Apparently I wrote the following review a few years back, and probably didn't post it for good reasons... This isn't an endorsement, just a review:
Any movie that can make me question long-held beliefs must be doing something right. If you listen to the leftists of the world (i.e. Al Gore) you would conclude that Capitalism is a pervasive evil that must be dismantled before it destroys us all. On the other extreme we find Rush Limbaugh, who equates Capitalism with Godliness. I would suggest that our country wouldn't be what it is today without Capitalism; the good and the bad. Greedy, selfish Capitalists placed us in the unique position to save the world from Nazism and Japanese imperialism at the same time. You might argue that it was our country's Godly foundation which led to a World War II victory. Or you might point to the blessings of natural resources, or the motivating power of good vs. evil... Sure, that's all true, but greedy, selfish Capitalists played an integral part.
Now you're beginning to wonder, what has this to do with The Wolf of Wall Street? Martin Scorsese has made a movie which should be both inspiring and totally offensive to any reasonable person. There is no aristocracy in the United States, everyone has the opportunity to better him or her self. Inherent with this freedom is the potential for devastating failure and degradation. Scorsese has crafted an allegory; warning all viewers of the pitfalls associated with Capitalism. In an early scene, Matthew McConaughey's character offers his advice on how to be a great stock broker. He carefully plots a routine of drug and alcohol use to maximize his effectiveness; the ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible. Health, kindness, peace, love, integrity,... none of these are even factors in his approach, only self-gratification and money. The main character in the film, played by Leonardo DiCaprio takes this advice to heart, and the result is an empty life of excess.
I don't think that Scorsese is so hypocritical as to be criticizing success, or the competitive nature of Capitalism. Rather, this film plays more as a warning to those who would naïvely assume that any system is run by "good" people. We are the sheep. The guys dominating on Wall Street are the wolves. The most poignant moment in The Wolf of Wall Street comes during an explanation; making money for investors is unimportant to the broker, because making money for the broker is the only thing. In a perfect world Capitalism would be wonderful; a flawless balance of supply and demand would bring peace and harmony. In a perfect world Communism would be wonderful too...
Where this film made me question my beliefs has to do with the infectious nature of evil. I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists helped win World War II, with no negative side effects. I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish, white Capitalists settled this country (relocating and murdering along the way), with no lasting negative side effects. I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists can run our banks, corporations, churches, etc. with no negative side effects. Scorsese is telling me to wake up. That's all this film is, an exposé. What should be done next?, well that is a really important question.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Best Picture
Now that I've seen each of the films nominated in the Best Picture category, let me give my final analysis and prediction.
The nine nominated films (click any one to go to my review)
Get Out
The Post
Lady Bird
Dunkirk
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
Call Me By Your Name
Phantom Thread
Darkest Hour
The Shape of Water
- My favorite was Phantom Thread, although I may never watch it again - the experience will live in my memory.
- The most entertaining was Get Out.
- The most uplifting was Darkest Hour.
- Call Me By Your Name was the best from a filmmaking perspective, and thus deserves the award.
- I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gives the award to The Shape of Water, because Hollywood has a depraved sense of beauty.
Get Out
Get Out is formulaic in its structure, yet surprising in its presentation. The plot could be explained in a few brief sentences: A young black man hesitantly agrees to go with his white girlfriend to visit her affluent parents. His apprehension quickly transitions into fear as he realizes that something isn’t quite right with the girlfriend’s family. The family and their social circle exude cult-like vibes; all the white people are too friendly and the few black people are in a trance. As the truth is uncovered in the third act, it is clear that the protagonist is in real danger, and a series of violent confrontations drives the film to its final reveal. Back in 1960 Psycho used the same formula, as have a plethora of psychological thrillers and horror movies in the years since. The director of Get Out, Jordan Peele doesn’t try to reinvent the formula; honestly the film is quite predictable. Where directors like M. Night Shyamalan makes thrillers that have legitimately scary moments in the vein of Hitchcock, that’s not what Peele is going for. Instead, Peele is using this genre as a vehicle to comment on the state of racial relations in society today. He points out that bald-faced racism of past generations has been replaced by a self-righteous short-sighted attitude amongst those who consider themselves ‘enlightened’. Peele suggests that pretending no racial divide exists is just as offensive as open racism – his heroes are the honest people of the film, the ones who see what’s really going on.
I liked that Peele didn’t veer from the tone that he established early on in the film, the temptation to shock and splatter the screen with blood must have been there (and I realize this is relative), but he chose moderation. The result is that the audience is allowed to process what the film was about, instead of how gruesome the last 20 minutes were. It bothers me that so many movies resort to graphic violence, when a good story and compelling acting are much more effective. I will also mention that the main character’s friend, a TSA agent who serves as a voice of reason (and comic relief) throughout the film, is a great example of Peele’s talented sense of timing and balance. Peele masterfully uses this character as a sort of narrator; he’s seeing the events unfold much in the same way we are. My question would be, is he a reliable, or unreliable narrator?
I liked that Peele didn’t veer from the tone that he established early on in the film, the temptation to shock and splatter the screen with blood must have been there (and I realize this is relative), but he chose moderation. The result is that the audience is allowed to process what the film was about, instead of how gruesome the last 20 minutes were. It bothers me that so many movies resort to graphic violence, when a good story and compelling acting are much more effective. I will also mention that the main character’s friend, a TSA agent who serves as a voice of reason (and comic relief) throughout the film, is a great example of Peele’s talented sense of timing and balance. Peele masterfully uses this character as a sort of narrator; he’s seeing the events unfold much in the same way we are. My question would be, is he a reliable, or unreliable narrator?
Monday, February 19, 2018
Black Panther
I can unequivocally say that Black Panther is the best comic book film adaptation since Thor: Ragnarok, and it very well may hold that distinction until May of this year. Perhaps you sense a little comic book fatigue, which would be an accurate assessment. Singer's X-Men and Nolan's Batman Begins heralded a Golden Age of comic book movies, but also opened the floodgate to studios greenlighting every project that comes their way. For every excellent adaptation, there are at least five or six mediocre offerings. The director of Black Panther, Ryan Coogler should be given credit for a valiant effort, but there are flaws which have become all to common in recent comic book movies:
1. Too many uninteresting characters steal precious time from the central characters.
2. If you can't make the digital effect look good, just leave the scene on the cutting room floor (or drag and drop to the recycle bin...).
3. If you want the film to be a political commentary, own it. Don't insult the audience with thinly veiled allusions to contemporary politics.
Coogler got some really important elements right, enough to redeem an otherwise bland movie:
1. Costume design is amazing, vibrant, and is the visual thread that holds the film together.
2. Casting Chadwick Boseman as the Black Panther, Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, Forest Whitaker as Zuri, Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger, and Andy Serkis as Klaue was right on, each of these performers were excellent in their roles.
3. The soundtrack by Kendrick Lamar and score by Ludwig Göransson combine fluidly to create a distinct atmosphere throughout the film. While I liked Thor: Ragnarok's multiple uses of Zeppelin's Immigrant Song, I can admit that the action sequence montage is one of the clichés that detracts from comic book movies. Coogler smartly avoided this by using fresh music instead of depending on classic or popular compositions, which makes the film feel new and distinct.
1. Too many uninteresting characters steal precious time from the central characters.
2. If you can't make the digital effect look good, just leave the scene on the cutting room floor (or drag and drop to the recycle bin...).
3. If you want the film to be a political commentary, own it. Don't insult the audience with thinly veiled allusions to contemporary politics.
Coogler got some really important elements right, enough to redeem an otherwise bland movie:
1. Costume design is amazing, vibrant, and is the visual thread that holds the film together.
2. Casting Chadwick Boseman as the Black Panther, Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, Forest Whitaker as Zuri, Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger, and Andy Serkis as Klaue was right on, each of these performers were excellent in their roles.
3. The soundtrack by Kendrick Lamar and score by Ludwig Göransson combine fluidly to create a distinct atmosphere throughout the film. While I liked Thor: Ragnarok's multiple uses of Zeppelin's Immigrant Song, I can admit that the action sequence montage is one of the clichés that detracts from comic book movies. Coogler smartly avoided this by using fresh music instead of depending on classic or popular compositions, which makes the film feel new and distinct.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
The Post
As an exercise in filmmaking, Spielberg's The Post pads a resume that's already bursting at the seams (I realize that I'm mixing metaphors). Everything onscreen supports Spielberg's vision; it would be difficult to find any flaws with this film, and the virtuoso newsprinting sequence alone is worth the price of admission. So, if you want to see one movie in your entire life about the heroics of journalists, then go no further than The Post. But if you saw Spotlight a few years ago, or All The President's Men, or any other film in this sub-genre, then you've already gotten the general gist of The Post. In a nutshell, every journalist is full of unbiased integrity, seeking the truth, and is a defender and champion of the Constitution. I have to give Spielberg credit, the two main characters call each other out on relationships that threaten their impartiality. But Spielberg's conclusion is that his heroes are immune to corruption, and their sympathetic nature makes them better people, and thereby better journalists. This may be the most one-sided Spielberg movie ever made, and I'm including the fact that you couldn't even see the Nazis during the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. I don't think that a great film must give equal time, or even pretend to be objective, but I found the preachiness of this film to be intellectually dishonest, and somewhat offensive. That the Government tried to prohibit the publication of classified documents was met with righteous indignation, yet only a few throw-away lines addressed the possible consequences of printing national secrets. The irony is that the outcome of history is used to justify decisions that, given a different outcome, would be considered treasonous. There is even a point in the film when one of the lawyers representing the journalists is asked whether he would have supported printing documents that would have undermined the D-Day invasion; this question goes unanswered. You might be surprised to hear that overall I liked the film; if someone is going to piss me off, it might as well be one of the best directors of all time...
Lady Bird
Lady Bird is a film that follows a seventeen year old girl through her senior year of high school. She has a father who's struggling to provide for his family, but does what he can to encourage Lady Bird. She has a mother who sometimes burdens her with the family's problems, but is ultimately preparing Lady Bird for life. She makes bad decisions when it comes to school, friends, and boys. What separates this film from the typical "coming of age" teenage comedy/drama is that Lady Bird is pretty well grounded; she knows when she's made bad decisions, she regrets being selfish, and she is sympathetic to her parents' hardships. While this is a refreshing change from the standard Hollywood portrayal of teenagers, it honestly isn't very entertaining. Call me shallow, but I prefer Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You. Those are examples of films that don't honestly reflect the typical teenage experience, but they sure are fun to watch. Lady Bird is a well made film which contains a wonderfully nuanced performance by Laurie Metcalf as Lady Bird's mom; but it wan't enough to keep me interested. I know that life can be monotonous, and I realize that sometimes great films exist to remind us of that, but this didn't quite rise to that level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)