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."