Interstellar (2014) – Review

Review: Interstellar is magnificent – a marvelous display of technical and aesthetic splendor on a massive scale built around the deeply moving and emotional story of a father and daughter.

The film takes place in the not too far away future. The Earth’s crops have begun to die out, leaving the world in a state of hunger, humanity’s population gravely thinning out. The environment too has become more severe, dust storms engulfing towns and cities, resembling the Dust Bowl crisis during the Great Depression. Man’s time on Earth has come to an end. Meanwhile, former NASA pilot Cooper has become a farmer (as Earth needs food, not pilots), raising his young son, Tom, and daughter, Murph, after his wife passed away. Mankind has become a race of farmers and caretakers, desperately trying to cling to what the Earth has left, giving up what they now believe to be the wasteful and childish ideas of exploration and discovery. Cooper still believes in progress, however, as an engineer. He raises his children to think critically and not be content with their place (putting him and them at odds with the general population). Tom, however, is content to be a farmer when he grows up, but it is clear that Murph has the spirit and imagination of an explorer and/or scientist. She discovers a gravitational anomaly that leads her and Cooper to a secret NASA base (they have gone underground due to their public unpopularity). Cooper learns that NASA is working on a last ditch effort to save humanity (certain that Earth’s last substantial crop, corn, will too soon die out). A mission through a newly discovered wormhole (which appeared around the same time as many other strange gravitational anomalies across our solar system) to search three potential habitual planets in a new galaxy that would otherwise be outside the reach of mankind. If one of these planets can support life, maybe mankind has a chance. Cooper agrees to go on the mission, piloting the spacecraft, knowing that he will likely never see his family again, leaving his daughter Murph heartbroken. Cooper feels he must go. He along with three other astronauts are humanity’s last, best chance (and Cooper’s only chance to save his family). Like any review, there are going to be some spoilers in the discussion of the film. Be warned.

Interstellar begins on Earth, which has become an almost uninhabitable planet, slowly killing off mankind as crops are one-by-one overtaken by blight. Writer-director Christopher Nolan (who co-wrote the film with his brother Jonathan Nolan) takes something very much rooted in reality – the fact that humans are devastatingly altering the Earth’s environment – and projects it forward to an apocalyptic climax. People living in this wasteland talk about the past (our present) with distain – our greed and carelessness put us on the path to our own destruction. There is also a clever nod to the idea that seems to be popular today that space exploration is a waste of our resources. In Interstellar’s grim future, people believe that space exploration was all an elaborate scam, perpetrated to bankrupt the Cold War era Soviet Union, as they tried to match the U.S. bomb for bomb and beat them to the Moon (and beyond). It was a waste of resources, exemplifying the decadence of the past. Their textbooks have been altered to teach this to students, now believed to be the truth.

Nolan, with Interstellar, seems to be trying to once again spark interest in space exploration, in discovery – something that was very much a part of our culture (at least for those alive during the U.S.’s NASA missions). Growing up in the 1960s-1980s, every child dreamed of being an astronaut, exploring the wonders of space, leading to the overwhelming popularity of science fiction (films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars – all of which are big influences on Interstellar). But something changed within our culture, within us. We no longer look up to the stars and dream. Technologically speaking, this is a grave tragedy, as NASA’s scientists greatly pushed technological advancement forward as they frantically worked to conquer the great unknown. The majesty, grandness and beauty of Interstellar will hopefully reignite our imaginations, our drive to explore (something that seemingly has always been a part of what makes us human, but has somehow been lost) and our willingness to take risks – to make our dreams into reality. Nolan screened The Right Stuff to invigorate his crew with this spirit of discovery.

Technically and aesthetically, the film is utterly spellbinding. The visuals are unlike anything else in modern cinema (greatly trumping last year’s Gravity by comparison, which I thought was fantastic as well on a visual level, but this film is on an entirely different level of beauty and grandeur). I highly recommend seeing it in IMAX, as the film has over an hour of footage that takes advantage of the formats expansive 70mm film stock (here is a list of IMAX theaters, for real IMAX look for theaters with the 15/70mm screens). Interstellar is a marvel alone for its technical and aesthetic achievements (most of which were created in camera – which is very uncommon today).

Yet, to sustain the audience for the film’s long runtime, there must also be substance. Many have accused Nolan’s work of lacking emotion in the past (something I do not agree with, but it seems to be the general consensus among critics). Interstellar is different. It is Nolan’s most emotional film. The story is very simple. It is about the relationship between Cooper and Murph. She feels betrayed when he leaves. He has left her to grow up without parents, abandoned to die on the Earth while he potentially restarts humanity on a new planet. Nolan mines this relationship for all its dramatic emotion. Due to relativity caused by a black hole called Gargantua, Cooper loses twenty three years in only a few hours, watching his children grow up through a series of video messages, unable to send return messages. This scene is tragic, as Cooper realizes what he is giving up. His motivation is to get back to his children, but visiting each of these potential planets advances time greatly for Earth relative to the short amount of time he has spent on the planets. Cooper realizes that he may not be able to see his children again, which crushes him.

Nolan’s character development is very good as well. The first act stage setting, detailing the relationships between the characters, goes a long way, paying off profoundly as Cooper and Murph’s relationship develops. We understand why Cooper must go, but also the loss felt by Murph. Seeing Cooper’s children age (and grow up without him) and his devastation at the very real realization that he will likely never see them again also crushes us as well.

Cooper and Murph are also mirrored by Dr. Amelia Brand and her father Professor Brand. Amelia leaves on the mission while her father stays behind working on a solution to save the people on Earth. There is a plan A and plan B. Plan A sees humanity rocket off the Earth on a massive space station (Professor Brand just has not solved the equation allowing it to be possible, but he is confident he will), while Plan B sees Cooper, Amelia and the two other astronauts repopulate humanity on a new planet with hundreds of embryos that they have brought along. Murph is devastated by her father leaving and Amelia is also devastated when she learns the truth that plan A is a lie, enacted to bring people together, to work together supporting plan B. Professor Brand had already solved his equation long ago, but it was a dead-end. It was his intention all along for plan B to be humanity’s salvation. Amelia cannot believe that her father would betray her by lying to her and Murph, learning the truth as well, is consumed by the idea that her father knew and left her to die on Earth. Here again, Nolan achieves real emotional resonance, drawing the audience further in. Seeing Murph’s anger towards Cooper is heartbreaking for us as well. We care deeply about these characters. We want to see them succeed. Thus, the action plays on a much more emotional level for us. We are completely engrossed.

The action is thrilling. Interstellar has a number of grand action sequences that are very entertaining, both on a visual and dramatic level. Nolan is a master of building tension; and this film has a number of agonizingly tense moments that grab you and do not let go. The film also uses the idea of evil very well. The film postulates that there is no evil in nature, only in what humans bring with them. Thus, in a new galaxy, untouched by mankind, the only evil is that of man. This plays out wonderfully through the character of Dr. Mann. He is described by the crew as “the best of all of us”. Dr. Mann is one of the twelve scientists who left ten years prior to Cooper’s mission to scout potential planets and relay the data that they find. Dr. Mann has sent back his data with the message that his planet has incredible potential. Yet, things are not as they appear on his planet when Cooper and Amelia arrive. Dr. Mann is overcome by his own mortality, prioritizing his own survival over anything else. He falsified his data so that the team would come to his planet to save him. Nolan again does a great job of creating characters that seem to mirror each other. Both Cooper and Dr. Mann are presented as heroes who sacrifice everything to save humanity; however, when everything is on the line, their true natures take over. Cooper proves himself to be selfless while Dr. Mann is selfish. Mankind’s drive to survive makes him able to be either selfless or selfish, good or evil, hero or villain, brave or cowardly (and sometimes both). Dr. Mann is the film’s villain, but he is not really a villain in the classical sense. More so, he is just a man who has given in to his own weakness.

Getting back to the narrative, Nolan is well known for his plot twists. Interstellar, as said above, tells a very simple story on a massively grand scale. While it does contain a number of plot twists, they are not the point of the story, and honestly they are not really big twists to those paying attention (as well as those with an understanding of film structure – or those who have just seen a lot of movies). Everything is clearly telegraphed to the audience (generally a staple of good storytelling). Again, Nolan has created a film that seems to transcend what we typically think of as a blockbuster. While it does have similar elements (big action sequences, plot twists and a grand scale/scope), Nolan seems to have a much higher ambition. He wants to make a sci-fi epic that is visually compelling, emotionally engaging and thought provoking, along the lines of classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey (which he fantastically pays homage to through some great tongue-and-cheek dialog from the astronauts' robot companion TARS) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. These types of films are almost completely non-existent in today’s cinema (which is sad). I think Nolan succeeds in his ambition.

The science of the film is also a big element in its construction. The Nolan Brothers worked closely with physicist Kip Thorne (who serves as an executive producer) on the script, the feasibility and look of the film. Interstellar relies on the audience’s understanding of wormholes, black holes, relativity, and other scientific principles and theories. It sounds like a tall order to get all this information across without the film being bogged down in its science. Nolan, here, succeeds spectacularly as well. The film is paced wonderfully to keep things moving. The exposition and science are woven expertly into the dialogue, leaving the audience informed and never bored (something Nolan probably learned writing and making Inception, a film in which he creates the character of Ariadne just so everything can be explained to the audience). Everything is also shown visually as well, taking advantage of the majesty of the film’s beautiful imagery.

Interstellar, however, is also a film that is likely to prove to be somewhat decisive for viewers. There are elements that can potentially feel very hokey (mostly stemming from Murph’s ghost and the twist involving what it actually is). It is again a film about a father and daughter; thus, its resolution is going to be about these characters, their relationship. The film takes such big risks with its narrative in the third act that they are not going to work for everyone. Yet, it is these risks that also create the film’s most emotionally captivating and powerful moments. Thus, if they do feel overly hokey, the film will possibly leave you disappointed; but, if they engage you on the intended emotional level, the film works beautifully.

Nolan is an optimist. While the film begins with the potential end of humanity, it ends with hope, a confidence that we can be better, that we can once again reach for the stars. It is Nolan’s most beautiful and touching film. Interstellar is grandiose due to its striking imagery and ambition; but it is a film that exceeds its blockbuster label, resonating on a much more emotional level, getting at the core of what makes us human – our ability to love, to endure and to look up at the stars, imagining our place among them, seeking out the unknown.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Christopher Nolan has now made nine feature films. Nolan began his career with the micro budget (a sparse $6,000) crime drama mystery/thriller Following. Despite the small budget, the film foreshadows the narrative themes and storytelling style that Nolan is now famous for. He then made his breakthrough film, Memento, a mystery thriller that stormed the world of independent film and made Nolan a star overnight. He came to Hollywood, first making Insomnia and following it up with his brilliant The Dark Knight trilogy (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises), representing the heights to which genre (superhero/comic book) filmmaking can achieve. Between his Batman films, he made a wonderful film about dueling magicians, The Prestige, and a massive action thriller that assumes that the audience is actively engaged and not just a passive, distracted observer waiting to be cheaply entertained with Inception. That brings us to Interstellar. Nolan’s films have operated on a massive scale (especially the last three), both narratively and physically – Nolan integrating more and more IMAX footage with each film. He is a director who makes spectacles in the classical sense – grand epics that thrill us while also challenging us dramatically and emotionally. He is an auteur in the truest sense of the word; and yet unlike most other auteurs working today, he makes films intended to be blockbusters. He does it better than anyone else right now. It is his gift to take on such an immense scale and scope with his films and not lose their dramatic and emotional cores. While his films are blockbusters, his characters are just as rich and well developed as any in cinema. Interstellar is both his most ambitious and his most personal (shooting under the title Flora’s Letter, named for his daughter). It is also maybe Nolan’s most polarizing film, stemming from the narrative risks he takes. I think Interstellar is a masterful work, daring to be a blockbuster that aspires to be original and thought provoking (similar to the grand epics of the past, like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) when Hollywood cinema has become reductive, constantly recycling the same ideas over and over, afraid to take risks because missteps today are too costly. Nolan worked his way up with his marvelous films, Inception probably being the key stepping stone, allowing him to aim high and swing big. I, for one, am glad he did. Interstellar is an incredible cinematic experience.

As stated many times above, Interstellar is a wonder of aesthetic and technical majesty. Composer Hans Zimmer’s score is breathtaking (it very well might have been my favorite part of the film). It is different than anything else found in other current blockbusters. Zimmer’s music is grand and beautiful, completely emotionally engulfing the viewer (here is the main theme). It resonates incredibly well with the striking visuals, creating a full emotional experience (I wish I could go back and see it again for the first time and hear the music again for the first time). Filling in for Wally Pfister (Interstellar is only Nolan’s second film not shot by Pfister, the other is Following), cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema delivers stunning work. The photography in the film is astounding, arresting and wondrous. Nolan’s characters and their emotional journey are the core of the film, but Hoytema’s photography is just as big a part of Interstellar’s power and grandeur. Production designer Nathan Crowley does a wonderful job as well. Although the film does take place in the future, his work feels very much rooted in the past, representing a society that has suffered a grave setback. His spacecraft designs are very utilitarian, looking like they were put together in a hodgepodge fashion using many eras of technology (with digital and analog options). Earth does not look very futurist either (matching the idea that humanity is on the decline), as if technological advancement came to a halt and maybe even regressed.

The cast of Interstellar is very good. John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn, Casey Affleck, and Wes Bentley are good in small supporting roles. David Gyasi plays Romilly, one of the four astronauts on the mission. His role is fairly small, but Gyasi does a lot with it, showing the emotional and physical toll that the mission takes on his character. He is excellent in the film. Bill Irwin plays TARS one of the robots that accompanies the astronauts on their mission. Irwin gives TARS a wonderfully sly wit, providing the film's best comedic moments. Michael Caine plays Professor Brand (possibly a surrogate for Kip Thorne), the principal scientist at NASA and the chief engineer behind the mission to save humanity. Caine brings a weighted gravity to his performance that is very effective. The reveal of his grand lie is one of the more powerful moments in the film. Matt Damon plays Dr. Mann, an astronaut/scientist who puts himself ahead of mankind’s survival. Damon does not often get to play the villain, but he is very good at it. Dr. Mann does terrible and cowardly things. Damon is so good at being overly self-justified and sleazy, creating a great character in Dr. Mann. Mackenzie Foy plays Young Murph. She is very good, showcasing Murph’s intelligence, wonder and absolute devastation when her father leaves her. Foy sets the stage for Jessica Chastain who plays the character grown up. Chastain plays Murph as a character who has been hurt. She is still haunted by the decision her father made, unable to forgive him. Yet, it also makes her determined to do her part in saving humanity, as she works with Professor Brand on his equation and preparing for plan A’s success. Chastain’s best moments come when she discovers that plan A is a lie, reigniting the heartbreak she felt when her father left, but also strengthen her resolve to find a way to save humanity even more. Anne Hathaway plays Dr. Amelia Brand, also one of the astronauts. Hathaway plays Amelia with a certain naivety that when crushed opens her up to becoming stronger as a person (to some extend mirroring Murph’s resolve in the face of plan A being revealed as a lie). Hathaway is very good, transitioning from her naivety to real strength. Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, taking on the responsibility of being the audience’s surrogate in the narrative (their way into the story). It is very difficult to play the everyman and still create a full character. McConaughey does this particularly well (he is having a fantastic year – winning an Oscar, giving what might be the year’s best performance in HBO’s True Detective and now delivering yet another fine performance in this). He is likable, yet does not pander. He is a rebel in the classical sense, yearning for something more than being a farmer. He gets his wish, but at a great cost. The audience feels for him, cares about him and wants to see him succeed – all key elements to the film working. His performance achieves all these things and more.

Summary & score: Interstellar is a monumental achievement of acting, aesthetic and technical triumphs. It is a blockbuster that dares to be so much more, filled with rich characters, moving drama and real emotional resonance. 10/10

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 4: Leading Performances

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 2: Supporting Performances

Part 3: Directors

Part 5: Films

Christian Bale – The Dark Knight Rises

Reprising his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman for the third time, Christian Bale is again astonishing in The Dark Knight Rises (in what is easily an overlooked performance given the genre and how seamlessly and natural Bale plays the character). While in the past two films Wayne is a pillar of strength in the community, here Bale plays him as a broken man, both figuratively and literally. Even when he returns to being Batman, his heart is not really in it anymore, and Bale lets the audience see his crushed will and injured spirit while still putting on the guise of confidence and strength. This only makes his true return all the more dramatically powerful. Bale is known for his brilliant performances (films like American Psycho, Rescue Dawn, and The Fighter), and while this might not be as flashy it is equally as layered and just as strong.

Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty

Jessica Chastain had a breakout year in 2011 and has followed it up with another strong year. Playing Maya the CIA agent in the field that devotes herself totally for over a decade to finding and killing Osama bin Laden, she is brilliant in Zero Dark Thirty (and will likely win an Oscar for her work). She has the tough role of being strong even in the most emotionally crippling situations, but also must be vulnerable enough to let the audience in – and she finds the perfect balance. Chastain also captures the toll that the stress and drive takes on Maya. She has a very bright career ahead of her, as she is already among the best actress working right now.

Bradley Cooper – Silver Linings Playbook

Who knew Bradley Cooper was capable of such a good performances? Well, David O. Russell apparently. Cooper gives the best performance of his career to date in Silver Linings Playbook as Pat (which should open doors for better leading man work for him in the future and not just crappy romantic comedies). Cooper plays Pat with a mix of compassion and hostile energy. The performance seems to constantly teeter on the edge of completely exploding with nervous rage, which absolutely pulls the audience in. But, the audience also likes Pat and is behind him because they see that Pat is capable of love and really does want to get his life together. It is very strong work by Cooper (in a year with at least fifteen or so male leading performances could have made this list).  

Marion Cotillard – Rust and Bone

Aside from the practical challenge of playing a character that loses both her legs below the knee, Marion Cotillard also has to play the deep depression felt by her character Stephanie in Rust and Bone. What makes the performance so compelling is Stephanie’s emotional journey back. Cotillard is phenomenal, as she perfectly captures the strength and drive of Stephanie. The audience is heartbroken and inspired all in the same dramatic arc. Cotillard is also very good in Little White Lies and The Dark Knight Rises this year.

Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln

Daniel Day-Lewis is not so much playing a character in a film as much as he seems to be channeling Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. It seems silly to say that, as I have no idea what Lincoln was actually like or how he sounded when he talked, but Day-Lewis just seems so completely lost in the character that it does not even occur to me that he is not actually Lincoln. That is what he does, he just becomes his characters, and is maybe the greatest actor working right now.

Keira Knightley – Anna Karenina

Keira Knightley just seems to excel in costume period dramas, especially when working with Joe Wright. Anna Karenina is their third collaboration together. Knightley is able to bring the extreme highs and lows of Anna’s tragic relationship with Count Vronsky to life by completely giving herself over to the role. Anna thinks she is above high society and can live outside their rules, only to pay the price and lose everything. Knightley pulls the audience in with her naïve charm and strength, and breaks their heart with her fall, filled with crazed fits of jealousy and anguish. Though she gets a lot of criticism (especially among English journalists, who often try to tear down their own), she has really emerged as one of the top actresses of her generation with continued great work.

Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook

Jennifer Lawrence had a great 2012. She starred in a huge blockbuster in The Hunger Games cementing her as one of Hollywood’s biggest young female stars (probably with Emma Stone, Kristen Stewart, and Emma Watson) and she was nominated for her second Oscar in Silver Linings Playbook. She is brilliant in the film, bringing a ton of energy and strength to the role of Tiffany, a young widow also dealing with mental issues. She is electric, making ever scene better and stealing the film (which also features great work from Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro). It is my favorite female leading performance of the year.

Leslie Mann – This Is 40

This Is 40 takes both a realistic and comically exaggerated look at modern relationships. At its center is a fantastic performance by Leslie Mann, who plays Debbie – a mom and wife who just wants her life to be perfect and tries to control everything around her to make it so, but this leaves her feeling frustrated, disappointed, and ultimately unhappy as things fall short of her expectations. Mann, however, is great in the film because she also can see her own flaws and wants to change, it is just difficult, which brings a very relatable aspect to her performance – the relationship troubles in the film between Debbie and Pete are almost too real for a comedy (and that is thanks to the good work by Mann and Paul Rudd).

Joaquin Phoenix – The Master

Freddie Quell, Joaquin Phoenix’s character in The Master, is an absolute scoundrel. His destructive nature ruins and destroys any possible good that might come his way, yet his struggle to find a place in post-WWII America is utterly compelling because Phoenix brings so much to the character. He is an unpredictable train wreck and the audience cannot take their eyes off him, wanting to see what he will do next, but there is also an inner depression that allows the audience to feel for him as well. It is my favorite male leading performance of the year.

Denzel Washington – Flight

The character of Whip Whitaker in Flight is one of the more difficult roles of 2012 because the character is an unlikable protagonist. Denzel Washington is able to get the audience behind Whip by bringing his usual swagger and confidence to the character. He also plays Whip to have a deep sadness behind the confidence, which allows the audience to sympathize and care about him even after his self-destructive behavior. Washington is so good in the film that the audience roots for him to come out on top, when he clearly has a problem and needs help. It is very good work and among Washington’s best.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) – Review

Review: Zero Dark Thirty is a taxing and intense dramatic thriller, ripe with strong performances and sure directing. The film is about the CIA’s operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden, which took over a decade. The story focuses on the efforts of the CIA officer that fronted the team in the field in Pakistan (named Maya in the film).

Zero Dark Thirty presents a difficult narrative challenge, and director Kathryn Bigelow does a magnificent job. The challenge is that the story takes place over a period a bit longer than a decade with multiple characters coming in and out. Plus, the whole third act (practically) does not feature the film’s protagonist, and finally the audience goes into the film already knowing the ending. Bigelow makes a series of good choices with her screenwriter Mark Boal to combat these potential issues.

First, instead of making it completely about the mission Bigelow devises much of the film as a character study centered on Maya – a woman who has devoted her whole life to catching one man. She has no friends, no personal life, and is even not well liked within the CIA for her relentless drive. The film feels so emotionally draining because the audience is completely invested in her, and feels the strain of her tireless work.

Second, Bigelow structures the third act to be utterly gripping as it features the two SEAL team assault on bin Laden’s compound. Not having the protagonist feature heavily in the third act of a narrative film is a huge risk. Most films would flounder or feel incomplete, but the SEAL team assault is done with a perfect mastery of tension that the entire audience is fully enthralled. Bigelow also gives Maya enough moments to still feel like a meaningful part while also giving her narrative a sense of closure.

When making a film with an ending that the audience already knows going in, the film needs to be more about the characters and the journey than the ending. Bigelow does this brilliantly, but again still gives the audience a captivating ending. The narrative has a sense of momentum as the information builds and the audience can feel the ups and downs of Maya’s (et al.) search. Maya’s emotional journey resonates with the audience making the stakes feel heightened, which is great achievement when the audience knows what will eventually happen.

Politically the film has raised some issues as well – namely the use of torture. Torture played a somewhat vital role in extracting information that lead to bin Laden being found – along with a lot of surveillance, ground work, and critical thinking among good CIA field officers. The film would seem to suggest that torture is a necessary evil to combat terrorism. It even goes as far to say that the information started to dry up after President Obama mandated that torture was not to be used by U.S. armed forces and government agencies. Do the ends justify the means, or does evil only beget evil – violence begets more violence? However, the film also shows the cost of torture, both on those that carry it out and on those that it is done too. Nothing is glorified.

Much like Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies, Zero Dark Thirty also seems to take shots at the incompetency and bureaucracy of those in positions of control and power within the CIA. The Pakistan station chief Joseph Bradley does not come out of the film looking too good. Zero Dark Thirty also points out just how much data is gathered and processed and just how difficult it is to analyze it – not to mention the resources it takes to fund all these continuous operations. It is an interesting look behind the curtain, so to speak.

The film is very good alone as an informative look at how the CIA found bin Laden and how the SEAL team infiltrated his compound and killed him. However, this would only serve the film for one or two viewings. What makes this film more than just a dramatization of the real events (to some percentage of accuracy) is its ability to drive deeper into the characters, the people who sacrificed parts of themselves and even their lives to find and kill bin Laden, or more importantly to try and keep America safe. It is this human aspect of the film that resonates with the audience and pulls them in (and makes this more than just a History Channel special).

Bigelow does not treat her characters like heroes. They are real people – flaws and all. The audience can see and feel the toll that the life and work takes on these characters, living in constant danger, working long thankless hours, and being asked to treat other humans as less than human. The film is exhausting, yes, but because Bigelow has done such a fine job with her characters and their relationship to and with the audience. The viewer feels exhausted at the end because they emotionally went on the journey with the characters (particularly Maya, who is exhausted by the end as well).

The film however does feature graphic seasons of violence and torture, and thus many not appeal to all viewers. However, Bigelow does not go overboard. The violence is actually fairly minimal given the graphic nature of the material. It is more emotionally and psychologically unsettling.

Zero Dark Thirty is ambitious in its scope both expertly telling its story and developing strong characters. It is an arduous journey, but one well worth taking.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Kathryn Bigelow has certainly asserted herself as the filmmaking authority of modern American war films with The Hurt Locker and now Zero Dark Thirty (though, I would argue that Generation Kill is a step above – but it is a miniseries). These films not only effectively tell their stories, but they also care about their characters. Her films are more so about her characters than events or action, which is why they work so well dramatically. She also is so adept with tension throughout these films that she never lets the audience’s attention wander (which is also why the experience of these films is so taxing). After The Hurt Locker, Bigelow and Boal seemed like the perfect team to take on Zero Dark Thirty, and I am not sure another filmmaker would have done a better job with the material.

Alexandre Desplat’s score very much sets the mood for the film as it pulses with tension and thriller aspects, ever driving the suspense. It is fantastic work, as always. Greig Fraser’s cinematography is gritty, which fits Bigelow’s realistic style for the film. Yet, he still is able to keep his actors well lit (maintaining the magic of Hollywood filmmaking), but not in a glamorous, glossy, or flashy manner. Jeremy Hindle’s production design also has a very realistic quality to it. Everything looks and feels authentic, which is crucial for a film like this.

The film is mostly filled with small performances as the narrative encompasses tons of characters for short amounts of screen time. Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton are both very good, giving a relatable human face to the SEAL team that takes the lead in the third act. Mark Strong gets to come in and give a strong thunderous monologue that is great. But really, the stars of the film are Jason Clarke and especially the lead Jessica Chastain as Maya. Clarke is tough as nails as CIA interrogator Dan but he eventually is worn down by the stresses of his job, which gives a human quality to these CIA characters the audience is asked to take stock in despite their morally questionable practices (i.e. torture). Chastain is fantastic in the film. She is strong and smart as a whip, and not shy about letting everyone know that she is the smartest person in the room. It is her drive, despite the personal cost, that resonates so effectively with the audience.

Summary & score: Zero Dark Thirty is entirely fascinating, both from a story standpoint and more so its characters. 9/10

Lawless (2012) – Review

Review: Lawless is an engaging gritty crime drama wrapped up in an American tall-tale. The film is about three Bondurant brothers, bootleggers in Great Depression era Virginia, who find themselves in a fight for survival when a government agent, Charlie Rakes, comes to eradicate them from their way of life. Director John Hillcoat does a great job with the crime drama aspect of the film. It is appropriately violent, while also including the iconic character archetypes and imagery of the era – particularly: gangsters using tommy guns (as seen in visually splendid scene of local gangster Floyd Banner laying waste to a rival). Hillcoat gets the tone and the grittiness of the era just right. Throughout, the film is visually brilliant, as the greatest care has been given to the set design, costume design and the perfect locations for the story. However, where the narrative goes a bit off track is between whether this is a gritty crime drama about bootleggers or an American legend about a family of brothers who seem to be immortal. The ton is conflicting between these two elements (which both play large roles in the narrative). The legend about the brothers, specifically Forrest, being invincible works within the construct of the crime drama to an extent, but Hillcoat takes it a bit too far leaving the film feeling a bit hokey. Almost as if Hillcoat is portraying the story of the Bondurants (a true story) as one of America’s tall-tales (like John Casey or Paul Bunyan). Jack’s voiceover narration mixed with the (all wrapped up in a nice bow) epilogue clashes with the meat of the narrative, being the gritty struggle for survival. Hillcoat has folklore slamming up against realism mixing messages and confusing how the audience should feel about the narrative and the characters. The performances are very strong, and Hillcoat gives the characters lots of moments allowing the audience to connect with them and take a stake in the outcome, but all this seems to be devalued by the narrative not having a fluid constant tone. Plus, the epilogue sort of flies in the face of classic gangster narratives (which following Jack the youngest Bondurant, who is the story’s lead character, is otherwise similar to classic gangster narratives detailing his rise and fall), pandering to focus groups who want everything to be okay in the end. Again, it is based on a true story, and thus certain facts (though, often changed in film adaptations) seemingly need to be preserved. Thus, if the Bondurants are that of legend and folklore, why not keep the tone lighter and completely buy into this as being like a tall-tale instead of making it very violent and steeped in realism only to have that sort of be thrown into question in the minds of the audience by a varying tone. All that said, Lawless is still a good drama, with the shifting tone really only serving as a minor issue (holding it back from being great), built on almost complete brilliance from the cast and crew.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: John Hillcoat, while clearly very gifted visually and in his ability to get great performances from his actors, seems to still struggle with aspects of his narrative’s structure. The Road has poor pacing (for example) and this has contradictory elements keeping his films from being great, instead of merely just being good. Composers Nick Cave (who also wrote the film) and Warren Ellis provide a score that both enriches the visual environment and extenuates the emotional depth of the film. Cinematographer Benoit Delhomme does fantastic work as well, visually capturing the era beautifully while also both paying homage to classic gangster films with his imagery and giving the film its own visual identity (often using darkness juxtaposed to daylight to create menace – like the shootout in the bridge or Howard coming from inside the house to attack the sheriffs). Production designer Chris Kennedy, however, does probably the film’s best work, as his overall design and especially his sets are so richly textured. The cast is very good overall, drawing the audience in. Dane DeHaan, Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman (who selfishly I wish was in more of the film) are all wonderful in support. Jessica Chastain is very good, playing a Chicago floosy of sorts looking for a different life. Guy Pierce is creepy and strange as Charlie Rakes (he has become one of the great current character actors). Jason Clarke is brutish and simple as Howard Bondurant. Tom Hardy steals every scene he is in (and the film) as Forrest. His presence commands attention. Shia LaBeouf is decent in the film (though maybe slightly miscast). He is eager and naïve at first but weighs the consequences of his actions.

Summary & score: As a big fan of gangster films, I was not disappointed in Lawless, as it is a solid crime drama with great performances and visuals, but it also a tad corny. 7/10

Coriolanus (2012) – Review

Review: Coriolanus is gritty, emotionally striking and relevant (both in the contemptuous interplay between the people and the government and the war-torn landscapes of the Volscian territories resembling current hostile zones across the world, but reminded me specifically of Bosnia). Based on William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, the film is about a Roman general Caius Martius, who is positioned to become Consul of Rome but is betrayed and exiled by the people after tribunes Brutus and Sicinius insight the people against him, preying on his less than personable demeanor and pride. Martius then travels to the Volscian capital Antium to seek out his greatest rival Aufidius to join forces and inflict revenge on those that banished him. Orson Welles is often thought of as cinema’s great Hollywood director of Shakespeare (though, his stage productions are generally thought to be far superior), but in modern cinema Kenneth Branagh has directed probably the best adaptations (staying mostly true to the words) with his Henry V (my favorite), Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet (and I also like the work of Trevor Nunn; his Twelfth Night is among my favorites as well). First time director and exalted actor Ralph Fiennes (who has played the character as well on the stage) takes a very interesting approach to the material – both staying true to the words and world of Shakespeare’s play and making the setting feel fresh and relevant to today’s world (socio-politically). It reminds me a lot of Richard Loncraine’s Richard III (though, his is set against WWII). Fiennes’s film feels like the recent slew of gritty Iraq War narratives (like Green Zone, The Hurt Locker and HBO’s Generation Kill, at least the war scenes, while the scenes within Rome very much reminded me of the short-lived but brilliant series Kings), which immediately gives the audience a through-line to connect and understand the world of the narrative. The social and political unrest resonates, even if the language of Shakespeare is not always accessible to all viewers. The aesthetic Fiennes uses also informs the emotional journey both of the characters and the audience. Being an actor and having a love of the material, Fiennes uses the camera often in close quarters to the actors creating an intense and emotionally volatile (and somewhat draining) tone. He wants each viewer to feel the pain that Martius feels. And for the most part, this is very successful. However, the film suffers a bit from a few issues. Most prominently and directly at the expense of Fiennes’s style for the narrative is there is no room for the audience to breath, no light material, no levity, just very intense and taxing emotional turmoil coupled with pacing that drags a bit (especially in the second half), which disengages a worn-out audience by the third act. Also, Fiennes has a bit of an issue with scale (and this is most likely due to budget constraints). His battle scenes, while feeling personal to the characters, do not seem to be part of a bigger battle or war. They are too personal in a way. There is not a sense that there is anything going on outside Martius’s platoon, but this is not the case based on the toll on the landscapes, the audience just never sees anything else happening in the battle outside of Martius. The scale of what Fiennes shows is just too small, and in turn makes the scenes feel awkward. This, however, is a minor issue in comparison to the slow pacing and lack of emotional downtime. Coriolanus is among the best modern adaptations of Shakespeare, and Fiennes is very ambitious with his vision. However, it is not quite the great film that it teases to be.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Ralph Fiennes will continue directing with his next project The Invisible Woman in 2013. He certainly has the skill and eye for telling very compelling visual stories; he just needs to master structure and pacing (which is by far the most challenging aspect of filmmaking). I look forward to his future directorial work. Ilan Eshkeri’s score for the film is very good (here is a sample), as it perfectly fits the tone and visual style Fiennes has created. Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd and production designer Ricky Eyres get the look for Fiennes’s world of the film perfectly. The juxtaposition of Rome and the crumbling trashy ghettos outside of its realm is just right, matching the emotional journey of the characters. Performance wise, this film has some very strong work. James Nesbitt is great as a meddling cowardly tribune (I just wanted him to get his comeuppance so much). Jessica Chastain works well as she plays Virgilia (Martius’s wife) as seemingly the polar opposite to Martius, so quiet and fragile (yet it is her moment of strength that contributes to his demise). Gerard Butler physically and visually worked as Martius’s most hated enemy, but his performance very forgettable. Lubna Azabal playing the First Citizen is full of hate and vengeful rage (as if she had created a full backstory to why she hated Martius so much outside of what the audience is shown). Brian Cox is good, and he tries to bring some levity to the film playing his character a bit light. His performance works but the overhanging tone engulfs him, which makes sense given his character’s fate. Vanessa Redgrave is fantastic as Volumnia (Martius's mother). She is brutal and controlling, and key to Martius's character. Fiennes playing Martius seems to put his whole soul into the performance, literally feeling the anguish, betrayal, distain, and hate. It is brilliant work.

Summary & score: The performances in Coriolanus are excellent. The aesthetics and style of the adaptation are excellent. But, the narrative structure is not nearly as tight as it needed to be. 7/10

LeapBackBlog 2011 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2011 saw many very good films. Deciding what made the lists and what did not was very difficult this year, and there are more than a few great films, performances and technical achievements that I had to leave off. The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done, and 2011 again features a lot of amazing breakthrough performances), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Supporting Performances:

Kenneth Branagh – My Week with Marilyn

My Week with Marilyn is completely built around its performances – notably those of Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne and Kenneth Branagh. In particular, Williams, who barely missed out making my yearend awards, and Branagh stand out. He has the somewhat daunting task of playing real life screen legend Laurence Olivier, who is very well known (especially in England). The performance is great as Branagh must mask absolute frustration with the situation he has put himself in (having to deal with Marilyn, notoriously flaky and sort of whimsical about her working schedule) while also being completely infatuated with and in awe of her. He also somehow makes one of the great actors of his generation come off insecure, and it is believable.

Albert Brooks – Drive

Drive is another film that is built on its performances (and visual style). Albert Brooks plays the villain of the story, a gangster of sorts who is owed money. While Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan are both very good, Brooks’s performance stands out because of his approach – he is not a very menacing bad guy, at least he does not seem to be. And then, all of a sudden, he is scary, forceful and yes menacing. His scenes with Gosling near the end of the film make the narrative work – the audience is not quite sure if Drive is going to end happily or not (a rarity in cinema). Who would have thought that Brooks would create the best villain of 2011 (runners up: Bryce Dallas Howard in The Help and Ralph Fiennes in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2)?

Jessica Chastain – The Tree of Life

On the female side of the breakthrough aisle, 2011 belonged to Jessica Chastain (on the male side: Michael Fassbender). She appeared in six films, giving very good performances in all of them. However, she is brilliant in The Help, Take Shelter and especially The Tree of Life. While most of the praise seems to be focused on her performance in The Help, in The Tree of Life she has a much more difficult role, and is really the emotional centerpiece of the film. She plays a woman trapped by love and devotion, who is slowly crushed. Chastain is so good because she gives off so much happiness and light that when things get dark it is all the more heartbreaking, as all the energy and life seem to drain from her face. It is an extraordinary performance.

Elle Fanning – Super 8

Elle Fanning’s work in Super 8 is probably not going to be on most people’s list when it comes to best supporting performances (because blockbusters and genre films are always gravely overlooked), but it should be. Anyone who saw 2010’s Somewhere saw a young actress teaming with talent. Super 8 gave Fanning a chance to carry a large portion of the emotional weight of the film – making the audience fall in love with her, through the nostalgia of fist love – and thus giving more meaning to Joe Lamb’s mission to save her. Not only does Fanning steal the film, from a performance standpoint (I would like to direct your attention to her scene just before the train crash or her work as a zombie), she also boosts the other young actors around her – all of whom are very good as well.

Keira Knightley – A Dangerous Method

Keira Knightley’s performance in A Dangerous Method is probably the bravest and most shockingly physical of the year (especially for an actress considered to be a starlet). She was not afraid to go full out playing Sabina Spielrein, a woman that went from being physically disabled due to mental issues to being the first woman to write a psychoanalytic dissertation and even becoming a psychoanalyst herself. Knightley’s performance of pre-psychoanalysis Sabina is striking and even off putting, as it is hard to watch – Knightley seemingly mutilating her body and appearance. Thus, when she arrives on the other end as a confident powerful woman, it is remarkable and very engaging.

Christopher Plummer – Beginners

The journey that Christopher Plummer goes on with his character in Beginners is uplifting and sad, for different reasons. Finding oneself seems like it would be easy, but it is often hard due to outside pressures (be them societal or parental or what-have-you). Hal, Plummer’s character, has lived almost his entire life hiding his true self, and finally has the courage to let himself be himself. Seeing the sheer joy in Plummer’s performance is what makes his story so inspiring. The dynamic he has with his son, played by Ewan McGregor, also plays heavily into his performance. There is such a trust and love between them. This chemistry and Plummer’s performance in particular set up the entire narrative and character for McGregor, making the film the brilliant piece it is.

Alan Rickman – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Snape has been one of the most interesting characters in the Harry Potter universe, his background and motives always cloudy. In the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, in a magnificent scene (The Prince’s Tale), all is revealed. It is in this scene that Alan Rickman shines. Snape’s reveal is harrowing, heartbreaking and beautiful all at the same time. Rickman, over the course of the series, has built Snape to be seemingly mean spirited, unforgiving and without feeling, thus his performance in the reveal, watching him fragment emotionally, is quite powerful. In a film with many fantastic and memorable moments, this is probably paramount among them.

Octavia Spencer – The Help

For many of the characters in The Help, the film is very much about perseverance in the face of flat out hate and/or ignorance. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer are given the brunt of the emotional work to do. The film has many standout supporting performances – Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain are both wonderful, but Spencer’s just has more dramatic impact to it. In lesser hands, her Minny Jackson could have been just another stereotypical sassy woman. Spencer brings true humanity and organic strength to the role, giving the film so much more importance and magnitude, as it resonates even today. This would not be the case without her strong work.

Corey Stoll – Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris is a magical film with lots of great (name dropped) characters, but chief among them is Corey Stoll’s Ernest Hemingway. Regardless of what Hemingway may or may not have been like in reality, Stoll’s Hemingway commands the screen and steals every scene he is in. And, he is both laughably eccentric and completely believable (I am still not sure how Stoll pulled it off). Of all the performances on this list, Stoll’s has the least amount of screen time (and probably by a large margin), but his is one of the most memorable of 2011.

Shailene Woodley – The Descendants

Like Jessica Chastain, Shailene Woodley seemingly came out of nowhere (unless you watch The Secret Life of an American Teenager on ABC Family) to give one of the best performances of the year. Not only that, but she stands her own against George Clooney in The Descendants, arguably giving the best leading male performance of the year (and maybe even his career). Every year there are a few actors who give breakthrough performances, capturing our hearts, minds and emotions breathing fresh life into the art form that we love, and it is special to see it when it happens. Woodley’s performance is particularly impressive as she not only must play against Clooney in emotional scenes, but she also has to be his strength in the film.