In a very odd confluence of things, I only just recently got around to watching Marina Zenovich's award winning documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (which recently picked up 2 Emmy Awards for writing and directing for nonfiction programming). Now I'll admit the whole Polanski situation is a difficult one. As an artist, the man has talent; as a human being, he's lacking in something -- especially since he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
He is not the first filmmaker to engage in this sort of activity. Charlie Chaplin immediately springs to mind -- but, then again, at least he married two of the girls with whom he consorted -- and both females were slightly older than the victim of Polanski's crime. More recently was the Woody Allen situation but that appears to have been consensual. And even more recently was the revelation that the late John Phillips sexually assaulted his own daughter after plying her with heroin. I have trouble understanding the motives of men who would do such heinous things.
Yet, after watching Zenovich's documentary, I had a bit of a better understanding of why Polanski had fled. The film alleges that the judge presiding over the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, misused his judicial powers. Allegedly he was more concerned over his legacy and how he was perceived in the press than in serving justice. Polanski's lawyer and the district attorney had negotiated a plea deal that was originally accepted by the judge. The day before Polanski was to appear in court for sentencing, Rittenband apparently had a change of heart and was not going to allow the plea deal but was going to impose the maximum sentence. When Polanski learned of this -- he fled the country and became a fugitive. He romanced younger actresses -- eventually marrying Emmanuelle Seigner (who is roughly 33 years his junior) and fathering two children. The director worked in Europe and received an Academy Award for his direction of "The Pianist" -- a film I happen to think was one of the best of 2002.
After years of being a fugitive, he was taken into custody in Switzerland and is fate has not been decided yet. It's more than likely he will be extradited to the U.S. to face the charges -- since it was revealed the L.A. district attorney's office had a hand in his being arrested.
As with so many events in Polanski's life, the timing of his arrest is strange, coming just weeks after the 40th anniversary of the murder of his second wife, Sharon Tate, and the couple's unborn child. As everyone knows, that crime was perpetrated by Charles Manson and his followers and Susan Atkins, the woman who claimed to have stabbed Tate (although others in the cult dispute her version), succumbed to brain cancer the day before. Throughout Polanski's life, there has been a somewhat tragic arc. After surviving the Holocaust, his firstborn and his wife are murdered -- victims of a crime. Then, nearly a decade later, the victim turns victimizer and he attacks an underage child.
It's clear from "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" that the young girl and Polanski were both caught up in a miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, when he now faces the charges, there will be some closure for the now-grown woman -- a mother of three -- and for her attacker. Justice needs to be meted out -- let's hope this time it is fair to each.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Elizabethan age on screen
As a kid, I was something of an oddball. I started reading Shakespeare at an early age and I developed a keen interest in British history. When I was still in grade school I recall watching "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", a BBC production that aired in the USA over CBS as a summer series. I had already been exposed to the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn thanks to the Academy Award nominated movie "Anne of a Thousand Days" but this drama provided a whole lot more. Each week was devoted to one of Henry's wives and I reveled in the acting -- Keith Michell who won a richly deserved Emmy Award, the late Dorothy Tutin as Anne Boleyn, Annette Crosbie as Catherine of Aragon, Angela Pleasance as Catherine Howard and Rosalie Crutchley as Catherine Parr.
Then the next year, PBS broadcast "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson in the lead role. Jackson also portrayed Elizabeth opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots" on the big screen. In many ways, it seemed to be the role she was born to play and until Cate Blanchett came along some 25 years later with the feature fillm, Jackson seemed to embody the Virgin Queen for that generation. (I acknowledge the peerless Judi Dench did win an Oscar for playing Elizabeth but that was more a consolation prize for not winning for her regal work as Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown".)
In recent years, there's been renewed interest in this period and these characters, perhaps stirred on by the aforementioned 1998 Cate Blanchett vehicle. British television (and PBS in America) have broadcast several dramatizations including a superb production of "Henry VIII" led by Ray Winstone in the title role, and a very good dramatization of the life of "The Virgin Queen" headlined by Anne-Marie Duff. Both lead actors delivered strong and memorable work and both were ably supported by an array of British actors: Winstone had Joss Ackland, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, David Suchet, Helena Bonham Carter (who years ago played Lady Jane Grey), Emily Blunt (who will soon be seen in "The Young Victoria") and Sean Bean while Duff's entourage included Kevin McKidd, Ian Hart, Tara Fitzgerald, Ben Daniels and Tom Hardy.
Not to be outdone, American television -- speifically HBO and Showtime -- have also tackled the period. HBO presented "Elizabeth I" with the divine Helen Mirren (who earned a richly deserved Emmy Award) supported by Jeremy Irons (also an Emmy winner), Hugh Dancy and Toby Jones. Showtime took a more soap opera approach with "The Tudors" which was created by Michael Hirst (who wrote the Blanchett film Elizabeth and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Jonathan Rhys Meyers cuts an intriguing figure as Henry and Natalie Dormer put an intriguing spin on Anne Boleyn. But the show plays fast and loose with actual history so I have a hard time taking it all seriously, despite the presence of such actors as Jeremy Northam (as Thomas More), Sam Neill (as Cardinal Wolsey), Peter O'Toole (as Pope Paul III), Maria Doyle Kennedy (as Catherine of Aragon) and Henry Cavill (as Charles Brandon).
A further spin on the tale of Henry VIII and his second wife can be found in the two very different adaptations of Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl. The BBC version from 2003, written and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe casts Natascha McElhone in the role of Mary Boleyn and Jodhi May as her sister Anne. Jared Harris plays Henry VIII. I'll confess Harris isn't one of my favorite actors -- which stems from a very difficult interview I had with him years ago. It's colored my approach to him and his work (including his recurring role on the third season of "Mad Men"). But the two women as the Boleyn sisters do a fine job, ably abetted by Stephen Mackintosh as their brother George. This is a more feminist take on Gregory's fiction which also has several historical inaccuracies. It's an intriguing if not wholly satisfying adaptation.
The TV version is only slightly better than the feature version released in 2008 which starred Natalie Portman as Anne, Scarlett Johansson as Mary and Eric Bana as Henry, with Jim Sturgess as brother George. Truthfully, I rather enjoyed this version to the BBC adaptation, partly because there's a sense that the filmmakers (writer Peter Morgan and director Justin Chadwick) recognize that they aren't making anything more than a standard-issue period romance. The focus is on the love matches between the king and the Boleyn girls. And as in Gregory's novel, the titular character switches between Mary and Anne. It's a feat not unlike walking a high wire, but the whole production has that feel of a good, bad movie. The supporting cast, including the peerless Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey and Mark Rylance add greatly to the proceedings.
As you can see, over the summer I have been enjoying some "history".
Then the next year, PBS broadcast "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson in the lead role. Jackson also portrayed Elizabeth opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots" on the big screen. In many ways, it seemed to be the role she was born to play and until Cate Blanchett came along some 25 years later with the feature fillm, Jackson seemed to embody the Virgin Queen for that generation. (I acknowledge the peerless Judi Dench did win an Oscar for playing Elizabeth but that was more a consolation prize for not winning for her regal work as Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown".)
In recent years, there's been renewed interest in this period and these characters, perhaps stirred on by the aforementioned 1998 Cate Blanchett vehicle. British television (and PBS in America) have broadcast several dramatizations including a superb production of "Henry VIII" led by Ray Winstone in the title role, and a very good dramatization of the life of "The Virgin Queen" headlined by Anne-Marie Duff. Both lead actors delivered strong and memorable work and both were ably supported by an array of British actors: Winstone had Joss Ackland, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, David Suchet, Helena Bonham Carter (who years ago played Lady Jane Grey), Emily Blunt (who will soon be seen in "The Young Victoria") and Sean Bean while Duff's entourage included Kevin McKidd, Ian Hart, Tara Fitzgerald, Ben Daniels and Tom Hardy.
Not to be outdone, American television -- speifically HBO and Showtime -- have also tackled the period. HBO presented "Elizabeth I" with the divine Helen Mirren (who earned a richly deserved Emmy Award) supported by Jeremy Irons (also an Emmy winner), Hugh Dancy and Toby Jones. Showtime took a more soap opera approach with "The Tudors" which was created by Michael Hirst (who wrote the Blanchett film Elizabeth and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Jonathan Rhys Meyers cuts an intriguing figure as Henry and Natalie Dormer put an intriguing spin on Anne Boleyn. But the show plays fast and loose with actual history so I have a hard time taking it all seriously, despite the presence of such actors as Jeremy Northam (as Thomas More), Sam Neill (as Cardinal Wolsey), Peter O'Toole (as Pope Paul III), Maria Doyle Kennedy (as Catherine of Aragon) and Henry Cavill (as Charles Brandon).
A further spin on the tale of Henry VIII and his second wife can be found in the two very different adaptations of Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl. The BBC version from 2003, written and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe casts Natascha McElhone in the role of Mary Boleyn and Jodhi May as her sister Anne. Jared Harris plays Henry VIII. I'll confess Harris isn't one of my favorite actors -- which stems from a very difficult interview I had with him years ago. It's colored my approach to him and his work (including his recurring role on the third season of "Mad Men"). But the two women as the Boleyn sisters do a fine job, ably abetted by Stephen Mackintosh as their brother George. This is a more feminist take on Gregory's fiction which also has several historical inaccuracies. It's an intriguing if not wholly satisfying adaptation.
The TV version is only slightly better than the feature version released in 2008 which starred Natalie Portman as Anne, Scarlett Johansson as Mary and Eric Bana as Henry, with Jim Sturgess as brother George. Truthfully, I rather enjoyed this version to the BBC adaptation, partly because there's a sense that the filmmakers (writer Peter Morgan and director Justin Chadwick) recognize that they aren't making anything more than a standard-issue period romance. The focus is on the love matches between the king and the Boleyn girls. And as in Gregory's novel, the titular character switches between Mary and Anne. It's a feat not unlike walking a high wire, but the whole production has that feel of a good, bad movie. The supporting cast, including the peerless Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey and Mark Rylance add greatly to the proceedings.
As you can see, over the summer I have been enjoying some "history".
Is Autumn already?
So where did the summer go? Oh, yeah! I was working on a project that required a lot of travel and a lot of my time. We're in the home stretch now and I may still not have a lot of time but I did want to post a few things.
First things, I haven't gotten out to see too many movies this summer. In fact, I think I saw a total of ONE in the movie theaters -- and that was in Austin, Texas, of all places. I got really spoiled all the years I was a working critic because screenings generally started at 6pm. So now when I get out of work at 5-ish ... there's nothing. Most movies in theaters don't start until 7 or later. Which means I either have to hang out and be bored -- our office usually shuts down at 5-ish so there's no staying late -- or go home and then go back out. And truthfully, once I'm home -- I do NOT want to leave again. I'm lazy. I admit it.
I also haven't watched as many DVDs over the summer as I might have. In fact, I bought a couple for my birthday more than 6 months ago -- and they are still in the celophane wrappers! There were a few things I did watch -- mostly Showtime series like THE TUDORS and BROTHERHOOD (although I still have the last disc to finish on that one)
Over the summer, my choice of viewing has turned to Soapnet -- and catching up on some of the daytime dramas that I used to watch. Of course, the channel doesn't carry AS THE WORLD TURNS and it didn't carry GUIDING LIGHT which just went off the air after 72 years of broadcasting on radio and then TV. When I was a kid (and I'm dating myself here) -- like many of my generation -- I got hooked on DARK SHADOWS, which was perfect as it came on at 4pm when we were already home from school. But I do recall my bedridden grandmother watching her "stories" -- now defunct shows like SEARCH FOR TOMORROW and EDGE OF NIGHT.
Over the many years that have passed, I've basically watched every "soap opera" for a time, depending on a storyline or a particular actor or actress. When I was out of work in the 1980s, the CBS shows took precedence -- especially GUIDING LIGHT and AS THE WORLD TURNS. When I first moved to NYC, I actually harbored the hopes that I might one day write for these shows. (For a college class, I wrote a pilot and a bible for a series set in and around a college campus.) But I was never able to crack the seemingly tight-knit industry. I would hear about writer development programs, submit the proper applications and writing samples and then . . . find out the program had been suspended or ended or whatever. Eventually, I just realized it wasn't meant to be.
This did not stop me from watching the show, however. But now the daytime industry is going through a major upheaval. Only 7 shows are left and a couple of them are close to being on life support. Part of the problem seems to be that this industry is one of the few where if you fail at one job, you are rewarded by being hired at another show. The same group of writers and producers play musical chairs. They may "fix" a show for a time but often viewers/fans are alienated and then these people are fired and hired by another show either on the same network or at the same production company. This insularity can result in a form of inbreeding that makes it very difficult for shows to prosper.
Of course, the whole industry has undergone a sea change since its heyday in the 1980s. Cable channels and counterprogramming have eaten away at the audiences. Once upon a time, daytime dramas cost little to produce and earned large sums in advertising revenue -- money that was used by networks to fund primetime and news divisions. All that began to fall apart in the '80s. Some blame the O.J. Simpson trial for a decline -- but that was only a small part of it. The companies that were the stalwart funders -- like Proctor & Gamble -- more or less decided to get out of the business. And, of course, there were other cyclical things -- the rise of the talk show, followed by the rise of the judges shows. CBS now seems to think that people are going to want to watch game shows. I certainly don't.
What are the solutions? I don't know if there are any. I'm not sure if the genre can survive. When Soapnet, which was formed as an alternative for people working to watch their "stories", has lost its way and broadcasts crappy "reality" series like HOLIDATE and THE BANK OF MOM & DAD instead of legitimate dramas, then things are in a pretty sad state.
It seems to me that most of the shows have lost their way. There are a couple that still do the job, but they are few. The majority are like, as an example, GENERAL HOSPITAL. In the 1980s, they introduced a mob story line and ever since then that has been the thrust of the series. There was a long time when few storylines involved the titular hospital. Long-term characters -- that is veteran actors and actresses over a certain age -- disappear from the canvas. Fans become disillusioned. Sets get turned off and ratings take a nosedive.
I guess one of the "fix" I might suggest is to try to do what THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS does -- and what AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT did in the 1980s and 90s: utilize the entire cast. Jeanne Cooper who is 80 years old drove a major storyline over the summer on Y&R. While some of their plots may be disappointing to some viewers, you have to give props to the writers because they involve veterans and relative newcomers in storylines. Young actors get to work with the veterans. Unlike some of the other shows. Audiences aren't just interested in seeing teenagers and twentysomethings -- they want to see all ages and all sizes and all races. There is something very wrong when so many of the shows have so few African American and Hispanic actors and actresses.
I know there's no real solution. Although I had stopped watching GUIDING LIGHT years ago -- in part because the show was aired at odd times around the country (and I maintain that was one of the factors in its poor ratings -- it was not on at 3pm eastern when it was meant to be), I did mourn its demise. I'm saddened for the many actors and crew members put out of work. And somehow the world of daytime got a bit smaller. I know it probably will continue to happen -- at least 3 shows are on the chopping block now -- and sooner or later we'll be down to four or less. It's the passing of an era.
First things, I haven't gotten out to see too many movies this summer. In fact, I think I saw a total of ONE in the movie theaters -- and that was in Austin, Texas, of all places. I got really spoiled all the years I was a working critic because screenings generally started at 6pm. So now when I get out of work at 5-ish ... there's nothing. Most movies in theaters don't start until 7 or later. Which means I either have to hang out and be bored -- our office usually shuts down at 5-ish so there's no staying late -- or go home and then go back out. And truthfully, once I'm home -- I do NOT want to leave again. I'm lazy. I admit it.
I also haven't watched as many DVDs over the summer as I might have. In fact, I bought a couple for my birthday more than 6 months ago -- and they are still in the celophane wrappers! There were a few things I did watch -- mostly Showtime series like THE TUDORS and BROTHERHOOD (although I still have the last disc to finish on that one)
Over the summer, my choice of viewing has turned to Soapnet -- and catching up on some of the daytime dramas that I used to watch. Of course, the channel doesn't carry AS THE WORLD TURNS and it didn't carry GUIDING LIGHT which just went off the air after 72 years of broadcasting on radio and then TV. When I was a kid (and I'm dating myself here) -- like many of my generation -- I got hooked on DARK SHADOWS, which was perfect as it came on at 4pm when we were already home from school. But I do recall my bedridden grandmother watching her "stories" -- now defunct shows like SEARCH FOR TOMORROW and EDGE OF NIGHT.
Over the many years that have passed, I've basically watched every "soap opera" for a time, depending on a storyline or a particular actor or actress. When I was out of work in the 1980s, the CBS shows took precedence -- especially GUIDING LIGHT and AS THE WORLD TURNS. When I first moved to NYC, I actually harbored the hopes that I might one day write for these shows. (For a college class, I wrote a pilot and a bible for a series set in and around a college campus.) But I was never able to crack the seemingly tight-knit industry. I would hear about writer development programs, submit the proper applications and writing samples and then . . . find out the program had been suspended or ended or whatever. Eventually, I just realized it wasn't meant to be.
This did not stop me from watching the show, however. But now the daytime industry is going through a major upheaval. Only 7 shows are left and a couple of them are close to being on life support. Part of the problem seems to be that this industry is one of the few where if you fail at one job, you are rewarded by being hired at another show. The same group of writers and producers play musical chairs. They may "fix" a show for a time but often viewers/fans are alienated and then these people are fired and hired by another show either on the same network or at the same production company. This insularity can result in a form of inbreeding that makes it very difficult for shows to prosper.
Of course, the whole industry has undergone a sea change since its heyday in the 1980s. Cable channels and counterprogramming have eaten away at the audiences. Once upon a time, daytime dramas cost little to produce and earned large sums in advertising revenue -- money that was used by networks to fund primetime and news divisions. All that began to fall apart in the '80s. Some blame the O.J. Simpson trial for a decline -- but that was only a small part of it. The companies that were the stalwart funders -- like Proctor & Gamble -- more or less decided to get out of the business. And, of course, there were other cyclical things -- the rise of the talk show, followed by the rise of the judges shows. CBS now seems to think that people are going to want to watch game shows. I certainly don't.
What are the solutions? I don't know if there are any. I'm not sure if the genre can survive. When Soapnet, which was formed as an alternative for people working to watch their "stories", has lost its way and broadcasts crappy "reality" series like HOLIDATE and THE BANK OF MOM & DAD instead of legitimate dramas, then things are in a pretty sad state.
It seems to me that most of the shows have lost their way. There are a couple that still do the job, but they are few. The majority are like, as an example, GENERAL HOSPITAL. In the 1980s, they introduced a mob story line and ever since then that has been the thrust of the series. There was a long time when few storylines involved the titular hospital. Long-term characters -- that is veteran actors and actresses over a certain age -- disappear from the canvas. Fans become disillusioned. Sets get turned off and ratings take a nosedive.
I guess one of the "fix" I might suggest is to try to do what THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS does -- and what AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT did in the 1980s and 90s: utilize the entire cast. Jeanne Cooper who is 80 years old drove a major storyline over the summer on Y&R. While some of their plots may be disappointing to some viewers, you have to give props to the writers because they involve veterans and relative newcomers in storylines. Young actors get to work with the veterans. Unlike some of the other shows. Audiences aren't just interested in seeing teenagers and twentysomethings -- they want to see all ages and all sizes and all races. There is something very wrong when so many of the shows have so few African American and Hispanic actors and actresses.
I know there's no real solution. Although I had stopped watching GUIDING LIGHT years ago -- in part because the show was aired at odd times around the country (and I maintain that was one of the factors in its poor ratings -- it was not on at 3pm eastern when it was meant to be), I did mourn its demise. I'm saddened for the many actors and crew members put out of work. And somehow the world of daytime got a bit smaller. I know it probably will continue to happen -- at least 3 shows are on the chopping block now -- and sooner or later we'll be down to four or less. It's the passing of an era.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
HUNGER and STATE OF PLAY
Before embarking on the marathon of the Independent Film Festival of Boston, I caught up with two additional movies: HUNGER, which I watched on IFC ON DEMAND, and STATE OF PLAY, which I caught at the Regal Fenway 13.
HUNGER marks the directorial debut of artist Steve McQueen (no relation to the iconic American actor) and deals with Irish Republican Army detainees who are incarcerated at Long Kesh prison in Northern Ireland. The film doesn't deal directly with the political and social history of the times in the way that IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER or SOME MOTHER'S SON may have, but it still is a thought-provoking and fascinating quasi-experimental movie. The first and last sections contain barely any dialogue but the images are powerful and disturbing. The centerpiece is simply a conversation between prisoner Bobby Sands (strongly captured by Michael Fassbinder) and a priest (Liam Cunningham) who debate the efficacies of a hunger strike. McQueen and his cinematographer Sean Bobbitt work magic, creating memorable tableaux.
STATE OF PLAY is an Americanized version of a six-part 2003 BBC drama that involved the intersection of Fleet Street with the hallways of governmental power. It took several credited screenwriters, including Tony Gilroy, Matthew Michael Carnahan, and Billy Ray, to streamline the story and turn it into something U.S. audiences might find palatable. Of course, the finished film seems to be a bit too "smart" for the typical moviegoer, who is not flocking to the multiplexes to see this fine movie. Russell Crowe -- who I am convinced can play just about any character well -- stars as Cal McAffrey, a beat journalist who gets dragged into a breaking story because of his personal connection with the key figure, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), his old college roommate. He has to share the investigation of the story with blogger Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) and it leads to a conspiracy that is a bit complicated. I was glad I had watched the original miniseries as I had an idea of what was going on. My biggest problem with this movie was the miscasting of Ben Affleck, who is a decade too young for the role; he's supposed to be a contemporary of both Crowe and Robin Wright Penn, who plays his wife, but Affleck lacks the gravitas to be believable. And while I understood why the writers changed Della Frye from a straightforward reporter to a blogger -- since the themes of print versus electronic media were heightened in this version -- I felt it did a disservice to the character. Helen Mirren was on hand to add a dash of spice as the newspaper editor and Jason Bateman did a terrific job as a smarmy public relations guy caught up in the web of lies. While the American version isn't on par with the British miniseries (which is available on DVD), it still was worth seeing.
HUNGER marks the directorial debut of artist Steve McQueen (no relation to the iconic American actor) and deals with Irish Republican Army detainees who are incarcerated at Long Kesh prison in Northern Ireland. The film doesn't deal directly with the political and social history of the times in the way that IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER or SOME MOTHER'S SON may have, but it still is a thought-provoking and fascinating quasi-experimental movie. The first and last sections contain barely any dialogue but the images are powerful and disturbing. The centerpiece is simply a conversation between prisoner Bobby Sands (strongly captured by Michael Fassbinder) and a priest (Liam Cunningham) who debate the efficacies of a hunger strike. McQueen and his cinematographer Sean Bobbitt work magic, creating memorable tableaux.
STATE OF PLAY is an Americanized version of a six-part 2003 BBC drama that involved the intersection of Fleet Street with the hallways of governmental power. It took several credited screenwriters, including Tony Gilroy, Matthew Michael Carnahan, and Billy Ray, to streamline the story and turn it into something U.S. audiences might find palatable. Of course, the finished film seems to be a bit too "smart" for the typical moviegoer, who is not flocking to the multiplexes to see this fine movie. Russell Crowe -- who I am convinced can play just about any character well -- stars as Cal McAffrey, a beat journalist who gets dragged into a breaking story because of his personal connection with the key figure, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), his old college roommate. He has to share the investigation of the story with blogger Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) and it leads to a conspiracy that is a bit complicated. I was glad I had watched the original miniseries as I had an idea of what was going on. My biggest problem with this movie was the miscasting of Ben Affleck, who is a decade too young for the role; he's supposed to be a contemporary of both Crowe and Robin Wright Penn, who plays his wife, but Affleck lacks the gravitas to be believable. And while I understood why the writers changed Della Frye from a straightforward reporter to a blogger -- since the themes of print versus electronic media were heightened in this version -- I felt it did a disservice to the character. Helen Mirren was on hand to add a dash of spice as the newspaper editor and Jason Bateman did a terrific job as a smarmy public relations guy caught up in the web of lies. While the American version isn't on par with the British miniseries (which is available on DVD), it still was worth seeing.
Independent Film Festival of Boston
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I decided to dip my toe back into movie-going by attending the IFFB (as opposed to the BIFF which for some reason was scheduled simultaneously.) Because I have been sort of on sabbatical and I haven't really been writing reviews regularly, I decided not to attend the festival as a press person and just to buy tickets for the movies I wanted to see. Most of the films that I saw were screened at the Somerville Theater in Davis Square. One was at the Brattle in Harvard Square and one was at the Institute of Contemporary Art.
I will eventually be posting reviews of the films on the website (when I get the time). I just thought I'd give a quick run down and reaction.
Overall, the festival struck me as pretty good. The films I saw were of mixed quality.
Opening night was THE BROTHERS BLOOM, Rian Johnson's follow-up to his admired debut BRICK. Working with a cast that included Academy Award winners Rachel Weisz, Adrian Brody and Maximillian Schell, Oscar nominee Rinko Kikuchi and Mark Ruffalo, Johnson spun a stylized tale of con men and their female mark. While it was inventive, I felt it shared some of the same flaws that his first film did: the execution was novel and intriguing, but it couldn't be sustained over the life of the film. Scheduled for release in May 2009.
Next up was a double feature of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER and IN THE LOOP. The former is an astringent take on the romantic comedy genre, detailing the year-plus relationship between a greeting card writer (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) and his co-worker, who happens to be named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The leads are appealing and the film has grown on me as time has passed. It is scheduled to open in limited release in July 2009. The latter has already opened to rave reviews in England and as it happens is also scheduled to open in July 2009 in limited release as well. Humor is an individual thing and while I didn't exactly find this movie the laugh-riot that some of the British critics did, I enjoyed the film. It's a satire that hits more targets than misses and encompasses both the inner workings of both the British and American governments. Peter Capaldi leads the cast that also includes Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, David Rasche, Mimi Kennedy, Anna Chlumsky, Gina McKee and Chris Addison.
Next I had a triple feature: THE BURNING PLAIN, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC and BRONSON.
THE BURNING PLAIN was probably the best of the films that I saw at IFFB. It marks the directorial debut of Guillermo Arriaga, the screenwriter of such features as AMORES PERROS, BABEL and THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA. As with those films, Arriaga focuses on three separate stories that eventually overlap. Although some of the tale is predictable, the no-nonsense directing and superb cast, including Oscar winners Charlize Theron and Kim Bassinger, along with Joaquim de Almeida, Jose Maria Yazpik, JD Pardo and Jennifer Lawrence make this film highly worthwhile and unforgettable. The film has already opened in the United Kingdom and will debut in the United States in October.
WE LIVE IN PUBLIC is Ondi Timoner's second documentary to win the top prize at Sundance -- an unprecedented feat. Her first was the terrific DiG! which was built around the rivalry of the charismatic but troubled musicians Anton Newcombe, the front man for Brian Jonestown Massacre, and Courtney Taylor-Taylor, the front man for the Dandy Warhols. Taylor-Taylor makes a cameo appearance in this new documentary that profiles "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of" -- Josh Harris. In the last twenty years, Harris was something of a visionary, creating the first Internet television station (Pseudo.com) long before streaming videos, created an underground experiment called "Quiet" where many people voluntarily lived in an underground bunker with 24-hour video surveillance, and broadcast his life (along with that of his then-girlfriend) on a website called "We Live in Public", before losing his wealth and withdrawing from the public stage. The film is a fascinating portrait of a very troubled human being and Timoner does a masterful job in telling the story of this complicated and infuriating person. Unfortunately the film is only scheduled for festival screenings at the moment; hopefully some distributor with balls will pick up this terrific movie.
Lastly, BRONSON (which has also opened in the United Kingdom) is a film biography of Charles Bronson, just not THAT Charles Bronson. Rather, it is an impressionistic drama based on the life of one of Britain's most notorious individuals, Michael Peterson, who adopted the name of the DEATH WISH actor when he had a brief career as a bare-knuckles fighter. The film directed and co-written by Nicholas Winding Refn (best known for his PUSHER trilogy) is messy, kinetic and not altogether successful. But it does showcase a brilliant, star-making turn by actor Tom Hardy in the title role. BRONSON is scheduled to open in the U.S. in the fall of 2009.
SUMMER HOURS is Olivier Assayas' latest film and it deals with familial legacies, both literal and figurative. It's an accomplished drama headed by a cast that includes the divine Juliette Binoche, Charles Berling and Jeremie Renier with excellent support from Edith Scob. My only quibble with the film is that it felt like Assayas didn't quite know how to end the story; there are at least three places where the film could easily have stopped and left the audience feeling satisfied. I understood where he was going with the final sequence; it just felt redundant. The film opens in New York on May 15, 2009 and will be available on IFC On Demand.
The final film I saw was FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES: THE STORY OF AMERICAN FILM CRITICISM. Critic turned filmmaker Gerald Peary traces, for the first time, the history of movie reviewing from its earlies inception (circa 1907) through to present day when critics face losing their outlets thanks to the shrinking circulations of print media and the explosion of the Internet. It's a mix of talking heads, film clips and history and Peary provides a nice introduction to the novice. Hopefully, the documentary might inspire the current crop of film aficionados to pick up a book by James Agee, Manny Farber, Donald Richie, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, etc.
I will eventually be posting reviews of the films on the website (when I get the time). I just thought I'd give a quick run down and reaction.
Overall, the festival struck me as pretty good. The films I saw were of mixed quality.
Opening night was THE BROTHERS BLOOM, Rian Johnson's follow-up to his admired debut BRICK. Working with a cast that included Academy Award winners Rachel Weisz, Adrian Brody and Maximillian Schell, Oscar nominee Rinko Kikuchi and Mark Ruffalo, Johnson spun a stylized tale of con men and their female mark. While it was inventive, I felt it shared some of the same flaws that his first film did: the execution was novel and intriguing, but it couldn't be sustained over the life of the film. Scheduled for release in May 2009.
Next up was a double feature of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER and IN THE LOOP. The former is an astringent take on the romantic comedy genre, detailing the year-plus relationship between a greeting card writer (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) and his co-worker, who happens to be named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The leads are appealing and the film has grown on me as time has passed. It is scheduled to open in limited release in July 2009. The latter has already opened to rave reviews in England and as it happens is also scheduled to open in July 2009 in limited release as well. Humor is an individual thing and while I didn't exactly find this movie the laugh-riot that some of the British critics did, I enjoyed the film. It's a satire that hits more targets than misses and encompasses both the inner workings of both the British and American governments. Peter Capaldi leads the cast that also includes Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, David Rasche, Mimi Kennedy, Anna Chlumsky, Gina McKee and Chris Addison.
Next I had a triple feature: THE BURNING PLAIN, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC and BRONSON.
THE BURNING PLAIN was probably the best of the films that I saw at IFFB. It marks the directorial debut of Guillermo Arriaga, the screenwriter of such features as AMORES PERROS, BABEL and THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA. As with those films, Arriaga focuses on three separate stories that eventually overlap. Although some of the tale is predictable, the no-nonsense directing and superb cast, including Oscar winners Charlize Theron and Kim Bassinger, along with Joaquim de Almeida, Jose Maria Yazpik, JD Pardo and Jennifer Lawrence make this film highly worthwhile and unforgettable. The film has already opened in the United Kingdom and will debut in the United States in October.
WE LIVE IN PUBLIC is Ondi Timoner's second documentary to win the top prize at Sundance -- an unprecedented feat. Her first was the terrific DiG! which was built around the rivalry of the charismatic but troubled musicians Anton Newcombe, the front man for Brian Jonestown Massacre, and Courtney Taylor-Taylor, the front man for the Dandy Warhols. Taylor-Taylor makes a cameo appearance in this new documentary that profiles "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of" -- Josh Harris. In the last twenty years, Harris was something of a visionary, creating the first Internet television station (Pseudo.com) long before streaming videos, created an underground experiment called "Quiet" where many people voluntarily lived in an underground bunker with 24-hour video surveillance, and broadcast his life (along with that of his then-girlfriend) on a website called "We Live in Public", before losing his wealth and withdrawing from the public stage. The film is a fascinating portrait of a very troubled human being and Timoner does a masterful job in telling the story of this complicated and infuriating person. Unfortunately the film is only scheduled for festival screenings at the moment; hopefully some distributor with balls will pick up this terrific movie.
Lastly, BRONSON (which has also opened in the United Kingdom) is a film biography of Charles Bronson, just not THAT Charles Bronson. Rather, it is an impressionistic drama based on the life of one of Britain's most notorious individuals, Michael Peterson, who adopted the name of the DEATH WISH actor when he had a brief career as a bare-knuckles fighter. The film directed and co-written by Nicholas Winding Refn (best known for his PUSHER trilogy) is messy, kinetic and not altogether successful. But it does showcase a brilliant, star-making turn by actor Tom Hardy in the title role. BRONSON is scheduled to open in the U.S. in the fall of 2009.
SUMMER HOURS is Olivier Assayas' latest film and it deals with familial legacies, both literal and figurative. It's an accomplished drama headed by a cast that includes the divine Juliette Binoche, Charles Berling and Jeremie Renier with excellent support from Edith Scob. My only quibble with the film is that it felt like Assayas didn't quite know how to end the story; there are at least three places where the film could easily have stopped and left the audience feeling satisfied. I understood where he was going with the final sequence; it just felt redundant. The film opens in New York on May 15, 2009 and will be available on IFC On Demand.
The final film I saw was FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES: THE STORY OF AMERICAN FILM CRITICISM. Critic turned filmmaker Gerald Peary traces, for the first time, the history of movie reviewing from its earlies inception (circa 1907) through to present day when critics face losing their outlets thanks to the shrinking circulations of print media and the explosion of the Internet. It's a mix of talking heads, film clips and history and Peary provides a nice introduction to the novice. Hopefully, the documentary might inspire the current crop of film aficionados to pick up a book by James Agee, Manny Farber, Donald Richie, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, etc.
Every Little Step
It took me nearly 2 years but I finally got to the Kendall Square Theatre in Cambridge. This place is buried near an office complex. In the past, I've tried a couple of times to find it and now I realize that I was within blocks of it but couldn't quite find it. I feel like a moron because I finally relied on Google Maps and the satellite view to track the place. So now I know that it's about 1/2 hour walk from where I live and I'll be able to find it again.
The reason I hiked over there was to see the documentary EVERY LITTLE STEP which partly details the history of the stage musical "A Chorus Line" and partly details the casting process for the revival that opened in 2006 and the production that is still touring around the U.S.
I have to step back a bit and say that I saw this show numerous times in its initial incarnation. I saw the first national tour in Boston and the New York production numerous times between 1976 and its closing in 1990 when it was the then-longest running musical. So the show has a soft spot in my heart. I did not see the revival because I was working freelance and money was tight. I had more or less given up going to Broadway shows by that time due to the cost and due to disappointment in the few musicals I had seen in recent years.
I'll post a fuller review at my website soon but for now, what I will say is that the movie was good but in my opinion, the filmmakers couldn't decide if they wanted to make a history of the show or detail the casting of the latest production. As such, EVERY LITTLE STEP seems a little unfocused. Also, the filmmakers (James D. Stern and Adam Del Deo) try to create suspense over who will be cast when anyone who either saw the show or even read a review of it would know the outcome.
Still, there are moments that when the film soars -- like watching Jason Tam audition for the role of Paul and a large-scale dance audition that recalls the opening of Bob Fosse's great film ALL THAT JAZZ.
For a rating I'd have to give the movie a B.
The reason I hiked over there was to see the documentary EVERY LITTLE STEP which partly details the history of the stage musical "A Chorus Line" and partly details the casting process for the revival that opened in 2006 and the production that is still touring around the U.S.
I have to step back a bit and say that I saw this show numerous times in its initial incarnation. I saw the first national tour in Boston and the New York production numerous times between 1976 and its closing in 1990 when it was the then-longest running musical. So the show has a soft spot in my heart. I did not see the revival because I was working freelance and money was tight. I had more or less given up going to Broadway shows by that time due to the cost and due to disappointment in the few musicals I had seen in recent years.
I'll post a fuller review at my website soon but for now, what I will say is that the movie was good but in my opinion, the filmmakers couldn't decide if they wanted to make a history of the show or detail the casting of the latest production. As such, EVERY LITTLE STEP seems a little unfocused. Also, the filmmakers (James D. Stern and Adam Del Deo) try to create suspense over who will be cast when anyone who either saw the show or even read a review of it would know the outcome.
Still, there are moments that when the film soars -- like watching Jason Tam audition for the role of Paul and a large-scale dance audition that recalls the opening of Bob Fosse's great film ALL THAT JAZZ.
For a rating I'd have to give the movie a B.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Update
Okay, so I started off the year with great intentions but we all know which road that leads down. I had made a resolution to myself to try to post more frequently and regularly -- but that was before work commitments became even more demanding. We're in the home stretch of a two-year project and while we are making progress, there's still a huge amount of work to be done. I get home and am exhausted and there's still stuff to be done. And basically, once out of the office, I turn into a lazy lump and want nothing more to either watch TV (having cable after all these years is like someone on a diet being locked in a fully-stocked bakery with freshly made goods) or playing video games. Anything but having to use my brain. And on the rare occasions when I try to sit down to write something -- most times I'm not able to spew out more than five words before it all goes to mush.
Seriously, there were days when I felt I couldn't string 2 sentences together. (Obviously, today is not one of them.) I don't really get out to see too many movies; again it comes down to being lazy. I got spoiled living in NYC and being able to go during the day. And as a critic, you could pretty much expect that there would be a 6pm screening somewhere. In the real world, movies start later and that's a problem for me. I want to head out after work -- but if I go home -- well then I'm sucked into a black hole of inertia. Also, a lot of the types of films I really like -- especially foreign ones -- don't make it up here except to play "special engagements" -- that is, 3 or 4 days -- maybe a week tops -- and then they disappear and I have to wait for video. As such, I've become a proponent of VOD which my cable company provides, so I can see movies in the comfort of my home for less than what I'd pay at the theaters.
Even so, I am trying to venture back into the world of movie-going. Stupidly, I'm doing it when the work situation is reaching critical peak -- but I keep hoping that I'll be able to compartmentalize things as I did when I was younger. I put myself through grad school, working a full-time job, attending classes at night, and even doing extra stuff on weekends. It takes a lot of energy and planning -- so we'll see.
In a move that can only be called strange -- Boston has not one but two film festivals occurring simultaneously. The Boston International Film Festival (running April 17 - 26) and the Independent Film Festival Boston (running April 22 - 26). Both have interesting programs and I faced the usual dilemma that almost all film festivals create: Which movies do I see?
I opted for the Independent for a couple of reasons, mostly because it had more movies I really wanted to see. But I have to ask myself what idiot decided that it was okay to have two major festivals during the same time? This city doesn't support film in the manner that it did years ago -- it certainly doesn't in the same way that NYC does. But seriously, the idea of planning these two festivals to overlap would be akin to the Tribeca Festival moving from spring to fall to compete with the New York Film Festival. There's no need for this.
Anyway -- I doubt I'll be posting during the festival -- I'm scheduled to see 7 films -- but I WILL do a wrap-up piece during the week of April 26.
In the meantime, I've been catching up with a host of things -- a few quick reactions.
DOUBT (2008) -- How can a critic offer an opinion on a movie that is basically about making judgments? It's a slippery slope, but this adaptation of John Patrick Shanley's play is well-acted and can spark debates about a myriad of topics, least of all the central mystery of the story. I had my own doubts about Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role of the priest, but he acquited himself nicely. It's the women who dominate though, with Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and especially the magnificent Viola Davis, giving memorable performances. Rating: B+
HEAD ON (1997) -- This was one of the first movies I was assigned to review and whatever I wrote has been lost to the ether. So I revisited it to see if my memories were valid. The film attemptes to capture the psyche of a troubled teenager in Australia. Ari (the charismatic Alex Dimitriades, who I thought was destined to follow in Mel Gibson's footsteps, but who seems to have confined his subsequent work to his native land) is a second-generation Greek struggling to define himself. His solution is to ingest massive amounts of drugs, party and engage in gay sex. There's a self-destructive bent to him and the audience watches as he pursues that route. The movie isn't quite a classic, but it's pretty good. Rating: B-
RACING DAYLIGHT (2007) -- An independent feature comprised of three interconnected stories told from different characters' points of view, RACING DAYLIGHT has a intriguing premise that isn't executed well. Sadie (Melissa Leo) begins to be possessed by the spirit of a Civil War ancestor and starts to re-enact the woman's romance. Co-starring David Straithairn, Jason Downs and Sabrina Lloyd. Rating: C-
THE DUCHESS (2008) -- The true story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and an ancestor of Diana Spencer, THE DUCHESS attempts to find the parallels between the 18th-century figure and her 20th-century descendent. Kiera Knightley tries valiantly to infuse the character with spunk but she is out-acted by co-stars Charlotte Rampling (as her mother), Ralph Fiennes (as her much older husband), Hayley Atwell (as her romantic rival) and Dominic Cooper (as her paramour). It's high-gloss soap opera based on fact with Oscar-winning costumes. Rating: C+
MAN ON WIRE (2008) -- A fascinating documentary about Philip Petit who in 1974 mesmerized New York City and points beyond by walking a wire strung between the newly-opened World Trade Center towers. James Marsh's film is a mix of talking heads, re-enactments and archival footage and photographs and it serves a fitting tribute to the buildings that were attacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. My first sight of those towers was only a few months after Petit had achieved his "stunt" and for over 20 years I lived in view of them. The film captures the spirit of the times and was one of the best documentaries -- hell, one of the best films -- I've seen in a long time. This is keeper. Rating: A
Seriously, there were days when I felt I couldn't string 2 sentences together. (Obviously, today is not one of them.) I don't really get out to see too many movies; again it comes down to being lazy. I got spoiled living in NYC and being able to go during the day. And as a critic, you could pretty much expect that there would be a 6pm screening somewhere. In the real world, movies start later and that's a problem for me. I want to head out after work -- but if I go home -- well then I'm sucked into a black hole of inertia. Also, a lot of the types of films I really like -- especially foreign ones -- don't make it up here except to play "special engagements" -- that is, 3 or 4 days -- maybe a week tops -- and then they disappear and I have to wait for video. As such, I've become a proponent of VOD which my cable company provides, so I can see movies in the comfort of my home for less than what I'd pay at the theaters.
Even so, I am trying to venture back into the world of movie-going. Stupidly, I'm doing it when the work situation is reaching critical peak -- but I keep hoping that I'll be able to compartmentalize things as I did when I was younger. I put myself through grad school, working a full-time job, attending classes at night, and even doing extra stuff on weekends. It takes a lot of energy and planning -- so we'll see.
In a move that can only be called strange -- Boston has not one but two film festivals occurring simultaneously. The Boston International Film Festival (running April 17 - 26) and the Independent Film Festival Boston (running April 22 - 26). Both have interesting programs and I faced the usual dilemma that almost all film festivals create: Which movies do I see?
I opted for the Independent for a couple of reasons, mostly because it had more movies I really wanted to see. But I have to ask myself what idiot decided that it was okay to have two major festivals during the same time? This city doesn't support film in the manner that it did years ago -- it certainly doesn't in the same way that NYC does. But seriously, the idea of planning these two festivals to overlap would be akin to the Tribeca Festival moving from spring to fall to compete with the New York Film Festival. There's no need for this.
Anyway -- I doubt I'll be posting during the festival -- I'm scheduled to see 7 films -- but I WILL do a wrap-up piece during the week of April 26.
In the meantime, I've been catching up with a host of things -- a few quick reactions.
DOUBT (2008) -- How can a critic offer an opinion on a movie that is basically about making judgments? It's a slippery slope, but this adaptation of John Patrick Shanley's play is well-acted and can spark debates about a myriad of topics, least of all the central mystery of the story. I had my own doubts about Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role of the priest, but he acquited himself nicely. It's the women who dominate though, with Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and especially the magnificent Viola Davis, giving memorable performances. Rating: B+
HEAD ON (1997) -- This was one of the first movies I was assigned to review and whatever I wrote has been lost to the ether. So I revisited it to see if my memories were valid. The film attemptes to capture the psyche of a troubled teenager in Australia. Ari (the charismatic Alex Dimitriades, who I thought was destined to follow in Mel Gibson's footsteps, but who seems to have confined his subsequent work to his native land) is a second-generation Greek struggling to define himself. His solution is to ingest massive amounts of drugs, party and engage in gay sex. There's a self-destructive bent to him and the audience watches as he pursues that route. The movie isn't quite a classic, but it's pretty good. Rating: B-
RACING DAYLIGHT (2007) -- An independent feature comprised of three interconnected stories told from different characters' points of view, RACING DAYLIGHT has a intriguing premise that isn't executed well. Sadie (Melissa Leo) begins to be possessed by the spirit of a Civil War ancestor and starts to re-enact the woman's romance. Co-starring David Straithairn, Jason Downs and Sabrina Lloyd. Rating: C-
THE DUCHESS (2008) -- The true story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and an ancestor of Diana Spencer, THE DUCHESS attempts to find the parallels between the 18th-century figure and her 20th-century descendent. Kiera Knightley tries valiantly to infuse the character with spunk but she is out-acted by co-stars Charlotte Rampling (as her mother), Ralph Fiennes (as her much older husband), Hayley Atwell (as her romantic rival) and Dominic Cooper (as her paramour). It's high-gloss soap opera based on fact with Oscar-winning costumes. Rating: C+
MAN ON WIRE (2008) -- A fascinating documentary about Philip Petit who in 1974 mesmerized New York City and points beyond by walking a wire strung between the newly-opened World Trade Center towers. James Marsh's film is a mix of talking heads, re-enactments and archival footage and photographs and it serves a fitting tribute to the buildings that were attacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. My first sight of those towers was only a few months after Petit had achieved his "stunt" and for over 20 years I lived in view of them. The film captures the spirit of the times and was one of the best documentaries -- hell, one of the best films -- I've seen in a long time. This is keeper. Rating: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)