The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is a bleak film, focusing more on character than action, setting up the franchise’s final installment.

The film finds Katniss Everdeen recovering in District 13 in the wake of the events of Catching Fire. She is distraught about Peeta’s capture by the Capital; however, Plutarch Heavensbee and President Alma Coin (the leader of the rebellion) desperately need her help. Right now is the moment of rebellion that District 13 has been waiting for, ever since their initial rebellion was quelled over seventy-five years ago. Katniss’s actions at The Hunger Games have inspired a nation. The rebels need her to be their symbol of revolt, inciting the nation to rise up together against the Captial.

First thing, let us call Mockingjay – Part 1 what it really is: a narrative and creative abomination in the name of additional profits (akin to splitting The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn into two parts even though the story does not really support two full narrative films). The Harry Potter series split its final book (The Deathly Hallows) into two films, starting this trend – the difference between The Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn and now Mockingjay, however, is that there was enough substantial story and character to make two films. Here there is not.

Calling the film an abomination is harsh. The problem is that the film essentially serves at the first act of the final chapter; yet, the filmmakers (including director Francis Lawrence) need to fill two hours with material, when really only about thirty to forty minutes is essential (or even needed). Thus, the film is primarily a showcase of the characters sitting around, grinding out time until the action really begins (in the next film). For the audience, this makes for a less than interesting film overall, but it still has its engaging moments.

The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 plays as much more of a character piece as compared to the continuous action of Part 2. Mockingjay – Part 1 tries to follow a similar path, as the narrative focuses on Katniss’s internal struggle with being the face of the rebellion, but there does not seem to be any narrative momentum. By comparison, part 1 of The Deathly Hallows saw Harry and company searching for horcruxes and the meaning of the Deathly Hallows. The film has a narrative structure and character development. It works as a standalone film (in as much as a sequel can), while also setting up the final film. Mockingjay – Part 1 is initially about Katniss becoming the face of the rebellion, which she does without much struggle. Then, the film seems to become about the recovery of Peeta. The problem with the second narrative piece is that Katniss is not involved in the action.

One of the big problems with this film series as a whole is that Katniss seems to always be sidelined. Even as the face of the rebellion, she is not directly involved in the rebellion planning or action. She is just propaganda. It might have been interesting for the film to really take a deep look at the emotional and psychological toll being a symbol takes on Katniss, being removed from the real action, just rolled out to make appearances for moral, seeing those actually fighting dying around her. It does this to a minor degree, and those moments are compelling; but, this was never going to be that kind of film – a character piece, built on performance and dramatic moments. Lawrence still wants to make a sci-fi action adventure, like the first two films, but there is just not that much for anyone to really do.

Structurally, Mockingjay – Part 1 has a number of things that do not work as well as they probably should. Right off, the film feels completely disconnected from Catching Fire, as if it were unrelated. The characters and tone are totally different. We learn that some period of time has passed between the end of Catching Fire and the beginning of Mockingjay, but it is very disorienting (especially because I just re-watched Catching Fire before seeing this). Lawrence certainly had the narrative time to transition the narrative to District 13, but instead the film begins clumsily. Lawrence also had the time to focus more on supporting characters, but no one is really given much to do dramatically. Katniss is the only character that has significant character moments (seeing the carnage that the Capital brought upon District 12 and her realization that Peeta was brutally tortured while being held in the Capital). Again, most of the film’s issues seem to arise from there not being enough to sustain a full narrative feature.

There are things that do work too. Katniss’s emotional moments are effective and even moving. Lawrence does a good job creating a world that looks and feels very bleak. District 13 is reminiscent of the style of the film 1984 (based on George Orwell’s novel) – it is a bit ironic that the rebels fighting for freedom seem to live in a highly structured world (seemingly void of real personal freedom and personality). The few moments of action are engaging as well. Lawrence even creates some tension when the team goes to retrieve the victors from the Capital.

Mockingjay is a sufficient setup for Mockingjay – Part 2, but it is bloated and does not work as a standalone film. Katniss is not even given a real dramatic journey in the film. Its biggest fault is that it feels overly long, slow and even boring in parts, because it is essentially a one act piece stretched to fill two hours. Lawrence does not do enough with the characters or feature enough action to fully engage the audience for the film’s runtime. Yet, all that said, the stage is set for Part 2, which seems like it will be a rewarding film experience (finally); and thus, Mockingjay – Part does ultimately serve its purpose (sloppily).

Now for something minor that I noticed that does not really effect the film’s overall quality at all, it just bugged me. The blocking of the film crew within the film (there to capture moments of Katniss reacting to stuff to use for the rebellion’s propaganda machine) is often fairly terrible. The cameramen are in each other’s shots. The director even walks in front of one of the cameramen at one point. They miss many crucial shots of Katniss emoting and in action (and so on). It is really no big deal; it just bothered me. They are touted as being the Capital’s best crew, but seemed incompetent.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Francis Lawrence made a good film with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. With Mockingjay – Part 1, he is at a bit of a disadvantage, as it is clear there is not enough material to fill two films. That said, he does a good enough job (I guess). He gets good performances and the few action scenes work well. It is just disappointing that there is not more character moments to go around and that the film is not more efficiently structured (instead of feeling a bit tedious). I am looking forward to seeing Mockingjay – Part 2. I imagine it is much more action packed and that Katniss, finally, is involved in the primary action both emotionally and physically.

Aesthetically, Mockingjay – Part 1 is grim. The film mostly takes place in a somewhat soulless and barren bunker or amongst the rubble of destroyed towns. Jo Willems’s cinematography is fairly straightforward, working with Philip Messina’s production design to create this dreary world, seemingly almost void of color. It works narratively, but I miss the flare the first two films had in their design style. James Newton Howard’s score works well, supporting the dramatic moments (but it is overshadowed by the great soundtrack that Lorde put together).

The cast is good overall, but dramatically speaking there is very little for most of them to do. Natalie Dormer has her usual rambunctiousness about her, which works well with her character (the filmmaker Cressida). Elizabeth Banks has some fun moments as Effie, adjusting to a world without style and color. Sam Claflin is good as Finnick, seemingly playing a man broken by the games (though, it feels a bit out of character given where the audience left him in Catching Fire). Julianne Moore is very calm and calculating as President Alam Coin, very restrained. It works. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems a bit disinterested as Plutarch Heavensbee, probably because he has almost nothing of substance to do in the film. Donald Sutherland plays President Snow with a lot of flare and guile, enjoying the villainy of the character. Woody Harrelson, too, seems bored as he spends the film standing around, aside from a few lines of dialog. Liam Hemsworth probably has the most screen time in this film of any in the series so far, and yet he remains unengaging. Josh Hutcherson is quite good as Peeta, showcasing the mental and physical toll being a prisoner of the Capital is taking on him (he looks like he is dying, slowly wasting away). I just wonder why the film never gives Johanna (especially when you have Jena Malone, who is fantastic in the role) or Annie any screen time while they were captive (even if it were just in the background). It is an odd choice to single out Peeta as the only visible ‘traitor’, while leaving the others to merely be referred to as similarly traitors for doing the same thing. Filmmaking is about showing more than telling (or at least it should be). Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Katniss. She conveys the pain and internal struggle that she suffers through very well. It is clear that she is on the breaking point. (Much like the audience, I am sure) Katniss is tired of being left out. The film is moving in some places and ultimately succeeds dramatically solely because of her performance (as structurally it is pretty poor).

Summary & score: It is difficult to rate The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 because it is not really a narrative film (in that it does not really have its own story to tell or a complete character journey). It is merely just act one. Seemingly, it was never meant to be more. Thus, to really give this film a score I need to see how it plays in relation to Part 2, as presumably they are really two piece of one epic film. As it is, it only works insomuch as Jennifer Lawrence gives a very good performance, the action is engaging and some of the visuals are compelling. Large portions of the film, however, are uninteresting, as characters and viewers sit around waiting for the action to start. It was completely unnecessary for Mockingjay to be split into two films; thusly, this film exists solely to make additional money, not to serve a narrative need – and that is unfortunate for fans of the series. 5/10

Movie of the Week – The Fugitive

This week’s movie: The Fugitive (1993).

Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife is murdered and Kimble contends that he is innocent, but is convicted and sentenced anyway. After his transport bus to prison crashes, Kimble is able to escape. He returns to Chicago to prove his innocence and find the one-armed man responsible.

The action thriller is directed by Andrew Davis, who directed a number of action films in Hollywood, but The Fugitive is by far his best (other notable films by him are Above the Law and Under Siege). He worked with composer James Newton Howard, cinematographer Michael Chapman, and production designer J. Dennis Washington.

The film stars Harrison Ford and co-stars Tommy Lee Jones (who won an Oscar). Sela Ward, Julianne Moore, Joe Pantoliano, Andreas Katsulas, Jeroen Krabbe, Daniel Roebuck, L. Scott Caldwell, Tom Wood, Nick Searcy, and Jane Lynch feature in support.

The Fugitive is a great thriller from the 1990s, a decade that is probably better remembered now for its indie films than its Hollywood output. It is based on the 1960s TV series, and Tommy Lee Jones’s character was so popular that it produced a sequel in which his character chases down another innocent fugitive called U.S. Marshalls. It is worth checking out for fans of good action thrillers and fans of Harrison Ford; it is one of his best of the 1990s (along with Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and Air Force One).

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Don Jon (2013) – Review

Review: Don Jon is a raunchy, funny, and at times sweet romantic comedy, all while addressing the problems facing modern relationships. The film is about Jon, a New Jersey native who finds more of a connection with the women in porn than he does with real women he brings home. Hoping to find more meaning in life, Jon decided to engage in an actual relationship instead of just meaningless sex. During the course of this relationship, Jon begins to change learning something deep and meaningful about himself.

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who also stars in the film, makes his writing/directing feature debut with Don Jon. And like many first-time young directors, he brings a pop-art style to the film that takes bits and pieces of other filmmakers’ work (or cool aesthetic moments from other films) and amalgamates them into a scattered filmmaking style where aesthetic decisions are made chiefly because they look cool instead of serving the narrative. Here, the editing and camera placement is very flashy compared to the standard Hollywood-style most films are made with, and it is a bit more ambitious than what can be called ‘indie style’. It plays a role in the comedic and emotional impact of the film directly engaging the audience. But, it is a dangerous game. If the viewer does not like the style, which to some extent feels amateurish (a scrambling of other directors’ ideas projected onto this film), then the message that this film purports will be lost as the style will take all the attention. The style is cool and fun (and maybe even hip), but it also can be distracting, as it gets in the way of the film really creating a significant connection with the audience. However, Gordon-Levitt does seem to find a balance between style and narrative. As the film progresses, the performances seem to take over focus (much to the benefit of the film as a whole).

What Gordon-Levitt does that is very interesting is his complete commitment to the repetitive visual images than make up Jon’s life. The audience is constantly shown the same routine over and over, playing into the monotonous and seemingly unfulfilling life that Jon leads. His routine seems to be a distraction from his emotions, allowing him to just cruise through life without deeper meaning, which also plays into why he finds something in porn more so than empty sex. His imagination is able to fill in the emotional gaps and desires that one-night stands can never hope to fulfill. Thus, as Jon starts to actually find meaning in his life, the routine begins to fade away and the audience is easily able to pick up on the change because the visual images of the routine are so ingrained that any deviation is immediately noticed – and even more so: impactful.

Gordon-Levitt does this with his characters too, especially Jon’s family. They are presented in very much the same manner each time the audience sees them. Once Jon undergoes his change, his family too starts to have moments that break their typical character and visual routines as well. This is a very smart way to interact with an audience, as again the changes are very perceptible once the routine is broken and the audience perks up and feels more engaged in the narrative.

The narrative itself is nothing new. Jon is basically the epitome of ‘male’. He is handsome, works out, has a muscle car, and has lots of success with many women. But Gordon-Levitt takes this character, which superficially is desirable to many, and subverts him, showcasing just how unhappy and pointless his life really is in that he leads a life without meaning. His addiction to porn is in some ways just a shock-value grab for the audience. It is the hook to reel in the viewer initially, but it is not really the main focus of the narrative: that of a man who finally allows himself to be vulnerable and not be so ‘male’, which is fairly tried-and-true in romantic comedies.

But, then again, the porn addiction is an interesting aspect as well. Don Jon can be taken as a much lighter version of Shame (which deals with sex addiction). Porn can be substituted for anything that allows one to escape the reality of life, pushing down and hiding the pain or absence of meaning. In Don Jon, Gordon-Levitt asks his audience to leave the film ready to escape the dreariness and sameness of their own lives and embrace change, new things, and above all real emotions and experiences that will bring light to their souls, as that is where true happiness lies.

At its core, Don Jon is a deconstruction of the modern romantic comedy. Jon’s relationship with Barbara (to some degree) resembles the superficial coupling of two people in rom-coms: two beautiful people who have some obstacles but eventually come together and everything is happilyeverafter. But, audiences never see what happens after the couple comes together, as that is usually the end of most rom-coms. Here, Jon and Barbara find that they really both do not understand how to be in a relationship and are certainly not right for each other. For Jon, this is another step in his growth and for Gordon-Levitt it is a way to take a shot at the fantasy that is the romantic comedy genre.

Overall, the grand narrative ambitions for the film are quite extensive for a new filmmaker and Gordon-Levitt executes his premise with skill. That said, on top of the style being a bit distracting the greater narrative structural problem that Gordon-Levitt faces is that his film drags noticeably in the second half. Jon has sort of a soul-searching episode, which while narratively necessary does somewhat derail the forward momentum of the pacing. The pop-art style of the editing has a brisk pace that is also very vibrant for most of the film, and then suddenly the tone is softer and editing becomes much slower, losing the audience. A lot of the comedy also is lost during this shift. The film begins to feel far less entertaining during this portion, as the tone previously dictated that the film was mainly a comedy thus setting an expectation for the audience. When the tone switches to a much more dramatic one, this compounds the effect of the slower pacing, which in turn leaves the audience feeling bored as they wait for the comedy to return.

As it is, Don Jon is a fun and interesting look at modern relationships and addiction. The performances and ambitiousness of its narrative are endearing, but the film’s pacing issues and inelegant style do hold it back. Fans of the romantic comedy genre may find the film a nice change of pace however, as it takes many of the genre’s troupes and turns them on their head.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Joseph Gordon-Levitt has delivered a good debut feature film with Don Jon. The pop-art style he employs is something very common among new younger filmmakers (as I said above) and in all likeliness he will find his own style as he makes more films. What is more exciting about him as a filmmaker is the thoughtfulness of his narrative. At face value, it is just about a man looking for ‘real’ love, but underneath the deeper meaning explores many true setbacks of modern life (i.e. living in a monotonous bubble of routine) while also exposing the failures of the romantic comedy as a genre (something The Five-Year Engagement also does well). I look forward to his future filmmaking endeavors.

Composer Nathan Johnson’s score seems to be lost for most of the film, hidden behind the fun soundtrack and constant splattering of imagery (porn and other pop-culture references). However, when the narrative starts to become more character driven and the performances begin to take primary focus away from the aesthetic style of the film, the score starts to play a bigger role reinforcing the dramatic beats of the film. Thomas Kloss’s cinematography is fairly straightforward. However, the camera placement in the film is often intriguing as it is often different than where the camera would typically be placed in most films. Meghan C. Rogers’s production design is maybe the most compelling of the major artistic collaborations. Her work presents a seemingly very sterile world for Jon to inhabit, which plays wonderfully into his routine-dictated life.

The film at first seems to by style driven, but Gordon-Levitt realizes that at its heart this is a character driven film and thus shifts focus to the performances during the second act. Jeremy Luke and Rob Brown are very funny in small supporting roles, while Glenne Headly and Brie Larson (who plays this film’s Silent Bob) add a lot without much screen time. Larson especially has some great stuff. Tony Danza is a scene-stealer. He has so much energy that the audience cannot help but be drawn to him. Julianne Moore is good as Jon’s down-to-Earth friend Esther who plays as a great juxtaposition to Barbara. Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as Barbara, who she plays as a very Housewives of New Jersey/Jersey Shore woman. She is stunning yes, but also very controlling and shallow. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does not immediately strike one as a typical Jersey meat-head, which is basically the role he is playing. But, there is more to Jon than just the stereotypes. He actually craves more from life, which is why he tries to change his life. Gordon-Levitt does a good job bringing the character’s emotional journey to life.

Summary & score: Don Jon has a lot to offer. It is thought-provoking, while still being funny and dramatically engaging. It is a fine directorial debut for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 7/10

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011) – Review

Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love. is heartfelt, poignant, funny and mostly on target as a good romantic comedy/drama. The first thing that stands out about the film is how directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa structured the narrative. It is very atypical with multiple connected stories arcs and character arcs that start and stop outside the normal three act structure – though Cal’s arc very much follows the normal rom-com structure. This interesting structure across all the main characters arcs gives the film a real-life feel, which most films in the genre never even begin to approach. Ficarra and Requa have a very good handle on playing drama and comedy together. The drama in the film feels very real, but at the same time some of the moments are fairly devastating for the characters, making the ending feel very cheap and tacked on ultimately hurting the film a lot, as it does not fit. The pacing is also a bit funky due to different character arc starting and stopping at different times and not following the main narrative structure. It is a brave choice for the directors to make the film in this way, and it works for the most part, but not completely. Ficarra and Requa do great work with their characters too, but Emily feels very underdeveloped and sort of left out (as really with six main character stories going on, this was bound to happen to one of them). As for the comedy aspect of the film, the jokes are funny but the overall tone is fairly sad (as it opens with Cal’s family falling apart) and with all the major dramatic moments, it does not feel like a happy-ending type typical rom-com (which is good, but again makes the happy ending, while accustom to the genre, feel all the more fake). All in all, Crazy, Stupid, Love. works and is an interesting take on the rom-com genre, but it is too bad that the directors (whatever the reason may be) did not fully commit to their ‘real-life’ narrative and allow the film to take a more natural course. They allow, like most of this genre’s films, love to be overly idealized, which is fine in other cases but does not fit this narrative.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa were successful screenwriters, and now with two good comedy/dramas under their belts, they can be expected to make good films and be called good directors going forward. The music composed by Christophe Beck and Nick Urata goes well with the drama and comedy at play in the film, while Andrew Dunn’s cinematography is quite good for a rom-com. I really liked William Arnold’s production design, his set for the bar and especially the contrast between the characters’ homes and what that said about where they were at that stage of life. However, the film’s success is almost completely dependent on the performances of the actors – and they were very strong. Liza Lapira is very funny in her supporting role. Julianne Moore is a great actress, but is not really give too much to do in this film – though she is still good. Jonah Bobo and especially Analeigh Tipton are fantastic (Tipton giving a breakthrough performance). Emma Stone is funny, tough and sweet all at the same time. Ryan Gosling is really good playing his role as a typical douchebag guy but completely venerable. And Steve Carell, who is so great at playing a sad but comedic nice guy, is good yet again (he also served as a producer on the film, finding a good role for himself).

Summary & score: Crazy, Stupid, Love. could have been great, but does not quite get there. That said, it is still one of the best romantic comedies/dramas of the year. 7/10

Movie of the Week - Children of Men

This week’s movie is Children of Men (2006).

The sci-fi dystopian action drama is about Theo Faron, a former activist living in 2027 Britain, a world in which women are no longer able to give birth, humanity is slowly going extinct. However when an underground group discovers a pregnant illegal immigrant, Theo makes it his mission to take her safely to a sanctuary at sea, where scientists can hopefully save humankind. The film is directed by Alfonso Cuaron (who, might I say, is awesome – his must-sees include Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Solo Con Tu Pareja). The film has an incredible crew with a score by John Tavener (who is considered by many to be the composer of his generation, and this is only one of three scores he has done for films), cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki (who work on the film – the long takes and active camera – is astonishing, the best of the year in my opinion and among the best of the decade) and production design from Jim Clay and Geoffrey Kirkland. The cast is also really good starring Clive Owen and featuring supporting work from Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Charlie Hunnam, Danny Huston, and Peter Mullan. What makes the film great is Cuaron’s directing and the camera and lighting work by Lubezki. There are two long takes in the film that blow me away every time I watch them. The dystopian world Cuaron creates and its characters (based on the novel by P.D. James) are enthralling and fascinating. The movie, while an action film, is able to both be thrilling and emotionally connect with viewers. It is a must for cinema fans. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and to rent

Movie of the Week - The Hours

This week’s movie is The Hours (2002).

The film (based on Michael Cunningham’s novel) is about how the novel “Mrs. Dalloway” by Virginia Woolf affects three generations of women: Virginia Woolf writing the novel, a woman in the 50s’ reading the novel, and a woman in the present who seems to personify Mrs. Dalloway herself. The film is headlined by a brilliant cast including: Nicole Kidman (who won an Oscar for her performance), Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, Stephen Dillane, Ed Harris, Claire Danes, John C. Reilly, Jeff Daniels, and Toni Collette. And behind the camera is an equally talented group: Stephen Daldry’s wonderful direction, Seamus McGarvey’s pitch on lighting in each period to compliment Maria Djurkovic’s production design, David Hare’s writing allowing the actors to come alive in their performances, and Philip Glass’ haunting score. What makes the film great is not only all the talent, but that it all works together to make a stunning film. Daldry’s work is so engrossing at times that it makes the viewer (or maybe just me) nervous to see what will happen – the viewer becomes completely emotionally vested in the film. In a year with a lot of great films, The Hours was certainly one of the best. Check out the trailer.

The Hours [DVD]

A Single Man (2009) – Review

A Single Man is a very stylized, if not personal, film encompassing both beauty and tragedy (a bit like American Beauty, tonally, in its fixation with certain elements) for director Tom Ford. Taking place in the 1960s, the film is shot on a very grainy stock to look like it was made during the period in which it takes place. This stylistic choice makes the film feel grittier seemingly emphasizing the drama on the screen in sort of a subconscious way, while fully immersing the viewer in the time period (which may not be critical to the story, but certainly projects, along with the production design, an intended swagger of both director and Colin Firth’s character (George) on screen). There are a number of almost avant-garde moments in the film that recur throughout: 1) the fascination with the eye, shown mostly in an extreme close-up, 2) an enchantment with youth, shown notably in slow motion tracking shots profiling a neighbor’s young daughter, and 3) the varying degree of color saturation reflecting the mood of the main character. The film as a whole seems to be a deliberation on whether the past, present or future determines the current state of a person. George and Julianne Moore’s character (Charley) linger on the past as their source of happiness – or being that their happiness existed solely in the past, their present is barely tolerable, if even bearable at all. George is so convinced that his life is meaningless in the present that the future is not worth seeing. The film takes place over the stretch of a day; flashbacks intercut the present to tell the full narrative – why the past was so much better. As the day goes on, George seems to be looking for happiness or beauty in the world, something to keep him in the present. When the potential for beauty or happiness or whatever he is looking for comes over him, the film becomes bright and full of color and George or director Ford focuses in on the subject of that beauty (as shown by the close ups of the eye), maybe looking for the source or a connection – eyes are the window to the souls (or so we are told) and they are the main source of human connection and George is so desperate for a connection in the present that he looks intently for it, blocking out everything else and then it is gone, the film becomes desaturated and the color fades away and he continues on with his day. And in this way the film also feels a bit like a Jim Jarmusch film – George going from one encounter to the next, each building upon the last. The fixation George has on the past also extends to youth and innocence. He seems to also linger (as seen in the tracking shots of the neighbor girl) on the element of innocence, something not yet corrupted in the world. A world in which he feels detached from both do to his overall sadness at the death of his partner (for lack of a better word) and the alienation of being a gay man in the era that the film takes place in. He seems to only be saved by the combination of innocence and beauty – as Nicholas Hoult’s Kenny appears to him as something almost pure. Kenny is not afraid in a world in which fear is barring down (think of 1960s cold war America) and looks not to the future or the past, but to the present for happiness, which has a literal and figuratively cleansing effect on George, allowing him to once again feel happiness. The film also has a lot of charm and sharp wit (great joke with Lee Pace) – mostly stemming from George, as his character almost oozes style and allure, which is a great feat being that the character is completely engulfed in debilitating sadness. Tom Ford has emerged with his debut as a fantastically visual and stylistic director. His work here is wonderful to behold as each frame, from the film stock and lighting/post-production work (DP Eduardo Grau’s work also deserves the credit here) to the production design and wardrobe, is meticulously arranged, like a painter filling his canvas, to stimA Single Man is a very stylized, if not personal, film encompassing both beauty and tragedy (a bit like American Beauty, tonally, in its fixation with certain elements) for director Tom Ford. Taking place in the 1960s, the film is shot on a very grainy stock to look like it was made during the period in which it takes place. This stylistic choice makes the film feel grittier seemingly emphasizing the drama on the screen in sort of a subconscious way, while fully immersing the viewer in the time period (which may not be critical to the story, but certainly projects, along with the production design, an intended swagger of both director and Colin Firth’s character (George) on screen). There are a number of almost avant-garde moments in the film that recur throughout: 1) the fascination with the eye, shown mostly in an extreme close-up, 2) an enchantment with youth, shown notably in slow motion tracking shots profiling a neighbor’s young daughter, and 3) the varying degree of color saturation reflecting the mood of the main character. The film as a whole seems to be a deliberation on whether the past, present or future determines the current state of a person. George and Julianne Moore’s character (Charley) linger on the past as their source of happiness – or being that their happiness existed solely in the past, their present is barely tolerable, if even bearable at all. George is so convinced that his life is meaningless in the present that the future is not worth seeing. The film takes place over the stretch of a day; flashbacks intercut the present to tell the full narrative – why the past was so much better. As the day goes on, George seems to be looking for happiness or beauty in the world, something to keep him in the present. When the potential for beauty or happiness or whatever he is looking for comes over him, the film becomes bright and full of color and George or director Ford focuses in on the subject of that beauty (as shown by the close ups of the eye), maybe looking for the source or a connection – eyes are the window to the souls (or so we are told) and they are the main source of human connection and George is so desperate for a connection in the present that he looks intently for it, blocking out everything else and then it is gone, the film becomes desaturated and the color fades away and he continues on with his day. And in this way the film also feels a bit like a Jim Jarmusch film – George going from one encounter to the next, each building upon the last. The fixation George has on the past also extends to youth and innocence. He seems to also linger (as seen in the tracking shots of the neighbor girl) on the element of innocence, something not yet corrupted in the world. A world in which he feels detached from both do to his overall sadness at the death of his partner (for lack of a better word) and the alienation of being a gay man in the era that the film takes place in. He seems to only be saved by the combination of innocence and beauty – as Nicholas Hoult’s Kenny appears to him as something almost pure. Kenny is not afraid in a world in which fear is barring down (think of 1960s cold war America) and looks not to the future or the past, but to the present for happiness, which has a literal and figuratively cleansing effect on George, allowing him to once again feel happiness. The film also has a lot of charm and sharp wit (great joke with Lee Pace) – mostly stemming from George, as his character almost oozes style and allure, which is a great feat being that the character is completely engulfed in debilitating sadness. Tom Ford has emerged with his debut as a fantastically visual and stylistic director. His work here is wonderful to behold as each frame, from the film stock and lighting/post-production work (DP Eduardo Grau’s work also deserves the credit here) to the production design and wardrobe, is meticulously arranged, like a painter filling his canvas, to stimulate and evoke specific emotion from the viewer. He has also succeeded here with his narrative storytelling and garnering fine performances for his actors. The film flows well, and while at times gets hung up on the stylistic, sort of whimsical aspects of the film, it still play fluidly, and certainly captivates the viewer. The cast as a whole is quite good, most actors having limited work to do, but even in their smaller bits they do fine work. Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult are strong in their supporting roles, but the film belongs to Colin Firth. He is simply magnificent. A Single Man is overall visually stunning, and dramatically engrossing. 8/10ulate and evoke specific emotion from the viewer. He has also succeeded here with his narrative storytelling and garnering fine performances for his actors. The film flows well, and while at times gets hung up on the stylistic, sort of whimsical aspects of the film, it still play fluidly, and certainly captivates the viewer. The cast as a whole is quite good, most actors having limited work to do, but even in their smaller bits they do fine work. Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult are strong in their supporting roles, but the film belongs to Colin Firth. He is simply magnificent. A Single Man is overall visually stunning, and dramatically engrossing. 8/10

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]