Archive for November, 2009

Traditional Hypocrisies: Humpday, An Education (2009)

Friday, November 27th, 2009

humpday_movie_posterAn Education plot points are, somewhat glibly, discussed.

Writer-director Lynn Shelton’s Humpday has a hook that plays into that traditional suspicion women at least occasionally entertain of their significant male others: that they’re closer to their lifetime bros-by-choice than they should be. Shelton overplays things in that too-obvious manner typical to often unwatchable “mumblecore” movies: the camera jerks over under-lit images with the hope of real life in mind, supposed subtext is sounded like a gong, pregnant pauses are showily pregnant, and ad-libbed theoretically “truthful” dialogue is meaningless yet loaded to a fault, self-consciously telegraphing everyone’s intentions not to “telegraph”; it’s Cassavetes by way of America’s absurdly overrated The Office.

The gimmick is that two 30ish best buds, Ben (Mark Duplass) and Andrew (Josh Leonard) get drunk one night at a pretentiously open, tolerant party and mutually dare one another to screw each other for art porn that’s meant to transcend the usual exploitation and grotesqueries of porn. The idea is dumb and interesting in not quite equal measures, and the opening isn’t particularly promising, but the refreshing surprise of Humpday is that the sitcom stunt-sex angle is really misdirection into something more interesting: that casual gulf between friends who choose typically opposing methods of handling the insecurity that comes with middle-class privilege. Ben is the puffy guy, stable job, house, with wife, Anna (Alycia Delmore), with whom he now schedules functional sex in the hopes of reproducing. Ben billboards his guilt with his pleated slacks and wine and pasta-fed belly. Andrew has a (smaller) gut but it’s the gut of glamorous, righteous decay, complemented with the mountain man beard (that always looks merely unkempt on guys like Ben) and the artfully wrinkled, un-tucked plaid that always exudes more charisma than Ben’s ironed, fussed-over plaid. Andrew is the guy that randomly tells tales of fleeing to Mexico and who might show up to a party in a dashiki. Andrew’s the sort that threatens guys like Ben; that makes them feel even less sexy than they already feel, particularly with his just-a-shade-too-apparent “empathy” with and respect for guys like Ben. Few pictures acknowledge this division, insecurity and somewhat snobbery, and, for that, Humpday is, despite its ticks and mannerisms, likable and memorable.

Humpday also eventually reveals itself to be well-performed. Duplass is one of the more promising of the mumblecore writer/director/actors (parts of The Puffy Chair have welcome 20s-ennui perspective) and he neither condescends to nor sentimentalizes Ben. Ben is as self-deceiving as Andrew in a different direction, and Duplass has a way of wearing that uncertainty and fear on his cheeks (his extra weight has made him more expressive). Leonard, once of The Blair Witch Project, is one of the more dead-on embodiments of the condescending not-quite-English-majoring hitchhikers I’ve seen in the movies (and he looks almost exactly like one of my own intimidating hipster-wanderer acquaintances), and he has a final moment that is forgiving and rather beautiful.

That said, Shelton piles the homoerotic male backslapping on a bit thick; the point is fine if obvious, but most men are a touch more subtle while her men practically dry hump one another on the basketball court. This tendency points toward a bit of gay smugness – Shelton sometimes relishes the points she scores on the guys a little too much. The most telling moment, uncomfortable in a way that doesn’t quite serve the picture, is a near three-way between Andrew and an attractive lesbian couple (one of which is played by Shelton) where Andrew is intimidated and ultimately deflated by the ladies’ meant-to-be-taken-as-free-wheeling sexuality. The point is taken, but it’s delivered with a degree of superiority that doesn’t go down well, perhaps trading one clichéd dodge for another (it would be unimaginable for the women, particularly gay, to be frauds in this kind of picture). Perhaps the most sexually progressive movie possible now is a typical standard-issue romantic comedy in which a gay couple meets one another’s parents, loses the cat, and learns trite-ridiculous lessons of time with the family versus time at the office.

An Education is our yearly youth celebration movie congratulating a teenage hero for everything it uses to condemn the older characters. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is sixteen in early 1960s London, a sharp, chipper know-it-all who lords her blossoming affair with an older con artist (Peter Sarsgaard) over her friends. Education, at Oxford, a goal force fed to her by her parents, is Jenny’s potential escape from what she perceives as a life of being unappreciated, and – far more terrifying to a young, intelligent person – dull. Then; the con man presents another way out that’s more convenient, affording Jenny the power to tell her educators (including Olivia Williams and Emma Thompson) where they can stick their life of what she perceives as meaningless drudgery. That is until (inevitably) the con man turns out to be snowing Jenny as well, forcing her to embrace an education she doesn’t give the faintest hint of a damn about, apart from escaping her parents and achieving some form of concrete superiority over everyone else. Jenny concludes the film by telling us, the audience, that she intends to lie about her experience with the con man, implying a sort of do-over, because cute little smart little girls should always get what they want and shouldn’t be inconvenienced or uncomfortable in the slightest, teensiest way. Jenny’s parents are hypocrites for approving of Jenny’s potential marriage to the con man, while Jenny is washed of any part in the affair because she’s…well, because she’s the lead of the picture and because An Education, beneath the admittedly appealing gloss – it has pretty-good one liners courtesy novelist Nick Hornby and a nice atmosphere/pace courtesy director Lone Scherfig – is a hypocritical, elitist con itself.

Gigante @ Slant.

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Gigante @ SlantMagazine.com

Bad Boys Will Be Boys: Antichrist, Thirst (2009)

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

antichrist-posterThe opening: He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) make slow-mo love as their toddler tumbles out the window to his death; the sequence scored to Handel and shot in the sort of hyper-sharp black and white that we associate with cologne or liquor commercials. This is our “prologue” to Antichrist, with four proper chapters and an epilogue following, chronicling He and She’s efforts to reconcile themselves with their fatal carelessness and self-regard. There’s a satiric undercurrent in He, a therapist who seems to have reconciled himself with his role in the tragedy with disconcerting ease; displeased with She’s progress he takes control of her treatment despite the obvious conflicts of interest. He’s therapeutic techniques are certainly more cinematic if considerably more suspect: he takes her to their creepy remote cabin where they alternate between long exchanges rich in sub-Bergman double-talk and glamorously explicit, unpleasant fornicating. Eventually She’s fury is unleashed, and He is forced to account for his smug detachment.

Antichrist is about as absurd as it sounds, and it reinforces something I don’t read as often about writer-director Lars von Trier’s work as I should: the pleading earnestness underneath the obvious, sometimes juvenile, always too-deliberate provocations. It’s this earnestness that sometimes saves von Trier’s movies. Antichrist is silly but also appealingly weird and raw. Critics and the painfully hip movie peeps tend to over-rely on that most damning of write-offs (pretentious) and von Trier seems, in Antichrist especially, to be battling that fear of pretension that can stifle so many self-conscious filmmakers. Von Trier rubs his symbols in your face (the spooky cabin is called “Eden”, the chapter titles are all baroquely literary harbingers of doom, images resemble famous paintings), and has claimed to have made up Antichrist as he went along, to have stuck images and nightmares in intentionally haphazardly. That’s bullshit of course, but it’s also revealing of von Trier’s intentions. Antichrist is blunt, blunt, blunt filmmaking, and it has that infuriating tendency of making fetish of misery, but it also has images that are disgusting, beautiful and both at once.

The much-ridiculed talking animal scene for instance, with a mutilated fox turning its head toward Dafoe and growling “chaos reigns”, is poignant and eerie. What von Trier is getting at is that out fears and turn-ons are more often absurd than not, and that the movies, in their careful, excessive good taste, are missing something vital and personal and sloppy. Von Trier purposefully invites claims of pretension as a method of liberating himself; and Antichrist is, indeed, pretentious, but it goes (just a bit) beyond that. The difference between Antichrist and a number of self-hating artist movies (including certain Bergman and Allen) is that von Trier appears to actually hate and doubt himself; he isn’t (just) using cliché as write-off for his indulgences both personally and professionally. He (and “He”) appears to authentically find women and nature simultaneously arousing and mysterious and contemptible. Antichrist is an art-trope movie where the art-tropes mean, again just a little, more than usual.

That said, Antichrist, despite its huffing and puffing, is easy to shake; you’ll be over it by bedtime. (The recent similarly themed French horror picture Martyrs, on the other hand, lingers. But no one cares because the filmmaker isn’t marketable to applaud/deride.) Von Trier is still tending a specific reputation (even the casting, of Dafoe and Gainsbourg, quote marks things), encouraging that game that critics and filmmakers love to play. Von Trier plays the bad boy, appalled at squares missing the point of his films, while his supporters vent self-righteous indignation, again toward the squares unable to look beyond the explicit imagery and controversy (though you’ll notice that the supporters also focus on the explicit imagery and controversy). And the squares are, indeed, self-righteously indignant as well, at the controversial imagery and apparent misogyny (inappropriate in this case). And, I, once the dust has settled, get to be retrospectively self-righteously irritated with every one else’s self-righteous irritation. Who said von Trier doesn’t play to a broad audience?

Thirst is another horror movie from a polarizing international bad boy, Chan-wook Park (Old Boy, Lady Vengeance), who has considerably more fun than the agonizing von Trier. Thirst is a vampire picture, and Park, aggressively unsubtle, refreshingly chucks all the traditional subtext out the window. The sexual repression, the Catholic guilt, lives proudly on the surface of Thirst, which specifically concerns a priest Sang-hyeon (Kang-ho Song – terrific) who turns vamp after undergoing a near suicidal experiment to find a cure for a disease that makes your flesh bubble up and burst. Park doesn’t hide the ironies: we see Sang-hyeon counseling a suicidal woman in the opening, advising her that suicide is worse than first degree murder and that she must seek God’s help through science (pills) and move on with her life. The woman tells the Father to stick with the blessings and leave the life to her. The Father then volunteers for the death-mission, seeking the martyrdom he condemns to his followers, only to survive and come back as a (not quite traditional) blood-sucking monster. The Father, as he must, discovers sex and all the messy stuff he thought himself above: going monster humanizes him.

Park is ideal for a vampire picture; his show-off filmmaking plays to all of the genre’s highlights. Park’s phenomenal with bloodshed, but, more importantly, he heightens your senses. You feel the Father’s agonizing hunger (both nutritional and sexual): you’re on to every touch, every glance, and the sex is actually hot. Thirst, to put it indelicately, gets that distinct thrill (that too many movies botch) of two people realizing that they are about to screw for the first time. The fumbles at the belt, the hiking up of the skirt, the sliding down of the panties, have erotic, real-yet-exponentially ratcheted electricity. For an hour, Thirst is exactly the horror movie you hoped Park would deliver; free of the metaphorical laboring that sometimes drags his revenge movies down.

Thirst lost me somewhat when it turns to a classical noir scenario with the object of the Father’s lust, Tae-joo (Ok-vin Kim, hot stuff), stuck between an idiot husband and his domineering mother. The problem is that the limitations of the noir, which must always go down the same road, reign in the possibilities of a Park undead preacher on the loose movie. The picture becomes rote, somewhat asexual, and the mayhem loses its pulp-charge; all of a sudden we’re stuck, like the leads, with a boring dysfunctional family.

Thirst is also too long, all of Park’s movies are, but this liability is probably inseparable from the director’s strong suits. Park is a director of fetish and exaggeration; he’s a lingerer, and quite a bit of the energy of his pictures (like Tarantino, whose movies are also, with the exception of Reservoir Dogs, always too long) comes from his clear pleasure in certain images, his alteration of loaded medium shots with too-close close-ups. This story could be told 45 minutes faster, but that might compromise the initial pleasure of its indulgences – its primal immediacy. Park makes Antichrist, in retrospect, look puny and self-pityingly humorless. Thirst is in over-drive, it exists only to turn us on, and that’s refreshingly honest to our hidden dreams and fears, which von Trier over-processes, he’s not as wild as he aspires to be or probably thinks he is.

A Serious Man (2009)

Monday, November 16th, 2009

serious-manThe Coen Brothers make movies that encourage that parlor game of ferreting out and deciphering symbols (and I’ve heard enough lame Big Lebowski explanations to last me many years); but this pursuit is particularly pointless to their work, as they’ve always clearly held this sort of obsessive literal-mindedness in contempt. What is the point? The impact of the work is the impact of the work, and the emotional intensity of a picture, the thing that resonates above trivial details, seems to be the very thing that interests many cinephiles the least. If the Coen Brothers’ oeuvre has a uniting theme, and I think it mostly does, and I think that’s partially by chance, it’s that life is a big cosmic joke, a mess, and that any attempts to make any sense of it are bound to come up fruitless. The Coens used to throw audiences off the scent with the kinds of ready-made quirks that film schools love, and I’ve found certain pictures (such as Barton Fink) to be cruel and overly controlled, but these experiments have given way to a new found clarity. No Country for Old Men is a bluntly powerful, despairing thriller, Burn after Reading is an existentialist screwball comedy that ranks with their best, and, now, with A Serious Man, the Coens go further and further.

A Serious Man is taken with that simplest dilemma of ours: the panic over the possibility that there may be no benign governing force ensuring that we hit the right marks at the right points in our lives. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a physics professor in Minnesota approaching tenure in 1967; he has the wife, the house and the children that a good, respectable middle class man is supposed to have. Larry is Jewish, very Jewish to those of other faiths, but we see that he puts his religion in that vague compartment that many of us do: belief primarily out of the obligation to believe. Like many middle-class drones getting a wake up call in the movies, Larry has let obligations turn him into an unquestioning, henpecked schmuck, a man too miserable to see how miserable he actually is. These types of pictures are usually designed to take us down one of two roads: we are either invited to mock religion as ridiculous, or to enjoy Larry’s transformation into someone less ethnic and more inviting to the common, barely religious white man. Neither happens in A Serious Man.

In Burn after Reading, the Coen Brothers satirized, compassionately, the banalities that preoccupy and limit us. They’re on a similar track in A Serious Man, and the surprise and originality of the picture is that it isn’t rigged as another cynical, elitist, anti-faith tirade. Judaism (though this can be taken on broader terms as well) is seen (and celebrated) as a series of traditions, alien to those outside them, that provide the reassurance of structure itself, the traditions that give us a sense of controlling something that’s uncontrollable. The various catastrophes that plague Larry here reawaken and re-contextualize his relationship to his faith. Larry finds the typical questions to be elusive, and in recognizing that futility he comes to taste and re-experience things fresh. A rabbi instructs Larry to look at things through new eyes, such as the parking lot, and the audience with me took this as absurdist, and the rabbi’s heightened, pleading delivery does suggest irony, but, as with many moments in many of the Coens’ movies, this exchange is deceptively literal and moving. Smoking pot with an aging siren next door, Larry is briefly released by the incidental preoccupations of middle class life (this is also one of the most accurate dope smoking scenes I’ve ever seen). Holding his estranged wife’s hands in his at his son’s bar mitzvah, Larry rediscovers plain, taken for granted pride and joy. The tragedy is that we always forget again.

The Coen Brothers have evolved as craftsman, you watch one of their pictures with the pleasurable understanding that every dissonant beat, every sound, every image, is entirely intentional. They are the jewelers of American movie directors – every picture they make is intensely precise. The vividness of their approach mutes the possibility of self-pity; the Coens hover over and internalize every aspect of life while simultaneously distrusting their own passion. The Coens parody here, sometimes too bluntly, the deterioration the human body endures through the aging process while also making sport of the cliché of old Jewish men as fussy and divorced from the common experience of life with which the younger generations always feel they hold a trademark. (The final moment with the final rabbi, in which the ancient man bestows wisdom upon Larry’s son by quoting Jefferson Airplane back to him, is one of the finest scenes of any movie this year. We see, in a few lines, the common unifying characteristics of religion and pop culture, the latter being, for many of us, our real religion.) The bar mitzvah sequence is also remarkable; a passionate reverie of the casual understanding that can come from ritual. A moment between Larry and his screw-up brother (Richard Kind, in a wonderful performance) on the river bank is perverse in the Coen tradition, tonally pulling the rug out from under us just as we acclimate ourselves to one of the more conventionally poignant scenes of their career. This time though, the trick serves a point that’s larger than the Coens’ resistance to sentimentality: we’re taken deeper into Larry’s despair and confusion, his fumbling to make sense of chaos.

The ending is another black joke typical to the Coens, in which catharsis is pointedly denied us. The non-endings of No Country for Old Men and Burn after Reading have a melancholic sting, but the conclusion of A Serious Man is strangely optimistic. If nothing matters, if we are truly left to our own devices, if we aren’t tethered to rules of life or of dramatic storytelling, then we are free.

Hyperbolic Velocity: The Taking of Pelham 123, Crank 2: High Voltage (2009)

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

taking_pelham_123-336x5001Director Tony Scott spit-shines the Pelham 123 do-over with that mixture of exaggeration, stupidity and obviousness that we’ve come to expect from his work. The surprise is that he’s (mildly) coherent this time: each scene more or less locks in with whatever precedes or follows it, and we can geographically make sense of the mayhem that arises. Scott’s heightened colors, flamboyant editing, and whirly-gig camera have their place here, but the director generally, until the predictably huge, lumbering, boring new chase in the third act at least, stays out of the way as the character-actor rich cast delivers a few appealingly smart-ass lines courtesy of screenwriter Brian Helgeland. The new Pelham, for an hour or so, would be fairly engaging trash if it been cast with any originality. The pairing of Denzel Washington (as the good guy) and John Travolta (as the bad) is lamely obligatory, and it sucks the juice out of Scott’s most purely watchable movie since Crimson Tide.

It’s typical bogus Hollywood thinking that Denzel Washington, even with a gut, is somehow supposed to approximate an “average man”. Washington used to be an engaging and inventive actor before his ego ate him up, and he still has his moments, and he’s still charismatic as hell, but he’s never, even at his most versatile, been convincing as a man plagued by typical issues of doubt, money and women. He’s a supernatural movie star being, and twenty years of that worship has turned him into an actor only capable of choosing pictures in which his greatness is somehow reaffirmed, at the expense of everyone else in the film, roughly once every three or four seconds. Theoretically playing an average man for the new Pelham, Washington can’t settle for mere Joe Average average, he has to be Grandly Average, stunningly plagued with problems that “humanize” him. He can’t just be a law enforcer shambling his way up and down the train station like Walter Matthau from the earlier picture, Washington must be suspected of taking a bribe to put his kids through college, he must be at odds with a few of his co-workers, he must have supporting characters voice his issues aloud, once or twice or thrice. Washington, as in every picture now, must continually remind you of his place at the center of the picture’s gravity. (Training Day is such a vital performance because it satirizes these tendencies.)

John Travolta’s gift has always been his intuition, at his best he takes you into a picture and runs it with an ease that is normally taken for granted. But Travolta also needs you to like him, which works smashingly in pictures like Saturday Night Fever or Blow Out or Pulp Fiction or Get Shorty, but never jives with a straight villain role, which he always turns to camp. With a Travolta villain (and Pelham is no exception) you feel what you might feel watching a talented child imitate a famous movie bad guy in his backyard for his smiling parents and friends, you never get the viciousness or the surprise or the rot or anything else, you just get the earnestness: the eagerness to “get it right” and hit the high marks and “give the audience what they paid for”.

Travolta could have been considerably more effective as the hero; he’s good with redeeming soggy pathos because you never catch him not believing it, but giving Washington the villain would still play to his usual grandstanding bad habits. The truth, of course, is that the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 is a pointless movie made for branding that no one was particularly interesting in seeing anyway. The original isn’t a very good movie, but it’s lively and unpretentious, without the bombast and sentimentality that clogs all these big Hollywood engines these days. The most instructive lesson to be taken from the new Pelham is in its contrast with the original, which reveled in that very 1970s chic doom vibe. Effect wasn’t labored for in many of the key 1970s thrillers, the menace was airy and intangible, or lived-in and taken for granted. Everyone carried menace with them in their pockets; they didn’t need the pictures to scream the themes for them (at least they didn’t judging by many of the pictures). We still carry considerable anxiety, of course, but our movies, even many of the “art” ones, revel in blunt moralizing and noise and flash and plenty of other buzzy little things to keep us keyed up and turned on amongst the thousands of extra distractions. That desperation is scarier than anything Travolta does in this picture.

Crank was generally loud and unpleasant, and Crank 2: High Voltage is essentially a remake with the same bad, consciously racist, misogynist jokes, but the new picture somehow comes together, its faster and more confident, and it has a better gimmick. As a middle-finger to the aforementioned multi-media go-go ADD that ruins many movies (and probably lives), Crank 2 is predictable but not entirely off-target, the notion of a stud thug hero (Jason Statham) having to jump start his fake heart like a bad pickup every 10 minutes is just stupid enough to be amusing without being too glib (and the turbo-charge moments are every bit as preposterous as you want them to be). The primary (and limited) pleasure of Crank 2 is in trying to sort out the intentional from the unintentional, the writers/directors, credited as Neveldine/Taylor, are a bit too pleased with themselves to give the picture any authentic shock, but they also have a go-for-it/screw it glee that’s a breath of fresh air when compared to most dull, hypocritically “human” thrill-machines. (And I don’t have it in me to entirely dismiss a picture that includes David Carradine as something called a “Poon Dong”.)

Willy Wonka Blu-ray @ Slant.

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Can be read here.