Filmcap: The week of June 12-19

This week I discuss how easy it is to make fun of terrorism, how everyone from Wes Anderson to Judd Apatow owe something to Woody Allen, and why a birth of the universe scene should be in every movie. One review in this post also marks my longest one yet. My write ups seem to be growing, but I doubt I will ever reach a point in which all of my reviews will reach the length of the one on "The Tree of Life." I could actually write more if I had the time, but I'll save that for another time because I'm sure I'll find reason to write about it again. 

(I couldn't choose just one image from "The Tree of Life" to feature at the top of this post, so I embed a one minute clip that is filled with beautiful images that all deserve to be at the top. It also serves a good mood setter for the review of the movie. Bonus points to you if you recognized that the background tile image of this blog is from "The Tree of Life")

Four Lions (Christopher Morris, 2010): Many have described this film as a satire, which is technically true, because it takes a contemporary subject, like Islamic terrorism, and makes fun of it. So you can call it a satire, but I would not call it a smart satire. It's not too hard to make fun of Islamic terrorism, and even then, the way it does make fun of it is by slapstick humor. This is not a film that is particularly sophisticated or intelligent. It's very funny, but not that intelligent. It's a very entertaining look at terrorism in a way that does negatively affect public relations for terrorist groups, but I don't think any independent British film can damage their PR any more than they have themselves.

The fact that the film is not intelligent does not mean it is bad. As I said, the film has some hilarious scenes, and succeeds very well at being dark and a bit off. The whole film has this weird tone because you're laughing at these people when they do these stupid funny things, and they're doing all these stupid things in preparation for the stupidest thing of all, blowing themselves up. In that sense, the film succeeds at least at making one think about the stupidity of what they are doing. I don't think the way these people acted is exactly like real low-life individual extremists act, but there was still a sense of truth in many scenes. The film was certainly researched well, especially regarding the Muslim community, many of the non-terrorist Muslims felt authentic, with the exception of the group leaders family. The film definitely does not attempt to be the most realistic film, but his wife and son were too normal and too okay with the whole suicide bomber thing, and in a way that did not seem authentic. I didn't quite understand how someone can be an Islamic terrorist and have his wife wear completely modern clothes without a hijab. But then again, these are the dumbest terrorists in the world that we're talking about.

In any case, the humor of the film is what makes it all mostly worthwhile. It may not be for everyone, but I felt like most of the humor was really wacky and funny. Much of it did not have satirizing qualities, but the situation of trying to build bombs and plan an attack surprising led to some hilarious scenes. I also have to acknowledge the daring qualities a filmmaker must have to embark on a film in which to make a satire-comedy about terrorists who want to blow themselves and up kill people. It's not easy, and while Morris didn't quite succeed at making the most effective satire, he certainly did at making a very funny comedy.
Grade: B

Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen, 2011): If Woody Allen directed "Back to the Future," this is what it would be like. It's one of the most fun Allen movies in a while, but it's also a fascinating film about nostalgia. It's an interesting film to see after "Super 8" because that film tries to be very nostalgic for 80's era Amblin films, while this one attempts to decide whether or not nostalgia is worth it or not (I'd love to find out what Allen thought of that movie). I'm not sure if the film proposes a clear answer to everyone (it can be read both ways), but to me personally, the answer was that nostalgia is pointless. No matter what era you are from, you will long for the past, so ultimately, there is no real point to nostalgia besides that it's an emotional feeling that many cannot resist.

The wonderful thing about "Midnight in Paris" is that it actually says smart things while being very fun. Owen Wilson's character (a superb Woody Allen stand-in) is very nostalgic for Paris in the 20's, when his favorite writers and painters, like Ernest Hemingway, Salvadore Dali, and Picasso, were roaming around bouncing ideas off each other. His interactions with these famous figures makes for some easy jokes, but the cheap joke premises are crafted very well. The fact that there is a point to all makes up for any easy jokes Allen may have written as well. This film personifies why I love Allen as a director and writer. He can make very enjoyable and fun comedies, while being satirical, smart, and even intellectual. It's a perfect combination of art and entertainment, and it's something he perfected. Any and all comedy films that have come out in the last 15 or so years that are also meaningful and intellectual owe a lot to Allen. Over the last few years many said that he lost his touch and so many say this is a return to form for him after some bad outings> I never thought he had lost it so I don't think this is a return to form, but it is a great reminder of why Allen is great.

The movie is a bit simple, which is too be expected with him. Sometimes I do wish he would go all out and make an ambitious 3 hour art-comedy film, but I realize that's just a fanboy dream. Allen never makes films with complicated messages or themes, and this themes in this film are almost thin enough to be a short film, but with him you can't help but to see it as efficient storytelling. He makes a movie every year, so I never expect him to make one of the best movies of all time, but this film does remind you as to why he's known as one of the best American directors of all time, and it reminded me why he's one of my personal favorites. In the film, Wilson's character longs for the past, and continues to even after he realizes it's pointless (much like Allen in real life I assume). To me, the film also told me that feeling nostalgia for the Woody Allen of the past, like so many of his fans are/were, is pointless, because he still has it. Yes he makes so many movies that some of them will be not-so-good, but if he makes solid films like this every couple years, that's still more than most other directors can do.
Grade: B+

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011): This is more of a reaction piece, than a real review. I think it's almost impossible to truly do a comprehensive review of this film from just one viewing, maybe even two. It's also not an easy movie to review in the traditional sense of movie reviews. I've read many "reviews" of this film, and aside from the ones that bash on the "pretentiousness" of the movie, many of the positive reviews were very personal in nature. This is a film you react to on an emotional and spiritual level. It uses beauty to make you to think about what you personally think about life, the universe, and death. While you're watching it, you're marveling at the overwhelming beauty and transcendent nature of the images and scenes you are viewing. And if you successfully connect with it, the film will dwell in your mind. This film affects you on a subconscious level when you're watching it, and after you're done you start thinking about the movie, that's when you are forced to bring those subconscious thoughts to the forefront of your mind. The amazing thing is, is that the film forces you to think about big ideas about life and nature by exposing you to such beauty and solemnity, and so it never feels forced.

Towards the beginning of the film, there is a 20 minute long birth of the universe sequence (if you're wondering about the images of space in the trailer, that's where most of them come from). That sequences is one of the most majestic and awe-inspiring sequences you will ever see in film. It puts everything into perspective, it's a sequence that every film should have. It's a reminder that what you're watching is a miniscule event in the universe. Everything that happens later in this film is put into perspective because now we have in our minds the idea that there bigger forces at work here. And that's what is really beautiful about its inclusion in this film in particular, is that it's all followed up by a personal story of a kid living in a suburban town with his parents and brothers. It's a small intimate story, preceded by a the biggest sequence possible. All of Malick's film evoke this sense that there is so much more going on in this world than just you, and none of his films evoke that sense more than this one. The way Malick makes such grand statements about nature and the universe while connecting it all to such a personal story is a remarkable accomplishment. It's a simple way that he does it as well. Everything in the film is from the point of view of the main character, Jack, and he contemplates his life as he's older working in New York City. He ask God questions, he contemplates his troubled childhood, the affect his parents had on him, why his brother was taken away from him. He thinks about the birth and development of the universe because, I'm pretty sure, many of us have done that. And while the movie starts off with the death of Jack's brother, the older Jack (played by Sean Penn) is flashing back to that point, but not for any discernible reason. He did not seem to experience any sort of major event in his life in the modern world that has caused him to think back, he's just thinking, as we all do. Some of us only think about big ideas after major events, I'm sure. But many of us, including me, think about the big ideas at just random times, many times in response to small events.

Jack spends a lot of time thinking about his childhood, and the way his very different parents give him different ideas about the way to live your life. His mother is peaceful, gentle, and full of grace. His father though is pessimistic, strict, and filled with masculinity. As Jack says in the beautiful poetic voiceover, his parents wrestle inside of him. This depiction of childhood is certainly autobiographical of Malick himself, but that's why it all works so well. He is not creating a whole new childhood, he is recreating a real childhood from memory, and that makes it all the more real and affecting. This gives him the ability to include small, real moments that mean so much.

I'm sure most everyone contemplates life and their childhood at some points in their life. Everyone contemplates religion, existence, death, and the universe. This movie is not only about that contemplation, it is an act of contemplation. This type of stuff can certainly feel hokey and cheesy sometimes, but Malick is a one-of-a-kind director that crafts his films with a sense of poetry and beauty. The many images of natural beauty, the angelic camera movements, the way the frame is formed, all work to put you into the mood to really wonder about everything. It's certainly a very personal film for Malick, and there are scenes in this movie that I'm sure he will understand better than anyone else, but there are scenes in this film that work despite the fact that they shouldn't. There is a scene in which Jack's mother is seen floating in the sky, for no real reason, but it works. We know that Jack sees his mother as a creature filled with grace (Jessica Chastain in her performance helps us see that very well), and so seeing her float in the sky with such ease and grace makes sense.

This movie is unlike any other, even unlike Malick's other films (click the Terrence Malick tag below to see my reviews of "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven," reviews of his other two movies are coming up sometime this year).  Everything in this film is crafted so perfectly but looks effortless. There's such a great sense of editing in this movie, it's a movie that really flows, and so you can tell why it took him two years to edit it. Because I've seen the movie only once I can't remark yet on where this movie stands in film history in my mind, or where this film stands in my own personal love of films, but I can say that this was my most anticipated film of the year, and despite the mixed response from Cannes, it definitely met my very high expectations, and possibly may have even exceeded them. The more I think about this film, the more I am fascinated by it. The more I think about this film, the more I marvel at its beauty and craft. The more I think about this film, the more I want to see it again. "The Tree of Life" was my most anticipated film viewing of 2011, and now that I've seen it, a second viewing of "The Tree of Life" is my most anticipated film viewing of 2011.
Grade: A