Archive for February, 2010

Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

March something marks the 3rd anniversary of Bowen’s Cinematic, an endeavor that has, perhaps sadly, given my life some sense of having a point. Since writing for BC, I’ve discovered a number of writers who’ve changed my approaches to movies, discovered not-sure-how-many movies, and have added some focus to what was once just passing time disguised as a pipe dream.

To commemorate the occasion, I’m going to revive a one-a-day gimmick in March, deliberately similar in structure to my “31 Days of Horror” of a few years back. The theme this time is a return to movies that I haven’t seen in at least five years (though I may cheat once or twice). That measurement of time isn’t quite as randomly assigned as it sounds: I’m now thirty, and have found that my movie-consciousness has altered/evolved quite a bit since I was jobless out of college a few years ago. The gimmick is a deliberate perversion of what is traditionally considered good form: critics are generally supposed to pretend, or imply, that their word is beyond such human trivialities as growth, change, or perhaps just a mood you may have been in at the time. A. I’m not a critic, not a real one, and B. that idea is bullshit anyway.

There are a few other things going on here: my writing has grown too self-conscious, I’m beginning to crave something “more”: a change, another evolution, and recent struggles (minor by the grand scheme yes, but who considers the grand scheme) have led to a desire to write things somewhat more personal, so beware auto-bio indulgences in the month of March.

So, starting March 1st, I will review a movie each day that I have recently returned to after several years. A few titles come to mind, but this could go almost anywhere, or just evaporate as another promise unfulfilled.

Muriels

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

What can I say Muriel? It started real well, with essays on picks, links, and so on and what have you, but then I quickly forgot you existed. It had something to do with a move and a loss of a computer (I, for reasons not worth recounting, no longer have my Muriels ballot, and, no, I don’t remember all of my picks) but that’s not an excuse. I hope you guys are still following over at Steve’s Place, where Jeremy Renner won Best Actor for The Hurt Locker, Tilda Swinton Best Actress for Julia (not my pick but very cool) and Quentin Tarantino Director for Inglourious Basterds (my pick and then some).

All that said, please check my newest blurb, where I and several others go on about the ladies in our lives last year.

And please tune in tomorrow for the Big Muriel for Best Picture of 2009, I have a feeling we’re going to be in sync with this one.

Spinning in Circles

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Shutter Island has the peculiar, sort of impersonal intensity of the other Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio collaborations. In Gangs of New York, you sensed you were watching a dwarfed good movie, a movie somehow lost in the delivery process. In The Aviator, you felt this self-conscious team grappling with a bio that made all of the usual bio moves while hoping to somehow get to something deeper or greater through force of conviction. In The Departed, you felt this very self-conscious team grappling with a gangster movie that did the usual gangster movie things, while hoping to get to something greater through overwhelming force of conviction.

In Shutter Island – guess what – you sense a very talented, hugely self-conscious team trying to do the usual horror movie things, while hoping to somehow go further. Scorsese has always been one to wallow: the difference between the classic Scorsese movies and his less-respected movies with DiCaprio is the focus of obsession: Scorsese’s early pictures were raw and masterly somehow at once: the work of a movie-maven using movies as a path to catharsis (as opposed to most movie-obsessed directors these days who just recycle others’ catharsis). In the DiCaprio movies, Scorsese has become another movie-recycler, of an admittedly extraordinarily high level of craftsmanship. The new Scorsese movies aren’t forgettable, but the obsessions are hollow and the bludgeoning a little silly considering most of the subject matter, the new pictures, unlike appealing Scorsese genre sketches like After Hours or The Color of Money, are too concerned with turning genre clichés into cleansing art. This aim isn’t impossible (Scorsese largely managed it himself in his Cape Fear) but this pursuit is more likely to leave you with clichés that are neither revealing nor fun, just self-conscious of the notes that haven’t been hit.

I enjoyed Shutter Island on its terms, and it’s probably the best of the Scorsese/DiCaprio movies, but it’s the terms themselves that are disappointing: the manufactured intensity begins to strangle the picture early on. The first thirty minutes are chilling, and the first five minutes – which have DiCaprio’s U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels and his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) exchanging pared, hard pleasantries on a boat headed for Shutter Island – are just about perfect. In these moments, you savor Scorsese’s control and knowledge of older horror movie mood: Shutter Island is fake in just the way you want it to be: with gloriously photogenic movie fog, pleasurably obvious foreshadowing and a tangibly damp sense of doom.

The problem is that, in his drive to make the best horror movie of all time, Scorsese finds himself playing a spruced up version of the kind of hyperbole game that you expect from hacks. Every room in the creaky insane asylum is art-directed to the hills (they could be investigating either a haunted carnival or a wax museum, both of which would be appropriate considering Scorsese’s 1940s noir/horror influences) with every actor (and they are all, of course, sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb character actors) chewing his or her bad dialogue like an especially hard to swallow piece of taffy. Every scene, once the mystery gets properly rolling, is overlong by at least a third, with certain notable guest appearances that could have been cut entirely: Jackie Earle Haley and Patricia Clarkson’s interludes of impenetrable exposition tell us no more than Ben Kingsley’s similar interludes of impenetrable exposition; the difference, though, is that Kingsley is a brilliant jokester aware of his gifts and of the movie with which he currently finds himself occupying; Hayley and Clarkson are in the more modern, heavier, more-is-more-when-its-actually-less school.

Shutter Island is the kind of bloated auteur picture so rife with intended significance that you find yourself thirsty for those bits and pieces of spontaneity and common sense. Kingsley’s performance is a sly bit of parody that’s still spooky, and Ruffalo, getting good again, emotionally anchors the picture. DiCaprio is effective, and he has a blunt yearning to be a great actor that gets to you from role to role, but I wonder if the picture might’ve worked better with Ruffalo in the lead. DiCaprio and Scorsese fit too well together: they’re both insecure and both too conscious of trying to hammer familiar beats into profundity, while Ruffalo’s effortless charisma suggests life apart from thousands of movies – his nod at the end of the picture, and you’ll know it when you see it, speaks louder than DiCaprio’s frenzies. DiCaprio has a few heartbreaking moments near the end that he nails, but you’re never not conscious of him as an actor “nailing” those moments. Ruffalo might’ve found a more original emotional current in the picture’s darkest turns, he might’ve understood that the most devastating reaction (and this picture piles on every imaginable atrocity – with particularly false, showy flashbacks to a concentration camp, which feature a tracking shot present for no other reason than to identify Scorsese as the director) might’ve been no reaction – a spiritual constipation that would lead to changes in Teddy that, with DiCaprio, we don’t believe other than for their necessity to get to the ending.

Yet, I want to see the movie again. DiCaprio’s commitment, his nakedness, is inspiring (the older he gets the odder he looks, a little like a prettier Cagney, I mean that as a compliment), and Scorsese’s formal control of the medium is still awe-inspiring: Shutter Island is one of the most beautiful horror movies in decades, even if it is essentially pointless (those trying to connect DiCaprio’s self-loathing with the demons of classic Scorsese protagonists are reaching).

A few other rootless observations: Michelle Williams, as Dicaprio’s wife in flashbacks, has a malevolence bathed in a contradictorily gold nostalgia that’s haunting, particularly in the first flashback, which finds her crumbling to ash in his arms – brutal shorthand for those we adore who hurt us anyway. The score, an assemblage of classical selections, is as astute as you’d hope from Scorsese, if anyone here had aimed for fun or coherence they might’ve had something. Despite the brilliant, expensive pageantry, you can’t help but wonder if a director like Stuart Gordon would’ve gotten further with ten bucks, a gallon of paint, and maybe Mena Suvari.

Rising Ti

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Horror director Ti West has basically flown this course: 1) releasing a debut picture made with resources so limited you cut it more than a little slack (The Roost), 2) following with a second, somewhat more experimental, picture showing ambition beyond the spilling of guts that still didn’t quite work (Trigger Man) and now 3) the release of two new pictures, both on DVD, that find a strange and promising new sensibility beginning to take form.

The House of the Devil is the more prominent of the two pictures; it was greeted with deservedly the best reviews of West’s career and clarified the design of Trigger Man: long pauses that mimic the pace of real life, amplifying the shock of the violations once they indiscriminately occur, a trick associated with 1970s horror that we also recently saw in The Descent and Wolf Creek among others – but Trigger Man is more committed, in a method that can also, more recently, be associated with “mumblecore”, to literally nothing happening. In Trigger Man, I thought West was primarily interested in inflating a serviceable short movie into a feature with the kind of portentous slowness that increases the odds of critical favor. The House of the Devil loiters quite a bit as well (my brother at one point said “I get it. She’s toodling around the house…”) but there’s a point this time: West gets us on his heroine’s wavelength. When Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) finds herself tied and gagged we don’t impassively look on as we would in the Teen Slaughter of the Week, we cringe for her. When something sudden and appalling happens to Sam’s friend Megan (Greta Gerwig in her first charming performance) we recoil.

This picture owes quite a bit to Donahue, she may not be an actress (can’t tell from here) but she has a tough frailty that wins you over. House of the Devil, purposefully similar to Rosemary’s Baby and a bunch of satanic cult movies from the ‘70s and ‘80s, taps a convincing well of financial desperation: everything that happens in the picture springs from that fear that the short-of-money have of everything finally going under. There are haunting touches: canny use of ‘80s music that serves as brief catharsis for the frustrated Samantha, Tom Noonan’s oddly appealing befuddlement that you just know is misdirection but fall for anyway, AJ Bowen’s underplayed psycho, subliminal shots (on loan from The Exorcist) of a monster, a few elegant pans (particularly of the first time we see dead bodies), a pay phone inappropriately ringing, a spot-on retro score that’s touchingly sincere, and a sad, resigned dénouement.

Hesitations? It is stupid, and, once the entire plan has been revealed you wonder why the bad guys let Samantha, yes, toodle, in their house for the better part of an hour, but that’s a large part of the appeal of horror movies in general – we aren’t (hopefully) talking rational fears.

Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever is an endlessly re-edited studio project that West disowned that now finds itself, a few years later, straight-to-DVD. It’s junk, but the surprising part is that it’s occasionally funny, occasionally subversive, very, very disgusting junk. The picture follows the flesh-eating virus from the first movie to a high school prom inhabited by unattractive 25 year-old teens that are parodies of the self-absorption that’s inherent to the nothing-counts-except-getting-laid genre. Every kid in this picture is a schmuck or a prick or both, and we watch as they trade or swallow fluids in just about every way a human could think to trade or swallow fluids. The virus is a social leveler – and it tells you something about the picture’s personality that the one guy who could do something about the whole mess turns and runs away.

Triangle @ Slant.

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Triangle @ SlantMagazine.com

Keeping It Real

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

The lean/mean pretense-free thriller has been so out of fashion for so long that I was suspicious of Surrogates for its running time alone: surely the picture couldn’t have arrived at 89 minutes on purpose – there must’ve been heavy studio fiddling afoot, implying another lifeless, impersonal big money movie catastrophe with an abbreviated or barely existent third-act (or first or second for that matter). Such is the relief of Surrogates that, not only is the picture a sleek, confident, one-presumes intentional 80-some minutes, it is also that rare big money genre picture that you wish were longer. Why couldn’t Transformers, which is gleefully up to absolutely nothing for the better part of three hours, have traded running times with Surrogates, which has a high-concept so suggestive its just about destined not to live up to it?

Surrogates is refreshing for the same reason it’s limited: its efficiency, while appreciated, also squashes its personality and expression, which could and should have been ample given the premise, which is similar to certain Philip K. Dick, the movie Minority Report (yes, it too, is based on Dick, but it is certainly not the same animal), and the recent Gamer. Dick had his brilliant, occasionally moving paranoia of loss of identity, Minority Report had Spielberg’s peerless intensity of movement, and Gamer had its creators’ delirious love of/contempt for trash as satirical weapon. Surrogates has a dependably pared older-man Bruce Willis performance, a few creepy moments that hint at the greater picture that might have been, and a few sharp, succinct action beats that don’t even really belong with the rest of the movie.

The premise, taken from a comic book, is another reaction to our mutating media addictions. Surrogates are approximately life-like mannequins that we control from our homes, so we can remain presumably safe from outside danger, and live vicariously through an extension that lacks our physical deficiencies. We can have the sex, looks and physical prowess that we always resent ourselves for lacking.

This premise is wrapped around a stock murder mystery similar to pictures like L.A. Confidential and, again, Minority Report: where cooperations turn out to be eating one another alive as we pay the price. The murder, of a bigwig’s son, you’ll have worked out before the end of the first act. This would be acceptable as necessary for structure if less emphasis were placed on the murder; if it were used as a path to more specific and original riffs, but that isn’t, disappointingly, especially the case. The most obvious metaphor is mostly ignored: that the surrogates represent our best shot at assuming the identities of the celebrities we follow and resent in roughly equal measures. The picture particularly misses this subtext with the subplot between Willis’ cop and his wife, played as a surrogate by the appropriately icy, impersonally attractive Rosamund Pike. You assume the filmmakers are ahead, or least in step, with you in the casting of Pike alone: always gorgeous, always a non-entity on the screen, Pike represents the ideal we shouldn’t have of ourselves. We wait for the real wife, cocooned in a room that Willis tries, unsuccessfully, to reach throughout the picture, to be revealed as a more vulnerable, soulful actress. But it’s just Pike in not-that-great old age make-up – a pivotal moment almost dashed, if it weren’t for Willis.

The picture should also, with such a silly yet dead-on premise, be funnier: it seems unaware of the potential that can be had from Willis’ surrogate’s uncanny resemblance to Bruce Willis in his more ridiculous, blatantly pretend-hair performances (such as Color of Night). Surrogates fails to play on the differences and similarities between humans and surrogates in general, and it also, for the most part, neglects the liberating aspects of the surrogates, why this device would be so tempting to hide behind.

The other huge overwhelming “miss” of Surrogates is its impossible-to-fathom assumption that everyone would have a surrogate, which is harder to believe than the existence of the devices themselves. Not everyone could possibly afford a surrogate (I make allowances to afford coffee) and this resentment, yet another illustration of the widening gulf between haves and have-nots, would be an influence on the anti-Surrogate movement, here represented by Ving Rhames in a part clearly meant to recall Bob Marley and Che Guevara. The anti-Surrogate movement is the most pathetically imagined part of the movie, as it relies on the usual grass-roots underdog of the future world clichés (living in voluntary poverty, big speeches, etc.)

This has the tone of a pan, but, limitations aside, I liked the picture. Surrogates occasionally has the inventiveness and intensity of director Jonathan Mostow’s Breakdown, and it has wonderfully suggestive little bits, such as a method of executing the surrogates that blows their eyes out of their heads, killing the human users in the process. This special effect, achieved with a bunch of lights so that the picture can keep a PG-13, registers as more of a violation than most of the typical blood and guts we see in a typical R. An image near the end of the picture – of surrogates suddenly dropping dead – has the implicative dread that Cameron Crowe was aiming for in the opening of Vanilla Sky. But the most haunting effect has Willis trying to reach his wife through her manufactured creature, and, upon angering her, watching as her surrogate freezes in a look of terrifying…accommodation. If someone had used their head, this movie could’ve been this decade’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

It Might Get Loud has an irresistible premise: of past and present guitarists wandering around and eventually meeting up and discussing the electric guitar and jamming. The guitarists have been shrewdly chosen: Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, The Edge of U2, and Jack White of The White Stripes. Chances are you’re interested in at least one of those men (and for those keeping score at home: I love Zeppelin and White, can largely take or leave U2), and, if you don’t, chances still favor you wondering what the hell they might trigger in one another. The picture, directed by Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) has a wonderfully wooly, restless, follow-these-guys-around spirit, but it disappointingly treats their meeting as an excuse to follow them separately as they wax, to largely banal degrees, on their own muses. Writers, regardless of level of craft, tend to know one thing: the most boring question you can ask a writer or artist pertains to their influences, because they don’t really know, and if they do, the answer is so intensely personal and abstract it’s entirely meaningless to anyone else. Natural conflicts in these guitarists’ sensibilities (The Edge continually tinkers with technological amplifications of his sound while White tries harder and harder to restrict and challenge and par himself down) aren’t allowed to develop, and the picture takes a good hour and change to get to these guys properly playing together. It Might Get Loud is still worth watching for the musicians’ guarded-yet-vulnerable presences (Page has an appealing, effortless Wise Master vibe that anchors the picture, White has an endearingly focused, intent apprentice stare, The Edge is surprisingly approachable) but you’re left wanting more of the little eccentricities such as White’s revealing of the motivation behind his band’s elementary, primary color shtick (to add a defensive coat of irony in case people ridiculed a white boy playing essentially bluesy, “black” music). Surrogates and It Might Get Loud reveal themselves to have a surprising commonality: they both distrust “the man” while undervaluing their endearing alternatives.

Muriel

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Check the Best Web-Based Criticism award, with which I heartily agree, here.

Kenny can be a little frustrating at times, but he’s fighting the good fight to maintain an age where critics were educated and, like, hard to please and stuff.

I voted thusly:

1. Some Came Running
2. David Kehr
3. The Auteurs Notebook
4. Green Cine Daily
5. The Projectionist, David Edelstein

The Muriel for Best Body of Work ‘09 is here.

My votes:

1. Liam Neeson, Five Minutes of Heaven, Taken, The Other Man
2. Steven Soderbergh, The Informant!, The Girlfriend Experience
3. James Gandolfini, Where the Wild Things Are, In the Loop, The Taking of Pelham 123
4. Matt Damon, The Informant!, Invictus, Ponyo
5. Vera Farmiga, Orphan, Up in the Air

I think Soderbergh has an irritating tendency lately to turn all subject matters into the same movie (a pensive flirtation with making a movie in place of an actual movie), but his vigor and flexibility is undeniably impressive and inspiring.

The Good Guy @ Slant.

Monday, February 15th, 2010

The Good Guy @ SlantMagaizine.com

Muriel

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

The 50th Anniversary Muriel can be found here, the 25th here, and the 10th here.

No rationalizations today, though you can see my picks below:

50th Anniversary Award, Best Feature Film 1959 [5]
1. Fires on the Plain
2. The 400 Blows
3. Anatomy of a Murder
4. North by Northwest
5. Floating Weeds

25th Anniversary Award, Best Feature Film 1984 [5]
1. Stop Making Sense
2. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
3. Secret Honor
4. Blood Simple
5. Choose Me

10th Anniversary Award, Best Feature Film 1999 [5]
1. Election
2. The Limey
3. South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut
4. Topsy-Turvy
5. Audition

Muriels

Friday, February 12th, 2010

The Muriel for Director of the Decade can be found here.

My votes were:

1. Charlie Kaufman (a technical “cheat”, but undeniably the voice of the decade)
2. Steven Spielberg
3. The Coen Brothers
4. The Dardennes
5. David Lynch.

In this case, I went with what I felt was the undeniable sensibility of the decade over personal taste. Truthfully, I prefer most everyone else’s movies on this list to Kaufman’s (not a knock on Kaufman) but his work over the course of the Aughties, primarily as a screenwriter – Human Nature, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Synecdoche, New York – caught and defined the self-obsession of a generation gifted and cursed with so much mechanical privilege and entitlement it didn’t (and still doesn’t) know what to do with itself. Synecdoche concerned me: I saw self-pity in place of the satire, empathy and invention of the other pictures (Human Nature is underrated.) but Eternal Sunshine and the good parts of Adaptation (the third act, an even more post-modern version of the black ending of The Player, doesn’t work) are nearly enough to warrant placement on this list alone. Kaufman has a number of gifts, perhaps his most rewarding is his ability to sell you a universal fantasy even as he takes it apart. The ending of Eternal Sunshine is perhaps the most romantic unromantic ending I’ve ever seen.

Spielberg, Spielberg, Spielberg, there was a time when it was far more controversial to like him, now we have the intense auteur critics doing handstands to excuse his most embarrassing work (that being, in the case of this last decade, Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull…by a mile). The Aughts, Spielberg’s fourth decade as a filmmaker, were his most interesting since the 1970s, giving us AI, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Munich and the aforementioned Indy 4. Spielberg is still better with emotion than thought or even common sense (Munich, the most literally ambitious of the pictures, is formally brilliant and muddled in equal measures), but his frame remains intensely personal and alive.

AI, after nearly ten years, turns out to be the masterpiece its apologists thought it to be all along. Yes, there are bumpy roads and stupid jokes and cameos, but the inconsistencies add to the cumulative effect: this is a weird, internal, daring deconstruction of the family and the pabulum Spielberg had been selling us in the 1980s, particularly the slow build to David’s mother leaving him in the woods, which is one of strongest moments of Spielberg’s career. AI doesn’t have the flow of the great Spielberg pictures, it’s clunky, but that’s because he seems to be starting afresh, rebuilding his aesthetic brick by brick.

Which led to the jazzy visual intuitiveness of Minority Report, a wacky, inconsistent screenplay that’s one of the expert examples of storytelling-through-image of the decade: every moment (particularly those brilliant psychic-as-composer set pieces) propelling the picture forward, deepening it, until it properly climaxes with Cruise’s intended moment of righteous vengeance (the actual end is symptomatic of Spielberg’s Achilles heel: a need to tie the loose ends ‘til the bitter end); the picture is flawed, but it is the work of a master with cinema in his bloodstream. Ditto War of the Worlds and Catch Me if You Can, though you can have The Terminal (though even that shows an occasional soft touch for gentle human comedy that many directors could learn from). Spielberg is still, excluding when De Palma is occasionally on, the great living American visual storyteller.

The Coens don’t need my defense, and, if they do, Ari already did a more than fine job. The Coen Brothers had a promising ‘80s, an impressive ‘90s, and a career-best ‘00s where their tics and preoccupations gelled into a sensibility as recognizable, confident, and ineffable as the Lubitsch touch. I only deviate from Ari with Burn after Reading, which, along with A Serious Man might be their best – ever.

I chose The Dardenne Brothers because two of their pictures – The Son and The Child – show the new kids how good the misleadingly observational picture – buried plot, hand-held camera, at least partially non-professional cast – can be in the right hands. Their third picture of the decade, last year’s Lorna’s Silence, was flawed; but it still had a generosity and occasional spontaneity that shames the majority of guilt-ridden lower class pictures that so fascinate so many “indie” filmmakers.

Lynch was # 5 for three reasons: 1. he made the best picture of the decade, 2. he’s another survivor of the 1970s still making pictures as intuitive, free-wheeling and challenging as Inland Empire (half of it was bullshit – but that’s the price of the Lynch method), and 3. the presence of a number of the notable filmmakers of the decade would be unthinkable without him. The Coens, Tarantino, and Miike (most Asian horror cinema in general) just off the top of my head would be significantly different had Lynch never been on the scene. They all cribbed from Lynch’s preoccupation with little banal touches as terrifying suggestions of our ultimate pointlessness just as they cribbed Lynch’s flair for making the irrational bleakly funny and entertaining to the masses. Lynch influenced countless filmmakers and those filmmakers in turn influenced countless filmmakers.

P.S. Please read David Foster Wallace’s pretty darn impressive Lynch piece, one of the best things I’ve ever read on the filmmaker.