I had the privilege of leading a discussion on the death of the film critic at Reel Spirituality 2011 in Pasadena, CA. last weekend. Elvis Mitchell (The Treatment), Claudia Puig (USA Today), Mark Pinsky (The Gospel According to the Simpsons), and Gareth Higgins (The Film Talk) joined me in the conversation.
At the risk of looking like I am jumping on the band wagon, I wish to offer my praise for Jason Reitman’s UP IN THE AIR. This was the first film that I have seen in some time that I feel actually had something to say. Perhaps it even had many things to say. George Clooney again turns in a memorable performance in the role of the audience mirror. His character, Ryan Bingham, functions to allow us to examine our selves, our lives, our values, our schedules and our priorities.
Being there are so many other reviews of the film that examine the themes, technicalities, etc., I would rather lend some thought to a particular line in the film that I have been wrestling with ever since leaving the theater. At one point in the film, Clooney asks his young traveling partner, played by Anna Kendrick, what they do for their mutual employer. She responds with a party line issued by the CEO. Clooney retorts and says, “No, that’s what we sell, not what we do.” I have really been giving some thought to this concept. Is what I sell myself as different than what I actually do? Can my very personality press the bounds of good ethics? I was challenged by this line and will continue to examine it’s implications in my life.
I cannot think of a more clear example of how film has the power to change people. This is a medium that has huge consequences on how we think and live. Truly, some films are designed to purely entertain us. There is nothing wrong with this. UP IN THE AIR is not one of these films. I hope to see it’s creators at the Kodak in 2010.
I had no plans to see this film. I was talked in to it by people whose cinematic opinions I trust. Once I was in the theater and saw John Lee Hancock’s name come up on the screen, I felt much better. Hancock was at the helm for a film that has impacted me greatly in my life, THE ROOKIE. Those that know me might find it a little hard to believe that a Disney film has set with me so profoundly even years after first seeing it. However, the simplicity, universal themes and emotional honesty in that film are rare and will not soon be forgotten by this writer.
BLINDSIDE uses a similar formulae. It is based on a true story of an unlikely sportsman who overcomes impossible odds to live out their dream. I have not always been a big fan of Sandra Bullock (save for CRASH and a few other performances). However, she turns in an honest and respectable portrayal. The rest of the cast (including a surprising solid performance from Tim McGraw) gives us pure humanity while walking that line between sentimentality and inspiration.
What I appreciated most about the film, however, is the fact that the main character’s faith was handled so realistically yet so beautifully. As a person of faith myself, it is rare to see this sort of balance struck. Hancock, who I believe is a person of faith, truly impressed me with his abilities in this area. Rarely in film do we see a person committed to a specific faith in a story that lives that faith out in a way that is not preachy. Even more rare is the story that makes me examine my own faith and how I live that out, without making me want to vomit.
Since I am currently working on a book dealing with faith and the current vampire craze in pop culture, I will save all metaphoric connections and more in-depth thoughts for my longer work. However, I do have a few thoughts on NEW MOON that may fall beyond the scope of the book, so here are a few of those.
Having long been a fan of films that deal with vampires, werewolves, mythical creatures and the supernatural as a whole, my natural bent is to appreciate the Twilight films. Admittedly, I have not read the books, so my scope of appreciation will have to stay within the celluloid walls that directors have constructed for these stories. And while there was a time in my life, I would have deemed myself too hip to even go and see the Twilight films, I suppose I have abandoned (most) preoccupations with letting others judge wether they like me based on what I like, rather than what I am like. I can truly say that I liked the first Twilight film. I wanted to like the second.
The story in the second film was based much more around interior conflict, residing in our central characters, as opposed to the external conflicts of the first film. I found it quite interesting to watch vampires battle other vampires. Though the trailer for the film would have you believe otherwise, there are only one or two scenes where the external conflicts between vampires and werewolves grace the screen. While this had the potential to be visually arresting, I am guessing the story (from the books) just did not steer in that direction. The acting in this film felt phoned in as well where I felt passion in the performances of the first episode. I recognize the Twilight films for what they are. I realize these films are not meant to appeal to my demographic and certainly not meant to bring home a Best Picture gold statue from the Kodak next year. However, good storytelling is good storytelling and that defies demographics, finances and awards. I wish New Moon had given me more room to defend it.
I have often looked at some who’s lives have intersected with my own and asked how people keep their dreams alive. Hope is a powerful force. Sometimes people don’t need much to believe in, but they need something. I was reminded of these thoughts and feelings watching the new Lee Daniels film PRECIOUS over the weekend. The character who gives the film its title is one of the most compelling yet least likely protagonists I have seen on the screen in some time. Obese, impregnated by her father and despised by her mother, who abuses her constantly, Precious Jones literally has nothing going for her – except a faint glimmer of hope, given to her through the kindness of strangers. The above mentioned problems only begin to scratch the surface of her existence.
PRECIOUS is not perfect as film either. Daniels’ experiments with jump cuts and non-traditional editing occasionally distract to a point where he comes dangerously close to taking the viewer out of the story. One also gets the impression that much of the story is left on the cutting room floor due to time. Precious’s relationships with her fellow classmates and Nurse John are given brief moments of screen time, even when the story calls those characters to play significant roles in Precious’s character arc and emotional transition. Daniels is careful to call attention to the fact that the film is adapted from the book PUSH, a novel by Sapphire, as if to call attention to the fact that the entire story of Precious would not fit into the film and interested viewers can get the full story elsewhere. Many of Daniels’ other experiments do pay off however. Musicians Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz turn in the finest performances either has made outside of music. And Comedienne Monique’ is a emotional steamroller letting loose a performance certainly to be noticed by the Academy.
The most exciting part of PRECIOUS is that it feels like a story we have not seen before. In a cinematic time of sequels and high concept projects, PRECIOUS gives us more reality than we have likely ever witnessed, heart that doesn’t sacrifice emotional truth, and insight into characters that NEVER seem to make it to the screen.
Lars Van Trier has been a filmmaker that has long troubled me. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with his work. I had a conversation with a friend this week who refuses to see Van Trier’s films because of a perceived contempt for his audience. Von Trier and I shared the same faith until recently, so I have oft been interested in the way he sees the world through his lens. I have found profound meaning in many of the man’s films, namely Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark and Dogville. Nothing in Von Trier’s previous work, however, could have prepared me for ANTICHRIST.
I should confess that I had read a fair amount about the film before seeing it. On an interesting side note, it was not an easy film to go see logistically. It is only showing at one small theater in the Los Angeles area. For a film that garnered so much attention at Cannes and other festivals, I guess I expected a wider distribution. After seeing the film, I suppose I now understand the very limited audience.
For those who are not familiar, here is a brief synopsis. A man and woman lose their child to a fall from a third story window while they are making love. The rest of the film explores the couple dealing with their grief. While the man (Willem Dafoe) resorts to his work, psychology that he in turn tries to use on the woman, she (Charlotte Gainsborgh)can only find relief in deep (usually sexual) pleasure and pain. The couple is overcome by their darkness at the film’s end.
The first 2/3 of the film are stunningly brilliant. The imagery and exploration of metaphor will remain with me for some time. The man and woman retreat to Eden, a place in nature that was previously paradise for them, after the lost of their innocence (their child.) Due to their loss of innocence, the former paradise is now a place of darkness and pure evil. Eden is now ruled by animals who proclaim “chaos rules” and parade through the forrest with the bodies of their unborn hanging from them. Eventually, the darkness of Eden turn the man and woman into evil shells of their former selves. It is a beautiful portrait of the early verses of Genesis, as strong as I have seen. There are other subjects thrown in the mix of layers. The suffering of women, self-loathing and the nature of fear are just a few to mention.
The final 1/3 of the film has certainly gotten the most press. It is graphic and horrible. Interested readers can dig into any variety of web sites to get the details of exactly what is on screen. However, I will spare you those details here. The actual acts perpetrated by the woman in the final portions of the films can be viewed through several metaphorical lenses. I have trouble as a filmmaker understanding why Von Trier would subject his audience to what he shows them. I find it hard to believe that he could not have found an equally powerful way to convey the same themes and ask the same questions.
Those that know me realize that I am not easily offended and am usually the first to stand up for edgy art and films that push barriers. ANTICHRIST is hard to defend. Supposedly Von Trier renounced his faith during the making of the film. Some have even suggested he lost his mind in the making of the final scenes. I am a staunch defender of story and of stories that require difficult elements. But ANTICHRIST didn’t seem to be most concerned with story. It seemed more concerned with trying to say something. But determining what that something is might be more trouble than its worth. I doubt Von Trier cares.
Today, my scriptwriting partner, Pete Schwartz, and I locked in what will likely be the final changes on our first feature together titled BETTY FORD AND I. Once we have it registered with the Writers Guild (WGA), I will post the log line and pitch for the film. I honestly believe it is the best story I have ever been a part of telling and think we will have strong interest in the market.
This site will be the home of Author and Filmmaker, John Bucher.
