A Year of Movies

Sherlock Holmes
Started & Finished: 12/21/09

Sherlock Holmes is the winter’s answer to the summer superhero blockbuster: It’s witty, action-packed, and stars Robert Downey Jr. as a likable asshole.  In fact, there is very little to distinguish Sherlock Holmes from Iron Man, or any of the recent entries in the superhero fad genre.  He even has a superpower, known to us 21st-century beings as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, with a hint of social anxiety to boot.

These qualities don’t make it a bad movie by a longshot—in fact, it’s a pretty brilliant move on the part of the studios.  It appeals to those people who think they are getting a new spin on an old tale but tells the same story we’ve seen over and over, so sequel-cynics like myself take a seat without realizing it’s the exact same formula.

To be fair, I wasn’t expecting to have my mind blown, but I also wasn’t expecting to be so thrilled by Guy Ritchie’s first successful foray into major American motion pictures.  Elements of his style are felt throughout, but are certainly toned down compared to his work from the UK.  This may be a factor of the abundance of score over soundtrack, while a typical Guy Ritchie pic is the other way around.  The sound design was well done, if a tad overdone at times.  And the sequences where Ritchie’s touch could be felt best were the high points of the film.

I don’t have much familiarity with the source material except for a certain episode of Wishbone, but I wonder how prevalent the supernatural was in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s works, because it was hard to swallow at first.  Holmes’ invicibility was a bit of a stretch as well—give him some shortcomings!  Brushing the surface of a drug habit doesn’t count.

It’s nice to see Guy Ritchie reigned back in from the gangster chaos that degenerated into Revolver.  But Sherlock Holmes isn’t his best work by far.  But standing alone, it makes for a fun and entertaining 2 hours that will help pass time with the family over the holiday break.

Where The Wild Things Are
Started & Finished: 10/26/09

I have many vivid memories from my childhood where, for one reason or another, I thought or said some variation of “Being a kid is so hard!!!!!!!  Adults just don’t get it.”  With a handful of years under my belt, I find myself thinking, “Kids don’t know how easy they have it.”  With my foot firmly lodged in my mouth, I’m here to announce that kids do indeed have it rough: Where The Wild Things Are reminds us grown-ups that though our childhood angst may seem trivial in retrospect, those emotions are less powerful than the frustrations we experience as adults.

My own feelings about this film have run the gamut from overexcited to utter hopelessness as I followed the production news from breakthrough puppetry technology to studios demanding reshoots to lighten up the film for kids.  My expectations rested in a sort of purgatory where I couldn’t be too hurt if it was an awful film.  Luckily, my fears of an overly saccharine nostalgia piece were put to rest quickly, and the result is a genuine story with one of the most honest depictions of childhood put to film.

Director Spike Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers lured me in with a tale that I thought was about a kid, for kids.  But unlike most modern children’s films, Wild Things doesn’t attempt to be one movie for children, and another for adults.  Rather, the in-jokes and figurative camera-winks are for the kids, while the movie is really for the grown-ups.  Jonze and Eggers do an outstanding job of telling a child’s story for an adult audience while still staying true to Max’s perspective throughout.

My only complaint is the soundtrack— there was just way too much of it.  About 70% of the movie had some Karen O song or another in the background, and it felt like she was trying a bit too hard to come off as innocent and child-like.  As a result, the narrative tended to drift into music video territory every so often.

I’m not sure why the film has been getting such mixed reviews.  Perhaps those reviewers failed to take note of the film’s heart: It’s okay to be angry, lonely, sad, scared or frustrated, and it can be difficult to navigate those emotions.  But if you come out of this movie without feeling even slightly warm inside, you may be due for a trip to visit the wild things yourself.

Up In The Air
Started & Finished: 10/14/09

When, by the end of a film, there’s nothing left to really speculate on, what are you supposed to think about?  For some reason, I’m left feeling like Up In The Air went in one ear and out the other.

It’s by no means a bad movie— I was attentive throughout, even during some textbook-cheesy moments.  The direction was fine, the script was quick and clever, and the acting was good, but it’s not very challenging.  Which is fine—I guess I was expecting something a bit deeper.  Rather, I wasn’t expecting such a morally straightforward story.  It’s really one big cautionary fable about the perils of being a manchild.

I did really enjoy the conclusion of the film, and how that was handled— but only then did writer/director Jason Reitman really bring the drama.  It’s also a good example of efficient storytelling, and the sleight of hand required to bring scenes to life (specifically, the act of showing one thing while characters are saying another, and letting the audience read the true meaning of the scene).  I’m not sure when Up In The Air will be in wide release, but it feels like it’d be a very enjoyable holiday-break type movie.  Easy, funny, relatable, and not too depressing.

Youth In Revolt
Started & Finished: 10/13/09

Bringing a book to the screen is always a daunting task— do you play to the studios and streamline the concepts, or do you kowtow to the fanboys and keep every last detail?  Adaptations seem to fail because they try to appease both sides, and do well at neither.  But Youth In Revolt manages to find that sweet middle ground that conveys the story at the heart of the novel, while taking liberties to ensure the tightest, funniest movie possible.

The film soars as an adaptation, but also as a film unto itself.  I was initially skeptical of some casting choices (I feel like I’ve been on Michael Cera overload this year), and wary of the process by which screenwriter Gustin Nash condensed a 500 page book into 89 minutes.  Having finished the book several weeks ago, I recognized 95% of the plot, and 99% of the jokes.  Yet it was told in a fresh and distinct way, focusing on the key plot elements that pushed the film along at quite a clip.

I’m happy to report that Michael Cera does an excellent job of playing roles outside of the traditional shy-guy archetype.  While it’s still a variation of the awkward teen, Cera’s Nick Twisp is more like Arrested Development’s George Michael a few years down the road, with enough sexual frustration to mow down anyone and anything in the way.  François is an entirely different beast that Cera pulls off with excellent poise and timing.

While it’s disappointing to see some of my favorite book moments and characters removed from the film (Fuzzy Defalco, jocks hitting on Carlotta, and any mention of T.E.’s), it’s clear that an overabundance of information would have ruined the story.  Instead, Nash and director Miguel Arteta make the best choices possible, excising the most extraneous and amping up the plot points that tell Nick’s dire quest to lose his virginity.  The novel contains so many more subplots and loads of cringe-inducing awkwardness, but the genius of this adaptation is that it gives the best of the bare bones—barely any narrative manipulation was necessary.  So if you see the film, but still want to read the book, don’t worry: it will still be like meeting Nick Twisp for the first time.  That is, assuming you really want to revisit that first scene.

Zombieland
Started & Finished: 10/11/09

Just a bunch of wholesome zombie fun.  A funny script and solid acting kept me genuinely interested for the entire 80 minutes, despite some gimmicky tricks and a few cliched moments.  There are plenty of nods to zombie lore of the past, with enough twists to keep it feeling fresh.

That being said, World: Let’s cool it with the zom-coms for the next couple decades.  And possibly zombie movies in general.  I’m not calling for a bullet in the head, but maybe two in the kneecaps to slow it down.  The genre’s starting to get a little tiresome.

The Road
Started & Finished: 10/8/09

I first read The Road in the backseat of a car at 6am, driving north on an empty highway, on a weekend during summer fire season.  The sky was one shade of gray, and the rising sun was just a white spot behind endless layers of ash.  It was perfect.

I first saw The Road in the middle of a crowded theater with a tiny screen and plugged ears from some kind of flu.  It was not ideal.

Nevertheless, I’ve been eager to see this post-apocalyptic adaptation for several years, as I’ve followed its journey from script to screen.  While my expectations were not set terribly high, I still left feeling underwhelmed by the experience.

The Road should be the definitive post-apocalyptic story, but the film lacks a certain punch that leaves it as emotionally bleak as the setting itself.  A combination of awkward narration, The Father’s complete lack of pessimism, and child acting, perhaps- but also a sense that I’ve seen this story before.  And it feels tired.

The aesthetics are by far the film’s strength.  The cinematography is gorgeous, the scenery is simultaneously stark and epic, and Nick Cave & Warren Ellis’ score is haunting as always.  The film does provide some insight into the story that had gone over my head when reading the book.  And though purists may object, I loved the way Nick Hillcoat shot the flashbacks— the amount of information and emotion he is able to convey in just one static shot, with no dialogue, is stunning.  That being said, I didn’t feel that connection with any of the present-day scenes.

I wonder if I would have been more engaged with the film if I had sat closer, or if the sound system was cranked up, or if viewed in a massive single-screen theater.  But even then, the film lacks a gravitas that I was really hoping for.  The apocalypse can be devastating to consider, but The Road proves that an overwhelmingly bleak setting is not enough to evoke that personal sense of ruin in the viewer.

The Informant!
Started & Finished: 9/19/09

Who knew white collar crime could make for such potent comedy?  The latest from Steven Soderbergh is a curious case study in character development as a storytelling vehicle.  The web of corporate corruption takes a backseat to the mysterious personality of whistleblower Mark Whitacre, whose actions are always tinged with a hint of “WTF,” for lack of a better term.

This decision from screenwriter Scott Z. Burns is notable in that the audience is aligned closest with the FBI agents and lawyers throughout the film, who are in a constant struggle to figure out just why Whitacre would act in such contradictory and illogical ways.  However, the story is told from the perspective of Matt Damon’s Whitacre— it’s his thoughts we hear, not those of the agents.  (I really enjoyed the clever use of non-traditional voiceover— I’m sure there are a myriad of clues to both his personality and the story in his inner monologue that could be picked up on second viewing.)

I suspect the varying points of view are a result of the source material (Kurt Eichenwald’s book The Informant).  Though I haven’t read it, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is more representative of the media’s portrayal of the ADM scandal than of Whitacre’s inner monologue (which, as stated before, is the focal point of the film version).  As a result of these two viewpoints existing within the same film, and even a single scene, the audience is left stranded in the middle, being pulled back and forth between perspectives.

Frankly, it was somewhat dizzying, and no clear answers are given, which was a bit frustrating (but nothing that a quick trip to Wikipedia can’t sort out).  Ultimately, it certainly made for a clever, quick-paced comedy that I’d recommend seeing, if only for a stellar Matt Damon and Soderbergh’s always fascinating direction (both of which I regret short-changing here).

Brighton Rock
Started & Finished: 9/12/09

Again, a lack of historical context leaves me unable to better articulate my feelings on this classic, past “I didn’t like it so much.”  It’s easy for me to say why, but difficult for me to back up my opinions.  And it just goes to show how little I understand about classic film.  But, in an effort to broaden my horizons, I will push forward.  Hopefully by the end of this Year of Movies, I’ll at least have some frame of reference for which to critique the classics.

So rather than assess the story (noir-ish), the direction (some very interesting camera techniques), or the characters (over the top at times-looking at you, Ida)… I found my thoughts wandering to the subject of adaptation, and specifically, the process by which Graham Greene adopted his own novel into a screenplay.

These days, any adaptation—whether the source be a novel, comic book, or even board game (I’m looking at you, Universal)—is scrutinized by rabid fanboys and fangirls for authenticity.  In most cases, the authors of the original source are not the same as those who pen the screenplays.  And while they try for authenticity, they are generally labeled heretics for any deviations.  Liz told me that the ending to Brighton Rock the book is vastly different in its tone and meaning than the film’s, but both are written Greene.  So why the change from bleak and depressing to uplifting and holy?

I can only imagine the change is due to studio fears regarding the unpopularity of depressing endings.  Unfortunately I don’t know the history, which may help in shaping my opinion of the film, and Wikipedia isn’t offering up much.  Oh, except that a remake is in the works.  And before you begin wondering how they’ll skewer it: It’s set in the 60s.  With the Mods.

The Third Man
Started & Finished: 9/12/09

I don’t feel I have enough historical knowledge of 1940s film noir to properly evaluate this movie, which may explain why I am more fixated on imagining how the film would be different if it were to be remade today.  Don’t misunderstand: The Third Man is a great film, made all the more enjoyable by Graham Greene’s ability to instill his playful sense of humor into classic noir moments.  And while it mostly stands the test of time, it definitely uses a different visual language to tell the story.

There’s not much point in speculating on a remake, as the conversation could only range between how bad it would be to how god-awful it would be.  But I was intrigued by the differences between past and present storytelling methods.  For example:

There is little to no set-up in the 1949 version: Holly Martins shows up in Vienna and finds his friend is dead.
In my imaginary 2009 version, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a prologue involving the American friend setting up the trip overseas, complete with ominous and foreshadowing phone call to said dead friend.

1949: Martins is in every single scene- a complete linear journey.
2009: Executives feel the need to vary the narrative, introduce Harry Lime earlier, and write new scenes involving romantic rendezvous with Anna Schmidt, who is in on the whole thing.  Love triangle ensues.

1949: Gorgeous cinematography and wonderful last shot.
2009: More nudity.

As I suspected, that exercise turned out to be mostly pointless.  But I believe it helps to articulate the importance of classic film (which I am just now beginning to understand myself)— though it may take some extra effort to follow or engage with the narrative, or even relate to the characters, it’s that foreignness that lends so well to the atmosphere of the film.  It’s as crucial to the film’s success as is the script, the acting, or the editing.  Any updated version, even if working from the exact same script, would fall flat on its face.  Duh.