Moview Reviews of AMERICAN HUSTLE and THE PAST by Howard Casner

I’m not sure what the biggest crime in the new, based kinda, sorta, but who knows how much on a true story movie American Hustle is: the ABSCAM scandal at the center of the plot or those awful, awful fashions we use to wear at the time (some people may think that Michael Wilkinson’s designs are exaggerated for comic affect, but I tell you, they seem painfully close to the real thing to me).

 

I have to be honest, I did have some trouble with the film at first and for me the issue was Christian Bale in the lead as Irving Rosenfield, a con-man with a fake comb over (got symbolism?).  I have always had issues with Bale, and it’s really not his fault.  But I always felt he was trying way too hard to be Daniel Day-Lewis and he couldn’t quite carry it off.  Where Day-Lewis seems to disappear into his roles, Bale always seems to be saying, “look at me pretending to be someone not remotely like myself”.   And it’s always been a stickler to me when it came to his films.

 

I also don’t think it helped that the movie started with a rather loooooong introduction via voice over that just never seemed to stop.

 

But as the story gained traction and the supporting cast made their presences known, I forgot all about Bale’s calling attention to his talent as much as I forgot about Rosenfield’s comb over, which I think says a lot about both, actually.

 

And such a supporting cast: Amy Adams as his girlfriend and partner in crime who revels in showing off her side boob as much as her rather convincing, fake English accent (well, it’s better than Irving’s hair); Bradley Cooper as an over eager government agent who, somehow, miracles of miracles, is the only one who looks good in the period clothes and hairstyles (and he’s a much better dancer here than in Silver Linings Playbook); Jennifer Lawrence, riotously hysterical as Irving’s bi-polar wife; Jeremy Renner as a corrupt, but well-meaning mayor with a pompadour that looks like it’s about to take over the world; and  in smaller roles, Louis C.K. as Richie’s long-suffering boss and Michael Pena as a fake sheik.

 

If nothing else, American Hustle is one of the most deliriously entertaining movies of the year.   The screenplay by Eric Warren Singer and director David O. Russell has a fun, frantic 1930’s farcical feel to it.  It seems to revel in the amorality of it all; in the ridiculousness of the situations; and, perhaps most pleasurable of all, in the incredibly neurotic relationships of the characters until the whole thing feels like a Warner Brother’s pre-code movie starring James Cagney in the con-man lead; Carole Lombard as his partner in crime; Jean Harlow as his wife; Clark Gable as the government agent; and Warner Baxter in the cameo as the corrupt mayor.  Throw in a few character actors like Edward Everett Horton as the agent’s boss and Mischa Auer as the fake Sheik, and your back in the days of “more stars than there are in heaven”.

 

American Hustle also has some of the strongest and most interesting female characters in awhile.  In this, the movie also harkens back to the 1930’s in it’s portrayal of women as alpha females who attract men because they are alpha females (rather than today when alpha females are often ridiculed and put down by screenwriters) and in its portrayal of men who are as willing to make as big of emotional fools of themselves over women as the women are over the men.  And if anything, the women are far more in control of their emotions and destinies than any of the alpha males here.

 

It’s an attitude I feel is often missing from today’s rom coms (because no matter what else it is, American Hustle at the core is really a love story between two con artists).  Of course, Singer and Russell still had to go into the past to pull it off, but at least they didn’t have to go eighty years to do it.

 

And the film feels like a step forward for Russell whose last couple off films (Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter), though entertaining, felt a big tame and familiar, even formulaic.  Perhaps there’s something about the story itself and the screenplay that took over.  Whereas the earlier films felt like standard tropes and familiar arcs directed with an anarchic, chaotic style, American Hustle feels like a story that is all anarchy and chaos directed in, well, an anarchic, chaotic style.  It refuses to let itself be put in a box and Russell didn’t force it, but let it be what it needed to be.

 

 

The Past, the new movie by writers Massoumeh Lahidji and Asghar Farhadi, who also directed (Farhadi gave us the searingly intense A Separation), feels like a table with a leg missing.  It has three dynamic and powerful performances from Bernice (The Artist) Bejo, Tahar (A Prophet) Rahim and  Ali  (who has done a lot of other things, but I’m afraid I’m not familiar with him, but his hairpiece is far more convincing than Bale’s) Mosaffa in a sort of love triangle.  And their intensity carries the film for quite awhile.  But in the end, they are let down by a story that doesn’t quite hold up.

 

It took me awhile to figure out where things went wrong, but it happens about a third of the way through.  In the first part, the story gains a lot of tension as Ahmad (Mosaffa) comes to France to finalize a divorce with his wife Marie (Bejo), only to find out that she’s not only living with a younger man, Samir (Rahim), she’s pregnant by him, and Ahmad’s oldest daughter is virulently against the relationship for reasons she won’t say.

 

And then the movie takes a completely different turn and begins to focus not on Ahmad, but on the daughter and why she’s against Marie and Samir’s upcoming nuptials, all having to do with Samir’s wife who is in a coma after trying to kill herself.

 

Now at first glance, this may sound like an interesting turn of the screw.  But the problem is that this part of the story has nothing to do with Ahmad.  By the time the movie is over, you even wonder why he’s in the story at all.   In fact, almost as suddenly as he arrives, he disappears from the story for a good while as the other characters grapple with secrets being revealed.

 

There’s only one possible dramatic justification for Ahmad’s inclusion in the story and that is to get his daughter to confess a secret.  But that’s not really enough of a justification for him to be a part of it all, and so the structure seems wobbly and the forward momentum slows down as you’re no longer sure where the story is going.

 

Farhadi’s previous film, A Separation, had a similar structure.  It starts out as a family having issues and then changes course when they hire a caretaker, but she gets thrown out of the apartment by the husband, has a miscarriage and the story becomes about what really happened.  But even there, the outcome of the story affected every single character.  Everybody in the film was inextricably linked to that one incident.  Here, Ahmad is more chopped liver and has nothing to really do.

 

The film is titled The Past and I’m not quite sure why.  At one point, Samir talks about the need to forget what has come before in order to get on with the future.  But that’s not really what the film as a whole has been about.  And when Samir has his speech, it feels tacked on, as if the writers had suddenly remembered what they had named their story, and now suddenly felt a need to justify it.


Movie Reviews of THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG, CAMILLE CLAUDEL 1915 and THE GREAT PASSAGE by Howard Casner

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second installment in the trilogy that four writers, including director Peter Jackson, have carved out of J.R.R. Tolkien’s prequel to The Lord of the Rings.  Basically, it’s just more of the same (even with the ton of plot added that’s not in the book).  The story’s structure seems based on the Perils of Pauline and/or a ride at Disneyland, but the effects aren’t that special anymore (though the dragon Smaug himself has some nice moves, but, god almighty, is he in love with his own voice or what?); the characters are becoming less interesting; and I’m not even sure why people are doing half the things they’re doing anymore (why does Gandalf leave; why does the necromancer care if the dwarves kill Smaug and get their treasure back; why did they need Bilbo along on this trip—I’m sure there are reasons, but I just don’t know what they are now).  No one dies (at least no non-Orc does) because the twists and turns seem borrowed from every James Bond movie in which the secret agent is not immediately killed, but left to die so he can escape to defeat the villain de jour.  Orlando Bloom as Legolas probably has the funniest line in the film when he tells Evangeline Lily as Tauriel that if he was an Orc, she’d be dead; since none of the Orcs seem capable of killing a mosquito with an atomic bomb, this statement is highly questionable (you even begin feeling sorry for the monstrous creatures since they just can’t seem to catch a break—they’re more easily slain than the zombi in Night of the Living Dead).

 

 

 

In the new movie Camille Claudel 1915, about the sculptress and ex-mistress of the artist Rodin, Camille resides in a mental institution where there are only two sorts of patients.  There are the severely, and I mean, severely mentally retarded, severely autistic, severely psychotic (who are used by writer/director Bruno Dumont both for sympathy and horror as in Todd Browning’s film Freaks) and there’s…Camille, who barely seems to have a thing wrong with here.  That’s right; there’s no Snakepit gradations of mental illness here; no highly functioning people who think they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ; no mere sufferers of nervous breakdowns; no schizophrenics on the level of John Nash.  They’ve either made a complete, in for a penny, in for a pound, break from sanity, or they’re, say, well…Camille.

 

I’m afraid I had no emotional connection to Camille and her situation.  I believe this was mainly because I had no context for what was happening to her.  Is she someone who is mentally unstable and can’t be left alone (she does show signs of unreasonable paranoia and does think she still has an emotional relationship with Rodin, though they haven’t made contact for twenty years), or is she a poor creature more sinned against than sinning?  From Camille’s perspective, she’s a complete victim, but since every criminal in jail claims to be innocent and everyone confined to a mental hospital thinks they’re sane, her testimony is hardly objective.  So what are we to think of her?

 

In the earlier 1988 version of Camille’s story, we clearly see Isabelle Adjani in the title roll slowly losing her mental stability and achieve a complete psychotic break.  But we have no such help here.  And it seems to affect Juliet Binoche’s performance.  Though she plays the part with a ton of energy, she also seems a bit at sea, as if she, herself, is unsure whether to play Camille as someone who is seriously ill or someone who has been put away because she is an inconvenience.

 

This is Dumont’s seventh film.  His first two films, Life of Jesus and Humanité, seemed so refreshing in their honesty and emotional power, suggesting an exciting new talent.  But since then, his films seemed to have lost something.  For both 27 Palms and Flanders, like this movie, I wasn’t sure how I was supposed to feel, I wasn’t sure what he was trying to convey, I wasn’t sure why he wanted to make the movie, I wasn’t sure what interested him about the subject matter.  Sad to say, the emotional connection he had with his characters and the audience in his first two films seems to be slowly, slipping away.

 

 

 

The Great Passage, the new movie from Japan written by Kensaku Watanabe and directed by Yuya Ishii, is that country’s entry in the 2013 Oscar category for best foreign language film.  It’s about the publishing of a new, from scratch dictionary and, sorry to say, is about as interesting as reading one (yeah, who didn’t see that joke coming).  The basic premise is the creation of a “living” dictionary that adds modern slang and common words with a more relaxed style to writing the definitions.  The project will take more than ten years to complete, which basically means that when the reference work is released, this “living” dictionary will be dead as a dodo and hopelessly out of date.  How you react to the movie will probably depend on whether you find the cast of characters to be eccentrically appealing on the level of a Cohen Brothers film or an Ealing comedy or not.  I didn’t.  Perhaps it’s best to say it’s no Ball of Fire and let it go at that.


Movie Review of OUT OF THE FURNACE and AFTERMATH by Howard Casner

I had a friend who once worked in a dive hotel in Chicago.  It was a pretty wretched place to be employed, but he revealed a universal truth to me that he learned during his time there: no matter how bad things are, you can always find someone or something to look down on.  In his particular case, no matter how awful working at the hotel was, my friend and his fellow employees would tell themselves, well, at least we’re not working at the *, a hotel down the street that God only knows how was even one step lower than the one he was at.

 

I thought of that as I was watching Out of the Furnace, the new action/thriller written by Brad Inglesby and Scott Cooper and directed by Cooper.  Only a few weeks before, I had seen Nebraska, another film about an under the weather America.   But no matter how bleak and despairing the situation was for the Grant family in that first film, at least they didn’t have the problems of the brothers Russell and Rodney Blaze (played by Christian Bale and Casey Affleck respectively).  The Grants could always tell themselves that at least they didn’t have to deal with “inbreds” (or who we called hillbillies when I was growing up—though the Clampetts these people are not).

 

The world of Out of the Furnace is far, far bleaker than the one inhabited by Bruce Dern.  And to add insult to injury, …Furnace is in full color (no romantic distancing of the subject matter here).  The economy of the working class neighborhood in …Furnace is not the best (and a little odd—Russell tells Rodney in one scene that he can give him a future by getting him hired at the local steel mill, while in the next scene, he tells his Uncle the mill’s going to close soon with the jobs being sent to China).  The weather looks overcast even on the most summery of days.  And everybody’s eyes reflect deep depression and/or despair, no matter how wide their smiles are.

 

And on top of it all, there’s those creepy, crawly sociopathic inbreds (which in this movie is pretty redundant), headed by the psychopathic Harlan DeGroat (played by Woody Harrelson, which also might be a tad redundant).  Like cockroaches, they’ve come to the big cities (or bigger cities) to spread their filth and disease.

 

Out of the Furnace is a well made movie in many ways.   The cinematography paints a depressing world of a working class with little hope.  The sets all have that remarkably realistic lived in look.  The costumes feel store bought or taken out of a closet.  There is a patina of sincerity and hard work by everyone involved that colors the whole thing.  It’s difficult to just dismiss it.

 

But it never quite works.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  The first is that it is structurally wobbly.  The movie ultimately is supposed to be about the relationship of the two brothers.  But too much of the film (especially the first third), almost solely focuses on Russell, his relationship problems and what happens when he drunkenly hits another car killing a little boy and ends up behind bars.  None of this really has anything to do with the siblings, and I was never quite sure why the writers went there.

 

But this unbalanced emphasis leads to other problems.  First, by not fully dramatizing Rodney and his issues, Rodney never comes to life like he should (at one point, he has a big speech about how awful Iraq was and what it did to him and how it made him the reckless person he is now; but so little time has been devoted to Rodney, he sounds more like he’s offering excuses rather than convincing reasons).

 

Second, it robs the story of a solid build. For quite a long time, the story just doesn’t seem to be going anywhere and it takes a bit too long for it to really get started.  The authors try to get around that by having DeGroat arbitrarily show up in a couple of early scenes, but it doesn’t really do the trick.  The movie just seems to meander along with no real purpose for far too long.

 

And the authors depend a bit too much on clichés.  Rodney is going to do that one last fight that will pay off his debt and then he will do whatever his older brother tells him, settling down and working at the mill.  The last fight twist is so reminiscent of every other western, police drama and boxing movie, it’s hard to see it as anything but the authors’ struggling for some sort of teary-eyed empathy from the audience.  And it’s not remotely believable.  There is no way, based on the movie up until then, that I’d believe Rodney will settle down if this fight goes right.  His character hasn’t been set up for that.

 

How much you like …Furnace will probably depend on how much you like the acting.  It’s basically divided into two camps, the very, very, very methody approach (very) of Bale and Affleck (I mean, they meth all over the place).  Most people have loved their performances, but for me, they were hit or miss (with a few cringe worthy moments), with expressions and line readings that call attention to themselves and often throw the rhythms of their dialog and their relationship off.

 

Because of this, for me the acting honors are actually stolen by two supporting characters who simply relax into their characters and never push it: Sam Shepard as the brothers’ uncle and Tom Bower as a bartender who doesn’t want any trouble, but finds it anyway.

 

The ending is also a bit too ambiguous.  It’s understandable in many ways that Russell decides to take the law into his own hands (his frustration at the way the authorities handle his brother’s death is convincing).  But by doing so, it leads to the demise of someone totally innocent.  So how are we supposed to feel about Russell’s final success in avenging Rodney’s murder?  Russell may not have killed the character DeGroat did, but he’s just as responsible and nearly as guilty for it.  But the writers chose to turn this second victim into chopped liver and I wasn’t sure how I was supposed to feel about that.

 

 

Aftermath, the new Polish film written and directed by Wladyslaw Paskikowksi (who also wrote the great Andrzej Wajda’s powerful Katyn), has reviews from 11 top critics on rottentomatoes.com.  Meanwhile, All is Lost has 42, Philomena has 39 and the aforementioned Out of the Furnace has 40.  Why is a mystery to me, since this film is easily as good, or far better, than those three, as well as many, if not most, other films playing right now.   In fact, Aftermath seems to have snuck into town with no fanfare to herald it, ignored by one and all in the critic biz.  And it’s a shame.

 

Of course, I have no right to cast stones here.  It had been playing a month, bouncing from one art house theater to another, before I got around to seeing it, and kudos to the audience who has been keeping it alive.  Because Aftermath is a powerful and moving film about how two brothers are affected by a dark secret involving their small Polish village and their family during World War II.

 

The story basically resolves around Franciszek Kalina who is returning to his home town of Gurowka after not having been back for twenty years (one reason is that he didn’t dare return while the country was still under Communist control).  He’s back because his sister-in-law and nephew suddenly showed up on his doorstep in Chicago and he wants to know what his brother, Jozef, did to send them packing.   And it soon turns out that Jozef has somewhat of an unusual obsession—after a rain storm has washed away enough mud to reveal that a road has been paved with gravestones from a Jewish cemetery, Jozef has been moving the stones to one of the fields in the family farm.  But his actions are not supported by the town.  And why is the central secret driving the story.

 

Franciszek is played by Ireneuz Czop and Jozef by Maciej Stuhr and they both give strong and empathetic performances.  They have rather typical character arcs.  At the same time, they are just unusual and interesting enough to be compelling.  Francizek is very anti-semitic (he calls Jews Yids and blames them for the problems he has getting ahead in Chicago in the construction business—they control it all, you see) and he thinks that Jozef is ridiculous in what he’s doing.  Meanwhile, Jozef, for reasons he doesn’t fully understand, feels guilty over what happened in the village and feels the need to make amends (even though he doesn’t know what the amends are for and anyway, he wasn’t even alive at the time).

 

As the story goes on and deeper secrets are revealed, the brothers change places.  Francizek becomes the one who is obsessed with revealing everything and getting those gravestones into that field.  At first it’s for no other reason than when people keep telling him not to do something, he’s the sort of person who just has to do it.  But eventually, it’s the horror of what happened that takes over and he soon feels compelled to do what is morally right.
Meanwhile, as the deeper truths are uncovered, it’s more horrifying than Jozef ever imagined, and he becomes the one who now wants to stop, to not dig any deeper, to keep what happened in the past in the past.  But some things can never be forgotten and the sins of the father sometimes have no choice but to be visited on the sons.

 

Aftermath is not an easy film to watch, but it’s a worthy one.


Moview Reviews of FROZEN and PHILOMENA by Howard Casner

Frozen is a fairy tale about a kingdom that is in, well, let us say, deep doo-doo. There is no one to rule it and it has been, well, frozen (hence the title) over. But since this is a story with two females at the center, the real focus of the story is on whether the younger one will find the right man for her life and the older one will learn to hide a power she has, a power that makes her one of the most powerful people in the world, a power that no one else has (there is actually something similar here to the television series, Bewitched, in which the wife, who is obviously the more talented of the two in her marriage, has to suppress her true abilities in order to be a normal woman—I guess we haven’t come a long way, baby).

I’m sorry, but I really don’t get it. I really don’t. Is this really the message we want to send our daughters (and I use daughters in a more catholic sense, I don’t have any myself)? I mean, this is a movie in which the rulers of a kingdom die, leaving their two daughters as heirs, but neither of the daughters are taught how to rule. In fact, one of the more ridiculous aspects of the film is that everyone talks about how important this port city, this Arendelle is, yet no one seems to be running the place. For years. And no one is grooming the next in lines to take over. It’s mind boggling.

But since both characters are future queens and/or potential mates for kings and princes, shouldn’t the story be about them learning how to become princesses and queens? Shouldn’t Elsa (voice by Broadway songstress Idina Menzel), the older sister with the power to freeze things, not be hidden away in solitary confinement, but taught how to control her power and/or how to use it for the good of the kingdom, even if she must hide it to some degree for fear of being thought a witch, since she will eventually take over the throne?

And shouldn’t Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell), the younger sister, also be taught how to be to the manor born? Instead all Anna seems to learn how to do is become incredibly annoying (and I mean, incredibly; dude, she is like on of the most annoying characters I’ve seen on celluloid for some time now). I’m surprised the two ever learned how to read and write, the screenplay is so shoddy in this area. But no, the story is not about how women can learn to be effective rulers or groomed to take on power positions, but about how important it is to find a boyfriend and how important it is not to stick out as a strong female.

Even at the end when Elsa learns how to rein in the more dangerous aspects of her abilities, all she does with it is create a skating rink. No, really. I am not making this up. The ruler of one of the most powerful kingdoms in the area, and her main contribution as queen is…a skating rink. I mean, sure, it’s a pretty neat little rink, I grant you that, but, I mean…c’mon. Here the author (screenplay by Jennifer Lee from a story by Lee, Chris Buck and Shane Morris—Buck and Lee also directed) goes to all the trouble of giving her lead character this incredible power that at the end turns out to be rather worthless when it comes to her calling as a queen. So what’s the point?

Look at it this way. If the two central characters were male, do you really think the plot would work itself out remotely like this?

And since this is an animated tale and since this is Disney, it is also a musical. And I don’t know where to start here. The songs were written by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and they all sound like rejects from Wicked, the style feels so similar (as do all the songs to each other). Now I love the songs from Wicked as much as the next person (well, based on the person sitting next to me, probably more), but that approach here actually never meshes with the style of the story (it should, since both are fantasies, but every song in Frozen just seems to belong in another film). And the lyrics are so simplistic, I wasn’t just agog, I was often mind numbingly agog. I realize the movie is meant for children, but, I mean, c’mon, so was The Lion King. What’s worse, they all seem to be anthems and give new meaning to the word “stop” in the phrase show stopping. And I swear, with Menzel voicing Elsa, I kept expecting her to start belting out Defying Gravity at any moment (or maybe I just so desperately wanted her to so we could have a decent tune).

I do have to admit that there was one part of the film that I did find myself laughing at and quite enjoying and that was the character of Olaf (Josh Gad), an anthropomorphized snowman who always looks on the bright side of things even when he can’t find the bottom part of his body or he’s stuck through by an icicle. It’s gimmicky, true. But it’s also one of the few things in this ice storm of a movie that was actually quite heart warming.

It should be noted, though, that at the screening I went to, the movie was preceded by a sorta, kinda new Mickey Mouse cartoon. It starts out with the Steamboat Willie Mickey of the early 30’s and has Minnie Mouse, a cow with lots of udders and a really bad, bad guy who wants Minnie. At one point, the animated characters start breaking through the 2D black and white and enter a movie theater, becoming fully colorized 3D characters (like in Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo). The interplay between the two worlds is genius and the whole thing is hysterical fun. I highly recommend it. It almost makes the whole thing worth the price of admission.

The movie Philomena is definitely a story that deserves to be told. I’m not quite sure, though, it’s gotten the telling it really deserved. It’s written by Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope (which is kind of an ironic name when it comes to the movie, but more of that later) and is directed by Stephen Frears (but a long way from The Hit, My Beautiful Laundrette and The Grifters, I’m afraid; will we ever that side of Frears again?).

Steve Coogan also stars in the film, playing Martin Sixsmith, a disgraced journalist who is also one of those atheists with an unpleasant, offputting personality (you know, the Bill Maher type). In fact, he’s so unpleasant and offputting that whenever the screenplay turns to a debate on religion (and it does quite often because the character is unpleasant and offputting and that’s just the way it goes), the whole thing not only comes to a crashing halt, it comes to an embarrassing and clunky one as well. Judy Dench (the title character) plays one of those older women who gets laughs because she says things about sex we don’t think that women her age should know about, much less say (yes, that old warhorse is still employed for cheap giggles these days, I guess).

As a teen, Philomena got pregnant and was put into a convent run by an evil Abbess. How evil was she? She was so evil, that when Philomena had a breach birth which could have killed her baby, the Abbess refused to interfere (the baby was saved by a younger nun with a heart). The Abbess then forces Philomena to be an indentured servant for four years to pay back the cost of the birth while selling off all the babies born at the convent to American couples who are the only ones rich enough to afford the $1,000 cost (okay, so she’s not Hannibal Lechter evil, but still, she holds her own, I’d say, and I told you Pope’s name was ironic). The basic plotline is that Philomena and Martin join forces to try and find Philomena’s son and in the process all the familiar tropes and character arcs are employed (Martin becomes a kinder, gentler athiest and Philomena becomes more cynical about the church).

I’m making the movie sound terrible, and it’s not. It’s perfectly…okay. There’s nothing that special about it, but you do want to stick around long enough to find out how it all turns out and it does take a few surprising turns. Coogan and Dench work hard at their rolls, though Dench easily comes out the winner here. But the screenplay is uninspired and the movie is obvious, manipulative and cloying. This doesn’t mean that your throat doesn’t catch and your eyes never fight off those tears, but generally speaking that is not due to any of the actions of the behind the scenes people involved, but the story itself, which is often horrifying and moving in the historical details it provides.


Movie Reviews of NEBRASKA and THE GERMAN DOCTOR by Howard Casner

The new Bob Nelson (writer)/Alexander Payne (director) movie Nebraska is shot in Last Picture Show black and white, and has the same feeling of a passing way of life as that earlier film. The rich cinematography of Phedon Papamichael shows a bleak world with little future. The economy is bad; it’s approaching winter and everyone is smothered in parkas and down jackets; the foliage has fallen and all the crops have been gathered; and Woody Grant (a play on Grant Wood anybody? Anybody?), the centerpiece of this Midwestern tragicomedy, fully embodies all these symbols of present day America. Woody, let us say, is not aging in a particularly graceful way; he’s in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and easily gets confused, spending most of his time trying to get to Lincoln, NE in order to collect a million dollars in a magazine peddling scam that he thinks is genuine.

Nebraska is an odd duck of a movie when it comes to structure. It’s a dysfunctional family drama in which the dysfunction is kept to a minimum (no Long Day’s Journey… or August: Osage County here). In fact, most of the time it feels as if no members of the family can even get up enough energy to be dysfunctional (the scenes of brothers mesmerized by the TV are a highlight of the movie). It’s a road picture in which the characters spend relatively little time on the road, stopping before they even get started. And it’s one of those comedies in which someone thinks he’s come into a fortune and risks humiliation when the truth comes out, but Preston Sturgess it’s not.

In fact, I would normally categorize the movie as a right mess, a story the author didn’t quite know what to do with and a plot that was being pulled in all sorts of conflicting directions. That is, I would say it if it didn’t all come together and work so wonderfully well. Nebraska is a pretty terrific film when it comes down to it; a movie of rich characterizations and deeply felt emotions. A movie so funny you want to cry and a movie so despairing you want to laugh.

Bruce Dern plays Woody with grizzled visage; angry, bloodshot eyes; and perpetual scowl on a chin that never gets shaved. Dern has been around for some time, of course, but he has never quite managed to connect with the audience as well as many of his contemporaries. He’s never not worked, but he never quite had the career he deserved, perhaps. There’s something about his squeaky voice and a face in which the parts don’t quite seem to fit that maybe got in his way. But here he delivers, giving the performance of his career in the role of his career.

Woody is one of those roles where you think you know everything about him from the moment you lay eyes on him. But little drips and drabs of his past come leaking out until you find yourself constantly reevaluating everything you thought you knew. It never really makes him any more likable; he’s still the same old alcoholic cum emotionless bastard he always was, but you realize he has a right to his dignity, even if that dignity lies at the bottom of a beer bottle (he has one marvelous moment where he defends his right to be drink his liver into an early grave, and you find yourself coming down on his side).

Dern is matched scene for scene by June Squibb as his wife. Here we have what may be one of the most enjoyable Xanthippe’s on film (she played a similar role in About Schmidt, but her long suffering wife here is richer and deeper). From the time she comes out the back screen door of her house in her old lady dress and knee high nylons, crying to the heavens and asking if she is the only one with any sanity left in the family, she’s a life force not to be denied, but a life force she has little use for. Her time has passed, much like Woody’s has. And like Dern, it’s the performance of a career in the role of a career.

The supporting cast is filled out with two types: professionals and neo-realistic locals. It’s easy to tell the difference since there’s a huge difference in talent. Many people prefer the non-actors to the actors in movies like this (they like the breath of fresh air such amateurs can bring to a situation). But I have to be honest; with a few exceptions, I’ve always felt that they tended to take a lot of the steam out of the proceedings since their “naturalness” seems so out of place and stylistically inconsistent (they’re so obvious, all they do for me is call attention to themselves). And here it’s no different. But they don’t harm the movie either.

But there are some very nice touches from Will Forte, out of character in a dramatic part. Bob Odenkirk plays his brother and I’d say he was also out of character, except that his role in Breaking Bad proved his range was much wider than people might have originally thought. And Stacy Keach old pros the screen as a Woody’s former partner, a bully with feet of clay.

I’m not sure I can say there’s a ton of originality here. The relationships are familiar and the sentimental ending may feel a bit formulaic (I always felt that Payne had gone a bit soft since the early days of Citizen Ruth and Election). But everyone works so hard, and there’s so much true feeling here, that little of that matters.

Whenever I tell someone I went to see The German Doctor, which is the Argentinean entry in the foreign language film category at the Oscars, the first thing they ask is, “Is it about Mengele”? So I guess it’s safe to say there are no real surprises in the movie. You pretty much know what you’re getting yourself into when you purchase your popcorn.

The basic outline of the story is about a family that reopens a hotel and a mysterious German doctor comes to stay with them not long after the end of World War II. He slowly ingratiates himself into their life and secretly experiments on them under the pretense of giving them the latest, up to date medical care. Now, you would think that with an idea like this, how could you possibly go wrong? But I have to say, the whole thing moves at a snail’s pace with little to no tension or forward momentum, up until the last few minutes when writer/director Lucia Peunzo tries to throw in a little Hitchockian suspense and chase scenes at the climax. But it’s too little too late as far as I’m concerned. To be ruthlessly honest, The German Doctor is a bit of a bore (and not just the movie; the character is played by Alex Brendemuhl, and he doesn’t bring a lot of excitement to the role).

It’s not that the whole movie is devoid of interest. The strongest and most involving parts of the story revolve around the ex-pat Germans who have formed their own bars, social circles, schools and neo-Nazi movement. But in the end, the whole movie feels like one of those ideas that is so great (and it is, it is a first rate idea, one of the more enticing ones I’ve heard in a while), you just had to make the film, but then once you get going, you realize that you didn’t really know what to do with it in the first place. Because of this, the movie wobbles uncertainly between a coming of age film and a mad doctor thriller. Perhaps the saddest aspect of it is that it makes The Boys from Brazil and Gregory Peck’s performance look like a classic, rather than camp.


Movie Review of DALLAS BUYERS CLUB and ALL IS LOST by Howard Casner

Dallas Buyers Club, the new, inspired by true events movie about the AIDS crisis, has basically the same plot outline as Schindler’s List. In Spielberg’s movie, Schindler, a gentile, takes advantage of an oppressed minority, Jews, and exploits them in order to make a lot of money; in the process he gains a conscious and starts doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. In Dallas Buyers Club, virulently homophobic rodeo rider, hard living, electrician Ron Woodruff takes advantage of an oppressed minority, mainly homosexuals, and exploits them in order to make a lot of money; in the process he gains a conscious and starts doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.

And I’ve only just begun. In Schindler…, Ralph Feinnes plays a Nazi who runs a concentration camp that is responsible for the death of who knows how many Jews. In Dallas…, his counterpart is played by Dennis O’Hare, a doctor who runs a hospital that joins forces with the pharmaceutical company (the Nazis in this piece) that is responsible for the death of who knows how many people with AIDS because of the way medication is dispensed (with money the ultimate arbiter). Schindler’s right hand man is a Jewish accountant. Woodroof’s is a drag queen. And In Schindler…, the concentration camp commandant has a mistress, a Jewish woman caught between two worlds. In Dallas, it’s a female doctor caught between two worlds.

Okay, I’ve had my fun. I just couldn’t resist. And in the end, I think it’s safe to say that Dallas… hardly rises to the level of Schindler… But Dallas… does help shed light on a shameful moment in U.S. history where prejudice and homophobia, as well as pharmaceutical greed, determined how a plague was to be treated.

The film itself, with a screenplay by Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack, and direction by Jean-Marie Vallee (who gave us both the wonderful and emotionally rich semi-autobiogrpahical dysfunctional family drama of C.R.A.Z.Y. and the surprisingly effective, epic dysfunctional family drama of Young Victoria), is not as impressive as one would like. It’s a bit draggy (pardon the pun) in parts, with scenes of clunky, even embarrassing, dialog. And the movie often seems to do little but cover the basics and get the story told. Some of the characters, like the female doctor, played by Jennifer Lawrence, seem to have no reason to be in the movie at all and it shows in the performances (Lawrence has nothing to do and she proceeds not to do it; at one point, she claims to have been a friend to one of the main characters, but you have to take her word for it, because there’s little to indicate it in the screenplay here). And Vallee doesn’t’ do much as the director except get the job done.

But it does have two factors in its favor and they are the performances of Matthew McConaughey as Woodroof and Jared Leto as Rayon, the drag queen.

I have to be honest. I have never been that impressed by McConaughey as an actor. He is perfectly fine in what he does, but I have just never responded to his thespian abilities the way others have. I’m perfectly willing to admit it’s me and we all have those actors who just don’t work for us the way we would like. But what I have admired about McConaughey is his brilliance in picking pitch perfect parts for himself as well as his incredible work ethic. He’s like Susan Hayward and Joan Crawford on steroids—I may not be a great actor, damn it, but I’ll work so hard at it you won’t be able to tell the difference.

And Woodroof is perhaps the perfect McConaughey role, as perfect as Atticus Finch was for Gregory Peck. It feels a part written expressly for the actor and he goes at it tooth and nail, including losing so much weight he looks as skinny as a Hollywood starlet desperate to be hired. He may still be little more than good ol’ boy Matthew, but isn’t that exactly what you want for the role?

Jared Leto, on the other hand, is completely unrecognizable and seems to just relax into his role, completely disappearing into it as if he was to the too plungy neckline born (a joke that will only make sense if you see the movie, and yes, Rayon, it is too plungy). His performance is made all the more poignant and deeply moving in the one scene where he doesn’t appear in drag, donning a business suit to seek help, as well as say goodbye, to his embarrassed father.

The film also refuses to stint in informing the audience how the pharmaceutical companies used the epidemic in order to make money off their medications, manipulating and controlling the FDA, and coercing doctors through medical studies to use their drug (here AZT) and to ignore all others. It’s an infuriating story that still needs to be screamed from the hospital tops. (To be even more infuriated, if that is your want, see the movie Fire in the Blood http://howardcasner.blogspot.com/2013/09/fire-in-blood-and-informant.html).

All in all, I can’t say that Dallas Buyers Club rises above what it is. But as hit and miss as it may be, it is a real eye opener and delivers enough of the goods to make it worthwhile.

All is Lost, the new Robert Redford movie (I think there are some others involved here, but I’m not aware that anyone really cares that much about them), starts at the end. Redford delivers a voice over informing the audience that it’s over, that he’s gotten himself into a situation he can’t get out of and he’s sorry, but that’s just the way it is. The movie then goes back eight days to begin from the beginning.

So basically what we have here is a story in which all we do is wait an hour and a half to find out if a man lives or dies. And how you respond to the movie will probably depend on how interested you will be in what Redford’s character has to do to survive. For me, there’s not really much going on of great interest here. The boat that Redford’s character is using to sail in the middle of nowhere gets hit by a lost cargo bin full of tennis shoes and from then on out, it’s him against the elements. If you like that sort of thing, it’s just the sort of thing you’ll like, but I didn’t find anything that original and fascinating about it all (well, there is one exception—I thought it incredibly clever how he makes water—no, I don’t mean urinates, I mean, actually desalinizes sea water) and after awhile I was desperately hoping a tiger might show up, whether it was all in the character’s head or not.

Redford has been praised for his performance here. This puzzles me a bit. For the most part, he’s just doing this and that to survive, showing no emotion or inner life at all. In other words, it’s a role that actually requires an actor not to act, which is actually so far so good and would seem to be a part that would be just the thing for him. But when Redford is actually required to display his art, to show emotion, to let the audience in on what is going on inside (like the moment he yells “fuck” in frustration at the universe), it was embarrassingly unconvincing and I cringed. In fact, this may be one of his weakest and least interesting performances of his career.

The screenplay and direction is by J.C. Chandor. He does little with either role as far as I can tell. He did much better with his previous film Margin Call, a chamber piece full of claustrophobic scenes filled with people trapped in offices. Here, where the background is the wide open seas with endless horizons, he can’t seem to really bring anything new and/or exciting to what then really ends up being just another routine entry in the man trying to survive against nature genre. And Chandor gets trapped by his ending. If Redford’s character survives, it really is just another run of the mill genre piece. If he doesn’t, then the movie has no reason for existence.

One thing that did come to mind here is the recent (to me mind boggling) critical approach to film that says that the movie that is the most visual with the least dialog is better than that other kind. But for me, this film is the proof that such a critical approach is no guarantee of a better film. All is Lost is visual, all right. In fact, that’s about all it is. One could even call it an exercise in minimalism. However, in the end all it really seems to prove is that less is not necessarily more.


Movie Review of THE GREAT BEAUTY and TOM AT THE FARM by Howard Casner

In 1960, Federico Fellini gave us one of the greatest films of all time, La Dolce Vita, a savage look at society Italiana at the time, as well as a heartbreaking character study of a journalist who, by the end of the movie, is totally and spiritually lost (La Dolce Vita also gave us the word Paparazzi for those who like to play Trivial Pursuit). It’s been more than fifty years since that seminal film found its way into cinematic history and today we have The Great Beauty (La Grande Bellezze), from screenwriters Umberto Contarello and Paolo Sorrentino, who also directed. This time though, the movie is a much more vicious and savage look at Momma Roma’s inhabitants and the writer, a journalist, is totally and spiritually lost from the beginning of the film.

I think the comparison is very apt because The Great Beauty feels, in many ways, as if it were a sequel to that earlier film, that is, if the central character were still alive and only 65. When I told a friend this, his first question was, butis it like the neo-realist Fellini or the Fellini after 8 ½? His reaction when I said it was of the later was not the most of positives, but people should be forewarned. The Great Beauty is not like the Fellini of Rome: Open City (yes, I know, he didn’t direct it, but he was a writer on it, so there), La Strada and Nights of Cabiria. This is the wild and deliriously dreamlike Fellini of Amarcord, Roma and Cassanova.

In other words, there is precious little plot here. Instead, it is a series of visually stunning vignettes as the central character travels through various scenes of daily high life in Rome including some amazing and beautiful a cappella performances in unusual outdoor locations; a stage performer in the middle of nowhere who runs head first into the stone of a bridge to prove a point of some kind that is never really clear (which, I think, is the point, I think); a doctor who gives Botox injections in a cathedral like office while a crowd of desperate haves look on; and, perhaps most movingly, a dinner party honoring a 109 year old nun who has yet to be canonized, but everyone considers to be a saint, and who is going to climb the steps of a shrine on her knees.

Contarello and Sorrentino’s Roma is filled with the grotesqueries made famous by Fellini (though on a scale of one to ten, Fellini’s grotesqueries were a twelve while here we have maybe a seven; but that’s not a negative, just an observation). It’s a city filled with hypocrites and people who have lost their way and are floundering to find meaning in their lives, if they ever really had a way in the first place. It’s filled with people who travel from wild party to wild party because it’s the place to be (including one in which the guests start a dance train and our hero says, “I love the trains in Rome, they never go anywhere”—a bit on the nose, perhaps, but still a fun line). I think the easiest way to describe it all is that from Contarello and Sorrentino’s point of view, Rome is nothing but one big shallow and empty performance art piece crammed full of nothing but smaller shallow and empty performance art pieces.

Perhaps the only thing sadder than any of this is that in spite of all the shallowness and emptiness at the core of it, Rome still seems ten times more alive and creative and vibrant than Los Angeles.

Our hero, Jep Gambardella, is played by Toni Servillo, quite possibly Italy’s greatest actor who has given incredible performances in such films as Il Divo (as prime minister Giulio Andreotti), Gomorrah, The Girl by the Lake and Gorbaciof (as you know who complete with bald head and birth mark). For context, Jep is in many ways a modern day Truman Capote and Marcel Proust, two writers who spent much of their life in the midst of the rich, the influential, the movers and shakers, quietly observing and recording the foibles of the upper crust. In fact, Jep says his goal was to become someone who was not just invited to all the A parties, but he wanted to be the person who could make or break one if he wanted to.

But unlike Capote and Proust, Jep only wrote one book, a novel he penned when he was much younger. It was well received and basically was his calling card into the society he ended up being so much a part of. Why he never wrote another is something he will not tell anyone. But the reason is the reason for the title of the film.

As comically witty as The Grand Beauty is; as visually exciting and stunning as it is; as brilliant as Servillo is, the movie still falls a bit short. For one thing, one could question whether it really has anything new to say; it is basically La Dolce Vita, but La Dolce Vita has already been done. All the movie really says is that Rome hasn’t changed much in fifty years. I’m not saying that’s not a worthwhile observation, but still, it does kind of rob anyone of being able to say, so this is what Rome has come to, since it really hasn’t come to that, it’s always been that way.

And I’m not convinced that the movie really sold the cause as to why Jep never wrote another book. So little time is devoted to that episode in his life, it ends up feeling more like an excuse rather than a reason.

But The Grand Beauty is a great ride of a movie, a roller coaster of evocative sights, sounds and savagery. It may not be La Dolce Vita, but that doesn’t mean it should be missed.

Xavier Dolan, the writer/director wunderkind from French Canada, has now completed four films. His first was the semi-sorta-autobiographical I Killed My Mother, made when he was 18 (hence the wunderkind appellation). Since then he is responsible for Heartbeats, Laurence Anyways and now Tom at the Farm.

In certain ways all four films are very similar in style. They are all visually stunning. Dolan has an incredible eye and every film has looked and felt different in aesthetic approach. At the same time, they have all had weak screenplays, except perhaps for the first one–the autobiographical one (which probably explains why it is the most successful film of the four; we all have at least one in us, don’t we, whether we’re a writer or not).

And Tom at the Farm is no different. It looks great, but the story, characters and dialog just don’t work and, as was often the case for the other films as well, are often ridiculous.

Tom at the Farm starts out well. It follows the title character (played by Dolan himself—Dolan often also produces, edits and does some designing on his films—or co- does it all—so he really has no one to blame but himself) as he travels from the city to the farm of his late lover, accompanied by a wonderful French version of The Windmills of Your Mind (Dolan knows his pop music—he made a brilliant use of Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down) in Hearbeats). His lover’s funeral is coming up, but the kick is that his lover’s mother doesn’t know that her son was gay and the lover’s brother, Francis (played by Pierre-Yves Cardinal, who gives the strongest performance in the film), is virulently and psychopathically homophobic and is determined to keep his brother’s queerness a secret.

At first appearance this does have all the makings of a first rate thriller (though as time went on, instead of Alfred Hitchcock, the film more constantly reminded me of Die, Die My Darling, Talulah Bankhead’s unfortunate coda, and not the most fortunate of references). And much of the early scenes are helped by the tense, dynamic music score of Gabriel Yared. But Tom… is also one of those movies where you can pinpoint the exact moment it stops working. And it’s early on.

At the funeral, Tom is suppose to give a speech and when he doesn’t, Francis traps him in the men’s room, takes him into a stall and starts slapping him around. Tom has three choices. He can leave and go back to the city. He can fight back. Or he can take it. And for some reason that I will never comprehend, Tom chooses multiple choice “C”. And at that point, the movie takes a turn from which it cannot possibly recover.

There are two problems with the choice Dolan has Tom make. The first is that it wasn’t remotely believable. Dolan doesn’t come close to selling it. But if we do buy it, then it makes Tom uninteresting, boring and unsympathetic; sort of, well, if that’s your choice, you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you, you went in with your eyes wide open. In fact, when this scene happened, I remember thinking, “That’s it, I’m done, I am so out of here”.

I suspect that there is suppose to be some sort of homoerotic tension between Tom and Francis that is suppose to explain all of their actions, no matter how ridiculous they seem. But if so, this tension never takes root. Dolan even goes to such extremes as staging a ballroom dancing scene between Francis and Tom, as Francis used to do with his brother—but the scene is not remotely erotic, it’s just weird, and the sexual tension is quite noticeably absent (I mean, if you want to see a sexually tense, homoerotic scene of two men dancing, check out the tuxedoed tango between Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbe in Paul Verhoeven’s Soldier of Orange).

The plot becomes even more absurd and unbelievable when after being constantly browbeaten and threatened by Francis, Tom asks Sara, a friend and the woman his ex’s mother thinks was involved with her son, to come down. He asks a friend to come to a potentially life threatening situation. And Sara comes. And when Francis starts pulling his shit on her, Sara reacts the way Tom should have, but didn’t; she hits Francis back and pulls a knife on him. Okay, so far so good.

But get this. You are not going to believe this. I mean, you are really not and maybe you should be sitting down. After all that happens, Sara is driven to the bus to return home and there, with Tom watching, she gets happy drunk with this Francis (yeah, HAPPY drunk), and after Tom takes a walk, she has sex with this sociopathic asshole. No, I’m not kidding. This really happened. I know, I know. I couldn’t believe it either. But that’s how it went down.

I’m not sure why Dolan feels compelled to write his own screenplays. From what I can tell, it’s just not his strong suit. There’s nothing wrong with that, many if not most directors are not that great of writers. But every time I see his films, I can’t help but wonder what it would have been like with a stronger author at the core. However, once again, I guess we will not find out.


Movie Reviews of CLOSED CURTAIN, CONGRATULATIONS and VIC + FLO SAW A BEAR by Howard Casner

I saw three movies at AFI that all began the same way, and I don’t mean on the screen. For each one, a programmer would introduce them and would wax rapturous to the audience about seeing the film for the first time at a festival, knowing, just knowing, in the first five minutes no less, that this movie was so unique and original, that the writer and director had a real vision, and that AFI just had to bring this movie to Los Angeles. With that they would start texting the other programmers (which was probably a bit annoying to other audience members, as well as being a bit hypocritical since the programmers would always tell us to turn off our cell phones before the movie started, but anyway, I digress…) and tell them about their discovery. As a result, a flurry would commence.

And this made perfect sense since the opening scenes, even the first half, for all three films were quite wonderful. And then the second half would begin. And the movie would, let us say, not quite live up to earlier expectations (or in layman’s terms, would start falling apart, or in layman, layman’s turns, it would crash and burn). And my first thought was, where were all the flurries of follow-up texting then, telling each and every one, oops, sorry, false alarm? There were times I even wondered if the programmers had actually stayed for the whole film.

Closed Curtain is the new Iranian film from writer Jafar Panahi, who also co-directed it along with Kambuzia Partovi (in an unusual turn for movies, it has two directors, but one writer). Both filmmakers are under house arrest in their home countries and both have been banned from making movies for the next twenty years. As a result, Panahi has written and directed two movies based solely in the confined locations of his arrest (I think the phrase “oh, yeah, well…take that” is somewhat appropriate here). In Iran, self-contained, three-unity films are not just an option, they are sometimes a creative necessity.

The first film Panahi made this way is a documentary called This Is Not a Film about a director planning a project he is not sure he will ever be able to direct. His follow up film is this one and the first half is quite intriguing and often riveting. In a sort of quasi-sci-fi premise, a man (played by Partovi) comes to his second home by the sea smuggling his dog with him because dogs have been named impure by Shariah law and are being put to death. To save his dog, he has to become a hermit and make sure that no one sees his beloved pet (he even has to throw out the droppings after dark, first checking that no one is around). But then one night, two people, a brother and sister, suddenly appear, on the run when the police break up a party on the beach. The brother leaves, but the sister stays. And then suddenly, the man turns around and the sister has vanished.

This is a wonderful set up for a mind-fuck of a thriller. It’s edge of seat, original, enthralling. One has to know what is going to happen and how it will all come out. Which is too bad since this is something you will never know. For at this moment, this story line completely stops as Panahi breaks the third wall and enters the frame, but not as a character in the story, but as himself. And the story now becomes about him relating to his friends and neighbors as well as…

Well, to be honest, I have no idea what the story is about at this point. It completely lost me. And it was so unfortunate, because the first half was a story well worth telling. I have no idea why Panahi suddenly decided he just didn’t want to tell it anymore. I’m sure he had his reasons, but it was all a mystery to me. In the end, the second half became a confusing series of scenes that didn’t seem to have any real clear purpose or goal.

The first half of the dark comedy Congratulations!, written and directed by Mike Brune, is absolutely hysterical. I mean, it’s a real laugh riot, one of the funniest films I’ve seen all year.

The basic premise is that a child goes missing; but he vanishes basically in front of his mother and guests who are attending a party at the child’s house. The mother looks away for half a minute and then turns back and her son‘s no longer there. Actually, that’s not the basic premise, that’s the set up for the basic premise. The premise is that when the police arrive, they don’t act like a child vanishing in this manner is anything surprising. They treat it as something that is devastating, but has happened before. And to make things even more absurd, everyone acts their roles and says their lines as if they are in an episode of Dragnet, with John Curran, as the detective in charge, reciting his dialog in rich, flat tones that would make Joe Friday proud.

I’m not sure that really gives one an idea as to why the whole thing is so ridiculously funny. But the absurdity of the situation combined with the seriousness with which it is treated is classic black humor. At times, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. And there are some remarkable scenes, such as the mother (Rhoda Griffis) spontaneously and desperately, even heart-breakingly, reenacting exactly what she did when she realized her child was missing, hoping against hope that might give her the clue to finding her little boy.

But in the end, the second half starts to flounder. Brune hasn’t figured out a way to sustain what is essentially, in many ways, a one-joke premise that possibly could have been done in less than half the time and still be effective. I mentioned Dragnet, and that probably is all the screenplay is: a satiric episode of that series that didn’t really have enough going for it to last much longer than a single installment would.

Vic + Flo Saw a Bear is writer and director Denis Cote’s character study of two women, lovers, both of whom are ex-cons and who begin living together at a remote farm where Vic’s father is suffering the debilitating effects of a stroke, so debilitating he can’t even get out of his wheelchair or speak or take care of himself. The characters and the acting are rich, so rich, that one is drawn into their world and relationships and intrigued by what their future holds.

But the story has some serious structural flaws. It begins as Vic’s story (Flo doesn’t show up for thirty minutes or so) and then it becomes Flo’s story as she goes off to pick up men at a local dive while a psychopath from her past shows up seeking some sort of revenge for some sort of motive that is never, ever revealed for some sort of reason (actually, both the pasts of Vic + Flo are a bit Harold Pinterishly unclear at times, which is actually one of the story’s strong points).

Cote, though, never brings Vic and Flo’s storylines together in a satisfactory way (which is surprising since the set up seems to make it embarrassingly easy for one to do so if one had the druthers for it). As a result, the story eventually feels as if it’s not really going anywhere. The ending is a puzzle. Both women find their legs encased in bear traps, but never try to get themselves out. And then they become ghosts wandering around. I guess it’s supposed to be symbolic or be deeply revelatory about the characters’ relationship, but hell if I know what it all meant.

And thus we have it. Three films with definite potential that for some reason don’t quite get there and it’s a shame. But after seeing all three movies and thinking over the introductions of the programmers, it sort of reminds me of a scene from the 1942 film Kings Row in which Ronald Reagan wakes up after an accident to find his legs have been amputated. At first everything seems normal since his upper body is perfectly sound. Then suddenly the truth washes over him and he starts screaming, “Where’s the rest of me”. I did keep wondering where the rest of the movies here were.


Movie Reviews of GLORIA and STRANGER BY THE LAKE by Howard Casner

Gloria, a character study of a divorced women in her forties written by Sebastian Lelo and Gonzalo Massa, and directed by the latter, is the Chilean entry in the Foreign Language Film Category for the Oscars. In full disclosure, I should mention right off that my friend and the audience loved this movie. Actually, he found it “delightful”. Me? Eh, not so much.

How you feel about the movie will probably depend a lot upon how you feel about the character herself, and, yes, I must admit, I did rather like this Gloria. She’s perky and takes risks. She sings to the radio while driving in a way that’s a little embarrassing because, you know, you’ve done it, too, you know you have. She wears these incredibly goofy, over size glasses that look kind of neat and retro and fun. There’s something about her that’s quite ingratiating. And Pauline Garcia plays her with a lot of warmth and empathy, smiling her toothsome smile, as she makes her days of well, I don’t know if quiet desperation is the term, but she does seem vaguely unsatisfied about something in her life, though the context is a bit wibbly, wobbly as far as I was concerned.

But then the movie stopped working for me. She meets a man and starts a romance. And on a date, something happens. He gets a phone call. And even before he answered the phone, I said to myself, “Okay, I got it, I know where this is going, I know every twist and turn that is going to happen here” and it became a film I felt I had seen a million times before. No surprises. No chances taken. The same old, same old. And it seems to take forever to get there.

Her date does some awful things to her, true, and I felt very bad for her (walks of shame are often only amusing when you tell the story in retrospect). But the ending is one of those where you are asked to root for the character because she refuses to let tragedy, the continued awfulness of life, the inherent sadness of existential existence get her down. No, by God, she’s going to say yes to life and she dances triumphantly to a song with her same name (you know the one).

And the ending works. For a moment. I’m really caught up in it until I realize, “Wait, what tragedy, what awfulness of life, what inherent sadness of existential existence. She had a couple of bad dates” (well, one was more than just bad, but still I stand by my basic point). And to be ruthlessly honest, as the credits rolled, I felt I had been had to a degree.

Still, it’s a perfectly nice story and you could certainly do a lot worse.

A man calmly strips completely naked, cock and balls swaying in the sun, and walks around the woods looking to fuck or get fucked by another man while other naked men do the same thing. One man jacks himself off, his hard cock shooting out cum, while another man kisses him. Another man goes down on two other men, sucking their dicks at the same time. Another man fucks one guy, then turns around and lets the other guy fuck him. Two guys sixty nine each other, their mouths going down on each other’s hard, erect cocks. Another guy lowers his shorts and plays with his cock, trying to get hard, masturbating himself, while watching two guys trying to fuck, until he is told by one of them to take off, while the other guy sees no harm in being watched.

If any of my phrasing disturbs you, if any of that sort of activity makes you uncomfortable, then you should definitely NOT go see the exciting and riveting French film Stranger By the Lake, a new thriller that takes place at a remote cruising area populated by gay men in the 1980’s (I think, the time period is a bit unclear, but I’m pretty sure that’s when it happens). Please, save your time and money, and go see Mary Poppins or something. Because Stranger… is one of the frankest, most realistic and uncensored views of gay male sex you are likely to see in movies for some time. The writer and director Alain Guiradie has not hidden anything in the shadows or cleverly staged it all to make it more palatable. He has put it all out full monty as they say, and without the use of fake genitalia as in Blue is the Warmest Color (though at one point, I do suspect a stuntcock was employed). So beware and be warned.

Stranger… is a film that does something that I look for in films. It takes you into a world that you may never have seen before. But more importantly, it completely realizes that world. It doesn’t try to hide anything or coddle you as an audience member. It is as complete and honest a look, without apology or any attempt to defend it, as you will likely ever see. It is told from the viewpoint of someone on the inside looking out and is as much this insider’s look at a culture with its own rules, language and mores as The Apostle is about Evangelical charismatics; Goodfellows is about the mob; and The Nun’s Story is about life in a convent.

And this means looking at men who don’t have the greatest of bodies, with stomachs sagging and faces brutally revealing their ages. It means showing men desperately trying for a connection with sad and hopeless looks, knowing they are not what anybody really wants (or actually, they are not what the men who they want want—they wouldn’t have sex with people like themselves either if they could help it). It shows people who are willing to make fools of themselves, knowing they are going to be turned down before they even approach someone. It means showing sex in all its pornographic detail.

But it also shows the excitement of existing in that milieu, of being free to go naked, of making those incredibly thrilling connections, of fucking in the broad daylight with a complete stranger while everybody watches. It’s a scene where sex is always and everywhere in the air. And it’s not like sex anywhere else, it’s not Kansas, anymore, Toto. It’s an incredibly erotic and passionate world while at the same time an equally depressing and frustrating one.

But Stranger… is also a thriller. It’s been compared to Hitchcock, but for me, I think the pacing is a little leisurely for that and I think a more apt comparison is the great French filmmaker Claude Chabrol, especially his film La Boucher, about a serial killer at lose in a small French town. Stranger… is a film full of the wind making eerie sounds as it rushes through the waving trees; a film full of languorous afternoons by a lazy lake; a film filmed with setting suns and impenetrable darkness.

It’s a film where you see shot after shot of the hero arriving and parking his car, a series of scenes that seems pointless at first, but actually says much: not only does it tell you the area is a place where the same people come to every day, so everyone almost always has the same parking place, it’s also a series of scenes that when something goes a little awry, you notice—a certain car never leaves and is always there, all through the nights, day after day, until one day, it’s suddenly not there anymore.

The story revolves around Franck (solidly acted by Pierre Deladonchamps), a very good looking young man who starts coming to the lake more often than usual because he lost some hours at work and has nothing else to do. He’s one of those attractive men who is democratic in the way he treats other people—he’ll see a much older, heavy set man, who is anything but handsome (in this case Henri, played by Patrick d’Assumcao, who for some reason made me think this is the actor you get if you can’t get Gerard Depardieu), and he’ll casually go and sit by him and talk, never ever passing judgment on the older man’s looks. It will never occur to Franck that there is anything odd about this, though no one else at his level of attractiveness would do the same. He’ll even become your friend and have dinner with you.

Of course, he does it without realizing (though possibly he does very deep down) that he is causing an certain discomfort in Henri (who instantly thinks, what is this good looking young man sitting down and talking to me for, what does he want, is he teasing me, does he want money for sex, is he truly attractive to me). So Franck is also a bit of a heartless cad as well. And he’s a bit less democratic in sex. He won’t have anything to do with the sagging bellied men who are old enough to be his father. But he’ll let them watch without losing a hard on over it and if they play their cards right, he might let them give him a blow job.

But one day he sees a stranger, Michel (played with a certain smoldering sexiness by Christophe Paou) and there is just something about this stranger that Franck can’t get over. And they talk, but, for various issues, don’t have sex. And then Franck sees this stranger do something horrific. But Franck finds himself paralyzed about it all, not able to act. This turn may be hard to accept, but I bought it, and I think I bought it because I don’t think even Franck fully understands why he acts the way he does. So instead of going to the police, he begins a regular sexual encounter with Michel, and the passion is so incredible, it just confuses him more about what to do.

And in the end, I found myself fully investing myself in this relationship, as hard as it may be to believe at first. And this decision of Franck’s leads to subtly growing tensions and breathtaking scenes like Michel asking Franck to go for a swim when there is nobody, nobody, at the lake to see them. At first Franck refuses, knowing what has happened before, but then he has to, he has to go out to Michel, he has to know whether Michel will do to him what he did to the other person. And when he doesn’t, Franck is both thrilled and terrified. And even more confused.

The story gets more suspenseful as a police inspector starts hovering around, always showing up at the wrong moment, to ask questions. He’s like something out of a George Simenon novel and provides some comic relief along with philosophical observations about the cruising lifestyle while being the character that forces the climax (no pun intended) as he puts more and more pressure on all the characters to do something. He’s played by Jerome Chapatte, and though he gets the job done, he may look and walk and act a bit too much like Jacques Tati than is ultimately good for the movie.

And the film ends on one of those existential, European notes of ambiguity. I’m not sure I agree with the finale, though normally I love such resolutions because that is often the way life is. But here it makes an earlier action of Michel and Henri pointless, which is a little unsatisfactory. But at the same time, it also made the movie hard to forget.


Movie Reviews of 12 YEARS A SLAVE and BASTARDS by Howard Casner

John Ridley and Steve McQueen (writer and director respectively, and no I’m not going to make any sort of joke about how great McQueen was riding motorcycles away from Nazis—that sort of thing is so beneath me) have achieved two things in their new film 12 Years a Slave: they have created one of the most beautiful films about slavery that has ever been made, while also creating one of the ugliest and most realistic movies about slavery that has ever been made. I suppose one might say that they even achieved a third thing here: they managed to create a film in which these two seemingly opposing aesthetic approaches actually support and deepen each other. Not an easy feat and the main achievement in this often hard to watch biopic of a free man who is abducted and sold into slavery.

There is much to like here. As was said, it’s both beautiful and horrible to look at. And there is some amazing use of percussion and sound in the thrilling music score by Hans Zimmer. The technical aspects of the film, the set design, the costumes, etc., are first rate. In fact, if someone called this movie brilliant, I’m not sure I could really argue the point. It’s quite an achievement and an experience not easily forgotten.

So why, at the end of the day, was I never quite emotionally involved in this story of Simon Northrop, the free man betrayed and bound into bondage? Why did I find myself getting antsy at times (and not during the scenes of violence and degradation the slaves were put through—those were the last places where I got antsy)? And why, oh, why (and I say this in fear of getting condemned to criticism hell forever), why do I prefer Django Unchained?

I think there are several reasons why 12 Years… didn’t quite work as well for me as it did for many, many others. The first is that it didn’t seem to take movies about slavery anywhere that it hadn’t gone before. Well, true, it’s the most realistic and grotesque depiction of that ignoble institution, and must be given credit for that. But is that enough? In the end, does the movie say anything more than, well, that slavery is bad, just as every other movie about slavery has also so said? It may have proven its thesis more than others, but again, I’m not sure that that alone is quite enough. It’s worthy, very worthy, for that, but is it any more than that?

The structure also felt a bit static as well. There didn’t seem to be any real rises or falls to the story. Instead, in many ways, it was just one horrifying scene after another, all pretty much on the same level of tension, with a plot that didn’t really seem to be heading in any clear direction. Of course, Ridley and McQueen were trapped to some degree by the subject matter. How do you depict twelve years of slavery that revolves around someone who has no choice but to be reactive rather than active and still keep the story going forward in an exciting and riveting manner when there is no real end game within the character’s control?

It’s not easy. Ronald Harwood and Roman Polanski had the same issue but were more successful in their movie The Pianist, also a movie about someone so trapped in a situation he could do little but react. I think, though, that what made the difference there is two things: in the Pianist, we were constantly aware of what that character was doing to survive on a daily basis (whereas for Northrop, this didn’t seem as strongly dramatized; in fact, whenever he did do something to try to fix his situation, it often felt like it was more an afterthought thrown in by the writers rather than something integral to the structure of the story).

The second is that The Pianist had a structure dictated by a time-line series of events: Poland before the invasion, the German enforcement of anti-Semitic laws, the Warsaw ghetto, the central character escaping before he could be taken to a camp, his hiding in Warsaw during the war, and then the war ending and his life in Russia. But in 12 Years…, Ridley and McQueen couldn’t quite find the same sort of structure; Northrop is freed before the Civil War, and there wasn’t much difference in one year from the next, unlike in the Pianist (and when a difference, an interruption in the status quo, could be dramatized, like Northrop’s two years spent with a more “kindly” master, Ridley and McQueen leaped over it as it were insignificant).

I also felt there was something amiss in the characterizations. To be ruthlessly honest, I found it rather odd that the white characters were the most complex and psychologically intriguing here. The personas played by Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Michael Fassbender and Sarah Paulson (and even those played by actors like Bryan Bratt in much smaller roles) all seemed to have more depth than the slaves. The main exception to this is perhaps Lupito Nyong’o as the mistress of Fassbender’s slave owner (who plays the part as if her life depended on it; it’s an often terrifying performance), but she has relatively little screen time. In fact, what really surprised me is that in a movie about slavery, so much time was spent on the Strindbergian relationship of Fassbender and Paulson’s characters, a husband and wife who find no end of enjoyment in torturing each other.

And there is that dialog. As far as I can tell, it was well written. That didn’t seem to be the issue. For me (and here in full disclosure I must reveal that my friend who saw the movie with me disagreed most fervently on my assessment), none of the actors ever appeared comfortable with the archaic phrasings and rhythms (it never seemed to roll trippingly off their tongues), unlike, say, the actors in True Grit, who attacked their outdated patois with great gusto, as if to the wild west born, or the actors in Topsy-Turvy, who sounded as if they actually grew up in Victorian London. Everybody recited their lines almost as if they needed at least another week of rehearsal for it to feel natural. And that’s when I found myself getting antsy; when the torture and degradation stopped and I had to actually listen to these people talk to each other for extended periods of time.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Northrop with a great deal of empathy. He is a fine actor and is getting all the praise he deserves for his skill here. But in the end, I never quite became emotionally involved in it the way, I’m sure, Ridley and McQueen wanted me to be. I am more than willing to accede that this is all on me. But as much as I appreciated the experience, and it is an experience that should be experienced, it just didn’t quite come together for me.

Bastards is the new, kinda, sorta neo-noir written by Jean-Pol Fargeau and Claire Denis, who also directed (the two often collaborate on their screenplays). I call it kinda, sorta, because it often feels like an early draft, a movie that hasn’t been fully thought out.

It focuses on two people: Raphaelle, the mistress to LaPorte, a powerful businessman, and Marco, a freighter captain who leaves his post to move into a flat above Raphaelle in order to seek revenge against LaPorte, who he blames for all the problems his family has recently undergone (their daughter used as an SM victim, her vagina horribly injured; his brother committing suicide; and the family business going bankrupt). There’s a ton of potential here and the opening horrifying scenes are appropriately puzzling and intriguing (why are those EMT workers crowded around this building; why is this young woman walking naked down the street in high heels; why is the wife blaming the police for the death of her husband who committed suicide). What more could one ask from a neo-noir?

But about half way through, it feels like the story stopped going anywhere that exciting. And it’s this focus, or what might be more accurately called a lack of one, this splitting of the plot between the two people, that seems to be the chief problem. The whole effectiveness of the story gets muddled because in having the narrative derive from two different viewpoints, the story becomes so split, there’s not enough time to fully develop either character, either through line, until the film seems to be flailing to come together in an exciting and emotionally involving manner. The result is a climax that seems to come just as the story was really getting going, making the whole enterprise meaningless, which was then followed by a scene dramatizing the daughter’s SM experience shot, for some mind boggling reason, as if it were an MTV video. If it all means something, or the finale was supposed to come together in a revelatory way, let’s just say it all escaped me.

The movie stars hang-dog looking Vincent (La Mustache, Mademoiselle Chambon) Lindon as Marco and the handsome Chiara Mastroianni (daughter of you know how and you know who) as Raphaelle. They are both excellent and have a nice chemistry together. The whole movie has an effectively moody feel to it, emphasizing the noir of its genre. It has a fantastic set up. It has every ingredient a film of this type should have. Except the correct recipe for putting it all together.