THE GOOD, THE NOT SO BAD AND THE UGLY—THIS YEAR AT AFI: LOVE STORY – Movie Reviews of Carol and In the Shadow of Women by Howard CasnerPosted: November 27, 2015 | Author: Donald | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Arlette Langman, Carol, Caroline Deraus-Garrel, Cate Blanchett, Clotilde Courau, In the Shadow of Women, Jean-Claude Carriere, Kyle Chandler, Lena Paugam, Louis Garrel, Patricia Highsmith, Philippe Garrel, Phyllis Nagy, Renato Berta, Rooney Mara, Sarah Paulson, Stanislas Maher, The Price of Salt, Todd Haynes | 1,350 Comments »
First, a word from our sponsors: I am now offering a new service: so much emphasis has been given lately to the importance of the opening of your screenplay, I now offer coverage for the first twenty pages at the cost of $20.00. For those who don’t want to have full coverage on their screenplay at this time, but want to know how well their script is working with the opening pages, this is perfect for you. I’ll help you not lose the reader on page one.
Ever wonder what a reader for a contest or agency thinks when he reads your screenplay? Check out my new e-book published on Amazon: Rantings and Ravings of a Screenplay Reader, including my series of essays, What I Learned Reading for Contests This Year, and my film reviews of 2013. Only $2.99. http://ow.ly/xN31r
and check out my Script Consultation Services: http://ow.ly/HPxKE
There’s a scene in Carol, the new film about lesbian lovers in 1950’s America, where one of the two leads, Therese, a clerk at a department store, joins her boyfriend and his pal in the projection booth of a movie theater that is screening the classic (though it was new at the time period of the film’s action) Sunset Boulevard.
The pal, who has seen the movie before, is taking copious notes because, as he says, he wants to record the difference between what the characters are saying and what they are really feeling and thinking (for those in the industry, this is often called subtext).
This is a conversation that I found to be of prime pertinence to the film because, with rare occasions, none of the characters ever, ever says what they really feel or think.
But of course, this is 1950’s America, the Eisenhower era where there was a lot bubbling underneath everyone’s skin, but it had yet to burst through to the surface as it soon will when the social revelation comes in the 1960’s.
SIDE EFFECTS, a review of the movie by Howard CasnerPosted: February 15, 2013 | Author: Donald | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Scott Z. Burns, Steven Soderbergh | Leave a comment »
The 1980’s called; they want their villain back.
Side Effects is the new thriller written by Scott Z. Burns and directed by Steven Soderbergh (it’s suppose to be Soderbergh’s penultimate movie, but time will tell). I have always considered Soderbergh to be the Michael Curtiz of contemporary cinema. Like Curtiz, he helms solid movies that are well crafted and quite entertaining. And like Curtiz, that’s all they usually are. Curtiz was not a particularly great director, just a superb craftsman of routine studio assignments. He only made one really great movie, Casablanca, and that was great only by accident. It’s hard to say whether Soderbergh will ever even achieve that (his best chances right now are Traffic and Che, with Che being the far superior choice).
Continuing in that tradition, Side Effects is well made, but also a tad routine. It gets the job done and is entertaining, but one can’t say much more than that. In fact, if truth be told, one can actually say a lot less. I really don’t think it works all that well; at least not for me.
The basic premise revolves around a psychiatrist played very handsomely by Jude Law (as if there is any other way for him to play a character) who proscribes a particular medication for a patient, Rooney Mara (of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo fame); let’s just say that after that, things go a tad awry for the good doc. Also on board for the ride is Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays Mara’s former therapist.
The movie begins as a social message picture that has such a serious anti-medication slant that it almost seems as if it was written by a Scientologist. It accuses the psychiatric industry of exploiting people (mainly women) in order to sell drugs that probably aren’t helping or needed (and if they work, it’s not because they work, but because the users have been manipulated into believing they work). There is a whiff of hypocrisy here because the screenplay feels like it’s just as exploitive of the people using medication as the pill industry is. Burns and Soderbergh don’t really care about the medicated and their illnesses and desperation any more than the pill industry does. In both cases, the poor schnooks are just there to further an agenda.
But then something happens. The big plot turn that changes everything. And it’s shocking and people gasp and sit up in their seats—except for me, who turned to his friend and told him exactly what was going on (I even knew what was going to happen before it happened). And since the characters aren’t all that interesting, all I’m doing now is waiting to find out whether I’m right or not. And I am.
The final third of the movie is the most interesting. That’s when Law starts fighting back. What he does may not always be that convincing (what he does is more what someone does in a movie than in real life), and I do feel that Burns and Soderbergh cheat a bit here and there, but it is entertaining and fun and suspenseful, so there’s that to make up for the rest.
But there’s another issue here. The big co-villain is that staple of 1980’s villainy, the evil lesbian. And I suppose there is something to be said for progress. I’m not sure what, but still, if this movie had been made back then, there quite possibly would have been demonstrations in the street. Now we’ve progressed to the point where a lesbian villain casts not a whiff of controversy. But when you combine that with the other staple of movie villainy, the woman trying to do a man’s job, but is incompetent at it because she is a woman and is therefore much weaker than a man because she is a victim of her own inherent unstable emotional state, the whole solution to this thriller feels depressingly uninspired and unimaginative; somewhat like Magic Mike, but without all the rear nudity to keep you interested.
What may be even more depressing is that Law reconciles with all the people who betrayed him, including a particularly unsupportive (and not quite believable) wife (let’s just say that women don’t come off too well in this movie—even of Law’s two partners, though both want him out for what happened, the woman’s a “bitch” about it, while the man is more understanding and even tempered). I didn’t understand why Burns and Soderbergh chose to do this. I bought this even less than the plot as a whole and thought that after everything Law went through he deserved a much happier ending. But que sera sera.
Burns and Soderbergh have collaborated before, on Contagion and The Informant!, and in both cases, the movies were much more original and exciting. Here, to be perfectly honest, I felt that they were phoning it in, and getting the wrong number at times.