war, genocide, and epidemiology, oh my

I don't have a particularly great thematic link between the three movies I want to talk about in this post-- other than they're all about social ills and other bad stuff. But I'm gonna try anyway...

The Painted Veil
In general, I don't have a hell of a lot of patience for standard pretty period-piece sorts of movies. Some of them are nice to watch, sure, but more often than not, they are adapted from novels by long-dead writers, and as such, provide a distinct disconnect for one such as myself, who regularly ferrets out the new, new, new, just to keep her interest aroused. I'd heard this movie was different from every other staid, conservative period piece. But it wasn't. Sure, there's some extremely modestly filmed extramarital bed-hopping... and there's a stab at depicting the early awakenings of a social conscience among colonialists, but in the end, it's still a stuffy Somerset Maugham morality tale that just happens to be shot in a dense China jungle. This movie even snagged Ed Norton and Naomi Watts, who have both been known to put forth a risky performance now and again. But here, they're both underutilized in terms of talent.

The most recent cover article for one of my favorite magazines, Bookforum, is Phillip Lopate's in-depth discussion on the benefits and pratfalls of trying to adapt the novelistic form to the cinematic form. Most of the films he talks about are really old, and, as I've said, I'm certainly no film historian (if it was made before I was born, you'll probably have to sit on me to make me watch it(except for Marguerite Duras' Hiroshima, Mon Amour, one of my favorites)), so I didn't know what he was talking about. Still, he brings up the age-old argument of fidelity to the text vs. directorial ownership over subject matter in a pretty interesting way. But here's what he says about The Painted Veil:

Recently, I saw The Painted Veil (2006), a movie directed by John Curran from a W. Somerset Maugham novel. It is a competent and affecting picture, with a terrific performance by Naomi Watts as the beautiful, shallow, adulterous wife of an idealistic doctor, who is transformed by her husband’s death. Many film critics tempered their praise by calling it “old-fashioned,” and indeed it is, not only because the adultery-in-the-colonial-tropics story and the theme of sacrifice seem fussy for today’s audiences but also because the craftsmanship of the adaptation is so unobtrusively intelligent. The Painted Veil is criticized as old-fashioned for making human sense of a now-dusty Maugham novel that was just the rage in the ’20s and ’30s.

For my money, "unobtrusive intelligence" is not what makes a movie "old-fashioned," nor is it something that is absent from good films that have been produced more recently. However, the fact that there is very little adventure to be had in the viewing of this film IS what makes it "old-fashioned," in my mind anway. It is, well, enjoyable, I guess, to sit through, but I would say that I was less "affected" by it than Lopate claims to have been.


The Last King of Scotland
The morning after squirming through this volatile and riveting film, I emailed a friend at work to rave about it and, coincidentally, he'd also seen it... and had fallen asleep in it! Unbelievable. Though he claims it was because the movie was boring, I stand by my assertion that he was tired because he aspires to arise at the buttcrack every morning. Really, Forest Whitaker's fumbling, brutish performance is all that it was cracked up to be... and more. It SHOULD be enough to keep the drowsiest among us shifting in our seats and peeking through our fingers.

At one point near the end, James McAvoy's character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, says to Whitaker's Idi Amin something along the lines of "you're just a big child! And that's why you're so fucking scary!" Shortly thereafter, the good doctor is quite literally strung up by his aureolas. The point is, Idi Amin was a horrendous tyrant and executor of grand genocidal atrocities because his psychological development was so seemingly stunted that he was unable to determine that he was accountable for such horrors. Watching Whitaker tunnel through this disconnect is well worth the price of the rental.

Interestingly, this movie is also adapted from a book, but it presents a far different set of challenges for adaptation than did Maugham's older narrative. It's a fictional account of a fictional character--our Dr. Garrigan--and his life with a real historical figure-- and one of mythological proportions, at that. This incorporation of real people into fiction has been a fun little game for some so-called "postmodern" writers (Paul Auster and Jonathan Safran Foer, for two easy instances, like to name fictional characters after themselves). But when you have to depict a real monster like Idi Amin as a human, a legend, a historical figure and a veritable devil, well, it's a tall order for filmmakers and actors alike. By and large, I think Whitaker carries the film remarkably well... and pretty conscientiously, for the most part. And McAvoy is also compelling as we follow him through his Dante-esque descent into politico-hell. But the film remains a work of fiction, and somehow, for me, anyway, this lessens its punch.

Pan's Labyrinth
This film is what you would get if Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean's Mirrormask and Spielberg's Schindler's List produced a gimpy little baby. It's a funky, dark-but-cute fantasy film with a brutal torture-and-war drama buried within. The general atmosphere that the director, Guillermo Del Toro, creates is one that would be very familiar in a kid's movie. It's got the obscuring and glimmering lighting effects of the Harry Potters and the like, but then, a guy gets shot through the ear for hunting wabbits. And a guy sews his own lip back on after getting skewered by his maid (she's the good guy, he, the villian, of course). I quite like how confusing this mixing of genres is. I mean, the patina of the fairytale that settles over the film from the earliest scenes onward lulls the audience to the point that you feel, when the more brutal moments happen upon you, at once removed at some distance from them, but also startled from your movie-watching trance. It's a movie told from a child's point of view but it is not a movie for children-- and in its most stylistically careful way, it succeeds far above and beyond Terry Gilliam's Tideland, which purported to do the same thing.

In some ways, I think what a film like this does-- telling the narrative of Franco's Spain in the guise of a fairytale-- is really kinda genius because it's so subversive. I mean, if you want to push a particular political perspective or story upon people who might not seek out the information themselves, what better way to do it than to present it from the innocuous perspective of the child's-eye-view? Here, I'd like to make a little comparison with V for Vendetta, a film about which I still have mixed feelings, a couple years after I saw it. On one hand, it's a grand-scale, flashy, big-budget comic book come to life sort of movie... and therefore generated the sort of audience that frequents flashy, comic-y movies (i.e., not me). But on the other, it was notable for its relentless onslaught of criticism of totalitarian goverments-- and those that look like they might be heading in that direction (i.e., Bush's America). It's no coincidence that a very Cheney-esque actor plays a prominent villainous role therein.

And so, in the end, you've got a pretty thinky political allegory masquerading as a pyrotechnic geekfest for teenage boys. And what more insidious way to get a subversive message across than to sneak it into just such a vehicle? To be fair, I did not feel like I was the best audience for this movie. It's all together too flashy for my taste-- and also FAR to reductive and monosyllabic in its message and impetus as it paints its point of view with very broad strokes... but if it tricked some suburban adolescent out there into thinking a little bit about his own relationship with his government, well, that's kinda great! And though Pan's Labyrinth is subtitled, start to finish, and very indie in terms of cinematograhic texture... and will probably never find a viewership larger than those of us who seek out that sort of fare... there is still something a little dangerous about splicing kids' movies and war dramas into the same film. And for that, I'll continue to hold a candle for that very elusive viewership.

Sheepish Admittances

I like pretty dresses. I even, on occasion, like to watch celebrities, with remarkable bodies and perfect hair, wear pretty dresses. I also like to watch celebrities, wearing pretty dresses, give and receive statues of little gold men.

Yep, that's right folks. Verified movie snob though I may be, I still get a kick out of watching the Oscars. And, I know, I know-- I do, indeed, feel sheepish that I'm not scoffing at the whole ritzy ritual and rigmarole because it's so self-congratulatory and because it's nothing but Hollywood trying desperately to affirm its tenuous grasp on artistic credibility and because, really, it's a venue in which ridiculous big-budget hackjobs (did someone say Titanic?) get to win prizes just because they plundered bajillions of dollars out of the pockets of underinformed moviegoers--underinformed in terms of the theatrical options available to them. Yes, I do realize I'm throwing my credibility into question here when I say that I still think this red-carpet paparazzi-fest serves a purpose other than keeping Kathy Griffin and Joan Rivers employed.

Part of this purpose is to elevate the visibility of certain little films that are a little outside mainstream tastes. For example, last year, Amy Adams got nominated for Junebug, which was a real little gem. I'd been lucky enough to see this movie in a theatre well before nominations came out and could smugly declare that, indeed, the film was worthy of the nod while everyone else was asking "June-what?" See? I'm a really film-snob after all. But my point is, it's a damn good movie and, without the notice of The Academy, surely my talking it up would have done very little to increase its viewership.

And then there's the fact that sometimes The Academy really does get it right-- and they manage to recognize the right people for real artistic accomplishment. Last year, there were no finer performances than Philip Seymour Hoffman's Truman Capote. Truly. In my opinion, that movie should have won best picture-- it was better than the slightly maudlin Brokeback Mountain and it was sure as hell better than the beat-you-over-the-head-with-its-message Crash. But that's neither here nor there when Hoffman's fearless and vulnerable performance got it just desserts. And that's nice, you know? It's just nice when talented people get recognized.

But this year, with the ink on the new crop of nominations still wet, well, I'm afraid I might, at long last, be losing faith in the tradition. While a few nods were dead on, I'm just a little baffled by some of the others.

So, first, let me start with what I think is good: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see as many of the nominees this year as I was last (I miss you, Jon), but I hear that Ryan Gosling is pretty fantastic in Half Nelson, a little indie with minimal buzz so far, but he'll never win. He's Amy Adams all over again. A couple of years ago,he was also pretty great in The Believer , another good movie of which no one's ever heard, so I think this kid's got some real potential. And it doesn't hurt that he looks a little like Christian Bale. But Forrest Whitaker's Idi Amin from Last King of Scotland has a real shot. I am DYING to see this movie and I'm glad it's getting notice because, from what I know about it, it looks Important (capitol I). And then there's Little Children, which has put a contender into each the Best Actress and the Best Supporting Actor categories. And it looks like Pan's Labyrinth, a little Mexican fantasy, is getting some notice as well. This doesn't make up for the fact that, last year, The Academy overlooked the German/Turkish Head-On (Gagan Die Wand), a film that's made it into the pantheon of Marjorie's Top Five. But it's a start.

And then there are some seriously questionable decisions that The Academy seems to have made. Little Miss Sunshine for best picture? WHAT? This movie is kinda cute and all... but it's certainly NOT one of the 5 best films of the year. All I can say is, at least Dreamgirls didn't get a nod here. I can only deal with so many Broadway musicals-cum-big-buzz-movies getting so much hype. A la (yawn-fest) Chicago. But I think Babel is likely to win this category, anyway-- I haven't seen it; it got mixed reviews; I'm gonna withhold my opinion until it comes out on video. But, then, Will Smith in the Pursuit of Happyness? Really? This movie looks like such a sappy schmaltzy puddle of high-fructose corn syrup that I can't figure out why anyone would take it seriously. Oh, and Ms. Meryl getting her obligatory annual nomination for--whatthefuckever--The Devil Wears Prada. Yeah, ok, so, she's still Meryl Streep and all but how could there possibly be anything challenging enough in a comedic-bitchy bad boss role to merit such congratulations as an Oscar? With any luck Penelope Cruz (Volver)or Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal)will win in this category, but I think the smart money's on Helen Mirren in The Queen--a movie that strikes me as having as little real-world relevance as its subject matter. But Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine? Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine? I'm not sure either of these actors was actually ACTING in these parts. And just because I think Dreamgirls looks like a piece of crap to begin with, I do not think Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy are exactly deserving of their nominations either-- but that has more to do with my feelings about that movie than it does with their performances.

There just seem to be so many more suspect nominations this year than last. I find this terribly disheartening because, frankly, I don't want to be just another cynical Oscar dissenter. I miss the bedazzlement I felt watching the show when I was a kid. Ok, to be perfectly honest, I've felt a little distrustful of the whole event ever since the year Titanic, which I consider to be pretty much the worst, sappiest, most manipulative, politically problematic hunk o' gar-BAHHGE ever, swept. Yes, I hate the movie Titanic. A lot. But still, I WANT to believe in the institution of The Academy Awards. And so, come early March, you'll find me, glass of red wine in one hand, bucket of Trader Joe's cookies in the other, spread out on my sofa, hoping for the best. C'mon Forrest. I'm countin' on you, man!