As I watched Black Swan, one thing became increasingly evident to me. Director Darren Aronofsky seems obsessed with, well, obsession and the insanity that seems inherent in any obsession. Every film he has made has had its main character or character obsessed with their goal. Be it s number that may be the name of God or the secret to life or re-attainment of former glory, his characters are pursuing their goals sometimes to the point of insanity. So I'm not surprised that his latest effort returns to that reoccurring theme.
At times this theme is darker than others and for my money it probably won't ever get darker or better than Requiem for a Dream. A film which I saw once and only once not because I didn't think it was good or because I thought I didn't need to see it again but rather because I'm not sure I could see it again. It's overwhelming. Black Swan aims at that sort of discord but comes up short. But that isn't to say it isn't an amazing movie. It's mind bogglingly good.
First it is obsessed with detail. From the aches and scars of standing on your toes to the rigor of breaking in the ballet shoes. The slight creepiness of Nina's bedroom and overbearing mother. The cattiness of the ballet dancers. It may not be reality of dance but it feels like a reality. One lived in and agonized over. And when perfection obsessed Nina is confronted with not being perfect, she starts to crack. So meticulous is the attention to obsession that whether the antagonist Lily is actually doing anything of malice is beside the point. The very entrance of an oddity into the presumed perfect world may be the catalyst for Nina.
If its been a while since you've seen a good actor masterfully play a complete break with reality, then look no further. Natalie Portman who can be hit or miss, hits as Nina. If not for Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, I'd be tempted to consider Portman the best of the year. And as the obsession and insanity crescendo, Aronofksy keeps moving forward and really stunned me with some quite visually breathtaking scenes.
Maybe the obsession as subject is personal for Aronofsky or maybe I'm over reading him but frankly if it means that every several years we get a movie like this or Requiem for a Dream, then I hope he keeps up the obsession. And I'll be in line to give him another chance to disturb me and thrill my movie going sensibility at the same time.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
True Grit
I grew up on Westerns. Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, those were the actors I saw in my youth. My parents would watch all those films and they were some of my earliest movie experiences. Which is why I have soft spot for them and am very picky when I see a new western or a remake. I didn't care all that much for the recent "3:10 To Yuma" And so I was little uneasy when I heard belatedly that the Coens next film was a remake of True Grit. Sure, sure all the assurances that this was more faithful to the book but so what? If someone wanted to remake Everbody Comes to Rick's but make it more faithful, would you be okay with that? I know I wouldn't.
But its the Coens, you say, well I'm not as enamored with the Coens as some. Yes they are talented but frankly the best film they ever made was No County For Old Men and that was almost anti-Coen in its approach. The Duke WAS Rooster Cogburn. Sure, he didn't really play Rooster so much as embody every last element of the John Wayne mythos at that point but still, even now I think Rooster Cogburn equals John Wayne. So warily I entered the theater to watch this new True Grit. And frankly I'm glad I did.
I don't by any means think its a perfect film. More than once I just wished a few scenes had been shortened here or there. And after the climax of the film, the last ten minutes or so just felt sort of unnecessary (even if they were in the book). But it was a sold and enjoyable film. Solid acting from everyone. Although I'm not sure why Barry Pepper hasn't been getting more love. He was great in his small role. I would only put it in my top ten of the year by virtue of the fact that well I didn't see 10 good movies in 2010. But well made yes.
Of course Jeff Bridges is great with his own Rooster (but as I said The Duke will always be Rooster to me). Matt Damon is good as the well meaning but slightly dim-witted LeBeouf. But really the entire show is stolen by Hailee Steinfeld. Her Mattie Ross is tough, smart and sharp tongued. She manages humorous, stern, clever, compassionate and scared without pause. She is hard to ignore the entire time she is on screen. And the whole movie rests on her shoulders. It might be the best performance all year but I concede that I have few to compare it to. Still whether you are sceptical going in or a whole hearted Coen fan, Steinfeld alone is worth the price of admission.
But its the Coens, you say, well I'm not as enamored with the Coens as some. Yes they are talented but frankly the best film they ever made was No County For Old Men and that was almost anti-Coen in its approach. The Duke WAS Rooster Cogburn. Sure, he didn't really play Rooster so much as embody every last element of the John Wayne mythos at that point but still, even now I think Rooster Cogburn equals John Wayne. So warily I entered the theater to watch this new True Grit. And frankly I'm glad I did.
I don't by any means think its a perfect film. More than once I just wished a few scenes had been shortened here or there. And after the climax of the film, the last ten minutes or so just felt sort of unnecessary (even if they were in the book). But it was a sold and enjoyable film. Solid acting from everyone. Although I'm not sure why Barry Pepper hasn't been getting more love. He was great in his small role. I would only put it in my top ten of the year by virtue of the fact that well I didn't see 10 good movies in 2010. But well made yes.
Of course Jeff Bridges is great with his own Rooster (but as I said The Duke will always be Rooster to me). Matt Damon is good as the well meaning but slightly dim-witted LeBeouf. But really the entire show is stolen by Hailee Steinfeld. Her Mattie Ross is tough, smart and sharp tongued. She manages humorous, stern, clever, compassionate and scared without pause. She is hard to ignore the entire time she is on screen. And the whole movie rests on her shoulders. It might be the best performance all year but I concede that I have few to compare it to. Still whether you are sceptical going in or a whole hearted Coen fan, Steinfeld alone is worth the price of admission.
The King's Speech
The death of Princess Diana in the 1990s was an event I can remember. I remember all the news reports and the silence of the royal family. So when I saw The Queen back in early 2007, I remember thinking to myself that it was the first movie I could recall were the events being portrayed were ones I more or less witnessed. I bring this up because as I was exiting The King's Speech, an old couple was in front of me and as we went, the elderly man said he remembered a lot of the historical events portrayed in the film. And how odd it was that he said that since The Queen of course was about Queen Elizabeth and the current film was about her father King George VI.
I did not need that brief conversation to decide the movie was good but it certainly was a nice affirmation that the film felt real. Seemingly having a pedestrian or even boring premise, as my father put it "once I found out it was about a speech therapist, I said pass", the truth is it is much more than about a speech therapist. OR perhaps its that to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it is how it is about being a movie about a speech therapist. It was somewhat into the movie when I remembered that King George VI took on the crown when his older brother King Edward VIII denounced his crown for love. And some might say well now there is a story. A man destined to be king gives it up to be with the woman he loves.
And I suppose you wouldn't be wrong, but there was something quite extraordinary about George overcoming speech problems and being a source of comfort for the English people during the hard days of World War II. Frankly I only know a handful of things about speech therapy but I did laugh early in the movie when the court doctor is suggesting the strategy that Demosthenes used to cure his impediment. At least as Plutarch claimed it. The first time I read that in Plutarch I was sceptical but apparently not 1930s doctors. But as I said it really isn't a movie about speech therapy. I could list off a slew of things that I interpret the movie to be about but the basic thing that it is is good.
The story is engaging and the principal actors are wholly enjoyable to watch. Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce have memorable roles as King George V and Edward VIII respectfully. Gambon as particularly stern with George VI but who apparently saw in him the best of his sons. Pearce plays Edward as quite selfish, a quite nice opposite take on the notion of him following his heart. Following his heart yes but abandoning his duty. This is actually one of the more interesting dynamics of the film. Helena Bonham Carter is perhaps the most subtle in her role as George VI's wife.
Of course the show belongs to Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth as George VI. Firth shows a strength and sensitivity that is quite appealing making a larger than life Royal Figure human and at times tragic. Rush is lively and having fun but never so over the top that you don't believe the relationship the two develop. As the whole movie seems to hang on Rush and Firth's relationship, it is well that the two have great screen chemistry.
By the time the rousing finale roles around I was smiling and happy that I had chosen this film to watch. Great story backed by great actors are a difficult combo to upset. It doesn't hurt that it put a smile on my face as well.
I did not need that brief conversation to decide the movie was good but it certainly was a nice affirmation that the film felt real. Seemingly having a pedestrian or even boring premise, as my father put it "once I found out it was about a speech therapist, I said pass", the truth is it is much more than about a speech therapist. OR perhaps its that to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it is how it is about being a movie about a speech therapist. It was somewhat into the movie when I remembered that King George VI took on the crown when his older brother King Edward VIII denounced his crown for love. And some might say well now there is a story. A man destined to be king gives it up to be with the woman he loves.
And I suppose you wouldn't be wrong, but there was something quite extraordinary about George overcoming speech problems and being a source of comfort for the English people during the hard days of World War II. Frankly I only know a handful of things about speech therapy but I did laugh early in the movie when the court doctor is suggesting the strategy that Demosthenes used to cure his impediment. At least as Plutarch claimed it. The first time I read that in Plutarch I was sceptical but apparently not 1930s doctors. But as I said it really isn't a movie about speech therapy. I could list off a slew of things that I interpret the movie to be about but the basic thing that it is is good.
The story is engaging and the principal actors are wholly enjoyable to watch. Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce have memorable roles as King George V and Edward VIII respectfully. Gambon as particularly stern with George VI but who apparently saw in him the best of his sons. Pearce plays Edward as quite selfish, a quite nice opposite take on the notion of him following his heart. Following his heart yes but abandoning his duty. This is actually one of the more interesting dynamics of the film. Helena Bonham Carter is perhaps the most subtle in her role as George VI's wife.
Of course the show belongs to Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth as George VI. Firth shows a strength and sensitivity that is quite appealing making a larger than life Royal Figure human and at times tragic. Rush is lively and having fun but never so over the top that you don't believe the relationship the two develop. As the whole movie seems to hang on Rush and Firth's relationship, it is well that the two have great screen chemistry.
By the time the rousing finale roles around I was smiling and happy that I had chosen this film to watch. Great story backed by great actors are a difficult combo to upset. It doesn't hurt that it put a smile on my face as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)