Leonard Link

Where the Wild Things Are - or Aren't

What wild things?  The only wild thing in this movie, really, is Max.... and perhaps not really.  I thought there were some interesting parts, but also patches of boredom in this attempt at a live action film version of Maurice Sendak's extraordinary children's picture book.  But I think this would better have been made as a shorter animated feature.  Sendak's drawings were an integral part of what made the book a great success, interesting for adults as well as kids.  Ditch the drawings, approximate the wild things with cutesy costumes, add an extended live-action front story, and it's a different thing altogether and not particularly interesting.  I guess the celebrity of the book gave it a big opening weekend at the box office, and there was a decent size but by no means large crowd when I saw an early evening screening on 42nd Street on Wednesday.  But I think ultimately this film is not a success.  I wouldn't warn people who are fans of the book not to see it, but I will warn that many will feel let down.

"Bright Star" - A Tragic 19th Century Love Story

I saw this film Wednesday night when I needed an "escape from the world" due to a medical emergency that occurred at the beginning of my Contracts class that morning.  (A student suddenly suffered a seizure, emergency medical assistance was called, several students valiantly rushed to his assistance and rendered life-saving care.... it was emotionally exhausting to experience it.  We cancelled the class and scheduled a make-up for next week. The student recovered and was actually back in class this morning, eager to resume his law studies....)

Maybe "Bright Star" was not the right film to see under the circumstances, although it did effectively transport me for a few hours from 21st century New York to early 19th century London, where the unappreciated, emaciated, tubercular British poet John Keats and the ardent Fanny Brawne conducted their brief, chaste love affair before Keats sailed off to Italy, to die a young and broken man.  (Although Keats had a devoted circle of young admirers, the critical establishment was mixed on the work published in his lifetime, and he only achieved recognition as a great poet after his death.) 

Jane Campion's film is predictably stately in pace, while immaculate in period depiction.  The acting is restrained, realistic.  Ben Wishaw as Keats is appropriately wispy and charming in a bemused, laid-back sort of way.  With the heavy application of make-up to his already thin-faced look, he was convincing as a young Romantic consumptive on the verge of collapse.  Abbie Cornish as Fanny Brawne, the young woman who fell for him but played hard-to-get for a while, was excellent, as was the supporting cast.  In some ways, this is a movie where nothing much really happens, more of a character study with glimpses from the life of a talented young man, misunderstood in his time, as viewed from the perspective mainly of the young woman who recognized his genius but was constrained by the formality of the time from doing more than pining for him.  Keats had an overprotective friend who tried to shield him from Fanny's attentions - perhaps out of concern for his health, as the movie suggests.  The thing ends so sadly... it did not lift me from the torpor of the day, but I thought it was well done, the kind of movie that might even be more effectively viewed on the small screen.

The Time Traveler's Wife - Plot Spoilers

Usually I try to avoid discussing a film in a way that will give away plot developments to people who may chance upon my blog as a result of a google or bing search about a particular film.  But I find it is really impossible to discuss this movie without giving things away.  Thus the title above, and I hope anybody who doesn't want to spoil the surprises for themselves will stop reading here.

Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are fantastic in this film.  I first became a fan of Bana with the film "Munich."  That's the one where I first really paid attention to him and decided that he was a favorite.  I haven't seen every film he's made since then  --  some just didn't sound interesting enough -- but I really appreciate his work, and in this film he is called upon to play a man at different ages in an interesting and provocative way.  Rachel McAdams also has to play a woman at different points in her life, but somehow it is less unsettling because she is not a time traveler....

At any rate, am I the only one who has gone to see this movie without having read the book?  My brother Dave and his wife Carol are fans of the book and went right away to see the movie when it opened, full of expectations.  My Mom had also read the book and eventually got to the see the movie with expectations as well.  I am totally unfamiliar with the book, so all I knew before seeing the film just now came from the previews, which do give a general idea of the plot but carefully conceal many of the major plot developments that make the film so interesting.   So I am not one to be able to talk about how faithful or unfaithful it was to the book.  I can only talk about this as a film experience.

As such, I have to say that it is fascinating as it unfolds, but then when you start thinking about it afterwards, the logic collapses in on itself.  Of course, you have to accept the premise early on that there are some individuals who, due to some genetic anomaly, slip back and forth through time, without being able to control the where and the when.  Why do they slip between predictable places - so predictable that they can veer in and out and intersect repeatedly with the lives of the same group of people?  And since they apparently are not immortal, are there boundaries to their slippage?  I would have thought that these "time travelers" could not travel back to a time before their birth - but Henry's daughter at the age of ten slips back to before she was born to see her parents.  And I would have thought that they can't travel beyond the time of their life, yet Henry manages to slip forward in time to see his daughter at age 10 when he is at an age when she hasn't been born yet and - at that age - he has been dead for five years.  So what is going on here?  I guess when you are writing fiction you can make up the rules, but the rules to some extent seem arbitrary, not internally consistent.  Successful science fiction and fantasy depends on the reader's suspension of disbelief.  It isn't really quite so entertaining if you are constantly saying to yourself - how can that be?  In no universe can that happen.  And I had that feeling from time to time with this movie.  How would Henry die?  He had foreseen his death, but not in its exact particular of causation, and then is cast into a situation where it happens so fast that he can't avoid it even though he knows it is about to happen.  And the irony of the moment is overwhelming, too.

While I was watching it, I really enjoyed it.  Watching these characters interact was entertaining, and the slippages back and forth in time were quite ingeniously handled.  Eric Bana is in great shape, although they were more discrete for this general release film than they would have to be for cable -- so I'm hoping that when the director's cut DVD comes out, they loosen it up a bit.  A man who lands naked every time he time travels can make some more spectacular entrances than he does here!!!  Ha! 

Am I inspired now to seek out the book?  Maybe, although my to-be-read stack at home is pretty tall....

Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds"

If you've seen any prior Tarantino film, you'll know what to expect.  This man is the master of setting up an interesting confrontation scene, building it through various heart-clutching moments, and then resolving it in a blaze of violence.  And he does it over and over again, and that's what this movie is made up of....  an elaborate Jewish revenge fantasy for WWII and the Holocaust.  It is very much a fantasy, and quite an entertaining one, but not for the squeamish, because Tarantino likes his violence....

The performances.  Brad Pitt.  What can I say, a master of characters and accents.  This is NOT one of his pretty-boy roles.  He plays a battle-scarred American mountain-man quasi-terrorist, and he does it with pizzazz.  Melanie Laurent, playing in French, is a wonderful Mata Hari.  And Christoph Waltz, the leading player on the German side, practically steals the movie.  Where has this guy been?  I see a big future for him in American flicks if he wants it.  His English is great, so's his Italian, but most important is the pure gusto he brings to his role.  Wow!

This is entertainment cinema, with thrills and chills.  There's nothing very deep here, just a terrifically inventive mind at play, given the budget to construct his fantasies and using his talent to keep the audience enthralled.  And the theater at 6 pm on a Sunday in August was PACKED, so I think the second weekend will rack up well after last weekend's glorious opening.  This should play well on the small screen as well, given the excellent performances, but seeing it on the big screen with hundreds of other people in a theater with good projection and sound is a must.

In the Loop

Last night I saw the British comedy, "In the Loop," which had been recommended by a friend.  I was not impressed with it as he was.  Many of the British characters have heavy Scottish accents, or so it sounded to me, and I was struggling to follow the fast paced, frequently shouted, dialogue.  Virtually every character in the film, whether on the British side or the U.S. side was excessively unattractive (I don't mean physically, I mean as characters), with the notable exception of the American general portrayed by James Gandolfini, who seemed to be honest, smart, laid-back, and almost the only non-shouter in the bunch.  While there were a few hysterically funny bits of business, I found myself becoming bored and then totally disconnected, letting my mind wander until suddenly I found myself watching closing credits, the final scenes of the movie having escaped my attention entirely.

Not a recommendation!

District 9

I guess this is very much in the tradition of "War of the Worlds" and other sci-fi attempts to depict the clash of civilizations.  I was disappointed that humans are depicted as so crass and unfeeling in this encounter.  Surely our curiosity should incline us to be more receptive to trying to understand the aliens, especially aliens who in many respects are depicted as relatively benign.  At any rate, this film gives you lots to think about, and it tells a straightforward and coherent story, unlike too many of the trendy big studio films getting wheeled out these days.  The acting, by people of whom I had never heard before, was generally good, although I thought the main character was a bit over the top....   At any rate, I felt it was worth seeing, and for a small-budget independent film, it packs quite a punch.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Things are getting pretty desperate down here in Ormond Beach, FL, for entertainment, so Mom and I found ourselves at this extravaganza this afternoon.

CGI City for DAYS!   Virtually the entire film seems to have been composed on computer screens.  Key scenes seem to be parodies drawn from prior hit movies.  (Remember the light sabre fight between Luke and Darth Vader????)  It is unremittingly noisy, so action packed that you lose your breath trying to follow along, and the acting is totally stock cardboard characters.  The two hours fly by.  There is nothing to engage the brain.  (The NY Times review was dead-on....)  But I can understand why it is pulling in tons of money.  I can also predict that it will sink quickly after the spectacular opening weekend....

Cradle Will Rock - The Film on DVD

My Mom and I entertained ourself last night by watching a DVD from my brother's collection, the 1999 film "Cradle Will Rock," which a faintly recalled having enjoyed when I saw it in its original theatrical release.

I had forgotten how really terrific this movie is in recreating the atmosphere of the 1930s, when the various New Deal agencies were trying to combat the Depression by spending federal money on employing people in a wide range of activities - among them the arts.  The Federal Theater Project, which channelled money to theater companies around the country to employ professional actors who were otherwise out of work, is the central focus of this film, which centers heavily on the struggles of composer Marc Blitzstein to write and get produced his political musical, "The Cradle Will Rock."  Writer-director Tim Robbins intertwines other story lines, including Nelson Rockefeller's commissioning of Diego Rivera to paint a huge mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, the backhanded deals and fine arts trading of American industrialists with fascist Italy, and the Congressional investigations into alleged communist influence in the activities being funded b the Federal Theater Project, including -- the one discordant plotline that doesn't really work in my view, an abortive romance between a ventriloquist and a right-wing actress determined to blow the whistle on the communists.. 

In a way, the film reminds me of "Ragtime" in its intercutting of various stories.  The acting, from a large, all-star cast, is superb, especially Hank Azaria as Blitzstein, Ruben Blades as Diego Rivera, John Cusack as Nelson Rockefeller, Susan Sarandon as a wealthy Jewish-Italian woman who is an intermediary between the fascist government and an American industrialist, Vanessa Redgrave as the industrialist's wife who loves slumming among the artistic types, and John Turturro as a low-level actor who emerges as the principled and dedicated exponent of a leading male role in the musical.

They do a wonderful job of restaging the fabled debut of "Cradle Will Rock."  Political and budget issues led to a suspension of new productions by the Federal Theater Project for a brief period of time.  This was interpreted by the cast and crew of "Cradle Will Rock" as political censorship, because the suspension happened to begin just as they were ready to open the show.  Led by Orson Welles and John Houseman, the theater company desperately found a vacant theater to rent, marched their audience uptown, and planned to stage the show with Blitzstein playing the piano, singing, and explaning the plot to the audience.  But, spontaneously, members of the cast sitting in the theater rose from their seats and spoke and sang their parts, as some members of the pit orchestra, also in the theater, filled in some of the accompaniment.  Since the unions had not sanctioned the performance, the performers generally stayed off the stage hoping they would not jeopardize their union memberships.  The event made theater history (and was later recreated in Cambridge by Leonard Bernstein).   This is staged and intercut simultaneously with the wrecking crew hired by Rockefeller destroying Rivera's unfinished mural because of Rivera's refusal to remove images of communist leaders, most prominently Lenin, and with Rockefeller and the industrialist at a fancy costume ball.

I really loved this, and will certainly add the DVD to my collection.  I heartily recommend it to anybody interested in the theater world of the 1930s.  It is a powerful film, with wonderful music (major excerpts from "The Cradle Will Rock" are performed, as well as many other songs of the period), wonderful sets and costumes, and terrific acting.

Funny People - The Film - Plot Spoilers

Staying in Ormond Beach, Florida, for two weeks taking care of my Mom while my brother and his family are away on vacation, my film selections are limited.  There is exactly one movie theater in Ormond Beach, luckily a multiplex (12 screens), one in neighboring Daytona Beach, similarly a multiplex, and a few in smaller towns nearby, also multiplexes.  But they are all playing the same list of general release films.  Nothing indy or import or at all out-of-the-way, just the major studio wide release films that are playing everywhere.  So choices are limited.

Which led me to see "Funny People" yesterday.  This had not been high on my list of things to see, but among the films playing locally that I hadn't seen yet, it seemed the most promising.  (I've steered clear so far of Transformers or GI Joe, the current big national hits.... but desperation for entertainment may yet drive me there.)

I came out of this film a bit puzzled. So what was that really about? 

Adam Sandler plays a former stand-up comic who made a successful career in pathetically lame film comedies, generating enough income to have a beautiful sea-side mansion near LA and lots of low-grade celebrity, but his life is empty because he can't sustain an emotional relationship with anybody, is alienated from parents and sister, and is confronting mortality with the diagnosis of a potentially fatal disease, for which he is put on an experimental drug regimen.  Eager for some ego affirmation, he goes to a local comedy club with the idea of doing some stand-up and while there sees a young comic hopeful, played by Seth Rogen (slimmed down a bit from prior roles), who's bombing on stage, but Sandler reaches out, summons Rogen, and makes him his assistant.  Their interactions seem for a while to be the heart of the film, supplemented by Rogen's stormy relationship with his roommates, another chubby fellow who is doing a bit better at standup, and a skinny depressive who's scored a leading role on a network TV sitcom and is earning a bundle. 

Then out of nowhere pops Sandler's ex-girlfriend, now married to a successful businessman with 2 adorable young daughters in the SF area, and for the latter part of the film the action moves mainly up to SF, where Sandler is playing on sympathy for his illness to try to revive the old relationship - only to get into combat with ex's husband, played by a really buffed up Eric Bana in full Australian accent.  (Having only seen him in a handful of western films for which his English sounded almost American, hearing the first words out of his mouth were a shock).

In the end, Sandler's ex stays with hubby and kids, and Sandler returns to his LA life, although the relationship with Rogen takes a different turn, with Sandler going from being an employer to being a mentor, perhaps having matured a bit as a result of his experiences and being relieved that his medical condition has gone into remission.

I thought the film kind of messy structurally, the characters coming into and out of focus at times.  I never quite figured out what the story was with the roommate portrayed by Jason Schwartzman - was he supposed to be funny or just pathetic?  Perhaps the message of the film is that people who are being "funny" as their profession tend in their private lives to be sad, depressive, etc.  But that's nothing new - "I Pagliacci" says as much in the opera house from a century or more ago.  Sandler being serious is not much fun to watch.  The only performer in this film who really gave me a charge was Bana, whose every move on the screen is electric.   But I tend to think he doesn't do comedy!!  (On the other hand, I'm not well enough tuned in to popular culture to really know what he's done, apart from the handful of films in which I've seen him.  I first really noticed him in "Munich," where I thought he was outstanding.  I hope he finds a vehicle of that quality in the future.)

Julie & Julia - The Film

Went with my Mom this afternoon to see "Julie & Julia", the new film based on memoirs by Julia Child and Julie Powell, written and directed by Nora Ephron.  Julia Child, of course, was The French Chef on Public TV, co-author of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," and is played in the film by Meryl Streep.  Julie Powell was a government employee who loved cooking and, at her husband's suggestion, started a blog to document her project to cook every recipe in that book over the course of a year.  Her blog attracted enough attention that she ended up with a book contract, resulting in the book with the same title as the movie.

I loved this film.  Every minute of it.  Meryl Streep's performance as Julia Child is superb.  Amy Adams' performance as Julie Powell is harder to judge.  Indeed, the performances of the other two leading players, Stanley Tucci as Paul Child, and Chris Messina as Eric Powell, the husbands of the two women, are harder to judge as well.  I enjoyed all of these performances, but it seems that since these three were/are not big "public personalities," they had much more freedom to create their roles, while Streep had to develop a believable persona in the role but also be true to the public's memories of Julia Child, who was a very public figure.  

This film shows two very interesting, very determined women who struggled to achieve and emerged triumphant.  It is a heart-warming story.   One knows in advance that Childs' book was published, became a big hit (still in print more than 40 years later), and led to a fabulously successful long run on public television (which is depicted only twice, briefly, in the film, and once in the form of a Saturday Night Live spoof), so there is not much real suspense about how her career is going to turn out.  The fun is in the telling, especially the scenes of her cooking student days in Paris, when she turned to this as the bored wife of a U.S. diplomat posted in that city.  There is more suspense in the saga of Amy Adams as Julie Powell.  Will she meet her target and cook all the recipes in the book in one year, and will her project and blog provide the springboard to the writing career she is urgently seeking to break out of her bureaucratic work life?

I like the way the husbands are played.  Stanley Tucci is always magnificent in any role, and so he is here.  The big discovery for me is Chris Messina, who is very warmly present as Julie Powell's supportive husband.  It is by no means a neutral role, he's not played as a cipher by any means.

So I found this totally satisfying, more so than the reviews I've read so far would have indicated.  I did not think the Powell part of the story was any less interesting or involving than the Child part of the story.  And I suspect seeing the movie will provide a big boost not only for Adams' book, but also for Child's memoir, "My Life in France," co-written with Alex Prud'homme.  I hope the paperback tie-in is ready in the stores, and I hope this will be a big hit.  I can see an Academy nomination for Streep coming out of this... and well deserved.