Sunday, April 4, 2010

I Am Love



Last year my favorite performance from a leading actress was Tilda Swinton's riveting, ball-busting role in Julia, and as always I'm curious about her projects. Hardly ever is there an acting creature so endlessly and elusively fascinating, and this beautiful looking Italian flick seems to play right into that. I want to see desperately. I can already say that this is one of my favorite previews of the year-- the music, the style, the gorgeous cinematography, and Ms. Swinton looking just as confident in elegant attire as she did last year as drunkie Julia.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

International Cinephile Society

The International Cinephile Society, an online organization made up of 60 film historians have announced their favorites of 2009:

BEST PICTURE
  1. A Serious Man
  2. The White Ribbon
  3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
  4. Inglourious Basterds
  5. Tokyo Sonata
  6. 35 Shots of Rum
  7. The Hurt Locker
  8. District 9
  9. Bright Star
  10. Up in the Air
BEST DIRECTOR
Ethan & Joel Coen, A Serious Man
runner-up: Michael Hanake, The White Ribbon

BEST ACTOR
Colin Firth, A Single Man
runner-up: Michael Stuhlberg, A Serious Man

BEST ACTRESS
Tilda Swinton, Julia
runner-up: Abbie Cornish, Bright Star

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
runner-up: Peter Capaldi, In the Loop

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
runner-up: Mo'Nique, Precious

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
A Serious Man- Ethan & Joel Coen
runner-up: Inglourious Basterds- Quentin Tarantino

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Fantastic Mr. Fox- Wes Anderson & Noah Bombach
runner-up: In the Loop

BEST FOREIGN FILM
  1. The White Ribbon
  2. Tokyo Sonata
  3. 35 Shots of Rum
  4. Summer Hours
  5. Broken Embraces
  6. Still Walking
  7. Lorna's Silence
  8. The Beaches of Agnes
  9. Ponyo
  10. O Horten
  11. The Headless Woman
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Fantastic Mr. Fox
runner-up: Ponyo

BEST DOCUMENTARY
The Beaches of Agnes
runner-up: Anvil! The Story of Anvil

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
The White Ribbon- Christian Berger
runner-up: Inglourious Basterds- Robert Richardson

BEST FILM EDITING
The Hurt Locker
runner-up: Broken Embraces

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Fantastic Mr. Fox
runner-up: A Serious Man

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
A Single Man
runner-up: Fantastic Mr. Fox

BEST ENSEMBLE
In the Loop
runner-up: The White Ribbon

The ICS also recently released their top 100 films of the 1990s-- let's argue about that again. The top ten was:

  1. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick) 1998
  2. Short Cuts (Robert Altman) 1993
  3. Trois Coloeurs: Rouge (Krzysztof Kieslowski) 1994
  4. Breaking the Waves (Lars von Trier) 1996
  5. The Age of Innocence (Martin Scorsese) 1993
  6. My Own Private Idaho (Gus van Sant) 1991
  7. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick) 1999
  8. Trois Coloeurs: Bleu (Krzysztof Kieslowski) 1993
  9. The Ice Storm (Ang Lee) 1997
  10. Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese) 1990
That's a divisive list right there, and I applaud it as much as I don't particularly agree. I think my disagreement comes primarly at the high placement of Eyes Wide Shut. While I feel in the minority of people that didn't detest the film, I still don't see it as one of the 10 best of 1990s, and rightfully perhaps the worst film of Kubrick's career, and sadly the final one as well. But I wish the ye olde Academy had a bit more the courage film scope to make decisions that may not be of the all pleasing majority rule.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Sherwood Forest in Cannes

The news has broken that Ridley Scott's updated version of Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, will open this year Cannes Film Festival on May 12. It's Mr. Scott's third appearance at the festival to date starting with The Duelists and Thelma and Louise. It will open out of competition and follows a long line of recent would-be Hollywood blockbusters that opened the prestigious film festival. Past big time Hollywood movies to open Cannes include Moulin Rouge!, Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones, The Da Vinci Code, to last years Up. I don't quite know how I feel about this trend personally-- I totally understand that as a business it's ideal to have a huge premiere for the worlds most famous film festival, but shouldn't Cannes be sacred at least a little bit. I've always been fascinated by Cannes far more than any other film festival because of the richness of film history and sort of grand semblance that it means for filmmaking. I understand my fascination is covered in filmic ideals that probably don't exist, but isn't that supposed to be the allure of film festivals-- the sense of discovering about the very best (and worst) the world has to offer. Robin Hood opens in the United States on May 15 to a million screens everywhere-- there's seems no need to hype something that will be readily available to everyone, right? Anyhow, I'll conclude this rant, I hope it sounds coherent. In other Cannes-related news, Tim Burton will be heading the jury this year...wow very vangaard!

Friday, March 19, 2010

The Runaways

"It's not about women's lib, it's about women's libido," bellows a blistering Michael Shannon (as eccentric music producer Kim Fowley) in The Runaways. The film, written and directed by Floria Sigismondi, tells the typical rise and fall story of the titular band, a trailblazor for rock girls. Set in 1975, where a group of proto-rock\punk girls including Joan Jett and Cherie Curie got their starts. As produced and manufactored by Fowley, the film understands that the success of "The Runaways" really never had anything to do with the music, it was the sale of sex, notably jailbait sex. Of course this is also the film being keenly marketed as the movie where Twilight co-stars Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning make out. Some things never change. However, there is an interesting anecdotal resonance with the story of "The Runaways," not just in the all-female rock star way, or even necessarily in the minors behaving sexually explicit way; in that the band, much like The Sex Pistols shortly before lived in that in-flux of music movements that tapped in to a sort of anarchic spirit. The move from rock (or even glam rock) into punk. The great irony is that both bands were developed and conceived and trained by alledgedly unethical ways by warped managers.

Happily, there are moments in The Runaways that make you forget the novelty of the Stewart and Fanning-ish, were the period feels geniune. The band proclaims early on, that they play slow songs, and the first hour or so, loudly rejoices in that. The defiant sexual lyrics of "Cherry Bomb," the bands biggest song, literally made up on the spot, as the film surposes-- all tease and mass sex appeal. The song still feels vulgar even in a decade post-Britany Spears. The seemingly unnatural sight of Dakota Fanning purring the ch-ch-ch actually feels right. These are young girls, probably more innocent than they pretend to be, twitching and posing, which it seems is what the band did. As time goes on, and they go on the road (even to Japan, where "The Runaways" were far more successful), and the cliches of band movies come in full throttle. Drugs, sex, in-fights, etc. It's all here sorted carefully, and yet the film is still a fairly lively, and utterly watchable affair. And of course, we do indeed get to see Stewart and Fanning make out, yet for the teasing and preening, the film version never comes across shocking.

Part of that reason has to be the performances. Stewart and Fanning admirably go the alternative route, but it never feels like either of them truly transcends it. Fleeting moments work, like when Stewart's Joan Jett pees on a guys guitar just for the hell of it, or when Fanning's Cherie Curie lipsynchs to David Bowie at a school talent contest, but for large stretches it feels like safe make believe. Especially in the final act of The Runaways where the music slows down-- the adrenaline rush breaks and the film feels the need to aim higher. We've seen collectively in movies so many times before the decline of a band, or anything of some kind of prominence, that it probably needs a far more deft, and subtle crew than this one to come down here. A bigger problem for the film is that the relationship between these gals isn't really developed to give a strong emotional response. We meet Joan first buying a men's leather jacket to sharp criticism, and I suppose we just assume here's our rebel, and that's about it. She's also got a thing for the ladies, but that's not really enough of an accord to Cherie.

On the front of Kristen Stewart, a lightening rod of an actress, that sparks vehement debate-- the question wages on. She has the look for sure to pull this off, but that eternal Twilight glare still seems to haunt her acting. She has a sort of twitchy, almost interesting internal performance going on here for most of the film, but we really all to see Joan Jett scream, and hold forth that sort of dominance. Stewart, to her credit, pulls it off a few times, and that's sort of my frustration with her-- I think I see a shred, or possibly a real gift in her, but it never seems to completely satisfy.

The real power, and what I wished was the focal point was Fowley. As played by the incredible Michael Shannon, he brings that anarachistic transitional phase in music to blistering life. He may well be deplorable, and certainly exploitative, but he understood far more than anyone else the appeal of "The Runaways" in late 70s America, or Japan. Have them scream and be loud, wear skimmpy clothes, and do exactly what he tells them to do. B-

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Alice in Wonderland

No doubt everyone has heard and likely already seen Tim Burton's remake\revisit\sequel whatchamacallit based on Lewis Carroll's beloved druggie absurdest tale Alice in Wonderland. Only this time, right on the throes of Avatar it's presented as a 3-D extravaganza. And in the fashion of a big-time Disney film meeting the creative mind of Mr. Burton and his collective muses Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, this Alice has the sort of magic of corporate branding, rather than movie joy. Which is odd because it's that movie joy that always Burton's gift to cinema. Only now, in a film that really seems like a great fit, that gift is reduced to a dithering, meandering, particularly dull affair. That gothic sense of humor, along with that innocence that permeated Burton's best work (Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice) feels so stifled. Even the production values, which are always top of the line in a Burton film, kind of look a bit shoddy here, or at least derivative. That sense of awe in a late 80s\early 90s Burton film seems to be slowly filtering away to allure of conglomerative dollar signs.

In this incarnation, written by Linda Woolverton (Beauty & the Beast) and loosely based on Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass and Jabberwocky, Alice is 19 and returning to Wonderland from a long absence since childhood. The concept is that she believed it was all a dream in the first place. She's living in a very Victorian London, dreading a future as a wife to dull duke, and hopelessly in search of a very independent, if anachronistic, life of her own. The brightest spot, and indeed really the only silver lining, is the beguiling young actress playing Alice. Mia Wasikowska is charming and completely enjoyable, gently giving a fresh spin and lovely sense of humor to the precedings. She's definitely one to watch for.

As she falls down the rabbit, she meets the Wonderland usuals-- Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter (decorated to max for Johnny Depp), the evil Queen of Hearts (for Ms. Carter), and the etereral White Queen (Anne Hatheway.) The story, which oddly seems to channel everything from The Chronicles of Narnia to The Matrix-- Alice's return is seen as prophetic, as she is the only one who can save Wonderland (or Underland, as it called) from the ruins caused by the Queen of Hearts. The only way to do that is to slay the nefarious Jabberwocky. The suffering element of this very oddly paced film is that there's so much overstuffed plotting in the way, that a cohesive story really doesn't exist. Not that that really is supposed to matter; this is Tim Burton's Wonderland, it's supposed to reveal in that magical production design and Danny Elfman scored oddness. And it's in 3-D! Except that for it's colorful moments, the film seems to sputter and dull out on us very early on in the film. As for the 3-D-- well it's no Pandora.

For a perplexing film, I was left ruminating on the very talented and wasted potential of Depp and Carter. The Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts play right up to their specialities, but this time it left rather a bad taste in my mouth. I long to see these two playing actual characters; they're both very good at that, and here playing cartoons for the seemingly umpteenth time, only raised the already derivative quotient. Depp, for his measure, did give us a slight respite last summer tackling John Dillinger in Public Enemies, but that doesn't feel quite enough. Is he forever tapped to play cartoony characters in theme park movies. As grand as his Jack Sparrow role was, has it ruined the very potential of one of cinema's most sparkling actors. And Carter, always pleasing as a manical drama queen possibly needs a break from Burton; I almost miss her humble beginnings in Merchant Ivory films. C-
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...