Further Thoughts on American Sniper – Movies Spotlight – January 2015

Like many others, I saw America Sniper over the weekend. I gave it a 7/10 in my Quick Review, which you can read here. Overall, as a film, I found it to be very well made and acted, which is to be expected from a quality director such as Clint Eastwood and leading man such as Bradley Cooper (who has now been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar three years in a row). But, there seems to be quite a bit of frustration surrounding the film stemming from its portrayal of the Iraqi War – is it merely a propaganda film, championing a war that generally seemed to be fairly unpopular amongst most Americans today and to what purpose? Is it trying to change our minds about the war? That indeed, America was right to invade Iraq? Or, is it the heroic story of a man who fought to keep America safe without overt political motifs – i.e., this is based on a real person who served in Iraq, but really it could be a fictional account of fictional heroics, characters and situation taking place during any war? The film feels like a bit of both.

I will start my discussion by saying that I have not read Chris Kyle’s book on which the film is based. I am looking at the film as a sole and separate entity.

Narratively, the film is structured with two distinct tonal sections: one in which Kyle is stateside and one with him fighting overseas. Kyle’s character transformation is striking. He seems like a happy and gentle person, but also very protective. As his time at war mounts, he becomes dejected and disengaged at home, afraid that he is not doing enough to help the war effort and probably also affected by the horror he has seen and inflicted. The film works very well as a character piece, tracking Kyle’s psyche as he shuts down his home personality to make himself a better warrior, only to have to rebuild himself as a husband and father once he gets home for good – speaking to real issues facing many veterans returning home.

Yet, merely allowing the film to play as a character drama does not seem like it is enough for Eastwood. And so, the film has a completely un-needed and frankly idiotic (and apparently untrue) B-plot revolving around a rival Syrian sniper who Kyle must kill before he is ready to finally come home. Each man is gunning for the other, in a way reducing the whole struggle to a battle between the two men – Kyle even risks the lives of his unit to gain a kill shot on his rival – which somewhat subverts the real tragedy of war for both those who die and those who come back and face the enormous struggle of rejoining normal life (something many are never able to fully do). All this nonsense resembles the WWII action film Enemy at the Gates (which, surprisingly or unsurprisingly depending on what you thought of that film and this film, actually does a better job of playing out a rivalry between two snipers in the midst of a greater struggle – and it is actually based on a true story, unlike this made up Syrian marksman). Seemingly, this rivalry was added to heighten the stakes, create tension, produce more action, and give the film more of a straight forward plot, something that character dramas do not generally have, as they are about the character(s) and not their exploits. But again, this B-plot seems to run contrary to what is seemingly the narrative point of the film: the true cost of war on a human level.

This film champions Kyle’s exploits, killing over 160 men in combat, as if killing men were something to champion at all (it is not). His brothers in arms call him ‘Legend’ as a testament to his skill and prolific body count. The Syrian sniper and another target of Kyle’s ‘the Butcher’ also allow Eastwood to create clear villains – although, if we are critically looking at Kyle and the Syria sniper, they are really no different, except Kyle is an American which presumably automatically makes him a hero and the Syrian by contrast then must be a villain. Iraqi soldiers are commonly referred to as ‘savages’ throughout the film, which very well may be accurate to the lingo used by Americans in combat, but it still has a sting to it – reminding us that there is still a disconnect between how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive others in the world simply because they appear different (although, it is likely that they want all the same basic things as us). Eastwood have a vicious Syrian sniper, ‘the Butcher’ and ‘savages’ as the film’s villains paints a clear picture of who is right and who is wrong, who is heroic and who is evil. Everything is black and white. But in reality, war is grey.

This is where the question of whether or not American Sniper is a propaganda piece starts to be raised, as it seems to present a fairly one-sided look at the war in Iraq. As a character piece, this film would feel very much like an anti-war film, as war clearly takes a great emotional toll on those subjected to it (see some data here). The film applauding the efforts of Kyle and his fellow soldiers while condemning the opposing forces as treacherous villains treats the Iraq War as a fight America needed to start to root out all this evil. The film even narratively alludes to a connection between the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 and the war in Iraq, something we all now know to be completely unconnected. In the film, however, Kyle arises the morning of September 11^th to the vicious attacks on TV and then he is deployed to Iraq. This feels like propaganda in support for the War in Iraq. But why? Maybe I am out of touch, but it felt like we had generally decided that the war was a mistake and that we probably messed things up even more for the region and made thing all the more dangerous than they were before – which is why leaving Iraq completely has been so difficult. So why make a film after the fact to re-garner support for the war?

Let us first take a quick break to look at the word propaganda. It has a negative connotation, because it is mostly used by us to discuss the way our enemies recruit others to join them or believe in their way of thinking. We often think of it as a nefarious and deliberate tool used in the spreading of information to corrupt and harm. Thus, calling American Sniper a propaganda film (to promote a positive impression of the war in Iraq, specifically) is meant to be an insult. Yet, many of Hollywood’s great films are propaganda films (in full or in part). During WWII, Hollywood churned out films in support of the war effort – great films like: Mrs. Miniver, Foreign Correspondent, Casablanca, and even The Great Dictator. Today we still make them. Though it may not be quite as overt as American Sniper, Zero Dark Thirty seems to try to justify many of the CIA tactics in obtaining information from captured persons. It is a brilliant film, nonetheless. I do not think that it is mutually exclusive for a film to be good and propaganda – for the propaganda to be completely effective, the film should be good, really good in fact.

But what feels frustrating, leading to American Sniper being simply dismissed as propaganda (which is unfair to the very good and effective propaganda films that are still beloved piece of art, culture and politics today) and not a narrative piece, is that it seems to be going out of its way to promote a war that resulted in the death of thousands and the destabilization of the region, causing lasting and profoundly dangerous ramifications. A war that we also now know was started due to bad information (which means that at best everyone just messed up really, really bad and at worse the information was doctored with the intent of starting the war – the combination of which is parodied brilliantly by Armando Iannucci in his film In the Loop).

So, what is the point of rallying support for a war we know to be regrettable? American Sniper touches on something far scarier that is building within America, and has been for a while now. This ignorant belief that America is infallible and always right, always the good guy – and not only that but also that America has the right to do whatever it wants globally (to put it in an overly simplistic way). It is not to say that this is what the U.S. government actually believes or what their foreign policy is; rather, this is seems to be a perception that has become a growing trend among many Americans. And, hand-in-hand with this belief that America is always right and good is that America’s enemies therefore must always be wrong and evil – again, making things black and white, which is far too simple. We could take the point even farther and say that it seems like this same trend is directly connected to the decreasing quality of education at the elementary and high school levels in America (some data here). Lack of education leads to ignorance and fear about foreign ideas and cultures, which also allows things to seem much more black and white, because ignorance and fears allows us to forgo taking into consideration the other’s perspective and position. Imagine what Iraq must feel like to an average Iraqi citizen before and after the U.S. bombed, invaded, occupied, and subsequently left their country in shambles.

It is not so much that America Sniper the film is a vile piece of propaganda aimed at rallying the ignorant, perpetuating their ill-informed opinions on the war, Iraq and its people. There is no evidence that Eastwood made the film with this intention, and I doubt that he did. Yet, the Box Office numbers support the fact that it fits nicely into the rhetoric of this growing trend of ignorance and fear. That is what makes it frustrating (it is also not a mark in the positive column that running to support the film is Fox News, a news organization known for putting its agenda above all other considerations like telling the truth, and the likes of Sarah Palin – both of which makes liking American Sniper feel a bit slimy even though Eastwood is a great filmmaker; and yes, cheap shot on Fox News and Palin, but they can take it).

In conclusion, I still think American Sniper is a good film, well made and emotionally powerful. It is not a great film, as it does have narrative flaws (like the pointlessness of the rival sniper), and it is probably not a deserving Best Picture Oscar nominee. The greater issue surrounding the film, however, is that it has become a battleground, to some extent, for America’s soul between those that would like to see tomorrow be better than today, not just for America but the whole world regardless of a person’s gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or economic/political background, and those who propagate and seek out ignorance, hatefulness and this incorrect notion that America is better than the rest of the world, and thereby Americans are better and more deserving than all other peoples. It feels like we are losing and ignorance is winning; and sadly, American Sniper feels like a reminder of that, which is why some have lashed out at it (fairly or unfairly).

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) – Review

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy is simply an extremely fun and entertaining sci-fi adventure film.

The film is about Peter Quill. His mother died when he was still a young boy and he was kidnapped by space marauders, taken from Earth to a far-off galaxy, growing up among them. Now, as an adult, Quill is himself an outlaw bandit. His latest score is a mysterious orb. Finding the orb, Quill quickly discovers that dangerous people are after its contents, including an assassin named Gamora. She is working for Ronan the Accuser, a powerful being who wants to rain genocide upon the peaceful Xandarians. As Gamora and Quill fight over the Orb, bounty hunters Rocket and Groot also join the mix, as they are after Quill to collect a bounty out on him. All four are captured by the Xandarian police and put in prison. There they meet Drax the Destroyer, a man who only seeks revenge for the murder of his family by Ronan. In prison, an unlikely friendship forms between the five as they plot their escape and agree that the orb must not fall into Ronan’s hands (Gamora, secretly planning on betraying him the whole time).

Marvel started its cinematic universe with a few decent superhero films (most notably Iron Man) but nothing on par with the genre’s best; however, that has all changed. Phase II has been fantastic – even the weakest film of Phase II (Thor: The Dark World) is funny, action-packed, and very entertaining. Since the sheer joyful gallivanting of The Avengers and with its writer-director Joss Whedon at their creative center, Marvel Studios has found a formula that fits their brand perfectly – and they have been able to get the right people (mostly) to work on their projects. These films are incredibly fun, but also feature strong, likable characters and some emotional depth (to varying degrees). Guardians of the Galaxy might be their best standalone adventure yet (though, I could easily also say the same thing about Iron Man 3 or Captain America: The Winter Soldier too, which speaks to the quality of Phase II).

There are a ton of things to really like about Guardians of the Galaxy. It is in many ways a grand space adventure in the vein of Star Wars, mixing great characters with action and adventure in a visually spectacular/engrossing sci-fi setting; but, Guardians of the Galaxy has one additional key element: it is wonderfully funny and features superb witty dialog (making a comparison to Serenity maybe a more accurate one – not that Star Wars does not also have its comedy moments). The film’s sense of humor is juvenile to some extent, but also smart and poignant (it is not crude and lazy like say Transformers). Writer-director James Gunn does a fabulous job putting everything together, creating the perfect tone.

Gunn embraces the weird, allowing characters like Rocket and Groot to not only feel real but succeed as fan favorites. All five of the Guardians feel developed with stories, wants, needs, and emotions that the audience can recognize, take stock in, and care about. If nothing else, Gunn introduces five new Marvel characters for the audience to love, each with their own unique voice and persona (not simply just turning out generic caricatures of classic sci-fi troupes). All five are great, which allows the film in many ways to play like The Avengers (or the anti-Avengers) – a group of individuals who come together as a team. These characters are not heroes, however. They are not gods, super geniuses or morally incorruptible. They are outcasts – a ragtag group of misfits, which in many ways makes them more relatable. They do not set out to save the galaxy initially; they are in it for personal gain, but they discover a special courage inside themselves – a morality – and become heroes. It is a classic tale that we all know, like and want to get behind. Gunn understands this, setting up the film to take full advantage of its strongest assets.

Peter Quill is similar to Han Solo in some ways and Luke Skywalker in other ways (much like Malcolm Reynolds). He is an outlaw at heart, but there is something inside him that aspires to greatness. Rocket and Groot are also similar to Han Solo and Chewbacca (though, much more mischievous and rambunctious). Gamora, however, more resembles Black Widow than any Star Wars characters. She is an assassin who betrays her past to become a heroine. Drax is the muscle, but with a good heart and extremely loyal. In these characters there is something for everyone – classic sci-fi/western heroes, a strong female character, and characters who generate tons of great comedic material.

Conversely, though, I would say that Guardians of the Galaxy is a bit weak in terms of its villains, keeping it from being truly great (or it is one of the things that holds it back – I will get to the other main one later). Ronan the Accuser is a fairly bland genocidal maniac. He has some flair, but he is mostly uninteresting. Far more interesting is his chief assassin Nebula (have a similar background to Gamora, but choosing a different path), but it seems as though she is being saved for a later film to explore in a more meaningful way – here, she is just a badass but not much more is revealed. The same goes for Thanos; he is being saved for another film (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 or The Avengers 3). Guardians of the Galaxy is made to focus its attention on introducing the Guardians, that is its primary goal and concern, and in this regard it does its job wonderfully, but again the villains are a casualty of there being only so much screen time. There are a few good side characters, however, most notably Yondu – Quill’s sort of adoptive father figure and chief marauder.

What is maybe the film’s best asset, in addition to its main characters, is its tone and pacing. Gunn has created a film that is just plain entertaining and smile inducing. It is a pleasure to watch, blending laughs with great action to a very satisfying degree. The film is very tightly structured, always moving forward (which I think is an important attribute of successful lighter-toned blockbusters). Gunn devises all his scenes to support the tone – one of humor, adventure and sci-fi aesthetics. The weak villains do not really matter in the end because Gunn already has five other great characters and he keeps the plot moving and the film very funny and entertaining (or at least, they do not seem to matter as much, because the viewer is just having some much fun experiencing the film).

All that said, however, I think that Guardians of the Galaxy does lack emotional depth. Gunn does a fantastic job with almost every aspect of the film, but nothing really resonates on a deeper emotional level. There are big emotions and tragedy in the lives of all the Guardians, but it all feels a bit superficial because the tone is incredibly fun and energetic. Even seeing Quill’s mother die in the opening scene does not seem to have its full intended impact – probably because he seems to have completely moved on emotionally the next time we see him. The loss of his mother does not feel like a defining character trait, even though it probably should be or was intended to be. We want to see the Guardians win the day, not because we care about them on an emotional level, but because we like them and they are a lot of fun, which is again much more superficial. The great films connect with their audiences on an emotional level. The death of Luke Skywalker’s family (his aunt and uncle and earlier his father) at the hands of the Empire (and Darth Vader) has a real palpable impact both on him and the audience. There is nothing that meaningful in this film, leaving it as something that plays more as pure entertainment than as a full cinematic experience, engaging its audience on many levels. Marvel has their formula down for making fantastically entertaining films, but they still struggle with deeper emotional resonance (though, I would argue there are moments that work well in The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, engaging their audience in a more impactful manner). As fun as Guardians of the Galaxy is, it is still not quite on the same level as the uppermost films in the genre (both superhero and entertainment-oriented sci-fi). I say this having thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Yes, Guardians of the Galaxy may have been a seemingly huge risk for Marvel because it is a bit weirder than their past films and deals in unlikely heroes; but due to James Gunn’s clear love of and vision for the characters and world, the film is marvelously entertaining and incredibly fun. I am not sure if it is the best Marvel Studios film so far – it very well might be – but it certainly solidifies that with Phase II Marvel Studios is on top of the superhero genre right now, churning out great stories and characters that are very funny, thrilling, and adventurous. I, for one, cannot wait to see what is next (Avengers: Age of Ultron looks like it is going to be amazing).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: James Gunn deals in superb and dark comedy, writing and directing films like Slither and Super, but Guardians of the Galaxy is by far his best effort to date. It exemplifies his great subversive wit (but it is not nearly as dark as his past work). I am even more interested to see what he will do with Guardians of the Galaxy 2, now that the cumbersome origin story is over with (unlike with most cinema, superhero sequels are often better as they allow filmmakers to tell more complete stories with already established characters).

In the review portion of this, I completely skipped over just how great the film looks aesthetically. Cinematographer Ben Davis and production designer Charles Wood (who are both working on Age of Ultron by the way) do excellent work creating a world that is gritty and realistic yet grand and full of brilliant sci-fi awesomeness (much like The Collector’s showroom). Davis lights the film to be appropriately dark and ominous in moments/places and bright and clean in others, giving the visuals a nice dichotomy, juxtaposing the villainy of Ronan against the innocence/morality of Xandar. Wood’s sets and design are rich with detail and depth. Ronan’s ship, The Collector’s showroom (again), the Xandarian prison, and especially the interior of Quill’s ship (the Milano) are fantastic. Tyler Bates provides a good score that matches the tone well, but it is the film’s soundtrack that takes center stage musically. The mix of great 1970s pop songs seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the film and its characters.

The cast is tremendous and perfectly suited to their roles and the overall tone. Peter Serafinowicz, Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly, and Djimon Hounsou are all great in small supporting roles. Karen Gillan is fantastic as Nebula with almost a frolicsomely evil menace (I hope there is much more of her in the future). Michael Rooker is one of the James Gunn troupe who make appearances in the film (others include Sean Gunn, Greg Henry, and Nathan Fillion). Rooker is great as space pirate Yondu, a role that is right in his wheelhouse. Lee Pace brings a lot of Shakespearian energy to Ronan, always gravely monologing; it works well. Bradley Cooper voices Rocket (who was played live for the actors during filming by Sean Gunn), the character who might just steal the film. Cooper has a manic energy – jubilantly rude and playful, yet with a heart (in there somewhere). Vin Diesel voices Groot, who may very well be the film’s best character. (Like with his voice role in The Iron Giant) Diesel does a lot with very little, displaying a vicious loyalty to his friends. Dave Bautista is good as Drax, definitely displaying the physicality, but also Bautista shows a knack for comedy too, playing a warrior who takes everything literally. Zoe Saldana does everything well in this. She certainly has the physicality to make a convincing assassin as Gamora, but she also displays a sympathetic heart, allowing the audience to believe that she would fight to save the galaxy despite her past allegiances. It is also nice to see that she is not just relegated to ‘romantic interest’. Chris Pratt was always going to make a great Han Solo type as Peter Quill. He has brilliant comedic timing and delivery, but also the confidence and swagger that typify the archetype.

Summary & score: Guardians of the Galaxy is the sci-fi saga general moviegoers have been waiting for since Star Wars’ original trilogy ended in 1983 (or for those who found Firefly/Serenity: it is the sci-fi saga fans have been waiting for since Fox cancelled Firefly). It is spectacularly fun. 8/10

LeapBackBlog 2013 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2013 was fantastic. We saw tons of wonderful performances, powerfully emotional dramas, hysterical comedies, gripping thrillers, big and entertaining blockbusters, and grand technical achievements. This year was particularly difficult in narrowing down my choices for my favorite films, performances, directors, and technical accomplishments. For example, I loved Amy Acker in Much Ado About Nothing and Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, but neither quite made the list, and the same can be said for David O. Russell’s wonderful directing in American Hustle or Hoyte Van Hoytema’s sublime cinematography in Her (both just missing out on the list, when they would have made it in most other years). And, there are a number of good films that did not make the list either (and a few I have not yet seen). As it stands, the LeapBackBlog Film Awards are made up, through difficult deliberation, of the films that entertained me and grabbed me as something special, the performances that engaged me, and the craftsmanship that delighted me. These are my favorites of 2013.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Daniel Bruhl – Rush

While Rush is a great sports drama, it is a narrative that is dependent on its characters and their performances. Daniel Bruhl is exceptional as Niki Lauda, a cerebral driver who wins his races by understanding what makes his car superior (and what he can do to it to make it superior) and how to approach each race and track. Bruhl completely loses himself in the performance and role. Lauda is not necessarily a likable character, but Bruhl brings a great charisma to the character, which allows the audience to get behind him. They can see his talent and the confidence he has in himself, and that is infectious. With Rush and the character of Lauda, Bruhl finally has a performance that will serve as a breakthrough for him (which is very deserving for such a talented actor).

Bradley Cooper – American Hustle

American Hustle has a lot of fun with its actors, allowing them to play dress up in a sense, and Bradley Cooper goes all in (with a perm and Saturday Night Fever-like wardrobe choices). But what makes his performance as FBI agent Richie DiMaso so compelling is the intense nervous energy that he exudes. Cooper’s DiMaso has grand plans and wide eyes. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, making all the right moves, when really he is in way over his head. Getting back to his intense energy in the role, what makes it so gripping is that the viewer never really knows where it is going to lead. Cooper is a complete wildcard, much like Jennifer Lawrence’s brilliant performance. That kind of work is just so dynamic because it is never boring.

Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave

Michael Fassbender gives what I think is 2013’s best supporting performances by an actor in 12 Years a Slave as the ruthless slave master Epps. Fassbender carries such an intense and intimidating presence in the film that the viewer cannot help but feel small, weak, and scared. He is utterly evil and vile. And yet, Fassbender brings so much depth and humanity to the character. The audience can see that there is weakness in his character and that he struggles with his vices, striving to be a better man, only to be pulled down over and over by a deplorable cruelty that he cannot shake. He is a man who is ashamed and afraid, lashing out to try to hide these truths. It would be easy to just dismiss Epps as an evil man if not for the clear inner-pain that rules his life. He may even be sympathetic (if we even dare think that) – though his actions are unforgivable, making for a complex and compelling performance. Fassbender is also very good in The Counselor (what is probably 2013’s most overlooked and misunderstood film).

Tom Hiddleston – Thor: The Dark World

Choosing Tom Hiddleston in Thor: The Dark World is very unconventional, especially in such a strong year for performances and films, I know, but the man is just so joyously wonderful as Loki. Hiddleston especially gets to have fun with the character in The Dark World, playing a whole range of emotions. He is tortured with envy over the place his brother holds and full of scorn for his adopted father, and yet also has almost unconditional love for his adoptive mother. All this is kept tightly inside, while he just takes a gleeful joy in being a villain and trickster. He revels in it. And so too does the viewer. Hiddleston has created Marvel’s greatest cinematic villain and one of the best in film history (a history that has seen a couple of brilliant and game changing performances in recent years), and his work as Loki in this is his best so far.

Jonah Hill – The Wolf of Wall Street

The Wolf of Wall Street is an insane exercise in excess, moral corruption, and greed. But, it sure is fun. The actors are given license to go big with their performances, and the whole narrative and world in which these characters exist is so over the top that they all feel firmly rooted in the reality of the narrative. Jonah Hill is clearly having a blast with his character Donnie, a man with seemingly no morals or boundaries. He is just so antagonistic and a complete asshole, and yet completely compelling and entertaining. It is maybe Hill’s best work to date. Margot Robbie is also fantastic in support in the film. Hill had a good 2013, starring in This Is the End as well, playing a very douchy version of himself.

Scarlett Johansson – her

Scarlett Johansson has one of 2013’s most difficult roles, playing the voice of Samantha in Her – an operating system who is self-aware and wants to experience all that is life, including love. What makes the role so difficult is that Samantha is essentially an inanimate object, shown only as an iPod-like device or computer screen. Johansson has to do everything solely with her voice. And to this, she is excellent.  As far as anyone is concerned, watching the film, she is alive. She feels just as vital and real as any of the other characters (which includes wonderful supporting work from Amy Adams and Rooney Mara as well; on a side note, Mara had a great 2013 with phenomenal work in Her, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, and Side Effects). Johansson is also very good in the 2013 romantic comedy Don Jon.

Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle

Jennifer Lawrence is a whirlwind in American Hustle. She plays Rosalyn Rosenfeld (the wife of con man Irving). Lawrence mines her scenes for every bit of fun with her charismatic and attention seeking performance. She absolutely commands the screen whenever she is in a scene, playing against other wonderful actors giving great performances. It is not subtle at all, but neither is the film. She walks a very interesting line between all-consuming and done right frightening. It may be the best performance of the film, and is certainly among the year’s best. The scene in which she sings Live and Let Die is one of 2013’s most entertaining cinematic moments. Lawrence is also very good as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

Carey Mulligan – Inside Llewyn Davis

Carey Mulligan does not have a lot of screen time in Inside Llewyn Davis, but her character Jean sure leaves an impact. Her chemistry with Oscar Isaac (who is also brilliant in the film, and barely missed making the Leading Performance list this year, which is overcrowded with great work) is electric. Their shared scenes jump off the screen. Mulligan does a fantastic job channeling all her pent up rage towards Isaac’s Llewyn Davis. Yet she does something more, something that makes the performance special, she does not just show hatred and rage, but there is a playfulness and maybe even a secret glee to her attitude towards Davis. Yes she is incredibly frustrated with him, but it seems to come from a very caring place (something that is kept hidden away). Mulligan is very good at layering her performances, and this is one of her best.

Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave

Without question Lupita Nyong’o’s tragic and heart-wrenching performance as Patsey in 12 Years a Slave is 2013’s greatest breakthrough acting achievement. She plays Patsey so delicately, yet with some defiance in her. However, her mental anguish is so severe that she only wishes for death. She is a flower desperately reaching for the sun, the thing that seems the most natural and right to her, but is constantly stymied through the terror of a dark cloud that hovers above her. In a film that features many of this year’s strongest performances, Nyong’o is able to distinguish herself and standout as a star (and in a film that marks her feature debut). She delivers profound work; it certainly seems like her future is very bright.

June Squibb – Nebraska

Nebraska is a film that succeeds on its great performances, notably from Bruce Dern, Will Forte, and June Squibb. She plays Woody Grant’s wife Kate, a strong-willed lady who is a bit fed up with Grant’s shenanigans. Squibb’s lively performance completely holds its own against the other great work in the film, and in many ways even might steal the film. She is a delight whenever she is onscreen. It is surprising that a woman of eighty-four would give one of 2013’s best breakthrough performances, but that is exactly what Squibb has done.

American Hustle (2013) – Review

Review: American Hustle is a delightfully entertaining, extremely well acted con man film. It is about two con artists, Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser, who are blackmailed by an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso, into helping him conduct sting operations. However, DiMaso’s scope begins to spin out of control as the con gets bigger and bigger with the team now going after members of the U.S. government and the mob. Rosenfeld sees that everything is getting out of hand and needs to figure out a way to get over on everyone and survive what has become a dangerous game.

Con man films often conform to a very specific kind of narrative, one that involves deception and plot twists – usually trumping character development. American Hustle is no different in terms of its basic plot construction, as it is often difficult to tell what is real and what is for show and the film works in a very good plot twist. But unlike most con man films, its narrative does not revolve around the con. Writer-director David O. Russell has fictionalized the true events of the ABSCAM FBI operation (a real case) to create what is much more a character centric narrative. The con is then ultimately just what brings these characters together, while the character flourish and the narrative even begins to feel a bit like a romantic comedy.

The conventions of the con man genre are not entirely sidestepped however. Like all the best cons, everyone gets what they want – well except the mark. What works particularly well about American Hustle is that the audience gets what they want too, which gives the film a very satisfying feel. The audience is treated to a narrative that makes them laugh, characters that explode off the screen, and a story that engages them.

The film succeeds on the great characters that Russell has created, with the help of his fabulous cast. They are rambunctious, infectious, and overblown – yet the majesty of the film is that the actors and Russell still ground them in reality, even though they are played so big. Each has their character moments that pull the audience in (especially Rosenfeld and Prosser who feel the most relatable) and each is very entertaining.

While the film does emotionally resonate, Russell plays it much more for laughs than deep drama – playing into the film being chiefly a piece of entertainment (as it is a con man narrative after all). The film is fantastically funny. It has such an alluring and jovial energy that is it hard not to be enchanted by its charms. It is just a lot of fun to watch, but it also feels a bit unsubstantial. The characters do their dance but its does not really mean anything (due to the lack of a deeper resonance), and yet still the audience is highly entertained.

American Hustle is a showcase of talented actors teaming up with talented filmmakers, providing characters that erupt with jubilant commanding energy and a narrative that beguiles as it captivates. The film is simply a work of cinematic gratification.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: David O. Russell has really become one of American Cinema’s most successful current filmmakers, winning Oscars for his actors in both The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook – American Hustle is sure to garner a few nominations as well (and maybe a win). Russell does everything well. He is a good visual storyteller, gets great performances (while demanding the attention of some of todays most talented actors), and has snappy, effective dialog. I look forward to his next feature.

Danny Elfman delivers a fun score that is very fitting for the narrative’s tone and time period, however it is completely overshadowed by the fantastic soundtrack. Russell places found music brilliantly throughout the film, heightening the mood and his visuals. And to that, cinematographer Linus Sandgren’s collaboration with Russell is also very good. The lighting is just right, and the camera is aggressive in its movements screaming out to the audience, honing and pointing their attention. Accompanying the lighting is Judy Becker’s standout production design, wonderfully creating the late 1970s/early 1980s with a nostalgic flare. The same can be said for Michael Wilkinson’s costume designs, which in a way steals the show.

As a character driven film, the performances in American Hustle take center stage. Robert De Niro is good in a very small role (channeling a bit of his The Untouchables magic: the ability to make an impact without much screen time). Jack Huston is also good in a small supporting role. Louis C.K. pretty much just shows up to play himself, but it works really well in the context of the character and narrative. He also provides some good laughs (of course). Jeremy Renner gives one of his best performances to date in support (it is up there with his work in The Hurt Locker and The Town). He plays Carmine Polito very sympathetically (which was key to the narrative arc working for Rosenfeld). Jennifer Lawrence is powerfully charismatic as Rosenfeld’s wife Rosalyn, grabbing up all the attention in her scenes. She very well could see yet another Oscar nomination and win for her work. She is so good at playing on the edge – wildly alluring, yet kind of scary. Bradley Cooper was excellent in Silver Linings Playbook, opening eyes to his talent. In American Hustle he is even better as Richie DiMaso, a power hungry, coked-out FBI agent. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, even when he is being left behind. Amy Adams is also fantastic in the film as Rosenfeld’s partner in crime Sydney Prosser. Her performance is quieter than her co-stars, but her wardrobe choices are bombastic. In this way, she too pulls attention. Christian Bale just disappears into his characters, and Irving Rosenfeld is no different. Bales transforms himself into a man that is always thinking of the next move, and yet is relatable due to his compassion. Bale goes big and flashy with his look, but the performance is grounded in honest dramatic emotion – which is really true for the film as a whole.

Summary & score: American Hustle is immensely entertaining and features many of 2013’s best performances – all that, while still operating as a fun con man narrative. 8/10

The Place Beyond the Pines (2013) – Review

Review: The Place Beyond the Pines is a moody character drama built on strong performances. The film is broken into three parts. The first deals with a motorcycle stunt rider (Luke) who turns to crime in order to try and provide for his family. Part two involves Avery, a rookie cop who is frustrated by the corruption in his department and his decision to do something about it. And, part three revolves around the children of Luke and Avery (Jason and AJ, respectively) and how their different backgrounds inform their present lives (taken place about fifteen years later) in the wake of the decisions their fathers’ made.

Writer-director Derek Cianfrance seems to want to tell an epic tale of America – as the dramatic scope of this film is quite immense in terms of how many character-centric stories he fits in. There are four different main characters, each with their own dramatic narrative. Yet, scale wise the film is very small. The narratives are all localized to Schenectady, NY, and they each focus on the emotional turmoil and journey of the characters. It has a timeless quality to it as well – and really could have been set at any point in American history.

The film specifically feels like an American tale because, in addition to taking place in a typical American small town, it deals with the aspirations of its characters to seek out a better life for themselves (at least in regards to Luke, Avery, and Jason). Each has a specific want, and they pursue it – Luke wants to have a family (though somewhat naively) and take care of them financially so he begins robbing banks to make money (because he does not know another way); Avery is ambitious and somewhat arrogant in his on self-righteous vanity so he turns to ratting out other cops (which is always deemed a negative, when in some regard he is doing the right thing) so that he can forward his career (not seeing another way); and, Jason wants to know about his father (something that he needs to feel complete).

The character of AJ however is different. There is maybe a spark of ambition in him at the end, but he seems to be a comment on or the embodiment of the new generation of American entitlement – those that think they just deserve respect, money, power, and etcetera just for existing, which is very contradictory to the classic ‘America Dream’ narrative, to which almost all the other characters (good or bad) seem to prescribe (though, certainly there is a bit of this in Avery’s story as well). He is content to just be an ignorant young man, thinking things will just fall into place for him (and they very well might – depending on what his father does for him). This also reflects on the fact that his father is physically and emotional absent from his life. He does not have a role model to help shape his ambition so he turns to pop culture (which for him seems to be hip hop culture) – a poor choice, because by nature it is superficial.

AJ’s character also allows Cianfrance to comment on the class system in America. While Jason and AJ both attend the same high school – economically their parents lead very different lives. Cianfrance seems to identify much more with Jason and his family (his parents having to struggle to lead a decent life), as there is a certain level of detachment and even distain for what AJ’s family has become. Neither parent wants to deal with him, so they just leave him alone in Avery’s big expensive house, causing his feeling of entitlement and reliance on poor role models (them included).

Luke’s story sets in motion Avery’s, and Avery is too busy to raise his son properly. But what makes the film particularly powerful and interesting is that Cianfrance brings the narrative full circle, so to speak. Jason, whose pain is created by growing up without his real father (something Avery plays a role in as a cop), is the force that brings Avery and his son together ultimately – showing them how important they actually are to each other. Jason on the search for his father (who his father was) gives AJ his father. Thus, this really is a story of fathers and sons, and redemption.

Cianfrance aesthetically creates the world of the narrative to feel incredibly organic and real. Everything is steeped in realism – particularly the performances. There is not much action (with really only Luke’s bank-robbing escapades serving as ‘action’ sequences), nor does the narrative involve any grand schemes. Cianfrance just wants to look at these characters, leading fairly average lives – what drives them, what their fears are, what their hopes and dream are. His camera stays with the characters, maintaining a very intimate feel. He also does not rely on any narrative temporal tricks (which are overly commonplace in today’s narrative langue). He instead allows his epic to play out linearly, with faith that the performances and dramatic components will engage the audience throughout.

While for the most part the film does work very well, and is at times quite beautiful and moving, it does feel long as well. Cianfrance wants the film to have a very atmospheric/moody quality, and thus to achieve this it is also slow moving (as the narrative is not efficient in its storytelling). This is not overly detrimental, but certainly will cause some viewers to lose interest. The third part also does not play nearly as well as the first two dramatically (as the revenge narrative feels a bit out of place and exaggerated).

The Place Beyond the Pines is frustrating in a sense, because in moments it is a brilliant character piece that emotional engages its audience, while in others it loses it connection due to its lumbering pace and fumbling drama of part three (though, most of it is very good). However, for those willing to commit to the narrative, it is a fulfilling journey that, when it is at its best, is mesmerizing.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Derek Cianfrance, a few feature films into his career, has shown a great visual eye and sense of grandiose storytelling (whether that is a good thing or not, is a matter of opinion). I look forward to seeing what he does next, as he seems to have the makings of a great talent in American cinema.

Mike Patton’s score for the film, consisting mostly of atmospheric tones, works quite well – but Cianfrance is also overly reliant on it to emphasize the film’s moody tone. Sean Bobbitt’s photography is top notch, and maybe the most impressive aspect of the film. The opening shot especially is fantastic. The visual look, while muted and gritty, imposes a feel of realism. Inbal Weinberg’s production design is not flashy at all, nor was it meant to be – rather, he as well contributes to the overall realistic feel and look of the film.

The performances are paramount to The Place Beyond the Pines working, because Cianfrance has stripped pretty much everything else away. Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta, Rose Byrne, and Ben Mendelsohn are all strong in supporting roles. Mendelsohn is however the standout performer (maybe of the whole film). Emory Cohen (playing AJ) is noticeably the weakest of the four characters that at different times take the lead, but he still is good enough to momentarily carry the film. Dane DeHaan (Jason) is good as he is able to show the internal pain that he has growing up without knowing his real father. Ryan Gosling is also very good as Luke. (While the performance does somewhat remind me of his work in Drive,) his work here is layered. He naively thinks that he can take care of his family, while also having this romantic view of his outlaw lifestyle (which again plays into this feeling like an American tale) – of course he is destined to be a tragic character. He feels emotionally childlike at times (screeching at bank tellers as he carries out a robbery). Bradley Cooper (building off his excellent work in Silver Linings Playbook) is wonderful in this as well playing Avery. He hits all the right emotional moments to make his character one that the audience can both root for and also kind of despise (it is hard to do that).

Summary & score: While The Place Beyond the Pines is flawed, its ambition and brilliant moments carry the day. 8/10