Reaction: Oscar Nominations

As usual, Academy, shame on you. Michael Fassbender and Asa Butterfield (whose film got 11 nods) overlooked? Sherlock Holmes snubbed entirely for art direction? And since when are there allowed to be two nominees in a category? Ugh. Btw, if "Man or Muppet" loses, I really will stop watching. And let's face it, that's a serious threat, since your legitimacy is suffering without viewers; and losing even one hardcore fan could send the telecast into oblivion...

Shame

I would say that climax occurs when something breaks. And while Shame did not lack for climaces, I was not entirely sure what it was that was breaking in the movie. The performances by Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan were, of course, amazing--emotional, dynamic, and deeply moving. But it was difficult to tell what lay behind the performances: what thoughts and feelings were the characters accessing? Why were they crying, yelling, and screwing, screwing, screwing?

Shame stars Michael Fassbender as sex-addicted Brandon, a man whose manic pursuit of sexual pleasure somehow manages not to interfere with his job or his workout or his basic functionality. It is nonetheless an addiction, and he begins to realize the danger of his obsession when his sister, Cissy, comes to stay with him. They then proceed to clash several times, and we learn that at the heart of that conflict lies a fundamental difference of opinion about the duties of family.

Unfortunately, the film's greatest weakness is its inability to articulate the sources of the many emotional scenes so brilliantly executed by the lead actor. I knew, of course, that Shame would be a perfect vehicle for Fassbender, with his history of unfaltering performances as good people who do bad things. But this film is unclear about whether or not what he is doing is bad. While it becomes clear that he is no longer satisfied by his addiction--that he is wasting himself and any chance he has for emotional intimacy by futile pursuit of physical indulgence--the audience never really knows what Brandon is thinking. Despite the exacting displays of emotion, we have no way of knowing what fuels his torment.

I cannot honestly discuss this film without addressing the NC-17 rating. Do not expect nudity, sex scenes, or explicit content in the usual sense. Expect instead to be confronted very directly with an unrelenting view of the most intimate moments in these characters' lives--both physical and emotional. Fassbender bares body and soul for the camera, and the performance is as aggressive as it is moving. The film demands your empathy.

Overall, the film runs on great performances and invasive staging. It is difficult to watch and impossible to ignore. A few scenes between Fassbender and Mulligan spark with the intense dynamism of two masters in harmonious collaboration. Poignant, primal, and direct, Shame is a must-see for anyone who has ever buckled under the sheer burden of being human. Although the film is vague as to its source rupture, there is pleasure nonetheless in watching the lead actors at the pinnacle of their semi-nascent careers--brilliant in climax, with many more to come.

Eden Lake

I have long since accepted that I have inhibitions which could stand in the way of my being a serious film critic. Perhaps the most prominent of these is the fact that I cannot watch anything remotely scary. Now, I have overcome this to such an extent that I can watch thrillers, but the horror and (most extreme) the slasher genre are still intolerable.
Today, however, I was forced to reevaluate this limitation. Am I truly afraid? Yes. But is that why I cannot watch these movies. I have seen (and loved) Repulsion, Let the Right One In, Diabolique, Wait Until Dark, and The Devil's Backbone. I have watched (and lived through) The Shining and Jennifer's Body. I have actually reached a point where I seek out thrillers, despite the inevitable pangs of fear.
So why could I not make it through Eden Lake today? Why could I not watch the first torture scene? I begin to think that it may have nothing to do with it being "scary". Instead, I think I have a problem with objectification. Watching that movie, I couldn't help but feel that I was supposed to be enjoying watching the bloody debasement of Michael Fassbender. And I did not enjoy it in the slightest. I hated it.
I do not enjoy watching men be violently emasculated, nor do I enjoy watching women be baptized in blood. So why would I watch a slasher film? Mind, I have no problem with outright objectification. I feel no guilt watching Channing Tatum films (which, let's face it, are just thinly-plotted vehicles for his muscles to get some screen time). But those films exalt the finer qualities of actors. Even dramas vaunt their emotional capabilities. Thrillers acknowledge the craft of the director. But slasher films revel in evisceration: it is a sadistic objectification.
I will not say that the genre is without merit. I even enjoyed the film I watched today, up to the point where I had to turn it off. It is that very enjoyment that I shy away from. I am not comfortable enjoying something that simultaneously distresses me. Of course, a professional critic does not have the option of turning off a film she must review. So this is something I must overcome. For now, I will not be watching Eden Lake again anytime soon.

The Town

I just walked out of The Town for the second time, and for the second time I wanted to walk right back in. As a writer, I am brought nearly to tears dreaming of one day writing a film that looks like that, that has that much dramatic power. Of course, the writing and direction would be nothing without powerhouse performances from Ben Affleck, John Hamm, Rebecca Hall, and Jeremy Renner.

The story centers around Doug Macray (Affleck) a conflicted bank robber from the Charlestown neighborhood of Boston and the relationships that drive his life: his best friend and fellow crew member James (Renner), his drug-addicted sometimes-girlfriend Krista (Blake Lively), and the bank manager whom his crew takes hostage and releases, Claire (Hall). In the course of keeping tabs on Claire, Doug begins a romantic relationship that is foredoomed by his line of work and the tireless efforts of FBI agent Adam Frawley (Hamm) to bring him down.

The scenes of the movie run the gamut from gritty and emotional, to tender and tragic, to action-packed and tense. One moment, Doug and Claire are sharing about their lives; in the next, there are guns and screaming and sirens. In the middle of the opening heist, there is a moment where Doug (masked and anonymous) calms Claire as she hurries to open the vault. The scene is a less-than-subtle bit of foreshadowing, but it provides pivotal insight into Doug’s character as a criminal and as a person. He is subtle and gentle, unlike his trigger-happy right-hand man.

The Town would not have the power it does without the hard and ruthless Agent Frawley, whose pursuit of justice is near-maniacal. There were moments near the end where I wanted him to get shot (which is saying something). If anyone had questions about the versatility of the actor most famous as Don Draper, this film should answer them. The man has got chops. Yet The Town does not blur the line between right and wrong. Although the criminals are protagonists, and the law is the antagonist, it is clear that there is sin on both sides. No one really comes out clean.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the brooding and besotted Miss Lively. The desperation in her performance is almost moving, and she expresses well the things that hold Doug back from a new life—the relationships and crimes that bind him to Charlestown.

Altogether, The Town is an excellent film. It is gripping, dark, moving, and real. It is sad without being depressing, and it forgives crime without exonerating. There is an implication of redemption, and that promise makes Doug a Charlestown hero.

9.8/10.0

[I post this addendum in the hopes that it will persuade Miss Carmen Elizabeth Perez to accompany me to the theater within the next 3 weeks to see this movie for herself...Carmen: you would love this movie. When have I steered you wrong? Oh, wait...never. xoxo, Ing.]

Wall-E (2008)

I have seen all Pixar movies except for Cars, and I can tell you right now that Pixar has a formula. All Pixar movies build their plotlines around the same skeleton--whether they are under the sea or in deep space, in a restaurant or in your closet--Pixar has managed to cleverly repackage the same narrative. The hero is usually an unlikely figure who screws up or gets knocked around a bit before being called upon to save the day. He usually comes very close to doing so before he fails completely. He must then pull himself up and really save the day. It's the same basic idea, so that when you go see a Pixar movie, you know that the almost happy ending is not really the ending because Nemo has already escaped from the fishtank or because Syndrome has decided to take his evil elsewhere or because...well, I wouldn't want to spoil Wall-E for you.

Another interesting thing about Pixar movies is the way that they handle adult themes. Sometimes they are downright morbid, as with 1988's "Tin Toy", where a baby's toys face the gruesome prospect of being chewed to death. More often, however, they are just about facing life with honesty. In 2003's short "Boundin'", we learn about accepting ourselves and being accepted by others as a sheep rebounds from the depressing experience of losing his fluff. We do not always get what we want in the 1989 short "Knick Knack", where a snowman cannot escape his snowglobe to play with the Malibu souvenirs. In Ratatouille and A Bug's Life the characters are social outcasts who must prove that they can contribute by their unique abilities. And although not everyone is special in The Incredibles, those who are should accept it with pride.

Tonight I watched all of their shorts (from 1984's "The Adventures of André and Wally B." to 2007's "Lifted"), and I could not help but notice an obsession with tinkering. Many of the shorts have no actual speech, and many of them are about gadgets and the way things work. I was also amazed to see how far the animation really has come. While they still love to tinker on-screen, it's clear that they have done some serious tinkering off-screen as well in the past 24 years. Moreover, the gadgets exhibited in the shorts have personalities and characterizations to marvel at. The iconic Pixar lamp, originally from 1986's "Luxo Jr.", appeared in that short as a mother-baby duo. The baby lamp is doing his own bit of tinkering--discovering that a bouncy-ball will deflate when jumped on. The mother is looking on with the same curiosity and exasperation that a human mother feels. In "Red's Dream" (1987), a little unicycle dreams of his days with the circus in a short that is sad for its idea (his dream is just that--a dream) but fascinating for its ability to make a tragic figure out of a 50% discounted red unicycle. These films have little or no talking in them, but they communicate by the movements of the characters or the little gasps and sighs, as when the alien of 2006's "Lifted" presses every button but the ones needed to beam up a human from his bed.

Wall-E is no different from other Pixar movies. In fact, in some ways it is the integral of all Pixar movies to date. The ultimate movie about robots and tinkering was conceived back in 1994, but it was never realized until now--now that Pixar has tinkered in so many other ways, in both style and substance. The gadget here is Wall-E, a trash-compacting robot of the post-human world. He is the only animate object left on the planet (except for, naturally, a cockroach); all of humanity is cruising around in space as a congregation of almost-entirely synchronized automatons. However, while Wall-E spends his days compacting what we consider to be waste, he recognizes value in certain bits of debris, and he takes them back to the truck he has made into a trash (treasure?) trove. He does his own bits of tinkering, figuring out how to use a VCR and how to change his own eye-bulbs and that a twinkie is appropriate roach food (something which we all knew already). We see the world through the eyes of a creature who is piecing humanity together backwards--trying to understand who we are by what we have built.

The plot of the movie is the usual--a girly-robot, EVE, comes to Earth with the mission of finding life of some sort. Wall-E has found a plant, which EVE stores and takes back to her space cruiser, followed by Wall-E himself and all of the mayhem he can provide. There is a villain and a close-call and the regular Pixar story. But there is also the assignation of personality and purpose to non-living things. As with their iconic lamp, Pixar has once again given life to a trinket, and they have made it full of curiosity and wonder that even many humans lack. Wall-E gets a 9 out of 10 for being innovative and wonderful, for making me see the true magic of a cigarette lighter, and for celebrating tinkering as only a Pixar movie can.

Avatar (2009)

Eight and a Half: An Unimpassion’d (but No Less Loving) Defense of Avatar to Those Who Fail to Appreciate It

No one ever accused Avatar of being the best movie ever made. Out of the 750 movies I’ve seen, it is not in the top 20. And talking to other people—most of whom have disliked the movie—I have not registered the highest opinion. However, after seeing it for a third time, I cannot deny that it has merit: its high production value, entertaining storyline, and believable lead performances (Sam Worthington, I love you) deserve at least an 8.5.

The high production value needs very little defense to those who consider James Cameron’s technological development to be revolutionary. Not all people, however, are believers; there are those in the minority who are underwhelmed with his achievement. I find such a critical debate (over the true creativity of the technology) to be analogous to other art forms: some say, “Any filmmaker could’ve done that.” But no other filmmaker did do it. The credit must go to Cameron for putting believable pores on the face of each Na’vi—for making the little soul-spores float in a three-dimensional space not-yet-matched in modern cinema. James Cameron says that if he wanted to, he could make the Dirty Harry sequel out of the same technology. To which I reply, “Prove it, and you will leave no one in doubt of your technological prowess.”

Contrived and familiar as the storyline may be, it is nonetheless entertaining, with its action plot, romance plot, transformation plot, environmental metaphor, and sliver of a parallel to Pocahontas. The romance plot is weak, but it appeals to the saps who yawn at the action (the most well-developed and strongest of the story elements). The transformation plot links the others together, and the environmental metaphor is appealing to tree-huggers and easily ignored by those who get annoyed by such subtexts. Especially interesting to me is a certain similarity between Avatar and Apocalypse Now. Just hear me out: both movies are about one man on a mission for the colonizers who gets sucked in to the world of the colonized, told by first-person narration. Avatar has a happy ending, but the beginning still bears a resemblance which makes it more enjoyable to watch. If Cameron had actually ended the story after the victory of the oppressors, at the blackout following the destruction of Home Tree (second-stupidest name ever, following “Unobtainium”), all of the critics probably would have given it a 10/10.

There is an element of performance required from the unseen actor which critics should not ignore. The Apocalypse Now metaphor would be indiscernible if Jim Carrey had voiced the character of Jake. As it were, I expected his opening line to be “I am still in Saigon.” In his human scenes, Jake is independent and strong—a man who takes orders only because he chose to—not because he is someone’s drone. His Avatar expresses—through a combination of Cameron’s technology and Worthington’s voice, his captured movement—emotions that include wonderment, interest, determination, pain, and love—among others. His vocal expression strongly contributes to the contrast between the physically-restricted man who narrates the story and the free and unbounded member of the Na’vi. In action, he is lively, engaging. As narrator, he is dark and conflicted.

So Avatar is not the best movie of the year. It is not the worst either. I give it six points in production value, an extra point for story line, and two points for its characters (snaps also to Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriquez, Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi, and of course, Zoe Saldana). Minus one half of a point (it should be more, but I’m letting him off easy) for the transparent appearances of James Cameron in the script. Next time, please use better names than Unobtanium and Home-Tree. Seriously. All told, it gets a solid 8.5/10. In other words, I liked it; and I thought it was pretty good.

Please do not make me wait another ten years for the sequel.

Brick (2005)

"Keep up with me now."

I cannot watch this movie and cross-stitch. It is an amazing movie in every way...if you take the time to truly watch it. The performances are all riveting, and the juxtaposition of noir drama and the high school drug underworld makes for an intense and entertaining film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Brendan Frye, a Byronic hero of sorts, whose ex-girlfriend Emily (Emilie de Ravin) gets sucked into the drug underworld and comes up again dead in a creek. Unable to help her, he wants only to find out the truth--and take down a few people who may have blood on their hands. But he also finds himself back in a world he had already renounced, tangling with all kinds--from the riffraff druggie Dode (Noah Segan), to the very overlord of the business, The Pin (Lukas Haas). Also working for The Pin is the hotheaded Tug (Noah Fleiss) and the seductive Laura (Nora Zehetner). Brendan has to balance all of these people with the help of The Brain (Matt O'Leary) and the laissez-faire policy of Assistant V.P. Gary Trueman (Richard Roundtree). The plot is twisted and no scene is insignificant, but it is well worth the viewer's effort to pay close attention. The dialogue is clever but rapid, and the viewer must make sure to catch every word. But if the viewer can keep up, the film guarantees a mesmerizing climax, followed up by haunting denouement. One can only stare, transfixed, as the entire movie is tied together in the final scene--yet the only thing moving are Brendan's lips in a close-up of him explaining all to Laura.

If the plot is rich, the cast is appropriately complex, and even the most besotted characters draw empathy. As a 26-year-old cripple running dope out of his mother's basement, Lukas Haas layers sensitivity and cold economy--we wonder why the Kingpin eats his mother's oatmeal cookies and loves the imagery of Tolkien. Tug and Dode both have weaknesses for Emily that undermine their ability to remain businesslike when it comes to drugs. And Nora Zehetner steals every scene she is in as the inscrutable femme fatale Laura. At least, she tries. It is impossible to steal a scene from Brendan. As his near-obsessive love for Emily leads him into drama beyond his own life, he holds together and breaks down all at once. In the end he makes choices and faces consequences that reach way past the death of his ex-girlfriend and affect the lives of all involved. And we stick with him through that end.

"There's not much chance of coming out clean."