Blue Valentine, Last Year at Marienbad, and A Streetcar Named Desire are highlights from this week. Yes I finally saw Blue Valentine and yes it's very good. In this post you'll find discussions on what is subversive in old Hollywood movies, conflicting emotions when a well-intentioned movie doesn't succeed, and how an artsy pretentious movie can still be a masterpiece.
A Streetcar Named Desire (Elia Kazan, USA, 1951): The subversive Hollywood film really didn't start getting made until the 60's and 70's. Which is why in the early 50's Elia Kazan caused a lot of controversy with his screen adaption of Tennessee William's play A Streetcar Named Desire that Kazan himself directed on the stage. There are references to homosexuality, rape, and female pleasure that made this film very unique for its time (though some of those references had to be cut out in the original release and were added many years later). Rarely did Hollywood films of this era feature characters with affected by such personal issues. Is it enough just to feature subversive issues in your movie? It may have been enough to get famous back then, but today especially presentation is very important. Even more impressively is that Kazan handles the issues with sincerity and maturity.
The movie touches upon many issues with its three main characters. First we have Marlon Brando's character, Stanley. He's an intense and brutal man filled with testosterone. But for most of the film he's still human because of the love he has for his wife. His wife is played by Kim Hunter, and she probably has the least to do but I think she may have been the character whose depiction was the most ahead of its time. There are a couple scenes that clearly show that she gets a sexual thrill because of the animalistic brutality her husband shows. The acknowledgment of female sexual pleasure in Hollywood is something you would be hard pressed to find even 40 years after this movie came out. Then you have Vivian Leigh's character, Blanche. Arguably she and Brando are the main characters and go through this very weird relationship in which both seem like opposites. Vivian Leigh on the outside seems innocent, but we find out that on the inside and her past she is not at all innocent.
Not only are the characters very fascinating, but the film is a tour de force of acting. One of the reasons the film is famous is that Brando's performance started a new super realistic method form of acting (not realistic to today's eyes, but realistic back then). Much of the film all takes place in a house or outside the house. There are very few shots that take place outside that area. It's very much a stage adaptation that has great focus on the actors. I usually wish stage adaptations to be much more cinematic but the scripts of those stories are almost always very interesting. One of the only changes the movie made to the play was the ending, that had to be cut out due to its too progressive nature. And unfortuantely that's certainly the worst part of the film because of how it doesn't at all go with what I said about Stella, Stanley's wife, earlier. But I don't fault the filmmakers for that, only the censors. A Streetcar Named Desire is definitely a film filled with sexual energy and it is very fascinating to learn about these flawed characters. Because he has made a rebellious film, Kazan has also created one that will surely be timeless.
Grade: B+
Last Year at Marienbad (Alain Resnais, France, 1961): The "plot" sounds so simple: At a lavish hotel a man tries to convince a woman that they spent a day together last year. But this film is anything but simple. It's a film that has been on lists celebrating the greatest films of all time, and it has even been on a couple lists chastising the worst films of all time. It's a film that has scores of interpretations and one in which the dialogue surrounding the movie is just as significant as the movie itself. Director Alain Resnais and screenwriter Alain Robbe-Grillet crafted a film in which film form and structure is central. The story comes second, while the telling comes first. It's a black-and-white elegantly shot film that completely disregards linear continuity. Audiences can't even agree over a simple description of the movie. It is such an ambiguous film that has no exposition or hints as to what is actually going on. In my mind, I like to think of it as a surreal avant-garde mysterious love story about the subjectivity of memory.
Repeat viewings will most certainly help in analyzing the many surreal moments of the movie, but much of it can be explained if you look them through a prism of memory. It makes more sense if you see the film and it's constantly moving camera and multiple jump cuts as a stand in for how our brain perceives memory. We analyze past situations in our mind and keep them there for future use, but when the time comes for the future use it may be that certain things in our memory aren't exactly how they were when we saw them. For various reasons things change when we commit a scene to memory, and those memories change while other elements in our lives change. The woman in the film for whatever reason either can't remember the past encounter the man is telling her about or is choosing to forget it. It is possible the encounter never happened and the man is trying to create a memory for her by crafting a situation into her mind in a convincing manner. There are many interpretations for what is happening with these two people. It's possible that the man raped her last year and she's trying to forget the situation, or maybe she developed some sort of amnesia. It's possible that the hotel they're in is some sort of limbo, and they're both dead, one of them trying to convince the other to pass on. It's possible that this man is a past lover who is now dead, and when she comes back to the hotel they met the ghosts of her memory comes back to haunt her even though she tries hard to forget (This is my personal theory).
Many critics like it when movies don't spell things out for them, and Last Year at Marienbad is definitely a film that spells nothing out.. But at the same time there are hints if you look closely. Repeat viewing of the movie and of certain scenes are a definite must for this one. It's also important to go into the film knowing what to expect, or else you'll be looking for a linear narrative that is not there. The film is definitely a formalist puzzle that defies easy explanation and understanding unless you really know what to look for. Is it artsy pointless pretense? Maybe, but I think it supersedes all pretense with its deconstruction of traditional film narratives. This isn't every ones opinion, but I believe that it most certainly helps vault cinema in the same league as high art. This is legitimate high art that deserves mention alongside the greatest works of fiction and painting. Maybe not everyone will, but I've found meaning in the films analysis and discussion on the dishonesty of our brain and memory. Last Year at Marienbad is a film that reveals the importance of film form, and how the form can be even more important the the content. Yes it is style over substance, but this movie reveals how that common criticism does not need to be criticism at all.
Grade: A
Amreeka (Cherien Dabis, United States/Canada, 2009): What's more disappointing? Watching a truly bad movie, or watching a movie that could have been great but only ends up being good? For me it is usually the latter. Amreeka is a good movie, but there are aspects of it that made me very disappointed only because this movie could have been much better. I'm always looking for movies that try to take on the issue of the Muslim-American experience in post-9/11 America. This movie sort of qualifies, but there are a couple technicalities, including one that disappoints me. The first is a minor one: The main character of the film, Muna, is an immigrant. That's not an issue because the movie still takes on the issue of how it is to be a Muslim in America and it adds a layer of more conflict for those who are recent immigrants. The second issue is a bigger one for me, and that's the issue of religion. In the movie the main characters are all Christians. The problem I have is that there is no reason for them to be Christian. Faith and religion are never discussed for some reason, and the only hint of their Christianity is a cross that Muna wears around her neck and one line of dialogue. The fact that they are Christian undermines the difficulties of Muslims in post-9/11 America. What it implies is that these characters in the movie are being wronged because they are not even Muslim and that if they were Muslim maybe the discrimination would slightly make more sense. I don't want to over blow my response to their religion. The director, Cherien Dabis, is most likely a Palestinian Christian and she wanted to make the film personal. But I mention this because I am disappointed in the missed opportunity to make this film more honest and damning to society (a third technicality is that the movie takes place during the beginnings of the Iraq War, though the movie easily could have been supplanted into 2002).
Other flaws in the movie are also disappointing because they were clearly part of a greater positive intention on the part of Dabis. It is the character of Muna's son who is put into some awkwardly written positions because of the stereotypical bullying he experiences. The bullies seem like caricatures and a screenplay device (though there is a parallel that I'm not sure was intentional regarding Muna's son's corruption as a result of the bullying and the general dislike of America in Muslim countries). Other parts of the film, like the beginnings of a relationship between Muna and her son's Jewish principle, also feel slightly convenient but are definitely well-intentioned.
But I should add that there are moments in this movie that are executed very well. The humor in the film is especially well-done because it gives the movie a light feel most importantly makes the characters sympathetic people. The acting by Nisreen Faour as Muna is also a very big positive in the movie. She is a character that has a belief in America and does not harbor serious ill will towards the country. She's in America because this is where she thinks she will live a better life. We then see her learn why 2003 may not be the best year for a Muslim to immigrate to America. That disconnect between Muslim-Americans and Americans is explored very well and raises awareness on an important issue. Again, it's a very well-intentioned movie that takes on serious issues with some great characters, but it's the plot that brings it down. Dabis is a director to watch even for her ideas and her serious, but friendly, approach to the serious topics affecting Arabs in America. Maybe with her first feature out of the way she's got more experience putting together a stronger screenplay.
Grade: C+
Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, USA, 2010): There's a saying that I believe Roger Ebert first started which is, "no good movie is depressing." This movie really tests that saying. It's a movie that is unflinchingly real and honest. The thesis of the movie, that love can't be forever, won't bring you much hope. But movies are also experiences, and this is a very real experience that may even cause some younger people to grow up a bit. It may be devastating to watch for some romantic idealists, but the realities of the world can't be ignored. Even if this movie doesn't apply to you and your relationships, it will at least help you understand people who have gone through the bipolar ordeal of love gained and love lost.
When I say bipolar, I mean that in a good way. The movie starts off when Ryan Gosling and Michelle William's characters have been married for six years and have a kid. Later, the movie goes back to show the beginnings of their relationship. The scenes that make up the beginnings of the relationship would be beautiful, sweet, and heartfelt if we didn't already know what was coming. The present day scenes of the slow end to a once-great relationship are cruel, painful, and heartbreaking. This is due thanks in large part to Gosling and Williams. They display this great chemistry in the flashbacks, that ends up backfiring for the audience because it's that natural chemistry that makes the break up even harder to watch. They are comfortable with each other that they're not afraid to say or do what is on their mind. In short, they are a real couple. I'm sure Derek Cianfrance, Gosling, and Williams, tried very hard to make this a very real movie, and they succeeded in all counts.
The content of the movie is something we've seen many times before and I'm sure for most of the audience it's not too surprising. What distinguishes this movie, besides the time-splitting structure, is the intense realism of the situation. It's not a movie with a clear message, because Cianfrance chose to make his camera more of a telescope to look very closely at real life. It's a movie that you get drawn into because you relate so much to the people and the situation, not because you've been in that situation, but because you've live in that world and because you live in it, it can happen to you. There are certainly things you can take away from the movie, like the fallibility of love. One of the things I personally took away from the movie that I thought was unique was how untrustworthy your feelings can be. It's an issue that is a very serious one. How can you live your life if you can't even trust your own feelings? Blue Valentine is not a happy movie that will make you feel better about life, but it is still a good movie that will make your life better.
Grade: A
Moneyball (Bennett Miller, USA, 2011): I reviewed this movie for the paper. You can read that review here. It's a movie that's better than your average sports movie, but it's still fairly predictable and conventional. It's a movie I'd probably recommend to most people, but it's definitely not a must watch. I was impressed by the characterization of Billy Beane which is why I gave it a B+ in the review, but now I'm not sure it's all that special. Especially compared to the other movies I review on this blog, it's definitely nothing that's all that special.
Grade: B-
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (George Clooney, USA, 2002): Even with Charlie Kaufman reportedly mad at George Clooney wrecking his original script, this is a movie that is pretty hard to mess up. You've got a 60's game show host who specializes in really dumb game shows that a lot of people love, but some people think are ruining America. His name is Chuck Barris. Years later he comes out with an autobiography in real life, in which he says that he killed 33 people while working for the CIA when he was hosting his shows. No one knows if his story is true, but regardless of the truth it's a fascinating story. Even Barris just made it up, and he probably did, it makes him an even more interesting person. Why in the world does an already famous guy need to make up a story about how he used to work for the CIA? Considering the inherent fascinating nature of the movie it is no wonder Clooney picked this movie to be his first directing gig.
Clooney's directing is definitely impressive. The movie is almost expressionistic in the way certain set details, clothes, and mis-en-scene is exaggerated. His style is light, enjoyable, and fast-paced, certainly influenced by Steven Soderbergh, the Coen Brothers, and Terry Gilliam. Kaufman is definitely to credit for most of the great moments in the movie, but Clooney executes many difficult moments to great effect. There are times when one set morphs into another, and all of it is done in camera with very little special effects. The light and panicked direction helps us get into the world of Chuck Barris who is exactly the same way. He's an eccentric, wacky man played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell. We see his emotions on his face and in his actions with ease. He's certainly the most enjoyable part of the movie. Other actors, especially Julia Roberts, seem a little too cartoonish and fake.
Where Clooney faults the most is the fact that he doesn't properly explore the most intriguing aspects of the story. He tells the story assuming it's real with moments of real life interjections by people who knew him. While he had the right idea with those real life talking head moments, they didn't quite get the audience thinking about the man and his reasons for making up a story about working for the CIA. The movie doesn't judge the story, but it's probably not real. I don't know if I got the notion at the end of the movie about why Barris would feel the need to make up this story. It's a fairly straightforward telling that doesn't quite examine a man with what is surely a fascinating psyche. But as I said, when you've got a great story and a fabulously eccentric character played by a wonderful actor, it's hard to mess it up.
Grade: B
No comments:
Post a Comment