Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) – Review

Review: Inside Llewyn Davis is a circular character drama that uses the 1961 Greenwich Village folk music scene to show the audience something about themselves, about humanity. The film is about a struggling folk singer and guitar player Llewyn Davis. He is kind of an asshole, favoring the integrity of his music over all else. He has bad manners and a surly disposition, leaving him short on friends to freeload off. Davis is desperately trying to make a career out of his music, but it just does not seem to be working out – on top of that he is dealing with the death of his former partner Mike, who recently committed suicide.

Like many of the Coen Brothers’ films, Inside Llewyn Davis is a parable with an antihero at its center. Here, the lesson appears to be about the beauty of artistic expression, when humanity is otherwise often marred in ugliness. Davis is completely unlikable in almost every way. He is a leach who does not seem to care about anyone other than himself, just grinding it out trying to play music as a source of employment. And yet, when he does perform there is something marvelous to it. The Coen Brothers expose the man as being deeply passionate and affected by life – how else could he absolutely capture the emotions of the songs he plays and resonate so strongly with the audience?

But, Davis is also not completely lost. When he finds out that he may have impregnated Jean (and thereby potentially ruining her home life with her partner Jim), Davis does not hesitate to step up to pay for the abortion. Yes, it is easy to say that he is eager to pay to avoid any future responsibility, and this is probably partially true, but he also could have just as easily told her that it was her problem to deal with (which would be in line with how he behaves in other situations, like abandoning a strung-out Roland Turner). This indicates that on some level he does care about Jean – who is in a way his moral compass. Davis also seems to care about the Gorfein’s cat Ulysses, as if saving the cat will somehow make up for all his other bad deeds. Still, in the end, Davis is fairly despicable and hard for the audience to get behind.

That said, the Coen Brothers do something quite interesting with their portrayal of the world around him to get the audience on his side (though, I am not sure it will work for every viewer). Basically, Davis is shown as a pure musician and one who is genuinely talented. The Coen Brothers interact with the world of the film and all the other characters through the perspective of Davis – who more or less looks down on everyone else. Thus, the other characters are either just as awful as (if not more so than) Davis or laughably goofy. Thus, the audience too takes on Davis’s perspective of superiority, which allows the film to work as a comedy as the Coen Brothers roll out a series of odd characters and situations for Davis to encounter.

The musical performances are really the standout aspect of the film, which some ways works as a musical – on a much purer level than the typical musical structure viewers are used to as filmgoers. Davis delivers a number of fantastic performances and the audience are treated to a few others from supporting characters as well (like the hilarious Please Mr. Kennedy). It is in these performances where the film and Davis expose their souls, where the beauty and emotional power of the music is put on display to shine, erasing all the ill feeling the audience might feel towards Davis. Despite being an ugly person, his music is something special and the audience is able to see something deeper, truer inside him (which creates a connection). This speaks to humanity in general. Throughout our existence, humanity’s history is littered with unmistakable heinous repulsiveness, yet our history too is filled with monumental achievements of grace (often resulting from the arts). There is a dichotomy within people, they have it within themselves the ability to destroy and create wonders. The beauty and emotion of Davis’s music may in fact come out of his tortured life. It is his release. The music allows Davis to show his emotions (grief, loss, a joyful exuberance for the music, and so on), and may in fact be his redemption.

Another interesting aspect of the film is the circular narrative structure that the Coen Brothers employ. The film starts and ends with the same sequence, a flash forward that the audience does not realize is a flash forward until the scene happens again to end the film. In between, the audience experiences a week in Davis’s life, as he desperately tries to make something of his career, going up to Chicago to play for a music promoter/club owner. Like many of the Coen Brothers’ narratives, the world just seems to have it out for Davis (some of which he probably brings upon himself). As much as he wants to make it as a performer, everything seems to be working against him. The audience sees him struggle for a week with really nothing to show for it. Has he even grown as a man or learned anything new? But as with other Coen Brothers’ films, the point is not so much the character, rather he is just a foil for them to express something deeper – which is really more up to the audience’s interpretation than an exact meaning.

Inside Llewyn Davis is odd and quirky, like most of the Coen Brothers’ work. But additionally, some viewers may find it to be overly long in parts (I am specifically thinking of the road trip to Chicago sequence). While the pacing did not bother me, I can see it being an issue for those not fully engaged in the narrative, as it is a bit slow.

The music in Inside Llewyn Davis is onto itself a good enough reason to see the film (especially for fans of folk music), but the Coen Brothers offer so much more with their typically irregular characters and penetrating parable narrative.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: The Coen Brothers, who briefly ventured closer to a conventional Hollywood narrative with True Grit (though, still a film I really liked), have found their way back to making wonderful, strange films with Inside Llewyn Davis, which feels in some ways like a companion piece to Barton Fink and A Serious Man, and musically maybe a bit of a continuation of O, Brother Where Art Thou? The Coen Brothers continue to distinguish themselves as true American auteurs, with each new film both expanding their impressive catalog and exploring something new and grand. Each of their films (minus a couple) is a cinematic treat.

As stated many times above, the music in the film is fantastic. The Coen Brothers and executive music producer T-Bone Burnett have assembled and crafted a very strong array of folk songs that entertain and get to the soul of their performers. However, Bruno Delbonnel’s cinematography may be the film’s most impressive aspect. It is at the same time surreal and felicitous, creating a feeling within the audience that they are watching a time-soaked period drama (which they are) – it feels both old and new. It also perfectly echoes the grief stricken sadness of Davis, thereby fitting the tone very well. There is even a slight hint of nostalgia, despite all the characters being fairly unlikable. Jess Gonchor’s production design provides a real authenticity to the film, as everything looks and feels as it should. Gonchor also succeeds in using his design to speak to who these characters are – which particularly can be seen in Mary Zophres’s costume design.

In some ways the film is episodic, with sequences feeling separate and insular – characters coming in and out. There are many small performances, all of them strong. Garrett Hedlund has almost no dialog, for example, but feels so dynamic on-screen. Other great small supporting performances come from Ethan Phillips, Stark Sands, Max Casella, Justin Timberlake, F. Murray Abraham, and especially Adam Driver (who just steals the Please Mr. Kennedy scene). John Goodman plays Roland Turner, an obnoxious aging cripple jazzman. As unlikable as Davis is, Goodman’s Turner makes him appear in a much better light (if only for a moment). Carey Mulligan is fantastic as Jean, a young woman and folk singer who is both fed up with Davis and probably secretly still has a thing for him (because why else would she care so much about him or be so infuriated by him). Her scene in the park opposite Davis is maybe the most compelling, acting wise, of the film (really, I kind of wish there was more between these two as their chemistry is electric). Oscar Isaac is brilliant as Llewyn Davis. He has always been a good character actor, but this film sees him at his best. He plays Davis to be a dirt bag, yes, but behind all that is a man who is in intense emotional pain. Maybe all his bad behavior is just a protective front or him acting out against a world that has seemingly never given him a real chance, instead taking so much from him.

Summary & score: Fans of the Coen Brothers will again be enchanted by yet another great character driven parable, and in addition Inside Llewyn Davis offers incredibly moving and entertaining musical performances. 8/10

Movies Spotlight – December 2013 – The Coen Brothers

The Coen Brothers (Joel and Ethan) are maybe the quintessence of the new breed of American auteur to emerge in the late 1980s through the 1990s; filmmakers that now command respect  and praise in American Cinema (filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, and David Fincher) among critics and filmgoers alike. They blend pop-culture sensibility with a great aesthetic style. The Coen Brothers do this maybe better than any other, as they tackle any and all genres. Their films, serious or hysterical, always employ fantastically written characters and engrossing narratives with a specifically unique style.

This month, their new film Inside LlewynDavis comes out. It is a love letter to the 1960s folk scene in Greenwich Village, starring Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, John Goodman, Garrett Hedlund, and Justin Timberlake. It looks to feature wonderful music from T-Bone Burnett and cinematography from Bruno Delbonnel. It is already an Oscar favorite and critical darling. Check out the trailer here.

Early Career:

Joel Coen attended New York University’s undergraduate film program, while Ethan studied philosophy at Princeton University. After college, Joel worked as a production assistant and film editor where he met Sam Raimi who was looking for an assistant editor for his first feature The Evil Dead. Raimi and Coen also appeared together in Spies Like Us (as guards outside at the drive-in movie). Raim next directed the Coen Brothers’ second produced screenplay Crimewave.

In 1984 with the help of Raimi to fund-raise, the Coen Brothers made their feature directorial debut with Blood Simple. Blending horror and film-noir genres, the film was an instant success among critics. It won the Grand Jury Prize at the 1985 Sundance Film Festival and Best Director and Best Male Lead (for M. Emmet Walsh) at the Independent Spirit Awards.

Next, the brothers wrote and directed the crime comedy Raising Arizona about an unlikely couple who steals a baby to raise as their own. It stars a wacky Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter. While Blood Simple more or less flew under the radar with most movie fans, Raising Arizona quickly became a cult comedy classic.

Strange But Wonderful Films:

The 1990s saw the Coen Brothers really find themselves as filmmakers, churning out what is probably their best set of films – films that are very different but all feel aesthetically and thematically ambitious, and a bit odd. First among them, the gangster genre film Miller’s Crossing, which is highly underrated and brilliantly written. I would argue that it is one of the best films of the decade.

Barton Fink was their next. It is about a critically acclaimed New York playwright who comes to California to write movies for the money, but finds that he is descending into Hell while in Hollywood. The film features a great performance by John Turturro, and is a nice wink by the Coens at Hollywood filmmaking. Nominated for three Oscars, Barton Fink won the 1991 Cannes Film Festival prize for Best Actor, Director, and Film (Palme d’Or).

Teaming up again with Sam Raimi (who co-wrote and served as the second unit director), the Coens next made The Hudsucker Proxy. It is a film that feels like a classic screwball comedy, with lots of great nostalgic throwbacks (like a fast-talking Jennifer Jason Leigh, as a nod to Rosalind Russell). While the film never seemed to resonate with moviegoers or critics at the time of its release, it has since found its audience and is much adored. It was their first Hollywood film, and viewed as an utter failure (losing lots of money). This was the film that really introduced by to them. I had seen Raising Arizona, but The Hudsucker Proxy struck me as something special made by skilled filmmakers. I have been a fan ever since.

For their next film, the Coen Brothers retreated back into more familiar thematic territory, again making a crime film (with a black comedy edge). Fargo was a critical and commercial success, introducing the filmmaking brothers to many new fans. It won two Oscars (while being nominated for seven, including Best Picture) for Best Writing and Best Actress (Frances McDormand – Joel’s wife). It also won the Cannes Film Festival prize for Best Director. The film caused some problems for the Academy Awards, however. Firstly, the film exclaims that it is based on a true story during its opening, but that is untrue. Thus, the Academy did not quite know whether it should be placed in the adapted or original screenplay category. Secondly, the Academy nominated Roderick Jaynes for Best Editing, but that is merely a pseudonym for the Coen Brothers, who edit most of their own films. To this day, Fargo is thought of as the Coens’ best film by many (though, I would argue their next film is).

Today, The Big Lebowski is a cult classic that has fully become a part of pop-culture (see the many reference in Veronica Mars for example). It is beloved by many fans that have probably never seen another Coen Brothers’ film (or even know who they are) and the fans of the directors who have been there for each film (I, myself, saw The Big Lebowski upon its release in 1998 while in Paris in an empty theater on the Champs-Elysees and immediately fell in love). When it came out, it played to mixed criticism and almost no box office receipts. However, Jeff Bridges’s The Dude is now an iconic character. It is one of my favorite comedies of all-time as it brilliantly blends almost absurdist comedy with a hard-boiled detective narrative.

With Some Hollywood Mixed In:

In Preston Sturges 1941 film Sullivan’s Travels, John Sullivan plans on making a film called O Brother, Where Art Thou? – the Coen Brothers make it a reality with their narrative loosely based on Homer’s Odyssey. The film opened to the Coen Brothers’ biggest box office debut at the time, but the film’s soundtrack featuring great bluegrass and old time music was an even greater success. The film’s music was created with the help of T-Bone Burnett and is credited by some as assisting in the resurgence in interest in American folk music – Burnett is again working with the Coens on their new film about folk music, Inside Llewyn Davis.

For their next film, the Coens decided to make a strange crime drama about a barber who blackmails his wife’s boss for money so that he can invest in dry cleaning – but it all goes wrong. The Man Who Wasn’t There features maybe the best black and white photography since films became universally color in the 1950s. Roger Deakins work is phenomenal. The film itself was almost unseen when it came out, but is secretly a fantastic movie.

Returning to more Hollywood fair, though still a little strange narratively and stylistically, the Coen Brothers then made what are probably their worst two films (and really the only two films that are not genuinely good). Intolerable Cruelty was meant as another throwback to screwball comedies of the 1940s, but it just never really works (though, there is a great scene that feels like a reference to Network). The Ladykillers saw the Coens go from meh to just straight up bad. Firstly, they remake one of the great comedies of British Cinema; and secondly, nothing in the film seems to work all that well – especially Tom Hanks who just goes way too big.

After taking a three year break, the Coen Brothers returned in 2007 with No Country for Old Men, a modern western that exhibited all the best qualities of their work: electric, well-written characters, stark violence, dark comedy, and wonderful aesthetics. It is a film that just grabs you from the start, winning four Oscars (while being nominated for an additional five) including Best Picture, Best Directors, Best Writing, and Best Supporting Actor (Javier Bardem). It is one of the best films of the decade.

Now once again in the acclaim of critics, and with a somewhat newfound following among mass audiences, the Coens decided to make a very strange comedy – Burn After Reading, mixing a spy thriller with black comedy. The film played to mixed reviews, but it is fairly hysterical. Every character is their worst self, ruled by idiocy. Its strangeness though did not immediately isolate fans, as it debuted at number one its opening weekend. But again with A Serious Man, the brothers seemed to continue to try and push away their newer Oscar-bandwagon fans with an even stranger story about a math teacher’s decent into madness.

However, in 2010, the Coen Brothers returned to the western genre with True Grit (a remake of the John Wayne Oscar-winning film). The film played to huge acclaim (garnering ten Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but winning zero) and their biggest box office numbers to date. The film features wonderful performances, and feels like a classic western – only slightly warped in the Coens’ style.

Collaborators:

Like many of the auteurs in cinema, the Coen Brothers work frequently with the same actors and crew members. Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi, John Goodman, Jon Polito, and John Turturro have all worked with them more than four times. Other notable actors that have worked with them more than once include: Bruce Campbell (appearing usually in cameo or very small roles), Jeff Bridges, Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Richard Jenkins, and Billy Bob Thorton (the Coens also, oddly, produced Bad Santa).

Cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld shot their first three films (before becoming a director himself), while Roger Deakins has shot nine of their films. Composer Carter Burwell has scored fourteen of their films. Production designer Dennis Gassner designed six of their films, while Jess Gonchor has designed their last five.

Upcoming Projects:

The Coen Brothers provided the screenplay for the remake of the 1966 film Gambit. The new version directed by Michael Hoffman stars Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz. They are also rewriting director Angelina Jolie’s new war drama Unbroken. A TV series based on Fargo is in the works for 2014, which will involve the Coens as producers. They are also in talks to write a script for director George Clooney called Suburbicon. Finally, it is reported that they are working on a new musical comedy.

Career Highlights:

1)      Blood Simple. (1984) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Trailer)

2)      Raising Arizona (1987) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

3)      Miller’s Crossing (1990)* – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

4)      Barton Fink (1991) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

5)      The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)* – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

6)      Fargo (1996) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

7)      The Big Lebowski (1998)* – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

8)      O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

9)      The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001) – writers, directors, producers (DVD, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

10)   No Country for Old Men (2007)* – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

11)   Burn After Reading (2008) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

12)   A Serious Man (2009) – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

13)   True Grit (2010)* – writers, directors, producers (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

*Editor’s picks

Flight (2012) – Review

Review: Flight is a very good character study that plays a bit like a wakeup call. The film is about an airline pilot Whip Whitaker who struggles with alcoholism. However, on this day, showing up drunk for work (as usual), Whip saves the lives of many people when he is able to successfully crash-land a plane after it malfunctions and goes into a dive. Heralded as a hero, Whip must decide if he wants to keep lying or face the truth about his alcoholism.

Director Robert Zemeckis structures the film in an interesting way. It opens in such a manner to present Whip as both a villain and a hero. The first scene of the film sees Whip awaken on the morning in which he is to pilot a flight drunk and taking a hit of cocaine, looking a complete mess. However, Zemeckis juxtaposes that to Whip leaving the hotel in his pilot’s uniform and aviators looking completely confident and the part of someone good at what they do. These first two images of Whip set up his whole character, and draw the audience in as well. The audience can see that he is a mess, but he is also more than competent at his job and thus is able to handle his lifestyle, which thus allows the audience to like him. It is really this juxtaposition right at the beginning that makes the film so successful. The audience is completely engaged in the story and the character of Whip – the nude woman, drunkenness and line of cocaine drew them in and the sheer bravado of Whip in his pilot’s outfit made them like him (regardless of his vices).

Zemeckis then creates one of the most compelling cinematic moments of 2012 with the plane crash. He keeps the camera in the plane, putting the audience right there in the action (almost claustrophobically – only leaving to focus on Nicole’s story in the early moments). By doing this, he both allows the audience to see the heroism (or at least extreme competence) of Whip as a pilot, even drunk, and creates an even stronger bond between them and Whip, which then allows him to let Whip fall with the audience still behind him and still liking, even respecting him. The scene itself is quite jarring (and completely brilliant).

Now that Zemeckis has his audience, the film becomes a character study (and to some extent a parable or wakeup call). The film explores alcoholism (and really addiction in general) and the effects it has on those afflicted with it and the cost both to the alcoholic and those around them. Whip believes he is in control of his drinking and cannot get out of his own way, leading him down a very self-destructive path. However, because Zemeckis has the audience so aligned with Whip, they still are behind him even after each step backwards. They want to see him redeemed. This is why the film is so powerful in its message and why it may even serve as a wakeup call to some viewers. Regardless of how well someone can live with their addiction (Whip for example lands a plane while drunk when every other pilot sober would have killed everyone on the plane trying to get out of the dive), time is against them and eventually their addiction will catch up with them (which is also played out in Nicole’s story). And because Whip is so likable, the film’s message seems all the more convincing and relatable (instead of just focusing on junkies, which is what the subgenre often does, which are not as involving to the general moviegoer).

The film does have some issues as well, holding it back from being among the elite films of 2012 (though it is on the cusp). The pacing in the middle of the film is very slow, and thus it drags a bit. This is the result of two primary things. First, the plane crash sequence is so compelling and emotionally staggering that the viewer is coming down from a huge adrenalin rush (being on edge for most of the scene) and thus feels low and more susceptible to slow pacing. And second, Zemeckis wants to slow down the film and allow the audience to get to know both Whip and his disease better. He wants Whip to seemingly be heroic but continually fall and become more and more unlikable, which will thus make his redemption more powerful. However, these two elements drag the film’s pacing down noticeably. That said, the character work done in the second act (even with the slow pacing) does payoff in a very meaningful way during the film’s resolution, and thus maybe it was worth it. Whip’s decision (leading to his redemption) is also a bit forced from a logical standpoint (which could take away from the film for some viewers), but in terms of his journey it makes perfect sense.

Flight is among the year’s best character pieces. It works as both a Hollywood prestige film (as it should garner some awards buzz, especially for its actors) and as a study of what alcoholism (addiction) does to people (in a much more relatable way). It is a very good film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Robert Zemeckis has made many of our favorite films, including: Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forest Gump, and Cast Away. I think Flight can be added to that list. Zemeckis showcases his talents as a director in the film by playing with the expectations of the audience. Often, his camera shows us an image, evoking a feeling or thought, and then pulls back or pans revealing more of the image completely changing that feeling or thought (for example: Nicole and Whip have a fight and we expect that she will leave in the night – Zemeckis shows us Whip sleeping in his bed with an empty space next to him and we think our thought is confirmed and she has left, then he pulls back and she is in the doorway of the room, suddenly he has changed our expectations, then he pulls back again to reveal that she has her bags packed and is indeed leaving, again managing and playing with the audience’s expectations and emotions – if you watch the film again, look out for these types of reveals as there are many, subconsciously manipulating the audience). I, for one, am very happy to have him back making fantastic live-action films.

Alan Silvestri’s score does a great job of underscoring the emotions of the film. It has a very downbeat tone, which mirrors the tragedy of the plane crash and Whip’s fall. The more blustering moments are accompanied by wonderful classic rock and R&B, which works incredibly well further juxtaposing particular images and moments. Don Burgess’s cinematography and Nelson Coates’s production design is also very good. The film needs to feel very grounded and realistic, given the nature of the character journeys it explores. The work of Burgess and Coates very much gives it that realistic space for the characters to occupy (but it is nothing flashy or overly artistic – it fits the tone of the film perfectly however).

The acting in the film is phenomenal. Melissa Leo, John Goodman (who thunders in to steal the attention of the audience a couple times) and especially James Badge Dale (who is brilliant in a tiny role that completely changes and sets the stage tonally for the rest of the film) are fantastic in small supporting roles. The brunt of the dramatic work, however, is down by the film’s main two actors. Kelly Reilly is great as Nicole, giving maybe her best performance of her career (appearing in her biggest prestige movie role to date). The beginning of her story is her lowest moment, which allows her to be a very redemptive character and positive influence in Whip’s life. She also gives the audience a relatable perspective, as she too is behind him (reinforcing the audience’s commitment, which again allows the message the film offers to be more moving). Denzel Washington has given many wonderful performances in his career. Playing Whip in this can be added to that list. Here, he brings his usual swagger and confident demeanor to a character that is also tragic and has an immutable sadness to him. It is very compelling work.

Summary & score: Flight has a message (as many character pieces do), but it also very entertaining. It is the kind of prestige film that shows that Hollywood can still make great, important and meaningful movies. 8/10

Argo (2012) – Review

Review: Argo is a gripping thriller that also plays as sort a nostalgic comedy. The film is about the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis. When the U.S. Embassy is stormed by Iranian revolutionaries, six civilians escape out the back and hide in the Canadian Ambassador’s house. CIA agent Tony Mendez, who specializes in extracting people, puts together a plan to get them out of Iran. His plan involves a fake Hollywood sci-fi film called Argo.

Director Ben Affleck does a lot with the material in this film. First, it is based on a true story, which seems to automatically make it more compelling, and yet a lot of the narrative’s tension comes from the specifics. Getting the six Americans out is thrilling enough, but this is a movie after all and things need to be enhanced for dramatic effect – how much is enhancement and how much is fact is unknown to me, but I take the specific details that heighten the tension to be enhancement. Details like: the mission being called off only for Mendez to go ahead anyway leading to the CIA home office having to scramble to get everything in place. Or, the movie producers being delayed by a production assistant and nearly missing the call that saved the lives of the Americans. All these things make the tension almost unbearable, yet feel kind of phony at the same time. That said, Affleck’s use of tension in the third act is fantastic (phony or not). The dramatic tension is done so well that it is almost too effective and nerve-racking. Even when the Americans are home free (I would say spoilers, but this is a true story, so we all know how it turns out already), the audience is still not sure if everything is going to be okay through the rest of the film because they are still so wound-up. Affleck’s has done seemingly too good a job, as the tension builds and builds throughout most of the second half of the film. The narrative device signaling that the suspense is over and the audience can relax seems to not have its intended effect, as the audience is somewhat on edge through the credits (and on the way back to their cars).

The tone of the film varies a bit, which also plays into the tension being almost too intense. Affleck marries two very different tonal aspects of the narrative: one being the gripping thriller of the Americans hiding and then being rescued, and the other being Mendez’s trip to Hollywood to build the cover for his mission. This section of the film plays like a comedy. The tone is very light (for the most part, though there is still an edge simmering underneath as the situation in Tehran is never out of mind), with the narrative playing almost like a nostalgic trip back to Hollywood in the late 1970s, early 1980s. There are lots of jokes (both verbal and visual). There are kooky characters. The tone in these scenes certainly does not mesh particularly well with the rest of the film (right?). Except, it sort of does mesh well, because Affleck is commenting on the absurdity of the plan to get these people out – pretending to be a film crew scouting a location in Iran for a sci-fi adventure – and really the whole situation. There is still a subconscious disconnect for the viewer however, as the tone changes from serious drama to comedy to nail-biting thriller which throws off the narrative structure a bit, but Affleck is able to guide the viewer through and keep them engaged with his compelling storytelling. He weaves all the different elements of the story together very well despite the tonal issue.

The tonal shifts and the overwhelming tension, seemingly built on Hollywoodized dramatic enhancements to the narrative, still leave the film feeling like it does not quite work as well as it seems to. Yes, it is very captivating, and Affleck does a wonderful job with the characters economically giving them each enough for the audience to be invested in them (which only again adds to the effect of the tension – as the audience cares about what happens to these people), but there is something missing. It might be that Mendez is not a strong enough character. Thus, the audience is merely watching the narrative play out (while having a stake in the Americans plight, trapped in Tehran) rather than being pulled in by the film’s protagonist. Affleck does develop the character, but he is very dry and sort of dull (for the most part). It might be that the ending is not effective enough to break the tension and allow the audience to feel relief (and I think this is one of the main issues with the film along with the aggrandized dramatic tension). It might be the narrative structure feeling disjointed due to the varying tone, which also causes the pacing to feel a bit slow at times. It might be all these things.

However, overall Argo is a very good thriller, as it completely commands the audience’s attention (especially in the third act), and is also appealing for its nostalgic qualities, particularly for those familiar with filmmaking (and the Hollywood system), overcoming its narrative and structural issues.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Ben Affleck is now three movies in as a director (his other two being Gone Baby Gone and The Town). And, he is three for three in terms of making good films. Argo will likely be his most critically acclaimed as it is already earmarked for Oscar contention (but personally, The Town is my favorite). The film works because of its poignant dramatic and emotional correlation to the political climate in today’s world (specifically in the region – and specifically for Western audiences who can empathize with the characters). Justified or not, there is a palpable fear or tension in the air regarding the future of the Middle East (for both its people and the World).

Alexandre Desplat’s score is great, mixing flavors of the region with dramatic touchstones that emphasize the emotions of the narrative (here is a playlist). The film also has a great period soundtrack (Dream On is very effective in the trailer). Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography is excellent, really capturing the period look with his lighting. However, Sharon Seymour’s production design stands out the most. The sets, costumes and overall look are brilliant, as much of the film has been matched to documentary footage taken at the time of the crisis. The exceptional production quality does elevate the overall feeling of the film rooting it in realism, and Affleck does a great job with this as well as director.

The cast, which includes a ton of small roles and bit parts, is very good – Richard Kind and Kyle Chandler standout in these bit parts. Kerry Bishe, Rory Cochrane, Scoot McNairy, and Victor Garber are strong in small supporting roles, having to play a lot of strain on their characters. John Goodman and Alan Arkin are great as they bring comedy to the film, while still preserving the film’s dramatic power. Bryan Cranston plays sort of a generic character, but brings some humanity to him nonetheless. Ben Affleck has a touch role to play, as most of the characters around him get all the good stuff. He is mostly an observer, with brief dramatic moments. And yet, he still is able to serve as a good (though the character is not great) connection to the story for the audience.

Summary & score: Argo has a few nagging issues, but overall it is an entirely absorbing tale. 8/10

Trouble with the Curve (2012) – Review

Review: Trouble with the Curve is a great baseball movie – and almost a complete rebuttal to 2011’s Moneyball – that has not forgotten the most important ingredient to any film is good characters. It is about Gus, a scout for the Atlanta Braves, who is on his last legs professionally. The game is changing and his eyes are failing. He is sent out on what could be his final assignment to scout what many believe to be a sure thing. His daughter Mickey, who grew up on the road with him but now has a difficult relationship, decides to tag along to help her father out so he can keep his job and passion for a few more years.

Director Robert Lorenz knows the secret to what makes a good Hollywood-style film: relatable characters with a clear story arc. He also knows his target audience. Gus is lost in today’s world. He does not understand technology and he hates the way Sabermetrics are taking over the process by which talent is analyzed in baseball. It makes him, and all scouts (an important aspect that shapes of the game), obsolete. He is out to prove that a computer cannot really fully understand a player. Lorenz has multiple examples that make Gus’s point. He may be an ornery old man who is out of touch in a lot of ways, but he still is completely in tune with the game of baseball. This appeals in many ways to the audience. The audience (especially the targeted older movie-goers that make up Clint Eastwood’s typical demographic) relates to Gus because they feel the same way about the world that is becoming more and more technology savvy and dependent, leaving out generations. Trouble with the Curve is about a man fed up with this widening generational gap and that speaks to the target audience. Thus, the audience is very much invested in Gus. And, for other audience demographics, Lorenz has created a fleshed out character that can be related to through humor (as there is a fair amount of funny material).

Gus’s daughter Mickey is also a strong character that the audience can latch on to. She is a successful lawyer who loves her father but is frustrated by their lack of communication – a common theme in many families. The character also provides a nice juxtaposition to Eastwood’s strong-but-silent stoic character (that he is famous for), because she shows the issues that have been created between her and her father due to his lack of communication with her. The narrative (which does not really need her, though it would be a slightly different story without her) is all the more compelling because the audience sees the deconstruction of Eastwood’s own archetype.

As this is a Hollywood-style narrative, Lorenz does not shy away from having a fairly predictable and safe structure, complete with the happy ending. But, with this kind of film, the happy ending is not just expected it is demanded. Imagine the story of Gus being left by his daughter and eclipsed by technology (i.e. being wrong about the players while the computers are right). The story would be rather dark and would end with Gus probably killing himself or letting himself go in humiliating total defeat. It would be heartbreaking. Trouble with the Curve, however, is not this type of him and that is not the type of film that Eastwood’s target audience wants to see. However, that being said, the film’s narrative structure does leave it feeling a little lazy and wrapped up in a nice Hollywood bow. For some, this will hurt the film, as the structure and character archetypes will feel overly played out and tired (and too safe). But, taking the film at face value, the narrative works well for the story that Eastwood and Lorentz want to tell.

I have said before that baseball translates itself to cinema better than any other sport, as it seems to have the most human aspect to it. It is a game that is specifically about individual achievement, while still being a team sport. A pitcher and hitter are alone as they face one and other. And thus, it lends itself perfectly to being inhabited by great characters as a backdrop. Baseball seems to accentuate the human emotions and drama of the characters, as it is a very nostalgic pastime for the audience. So, to make a great baseball movie, a filmmaker merely needs well-drawn characters in a baseball setting (with seemingly a hint of wonder and majesty), and have a love of the game – which is evident in all involved in this film. It is also a great baseball movie because it gets back to the quirky and magical intricacies that make baseball the special wondrous game that it is, and away from the dehumanizing numbers that dominate today. As someone that seems to be drawn to nostalgic things from my childhood, I like this, as I remember the fun I had in little league. The film speaks to both the fan and child just playing the game in all of us.

Trouble with the Curve is going to work best for those that like and understand baseball (though it is not a mandatory requirement) and enjoy good characters and well done character drama.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Robert Lorenz makes his feature debut with Trouble with the Curve. He served as Clint Eastwood’s producing partner on Eastwood’s last ten films (as well as second-unit director on a few others) prior to this. Lorenz decided to take a very straightforward approach to the material, shooting it in a very typical Hollywood style (standard coverage), which worked for the material.

Marco Beltrami’s score is also fairly standard – emphasizing the dramatic beats. Tom Stern’s cinematography and James J. Murakami’s production design work with the Hollywood style aesthetic of Lorenz’s narrative as well. The photography is glossy, making even the small town ballparks look majestic and magical (being a common theme in baseball movies), while the production design reinforces the characters and narrative. It is very good work (as to be expected from these two).

For a character drama like this to work, the performances must be good. In Trouble with the Curve, the performances are the strongest aspect of the film. John Goodman and Matthew Lillard are good in smaller roles. Justin Timberlake brings a lot of charisma and likability to the film, as well as a change of pace from the more stubborn and combative leads. Amy Adams is maybe the best part of the film. She plays Mickey to be very strong and independent, but still insecure when it comes to her father. I also really liked the fact that she is completely in love with baseball, and cannot fight it, even in her grownup life. Clint Eastwood plays the same old gruff, cantankerous and grumpy man that he seems to always being playing these days (see Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby for reference). And as usual, it works to great effect. He is compelling and has fun with it.

Summary & score: Trouble with the Curve is really just the same old Hollywood style drama about two characters learning to connect that we have seen hundreds of times and thus is very predictable, but with great characters and a baseball setting the film is still very engaging. 7/10

The Artist (2011) – Review

Review: The Artist is a funny and heartfelt romance. The film is about silent movie star George Valentin, whose life is left in ruins when cinema switches to sound leaving him behind. But, there is potential light at the end of the tunnel for George in the form of rising star Peppy Miller, whom he falls for upon their first meeting. Much like with Martin Scorsese’s Hugo, writer-director Michel Hazanavicius pays tribute to the history of cinema, specifically the silent era. However, Hazanavicius takes it a step further, making an almost completely silent film, and very much in the style of that era. The silent era of cinema saw some of the most creative and artistic films (and filmmakers like Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Sergei M. Eisenstein, King Vidor, Charles Chaplin and Buster Keeton among others) in cinema history – sound setting the industry creatively back decades some historians say. And much like with Hugo, a lot of the charm of this film comes from its homage to the past. Silent films relied completely on visual storytelling, and for the most part Hazanavicius is up to the task – especially with a fantastic beginning and ending to the film. However, the middle is where the issue lies with this film. Hazanavicius is able to convey the narrative and character journeys throughout, but the pacing falls apart in the middle of the film and it drags horribly. It is a shame really, as the end is so good, but most of the momentum is lost by the time it comes around. I think that like with Hugo, the novelty and nostalgic aspects of the film greatly outweighs the shortcomings in the minds of many familiar with film history, but taking the film at face value the pacing and overly drawn-out narrative leave the film not working quite as well as it could have. Not to say it is a bad film, as this is far from the case; it is a very good film, just not a great one (which it could have been). There is also a postmodern aspect to the film that is interesting. George loses his career due to his inability to adapt to sound – even having a nightmare in which objects make sounds when interacted with climaxing with full on ambient noise and women laughing at him. Throughout, he is unable to speak, or get his true feeling across to Peppy – be it due to pride or other emotions/circumstances. Finally, when he is able to speak, confronting his fears, the whole film is illuminated with sound. It is quite powerful. The homage and postmodern characteristics of The Artist propel it above the romance narrative it otherwise is, but Hazanavicius is not quite a good enough filmmaker to make a great silent film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Michel Hazanvicius has made three prior feature films (all comedies), but none to the acclaim that The Artist is receiving – which will make his next project not only highly anticipated but also something that will likely see distribution in America. I am interested to see how he follows this film up. Ludovic Bource’s score is good. It accompanies and reinforces the characters and narrative well, but it is greatly overshadowed by the use of Bernard Herrmann’s score for Vertigo at times (Herrmann’s score occupies the best moments of this film – here is a sample). Shooting in the customary 1.33:1 ratio, Guillaume Schiffman’s cinematography is very good (but not as good as other recent black and white films of note – The Man Who Wasn’t There, The White Ribbon and Wings of Desire to name a few), nor does it quite have the fluidity of the silent film masters. Production designer Laurence Bennett does maybe the best aesthetic work of the film, capturing the essence of the era. Performance wise, the film has a lot of small roles (almost like celebrity cameos) – the best among them is John Goodman as the studio boss. The film’s two leads are both brilliant however (both just missing out on making my yearend awards). Berenice Bejo has a ton of energy and charisma. She really lights up the screen. Jean Dujardin plays his part so big, but also has enough true emotion that the viewer completely connects with him – having a very cute dog as a sidekick also does not hurt.

Summary & score: The way The Artist brings the silent era back to life is magical and not something to be missed, if only the pacing and narrative could have been a bit tighter. 7/10

Movie of the Week - The Big Lebowski

This week’s movie is The Big Lebowski (1998)

Directed by The Coen Brothers, The Big Lebowski centers on The Dude. The film plays as a detective piece structurally, with The Dude hired to find a missing millionaire’s daughter. Completely unprepared and unqualified for the task, hindered at ever turn by a fantastic group of characters, The Dude just sort of exists above it all, too cool for the world, yet constantly brought back into it by the chaos that surrounds him. The film is great due to the perfect performances (especially Jeff Bridges and John Goodman), great writing from the Coen Brothers, and just the odd world that it all takes place in, created by the style of the Coen Brothers mixed with the work their frequent collaborators, Roger Deakins and Carter Burwell. While the film may not get you on the first viewing, it is better and better with each. It is one of the best comedies and films of the 90s and the Coen Brother’s catalogue. The film stars: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore, Steve Buscemi, David Huddleston, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Peter Stormare, John Turturro, and Sam Elliot.

The Big Lebowski [DVD]