Scoop

July 12, 2008

Scoop (2006) **

Directed by Woody Allen

I’ve got a great idea for a new diet. Every time you get a craving to eat, simply begin watching Scarlett Johansson’s performance as Sondra Pransky in Woody Allen’s Scoop. It’s sure to make you lose your appetite! Thank God the movie itself is better than Johansson’s epically terrible acting, or else I probably wouldn’t have been able to make it through. Unfortunately, Scoop doesn’t work well enough for me to recommend it. There are great moments and hilarious Allen-esque one liners, but the story as a whole is so predictable and disappointing that by the end I felt cheated. Add some Scarlett colored acting and the final product is one that Allen probably should leave off his curriculum vitae.

Allen has used Johansson as well in his extremely satisfying murder mystery, Match Point. There’s a film worth seeing, and while I didn’t pay attention to whether or not Johansson was any good in her role, she didn’t stick out in my mind which means that she must not have been too bad. In Scoop, she sounds almost like a Woody Allen female impersonator, with the same stuttering New York delivery of meticulously well thought out jokes that sound totally the opposite of spontaneous. Sometimes, she overdid the awkwardness a little too much, and it’s during these times that I began to hear a little Steve Urkel in her voice. There are moments in her performance that are so artificial and stiff that I wouldn’t be surprised if her muscles cramped up in mid-scene.

If I recall correctly, Johansson is always on screen with one of three people—Allen, Hugh Jackman or Ramola Garai. All three come off natural and extremely comfortable with the dialogue their characters are given, which makes Johansson’s performance stand out in its deplorability. Allen plays a traveling magician named Sid Waterman, aka Splendini. Johansson’s Sondra is chosen from the audience to stand in a box which will make her disappear. While in the box, the spirit of a recently deceased reporter named Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) appears to tell her to investigate a man named Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). Lyman is an extremely wealthy businessman whom Sondra believes to be the Tarot Card Serial Killer.

The next day, she returns to Sid and his box to try and see Strombel’s spirit again. He doesn’t appear right away, but he does return in front of the two of them after a while. So now Sid and Sondra work together to investigate Peter. Sondra first encounters Peter at a club where she pretends to be drowning so he can save her. He’s immediately smitten by her and invites her to a party at his house. She accepts and asks if she can bring her father. So now Sondra and Sid pretend to be father and daughter at the party.

Peter falls for Sondra quickly, and Sondra begins to fall for Peter as well, though the clues point more and more to Peter’s guilt. Things seem to conclude though when a man does confess to being the Tarot Card Serial Killer. Sondra’s relieved that now she can tell Peter the truth about who she is and the two can continue their relationship without the sneakiness and suspicion. Strombel reappears to Sid to tell him that he should continue investigating Peter because there’s more to the story that he must find out. I won’t give away what happens next, and I probably don’t need to since I’m sure you know exactly how this film is going to end. You and I have seen this shtick a million times before. The supposed climax of the movie is so stupid that I began to wonder whether I was taking it too seriously. Could Scoop simply be a farce trying to make fun of similar films? I concluded that the film all the way through plays the plot straightforward, and as such, we have to take a scene like the one on the boat at face value. Yes, Allen’s screenplay is filled with comedic jokes and elements of fantasy, but it’s not a parody. It’s a comedy that’s trying for true attempts at being a thriller. Try as it might, the thrills were non-existent, but the eye rolling on my part was plentiful.

Woody Allen’s Sid is about as Woody Allen-ish as any part he’s ever played. Here’s a textbook example of what his characters are all basically like. Because he’s played this role ad nauseum, he’s able to make it work without even trying. I admit that he’s very good, but I’m not convinced that he didn’t simply phone his performance in. I suppose I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Hugh Jackman, on the other hand, was a pleasant surprise. Jackman has the ability to irritate the heck out of me, often times overplaying his roles to the point where they can be seen as flamboyant. Here, since his character doesn’t get to make many jokes, he plays it straightforward with refreshing understatement and loads of suave charm. I’m surprised he accepted this role. On paper, I can only imagine that it might seem boring. Jackman really elevated the character by providing a spot on performance.

As in every Woody Allen film, there are lines that make the viewer laugh out loud. My favorite line in the film is delivered by Allen himself. “I had a wife but she dumped me if you can believe that. She thought I was immature and that I never grew up. I had a great rebuttal for her. I could have nailed her, you know, but I raised my hand and she wouldn’t call on me.” Add in lines like, “I was in the lounge. I heard you drowning. I finished my tea and scones and came immediately,” and, “I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism,” and sure, you get some great laughs from Scoop. Unfortunately, the laughs are few. Many of the jokes don’t work, especially ones delivered by Sondra.

So, what is Scoop? It’s an inconsistently funny predictable comedy thriller with some good performances along with an unforgettable train wreck called Scarlett Johansson’s acting. Woody Allen’s a talented writer and no one disputes that the guy is one of the greatest film legends of all time. I think he makes too many movies too quickly. Match Point from a few years ago was wonderful. Ten years ago, he made an underappreciated film called Everyone Says I Love You that I have in my 100 Greatest Movies list. Thirty years ago, he made what could be argued to be the best comedy of all time with Annie Hall. Unfortunately, considering the fifty plus films he’s written in his career, for every classic, there are two or three duds. With that track record, I think it’s best to wait for positive word of mouth before seeing one of his films. Then maybe I might stop wasting time with movies like Scoop.

What's Up, Doc?

July 10, 2008

What’s Up, Doc? (1972) ****1/2

Directed by Peter Bogdanovich

What’s Up, Doc? (from this point on I am going to leave out the punctuation so that I can avoid Microsoft Word’s red and green squiggly lines) most likely works just fine on its own. After all, it’s action packed and very funny. What makes this movie wonderful, though, is the fact that it’s paying homage to some of the great screwball comedies from the classic years of Hollywood. What’s Up Doc not only pays respect to them, but it actually merits being seen alongside them as one of the greatest screwball comedies in film history. It’s actually better than some of the films it was obviously influenced by. My favorite screwball comedies of all time are probably The Thin Man and Woody Allen’s Everyone Says I Love You (that is if I don’t include the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, which I don’t). What’s Up Doc is now probably my third favorite screwball comedy.

It bumps 1938’s Bringing Up Baby to number four, which is ironic since What’s Up Doc pulls inspiration and plot elements from that film more than any other I noticed. I also gave Howard Hawks’ Bringing Up Baby four and a half stars, and the problems I had with it are the exact same problems I had with What’s Up Doc. Despite the fact that both films are uneven in quality, What’s Up Doc is better than Bringing Up Baby when comparing the high points of the two films.

Four identical luggage bags set the stage for the antics and mayhem that follow. Barbra Streisand plays Judy Maxwell, a seeming drifter who sets her sights on Dr. Howard Bannister, played by Ryan O’Neil (previously of Love Story fame). Howard’s bag contains rare rocks which he is using to test some bizarre hypothesis about music tones or something. His fiancée, Eunice Burns, played by Madeline Kahn in her film debut, is uptight and quite overbearing.

Judy begins to make Bannister’s life miserable when she introduces herself at a pharmacy. It’s obvious from the very beginning that she’s toying with him, which we see when she sneaks an expensive radio onto the cashier’s counter for Howard to purchase. Judy’s bag, which is identical to Howard’s, contains underwear. A third identical bag shows up along with its owner, a rich older woman. Her bag contains jewelry. A fourth bag also comes into play—that one containing top secret files.

The rest of the film involves Judy making Howard’s life more difficult as the bags continually get switched. Eventually, everyone involved in the situation ends up part of a huge car chase sequence which results in a laugh out loud funny appearance before an annoyed judge, played by Liam Dunn.

I felt a bit frustrated during the first hour of the film. At first, Judy feels like quite the nuisance—possibly sociopathic. Therefore, her presence on screen made me a bit uncomfortable. Further, Streisand begins the role with this arrogant, sneaky smile on her face, which made me not like her at all at first.

Obviously trying to play his role similar to Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby, Ryan O’Neil gives a performance that in comparison to Grant’s can be described as pathetic at best. He’s mannered, stiff and irritating. Add Madeline Kahn’s grating character and you’ve got a first hour that wasn’t a great deal of fun.

Thankfully, there’s a second hour in What’s Up Doc which is both brilliant and hilarious. As I began to follow the AMAZING car chase sequence, I started feeling quite a lot of affection for both Judy and Howard, and Streisand’s performance won me over completely too. Even during the most over the top sequences, Streisand brings an exceptional comic timing mostly seen in one liners and facial expressions.

I personally love how Bogdanovich doesn’t hold the chaos back during the second hour of the film. I almost felt like the first hour stifled the anarchy that could really make What’s Up Doc special. The anarchy is let loose and then some all the way to the final scene on the plane where Streisand says Ryan O’Neil’s iconic line from Love Story, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” O’Neil responds with, “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!”

That last scene on the plane shows images of Bugs Bunny cartoons, obviously connecting with the title of this film. In one sense, especially in the elaborate chase sequence, What’s Up Doc does seem to be paying respect to those great slapstick cartoons. Of course, Bogdanovich, who, along with Martin Scorcese is considered among the best film historians that are also directors, obviously knows about the sheer escapist entertainment of screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s. It’s more Hepburn and Grant in Bringing Up Baby that are honored in What’s Up Doc than Bugs Bunny. Though, as I said at the beginning, one doesn’t need to know about screwball comedies to enjoy the laughs and the action within this movie. What’s Up Doc’s second hour is one of the most fun sequences I’ve seen in all film!

The Killing

July 9, 2008

The Killing (1956) **1/2

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

The Filmspotting podcast’s present marathon, Classic Heist Films, originally listed Rififi as the second film with Kubrick’s The Killing third. Two weeks ago, after The Lavender Hill Mob, which was first, they mistakenly mentioned that the following week they would review The Killing. I followed their original list, and queued Rififi and not The Killing. Once I did add The Killing to my queue, because of the fourth of July weekend, I was going to have to wait a few days before it would arrive. Thus, I decided to watch and review Rififi since I already had it in my possession. So the Filmspotting guys watched The Killing before Rififi, while for me it was the other way around. For me, watching Rififi first heavily influenced my opinion of The Killing. When Kubrick’s film is viewed against Rififi, the former comes across strikingly mediocre. Rififi is a heist film that deserves to be called a masterpiece, and so The Killing, which is pretty standard and run of the mill, really let me down.

Kubrick was only twenty-eight when he directed this film, which was his sixth directorial project. We do see glimpses of his genius in the film’s direction, especially in its use of light and shadows. Take for instance a scene around a table where the parties of the heist are discussing the details. At one point, Johnny Clay, played by Sterling Hayden, leans back on his chair in the middle of a sentence which masks his face in complete darkness. The atmosphere of paranoia mixed with anticipation definitely increased because of touches like that. All of the indoor scenes are surprisingly dark, and the sunlight from outside often covered by curtains or dirty windows appears almost achingly bright by contrast which makes for clear shadows and patches of darkness.

A bunch of men, many of whom are unreliable, work together to plan and execute an elaborate plot to heist millions of dollars from a racetrack. The overly complicated scheme requires that each participant play his role perfectly and at an exact time or else everything will fail. One person must cause a diversion by starting a riot in the bar. Another must bring in a rifle hidden in a florist box. Another must let Joey into the building so he can hold up the cash collectors at gunpoint. Still another must shoot a horse in order to cause confusion. A crooked cop is required to catch the bag of money once it’s thrown out a window and drive it to a motel cabin for Joey to pick up.

The heist seems to run smoothly at first, but then a few kinks appear in its execution which causes Joey to change plans midway. The biggest mistake comes from cashier George (Elisha Cook, Jr.), whose abusive wife Sherry (Marie Windsor) coerces the details of the heist from him only to insist that her boyfriend Val (Vince Edwards) hold up the culprits once they are in possession of the money. Marie Windsor’s performance annoyed me to no end. She obviously hates George, and George obviously hates himself. In no way did I believe that she would ever have married a guy like him in the first place. George is conveniently ultra stupid and naïve—so much so in fact that it felt disingenuous and took me completely out of the film.

The most effective moment occurs on an airport runway. The way Kubrick visually shoots at this point makes for a scene of heartbreak matched with visual beauty. Unfortunately, right after this sequence, the film ends too suddenly resulting in an unsatisfying conclusion.

There are moments that don’t work within the clinical precision which permeates the entire movie. One scene involves one of the participants talking to his sick wife promising her a better life. Another involves a conversation between the wrestler who later causes the bar riot and an employee at a chess competition store (that’s what we’re missing in our world today—a store where you can pay hourly to, wait for it folks, play chess!). When this wrestler does cause the mayhem in the bar, the result is almost painfully hard to watch because it’s executed so dreadfully. At one point, two cops grab onto this guy’s arms which rips his shirt off in a way that looks curiously like the wardrobe assistant velcroed two halves of a shirt together in the middle. Because the dude has so much back hair, I personally wish the shirt had stayed on.

One of the worst sequences in the film occurs when Sherry is caught eavesdropping on the plan for the heist. If only they killed her, or kidnapped her, or silenced her, then most likely the heist would have been a success. She comes across mean and untrustworthy, so I don’t know why they would let her go knowing what she does. A further unsuccessful element takes place between the horse killer and a black parking lot attendant. At one point, the attendant walks up to the guy to thank him for being so nice. The thug, who was nice to him only to be allowed into the lot, ends up telling him to go away using a racial slur. The slur itself didn’t bother me because a man like this guy would probably say something like that. What ticked me off to no end was the way they made this black man look like a simple-minded fool. I don’t believe that character would really have thanked that guy in real life unless he was mentally or emotionally handicapped. It almost seems like the screenwriters wrote him to be exactly that.

Why in the world would these characters plan something with so many details, rules and participants? Everything must work perfectly for the heist to be a success. I’d love to see a statistician analyze their plan to see what their percentage of success would have been. I’m guessing that this heist would have had a 30% chance of success at most. Therefore, the heist itself comes off very phony.

Besides the overuse of what looks like newsreel footage of horse racing throughout the film, The Killing is very well directed. Too bad though that as a heist film, it’s satisfactory at best, containing a heist that’s way too convoluted. The Lavender Hill Mob and Rififi were pleasantly surprising in this genre because they weren’t what I expected. The Killing, on the other hand, is not only glaringly formulaic but also heavily flawed. Though Filmspotting placed The Killing before Rififi in its order of films in the marathon, Kubrick’s heist entry definitely doesn’t come first in quality.

AFI's 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award Winner- Warren Beatty

July 9, 2008

AFI’s 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award Winner- Warren Beatty

This evening, I watched the two hour ceremony honoring Warren Beatty with the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award. The show itself was quite touching, containing great moments, including a speech from Bill Clinton. Of course, the show itself had its moments of cringing awkwardness, including what I can only hope was a sober rant by Robert Downey Jr. and a dismal hip hop performance of Ghetto Superstar. Many poked fun at Beatty's incessant need to shoot a scene over and over again until he was happy with it. Don Cheadle made a great joke. He said that as directors, Clint Eastwood and Warren Beatty together average 73 takes for each scene. Clint averages 1 and Warren averages 145. Since he’s obviously a perfectionist, it’s not surprising that he didn’t make movies too frequently. Believe it or not, in the forty-seven years Beatty has been making movies, he’s only acted in 22, produced 10, wrote 5 and directed 4. Other than 1987’s The Pick-Up Artist, which he executive produced, Beatty has acted in every single film he produced, wrote and directed. Therefore, out of his 22 films, I’ve only seen five, but I’m happy to say that I like and recommend all five. As a matter of fact, two of them I love. Here are the five films in order of my preference.

5. Bulworth (1998)- Beatty plays a senator that immerses himself into ghetto life in L.A. in order to get back in touch with what’s really important in the world. The movie’s not great, but it does have its laugh out loud moments. It’s definitely an ultra-liberal political statement—and a semi-shallow one at that. Yet, Beatty’s performance is so unique that, if nothing else, the film’s worth seeing for that alone.

4. Bugsy (1991)- Bugsy is a very good, very stylized, very sexy gangster film which notoriously began Beatty’s love affair with Annette Bening, thus ending his reputation as Hollywood’s number one playboy. Beatty’s excellent as Bugsy Seigel, and Barry Levinson’s direction is stellar. Especially since their marriage has been such a great success, the best part of watching the movie is seeing the two of them on screen together, even though, if I remember correctly, her character betrays him at the end.

3. Reds (1981)- Beatty gives his very best performance in Reds, and does his best work as a director as well. I’m saying the second part of that sentence confidently, even though I’ve never seen one of the four films he directed—Heaven Can Wait. Reds is such a triumph that Heaven Can Wait would have to be such an outstanding directorial achievement to be better than Reds. This gargantuan epic isn’t perfect at all, and I think Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson are both miscast in their roles. Yet, anyone that doesn’t think Beatty deserves a lifetime achievement award should be forced to watch Reds. As far as Beatty’s acting and directing went, it was the achievement of a lifetime.

2. Dick Tracy (1990)- I first saw Dick Tracy in the movie theater when I was nine, and let me tell you, for years after that film came out, I was obsessed. I tried collecting all of the figurines, and I collected the entire set of Dick Tracy trading cards. In college, I watched the film three times in one week. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen it, but every single time I do, I consider it one of the most fun, entertaining and enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. Al Pacino hams up his performance as Big Boy Caprice brilliantly, and Madonna gives one of her few passable performances as Breathless Mahoney. Beatty directed this box office hit with a color palate that perfectly evokes the noir comics. In my opinion, Dick Tracy is one of the most underrated films in history.

1. Bonnie and Clyde (1967)- As of right now, Bonnie and Clyde is number 31 on my list of the 100 Greatest Films I’ve Ever Seen. Bonnie and Clyde became the first film that showed realistic graphic violence, paving the way for ultra-violent masterpieces such as The Godfather, Chinatown, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Halloween, Pulp Fiction and Fargo to name just a few. This is one of the most enjoyable movie-watching experiences I’ve had, and the charisma that Beatty and Faye Dunaway have together on screen is breathtaking. If their performances weren’t what they were, the whole movie wouldn’t have held up. We are supposed to believe that an entire country would root for and idolize these two vicious criminals. Watching Dunaway and Beatty perform as Bonnie and Clyde, you can’t help but fall in love with them even considering the evil things you witness their characters enact.

In honor of Beatty, I will do a Warren Beatty Mini-Marathon watching three of his celebrated movies that I’ve never seen. Of course, I’ll skip his iconic flop Ishtar. Here are the three films I’ll watch:

1. McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
2. Shampoo (1975)
3. Heaven Can Wait (1978)

Congrats to Warren Beatty, and I appreciate the five good films that he’s made that I have seen so far.

Tootsie

July 7, 2008

Tootsie (1982) **1/2

Directed by Sydney Pollack

When I first saw Tootsie a few months ago, I was extremely disappointed. The American Film Institute listed it as the 62^nd best American film in 1997 and the 69^th best American film in 2007. I’ve watched every single film that made both the 1997 and the 2007 AFI lists. Out of all one hundred on the 2007 list, Tootsie is my least favorite. This time around, I did enjoy the film more, but I still maintain my two and a half star rating which I gave after the first viewing. I think I have to put Tootsie on the very top of my list of overrated movies. Tootsie isn’t the 69^th best American movie ever. It’s not even good enough to be the 690^th best American movie ever.

Sure, it’s funny. Actually, the first hour works extremely well, providing moments of smart comedy. It’s the second hour where the film lost me big time. Watching Dustin Hoffman come up with the scheme and then execute it caused me to laugh out loud more than once. This film, in my opinion, could have been amazing, and judging by the first hour alone, it had all the potential in the world. I suppose that’s why I am so disappointed with the film as a whole. A promising and winning first act leads to a dead, dismal second act. The soap opera filmed lived sequence at the end is quite good, but then we witness the final scenes after Hoffman’s identity is revealed, which are among the very worst in the film.

The plot is pretty famous and simple, so I won’t go into too much detail. Dustin Hoffman plays Michael Dorsey, a talented but difficult actor who decides to dress up like a woman and pass himself off as Dorothy Michaels because first of all, his reputation as a miserable person to work with has him basically blacklisted from the New York theater world, and second, he wants a female role in a soap opera in order to raise money to put on a play written by his roommate Jeff, played hilariously by Bill Murray.

When Michael becomes a woman, he falls in love with the star of the soap opera, Julie Nichols, played by Jessica Lange who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this performance. Julie confides in and ultimately trusts Dorothy. Things are made even more complicated when Julie’s father begins to try and romance Dorothy. He’s played by Charles Durning.

There’s another character in the film that I didn’t mention in the plot. Why didn’t I mention her? Well, because she’s totally unnecessary except for some cursory additions to the storyline which could have been filled in without her character. Teri Garr plays Sandy Lester, and though her character is pointless, Garr does a great job in this role, and her character is one of the only ones I really grew to like throughout the movie.

The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) has message boards for each movie, and there was a thread going on the Tootsie message board titled “100 Things You Learned from Tootsie.” These “100 Things You Learned…” posts are pretty popular. One person names some funny or poignant nuggets of wisdom from the film and then people reply and keep adding until one hundred is reached. After seeing it for the first time, I added to the list. I figured that instead of writing anew all of the problems I had with Tootsie, I’d simply copy and paste the list from a few months ago.

100 Things I Learned from Tootsie

40. Soap operas can be filmed live.
41. Neighbors complain when someone is singing on the street but don't when people are screaming at the top of their lungs.
42. Babies can entertain themselves if you fall asleep watching them.
43. Broadway producers can be distractingly short.
44. Whenever a soap opera star leaves a television studio, there are always three or four people with autograph books that walk up to him or her without saying a word. They simply shove the book and the pen to the star.
45. Alcoholism can be used as a throwaway plot device.
46. The vulnerable best friend that you come to care about throughout the film is ultimately betrayed and won't get a happy ending.
47. The vulnerable best friend that you come to care about throughout the film is completely unnecessary to the rest of the film.
48. A "nice" character can still be "nice" even after saying homophobic statements such as, "The only reason you're still alive right now is that we never kissed."
49. People can commit massive fraud to make money and not get arrested.
50. Man on she-man rape scenes are supposed to be funny.

Dustin Hoffman has been praised for his performance as Dorothy/Michael. Well, personally, I felt like he overacted from beginning to end. Also, Michael Dorsey is a jerk! He’s a jerk to his roommate, his friend Sandy, his agent (played wonderfully by Sydney Pollack) and his co-star. The perfect ending to Tootsie would not have Michael get the girl. Instead, he should have been shown sitting behind bars arrested for fraud.

I viscerally hated parts of Tootsie; however, I admit that I did love parts of Tootsie as well. This film will continue to be celebrated and revered as one of the great comedies of all time, I am sure. Sorry, folks, I just don’t get the appeal. I love to laugh as much as the next guy, but I simply won’t praise a movie with great moments if as a whole it’s not very good. Worst of all, this movie is simply mean-spirited, which probably accounts for my strong anger after watching it again. I wish I knew what film was supposed to be 101 on AFI’s list in 2007, because whatever it was, it most likely deserved to be on the list.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

July 7, 2008

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) ****1/2

Directed by Julian Schnabel

Fate can be awfully cruel. It’s truly horrific to imagine being afflicted by locked-in syndrome like Jean-Dominique Bauby. Called Jean-Do for short, Bauby had complete brain function while at the same time he had no ability to move any part of his body except his left eye. Pretty much, he was buried alive, and he knew it. Of course I’d imagine his condition could be infinitely worse. I hate to even think about the fact that a person could have total brain function without any ability to move at all—not even the eyes. Your brain would be working one hundred percent, but no one would know it. Therefore, you’d live the remainder of your days truly alone with absolutely nothing at all to do hour after after, day after day, year after year.

Bauby’s left eye, therefore, was his saving grace. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is based on the book written by Bauby himself after having the stroke. The film switches back and forth between Bauby’s handicapped existence and cinematized versions of his memories. The film begins with Bauby waking up after being in a coma for two weeks only to learn of his circumstances. For the first forty minutes, we view the world from Bauby’s viewpoint. Therefore, we don’t see his face for quite a while.

I’m sure that I’ve never seen a movie so accurately look at the world from within someone else’s head. Because of the success of Schnabel’s direction during these scenes, we share in the claustrophobic frustration of not being able to see what we want. Yet, it’s unfair to say that we are going through what Bauby himself went through at those moments. In order to try and empathize with him, we must consider the psychological trauma he’s going through as he learns that all of his hopes and dreams are pretty much over. He’s lost his independence. So, while it’s not an easy film to sit through at times, our suffering is nothing compared to what he went through.

The film is laced with uncomfortable moments, including a scene from Bauby’s perspective where we see his right eye sewn shut. I personally found another scene even more uncomfortable. Again from his perspective, we see what he sees as the nurses and staff give him a bath. We see right in front of us a man completely lose his dignity.

Through the film, we also hear what Bauby is thinking the whole time, and it is through his thoughts that we learn that he is still mentally the same man he used to be. Unfortunately, at first he goes into deep self-pitying despair. Luckily, he’s about to meet Henriette, an attractive speech therapist who makes it her mission to allow Bauby to communicate again. She uses a chart that has all of the letters of the alphabet in order of their frequency of use. She tells him to blink when the letter is spoken that he wants to choose. One of the very first things he says to Henriette is that he wants to die.

Because of Henriette and the other people in his life, like his three kids and his ex-wife, Bauby makes the decision to stop feeling sorry for himself. Before his stroke, he was contracted to write a book (he was the former editor of Elle Magazine), so he decides that he will write about his experience. A woman named Claude is hired to take his dictation day by day. The process is of course slow and painstaking, and through it, the two become very close. It’s through these dictations that we begin to see his memories shown on screen.

It’s here where the film falters just a bit. Many of the memories are gorgeous, touching and poignant, especially those involving his sick father Papinou, played by Max von Sydow. I can’t believe how many films I’ve seen with von Sydow in the past three months. He keeps popping up in all these films. I’m not complaining since he’s one of the great actors of all time in my opinion.

The one flashback involving Bauby and his mistress in Lourdes doesn’t work. Schnabel directs this scene with clichéd melodrama. The final moment of the flashback involves Bauby looking at a statue of the Virgin Mary. The way he is framed in the scene screams of self-indulgence and pretension on the part of Schnabel. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “Look how clever I am! Aren’t I a great director?”

The film as a whole does overall feel a bit self-indulgent, but mostly, Schnabel’s showy direction works beautifully. It’s amazing how Bauby’s later memories show the world in a similar way to how he sees the world after the stroke. His left eye darts around pretty frantically, which makes the world from his perspective seem fast moving and off balance. Schnabel allows his memories to eventually take on these characteristics as well. These flashbacks play more like memories laced with imagination than sterile recreations.

Credit must be given to Mathieu Amalric who plays Bauby both paralyzed and in flashback. His performance after the stroke may not seem like much of an acting stretch, but I can imagine that these scenes were much more difficult to perform than his other scenes. He really did deserve an Oscar nomination. His best scene occurs when his ex-wife must communicate between him and his mistress speaking on the phone.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a real achievement, just as Bauby’s book was as well. Schnabel is known for his visual flair, and I’m sure he was thrilled to direct this film. He really went all out making a one of a kind biopic. He infuses the film with cinematic ideas that have never been done before, and for that reason, he really did deserve his Oscar nomination for Best Director. Jean-Dominique Bauby was knocked down pretty hard by his condition, but in his battle with fate, he prevailed as the winner by writing what I’ve heard is an amazing book! He died shortly after its publication sealing his victory over a very cruel opponent.