Troutblog

Full disclosure:  Michael Wadleigh’s “Woodstock” documentary is one of my favorite films, so I ventured into this Ang Lee movie primed with low expectations from less-than-enthusiastic reviews I’d skimmed, prepared to defend the superiority of my beloved original.  Ang Lee clearly has affection and regard for the documentary too, since he lovingly cribs from its split-screen style from time to time here, and the characters of the documentary filmmakers appear in the margins of his own film. We’re aware of both films at once!

But I found myself surprised and delighted by this film that, once again, wasn’t about what its marketers made it out to be. This isn’t a celebration or a recreation of arguably the most influential concert event in history. Rather, Woodstock provides the background and converging circumstance for a more traditional ‘coming of age’ story:  Young man ‘takes stock” of his life and makes the decision to move forward and escape his past.  That young man, Jake, is played quite honestly and winningly by relative unknown, Henry Goodman. And, it turns out the basis for this film is true, adapted from the memoir of Elliot Tiber.

There are many of these coming of age stories, and many better than this, but what really struck me about this film was how knowing it was about the role culture has in shaping our lives — and as films about culture go, this is one of the best I’ve seen in a while.

Yesterday I was noting that the alleged jewish revenge film “Inglourious Basterds” had little or nothing to do with jews.  Imagine my surprise today to see such an honest and deep portrait of jewish culture turning up in a movie about Woodstock!

I did not even recognize Imelda Staunton, so thoroughly did she embody Henry’s jewish immigrant mother in this film. Both she and Demetri Martin who plays her husband are terrific, revealing much of the tenacity and flaws present in Russian Jews.

Until seeing this film, I was unaware of the connection between the dying gasps of the catskills and the opportunity that ultimately presented for the organizers of Woodstock. The script’s first hour was its best, showing life in a dying small town, Bethel NY, and its resistance to what was both feared and turned out to be a cultural invasion. Eugene Levy is wonderful and schtick-free in his portrayal of the open-minded, optimistic and opportunistic Max Yasgur. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and others were very effective in representing the town’s values and concerns.

The cultural convergence of this event places the small town folk and the pragmatic jewish immigrants on a collision course with both big-city business (the money people behind the event), and the sunny, eternally optimistic Michael Lang (a dead-ringer embodiment by musical theatre star Jonathan Groff). And then the cultural invasion begins in earnest.

The flower power generation is neither deified nor condemned. Ang Lee shows both the child-like appeal that comes from their uncomplicated idealism, and how experimentation with drugs and ‘free love’ could appear so appealing, yet he doesn’t back down from showing the naivete and self-centeredness that was much a part of it.

The other culture playing a role here is the emerging gay lifestyle, as Henry awakens to his own sexuality, which he has kept hidden from his parents. Ang Lee reaches a bit too far however, trying to fill things out with a number of other archetypes. The “disheartened Vietnam vet” played by Emile Hirsch seemed a bit thinly drawn. I also wasn’t sure they weren’t just making fun of the experimental theatre troupe living in the barn — though believe me, I’ve known those folks. And yes, there’s a warm-hearted transexual too — though I found his character rather affecting. The film does tend to sprawl — but I think it needed to in order to embrace the scale of all the  forces that were converging. (How does a small-budget film get this many extras?  We’re talking serious crowd scenes once we get to the concert weekend itself!)

Whether one does or does not enjoy this film is probably subject to the level with which you can identify with one culture or another presented here, and your capacity for nostalgia of a lifestyle mostly gone extinct. (By that I mean the hippies — not the jews or the gays ).

For me, this film awakened understanding of the impact of my own jewish culture — as well as spole to me as a professional event organizer. The impact and organization of a large-scale enterprise is a culture and beast all unto itself.

Before I saw this film, one of my volunteers from the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, which I help organize each year asked me “How can they make a movie about Woodstock that isn’t about the music?” — I shared his concern and went to the movie expecting the worst.  But after viewing it, I came away pleased and satisfied and with the obvious answer. There was much more going on at Woodstock than just the music and jams on the stage at the bottom of the meadow. Many people there never even saw or heard the music! (In 14 years of organizing the Festival of Books, I’ve not seen one single author panel myself! Way too much going on!!!)

The infrastructure and impact of the event itself was far larger than its music, and other, more individualized events of personal significance were taking place all around it. So for me, this “little” film (with its cast of thousands) is a welcome companion piece and an appetizer to the original documentary and its music — which I plan on enjoying again later this week!

Before speaking of this movie — let’s talk for a minute about love, hate, and blondes.

Have you ever seen a hot blonde? Dressed haphazardly yet seductively, innocent yet knock-out gorgeous, a little flirtatious and dumb in that cute blonde way?  How do you feel about her?

She walks down the street and heads turn. Wow!  What a babe!  Look at those shiny surfaces. If the spotlight gets turned on her, the paparazzi can’t stop taking pictures.  The love/lust fantasy is immediate.

But what happens?  After the glare wears off, people look a little deeper. They question their original infatuation when they realize they are not the one who discovered her.  They notice her beautiful blonde hair has black roots. They notice her dumb blonde persona is sort of an act, she’s actually quite smart, and that she has an agenda. They feel used. Betrayed. This blonde, like the emperor, has no clothes. (Hold that image).

I point this out to try to explain the very polar reactions that this film has gotten by critics and the public. The intensity of the reaction has more to do with Tarantino himself than by his movie. There are those who adore his every bold cinematic flourish, yet more and more there are those who want to pull out that gorgeous blonde hair by its black roots. This polarized reaction is exactly what happens when idols fall off their perches and people feel a victim of bait and switch.

So speaking of bait and switch — let’s turn to “Inglorious Basterds.”  This movie has been sold in provocative trailers as sort of B-movie jewish vengeance porn. Baseball bats to the head, nazi scalps… they might have just named it “The Jews Strike Back!”   This film has attracted both Eli Roth’s horror movie fans and history buffs looking for World War II revisited.

Well guess what?  This movie is as much about jews and World War II as “Star Wars” was a movie about quasars and combat.  The betrayal or surprise viewers may experience with this movie (depending on what you want it to be) is that the actual movie is really none of the above.  While there are bits and pieces here that address each of those expectations, this movie is ultimately about …(and c’mon friends, we all  should have guessed this by now)…  Quentin Tarantino and his love affair with the movies.

To fully appreciate this film, you need an almost encyclopedic knowledge of its many influences, its winking references, the nods in its musical score, the B-movie flourishes! Even if you’re an average Joe cinema like myself, your subconscious picks up on its many borrowed and reconstructed tropes. It is far more about its sources, than its milieu and characters.

This is not a movie about jews getting retribution. Its not about history. Rather, this is a movie in which Tarantino wants to demonstrate, literally, the power of film.  The hero of this movie is cinema itself!

So.  Is this a great film?  Nope.
Is it a bad film?  Not really.
So why such strong reactions?   It all comes down to how you feel about that blonde. If you resent her for not being who she seems to be, slyly taking advantage of you, then you’re going to pick this film apart for its many flaws and indulgences. And it has them – let me name at least one:

Quentin is a gifted writer in need of a good editor. He doesn’t know when to stop. The opening scene of this movie uses that incredibly effective movie technique of banal, civil conversation, chuckle and banter masking the inevitable violence you know will erupt at any second. Edge of the seat suspense. Christopher Waltz is very, very good in this film as the charming and truly evil ‘jew hunter’ Col. Hands Landa.  His civility is terrifying in every scene.

But Tarantino uses this same technique over and over again in the movie, and it becomes less effective with each repeat.  It grinds the movie nearly to a halt in an interminably long scene in a basement cafe during the middle of the movie. Someone, anyone, please get the scissors and cut some of this!!!!

By the way, speaking of actors, let me just say that Brad Pitt has become the best character actor in the business. Loved him in “Burn After Reading” – Loved him again in this. I’ll be delighted when he stops doing ‘leading man’ roles and focuses on his amazing gift with comedy, style, and character.

But, lest my review get as over-long as this film — let me wrap up by saying how I feel about that blonde.

Some of you may resent her for not being exactly who she appears to be.  But I admire her caginess, and the fact she puts in the effort to do something with what she has. I’m going to appreciate her beauty and overlook her flaws, black roots and all. Despite getting restless with the middle-third of this picture, and closing my eyes on 5-10 minutes of rather graphic stuff sprinkled here and there, I admire a movie high-minded enough to try to be something other than Hollywood high concept.

This blonde may have no clothes, but I’m happy to look at her!

Rounding out my trifecta of movie-going this weekend was Nora Ephron’s new romantic-comedy, “Julie and Julia”.  Romantic comedy you say?  Yup.  But I’ll get back to that.

Much has been made of Meryl Streep’s glorious performance as Julia Child here. Every ounce of those kudos is well-deserved. Meryl’s gift for accents and astute understanding of character allow her to fully embrace and inhabit the out-sized personality of that force of nature, Julia Childs.  The fact that this never feels like a mere imitation is a triumph in its own terms. It seems unavoidable that Streep has another oscar nomination coming – and I know it’s boring she keeps getting nominated, but hey, this performance absolutely deserves it. No question.

But I’ve also read reviews with headlines like “Loved Julia, Hated Julie” — which pronounced the other ‘half’ of the two simultaneous stories being told here as less engaging — claiming Julie is whining and self-absorbed, and saying they wished the whole movie had stayed with Julia.

Well, I beg to differ.

Amy Adams is complex and wonderful in the more difficult role of the two. Despite the breezy, fun charms of Julia’s story and character, this movie would have no heft without its more contemporary story lending perspective. Nora Ephron cleverly saw the parallels between the two Juli’s. Both stories are about a woman, very much of her respective generation, and how she is driven to define herself. And they both are very driven — Julia by her sheer joie de vivre and her desire to make cooking accessible to American women, and Julie by her 911-era sense of helplessness and inadequacy.  And while much has been made of the fact that this is a departure for Ephron who usually makes romantic comedies — this movie is very much about  love.  It isn’t about will-they-won’t-they get together.  It’s about the tougher side of romance –BEING together.  The soul of this movie lies in the relationship each of these women has with their husband — two lovely performances from Stanley Tucci and Chris Messina. (Where’s this guy been?  He’s charming!).

This is ultimately a movie about love. and the generosity of spirit love bestows upon you to support your partner’s toughest dreams.

2nd in my three-movie weekend was this latest animated film from wildly respected Japanese writer, director, animator Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki’s films are clearly not for all tastes (the theatre was pretty much empty — unusual for a Disney-released film, and sad, given the blockbuster status of a heck of a lot of animated crap thrown out there each year — Yes, I’m talking about you Monsters vs Aliens, Ice Age 3, etc.)

But if you’re looking for something fresh and different, you will clearly see the unexpected in anything from this master story-teller. His animated films are in an entirely different world than anything seen from Dreamworks, Sony, Disney, or even those marvels at Pixar. They are unique unto themselves and should be seen by wider audiences. C’mon parents — you want your kids to grow up respecting diverse cultures, but you only take them to cookie-cutter commercial movies!

Is it the Japanese culture that’s so different? Is the sense of story-telling simply from another world and place?  I dunno. But these films have a ‘magic’ in them that’s hard to define. The animation is all hand-drawn, (a refreshing change from the unrelenting march to computer animation and higher and higher degrees of realism becoming the standard by which everything is judged).   It is simple, and yet filled with detail and imagination, with something unexpected and bewitching in every frame. The story-lines come from cultures and ideas that barely exist in media and literature anymore. Ponyo is fantastical, innocent, and trippy in a way that reminded me of the psychedelic 60s.

Best of all, Pixar genius John Lassiter lovingly oversaw the dubbing of this U.S. version. A terrific ensemble of actors voice the characters in a way where you never realize this is not the films original language.  The translations respect the tone and style I imagine was in the original.  And most happily, unlike most animated films these days, the actors do not call attention to themselves.  Without reading the credits, you’d never guess that the pivotal role of the mother is voiced by Tina Fey. All the actors surrender themselves to the film and character (rather than the other way aound as it is in today’s Hollywood star-driven animation).   [Again -- I'm not lumping the Pixar folks in.  They clearly get it!]

Ponyo is a fairy-tale to be sure. And one aimed at younger children. So not everyone will have the patience for this film. But anyone who loves animation and fairy-tales of old will find plenty to be enraptured with here. I found this very enjoyable and a refreshing change of pace.

Three movies in one weekend. A rare indulgence in my busy schedule. And not a clunker in the bunch.

Without a doubt, District 9 is the smartest action picture of the year. It’s a fast-paced,thriller that successfully melds classic sci-fi, a dollop of timely social commentary, bullet-pounding shoot ‘em ups, and grafts all this onto the suspense plot-line from “The Fugitive”. Its effects and cinematography are very effective, and the best use yet of the current trend towards Documentary-style story-telling. If this was, in fact, a low-budget film, then every dollar was well-spent.  The documentary device is used here much more successfully than in last year’s Cloverfield. (Does Ricky Gervais get a royalty every time someone rips off “The Office” in using this device?)

All that said – I’m going to go out on a tangent here however and say I was a teensy bit surprised that this film turned out to be such an action-oriented picture.  The marketing had set my expectations for a return to the glory days when science fiction was the genre of ideas and social messages.

When did the science start leaving science-fiction? When did social commentary become the second-class citizen in movie-making? When exactly did the future become just become another setting for action pictures? (Joining war movies , police movies, spy movies, and car-chase movies?)

Was it Star Wars?  Alien? Terminator?  Once they made big bucks (unlike most sci-fi), did Hollywood just put a red-light on making sci-fi that paused for thought and reflection?

Don’t get me wrong — I love all three of the above, and I love a great action film, and make no mistake about it: District 9 is a great action film. It start out gloriously with a fresh and wonderful sense of social satire and a terrific mirror to society with a new way to look at the challenges of immigration and the problems of cultures co-existing. But before long it moves away from ‘idea’ science-fiction (the likes of classic films like 2001, The day the Earth Stood Still, Soylent Green, Forbidden Planet), and pours on the bullets and explosions.  Its more interesting themes move to the background and are replaced by traditional Hollywood one-dimensional themes like ‘corporations are evil’ and ‘the military is heartless.”

Have we become so restless as an audience that we can’t take ideas without the medicine of lots of stuff blowing up loudly? I would have considered this one of the best movies of the year had it stuck with its gutsy premise and explored that as deeply as possible – instead of spending so much of its latter-third so blatantly laying the groundwork for the inevitable sequel – District 10.

Rant finished.  This is a terrific film. Go see it!

On the surface, this movie appears to be about the attraction between a bright and open-hearted young man (another rich and surprising performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and a charming, though elusive girl (fetching and quirky Zooey Deschanel). But this movie isn’t really a “love story” — as the film’s narrator teasingly warns us in the beginning of this cleverly constructed indy charmer.

While the narrator never tells us this, what the film really has on its mind is time — those 500 days —  and by extension, any series of days spent in the wrong place — whether that’s a relationship, a job, or a state of mind. Time is the movie’s theme and also its architectural construct. The movie jumps freely back and forth among those 500 days, replacing traditional narrative beginning, middle, end with sharply edited snapshots of the feelings and happenstance that litter that year-and-about-a-half.

Each little scene is a marvel of efficiency. There is no more to each scene than whatever it takes to make a specific point or reflect an emotional state of mind. Some scenes have dialog. Some scenes are silent. Some are drawings. One is even a song and dance number. The film’s writers, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber, and the director, Marc Webb, are focused very sharply on specific states of mind. It’s clear the film is personal to them. It is not set in the present, but in a specific, yet unstated, time period (late 90s? They still look at record albums and play video games).  It’s in a very specific place (the city of Los Angeles, lovingly portrayed).  And it has a sound-track lifted from 10-20 years before the film takes place, (a lot of 70s and 80s music that the characters, and by extension, the writer and director have “I grew up listening to this music” ties to.)  You’ll no longer be able to hear “You Make My Dreams Come True” by Hall and Oates without thinking of this film.

If I didn’t absolutely adore this film, it’s only because at times it was too clever for its own good – a little self-congratulatory in its joy at finding quirky ways of making its points. I’m going to go out on a limb and say I found this film too clever by an eighth.

But overall, I found it funny, engaging and refreshing to see a relationship portrayed the way so many relationships actually are. Life isn’t just about  great love stories and making all the best choices.  It’s about the time spent at things that don’t last — and the joy and uncertainty you experience before you finally come to that realization.

An unblinking and riveting depiction of the chaos and uncertainty in Iraq, circa 2004, as seen through the high-stakes military job of disarming a staggering array of improvised, high-powered explosive devices found in the war-torn streets, abandoned cars, and strapped to the bodies of suicidal and hapless Iraqis caught in the middle.

From the moment it starts, director Kathryn Bigelow, shooting with bold, documentary realism, captures the knife-like tension that accompanies every moment of being on the ravaged streets of a city where enemies can be anywhere and anyone. Each cell phone, camera, or passing child may be about to detonate a device that can end the lives of soldiers and bystanders alike. Minute-for-minute, these may be one of the tensest movies ever made.

The script is comprised of a series of high-stake encounters ticking down the days until Bravo Company, at least those who survive, can get rotated out of Iraq, and the adrenalized effect this has on the male psyche. The movie greatly benefits from avoiding a narrative structure and allowing the well-realized characters to emerge from their actions and deeds, rather than through traditional exposition.

The decision to use three non-stars as the central characters greatly raise the movie’s effectiveness and sense of reality. All three give terrific performances.

By avoiding politics and judgement, Bigelow lets the harsh facts and circumstances speak for themselves. This is a gripping portrait of evil that has no conscience, heroism that has no limits, and an astute snapshot of male behavior. One of the best films of the year.

The most satisfying thing about the Harry Potter novels has been how they matured over time, along with its original readers. They went from being exciting tales for young readers, to increasingly sophisticated novels exploring the darkest parts of life and society.

The same progression has been true in the six films made so far. Astute casting (and smart contracting, no doubt) in year one has led to the same cast returning in film after film. And it has been rewarding to see the three young actors, playing the three lead characters, mature from cute-kid performers, into genuine actors. (It certainly hasn’t hurt that both Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have become quite attractive as well. It serves the hormonal agenda of the latest movie nicely. And what better place for these young actors to have apprenticed their craft than working with the most-accomplished ensemble of British actors ever seen in one film series.)

Even more happily, the film-making has grown. The series left behind the more kid-friendly skills of Chris Columbus, and improved as both Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell took the reins for films three and four respectively. David Yates took the helm with the excellent “….Order of the Phoenix” and he returns here showing a sure and able hand at bringing the best out of the cast (Helena Bonham Carter is absolutely dead-on as a dangerous lunatic,), while bringing the most textured tone to the series to date.

Without abandoning the fun of the earlier movies, he has been unafraid to embrace the darkness and scariness inherent in this dark and magical world, and this film certainly will give younger children potential nightmares.

Though its no surprise, the special effects have improved as well, and this film has cinematography and atmosphere that rivals the most serious of sci-fi / fantasy films.

But the real star of this film, lest it not be said, is the wonderful gravity and depth of Michael Gambon’s assured, low-key performance as Dumbledore. It’s unlikely that Richard Harris, who played the role until his death in 2002, could have brought this much dimension and humanity to the role. Performances like this are easily overlooked (hidden as they are within a franchise mostly lauded for its special effects), but it is a marvelous performance.

I look forward to the last two films, but particularly to the time when the eight movies can be viewed as one, large experience. Rare is the franchise that improves with each outing. This is one of them!