The Reader

I've been wanting to see this film ever since I first heard about it. First, because Kate Winslet is probably my favorite actress and fantastic and diverse in everything she does. And secondly, I'll admit, because the subject matter seemed so salacious: older woman has sex with underaged boy and turns out to be some sort of Nazi. I'm not a pervert; it's just that there's no way you can read that description of a film and not think it sounds interesting. Plus, the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards and starred Kate Winslet meant that it had to be more than just a sensationalized sex story.

And it was. As soon as I finished watching it, I felt eager to recommend it to my family. Upon second thought, I realized that it really does have quite a few very nude love scenes and might not be the best "family film." But the reason why I initially failed to remember the multiple sex scenes in this film is exactly the reason why it's so good: this is one of those rare movies where I felt the sex/nudity was neither gratuitous nor did it overshadow the point of the movie. I can't say much without giving too much away, but for me, this film was ultimately about the life of one woman as discovered by a boy (and later man) who once, and perhaps still does, unconventionally love her. A truly good film has the ability to take an obscure and unrelatable situation (for example, a Nazi woman who has sex with fifteen year old boys) and help us see our own humanity in it.

King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes (funny, I always thought it was Shakespeare) "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Though we don't all consummate our lust for people that are off limits, and we certainly aren't all Nazis, the emotions portrayed in this film - wonder, innocence, uncertainty, excitement, confusion, shame, pity, anger, grief, love - have been felt throughout the ages, time and time again, by all sorts of people. This film recognizes both the beauty, and the frailty, of such emotions, no matter who they are felt by. While The Reader by no means celebrates the actions of the characters in the film, it honors the integrity of the emotions that result from them.

I am so glad I watched this film, and so glad that Ms. Winslet finally, finally won her much deserved Oscar.

The Fountain

I've watched so many movies since last posting, many of them memorable, and have at least a couple of unfinished posts waiting to be published, so rather than try to catch up thoroughly, I'm just going to give some very brief reactions to whichever ones I can remember. I have given no deep thought or extended contemplation towards the critique of any of these films, apart from the reflection that is a natural part of time's passage.


First up: The Fountain. This movie wasn't perfect - I suppose a few moments didn't quite "land" - but I loved it. Going into it, I knew nothing about the plot, when it had been released, or who directed it, and I couldn't remember having read a single review of the film. This was the ideal state of mind with which to go into watching this movie (and indeed, I wish I could go into more movies with such total ignorance). The movie is directed by Daron Aronofsky, who I later found out directed Requiem For a Dream, Pi, The Wrestler, and the soon to be released Black Swan. I hadn't seen any of those other films at the time; the only thing I knew was that he often uses the composer Clint Mansell, who wrote the epically memorable score of Requiem For a Dream that was used in The Two Towers trailer. The music for this movie is every bit as memorable and beautiful (I'm listening to it right now), and appropriately captures both the devastating, all-consuming grief and the eternal triumph felt by the main character in the story. Speaking of characters, the two main ones are played wonderfully by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Rachel Weisz was and always is lovely - both lovely acting and lovely looking. As for Hugh Jackman...I had no idea he could act! But he can, and he was excellent in this film - so good that I totally forgot he was Hugh Jackman at all, that buff, singing, Sexiest Man Alive.

A previous review sums up the story better than I can, so I'll paste that description here: "A love story weaving together three interrelated tales set in the past, present and far future, with the couples in each all played by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz: a medical researcher racing to find a cure to save his terminally-ill wife; the characters in a novel she's writing about a 16th century conquistador questing after the fabled Fountain of Youth for his lover, the Queen of Spain; and the same scientist, who mysteriously hasn't aged, traveling to a distant star in the 26th century, still searching for the secret of eternal life." I can see some people distancing themselves from this third sequence and dubbing it too "New Age-y" (I myself felt a slight pull in this direction), but don't if you can at all help yourself. There is actually nothing in the sequence that need be silly (or for Christians) heretical. Some may think this film advocates for its own specific vein of vague "spirituality", but I would disagree. Rather, I think it's a mediation on one man's attempt to deal with death, grief, and loss, and the very reason it's so wonderful is because it manages to be simultaneously acutely personal and relatedbly universal. One more thing I would like to mention: this movie is visually beautiful, especially the scenes in the snow.

Well, that was longer than I thought it would be, but in closing: see this movie, go into it with focus and an open mind, and you might be taken by surprise.

Revocation of previous statement

In my recent post about A Serious Man, I said "Actually, the Coen Brothers seem the sort who care about their viewers’ opinions about as little as I cared about the plight of Larry Gopnik..."

This is not true. I did care about Larry Gopnik, which I realized after talking to my mom. I think sometimes when people have such inconceivable bad luck, I get frustrated and take it out on them, because it is easier to feel anger and fed-uppedness than it is to feel sadness and sympathy. I felt this same sort of frustration during the first part of Jane Eyre, which is why it took me until the third read to actually enjoy the book. It's easy to start blaming the recipient of the misfortune for the misfortune. I think this is what I did with poor Larry ("Just STAND UP FOR YOURSELF and PUNCH SOMEONE ALREADY!"), which is why I left feeling cold hearted.

The larger point of this post is that I don't ever want the aim of criticism to supercede my natural human reaction the things. I do not want to fall into the trap of snark for snark's sake. Obviously, I hope to analyze movies fairly, objectively, and level-headedly, but I hope to always leave room for compassion and empathy, because what are movies if they cease to make us feel anything?

Vent

Actors who annoy me for reasons I can't articulate:

-Kevin Spacey (look at that self-satisfied smirk...or is it a simper?)

-Tim Robbins (when I see his face I think "Evil lurks beneath this seemingly harmless exterior")

Actors who annoy me for reasons I CAN articulate:

-Nicolas Cage (not a good actor, picks dumb movies to be in, perpetually lethargic-sounding voice, droopy eyes, unattractive, only got famous because he is a Coppola?)

A Serious Disappointment

This review is going to be short and not-so-sweet. It's probably been two months since I watched this movie and I am behind as it is.

The movie in question is last fall's A Serious Man, directed by the Coen Brothers. The reason I was so excited to see this movie is because a couple of scenes from it were filmed at St. Olaf, and a handful of students got to be extras, including Stephen.

To give you an incredibly brief synopsis: A Serious Man is about a Jewish college professor, Larry Gopnik, who, despite being an alright guy, has a whole lot of bad things happen to him in rapt succession: he fails to receive tenure, is bribed by a student, discovers his wife’s infidelity, must deal with his wayward and annoying kids, thinks he has cancer, and to top it off, has anti-Semitic neighbors…Larry is accurately described by most reviewers as “a modern-day Job”.

The acting is great (virtually all complete unknowns), the set pieces fantastic, and the abrupt quirkiness so characteristic of the Coen Brothers is present and in full force. But these elements, either individually or collectively, failed to make me feel anything. In my head I knew that it was truly tragic that all these bad things were happening to the same nice guy who didn’t deserve any of them, much less all of them at once.

The thing is, I just didn’t…..care. I guess I walked away from the TV screen with feelings of "I have it pretty good," but the sentiment was more obligatory than naturally induced.

Since I already know the Coen Brothers to be accomplished filmmakers (personal favorites include No Country For Old Men and Fargo), I won’t question their genius. I will however theorize on where they went wrong:

1) This movie was an inside joke, so inside in fact that they forgot to let anyone else in, namely their audience. I felt somewhat the same way about Burn After Reading, but at least didn’t get bored during that one (though had it not been so star-studded…Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand…I probably would have). David Denby of The New Yorker called both movies “bleak, black, and belittling”, and I am prone to agree.

2) They tried to make it funny, touching, satirical, perhaps even revealingly autobiographical, but missed the mark.

Since the Coen Brothers are just about as intentional as one can get when it comes to moviemaking, my guess is that #1 is closer to the truth, and that the movie I saw was exactly the movie they wanted me to see. They probably just hoped David Denby and I would like it a little better.

Actually, the Coen Brothers seem the sort who care about their viewers’ opinions about as little as I cared about the plight of Larry Gopnik, so scratch that last statement.

Regardless of any of this, I am excitedly awaiting their next film, True Grit, which in my mind will be No Country For Old Men with a 14 year-old female protagonist…truly intriguing!

Catch Up

I've fallen grossly, wildly behind. Reviews of A Serious Man, A Single Man, Inception, The Other Guys, Agora, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo pending. I'm posting this so you all hold me accountable!

Top 100 Movies List Addendum

Here are some additions to my Top 100 Movies list, which is now at 134 and counting:


1. Ever After (thanks to Sarah for pointing this out)
2. The Scarlet Pimpernel (also Sarah)
3. First Knight
4. The Insider (thanks to Pete for making me watch it)

At some point I'm going to have to weed out some titles and consolidate the list to 100. I foresee that the two reasons for omitting titles will be a) because they're cheesy and not that well-made and b) because they depress me. However, I am loathe to do this, because many of the movies that fall into the "a" category make me really happy despite their stupidity, and many movies that fall into the "b" category are really sensational, they're just such downers or so disturbing that it bums me out to watch them.