Showing posts with label Tennessee Jed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennessee Jed. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Guest Review: Mulholland Drive (2001)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

There are a handful of filmmakers who evoke true passion when discussed among film buffs, but perhaps none more so than David Lynch. Supporters have elevated him to the level of genius, while detractors claim his work is overly complex, inaccessible, and symbolic to a fault. Few are without opinion, and it is usually strong.

* * * TOTAL SPOILER ALERT * * *

Somewhere between those extremes is probably where I fall, having not even seen his complete body of work. I couldn’t watch Eraserhead, but enjoyed both Blue Velvet, and Lost Highway. Of those I’ve seen, Mulholland Drive strikes me as easily the best. Lynch was rewarded with an Oscar nomination for best director. Like much of his work, it’s left to the viewer to make sense of what has been seen, and to interpret any symbolism or deeper meaning. In fact, Lynch, (particularly with this film) has developed a large cult following. Like Dylan song lyrics, more analysis and interpretation exists for this than any other film that comes to mind. That may not necessarily be the mark of a great film, but it certainly indicates a level of interest bordering on the compulsive for a great many people. Let’s examine why, but if you have yet to see the film, I suggest you do so before reading further.
The Plot is difficult to summarize. Like Pulp Fiction, scenes develop seemingly disparate story lines that don’t necessarily appear in chronological order, while bizarre characters appear and re-appear in scenes that make little sense on the surface. For most, repeat viewings are necessary to sort everything out, and put it all in proper context.

As the film begins, a group of 50’s era teens frantically jitterbug to big band music while an over-exposed image of a young blonde and elderly couple is superimposed over them. There is a brief cut to a red comforter covering a sleeping body. This in turn cuts to a street sign of Mulholland Drive, and a beautiful brunette woman (Laura Harring) in the back of a limo which stops in the middle of the street. There are flashes of two cars full of youngsters racing downhill on a dangerous curving road. The woman asks why they stopped, and the driver turns, points a pistol at her, and tells her to get out. The two cars barrel around a curve and slam into the limo killing all except the woman. Bloodied and dazed, she staggers down the hill, crosses Sunset Boulevard, and hides in shrubs outside a gated apartment complex where she falls asleep. In the morning she sneaks into an apartment while the occupant is in the process of leaving.

The perky, wholesome young woman seen briefly at the beginning is Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) from Deep River, Ontario. She arrives in Hollywood to “apartment sit” for her actress aunt, and pursue her own dream to make it as an actress and movie star. The elderly couple originally shown with her turn out to be her traveling companions from the plane. Betty is startled to find the mysterious brunette in her aunt’s shower. When asked her name, the woman appears confused, but seeing a poster of Rita Hayworth as Gilda on the wall, answers “Rita”. Betty quickly learns Rita is not her aunt’s friend, and is suffering from amnesia, but still befriends her, and together they try to find out who Rita is, and what has happened to her. They also discover a wad of cash and mysterious blue key in her purse which they hide in a hat box in the closet.
In a parallel story, a young movie director, Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) attends a meeting with studio executives, to re-cast the lead role in his film. Also there are the Castiglione Brothers (Dan Hedaya and Angelo Badalamenti), mobsters with apparent studio control. They pull out a picture of a young actress named Camilla Rhodes (Melissa George) telling Adam “this is the girl” who must be cast as the lead. Adam refuses, but various characters, including a cowboy, subsequently threaten Adam, ultimately securing his acquiescence.

Betty is scheduled to read for a part at an audition arranged by her aunt. She practices reading the lines in a conventional boring manner with Rita. At the audition, Betty takes it to a whole new level. This earns her a different audition for Adam’s movie,The Sylvia North Story, but Adam, as we know, has already agreed to cast Camilla Rhodes. Betty leaves without auditioning. She and Rita follow a lead to the apartment of Diane Selwyn (also played by Naomi Watts) where they break in only to find Diane dead in the bedroom. Rita becomes hysterical, and when they get home, she cuts her hair and dons a blonde wig that looks exactly like Betty’s hair. Betty invites Rita to share her aunt’s big bed, and they engage in a lesbian encounter.

Rita has a dream in which she speaks Spanish. She asks Betty to go with her to a seedy club (Club Silencio). An extremely surreal scene ensues where performers explain things are not what they appear. Betty begins to shake violently. A female vocalist performs Roy Orbison’s Crying in Spanish causing both Betty and Rita to weep. They find a blue box in Betty’s purse. Upon returning, Rita turns to get the hatbox where she earlier hid her own purse with the cash and blue key, but when she turns back, Betty has disappeared. Rita uses the blue key from her purse to open the blue box, and the camera zooms down into the darkness of the box. This occurs nearly 80% of the way through the film, and from here on, ensuing scenes are designed to tie together the loose ends from the first two hours.
The camera cuts to Diane’s apartment. She is lying on her bed in exactly the same position she was earlier when found dead. A door knock sounds, and the same Cowboy (Monty Montgomery) who earlier convinced Adam to cast Camilla Rhodes as the lead in The Sylvia North Story says “Come on pretty girl, time to wake up”. We notice a red lamp shade by the bed, and a blue key on the coffee table. Diane turns around and fantasizes that her lover, who had apparently broken up with her, has come back. Surprise! It’s “Rita” whose real name is Camilla.

The final scenes tend to hop about in a series of flashbacks. Diane receives a call from Camilla telling her she is sending a limo for her. We see the same shot of Mulholland Drive and the limo stopping, but this time, it is Diane in the back seat. Camilla walks up to greet her, then takes her up a shortcut path to Adam’s house where a party is in progress. Many characters from earlier in the movie now appear in different persona. During cocktail chatter, we learn Diane was from Deep River, Ontario where she won a dance contest that inspired her to become an actress using some of the money she inherited from an aunt in the film business who passed away. She recounts how she met Camilla on the set of The Sylvia North Story when Camilla beat her out for the lead role. Subsequently they became friends (and apparently lovers). Adam and Camilla announce their engagement, and we see a tear trickle down Diane’s cheek followed by a look of hatred.

The scene jumps to Winkie’s on Sunset Blvd., a diner that has shown up repeatedly earlier in the film. Diane appears to take out a hit on Camilla with an unsavory character introduced previously. She pays with a roll of cash, possibly the inheritance from her aunt. He tells her he will leave a blue key “where they had discussed” when the job is done. Behind the diner is a grotesque, homeless man seen early in the film. At his feet is a paper bag with the blue box. Miniature versions of the elderly couple scurry out of the bag laughing hysterically. The scene shifts back to Diane’s where she sits on her sofa. There is a door knock, and the little people scurry under the door to attack her. She retreats to her bedroom, gets a gun from the night table, and shoots herself. Silencio!
So What Does It All Mean? - Well, there in lies the fun and mystery of the film. After seeing it a couple of times, it became pretty clear to me that most of the first two hours are essentially a dream fantasy of Diane Selwyn, a would be actress who has been ground down by Hollywood. Rejected both professionally and personally, she reacts in an unfortunate way, contracting to have the lover who jilted her murdered. The subsequent despair experienced at her circumstances drives her to take her own life, but not before dreaming of the events that transpired to bring her to this lowest point. Naturally, she retreats to an earlier, happier time, imagining a career and relationship more the way she hoped they would turn out. As often happens in dreams, many of the characters who inhabit them are drawn from actual people she has recently encountered, even if only in some small way.

In subsequent viewings, the story becomes clearer since Lynch left plenty of clues. The color red (similar to The Sixth Sense) is shown with comforters, lampshades, or an appliance “on” switch, and seemingly signals changes from dream to reality or at least a shift in time. In fact, Lynch lists this in the DVD package as one of 10 clues to help viewers “unlock the thriller.”
Then, Is This A Masterpiece? - Those words tend to get thrown around far too much, however I do think this is an exceptional film, and easily Lynch’s best. The first two hour segment (the dream sequence) was written as a t.v. pilot. When it was clear it wouldn’t be picked, Lynch cobbled together the last half hour to wrap things up and transform it into a feature film. The way he did is exceptionally skillful. It also became the breakout role for the actress Naomi Watts who displays an incredible range in portraying Betty Elms and Diane. Her scene with the actor Chad Everett during Betty’s audition is actually a stunning example of how superb acting can transform a set of lines into something extraordinary. It is clear his spoofing of Hollywood could only be told by someone who had actually experienced it.

Lynch is able to mix in the right amount of his unusual humor into several scenes. Two great examples are Badalamenti spitting the expresso into his napkin, and the mob enforcer encountering Adam’s ex-wife and Billy Ray Cyrus as the pool man who was bedding her.

One of my gripes with David Lynch has always been that he goes out of his way to place the weird or bizarre in everyday settings. I first noticed that during the Twin Peaks t.v. series, when he included a scene at the vet with a Llama in the waiting room. It seemed like he was trying just a little too hard to be David Lynch. In this film, though, while there is a little of that, it never rises to the level of a turn-off and the really great elements far outweigh any negatives. Many have found incredibly rich allegorical meaning in this film citing their belief that with Lynch, virtually no single frame is ever without symbolism. Others have expressed their hypothesis of a return to themes of sexual abuse prevalent in his earlier work, or prostitution. Lynch’s exact intention can’t be known since he won’t discuss them.

My preference is to not deconstruct every scene or hypothesize about implicit meanings, although doing so surely is a hell of a lot of fun. There are definite allusions to many classics such as Ingmar Bergman’s film Persona, and The Wizard of Oz. Personally, my feeling is that this one is probably Lynch’s own updated version of or homage to the classic Sunset Boulevard, told in his own peculiar style. The similarities are just too striking. But then, that is only one opinion. How about yours?

There are many links to essays or reviews which are helpful to better understand Mulholland Drive. With the prior caveat about seeing the film first, some of the most helpful include:

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Guest Review: Side Effects (2013)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

Since his arrival in 1989 with Sex, Lies, and Videotape, celebrated director Steven Soderbergh has been nothing if not prolific in his output. Critics argue with some justification that his work is best described as uneven or inconsistent. Though hardly an expert on his career, as a fan of independent, low budget films, I owe him at least a debt of appreciation for his notable contributions in that regard. To be sure, this director has made many complete stinkers, but he’s also made several films I have truly enjoyed. Side Effects, fortunately, falls into that latter category.

Soderbergh films seem to fall into several loosely defined buckets, often spilling over into more than just one. It turns out this film is a suspense thriller in the manner of the great Alfred Hitchcock. Although admittedly a fan of that genre, I think one reason it seems to work so well is its ability to hide that fact by sending up false signals that it would be primarily an “agenda” film exposing the evils of “Big Pharma.” The fact this director has made that type of film helps in the set-up. Let’s consider both its highs and lows.

** spoiler alert **
Plot Synopsis - Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) visits her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) who is finishing up a four year prison sentence for insider trading. Although outwardly supportive, she apparently had lost more than her incredibly exalted financial status; she seems to be suffering from significant depression.

After Martin’s release Emily purposely crashes her car into a parking garage wall. In the ER, she’s interviewed by psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). He reluctantly agrees to discharge her if she comes back for further treatment, and he prescribes one of the SSRI anti-depressant drugs. Emily tells him she was previously treated for depression by Dr.Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Banks consults Siebert who suggests he consider one of the brand new drugs, the fictional Ablixa. When Emily suffers a melt down while attending a business function with Martin, Banks agrees to prescribe Ablixa. It appears to significantly help, but carries its own unique set of side effects.

Martin awakes to see Emily setting the table for three in the middle of the night while the stereo blasts music. It seems one of Ablixa’s side effects is sleepwalking. They both meet with Dr. Banks, but Emily refuses to go off Ablixa, and he agrees to let her continue with the drug, using other treatments for the sleepwalking. One night, as Martin returns to the apartment for dinner, he finds the table again set for three. Confronting Emily, she turns and stabs him to death. Dr. Banks is recruited as an expert consultant by both prosecution and defense. A plea bargain is reached in which Emily is not guilty of murder, but must be institutionalized. Future release is subject to a doctor’s sign-off.

Dr. Banks finds that he has received tremendously unfavorable publicity as a result of the trial. As the A.D.A. points out, Emily is either a murderer or a victim of her medical treatment, and either way, someone has to pay. He begins to lose patients, is forced to resign from a lucrative consulting gig, and ultimately is forced out by his partners. Even Banks’ wife begins to doubt him. As his career and marriage rapidly disintegrate, he finds evidence that perhaps a murder was committed after all. Banks becomes obsessed with proving the wrong person has been “made to pay.” When he presents his concerns to the A.D.A., he is reminded double jeopardy applies, and he should just walk away. To reveal exactly what happens, who was involved, and how it resolves would seem a dis-service to potential viewers.
Why Does The Film Work So Well?
First and foremost, it is an excellent tight script. This film is only an hour and forty-five minutes, and the writers keep the story moving despite a lack of real action. Every scene is lean and purposeful with key information being disseminated just by visuals and mood creation. More importantly, it is a suspense movie that manages to disguise where it is heading for a long, long time. One reviewer even labeled that disguise as the “twist” itself. The story actually touches on some interesting issues regarding “big pharma” and the reliance of modern medicine in this country to depend so heavily on prescription drugs. That is not the true focus of the film, however, and that issue functions, in a way, almost as a kind of MacGuffin. Secondly, the soundtrack by Thomas Newman is extremely compelling and well matched to the scenes in which it is used.

The acting is uniformly excellent. To be sure Law, Mara, and Zeta-Jones do the heavy lifting, and all do it well. Mara has the biggest challenge being alternately sympathetic and a bit creepy. But I couldn’t help noticing just how good some of the actors were in minor roles. Most notable to me were Ann Dowd (Compliance) as Martin’s mother, Polly Draper (Thirtysomething) as Emily’s boss, Michael Nathanson as the A.D.A., and veteran character actor Peter Friedman as the senior partner in Banks’ practice.
Are There Any Negatives Or Is It Really All That?
For this plot to work, the viewer is asked to stretch the bounds of credibility, particularly regarding certain key relationships, and motivations of characters to act in a particular way. Specifically, questions of how Emily develops her relationships with Martin and Dr. Siebert may leave viewers scratching their heads. But, if one looks at most films of this genre in retrospect, almost all present certain facts that just don’t seem to quite make sense realistically. Even if we look at a classic such as North By Northwest, we can easily question the plausibility of some of the events required by that plot. And, what Side Effects does quite well is present its own inconsistencies in a manner that still permits you to enjoy the ride.
So Is This A Must See?
Well, yes, at least in my book. In an era of Man of Steel and Promised Land, damn right it’s worth it to see this one now, and not wait until it comes to MGM Classics. This is particularly true if you like the film noir suspense genre.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Guest Review: Compliance (2012)

A Film Review By Tennessee Jed

Most of us have seen movie posters or trailers touting “based on” or “inspired by” real events. For me, that tends to evoke images of a story so loosely based on facts, any similarity to a real event would be strictly coincidental. Compliance is yet another of the small independent productions to which I have been attracted of late. Directed and written by Craig Zobel, it premiered at the 2012 Sundance Festival. The storyline is generally linked to an actual series of prank phone calls made to fast food restaurants over nearly a decade. This film is based on one particular such incident occurring at a McDonald’s Restaurant in Mt. Washington, Kentucky in 2004.

** spoiler alert **

The title is taken from a term used in experiments by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgrim back in the early 1960‘s analyzing the degree to which subjects were willing to perform acts that differed with their personal code of ethics when ordered to do so by persons in authority. During the premier, several viewers walked out of the following Q&A session feeling the film was demeaning to women. When first viewed, I also felt uncomfortable with the events on screen. Like a gawker at an accident scene, it seemed impossible to not continue watching. At first, the characters and their behavior seem plausible. As the story unfolds, though, I got the distinct feeling the plot was crossing into the realm of fantasy that would turn into some kind of cheap exploitation flick. I was very wrong. These events are all too real, as is the phenomenon being portrayed.
The Events at Chick-wich - Sandra (veteran actress Ann Dowd) is a 50-ish supervisor at the fictional Chick-Wich fast food chain. Becky (Dreama Walker) is a cute 19 year old working the counter. As Sandra prepares for the busiest shift of the week, she takes a call from a person claiming he is Officer Daniels (Pat Healey) from the police and stating he has the regional manager on the other line along with a women alleging an employee stole something from her purse earlier in the day. He claims her story is corroborated by the surveillance unit. He further claims he is involved in searching the suspect’s home, and cannot come to take custody of the suspect for a while. He offers a generic description of a suspect (it could describe half the clerks at most fast food restaurants) but roughly fits Becky. Daniels not so subtly hints that he wants to be able to write favorably in his report of her cooperation, so Sandra agrees to try and help and summons Becky to the office explaining she has been accused of theft.

Becky, of course, denies stealing anything. The caller skillfully switches back and forth between Sandra and Becky to keep them compliant. He convinces both that if Becky doesn’t agree to a strip search, she will likely be arrested, jailed over night, and the incident will be on her official record. She is told to strip naked while Sandra is instructed to carefully examine each article.

Sandra allows her to put on an apron to partially cover herself. To prevent Becky from tampering with possible evidence, Sandra must place the clothing in a bag, and leave it in her unlocked car. She is told to get a male employee to guard Becky, and tells Kevin, a fellow employee, to do so. He is extremely uneasy, and refuses to comply with Daniel’s request to “inspect” her. Daniels is adamant about the need for a cavity search, and convinces Sandra to bring in her fiancee, Van (Bill Camp). When he arrives, Van appears to have been drinking. While Sandra resumes her work duties, Daniels not only convinces Van to conduct the search, but frightens Becky into performing various acts of a humiliating and sexual nature. Feeling guilty, Van leaves, and Daniels tells Sandra she must get yet another male to guard Becky. Becky notices there is monitor in the office covering various surveillance cameras including both the front counter and the office.

The maintenance man, Harold (Kevin Payne) stops by to try the new dessert, and Sandra asks him to come to the office. After listening to Daniels, Harold explodes, and tells Sandra what Daniels ordered him to do. She immediately calls the regional manager who explains he was out sick and never talked with police, confirming to Sandra that she was duped. After three and a half hours, Becky’s ordeal ends, and the real detectives escort her home. In a sort of coda, we learn the man posing as Officer Daniels was apprehended. Sandra has been fired, broken up with Van, and is being sued (along with Chick-Wich Corporate.) The film ends as she is being deposed, and a message stating that over 70 similar incidents have occurred.
How the Real Incident Played Out - After the caller hung up, an employee alertly called *69 before another call came in, and was able to record the number from which the call was placed, a phone card purchased at a Wal-Mart in Florida. In following up with Florida authorities, it was learned similar incidents had been going on for years, although none as long or severe as Mt. Washington. Surveillance cameras at Wal-Mart were able to determine the purchaser of the card used at McDonald’s was an employee of a private security firm named Corrections Corp. of America. Various surveillance stills were used to make a composite, and working with the company’s H.R. department, police identified the suspect as David Stewart, a married father. They also found a card in his home that had been used to call nine restaurants including one on the same day it’s manager was “pranked.” Despite this circumstantial evidence, Stewart was not convicted.

The victim underwent therapy for over three years. She sued McDonalds for $200 million for failure to protect her. The basis was they were aware of the hoax calls and had defended themselves in four other similar lawsuits in different states. The assistant manager, Donna Summers (really!!) was terminated, and her ex-fiancee, Walter Nix sentenced to 5 years for sexual assault. Summers also sued McDonald’s for $50 million. After all the appeals, the victim received just over a million and Summers about $400,000. The incident also formed the basis of a Law & Order S.V.U. episode starring Robin Williams as the caller. I don’t watch that show, but apparently he used the name “Detective Milgram,” a reference to the Yale psychologist. This material on the real incident is taken almost exclusively from a Wikipedia article on the subject, and while I haven’t certified it’s authenticity, it appears amply documented.
Issues and Themes - Without familiarity with the actual incident, It was extremely hard to believe the apparent gullibility and naiveté of Sandra, Becky, or even Van. One initially feels a certain sympathy for those that called the film exploitive. This led me to read more online about the Strip Search Prank Call Scam and the actual Mt. Washington case. It turns out, the events in the film rather closely followed the Kentucky incident. While it easy for viewers to be appalled that Sandra and Becky seem so easily duped, these are most likely unsophisticated people, trusting of apparent authority. The restaurant, in fact used failure to exercise “common sense” as one of the defenses at trial. There has been ample evidence in history of people doing bad things on the orders of their superiors, as well as plenty of legal precedent. Consider war crimes such as the Nazi death camps, or Vietnam atrocities. Van realized what he was doing was wrong, felt remorse afterwards, but still performed unconscionable acts for which he was legally responsible. We don’t know how intoxicated he might have been, but bondage, and humiliation are well known fantasy perversions that may have been somewhat in play for both the caller and fiancee. I’m less certain about Sandra, but many people don’t want to rock the boat. She was harried at the time, and somewhat fearful she would get a bad write-up if she didn’t cooperate.

Conclusions - This film is a bit disturbing, and likely not for everybody. On the surface, it does seem somewhat exploitative. Yet when one considers it is a fairly accurate depiction, it leaves the viewer to ponder some pretty weighty questions. One of the actresses in the production apparently defended the film during the controversy at it’s premiere. The cast is comprised mainly of veteran character actors who do a good job of creating the appropriate atmosphere. The one thing that might not ring true is the young actress Dreama Walker (Gran Torino). She actually does a pretty good job with the Becky character, but is probably a bit too good looking to be truly authentic. In the film’s defense, it does not directly depict any of the sexual acts involved.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Guest Review: This Means War (2012)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

February is, among other things, the month we celebrate Valentine’s Day, and it occurred to me that Romantic Comedies rarely get much mention around here. Often referred to as rom coms, date movies, and chick flicks (though the latter two likely encompass a slightly larger category), the last one I can remember seeing was a vehicle for one of the current leading practitioners of the genre, Reese Witherspoon, as well as the up and coming young star Chris Pine. The film was received poorly by the critics, but scored somewhat higher with audiences. I won’t pretend its good, but am closer to the audience reaction than the critics. Let’s review some of the strengths and weaknesses of this production, and consider what characteristics most likely impact whether a romantic comedy hits or misses.

** spoiler alert **

Plot Synopsis - In the opening sequence, we find two CIA operatives, “FDR” Foster, (Pine) and “Tuck” Hansen (Tom Hardy), on assignment high atop a skyscraper in Hong Kong. Their mission is to stop the sale of a “MacGuffin” like secret weapon to the North Koreans, apprehend the seller, international arms dealer Karl Heinrich (Til Schweiger) and obtain the “weapon.” The parameter of the mission requires it remain strictly covert. The sale is broken up, the money scattered to the winds, and the “weapon” falls off the roof of the skyscraper (never to be mentioned again.) Heinrich’s younger brother is killed, but Heinrich himself escapes and vows vengeance against FDR and Tuck who are placed on “inside” status as a result.

Back in L.A. we are introduced to Lauren Scott (Witherspoon) who is chief product tester at Smart Consumer, Inc. a fictional “Consumer Reports” type company. While out walking, she runs into her ex-boyfriend who induced her to move from Atlanta. He introduces her to his new fiancee, so Lauren pretends she is meeting her (fictitious) new guy for dinner. When they later stumble across Lauren dining alone at a sushi bar, she is humiliated. Lauren’s best friend (Chelsea Handler) decides to sign her up with an on-line dating service (it’sfate.net) without her knowledge.

It turns out FDR is quite the ladies man around town, while Tuck is separated from his wife (Abigail Spencer) and seven year old son. Tuck is never home, and his “cover” is that he is a travel agent who actually travels all the time. The double “meet cute” goes down like this. Tuck happens to sign up for the same dating service and gets paired up with Lauren. F.D.R. insists he hang out nearby for their first meeting at a sidewalk cafe, so he can “coach” Tuck. Lauren and Tuck hit it off exceedingly well, and he promises to call her for a date. Lauren happens to stop by a video store around the corner, from where FDR was stationed to “help” if needed. FDR hits on Lauren who quickly sizes him up as a horn dog, and blows him off, but he uses CIA resources to find out who she is. He attends her focus group product testing the next day, and bullies her into a date for that night. Soon after the date begins, Lauren leaves, but again runs into her “ex” and his fiancee, and begs FDR to pretend to be her boy friend. He agrees, but demands an explanation, then takes her for pizza, where she begins to see him in a different light. Tuck and FDR quickly learn they are interested in the same lady, and the “war” begins.

They agree they will “compete” for Lauren and set up ground rules that they will not let her know they are best friends, will not spy nor interfere with each other, and that neither will sleep with her unless and until and she chooses one over the other. Naturally, the competition escalates, and their friendship is strained to the breaking point. Lauren, of course, really cares for both of them, and much of the remainder of the movie is devoted to determining which one she will choose, and includes both of their numerous and humorous attempts to screw up each other’s overtures to Lauren using the best technology the CIA has to offer. Lurking in the background, naturally, is the villainous Heinrich who quickly tracks down the two agents who killed his brother, and is ready for payback.
So What Does or Doesn’t Work?

The story takes a fairly traditional rom com storyline, and pairs it with an action/adventure super spy genre for, hopefully, a fresh approach. The two operatives are clearly more from the Ethan Hunt Mission Impossible School of super agents. Both the opening and closing sequences are complete with slow motion floor slides with automatic pistols blazing or back flips while tossing a spare clip to one’s partner. This is a big budget production, so the effects are just what one might expect. The question is, whether we have seen so much of this kind of scene, it no longer seems particularly special. This all leads to characters and premises to which calling them unrealistic would be an understatement. On the other hand, if one realizes it is a rom com parodying action/adventure, it doesn’t seem quite so lame. Plausibility is not always mandatory in this genre.

The second issue is quality of jokes and laugh-lines. To be honest, I am somewhat split on that issue when it comes to this film. Many of the lines (Reese stating she doesn’t want to end up as some mad man’s “skin suit” or FDR’s denigrating women who sign-up for on-line dating by stating “half of them pee standing up”) are just dreadful. This kind of dialogue is sophomoric to be charitable, and makes me wonder how these particular screen writers sleep at night. At the same time, many of the devices used by FDR and Tuck to mess up the other guy’s dates are genuinely hilarious. In particular, there is a scene where FDR kidnaps a group of actors hired by Tuck to portray his family, and replaces them with his own set of impostors that truly is laugh out loud funny.
The third, and possibly most critical, aspect of a successful rom com is CHEMISTRY between the principles! Bogart or Tracy and Hepburn; Doris Day and Rock Hudson; Julia Roberts and Richard Gere; Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan all had that certain something that made audiences root for the couple to overcome the obstacles and get together (or back together.) Sadly, the chemistry between Witherspoon and Pine is nothing special. But, this is a threesome, and part of the set-up is to keep the viewer guessing which one Lauren will choose. Maybe, just maybe, the actors did a better job than we initially realize given that particular aspect of the script. I will also admit to being a long time fan of Reese Witherspoon. As such I’ve seen most of her films, many of which don’t match up to her skill. I’ve enjoyed watching how she works with lesser material, and believe she almost always makes the most of any acting situation, even one that is less than great. There is ample opportunity to see that at play here.

The Verdict - Everyone, at times, sees a romantic comedy. It is generally a lighthearted affair, meant to be fun, and not at all taken too seriously. This is not anywhere near the best of the genre, but is enough good to proudly proclaim “it doesn’t suck as much as Roger Ebert claims!" If you miss this, rest assured you can still sleep soundly knowing so. But if you are a rom com fan, or a Reese Witherspoon fan, or your date is either of those things; you can probably view it, get through it, and even enjoy several laughs along the way.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Guest Review: Sound of My Voice (2012)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed
Last May, I reviewed Brit Marling’s first feature, a low cost, independent production titled Another Earth in which she both co-starred, and co-wrote. At the time I concluded that while flawed, it generated sufficient interest to recommend, and that Marling exhibited definite potential as both an actress and writer. Her second film shares similarities with that earlier effort, but reveals a stronger storyline. It deals with the paranormal, presents a more unified, clearly defined theme, while providing a somewhat easier concept for viewers to grasp. Marling, who partnered with different writers/directors for each film, is likely the dominant creative force behind both.

It’s the kind of story that in a more condensed format, might just have worked as an episode from The Twilight Zone. When considered in such light, how does one resist? Like any story offering a decent twist not visible from miles away, it’s best enjoyed without knowing the ending so this review’s purpose becomes twofold. Let readers know it’s worth watching, and second, generate enough interest to whet one’s appetite without spoiling the experience by revealing everything that’s coming. A spoiler alert is nonetheless warranted for anyone who might prefer to watch it cold.

** spoiler alert **

The Story begins with a young couple, Peter (Christopher Denham) and Lorna (Nicole Vicius) driving through the San Fernando Valley. Following a set of instructions, they pull into the attached garage of a house, are met and led inside, given gowns, and instructed to shower and change. They are blindfolded, flexcuffed, and driven to a second house where they are met by an older man named Klaus (Richard Wharton) and several others dressed in similar attire. Klaus and Peter share a laughably elaborate “secret hand shake,” an evidently bizarre ritual of a secret society or cult.

The leader, known only as Maggie (Brit Marling), makes an appropriately dramatic entrance with a veil over her head, while she breathes bottled oxygen from a portable unit she wheels along beside her. Maggie explains great changes are coming; civil war and societal breakdown. But, she will guide the chosen few along a path toward survival, and a better more simple life. So what’s the “kicker?” -- Maggie claims she knows all this, not because she’s a visionary, but because she has actually traveled back in time from the year 2054.

Unlike some infamous real-life cults, these potential initiates don’t live segregated from the outside world. While returning to their own home, Peter and Lorna reveal themselves not as true devotees, but want-to-be documentary film-makers intent on proving the cult is a hoax by using a micro camera embedded in Peter’s glasses. Is Maggie the real deal, a time traveling messiah? Is she merely a talented grifter, or perhaps an unstable zealot who poses danger to followers and outsiders alike? Such questions form the central thrust of the film.

Subsequent scenes tend to keep viewers guessing. An assistant takes Lorna to a pistol range to learn to shoot. Does this suggest more of a militia like agenda or merely a means to survive the coming period of civil unrest? Whether con artist or time traveler, Maggie displays enough charisma that neither Peter nor Lorna remain unaffected. Each carries their own emotional baggage. Peter, a substitute teacher at a school for young girls, is forced to confront the loss of his own mother (herself a cult member) in childhood, while Lorna, a daughter of Hollywood celebrities, suffered from substance abuse. As Peter is drawn deeper into Maggie’s orbit, Lorna exhibits signs of jealousy, potentially jeopardizing both their relationship and the project.
Maggie asks to meet one of Peter’s school students, Abigail Pritchett (Avery Pohl). He reluctantly agrees, but refuses to bring her to the house, insisting the meeting take place during a class trip to the La Brea tar pits. Meanwhile, Lorna has been contacted by a woman from the justice department who is tracking Maggie. In what is becoming a Marling trademark, the final scene ends rather suddenly, without explicitly resolving the question of Maggie’s true identity. Viewers are left to ponder that answer for themselves.

Themes - The film deals with issues of what is real, what is appearance, and how people’s lack of emotional fulfillment might cause them to willingly participate in their own manipulation. To that end, Marling has created an extraordinarily difficult role in which she must sell a character who is charismatic, mesmerizing, and reasonably believable in order to make the story work. It’s a tall order, but Marling manages to pull it off rather well.

There are other interesting threads impacting the story. As a teacher, Peter represents a kind of guide as well, and one who also would know something of manipulative behavior. There are hints the young girl Abigail is without a mother, suffering from apparent narcolepsy, and possibly a victim of abuse by her father. Peter admitted earlier, during interrogation by Maggie, to having similar childhood experiences, although he subsequently denied it to Lorna.

Weaknesses - To begin with, the entire notion of a cult is a bit creepy or off-putting to most people. There’s a scene in which members are given apples to eat and compelled to vomit them back up. In another scene, after fasting, everyone is offered earth worms to eat, apparently an allusion to a future when food becomes scarce. Cinematography and production values are rough, at times appearing amateurish. Sets clearly reflect an extremely low budget. The screenplay is dialog driven and a bit slow developing, and one can imagine some giving up after about fifteen minutes claiming it’s either too weird, too slow paced, or both.
Strengths - What makes the film ultimately worthwhile, though, is that Marling has raised some very interesting questions about a rather dark subject, and come up with a “Serling like” twist that leaves viewers alternately wondering about the apparent lack of resolution while still shaking their heads in appreciation at the cleverness of her ending. The cast unifomly does a decent job of realistically portraying their characters, particularly Marling, who continues to impress in a very challenging role.

While far from polished, Sound of My Voice can be intriguing if you get past the sluggish start. When I think of what is mainly coming out of the big studios these days (Expendables 2, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, 3-D), I increasingly prefer these more sparse, modest films that are willing to tackle bigger ideas, and often pleasantly surprise. If you choose to see this one, I think you will be ultimately rewarded, perhaps in ways you didn’t expect. It’s a film that should, at minimum, cause you to think about it after the credits roll. I’ve come to my own conclusions, but would love to hear what others might think.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Guest Review: Act of Valor (2012)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

To my knowledge, this is the only movie ever to use active duty Navy SEALS in major roles, although they are not even individually identified in the credits. But, their participation permits a degree of realism not attainable with actors such as Charlie Sheen or Demi Moore. What the film may lack in budget, “name” actors, or production values is more than offset by authenticity. This alone makes Act of Valor virtually mandatory viewing for fans of the military film genre, and highly recommended for anyone who simply wants to better understand and appreciate the ethos of these rare and special people whose job it is to constantly risk their own lives to protect us.

The production is the brainchild of Michael “Mouse” McCoy and Scott Waugh who co-produced and co-directed. McCoy, a former dirt bike champ and film extra, developed The Bandito Brothers production company along with fellow stunt man Waugh. The movie’s genesis may be found in a short feature they produced for the Navy in 2007. During filming, they got to know several SEALS. Conversations with that group led to the citing of numerous true acts of heroism, some of which were chosen as the basis for a possible future feature film. The producers hired screenwriter Kurt Johnstad to develop a screenplay that would contain these specific actual acts of valor.
The Plot

The story follows seven of the members of the fictional “Bandito” platoon from SEAL Team 7 based at Coronado Island in San Diego, and includes four separate but interrelated military actions. After a brief introduction, the film grabs your attention with some great footage of the team conducting a training HALO jump near San Diego, then quickly switches to Manilla where we witness a suicide bombing that kills, among others, the American ambassador and his son. The mastermind, Abu Shabal, a Chechan jihadist, escapes. The scene again shifts-- this time to Costa Rica where CIA covert operative Lisa Morales is posing as a pediatrician while investigating drug smuggler Mikhail “Christo” Troykovich. Recent communication intercepts have indicated a possible relationship between Christo and Abu Shabal.

Morales’ cover has been compromised, however, and she is kidnapped, and her colleague murdered by Christo’s thugs. The mission becomes one of “personnel recovery”, and the team prepares for deployment (referred to as “going down range”) by assessing intelligence, tactics and contingencies. The platoon is lead by Lt. Rorke, and his platoon chief, Steve. Members are “Weimy” (the sniper), Ray (communications), “Sonny,” “Mikey,” and “Ajay.” They work with
Senior Chief Miller, the operations officer. After a hotly contested, ultimately successful action, the team gathers sufficient intelligence to tie Christo to Abu Shabal, and Christo is subsequently taken down on his yacht by SEAL team 4.Through interrogation, specifics are revealed of a plan to smuggle terrorists onto U.S. soil through a tunnel provided by Christo’s smuggling connections. The team enters into a desperate race against time to intercept and stop them.

So What Really Makes It So Authentic?

The decision to use active duty SEALS works well on many levels. Like the re-enactors in the film Gettysburg, the group insisted on accuracy above all else. This resulted in two key elements impacting the film making process. First, the SEALS planned the actual operational tactics used in the fictional engagements just as they would in real life. Second, they literally reworked significant amounts of dialogue so that the spoken words were more reflective of what might be expected of actual participants.

Much of the “Costa Rican” fire fight was filmed on the “live round” range at the John C. Stennis base in Mississippi. The filmmakers were initially scared to death, but eventually agreed it created a level of intensity or adrenaline rush that could not be otherwise duplicated. By working with the actual team, the latest in weapons technology is fully displayed. The viewer cannot help but be awed when viewing the sniper, tracer, and artillery fire instantly turning bad guy’s pick up trucks into swiss cheese. Watching the SEALS silently rise out of the water, rifles at the ready is a thing of beauty as is the night HALO jump into Costa Rica. In another film first, two of the Seals who are headed to Somalia to monitor Abu Shabal’s movements get picked up by an actual active duty nuclear submarine.

The Theme

The point of the film is to more closely explore the bond of brotherhood, code of honor, and sense of duty developed by these guys. They are completely squared away and the very best in the world at what they do. In an “extra” feature from the Blu-Ray disc containing interviews with the SEALS featured in the film, the individual who played “Lt. Rorke” makes a statement that really stood out to me, and is extremely telling. During the all too frequent funerals he has attended for lost comrades, there is always a small part of every survivor that is secretly a bit envious of their fallen brothers because there is no more honorable way to meet one’s death. Much of this is stated quite eloquently at the end of the film in a quote from the great Tecumsah about the code of the warrior, and was touched upon in my earlier review of the film The Duellists.

So Why Did Some Critics Pan It?

The film received numerous negative reviews from the “mainstream” reviewing community. A quick stroll through Rotten Tomatoes yields a 4.5 of 10 rating although 76% of readers liked the film. The consensus comments from so called “big name” reviewers such as Richard Corliss, Peter Travers, and Roger Ebert are couched in terms of cliched script, stilted acting, and jingoistic or non-nuanced point of view. Others called it nothing more than a recruiting film. That kind of comment more likely masks an anti-military orientation or a given reviewer’s personal political agenda. Perhaps they were happier with anti-war films such as Rendition, Lions for Lambs or In the Valley of Elah all of which bombed at the box office.

How far Hollywood seems to have fallen from the days of support for the troops in WWII. This story moves along at a brisk pace, and I cannot really think of any wasted scenes. It seems absurd to complain about a script being a cliche when it is taken from a composite of real events, and there was not one point in the film where I felt like any of the lines being spoken were awkward, cheesy, or stilted. In fact, using real SEALS to speak them makes scenes with family and friends all the more touching.The people who made this film truly deserve our thanks and I highly recommend it.


[+] Read More...

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Guest Review: Another Earth (2011)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

This “indie” production is the first feature film collaboration between director Mike Cahill, and his long time friend, actress Brit Marling. They met while studying at Georgetown University, and co-produced and co-wrote Another Earth. Cahill directs, edits, and does cinematography while Marling takes lead acting responsibility. Made on a shoestring budget, the film received critical audience acclaim at the Sundance Festival, winning a distribution deal with Fox Searchlight Pictures. Largely unknown, this is an interesting film on several levels. Particularly noteworthy is the acting debut of Brit Marling. I unhesitatingly recommend this one, so letʼs discuss why, and review both strengths and weaknesses.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot - Rhoda Williams (Marling) is a high school senior celebrating early acceptance into M.I.T.ʼs astrophysics program. After drinks with some friends, she starts her drive home, and hears on the radio that a new previously “hidden” planet has been discovered, appears to be moving closer to Earth, and is visible to the naked eye in the evening. While sticking her head out the window to try and spot it, she crashes into John Burroughs (William Mapother) who is driving home with his family. His pregnant wife and child are both killed instantly, and he lapses into a coma. Instead of heading off to M.I.T., Rhoda finds herself a convicted felon sentenced to nearly four years in jail.
The story quickly jumps ahead to her release as she returns home to live with her parents and younger brother. Profoundly changed by the experience, Rhoda takes a job as a school janitor to limit her contact with others. She learns that Burroughs had been a music professor at Yale University and highly regarded composer.

Attempting to work through her guilt, Rhoda visits the crash scene on the 4th anniversary of the accident, and sees Burroughs (recovered from his coma) leave a toy as a memorial. Later, she is compelled to visit his home to try to apologize, but when he opens the door, she is unable to summon the courage to do so, instead claiming to be an employee of a maid service offering a free trial cleaning. At first, John refuses, but reconsiders, given that his house represents a drunken disaster of trash and empty liquor bottles. Clearly he too is still coping with enormous grief. After seeing the great job she does, he reluctantly agrees to let her come once a week.

At this point, just as the story seems headed in an all too predictable dramatic direction, another concurrent plot-line begins to take shape. The new planet with its moon now dominates the sky. Evidently it is not merely similar to earth, but an actual mirror image. Whenever Rhoda is not working, she is transfixed by the object that caused her life to change so dramatically. As national news networks carry a live feed, Dr. Joan Talis (Diane Ciesla), a government scientist, attempts to contact potential life forms there. The entire world is shocked when she not only receives a vocal reply, but the response is apparently from Dr. Talis herself. This information raises the potential specter of the “other” earth as some kind of parallel universe existing adjacent to our own. Speculation begins immediately as to whether everyone on our earth has a corresponding “duplicate” on the other. A wealthy entrepreneur sponsors a mission to the other earth, and promises to take along the winner of an essay contest about why the writer wishes to go. Of course, Rhoda writes an essay and enters.

While that plot thread moves forward, Rhoda and John continue to build their relationship, gradually realizing they have each made the other smile and laugh again. Soon, things escalate to a more romantic and physical level. Inevitably, Rhoda learns she has been chosen as the winner of the essay contest, and rushes to tell John. He immediately toasts her stating “to your most improbable dream coming true,” then decides to cook her a celebratory dinner. After dinner, realizing how much he cares for her, John pleads with Rhoda to stay with him and not go to the other world. In what is perhaps the most emotional moment in the movie, she explains why she cannot remain, and finally confesses her true identity. However, to find out how this all ultimately plays out, you will need to either see the film or seek out a review that spills the beans.

Strengths - The two main characters are believable and sell the story. Enough credibility straining plot holes exist to potentially sink this film were it not for the superb performance of the two lead actors. Mapother is a character actor with recognizable, memorable facial features. Heʼs best known for In the Bedroom, and as a recurring character on Lost. By drawing from his own experience and talking with people who have had similar experiences, his interpretation of John Burroughs feels very real.

Brit Marling is nothing short of amazing in her debut performance and credits her work as co-writer for allowing her to “become the character”. I had been greatly impressed by Jennifer Lawrence in the film Winterʼs Bone, but must state Marling is equally impressive here. Perhaps the fact neither was well known at the time of release adds to their credibility, but I expect to see a continuation of good things in the future from both Marling and Lawrence.

A second positive is that the film is devoid of political agenda themes that make many of todayʼs films distasteful. The story was developed from a conversation between Cahill and Marling about what it would actually be like to encounter a true Doppleganger. From this, they slowly developed their story, one which is ultimately hopeful.
The final major strength is the integration of two very different genreʼs into a single film. The underlying story is a fairly standardized drama about how two people sharing a common tragedy relate to each other; the second is a science fantasy about parallel realities, dopplegangers, and how it might actually feel to meet or at least see yourself from the outside as others see you. Alone, these themes are hardly unique, but the combination of the two creates a nice twist that elevates the plot above the mundane and helps prevent it from descending to the level of cliché.

Weaknesses - The plot is, to say the least, highly improbable, and the science behind the duplicate planet is not at all well explained. While I did find this bothersome to an extent, I again point out that the skill of the two actors really shines through in selling their story, allowing the viewer to largely overlook the issue. I tend to agree with one reviewer who likened the story to an episode of Twilight Zone. Viewers of that series rarely had any problem suspending belief if the storyline itself was otherwise sufficiently engaging.

Cinematography, as might be expected, looks low budget. They couldnʼt afford elaborate sets or gaffers. But after viewing the special feature on the Blu-Ray disc where Cahill and Marling discuss the problems they faced, my appreciation is raised for the solutions they found. There are many views of the planet in the sky above New Haven—almost too many. I found myself thinking “o.k., I get it, thatʼs your big effect; now show me something different.”

I also found the romance that developed between John and Rhoda too predictable, almost inevitable, and as such, slightly off-putting. Had the film makers not added the twist of the duplicate planet, I would not have enjoyed it nearly as much despite the great acting.

Conclusion - As a first effort, it was nice to see these young film makers achieve some critical (if not financial) success. The film ends abruptly and leaves plenty of room for the viewer to ponder where the story might lead if it had continued. If you havenʼt seen it, at only 90 minutes, it should be well worth your time. Sound of My Voice, Marlingʼs second effort was released earlier this year, and after reading some reviews and seeing this film, I canʼt wait to see it. These are the films that keep my interest in movies alive.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Guest Review: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

Do you remember those old movie posters proclaiming “Youʼve read the book, now see the movie”? The trouble is, more often than not, people who see films after reading books on which they are based exit the theater disappointed. There are plenty of reasons underlying the phenomenon. Movies must condense the story to a time frame acceptable for modern cinema, often glossing over important characters or plot developments. Just as often, readers already set in their mindʼs eye what the characters look, sound, and act like, leading to an automatic rejection of the cast in the film version. In worst case scenarios, screenwriters make wholesale changes to the story for any number of reasons.

But sometimes, a film based on a best selling book gets it just right. And, once in a very great while, a story comes along that is so nuanced and complex, the old adage actually gets turned around: “If you do plan to see the movie, you better read the book first!” Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is just such a film and novel. Letʼs review why that is the case.

** spoiler alert **

This film, released in September 2011, is based upon the best selling novel of the same name by former British spy David Cornwell under his pen name, John LeCarre. The novel is his fictionalized account of the greatest scandal in the history of the British Secret Intelligence Service (a.k.a. The Circus) which occurred in the late 1950ʼs when several individuals within the service were exposed as Soviet moles. They became collectively known as the “Cambridge Five.” The highest placed, Kim Philby, somehow managed to escape detection during the initial scandal, eventually defecting to the Soviet Union in 1964. Cornwell (a.k.a. LeCarre) had been employed by both MI-5 and MI-6 and says he was forced out after his identity had been revealed to the Soviets by Philby. It was at this juncture he started his career as a novelist, creating the ongoing character George Smiley, an intelligence official who has appeared in at least ten books. The antithesis of the service as portrayed by novelist Ian Fleming and his protagonist James Bond, Le-Carreʼs Smiley books are considered by many to be the best and most authentic espionage books ever written.

The title is taken from some of the words to an old British nursery rhyme, and used as code names for senior advisors to the head of S.I.S., Control (John Hurt). They include Bill Hayden, “Tailor” (Colin Firth), Roy Bland, “Soldier” (Cirian Hinds), Toby Esterhase, “Poorman” (David Dencik), Percy Alleline, “Tinker” (Toby Jones), and George Smiley “Beggarman” (Gary Oldman).

Plot - The events in the film are set in the 1970ʼs rather than the 50ʼs and 60ʼs. We first view Control sending an agent named Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) to Hungary to speak with a Military General who has offered to share intelligence. The mission goes awry, Prideaux is shot in the back and captured. Control and his ally and chief lieutenant Smiley are forced out as a result of the political fallout, and Controlʼs chief rival, Alleline becomes the new head of S.I.S. Control, already old and in poor health soon dies. However, Oliver Lacon (Simon McBurney), civilian overseer of S.I.S. brings Smiley out of retirement. He wants Smiley to investigate old rumors that “Karla” the head of Soviet Intelligence (known as “Moscow Center”) has a highly placed mole in S.I.S. code named “Gerald.” Alleline rose to power as a result of what appears to be high quality intelligence from a soviet mole he is running in an operation code named “witchcraft.” He appoints his ally and former London station chief Bill Hayden as his chief deputy and right hand man. His hope is to use the “witchcraft” intelligence to regain the confidence of the American “cousins” and entice them to once again share their own intelligence.

Smiley enlists young intelligence officer Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) to assist with his investigation. Other key characters include Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy) as the agent who originally uncovers the potential existence of “Gerald”, and Connie Sachs (Kathy Burke) chief soviet analyst. She was also sacked after the Hungarian operation for accusing the Soviet cultural attache of being an agent, without being able to prove it. What follows is very realistic, if conventional, investigative work. Eventually, Smiley uncovers enough evidence to strongly suspect the identity of “Gerald” and lays a trap for him. There will be no revelation here as to which senior official turns out to be “Gerald” (the fictional version of Kim Philby.)

What Works Really, Really Well - the film is incredibly well photographed, and is stunning in 1080p. Most interior shots are all polished wood and somewhat dimly lit. Direction is superb in terms of cinematography and set up of scenes. While I donʼt know exactly how the master was filmed, it does have an extremely nice but cool feel to it. Acting is uniformly excellent throughout, a tribute to the casting director. Special mention must be given to Gary Oldman in the lead role. He follows Sir Alec Guinness in playing Smiley. Guinness did so in a BBC mini-series adaptions of two of the three novels that make up the so-called “Karla Trilogy” pitting Smiley against Karla. In my view, Oldman need not take a back seat. He was nominated for the oscar for leading actor, losing to Jean Dujardin.

Everything about this film seems real, and that stems from the story itself as well as the screenplay adaption (which was also nominated for an oscar). The characters are credible and believable, perhaps not surprising considering LeCarreʼs “insider” status.

What Doesnʼt Work - The novel is a lengthy, complex tale. Even the author was concerned that it could not be condensed down to feature film length. The original adaption with Guinness was, after all, split into a seven episode mini-series. That is a valid criticism, although the film makers do a reasonable job of retaining the essence of the novel. Other critics complained that given the necessary condensation (or in spite of it), viewers unfamiliar with LeCarreʼs book would be unable to follow the story. In this criticism, I wholeheartedly concur. There are so many characters with unfamiliar names to keep track of, and the dialogue is loaded with “insider” terminology.

Other LeCarre fans insisted trying to pair down the story to feature film length sacrifices the very depth of character development for which the books are justifiably famous. I also believe the very realism that is overall a strength, makes for a very slow developing film. Thereʼs not much in the way of physical action here, and certainly no colorful villains like “Odd Job” or even “Red Grant”.

The Bottom Line - I must be honest and say I have not read all the John LeCarre Smiley books as I have with Ian Flemingʼs Bond stories. They can be a bit of a slog, and are probably not for everyone. But I do understand the allure of LeCarre and Smiley as the “connoisseursʼ” espionage stories. As such, the film will work immensely better if you are familiar with Smiley and his longer term development. I think it would be a shame to miss this film, but if you do plan to see it, this is one time I recommend you “read the book” before screening it. At the very least, check out a good plot synopsis or summary of which several are available on-line. While it will give away the ending, it may just allow you to appreciate better how good, in many respects, this film really is.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Guest Review: The Buccaneer (1958)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

How many times have you heard critics use the phrase “for fans only”? The Buccaneer was meant to be Cecil B. DeMilleʼs re-make of his own 1938 film, and seemingly had everything going for it. Starting with the obvious credibility of DeMille himself, it boasts a great cast including Yul Brynner and Charlton Heston at the prime, Inger Stevens, Claire Bloom, Charles Boyer, E. G. Marshall, and Lorne Greene.

A highly romanticized story based on real historical figure Jean Lafitte (Brynner), the film follows events leading up to the Battle of New Orleans at the conclusion of the War of 1812. Although he doesn’t prey on American ships, Lafitte remains an outlaw since he sells merchandise tax free which, combined with his considerable personal charm, makes him popular with the local citizenry. When the British threaten the city, Lafitte must choose between fighting on the probable winning side (where he is not an outlaw) or joining forces with General Andrew Jackson (Heston). His ultimate choice is influenced by a combination of patriotism, a romance with the governor’s daughter Annette Clairborne (Stevens), and probably most importantly, a promise of full pardon for past crimes authorized by Gov. William Clairborne (E.G. Marshall).

Released December 1, 1958 when historical costume productions were much in vogue, this one never quite lived up to expectations. Critics have been mostly lukewarm, and I cannot entirely disagree despite my own lofty expectations for the recent DVD and Blu-Ray release. That expectation was based, at least in part, upon originally viewing it at age ten in one of the old movie palaces in downtown Philadelphia. Should you invest your time and money in The Buccaneer? Perhaps, if you are “a fan.” Let’s explore not only some reasons you might choose to skip this one, but also some reasons you might find it worth re-visiting.

Three Reasons To Skip It

1) It was not actually directed by the great “Cecil B.” after all. By the time filming commenced, DeMille was nearly 80 years old and critically ill. This was his last credited film as he died shortly after it was released. Unable to direct for himself, his son-in-law, Anthony Quinn pinch hit. Trouble was, although Quinn was one of the great actors of his generation, he had no directorial experience of his own, and it shows. Direction is aimless and stilted. This is the only directing ever done by Quinn and we can apparently be thankful for that.

2) The film lacks realism. It looks an awful lot like a musical without music, although that may not entirely be by accident. It turns out DeMille intended his “re-make” to be a musical. He most likely wanted to cash in on Brynner's success from The King and I. For some reason, Yul balked at the idea of another musical, and there was no question DeMille needed Brynner for the lead, so that concept was scrapped. Still, too many group scenes include people dutifully standing stock still while the leads recite speeches in lieu of singing songs. This is particularly true for Brynner who constantly delivers his lines while standing with feet spread apart, hands on hips, and wearing his ballet tights, calf high boots, open puff sleeved shirt, and leather vest. Of course just seeing him with hair can unsettle the unsuspecting viewer.

3) The story line develops too slowly. The way the film was marketed, one expects a big pirate action adventure with a major historical battle as the climax. Realistically, the film is more dialogue driven with a strong romantic interest. It takes far too long to lay out all the conflicts Lafitte must resolve in order to make the decision that essentially forms the heart of the movie. Apparently, the real Lafitte actually had an affair with the governor’s wife rather than his daughter as portrayed on film. I suspect that had more to do with appealing to both men and women, as well as keeping with the social mores of the time.

. . . And Three Reasons For Fans to Watch It Anyway

1) Heston, Brynner, and Stevens light up the screen. Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner reprise their co-star duties from The Ten Commandments. Now this film should never, ever, be mistaken for that masterpiece, but these two guys were film giants in an era known for its movie stars. Interestingly, although it’s a supporting role, I actually liked the performance of Heston as Jackson better than Brynner’s Lafitte. He’s in the very first scene and creates such a commanding presence that he dominates every scene he’s in, including those with Brynner. It may come down to something as simple as Heston being born to play historical figures. It’s all about the “gravitas”. This is not to say Yul was deficient. He’s an incredibly commanding figure to be sure, yet for me, Heston loomed larger.

Inger Stevens is an actress who died too young and never received much credit for her craftsmanship. I found her to be both beautiful and compelling in this film as the governor’s daughter and Lafitte’s love interest. There is just enough of a clash between lovers from two different cultures to create plausible romantic tension.

2) Hey, come on . . . we ARE talking “The Battle of New Orleans” here, aren’t we?! The costumes alone are magnificent considering when it was made. In fact, the only academy award nomination for The Buccaneer was for costume design. What ultimately won me over, though, is the advance through the fog by British Troops under artillery bombardment while the Black Watch dutifully plays an attack march on their bagpipes. This particular custom was designed to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy, and there can be no doubt it usually had a chilling effect. In fact, I’d love to see a really good depiction of the Battle of Long Island during the American Revolution, when the British got in back of Washington’s militia. His soldiers had no idea what was coming until they heard the skirl of the pipes -- behind them! This battle scene has a definite “in the studio” feel and has neither the realism nor scope of more modern depictions of war. Still, it’s not bad for the 1950ʼs, and represents the main reason I “just had” to see it again.

3) The Buccaneer looks great in 1080p. True, it was not given the high-end restoration techniques bestowed on Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur. In fact, since I have not seen it in DVD format, it is quite possible this particular restoration would work nearly as well in 480i if a good scaler is handy. Either way, it is amazing how good they can make 50 year old productions look anymore. And at two hours, it doesn’t require that extra long time commitment so often associated with costume period pieces.

So, the bottom line is you can enjoy this one as an interesting study of film techniques in the 50ʼs, as a chance to see some great actors of that era play off each other, or just a chance to see an interesting period in American history portrayed. But if you do happen to pass on it, rest assured you should not lose any sleep over your decision. What other periods or topics in American history do you feel need to be visited again in film?


P.S. How did this poster escape Andrewʼs article on that topic?

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Twelve OʼClock High (20th Century Fox - 1949)

By Tennessee Jed

Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck, this is one of the most highly regarded films to come out of World War II. Nominated for four academy awards in 1950 including best picture, lead and supporting actor, it was selected for preservation in 1998 by the National Film Institute of the Library of Congress for being culturally or historically significant. The production has relatively little in the way of “action” sequences, and what there is consists of actual battle footage from the Air Force and Luftwaffe, creating something of a “newsreel” flavor. Exterior scenes were mainly filmed at Elgin Air Force base in Florida, or Cairns Airfield in Alabama. Ostensibly part of the military genre, Twelve OʼClock High is clearly an unconventional war film. Letʼs take a look at how that helps make for a fascinating movie.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot chronicles some of the activities of the U.S. Armyʼs 8th Air force Battalion that flew bombing raids into occupied France and Germany during 1942. The screenplay was developed from a novel by Sy Bartlett, aide-de-camp to Major General Carl Spatz during the war. Bartlett was heavily involved in the screenplay, providing an insiderʼs view of people and events that adds to the filmʼs credibility. Most major characters represent composites of actual officers from the Battalion.

In the opening sequence, former officer Major/Lt. Colonel Harvey Stovall (Dean Jagger) is in London post-war when he notices a battered old toby jug (philpot) of Robin Hood in an antique shop. He immediately purchases it and carries it on his bicycle to a fictional abandoned airfield at Archbury where he served with the equally fictional 918th Heavy Bomber Group stationed there during the war. This permits him to “flashback” to the events portrayed in the story.

We witness the crash landing of a B-17 “flying fortress” returning from a mission, and find the 918th has suffered high casualties as a result of a strategic command decision to conduct daylight bombing strikes. While this strategy makes it easier to successfully hit targets, it also greatly increases the risk to the bombers from anti-aircraft fire.

Morale is low and performance poor in the 918th, and Group Commander, Colonel Keith Davenport, (Gary Merrill) may be a contributory cause. Although respected and well liked by his subordinates, he has come to over-identify with the men, losing sight of the mission due to his concern for their safety. He complains about his newest orders to his friend, Brigadier General Frank Savage (Gregory Peck,) a staff aide to Battalion Commander, Major General Pat Pritchard (Millard Mitchell.) Pritchard re-assigns Davenport to his staff, replacing him with Savage as new leader of the 918th. He is tasked with “finding out just how much a man can take” in order to obtain “maximum effort” from the men.

Upon arrival, Savage finds his new command in disarray with discipline virtually nonexistent. Setting out to reverse the situation, he focuses first on Air Executive Officer, Lt. Colonel Ben Gately (Hugh Marlowe.) Gately is not only a West Point graduate, but also son of a famous general. Gately is demoted and given “command” of a plane named The Leper Colony, assigned to those who donʼt meet expectations. He is replaced as Air Executive Officer by Major Joe Cobb (John Kellogg.) The other pilots all request transfers, but Savage convinces Stovall, the Group adjutant, to “delay” the paper work, buying him time to win them over. The unit resumes flying missions and the new discipline begins to pay off in improved performance.

After Savage personally leads them successfully on a dangerous mission without suffering any casualties, the men begin to think differently about their commander. Savage is chewed out by his boss because he claims “radio malfunction” as a flimsy excuse for ignoring a recall order during the attack. Savage convinces Pritchard to award a citation to the group. Lt. Jesse Bishop, (Robert Patten) a medal of honor nominee is enlisted to convince the others to cancel their transfer requests. As longer flights continue to become increasingly dangerous, the likable Bishop is killed, followed by Cobb. Savage reinstates Gately as Air Exec., but then slips into his own stress induced disorder as the airmen leave on their next mission.

The Leadership Theme - At itʼs core, this film is actually an examination of leadership style. It has been used by the military and numerous corporations (including the one for which I worked) as a popular case study during seminars on the topic. Most modern academic theories categorize leadership into three broad styles; authoritative, collaborative, or delegating. No single style is always best, and effective leaders must blend different styles based on a variety of factors including the leaderʼs personality, the experience or skill level of the subordinates, and the source from which the leaderʼs power is derived. That source can be formalized organizationally, informal or both.

For obvious reasons, the military is based upon a strict, formalized, authoritative chain of command. General Savage stresses this authoritative style in order to restore discipline, but it is worth noting he wins respect and support from his people through leading by example, a more informal source of “personal” power. Collaborative is a style best utilized when the need for “buy-in” is paramount between parties where no direct subordinate relationship exists (such as between the President and Congress.) The delegating style is often seen where a leader enjoys an advantage of trusted, experienced subordinates.

Another theme expressed is the debilitating impact of extreme combat stress on individuals. Stress can take both a physical and emotional toll, ultimately changing or limiting the effectiveness of even the strongest leaders. In the book The Killer Angels, General Lee tells General Longstreet of the great trap of military commanders. Paraphrasing, he states {to be a good soldier, you must love your men, but to be a good officer, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. No other profession requires it. That is why there are many good soldiers, but so few good officers.} Many individuals who served in the 8th battalion have commented on the authenticity of this film, claiming most of the scenes and events occurred at one time or another, although not all within a single battle group.

Conclusions - For those interested in World War II, or merely the nature of leadership, this movie is highly recommended, perhaps even a “must see.” At times, the pace is a bit slow, but itʼs lessons are applicable well beyond the military, and create an opportunity for viewers to consider any leader in a somewhat different light.

As an aside, Twelve OʼClock High is an actual term used by military aviators who are communicating the position of enemy aircraft during an engagement. The position is described as the face of a clock with twelve oʼclock being directly in front, while six oʼclock would be directly behind. The “high” would indicate the enemy is at higher altitude. The film was converted to a popular television series which ran for four seasons between 1964 and 1967 and utilized the same characters.

[+] Read More...