Filmcap: The week of Sept 11-18

The Conversation, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, and Drive are some of the highlights of this week. Not quite as packed with great stuff as last week, but the great movies definitely continue. Included in this post are some discussions on the American perspective of Mexico, comedies of failures, and turning the political into the personal.





I'd like to point out a really great video blog about the filmmaking in a car chase scene in The Dark Knight. It was done by Jim Emerson, who goes deep into the film theory aspects of directing, like crossing the line/axis of action. It showcases some of the missteps of a great film like The Dark Knight. Some have tried to argue with the video blog, but I'd say it's hard to argue against. You may say you understood what happened in the car chase, but even then I'm pretty certain it was with a hefty dose of suspension of disbelief.

Sin Nombre (Cary Fukunaga, Mexico/USA, 2009): The first thing that stood out to me in this film was the amount of conflict a person goes through when trying to get from a Central American county to America. We've been debating illegal immigration for a long time, and this movie helps to put a personal stamp on that debate in getting us to understand and empathize with what some of these immigrants went through to get into this country. It makes the issue of deportation much more personal, and rightfully so. These are real lives we are dealing with, and all the hardships they went through to get to this country should not be ignored. Those hardships include leaving family members behind, not having enough money, dangerous train rides, and prospects of getting arrested by the Mexican border police. But there is one hardship in this movie that I think was tacked on, and that is the prospect of being chased by Mexican gangs.

The addition of Mexican gangs going after and trying to kill one of the main characters in the movie was a bit too much, and as a result much of what's in the movie can get dismissed as inauthentic. It gives the sense that this could only happen "in the movies" and that's not what will make people sympathetic to Mexican border crossers. It makes for drama, but it loses some authenticity when it adds in conflicts that only affect a very small amount of people. Now the drama in the movie is definitely exciting, and the film has some really strong scenes. Images of everyone sitting on top of trains waiting to go to a better place are very powerful and you end up really feeling for some of the characters. But it lacks realism and you can't help but feel that this is just a movie. There is not much connection to real life.

This film may be filmed in Mexico and in Spanish, but it feels too much like it comes from an American perspective. What are the two things that Americans associate with Mexico? Gang violence and illegal immigration. Both of those things are the main issues of the movie. After I watched the movie I was not surprised to see that the director is actually an American. The American perspective is all over the movie and the movie lacks a lot of its authentic power because of that. As I said before, the film is made very well and Fukunaga is a talented director, but unfortunately just because he has Mexican blood does not make him an expert on the troubles of Mexicans. Regardless of the missteps, Fukunaga does a good job in the crafting of the film. The story is not very good, but the storytelling definitely has an impact and shows promise.
Grade: C+

Beauty and the Beast (Jean Cocteau, France, 1946): A children's movie frequently mean it's a movie that an adult won't enjoy (with the exception being Pixar). But Beauty and the Beast is an exception, it's a fairy tale story made for the children that live inside all adults. When you watched a movie as a kid you probably witnessed what they call the "magic of the movies." Those are the scenes that are only in the movies, the scenes that initially made you love the movies. It's the benefit of pure eyes. That's what the poet/painter/filmmaker Jean Cocteau has tried to do with this film. There are scenes in this movie in which he succeeds greatly. Even watching it in 2011 there are scenes filled with magic, beauty, and poetry. But overall the narrative of this film may be too familiar to me for myself to actually feel much emotion. I know exactly what will happen in this movie (up until the end, which is great), and the characters are clearly caricatures. To be fair, this is movie where you definitely need to be in the right mindset. I've been watching many cerebral understated movies of lately, and this is not one of those. This is not meant to be an intellectual film, it's meant to be emotional and charming.

The scenes in this film where characters approach and wander the castle of the Beast are mesmerizing. They are easily the most memorable part of the movie. The superb special effects in the castle, including one scene in which Belle seems to be floating down a hallway, add so much to the already moody atmosphere of the movie. Some of the film can be seen as surreal, which is very apt for this type of movie (I sort of wish it was more surreal than it was). The film is truly an artistic accomplishment, and it doesn't even compare to the other adaptations of this fairy tale. I may wish it was more weird, and maybe more risk taking, but for the circumstances it is quite an accomplishment and definitely something to be celebrated. It shows off an important theme of the fairy tale regarding appearance vs. reality. It's a clear fable that explains the mantra of "don't judge a book by its cover." It's a simple moral, something that honestly was not all that powerful to me, but it's important nonetheless. For that reason, I respect it.
Grade: B-

The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1974): How often do we get a brilliantly crafted thriller that's also a detailed and subtle character study? Not often. In between the two Godfather movies Coppola made this American masterpiece. Gene Hackman plays one of the best wiretappers in the country, he's so good at finding ways to listen to people that he's incredibly paranoid in his personal life. It's because he knows the true strength of the spying technology available that he is incredibly paranoid. The complexity of the psychology of Harry Caul is subtly explored by Coppola. Caul is a man who is scared of what his work can do to society, and feels guilty for what his employers use his work for. But he's also a man who loves what he does. He loves listening in to people, but doesn't want anyone to listen in on him. He's a paradox of a man. He wants connection, but doesn't want other people to connect with him.

As you may imagine, the sound in this film is integral to the story. The film opens with Caul listening in on a couple walking through a park. That tape is analyzed over and over in the film, that scenes always revisited. Coppola and his editor Walter Murch constantly deconstruct the scene and its sound throughout the movie. It serves as a reminder as to how interpretive sound really is, and how the reality of what we hear and what we think we hear are two completely different things. The movie is almost perfectly constructed to get the maximum impact out of the story. The last act is a filled with some amazing images, including one involving a toilet that is forever embedded in my brain and on par with the blood-flowing-through-the-hallway scene in the The Shining. Even the non-diegetic sound is phenomenal. The melancholy simple piano riff repeated throughout the film is so effective and is a perfect complement to the full-on jazz tunes that Caul himself plays along to with his saxophone.

The Conversation works on so many levels that repeat viewings are sure to be necessary. On a macro level the film is an important reminder about the loss of privacy in our society and the question of whether or not you are safer when you're always being watched. It also has such a fascinating lead character that it analyzes through the movie in Harry Caul. He's a man who feels guilty of his work, and paranoid because of it. He's also isolated and as a result he's almost psychotic. You may think that being in the power to listen in on conversations is a powerful tool, but for Caul it's evident that having too much power can get you into some trouble. The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now. These are four straight movies that Coppola made in the 70's, and all of them are masterpieces. There are few directors who can say they've had a run of four movies that great. The Conversation is certainly the smallest of the four, but it also feels the most personal. It's just a great movie about a man who is fascinating to dissect, and a subject that is important to us all.
Grade: A

Party Down: Season 2 (John Enbom, USA, 2010): When you've got a bunch of young people trying to make it in Hollywood working at a party catering company what do you really have? To an extent you have a bunch of failures. A bunch of people who are trying to succeed but just can't get there yet. Doesn't mean they will never get there, but up till now all of them perceive themselves as failures. In Party Down what you have is a comedy of failure. It's a show that makes fun of the embarrassing failures of all these people who work together. The most thematically connected jokes are the ones that make fun of their inability to get what they want and then get even more punished for it. It sounds like it would be horrible to watch these people, but it's actually very hilarious. It's a great premise for a comedy show, and it's a shame it didn't continue longer than two seasons. It's a premise that could have definitely gone on for a couple more seasons at least by showing how some characters deal with the success of their friends and then in the end showing how success is an illusion. It would have been brilliant and it's too bad it never got that far.

But fortunately we do have two seasons filled with laughs and fun characters. In the review of the first season I mentioned how there isn't much drama or thematic musing on the show and that it's funny, but it's not enough to maintain continuos viewing. I can't honestly if this season is better than the first because it might just be that I know these characters better and find them more enjoyable, but alas I did find this season slightly more enjoyable. The characters feel more real as you watch more episodes. There isn't much drama that continues through episodes, but the main relationship that attempts to cover most of the season is a strong subplot that displayed the subjects of failure and success better than anything else on the show. My main complaint of the season is that it doesn't explore that subplot much at all during the season (or for that matter other similar subplots) and kind of dumps it in the final episode. Above all the show is mighty hilarious and there isn't one lame episode in the season. Sometimes the jokes get a little too potty humor or drug humor. They can be funny, but they never represent the true potential of the show and its comedy (especially now that Judd Apatow has entered the film world. His movies have made it difficult to do any more original material with that kind of humor). It seems the show is definitely one that is easily re-watchable and I expect myself to do that someday in the future. If you need good laughs it's hard to go wrong with modern day television comedy, and Party Down worthy mention in the best of modern day television comedy.
Grade: B+

Capote (Bennett Miller, USA, 2005): Obviously Philip Seymour Hoffman is amazing as Truman Capote. It's a complete transformation and a very convincing one. The movie itself is very well made, but doesn't quite achieve the potential it had. It's not a bad movie, but there's a minor masterpiece somewhere in this story and it's too bad it wasn't achieved. The movie is best when it explores the complicated relationship between Capote and his interviewee, the man who helped kill a family that became the basis for Capote's most famous book, In Cold Blood. The movie does go in to some journalist ethics with that relationship. At first it seems Capote gets too close to the purported killer, and he starts paying for their appeals. But then he starts distancing himself and we see Capote as who he is, a man who only wants to complete his work. It makes us wonder if Capote is doing wrong by using the man as just a way to write a book. It's a great and complicated scenario. The main thing that keeps it from becoming a truly great movie is that all of that stuff does not seem to be the most important aspect for the filmmakers. It seems that it is merely part of a story that is Capote's life during this time. I personally was more interested in Capote's relationship with the man on death row than Capote's life himself.

It's also mildly fascinating due to the fact that movie is about the creation of such a seminal book. The process is interesting to watch. I imagine this is a movie that would be most interesting to journalists and those with experience in journalism. The way Capote goes about interviewing and looking for information is fascinating, but also the way he deals with putting the story together shows how even stories based on real life can be difficult to crack. The directing is a bit too objective, and so the film feels a bit too straightforward. Feeling too straightforward and unfocused is one of the perils of doing a traditional biopic. The focus should be on the themes of the movie and not telling a life story. Rarely does every scene of a biopic exhibit the themes the director wants to focus on. Regardless, the film does try to include an exploration of journalistic ethics while telling the life story in this particular time of Truman Capote. It may not be the most memorable biopic (aside from Hoffman's performance), but it's a solid one.
Grade: B

Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, USA, 2011): I reviewed this film for paper and you can find that review here. It's an amazing work of art that doubles as some amazing entertainment. I've gone through some stages in my thoughts about the quality of this movie. At first I questioned how much complexities it really had underneath all the style, but then I started realizing some of the really interesting things behind Ryan Gosling's character. That's when I wrote the review. But after the review, now that I have more perspective I will admit to overrating it a tiny bit. As much as talk up the movie it's still a very arty piece of entertainment and not much more. But that doesn't take away the fact that it has some amazing filmmaking and is some beautiful entertainment. I do love the movie, but I must admit it's shortcomings.
Grade: A-

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, Romania, 2007): If politics wasn't personal then what would be the point? It exists to get people what they need in a fair way. Every political issue is a personal issue, maybe not to everyone, but to many people. Then there are some issues that almost too personal to be political, but we politicize them anyway. One of which is abortion. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is an unflinching portrait of the difficulties of getting an abortion in a society in which it is illegal, specifically in the film, communist Romania during the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu. The movie doesn't even attempt to be political in any way. If you want to see the movie as pro-choice you can, or if you want to see it as pro-life, you can (though I'd argue the filmmakers are pro-choice but understand the  arguments of pro-lifers). You can also interpret the movie to be about the pain and suffering people have to go through living under a communist regime. The movie can be about that as well. But the movie is mainly about the two main female characters at the center of the story and the horrible things they have to go through to endure the hardships of their situation. The great accomplishment of the film is that it can be both personal and political.

The movie starts with the plot already in motion and it never bothers to tell us what's going on. From the start, the dialogue is steeped in reality. There is never exposition that tells you what's going on. If you know the plot of the movie before watching you'll figure it out much quicker than those who don't, but even then, figuring out the roles of the characters and where the audience enters the story takes time to figure out. But it doesn't hurt the movie. It's a choice the director made, and he favored realism over feeding the audience. That's always the better choice if you wish history to remember your movie for it's brilliance (and I suspect that will happen with this film). In addition to using real dialogue, the movie also chooses to keep the camera steady and in one place for most of the time. The director, Mungiu, chooses to keep the camera as still and as out of the way as possible. There are also very few cuts in the middle of scenes. By doing that the movie shows us everything, whether we want to see it or not. There are no tricks, only reality.

The film also chooses to focus not on the female getting the abortion, but the friend who is helping her. It was a truly brilliant decision to do that. All the sentimentality that we have come to expect from females getting abortions and the serious issues they have to face are very important, but to many of us they are familiar. We've seen it in other movies, and we've read about it in newspapers. The issues of abortion are mainly moral and ethical, and surely the one getting the abortion is going through those. But by focusing on the friend the film focuses on the situational and logical problems with getting the abortion. It is her face that is always on screen, and it is her tension that we feel. For some of us she's a more relatable character, because men can also be in the same situation as her. Every decision made by the filmmakers in this film was a good one. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is a modern day masterpiece of the lower class struggles genre while also being a brilliant movie about a political and human issue.
Grade: A