The Tree of Life

Anyone who has seen a Terrence Malick film knows that it will be more about the emotions the come from the long, slow, arduous shots of water running, bugs flying or a close up on a character’s face rather than about fitting into the formula which most films follow. He is not a director who rushes the pace of a film but instead builds the film slowly and calculatingly. His latest movie, The Tree of Life, has taken his signature style one step further. Dialogue becomes secondary to the ambient sound of trees rustling or birds tweeting. Dialogue barely carries the story; in fact in some scenes classical music overpowers the dialogue. While the dialogue is still audible it acts more as secondary background sound while the music of Bach and Brahms sets the tone, pace and style of the film. At times Tree is like a silent film and other times it’s like an experimental movie in a modern art gallery. Yet, every moment, no matter how pretentious they may seem, are there for a reason, setting a mood, building emotion and sending multiple messages. As with Malick’s last few films, the style takes some getting used to and is really not for everyone as my husband can attest to.

I appreciate Tree for what it wanted to do in its strange and complex way. I left the cinema unsure of my feelings, confused and a little elated. Often when I’ve seen a great film that is different from anything I’ve seen before (my first time with Ran, Raging Bull, Bonnie and Clyde) I finish the movie trying to figure out the images I have just seen and why they have spoken to me the way they have. I replay scenes over and over again in my mind; I try to remember lines and dialogue; I try to figure out the motivations behind the character’s actions. I’m left thinking and rethinking the film and in the end I find myself only more impressed with what I’ve seen. There were moments when I was watching Tree that I felt frustrated trying to find some cohesiveness from one scene or one image to the next. In other moments, such as some of the voice over’s and long shots of the creation, I was thinking, “God, this seems pretentious and unnecessary”. And then at other times, I was struck by the beauty of the images filling the screen. It seemed that once I got over the style and got into the story I couldn’t peel my eyes away. I felt so much for the characters that I was unfazed by the things which had distracted me in the beginning.

Tree jumps around in time beginning with a mother (Jessica Chastain) receiving a letter telling her of the death of one of her sons. The film then skips to the present day where Sean Penn plays an older version of the eldest son Jack. As he goes through the motions of his day the anniversary of the death of his brother sends him spiraling outside the reality of the successful world he is involved in. His mother’s voiceover continues and the film goes back in time. When I say back in time I mean way back in time, to the creation of the universe. Images of the big bang, dinosaurs and eventually humans led us up to the beginning of Jack’s life and through his childhood where the majority of the film is concentrated and where, at least for me, the film really took off.

Part of the reason it takes off is Brad Pitt. Where did this Pitt come from? His jaw protruding out and the lines around his eyes markedly visible even with his wide rimmed glasses covering them. He seems like a different person from the Pitt before. The pretty boy with the side cracked smile and cocky manner are a thing of the past in this role. In their place is a matured and a bit unsentimental character. Something has changed in Pitt, maybe it has been fatherhood, maybe it’s getting older, but whatever it is it has allowed him to turn out a character, hardened by the failures of his life and yet desiring to give love and protection to his only achievement, his children. His actions towards them, especially Jack his oldest, are brutal, tough and painful at times. His is a scary drill sergeant, controlling and commanding his home through his temperamental volcanic personality. But Pitt and Malick don’t allow this character to become a one dimensional, over-the-top bully. Moments of tenderness coexist with the hardness, allowing Pitt to create a complex portrait of a difficult and damaged man. It’s this juxtaposition of the brute and the gentle, along with life and death, right and wrong, nature and God that perplex and captivate.

The question I’m left with after seeing it for the first time is, “Was the beginning, the long set up, the images of the universe, the volcanoes, fish, ocean, etc. all necessary to put me in the mood, to give the rest of the story the impact which stayed with me long after I saw the film? Or could the film have done without it?” Malick is a 67 year old director who truly marches to the beat of his own drum and in this movie it is even more apparent that Tree is the mark of an older man, grappling with old age, the meaning of his life and the idea of an afterlife.

For me, the movie may have had one too many big ideas and life questions but as in all Malick films he doesn’t seem to care. It seems to me that Malick says everything he wants to say and makes the film for himself. It’s as if he’s saying F*** you to the rest of the world, I’m going to make a movie which expresses what I want to express. He seems to be working out all his inner conflicts, turmoil, and confusion right there on the screen and then doesn’t feel the need to explain or justify it afterwards. And for that I say, viewers let go of your premonitions and just “go with the flow”. Let the movie suck you in and even if you’re unsure of what is happening in front of your eyes, the movie will leave its mark, good or bad.

Icons of the 1950's

With Elizabeth Taylor's death my dad and I have been writing to each other about the female icons of the 1950's.

Four women, each displaying unique qualities, exemplified idealized qualities which women at the time (and even women today) long to have. As my dad said, Taylor was the great beauty. Audrey Hepburn was the thin, birdlike and foreign beauty. Marilyn Monroe was the sex bomb. And Grace Kelly was the refined ice queen (to quote my dad). Nowadays we have copies of these women but do not have actresses who together define a generation of women as perfectly as they do.

Why is it that even today these actresses still capture the public's interest? Go to any gift shop in Los Angeles and you'll find mugs, t-shirts and postcards with images of these four actresses. Even if people don't know the majority of their movies it's their image that continues to survive.

My fascination with these women goes beyond the image. It is the dichotomy of the image versus the real woman that has led me to read their biographies. My favorite biographer, Donald Spoto, has written a book about each of these women. In his books he not only describes these actresses’ lives but also dissects what it is about these women that make them the icons they are today and how their image was only that, an image not the reality.

In his latest biography about Grace Kelly Spoto described this perfectly;

"Never mind that Marilyn Monroe was actually a woman of keen intelligence and serious purpose: she had to serve the studio's manufactured image of her if she wanted to maintain her popularity and position. And never mind that Audrey and Grace were both healthy young women who dated, had love affairs, wore jeans, occasionally used a four-letter word and liked to balance hard work with a good time and laughter. They both exhibited a natural refinement and were unfailingly courteous to colleagues and strangers, but these qualities were presented as the sum total of their personalities. They were nothing like goddesses in person, although they were certainly beautiful, stylish and always considerate. They were women to respect, but they could never be fully defined as merely respectable- a term that alternately amused and annoyed them both. "

Now, studios do not have complete power over its actors. At the time of Grace, Marilyn, Audrey and Liz the studio had the power to tell its actors what movies to make, whom to date and how to dress. The studios even controlled what the gossip columnists would say about its stars, feeding the public these images which collectively define how generations now view the 1950's. Since Taylor's death gossip, entertainment and news websites have been flooded with stories and photos of her life. Her movies have been shown on film networks day and night. It is a true testament to the power of these icons from the past.

So in remembrance of Liz, Grace, Marilyn and Audrey here are my recommendations of their films:

Liz- National Velvet, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, A Place in the Sun, Giant

Grace- Rear Window, The Country Girl, Dial M for Murder, High Noon

Marilyn- Some Like It Hot, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Bus Stop

Audrey- Roman Holiday, My Fair Lady, Sabrina, Breakfast at Tiffany's

Enemy at the Gates

In the opening sequence of the film Enemy at the Gates, Russian men, women and children are herded onto trains, the men are thrown off, some are given guns or ammo in a disorderly fashion and then thrust onto boats which are being bombed by the German Army. Upon landing in Stalingrad, which is only a skeleton of the city it used to be, the men are told via speakers that they must attack and if they refuse they will be shot by their own army. In a horrific sequence the men, unprepared and unarmed, charge forward to their deaths.

It is a beginning comparable to Saving Private Ryan, but that's the only time that Enemy at the Gates comes close to being as good as Ryan.

Loosely based on a true story, Enemy is about a heroic young Russian soldier named Vasily (Jude Law). With Hitler's army demolishing their city, Russians were in need of a hero to give them hope. A talented sharp shooter, Vasily went from being a shepherd to a Russian hero thanks to the PR talents of political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes). In the film Danilov and Vasily become friends and help each other to further their careers and positions in the army (although in reality there is no evidence they were ever friends). Both men fall in love with Tanya (Rachel Weisz), a beautiful girl who is fighting with the militia. When Hitler's army finds out about Vasily they send one of their best officers, Konig (Ed Harris), to hunt and kill the Russian hero.

War, heroism, a hunt, a love triangle, the bonds of friendship; it's all there. The problem is that there is so little time spent developing the characters that the reality of the situation is lost in order to spend time on Hollywoodizing the story of Vasily. Instead of concentrating on the fascinating aspects of the Russian's and the German's ideals, the strife and struggle of the solders and common folk or the difficulty Vasily faced in being a hunted hero, the film mostly focuses on a soap opera-like love triangle.

Only the moments when Konig is playing a cat and mouse chase with Vasily does the film seem authentic. As Konig stalks and Vasily runs the story picks up and shows the danger and horror of the war. But sadly most of the film is spent on cheesy dialogue and unrealistic love scenes accompanied by James Horner's out of place sweeping score.

With such talented actors as Law, Fiennes and Weisz it's too bad there wasn't a better script to back up their skills. With that said though, Law does succeed in making Vasily seem heroic, as well as show his doubts in his talent when he's up against the superior Konig. But even Law, who is like a romantic Don Juan in real life, can't make the love scenes with Weisz sing. Weisz, with her big brown eyes and intelligent demeanor, is perfect for the spirited and tough Tanya, yet she isn’t able to give Tanya more than one dimension. At one moment she is describing how her parents were carted off by Nazis and violently murdered and the next she's falling in love and fighting the battle on the front lines. If the war and her loss have affected her it does not show.

Enemy had the makings of a great film but fell short in its desire to make war romantic and entertaining.

Me and Orson Welles

In High School Musical 1, 2 and 3 Zac Efron portrayed the ideal all American boy; handsome in a pretty way, talented at sports and able to sing like a pop star. In all three movies the dialogue and plots are hokey and the acting is over the top. With lines like "Dude, Ms. Darbus has snapped her cap!" Efron wasn't exactly quoting Shakespeare, but in the film Me and Orson Welles Efron is finally given a chance to not only perform a little Shakespeare, but also show that he can really act.

Me and Orson Welles is the fictional story of a high school student (Efron) who ventures into New York City one day and finds himself in an impromptu audition on the street for Orson Welles. After Welles sees that Efron's character Richard is able to carry a tune he is hired with no pay and a small part in Welles's new production of Shakepeare's Julius Cesear. Welles's production opens Richard's eyes as he gets sucked into the seductive and exciting world of theater. During the rehearsals for Cesear the drama, egoism and cattiness, which always occur behind the scenes during a show's pre-production, unfold into a spectacle more entertaining than the actual play. A self-absorbed actress worries obsessively about the lighting, rehearsals fall into chaos when music cues occur at the incorrect time, actor's fight over stage direction and sprinklers are set off, flooding the entire theater.

Then, on top of everything, there is Orson. This is Orson, famous for his radio shows and previous theater experience, but before Citizen Kane and The Third Man. Even at this stage he is a genius egomaniac who thinks he's so superior that he takes an ambulence to quickly get from place to place. There is a madness to his life. His pregnant wife is left at home while he flirts and seduces every beautiful woman around him. He shows no interest in keeping to a schedule or keeping to a script. He listens only to himself and knows that his creativity greatly surpasses everyone else's around him. He is someone you would never want to work with or be close to but he is completely entralling.

Christian McKay not only looks exactly like Welles at this time of his life, but also captures Welles's spirit and personality so perfectly that you forget you're not actually watching Welles. We, the audience, observe Welles through the eyes of Richard enhancing Welles's over-the-top personality and magnetism. As Richard is held captivated by Welles so are we and as Richard witnesses and experiences the theater so do we. It is this ingenious storytelling device, as well as great performances by everyone, that makes Me and Orson Welles an entertaining movie you can't take your eyes off.

Nowhere Boy

I've been so busy lately that I haven't had a lot of time to keep up with my blog. I love writing here so I'll always be posting even though it won't be as regularly as I would like. Lately I have seen a few movies so I'll try to start updating my blog with my thoughts on them.

I'll start with the film Nowhere Boy.


Before John Lennon was John Lennon he was a teenager bursting with attitude who didn't know where to place his energy or how to channel his untapped talent. Raised by his aunt and his uncle in a straight and rather strict household the boy, who was part of the music group which would later change and influence music for generations, seems like a typical moody teenager. His need to rebel is fulfilled when he reconnects with his mother. It is through his relationship with her that his talents are awakened and the star John Lennon is born.

Similarly to John Lennon's transformation, the film Nowhere Boy seems to dazzle most in the scenes where John and his mentally unstable mother connect. As his mother introduces him to rock n' roll music, smothers him with affection and strums out a song for him on the guitar John Lennon finds the woman he's been missing. It is these scenes that work well and seem truthful in Nowhere Boy. Anne-Marie Duff, who plays Lennon's mother, has a wild craziness in her bug eyes. Her portrayal of Julia captures a woman who is weak and damaged but with a spirit and energy that is contagiously charming but also enigmatic. Her performance is so good that the movie suffers when she is not in it.

Nowhere Boy also suffers in its ability to tell the story of a boy and his relationship with his two mother figures convincingly. Instead of concentrating on dialogue and character development, the film uses loud music and montages to further time and events as well as to show how a character feels or changes. While these techniques create many fascinating images, they are missing the soul needed to make well rounded characters. Instead of watching the transformation of a boy into John Lennon, we view a few dramatic scenes that seem almost out of context due to the lack of narrative. In return, these scenes don't ring true or seem genuine. Nowhere Boy is based on the fascinating true story of one boy's traumatic beginning and his development into the man who would become an icon. It's too bad Nowhere Boy didn't let this story carry the film for it had great actors who could have done it justice.

Oscars 2011

1st- What I think will win. Underneath, in brackets what I want to win (I only am choosing the most important categories). Okay, on to the Oscars!! Excited to see James Franco and Anne Hathaway host.


Actor-Colin Firth
(Colin Firth)

Actress-Natalie Portman
(Michelle Williams)

Supporting Actor- Christian Bale
(Christian Bale)

Supporting Actress- Melissa Leo
(Amy Adams)

Animated Feature- Toy Story 3
(Toy Story 3)

Art Direction- Inception


Cinematography- Black Swan
(Black Swan)

Costume Design- Alice in Wonderland

Directing- The Social Network
(The Social Network)

Documentary Feature- Waste Land

Documentary Short- Killing in the Name

Film Editing- The Social Network
(The Social Network)

Foreign Language Film- Biutiful

Makeup- Barney's Version

Original Score- The Social Network
(The Social Network)


Original Song- If I Rise

Animated Short Film- Day and Night

Live Action Short Film- The Confession

Sound Editing- Inception

Sound Mixing- Inception

Visual Effects- Inception

Adapted Screenplay- The Social Network
(The Social Network)

Original Screenplay- The King's Speech
(The King's Speech)

Best Picture- The King's Speech
(The Social Network)

Hustle

Three years after Ocean's 11 hit theaters Hustle aired on British television. A resurgence in shows about con men seems to have hit Britsh airways following the popularity of the Ocean's movies. Hustle stars Robert Vaughn and cast of British actors who have previously worked in British television and theater. In each episode of Hustle the "family" of con men find a mark to con, seduce him or her into their fake world and then con them out of large amounts of money (think The Sting or any of the Ocean's movies). They never con an innocent or good person. Their targets are the wealthy and the immoral and in doing so feel that they are not theives but rather modern day Robin Hoods.

Each episode is cleverly put together. The formula is always the same but there is still a feeling of adventure and tension as each con is planned and carried out. Occasionally, the show takes a different spin on the formula and starts an episode at the end of the con jumping backwards to the beginning so the audience can see how they got to that point. The effect of this storytelling ploy is much greater than following the con in chronological order. As Hitchcock proved with his bomb under the table scenerio, the tension is greater when an audience already knows about the danger. If the audience sees the bomb under the table, but none of the characters are aware of it there is much more suspence. In some Hustle episodes the tension builds because the audience already knows where the con is heading. The audience sees a moment of danger and then must wait through the entire episode while the suspense gradually increases until the episode nears that moment again. It is this that makes Hustle so entertaining to watch.

While the plot is what drives a con story, it is the relationship between the con men/women that makes these stories so entertaining that people watch them over and over again. When scoring a long con (a con which takes a lot of preparation and has many steps) the people doing the con must act as a family. It is such intense work that they have no time for a life outside of the con world so their life is the con and the people performing the con. In Ocean's 11/12/13 or The Sting the dynamics between all the men preparing the con is perfectly played by the actors. The real life friendship between Paul Newman and Robert Redford that audiences saw on screen in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was the perfect relationship to exhibit in a con movie like The Sting. Sarcastic and witty, these two actors played off each other so well that their relationship dominates over the basic plot of the movie. Similarily, in Ocean 11 the relationship between Brad Pitt and George Clooney (and evenutally Matt Damon in the later movies) is the focus of the film. The plot does drive the first Ocean movie, but it is the relationship between Pitt and Clooney that makes the movie bringing people back for more in the future installments.
This comradery between con men isn't as strong in Hustle. The five member team says that they're a family but fall short in showing the audience that they really are that close. The episodes focus so much time on the con that the relationships between the con men and their lives are missing. Instead of seeing their relationships play out and seeing their struggles in dealing with the life of a con we are told about it. In a show like Mad Men or Sopranoes we aren't told how to feel about a character; instead we watch as their character's relationships develop and observe as they make decisions which then affect and change each character's lives. The plot is enriched by the characters because as an audience we have more of a connection through our interpretations of those characters. In Hustle so little time is spent on characterization that we have to be told how to feel about each person and in return the show doesn't grow and develop as greatly as other shows on tv right now.

What this means for me and my desire to keep watching the show is that while I had fun seeing the first season, I lost interest by the second. Hustle is still airing on British tv so there are people who feel connected to it and still enjoy watching it; but for me I must agree with Debbie Reynold's in Singing in the Rain, "Once you've seen one, you've seen them all."

Happy Valentine's Day Week

Happy Valentine's Day Week Everyone!

I have been really busy lately with school and more school and even more school. Because of all my work I haven't had a chance to watch a new movie lately so instead of writing about a new movie I have decided to make a list of my top 10 romantic movies. Two reviewers from my favorite magazine, Entertainment Weekly, wrote their choices for the best movies to watch on Valentine's Day which got me thinking about what I would choose. So here's my list:

1. Roman Holiday- The movie which I have previously written about takes the number 1 spot. What can seem more romantic than a handsome and kind stranger, a beautiful and charming princess and a city that is the setting for this perfect Cinderella story?

2. It Happened One Night- Another classic. This is one of the movies that really made a huge impression on me as a kid. The wonderful screwball comedy still resononates thanks to the wonderful chemistry of the two stars, their great comedic timing, and a great script with many wonderful scenes. Who could forget Claudette Colbert sticking her leg out in the street to stop a car or Clark Gable teaching her how to dunk a donut perfectly; a true artform which still reminds me of my grandfather.

3. When Harry Met Sally- This is a movie which I watch once a year when I'm in the mood. I'm not a huge fan of Billy Crystal but in this movie he is perfect. Meg Ryan's Sally is charming, sweet and totally neurotic. The journey of a relationship, which has a rough start, then grows into a friendship and ends as a relationship, never gets old. Especially wonderful are the short interviews with couples describing how they fell in love. 

4. The Notebook- While most movies made from Nicholas Spark's novels end up being cheesy and unrealistic, The Notebook seems genuine and sentinmentally perfect. It is easy to see that the actors Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams were really falling in love during the filming. The movie captures the essence of a budding new romance and tugs at your heartstrings in the scenes when the two characters have grown old. Is there a more heartwrenching moment in a movie as when the older Noah, played by James Garner, watches as his Allie, who is suffering from Alzheimers, come back to him for a second and then quickly slip away, lost in the disease? Every time I watch Garner fight back tears of pain and helplessness I'm left in tears as well.

5. Casablanca- "Here's looking at you kid". "Play it again Sam". Bogie. Bergman. The song, As Time Goes By. Every scene is memorable and dripping with romance. For a film that was rife with problems and was not supposed to be anything special it has become one of the most copied movies of all time. It's truly the ultimate romance.

6. Some Like It Hot- Not your traditional romance, two men dress as women and join a girl's music group to go on the lamb from the mob, but it's by far one of the most romantic movies ever made. Marylin is charming and sincerely sweet in a role that seems to have been the culmination of the trials of her personal life as well as all of her previous characters. Is there a funnier or more romantic ending to a movie as when Jack Lemon's character Jerry, dressed in drag, tells his male admirer Osgood that he's not actually a woman but rather a man only to have Osgood reply, "Well, nobody's perfect." It brings a smile to my face just thinking about it.

7. Jerry Maguire- Before Tom Cruise went crazy, jumping on Oprah's couch and kissing Katie Holmes all over the world, he was a private and believable movie star. In Jerry Maguire he is at his best as a sports agent who can only love himself. The movie has the right amount of cheese with lines like, "You had me at hello," as well as great moments of male comradery between Maguire and his only client, football player Ron Tidman (Cuba Gooding). And the cherry on the cake is Renee Zellweger's character's young son (Jonathan Lipnicki) who gives one of those perfect child perfomances. He's cute and funny and manages to steal every scene he's in, even from Cruise.

8. Sleepless in Seattle- Another Meg Ryan movie has made it on my list. This romantic comedy borders on the cheesy but keeps itself in check with great performances by Ryan and Tom Hanks. My admiration of Seattle has made me feel even more connected to this movie. The two actors only come together in the final scene but the journey they take to get to the Empire State Building on Valentine's Day is sentimental for all the right reasons.

9. Ikiru- You may wonder if a story about an old man who learns he has cancer and then tries to find the meaning of life is really a romantic movie but to me this is one of the most genuinely moving films I have ever seen. At first Takashi Shimura's Watanabe is a tragic character, a man who has spent his whole life doing nothing honorable and has had nothing to live for. It is at his funeral, which takes place in the second half of the movie, that we learn he is not tragic at all but rather more of a gentle hero. In his search to do something more with his life he has met a young woman, full of life and energy and through their friendship he has made a difference with the short time he had left.

10. Pride and Prejudice- While I loved watching the BBC version of this movie, my favorite is the Kiera Knightley version. In college my best friends and I watched this movie over and over and over. Knightley has the perfect amount of zest, brainiess and upper class elitism for Elizabeth Bennet. And while Colin Firth is completely to die for as Darcy, Matthew Macfayden, brings the stern Darcy a softer and gentler side. An interesting side note, An Education's Carey Mulligan makes an apperance in this movie as one of the Bennet sisters.

So that's my list. I'm sure there's some movies I have left out but these are the ones I come often come back to when I'm in a romantic mood.

Black Swan and The Wrestler

My plan for this post is to compare the movie Black Swan with The Wrestler. The director of both films, Darren Aronofsky, has said that Black Swan is a companion piece to The Wrestler. It is very easy to see the connection between the two. Both films are about people pushing their bodies and minds to reach perfection in art and sport. In both films Aronofsky’s camera follows Mickey Rourke and Natalie Portman’s characters like an entourage behind its hero. In moments of action the camera spins widly around creating an urgency and rhythm to both art forms.  Portman and Rourke both pushed their bodies to extremes in order to play their roles. Portman stuck to a strict ballerina regimen and learned to dance so well they were able to use her dancing for the majority of shots. Rourke pumped his body so full of steroids that he is barely recognizable as Randy the Ram. I could go on and on with more similarities but it doesn’t matter. No matter how much one compares the two they are not equal; one is a great film and one is a good film. Watching the two back to back brought out the flaws of Black Swan and emphasized the tenderness and toughness of The Wrestler.

Portman’s performance has gotten a lot of critical acclaim and is winning lots of awards, and while she is impressive in the role, on second viewing her acting seems limited. In terms of her dancing she has managed a great feat but that is only one half of her performance. Through most of the film her eyes have a look of panic in them but they lack other emotions. When I compare it to a very similar performance like Catherine Deneuve’s in Repulsion it seems to lack the true madness necessary for the character to be believable. In Repulsion Deneuve is mentally unstable right from the beginning, just as Portman’s character is, but slowly Deneuve’s character loses herself in her own insanity just as Portman’s character should. Deneuve wanders around aimlessly, maniacally itching at her body and as the movie continues her character becomes so disturbed that she is disturbing to watch. There is a sense of danger that grows not from tricks with the camera but from her performance. Throughout Black Swan it seems that Portman stays rather one dimensional. She is a frightened perfectionist and spends the whole movie projecting exactly that. If it wasn’t for the tricks of the camera, pulling the skin off her index finger or seeing her exact reflection in other people numerous times, there is no way we could really know she was suffering from mental instability.

The script for Black Swan also seems to be one dimensional. Other than a broken toenail and repetitive practice the dancer’s strife and hard work is missing. Only in a few scenes do we get a chance to learn more about Portman’s Nina. One that comes to mind in particular is the scene in which Nina calls her mother to tell her she got the role as Swan Queen. In that moment, as she fights back tears of joy, it is apparent this girl will not be able to handle the task at hand. Scenes like this are seldom in Black Swan, especially as Nina’s mental instability takes over and the movie becomes one horror moment followed by the next.

Compare this to The Wrestler where we not only see life in the ring but also the life a wrestler leads outside of the ring. What makes the movie fascinating are all the details such as wrestlers discussing how the match will play out or Randy going through his preparations for a match- going to a tanning booth, bleaching his hair, buying steroids and shooting up. All these elements add to our appreciation and understanding of the difficulty and work that goes into a job such as wrestling. In Black Swan the plot focuses on the same things over and over. Nina can’t break through and connect with the darker side needed for the black swan. Over and over she dances beautifully but never reaches inside herself to conjure out the demonic swan. It’s no wonder Portman’s performance seemed a bit one dimensional, her character never has a chance to show how she grows.

Rourke on the other hand had a character with so much depth and so much humanity that it’s hard to imagine he didn’t win the Oscar. With his long, stringy hair, silly putty face, and wallowing eyes he looks a bit like the cowardly lion. No matter where he is there is magic around him. When working at the deli counter he flirts with the young and the old while serving potato salad bringing a smile to everyone’s face. In a strip club he defends the stripper who he has befriended from a bunch of young men who are demeaning her. And standing in a ring, surrounded by hundreds of admiring fans, his charisma and charm make him the popular wrestling hero that he has been for twenty years.

Rourke’s performance is so tender and heartbreaking that Aronofsky lets it to dominate and carry the movie. In every scene he lets the camera rest of Rourke’s face and allows Rourke tell the story. In Black Swan Aronofsky has done the exact opposite. To show madness he uses the camera. With fast cuts and manic camera movements an emotional thrill and nervous tension is created. To show terror he uses tricks of the eye. To show suspense the music gets ominous with just the right amount of foreboding tones. The audience’s emotions are manufactured in Black Swan. In The Wrestler he has allowed for the script and the actor to provide the audience with the necessary emotions, which is why The Wrestler is so much more genuine and haunting than Black Swan.

127 Hours

How do you show one man’s inner thoughts, his inner feelings, his inner struggle? In the autobiography Between a Rock and a Hard Place Aron Ralston tells in great detail the story of how he went for a hike in Canyon Lands, Utah, got stuck in a canyon for five days when his arm got jammed between a rock and the wall of the canyon, and survived by cutting off his own arm with a dull knife. Ralston tells his story using first person narrative which allows every emotion and thought to be expressed and understood. For a writer it is not difficult to tell this story effectively but for a filmmaker this is colossal challenge. For over an hour the story is confined to one man, deep in a canyon by himself. According to the real Aron Ralston, the mental and physical journey he went through was life changing, even spiritual. In order to convey this to a film audience a director has to be incredibly creative and skilled, which is exactly what 127 Hours director, Danny Boyle, is.

The movie starts off with a bang. The music, which was composed by A.R. Rahman, who also composed the music for Slumdog Millionaire, has a fast paced, rhythmic energy to it, similar to the music from Slumdog. The music plays an important role throughout the entire film. In moments when Aron is losing track of reality the music creates an otherworldly soundtrack to Aron’s thoughts. And in the climactic scene where Aron amputates his own arm, the music creates a sense of adrenaline pumping intensity heightened in the moments as he plucks away at his nerves.

The opening credits set the tone for the rest of the movie. The screen is cut into three vertical bars containing images of crowds of people and images of James Franco’s Aron getting ready for his trip to Utah. It is these places, a stadium, an escalator, a city street, all overflowing with people that Aron is running away from. The real Aron was so inspired by the books, Into the Wild and Into Thin Air that he left his high paying job at Intel and moved to Colorado to work in a store which sold outdoors equipment. Like the characters in those two books Aron needed to separate from society, to be out in the wild, and to push himself to physical and mental extremes. This fabulous opening montage, with snazzy music and split screens, emphasizes that Aron is a man cut off from this world and in search for adventure outside of confines of the city.

Within the first twenty-five minutes of the movie Aron has fallen to his doom, trapped inside the canyon. The claustrophobic feel of the story is opened up by Boyle’s cinematic techniques. To show the isolation of Aron’s location Boyle pulls the camera out of the canyon, taking us farther and farther into the sky, until we see the thin slice of rock which Aron is confined between. From this visual technique it is apparent that Aron has no chance of being noticed by hikers or rescue searchers. When Aron takes his contacts out and puts them in his mouth to moisten them, images of Aron getting out of the shower and putting in his contacts at home immediately follows. These images lead into other images and sounds. We see Aron ignore a call from his mom, a missed chance to explain where he might be going. The next image is of Aron photocopying guidebook pages and telling his boss that he isn’t sure where he’s going; yet again another missed opportunity to tell of his destination. In these short few seconds we are aware that no one probably knows where Aron is, thus making the danger of the accident even more palpable.

As the days drag on and Aron runs out of food and water he begins to hallucinate and imagine things of his desire. The real Aron wrote in his book that he would dream about different kinds of drinks so Boyle recreates these imaginings by using music and fast paced shots of all different kinds of people drinking. Many of the hallucinations in the movie were really things that the real Ralston claimed to have had. Boyle uses these hallucinations to take us out of the tiny world the film is set in as well as to give us some information about who Ralston was before he got stuck in the canyon. Images of his sister playing the piano while his mother and father sit on a couch and images of an ex girlfriend and a bad breakup give us the background information necessary to understand this man a little more. The hallucinations are also horrifying. With each image we are taken away from the terrifying reality that he is stuck in the canyon; when we are brought back to the dark, cold and solitary confinement of the canyon our sense of doom and dread increase greatly.

Expecting that he would die the real Ralston began recording taped messages on a video camera back to his family. While only one of these has ever been shown to the public due to the sensitive nature of the messages, they allowed Boyle to have the character Aron express what he was feeling and show us the rollercoaster of emotions he was going through.

I have talked with a few people who don’t understand why it was necessary to show so graphically the scene in which Aron amputates his own arm. The whole experience is shot mostly in close-ups and extreme close-ups allowing the audience to be as intimately connected with this man as possible. We are going through every step and every emotion that Ralston went through in order to understand exactly what he felt during this impossible journey. Ralston has explained that while cutting off his arm was painful (in reality it took him 40 minutes), it was also extremely freeing. For five days he had been stuck between a rock and a wall. He was extremely close to death and almost without hope.  When he finally cut his arm free it was a cathartic and joyous moment. As an audience we already know the story. We already know that he cuts off his own arm and lives to tell about it. By showing the horrific experience, detail for detail, we forget what we know and relive the experience, every emotion, every horror and the triumph of what Aron does to survive.

Of course all of this wouldn’t have been a convincing story if it hadn’t been for Franco’s performance. For most of the film Franco is by himself. He has the difficult task of showing a man who went into the canyon, cocky and self assured and left the canyon grateful for life and everyone in it. Emotions of desperation and despair cross Franco’s face in moments when his attempts to free himself are unsuccessful. Wit and charm exude from Franco when he interviews himself on his camera as if on a game show in a scene which is both heartbreaking and clever. And in the end, Franco exhibits determination and bravery in the last hours when Aron’s body was dying but he was unwilling to give in. It is a subtle performance by Franco and in his subtly he conveys this whole range of emotions so perfectly that you believe in every step he takes, even when he begins to amputate his arm.   

After watching this movie I could not get it out of my mind. Images flooded back to me whenever I thought about it. I have never been one who loves survival tales but I love stories about human beings pushing themselves to extremes. Boyle and Franco were able to create a portrait of a man that is so stunning that I could not take my eyes away. While it may not be for everyone, I think 127 Hours is a fascinating and remarkable film.

The King's Speech

Last night I rewatched one of my favorite films of 2010, "The King's Speech." The first time I watched this movie I was thoroughly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I went in knowing the premise and that the acting was going to be good and left thinking that it was my favorite film that year.

While I still loved watching this film again, I watched it the second time with too high of expectations. Occasionally this happens. I build something up in my head and then when I see it again it can't create the same feeling of wonderment that I felt the first time. But with that said, it is still a wonderfully made and a wonderfully acted movie.

On second viewing I noticed just how brilliant Colin Firth's performance is. As an actor I have always loved Firth-I think it's virtually impossible not to love him if you are a woman who has seen the BBC version of "Pride and Prejudice". In the movie "A Single Man" I saw moments where Firth shined as an actor. Although I felt that the movie's style got in the way of the story and the acting, there was one moment when Firth's skills came through. For any of you who have seen the movie there is a moment when Firth's character gets a phone call in which he finds out his partner has died. In a heartbreaking moment Firth struggles to understand what he's hearing and to smother his sorrow. In that small scene Firth's eyes conveyed anger, sadness and heartbreak. It is a rare gift for an actor to be able to show so much emotion and feeling through their eyes and that's exactly where Firth excels.

In "The King's Speech" Firth embodies every aspect of the King. I have read a few interviews where Firth has talked about how he hard he worked on perfecting the stammer so it wouldn't be over exaggerated and unrealistic. His efforts to duplicate the speech patterns of a person who suffers from stammering are impressive, but what is even more impressive to me is the way he created a complex portrait of a man. In moments where he feels insuferior Firth carries himself differently. Here he is, a King, and yet when he has a meeting with the Prime Minister he sits timidly in his chair, his legs knock kneed and his shoulders hunched over. His entire demeanor shows that he is completely ashamed and uncomfortable. And, in contrast, in the scenes of therapy with Geoffrey Rush, Firth's King sits upright, feet firmly on the ground refusing to give up on himself. In his performance these differences are subtly expressed and seem as if Firth did it naturally making his portrayal even more believeable.

In the sessions with Logue and in the scenes with his wife we see a man who is fiery, tempermental, brave and tortured by his position in life. And of course, through it all Firth's eyes show in every moment the struggle and the true nature of this man. It is this portrait which carries "The King's Speech" and makes it one of the most entertaining and moving movies I have seen lately.

Award season is in full swing and with the Oscar nominations being announced on Tuesday everything I have read is comparing "The King's Speech" with the other leading film, "The Social Network". I have seen both movies twice and I loved both. I agree with most things I've read that the two exhibit two very different kinds of filmmaking. "The King's Speech" is an uplifting, joyful movie with wit and tenderness throughout- it is like a great Hollywood classic. It's also expertly made by an extremly talented director and perfectly acted by not only Firth, but also Bonham Carter and Rush.

"The Social Network" is a fascinating story surrounding one of the most interesting current phenomenons, Facebook. The fast paced dialogue, the "Rashoman" style story, the talents of a great director like Fincher and some great performances come together to make a movie that cannot be compared to something that is made in a more classical way such as "The King's Speech" or even "True Grit". This is exactly the problem with an award show like the Oscars. All three movies are fantastic in themselves. It is not fair or possible to say that one is better than the other. But with that said, I will still watch the Oscars. I will still make my predictions. I will still stay up all night in order to see them live. As a movie lover the one big night when movies are celebrated is still important, no matter what the outcome of the awards are.

That being said, here's my complete list of favorite movies for 2010 in no particular order (I have yet to see "Another Year", "Nowhere Boy", "127 Hours", "The Company Men" and "Blue Valentine"- all of which I think I could possibly enjoy as well):

1. The King's Speech
2. The Ghost Writer
3. The Social Network
4. The Town
5. Toy Story 3
6. Shutter Island
7. Black Swan
8. The Fighter
9. True Grit
10. The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest
11. The Kid's Are All Right
12. Winter's Bone

Least Favorite- The A Team and Grown Ups

Sherlock

Lately I've been noticing how certain tv shows seem to be better than most movies coming out. It seems that the majority of movies being made right now are lacking in some way and I think that the difference in the quality of movies is because of the caliber of scripts being produced. While developments in technology have really made movies exciting and breathtaking (Titanic, Benjamin Button, etc), it is quite obvious that movies cater more towards special effects rather than stories of quality.

I think this is especially apparent when comparing the Guy Richie version of Sherlock Holmes with the BBC television version called "Sherlock." When I saw the movie "Sherlock Holmes" I was looking forward to a fun mystery with a great actor and a creative director. In the first half of the movie that's exactly what I got. The music was exciting, the story was interesting, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law had great chemistry and looked like they were having great fun playing Holmes and Watson; it was a refreshing new take on an old story. And then, to my dissappointment, the story was taken over by special effects. It seemed that the movie just became one impossible action sequence followed by the next. I am really hoping that the next movie of Sherlock Holmes concentrates more on the mystery and interesting characters. There's a lot of potentional especially when you look at who's in it. It has some great actors like Noomi Rapace, the original Lisbeth from the Millineum trilogy movies, and Jared Harris, or Lane Price- the British guy from Mad Men. I sure hope they use these skilled actors talents and concentrate less on the special effects.

In contrast, the BBC version called "Sherlock" is the smartest, most interesting and fun versions of Sherlock I have ever seen. In my mind Benedict Cumberbatch is exactly what Sherlock should be. Tall and lanky with high cheek bones and a weak chin, he exudes oddness. And, in comparison with Jude Law, Martin Freeman is much more relatable as Watson. The two actors play off each other perfectly and are given time to flesh out their roles so that they are what carry the stories- not the action.

The modernization of "Sherlock" also gives a breath of fresh air into the Holmes story. Set in modern London I have noticed just how much the city plays a role in the show. Sherlock and Watson zip around the city in a taxi passing the London tower, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Thames. Modern technology like cell phones and computers are constantly being used through out and are so central to the stories now that it's hard to imagine Holmes solving crimes without them. Overall, "Sherlock" has taken a genre which I have never been all the crazy about and made it fascinatingly entertaining.

I am so impressed with certain television shows right now that when I think about what I'd like to watch 90 % of the time it is some tv show.

My top television series are:
The Sopranos- there is no doubt that it is the greatest acheivement in television history so far.
Mad Men- Wonderful acting and great characters. A fascinating look at the 60's in America. Superb on all levels.
Sherlock- for all the reasons I listed above.
Battlestar Gallactica- Tom and I watched this series together and enjoyed every minute of it (which is saying something because Sci Fi is not my favorite genre)

Roman Holiday

I have no idea how many times I've seen "Roman Holiday" but I know it's been awhile since the last time. I was planning on watching another movie but Tom decided he wanted to see that film so I switched on RH.

I doesn't matter how many times I see RH, I never get tired of it. There is something so magical about it. I think it's the case where everything came together perfectly. A great romantic script which was written by a blacklisted writer during the McCarthy trials. A fantastic use of a city which is really the third character in the movie. A skilled director who knew he had something wonderful with Audrey Hepburn. A talented costume designer whose clothes still look stylish. Great chemistry between the two lead stars. And, of course, the star making performance by Hepburn.

There are a few times when an actress jumps off the screen the way Hepburn does every scene she's in. Whenever she is absent from a scene the movie's energy drops a bit. There are moments when the camera catches the breathtaking beauty of Hepburn and shows just why she has become an icon.

The final scene, which is not always a favorite for viewers, has a moment that probably won Hepburn the Oscar. She is attending a press conference and sees Joe Bradley with the press. She knows he will not publish her story and realizes that he is in love with her. She turns to walk away, but then looks back, smiling a huge smile with a tear in her eye. She is so radiant and sad all at once. In a look we know that she is broken hearted to say goodbye to the freedom she had on her Roman holiday and to say goodbye to Joe. As I rewatched it I realized that no other ending would have been so moving or right. What makes the whole movie work is that she faces reality and decides to live her life as a princess.

Julie and Julia

I just watched "Julie and Julia" for the second time. I first saw this movie in the theater with Tom, my parents and Jay and Buelane. I remember how charming this movie was and I especially remember hearing Jay and Buelane laugh every time Meryl Streep did something very Julia Child like. After watching it a second time Tom made the comment that it must be a really nice movie for people who remember watching Julia Child and while I agree with him, I think it's a nice movie no matter what your knowledge of Child is.



The first time I saw it I wasn't sure it was necessary to include the Amy Adams part of the movie. I agreed with my dad that Julia Child was interesting enough that the whole movie could have been exclusively about her. But after a second viewing, I'm glad they put the Amy Adams story in the movie. I think watching Amy Adam's character struggle through the recipes connects us, the audience, more because we can relate to Julie. Her adoration of Child and her struggle to make it through every single one of Child's receipes shows just how remarkable Child's cookbook was. Since we don't get to see the success and fame Child's obtained after her cookbook was released (the movie concentrates on Child's journey in creating the cookbook) Julie's efforts in blogging through every recipe, watching old Julie Child's cooking shows, even watching the SNL version of Child, shows just how influential and famous Child's became.



Meryl Street's portrayal of Child is a joy to watch. You can really tell how much she enjoyed being Child and lights up the screen whenever she's on. This viewing though I really enjoyed and was impressed by Amy Adam's perfomance. A week ago I saw "The Fighter" where she plays a tough woman who refuses to take shit from anyone, even a porch full of angry sisters. I loved her in both movies. She's one of those actresses that I'll see every movie she's in because she always gives a good performance. She's a really good actress that can be so likeable and so believeable in every role she plays (unlike other leading ladies such as Jennifer Aniston or Katherine Heigl-- how do they keep getting roles)?



Rating- 3.5/4

I give this movie three and a half stars. A good script and great acting come together to make "Julie and Julia" and fun and entertaining movie. For someone who isn't interested in cooking I was completely hooked from the moment it began. It even got me to officially start my blog which I have been meaning to do for three years.