Category Archives: Film

Made in Dagenham: Let’s hear it for the women!

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes, with all the demonizing hate-filled Republican propaganda that fills our airwaves, sometimes one wonders why it is again that unions are relevant. They have been portrayed as terrible things that are ruining our lives. (Just don’t look at the big corporations that are pulling the strings to make those statements…)

How far have we gotten from the struggles for the 40-hour week? Or the hard-fought-for half hour lunches and ten-minute breaks, legal by law, yet in this new corporate world where everyone is doing five people’s jobs, hardly still maintained. Does anyone even remember that it was the unions that fought for these things? For these rights for us working stiffs?

Or has this bad word “socialism” (since that other trumped-up bad word, “communism” doesn’t really work anymore, appearing hopelessly dated) really colored everything for so many? So many who voted their corporate keepers back into power, though they decried the influence of the big bad banks? Just makes ya sick, sometimes.

Well, here’s an antidote to the corporate-cash big money Tea Party election we just stomached. Here’s a pleasant reminder of exactly what unions can do, and why we need them so, in these crazy times. “Made in Dagenham” takes place in England, in the mid-60s. It’s a true story.

Sallie Hawkins, a sure Oscar contender, is one of the strike leaders. Miranda Richardson has a noble turn herself. (Both were in attendance at the AFI screening.) This film is easily one of my favorites of the year.

Women, working at a Ford plant as machinists, start out the movie wanting to be the same pay grade as men, to be classed as “skilled,” rather than “unskilled.” Simple enough. Fair enough.

They encounter many obstacles along the way, not the least of which is that they aren’t taken seriously because they are “just women,” after all. We won’t even talk about the other shop violations which they don’t even talk about in the movie: the water pouring down on the workplace, the fact that many women work in their bras because it’s too hot in the shop (those rights are things American workers fought for, and are still enforced).

But the big battle for the women ultimately becomes: “Equal pay for equal work.” That is what they fight for. Don’t wanna spoil the movie. I’ll just say that it had a positive ending in Britain, and many other countries because of the women of Dagenham.

It made me uncomfortably squeamish, though, to realize that here in America in 2010, women still make only 74% of what men make for the same job. Oh yeah. That’s why we need those “socialist” unions. I remember now.

Endurance Cinema: Conviction, The Way Back and 127 Hours

Posted on by
Reply

One of my pet theories is that leading Oscar contenders reflect a current mode of our times. Last year’s “Up In the Air,” for instance, hit hard on the layoffs that touched so many. This year’s theme, it seems, is enduring, despite overwhelming odds against you.

In the wonderful “Conviction,” Hillary Swank’s character battles for years to free her innocent brother from prison. You see her battle setback after setback. And still she hangs on. Believing that she can do it.

In the beautiful “The Way Back,” we have prisoners from a Soviet concentration camp, first exiled to Siberia. Then some of them decide they’ve had enough, and endeavor to escape (all of this being in the trailer, I’m spoiling nothing; also this happens in the beginning of the film). They do escape, and begin their trek. I suppose they are heading toward that nebulous “freedom.” Their path seems to go from Siberia to Mongolia to Tibet to India. On foot.

Needless to say, of the ones who start on the journey, not all of them make it, for various reasons. But it’s a battle. A struggle to survive. A struggle to make it to the other side. A struggle to be free.

It seems that many of us, with millions of Americans unemployed, are struggling just to survive, too. Hanging on. Trying to make that meager unemployment check last just a little bit longer. Piecing together rent with odd jobs, believing, against all odds that that next job is somewhere around the corner. I really believe that hanging on and believing you’ll make it is the new American dream.

No more streets paved with gold, we’d be happy to get a paycheck regularly. And this “endurance cinema” reflects that. Hang on, hang on, hang on, just a little bit longer.

“The Way Back” isn’t quite as bleak and despairing as last year’s “The Road,” but it’s a tough go. The ending brought tears to my eyes, but boy! was it a long slog to get there. Mind you, I do love Peter Weir as a director. His “Dead Poet’s Society” remains one of my favorite films. And visually (thank you, Russell Boyd), “The Way Back” is stunning to look at. Vast landscapes that include icy snow-covered peaks, as well as vast deserts.

In “Conviction,” though, it was clear what the motive and struggle was. In “The Way Back,” they put themselves though lots of dangerous situations, and it’s kind of unclear why exactly. They talk at the beginning about how “there’s a bounty on your heads,” from neighboring villagers, but this threat is never bourne out, or even hinted at, once they escape.

It’s enough of a stretch to believe that people one day just say, “Hey! Let’s walk across Mongolia!” but that they do it without ANY help from villagers along the way strains credulity a bit.*

I watch “Survivor” pretty much every week since it started (a few missed seasons here and there). The parts I love the most are the way people interact with each other (there is much of that in this movie). The parts I REALLY dislike vehemently (OK, I admit, I’m a city girl, and I’d never survive in the wild) are the parts where chicken’s heads are lopped off, or animals are otherwise killed for food. Sadly, there is also a lot of that in this movie.

Sure, I understand, they are starving, they need to eat. Do I really need to watch it, though?

Another endurance movie is looming on the horizon, one that I am distinctly NOT going to see: “127 Hours.” People in our office this week spoke again of people fainting at screenings. Know this, anyone who plans to go see this one: the hiker goes by himself into the wild, and ends up CHOPPING OFF HIS OWN ARM. And they show it. GRAPHICALLY. Why are people surprised about this? Every screening has someone fainting.

I don’t intend to faint. I don’t intend to see it, Oscar-worthy or not. I’ve had enough of endurance films for this season.

ADDENDUM: * I know it’s based on a true story. I know people actually did this. Still…

“Social Network” prism as multifaceted as Zuckerberg himself

Posted on by
Reply

Two things are the most fascinating after watching “The Social Network,” easily the most fascinating movie of this year. One: most of the people involved with making this movie don’t have a Facebook page themselves.

Two: People can see the exact same movie and come away with totally different viewpoints on who did what. Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, wasn’t kidding when he likened this movie to “Rashomon.” It is an incredible script, one that is sure to garner Sorkin a long-overdue Oscar. It is as easy to understand if you are a longtime Facebook user, or never even looked at Facebook in your life.

It is a machination of plot, spinning around the transcripts of real court cases. Friend against friend, classmate against classmate. And yet, it speaks to the quintessential question of our techie age: how can we create a cool app/product/website that everyone is going to love and use and make us rich in the process?

What a strange dichotomy that someone who seems to have such difficulty making friends creates the most social product out there.

My friend viewed this movie and came away with an image of Mark Zuckerberg as a “manipulative asshole.” I saw the same movie and saw, finally, the whole story laid in front of me. Saw how Zuckerberg pretty much had to do what he did. I don’t fault him at all, and I was rooting for him. In fact, in finally paying the amounts in question, he did right by his friends. Saverin is back on the Facebook masthead. All is now right with the world.

And just to be safe, he donated to some New Jersey schools on the day the movie opened. No, I see Zuckerberg as a good guy here.

Incredible director David Fincher also excels. The movie is stunningly shot. Harvard has never looked so good. Jesse Eisenberg, in the lead, does a fantastic job of walking us through the story. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by the new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, really makes you feel the pain he’s going through. Justin Timberlake is just perfect as Sean Parker, creator of Napster.

It’s like a multi-faceted prism. You can see each side clearly, as well as how they are all battling to be most beautiful, or in this case, most right. Wars of class and culture come into play. And out of all this morass, we have the incredible Facebook.

If there is anything faulting this movie it is Sorkin’s lack of knowledge about Facebook. And the fact that really, its key battle: the privacy wars, was completely neglected in this story. Maybe they are saving that for “Social Network 2: Privacy.” I can only hope they have someone who really knows the Internet writing about it this time.

Cause here’s the thing. Nora Ephron got it wrong too, when she wrote the almost instantly dated, “You’ve Got Mail.” It’s different when you live here. When you live on Facebook, online, on Twitter. There are nuances and details that it’s obvious this writer, though brilliant, missed though he combed through mounds of testimony and facts, and got an incredible story fashioned out of it. He missed the heartbeat of Facebook.

This is Facebook basically from the genesis of the idea until it starts branching out into other countries. Then the storyline drops the Facebook part, and focuses on Zuckerberg battling the court cases. By which time, he’s already a billionaire. You’re just not really sure why, if you aren’t already on Facebook.

I can just imagine the Twitter movie. Sigh. I heard Craig Ferguson (who used to mock Twitter himself until he actually got on it and used it) talking to two celebrities this week (on the same show). Both celebrities used the tired old canards: “why would anyone care that I’m getting a haircut? or eating a sandwich? or blah blah blah…” Obviously, they don’t get it. It’s like that with this Facebook movie too.

And, I’m sad to say, that’s what keeps it, for me, anyway, from being one of the best movies ever. It’s like Sorkin was so busy making all the partners dance that he kinda forgot what the party was there for. I’ll bet, if you asked him right now, he couldn’t even explain why Facebook’s growth was so incredible (and continues) and MySpace got huge and stopped growing. That’s pretty key to this story, and would’ve served him well as a screenwriter.

So much of the story is built around the “college campuses” idea, it doesn’t even really branch out into when other people besides colleges started using it. Or why. Why moms and grandmoms are suddenly on it. There is really a deep rich story there, too.

But for now, if we want the Facebook genesis story, this is it. I think it’s a wonderful film. I think it’s going to win the Best Picture Oscar and an Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Aaron Sorkin, and it’s deserved. Go see it!

If Not Money, then What, Oliver?

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps it started with “Inception.” Or “Toy Story 3.” Or those lonely souls who’ve already viewed “Winter’s Bone.”

But for me, the Oscar derby begins in full swing with Oliver Stone’s latest, and most successful opening, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.”

SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN SPOILERS WITHIN

I entered the film with trepidation. I mean, here we are, a depressed people, our country gutted by these slime like Gordon Gekko who played fast and loose with our money. Why on earth would I want to see a movie that glorifies him and makes like he’s the hero?

For me, the answer to that is: it helps us understand. Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street 2″ gives us a little morality tale. It turns out that greed isn’t really good, even Gordon Gekko tells us that. But greed “is systemic, in everything.” And by everything, he means, not only the money he and those of his kind played fast and loose with, but also the suburban housewife who bought a nice house beyond her means, or those whose eyes are constantly moving up to the next hot thing.

He’s right about that. And in the end, it’s Gordon Gekko, challenging us. If the system is to change, we all must change.

Sadly, the script doesn’t really bear the conviction of its words. (For a minute, it does really make us think, though.)

There was a scene that really bothered me, which is representative of what I’m talking about. Gordon Gekko’s daughter, played by the Oscar-nominated Carey Mulligan (for “An Education”), is the hippie environmentalist. She doesn’t care for this money thing, she shuns it at every turn. Yeah, ok. Doesn’t wanna be like her dad. Get it.

Her fiance, Shia LeBouef, buys her a quite gorgeous diamond engagement ring. It makes her uncomfortable, all that ostentation and money and stuff. So sometimes, she takes it off. And in one of these moments, she grabs a Cracker Jack package. Opens it, BY HERSELF while her fiance is watching TV. Inside is a plastic ring (to say nothing of the reality that Cracker Jack stopped putting rings into prizes before this girl was born). In any case, she puts the plastic ring on her own hand, and proudly wears that one around in front of family and friends.

Wow. Isn’t she making a statement now?

Well, no.

Look, I’m a hippie environmentalist who eschews diamonds too. But here’s the thing. Nobody, even the brokest among us, is going to say or think that a cheap plastic ring from China is going to be better on one’s hand than a solid ring. It just makes you look stupid. Besides, it’s much more likely to break. Isn’t an engagement ring supposed to signify permanence?

Secondly, SHE takes it out of the package and puts it on her own finger. That whole thing just grosses me out. It’s supposed to be a token of a union between TWO people. He put the diamond on her finger, that’s the ring she should keep. That’s the one that signifies the bond between them.

Really, can you imagine the conversation (which never occurred in the movie), “Hey honey, do you mind if I don’t wear this ring you paid hundreds of thousands for? I’m just gonna slum it with this plastic Cracker Jack piece of crap.” Yeah, right. In what universe? Sorry, didn’t buy that at all.

Also, one would think the Michael Douglas character learned something in prison. Perhaps a bit of humility and concern for others. It’s a concept.

When the big reveal happens, it’s a sucker punch. Really? He learned nothing? Same old, same old? Sad.

And then, worse, he turns around and gets repentant, though there’s really no justification for this in the script. He just shows up one day after double-crossing them, and says, “OK, take me back now. I wanna be a dad again.” Really? And it’s that easy?

I hated that part of the movie. I liked the fact that it showed that life is about more than money moving around. I like that it opened up some emotional bonds between father and daughter and son-in-law. But it really didn’t seem to know what to do with those emotions. None of them seemed real.

Along the way, I enjoyed watching Carey Mulligan, Shia LaBouef and Michael Douglas in their machinations. Austin Pendleton was great, as always. Josh Brolin was a great bad guy, the motorcycle scene was awesome to watch. Frank Langella has a stunning cameo turn. He’s almost like if the Jimmy Stewart character in “It’s a Wonderful Life” had grown up and was still running a bank. Sad to see what happens there.

But I would’ve liked this movie better if it took a position and stayed there. Do we hate rich people? Or don’t we? Do we celebrate the money manipulators? Or don’t we? Is family more important than anything? Or isn’t it?

It will get some people talking. Oliver Stone is certainly a master director. But I’m still not sure I liked it.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World Changes the Game

Posted on by
Reply

“It’s a game changer,” my friend said, as we exited “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” perhaps not even realizing the multilevel nature of his comment. By “game,” he meant that it was the most original film he’d seen since “Pulp Fiction.” It’s also true that it changes the game of filmmaking because it comes at us like a videogame.

Pilgrim must vanquish seven levels of Exes. As he does so, they turn into coins at his feet (each level more coins). At one point, he “gets a life” from out of the air, or the scoreboard on the screen, as the case may be. It’s like that. You may find this extremely annoying. Especially if you’re not a fan of videogames, or have never played them.

Pilgrim plays very much like an amped-up version (sonically and visually) of Michael Cera’s earlier “Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.” We have star-crossed lovers. We have obstacles. We have a band, and rock and roll as a backdrop.

I truly think it’s safe to say that those who love videogames, rock and roll or great love stories will enjoy this film. The only flaw I could find with it is that the beloved heroine, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, wasn’t really as life or death as she needed to be. But maybe that’s just our age, everyone is lackadaisical.

The fight sequences, as you would expect, get more intense and spectacular as our hero gets a level further. Mae Whitman, so quiet and reserved on TV’s “Parenthood,” here kicks some serious booty. It’s wonderful. The final one, with Jason Schwartzman, is brilliant and wonderful and fun. Oscar nominee Anna Kendrick gives a very different version of herself as Scott’s beleaguered sister.

All of it comes from Brian Lee O’Malley’s graphic novels, but writer Michael Bacall and writer-director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) give it shape and keep it flowing along. Very fun movie.

Don’t be blind to the kindness of The Blind Side.

Posted on by
Reply

I have mixed feelings about “The Blind Side.” I know it’s being heavily promoted during televised football games, due to some of its football content. And it’s based on a true story about a real football player. That’s all well and good, except I really don’t care much about football. And to me, the movie lost a lot of its lustre once it veered into football territory. The title is based on some football analogy, which I think boils down to “protect someone (you care about) on their blind side.”

The beauty of the movie lies in just that. As this parade of Oscar hopefuls come trotting by, this is the first one (other than Up, which premiered earlier in the year) which actually has a lot of heart. Our lead is a large black man named Big Mike, later Michael (played by Quinton Aaron), born to a crack-addicted mother and an absent father, who ends up in a private school through the assistance of one person who sticks their neck out for him (due to his potential sports ability).

He is noticed and taken in by rich, white Sandra Bullock and her family. There is no doubt, the way the movie unfolds, that it is a heart to heart connection. But nonetheless, the feeling that is left at the end is along the lines of: well, that’s all well and good for this one particular black man who is saved from his life of crack-hell, but what about the countless others who are not? And that’s really the feeling that I can’t shake about this movie. It so distinctly points out the disparity between the two worlds that it’s very discomforting.

That said, there are many heart-warming and kind moments. Sandra Bullock, being bantered around in Oscar circles for the first time ever with the words, “possible Oscar nominee,” is indeed wonderful and warm as the lead Leigh Anne Touhy. She is quite far from any role I’ve ever seen her in as the high-powered blonde Republican wife.

The movie skirts the issue of race adroitly. Michael is a person who needs Leigh Anne’s help, so she helps him. It is quite wonderful how the story breaks down like that. Simple. Anyone would do this.

So if you need a reminder what it means to show another person love, “The Blind Side” is a great movie to see. Not overly sappy or button-pushing, just sweet and kind. Like Sandra Bullock.

Loss of a Teardrop Diamond A Near-Total Loss

Posted on by
Reply

The Oscar possibilities are flying fast and furiously now. I was excited when I heard it was a “lost Tennesse Wililams screenplay” that I was seeing on this night. As a former theatre critic, Tennesse Williams’ plays were always my go-to choices when all other offerings were dreck and dreary. The man had a way with words. And mental illness, and alcoholics. A good time at the theatre usually.

Not so with this adaptation of “The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond,” sadly. In fact, this adaptation is one of the worst productions of anything Tennessee Williams I have ever seen, stage play or film. It is, quite frankly, a mess.

Nearly first-time director (her first film was something she wrote and made 10 years ago) Jodie Markell, who is better known as an actress, and frankly should stay in that profession, was all over the place in her direction. Sometimes she thought it was a play (making the lights dim in the scene completely except around the two actresses speaking. Note to Ms. Markell: Um, we don’t DO that in movies, that’s a stage thing.), sometimes she was quite cinematic.

She had a scene with flapping sheets that cut to a similar scene that was quite beautiful. This movie is actually a very good example of why actresses should stay actresses. They see their own center of the universe (and this film is very actor and actress centric), but they can’t see the whole panorama.

As such, you get little bits of emoting here and there, but the piece holds together like a half-baked cake. The vital bits of backstory are given short shrift, while the madness over losing an earring is played on and on and on and on WAY too long (and sure, maybe some of this is the script, but still). There is no shaping from the director that is so badly needed.

The one most affected by the bad direction is our deeply out of place lead actress, Bryce Dallas Howard, who is pretty and able to handle most of the Williams dialogue, but she is sadly in need of both a good director and an acting coach. After all, doing Tennessee Williams, even a lesser work of his, is rather like stepping into Shakespeare. As an actor, you don’t even try unless you’ve got the chops. Howard has no such chops.

Watching her is rather like watching one of the Gossip Girls attempt Blanche Dubois. It’s painful at best. Her motivation is muddy or non-existent. She wears clothes well, and takes a good close-up, but carrying a movie is MUCH MUCH more than that. Especially a movie like this. Especially a Tennessee Williams piece, where so much is left unsaid in the subtext.

There is an extended party scene, where Howard is pretty much left floating around. She’s the lead, the anchor of the piece, and she wanders aimlessly through the party as though drunk. Motivation, if she has any, is not apparent. (Note to Howard: most of Williams’ characters are drunk, but they remain sharply focused.)

Chris Evans, her male costar, looks like he should be in a modeling ad, or on the CW. He brings his distinctly 2000s acting to this obviously ’50s piece. He fails completely, other than looking really good.

Thankfully, and blissfullly, if you are for some reason suffering through this movie, there are three performances worth watching: Will Patton, as Evans’ drunkard father; Ann-Margaret as Howard’s dowager aunt; and especially Ellen Burstyn as an opium addict who’s had a stroke.

They are the only reasons to watch. Even the Williams screenplay is pretty much a piffle compared to what you’ve come to expect from him.

A Serious Man: Not for the Goyim

Posted on by
Reply

I didn’t like this movie because I’m a shiksa. I admit it.

Although I know some things about Jewish culture, and admire them, all the finer points of the religion have really escaped me. I was raised Catholic, so could tell you all day long about those rules.

I mean, I’m such a shiksa I couldn’t even really tell you with clarity when Rosh Hoshanna or Yom Kippur is every year. And it gets worse from there. So I’m sure there are deep Jewish truths that are being thrown around that people actually in the religion will appreciate much more than I do.

It’s a nice enough movie. Stuff goes on, nothing blows up, you know.

It’s about a man, living his life, and throughout the movie, his calm demeanor from the beginning is constantly messed with. And you may find that funny. Or amusing, or deeply reflective of life’s condition.

Meh. I mostly found it annoying.

At the beginning, he’s a married man who loves his wife and children. He has a good job that he enjoys. And along the way, his whole life unravels.

It’s a Coen brothers movie, so you know there is great cinematography (Roger Deakins) and editing.

Michael Stuhlbarg plays the beleagured hero. I hope we see him in more movies, he was quite wonderful to watch. He is surrounded by some amazing actors, including Richard Kind as his brother, Sari Lennick as his wife, Fred Melamed as his romantic rival.

For me, the highlight of the movie was when my friend appeared. I have to mention that because Amy Landecker is a friend of mine. I am unable to be objective about her acting, because I think she can do no wrong. I think she’s the best actress in the world, and I’m really proud of her.

That said, I still think she steals the movie. Everything lights up when she’s on screen.

OK, it was kinda tough to see our lead look down into the yard next door, spy the neighbor naked, and have me thinking, “Oh my god, that’s Amy.” And then, of course, “Yay for her, she’s in a Coen Brothers movie.”

But in her scenes with the poor put-upon hero, she, as the fantasy object, provides most of the joy and levity. So, you decide. I think she’s wonderful.

Along the way of this man’s journey, he meets with three rabbis (well, almost), and struggles with his faith and his marriage and his children.

This one is not for everyone. Those of the Jewish faith may certainly like it more. And whatever you do, don’t see it the same week you see The Informant. Your mind may be irrreparably blown.

The Informant should stay in the dark

Posted on by
Reply

THE INFORMANT

What the hell was that?

I saw the previews of “The Informant,” Steven Soderbergh’s new movie, and thought, “What the hell was that?” Thought I’d see the movie anyway, and that’s still what I’m saying.

I’ll save you the $10. It’s about a compulsive liar and bipolar worker in a major corporation who blows a whistle. Sorta.

And I think that’s the problem I have with the movie. I have a very low view (and/or tolerance) of liars in my life. After seeing this movie, I’m really left with the feeling that I’ve been lied to by the director. It’s not a pleasant sensation.

Mind you, I can appreciate that Matt Damon, whom I normally hate in movies is far enough outside of his comfort zone that I can actually enjoy his acting. I can appreciate the kitschy, piano-y score by Marvin Hamlisch. And the bouncy 60s feel of the typography and the bright colors at the beginning.

I loved the familiar comedy cast of characters who liven up the proceedings: from both of the Smothers Brothers (separately) to Ann Cusack to Joel McHale to Melanie Lynsky to Scott Bakula to Clancy Brown to Tony Hale.

Somewhat interesting is Damon’s character’s slow descent into the web he’s weaving, really only indicated by color and sound, or lack thereof. Directorially, it’s well-presented, but the subject matter and context are not something I really appreciate being subjected to.

A seriously big SKIP on this one.