films has been missing.  In an example of one of his signatures, Deakins implies perspective by panning with focus on a mysterious subject with other figures in between, leaving the feeling that we are having to peak through a crowd in order to achieve the view we desire, and even then it is never quite clear enough (think – the first time Mattie gets a glimpse of Rooster in TRUE GRIT). This signature technique lends its effects to many scenes where we first encounter potentially significant antagonists.

The next name on the list of Bond contributers was director Sam Mendes.  Mendes does not have the volume of work on his resume that Deakins does, but in order to win respect from the film community more value is attributed to quality than quantity.  Mendes’s six feature library is packed with quality.  Three of his first five theatrical releases prior to SKYFALL were awards serious respect from the Academy, including his debut AMERICAN BEAUTY winning Mendes his lone best director statuette.  At first glance, SKYFALL does not seem like it would be in this small ball beginner like Mendes, but after further examination, it is clear that this master of emotion, suspense, and visual wonder was made for Bond.  Consider the nostalgic appreciation for Bond, with the ‘edge of your seat’ sense that not only the action but also the relationships provide.  It becomes clear, which the producers must have considered in selecting Mendes to helm, that the man behind REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, JARHEAD, and ROAD TO PERDITION might be perfect to capture those three elements.

Lastly (well, not lastly but we simply do not have the time to discuss everyone involved in this project), comes the cast.  Daniel Craig, in his third rendition as agent 007, is stunning.  He, better than any Bond performer of the past, is able to channel the paradox of James Bond.  This paradox is the tricky balance of the hard, rough, orphan who makes a living by removing himself from the public to make battle with the most ruthless enemies of civilization, and he is a figure of class and grandeur, who executes his every move with utter ease and suave, sporting the finest suits, drinking the finest scotch, and wooing the finest women.  Bond, as Ian Fleming wrote him decades ago, is the ultimate man, and Craig seamlessly becomes this perfect, full circle, alpha.  Compliment the aging but still sharp Craig with the aged, still appearing to be in ascension Dame Judi Dench.  M in each of the new Bond film, Dench is hardly a newcomer.  She won her lone Oscar fifteen years ago for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE at age 64 and has only become more popular in the years since.  Just this past year, Dench was a theatrical mainstay in a touchingly perfect type role as the lead in BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL, and also in her third turn in the Bond franchise.  The third lead to appear in SKYFALL is the obligatory illustration of true evil, in this case protrayed by Javier Bardem. Like Craig and Dench, Bardem has been around the block as number of times himself, many of those strides with Deakins and the Cohen Brothers. As Silva  in SKYFALL, Bardem is aloud to open his stride and channel his overacting nature to become the extreme, difficult to articulate, pinpoint characteristics of the villain.  The three of these superstars along with the two timeless filmmakers above make up a crew of seasoned vets bringing to life a story that has been working in Hollywood longer than any of them even.

And who said that you cannot teach an old dog to operate on such a high level nowadays.

The plots of SKYFALL on the surface is obeying the template that Bond films have followed for fifty years, and is capable of attaining a human element that has not been seen by the franchise since its dawn.   The most clever single moment in the dialogue comes fairly early in the picture, and works towards this point.  Mallory, in criticism of M’s bias toward her long time partner 007, states that she is blinded by her sympathy, her nostalgia toward Bond, and is simply refusing to accept that his time may have come.  This picture is a manifesto to its audience.  It challenges us to admit that we may only truly love Bond for the history, the legacy of the franchise, while simultaneously delivering all the evidence necessary to prove that it is still near the top of its game.  Such the gadgets have changed, and the evil plots seems very thinly crafted, but the gadgets are still eyepopping and the plot unmistakably evil.  That is what makes Bond the ultimate espionage franchise. It is open to change in defense of something that stubbornly refuses to change, and is better for it.

Oh, last note. The opening credits sequence is one of a kind, and seems to capture both the nature of Bond as well as a growing trend in film to incorporate similar visuals. Any idea what the true theme of SKYFALL is at this point?

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.