Spaces In My Mind

Oscar Predictions / Those Who Deserve And Those Who Get: 2010 Edition

2011-02-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

The Academy Awards, which will recognize quality in films from 2010, are only a couple of days away. And as always, there will be a disconnect between those who deserve to win and those who do win. The granddaddy of film awards has always been political, and how can it not. So, there isn't much point in getting in a huff about those that made the cut, and those that go on to win. Yes we all have our favorites, and yes a win can mean a lot for a Hollywood career. But after a point, it seems silly to get worked up about the awards; there are more critical things in the world to lose sleep over. So using minimal ink, and following a tradition from last year, here are my predictions for the wins this year in the major categories.

BEST PICTURE
Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King’s Speech

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter’s Bone

At year’s end, it appeared that there was only one dog in this fight, as The Social Network was lapping up the top prize in one award ceremony after another. And then the inevitable fatigue set in, and in the past few weeks, The King’s Speech got the tail-wind to forge ahead and has been sweeping the awards shows. The conventional wisdom therefore is that The King’s Speech will win the top Oscar. But like in the remarkably similar race from last year (remember the see-sawing between Avatar and The Hurt Locker) I have a suspicion that staunch defenders of The Social Network (I am not one of them) may come out en masse to show their support for their film. So this category is not a done deal yet in my books.

Who should win: 127 Hours

Who will win: The King’s Speech

BEST DIRECTING
Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky

The Fighter, David O. Russell

The King’s Speech, Tom Hooper

The Social Network, David Fincher

True Grit, Joel and Ethan Coen

The Coens have been recognized in this category too recently. The Fighter and Black Swan just do not have that much support in the big (Best Film, Best Director) categories. Suspecting that The King’s Speech will clean out most of the categories, I have a feeling voters will want to grant an acknowledgment for the other film that was leading up until now. And I suspect this will translate to a win for David Fincher.

Who will win: David Fincher, The Social Network

Who should win: Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE, MALE
Javier Bardem, Biutiful

Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

James Franco, 127 Hours

To win the trophy in the Leading Role category, it appears that two conditions need to be met. One needs to be nominated for doing a good job that year. And more importantly one needs to have reached that undefinable critical mass in public opinion, when it is generally acknowledged that it is time for the person to win the award. Sometimes this happens relatively quickly in a career (Halle Berry, Adrien Brody) and sometimes it takes decades (Jeff Bridges). Be that the situation, nobody can deny that Colin Forth has gained that elusive critical mass. He was nominated for his wonderfully restrained performance in A Single Man last year. And here he is again, with a high level of difficulty role in The King’s Speech. The others just don’t have the right alignment of recognition and critical mass to pull off this win.

Who will win: Colin Firth

Who should win: Colin Firth (with a tip of the hat to James Franco. Of course if it were up to me, Ryan Reynolds or Ryan Gosling would be taking home the prize, but don’t get me started)

BEST ACTOR, LEADING ROLE, FEMALE

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone

Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Bening did the best job of these five in my books, and has been denied the prize in the past despite multiple nominations. It would seem unusually cruel to not hand the award to her yet again. But Natalie Portman has that elusive critical mass right now, where everyone just believes that its her time to win. And win she will.

Who will win: Natalie Portman

Who should win: Annette Bening (with a shout out to Michelle Williams).

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE, MALE

Christian Bale, The Fighter

John Hawkes, Winter’s Bone

Jeremy Renner, The Town

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

The Supporting Role categories are refreshingly free from the critical mass requirement, and hence we often see surprise winners in this category (because nobody expects the winners in this category to have consistently paid their dues over a long period of time). The fight here, and it is a tight one, will be between Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush. I have to concede that both have put in frankly amazing performances. Many expect Geoffrey Rush to pull through to the podium on the heels of general goodwill for The King’s Speech. But I would not put it past Bale to finally get recognition from Hollywood. This is the closest race amongst all the categories.

Who will win: Geoffrey Rush

Who should win: Mark Ruffalo

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING ROLE, FEMALE

Amy Adams, The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

This is the one category that has the most uncertainty. Melissa Leo had an early lead, but got bad press of late due to some goofy ads she placed on behalf of herself in contention for this prize. Jacki Weaver is too unknown. And Helena Bonham Carter and Amy Adams, while putting in solid performances, just did not have that show-stopper moment in either of their films. Hence, overall I believe this prize may actually fall in the very young, (but not undeserving) hands of Hailee Steinfeld.

Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld

Who should win: I don’t particularly have a dog in this race (amongst those nominated), but if I was forced to choose, I would go with Melissa Leo.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

How To Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

I am not going to belabor my minority opinion that How To Train Your Dragon was a superior film than Toy Story 3. And I have not yet seen The Illusionist. But this is the one sure lock amongst all categories: the Pixar folks are going home happy on Oscar night

Who will win: Toy Story 3

Who should win: How To Train Your Dragon (unless The Illusionist wows me even more)

BEST WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

127 Hours

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter’s Bone

All of the nominated films had amazing writing, no question about it. But I believe the academy will not drop the ball on this one, and will nominate the one script that has had people talking for months: Aaron Sorkin for his fast, smart and incisive script for The Social Network. This prize is Sorkin’s to lose.

Who will win: The Social Network

Who should win: The Social Network

BEST WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

Another Year

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King’s Speech

This is a tough one to predict. If The King’s Speech pulls a complete sweep, then it is likely it will grab the prize here too (and I would not be one to begrudge it). I am wondering though if those riled by Christopher Nolan being denied a directing nomination, may choose to award his film with a prize here instead. I am going to go on a whim here and predict that Inception will pull an upset win.

Who will win: Inception

Who should win: The Kids Are All Right, with a pat on the back to Another Year.

Best of 2010: Performances

2011-02-20T20:21:00.000-08:00

Here are film actors who made their mark in 2010, and then some. The ones in bold are those that knocked my socks off; the rest are listed alphabetically.

Actor, Male

Colin Firth, The King’s Speech

Ryan Reynolds, Buried

Jim Carrey, I Love You, Phillip Morris

James Franco, 127 Hours

Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine

Actor, Female

Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right

Naomi Watts, Mother and Child

Annette Bening, Mother and Child

Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right

Lesley Manville, Another Year

Naomi Watts, Fair Game

Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Supporting Actor, Male

Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech

Christian Bale, The Fighter
Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Andrew Garfield, The Social Network

Sean Penn, Fair Game

Supporting Actor, Female

Mila Kunis, Black Swan

Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech

Rebecca Hall, The Town

Emily Mortimer, City Island

Ruth Sheen, Another Year

Best of 2010: Oddities

2011-02-20T19:36:00.000-08:00

Best opening credits: 127 Hours

Best ending: Buried

Best remake: Let Me In (based on Let The Right One In)

Worst remake: Clash of The Titans

Most sorry to see end: City Island
Most happy to see end: Hot Tub Time Machine

Best film seen by no one: Buried

Best film poster: The Social Network, Buried

Best comic book adaptation: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Worst comic book adaption: The Last Airbender

Most unexpectedly good: Unstoppable

Most unexpectedly awful: The Tourist

Most overcooked: Shutter Island
Most original: Dogtooth

Most universally reviled: Sex and The City-2

Most universally adored/overrated: The Social Network

Glen Beck's worst nightmare: I Love You Phillip Morris 

Most ink spent on a film: Inception

For shame, Hollywood: Skyline

Best Clueless homage: Easy A

Most judicious use of nudity: Mother and Child

Least judicious use of nudity (or You look great naked, now go put on some clothes please): Love and Other Drugs

Most surprising lack of nudity: Black Swan

Sexiest sexagenarian: Helen Mirren in Red

Didn't I Just See You? (or Most hardworking actor): Matt Damon in Green Zone, Hereafter, Inside Job, 30 Rock, and True Grit

Most wasted talent, female: Diane Keaton in Morning Glory

Most wasted talent, male: Morgan Freeman in Red

Biggest snub, actor, male, at the Oscars: the two Ryans - Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine and Ryan Reynolds in Buried

Biggest snub, actor, female, at the Oscars: Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right, Leslie Manville in Another Year

Include immediately in Acting School curriculum: Michelle Williams/Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine

Yeah okay, the camera loves you: Angelina Jolie in Salt

Give this man some respect please: Ben Affleck for directing The Town

Best of 2010: Movies

2011-02-14T22:53:00.000-08:00

Here is my completely biased list of the ten best films of the year. I had a simple criterion for the inclusion of a film on this list. It should have, simply, moved me.

Endeared me. Provoked me. Amazed me with recognition of my own life's stumbles. Made tears escape my eyes in spite of myself. The movies on this list are those that have, in some manner, reached out and turned on some switch within me. By this yardstick then, some films fell away. So Inception is not on the list; it blew my mind but did nothing for the heart - I could not have cared less for the characters in the film. Likewise, The Social Network had better writing than any movie this year, and was sophisticated and slick, but alas, it failed to evoke what Roger Ebert calls 'elevation', that feeling when you completely connect with a film. I did with the ten films below.

1. 127 Hours Most movies would like to think that they have earned their euphoric ending; few actually do. When the protagonist in 127 Hours stumbles out of his personal hell in the last act of the film, I was shaking in my cinema chair with so much uncontrolled exhilaration. When a movie produces such a visceral, physical reaction, one has to bow to it. If you already know the premise of this film, and think you lack the nerve to see it, do not let that stop you. For a film about a man stuck in a canyon for 127 hours who finally begins to introspect his life, the movie is remarkably kinetic, made that much more frenetic by Danny Boyle's direction. Like the best films, it reflects the universe through the experience of a single person.

2. The Kids Are All Right When I was not beaming from cheek to cheek while watching this movie, I was marveling at how precisely tuned the film was to the realities of all families. The movie makes it irrelevant that the kids in the film had two mothers (instead of a mother and a father). Because it reveals how all families are the same in their universal struggles: in the way that only family members can hurt us (because who else knows us well enough to do that) and also accept us despite our considerable faults. Featuring a bravura set of performances from its five lead actors: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson, this movie has a big enough heart to find compassion for all of them. Witty, heart-breaking, sexy and clever, as far as I am concerned this film gets everything right - from start to beautifully understated finish.

3. Buried: This is the year’s best film that nobody saw. Just when you think that in the hundred plus year history of cinema, everything that can possibly be done on camera has already been done, along comes a movie that shatters that perception. Do you think that someone can make an engaging full length film that features only one individual and which never ventures out of the tight inner space of a coffin? Ladies and gentlemen, this has just been done. This film, about a man (Ryan Reynolds, in a cracker-jack performance) trapped alive in a small underground space who has to use limited resources to try and engineer his rescue, will make you forget to breathe. It takes a singular concept that is almost deceptively simple, and builds on it cleverly layer upon oppressive layer until it gets to a feverishly unbearable pitch. You are depriving yourself of one of the better cinematic experiences in quite some time by not urgently seeking out this film. This is work of breathless beauty.

4. The Town In another year, this film would have easily topped this list; it is that good. A fast-paced, tightly plotted heist movie, it has ambitions of being what few films aspire to: grand. And grand it is. In its scope, in its execution and in its emotionality. In case this sounds too high-minded, let me also say that this is the best action film of the year, featuring three amazing bank robberies that tether a wildly twisting storyline bouncing off one terrific episode after another, including an amazing piece late in the film set in the underbelly of Boston’s Wrigley stadium. And the film also makes a strong case for Ben Affleck to spend the rest of his film career behind the camera; as a director Affleck is the real thing. Underrated now, I suspect that in years to come this film will be regarded as one of the great heist films of all time.

5. How To Train Your Dragon: This film had more heart than any other this year. And I realize that I am in a singular minority when I say this, but as fine as Toy Story 3 was, the best animated film of the year was How To Train Your Dragon. For years in a row, the Pixar annual release has made it into my year end list; but not in 2010. Examine how Dragon brings home its messages (of unflinching tolerance, of giving a fair chance to a long considered enemy, of the possibility for anyone to rise to exceptional grace under pressure) with tremendous emotional clarity. The film also features the most amazing depictions of diving through the skies; the movie one-ups Avatar in this regard by utilizing likely a tenth of the budget. This film just spoke to me, at every level. And the delirious sense of joy it left me with has stuck with me more than six months after seeing the movie.

6. Hereafter This film is not on anybody’s list of best movies, but I found it a deeply moving meditation. On finding closure from traumatizing events. And of the very human need to connect with others. Clint Eastwood can do no wrong as far as I am concerned; his string of fully realized and successfully executed films of mind-boggling diversity (in tone, in subject matter, in style) from the past six years, continues unabated. Eastwood chooses an uncharacteristically tempered (but ultimately right) pacing to tell the story of three geographically separated characters, each trying to deal with a personal affliction - and delivers something surprisingly complex. That this film dares to not provide all the answers is its greatest strength. There is a scene late in the film, of the interaction between two of the three principal characters that broke me down into spontaneous tears. Confirming again, Roger Ebert’s conviction that what moves us most in films is not the terribly tragic, but it is people doing good under impossible circumstances.

7. The King’s Speech This is not your father’s stuffy James-Ivory British period piece. What it is though is an instant classic. I suspect people will be watching this movie five, ten, twenty years from now. The story of the relationship between an unwilling British monarch who stutters and his unconventional Speech Therapist hardly inspires must-see ardor. But like the best narratives in any medium, this one leaves you wondering afterward as to why nobody ever thought to tell this story before. From the get go, there are little treasures to be discovered in almost every scene of this movie - when you smile in admiration at what has been achieved with just solid, hard-working, filmmaking skills. Those who find this movie conventional are really missing the point: when you have a film this good, being unconventional seems irrelevant.

8. Black Swan Like a tropical fruit left on the vine too long, this movie is gloriously, unapologetically pulpy. And what an overripe mango this is. That the film fails to fit comfortably in any genre (is it an All About Eve style ode to women clawing their way to the top? is it a psychological thriller? is it a Rocky-like celebration of the underdog? Or is it a flat out horror film even?) is its greatest asset. This movie may be a lot of things (indulgent, frustratingly non-committal, sleazy, manipulative), but one thing it is not is predictable; I loved how this film trumped my expectations at every corner, and took me on a wild ride. This is the story of a (physically and emotionally) fragile ballet dancer who after winning the highly coveted lead role in a new production of 'Swan Lake' is unable to handle the pressure of playing the dual role of the innocent white swan as well as (and particularly) the uninhibited, malevolent black swan. As she starts losing her grip on reality, so too the film starts to come unhinged. This is not for everyone, but for those seeking a trippy cinematic experience, you are in for a treat.

9. Band, Baaja, Baarat (Band! Drums! Wedding Procession!) This 2010 Indian film is a minor miracle. Disguised as a thoroughly conventional entertainer (the quintessential masala film), it subversively drives a knife through the heart of one tired convention after another. And by doing so it joins the extraordinary new wave of movies that are bringing maturity to Indian cinema. When most Indian films are so fraught with insecurity that they feel compelled to cram as much content as possible into the three hour running time, this movie aspires to be only about one thing. About the relationship between two individuals fumbling on the path to a love they are unprepared to acknowledge or handle. And what the film does with these two characters is altogether revolutionary: it allows them to be real and flawed. It allows their character arcs to get complicatedly unpredictable, growing in directions contrary to their personalities. How else to explain the highly cynical female lead with a lifelong contempt of corny, exhausted concepts of love who finds to her horror that she may have to rethink her stand. Or the male lead who has always carried a torch for the girl, but after an unexpected night of intimacy with her, cannot reconcile his feelings toward her and starts to inch away. That an Indian film even dares to consider, as a plot device, the repercussions from a relationship that unexpectedly turns physical, is cause for celebration. And what glorious alignment of brilliant writing, acting and directing. Welcome, little movie, you can walk side by side with the few others in their march toward intelligent filmmaking from the Indian subcontinent.

10. Waiting For Superman There were many fine documentaries released this year, but none that carried a stronger emotional wallop for me than this one. While making a damning case for fixing a broken educational system in America (which includes a frighteningly imbalanced wielding of power by the Teachers' Union), the movie also wisely weaves its political stand with the real life stories of five kids struggling to buck the system by winning one of a few coveted slots in better schools - available through a lottery system. That one has to rely on lottery at all for better education speaks to how far we have come from the implicitly assumed right of every American child to a good education. And the suspense the film generates from the reveal of the eventual fate of each of these kids far exceeds anything in a fictional film this year; after all only the future lives of these kids is at stake. Like the best documentaries, this one has the ability to change our world.

Honorable mention: What a great year for cinema that any of the following films could have just as easily stood proudly on best of the year lists: Blue Valentine, Fair Game, Mother and Child, City Island, Let Me In, Inside Job, Ghost Writer, Easy A, Ishqiya and True Grit.

But where's the heart, Mr Nolan?

2010-09-04T23:43:00.000-07:00

Inception is a house of cards. A dazzling house of cards, to be sure. But still, at any given moment, only a breath away from collapsing under its own terrible weight. I admired the craft in this film, I am in awe of its technical achievements and I genuflect in reverence to the originality and sheer ambition of this movie. But I have been moved more by a twenty second life-insurance commercial on television. And more intellectually engaged by the crystalline clarity of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.

Inception arrived in theaters this summer already canonized as the most important thing to happen to cinema this year.

At a time when every film steps within our perimeter of awareness with disclosure of every detail of its plot, Inception arrived on the scene with resolute opaqueness. They were not going to tell you what the film was about, and if that was going to ruin its marketing prospects, then so be it. The secrecy around the film became its marketing. I for one, was thrilled to bits. We are told by folks who create film trailers these days that people like to know exactly what they are going to see in a movie. It is the reason behind the longevity of McDonald's we are informed: people like the comfort of going to eat something whose taste is precisely known to them. This has always seemed to me like a barrel of steaming horse manure. How many times at the theater have I watched a trailer in which the entire premise of the movie, seemingly through the last act, is laid out in front of me, and I have remarked "Why don't they just screen the entire damn film while they are at it". So I was silly giddy to hear that Christopher Nolan was not putting up with any of that, and that the smallest detail of his latest film was being guarded with Fort Knox-like security. On this basis alone, I was already in awe of this film, because it seemed to have pulled off the unthinkable: creating excitement about a film, by not telling anything about it! Inception had me at hello.

I remember that only a few days before its official release, the studio allowed their marketing campaign to let it be known to the general public that the main character of the film is able to enter into the dreams of others. And even hearing about that little piece sounded to me like a violation, like being allowed to watch somebody's personal home video. Why did they have to do that, I wondered.

And then I saw the film, and the unbearable irony of it depressed me: they should have never bothered. Even if Nolan had released the full script of the film on his Facebook page a year ahead of the release, he needn't have worried: nobody would have understood it. And I say that only half-jokingly. In fact, more than a month after the film's release, there is still rampant discourse on what the various parts of the film exactly mean, and what the end signifies.

During my viewing, as I tried to keep up with the film, it appeared at many points as if I was myself grasping hands around the film to keep it from crashing down into a thousand little pieces. What lofty ambitions this script has. The sort that you know someone has spent a lifetime fine-tuning, going back to it again and again, at different points, and layering on more. The sort of master-script that has been somebody's obsession their whole life. And as my brain was trying to process it all together, the unwieldiness of it all finally got exhausting. Where the movie should have soared, taking off from what it had built so far, it instead got sticky and tangled, unable to take flight from the excessive details of the very world it had created.

M.C. Escher, Relativity, 1953

Is that world, sticky and all, impressive? Yes, of course. Would I recommend this film? In a heart-beat. Because this film has, purely from a visual and aesthetic perspective, scenes that are plainly unlike anything we have seen before on celluloid. Scenes that will make your jaw drop in amazement. The extended version of the scene shown in every preview of the film - of the street in Paris that begins to seemingly fold upon itself and then perfectly clasp (like ouroborus, the serpent swallowing its own tail) is a thing of wonderment. There is a portion in the last third of the film where things escape the laws of gravity altogether, and the choreography of the actors and objects in those scenes approaches the operatic in its grandeur. The film creates its own universe and its own language, and its own strange detached rhythm. No stranger to playing with the scale of time (since his debut film, Memento), Nolan again experiments with the spooling of time, not just linearly backward and forward, but this time also in multiple separate dimensions. There is a scene (clearly inspired by Escher's paintings that contradict rules of visual perception) of a staircase going around itself endlessly that must have been a pain to create. How can a person watch this and not be impressed?

But all this, to what avail? I am unashamed of my love of cerebral cinema. But even so, the excesses of Inception wore my mind into a state of apathy. Amidst all the mind-blowing extraordariness of the film, I found a coldness underneath, something that prevented me from caring about these characters and their brain-melting predicaments. Unable to engage my mind, or connect with my heart, the film became toward the end, grating.

And it seems a bit of a lost opportunity. Based on what I had observed in the early part of the film, I was hoping that the second half would be about endlessly clever puzzles that would need to be solved. The promise of the earlier Escherian scene of the infinitely looping staircase, had me poised to experience the sort of labyrinthine puzzles, both visual and mental, that would elevate the cleverness of the film to another level. Instead what does the last half-hour of the film entail? A standard issue chase in a snow-bound landscape in which the bad guys with guns are running after the good guys. This is the natural evolution of a film that starts with almost incomprehensible cleverness?

The cast of the film is beyond blame. After the success of The Dark Knight, when Christopher Nolan calls, most actors will drop whatever they are doing and line up to be in his film. How else to explain the three scenes in which Michael Caine shows up. Leonardo di Caprio works hard and is expectedly reliable in a role that is unsettlingly similar to his character in Shutter Island his other movie release this year. Marion Cotillard does her best to blunt the shrillness built into the part she portrays; this is after all a character given the terribly literal name of 'Mal' (as one reviewer inquired, was 'Crazy Woman' taken?). Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Cillian Murphy do not have much to chew on, but are more than capable. And Tom Hardy steps out with a career-making role. These are all actors of strong marrow.

The best analogy I can provide to my experience with Inception is a family trip I took a few years ago to visit, for the first time, the State Parks in Utah and Arizona. Upon arrival, with much anticipation, at the Grand Canyon, I was distressed to find it strangely underwhelming. Yes, it was impressive and almost unimaginably huge, but at the end of the day, only a very large pit. Certainly I could appreciate it, but as much as I tried, it failed to speak to me. Compare that to Zion National Park, our next stop, where the rock formations were so majestic, I could have heard angels singing. I am not one to routinely seek spirituality in the outdoors, but Zion, to my utter surprise became close to a religious experience. I had a similar experience with Bryce Canyon that is only a fraction of the size of the Grand Canyon. Who knows what moves us in life, what trips up hidden circuits within us to light up. But when it happens, it is one of the best things about being human. I love the movies because more than any other art form, they have a higher rate of enabling this connection within one's self that triggers a lighting up.

I realize this is lofty, but this is what I was reminded of while watching Inception. I was impressed, but left cold. Christopher Nolan, obviously one of the more talented film-makers working today, has been successful in the past with making films that have a strong emotional undertow. His last film, The Dark Knight, based on a static comic-book source (Batman) had audiences deeply invested in the outcome of as artificial a character as the Joker. That film, has scenes of crushing emotional weight; the one where the protagonist is forced to choose between saving the life of Gordon (his friend) or Rachel (his girlfriend) stings even now. It is not easy to take comic book characters and invest in them the sort of emotional ballast that devastates audiences. So this time around, why did Nolan fail to invest any emotional heft to the characters in Inception? If he had spent a portion of the energy he did on the script, to granting some sense of dimension to the characters, this would have been a stellar film. As it is, it is more than a little odd that the characters in Inception are surprisingly sporting in accepting the stunningly bizarre things happening to - and - around them. They seem to move on with the next strange twist in the plot with barely a casual shrug of the shoulders.

As Pixar has been teaching us for the past several years in a row, it is not what we see, but rather what we feel, that ultimately matters most in a film. Inception could use a pointer.

When Does An Actor Go Too Far?

2010-04-18T01:06:00.000-07:00

Have you ever watched a movie where you actually felt sorry for an actor? Not because they had the misfortune to be in a dreadful film. But because they have committed so much to their role, that they have crossed an imaginary line. It is difficult to define this line, but you know it when you see it. You know it, when you say to yourself during a film, "no matter how immersed they are in their role, no actor should have to go through this" or "no person should have to do this on camera". All good actors go the distance, giving themselves emotionally and physically to the demands of a film. But is there some such thing as going too far?

These thoughts ran through my mind as I watched the film 'Antichrist' last weekend. The film stars Charlotte Gainsbourgh, the redoubtable French actress of hardy cinematic stock (she is the daughter of actress Jane Birkin and screenwriter Serge Gainsbourgh) who has incidentally also sold a fair number of music CDs as a singer of some merit. And she is asked in this film to do things that are, frankly, unspeakable. To see her in this film is to realize, how deep and far into the woods an actor can go, following in step behind the director. Yes, we all know that the actor of gumption is meant to be an empty vessel, a blank slate, devoid of all vanity, all inhibition, and willing and able to enact whatever the director asks of him/her. But I ask this question again, is there room to place a limit on where an actor can or should go? When does an actor tell himself, I just cannot go to that place? Charlotte Gainsbourgh's scenes in this movie are so exhaustingly enervating, both emotionally and physically, that after one is done feeling sorry for her, one's regard for her bravery starts to gradually accumulate - for unequivocally demonstrating that she knows no limits as an actor. When it comes to movies, I am not weak of heart, or prone to the slightest prudery, but the extreme performances of the two lead actors in this film (Gainsbourgh and Willem Dafoe) shook me. Lars von Trier, the director of 'Antichrist' has acknowledged that he made this film during a period of extreme personal depression. But does this justify what he demanded of these actors? I believe this question lies at the crux of the polarization between avid defenders of this film and those who are outraged by it.

Charlotte Gainsbourgh in a publicity still from 'Antichrist'

The history of cinema is studded with examples of performers, male and female, who have reached that elusive ether-bound realm of acting that is immediately eternal; performances that are uniformly regarded as classic. But what of those actors who dive into the deep-end, holding hands with the director, with nary a fear of whether they would make it back to the surface? Gainsbourgh (and Dafoe's) performances in 'Antichrist' (which I would score 9 out of 10 on the 'How Far Did They Go' scale) got me to thinking about other movies where I have noticed actors going far, very far, and thought I would list them here.

Speaking of Lars von Trier, Emily Watson in another film directed by Trier, 'Breaking The Waves', also created a bold, heart-breakingly raw and honest character that remains memorable for all who have seen the movie (which announced her immediately to the world as an actor to watch out for). Her portrayal is so stark, that it is altogether exempt from the audience's judgment, and this is almost impossible to do in films. A great measure of her achievement here is that it is difficult to decide if the character she portrays is someone approximating saintliness or is simply a person who is not entirely mentally sound (I would give her a 7 on the 'How Far Did They Go' scale).

Any inquiry into the limits that actors have crossed on camera would have to consider Monica Bellucci in the French film 'Irreversible' (an easy score of 9 out of 10 on the scale). Directed by Gaspar Noe, and running backwards in time, the film begins with the gruesome consequences resulting from the very real trauma faced by a young couple, and ends with the idyllic times from when the two first met. In the middle of this film is a single seemingly unbroken 9 minute shot, where Monica Bellucci's character gets accosted in a Paris subway underpass late in the night, and gets raped and brutally beaten. Unlike other movies, the camera gets unbearably close to the violence, and by making the viewer watch this event enact in real time, makes them complicit in what is occurring on screen. I had to look away from the screen through much of this because it was simply unwatchable; this movie was labeled the most walked-out film of 2003 for good reason. That someone as well regarded as Monica Bellucci would participate in this film is a measure of how fearless an actor can be. I will not pretend to understand what sort of an experience this may be for an actor, but I have wondered if it may actually be freeing to know that you are capable of doing something so emotionally and physically extreme.

Another French film that registers high on the scale (again, a 9) is 'Ma Mere' (My Mother); it stars the dauntless Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel, both no strangers to wandering off the beaten track when it comes to acting. I will only leave you with a brief outline of the film and have you recognize why these actors belong in this discussion. The movie, based on a controversial novel, is about a young man who (after the death of his father) begins to start spending time with his mother who holds an extremely fluid opinion of morality. As he is exposed by his mother to her hedonistic lifestyle, his relationship with her and the friends she spends her time with, takes increasingly dark turns. Huppert brings dignity to a role that calls for absolute disregard to any sense of norm, and Garrel gamely goes with this movie to places that films seldom visit.

All of this would make it seem that it is only European actors who cross the line with full abandon in the name of their craft. But many American films too have asked actors for their pound of flesh and received it in more than equal measure. Christian Bale's deliriously unhinged and guileless take on materialism in the eighties, in 'American Psycho' directed by Mary Harmon, scores high (7 out of 10). Also, Bale's physical transformation in The Machinist, unseen by me, is often brought up as an example of an actor's commitment gone wild. Tom Hanks famously went through a similar physical transformation in 'Cast Away', but while his performance was outstanding in the film - he wordlessly kept viewers riveted for more than an hour in the middle of the film - his acting was too conventional, in my opinion, to qualify for being on the list of actors who have gone too far. Robert DeNiro similarly is often cited in 'Raging Bull' for his unrecognizably effective physical transformation, but again, I am not sure that I would consider that he crossed that imaginary line into going too far in that movie. So who did actually cross the line? Definitely Harvey Keitel in the Abel Ferrara directed original 'Bad Lieutenant', in which Keitel leaps anchorless into a sea of depravity. It takes courage to play someone so loathsome; repulsive is not a trait most actors seek when looking for roles (score 5 out of 10).

Amongst American female actors, Jennifer Connelly's drug-fueled, free-falling descent in 'Requiem For A Dream' sticks in the memory almost a decade after the release of the film, with the last scene of the movie defining the "no actor should have to go through this" moment (score 8 out of 10). Also, Chloe Sevigny started her career portraying dangerous/creepy lapses in early teen (mis)behavior; 'Gummo' and 'The Brown Bunny' earned plenty of notoriety, but nothing she has done surpasses the gutsy abandon with which she defined the shocking moral sting at the end of 'Kids', her first film (score 6 out of 10). Bernardo Bertolucci's 1990 film, 'The Sheltering Sky' gave Debra Winger, an uninhibited actor from the start of her career, a chance to completely unravel in portraying the despair and slowly settling insanity of the character; I recall wondering as to why Winger would allow herself to come so emotionally and physically unhinged for the sake of a movie (score 6 out of 10). Amongst more contemporary female actors, Ashley Judd in 'Bug' and Anne Hathaway in 'Havoc' (score 5 out of 10, for both) have made it abundantly clear that there is not much that they will shy from in the service of the role at hand; it is obvious that they are here for the real thing, and not to serve as Hollywood wallpaper. And how about Ewan McGregor, who seems peerless amongst contemporary male actors in being almost recklessly game in complying with pretty much any and all manner of demands from the roles he takes on. His commitment to crossing every line there is, is particularly evident in Peter Greenaway's 'The Pillow Book', where his character goes through physical and emotional turmoils of unthinkable variety (score 7 out of 10). [Greenaway, by the way, has probably made more consistently outrageous demands from his actors, than any other director].

So these are the great warriors of the cinema screen, the ones who have earned the right to say that they can do anything for their craft. Viewers sometimes see this level of extreme malleability from an actor as a lack of discipline or self-respect even; I have only great admiration for them.

I am sure there are tens of other actors who deserve mention here. That is what the comments section of the blog is for; I could use some reminding of those I have missed.

Goodbye Solo ***1/2

2010-04-15T23:12:00.000-07:00

The first scene of "Goodbye Solo" lays out the basic premise of the movie. During a routine drive, a cab driver is asked by a frequent passenger if he can book a ride ten days later to be driven to a location from which the passenger is almost assuredly planning to commit suicide.

Although there are umpteen ways that a film can be constructed from this premise (a thriller, a Hollywood weepie, or a psychological mind-bender come to mind), this movie has no interest in indulging in cinematic conventions. The film tracks the lives of these two individuals over those days, as the cab driver tries to convince the man to not go through with his plans. That is it. And while this may not make you want to rush out to rent this film (although I would urge you to), you may want to jot down the name of this movie on a piece of a paper for that day when you are in the mood for a meditative, introspective experience.

How many films have you seen where the primary relationship is between a young immigrant cabbie and a hard-lived, burnt-around-the-edges, old man? Oh, but the richness of these two characters.

This film takes an objective eye to these two individuals and does not let up. And it is the specific details which emerge that matter. The cab-driver (the titular 'Solo') is a young Senegalese man trying to make a living in small-town North Carolina. He is the sort of person who has a way with people: friendly to a fault even with strangers, guileless, alarmingly happy at all times, and capable of talking a mile a minute. As a black immigrant, if he is aware that his feet rest on the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder in America, he does not seem to mind it at all. He works his night job with honesty and humor, and is trying to support his family which includes his Mexican-American spouse and her intelligent and poised teen daughter (presumably from a prior marriage). Their first child together is on its way. Solo works in his spare time to study to qualify for becoming a flight attendant. He is pushing upward for a better life - exhausted yes, but never without a game smile on his face. So that is the cab driver, but what of the other character? The other character is somewhat of a cipher, for the audience as well as for Solo. He is a grizzled, old, Southern man, who harbors an avid aversion to human interaction. But even then, why is he giving the appearance that he is getting ready to take his own life? Is this what draws Solo to this old man, the desire to solve the mystery of what would lead a man to contemplate suicide? Or is Solo, as involved as he is with his own life, simply forced to encroach in the world of the older man to stop him from going through with his plans. The old man is as gnarled and obstinate as might be seen in a movie; alcohol and cigarettes are the closest he has to anything he is dependent on in life. Here is a man who simply wants to be left to spend his life on his own terms. Yes, he likes to go to the movies once in a while, and succumbs to the most marginal thawing when asked to spend some time with Solo's family, but beyond that, he remains confoundingly impenetrable to Solo.

This is a movie that might frustrate a particular type of viewer as a film in which nothing happens. To others, this will be one of the most unaffected, close to the ground portraits of human behavior committed to film. We seldom see this level of fidelity to the incomprehensible aspects of human nature, including what remains resolutely blurry about it, portrayed in a movie. In how far it goes, it reminded me of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" released a few years ago. While Eastwood's film is showier and more conventional in its treatment of the material, both movies deal with an uncommon relationship between two characters, one of whom learns to accede to a fundamental choice exercised by the other, as vehemently unacceptable as it seems.

I saw the depiction of the cab-driver in 'Goodbye Solo' and could not separate actor from character. This must be one of the more difficult roles to play; if it were not for the genuine warmth of this actor (Souleymane Sy Savane), the portrayal of an endlessly congenial man would slide a hundred ways into caricature, or just plain annoyance. And Red West who plays the older man, has an unquestionably weathered demeanor about him, and it appears as if he agreed to let someone film his own life. It is not faint praise to say that a movie has found lead actors who make a scripted film seem like documentary.

The film is written and directed by the thirty-something Ramin Bahrani [whose previous well-received films 'Man Push Cart' and 'Chop Shop' are unseen by me] and he appears to be influenced by italian neorealism. Described in Wikipedia as a style of film characterized by stories set amongst the poor and working class, filmed on location, frequently using nonprofessional actors, this definition could be another way to describe 'Goodbye Solo'. There is a rigorous commitment to austerity in the making of this film. It reminded me in its purity, of last year's "Wendy and Lucy", starring Michelle Williams and directed by Kelly Reichardt. If you leave conventional movie-going expectations at the door, 'Goodbye Solo' will be a wholly unique, and yes, fulfilling movie-watching experience.

Roger Ebert wrote in his review of this film that "wherever you live, when this movie opens, it will be the best film in town". Who am I to argue.

Oscar Reaction

2010-03-08T22:06:00.000-08:00

So the Oscars were handed out last night. While acknowledging a late upswing in support of The Hurt Locker, I had predicted that Avatar would win for Best Picture. And for once in my life, I am so glad to be wrong. I am thrilled that The Hurt Locker won for Best Movie of the year. A happy convergence of Those Who Deserve and Those Who Get. By jove, they got it right!

So of course, there will be those who will complain about how the Oscar voters are yet again completely out of touch with general public opinion. How the voters aways reward dark independent movies that nobody has heard of, let alone seen. How the voters are ivy-tower snoots who are only willing to grant riches to elitist, high-brow movies that Joe Public would never enjoy. And so forth. To all of those people, I have only one thing to say. Please just go watch The Hurt Locker. If the experience does not change your mind, by all means protest, but I seriously doubt you will after seeing the film.

The Hurt Locker won not because it was a war movie. Or because it was tailor-made to engage the pretentious elite. Or because there was an active movement to snub the popular vote for Avatar. It won simply because it was truly the best of the ten movies nominated this year.

And this was not a film that was made with the explicit intention to tow the intelligentsia vote. Brooks Barnes reports in the New York Times today that that "On (The Hurt Locker's) opening weekend in two theaters in New York, screenwriter, Mark Boal — now an Oscar winner — stood on street corners with his teenage nephew handing out free tickets to passersby with the idea that if they could stack the house, perhaps the theater owners would book it for another week." It struggled for its existence, and for distribution, from the start. And in less than a year, it won 'Best Picture'. If this isn't a Cinderella story I don't know what is. This was not a prestigious art-house film that came with a built-in viewer demographic. At a time when nobody wanted to spend their hard-earned ten dollars on watching a movie about the war, this film slowly built its reputation by word of mouth. Even as there has been no precedent for a commercially successful Iraq war movie in the past several years, The Hurt Locker got made because the film-makers were passionate about their story and needed to tell it. Here is a good blog entry on this topic: http://www.desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/2010/03/08/oscar-2010/

What I liked about this Oscars telecast:

The expansion of the Best Movie nominees to ten films instead of five
The verbal recognition of Best Lead Actor (Male and Female) nominees by their own colleagues and in their own words. In a way, this was like giving a prize to every nominee, to provide public acknowledgment of their work by their peers. Very classy.
The extra time spent on all four of the acting categories which involved a return to showing film clips for each of the nominees.
Sandra Bullock's acceptance speech. Few things are more endearing than graciousness, and she was very gracious. Also the acceptance speech by Michael Giacchino, who won for Best Score (for 'Up'); when most other winners spent precious time on endless names of people they would like to thank (even when the Academy now allows winners to do so in a separate acceptance speech for the press after their win), Giacchino took time to ask kids who were being told that what they were doing was a waste of time "to get out there and do it; it is NOT a waste of time". A truly inspiring moment in a ceremony that was often uninspired.
Kathryn Bigelow's (what seemed like genuine) surprise at becoming the first woman to win a Best Director trophy.

What I disliked about this Oscars telecast:

The art deco set for the stage, which seemed to limit the possibilities for what could be done on the stage instead of enhancing them.
That the hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were merely adequate. I had hoped for comedic genius from those two, and got something that was content with being just a tad better than mediocre. In their defense, I did laugh a lot at the 'damn Helen Mirren' joke.
The tediously long dance montage set to the Best Musical Score nominations. Would it not have been better to spend the time instead on a short, crisp compilation of best nominated song performances?
That Quentin Tarantino had to be content with a single win (Best Supporting Actor) for this movie, and that he did not receive the Best Original Screenplay prize.

That is enough ink spent on the Oscars, I think! There are more important things in the world to be worried about.

Those Who Deserve and Those Who Get

2010-03-06T17:51:00.000-08:00

The Oscars will be handed out soon. And like most things in life there will be a deviation between those who deserve to win and those who actually do.

Speculators have expectedly used a lot of ink picking winners. The usual mud-slinging has occurred, though not as much as in previous years. The apposite amount of grandstanding has transpired at talkshows and in trade magazines. Most individuals though, are a bit fatigued by what seems like an unusually long awards show season, culminating with the mother lode of them all, the Academy Awards on March 7^th.

Only a fool would argue that the awards are handed out purely based on merit. All sorts of other things play into a win, but I am not here to wax on about the terrible injustice of it all. Every year, the New York Times publishes “Who Should Win” and “Who Will Win” picks for each of the top Oscar categories. I have always liked those, and decided to post my own version of the same.

Best Picture »

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

This is the biggest category, and also the trickiest to predict this year. Unlike some previous years, there has not been a consistent front-runner in this category in the months since the nominations. I am a fan of the newly expanded 10 slots in this category, simply because additional (or any) recognition never hurt a movie. At some point, ‘Up In The Air’, ‘Avatar’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’ have all been considered certain wins in this category. But at this late stage, it is down to ‘Avatar’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’. Do you award the big, loud, (most ever) commercially successful, overwhelmingly popular film, “Avatar” or the small, independent, but truly great movie, “The Hurt Locker”? Early on,"The Hurt Locker" had been the critics’ darling, and for the right reasons too. But then the visual splendor of ‘Avatar’ blew away ticket-buyers around the planet, and it became the juggernaut to beat, and for a while in the past month it appeared that nothing could unseat the sheer might of James Cameron’s space-age, green epic. But then, in the last stretch, the pendulum appears to have started swinging back in favor of "The Hurt Locker”, I suspect because the film industry voters are resisting being told what to do, and are probably going with their hearts. If this will come to pass, hurray!

Who Should Win: “The Hurt Locker”

Who Will Win: “Avatar” (although, I really hope I am wrong here).

Best Director »

James Cameron, Avatar

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Lee Daniels, Precious

Jason Reitman, Up In The Air

This race was going to parallel that for the Best Picture. However there has been a consensus lately that Kathryn Bigelow will win this one. Perhaps for the wrong reasons. Bigelow is only the fourth woman to be nominated for Best Director, and if she gets the prize, she will be, shockingly the first woman to do so. Who can deny the drama inherent in seeing this happen. Plus there is the added juiciness with her being the ex-wife of James Cameron, and one cannot make up this sort of television-ready drama: the ex-wife reigns over the celebrated husband. But these are all irrelevant. Bigelow deserves to win not because of her gender or who she was married to. She does, because without question, her accomplishment as the director for "The Hurt Locker" far exceeds all others on the nominated list.

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”, with a tip of the hat to Quentin Tarantino

Who Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”

Best Actor, Male, in a Leading Role »

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

George Clooney, Up In the Air

Colin Firth, A Single Man

Morgan Freeman, Invictus

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Disclaimer: I have not seen Colin Firth in “A Single Man”.

There is general agreement that Bridges will win this. I do not feel strongly about any of the nominees in this category, although I would grant that Jeff Bridges has gone uncelebrated for a long time now. He should have won for "The Big Lebowski" years ago, and to see him in "Crazy Heart" is to acknowledge the height of what a vanity-free performance should look like. Also his singing in the movie is truly remarkable, so I will be happy to see him grab that statuette. However, for my money, Jeremy Renner created the most memorable, nuanced and unforgettable male character in a movie last year.

Who Should Win: Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”

Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”

Best Actor, Female, in a Leading Role »

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side

Helen Mirren, The Last Station

Carey Mulligan, An Education

Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia

Disclaimer: I have not seen Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”

If there were justice in the world, this trophy would be Carey Mulligan’s to keep. Her performance in the lovely “An Education” is a revelation. But who does not want to see Sandra Bullock being acknowledged for the second (even more successful) inning of her career, and to hear her speak from the Oscar podium. You might as well start practicing how you are going to gush about her acceptance speech at the water cooler at work the next day.

Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan, “An Education”

Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”

Best Actor, Male, in a Supporting Role »

Matt Damon, Invictus

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Disclaimer: I have not seen "The Last Station".

They could have mailed the Oscar to Christoph Waltz’s home last week, his win is so certain. And I would not be one to begrudge it; he came out of nowhere and his performance still towers over the others in this category. But for me, it is Woody Harrelson who has a slight edge, because of an unexpectedly subdued, hard-won and emotional performance in the grossly underrated “The Messenger”.

Who Should Win: Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger”, with a tip of the hat to Christoph Waltz

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”

Best Actor, Female in a Supporting Role »

Penélope Cruz, Nine

Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air

Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart

Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air

Mo’Nique, Precious

Disclaimer: I have not seen Penelope Cruz in “Nine”

They could have mailed Mo’nique the Oscar statuette last week in the same dispatch as Christoph Waltz. There will be no bigger upset during the ceremony than if Mo’nique’s name is not called out as a winner. For me though, her performance was too showy, and her character never crossed the line from heinous to something approaching sympathy, or even comprehension. On the other hand, I just cannot think of another actor portraying Vera Farmiga's character in "Up In The Air".

Who Should Win: Vera Farmiga, “Up In The Air”

Who Will Win: Monique, “Precious”

Original Screenplay »

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The Messenger

A Serious Man

Who Should Win: Inglourious Basterds

Who Will Win: Inglourious Basterds

Adapted Screenplay »

District 9

An Education

In the Loop

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Up in the Air

Disclaimer: I have not seen “In The Loop”

Who Should Win: An Education

Who Will Win: Up In The Air

The 'Moviewallas' Cometh

2010-02-21T22:58:00.000-08:00

Faithful readers of this blog (all six of you), you can now get one dimension closer. You can now listen online. The Moviewallas are here.

My friends, Kathy, Rashmi, Joe and I have been watching movies together off and on for years now. And on a few occasions, in the midst of a healthy debate about the movie afterward, remarked that we should record our conversations. And then laughed off the idea. Well, one Sunday morning a few weeks ago, Joe took matters in his very capable hands and put together everything that would be needed to record our first podcast! He independently came up with a logo, a jingle and a charter for our podcasts. He even purchased a good-quality microphone and before we knew it, we were sitting around a table and chatting about movies. And posting them online at www.moviewallas.com. It was decided that Rashmi, Joe and I would be the 'Moviewallas', the ones who are associated with movies. We agreed that we would stop doing this the minute it became a chore. And here we are - having recorded ten episodes already.

Since that Sunday morning, when we recorded our first discussion - of the movie Up In The Air, I must confess it has been a lot of fun. We have the unbelievably good fortune to have Joe at hand who is not only an astute film discussant, but also a savvy techno-wizard. It is easy for Rashmi and I to babble on about movies when Joe does all of the difficult things (such as the recording, editing, post-production and posting of the finished product online, not to mention the shownotes and posting of trailers of the movies we review). Quite simply our podcasts would not be possible without him.

You can listen to the podcasts at the website (www.moviewallas.com), or download them on iTunes. So far, our episodes include:

Episode 1 Up In The Air

Episode 2 Avatar

Episode 3 Desert Island Movies

Episode 4 Precious

Episode 5 2010 Oscar Nominations

Episode 6 Oscars and Burgers?

Episode 7 The Blind Side

Episode 8 Top Five Romantic Comedies

Episode 9 Julie and Julia

Episode 10 A Serious Man

Most podcasts are 10-15 minutes long.

Give the podcasts a try. And please provide feedback to us (too long? too obscure? too whatever); nothing would make us happier. You can leave your comments at the Discussion Forum at www.moviewallas.com/Forum/ or on Twitter or as comments to this blog. We are laughing ourselves silly and thoroughly enjoying recording these podcasts. And we are also learning as we go. But we want to know what others think of them, so won't you please drop us a line to let us know if we are on the right track?

The Best of 2009: Oddities

2010-01-31T00:47:00.000-08:00

Here are some (mostly odd) distinctions earned by films in 2009

Best opening credits: Up In The Air
Best movie poster: Cold Souls
Best reboot of a franchise: Star Trek
Best ensemble cast: Inglorious Basterds
Best Tarantino homage film: Kaminey
Best reason to not let your kids travel to Europe alone: Taken

Best visual transformation: Mariah Carey in Precious

Best CGI: Sam Worthington's atrophied legs in Avatar
Best unexpectedly good singer: Colin Farrell, Crazy Heart

Best expectedly good singer: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

Best single unbroken shot in a movie: the painful discussion between Ben Foster and Samantha Morton in The Messenger
Best tiger in a movie: The Hangover
Best fox in a movie: Fantastic Mr Fox
Best bird in a movie: Kevin in Up
Funniest nude scene in a movie: The Proposal
Best animated movie with a nude scene: Coraline
Most uncomfortable sex scene in a movie: Watchmen (Malin Akerman/Patrick Wilson)
Most comfortable sex scene in a movie: 500 Days of Summer (Zooey Deschanel/Joseph Gordon Levitt)
Most destructive movie campaigning by an actor: Joaquin Pheonix for Two Lovers
Most unlikable supporting characters in a movie: Away We Go
Most hard-working actor, male: Woody Harrelson (The Messenger, Zombieland, 2012); George Clooney (Men Who Stare at Goats, Fantastic Mr Fox, Up In The Air)
Most hard-working actor, female: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Its Complicated)
Most defamatory movie for McDonald's (since Super-Size Me): Precious
Most unintentionally bad timing in a movie: scene in Men Who Stare At Goats of a crazed soldier who opens fire at an army base
Smartest movie with aliens: District Nine
Softest movie with aliens: Avatar

I intend to come back and continue to populate this list as I remember more oddities from movies seen in 2009. Please feel free to comment with your own additions!

The Best Of 2009: Performances

2010-01-17T20:16:00.000-08:00

Here are film actors (alphabetically listed) who have earned their paychecks in 2009. And then some.

Actor, Male

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Ben Foster, The Messenger
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Joseph Gordon Levitt, 500 Days of Summer

Ranbir Kapoor, Wake Up Sid

Shahid Kapur, Kaminey

Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Actor, Female

Amy Adams, Julie and Julia
Zooey Deschanel, 500 Days of Summer

Melanie Laurent, Inglorious Basterds
Carey Mulligan, An Education

Konkana Sen Sharma, Wake Up Sid
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia

Supporting Actor, Male

Jeff Bridges, Men Who Stare At Goats
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
Alfred Molina, An Education

Brad Pitt, Inglorious Basterds

Ryan Reynolds, Adventureland
Peter Sarsgaard, An Education

Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds

Supporting Actor, Female

Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air

Samantha Morton, The Messenger
Paula Patton, Precious

Kristen Stewart, Adventureland
Emma Thompson, An Education

The Best of 2009: Television

2010-01-17T20:01:00.000-08:00

I would like to think that I do not watch a lot of television (don't we all?). But I could be wrong. In the past year, I have stopped watching live television. I record my favorite shows on DVR and then catch up on them whenever schedule permits. Hence I cannot profess to have even superficially sampled everything this is offered on most television channels. My selection below of the best of television in the past year is therefore highly biased and based on restrictive sampling. For example, since I do not subscribe to any of the premium channels, I have not seen much of the supposed higher-quality shows (Big Love, True Blood, Dexter, The United States of Tara, The Tudors etc.) to be able to form an opinion about them. Also, I have taken the high road and not included guilty pleasures on this list, because.....well, I feel guilty about them.

The one thing that unites all of the shows on this list is the only thing that ultimately matters: great writing.

1. Modern Family

This show is graced with the trifecta of great writing, perfect acting, and the most elusive of all, being of the moment. What sets it apart is that it is refreshingly free of cynicism; it chooses to be unashamedly sentimental. Even as it laughs at the foibles of each of the characters in the three related families it covers, it also has genuine affection for each of them. When I was watching this show last week, I paused the taping to take a phone call; upon returning I actually felt sad to see that there were only ten more minutes remaining in the episode. This is always a test of a good show. And Ty Burrell must be the funniest man on television right now; somebody get him an award already. The show started only in late 2009, but it already feels comfortably familiar.

2. 30 Rock

There is nobody I respect more on television these days than Tina Fey. I do not know if she has secretly found the secret to having forty eight hours in a day, but she is churning out the most creative, consistently high-quality content on television right now. Ten years from now, this show will be considered genius. And boy, is it funny or what. I came into '30 Rock' late, but am now a devoted fan of its rapid-fire, blink-and-you-will-miss-it, comedic style. It gets away with taking names, and calling out on what is wrong in popular media right now. It may look simple, but each episode is impossibly tightly crafted. If you are not watching this show you are missing out on spending thirty delicious minutes inside the head of the sharpest mind on the boob tube right now.

3. How I Met Your Mother

This show has been quietly defining excellence on television for the past four years. You will not find a bad episode of this show. Two dimensions more clever than "Friends", this show covers the lives of five thirty-somethings trying to have a go at relationships. It plays within the conventions of the sitcom in that the characters talk like no one we know, but when what they are saying is this funny, why complain? Watch this show back to back for two hours and the experience will easily best any romantic comedy playing in the cinemas. The acting from all of the leads is outstanding, but Neil Patrick Harris steals the show. I do not know the last names of the main characters of most television shows, but I do for this one.

4. The New Adventures of Old Christine

I am surprised this show has not been pulled off the air yet. Not because it is terrible; quite the contrary. But because it gets away with some remarkably strong criticism of the far right. Maybe that is one advantage to a show that is not watched by too many...fewer people protesting. If it had higher ratings, "The New Adventures of Old Christine" would be on the target bullseye of many a conservative pundit. I like the fact that Julia Louis-Dreyfus' character on the show goes all out with being flawed, and the actress is refreshingly free from vanity in inhabiting this role, warts and all. Besides any show that has Wanda Sykes and Louis-Dreyfus is automatically insured against mediocrity. Funny stuff, here.

5. Better Off Ted

I want to seek out the writers on this show and personally shake hands with them to congratulate them for the scripts. Once you get into the rhythms of 'Better Off Ted', it is hard to stop laughing. Like a distant cousin of '30 Rock', this show too goes gleefully into the surreal. Anybody who has been a part of a corporate environment will be smiling at how wickedly the show satirizes that milieu. It would be unfair to single out Portia De Rossi's corporate boss as the star of the show since she gets the best lines in every episode, but her delivery of the lines is flawless. And Lem and Phil, the two goofy scientists on the show, are maybe the most original and adorable characters on television right now. Just the sight of them puts a smile on my face. This may be the most criminally unwatched show on your TV screen.

6. Men Of A Certain Age

Like 'Modern Family' and 'Better Off Ted', this show started in 2009 but I feel at home with it already. Unlike the shows above, this one is not a ha-ha funny piece of television. Rather it plumbs some rather dark territory in circling around the lives of three male friends in their forties, who are all dealing poorly in one way or another with where their lives have brought them. Ray Romano, who has already contributed to classic television with 'Everybody Loves Raymond' goes for something more hard-lived and rough around the edges with his next foray into episodic television. Because the show is in no mood for pat resolutions, or ascribing easy heroism to any of the lead characters, it is one of the few shows on network television that manages to be surprisingly gloomy (and a little angry), which aptly matches the current economic and cultural climate. Romano, bless his heart, has no intention of sugar-coating things on this show, and by the very adult treatment of the material here, may be on to creating something approaching significant relevance for our times. If the show stays on the air, that is. Start praying.

The Best of 2009: Music

2010-01-14T22:38:00.000-08:00

Nothing separates people as much as their taste in music. For a person you do not know well, it is still easy to speculate on their taste in say, movies. But music is another matter. Unpredictable, but still, musical tastes usually say a lot about a person.

It was difficult for me to come up with my list of the best music of 2009. So I made it simple, I went with the twenty songs that I have played the most on my iPod recently, and then ordered them according to my current affinity for each song. The top five are definitely my current favorites, and are getting the most mileage out of me. Here is the full list:

Rain – Mika (The Boy Who Knew Too Much)
Running Away – Sacha Sacket (Hermitage EP)
How You Survived The War – The Weepies (Hideaway)
Circle – Sugarland (Live On The Inside)
I See You – Mika (The Boy Who Knew Too Much)
Hai Junoon – Pritam (‘New York’ soundtrack)
They Bring Me To You – Joshua Radin (Simple Times)
Kaminee Meri Arzoo – Sukhwinder Singh (‘Kaminey’ soundtrack)
Where I Stood – Missy Higgins (On A Clear Night)
Give It Away – Quincy Coleman (Also Known As Mary)
Whatcha Say – Jason DeRulo (Whatcha Say EP)
Knock You Down – Keri Hilson, Kanye West, Ne-Yo (In A Perfect World)
Fireflies – OwlCity (Ocean Eyes)
Happy – Leona Lewis (Echo)
One Foot Boy – Mika (The Boy Who Knew Too Much)
Say What You Mean - Chris Ayer (Don’t Go Back To Sleep)
Echo – Gorrilla Zoe (Don’t Feed Da Animals)
Don’t Stay – Laura Izibor (Let The Truth Be Told)
If You’re Out There – John Legend (Evolver)
Northern Skies – Dido (Safe Trip Home)

The Best of 2009: Movies

2010-01-12T22:29:00.000-08:00

The past year was uncommonly good for movies. For me, at least. Good is the year, when you have to worry about which movies to remove from your ‘Best Of’ list instead of struggling to find worthy ones to fill the slots. For an unapologetic list maker such as myself this is a great time of the year, because I get to indulge in all sorts of Best of This, and Best of That lists.

Before I provide my thoroughly biased and completely unscientific list of the better movies of 2009, a few notes first.

A movie did not make it on to this list just because it was visually the most amazing thing I saw committed to celluloid this year (that would be ‘Avatar’). Also, strangely, a movie did not make it on to this list just because it was the smartest, most cerebrally engaging film I saw (that would be ‘Up In The Air’). The principal criterion for a movie to make it on this list was, simply, that it moved me. And I do not mean this in the sense that it necessarily made me sad. Every movie on this list connected with me at a fundamental level and displaced something in my emotional build at the time I was watching it. In small way or large. Roger Ebert calls this ‘elevation’ - when a movie resonates with you and elicits a strong, personal, emotional response. It is the reason I go to the cinemas.

Also, I believe that these sorts of lists are silly and wholly non-transferable. By definition, my list is predicated by my life-experiences, my political and ethical beliefs, and my station in life at the current time. And by how my brain neurons are connected to be pleased by some things and not by others. None of these would apply to another human being. I sincerely hope that this list does not match what you might have come up with. Then you can tell me so, and nothing gives me more pleasure than to argue about movie lists.

With that long preamble, forthwith is my list:

1. The Hurt Locker

It was an easy decision to place this movie first on the list. This is the best action movie in a long time, maybe the decade. I just have not had such a visceral experience seeing any other movie this year. It has been more than twenty years, since when I watched “Aliens” on a rainy day in India, that I have felt this claustrophobic in a movie theater. The Hurt Locker has scenes so intense, and suspense so unbearable, that it took all my resolve to keep from walking out of the theater. The story of a specialized bomb-detonation unit in Iraq, this movie gets everything right. Watching it was like a slap to the face that left me wondering in amazement – and gratitude - that movies still retain the power to do this to us. This film also belongs in that rarefied cadre of movies that are about one thing but manage to be about everything else – reflecting the universe through the experience of a few. If I could spend my time accosting strangers on the street and begging them to see The Hurt Locker, I would.

2. Three Idiots

I laughed and I cried. Seems simple enough, right? But think about how many movies you have seen for which you can make this simple claim. Chaplin films perhaps, perhaps some early classics, but it remains a slim category. Released in the last two weeks of the year ('3 Idiots' is only now gathering steam) this movie easily catapulted itself toward the top of the list. It represents the best in current Indian cinema. Describing the life of students at one of India's prestigious Engineering colleges (where students are boarded on premises during their studies), and their fates post-graduation, the movie employs (the currently trendy) disjointed chronology to tell its story. But what inspired treatment of the material this is! From the witty dialog (which sometimes gleefully tips into the uncharacteristically vulgar), to the acting, to the script, it all comes together rather wonderfully. The movie is by no means perfect however; it goes completely over the top in a few places (a baby being delivered during a storm! With instruction over a webcam!), seems a bit too eager to please, indulges in contrivances (the female love interest turns out to be the College Dean's daughter!) and you can see the end coming an hour before it actually arrives. But it works. Kudos also to this film for driving home its messages so successfully without preaching. The movie is a triumph for all concerned.

3. 500 Days of Summer

This is a smart, witty, romantic film. I saw it and melted hopelessly in submission to its cleverness. Ladies and Gentlemen, this, is how you do it. There is enough creativity and heart here for three movies. Effortlessly funny, and sincere, it has connected with audiences, I think, because it is laser sharp in its realistic depiction of the ebbs and flow of early love, and what follows afterward. What to make, the movie asks, of a relationship where one expects so much more from it than another? The two leads of the movie (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel) are so winning that they are not, for a moment, anything less than fully believable. Much has been made of the intentionally scattered chronology in the movie, but that ultimately remains a gimmick; this movie would have been just as effective were it told linearly in time. Charting the step-by-step development of a relationship between two very specific characters, this movie walked first into my brain, and then, the heart.

4. Inglorious Basterds
This was the most memorable movie of the year for me; scene for scene, much of the movie still reels in my mind months after seeing it. Call it what you will: indulgent, revisionist, overly talky...but it is difficult to say that the movie falls short of being fully entertaining. The story of a group of American men brought together to militantly fight back the Nazi intercuts with that of the opportunity presented to a Jewish girl to exact vendetta for the death of her family at the hands of a brilliantly devious Nazi colonel. This does not exactly sound like giddy entertainment. But it is. Directing with everything he has in his toolbox, (and he’s got a lot), Quentin Tarantino breaks cardinal rules of the film book with relish here. Every expectation is cleverly circumvented. Christoph Waltz, who plays the Nazi colonel with an impossible balance of grace and evil has an assured lock on the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. The film is cleanly violent. More than half its dialog is subtitled. But who cares when it is this much fun. A superbly plotted episode late in the movie that transpires in a tavern alone is worth the price of admission. Yes, this is genius.

5. Wake Up Sid

There are some movies that you connect with unexpectedly, and it almost seems like voodoo. Movies that are not on anybody else’s Best Of list. But they resonate deeply and with high fidelity with something within you. I relish such movies like a gift; I offer ‘Wake Up, Sid’. The movie represents the emergence of a hard-earned maturity in Indian cinema. At once, truthful, fun, and fully satisfying, this film is the story of a young man from a rich family who slowly begins to find his place in the world. While this expectedly leads to a realization of his own failings, the film altogether avoids the trappings of the standard character arc to demonstrate this. The caliber of acting, particularly from the main leads, is stellar. Every person in the universe of this film, from the smallest character to the leads, is fully realized and allowed to have their own voice. How refreshing to be able to say this, finally. Here is an Indian movie, thank the stars, with the willingness to abandon the weary formulas of traditional Bollywood for good and all - while still telling a worthy, robust story. If anyone complains about the sorry state of Indian cinema right now, it is gratifying that there are so many films released in 2009 that I can point to in defence of a counter-argument. Few would be stronger than ‘Wake Up Sid’.

6. Up

The folks at Pixar knock another one clear out of the park, and ‘Up’ reaches higher in the skies than most of the previous Pixar entries. In refusing to cater to children as the primary audience, and choosing to infuse the film with a deep underlying sadness, the movie hits paydirt. It is not exactly original (I see inspirations from many other movies), and there are a few uneven parts. But it all comes together beautifully, particularly in a much talked about ten minute montage early in the movie that sets a new bar for economy in effective story-telling. If you are not devastated by the emotional wallop of those scenes, your heart may have been irreversibly calcified. There are many who have complained that the movie is too sad, and not appropriate for children. But really, what better way for a child to learn about personal loss than from a perceptive, heartfelt movie.

[What a wondrous year this has been for animated and children’s films. Along with "Up", "The Fantastic Mr Fox”, “Coraline”, and “Ponyo" can proudly sit on any list of the best movies of the year. And I have not even seen “Where The Wild Things Are” or “The Princess and The Frog”.]

7. The Hangover

Who says that the lowbrow cannot be high entertainment? The putrid alley is as good a place as any to find humor, and yes, insight. I started laughing at the start of this film and just did not stop. The basic premise of the movie is clever – trying to reconstruct the events transpired over a night of debauchery in Las Vegas that none of the participants have any recollection of. What I liked about this film was that it dared to be as raunchy as it wanted, without apologies (or the market/studio-driven push to deliver a sanitized PG-13 film). As the movie progressed, I kept waiting for that first misstep, the first sacrifice made to a character to get a cheap laugh, and then sat up with delight realizing that this may actually not happen in this film. Doing good comedy is hard, and few films deliver on this promise. May their tribe increase.

8. The Messenger

There is a scene in the movie “The Messenger” where two US Army personnel (played by Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster) walk up to the front yard of a woman’s (played by Samantha Morton) home to inform her that her soldier husband has been killed in Iraq. She guesses the news before they can say much, takes a few moments to look calmly in the distance, and then turns around to the men and says “This must be so hard for you”. The unexpected turn of the scene devastated me. This is a grim movie, but also one of the year’s most honest and rewarding. It is the story of two men whose job it is to inform families of the death of a son/daughter/spouse in combat (and hence the title), and features several such wrenching scenes. That the movie never gets gratuitous in the handing of these scenes is a testament to the maturity of the script, and the direction. One of the two men (Harrelson) is a seasoned informant; the other is being trained for this function. These are not cookie-cutter characters, and the script does not allow any easy outs for the two tortured individuals the men portray. Like the best movies about war, “The Messenger” will support your own political beliefs, no matter where you stand on the spectrum. It also has hands down, the best acting I have seen this year. I will lose my faith in cinema if Woody Harrelson, and Samantha Morton in particular, are not recognized for their terrific, beautifully toned performances in this film.

9. Invictus

Last year, after watching ‘Gran Torino’, I said that I wanted to be like Clint Eastwood when I grew up. ‘Invictus’ this year is further proof of that sentiment. I don’t know how he does it, but here is Eastwood again with an equally effective film. I am frankly surprised that Eastwood is not celebrated more; how many other 79 year old film makers do we know who are delivering new high-quality films once, sometimes twice, a year. And these are films remarkable in the diversity of their tone and subject matter (his 2010 release will be a supernatural thriller). Invictus is loosely based on real-life events surrounding the early days of Nelson Mandela’s presidency in South Africa, and his stubborn push to support the then floundering (and predominantly white) national rugby team to a seemingly impossible win in the 1995 World Cup - in an effort to heal raw racial tensions in the country. Yes, it is a sports movie at the end, and how many of those have we seen already? But by picking this story, Eastwood makes the outcome matter. There has been criticism that Mandela’s portrayal in this movie verges on the saintly; but I saw it as just inspiring. I don’t know how else to say it, but this film is suffused with a sense of (well-earned) goodness. How daunting for an actor to portray a much beloved world personality who is still alive. Morgan Freeman is up to it. He plays Mandela as a man comfortable with blurring the line between being good and getting a few opportune things done at the same time. This movie is a fine example of Roger Ebert’s belief that what moves us most in the movies is not the very tragic, but rather it is individuals doing good in spite of themselves and their circumstances.

10. Departures (Okuribito)

The winner of last year’s Best Foreign Film Oscar (unseen by most at the time) this Japanese film is clear from the start about its intent to emotionally manipulate the audience. But that does not take away from its effectiveness. A recently fired cellist from Tokyo moves back to his hometown village with his wife. Since being unemployed he cannot seem to be able to find his feet, and frustrated, he answers a cryptic newspaper job offering under the title “Departures” presuming it is for a travel agency. It turns out it is for employment at a place where the dead are prepared for burial. Against his instincts - and judgment - he takes on the job at the funeral home and begins to get trained in the proper Japanese rituals for preparing the bodies of the recently deceased. If this sounds morbid, it is not. There is actually much humor in this film. There is something be learned from the observation of families who have recently lost a loved one. Ashamed to tell his wife about his true vocation, the protagonist nevertheless builds a tenuous trust with the owner of the funeral home and his daughter, which drives the plot for the remainder of the film. This is not a subtle movie, and some of the treatment is heavy-handed. But the film is sincere, and the potency of its message of tolerance is undeniable. Funny, yet affecting, this is the kind of movie that I can recommend without worry to anyone.

Movies that could just as easily been on the Top Ten list:
Adventureland, District 9, Duplicity, An Education, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, Kaminey, Love Aaj Kal (Love, Today and Yesterday), Star Trek, Up In The Air

Movies that could make it to the list but are unseen by me (yet):
Moon, Where The Wild Things Are.

Outstanding movies caught at film festivals in 2009:
Bombay Summer, Bunny And The Bull, Deliver Us From Evil, I Killed My Mother, Karma Calling, Phobidilia, Shades Of Ray.

So let the events begin. Don't be shy to let me know how wrong I have been with this list!

Au Revoir Les Enfants

2010-01-07T00:22:00.000-08:00

I happened to catch 'Au Revoir Les Enfants' ('Goodbye, Children') on television last month. Not all movies regarded as classics stand up to that stature when you get around to seeing them. This one did for me.

Sometimes, events in our life we would rather forget take on mythic shape. These are events that stay with us through our lifetime, burned as they were onto the blank screens of our mind. And yet when they are actually occurring they seldom register as being of any importance at all. It is only the passage of time, and the vantage of perspective that grant them significance afterward. ‘Au Revoir Les Enfants', probably the most regarded movie made by Louis Malle, starts out as being a simple telling of the childhood life of one boy (a stand-in for the director’s own experiences), and at the end becomes a documentation of a singular event that can be fairly described as life-altering.

The movie covers the story of two boys in a boarding school run by priests in Nazi-occupied France during WWII. The movie is seen through the eyes of a French boy who develops an initial rift - and eventual friendship - with a new boy at school. Upon finding that his friend is Jewish and is being kept hidden at the school by the priests, this barely registers as information of any significance to the boy in the routine business of being kids of a particular age. The film captures the mundane daily activities at the school and the shifting allegiances that develop in that environment. And then an act of unwitting betrayal gets committed upon which the moral pivot for the entire story balances. One of the strengths of the movie is that it is left to the viewer to determine whether this act – entirely casual, and clearly unintentional – leads to the eventual terrible outcome in the movie. Regardless, that act probably left a strong enough imprint in the director's real life that drove him to make this film. How could it not?

About twelve years ago, I had gone for a job interview to Boston. It had snowed all morning and then become warmer by midday, creating much slush. After finishing my interview, I was in a rush to catch my flight back home in the evening. Already a bit late, and realizing that I needed to return the rental car still, I was eager to make up time on my drive to the airport. The temperatures had begun to drop as I got on the freeway. Surprised that none of the other cars were in the leftmost lane, I impatiently took to that lane and began passing the other cars. It was snowing lightly, but the visibility was good. About a mile after zipping past the other cars, I felt my car wheels catch, just as I realized that I had been probably driving on freshly frozen clear ice in that lane. You are told many times that the last thing to do when the car wheels catch is to hit the brakes. And yet, in the moment, slaved by every instinct in your body, that is exactly what you do. As I jammed on the brakes, my car spun like an energized orbiting satellite on its axis. It did two rotations and then stopped in the adjoining lane but in the opposite direction, facing oncoming cars. As cars changed lanes before they whizzed by me, I calmly turned my car around in the right direction, and drove off. I must have driven about five miles before my heart started racing and the import of what had just happened to me sunk in. I was shaking by the time I boarded the plane, but when the actual event was occurring I recall being completely calm, guided who knows by what - some evolutionary instinct, or inadvertent release of chemical(s) into the bloodstream? In the years since then, the images have come back to me often - of the speeding cars heading directly toward me - and then parting just before approaching me. And I know this is something that I will remember always. I am not even remotely suggesting that my little episode is similar in impact or importance to the event that transpires toward the end of ‘Au Revoir Les Enfants’. But oddly, that evening on the Boston freeway is what I was reminded of most as the movie sunk into me in the days after seeing it.

There are two particularly impressive things about ‘Au Revoir Les Enfants’.

One of the more difficult things to do in movies is to capture childhood well. Somehow European movies have done a better job with this. Few are the films that get the rhythms of childhood just right. The harrowingly important priorities of a child, the immediate needs, the small things that can mean so much. The ease with which hostility can get exchanged between children. The slow and unconscious building of trust and friendship. This movie captures all of these cadences just right. To ascribe this to the autobiographical nature of the film would be to take away from its merits. You would be hard-pressed to not recognize your own growing-up experiences, no matter how varied, within the scenes of this movie.

And yet the movie willfully avoids melodrama. Movies by definition are meant to be...well, cinematic. And one of the more difficult things to do in movies is to shun the dramatic. To be factual and banal in each moment. To trust that the accumulation of the scenes will eventually register as a whole of some importance, and to not be tempted to impart drama or tension to individual scenes. This is a risky thing to do but when it works, it can provide rich dividends in terms of audience impact. How chilling for a viewer to find themselves in a movie that edges up on them slowly and without fanfare devastates them. ‘Au Revoir Les Enfants’ is a good example of this.

When Movies Trouble: 'Kurbaan'

2009-11-27T00:34:00.000-08:00

I do not believe that movies should be responsible. Or be inoffensive. Or be historically accurate. Or that they should represent the generally perceived notion of 'truth'. A movie is simply one (or more) person's view of a situation and it is what they are choosing to show to the rest of the world. Nothing more. In a free world, every person should be free to make a movie as they please. And every viewer has a choice to either see it or not. If they choose to see the movie, afterward they can either agree with it, or vehemently protest. Anything outside of that would result in committing that biggest of offenses: censorship. Art should not only engage and illuminate and entertain. It should also on occasion provoke, offend, frustrate and enrage. How else to engender discussion about wildly opposing views? How else to reconcile polarizing differences? How else to, no matter how briefly, stand in the shoes of someone you find hateful?

All of the above may sound lofty. But I say this within the context of feelings invoked after watching the Indian movie: 'Kurbaan' (Sacrifice), written by Karan Johar and directed by newcomer Renzil D'Silva. If you are planning on watching this movie, you may be best served by stopping right here (and coming back after seeing the film). Since I will be bringing up critical plot elements of the movie, including its conclusion, please consider this your fair and final SPOILER WARNING.

As I was sitting in my cinema seat watching 'Kurbaan', I found myself increasingly troubled by the film. Don't get me wrong; in the current climate of mind-numbindly neutral cinema, I am glad for films that have the power to elicit strong reactions, even if negative. I will rush to acknowledge that 'Kurbaan' is technically a very well-made movie. It is clear that all of the filming was conducted on location on what must have been difficult shoots. And the film boasts some of the better acting talent from the indian subcontinent. But what does it all add up to? Ask someone else. If there is an underlying message to the movie, it was lost on me. I do not believe that all movies need to have a message. But this one goes out of its way to invoke some mighty large issues: nothing less than the state of the war on terror in the world today. For a movie that comes advertised as a red-hot, topical take on terrorism and religious fundamentalism, it turns out to be oddly toothless in the end. How else to explain a movie that goes about picking on one hot-button issue after another and then decides to spend its last hour on a well-oiled but tired, conventional exercise in will-the-bad-guys-manage-to-detonate-the-bombs-or-not?

Publicity still for the movie, 'Kurbaan'
Let me elaborate. Here is a movie about a sleeper cell of Islamic terrorists in New York who are planning on blowing up the city subway stations. A dangerous premise for sure, but also amenable to providing interesting insights if handled carefully. Instead the film indulges in surprisingly schizophrenic treatment of the material. We are asked to sympathize with the lead character; he has become a terrorist (it is explained in broad-stroke narration) because his wife and kids were killed during a bombing in Afghanistan. But we are also presented with scenes where he efficiently and cold-bloodedly kills several individuals including many local policemen in New York. So what are we to think of him? The movie has characters in a classroom debating about how so many more Afghani civilians have been killed by the joint US and UK forces than Americans who died during 9/11. It is mentioned that America has engaged in war for pursuit of oil, and we should pause before placing all of the blame for the current situation on Islamic terrorists. All this while the movie emphatically reinforces every stereotype about Islam itself; of the eight or nine male Islamic characters in the story-line, all but one are revealed to be terrorists! It has a scene where a Muslim man is asked to undergo a random security check at an American airport, and he complains afterward that he got picked only because of his appearance and his Islamic last name. And this comes not ten minutes after the movie has shown how a Muslim suicide-bomber boards a plane and successfully manages to blow it up. What IS your point, Mr Johar? Why a commentary on racial profiling when your plot seems to present a strong rationale for justifying it? The movie has the heroine recoiling from a terrible deceit and forced to live under oppressively strict Islamic code (with her head covered, and the men and women usually separately clustered, the men talking gravely about important matters and the women cooking). And then the movie has a scene where an older Muslim man (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) ruefully complains that young Muslims are hesitant to protest about how they are treated in America for fear of being labeled fundamentalists. So the movie wants us to be sympathetic toward the plight of Muslims in America, even as the film itself paints them in the worst possible light?

And so it goes back and forth, as the movie simultaneously patronizes and offends all of its characters. Let us set aside all religious and political considerations; this is just lazy scriptwriting; we have here a writer who wants to keep every faction happy even as he is impugning all of them. The snake devouring its own tail. Other Indian movies have explored the subject of terrorism in the past with varying degrees of sensitivity; 'Maachis', 'Dil Se', and 'The Terrorist' come to mind. All three movies were flawed in small measure or large, but at least those films had the courage to present their story with a single-mindedness of narrative perspective. They took a stand and stuck with it in the telling of their story. Not so, unfortunately for 'Kurbaan'. What to make of a film that indulges in self-righteousness without declaring what it is self-righteous about.

I am not troubled by the fact that this movie troubled me. I liked that. As mentioned at the start, any movie/book/painting/art-form that can incite and provoke and lead to fervent discourse is of value. What troubles me however is how little has been said of these issues in other reviews of this movie. In fact it is the lack of discourse on the treatment of the subject matter in this film that surprises me. What does it say about the state of things that the Indian press is inclined to expend way more ink on the lead actress' (Kareena Kapoor) exposed back during a scene than on how little is ultimately heard of these filmmakers' voices for all the shouting and noise in this movie.

2009 Toronto International Film Festival - Update Five

2009-11-16T23:09:00.000-08:00

Deliver Us From Evil ****

September nineteenth 2009. The last movie I saw at the festival before rushing to the airport was 'Deliver Us From Evil', a film advertised in the programme as a 'smart, propulsive Danish thriller'. Tickets go fast at the festival, and I am in general pleased with the movies I had picked a week ahead of the start of TIFF 2009. And I had evidently saved one of the best for the last.

http://www.tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/deliverusfromevil

Consider a man driving a commercial truck down a deserted road as he is chugging alcohol. One hand on wheel, he bends down to retrieve something from under the seat next to him, and then hears a sickening thud. That sound of having run over something; or somebody. Recognizing that the woman he has killed is the beloved wife of the unofficial mayor of his hometown, he decides to frame this tragedy on the one person in town who would be the easiest target. Thus starts the movie 'Deliver Us From Evil', at a brisk pace, introducing its characters through a clever set of scenes set in an idyllic little seaside town in Denmark.

It is certain then that the film is going to be a morality play. But perhaps also a thriller. And perhaps also a keenly observed study of specific characters. And perhaps a commentary on xenophobia. As it moved along, it was not obvious to me though as to which of these it was going to primarily be in its conclusion. And then about halfway through the movie a scene comes along where the clouds build ominously in the darkening evening sky and the background music screeches to a terribly jolting crescendo that takes the foreboding visual to its full expression - and then, about half a mile further. And while one part of me could not believe how much of a cliche this was (literally, dark clouds gathering in the sky!), the other part was shocked at how effective this was. Overused movie conventions be damned, I was filled with delight. And I settled in my seat as I realized with crystalline clarity what this movie was going to be about after all. Honestly, I live for moments like this. When you realize with satisfaction that you are in the hands of a good storyteller.

Publicity still for 'Deliver Us From Evil' from TIFF 2009

A bit more about the story. The cast of characters includes Johannes, his wife Pernille and their two kids who have all recently moved from the city to a small town, a town where everyone seems to know each other. There is Alain, the child-like Bosnian refugee who has lost his family in civil war, and is employed by Johannes to do odd jobs at his home. There is the older Ingmar, who is more or less the town's head, respected by all, and his wife Anna who is liked even more by the townsfolk. Johannes' brother Lars is everything he is not: a hard-drinking, hard-living, twisted soul of a man who would be a caricature of evil, if he were not also so frighteningly real. And credit goes here to all of the actors for making these individuals akin to someone you might actually know. Lars' pregnant girlfriend is, as one reviewer put it, an open wound through much of the movie. I have not revealed anything so far that is not outlined in the first few minutes of the movie. While driving his truck, it is Lars who runs over Anna biking on the road on the day of a local town celebration. And this sets into motion a series of events that would have you thinking you are ahead of the movie. But you are not. All of the characters get pulled into the whirlpool: Johannes, Ingvar, Lars, Alain, and Pernille. And the events domino one into another in a controlled procession until the movie takes off into perfect flight at about about the halfway mark. [SPOILER WARNING: And it is at this point that it becomes evident that the movie is going to be an epic, bloody showdown between a man (presumably) in the right and the rest of the world gone mad].

I would never have guessed this walking into this film, but in terms of its theme, it has commonality with 'The Reader" from last year. Both movies I believe are about how far a person should go to turn a blind eye to what they know is completely and morally wrong. Both movies depict extreme examples of human failings in this regard. 'Deliver Us From Evil' works just fine as a rock-solid thriller. But the reason why it registers as something more is because even as it gets its feet completely wet within the conventions of a traditional suspense movie, it dares to ask unpleasant questions that most movies would rather ignore: When does the need for communal unity and preservation of tradition lapse into xenophobia ? What if your devout faith asks you to join hands with others in doing something unspeakable? In many ways, this very well made thriller shows how easily the sort of horror depicted in this movie could happen anywhere in the world. And has actually been happening for a long, long time. I suspect this is the reason this film will find a wider audience.

This is visually a stylish movie. The entire film appears to have been shot in a bleached, sun-burned palette, sometimes almost seeming Black and White. This complements the Danish countryside well.

There was one aspect to the movie that I found troubling. It has to do with how comfortable the movie is with racial slurs. Perhaps the intent here was to simply be truthful about how people talk, and therefore just reflect reality. But there is a scene in the movie where a large group of people all begin to chant a racial slur, and it came off as particularly distasteful. Yes, I realize that it is eventually revealed that these individuals are truly heinous. But in the scene earlier in the film where it is repeated again and again, I worried about how audiences might take it. It is the old 'Borat' debate again. In a movie that spends a lot of time depicting hateful behavior, there is danger that some may take it at face value and not realize that the film is actually deeply contemptuous of it. I have chosen my words carefully and intentionally not brought up another issue that the film points a very harsh finger at; it is because there is no way to talk about it without giving away critical plot elements.

At the end of the day, this was a movie that made me giddy with its thriller elements, and has kept my brain active for months after I have seen it with the thorny moral questions it raises. Movies seldom deliver so gloriously on their intended promise, and it is worth applauding the director, Ole Bornedal for his achievement here.

Inglourious Basterds (***1/2)

2009-11-14T23:48:00.000-08:00

Do you have a member of your extended family, a spoilt nephew perhaps, or a cocky uncle, who is incredibly annoying? He will not listen to anyone, and will blatantly disregard all norms. And most frustrating of all, he will - again and again - come through with flying colors in everything he does. The prodigiously talented insufferable. Quentin Tarantino belongs in that company.

'Inglourious Basterds', the title of the latest from Tarantino, refers to a group of American men brought together to fight back, with full militant vendetta, against the Nazi assault during WWII. This story intercuts with that of the opportunity presented to a young Jewish girl to exact revenge for the death of her family at the hands of German troops led by an unreasonably devious Nazi colonel.

The movie is many things, but to me, the one thing it seemed more than anything else was - indulgent. From the deliberately misspelt title, (I understand the film borrows only the most basic premise from the late seventies italian movie of the same name), to the mix-and-match opening credits (half in technicolor bright yellow 70's font, the rest in regular font), to characters who talk and talk and talk (in Tarantino-speak, of course), to the casual disregard for historical accuracy, it could have been terribly labored. How indulgent you ask? The last words uttered in the movie are, "I think this might be my masterpiece". Really, Mr Tarantino? Imagine how overwrought this film, clearly a pet project, could have become. But darned if Tarantino does not make it all work. Not just make it work, but take off with giddy delight. This is a movie that does not have a minute that is not interesting

The movie is essentially a putting together of six to seven precisely structured (and fully realized) episodes that more or less tell a full story. I suspect Tarantino shot a much longer version, but had to slash off large portions for a shorter theatrical run time. [The DVD release of the movie may tell if this the case. It would not be the first time; Kill Bill - Volumes I and II, released separately in cinemas, were originally shot as a single movie]. Tarantino is as good if not a better writer than a director; nobody does dialog like him. In this film he demonstrates a particular proficiency for structuring cat and mouse scenes of unbearable tension. From the first scene, a charged, mostly verbal exchange between the Nazi colonel and a French farmer who may be hiding a secret, the movie crackles. There are scenes of particular (and sadistic) wit that follow, which show Tarantino using every trick in the book, but with such intelligent structuring, that it all comes off new. He confounds expectations beautifully; there are many developments that occur in the latter half of the movie that break cardinal rules of the film book. I would offer specific details, but do not want to give away critical plot elements. There is, in particular, a scene in a tavern late in the movie that is so smartly written, tightly constructed, and well played out, that this episode alone would make a memorable short film worthy of the price of admission.

Much has been made of the character of the acid-sharp Nazi leader, Colonel Handa. I will only add that by now, thousands of films have provided us with hundreds of legendary villains, and it takes skill to present a bad guy who is unlike anything we have seen before. Christoph Waltz, who plays this character with an impossible balance of grace and evil, has an assured lock on a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Melanie Laurent, who plays the lead female character in the movie has a face meant for cinema; Tarantino fetishizes this face with many generous close ups - for good reason. I was transfixed by her face to the point of distraction in her scenes. I am surprised that much has not been made of Brad Pitt's performance. I suspect his job was to bring the masses in, who will be surprised to find that he is not in every scene of the film. This is a true ensemble film, with memorable work by dozens of actors. But even then, Pitt does well here with lifting his role out of caricature into a believable character; I fully bought his southern accent (what is the story with the scar that runs along his neck in the film?). On the issue of accents, this is truly a European movie (made with American financing), where key plot points are built around accents. And here is the miracle: Tarantino (and Pitt?) were able to bring in millions to the cinemas to watch this movie that turns out to have sub-titles through more than half its running length. I am all for destroying the aversion to movie subtitles for good and all. And kudos to 'Basterds' for tricking the movie-going masses wholesale into seeing a subtitled film.

I also liked the fact that this is a movie about movies. The lead female character owns a cinema house in Paris. Characters talk about films often and there are many cinematic references. The climax is structured around events that transpire during the screening of a pro-Nazi film in Paris. There are critical events that transpire in the projectionist's room of the theatre. All of which allow Tarantino to indulge in his obsessive love for the cinema and to pay homages. There is a nice little tip of the hat to Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'. For the movie lover, I am sure there are endless references to discover upon repeat viewing.

The film is cleanly violent. While this did not bother me, what I did not appreciate was far too many shoot-em-ups - the kind that popped up suddenly and pretty much decimated everyone on the screen. These scenes pulled me out of the film due to acts that seemed dissociated from the flow of the story. But this is a minor quibble. Before going to see it, I had poor expectations for 'Inglourious Basterds', because the reviews had been polarizing. And I was fully ready to dislike it based on Tarantino's more recent contributions to popular culture. Imagine then the pain it causes me to say that this movie squeezed out my admiration for this director once again. To grant him, yet another time, the elusive 'g' label. Yes, this movie is genius.

2009 Toronto International Film Festival - Update Four

2009-11-08T01:06:00.000-08:00

Love, and Other Impossible Pursuits ***1/2

Cracks ***
Road, Movie ***

September eighteenth 2009. I saw three very different movies today, ‘Love and Other Impossible Pursuits’, ‘Cracks’ and ‘Road, Movie’ at TIFF.

In ‘Love And Other Impossible Pursuits’, the director Don Roos does what Pedro Almodovar did several years ago with ‘All About My Mother’. Known for his brazen, envelope-pushing movies (‘The Opposite of Sex’, ‘Happy Endings’), this is Roos’ grown up movie. To be fair, his underrated 2000 movie ‘Bounce’, starring Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow was a fairly serious film, and this one is a return to that tone.

Publicity still for 'Love And Other Impossible Pursuits' from TIFF 2009

‘Love And Other Impossible Pursuits’, (based on the novel of the same name by Ayelet Waldman) is what you might be forced into categorizing as a romantic comedy, but it has a deep underlying sadness. Natalie Portman plays Emilia, a twenty-something woman in New York City trying to find stability in her life. She is married to the man who used to be her boss and his life is still occupied in large parts by his son (Charlie Tahan) and wife (Lisa Kudrow) from a former marriage. The movie begins soon after Portman’s own infant daughter has recently died. She seems to have adapted, but she has not. This may lead you to believe that the film is a look at grief associated with the death of the very young. However Portman’s character defies the sympathetic stereotype; she certainly does not make life for anyone around her easy. She is quickly bruised, needy in her demands from her husband, hostile to the attempts from well-meaning family members and friends to empathize with her loss, and uses her grief as an excuse to lash out at those closest to her. She finds herself having to spend increasingly more time with her precocious teenage step-son and their relationship is fraught from the start. The majority of the movie is about Emilia coming to terms with her situation, not always in the expected ways.

As an actor, Natalie Portman, has always had that mix of poise and intelligence about her. And she acts her heart out here. But ultimately the role seems a little wrong for her, because it requires a certain amount of darkness about it and Portman can’t help but glow (not in a physical sense, but by way of her sensibility) even when she is miserable. And the role also calls for, in my mind, someone a bit older. But these are petty quibbles in a movie that otherwise hits most of the right notes. There is fine work here also from Charlie Tahan, the young actor who plays her step-son. Lisa Kudrow (a fixture in most Don Roos movies) however walks away with the film; she has few scenes, but she owns them. She plays a shrill shrew of a woman, maddening in her nastiness and ability to singe with words, and Kudrow does not once succumb to the temptation to make her nice or likeable. But somehow, through the meanness of her character, the humanity peaks through. This is what good actors can do; she deserves recognition for this role.

I harbor disdain for films that are specifically aimed to tug at the heartstrings; the slightest whiff that this is what the film is up to and it usually turns me off. But I will admit that this film moved me. Also, well cast ‘romantic comedies’ made by well known directors are always playing a losing battle for me. This is one of the hardest genres to make a movie in and my expectations for mainstream romantic comedies are very high and they almost always disappoint. This one did not. It is sincere, and well made, and well acted. It is definitely worth seeking out when it has a wide release.

http://www.tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/loveandotherimpossib

‘Cracks’ made by first-time director Jordan Scott (daughter of Ridley) appears to have been more than a little influenced by “Picnic on Hanging Rock”, that great Peter Weir film of epic tension and foreboding (and also, resolute refusal to provide answers at the end). It has the same sense of impending horror in the midst of the mundane. It also has a similar setting.

Publicity still for 'Cracks' from TIFF 2009

Eva Green (‘Casino Royale’, ‘The Dreamers’) plays a teacher, Miss G., in a prestigious all-girls British Boarding School in the forties. She is a free-spirit and unconventional in her methods of instruction. Young, beautiful, and confident, she is adored by the girls who look up to her as a role-model. Some are stronger drawn to her than others. Miss G. makes no qualms about playing favorites with some students who she believes worthy of extra attention, and this inevitably has resulted in a delicate political structure amongst the girls. The arrival of a new girl from Spain disrupts this shaky balance of power. The new girl, Fiama, rumored to be a member of royalty, carries about herself with even greater confidence than Miss G., and refuses to bow to either the other girls or her teacher. Her seeming arrogance eventually reveals as being simply a manifestation of her knowing more (and being athletically better) than the other girls. Fiama starts making it evident to the other girls that their adored teacher is perhaps not who they have thought to be all along. And may be not worthy of their adulation. Pretty soon a tug-of-war for power erupts, between Fiama, Miss G., and the other girls (led by the previous leader of the pack, Diana).

This is where the movie goes suddenly very dark, delicious even (at least initially), in the hard-boiled tightness of its well-laid plot. It becomes evident then that the movie had all along intended to descend to sinister places. Like ‘Picnic on Hanging Rock’, this film began with a tone of foreboding and approaching maelstrom, but when it got there, I was still unprepared for it. And therein lies its success. I will say no more.

I do want to comment on one aspect of the movie that surprised me. There is a part late in the movie about a transgression that Miss G commits that is surprisingly, not implied, but visibly depicted. And the movie gets away with it, I suspect, because the teacher happens to be a woman. If the setting had been changed to a boy’s school and the teacher played by a man, this would have caused outrage. I had a similar issue with “The Reader” last year, which depicts a very sexual relationship between a school boy and a much older woman. Switch the genders (young school girl and man old enough to be her father) and the movie would have been a hotbed of political fury. Switch the gender in ‘Cracks’ and the movie would possibly not have been made. There is something about the way that sexuality is depicted in “Cracks” that made it unsettling for me. But perhaps that was the intent all along, to make the viewer uncomfortable and therefore somewhat complicit in the dark places it gets to. Consider me spooked.

http://www.tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/cracks

I had purchased my ticket for “Road, Movie” not realizing that the screening was the North American premiere for the film. I enjoyed the premiere rituals prior to the screening (introduction of the movie by the director and bringing out of cast and production team to the stage) for that air of electricity and caged nervousness that they carried.

Premiere of "Road, Movie" at TIFF 2009. From left, Cameron Bailey (TIFF Co-Director), Dev Benegal (Director of movie), Satish Kaushik (Actor), Tannishtha Chatterjee (Lead Actress), Abhay Deol (Lead Actor) and Susan Landau (Producer).

Directed by Dev Benegal, [son of the legendary Indian film director, Shyam Benegal], whose two previous movies ‘Eyes Wide Open’ and ‘English August’ are unseen by me, this movie surprised me by its maturity, and its determinedly indie sensibility. Heck, the second half of the movie even goes for outright surrealism in one or two places. For Indian cinema this is quite the road not taken.

The protagonist is a young man in contemporary India who wants no part of his father’s hair-oil business (you read that correct). He gets conned into delivering a large consignment across the country. His mode of transportation is a beat-up truck that has seen better years. And so our hero sets out across the arid landscape of northwestern India (Rajasthan) characterized by harsh deserts and nomadic locals. As indicated by the title of the movie, on the way, he meets the expected motley cast of characters who accompany him through the expected misadventures. This includes a young kid looking for adventure (Mohammed Faisal Usmani), an avuncular mechanic (Satish Kaushik) who may also become his roadside/spiritiual advisor, and a nomadic woman (Tannishtha Chatterjee) with whom he shares an unexpected connection. I will grant that all of these characters are well developed; they all carry a well-lived authenticity about them, an unscrubbed hard-earned rootedness to their characters. There is thankfully no concession to any fast-talking, glib, side-kick characters.

The road trip is made in the kind of truck that used to serve as a mobile movie theatre across rural towns in the near past, the sort which had an antiquated movie projector in its back and a make-shift cloth screen that enabled pit stops from village to village to show movies and generate some income along the way. This neat conceit allows for some of the best scenes in the movie. It also lets the filmmakers indulge in a bit of nostalgia about the power of movies, and to show yet again, people universally falling under the spell of moving images. And how so many in India are making do with so little.

In the latter portion of the movie, there are some scenes filmed in a seeming mirage in the middle of the desert, where the world suddenly comes to life. The teeming of people living there, the music, the food, the reckless abandon with which some characters consummate their lingering attraction - all appear to be an exercise in surrealism. Did this occur really or is it all imagined; I suspect you are not meant to know one way or another. Also, while Tannishtha Chatterjee does very convincing work here as a wandering tribal woman, her character appears out of nowhere and (perhaps intentionally) is oddly without context. Abhay Deol, the lead, is that rarity in Indian cinema, a lead actor who does not feel the need to behave like one. His understated, ego-less, but not passive role serves the movie remarkably well.

I had some complaints. Some scenes veer dangerously off tone from the rest of the movie. There is a bit about bandits who go loony that are from another farcical film. There is some commentary thrown in about the corporatization of water and the abuse that comes from its terrible need in a dry land that does not fit with the rest of the movie. Also, the movie could have used some judicious editing; there are too many long pan shots of the truck moving solitary through desolate landscapes. The endless, sandy, dry landscape began to grate on me a bit after a while. I wonder if this movie will play well in India, particularly in the multiplexes. But I hope it does because it has moments of great humor as well as heart.

http://www.tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/roadmovie

Publicity still for 'Road, Movie' from TIFF 2009

San Diego Asian Film Festival (SDAFF) 2009 - Update Two

2009-10-28T22:01:00.000-07:00

Have you ever connected with someone within the first five minutes of meeting them? "Shades of Ray", a movie I saw recently at SDAFF 2009 is the cinematic equivalent of that experience. The movie put a smile to my face within the first few minutes and I settled in comfortably for the rest of the screening. Few are the movies that can build this instantaneous trust and then sustain it.

"Shades of Ray" is the story of the people in the life of a young man, Ray (Rehman) who has a Pakistani father and an American mother. His parents, living on the East Coast, are trying to exert their will on him in their separate but well-meaning ways. His Muslim father does not know that his son, living in Los Angeles, is a struggling actor who pays the bills by working in a bar. Considering that alcohol consumption is not encouraged in Islam the irony is not lost on Ray. His American girlfriend will not give him an immediate answer to his marriage proposal. And he never seems to be close to the fit the casting directors are looking for at every audition he goes to (not ethnic enough, or too ethnic). Worse, his father forces him to have dinner with a Pakistani girl he thinks Ray should get to know. And to his utter surprise, he does not hate this girl.

This may sound like sitcom fare. And maybe it is, but that would not be a bad sitcom. Nobody is going to put this movie on their list of the best movies of all time. But sometimes all a movie has to do is to be true to its intentions, and be honest and to have heart, and that is enough. The movie does not do anything path-breaking, in tone, story or style. It sets out to register this story about a character we have not seen before (a half-Pakistani man in America) and gets it ably accomplished. That what it has to say about identity, and race, and finding one's foothold in the ever liquifying melting pot that is America, resonates with others is a small measure of its success.

Ray is played by Zachary Levi (the lead actor on the NBC show 'Chuck', unseen by me) who has a loose-limbed naturalness about him that serves the delivery of many lines of dialog well. Kathy Baker, always a reliable actor, plays his mom. Consider that his quintessentially Muslim father is played so convincingly by Brian George, a Jewish actor born in Jerusalem and trained in Canada (I learn from IMDB). He steals nearly every frame of the movie he appears in.

One could do a lot worse than to pick this movie to spend two hours of their time on. Even as I realized this is not an exceptional movie, I walked out of it feeling something approaching fondness.
http://sdaff.bside.com/2009/films/shadesofray_sdaff2009

San Diego Asian Film Festival (SDAFF 2009): Three Unlikely Indian Films

2009-10-24T22:42:00.000-07:00

Where else will you get to see films like this? I have been trying to indulge as much as possible at the ongoing 2009 San Diego Asian Film Festival, within the confines of time and scheduling. Over the past week or so, I got to see three Indian movies at SDAFF and they are simply unlike any other Indian movie I have seen. This is not faint claim. And I am not necessarily praising these movies, just scratching my chin at the previously unimagined diversity within the diaspora of Indian cinema.

The standard Bollywood masala movie is nothing if not consistently predictable. The three movies I saw, 'Karma Calling', 'Tandoori Love' and 'Bombay Summer' will never be confused for a typical Bollywood movie, or marketed like one. And I am grateful for film festivals such as SDAFF that offer this opportunity.

Take 'Karma Calling', for instance. This is a film about an Indian family living in New Jersey that is struggling with the usual woes: assimilation into the foreign culture, mother in law problems, first-generational disconnect with parents, unrequited love, unlikely alliances, financial turmoil...you get the idea. This is a little movie, with little production values. It looks like it was made with a pittance because it probably was. It has no big name actors, and is the kind where you would not be surprised if many of the roles were played by friends of the film-makers. The soundtrack seems like it was pieced together on somebody's computer. For all of these setbacks though, it has one big thing going for it: its sincerity. The movie has so much genuine affection for its characters, that it won me over in spite of its technical deficiencies (large, loud, empty Bollywood movies should take note). Each character is granted a fantasy sequence in the film. And each clip is played for genuine humor or as an opportunity for incisive commentary. I look forward to what these film-makers next do, because this movie had that Kevin Smith feeling of 'see how you can find sparks of genius even in his earliest films'.
http://sdaff.bside.com/2009/films/karmacalling_sdaff2009

'Tandoori Love' goes the other direction. It is made by a Swiss director with a fondness for the Bollywood tradition that verges on obeisance. This translates into an exercise in the juxtapositioning of unlikely motifs. What we have here is a story set in Switzerland that incorporates indulgent Bollywood dance routines! We have carefully constructed scenes with competent writing suddenly invaded by the need to burst into song and dance. We have a requirement for the suspension of belief every ten or so minutes as the plot veers wildly. We have actors mouthing typical Bollywoodesque songs in intermixed English and Hindi, and some German thrown in for good measure. We have a beautiful blonde heroine being wooed by Vijay Raaz, that comic Indian character actor who is physically the unlikeliest of romantic leads. We have a story that remains defiantly absurd: an Indian man who cooks for a crew of filmmakers shooting a Hindi movie in the Swiss Alps falls hopelessly in love with a Swiss girl who happens to run the local hotel with her boyfriend. We have Europeans in a quintessentially Swiss snowy resort inexplicably falling for the charms of Indian cooking. I also found it odd that the movie harbors a surprising fondness for graphic violence, that borders on the macabre. It goes on like this until you start to relish the audacity with which the filmmakers keep tossing random concepts together seeing which ones will stick. Eventually I stopped rolling my eyes and accepted the movie for the carnival that it was. I should also add that the movie is beautiful to look at, particularly in spectacularly filmed sequences of food preparations. There is a scene halfway through the movie where luscious, freshly-sliced, deep red strawberries get tossed into a pan on the stove with perfectly golden friend onions. Why? Because it makes for incredible eye candy. Nobody is actually going to eat strawberries cooked with fried onions, but what does it matter. This is that kind of a movie. It is absurd yes, but I have to grant that it is quite entertaining. Where are you going to get to see a movie like this?
http://sdaff.bside.com/2009/films/tandoorilove_sdaff2009

Consider finally 'Bombay Summer', the most unlikely of the three unlikely Indian movies I have seen at SDAFF so far. As Indian movies go, this one comes closest to embracing neorealism than any other I have seen. The entire movie can be summarized as follows: an unlikely friendship develops between a young man and a young girl and her boyfriend in contemporary Bombay, and an event occurs that changes everything. That is it. This is a shockingly spare film by Hindi movie standards. The movie spends a lot of time observing these three young characters, the minutiae of their individual lives, who they know, what they do, how they live. The camera pauses long as someone reads a book, or as two characters rest during a lull in their conversation, or as someone stares at the ocean. The young director of this movie (in attendance for the screening), a previous maker of documentaries, applies the tenets of that style of film-making to this, his first narrative feature. And it takes some getting used to. But it also forces a measure of meditation out of the audience. This is not a movie for those with short attention spans. Or for those that need to see the gears of the plot move clickety-click through every minute of the movie they are watching. There are episodes in this movie - a long, nearly-wordless visit to an abandoned textile mill, or a song sung by a local musician which plays in its near-entirety as the main characters simply listen - that require full surrender from the viewer. Getting impatient or irritated would not be useful. The acting is top-notch, particularly from Tannishtha Chatterjee (who I also saw in "Road, Movie" at TIFF 2009) and Samrat Chakrabarti (who was incidentally, also in 'Karma Calling', but in a far different role). This sort of movie demands an austere submission - on its own terms - for the audience to fully enjoy it. And I am not sure if I truly enjoyed this movie, but I admired its organic, defiantly non-commercial soul. After the movie was over, I felt I had experienced something. And again I ask, where are you going to get to see a movie like that?
http://sdaff.bside.com/2009/films/bombaysummer_sdaff2009

The Squid And The Whale (***1/2)

2009-10-20T23:04:00.000-07:00

"The Squid and The Whale" is testimony to good coming from the painful sometimes. Here is a movie about four rather specific characters (a husband, wife and two sons) who go through a difficult period in their lives. And somehow the movie becomes about all families.

The parents announce that they are getting divorced and the film is about the immediate, consequential and inconsequential events that follow. The happenings here are too specific - in time, in place, in the minutiae of the details - to be entirely fictional. And so I presume that much of this movie is a documentation of a divorce that was borne witness by the screenwriter. This does not takes away from the achievements of this movie in any manner. In being honest to the point of embarrassment, it at least gets rid of the self-consciousness that plagues these sorts of movies, right off the bat. Movies about families breaking apart tend to be either too self-aware, or too keen to point fingers, or the most offensive of all, melodramatic. 'The Squid and The Whale' has the good sense to indulge in none of that. There is usually great pain in the unraveling of those who at some point have shared great love. This film wisely chooses to be utterly matter of fact in depicting the events that follow the announcement of this unraveling.

Sure, there are arguments, and misinformed dalliances, and oversights and pettinesses and events driven by poor judgment. However, it is all played straight. And the camera never lingers a second too long to extract payback from some emotional moment or another.

There were many things I admired about this film. First about the acting. Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney have of late reached that place in their careers where there is no need to adhere to vanity and this has allowed their performances to be unfussy. To be able to free a character from the desire to be likeable is a measure of progress. Linney and Daniels here go through their roles with the ease of having lived in the skins of these characters for a lifetime. And the two young actors who play their sons have the unpleasant task of being brutally honest in the depiction of adolescent anxiety and all of the embarrassments that come with raging hormones and confused allegiances -and they are up to the task. Which brings me to the other thing that I appreciated about the movie: the honest depiction of adolescent sexuality. This is always a slippery slope and most filmmakers, for good reason, stay away it. In its forthright and non-judgemental take on what these two boys are going through, the movie reminded me of "You, Me, And Everyone We Know", just about the only other recent movie I know that has gotten this right. It is difficult to be candid, but not prurient or judgmental when it comes to depicting teen sexuality - and this movie achieves it. What I also liked about the movie is that it is so quintessentially rooted to a specific location, in this case, Brooklyn. The geography of where the events occur becomes a character of its own and adds another layer of authenticity to the movie.

All of this may make you wonder if this is a funny movie, or a painful and sad one. It is actually neither, at least not deliberately. It walks you step by step through all of the fumbling messy proceedings that unfold after the announcement of a divorce and seemingly does not have an agenda to amuse or to elicit sympathy. And somehow, for this movie, that is enough.

2009 Toronto International Film Festival - Update Three

2009-10-10T20:56:00.000-07:00

J’ai Tue Ma Mere (I Killed My Mother) - ****

Write about what you know, they say. Same goes for film.

September seventeenth, 2009. There are scenes in the only movie I saw today (‘J’ai Tue Ma Mere’; I Killed My Mother) that are real to the point of gasping recognition. Real in the sense that the worst of reality can be. Real in the way that two people who love each other terribly can say and do the most hurtful and damaging things to one other. I have not seen a movie that so perfectly captures the ebb and pull of a relationship prone to emotional excess in quite some time. Funnily, I have scarcely much in common with the situations the movie describes, and yet it felt oddly familiar, this documentation of familial emotional violence.

There are several things that make this movie remarkable. First, the relationship in question is not between two lovers, but as the title indicates, between a mother and son. The movie is so specific in its details because it needs to be, and yet, the dialog takes off from almost the very first few frames into such well-worn patterns from real life, that you forget you are watching a movie. Instead it feels like eavesdropping. Only the very best movies can do this, that is, pull the viewer from out of his seat and into the lives of the people on the screen. I forgot I was sitting in this cinema watching this movie, and instead felt like I was visiting these people. This is one of the hardest things to do in a movie.

The second, and perhaps greater evidence of how remarkable this movie is the fact that it has been written, produced, directed and (lead) acted by a twenty year old. He was sixteen when he wrote the screenplay. Again, the recurring theme from the past two days at the festival, strikes with uncannily strong resonance. That of the young taking the camera and creating products of breathtaking confidence. If a celebrated filmmaker had made this movie, I would be no less enthralled by it, but the fact that a kid from Quebec decided to spend what little money he had to make a movie that is largely autobiographical (one presumes) and came up with something this searing is hard to ignore. The prodigal Xavier Dolan wrote a screenplay that is quite simply about his relationship with his mother when growing up as an adolescent. And then made a movie out of it. Somewhere in between he generated a product that premiered at Cannes, won three awards there, and is now being shown at the Toronto Film Festival. If young filmmakers, or old ones for that matter, want to find inspiration, they cannot do much better than Xavier Dolan. I am already waiting to see what he is going to do next when he turns the weary old age of twenty one.

A word about the acting here. Bad acting is easy to identify, but good acting is undefinable, it is just there, natural as the air you breathe, and unfettered, unpretentious even in the most extreme things being depicted. The actress Anne Dorval plays the titular mother with such effortless realism in portraying a specific woman, that I wondered at one point if the movie was a documentary constructed from taped scenes from the director’s life. As for the other lead, the director, it is bizarre that someone this young can elicit a performance this unaffected. Consider how indulgent it would have seemed if the acting was anything less than note-perfect in a movie directed, produced and written by the lead actor.

I do not want to spend too much time about the plot. The title may lead you to believe it is horror movie about a child killing its mother. The title simply refers to a situation early in the movie, when a school-teacher asks students to interview their parents for a project. The lead character, unwilling to engage his mother, lies to his teacher that his mother is dead (and could he interview his aunt instead?). How twisted can your relationship be with your mother that you would rather figuratively kill your mother than have a serious discussion with her. The movie is a simple documentation of the hard-earned ups and terrible downs in a relationship between this mother and this son. And it never feels indulgent, or repetitive, because every character is allowed to be flawed and mean, and irrational and petty. Just like real life. But there is also great love. Would it not be good if this movie were to find the same bond with audiences worldwide, who would be exasperated, horrified, united, and enraged while watching the movie, but who would also greatly love it. Just like the two main characters.

Publicity shot for 'J'ai Tue Ma Mere' (I Killed My Mother) used at TIFF 2009

[P.S. I fear that this movie may get labeled as a ‘gay movie’ (or worse marketed that way) because the lead actor and director is matter-of-factly gay and a story of his life relates to this fact occasionally. But I hope this does not limit the movie, because it will spark the flare of recognition in any audience member who has had a tumultuous relationship with another family member. I hear that this movie has already been picked up as Canada's entry for the Best Foreign Language Oscar, so it should hopefully get seen by many]

2009 Toronto International Film Festival - Update Two

2009-10-10T20:30:00.000-07:00

Phobidilia - ***1/2

Bunny and The Bull ****

September sixteenth, 2009. Today I saw two movies, “Phobidilia” (at the Varsity Cinemas at 2:30 PM) and “Bunny and the Bull” (at the Scotiabank Cinemas at 8:15 PM). The two films could not be further apart in tone, and outlook. But what unified them was their confidence and their singular high quality. Their craft. Each was a movie that looked as professionally well made as any I have seen. And both should put standard Hollywood fare to utter shame. I hope that there were Hollywood executives in the audience, who saw what these film-makers have accomplished with so little, and wept. Wept for the horrible squandering of money in typical Hollywood fare; and the poor quality of the product. When here were prime examples of inspired people making inspired movies, terribly good movies, with so little.

Before I comment on the two movies themselves, I did want to mention that by far the best thing about attending film festivals is the ability to see the director of the movies; nothing surpasses the experience of the Question and Answer session that follows after each movie has finished. I find these Q&A sessions more than a little moving. And inspiring. Here is the person who has been with the movie from the start and parented it from birth to graduation, and it is such an honor to see the parent(s) and hear them speak about their child at the end of the screening. In the case of ‘Phobidilia’, the two directors, Israeli brothers aged 30 and 32 years, talked to the audience at the end of the screening. And look what they have accomplished at such a young age – such a polished, uncompromising, reassured directorial debut. Right there, seeing those two talk and be humble and be real gives me hope for the future of cinema. [Incidentally, how do you avoid stating the banal, or invoking heavy-handed metaphors, or sounding trite during these Q&A sessions? Whatever the trick, these two had mastered it] For “Bunny and the Bull”, at the end of the screening, the British director too appeared on stage along with the funnier of the two main leads from the film and the producer. And they were all so droll, and humble, that if I had the power to grant success to their film - and - worldwide distribution - and - audience attendance I would do so in the blink of an eye.

“Phobidilia” (based on an Israeli book by the same name) is a hard examination of agoraphobia, the fear that prevents some individuals from leaving the safety of their homes. Ever. It is a story of a young man who seems remarkably unremarkable in how he lives his life, until it becomes eventually clear that he does not appear to be venturing out from within his home. He works as a programmer from home, orders everything he needs online and seems generally well settled. Until the landlord of the apartment he is renting, and a determined woman who works as a survey taker for television programs start to push at him to venture out of his cocoon, both for very different reasons.

As I was watching it, the movie started off seeming tentative and a little precious. But it quickly dropped that tone for a rapidly escalating pace - all the way to the unyielding conclusion. This is a film with four, perhaps five characters and yet, it never feels structured, or formal, or like a play. This is where the movie wins; in a traditional film, perhaps one made in Hollywood, the movie would have wound its way toward ‘happy’ conclusions to meet with expected conventions. Phobidilia however goes to dark places undaunted and with confidence. It takes its subject matter to its logical conclusion and does not extract a single drop of unearned optimism. Wherever it dares to be positive it does so only by paying its price in kind for objectivity. It is a remarkably assured debut from the filmmakers, unshaken in its belief, uncompromising in its treatment. Also a word about the lead actor, apparently one of the more popular stars from Israel. He goes with this movie wherever it takes him, with no vanity and utter commitment. Other young actors could do well to emulate this fidelity to the craft.

Publicity shot from 'Phobidilia' used at TIFF 2009.

“Bunny and the Bull” is a gem. A delight. A little piece of whimsy that floats about on its own silly gaseous energy. It is the story of a man (Edward Hogg) living a regimented life who seemingly has an aversion to leaving his home [curious I saw this movie the same day as ‘Phobidilia’]. One day he starts recalling events from his past including a wacky, odd and often hilarious road-trip taken around Europe with his best friend, Bunny (Simon Farnaby). All of these events come full circle of course but to say more about the plot would be a disservice to the film.

During the Q&A, the producer of the movie admitted (when pressed for details) that this movie was made for two million US dollars. See this movie please, and pay attention to its inspired and consistent use of animation and set construction, and see how much (and how lovely) two millions dollars worth of rightly used money can get you. The movie is resolutely inventive in its telling, almost militant in its creativity. And yet it never feels labored for doing so. This soufflé rises and stays put. Its good-heartedness, the loveliness of the script, and the great acting from the three main leads never once threatens to have the movie collapse on itself from all of its maverick stylings. How often can you say this about a movie. Nothing is told linear, and when a character travels to some new place, it is just as likely to be an animated background as an unrealistic set created out of shear insanity. How else to explain a giant crab that sits atop a car as it is being driven across Europe (replaced by a giant stuffed bear later in the film), a golden glowing matador uniform, a man who crosses the line in his attachment to his dogs, a bull fight with a giant orsine creature made from metal pieces….I could go on, but it all comes together beautifully, not just at the end, but from the very start. A tale about male bonding in its simplest common denominator, the movie is a set of wonderful anecdotes sewn together with affection. Even when it is foul and preposterous in its vulgarity, it has a sweetness to it – and all the criticism you can summon for its temporary crassness changes to smiling disbelief at the audacity of the filmmaker. The two male leads are so good at playing their characters convincingly, that I suspect that if I see them in another film I may resent them for playing different characters. From a script perspective, the movie is so consistently funny that most viewers who listen carefully will get their money’s worth for the dialog alone. But this movie is much less (yes, much less, because most of the scenes involving travel are done on an animated palette) and in doing so it becomes more. The director was asked why he made a conscious choice to film all of the outdoor scenes using artificial, animated, whimsical facades? And he answered that it was because they did not have the money for actual on location outdoor shooting. So most of the movie was shot in a little studio in UK. How serendipitous that what makes the movie unique is a by-product of being forced to being thrifty. I hope this movie gets wider distribution, because it could be a real audience pleaser. It may seem like I am piling on too much praise for this film, but it is because I have only high regard and sweet affection for this film.

Publicity shot for "Bunny And The Bull" used at TIFF 2009

Inspirations that may have gone into the making of an inspired movie

2009-10-10T19:25:00.000-07:00

[The following is something I wrote up the week after I saw 'Up']

All good cinema sits comfortably on the shoulders of films that have preceded it.

While I was watching "Up" this weekend, and being smitten by its simple audacity, I could not help but wonder about at least one or two films that may have inspired parts of it. It would seem that the makers of the film (the writer/director team of Pete Doctor and Bob Petersen) might have been influenced by the following movies [SPOILER WARNING: If you have not seen 'Up' yet, please do yourself a favor and stop reading]:

"Howl's Moving Castle": The folks at Pixar, including Andrew Stanton have long acknowledged that when it comes to animation, they bow at the feet of Hayao Miyazaki. And the Japanese master's most recent US animation release "Howl's Moving Castle" was about a magnificent structure that floats through the clouds and houses the main characters. Notice any resemblance to 'Up'? Many reviewers have pointed out that 'Up' may be Pixar's homage to Miyazaki, not just in the floating house but also with regard how the interiors of Charles Muntz's giant blimp in 'Up' have been designed.

"Fitzcarraldo": This is a movie that documents the story of a man so obsessed with building an opera house in the Peruvian wilderness, that he takes on the impossible task of moving a 180-ton ship containing musical instruments across the Amazonian forests and mountains to the site of the opera house. Werner Herzog, who directed the movie, ironically became consumed with actually moving the ship across the locations where the film was being shot - with no particular regard to time, money or cost to human life. The resemblance to the middle portion of 'Up' is striking: the South American setting, and the main characters pulling a house through the wilderness with their own physical strength. And with the single-minded determination of bringing it to its planned destination at any cost.

"Gran Torino": It could be just me, but I see more than a passing resemblance of 'Up' to Clint Eastwood's most recent film, a story of a cranky misanthrope who has lost interest in life after being widowed. And who eventually finds a semblance of meaning to his life by becoming an unwitting mentor to a boy from the neighborhood.

There are a few other obvious inspirations including 'ET' but I will let others discover those for themselves

Photographs taken while at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF 09)

2009-10-09T22:24:00.000-07:00

The Roy Thomson Hall, where many of the Gala screenings for TIFF occur.

The TIFF 'headquarters' at the intersection of Dundas and Yonge streets.

The church adjacent to the Roy Thomson Hall on King Street.

Toronto has some amazing high-rises.

Some impressive urban architecture

My first name (Yazdi) has been mangled often and in amusing ways. Curiously, no one has called me 'Yuzu' yet.

Castles in the sky

A grand erection of steel and concrete

Toronto is not a bad place to visit if you are an admirer of tall buildings

Urban cathedral

Got steel?

Metal inflorescence

A near-perfect blend of the old and the new.

Does your bank look this good?

A vomit of neon.

At the premiere of "Road, Movie" at TIFF 2009. From left, Cameron Bailey (TIFF Co-Director), Dev Benegal (Director of movie), Satish Kaushik (Actor), Tannishtha Chatterjee (Lead Actress), Abhay Deol (Lead Actor) and Susan Landau (Producer).

Until the 2010 film festival comes along, good bye TIFF!

Wendy and Lucy (***)

2009-10-04T15:29:00.000-07:00

There is a scene in the second half of 'Wendy and Lucy' that broke me. I was watching the movie until that point not knowing quite what to make of it. I have nothing against a movie that is spare, and does not have its cards laid out in front of you. But it was unclear to me whether this one had a dramatic arc at all or whether it would be the kind of film that is content just to show a slice of life. Turned out it was both, and therein lies its strength.

Make no mistake, 'Wendy and Lucy' is not for those who watch movies only for giddy entertainment. It sits squarely at the fringe of spare movies, austere even, in its single-minded regard for one character through its running length. Well, to be fair, two characters. Wendy, a young woman (Michelle Williams) traveling north across the country with precious little money is on her way to Alaska hoping to get employed in a cannery there. Her only companion is her dog, Lucy (that has some Golden Retriever in her). Somewhere in Oregon, Wendy's car breaks down, and down on her luck, she chooses unwisely to shop-lift in a grocery store. Arrested and taken away to the local precinct for hours, upon return she finds Lucy missing from outside the grocery store where she had been tied up for the duration of the presumed short trip to the store. The remainder of the movie is about Wendy's search for Lucy; and a testimony to life as hell for that for those who sit at the bottom of the country's economic structure.

For those who think that the United States is the land of plenty and of overwhelming opportunity, here is a movie to give you pause and to remind you of the many who are trying hard to get by with little, so little. Movies about the poor usually tend to romanticize poverty, and even those about characters who are living a hand-to-mouth existence tend to be upbeat in their assured promise of uplift at the end. There are few movies that choose to show those at the bottom in their true state, caught in a cycle of despair in a system unwilling to grant them any breaks. Here the movie reminded me of 'Frozen River' from last year. There is a line in 'Wendy in Lucy': 'To get a house, you need a house. To get a job, you need a job'. How did it get to be so? Everyone knows that with every economic casualty, it is those at the very bottom who are (irreversibly) affected the most. But to see this honestly depicted in a movie still comes as a shock. For someone like Wendy who does not own a permanent home or a phone, it is impossible to integrate into society with its current rules. How is she to procure a job, or find a lost dog even?

An intriguing facet of the movie is that Wendy's character remains without context - without information about her past or how she came to be in her current situation. She just is at this point in her life. Without a home, with few belongings, and without much money. How could someone get to such a dire condition, you may ask, but the movie offers few clues. While I admittedly found this frustrating when watching the film, this turned to something approaching admiration upon further consideration. Influenced by italian neorealism, the director Kelly Reichardt, in telling a story about the poor and the working class and in filming it in a no nonsense, documentary style, does not want to let the viewer get away with easy explanations. She respects her characters too much, as miserable and down on their luck as they may be, and will not permit the audience to judge them based on their past. She forces you to evaluate the movie on the basis of the current facts only, which beautifully subverts the easy way out with the 'she deserves this fate because of the choices she made in her life' judgment.

There is not a shred of sentimentality in this film, no false hope, no hope at all, actually. It is so resolutely realistic in its depiction of continuous hardship, that when some small measure of respite appears occasionally, even that seems too little. Which brings me to the scene in the second half of the movie, that came up suddenly and moved me to tears. Roger Ebert has long maintained that what moves him in films is not the very tragic, but instead, it is people doing good in the worst of situations and in spite of themselves. I will not give away the scene in question in "Wendy and Lucy" (and it is not the more obvious one later in the film), but it certainly makes Ebert's case beautifully.

As twee as it sounds, happiness is having your dog retrieve a stick you have just tossed. Any dog lover knows this. But for Wendy, and others in the world like her, who do not have any disposable income to indulge in other activities for fun, this is one of the few remaining free pleasures in life. To watch this movie with attention is to gain perspective on how terribly separated the 'have-not's have become from the 'have's in this world, even now. It is a sobering testimony.

One Degree of Separation

2009-10-01T00:56:00.000-07:00

What makes a particular kind of music connect with an individual?

Music we like can be perplexing if overanalyzed. When I was growing up, nothing brought instant coolness cache than the type of music you professed to love. You could say the names of the right artists and gain immediate heft in your personality when mentioed to others. Music you like associates itself to you as a label more quickly and more easily than almost any other label a person can acquire.

Few things tell as much about a person as their personal music collection, in its entirety. Sure, everybody will admit to the well-regarded, well-respected music in their collection. But how many will tell openly about songs they like that are frankly an embarrassment. Actually, you can tell even more about a person by the music they dislike. If I told you that a certain friend disliked most current popular music and only cared for the Beatles and The Beach Boys, that says something about that person, does it not. Or if someone professed to really not caring about jazz, that would help you make an instant opinion about them, right? And admit it, if someone said that they only liked country music, you have a picture of them already in your mind. Or if someone only liked music from the eighties. Or if classical music is their favorite. Stereotypes jump out of your brain and fix labels on those people before you can control them with self-correcting political correctness.

Almost everyone loves a particular style of music, or songs, or artists that they are ashamed of revealing to others. Either because that music/song is not popular by current standards, or is from a long forgotten era, or is from an artist who is currently a laughing stock. People have the distinct fear of being told, "surely you do not own that CD?". Or "please tell me you are not a fan of that song". So I suspect there is a lot of hiding that goes on when it comes to musical tastes. I would suggest that the music on most people's iPod is an incomplete collection of what they truly love, because they dare not have others go through their iPod and find therein, songs of questionable taste.

Which gets me to thinking, what really makes us like a song? Almost in spite of ourselves. Sometimes it is simple association with what was popular at a certain critical portion of your life. But more often than that, it is just voodoo. Unexplainable. You cannot help but like what you do and the best you can do is try to deny outright to liking it. But the fact that you connect with some songs at an almost primal level is hard to ignore. It is something fundamental, and as hard as it may sound, perhaps something to celebrate because this connection with a particular kind of music or song is so uniquely wired into your personal DNA.

So what really makes us like a song? I cannot answer this for others, but for me I have only very recently begun to understand how this works for me. And I find it brilliant in its simplicity. For me it is always a song that sounds familiar the first time I hear it. That's it. You listen to it the first time, and it seems comfortable - and - seemingly resonates at the very same frequency as something within you. You never know when you are going to listen to something, on the radio, or in someone's car, which is going to sound immediately familiar to you. And it can be the tackiest, silliest thing, but there you have it. It has somehow ingratiated itself into your fiber. This does not happen often, so I have learned to cherish it, as exasperating as it may sometimes get.

This happened most recently for me when I listened to the CD, "The Boy Who Knew Too Much", by Mika. The first song, "We Are Golden" was fine, but based on the previous CD from the same artist, "Life In Cartoon Motion", I had expected more. But one minute into the second song, "Blame It On the Girls", and I was moving my head along like, yes, I had known it my entire life. The reaction was even more visceral for the third song, "Rain"; this one had me singing along at the first listen as if it had been my personal anthem growing up. I love it when this happens. Who knows when very specific music will connect instantly with unknown individuals around the world who otherwise have nothing in common with the artist who created it. An immediate One Degree Of Separation.

http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B002M9FWQE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1254382884&sr=8-2

The best songs, I think, are the ones which manage to do this with the most number of people. The kind of song that gets into your head and will not leave it for days. It is a minor pleasure in life, I think, to have the ability to resonate like this, with a piece of music, completely outside our personal control.

2009 Toronto International Film Festival - Update One

2009-09-30T22:02:00.000-07:00

September fifteenth, 2009.

Scheherazade, Tell Me A Story - *1/2

This evening I saw the movie “Scheherazade, Tell Me A Story” at the Varsity cinemas (9 PM) at the Toronto Film Festival. I will be honest, there were hundreds of films being screened at Toronto and the reason why this one landed up on my list was the title, which implied a sort of fantasy tale based on the famous Persian story of Sheherazade. I am not complaining, but this is not what the movie turned out to be about.

It is a film shot in Egypt about the plight of several different female characters. The lead actress is a talk show host and other characters are folded into the movie using the somewhat tired device of different female guests speaking up at the television talk show. As the movie progresses, each of them reveals her life story. Each woman has been in some form abused, oppressed or poorly treated. Guess who lands up talking about her plight at the talk show in the closing scenes of the movie.

As a film, it seemed oddly stuck (in its tone, in its use of colors, in the basic flow structure of the stories) in the emotional sensibility of movies from a few decades ago, movies with a particular moral rigidity. It reminded me of the preachy, moralistic tales that were de rigeur in Indian cinema in the fifties and sixties. What is ironic is that this movie is actually lobbying for a more progressive way of thinking around women’s rights in Egypt. It is difficult for the film to demonstrate a progressive spirit when the movie reminded this viewer of retrieved footage from a film made at a time when women were literally kept under wraps. If you are creating a movie that is making the case for breaking traditional and oppressive rules, why choose to make it in a traditional and oppressive style? Would it not have been better if the filming, editing, the entire treatment of the material were handled in a modern style, with cleverness, with wit, with energy?

Of course the intentions are noble. But for me there were two things that primarily prevented me from connecting with the movie. One was the general overwrought treatment of the subject matter. There was nothing of much subtlety here; what could have been handled by a simple look was often amplified with obvious dialog. And secondly, while I have nothing against overtly feminist subject matter, this one has every single one of the male characters be so utterly rotten, that the film loses objectivity and starts to seem like a diatribe.

Those complaints aside, what made every film watching experience at Toronto a treat was the Q and A session with the director at the end of most movie screenings. What a treat to watch a film and then be face to face with the director, the person who toiled untold months and years, working through the conception of the film through painful completion. And was there along every single shot of the film you have just seen. And to have this person describe the movie to you and answer audience questions in their own words. It is like using the microwave, and then after your food is warmed, to have the inventor of the microwave show up in your house to explain any questions you might have!

What I am listening to - September 2009

2009-09-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

iTunes has a section called "What We're Listening To" which is useful. Made me want to create one of my own. Here is stuff that is getting most playtime on my iTouch of late -

Circle – Sugarland (Live on the Inside)
Dhan Te Nan – Sukhwinder Singh (‘Kaminey’ soundtrack)
Easy Silence – Dixie Chicks (Taking The Long Way Home)
Gasoline and Matches – Buddy and Julie Miller (Written in Chalk)
Hai Junoon – Pritam (‘New York’ soundtrack)
Hallowed – Sacha Sacket (Lovers and Leaders)
Love – Sugarland (Live on the Inside)
Orange Sky – Alexi Murdoch (Four Songs – EP)
Sex on Fire – Kings of Leon (Only by the night)
They Bring Me To You – Joshua Radin (Simple Times)
Yaara Seeli Seeli – Lata Mangeshkar (‘Lekin’ soundtrack)

What I have been watching - September 2009

2009-09-29T20:33:00.000-07:00

iTunes has a section called "What We're Watching" which is useful. Which made me want to create one of my own.

On the big screen :

Kaminay (****)
Love Aaj Kal (***1/2)
The Hurt Locker (****)
District 9 (***)

On the not so large screen (courtesy of Netflix and the cable company):

Tell No One (***)
A Christmas Tale (***)
The Last Metro (***)
To Catch A Thief (***1/2)

On the not so large screen (courtesy of airplanes):

Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (**)
Pride and Prejudice (***1/2)
All About Eve (***)
Departures (***1/2)
My Life In Ruins (**1/2)

Best Films - First Half 2009

2009-09-28T21:02:00.000-07:00

We have all been there. Sometimes you want to see a good movie and there appears to be nothing appealing playing in the cinemas or at the video/online store. I try to avoid pushing movies on to others, but occasionally I do get asked to suggest something. We are past the middle of the year for more than a month now and for an obsessive List Maker like myself, it was time to post something. So forthwith, here is my completely biased and totally unscientific list of the better movies of the First Half of 2009 (January through July).

The Hurt Locker
I doubt I will see a better movie before the year ends. It is futile to avoid using superlatives when talking about this one (I tried hard). So here it is, plain and simple: this is the best action movie in years. Likely the best movie of the year, period. The most visceral movie I have seen in a long time. There are a few scenes here so intense that it took all my resolve to keep from walking out of the cinema from the unbearable suspense. Watching it was like a slap to the face that all but left me wondering in amazement (and gratitude) that films still retain the power to do this to us. This is also the movie that belongs in that rarefied cadre of films that are about one thing but manage to be about everything else, reflecting the universe through the experience of a few. [In fact my one minor grouse has to do with the last few scenes when that warrior of a director, Kathryn Bigelow hones in on making a specific point and (intentionally perhaps) pulls the focus away from the multitude of things that the movie had so successfully managed to be about until that point]. If I could spend my time accosting strangers on the street and begging them to go see this movie (with a money-back guarantee), I would. When top advertising dollars are being spent on movies like ‘The Transformers’ even as required viewing such as ‘The Hurt Locker’ goes un-marketed, it makes me weep.

(500) Days of Summer
This one is a gem. This movie started out in limited release at the art-house cinemas a few months ago, and has slowly made its way to the multiplexes. For good reason. This is a smart, fresh, witty romantic comedy, one of the best in years. I saw it and melted hopelessly in submission to its cleverness. Ladies and Gentlemen, this, is how you do it. There is enough creativity and heart here for three movies. To roll your eyes at the prospect of seeing this perceived chick-flick (its art-house roots not withstanding) is to deprive yourself of one of the better movie-going experience of the year. Effortlessly funny, sincere, and consistently creative, it has connected with audiences (I think) because it is laser precise in its realistic depiction of the ebbs and flows of early love - and what follows afterwards. The two leads of the movie (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel), are so winning, that they are not, for a moment, anything less than fully believable. Gordon-Levitt has lines in the movie that would sound silly coming from a lesser actor, but he makes them heartbreaking. And Deschanel has a slippery role to inhabit, and it is to her credit that I cannot think of a single other actress who could have done it justice. Charting the step by step development of a relationship between two very specific characters, this movie walked first into my brain, and then, the heart.

Up
The folks at Pixar knock another one clear out of the park, and this one reaches higher in the skies that most of their previous efforts. I can imagine, early on, the movie-makers sitting in a meeting with their marketing group where the story for this movie got pitched. I can imagine them being told by the marketers that this time they had gone too far and the film would be virtually unsellable unless its story was modified significantly. To whoever who stuck their tongue out to the marketers and told them to back the hell off (and worse, I hope) I bow down with gratitude; you are my personal hero(es). In refusing to cater to children as the primary audience and choosing to infuse the movie with an underlying true sadness, the film hits paydirt. It figures out that elusive secret for what it takes to keep an animated movie firmly rooted in the mind of viewers a week, or even a month after seeing it, which almost never happens. Much has been written about the first ten minutes of the movie, about its near-perfection, about its incredible economy, about the sucker-punch of an emotional wallop it packs. But what amazed me was this: in a movie that breaks many rules, those first ten minutes break a big one: that a good movie takes its time to develop its characters and invests in them slowly and earnestly through the course of the movie so that it can earn its deserved emotional payback at the end. Instead here is a film that introduces its characters quickly, then with surgical precision layers a few scenes on top of each other that yield to a devastating meltdown in ten minutes flat. Just like that, rule broken. There have been many who have complained that the movie is too sad and not appropriate for children. To which I say, God forbid your child learns about reality and personal loss from an animated movie instead of being exposed to senseless violence in a hundred other films. Can I also just say that I love Kevin!

The Hangover
I started laughing at the beginning and just did not stop. I loved the basic premise of the movie – trying to reconstruct the events that transpired over a night of debauchery in Vegas that none of the participants seem to remember. I appreciated how for a raunchy, Hollywood comedy, it remained eminently unpredictable through most of its proceedings. I liked that every character maintained fidelity to him/herself and there were no sacrifices made to any character for a cheap laugh/gag. Who says that low brow cannot be high entertainment. The gutter is as good a place as any to find humor, and yes insight. As the movie progressed I kept waiting for that first misstep, that first cheap shot, and realized as I sat up with delight that this might actually never happen. I also am glad that within the confines of market-driven studio filmmaking these days, this movie dares to be raunchy as it wants, without apologies. We are told that nothing is harder in cinema than good comedy. If so, this movie may be the most underrated film of the year.

Love Aaj Kal (‘Love These Days” or “Love Then and Now”)
After the brilliance of ‘Jab We Met’ (“When We Met”), easily the best Indian movie last year, the expectations were impossibly high for the latest offering from the same director, Imtiaz Ali. But Love Aaj Kal manages to hold its own admirably through much of its running time. Nobody is going to call it a classic, but the film will easily earn its place on ‘Best Of’ movie lists. It gets so many things delightfully right, that the few things it does not get right (poor choice in some lead casting, a disappointing last half hour) are forgiven. [For an Indian movie this year that gets everything right, see ‘Kaminey’ released later this year, and therefore not on this list]. The paralleling stories of two sets of star-crossed lovers (one contemporary and another from an earlier time) forms the basis for the movie. For a film to work, it almost always comes down to the writing and this one could teach a lesson to lesser movies; the dialog crackles along like rain on livewire. What impressed me most about the movie ultimately was about what it chose not to do at various typical plot developments; it takes gumption to be subtle instead of heavy-handed, and to subvert expectations instead of conforming to them, all foreign concepts to Hindi cinema. But somehow ‘Love Aaj Kal’ prevails. And somebody please give the editor of this movie an award.

Duplicity
Duplicity is an endangered species in the jungles of Hollywood studios: an intelligent, funny, literate movie that is fueled by the high wattage of its lead actors. The kind that big studios used to make in their hey days with the likes of Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Where the lead stars would light up the screen with a rat-a-tat volley of clever zingers, courtesy of impossibly well-written scripts (and of course with the well-acknowledged love of the camera for their faces). Nobody seems to write film dialog like that these days (to see how good a film script can get, see “The Philadelphia Story”). Any contemporary movie that bears comparison with these ideals is in good company. And ‘Duplicity’, recognizes that sometimes it is best to give two bonafide stars an original script and back the hell off. To watch Julia Roberts and Clive Owen dance around like spiders on the same web, unsure of who is spinning what part of the web, is to see world-class experts at work. Sure the movie has a convoluted, hopelessly unrealistic plot, too clever for its own good. But when was the last time you decided to invite a top chef to your home to cook you a great meal, instead of cooking something yourself; Duplicity is the equivalent of that experience. A rare entry into the list of movies that Hollywood got right this year.

Star Trek
If I had to give an award for best director from amongst the movies on this list, it would be a difficult task; but I think I would ultimately pick J.J. Abrams, who worked on this re-booting of the Star Trek franchise. Not to take away from the accomplishments of the other directors, but there are some jobs you just do not say ‘yes’ to, and taking on the reinvention of an exhausted, aged, irrelevant franchise would be one of them. In recent years the Star Trek movies had become laughing stock, the standard punchline to many an unoriginal joke. There are a hundred ways this movie could have gone horribly wrong, a hundred ways this would have been an embarrassment, the sort that induces howls at unintended times from the audience, a hundred ways this could have been a bombastic, loud, empty, clutter of special effects (umm…’The Transformers, anyone?). And yet, against all odds, this new Star Trek movie manages to be everything that you thought impossible: engaging, modern, relevant, exciting, emotionally weighty and unironic. Heck, this movie is just fun. Fun for the die-hard fanatic of the franchise, and fun for the ten year old who does not know his Klingon from his Vulcan. I would have never thought that I would be saying this, but I am now looking out for the sequel. And that is a testament to the rabbit that the makers of this film have pulled out of their hats.

Honorable Mention: Adventureland, Away We Go, Departures