Alright, Alright, Alright...
Mud is a modern day Huck Finn that feels as if it were
brined in a heavy dose of Tracy Letts. It turns out, that recipe's a one
way ticket to a succulent meal. Two boys who live on the river -- one
with a beneficent guardian, the other with tumultuous parents find a
fugitive living in a boat in a tree. They strike a bargain with the
fugitive, helping him in the name of love.
It's Harper Lee-ville. Mississippi Burning. The War -- only tougher.
But let's just cut to the chase -- what everyone's going to be talking about is the fact that McConaughey plays the fugitive. When George had Reese on GMA as part of her "I should have stayed in the car" apology tour, they both gushed about the rebirth of Matt Damon's favorite target -- the McConz.
I'm here to report that he's still riding the wave.
Somewhere around the time McConaughey was signing the deal to make Lincoln Lawyer, he either had hit rock bottom and was rolling the dice -- or he was making a remarkably calculated come back. There are those who will point out his role in Tropic Thunder, claiming that marked his resurrection -- could be - I consider a blip between rather awful romantic comedies - it's no "Ally McBeal" or Wonder Boys. But since the days of Lincoln Lawyer McC has carved out a place for his tripped out mystical Texan with a heart and a faulty line of logic. He has cornered the market on ... well... himself -- a character type that happens to align perfectly with the shady side of the current wave of thinker indies. These heady blue collar films have been some of the strongest works we've seen on the festival circuit and spilling out of the mini majors: Hesher, Winter's Bone, Blue Valentine, Killer Joe. We've had a spate of intellectual rural indies whose writers and directors have tapped back into cinema and literary history.
This Huck Finn shiz suits Matt McC perfectly. As did Killer Joe. As did The Paperboy. As did Magic Mike. This man is back in a major way. If we're going to dole out Oscar nominations to Alec Badlwin for The Cooler and Robert Downey, Jr. for Tropic Thunder -- then McConaughey can't be frar behind. This could well be the flick.
All of that will depend on how the audience connects with the lead of this film, the incredible Tye Sheridan -- who's all but sixteen now and looks far younger on screen. This is a master turn. It's the kind of work we're loving from guys like John Hawkes and Sheridan's Mud co-star Michael Shannon: a genuine young man from a down-on-their-luck part of the country, who's trying to be a better man, and gets disappointed by the system. Well, there's a lot of that going around lately. Turns out it works just as well on the river as it did in Hesher's suburbs. But as was the case with Hesher where all the JGL in the world didn't mean a thing without the spine that was the young Devin Brochu -- Tye Sheridan walks an elegant tightrope -- frightening us when we think he'll fall -- shocking us when he actually does -- and all in the name of perfectly executed drama. This kid's fantastic. As is the pre-teen John C. Reilly-esque best friend "Neckbone," played by Jacob Lofland. If these two weren't Huck and Tom-ing it, none of the adult actors -- all of whom are quite good -- would have the chance to enjoy their characters.
It ain't easy to steer a motorboat when you're headed up stream.
When a newcomer teenager does so adeptly, one has to take his hat off to the director, Jeff Nichols.
After Take Shelter and now Mud, Mr. Lofland is showing himself as a force to be reckoned with. This sophomore effort is solid. Crystal clear, emotionally solid, and as much an allegory as it is believable -- Mud is the work of a director who knows his craft. I understand that Mr. Lofland's success is giving him the chance to track down any actors he pleases -- it seems he should stick with the character types that make his films indelible. For some reason the known quantities -- save McConaughey - aren't playing the way they might for Paul Thomas Anderson.
Let's hope Mud's a film that we're still talking about next February -- and not just saying, "Oh, yeah. That was good -- what happened?" This is the new indie that could gun right up the middle in the age of 10.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Great Gatsby: All that Baz...
*edited to get the point across better...
"How would you characterize 'The Great Gatsby'?"
"He was... uh... great!"
- Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
At this point you're either under 18, not a film goer, or an idiot if you haven't formulated an opinion about the work of Baz Luhrmann. He's such a hyper-stylized director that you're either in or your our. For those of us who are in, it seems that when all is said and done, the best slice of Baz-ness is the much hailed Romeo and Juliet -- the film that made Leo the Leo Titanic would solidify and also the film that had me wondering -- throughout Gatsby -- whether Claire Danes could have played Daisy Buchanan.
Considering this is an awards blog -- and considering the state of Luhrmann's Gatsby, I'd be remiss not to include Moulin Rouge! -- Baz' best picture nominee. There are those, like me, who are a tad obsessed -- loving the soundtrack, thinking it might be cozy to live in an elephant. But for as many who loved it, there were people who loathed it whether they liked R&J or not. But the truth of the matter is that Moulin Rouge is the best (modern) jukebox musical -- bar none. It's a form that catches a lot of hell -- but within the form, Baz delivered. I don't know how they'll ever bring it to the stage considering Satine drops dead at the end and who the hell wants to pay $500 to take the kids to see that? And yet I know that when Mr. Luhrmann brings it to the stage, it shall he yet another marvel.
The reason I know this is that Mr. Luhrmann -- I'm just going to sail right past Australia! if you'll permit me -- is clearly now -- and seemingly always was -- an opera director. Look back over the films. What we're watching is the progression of a man who loves spectacles -- and not just the brassy pair looming over the valley of ashes. The Great Gatsby proves that the fuel to Baz' fire is not excellent storytelling, it's not even great performances, it's explosive visuals with moments of high drama.
I'm going to meander about as I assess the film -- if for no other reason that the film itself meanders about -- inviting one to critique it thusly. So let me lay out a couple of quick clear statements about the Leo Gatz...
It's better than the Redford.
It's surprisingly faithful to the book.
It is ultimately a good movie.
If you're a Bazian, you may be incredibly happy... or you may have my conflicted reaction...
Call (516) MOU-LIN2 now for great offers on FitzGerald!!!
My gut reaction is that I'm a little surprised Baz "Rouged" it in. You're really just watching Moulin Rouge! - Nassau County Edition. The camera work, the dancing, the art direction -- all quite MR. When you strip the plot down to bare bones -- they comparison is even more obvious. There are very limited differences between this story and Moulin Rouge -- Christ, if they'd said "penniless" one more time, I would have started wondering if Gatsby was a sitar player.
At the same time, you come to the realization that what makes many pieces of American literature great is that they are, at their core, very simple stories. Our experience of them through the author's selected word choice is really what matters. As I was watching this film I couldn't shake the feeling of, "Well, yeah, that's it." that kept washing over me. The thing's faithful. And, to be honest, something about it feels -- despite the cartoonishness of it -- a bit more faithful than the Bob Evans.
What today's release proved, if anything else, is that Gatsby is one of those rare novels that simply can't be filmed. The loss of language destroys it. It didn't matter that you heard Nick Carraway speaking direct quotes about our being "borne back ceaselessly to the past." What struck was that the emotion is unfilmable. What are you going to do, show a rowboat tugging on its mooring? You know what the rhymes with? Boring.
You realize, too, that's not really a sentence whose saying aloud gives a sense of revelation -- unless we're talking about The Hotel New Hampshire.
Baz gussied it up and sent it down the runway. Millions of English Lit students rejoice!
However, I have to say that as a bona fide Fitzfan, it felt empty. True, it could be that there was something to the film's picture and sound process that gave the feeling of disembodiment. But for a novel from such a tragic figure, that has a love story many rank as one of the all time greats -- it just doesn't have a convincing heart. Again, that heart seemed a medium based loss.
The only performance that one need speak of is Leonardo DiCaprio... Gatsby himself.
It was interesting to see that there were shots of Leonardo DiCaprio that were phantoms of his Romeo. For me, those moments highlighted the fact that it has been a long time since Leo has been in a convincing romantic relationship on screen. His roles are always so damn tragic: he's always winding up unhappy and dead. Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond, Inception, and Shutter Island weren't exactly laugh factories. Nor did they have many warm beds. One of the few times he's been momentarily happily married ended up being Revolutionary Road. The audience is estranged from watching Leo be romantic. It's a dangerous place for him to be -- especially when Ryan Gosling's strutting through every other picture, desperately in love. Obviously this kid's staying at the top of the pack for a long, long time. He carved himself out a leading man niche that's on par with Nicholson, Beatty, and Clooney (though it's been a while since George had a love scene, too). Leo'd be wise to show us he can have convincing on screen sex with someone who lives happily. Vera Farmiga, Tilda Swinton, and Kate Hepburn don't count as convincers. He needs to show us that he doesn't always have to be the isolated character -- unless he plans on being Eastwood -- the problem is Ben's already doing that.
Leo is still the king. Let's not forget.
"How would you characterize 'The Great Gatsby'?"
"He was... uh... great!"
- Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
At this point you're either under 18, not a film goer, or an idiot if you haven't formulated an opinion about the work of Baz Luhrmann. He's such a hyper-stylized director that you're either in or your our. For those of us who are in, it seems that when all is said and done, the best slice of Baz-ness is the much hailed Romeo and Juliet -- the film that made Leo the Leo Titanic would solidify and also the film that had me wondering -- throughout Gatsby -- whether Claire Danes could have played Daisy Buchanan.
Considering this is an awards blog -- and considering the state of Luhrmann's Gatsby, I'd be remiss not to include Moulin Rouge! -- Baz' best picture nominee. There are those, like me, who are a tad obsessed -- loving the soundtrack, thinking it might be cozy to live in an elephant. But for as many who loved it, there were people who loathed it whether they liked R&J or not. But the truth of the matter is that Moulin Rouge is the best (modern) jukebox musical -- bar none. It's a form that catches a lot of hell -- but within the form, Baz delivered. I don't know how they'll ever bring it to the stage considering Satine drops dead at the end and who the hell wants to pay $500 to take the kids to see that? And yet I know that when Mr. Luhrmann brings it to the stage, it shall he yet another marvel.
The reason I know this is that Mr. Luhrmann -- I'm just going to sail right past Australia! if you'll permit me -- is clearly now -- and seemingly always was -- an opera director. Look back over the films. What we're watching is the progression of a man who loves spectacles -- and not just the brassy pair looming over the valley of ashes. The Great Gatsby proves that the fuel to Baz' fire is not excellent storytelling, it's not even great performances, it's explosive visuals with moments of high drama.
I'm going to meander about as I assess the film -- if for no other reason that the film itself meanders about -- inviting one to critique it thusly. So let me lay out a couple of quick clear statements about the Leo Gatz...
It's better than the Redford.
It's surprisingly faithful to the book.
It is ultimately a good movie.
If you're a Bazian, you may be incredibly happy... or you may have my conflicted reaction...
Call (516) MOU-LIN2 now for great offers on FitzGerald!!!
My gut reaction is that I'm a little surprised Baz "Rouged" it in. You're really just watching Moulin Rouge! - Nassau County Edition. The camera work, the dancing, the art direction -- all quite MR. When you strip the plot down to bare bones -- they comparison is even more obvious. There are very limited differences between this story and Moulin Rouge -- Christ, if they'd said "penniless" one more time, I would have started wondering if Gatsby was a sitar player.
At the same time, you come to the realization that what makes many pieces of American literature great is that they are, at their core, very simple stories. Our experience of them through the author's selected word choice is really what matters. As I was watching this film I couldn't shake the feeling of, "Well, yeah, that's it." that kept washing over me. The thing's faithful. And, to be honest, something about it feels -- despite the cartoonishness of it -- a bit more faithful than the Bob Evans.
What today's release proved, if anything else, is that Gatsby is one of those rare novels that simply can't be filmed. The loss of language destroys it. It didn't matter that you heard Nick Carraway speaking direct quotes about our being "borne back ceaselessly to the past." What struck was that the emotion is unfilmable. What are you going to do, show a rowboat tugging on its mooring? You know what the rhymes with? Boring.
You realize, too, that's not really a sentence whose saying aloud gives a sense of revelation -- unless we're talking about The Hotel New Hampshire.
Baz gussied it up and sent it down the runway. Millions of English Lit students rejoice!
However, I have to say that as a bona fide Fitzfan, it felt empty. True, it could be that there was something to the film's picture and sound process that gave the feeling of disembodiment. But for a novel from such a tragic figure, that has a love story many rank as one of the all time greats -- it just doesn't have a convincing heart. Again, that heart seemed a medium based loss.
The only performance that one need speak of is Leonardo DiCaprio... Gatsby himself.
It was interesting to see that there were shots of Leonardo DiCaprio that were phantoms of his Romeo. For me, those moments highlighted the fact that it has been a long time since Leo has been in a convincing romantic relationship on screen. His roles are always so damn tragic: he's always winding up unhappy and dead. Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond, Inception, and Shutter Island weren't exactly laugh factories. Nor did they have many warm beds. One of the few times he's been momentarily happily married ended up being Revolutionary Road. The audience is estranged from watching Leo be romantic. It's a dangerous place for him to be -- especially when Ryan Gosling's strutting through every other picture, desperately in love. Obviously this kid's staying at the top of the pack for a long, long time. He carved himself out a leading man niche that's on par with Nicholson, Beatty, and Clooney (though it's been a while since George had a love scene, too). Leo'd be wise to show us he can have convincing on screen sex with someone who lives happily. Vera Farmiga, Tilda Swinton, and Kate Hepburn don't count as convincers. He needs to show us that he doesn't always have to be the isolated character -- unless he plans on being Eastwood -- the problem is Ben's already doing that.
Leo is still the king. Let's not forget.
Pain & Gain & 42
Pain & Gain
There will be no awards for Pain & Gain -- so it shan't get its own blog entry. It's a tried and true Michael Bay movie. It falls very short of The Rock (the movie, not the guy) and I doubt Transformers fans would find it all that exciting. It's nevertheless an okay crime movie that should have been funnier.
Bay -- who knows how to make things go boom -- doesn't know how to make things amusing. Most of the time, the amusement at a Bay film comes from his absurdly over the top filming style. However, if Bay's gonna stick it for the long haul, he would do with pulling a Richard Donner.
Consider the fact that The Rock (the guy, not the movie) is currently in two of the Top 10 films with Fast and the Furious waiting in the wings; we're going to have to actually start admitting that the guy is a bona fide movie star. And let's talk about Marky Mark and the $218 Million box office haul for Ted. There's no two ways about the fact that if you're going to put these guys in a crime movie, you better be aiming for something in the Get Shorty ballpark. Here the end cocktail is more Blow than I Love You Phillip Morris -- and it should have aimed for the latter -- this take doesn't quite work. If an editor tightened this thing by twenty-five minutes, dropped the True Romance-ing, and leaned on the Midnight Run, this sucker would have been far superior.
It's a rental. I could see truly enjoying this sucker over a couple of lazy Sunday cups of coffee.
42 Reasons Why The Supporting Oscar Race May Be On...
Brian Helgeland is a mystery to me. He's one of these screenwriters who is always on high profile projects -- especially since he shared an Oscar win with Curtis Hanson for 1997's attempted iceberg pic -- L.A. Confidential. He's definitely going to deliver quality -- but it can be all over the map -- ranging from the "let's dance to Bowie in medieval times" flick - A Knight's Tale - to the "is that my Oscar in there?!?!" Sean Penn-ery that was the muted crime drama known as Mystic River. That being said, it's tough to know which version of the Jackie Robinson story he was going to deliver.
Well, let me say this: Helgeland delivered the goods. While I'll admit there's about a half-dozen overly sentimental moments of the We Are Marshall variety -- in 42, they're mostly one on one moments with good actors: just when you're about to squirm at a saccharine scene... it lands. You'll forgive 42 these itsy bitsy flaws because more than anything else, it's great.
No, it's not The Natural. And it's not Ray. And that's a good thing. This is not the story of the greatest baseball player in the history of the world. And this is not the story of a man whose personal life was so dramatic that it needs to be on the big screen. That's not Jackie Robinson. This is the story of a great ball player whose ability to stomach racism was as vital to his success as his natural talent at stealing an extra base. Interestingly, Helgeland has been a bit vocal about the fact that he doesn't see 42 as a "sports movie" -- opting to be categorized as a film about a great man, breaking the color barrier, a encapsulation of a specific moment in America. That's all fine and good, Mr. Helgeland. But I'd argue it's the "sports" aspect of this story that makes it work; it's the "sport" that facilitates the delivery of your message.
There's something amazing about the marriage of movies and athletics. We love them -- whether they're about the business (Moneyball), the hilarity of grown men playing a game for a living (Slap Shot), a specific championship (Eight Men Out), or something that enhances the sheer myth of it all with a tale we wish were true (The Natural -- no sports article would be complete without at least two references to the Redford-Levinson great). There's about 2% of sports movies where the focal team or athlete doesn't pull it off. And yet we all sit on the edge of our seats when the director throws athletic triumph into question. I don't care if it's watching Olympiads in a great struggle -- the title of the friggin' movie is Miracle, what do you think happens? -- or the story of a kid who wants to win the season ender his way -- Teen Wolf. These films have us in the palm of their hands...
God I hope she sticks it!
God, I hope they score this touchdown!
God, I hope wins despite his dramatic injury!
They're gonna make it: don't worry.
Unless, we're talking about Rocky I, Friday Night Lights, Without Limits or Jeepers Creepers 2.
Sports get the audience on the hook, willing to take an emotional roller-coaster ride, setting aside huge chunks of their logic and historic knowledge.
This marriage worked very much in 42's favor. We all know what happened. We know he made it. We know that professional sports are -- if anything -- the flipside of what they were when Mr. Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. But we surrender to the story nevertheless -- and to the central thesis of the film: style and talent matter more than one's religion, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. etc. It's one of the definitive reasons why we have The Olympics. There's simply no argument that you're on Jackie's side -- consequently, the film becomes a reminder of how openly racist people were permitted to be -- how incredibly stupid it was/is -- and how easy it is to get past your own preconceived notions if you just try. I'm not joking when I say you hit the end of this film and find out some terrible things happened to the bigots and it's like you just heard Lecter say, "I'm having an old friend for dinner." That means you pulled this story off.
And it took -- among many great performances -- two actors in particular...
There's a remarkable discovery in Chadwick Boseman, Hegeland's Jackie Robinson. This is far and away the largest responsibility placed on Mr. Boseman's shoulders and he delivers. This is a complex character who weathers some truly challenging moments in the course of this film. 42 was not easy work -- even though Chadwick sure as hell made it look like it was.
The issue is that his performance -- and everyone else's performance -- is overshadowed by Harrison Ford.
It may come as a surprise to all of you that Harrison -- Dr. Jones, Captain Solo, Jack Ryan, Get Off My Plane, I Did Not Kill My Wife -- Ford has but one Oscar nomination for 1985's Witness -- losing to William Hurt for Kiss Of The Spiderwoman. At the very least, those who follow the awards might be saying, "Really? Nothing for Working Girl?" -- already dismissing Mosquito Coast, Presumed Innocent, and the heavily Oscar nommed Fugitive.
One nomination -- though he's one of the most successful movie stars in the history of cinema.
And the truth is Mr. McBeal hasn't had the smoothest go of it, lately. The fourth Indiana Jones didn't have too many folks psyched about the coming fifth installment -- though we're all going to go. Cowboys and Aliens didn't do what it should... and hopefully Anchorman 2 makes up for what Morning Glory couldn't deliver in the Ford-meets-Brokaw department. But 42 is a whole bag.
Ford slips into a true character that anchors the film. The film would be nowhere without him. It's a Hackman Hoosiers, Nolte Warrior, Russell Miracle kinda role. He's a remarkable engine. 42 is the perfect reminder of Ford's talent, sense of humor, and his sheer power on screen. He does logical-mean-old-man-who-isn't-gonna-put-up-with-your-shit damn well. He's officially thrown it into Bogie gear.
If Ford can get this locked in as a supporting role -- this could be the place to hand him a statue. Scroll through the list of supporting actor winners and you see that it's often an elder statesman getting a trophy for a solid role -- while also being just a touch lifetime achievement...
Connery, Gielguld, Williams, Jones, Caine -- twice!
To those who say he has too much screen time and should be in the lead category, I counter by citing the Hutton/Hopkins/Connelly trifecta -- the Bermuda's Triangle of how rolls are categorized and which ones win...
There will be no awards for Pain & Gain -- so it shan't get its own blog entry. It's a tried and true Michael Bay movie. It falls very short of The Rock (the movie, not the guy) and I doubt Transformers fans would find it all that exciting. It's nevertheless an okay crime movie that should have been funnier.
Bay -- who knows how to make things go boom -- doesn't know how to make things amusing. Most of the time, the amusement at a Bay film comes from his absurdly over the top filming style. However, if Bay's gonna stick it for the long haul, he would do with pulling a Richard Donner.
Consider the fact that The Rock (the guy, not the movie) is currently in two of the Top 10 films with Fast and the Furious waiting in the wings; we're going to have to actually start admitting that the guy is a bona fide movie star. And let's talk about Marky Mark and the $218 Million box office haul for Ted. There's no two ways about the fact that if you're going to put these guys in a crime movie, you better be aiming for something in the Get Shorty ballpark. Here the end cocktail is more Blow than I Love You Phillip Morris -- and it should have aimed for the latter -- this take doesn't quite work. If an editor tightened this thing by twenty-five minutes, dropped the True Romance-ing, and leaned on the Midnight Run, this sucker would have been far superior.
It's a rental. I could see truly enjoying this sucker over a couple of lazy Sunday cups of coffee.
42 Reasons Why The Supporting Oscar Race May Be On...
Brian Helgeland is a mystery to me. He's one of these screenwriters who is always on high profile projects -- especially since he shared an Oscar win with Curtis Hanson for 1997's attempted iceberg pic -- L.A. Confidential. He's definitely going to deliver quality -- but it can be all over the map -- ranging from the "let's dance to Bowie in medieval times" flick - A Knight's Tale - to the "is that my Oscar in there?!?!" Sean Penn-ery that was the muted crime drama known as Mystic River. That being said, it's tough to know which version of the Jackie Robinson story he was going to deliver.
Well, let me say this: Helgeland delivered the goods. While I'll admit there's about a half-dozen overly sentimental moments of the We Are Marshall variety -- in 42, they're mostly one on one moments with good actors: just when you're about to squirm at a saccharine scene... it lands. You'll forgive 42 these itsy bitsy flaws because more than anything else, it's great.
No, it's not The Natural. And it's not Ray. And that's a good thing. This is not the story of the greatest baseball player in the history of the world. And this is not the story of a man whose personal life was so dramatic that it needs to be on the big screen. That's not Jackie Robinson. This is the story of a great ball player whose ability to stomach racism was as vital to his success as his natural talent at stealing an extra base. Interestingly, Helgeland has been a bit vocal about the fact that he doesn't see 42 as a "sports movie" -- opting to be categorized as a film about a great man, breaking the color barrier, a encapsulation of a specific moment in America. That's all fine and good, Mr. Helgeland. But I'd argue it's the "sports" aspect of this story that makes it work; it's the "sport" that facilitates the delivery of your message.
There's something amazing about the marriage of movies and athletics. We love them -- whether they're about the business (Moneyball), the hilarity of grown men playing a game for a living (Slap Shot), a specific championship (Eight Men Out), or something that enhances the sheer myth of it all with a tale we wish were true (The Natural -- no sports article would be complete without at least two references to the Redford-Levinson great). There's about 2% of sports movies where the focal team or athlete doesn't pull it off. And yet we all sit on the edge of our seats when the director throws athletic triumph into question. I don't care if it's watching Olympiads in a great struggle -- the title of the friggin' movie is Miracle, what do you think happens? -- or the story of a kid who wants to win the season ender his way -- Teen Wolf. These films have us in the palm of their hands...
God I hope she sticks it!
God, I hope they score this touchdown!
God, I hope wins despite his dramatic injury!
They're gonna make it: don't worry.
Unless, we're talking about Rocky I, Friday Night Lights, Without Limits or Jeepers Creepers 2.
Sports get the audience on the hook, willing to take an emotional roller-coaster ride, setting aside huge chunks of their logic and historic knowledge.
This marriage worked very much in 42's favor. We all know what happened. We know he made it. We know that professional sports are -- if anything -- the flipside of what they were when Mr. Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. But we surrender to the story nevertheless -- and to the central thesis of the film: style and talent matter more than one's religion, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. etc. It's one of the definitive reasons why we have The Olympics. There's simply no argument that you're on Jackie's side -- consequently, the film becomes a reminder of how openly racist people were permitted to be -- how incredibly stupid it was/is -- and how easy it is to get past your own preconceived notions if you just try. I'm not joking when I say you hit the end of this film and find out some terrible things happened to the bigots and it's like you just heard Lecter say, "I'm having an old friend for dinner." That means you pulled this story off.
And it took -- among many great performances -- two actors in particular...
There's a remarkable discovery in Chadwick Boseman, Hegeland's Jackie Robinson. This is far and away the largest responsibility placed on Mr. Boseman's shoulders and he delivers. This is a complex character who weathers some truly challenging moments in the course of this film. 42 was not easy work -- even though Chadwick sure as hell made it look like it was.
The issue is that his performance -- and everyone else's performance -- is overshadowed by Harrison Ford.
It may come as a surprise to all of you that Harrison -- Dr. Jones, Captain Solo, Jack Ryan, Get Off My Plane, I Did Not Kill My Wife -- Ford has but one Oscar nomination for 1985's Witness -- losing to William Hurt for Kiss Of The Spiderwoman. At the very least, those who follow the awards might be saying, "Really? Nothing for Working Girl?" -- already dismissing Mosquito Coast, Presumed Innocent, and the heavily Oscar nommed Fugitive.
One nomination -- though he's one of the most successful movie stars in the history of cinema.
And the truth is Mr. McBeal hasn't had the smoothest go of it, lately. The fourth Indiana Jones didn't have too many folks psyched about the coming fifth installment -- though we're all going to go. Cowboys and Aliens didn't do what it should... and hopefully Anchorman 2 makes up for what Morning Glory couldn't deliver in the Ford-meets-Brokaw department. But 42 is a whole bag.
Ford slips into a true character that anchors the film. The film would be nowhere without him. It's a Hackman Hoosiers, Nolte Warrior, Russell Miracle kinda role. He's a remarkable engine. 42 is the perfect reminder of Ford's talent, sense of humor, and his sheer power on screen. He does logical-mean-old-man-who-isn't-gonna-put-up-with-your-shit damn well. He's officially thrown it into Bogie gear.
If Ford can get this locked in as a supporting role -- this could be the place to hand him a statue. Scroll through the list of supporting actor winners and you see that it's often an elder statesman getting a trophy for a solid role -- while also being just a touch lifetime achievement...
Connery, Gielguld, Williams, Jones, Caine -- twice!
To those who say he has too much screen time and should be in the lead category, I counter by citing the Hutton/Hopkins/Connelly trifecta -- the Bermuda's Triangle of how rolls are categorized and which ones win...
- Timothy Hutton provides the first, strongest leg of the "Go Ahead and Be a Lead in the Supporting Category" argument. The TH is the lead of Ordinary People. Unquestionably so. Nevertheless, he won the 1980 supporting Oscar. Why was he categroized as such? Well, according to anyone you ask: "because he was young." So what?! Why is it that people consider the Supporting Oscar to be Oscar Jr.? It's maddening! Hutton proves Ford could go supporting.
- The little Labyrither serves as Exhibit B. If you're going to say, "Well, she was just the wife." I say, "Shame on you, sir!" Jennifer Connelly may well have been the only woman in A Beautiful Mind. And MAN did she have screentime. Yet her Oscar's for supporting. Take a page, Harry.
- Finally, there's the back door approach of supporting roles going lead -- proving, like back in geometry class -- that there's no rhyme or reason to this thing: Anthony Hopkins. The former Sir Tony has such limited screentime in Silence of the Lambs it's remarkable to think that he was possibly considered to be in a lead role -- go ahead and look up how few minutes Hannibal had, you'll be surprised. Why's he lead? Because his character is important? Did you see The Dark Knight?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
"Pine" Soul: Gosling's New Indie Pic Is Above and "Beyond."
THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES...
If you're looking for a great crime film chuck full of well rounded characters with a gripping plot and a structure you're not going to find anywhere else, then The Place Beyond the Pines is the film for you.
The second feature from director/co-writer Derek Cianfrance, Pines charts a course whose mood is similar to Narc, Killing Me Softly, and Drive -- though it may in fact be superior to all three. It is, of course, an awful thing to claim that certain films are "better" than others, as they are all different. It is even a bit more awful when one claims a film is "better" than predecessors who helped forge the way for the current film's existence. That being said, I'm going to leave the word "superior" dangling out there nevertheless. The Film Nook is, after all, ultimately an awards website. Thus, things will eventually end in a realm of comparison and ranking where nominees and then winners are named. So there we have it.
Cianfrance earned a great deal of acclaim and attention for his first feature Blue Valentine -- also starring Ryan Gosling and earning the lovely Michelle Williams her second Oscar nomination (Brokeback - also from FOCUS - being her first). Those who saw Valentine and enjoyed it (as much as one can use the word "enjoy" with Blue Valentine) might still be a bit trepidatious about entering those waters again. Valentine was raw, real, and brutal. It wasn't exactly something that warmed the heart -- though the title was absolutely fair warning (don't expect to be laughing my ass off when watching Gloomy Sunday, either). With Place Beyond the Pines, Gianfrance has woven together and intriguing multi-generational crime drama that cushions the audience from its palpable plot blows by keeping audience minds anchored in the intrigue of what will happen. It's amazing how a suitcase of money and a bit of corruption make emotionally trying plots, horrible fates, and unjust outcomes stomach-able; Gianfrance's skilled direction does just that.
Of course, Derek followed the Mike Nichols rule of direction and cast his film perfectly. It could be that in Ryan Gosling, he has found the perfect leading man: a sexy, soft-spoken, anti-hero, whose fatal flaw is a deep loyalty undercut by the tumultuous battle between his heart and short temper. There's not many men who convincingly stunt ride motor cycles, squeal with delight when feeding an infant ice cream, rob banks at gunpoint, and dance with dogs. Each one of these moments seems like just another natural day for Gosling -- and is most certainly a testament to the trusting relationship between director and star. Without Gosling as the kick-off character, Pines wouldn't be properly anchored. He ties this picture down perfectly -- allowing those that follow to flourish as the echoes of his masterfully genuine performance ring through the rest of the film.
Gosling's perp is well-assisted by Ben Mendelsohn, perhaps best known as "Taggert" the crooked board member who drove Bruce Wayne from his family company -- and later had his head cracked or his eyes gouged out -- some horrible off-screen fate -- at the hands of Bane. In Pines Mendelsohn's Robin proves the half-wit two-bit thief who prompts Gosling's life of crime. Their partnership is a perfect "be careful what you wish for" relationship where Gosling's success and (dare I say) drive put Robin at further risk. Mendelsohn comes face to face with Gosling's DeNiro-esque (I prefer Gosling -- deal with it) complex criminality and lives to tell the tale. Perhaps his most defining characteristic is that the tale he tells is a kind one.
Hot on Gosling's tale is Avery, played by Bradley Cooper -- who does quite the turn. I will admit -- and those of you that followed the Oscar wave of this blog know -- that I wasn't too keen on the Silver Linings Playbook. I must watch it again and I must give it a fair shake the second time around. Having said that, Pines proves yet another film where the Hangover star is proving that he is also a serious actor. Cooper's copper performance spans fifteen years of the film's narrative -- requiring that Avery be played in two generations. Though only briefly in the latter hunk, Cooper is quite convincing as both young cop and rising politico.
Not to be overlooked is Eva Mendes, who hasn't had a performance this significant since her briefly Oscar buzzing turn in We Own the Night. Mendes weathers the storm of both Cooper and Gosling, let alone Ray Liotta, her husband, and her son -- if I went more in depth than that, I'd spoil the whole damn plot and in the words of Samwise Gamgee, "I don't mean to."
In fact every performance in the film -- particularly those of youngsters Dane DeHaan (Lawless) and Emory Cohen (Smash) -- is measured, managed, and -- simply put -- genuine. I've used that word earlier in this bit o' blog write-up, and the truth of the matter is that there's no better description of this film, its plot, its cast, and their performances than "genuine." It's as if the audience drops into Gosling's carnival trailer like a stone into a placid pond and then Gianfrance takes us on a ride through the ripples -- passing us through characters, generations, mistakes, and aftermaths.
Chalk up Independent Spirit nominations up and down the joint for this excellent little film -- which has already racked up a respectable 18 Million in domestic box office. Though it could be forgotten come Oscar time, I'd say put this one on the back burner and let's watch how the rest of the year pans out. If you slid Gosling and Cooper into the "supporting actor" category -- as all parts in this ensembler should be -- they could well pop up. The truth is supporting's the most brutal category out there -- usually packed with five deserving winners. But a Gosling win at this young an age -- and the truth is based on their bodies of work and even film to film, Gosling deserves it over Cooper any day -- would be something out of the Adrien Brody Playbook. Despite the Gos' four Golden Globe and three Indie Spirit noms, he has only one Oscar nom for Half Nelson. Walking the Sean Penn, DeNiro route that he is, Ryan stands a better chance snagging a supporting statue as Bobby D did for Godfather Part II; leading man may be something Gosling -- like Penn before him -- won't see until he crosses 40.
The Place Beyond the Pines -- easily this year's best film so far.
If you're looking for a great crime film chuck full of well rounded characters with a gripping plot and a structure you're not going to find anywhere else, then The Place Beyond the Pines is the film for you.
The second feature from director/co-writer Derek Cianfrance, Pines charts a course whose mood is similar to Narc, Killing Me Softly, and Drive -- though it may in fact be superior to all three. It is, of course, an awful thing to claim that certain films are "better" than others, as they are all different. It is even a bit more awful when one claims a film is "better" than predecessors who helped forge the way for the current film's existence. That being said, I'm going to leave the word "superior" dangling out there nevertheless. The Film Nook is, after all, ultimately an awards website. Thus, things will eventually end in a realm of comparison and ranking where nominees and then winners are named. So there we have it.
Cianfrance earned a great deal of acclaim and attention for his first feature Blue Valentine -- also starring Ryan Gosling and earning the lovely Michelle Williams her second Oscar nomination (Brokeback - also from FOCUS - being her first). Those who saw Valentine and enjoyed it (as much as one can use the word "enjoy" with Blue Valentine) might still be a bit trepidatious about entering those waters again. Valentine was raw, real, and brutal. It wasn't exactly something that warmed the heart -- though the title was absolutely fair warning (don't expect to be laughing my ass off when watching Gloomy Sunday, either). With Place Beyond the Pines, Gianfrance has woven together and intriguing multi-generational crime drama that cushions the audience from its palpable plot blows by keeping audience minds anchored in the intrigue of what will happen. It's amazing how a suitcase of money and a bit of corruption make emotionally trying plots, horrible fates, and unjust outcomes stomach-able; Gianfrance's skilled direction does just that.
Of course, Derek followed the Mike Nichols rule of direction and cast his film perfectly. It could be that in Ryan Gosling, he has found the perfect leading man: a sexy, soft-spoken, anti-hero, whose fatal flaw is a deep loyalty undercut by the tumultuous battle between his heart and short temper. There's not many men who convincingly stunt ride motor cycles, squeal with delight when feeding an infant ice cream, rob banks at gunpoint, and dance with dogs. Each one of these moments seems like just another natural day for Gosling -- and is most certainly a testament to the trusting relationship between director and star. Without Gosling as the kick-off character, Pines wouldn't be properly anchored. He ties this picture down perfectly -- allowing those that follow to flourish as the echoes of his masterfully genuine performance ring through the rest of the film.
Gosling's perp is well-assisted by Ben Mendelsohn, perhaps best known as "Taggert" the crooked board member who drove Bruce Wayne from his family company -- and later had his head cracked or his eyes gouged out -- some horrible off-screen fate -- at the hands of Bane. In Pines Mendelsohn's Robin proves the half-wit two-bit thief who prompts Gosling's life of crime. Their partnership is a perfect "be careful what you wish for" relationship where Gosling's success and (dare I say) drive put Robin at further risk. Mendelsohn comes face to face with Gosling's DeNiro-esque (I prefer Gosling -- deal with it) complex criminality and lives to tell the tale. Perhaps his most defining characteristic is that the tale he tells is a kind one.
Hot on Gosling's tale is Avery, played by Bradley Cooper -- who does quite the turn. I will admit -- and those of you that followed the Oscar wave of this blog know -- that I wasn't too keen on the Silver Linings Playbook. I must watch it again and I must give it a fair shake the second time around. Having said that, Pines proves yet another film where the Hangover star is proving that he is also a serious actor. Cooper's copper performance spans fifteen years of the film's narrative -- requiring that Avery be played in two generations. Though only briefly in the latter hunk, Cooper is quite convincing as both young cop and rising politico.
Not to be overlooked is Eva Mendes, who hasn't had a performance this significant since her briefly Oscar buzzing turn in We Own the Night. Mendes weathers the storm of both Cooper and Gosling, let alone Ray Liotta, her husband, and her son -- if I went more in depth than that, I'd spoil the whole damn plot and in the words of Samwise Gamgee, "I don't mean to."
In fact every performance in the film -- particularly those of youngsters Dane DeHaan (Lawless) and Emory Cohen (Smash) -- is measured, managed, and -- simply put -- genuine. I've used that word earlier in this bit o' blog write-up, and the truth of the matter is that there's no better description of this film, its plot, its cast, and their performances than "genuine." It's as if the audience drops into Gosling's carnival trailer like a stone into a placid pond and then Gianfrance takes us on a ride through the ripples -- passing us through characters, generations, mistakes, and aftermaths.
Chalk up Independent Spirit nominations up and down the joint for this excellent little film -- which has already racked up a respectable 18 Million in domestic box office. Though it could be forgotten come Oscar time, I'd say put this one on the back burner and let's watch how the rest of the year pans out. If you slid Gosling and Cooper into the "supporting actor" category -- as all parts in this ensembler should be -- they could well pop up. The truth is supporting's the most brutal category out there -- usually packed with five deserving winners. But a Gosling win at this young an age -- and the truth is based on their bodies of work and even film to film, Gosling deserves it over Cooper any day -- would be something out of the Adrien Brody Playbook. Despite the Gos' four Golden Globe and three Indie Spirit noms, he has only one Oscar nom for Half Nelson. Walking the Sean Penn, DeNiro route that he is, Ryan stands a better chance snagging a supporting statue as Bobby D did for Godfather Part II; leading man may be something Gosling -- like Penn before him -- won't see until he crosses 40.
The Place Beyond the Pines -- easily this year's best film so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)