So Dr. Parnassus has a gambling problem. He just can't seem to stop making deals with the devil. First he won himself eternal life, then true love. Except in order to achieve the latter, he had to make a bargain: the devil would get the doctor's daughter on her sixteenth birthday. As the lovely young Valentina rapidly approaches that age, it seems like all hope is lost until a stranger stumbles upon Parnassus and his traveling show, a stranger with many secrets - and plans that may save Valentina after all.
Visually, this movie is a psychedelic trip. The gimmick is that Parnassus, once he goes into a trance, can send people into a world of their own imagination, and as you might surmise, no matter how dull a person may seem, his or her imagination is generally a rich and dazzling place. Also a very, very weird place. Amidst all this phantasmagoria, there are madcap adventures aplenty and possibly also some philosophical questions about the nature of destiny and choice and the power of stories. Possibly.
I say possibly because most of the time I was trying to figure out what was even going on. There are a lot of interesting threads here, but director Terry Gilliam seems to have opted for handing us the work of tying the ends together and choosing to focus - at the expense of, you know, plot and characterization - on imagery. The film's focus is confused, giving us no obvious lens or point of view through which to see the events. We're instead left watching a group of insiders, people who always know exactly or near exactly what is going on and are not telling us. They are dressed in beautiful glitzy clothing and they draw us briefly into their imaginary world with expert performances and promises of magic. And they take us somewhere, just not all the way there.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
#11 - An Education
Jenny is an exceptionally bright schoolgirl in Cold War England. With her love of long novels, French records, and the Pre-Raphaelites, she feels as though no one understands her - until David comes into her life. A man in his thirties, David loves the arts and society and offers Jenny a chance to discover the parts of the world she always expected were out there. But things are not always what they seem, and nothing comes for free.
An Education is a somewhat formulaic film. I've seen this story before - young woman has to choose between intellectual passions and romantic ones - and of course David is just the sort of rebellious choice of men that would appeal to a young girl in a society that abhors rebellion. I think An Education goes a bit further than other movies have into the implications of its events - it asks some questions and purposely doesn't give answers about the role of women in society and the attitudes and ideals of British culture (which have probably changed since the 1960s but probably not entirely, because I see the echoes of a lot of these questions in my own, American, culture).
There isn't a lot of chemistry between Jenny and David - but I really want to give An Education the benefit of the doubt here. The attraction between them is not personal, it's not about who they are as individuals and more about what they represent to each other. However, I think if he had just been a tiny bit more physically attractive, I would have felt more involved in the relationship. I had issues with most of the other characters too; in a lot of cases, they were stereotypes or at least archetypes. The magical moments in this movie - and it does have its magical moments - occur when they step out of their thickly drawn boundaries and reveal unexpected sides to their personality. Which didn't happen quite often enough.
An Education is a somewhat formulaic film. I've seen this story before - young woman has to choose between intellectual passions and romantic ones - and of course David is just the sort of rebellious choice of men that would appeal to a young girl in a society that abhors rebellion. I think An Education goes a bit further than other movies have into the implications of its events - it asks some questions and purposely doesn't give answers about the role of women in society and the attitudes and ideals of British culture (which have probably changed since the 1960s but probably not entirely, because I see the echoes of a lot of these questions in my own, American, culture).
There isn't a lot of chemistry between Jenny and David - but I really want to give An Education the benefit of the doubt here. The attraction between them is not personal, it's not about who they are as individuals and more about what they represent to each other. However, I think if he had just been a tiny bit more physically attractive, I would have felt more involved in the relationship. I had issues with most of the other characters too; in a lot of cases, they were stereotypes or at least archetypes. The magical moments in this movie - and it does have its magical moments - occur when they step out of their thickly drawn boundaries and reveal unexpected sides to their personality. Which didn't happen quite often enough.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
#10 - The Breakfast Club
The Breakfast Club tells the story of an unlikely group of five high school students, brought together by the fact that they are all to spend a Saturday in detention. The teacher in charge expects them to sit still at their desks and write papers - not likely.
(I can't do an entire paragraph for the plot. That is the whole plot.)
The movie starts off with a bit of physical comedy and then descends into a series of non-sequiturs. Director John Hughes seems to want to take us into the minds of the kids who we think we know inside and out: the popular girl, the jock, the nerd, the ne'er-do-well, the weird kid who doesn't talk to anyone. Unfortunately what we find there is emptiness.
I think the largest criticism I've leveled so far - that the sequence of events is haphazard and nonsensical - could also be said about Empire Records, a movie I really liked. But the difference between Empire Records and The Breakfast Club is that in the latter, the characters don't care about anything. Or want to be anything. It's suggested in the end that they care about at least each other, which certainly surprised me after they spent the entire eight hours of their confinement bullying and intimidating each other. In fact, (and I'll be deliberately vague to avoid spoiling anything) a 'romance' emerges after a male character basically sexually harasses a female character until she breaks. Gotta love it. I found nothing to sympathize with in any of these five miserable people, and I think that while the actors did the best work they could manage, they didn't have a lot to work with.
(I can't do an entire paragraph for the plot. That is the whole plot.)
The movie starts off with a bit of physical comedy and then descends into a series of non-sequiturs. Director John Hughes seems to want to take us into the minds of the kids who we think we know inside and out: the popular girl, the jock, the nerd, the ne'er-do-well, the weird kid who doesn't talk to anyone. Unfortunately what we find there is emptiness.
I think the largest criticism I've leveled so far - that the sequence of events is haphazard and nonsensical - could also be said about Empire Records, a movie I really liked. But the difference between Empire Records and The Breakfast Club is that in the latter, the characters don't care about anything. Or want to be anything. It's suggested in the end that they care about at least each other, which certainly surprised me after they spent the entire eight hours of their confinement bullying and intimidating each other. In fact, (and I'll be deliberately vague to avoid spoiling anything) a 'romance' emerges after a male character basically sexually harasses a female character until she breaks. Gotta love it. I found nothing to sympathize with in any of these five miserable people, and I think that while the actors did the best work they could manage, they didn't have a lot to work with.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
#9 - Sherlock Holmes
Guy Ritchie's vision of the world of Sherlock Holmes is perhaps a bit different from what you're accustomed to. In this seedy Victorian London, Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) are not just brainy professionals, they are also action heroes, fighting with fists, pistols, and even swords to solve the mystery of how cult leader Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) could come back from the grave - and they must do it before he uses his powers to take over all of London. At the same time, Ritchie explores the complex dynamics of the relationship between the doctor and the detective, and the women in their lives.
Like Holmes's detective method, the key to Sherlock Holmes is in paying attention to the details. The intricacy of the sets, which will take you into some of the most gorgeous rooms imaginable. The soundtrack, featuring some fiddling that almost made me want to jump out of my seat and dance - I walked out of the theater humming the theme. The little moments of brilliant acting between Downey and Law where facial expressions communicate everything (yes, anyone looking out for slash potential will be thoroughly pleased).
This was my second viewing of this movie (I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, aren't I?) and I loved it no less upon re-evaluation. No, it's not an intellectual thriller, it's just a ridiculously fun movie, with tight corsets, secret societies, almost-but-not-quite-gratuitously drawn out action sequences, and a bit of French dialogue here and there. Though I'm not the best authority - I loved the stories when I was a kid but haven't read them in a while - my Arthur Conan Doyle-aficionado roommate confirms my suspicion that Ritchie has the characters down perfectly. Even if I were to be charitable, I wouldn't say that this reads like a classic Holmes story: the scope is greatly expanded and the film emphasizes wit and a bit of situational humor. So if that's what you're expecting, this is probably not the best choice of film. If you want a movie that is slightly violent, tastefully sexy, suspenseful but not scary, and definitely not taking itself too seriously to delight in its own extravagance - then, best choice - yes!
Like Holmes's detective method, the key to Sherlock Holmes is in paying attention to the details. The intricacy of the sets, which will take you into some of the most gorgeous rooms imaginable. The soundtrack, featuring some fiddling that almost made me want to jump out of my seat and dance - I walked out of the theater humming the theme. The little moments of brilliant acting between Downey and Law where facial expressions communicate everything (yes, anyone looking out for slash potential will be thoroughly pleased).
This was my second viewing of this movie (I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, aren't I?) and I loved it no less upon re-evaluation. No, it's not an intellectual thriller, it's just a ridiculously fun movie, with tight corsets, secret societies, almost-but-not-quite-gratuitously drawn out action sequences, and a bit of French dialogue here and there. Though I'm not the best authority - I loved the stories when I was a kid but haven't read them in a while - my Arthur Conan Doyle-aficionado roommate confirms my suspicion that Ritchie has the characters down perfectly. Even if I were to be charitable, I wouldn't say that this reads like a classic Holmes story: the scope is greatly expanded and the film emphasizes wit and a bit of situational humor. So if that's what you're expecting, this is probably not the best choice of film. If you want a movie that is slightly violent, tastefully sexy, suspenseful but not scary, and definitely not taking itself too seriously to delight in its own extravagance - then, best choice - yes!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
#8 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off
High school senior Ferris Bueller knows he's pushing it by his 9th "sick day" absence from school, so he's determined to make this one last. With his best friend Cameron and his girlfriend Sloane he takes a whirlwind tour of the best things about Chicago, meanwhile trying to escape the clutches of his suspicious principal and vengeful older sister Jeanie.
I was poised to hate Ferris Bueller. At the beginning I saw things from Jeanie's perspective. Why should somebody get to break the rules without consequences? And moreover, why should this be the film's protagonist? Do we want to get inside this person's head? Well, yes. The real message behind this film is laid out heavily and directly, as Ferris breaks the fourth wall to tell us not to let life pass us by. This isn't really about the benefits of skipping school and breaking rules. It's about the dangers of not letting yourself be happy and enjoy the great things about the world. Everyone who goes along with Ferris has the best day of their life, and director John Hughes lets us join in the fun.
The acting in this movie is something you could take or leave, except for Jeffrey Jones's fantastic performance as the neurotic principal Ed Rooney. The sets and costumes are nothing special but if I weren't already in love with this city I certainly would be now. The best things are the script and Hughes's knack for little moments of absurdity amongst what is mostly straightforward comedy. Scenes to look out for: the series of phone calls that gets Sloane out of school - Cameron discovers Seurat at the Art Institute - Jeanie in the police department.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
#7 - Alice in Wonderland
Some 10 years after the events of Disney's animated classic of the same name, our heroine is a young woman on the verge of being married off to a man she's just met, tormented by the idea that she may be a bit not right in the head. Without the guidance of her late father, Alice Kingsley is a bit lost in Victorian society. However, she soon finds herself returning to the world of her dreams (it shouldn't be too much of a spoiler to say But It Wasn't Really A Dream, Or Was It?) where much more is at stake than last time.
Alice in Wonderland is a movie with a lot of problems. There are many potentially interesting threads of plot woven through the story, but none of them are brought to really satisfying conclusions. The struggle for women's individuality in a conformist era is ostensibly a theme, but is dealt with in a way that comes across as trite and redundant - in both the realm of the 'real' world and in Alice's fantasy world. Instead of personalities, the characters are given certain traits and mannerisms which are intended to define them. Audiences are given no legitimate reasons to prefer the 'good' side to the 'evil' side - and while this could lead to a wonderful exploration of the dangers of polarized conflict, we're just told to accept that some people are 'better' than others and are worth fighting for even when nothing is at stake for us*. Perhaps it's a good moral for an era of twisted morals - colonialism is even tied in and shown in a positive light, barf - but not so much when it comes to teaching children about ethics, respect, and critical thinking, and this is supposed to be a children's movie.
But enough about the plot! The real reason to watch this film is the same as the reason why any Tim Burton film is worth watching: it is a visual treat. The animated effects, the lush set, the costumes - oh, the costumes! I saw it in 3D and I thought the use of 3D was very tasteful - it's rarely used to make things pop out and startle viewers, but rather it gives the images on screen depth and the same surreal feeling that I think Lewis Carroll's writing conveyed. Which does remind me - this movie was basically just an orgy of Lewis Carroll worship (with, oddly, more than a small amount of Phillip Pullman tossed in) - references to Carroll's work were shoehorned in even where they felt awkward and unnecessary - but now I'm getting back to my complaints....
*I feel it's worth mentioning here that the original Alice in Wonderland shows no desire to condescend to viewers this way, and in fact concludes that Alice should trust no one but herself to be completely reliable. Apparently the 19-year-old Alice has forgotten this message.
Alice in Wonderland is a movie with a lot of problems. There are many potentially interesting threads of plot woven through the story, but none of them are brought to really satisfying conclusions. The struggle for women's individuality in a conformist era is ostensibly a theme, but is dealt with in a way that comes across as trite and redundant - in both the realm of the 'real' world and in Alice's fantasy world. Instead of personalities, the characters are given certain traits and mannerisms which are intended to define them. Audiences are given no legitimate reasons to prefer the 'good' side to the 'evil' side - and while this could lead to a wonderful exploration of the dangers of polarized conflict, we're just told to accept that some people are 'better' than others and are worth fighting for even when nothing is at stake for us*. Perhaps it's a good moral for an era of twisted morals - colonialism is even tied in and shown in a positive light, barf - but not so much when it comes to teaching children about ethics, respect, and critical thinking, and this is supposed to be a children's movie.
But enough about the plot! The real reason to watch this film is the same as the reason why any Tim Burton film is worth watching: it is a visual treat. The animated effects, the lush set, the costumes - oh, the costumes! I saw it in 3D and I thought the use of 3D was very tasteful - it's rarely used to make things pop out and startle viewers, but rather it gives the images on screen depth and the same surreal feeling that I think Lewis Carroll's writing conveyed. Which does remind me - this movie was basically just an orgy of Lewis Carroll worship (with, oddly, more than a small amount of Phillip Pullman tossed in) - references to Carroll's work were shoehorned in even where they felt awkward and unnecessary - but now I'm getting back to my complaints....
*I feel it's worth mentioning here that the original Alice in Wonderland shows no desire to condescend to viewers this way, and in fact concludes that Alice should trust no one but herself to be completely reliable. Apparently the 19-year-old Alice has forgotten this message.
#6 - Milk
Milk (directed by Gus van Sant) tells the story of the career of the first openly gay man to hold public office in the United States. Harvey Milk begins as a nervous, firmly closeted man in New York and ends the story as one of the gay rights movement's celebrated heroes. Milk chronicles his life in bustling San Francisco, his personal relationships, and his constant battle against opposing forces that aren't afraid to fight dirty.
Again, Milk is a film I had already seen before 2010, but well worth a second viewing. It's a beautifully crafted piece of work. Sean Penn immerses himself one hundred percent in the title role. There are moments of agony and moments of bliss so exquisite that I felt them all even in the comfort of my suburban living room. As I watched Milk for the second time, I was kind of bothered by the way it plunges viewers who might be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the subject matter directly and harshly into gay culture, but as the action progressed, I realized this might very well be intentional. Milk doesn't ask you to love Harvey Milk right from the start, nor does it ask you to forgive him for his errors. But I think it will inspire you by the end, no matter who you are and where you come from, unless you refuse to be anything but hostile.
Probably the second best thing about Milk (with the first being Sean Penn of course) is the fact that it's historically accurate. When I first saw Milk someone told me that if I really wanted to know the story, I should watch the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk - guess what, it's the same story. Every moment of joy and fear is made more potent by the fact that they were experienced by real people. Milk proves that a story doesn't have to be embellished or exaggerated to be powerful. Despite my own involvement with the LGBT rights movement I knew very little about the details of this story before I saw Milk. And this one is a story that should be heard.
Again, Milk is a film I had already seen before 2010, but well worth a second viewing. It's a beautifully crafted piece of work. Sean Penn immerses himself one hundred percent in the title role. There are moments of agony and moments of bliss so exquisite that I felt them all even in the comfort of my suburban living room. As I watched Milk for the second time, I was kind of bothered by the way it plunges viewers who might be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the subject matter directly and harshly into gay culture, but as the action progressed, I realized this might very well be intentional. Milk doesn't ask you to love Harvey Milk right from the start, nor does it ask you to forgive him for his errors. But I think it will inspire you by the end, no matter who you are and where you come from, unless you refuse to be anything but hostile.
Probably the second best thing about Milk (with the first being Sean Penn of course) is the fact that it's historically accurate. When I first saw Milk someone told me that if I really wanted to know the story, I should watch the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk - guess what, it's the same story. Every moment of joy and fear is made more potent by the fact that they were experienced by real people. Milk proves that a story doesn't have to be embellished or exaggerated to be powerful. Despite my own involvement with the LGBT rights movement I knew very little about the details of this story before I saw Milk. And this one is a story that should be heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
