Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts

Mar 30, 2012

"True Grit" - 2010 - movie review

"True Grit" is at once the Coen brother's most inexplicable and satisfying film to date. Inexplicable because it's largely (not entirely) shorn of the "We're smarter than you and we know it" attitude that hovers around even the best of their previous work and satisfying because by taking their egos largely out of the equation they've done justice to a story that was given short shrift in an earlier incarnation where everything had been designed to highlight the fading attributes of the film's star.

The story, set in the Oklahoma Territory of the late 19th century, tells the tale of 14 year old Mattie Ross and her quest for vengeance following the murder of her father by a drifter named Tom Chaney. Her mother is incapable of handling business affairs and her brother is too young so Mattie is sent to collect her father's body and tie up any loose ends left by his death. She decides that, for her, nothing short of seeing Tom Chaney dangling from the end of a rope will do and so she sets about first to raise some money and then to use that money to secure the services of Marshall Rooster Cogburn. The two of them will pursue Chaney into the Indian Territory where he is believed to have fled. Along the way they pick up a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf who is also after Chaney for the murder of a Texas state senator. Neither Cogburn nor BaBoeuf is eager for Mattie to come along, feeling she'll do nothing but slow them down. But they have grossly underestimated the pluck of Cogburn's young employer who will simply not be denied.

The casting, as is usually the case with a Coen brothers film, is spot on. While it's a more typically mainstream cast than we've come to expect from the brother's it seems appropriate given the fact that the Coen's here are making as close as they're ever likely to come to a "Hollywood movie". Matt Damon gives an excellent supporting performance as the stiff but well-intentioned Texas Ranger. Hailie Steinfeld projects a force uncommon in actors many years her senior and Josh Brolin makes a first rate western baddie: barely literate, unkempt, ornery and lost. But this film belongs to Jeff Bridges or, I should say, Rooster Cogburn. Because Bridges is so good that, unlike the so-called "legend" who play Cogburn in the story's 1969 incarnation, you never feel like you're watching Jeff Bridges Movie Star. He respects the character, warts and all. While there are aspects of Cogburn's character that lend themselves to less than flattering judgements it must be remembered that this is Mattie's story; told with her narration, through her eyes. At first she's wary of him and impatient with his shortcomings so naturally she sees him as buffoonish and Bridge's portrayal reflects this. Later, as her appreciation for his perseverance, stoicism in the face of brutality and commitment to her and her quest grow it is these qualities that leak into then take over Bridge's portrayal. It's a masterful performance. One where the actor's ego is completely subsumed and the character is allowed to shine in the light of the storyteller, Mattie.

Roger Deakins (No Country For Old Men) returns as cinematographer here and once again there are very few places for human beings in his spare, unwelcoming landscapes. "If the thunder don't get ya then the lightinin' will!" as the old saying goes and I constantly have that feeling while watching the characters negotiate the Texas backcountry where the film was largely shot. The folks that have made this land their home have all paid a price. The frontier that was touted to the citizenry as a promised land was in fact a wholly unforgiving place where the strong were humbled and the weak were chewed up and spit out. Every character in True Grit carries some kind of significant scar, either physical or psychological or both.

After fighting on the losing side in the Civil War LaBoeuf has a deep-seeded need to prove himself the warrior. He'll wind up carrying a saddlebag of physical scars as well from his pursuit of Chaney. Cogburn, on the other hand, having won the war but lost his family drifts through life without purpose venting his bitterness on those he's supposed to bring to justice, his one eye symbolizing his loss of perspective. Ultimately though he'll prove to be an heroic figure and then exit the stage as heroes should: on top leaving his audience (Mattie) forever wanting more. For her part Mattie is a more than competent young person who, given the right environment, would have risen to a place of prominence. The Oklahoma Territory was not the right environment and bereft of other ways to prove herself she's taken to steamrolling over those who stand in her way. She's 14 but never laughs. 14 year olds should laugh. In the end the Territory will exact its pound of flesh from her as well, literally.

As I alluded to earlier there's little of the deliberate quirkiness of the Coen's earlier efforts visible in True Grit and I for one am thankful for that. A film like "Fargo" though fascinating and brutally funny nonetheless has always felt a bit narcissistic to me. It's nothing terribly overt but I've always had the sense that part of the brother's reason for making Fargo was simply to show that they could take a half dozen or so random characters off the shelf and make a movie out of them. For that reason the film feels like a giant doodle at times to me (depending on my mood no doubt) and the results are not dissimilar, nor for that matter dissatisfying. After all, some people make really interesting doodles.

With True Grit though the Coen's have sidestepped the doodle and dove headlong into the process of narrative storytelling with all the formal conventions that come with it. And you know what? They're so good at what they do that they pretty much outstrip everybody else at this kind of film making as well, (just like they knew they would).


Dec 11, 2011

"Inception" - 2010

"Inception" is Christopher Nolan's second unsuccessful BIG film in as many years. Not unsuccessful financially of course, but conceptually. Coming hot on the heels of his boring Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" Nolan seemed to want to prove to himself that he really was a 'visionary'. I can almost see him going down his 'visionary' check list before shooting started on Inception: "Let's see... $200 million budget: check, A-list actors: check, IMAX cameras: check, 50 million fanboys following me day and night on the internet: check, wicked-cool idea: check."

The wicked cool idea of course is that Nolan's team of hi-tech mind engineers are able to create and plant within an unsuspecting target's consciousness a dream architecture which they can then inhabit along with the target. The goal is to learn things about the target or otherwise manipulate them by planting ideas in their mind during the controlled dream. The latter a process called inception.

The problem with Inception as a movie, the thing that makes it labored and ultimately unsuccessful as a film is that it has the whole dream thing backwards. Dreams are primarily emotional in nature. The brain summons unresolved or unhappily resolved emotional situations to review and provides a visual forum to play them out in, with both the narrative and the stage being created on the fly. Sometimes the feelings get ahead of the images and the images shift abruptly in an attempt to compensate. Sometimes the imagery gets out in front of the feelings and the feelings shift gears. All this shifting around can be jarring and is one of the reasons dreams are so difficult to remember. While its been proven that you can 'direct' your dreaming; that is, guide your mind into its initial dream state once you fall asleep, fact is that there's no way to dictate how long this directed dream will hold together. When the mind wishes to move on to something else it just does.

In his film Nolan proposes a kind of directed dreaming on steroids. One where you can not only instruct the mind where to go when you fall asleep, but one where the visual context is also provided down to the last rivet as well as the ability to force the dreamer to stay within the provided dream context until something wakes them up. How do you impose such a rigid and vivid architecture on the mind and force it to play out? How do you prevent the mind from tiring of the dream you've presented it and simply moving on to something else? To his credit Nolan tries to address this issue and his answer is a kind of white blood cell response: when the mind detects the presence of "others" who shouldn't be there it attacks them and the dream falls apart (literally).

Okay Mr Nolan. Lets say for a moment that I simply accept your character's ability to provide the brain with a set of pre-defined dream parameters, as well as the ability to force the dreamer to stay within the dream of your choosing, as well as your explanation of what happens should the mind of the dreamer rebel, I'm still left with the nagging fact that your dreams simply don't look or, more importantly, feel like dreams. Not at all. Not a bit. Not 1%. Nada. Just because I've accepted (for the sake of argument here) that you can provide the contextual framework for someone else's dream it doesn't mean you're off the hook regarding the look and feel of said dream world. Even leaving aside the fact that dreams occur from a first person POV and Inception slavishly maintains its third person perspective throughout, dreams are not the clean, static visual experiences depicted here; even the most vivid ones. If a dream is vivid its because the feelings it brought up were spot on. A place 'felt' right. The feelings stirred up by the presence of a lost loved one were exactly the same feelings the dreamer used to experience in that person's presence, and so on. The visual context is window dressing. A late loved one may appear with an entirely nebulous face that tells me little about who I'm talking to, but the feelings surrounding this apparition tell me without a doubt who it is. In Inception Nolan has it backwards. All the attention goes into the visuals, which look plenty expensive but which in reality have only a secondary connection to the experience of dreaming.

Emotions are how dreams maintain their stability, not visuals. A hotel can go through 20 or 30 different looks in a dream and still remain the same hotel as long as it feels like the same hotel. So Nolan's insistence on the rigid visual architecture as the glue that holds the whole mess together is meaningless since it's the feelings not the visual details of place that maintain dream continuity. To be sure there are moments sprinkled within the film where the narrative makes mention of the importance of feelings but these seem mere afterthoughts or nods to a conceptual truth the film maker seems unable to address.

Because of this I believe it's pointless to go into detail about the movie, it's plot, it's characters, the acting etc. It fails from the start by addressing its fundamental conceptual premise in an upside down fashion so everything else is just expensive furniture going down with the Titanic.

All of this may seem like just so much Christopher Nolan bashing to some but I'm not the one that set the table here, he is. He decided he was going to take $200 million and bring his big dream idea to the silver screen. While the film made some $800 million around the world my guess is that if it were the product of some relatively unknown director instead of the latest "visionary" effort by the hot director du jour the box office would have been tepid at best and it would have been met with a chorus of reviews that commented on it as a kind of noble failure, which is exactly what it is.

I give Nolan credit for trying, though. At least someone out there is willing to attempt to find something interesting to do with the new technology. Unfortunately he chose perhaps the most difficult landscape to capture convincingly as the stage for his narrative and his idea either wasn't very well thought out or was taken over early on in the process by studio types who wanted to prevent him from creating a David Lynch type product that would be hard to mass market. As a result what we wind up with is a series of well crafted cinematic images that purport to depict the emotion-based inner world but do so in a cold, emotionally neutral manner that left me walking out of the theater thinking not about lofty questions of reality and inner-world conflict but about whether I was going to go straight home or pick up something to eat first.