Pop Culture Round Up: February 7-13

BAFTA winners.

WGA winners.

Criticism in crisis: why review?

Sad. Peel her a grape, angels.

Yeah, we were written before, people. Totally not cashing in.

I wouldn't normally link to a list like this, but some of my favourites are on it.

Tell 'em, Emma!

Ah, Dana. That closing paragraph is why I love you.

What the hell? How have I been missing this?

Six? Did we see the same movie?

"One year later, the evidence is clear: The WGA strike crippled the film and TV biz."

Aw.

Orchestras inspired by Soloist to do good deeds. Aww.

I find that his friend at the screening does a better job of explicating why The Reader shouldn't win than Ron Rosenbaum does for the majority of the article though I agree that the character lacks any real show of remorse.

Important question.

Isn't the book not due out until April, though? At any rate, they should hire me. I would rock that shit.

That would be a difficult list to create.

Whoa. I can't even imagine.

Does anyone just feel 'meh' about him at this point? Also, the topic seems a little uninspired. Wouldn't something about rounding up certain key players in the Iraq war for war crimes be a more exciting, left-wing topic?

Here's two ideas you don't see together every day: William Shatner ballet.

All these new ideas are . . . not worrying, exactly. Questionable. Yes, I have questions. How will I know who designed the dress unless some interchangeable E! host asks the starlet?

All of this just really makes me love her more. Please, please write a tell all. I would pre-order that mother.

Woman after my own heart.

I don't usually make a point of linking to these things as I would end up linking to them every freakin' week, but I found this one in particular to vibrate with a love of film. I find that Scott Tobias gets that way when he writes about Soderbergh, and it makes me wish he would write a book about him.

Aw, don't blame yourself, James. Either he's crazy or he's an idiot, but you're not responsible for either. You are a wonderful director.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Summary: Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April (Kate Winslet) Wheeler are an unhappy suburban couple in 1955 who decide that a move to Paris is just the thing they need.

By the time this movie opened here, I had more or less lowered my expectations for it. I went into it not entirely sure what I was looking for or what it would be. I knew DiCaprio and Winslet would be great (they are). I knew that Michael Shannon, as the institutionalized son of their neighbours, would do something amazing (he does but more on that in a minute).

There is some interesting work about perception and self-delusion going on in Justin Haythe's adaptation of Richard Yates' seminal novel. We hear a lot of talk about how "special" the Wheelers are, both from outsiders and from themselves, but we never see any of this specialness in action. Instead it becomes clear that there is vast gulf between everything the characters say and the reality in which they live. They fear that this special quality will burn out if they continue on the way they are; their capacity for self-reflection already has. In comes Shannon, burning with such fervent intensity that even playing a well worn trope (crazy person tells the truth no one dares speak) he invigorates his brief scenes with an electricity lacking from the rest of the film.

That's possibly the most interesting thing about it. Even though the acting is top notch, the movie wasn't the sum of its parts. It's not enough anymore to say that people in suburbia put on a veneer of perfection and are dying inside (in this movie, it's "hopeless emptiness"). We've seen that before. We've seen it for two superb seasons on Mad Men, and director Sam Mendes told us the same thing ten years ago with American Beauty and with far more creativity and pizazz.

You have to bring something more to the table now, and this movie didn't do that. B

The Reader (2008)

Brief: A chance encounter leads to an affair between a teen, Michael Berg (David Cross), and an older trolley worker, Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet). Years later while at law school, Michael attends a war crimes tribunal to find Hanna on trial for her time as a guard at Auschwitz.

If I tell you that the performances are uniformly excellent -- particularly Winslet as a woman who holds steadfastly to her belief that one does one's job as best as one can without questioning and who's great shame lies not in something that can never be undone or forgiven but in something she knows not how to change -- can we move on to why this story doesn't work best on screen?

Despite having never read it, I feel almost certain that the book must be better than the movie. Kate Winslet as a sexy older lady having an affair with a kid half her age and who happens to secretly be a Nazi certainly sounds like a pulpy premise, doesn't it? But in his effort to focus on the psychic scars that haunt post-war Germany to this very day (or at least to 1995 where Ralph Fiennes, as the oldest iteration of Michael Berg, reflects back on them), director Stephen Daldry presents us with another deadly dull literary adaptation. (Sidebar: Can you believe he directed Billy Elliot?)

Before you point out that perhaps the post-war Germany bit is more important than the sexy-Nazi bit, let me remind you that there are sexy movies about post-war Germany. It can be done. I am certain that there are stories about that time in that country's history that can and should be told, but this movie isn't the place I would look for one if I were you. There's a scene late in the movie between Fiennes and Lena Olin, as a survivor who wrote a memoir about her time in the camps and whose testified against Hanna, that would be a good starting off point. It carefully maintains a balance between wanting Fiennes to spell it out and wondering what good that would do. It put me in mind of My Own Private Lower Post, a powerful short about the psychic scars that reservation schools have unto the second and third generations.

While Winslet can't win enough awards in my opinion,* I would also hand one over to Bruno Ganz. He so perfectly embodied the role of a special seminar professor that it nearly took me by surprise.

My greatest surprise, however, came in the form of Nico Muhly's score. It relied, of all things, on the oboe. I had a professor who told us that we do not trust the oboe (or any instrument with a double reed) because it reminds us instinctively of the snake in Eden. There is something lovelorn about it and Muhly's work.** If only the movie could have maintained the same tone. Well, and moved a bit quicker. And maybe have been a bit shorter. B

*After all, working with Daldry and donning a prosethetic won Kidman an Oscar.

**It reminded me of nothing so much as the score for Sweeney Todd, to be honest.

Little Children (2006)

Idea: Depressed suburban housewife Sarah (Kate Winslet) and emasculated househusband Brad (Patrick Wilson) begin a tentative friendship that leads to an affair. Convicted sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Hickey) moves back in with his mother (Phyllis Somerville) in the same neighbourhood. Larry (Noah Emmerich) becomes Brad's football buddy and obsessed with personally policing Ronnie.

It's been a while now, but I'm still not sure how I feel about this movie. Okay, that's not entirely true. I have a fairly good handle on how I feel about this movie, but I don't want to come out and say how I feel about this movie.

I know I have come out against narration in movies in the past, but I think my stance on the issue has been considered much more harsh than it really is. In certain movies, it more than works - it's necessary. It worked in, say, American Beauty because Lester, while the protagonist, was only one character, and he didn't go around telling us how everyone else felt. It was necessary for Sunset Boulevard because it was tied to the very conceit of the story - a writer telling the story of his death from beyond the grave. It works in the first Bridget Jones movie because it mimics the source material (all the events are Bridget's interpretation or memory thereof) and because it is used sparingly.

It works well here, in certain cases. Particularly for Brad's character. It's not that Wilson doesn't do a good job (because he does); it's that certain ideas and how they make Brad feel, like that bit about the jester's hat as it slowly sails to the floor, could do with a bit of exposition.

Of course, there were other times when I wanted to yell, "Shut up, Will Lyman, SHUT UP!" Again, particularly as they applied to Sarah. Winslet is an incredible actress - there isn't a fraction of a second where the exact right emotion, as well as a plethora of others, doesn't register on her face. Mind you, the idea of trying to make her plain is laughable, but that doesn't stop Winslet from putting her all into Sarah's boredom and detachment.

I get that there are difficulties in adapting a book for the screen, particularly when the director (Todd Field) works with the author of the novel (Tom Perrotta). I get that there are chunks of prose so beautiful, so rich and meaningful that it is painful to cut them. On other hand, I doubt you want your audience to waste the denouement thinking, "Really? X is surprised to find himself in this situation? This moment is meant to be, in some way, ironic? Thanks, narrator! How would I have discovered that on my own?"

Alright, leaving aside my personal vendetta against unnecessary narration, let's give credit where it is due. Hickey was both scary and incredibly sad. It takes confidence to return to the screen after more than a decade of absence to this kind of role, and he does it will aplomb. Jennifer Connelly, who I never thought much of in the past, dazzled me with her mincing gaze. Thomas Newman, whom I have railed against, wrote a score than is sparse but elegant, working with the natural sounds of the neighbourhood (particularly the train that rolls through town) instead of another Shawshank rip-off.

And, finally, Field. Let us marvel at his talent - his ability to get inside of people's emotions and insecurities and present them in a way that feels fresh and honest. His exploration of grief in In the Bedroom was heavy without being heavy-handed, and now, examining the causes and short-term consequences of infidelity (of all sorts), he creates an intelligent and wholly believable world littered with the debris of the everyday.

But Madame Bovary at the book club? Come! On! At least Winslet got an amazing line out of it. B+

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

More RE-views!

No, I haven't seen this movie in two years either. It's not like I didn't want to see it, and I think I may have watched parts of it, but I didn't sit down and watch the whole thing through again until not so long ago.

My goodness, how my review didn't do justice to this film! I seem to have overlooked cinematographer Ellen Kuras' arresting visual style, Jon Brion's playful yet melancholy score, the perfect harmony of Michel Gondry's direction with Charlie Kaufman's incredible script. Overlooked no more!

Oh, Kate Winslet, how do you do it? How do you play everything so naturally? How do you manage to generate believable chemistry with just about anyone? (I even buy the pairing of her and Jack Black) Kate, I find it exceedingly difficult to place this mantle on anyone, but I think you are my favourite actress. You take risks, but you're selective. You're sensual and ethereal and achingly amazing in this movie. Clementine is seductive and bitchy and cruel and lovable.

The other half of the relationship, as presented by Jim Carrey, is pitch perfect. Joel is everything that Clementine hates to see and wants to possess. His futile attempts to save her are as romantic as they are idiotic, but the way he seems to write her into his memory - knowing that she's only the version of herself that he chooses to see - it's the way Carrey plays the cruelty of desperation matched with the courage necessary to try anyway that makes your breath catch in your chest.

That final, urgently whispered plea before Clementine disappears entirely from Joel's memory? That last scene in the hallway, knowing what they do and choosing what they do anyway? Makes this the most romantic movie I have ever seen.

As this review was also from the time before grades, allow me to attach another: A+

Iris (2001)

Brief: The beginning of the life-long romance between Iris Murdoch (Kate Winslet) and John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville) is juxtaposed with her later descent into Alzhemier's as John (Jim Broadbent) struggles to care for Iris (Judi Dench) on his own.

I'm watching a lot of juxtaposition lately, aren't I?

Unfortunately, I'm also watching a lot of movies that I don't really connect with emotionally. Broadbent earned his many awards and nominations and then some. His portrayal was so brutal. Everything he did and said was so honest. It hurt to watch. It just hurt.

Dench pretty much seemed like she was slowly losing her mind, so I approve of her as well. I can't help but wonder if it is more like Hagar's point of view in The Stone Angel, but I guess I don't really want to know anyway.

What I failed to connect with - and this may shock you - was the Kate Winslet/Hugh Bonneville early years bit. What I didn't get at all, what Richard Eyre and Charles Wood's screenplay never gave me, was what was so darn great about Iris. Why did John put up with her? Where was this legendary lust for life and love? She would have made a fun friend to be sure, but there was nothing more to it.

Could it be that Martin Walsh left all the good bits on the cutting room floor? He's edited other movies that I've very much enjoyed, so it's tough to say.

But something went wrong here. Something's missing. The heart, perhaps. C

Finding Neverland (2004)

Premise: After his servant kindly cuts out an unfavourable review, James Barrie (Johnny Depp with a sexy Scottish brogue) spies the widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her four sons playing in the park. Barrie is soon adopted as Uncle James by Jack (Joe Prospero), George (Nick Roud), and Michael (Luke Spill), while he coaxes Peter (Freddie Highmore) out of his shell. Both his social climbing wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell), and Sylvia's over-protective mother, Mrs. Du Maurier (Julie Christie), object to James' relationship with the family Davies, and they do their best put an end to a summer that would inspire children for a century.

Spoil sports!

April definitely should have spent her opening week-end money on this film.

Marc Foster (director), who brought us the quiet, poignant, but slightly overrated Monster's Ball, is in his element here. The combination of his direction, David Magee's screenplay (based on Allan Knee's play), and Depp stole my heart in the first fifteen minutes or so, and they filled it to nearly bursting. There's a part right at the beginning where Michael flies a kite, and I started crying right then I was so happy. Foster and Magee make us privy to the wonderful adventures that must have occurred in Barrie's imagination, and it is impossible not to fall in love with him.

I didn't like Mary at first, but Mitchell managed to turn it around for me. The deep yearning that the ethereal Winslet and Depp brought to Sylvia's and James' friendship made it easy to demonize Mary. Magee and Mitchell, however, gave Mary just enough for the audience to understand the daily heartbreak Mary experienced.

And for those of you who were understandably endeared by Highmore's big blue eyes and chemistry with Depp, you'll be happy to know that they will be appearing together next in Tim Burton's remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with Highmore in the title role.

There were so many good little bits that I want to comment on, and I don't want to give any of it away. I will tell you that the part with Christie when she claps was completely spontaneous, and it was also the part that got to me the most.

And Kelly Macdonald, who gives life to the first stage Peter Pan, is perfect as the little boy who never wanted to grow up. In case you didn't already know, Peter was usually played by a young lady, and Macdonald is endearing.

James tells Peter that he can always find Neverland by just believing. If I believe hard enough and long enough, will I always be able to find films that can be described in one word - magic - like this one? A+

Quills (2000)

Summary: A highly fictionalized telling of the last few weeks of the life of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush), who was imprisoned in Chareton, a home for the criminally insane, during the Napoleonic era. The film focuses on what happens when Napoleon discovers that the Marquis is still publishing from within prison. Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is brought in to appraise the situation, much to the chagrin of L’Abbé du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), who runs the asylum. Both men being to suspect the nature of the relationship between the Marquis and Madeleine (Kate Winslet), a laundry lass.

Serious, 2000 is where it’s at. Or it was where it was? Hmmm.

The highly fictionalized bit can be difficult to sort out. Suffice it to say that the characters are real, much of the events are real, but what happens between the characters is exaggerated to say the least.

I, for one, am very pleased with the fiction that Doug Wright added to his screenplay, which is based on his play. He claims that he had read about all of the Marquis’ quills being taken away to stop him from writing, and the whole story sort of grew from there. He carefully crafted characters that are as real as the air we breathe, putting them in alternatively exquisite and crushing scenes.

Another element I appreciate about Wright’s screenplay was his decision not to make L’Abbé a four foot tall hunchback, as he was in real life. I don’t have anything against 4” hunchbacks (e.g. my Nana), but I much prefer Phoenix.

Phoenix appears in three movies that were released in the year 2000. Having seen all three, I can honestly say that he turns in near-virtuoso performances in all of them. I say near because although I believe him to be a truly talented actor, I am very wary of applying to term virtuoso to anyone.

Here we see his capacity for romance and heroism, which goes against the grain of the villains he plays in the other two movies. The role of a priest in love is very much one fraught with victim-hood and intrapersonal conflict, both of which Phoenix conveys convincingly through deeply hooded eyes and hushed tones. His pale skin also makes him seem always slightly sickly, which conjures up images of sleepless nights and inner turmoil.

Also, like it or not, priests are often made to be very sexy in movies. Sex appeal is another important dimension that Phoenix brings to the role.

I did not, however, appreciate Wright’s choice to have Rush naked for a good portion of the film, and I did not appreciate Philip Kaufman’s (director) choice of full frontal nudity. I believe that in films it is often what you don’t see, not what you see, that counts. Sexual tension, not sex, is sexy. That which you think you see is much more frightening than any sight. And you can very obviously tell the audience that someone is nude without showing them.

Other than that, Kaufman’s direction is stellar. For all his critical acclaim, I’ve not seen a single picture of his besides this one. I should, though, as he infuses this one with wit, whimsy, and gothic suffering. It’s odd, isn’t it, that a film set in the early 1800s feels like it belongs in the dark ages because of the plot and location where the story enfolds?

Rush attacks his role with engulfing passion. Wright described the character as a “demented peacock”, and it’s clear that that description directed Rush’s performance. His Marquis is self-obsessed, arrogant, and never repentant. When he finally does collapse in tears, they’re almost wrong coming from him.

Winslet’s take on a servant in turbulent times is fantastic, right down to her adopted cockney accent. It’s a wonder that she can simultaneously appear worldly and innocent. And the sexual tension between Winslet and Phoenix so tangible that even the audience feels a little on edge watching them.

Caine as a villain is something else. I’m not overly familiar with his work, but I’ve always thought of him as a kindly old grandfather figure, much as he appears at the end of The Muppet Christmas Carol. Here he is downright evil, and I found it downright chilling. I’d rather not see him that way again.

I suppose I can’t be critical of the film for being graphic, though, since it is in keeping with the Marquis’ work. In fact, I might be tempted to say that this is a film the Marquis himself would be proud of.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Outline: Upon discovering that his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), has had him erased from her memory, Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to have the same procedure done. The film, for the large part, takes place in Joel's memory as the eraser guys work backwards in his mind to remove every trace of Clementine. When Joel realizes what he'll lose, he strives to stop the procedure or hide Clementine where no one will find her.

Charlie Kaufman blows my mind. I love his movies where he completely blurs the line between reality and fantasy (e.g. Being John Malkovich and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). I think he'd probably tell you something a little off like the only reality is fantasy. And that could be true. At least it's the truth when applied to movies like this. I tell you truly though, his movies can be so fanciful that they give me a headache. I know that sounds like something you wouldn't want to happen, but I kind of like it when a movie is so psychologically thrilling (not to be confused with watching a psychological thriller) that my mind can't keep up.

What I want to know is how he ever met Michel Gondry (director). Okay, so they did Human Nature together, but I still don't know how they could have met. Honestly, the match is near perfect, and it makes the whole experience that much more enjoyable.

Also, smacks to whomever was critical of Carrey in serious roles. I liked him in The Truman Show, I liked him in The Majestic, and I love him in Eternal Sunshine. Plus, the film reminded me why I believed Winslet so talented.

Of course, what really got me was how normal Tom Wilkinson behaved. Usually I find him so frightening, but he was so calm and quiet as the doctor stealing portions of people's lives.

Oh, see it, see it, see it. Everyone should see Kaufman - everyone.