This Is The End (2013)

Emma Watson vs. Rape Culture

When I first heard about This Is The End, it sounded a bit like a nightmare. The stoner comedy, complete with cursory dick and fart jokes, isn’t really my cup of tea and the featured cast of the likes of Seth Rogen, James Franco and Jonah Hill, playing “themselves” is full of people I don’t particularly care for. While the film does indeed include plenty of the puerile humor expected of this troupe, the film is really about them making fun of themselves and the whole celebrity culture. In this way, not liking them is almost a benefit. As they face down the apocalypse, there is always some small comfort that if they don’t redeem themselves, the potential of gruesome and rewarding death awaits to cheer you up.

From a plot and direction standpoint, this is certainly a messy film. At an hour and 47 minutes, it felt a good 20 minutes too long with plenty of B material that could have been trimmed and tightened. Still, it gets the requisite six-plus laughs to be qualified as a successful comedy within the first thirty minutes and provides enough of interest to carry the viewer along. For all that the film had going against it, it worked surprisingly well in a manic, paranoid dream sort of way.

3.5/5

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

I am not sure exactly why I haven’t felt more enthusiasm for Jim Jarmusch, a darling of indie cinema. The first film of his I saw was Broken Flowers, which I rather liked yet I begin to identify him more with The Limits of Control and got it in mind that he was the pretentious, unlikable sort of filmmaker that that film would suggest. In watching Ghost Dog, pretentious and unlikable are about the two least suitable words to describe the experience, which is straight-forward and charming.

Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker) is a man who idolizes the philosophy of the samurai and finds a way to live that life in modern times by being the hit man “retainer” of Louie (John Tormey), a mid-level Italian mobster to whom he owes his life. When a job he does for Louie goes wrong (marginally, and not through any error of his), the mob decides Ghost Dog must go, but he’s not going to go quietly (well, quietly maybe, but not easily).

Though the film maybe tries at times to be deeply philosophical with its sayings from the samurai way of life, it isn’t really so effective at selling this (through plastering the text on screen with voice-over) as simply making the samurai code seem a bit more honorable in comparison to that of the mob, though the mob is in some ways respected as representing its own ancient order.

Surprisingly, what makes Ghost Dog a satisfying film, even as it doesn’t do that much to excite intellectually, is by being pretty hilarious. Whether it is the odd-ball personalities (and general lack of skill) of the mobsters or the friendship between Ghost Dog and a man who runs an ice cream truck that involves no shared language, it is a film that will put a smile on your face and keep it there. Throw in some great camera work for the bits of action and it is the kind of experience that will send me seeking out more from Jarmusch.

4/5

The Purge (2013)

Maybe you don’t want to give this guy license to kill.

As someone who is generally concerned with films going on longer than they need to, it always intrigues me when I get the sense that a film was too short. The use of the word “too” implies that it is worse than it could be, but there is an appreciation for a film that does what it came to do and gets out of the way. The Purge has a seemingly unbeatable premise, an America a few years in the future where for 12 hours a year, anything goes, and it converts it into a taut thriller, Funny Games meets The Hunger Games, that hints at but rarely delves into the philosophical or social issues that the premise brings with it. Among these are:

1. James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) makes his living selling security systems that are much in demand (from those with the means) as a shelter against this spell of chaos. In this way he is much like a war profiteer, taking advantage of the fear and harm of others yet remaining in his mind removed from this morally.

2. The teenage daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and her “too old” 18-year old boyfriend Henry present the concept that for all their protection from the outside world, usually it is the strife within the friends and family that presents the greatest threat. While the film pretty exclusively concerns itself with murder as the crime being committed during this period of anarchy, there are the subtlest hints of sexual menace at points. In varying ways it might have been interesting to use the premise to explore rape culture.

3. The introduction of the “Bloody Stranger” (Edwin Hodge), a man the young son Charlie (Max Burkholder) lets into the house in an act of daring empathy, presents a number of points of interest. His being a poor black man triggers all kinds of historic racial baggage that the film starts to dig into. The film is most overt with its class-based dynamics…the rules of The Purge may be equal but wealth provides a great difference in the effect of The Purge. It is interesting to watch James and Mary (Lena Headey) plead non-violence while they are perfectly willing to tolerate the violence if they aren’t directly involved. Much like Haneke’s Funny Games, there is the subtle accusation of hypocrisy pointed at the audience, though unlike his scolding film, The Purge delivers plenty of crowd pleasing violence (and the audience I saw it with was very into the film)…but this violence does come with plenty of harsher edges to remind us of the stakes.

4. One area where the film does slightly get on my nerves is the context it sets up of a recent past where crime was out of control and the economy was tanked and that The Purge was an effective measure to reduce crime (presumably the statistics don’t include The Purge itself) and boost the economy. This is a fictional world so perhaps it can create as it pleases but in the real world crime has been dropping for multiple decades (though the public won’t believe it) and any economist will tell you that killing off human capital (poorer though they might be) is no way to boost your economy. The film kind of feeds into dangerous conventional wisdom in this set-up.

Still, it is at least critical of one claim about The Purge, that it somehow reduces the violence in people by letting them get it out. The gang of young, wealthy, educated individuals headed by the “Polite Stranger” (Rhys Wakefield) is an example of a people corrupted and almost certainly made more vile by society’s new morality, contrasting with Zoey and Charlie’s empathy. Wakefield delivers an incredible performance, a creepy delight that is ultimately key to the film’s successes as a pure thriller. Surrounded by a gang wearing smiling masks, even without a mask he manages to make his face stretch in a grin that seems equally unreal.

Though I might have liked to see the film spend time to dig into some of the above themes more, there’s every chance that it wouldn’t do so successfully. Perhaps for the best to leave all these elements floating just off in the distance. Even as I wanted a bit more it doesn’t completely avoid making me want a bit less too, as the film’s final twist is its main misstep, sending it just a bit too much into the realm of camp. Still, in a world of dumb horror films, this is one that works and that is enough reason to cheer it on.

4/5

The Curve (1999)

Written and directed by and starring Edwidge Shaki, a protege of Eric Rohmer, this is an interesting short dominated by a post-coital discussion between two art students that hits at concepts or perhaps concerns with objectification as inherent in art. Roman (Francois Rauscher) notices Eva (Shaki) in part because of a similarity to a sculpture he discusses with his uncle, a sculpture teacher at the school, and later falls into comparison of her to the art. This could be compliment as he is comparing her to things of beauty, yet things all the same. Eva, perhaps even flattered all the same, pushes back at his need to relate her to others (whether art or in life) rather than value her purely on her own merit, and on the tendency to segment her charms into body parts as attributes rather than take her as a whole. But while it may poke at art (including tendency toward unrealistic portrayals), it does so from a seemingly loving place. It critiques without condemning. Technically it is pretty plain but it picks a perfectly sized subject for an economical 16 minutes.

4/5

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

The Enterprise’s new Loki containment system.

If there is an early trend for the 2013 summer blockbuster season, it is charisma. Iron Man 3 was a decent film that gets by in large part to the charisma of Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role and similarly, Star Trek Into Darkness is a strong but flawed film that gets by due to its own charismatic ensemble. One of the great achievements of the reboot of the Start Trek franchise was in the excellent cast that manages to embody enjoyable familiarities of the roles, each with a personalized touch.

Especially with J.J. Abrams constant insistence that this is a Star Trek made for people who don’t care about Star Trek, it is easy to only look at the surface of the film. It is beautiful to look at, showing clear craft in production. They find a way to boost the colors of almost every scene. Taking in a 3D presentation, this was almost a bit much. The action gets very intense at moments and it can be a physical test. Still, as 3D goes, this one annoyed me far less than most, not suffering from the typical cardboard cut-out effect. That said, it still didn’t add much.

The first of the thematic points of interest to this story was the interaction of Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto). Historically they have been perfect foils with Kirk bringing an instinctual intensity and fire, held in check by Spock’s logical iciness. Early on, this difference has them at odds and in trouble with the Federation. To handle the challenge that arises, they need to learn from each other. This is achieved both in subtle ways and, hilariously, in references to previous films but with a role reversal.

The second main thematic thrust involves the presumed villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch (sans a Cumberstache). Historically, the Klingons were the primary enemy, a stand-in for the Soviet Union. Working some retro styling, the Klingons here are just an emerging and potential threat but may well still be the Soviet Union. This avoids feeling dated because the focus isn’t on the Cold War but the legacy of the Cold War in terms of the blowback from our meddling with various countries, using them as pawns in our broader engagement. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but there is an interesting moral ambiguity around the Federation and around Cumberbatch’s character. Much like the modern conflicts, it is possible for both sides to come off poorly, committed to hate. It is only the Enterprise and our charismatic crew that generally provide a steady moral compass.

The power of this higher minded philosophical theme, so in keeping with the Star Trek tradition, is ultimately a bit muddled but Abrams focus on high-pace action. It shows some of the disregard for random casualty that tends to irk me about the big action blockbusters, recalling scenes of terror without treating them with the appropriate weight and respect, instead exploiting them for the action set-piece. Also, even though Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Carol (Alice Eve), each get moments to represent the capable female of this society, it still can get a bit boysy with jokes about Kirk’s womanizing ways permitting a leering glance or two from the camera. These are mild dampers on what is otherwise still a very fun ride, though for all the fun, and even with glimpses of emotional and thematic weight, Star Trek under Abrams still feels a bit hollow compared to many of the first series of ten.

4/5

Open Range (2003)

I’ve been accused of reading too far into films before. On the one hand, I like films to be about things and this habit can make films better (even when they don’t intend the insights I find) or it can make films worse (when they fail to fully embrace the themes they never aspired to in the first place). At the heart of Open Range is a conflict between free range cattlemen Boss (Robert Duvall) and Charley (Kevin Costner) and the private ranching of Baxter (Michael Gambon). Whether justified or not, I read into this conflict an epic clash of economic ideologies.

The free range ethos that once ruled the West was a rather egalitarian one. The land belonged to no one and everyone and that allowed anyone who could scrape up some cattle to earn a livelihood. They might not make it rich but they’d put together enough that they might enjoy a whiskey in a saloon or an evening in the company of a prostitute on the chance they make it into town. It’s not much, but it’s a life.

Once the land could be owned, it necessarily played favorites and those were the ones with the money to buy up the land and it concentrated the earnings in those hands. What you’ve got is a concentration of wealth and power typical of capitalism (and feudalism for that matter) and Baxter is the cold, bottom-line focused type that isn’t concerned about those who get ground up in the gears of his machinery, in this case a metaphorical equivalent of the industrial revolution.

One thing about Open Range is that it is a very simple plot yet it is a reasonably long film at 140 minutes. Some of this is valuable, introducing us to the various individuals in the town where Baxter is exerting his force. We see how each is in varying ways kept down or intimidated. The introduction of a romantic sub-plot involving Sue Barlow (Annette Bening) adds stakes to the inevitable showdown. Still, the film does have the tendency to throw in sizable conversations that feel entirely unnecessary, putting into words what is already pretty obvious through the actions.

So is Open Range intentionally a populist, anti-corporate film that creatively uses that most American of genres, the Western, to convey its message? I don’t know, but in our present economic times, it certainly strikes a chord. That gives it enough, in spite its flaws, to rise above standard Western fare.

4/5

Never Cry Wolf (1983)

I have to say, the first act of Never Cry Wolf was a bit of a disaster as I was a bit confused why, trying to discover if wolf predation was the cause of a decline in caribou population, the powers that be decided to send Tobias Funke. Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) is a scrawny, dorky guy who seems to know absolutely nothing about attempting to survive in the wild, much less the arctic wild. The first third is basically one big pratfall whereby Tyler, by all rights, should have died. He presumably does have some scientific knowledge that is relevant to the research at hand and, this being based on a true story, maybe his bumbling nature is authentic as well, but it doesn’t make for enjoyable cinema.

This all changes when we see a wolf. Though the film has many moments that seem falsely cinematic (mice reaction shots), the middle act that occupies the bulk of the film is pure delight in taking in the noble balance of nature in its pristine form. This is such a comfortable place that when the film reintroduces modern human society, it feels downright vulgar, and intentionally so. While the film has an admirable respect for natural and indigenous approaches to nature and the way that more modern views, even environmentalist approaches, can make things worse, but it might be a bit too harsh on humanity. We are hardly the only species capable of throwing off the natural order of things in a problematic way, even if we have bigger scope (and arguably balance always wins in the end, time will tell). What we do have that may be unique to our species (and clearly not universal among our species) is the self-awareness necessary to fully appreciate the effect we have on nature, and it is in this respect that a film like this has value. It isn’t too far off a nature documentary but with the freedom of crafting a more compelling story.

Of course, if one needed proof that Tyler isn’t Tobias Funke, it is the clear evidence near the end that Tyler is no never nude. I have no idea why he was naked, but he was.

4/5

Hitler’s Children (2011)

Film Movement: Bonus Edition

“I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” -Exodus 20:5

The Jewish and Christian God of the Old Testament was a terrible God. It would be hard to think up a less sympathetic entity, responsible for more deaths. According to the same mythology, humanity was created in God’s image and we certainly have acted in kind, with violent temperament that can span generations. With the Holocaust being the most visible atrocity, probably of all time, there is a very interesting question asked by this documentary about how the legacy of this event affects the descendants of the highest-ranking and most visible members of the Nazi Party.

There are many strong moments in the documentary, but it does seem to do less with the premise than one might hope. For example, we are limited almost exclusively to the perspective of five descendants (children, grandchildren or great-nieces) and one descendant of a concentration camp survivor whose story happens to overlap one of the others. With the exception of one scene toward the end, a powerful one, we don’t really get much perspective from anyone else about whether they continue to hold this over the descendants. It is certainly the logical thing to not hold grudges for things that happened before one was born against someone who similarly wasn’t born at the time (the weakness in slavery reparation arguments as well) so it shouldn’t be surprising but there’s really not much variance on this matter.

Similarly, all those featured are pretty clearly agreed on the terribleness of what happened. They might reference others in their families who are in a greater state of denial and talk about family tensions that result from making a clear stance, but we only get this as related by the core. I imagine those who deny or choose to simply ignore what happened are less forthcoming (or are older and now deceased) but it does seem to be a weakness how consistent the tone of the documentary is. I don’t fail to appreciate the inner struggle on display here, it is just less tangible.

The level of engagement in the documentary ultimately rises and falls based on the charisma of the person being interviewed, as is so often the case. In particular, Katrin Himmler and Rainer Hoess really carry the film. Whether contemplating choices between family bonds and the people you think you know from personal interaction and political and moral realities or tackling feelings of guilt for things one had no part of, there is ultimately enough to mull over, even if there is the sense it could have done more.

3.5/5

Trance (2013)

All he had to do was put it in the slot…apparently.

Coming off two films that received ample Oscar attention (including Best Picture/Director double winner Slumdog Millionaire), not to mention planning the Olympic opening ceremony, it seems perfectly reasonable if Danny Boyle just wanted to do something a bit lighter. Though Boyle’s kinetic style is so omnipresent in his work that it can be hard to tell the lighter material from the serious stuff.

Simon (James McAvoy) works for an auction house and after suffering a head injury during a heist headed by Franck (Vincent Cassel), he can’t seem to remember the location of the painting that he was supposed to be handing over. Enter Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a hypnotherapist who may be able to unlock the location of the painting. Diving into McAvoy’s mind, we get an increasingly twisted narrative, leaving us uncertain about what is real and whose loyalties are with whom. There are certain aspects of foreshadowing to keep it from feeling like the wool has been completely pulled over your eyes, but it still feels slightly arbitrary.

The obvious point of comparison here is Inception, another heist film with a heavy psychological element. For as much as Nolan gets knocked as being emotionally cold, Inception’s emotional stakes and insight into psychological mindframes are far deeper and more affecting. Here, the various aspects that may confuse the mind don’t really encourage an attempt to solve the puzzle. Still, it is fun enough to be along on the ride as Boyle’s style and pace never slackens.

One slight note of interest involves the film’s fairly explicit nudity. While it has a vague sense of being a bit extraneous to the main story, there is at least an effort to tie it in thematically. The specifics of this thematic logic are however a bit disturbing and I wish I felt the film’s dark turn in the final third did more to show that logic as problematic. The true weight of what the ending means is almost diminished by how fast things get wrapped up (and how busy the film is getting there, never allowing breathing room to really process the information that comes at you. I wouldn’t trade Boyle’s style for anything but here it isn’t a perfect fit.

4/5

Iron Man 3 (2013)

I am out of step with the bulk of moviegoers in that I preferred Iron Man 2 to the first film. The original was great in that it introduced us to the marvelous creation that is Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, but its story fell a bit flat. The second film had its own struggles but between a few bits of political satire and some charming moments recalling Tony’s father, it just involved me a bit more while still delivering the patented charm. Now in the third entry (fourth if you include The Avengers), the franchise continues to show what charismatic actors with some strong lines can do for otherwise pretty standard stories.

With a story continuing in the aftermath of the incident at the end of The Avengers, there is the curious problem in that that film’s more fantastical nature haunts a series that I had initially appreciated for not being supernatural. The technology of Iron Man is fictional of course, but it is close enough to plausible by waiving the wand and saying science. Thankfully, even with the intrusion of The Avengers storyline, this film otherwise remains grounded enough, again casually claiming science to explain what otherwise would be unexplainable.

With people being hypervigilant about spoilers, I never know what to say because there is one turn in this that could be considered a spoiler, only it is blatantly foreshadowed right at the start and that is the build-up of Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) as a villain, angered after Tony brushes him off years before. However, the more present threat is The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has struck the country with a number of inexplicable bombings. He is in some respects a more comfortable villain to fall back on, a vaguely Arabic/Islamic looking man with a Chinese nickname. This seems a perfect representation of ignorant Orientalism. The contrast of this and the kind of threat that Killian poses is interesting, but Killian is not really fleshed out well enough in his motivations to deliver on this, which is sad because it feels like Pearce is wasted here. Kingsley on the other hand delivers a delightful turn.

Stark’s character journey also feels somewhat limited, even if it feels resolved (which could be awkward come The Avengers Reassemble). He always seems to be learning the same lesson about how much he cares about Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and needs to leave the violence behind. What is satisfying this time around is the way the film gets Potts involved. Her character was already enviable for being portrayed as a smart and capable businesswoman but now she gets a hand in the action as well in that kind of “girls can play too” attitude that I feel should almost be essential in this sort of film at this point. Ultimately, even if the film has plenty of silliness and doesn’t seek the thematic depth to really move to another level, the core of Downey Jr., Paltrow and Don Cheadle are a safe bet for a good time.

4/5

Spoiler Note: So yeah, I have to admit a bit of frustration with the evil scientist stereotype that Killian plays to, as well as the crazed environmentalist he intends to pose as to the public. There is a bit of eco-terrorism historically aimed at property rather than people but generally mad violence isn’t coming from the left. Killian seems to vaguely have some noble goal, but what he intends to accomplish through the non-noble actions is entirely unclear. It is almost as if it is all a cover for legitimate accidents but he plays it too evil for that to be the case.