Starting Out in the Evening

September 20, 2008

Starting Out in the Evening (2007) **

Directed by Andrew Wagner

Characters like Leonard Schiller and Heather Wolfe only exist in movies—too many movies. Here’s the same old story about the reclusive author inspired by a young protégé. Doesn’t that sound sort of like Field of Dreams, Finding Forrester and more recently Nim’s Island? Leonard is a retired English professor who has written four out of print high quality novels in his younger days. Heather is a graduate student interested in writing her Masters’ thesis on themes in Schiller’s work. He’s classy, dignified, rigid and closed down while she is aggressive, impulsive, eccentric and wide eyed. Starting Out in the Evening unites this unlikely duo, and predictably, Heather affects Leonard’s life in profound ways. By the way, Leonard has a daughter named Ariel whose ex-fiancé is named Casey. If ever a plot point deserves to be described in a sentence beginning with “by the way,” it’s this one. The film gave me whiplash as it jumped back and forth between the worlds of these characters. Other than the fact that two of the characters are father and daughter, there’s nothing that unites both relationships in terms of narrative theme. It’s almost as if two screenplays awkwardly commingle within this film, and in my opinion, neither one is worth all that much.

What’s almost worth the time to watch Starting Out in the Evening is the excellent performance from esteemed character actor Frank Langella as Leonard. Langella finds just the right tone to showcase Leonard’s growing weariness of the world. We are told early on that he recently suffered a heart attack which has forced him to slow down and retire from teaching. Now he dedicates his days to writing the novel that has eluded him for decades. Towards the end of the film, as Leonard’s health gets worse, Langella performs a scene in a bathtub requiring him to stand up. Here we see this old actor’s nude body on display. I definitely give Langella credit for agreeing to expose himself for the film. Yet, what’s extremely irritating about that scene is the fact that it is completely unnecessary and Langella’s nudity is totally gratuitous. The point of the scene is to focus on how Leonard must give up his pride and self-dependence in order to rely on the help of others. My question for writer/director Andrew Wagner would be, “Why show him in a bathtub when there are other (less cliché) ways to emphasize his neediness without forcing Langella to appear nude on screen?” Even if Wagner was insistent on having Leonard in a bathtub, the camera could have followed Langella as he stood up showing the audience his back and not his buttocks. That would give the illusion that the person bathing him would see him but we wouldn’t have to. Again, I’m not saying that it’s disgusting to see an old man nude on screen. What I am saying is that this scene feels totally inconsistent and uncomfortably unnecessary. I admire Langella’s gumption, but I feel bad for him as well because of what this film had him do.

Lauren Ambrose, known for her role on HBO’s Six Feet Under, is undoubtedly an interesting, attractive presence on screen. However, her performance as Heather is too broad and way too obvious. She contacts Leonard and asks him for interviews. At first, Leonard kindly refuses, but Heather’s not the sort who takes no for an answer. She appears at his upscale apartment in Manhattan to insist that he says yes. Her mission is to bring Leonard Schiller back into the public eye. During this first conversation, Heather asks some personal, prying questions about his past regarding why a change in tone occurred between his second and third books. Leonard explains that he simply follows his characters wherever they go. It might take a while, but soon they end up somewhere, doing something worth writing about. As I was listening to Leonard saying this, I was picturing literary experts all over the world rolling their eyes at this pedestrian utterance.

One of my biggest problems with Starting Out in the Evening is the fact that so many conversations in the film deal directly with the world of literary criticism. As someone that tries to intellectually examine film at an extremely amateur level, I know how challenging criticism can be. Literary criticism is a thousand times more sophisticated than film criticism in my opinion, and as such, Wagner’s screenplay had to tackle the difficult task of making his intelligent characters sound like they not only know what they are talking about but also that they are exceptional in this arena. Over and over again, conversations regarding literature felt disingenuous and unimpressive. It’s almost as if these characters believe themselves to be knowledgeable but in reality, they lack the experience and skills necessary to blossom as literary experts. Hey, if you’re going to write characters in the world of academia, you’ve got to make them sound like they belong in the world of academia.

Once their first interview concludes, Heather grabs Leonard’s hands and begins to kiss them. Leonard pulls away and politely asks her to go. I was absolutely shocked by Heather’s advance since of all, it came out of nowhere, and second, it made me think that Heather was clinically insane. Watch this moment and tell me what kind of person would do something like that? Yes, Heather is meant to be impulsive, but there’s a fine line between impulsive and psychotic! Leonard inexplicably agrees to meet with Heather again with no qualms at all. Personally, if I were Leonard, that would have been the end of the interviews. At least, I think Leonard should have immediately demanded that the two of them discuss Heather’s intentions and the idea of appropriate boundaries. For a man so set in his ways, it doesn’t make sense that he would be so passive, blasé and naive about Heather’s first romantic advance.

That leads me to wonder why Heather pursued Leonard romantically at all. After all, she’s 25 and he’s well over 70. Was she really attracted to him? She says at one point that she was an outcast as a kid, and it’s his books that helped her to feel like she belonged somewhere. You’d think with a man as smart as Leonard, he’d see this as unhealthy, misdirected affection. Heather wants to be with her idea of Leonard rather than with Leonard himself.

Eventually, Leonard falls in love with Heather, which predictably ends with him getting hurt badly because of her immaturity. Once Heather is out of the picture, the film focuses more on Leonard’s irritating yoga instructor daughter Ariel, played terribly by Lili Taylor, and her ex-fiancé Casey, played by the always interesting Adrian Lester. Ariel, now 40, wants children and companionship badly, in that order. One night, she’s stranded in the city and calls on Casey to pick her up which reunites their relationship. She decides that she wants to have children before it’s too late. She manipulates her contraception in order to make that possible. The glitch here is that she doesn’t tell Casey who has always been dead set against having children. Eventually, something happens to Leonard that makes her reexamine her life and her priorities. In one of the biggest stretches of plot that I’ve seen in a film in a long time, Casey also ends up affected by and even taking responsibility for Leonard’s incapacitation apart from Ariel. By the end of the film, people are profoundly different than they were at the beginning, except for Heather, since her character removes herself once Leonard gets sick.

All of this stuff is pretty schmaltzy, and Wagner doesn’t quite know how to present it in a coherent way. Clearly, he’s trying to rise above movie-of-the-week territory, and I think he succeeds. However, in doing so, he blankets this film with an importance that it simply doesn’t live up to. Had he decided to throw out the Ariel and Casey storylines completely and clean up the relationship between Leonard and Heather, then perhaps the film would have felt more focused. Instead, the only worthy elements the viewer is left with are a semi-interesting teacher/student romantic relationship and an amazing performance by an underappreciated veteran Hollywood actor. Starting Out in the Evening ended up just a little bit stupid in the morning.

Pan's Labyrinth

September 20, 2008

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) ***1/2

Directed by Guillermo del Toro

For almost two years now, I’ve been hearing a lot about Pan’s Labyrinth and its gorgeous fairy tale scenes. I knew that the film alternates between fantasy and reality, and what’s going on in real life is supposed to be pretty brutal. Going into the film, I expected frequent, extended scenes of computerized special effects, beautiful fantastical art direction and mesmerizing creatures to gaze at in wonder. Sadly, I ended Pan’s Labyrinth disappointed. There are only three scenes of any great significance in a fairy tale world that itself looks left over from the Harry Potter films. I’d say that at least 90 minutes of this two hour movie takes place in the real world. The reality in Pan’s Labyrinth is hit or miss in terms of its emotional impact which makes the absence of more fantasy disheartening considering that the fantasy world is consistently effective.

The real world contains brutal, depressing scenes of torture, emotional abuse, illness, assisted suicide, betrayal and murder all resulting from the tyrannical power so closely valued by fascist Spanish Captain Vidal, played fairly straight-forward by Sergi Lopez. The film’s tone is almost oppressively grim, which made me want to escape into young Ofelia’s fantasy world as often as possible. In it, she’s believed to be a princess. Again, had the film allowed viewers frequent escape from the nightmare of post-World War II Spain so graphically depicted, then I believe it would have been much more entertaining. There’s too little magic to balance out the sadness I felt watching the film’s frequent bloodshed. Even thinking back on the film as I type this review, I feel kind of gloomy.

Ofelia’s mother Carmen is Captain Vidal’s new wife, and she’s carrying his son in her womb. Even though the journey is a danger to her health, Carmen travels to the Captain in order to receive care during her difficult, life-threatening pregnancy. Ofelia’s not comfortable in her new home, despite her affection for a housekeeper named Mercedes, so she escapes into the world of fairy tales. Interestingly enough, she doesn’t seem like she’s actively inventing this world and directing its storyline. Instead, she is mentored by a fawn-like creature named Fauno and his three little pixies who assist Ofelia during times of danger and temptation.

Once her mother begins to severely hemorrhage, Ofelia is sent to sleep on her own in order to allow Carmen to rest. Meanwhile, there’s a rebellion movement against the fascists in Spain that seems to be growing strong in the very forest that exists right outside the Captain’s mansion. Ofelia learns quickly that Mercedes is a rebel herself who is assisting the movement. She’s not the only one either. Carmen’s doctor is a sympathizer too—a fact which forces him to give his own life for the cause once he is discovered. Captain Vidal brutally tortures and murders any and all rebels that end up in his clutches.

Ofelia’s journeys into her fairy tale world involve a series of tests—some that she passes and some that she doesn’t. One involves a frog that spews chunks—not my favorite for obvious reasons. Another one takes place in the dining room of a child-killing monster with eye sockets in his hands. Still another requires her to place a mandrake root (remind you of a certain movie about a boy wizard already mentioned in this review?) under her mother’s bed to help her get better. I won’t give away the film’s final test, though I will mention that the stakes during this one have been raised through the roof! Clearly the tests in the fairy tale mirror the tests that characters in the real world must endure as well. It almost seems at times like Ofelia is responsible for a lot of death and destruction because of her failures during her fantasy journeys. I don’t think Pan’s Labyrinth is meant to be taken that literally. Though her fairy tale seems to follow an organic progression of real time, the audience is clearly meant to believe that Ofelia’s imagination is ultimately responsible for this fantasy world and the creatures that are in it. Ofelia’s power is profoundly limited in the real world, so when things go wrong and she can’t do anything to stop them, she blames herself which can be seen by the punishment imparted by Fauno, a creature she invented in the first place.

That right there is pretty provocative stuff, and again, I think it’s a real shame that there’s not more of it in the picture. Another flaw in Pan’s Labyrinth lies in the fact that some of the computerized special effects aren’t seamless at all. In fact, some moments are so obviously artificial that I was removed from the movie more than once. I realize that Pan’s Labyrinth doesn’t have the budget of a Harry Potter film so the special effects might not work as effectively. That being said, these flaws were just a bit too blatant for its low budget to merit overlooking them.

Still, Pan’s Labyrinth is an effectively unsettling portrait of Spain in the mid-1940’s. The performances, especially by young Ivana Baquero as Ofelia, are quite good, and the fairy tale scenes that are included are fun to watch. Del Toro is one of the hottest commodities in Hollywood today, having recently directed Hellboy II and produced The Orphanage. Next, he’s slated to direct the big screen adaptation of Tolkein’s The Hobbit. His skill as a director shown in Pan’s Labyrinth makes The Hobbit an absolute must see in my book.

Pan’s Labyrinth is a victim of too much hype, and as such, I didn’t watch the glorious movie that I expected. Instead, Pan’s Labyrinth turned out simply to be an effective, unflinching look at the horrors of an evil man who holds to an evil philosophy in fascism. The novelty of Pan’s Labyrinth lies in the fact that reality interchanges with the fairy tale universe created by an imaginative, innocent young girl who profoundly suffers because of the nightmares that exist both outside and inside the place she lives in. Pan’s Labyrinth is worth seeing, and hopefully I’ve grounded the hype that surrounds it just a bit. I think watching this film with lowered expectations will make it more satisfying and much less disappointing.

Death Proof

September 19, 2008

Death Proof (2007) ****1/2

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

If Tarantino were to go a movie theater as a kid in the seventies to see Death Proof, he would have immediately become obsessed with it. In fact, I bet he’d think it the best movie he’s ever seen. For that very reason, Death Proof works brilliantly as a labor of love by a director who grew up immersed in and in awe of the world of high-octane, low-budget grindhouse flicks. Death Proof was originally released in the theaters as the second part of a double feature called Grindhouse. Robert Rodriguez directed the first film, a horror entry called Planet Terror which I’ve heard plays like a spoof on zombie pics more than a legitimate entry into this genre of the past. At this point, I don’t plan on seeing Planet Terror—I’m not a Rodriguez fan, and I don’t watch gory horror films which I’m guessing would make it difficult for me to truly appreciate its parody. Also, it’s supposed to be pretty nauseating.

The version of Death Proof I watched clocked in at 114 minutes which expands upon the 90 minute running time of its theatrical cut. I wouldn’t mind seeing the 90 minute version someday in order to compare the two edits. My biggest criticism of the movie is that there are a few extended conversations that went on too long causing me to lose focus in the same way I sometimes do when I listen to a bloated sermon by a priest in church. I know that I ought to be paying attention, and at first I try my best to stay engaged. Unfortunately, the more restless I get, the easier it is to lose my concentration. Hard as I tried to stay with the conversations among the young women in Death Proof, I simply zoned out a little too often. Perhaps a shorter running time might elevate my respect for this film even higher!

The film itself has two acts, each containing a different group of sexy young women played by little known Hollywood actresses such as Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms, Sydney Poitier and Vanessa Ferlito. The connecting agent between these acts is Stuntman Mike, played absolutely perfectly by Kurt Russell. Mike is a sadistic, sexually twisted, has been stuntman who gets off on using his death-proofed stuntcar as a deadly weapon against unsuspecting young women. This might sound like depressing, misogynistic subject matter, but let me assure you, the characters in Death Proof are so silly that it’s hard to view them as human beings. Not once did I believe that the women in this film were anything other than names on the pages of a two-bit script—and that’s exactly how Tarantino wants me to view them. All of the actors and actresses in Death Proof intentionally act amateur similar to the way untrained B-movie performers would often come across. Tarantino must have worked diligently as the director to keep all of his actors on a consistent level. With the exception of a few moments that came across a little too obvious, the acting in Death Proof is just right in its awfulness. Had the actors gone too far then the result would have been hokey and painful to watch. Had the actors not given enough, then the film would have been forgettable and devoid of any charm.

Tarantino’s direction is the film's greatest element. He’s obviously playing with the overdirection seen in many low budget films. There’s a misconception that a low budget, bad movie has to have performers who don’t give enough and a director that doesn’t try. In fact, often the opposite is the case. Amateur actors often go too far in order to prove that they can act. Inexperienced directors tend to try and prove themselves by throwing everything into their movie except the kitchen sink. Tarantino’s weird cinematographic decisions scream to be noticed, and as such, I found myself smiling often while watching. With the exception of the film’s two sequences that I will mention in a second, I wasn’t once literally invested in Death Proof at all. I simply gazed at the whimsy on screen, and as such, I’m thankful that Tarantino gave me just the right amount of entertaining visual idiosyncrasies to keep me enjoying the experience.

Two sequences in Death Proof play like a shot of pure adrenaline straight to the heart, similar now that I think of it to Uma Thurman’s character in Pulp Fiction. The first scene of gruesome violence dispenses with the film’s initial group of young women. The destruction here doesn’t play for horror at all. Instead, it’s thrilling to the nth degree, forcing me to sit up in my seat and revel in shock at the exhilarating images I just witnessed. The other heart pumping stretch is also the film’s final sequence. Here I witnessed what might just be the most awesome car chase I’ve ever seen in film. It absurdly begins with one of the young women playing a game which requires her to sit on the hood of a moving car trying not to fall off. Russell’s Stuntman Mike returns to wreak havoc once again, causing Zoe Bell to hold onto the car for her life. I have no idea how this sequence was filmed. It doesn’t look like any special effects were used. Apparently, Zoe Bell, who was Uma Thurman’s stand in for the Kill Bill movies, performed her own stunts, and all I’ve got to say is that she’s either really brave or really stupid. Clearly, lives were put in danger to shoot that scene. That being said, I’m glad that it’s as amazing as it turned out to be. Otherwise, I’d think it irresponsible for Tarantino to expect what he does from any human being, even one trained in stunts.

Death Proof contains Tarantino’s trademark dialogue, which can be judged a plus and a minus both at the same time. One thing’s for sure—he’s got a creative mind. Also, he writes dialogue for women really well. Judd Apatow ought to take a page from Tarantino’s book regarding this subject. A little too often, though, I found the topics of these conversations to be distractingly unimportant and even, dare I say it, dull. Once again, perhaps the extended cut that I viewed ought to be blamed.

I’ve never seen a grindhouse film, but I have seen low budget films from the 1970’s. The look of Death Proof, as well as its obvious low budget touches like inadvertent switches to black and white, scenes missing, film skipping, awkward reel switches, etc., felt completely authentic based on my limited knowledge. The final two minutes absolutely kick ass and negate any legitimate concerns of mean-spirited exploitation of these young women. Death Proof was an enlightening experience for me. Personally, as a film snob, I never understood how anyone could be truly entertained by these low quality trashy cult films. Now I understand the appeal.

My Kid Could Paint That

September 18, 2008

My Kid Could Paint That (2007) *****

Directed by Amir Bar-Lev

Stevie Wonder has a better chance at a painting career than I have! I can't draw to save my life. True story--in high school, I got a 90 on a paper I wrote for history class. The feedback on the last page contained nothing but affirmative comments from my teacher, so I approached him after class to ask why I lost ten points. He points to the drawing on the front. He said to me that part of the assignment was to interpret and sketch a historical moment on the report's cover page. He went on to tell me that he didn't appreciate the fact that I made fun of the requirement by drawing something so obviously meant to be horrible. I was absolutely floored! Seriously, I remember working for like thirty minutes on my sketch. I tried to convince my history teacher, Mr. Effenberger, that I really did try, and that I did the best that I could do. He told me that he had been assigning this report for over twenty years and never had he seen a drawing like mine. I lfet his room without receiving those extra ten points. To this day, I feel like I was cheated.

I'll give myself enough credit to admit that I have some talents, and there are quite a number of things that I'm good at. In no way, shape or form is visual art one of them. Therefore, I'm in complete awe of anyone with artistic talent. It completely eludes me! My Kid Could Paint That was intended by Amir Bar-Lev to be a documentary about the genius of a four-year-old modern art prodigy named Marla Olmstead. For the first thirty or so minutes, I was thoroughly enjoying this foray into the world of a skill that has always been so profoundly out of my grasp.

Sure, modern art doesn't follow the same tules that more traditional art follows. It's probably impossible for a four-year-old to adequately paint a literal landscape. Still, though, I've never been one of those cynics who thinks that modern art isn't "real art." Personally, canvases filled with paint splatter intrigue me, especially if it's clear that there's some purpose to them. When I first saw Marla's smeared paintings, I immediately fell in love with them. I bought into the fact that a truly gifted four-year-old could have painted them. They're really very well-done, and when you add in the story about how they came to be, they become absolutely awe-inspiring. Early in the film, we watch Marla, her parents Mark and Laura and her two-year-old brother Zane observe a machine that is mass producing Marla's paintings into prints and posters. Seriously, at that point, I was planning on going online and buying one of Marla's prints once the film was over!

Then an episode of 60 Minutes changes everything, providing both the audience and the director with a gargantuan surprise. Charlie Rose's story about Marla ultimately presented the argument that Marla alone was not responsible for the paintings that her parents say she was responsible for. To be clear, 60 Minutes wasn't saying that her father painted them alone either; however, Mark and Laura had repeatedly insisted from the beginning often on national television that Marla painted them completely on her own without any outside influences. Therefore, Mark stating that he did coach or assist Marla could be construed as fraud.

At first, Rose's story seemed mean-spirited and sensationalistic. Yet, sales for Marla's painting, which were fetching tens of thousands of dollars each, pretty much ceased to continue. Her family received frightening, angry e-mails from many who accused them of being evil people. Bar-Lev tries to offer them vindication by attempting to film Marla's genius at work. Unfortunately, what she produces is nowhere near anything that resembles her alleged earlier work. In fact, what she paints looks exactly like what a typical four-year-old would paint. Mark and Laura agree to film and distribute a DVD of Marla composing a painting from start to finish completely on her own. Suspiciously, Bar-Lev tried to accomplish this very goal early on in the process of making this documentary. All he was able to catch was Marla spurting huge globs of paint on a canvas and rubbing them together with her hands until muddy nothingness resulted. Mark claims that she does this whenever cameras are on her.

So, they set up a hidden, stationary camera and film Marla from beginning to end with no edits and the sound turned on. She completes a painting called Ocean which seems at first like it matches the quality of her previous works, even with uncharacteristic bright yellow Mickey Mouse ears prominently sitting towards the bottom of the painting. Then, Bar-Lev brilliantly shows Ocean side by side next to many of Marla's previous paintings. It was clear to me at least that something wasn't right. That was the conclusion I reached, and I imagine that most will reach this sad conclusion as well. Yet, My Kid Could Paint That, as well as a short documentary also included on the DVD showing Bar-Lev returning to Binghamton, NY to talk to people in the film before and after its festival release, clearly presents us with some individuals that are adamant that Mark and Laura are telling the truth about their daughter.

The film ultimately leaves it up to us to choose which side of the controversy we agree with. I have a strong judgment about the situation, but I'm not going to share that here. Discussions about whether or not Marla worked alone or with help are best left for in-person conversations. What's triumphant about My Kid Could Paint That is that the viewer is strongly compelled to seek out others who've seen the film as well in order to dialogue and debate. I can't wait to talk about this movie with people! Of course, I'm not expecting to close the book on my conclusions about Mark and Laura after one conversation. What I'm really looking forward to is discussing some of the other considerations that come with an assumption of the parents' guilt or innocence. What if Mark did coach her? What if Marla and Mark painted together? Does the excellence of the painting itself mean anything apart from those who painted it? Should Marla have ever been put in this position in the first place? Why, after everything that's happened, would her parents want to continue keeping Marla in the spotlight, especially considering the fact that Linda repeatedly says that she feels perhaps that everything would be better if Marla loses her fame completely? Was the filmmaker himself fair? Did this documentary adequately present Mark and Laura's side of the argument? Does the possibility of an alleged fraud like this one say anything about the value of modern art itself?

My Kid Could Paint That offers us intelligent commentators regarding Marla's situations. The philosophical and practical insights that are presented by the ordinary people within this film work as perfect starting points for great discussions about this fascinatingly odd and undoubtedly sad situation. There is so much to think about after watching this film. Obviously, the act of observing a situation changes the situation itself. That's certainly true in Marla's situation regarding both the media attention she received and the documentary we see here. Without a doubt, I wish that Marla never became famous. After all, this little girl is quite possibly the biggest casualty in this whole fiasco. Yet, there is one amazing byproduct of this whole mess--My Kid Could Paint That. It's a first rate documentary, and I know I'll be thinking about this movie for a long time to come. I can't wait to talk about it with others who have had the good fortune of enjoying this movie as much as I did. Who knows? Maybe I'll get in touch with Mr. Effenberger and see whether or not he thinks little Marla worked alone.

The Counterfeiters

September 16, 2008

The Counterfeiters (2007) ****1/2

Directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky

My degree in college was in both theology and philosophy, and I was always most fascinated with morality and ethics, which is what they would be called in each subject respectively. As such, I love it when intricate ethical examples present themselves just begging for my analysis. The Austrian film The Counterfeiters works wonderfully as an hour and a half long academic exercise in moral dilemmas. This fact in itself would be enough to recommend it strongly. Lucky for me, however, this Best Foreign Language Film Oscar winner also deserves its accolades for succeeding as a great cinematic experience. Two categories of superior achievement in one film—I certainly don’t see that too often.

The Counterfeiters presents this true historical event within the Holocaust adapted from the memoir of one of the film’s characters, Adolf Burger. A group of concentration camp prisoners are given special treatment because of the respective skill that each brings along with him, all of which are beneficial towards counterfeiting British and American money in order to drastically harm each country’s economy during the war. Obviously, here lies important ethical dilemma number one—these men are working towards an immoral act within extreme circumstances, namely war and the Holocaust, which means that not participating could mean harsher treatment at best and death at worst.

Towards the beginning of the film, the German police justifiably arrest a Jewish counterfeiting criminal named Salomon Sorowitsch. They throw him in the concentration camp in order to assist in the realization of a Nazi counterfeiting operation. This puts off many of the other prisoners since they don’t welcome the idea of working alongside a criminal. They understandably feel that his presence hurts their feelings of dignity and integrity as innocent prisoners. Here lies ethical dilemma number two—is an established criminal guiltier in these actions because of his past? Also, is it possible to vindicate his past sins within this criminal environment? The complex irony abounds.

Adolf Burger refuses to participate in abetting the enemy, and he tries to persuade his fellow prisoners to sabotage the operation. It’s extremely difficult to perfect the counterfeiting of both the British pound and the American dollar. As such, the lengthy process could be drawn out through prisoner tampering in the hopes that the war will end before sweeping damage is done to the enemies of the Nazis. At first, Burger angers those around him who don’t appreciate being lectured to considering the fact that they are doing everything they can to stay alive. Here lies ethical detail number three—is the threat of death enough to justify men not doing what they know to be right?

The most intriguing ethical meditation involves Nazi Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog. He’s the one responsible for the operation, and it’s because of his authority that the prisoners are treated relatively well. We learn that he doesn’t agree with the Nazi philosophy, and he doesn’t believe that the concentration camps are just. Does this make him any less guilty of the collective guilt of all Nazis? Does this possibly make him guiltier since he didn’t stand up against what he knew to be evil?

The performances by everyone in the film are strong all around except for Karl Markovics who plays Salomon. He’s too transparently sinister in his mannerism and facial expressions. I would have preferred that he played the character in a less obvious manner. That being said, he has moments of brilliance, especially in scenes when he’s dealing with a young naïve prisoner who eventually develops tuberculosis.

It’s refreshing to see that The Counterfeiters isn’t trying only to be a parable for the horrors of the Holocaust. Its main purpose is to showcase this one fascinating historical event in an extremely focused manner. Don’t get me wrong. There can never be enough films that remind us all of the unimaginably heinous events which occurred during the Holocaust. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we never forget, lest we repeat these unspeakable evils. That being said, The Counterfeiters chooses not to dwell on the larger injustices in order to focus on this one inspirational event within the terror of the Holocaust. As such, the film succeeds in offering great respect to the brave men who perhaps prevented widespread economic destruction.

The circumstances these men are placed in clearly adds an element of subjective interpretation regarding the degree of culpability that the players within this criminal operation ought to be ascribed. Clearly, it can be argued that our most fundamental instinct is survival, and that’s clearly the main motivator for these prisoners. That being said, had they simply been passive victims without a working moral compass, then it’s quite possible that countless lives would have been ruined because of their counterfeiting operation. This film shows us heroes that arose from the ashes left as a result of their participation in a sinful operation. Intriguing stuff… great movie!

Lust, Caution

September 15, 2008

Lust, Caution (2007) ****

Directed by Ang Lee

Visually, Ang Lee’s latest controversial film Lust, Caution equals the gorgeous achievement of previous stunners Brokeback Mountain and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, both of which are among my very favorite films. Just about every frame of Lust, Caution is breathtakingly gorgeous, making this film one of the more pleasant movies to look at—with certain scenes being the exception, but I’ll get back to those in a bit. This is the epic story of a young naïve college student who becomes a part of a drama troupe dead set on assassinating those who sympathize with the Japanese concerning their takeover of the city of Hong Kong during World War II. At first, she simply wants to be liked by her new friends, but eventually, she dedicates her life and ultimately her body to gaining the trust of Mr. Yee (Tony Leung), a Japanese sympathizer and brutal torturer of Chinese dissidents. The plan is that she will put into motion the events that will lead to his assassination.

Yee is justifiably paranoid of others, and his trust issues lead him to become a lonely, controlling individual. He risks everything by allowing himself to fall in love with this young woman who calls herself Mrs. Mak. It takes some time for their relationship to turn physical, but when it does, his control issues take over big time. In a twisted way, Mrs. Mak, whose real name is Wong Chia Chi (Wei Tang), begins to fall hard for Yee while simultaneously holding onto her deep seated hatred and resentment towards the way he treats her in bed.

I guess now is as good a time as any to talk about the film’s graphic, and I mean GRAPHIC, sex scenes. Lee decided to accept an NC-17 rating for his film since he believed that its particular brand of sex was integral to the full realization of the Yee character. The man is supposed to be menacing considering that he’s a torturer—there’s always a sense of danger when he’s on screen. Instead of showing him torturing people in an interrogation room, Lee decides to show him torturing Mrs. Mak in the bedroom—literally. Their lovemaking turns sado-masochistic very quickly, and the revile that viewers would have exhibited from scenes of violent retribution are instead transferred to recoil from uninhibited images of aggressive, painful acts of copulation. The camera doesn’t look away, and it’s clearly not watered down in order to merit an R rating. Everything’s on display.

Herein lies the film’s biggest flaw. I’ll admit that it’s definitely novel to use sexual sadism for character development. Yet, the film’s graphic moments are way too distracting to successfully portray anything beyond what’s happening on screen. As I watched, I began to contemplate process over character development. I kept thinking that I hadn’t seen anything this sexually extreme in a mainstream film before Also, I couldn’t help but wonder what the actors were thinking as filming began. At times, I admired the guts it took Tang and especially Leung, considering that he’s a much older actor, to put themselves on display in the way the film calls on them to do. These are the thoughts that ran through my head. In my judgment, it’s simply impossible to watch these explicit scenes and objectively think about character development until you look back at the film as a whole. Therefore, I felt disappointed that the film’s insistence on showing everything in clinical detail brought its plot and pacing to a complete standstill.

Also, to a lesser extent, I was bothered by the fact that these moments are at times simply disgusting, and I have no problem admitting that I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed watching them. Without a doubt, many will understandably be offended by Lust, Caution. My opinion is that the bigger cinematic sin lies in Lee’s lame-brained idea that it would be possible to adequately develop character through these off-putting sexual sequences.

Let me make it clear. Other than what I mentioned above, Lust, Caution is downright spectacular. Within its two hour and forty minute running time are some of the very best moments out of all the films I’ve seen from 2007. Young Wei Tang absolutely lights up the screen in her daring, complex performance. The film jumps around in time, and because of this, Tang must play her character in different stages of emotional maturity and turmoil. Also impressive is the fact that she also has to play a woman pretending to be someone else for much of the film. She absolutely meets the demands of this great role. Leung doesn’t have to do a whole lot beyond looking menacing and unstable. That being said, he comes off pretty damn menacing and unstable, so kudos to him. Early on in the film, there’s an extended game of mahjong which is repeated again after many events unfold. At first glance, this seems like a very ordinary scene; however, when we revisit this same scene later on, it’s clear that there’s a great deal more at stake than simply winning the game.

Had this movie decided to develop Yee’s character a different way, I believe that it would have easily made my 100 greatest films list. Not only is Lust, Caution great to look at, but it’s also extremely thrilling. In a way, Lee has updated Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious. In that film, Ingrid Bergman’s character is used to infiltrate the life of a Nazi crime boss. She’s willing to go so far as to actually marry the man. Though the film doesn’t directly mention it, Hitchcock clearly wants viewers to think about the fact that she is willing to sleep with him as well. In Lust, Caution, we aren’t expected to be disturbed by implied circumstances since nothing in the relationship between the two main characters is left unseen. Both women in both films are willing to give all of themselves for their causes, and beyond that, they’re also willing to put their lives in serious jeopardy as well. Graphic sex or no graphic sex, the idea that someone would be willing to go as far as these two women are willing to go is admittedly chilling.

My fear is that Lust, Caution’s brilliance will always be overshadowed by its excessive portrayal of uncomfortable sex. Well, if that’s the case, Lee has no one to blame but himself. Still, as a director, no one makes better looking films than Ang Lee. He’s certainly not afraid of controversy considering that he directed Brokeback Mountain a few years ago. Here’s hoping that the next time he pushes the envelope, he doesn’t push it completely off the side of a cliff. That’s sort of what he did here.

The 100 Greatest Films I've Ever Seen- September 2008

Note: Last month's position is in parentheses.

1. Ordinary People (1)
2. Citizen Kane (2)
3. Titanic (3)
4. Best Years of Our Lives (4)
5. Casablanca (5)
6. Schindler’s List (6)
7. Gone With the Wind (7)
8. Midnight Cowboy (8)
9. The Truman Show (9)
10. The Seventh Seal (10)
11. Brokeback Mountain (11)
12. Oliver! (12)
13. Sunset Boulevard (13)
14. Fargo (14)
15. Once (15)
16. Singin’ In the Rain (16)
17. Double Indemnity (17)
18. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (18)
19. Gandhi (19)
20. 8 ½ (20)
21. Life is Beautiful (21)
22. Beauty and the Beast (1946) (22)
23. The Bicycle Thief (23)
24. The Grapes of Wrath (24)
25. Raging Bull (25)
26. About a Boy (26)
27. Being John Malkovich (27)
28. Apocalypse Now (28)
29. The Godfather (29)
30. West Side Story (30)
31. Bonnie and Clyde (31)
32. Taxi Driver (32)
33. Rififi (33)
34. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (new)
    
35. Grave of the Fireflies (34)
36. The Graduate (35)
37. Rashomon (36)
38. Bridge on the River Kwai (37)
39. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (38)
40. North by Northwest (39)
41. The Departed (40)
42. The Maltese Falcon (41)
43. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (42)
44. The Wizard of Oz (43)
    
45. Dances with Wolves (44)
    
46. Star Wars: Episode IV: The New Hope (45)
47. Fanny and Alexander (46)
48. 2001: A Space Odyssey (47)
49. The Sound of Music (49)
50. Stagecoach (50)
51. They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (51)
    
52. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (52)
53. Brief Encounter (new)
    
54. The Deer Hunter (53)
55. The Shawshank Redemption (54)
56. Broken Blossoms (55)
57. All About Eve (56)
58. Pulp Fiction (57)
59. The Passion of the Christ (58)
60. Rocky (59)
61. Donnie Darko (60)
62. Nashville (61)
63. My Best Friend’s Wedding (62)
64. The Manchurian Candidate (63)
65. Treasure of the Sierra Madre (64)
    
66. Battleship Potemkin (65)
67. Yankee Doodle Dandy (66)
68. Hoop Dreams (67)
69. Terms of Endearment (68)
    
70. Spirited Away (69)
71. The Godfather Part II (70)
72. Jaws (71)
73. Shame (72)
74. Blowup (73)
75. City Lights (74)
76. High Noon (75)
77. Annie Hall (76)
78. Duck Soup (77)
79. The French Connection (78)
80. Born on the Fourth of July (79)
81. Rear Window (80)
82. Bride of Frankenstein (81)
83. Babel (82)
84. Rescue Dawn (new)
    
85. To Sir, with Love (83)
    
86. Victor/Victoria (84)
87. Shane (85)
88. The Prince of Egypt (86)
89. 12 Angry Men (87)
90. Simon Birch (88)
91. Harold and Maude (89)
    
92. No Country For Old Men (90)
93. Evita (91)
94. A Few Good Men (92)
95. Everyone Says I Love You (93)
96. Pleasantville (94)
97. Sullivan’s Travels (95)
98. Beauty and the Beast (1991) (96)
99. Forrest Gump (97)
100. Marty (98)

Three films fell off my list: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Dark Knight and The Thin Man. They got bumped by three new films this month: Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Brief Encounter and Rescue Dawn.