Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
True Grit
Film: True Grit
Director: Ethan and Joel Coen
Country: USA
True Grit is a surprisingly simple idea coming from the Coens. It's a remake of an old John Wayne movie which focuses on the little girl instead of the old grizzled marshal. The story is pretty basic Western story. A thirteen year old girl Mattie's father is murdered by a man Tom Chaney they had taken in. She goes out looking for revenge, and hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to kill him. While in town she runs into La Boeuf, a Texas Ranger who's also after Chaney, but he's after him for crimes he committed in Texas. Mattie wants to come along on the hunt for Chaney. Cogburn at first wants to leave her behind thinking she didn't have the toughness to survive in Indian country, but he's convinced by her perserverence in following him that she is.
I usually like Westerns but I found myself bored for this one. The story goes through the motions of a movie that might have been made in the 40s through 60s, but it's got a tone of artificiality through it that blunts the impact. It's not as fun as the old Westerns it replicates, and it's not as intellectually interesting as other Coen movies. The characterization feels a little heavy handed and a little manipulative. They try a little too hard to endear you to Mattie's toughness, having her dominate a negotiation for the return of some horses her father bought, threatening to sue him. You can tell from the beginning that Rooster and La Boeuf are going to come to the same conclusion we're obviously supposed to from the first time we see her: That the little girl is endearingly tough. I'm usually a fan of the Coens, but this style of plot doesn't suit their style of directing.
Style: 6
Substance: 4
Overall: 5
Accessibility: 7
Director: Ethan and Joel Coen
Country: USA
True Grit is a surprisingly simple idea coming from the Coens. It's a remake of an old John Wayne movie which focuses on the little girl instead of the old grizzled marshal. The story is pretty basic Western story. A thirteen year old girl Mattie's father is murdered by a man Tom Chaney they had taken in. She goes out looking for revenge, and hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to kill him. While in town she runs into La Boeuf, a Texas Ranger who's also after Chaney, but he's after him for crimes he committed in Texas. Mattie wants to come along on the hunt for Chaney. Cogburn at first wants to leave her behind thinking she didn't have the toughness to survive in Indian country, but he's convinced by her perserverence in following him that she is.
I usually like Westerns but I found myself bored for this one. The story goes through the motions of a movie that might have been made in the 40s through 60s, but it's got a tone of artificiality through it that blunts the impact. It's not as fun as the old Westerns it replicates, and it's not as intellectually interesting as other Coen movies. The characterization feels a little heavy handed and a little manipulative. They try a little too hard to endear you to Mattie's toughness, having her dominate a negotiation for the return of some horses her father bought, threatening to sue him. You can tell from the beginning that Rooster and La Boeuf are going to come to the same conclusion we're obviously supposed to from the first time we see her: That the little girl is endearingly tough. I'm usually a fan of the Coens, but this style of plot doesn't suit their style of directing.
Style: 6
Substance: 4
Overall: 5
Accessibility: 7
Robyn - Body Talk
Robyn - Body Talk
At the beginning of the year, Swedish pop star Robyn announced her new album Body Talk would be released over three parts. What she didn't mention at the time was that the first two would be EPs and the third would be a superset of all the better tracks from the first two. If she were an American pop star she'd probably be accused of a sleazy cash grabbing ploy. I don't know why she neglected to mention earlier that most of the songs on Body Talk parts 1 and 2 would also be on the third part, and I kind of want my money back for the first two. The whole is definitely better than the sum of it's parts. At this point, now that all three parts are out, the only one you need is the third part.
Robyn seems to have two modes. The first is very melodic dance pop, sort of like a more emotionally mature version of what Madonna was doing in the 80s. Her songs in this style tend to be about relationships and the longing for them. In 'Dancing On My Own', Robyn watches a man she loves with somebody else and wishes he would notice her. Other songs instruct a man how to soften the blow when he breaks up with his current girlfriend and tell a man that although she wants a close intimate friendship, if he falls in love with her she will hurt him. The second style Robyn uses has a heavier beat and more hip hop style, and lyrics about dancing in clubs and boasting about how tough she is. In one song which contains the lryics 'Even the C.I.A. knows better than to f*** with me', Snoop Dogg appears. Other songs of this style talk about dancing in clubs and partying.
Body Talk part one contained mostly songs of the more hip hop oriented style, and part two contained mostly songs of the more dance pop oriented style. The third release spreads them out more evenly, which gives it more variety and changes of pace. With more variety it is a far better listen from front to back. Althogh her style is similar to the style of the songs on mainstream airwaves, it's so much better written and produced you can't even make a real comparison. If you like the musical style of pop music, but think the artistic standards of American Idol style pop are too low, you should definitely hear Body Talk.
Technical skill: 6
Songwriting: 9
Overall: 9
At the beginning of the year, Swedish pop star Robyn announced her new album Body Talk would be released over three parts. What she didn't mention at the time was that the first two would be EPs and the third would be a superset of all the better tracks from the first two. If she were an American pop star she'd probably be accused of a sleazy cash grabbing ploy. I don't know why she neglected to mention earlier that most of the songs on Body Talk parts 1 and 2 would also be on the third part, and I kind of want my money back for the first two. The whole is definitely better than the sum of it's parts. At this point, now that all three parts are out, the only one you need is the third part.
Robyn seems to have two modes. The first is very melodic dance pop, sort of like a more emotionally mature version of what Madonna was doing in the 80s. Her songs in this style tend to be about relationships and the longing for them. In 'Dancing On My Own', Robyn watches a man she loves with somebody else and wishes he would notice her. Other songs instruct a man how to soften the blow when he breaks up with his current girlfriend and tell a man that although she wants a close intimate friendship, if he falls in love with her she will hurt him. The second style Robyn uses has a heavier beat and more hip hop style, and lyrics about dancing in clubs and boasting about how tough she is. In one song which contains the lryics 'Even the C.I.A. knows better than to f*** with me', Snoop Dogg appears. Other songs of this style talk about dancing in clubs and partying.
Body Talk part one contained mostly songs of the more hip hop oriented style, and part two contained mostly songs of the more dance pop oriented style. The third release spreads them out more evenly, which gives it more variety and changes of pace. With more variety it is a far better listen from front to back. Althogh her style is similar to the style of the songs on mainstream airwaves, it's so much better written and produced you can't even make a real comparison. If you like the musical style of pop music, but think the artistic standards of American Idol style pop are too low, you should definitely hear Body Talk.
Technical skill: 6
Songwriting: 9
Overall: 9
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Rabbit Hole
Film: Rabbit Hole
Director: John Cameron Mitchell
Counry: USA
Rabbit Hole is a very performance driven movie starring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as the parents of a four year old child who was killed eight months prior to the fim, chasing his dog into the street. The film follows the expected course: The two have very different grieving styles that lead to a major blowout, then toward the end they find small ways to start to cope. In this case, due to the emotional nature of the subject matter, it's good that the plot doesn't deviate much from expectations, because it lets the strength of the performances drive the movie.
The movie opens softly, without telling you directly that the couple has lost a child. You see Becca (Kidman) acting antisocial to the neighbors without explanation. The film reveals what happened indirectly, when one of Howie's (Eckhart) friends suggests they have another child. This way, you see the couple as others perceive them without the insider knowledge. The two deal with their grief in very different ways which come into conflict. Howie wants to keep the constant presence of their son in the house, whereas Becca can't deal with that and wants to get rid of all the pictures, all the toys, and everything that constantly reminds her of him. They start out going to group counseling sessions. Howie wants to be social with the group, whereas Becca can't deal with all the religion talk that comes up. Becca wants to sell the house, Howie doesn't want to. Howie wants to start having sex again, Becca doesn't want to. All of these tensions threaten to break up their marriage (As often does happen after the loss of a child.)
The other major player of the film is the driver of the car who killed their child. He's a teenager who's about to leave for college. Becca spots him on a school bus and follows him. Later they meet at the park and talk. It's interesting the way they express this relationship. They talk existentially and get at the accident mostly indirectly. He goes on with his life and lives it like a normal teenager, but you can tell how crushed inside he is that he killed somebody. He talks in a way that makes it obvious that he's played the incident over in his head a million times, looking for any way he could have prevented the accident. You end up not feeling any anger or malice toward him, even though he's the one responsible for tearing apart Becca and Howie's lives.
The strength of the film, other than the great performances given by Kidman and Eckhart, is the way they address their very mundane subject matter. Whereas other films would be tempted to get melodramatic and have characters calling each other out on everything they've ever done, or swearing revenge on the driver of the car, Rabbit Hole expresses emotions in a way that's indirect but still very emotionally imminent. Becca and Howie have the constant presence of their grief, but they're also constantly aware of the pressure to express that grief in a socially acceptable way. They've both got their own emotional minefields, and will behave normally most of the time, then lash out whenever one of those mines is stepped on. But they're not angry at the person, they're just still devastated. The people who receive this anger try their best to be understanding and not taking it personally, but at the same time, are hurt like any regular person would be.
Rabbit Hole is the sort of film which, instead of trying to do something new and original, does something very mundane in a very nuanced way, and then steps back and lets the actors drive the film, making it one of the better films to come out in the year.
Style: 7
Substance: 9
Overall: 8
Accessibility: 8
Director: John Cameron Mitchell
Counry: USA
Rabbit Hole is a very performance driven movie starring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as the parents of a four year old child who was killed eight months prior to the fim, chasing his dog into the street. The film follows the expected course: The two have very different grieving styles that lead to a major blowout, then toward the end they find small ways to start to cope. In this case, due to the emotional nature of the subject matter, it's good that the plot doesn't deviate much from expectations, because it lets the strength of the performances drive the movie.
The movie opens softly, without telling you directly that the couple has lost a child. You see Becca (Kidman) acting antisocial to the neighbors without explanation. The film reveals what happened indirectly, when one of Howie's (Eckhart) friends suggests they have another child. This way, you see the couple as others perceive them without the insider knowledge. The two deal with their grief in very different ways which come into conflict. Howie wants to keep the constant presence of their son in the house, whereas Becca can't deal with that and wants to get rid of all the pictures, all the toys, and everything that constantly reminds her of him. They start out going to group counseling sessions. Howie wants to be social with the group, whereas Becca can't deal with all the religion talk that comes up. Becca wants to sell the house, Howie doesn't want to. Howie wants to start having sex again, Becca doesn't want to. All of these tensions threaten to break up their marriage (As often does happen after the loss of a child.)
The other major player of the film is the driver of the car who killed their child. He's a teenager who's about to leave for college. Becca spots him on a school bus and follows him. Later they meet at the park and talk. It's interesting the way they express this relationship. They talk existentially and get at the accident mostly indirectly. He goes on with his life and lives it like a normal teenager, but you can tell how crushed inside he is that he killed somebody. He talks in a way that makes it obvious that he's played the incident over in his head a million times, looking for any way he could have prevented the accident. You end up not feeling any anger or malice toward him, even though he's the one responsible for tearing apart Becca and Howie's lives.
The strength of the film, other than the great performances given by Kidman and Eckhart, is the way they address their very mundane subject matter. Whereas other films would be tempted to get melodramatic and have characters calling each other out on everything they've ever done, or swearing revenge on the driver of the car, Rabbit Hole expresses emotions in a way that's indirect but still very emotionally imminent. Becca and Howie have the constant presence of their grief, but they're also constantly aware of the pressure to express that grief in a socially acceptable way. They've both got their own emotional minefields, and will behave normally most of the time, then lash out whenever one of those mines is stepped on. But they're not angry at the person, they're just still devastated. The people who receive this anger try their best to be understanding and not taking it personally, but at the same time, are hurt like any regular person would be.
Rabbit Hole is the sort of film which, instead of trying to do something new and original, does something very mundane in a very nuanced way, and then steps back and lets the actors drive the film, making it one of the better films to come out in the year.
Style: 7
Substance: 9
Overall: 8
Accessibility: 8
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Somewhere
Film: Somewhere
Director: Sofia Coppola
Country: USA
Sofia Coppola first received mainstream recognition as a director for her 2003 film Lost In Translation. Her new film Somewhere covers a lot of the same ground as Lost In Translation. Alienation, cultural misunderstanding in a foreign country, emotional detachment from one's career. Some of the scenes in Italy seem taken directly from Lost In Translation, except with Italian culture instead of Japanese culture. The main character is another famous actor being pulled around by the demands of his career. His daughter's mother leaves for unspecified reasons for an indefinite amount of time, leaving their daughter with him. His daughter hardly knows him, because his acting career takes him away most of the time. Unlike Lost In Translation however, Somewhere doesn't have the comedy themes or the sentimental payoff that gave it mainstream appeal. The film is very slow paced, with a lot of long shots of the main character disinterestedly inhabiting his life. There's a long scene where he's watching pole dancers, a long scene where he's sitting still having a mold of his head made, presumeably for props in a movie he's making. People who look to movies mostly for entertainment will probably find the film incredibly boring.
Now, a film can be boring and still be a good film. My theory is that the more boring a film is, the better the artistic payoff has to be for the film to be good. There are some nice subtle points made by the film. At the beginning of the film the main character breaks his arm. When he's with his daughter, you see him watching her figureskate, sitting by the side of the pool while she swims, watching her play Guitar Hero with his buddy. Then later when he gets the cast off, he's taking part in the same activities, playing ping pong, swimming in the pool with her. The subtle point made by his juxtopposition is that, he can only relate to his daughter through physical participation in her activities. There is no real emotional bond except through the ritual of playing. There's an eerie similarity between the scene where he's watching pole dancers and the scene where he's watching his daughter figure skate. Without the ability to interact with her, just as he's a spectator to the strippers' sexiness, he's just a spectator to his daughter's daughter-ness. There is artistic and emotional payoff, but it's not strong enough payoff to justify the slow pacing and lack of entertainment value of the film.
Style: 3
Substance: 8
Overall: 6
Accessibility: 5
I know I haven't been doing many music reviews. It's easier to write about films than music. I've been meaning to write up Robyn - Body Talk and Dum Dum Girls - I Will Be but haven't gotten around to it.
I'm going to make sure to write up White Denim's internet release Last Day Of Summer just because it was so poorly promoted, it got almost no attention at all.
Director: Sofia Coppola
Country: USA
Sofia Coppola first received mainstream recognition as a director for her 2003 film Lost In Translation. Her new film Somewhere covers a lot of the same ground as Lost In Translation. Alienation, cultural misunderstanding in a foreign country, emotional detachment from one's career. Some of the scenes in Italy seem taken directly from Lost In Translation, except with Italian culture instead of Japanese culture. The main character is another famous actor being pulled around by the demands of his career. His daughter's mother leaves for unspecified reasons for an indefinite amount of time, leaving their daughter with him. His daughter hardly knows him, because his acting career takes him away most of the time. Unlike Lost In Translation however, Somewhere doesn't have the comedy themes or the sentimental payoff that gave it mainstream appeal. The film is very slow paced, with a lot of long shots of the main character disinterestedly inhabiting his life. There's a long scene where he's watching pole dancers, a long scene where he's sitting still having a mold of his head made, presumeably for props in a movie he's making. People who look to movies mostly for entertainment will probably find the film incredibly boring.
Now, a film can be boring and still be a good film. My theory is that the more boring a film is, the better the artistic payoff has to be for the film to be good. There are some nice subtle points made by the film. At the beginning of the film the main character breaks his arm. When he's with his daughter, you see him watching her figureskate, sitting by the side of the pool while she swims, watching her play Guitar Hero with his buddy. Then later when he gets the cast off, he's taking part in the same activities, playing ping pong, swimming in the pool with her. The subtle point made by his juxtopposition is that, he can only relate to his daughter through physical participation in her activities. There is no real emotional bond except through the ritual of playing. There's an eerie similarity between the scene where he's watching pole dancers and the scene where he's watching his daughter figure skate. Without the ability to interact with her, just as he's a spectator to the strippers' sexiness, he's just a spectator to his daughter's daughter-ness. There is artistic and emotional payoff, but it's not strong enough payoff to justify the slow pacing and lack of entertainment value of the film.
Style: 3
Substance: 8
Overall: 6
Accessibility: 5
I know I haven't been doing many music reviews. It's easier to write about films than music. I've been meaning to write up Robyn - Body Talk and Dum Dum Girls - I Will Be but haven't gotten around to it.
I'm going to make sure to write up White Denim's internet release Last Day Of Summer just because it was so poorly promoted, it got almost no attention at all.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Fighter
Film: The Fighter
Director: David O Russell
Country: USA
There isn't a lot to be said about the plot of The Fighter. It's a boxing movie. A young boxer wants a title shot. He has setbacks, he has family problems, then he overcomes them and gets his title shot. It's a very performance driven movie. Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale give great performances as Micky Ward and his older brother Dickey, his trainer and a crack addict who used to be a famous boxer. The main tension in the film is between his family, who want him to stay with his mother and his manager and his brother as his trainer, and his girlfriend who wants him to accept an outside contract. When his brother goes to jail the decision becomes easier and he accepts the outside contract with a professional trainer. Then later when he gets his shot at the championship, his brother gets out of jail. Micky promised his girlfriend and his new trainer that he wouldn't work with Dickey anymore, but he wants to both keep his new staff and bring Dickey back on.
The main emotional theme of the film, as with many boxing movies, his pride. Micky wants to prove he can win, that he can provide for his daughter, and be 'The pride of Lowell'. When Dickey goes to jail, HBO airs a special about crack addiction with him as the star. Micky's daughter's mother makes sure his daughter sees the special to show her "Who Dick really is, and who he really is". People in his life want to cast him as a criminal and a bum, and his only way to escape that role is to succeed at boxing.
The fights themselves are also executed very well, though the way they're narrated, perhaps strategically oversimplified. (All we're really told is 'If he hits the head, and then the body, he will win'.)
It's all very well acted, very well directed, very well written. The only plot problem is that it has pretty much the same story as other boxing movies. If that's not something you mind, you will love the film.
Style: 5
Substance: 8
Overall: 7
Director: David O Russell
Country: USA
There isn't a lot to be said about the plot of The Fighter. It's a boxing movie. A young boxer wants a title shot. He has setbacks, he has family problems, then he overcomes them and gets his title shot. It's a very performance driven movie. Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale give great performances as Micky Ward and his older brother Dickey, his trainer and a crack addict who used to be a famous boxer. The main tension in the film is between his family, who want him to stay with his mother and his manager and his brother as his trainer, and his girlfriend who wants him to accept an outside contract. When his brother goes to jail the decision becomes easier and he accepts the outside contract with a professional trainer. Then later when he gets his shot at the championship, his brother gets out of jail. Micky promised his girlfriend and his new trainer that he wouldn't work with Dickey anymore, but he wants to both keep his new staff and bring Dickey back on.
The main emotional theme of the film, as with many boxing movies, his pride. Micky wants to prove he can win, that he can provide for his daughter, and be 'The pride of Lowell'. When Dickey goes to jail, HBO airs a special about crack addiction with him as the star. Micky's daughter's mother makes sure his daughter sees the special to show her "Who Dick really is, and who he really is". People in his life want to cast him as a criminal and a bum, and his only way to escape that role is to succeed at boxing.
The fights themselves are also executed very well, though the way they're narrated, perhaps strategically oversimplified. (All we're really told is 'If he hits the head, and then the body, he will win'.)
It's all very well acted, very well directed, very well written. The only plot problem is that it has pretty much the same story as other boxing movies. If that's not something you mind, you will love the film.
Style: 5
Substance: 8
Overall: 7
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The King's Speech
Film: The King's Speech
Director: Tom Hooper
Country: UK
The story of the film is very simple. Prince Albert, son of the King of England, has a severe stutter. In his position as Prince and as Duke of York, he has to do lots of public speaking. He has to overcome his stutter, and the traditional methods aren't working. His wife finds him an unconventional speech therapist known for 'Controversial' methods, who insists during the sessions they see each other as equals, because he says it's essential to his technique. Later on when his father dies, and his brother abdicates so he can marry a women who's been divorced, he becomes King. At this point, the Nazis invade Poland and England declares war on Germany. The nation is looking to him to reassure them and lead them through this conflict, so he has to overcome his stutter.
Speaking as a person who stutters, the depiction of stuttering is very accurate. No problems there. The problem with the film is that the approach is very generic and formulaic. The whole story is choreographed from the moment you meet the speech therapist. He talks to the Prince like an equal, insists on calling him 'Berty', and you know right away that Albert is going to gradually accept this as his speech gradually improves. They milk the class irony angle a whole lot, at one point with the psychiatrist charmingly sitting on an ancient throne, and replying to Albert's objections with 'It's just a chair'. But other than those scenes that charmingly make light of royalty, nothing seems very specific to Albert and his particular situation. You could take eighty percent of the script and make it about anybody with a stuttering problem just by filling in the blanks differently. Replace the scenes where he's working on his stuttering with some other semi-psychological problem, and the only other script changes you'd need to make would be to replace the stuttering references. It's like they took a template 'Overcoming adversity' script and mad-libbed it to be about Prince Albert's stuttering problem.
Also, maybe I took issue with this because I'm American as opposed to British, but I feel like they inflated the importance of the post-Victorian British royal family. About an hour and a half into the film Albert, then 'King Charles VI', comments that he's a king that doesn't have any actual political power. Except for that one moment of the film, you'd think it took place in the Tudor era and that the king was head of government. They then heavily implied that the psychological health of the entire nation was tied directly to the king's ability to speak properly. Maybe I just don't understand because I'm not British, but it felt like they did that to artificially add weight to the drama.
Colin Firth's performace as Prince Albert was very good, and the rest of the cast filled their roles well enough. The script was very efficient and workmanlike, entertaining with no serious flaws. The King's Speech, overall, is a very competent film, and though it strictly adheres to the 'Overcoming adversity' formula, it does so very well. It's a pleasant, smart film I'd recommend to people who liked films such as An Education and Slumdog Millionaire, but not to people who like blockbuster films, or to people who like more eclectic art films.
Style: 4
Substance: 6
Overall: 5
Accessibility: 8
Director: Tom Hooper
Country: UK
The story of the film is very simple. Prince Albert, son of the King of England, has a severe stutter. In his position as Prince and as Duke of York, he has to do lots of public speaking. He has to overcome his stutter, and the traditional methods aren't working. His wife finds him an unconventional speech therapist known for 'Controversial' methods, who insists during the sessions they see each other as equals, because he says it's essential to his technique. Later on when his father dies, and his brother abdicates so he can marry a women who's been divorced, he becomes King. At this point, the Nazis invade Poland and England declares war on Germany. The nation is looking to him to reassure them and lead them through this conflict, so he has to overcome his stutter.
Speaking as a person who stutters, the depiction of stuttering is very accurate. No problems there. The problem with the film is that the approach is very generic and formulaic. The whole story is choreographed from the moment you meet the speech therapist. He talks to the Prince like an equal, insists on calling him 'Berty', and you know right away that Albert is going to gradually accept this as his speech gradually improves. They milk the class irony angle a whole lot, at one point with the psychiatrist charmingly sitting on an ancient throne, and replying to Albert's objections with 'It's just a chair'. But other than those scenes that charmingly make light of royalty, nothing seems very specific to Albert and his particular situation. You could take eighty percent of the script and make it about anybody with a stuttering problem just by filling in the blanks differently. Replace the scenes where he's working on his stuttering with some other semi-psychological problem, and the only other script changes you'd need to make would be to replace the stuttering references. It's like they took a template 'Overcoming adversity' script and mad-libbed it to be about Prince Albert's stuttering problem.
Also, maybe I took issue with this because I'm American as opposed to British, but I feel like they inflated the importance of the post-Victorian British royal family. About an hour and a half into the film Albert, then 'King Charles VI', comments that he's a king that doesn't have any actual political power. Except for that one moment of the film, you'd think it took place in the Tudor era and that the king was head of government. They then heavily implied that the psychological health of the entire nation was tied directly to the king's ability to speak properly. Maybe I just don't understand because I'm not British, but it felt like they did that to artificially add weight to the drama.
Colin Firth's performace as Prince Albert was very good, and the rest of the cast filled their roles well enough. The script was very efficient and workmanlike, entertaining with no serious flaws. The King's Speech, overall, is a very competent film, and though it strictly adheres to the 'Overcoming adversity' formula, it does so very well. It's a pleasant, smart film I'd recommend to people who liked films such as An Education and Slumdog Millionaire, but not to people who like blockbuster films, or to people who like more eclectic art films.
Style: 4
Substance: 6
Overall: 5
Accessibility: 8
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)