Movie of the Week – Adaptation.

This week’s movie: Adaptation. (2002)

Acclaimed screenwriter Charlie Kaufman is hired to adapt the novel The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean. The trouble is – he is having a very difficult time finding the story he wants to tell. He begins to snoop into the life of the book’s author for clues only to find himself pulled into a whole ordeal. And, the make matters worse, his nincompoop brother, Donald, has decided to write a terrible screenplay on a whim, but seems to be receiving praise from everyone around him, making Charlie’s stress and frustration with his own failings all the more unbearable.

The director-writer team of Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman earned a ton of praise for their film Being John Malkovich, leading expectations to be incredibly high for Adaptation. Jonze brings his group of collaborators back with him again, including: composer Carter Burwell, cinematographer Lance Acord, and production designer K.K. Barrett.

The cast is fantastic, starring Nicolas Cage as Charlie and Donald Kaufman (giving maybe his best performance of his career – perfectly tapping into his own madness in a very positive and beneficial way). Tilda Swinton, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper (who won an Oscar for his work), Jim Beaver, Cara Seymour, Judy Greer, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ron Livingston, and Brian Cox feature in support.

The film is insane. Being John Malkovich is very ambitious and different (as are Kaufman’s other projects Human Nature, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Synecdoche, New York), but Adaptation. is insane. Just watch the film – but continue reading if you do not mind some spoilers. Kaufman sets out to actually adapt Orlean’s book about orchids, but ends up writing himself into the story along with his fictional brother (a brother that the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences also nominated for best writing). Kaufman also turns the film into some kind of crazy thriller, filled with sex and drugs. It is a book about flowers that becomes an over the top Hollywood action film (of sorts) – utter madness. Jonze delivers fantastic directing and gets brilliant performances from his cast. This is one of the best and most interesting films of the last decade.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

LeapBackBlog 2013 Film Awards – Part 3: Directors

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

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 2: Supporting Performances

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

The Coen Brothers – Inside Llewyn Davis

The Coen Brothers have essentially been making films for three decades, amassing a fervent cult following and a firm place among the top American (if not among all filmmakers in cinema history) auteurs. With Inside Llewyn Davis they again show off their talent for making films that center around antiheroes, as Llewyn Davis is not a nice person and probably not a good man. Yet, the audience is asked to and does feel sympathy for him. They are drawn in by his art, excusing the man. This simple exercise speaks profoundly to how art is treated by people across time and culture. Man is deeply flawed and often very ugly (not physically, but morally or spiritually or whatever you want to call it – people often seem to deviate to the darkside when left to their own devices or put in a position of power or control); and yet art is strikingly beautiful and moving. It is humanity’s light in the darkness, our legacy of achievement amidst the devastation and cruelty. The Brothers take this theme and weave it into a circular story about a man who is just trying to make a career out of his music, but is having a real tough time. Plus, as is typical of all their films, the Coen Brothers again showcase their impeccable skill and eye for genuinely stunning aesthetics.

Alfonso Cuaron – Gravity

Gravity is in many ways 2013’s most impressive film – certainly from a cinematic spectacle perspective. It is a momentously thrilling and involving experience that grabs the audience and never lets them go until its conclusion. It is riveting. However, the film turning out as fantastically brilliant as it has was completely dependent on the work of auteur Alfonso Cuaron, who worked for three-plus years to get everything right. Famously, Cuaron is not a fan of 3D (similarly to most top directors); and thus for him to make a film to be primarily seen in 3D, it had to look perfect. Cuaron creates the best 3D audiences have ever seen, in terms of both the overall cinematic experience and technical quality. And that is just the 3D! Cuaron also needed to create a realistic feeling zero-g environment, which he achieved working with master puppeteers (along with a fabulous performance from Sandra Bullock). Gravity is in some ways an even bigger technical achievement than it is a piece of great narrative cinema (though, it is that too). This was unquestionably the most difficult film to make for a director, and the result of all Cuaron’s work is so very satisfying. There was no better cinema-going experience in 2013 than Gravity.

Spike Jonze – her

Based on the premise of Her alone, the film could have turned out many ways, seemingly all of which end up in a film that is laughable, silly, and probably cheesy. This could have been a generic horror film in which Samantha, jilted by Theodore, becomes like Skynet and tries to destroy him, realizing humans are inferior beings. Or, this could have been a kooky romantic comedy that somehow ends with Samantha’s consciousness transported into a cyborg or even a brain-dead human woman, thereby giving Theodore the complete package. But in Spike Jonze’s hands, Her is a narrative about love and relationships in the modern world. It is a film about connection or lack of connection. It is a film about how in a way technology has created a culture of self-inflicted isolation and loneliness. But chiefly, Jonze makes a film that is almost universally relatable, as it hits on all the emotional moments of new relationships – how they are amazing and beautiful in the beginning and how they can fall apart simply through the organic growth of the people in them. The film resonates deeply because it is very honest in its approach to its handling of emotions. There is no manipulation or falling back on clichés to convey information. Jonze has simply created a beautiful, funny, and kind of sad film about modern love (and in this way, the film is a bit like the Before Sunrise series, which culminated in this year’s Before Midnight).

Steve McQueen – 12 Years a Slave

It is safe to call Steve McQueen an auteur filmmaker. Starting with the brilliant films Hunger and Shame, McQueen has promoted himself as one of cinema’s great new talents through his work, whose style is specific and powerful. 12 Years a Slave is his most commercially accessible film, even though it is emotional intense and draining. It is a work that gets right at the heart of slavery when so many other films and TV miniseries have merely nipped around it. It is immense and cathartic. It is deeply sad and yet uplifting. McQueen is a director who is unafraid in his approach, lingering when many others would flinch and cut away – there is a haunting shot in the film of Solomon Northrup hung from a tree by the neck, his feet barely touching the ground allowing him to just grasp to life. McQueen holds on this shot for a long time, as life carries on around Solomon as if this is nothing out of the ordinary, all the while Solomon struggles to stay alive. This one, long uncomfortable shot in a way is a summary of slavery – an entire people subjected to inhumane torture while the world goes about its business unconcerned and unhelping, and even worse accustom to this sort of treatment of a supposed ‘lessor’ people. McQueen has made a film transcends slavery to become about not just one person’s struggle or one people’s struggle, but about all peoples’ struggle in a world that is still dominated by those that would oppress. It is an important and meaningful work, and a masterfully made piece of cinema.

Martin Scorsese – The Wolf of Wall Street

With The Wolf of Wall Street, Martin Scorsese has made a film that works in a very interesting manner. Primarily, it is an insanely fun and wild exposé, detailing the sheer and unbridled greed and moral ambiguity of the typical high-powered Wall Street broker. Scorsese invites his viewers to both feel distain for these characters and secretly (or not so secretly) a jealous admiration. This is a film that asks the viewers to look at their own morals. Do we as viewers find these people deplorable or are we envious – probably somewhere in-between. Scorsese shows us the American Dream fully realized, only warped and corrupted from what we hold as the ideal. The Wolf of Wall Street is a wondrous achievement, and in my opinion Scorsese’s best since Goodfellas. It is also worth noting that Scorsese shows his flair for getting fantastic performances from his actors (something we all knew) and his surprising talent for comedy (something we did not know).

her (2013) – Review

Review: Her is a fascinating and aesthetically compelling look at loneliness in the age of modern relationships. The film is about Theodore Twombly, a writer who has recently split-up with his wife and companion since childhood (seemingly not by his choice). Theodore is stuck in the past, the good and the bad memories haunt him and he is unable to move forward, transfixed in a stupor of loneliness and despair in a world that seems closed off. That is until he installs a new intelligent and aware operating system, which names itself Samantha. Theodore finds that he has a real connection and affection for Samantha, and even thinks he might be falling in love with her. But is it just another excuse for him to continue to isolate himself from what is happening outside in the world of actual physical people? The film is set in Los Angeles in the near future.

The concept behind Her is a bit weird – a man who falls in love with his OS. But writer-director Spike Jonze wins the audience over by making his lead character Theodore very relatable and by using the concept as a way to explore the transformation of modern culture, including modern relationships. That is not to say that the film does not exhibit very quirky moments and characters, as it does – because, after all, it is still a film by Jonze, a champion of the aesthetically interesting and conceptually strange.

The look of the film is fantastic. Things more or less feel similar to today, just a bit more compartmentalized with LA (doubled at times by Shanghai’s Pudong district) looking more congested (if that is possible) and featuring a lot more towers, interesting architecture, and more colorful displays and lights (LA becoming more like an Asian metropolis similar to Pudong or Tokyo).  People are often alone in the film, engaged with their electronic devices. Yet there are still people conversing with other people in public as well; it is not a society that has completely become modular, but it certainly seems to be trending that way.

With the advent of this new advanced intelligence and awareness in the OS, people find that they can have full experiences (be it friendship or on a deeper emotional level) without interacting with real people. It is a logical next step in a culture that hires third parties to compose personal correspondence for them (the job Theodore has – he writes letters for people), a culture that is constantly online, whose main method of communication involves technology, a culture that is not too far removed from our own. Already, we interact socially online to such an extent that real life contact is seemingly becoming a secondary activity, reserved only for specific occasions and activities or a particular few people. We are content to communicate via technology, often without the experience of actual human interaction (i.e. sending text messages instead of physically talking to someone in person or on the phone). Convenience has become paramount, overshadowing other forms of interaction. Isolation is also in many ways easier and less stressful. There are so many expectations when one ventures into the world. Isolation and technology offer a protective shield.

Thus, in our world, our culture is it not impossible to believe that the next step involves people engaging in meaningful relationships with objects that emulate human emotion and for all intents and purposes can imitate to the full extent possible the same experience that people can have relationship wise through technology (i.e. conversations via phone, text, email, et al.). If this is possible, what is the difference between engaging emotionally with a real person and software if the interaction is the same? In this way, Jonze makes Her and Theodore’s relationship with Samantha feel real and emotionally vital. This scenario, while maybe conceptually strange, is in fact very believable in context; plus, the audience actually cares about not only Theodore but also Samantha. She might as well be real because her personality and emotions sure seem to be.

And yet, Jonze seems to be making a clear statement with the film that we as a culture have become too dependent on technology as a means of social interaction. The film is completely respectful to Samantha, treating her as an entity just as entitled to existence as Theodore, but it seems to have an overall negative opinion of humanity allowing society to become a grouping of isolated individuals who purposely cut themselves off from the physical social world. Jonze does not like that print is dead. That physical music (like records) is a novelty. That a beach crowded with people actually features very few people who are in large to moderate social groups. He does not like that we all walk around glued to our phones or with earbuds thereby closing ourselves off from those around us. In this way, the film is actually really sad.

Theodore is extremely lonely, almost cripplingly so. He is so affected by his breakup with Catherine (his wife) that he just cannot imagine jumping into another real physical relationship. There is a gloomy cloud that follows him around (despite his rather bright wardrobe choices). He is just a sad individual, and to some extent has every right to be.  It is difficult to lose what you believe is everything you ever wanted, to lose the person you thought was everything you needed. In this way, Theodore is very relatable for the audience. We have all been there (to varying degrees). Heartbreak is a powerful emotional experience, one that often holds us back. We can recognize ourselves in Theodore – his sadness, his loneliness, his guarded hope that maybe one day he will be happy again, and his fear of being hurt again. Samantha too engages us. She too wins us over with her spunkiness and charm, her wonder, joy, and excitement for life. It is infectious, because for us life has become mundane and tedious (maybe not all the time, but enough that we are drawn in by visceral passion).

But, Jonze’s argument against what our culture has becomes starts to become more and more apparent as Theodore’s relationship with Samantha develops and changes. Humans need physical interaction. It is a vital part of our ability to experience life and emotions fully. We are so lonely and life has become so tedious because this physical interaction (and not just random meaningless sex) is a necessary component and it is missing. We need to experience the world and not just look at pictures; we need to have things in our hands to fully engage in the experience (be it reading an actual book, playing an actual sport or game, taking the record out of its sleeve and putting on the player) rather than just looking at the same screen all day. We need to do these activities with other people who are there in person and not just avatars online, because at that point does it even matter if they are real or not.

Her works because it is touching and emotionally captivating, and to some extent a rallying call to get out there and live our lives. We care about these characters and see ourselves in them (our own hopes, dreams, insecurities, and pain). And on top of all that, Jonze presents a world that is vibrant with aesthetically alluring sights and sounds. The film is a masterwork of style, narrative, and emotional resonance.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Spike Jonze is known for his catalogue of great and interesting music videos (including The Breeders’ Cannonball, Weezer’s Buddy Holly, the Beastie Boys’ Sabotage, Fatboy Slim’s Weapon of Choice, and Kanye West’s Flashing Lights). Jonze has also made some of the most creatively striking and eccentric commercial films. His first two, collaborating with writer Charlie Kaufman, are both great: Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. His third was the uneven adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. While aesthetically quite good, it just does not work once Max is immersed in his imaginary world where base emotions rule. With Her, Jonze has made his best film to date. It is just as aesthetically dynamic and interesting as anything he has made, but where it really succeeds is in its ability to capture and really speak to both the plague of social technology that is actually making mankind antisocial and the emotional consequences that have arisen as a result (chiefly an unshakable collective loneliness). I also really like Jonze’s creative imagining of Theodore’s interaction with others (both human and software) online. The sex chat room scene is hilarious and the Alien Child in the game is equally hysterical. Despite the film having a deep sadness to it, I enjoy that Jonze still infuses it with humor and a sense of hope for the future.

Across the board the film is among this year’s best aesthetically speaking. Arcade Fire’s (working with Owen Pallett and Karen O as well) score is fantastic. It perfectly captures the emotional tone of the film, while also fitting the stylistic look as well. Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography is exceptional. The colors are radiant, yet the sky seems to have solemn tone (probably because both LA and Shanghai have a ton of pollution that sort of just hangs in the air) creating a striking juxtaposition.  K.K. Barrett’s production design is really the standout technical achievement, however. His work too is mostly features a very subdued color pallet, which allows Theodore to really pop (with his red shirts). The overall set design is phenomenal as well (I wish Theodore’s flat was my own). The whole look feels very artistic and specific to the narrative and tone.

The cast too is wonderful. Portia Doubleday, Kristen Wiig (in a voice-role), and especially Olivia Wilde are great in small supporting roles. Chris Pratt is also fantastic and hilarious in a small supporting role. He just brings so much energy and charisma even with a tiny amount of screen time. The same can be said for Rooney Mara. She is mesmerizing as Catherine, even though she is mostly featured in flashbacks and has little screen time. She is able to convey so much in so little time, and her work is paramount to fully understanding Theodore. She is brilliant. Amy Adams just seems to be a chameleon this year. From her work in Man of Steel and American Hustle to her work in this, she plays completely different, yet all engaging, characters. Here, she plays Theodore’s friend Amy, a game designer who (of course) is a little quirky but feels alive and vital (she is not just the typical pixie dream girl). She is Theodore’s connection to humanity. Scarlett Johansson voices Samantha, giving her so much life and substance that the audience completely forgets that she is nothing more than hyper intelligent software – she is alive as far as the audience (and Theodore) is concerned. It is quite a feat considering that she gave her whole performance in a vocal booth without the interaction of the other actors. Joaquin Phoenix too is excellent as Theodore. He is able to emote so much, the audience can feel everything he feels. He is also able to make Theodore a complex character. He is primarily sad and lonely, but there is much more going on as he struggles with past scares/joys and future hopes/fears. It is among 2013’s best leading performances.

Summary & score: Her is a romance unlike any other conceptually, but through the skill of Spike Jonze and his cast it is able to perfectly capture the modern human condition in our culture of social isolation. 9/10

At the Movies – January 2014 – Part 3: Most Anticipated Films

Must-See of the Month:

Her (Spike Jonze) – Romance Drama – Jan 10

Plot Summary: Writer Theodore is lonely following his divorce. However, he finds that he is drawn to his new computer operating system Samantha – maybe even to the point of wanting to be in a relationship. Filmmakers: Writer-director Spike Jonze makes interesting and unique films. Her is his fourth feature, following Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Where the Wild Things Are. His first two are fantastic, succeeding on his partnership with writer Charlie Kaufman. But Where the Wild Things Are, while visually very engaging, just did not work. Her looks like a return to form. Jonze is working with brilliant cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) and frequent collaborator production designer K.K. Barrett (who has worked on all of Jonze’s films). Cast: The film stars Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson (in purely a voice-only role, as she voices Samantha). Amy Adams, Olivia Wilde, Rooney Mara, Chris Pratt, and Portia Doubleday feature in support. Expectations: Her looks very quirky, like all of Spike Jonze’s films do. And like Being John Malkovich and Adaptation., it seems to be performance/character driven, which is good. It has a great cast – it is likely that Joaquin Phoenix and especially Scarlett Johansson could get nominations come awards season. Overall, while on the festival circuit, the film has played to critical praise. Like Inside Llewyn Davis, this is probably not going to be for everyone, but fans of Jonze and more unique films should really enjoy it. Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009) - Review

Where the Wild Things Are is ambitious if anything - director Spike Jonze completely commits himself to the world, to the story of an adventure to a land inhabited by the fears and hopes of a boy dealing with growing up and all around him changing. The cinematography of Lance Acord is really the highlight of the film. His use of natural light and hand-held camera project not only the subjects, but the world as well, in a radiant spectrum encapsulating the emotion of the characters. And for that matter, the entire production team has done a fine job throughout. The collaboration between Carter Burwell and Karen O works well at times and not as well at others, but does overall capture the spirit of the piece. And yet, with everything so well crafted, the film is ultimately recklessly uneven, almost collapsing upon itself in its mission of authenticity. The film is split into two worlds: the real and the imaginary, and yet they parallel one and other both thematically and in visual stylization. The real world is composed of what Max (the main character) must deal with externally as his world changes, while the imaginary world deals with his internal emotions. Jonze has crafted a genuinely splendid film inhabiting the real world. The relationships between characters feel pure, especially that between mother and son. In the imaginary world, Jonze takes an unflinching look at almost raw emotion and it feels tedious, strenuous, and while at times fun or hopeful, the sheer dark energy of the characters and visual expression cause the viewer to disconnect from the experience, which is only helped along by the narrative structure not nearly being tight enough. As opposed to the real world, the imaginary world goes on too long at parts and is not paced in such a way to make it accessible to the viewer, and maybe that is the point, but it does not create that of an enjoyable experience. Regardless of content, films must be at the every least approachable for the intended audience, and the abrupt unyielding look into base emotions certainly does not harvest the trust of the younger audience, nor does the narrative structure make the film all it should be, what the wonderful production work should allow it to be, and so it falters under its own mission statement in a sense (the film's back story includes the studio interfering with Jonze's production for years, re-shoots, re-designs of concepts, and generally when productions are delayed and meddled with, they do not turn out well, to what extent Warner Bros hindered is unknown, and to what end is unknown, but notwithstanding, it is not a good thing for a production to go through conflicts of creative differences). The voice-cast deliver their lines just right within the stylistic choice for the world, which is to say, they feel real. Catherine Keener is fantastic in her small role as the mother and Max Records is perfectly adept in quite a weighty role as Max. Jonze should both be commended and condemned in his direction. His choices create a wondrous adaptation that fundamentally fails to work. 5/10