Torn Curtain

September 30, 2008

Torn Curtain (1966) ***1/2

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

No one handles convoluted plots better than Hitchcock. Torn Curtain is a perfect example of this. I really can’t think of any other film that had me completely clueless about what was going to happen next. The progression of the film’s narrative is so completely all over the place that I couldn’t even contemplate how the movie was going to end. After watching the film’s conclusion, I realized that it would have been impossible for anyone to guess the ending well before it came. Torn Curtain takes what could have been five or six complete films and squishes them down into a single two hour and seven minute thriller. I’ll grant that this isn’t one of Hitchcock’s best films. I’ll also grant that this isn’t one of Paul Newman’s or Julie Andrews’ best films. That being said, I had a great time watching this somewhat confused movie. Actually, I loved it. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been watching so many films from 2007 lately that I needed to watch a great Hitchcock joint in order to satisfy my longing for his entertaining films. Torn Curtain is the tenth Hitchcock film I’ve seen, and I’m happy to say that it’s another one I’ve really enjoyed. All ten are films that I have a lot of affection for, and I’m sure I will visit every single one over and over again.

You might want to take a caffeine pill, because I’m about to describe Torn Curtain’s storyline. You’re going to need quite a bit of energy to follow along. Well, it starts off on a cruise ship whose heating system doesn’t work. The first time we see physicist professor Michael Armstrong (Newman), he’s in bed clutching his fiancée/assistant Sarah Sherman (Andrews) for warmth. At first, the film focuses on Sarah’s suspicions of Michael’s deceptions and secrets. Before they arrive in Copenhagen, Michael receives a book which tells him who to meet in communist East Germany, behind the Iron Curtain. Michael tells Sarah to stay behind which would result in their separation for many months. Partly curious about his motives and partly worried for his safety, Sarah sneaks onto his plane and much to Michael’s irritation, she joins him in East Germany. She’s convinced that he’s a traitor to his own government.

At first, Michael treats her very coldly, obviously placing as much distance as possible between Sarah and himself. Michael ends up sneaking away to a farm in the country, followed by a bodyguard for the East German government. Once he’s there, Michael learns about the underground resistance movement against communism to which his true loyalties belong. Unfortunately, he’s required to brutally kill the bodyguard in self-defense.

We the audience now understand that Michael is attempting to deceive the communist government in order to acquire a successful mathematical formula from an eccentric communist professor which would allow America to build a nuclear missile shield. He initially decides to keep this secret from Sarah because he doesn’t want her to knowingly or unknowingly give away his motives. Eventually, he’s forced to let her in on the scheme since she is to be questioned regarding the death of the bodyguard.

This leads to the film’s tense final act which requires Sarah and Michael to try and escape from East Germany with the missile shield’s formula before they are arrested as spies. At first, the underground resistance movement helps them out by using their bus to take them as far as possible. Then, they meet Countess Kuchinska, played spectacularly by Lila Kerdova, who promises to help them find a man at a post office in exchange for their sponsorship of her visa to America. The man at the post office tells them to attend a play that night, and afterwards, they can stow away in the costume cargo out of the country. Things hit a huge snag when the East German police show up and spot them in the audience. Do they get caught? Watch the movie and find out.

Since I’ve already mentioned the plot’s scatterbrained nature, I won’t harp on the film’s faults (like the ridiculous scene on the bus mentioned above for example) except to say that I felt both Newman and Andrews were completely wasted in this movie. For at least half of the time both are on screen, they simply sit in silence looking worried. Julie Andrews especially says relatively little when you think about how often she is on screen. Perhaps a Hitchcock staple actress of a lesser quality would have been more suited for the role, like say Tippi Hedrin, Janet Leigh or Eva Marie Saint. Newman has his moments to shine, especially during the film’s most violent scene which results in the bodyguard’s head being cooked in an oven. Unfortunately, his moments to shine are too infrequent.

The best scenes in the film take place when Countess Kuchinska appears onscreen. Kerdova is so wonderful in her performance that her character’s tragic departure from the film left me feeling sad. As escapist entertainment, Torn Curtain works great. For any lover of Hitchcock, or Julie Andrews, or Paul Newman, this film is a must see. Just leave the organized, logical side of your brain in another room while you watch.

Paranoid Park

September 29, 2008

Paranoid Park (2008) *****

Directed by Gus Van Sant

I’ve talked before in my reviews about my reservations regarding violence in movies. Since I was young, I’ve always been deathly afraid of being deathly afraid. My fear is that some image or action in a film might be so disturbing that I may be psychologically scarred by it. Therefore, when I begin to watch a movie that I know is going to have significant violence, I’m in total suspense from the beginning. I don’t know if my experience is different from everyone else’s but when I’m in suspense, it’s really unpleasant. Actually, it almost physically hurts.

Recently I have been watching every movie I wanted to see from 2007 that I haven’t seen yet. Many of these films like 300, Eastern Promises and Death Proof contain pretty severe bloodshed and gore. Because I’ve faced my fears watching these films and because I emerged from them psychologically unaffected, I’m now placing films on my radar screen that I never would have considered before a few months ago.

All this leads up to talking about the single most disturbing image I’ve ever seen in film. It comes from 2001’s In the Bedroom starring Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson. I won’t give away what happens in the plot during this disturbing moment since it’s a surprise twist which changes the direction of the entire film. I’ll still describe the image though.

The camera is extremely close up beginning with a character’s feet. Then it pans up his body in an unbroken shot. When his face begins to emerge, we see (extremely close up) that more than half his face is literally blown away. If I’m remembering correctly, his eyeball has been eviscerated as well. That’s how gruesome that image is, and worst of all, I wasn’t expecting it. If I know when to prepare myself for something gory or gruesome, I can usually relax because then I won’t be shocked by an unexpected image of horror. In the Bedroom didn’t prepare me, and as such, I was so disturbed while watching that I still think about this image more often than any other I’ve ever seen in a movie.

What does this have to do with Paranoid Park you may ask? On imdb.com’s In the Bedroom message board, I posted a topic mentioning that the image described above was the most disturbing I’ve ever seen. Someone replied by saying that there’s an image in Paranoid Park that’s even worse. When Chazz suggested Paranoid Park as one of the films he’d like me to review, I thought to myself, “Great! Now I will have a new image in my head haunting me for the next seven years!” Still, though, I wanted to watch the film considering that it will probably appear on many ten best lists at the end of the year. So this past evening, I sucked it up and began watching the movie. The suspense up until the disturbing image in Paranoid Park was especially uncomfortable.

Then the image appears on screen. All I’ve got to say is that whoever replied to my post couldn’t have been more wrong. The image in Paranoid Park, which is gruesome and which I won’t give away, is nowhere near as disturbing as the one from In the Bedroom. The thing that made In the Bedroom’s image so disturbing was the fact that it was shot in extreme close-up and contained unexpected mutilation. The image in Paranoid Park is shot at night, from far away, and it is set up well enough that I was expecting something sick to appear on screen. As such, I wasn’t too disturbed. That individual from imdb.com almost single handedly prevented me from watching this movie. Therefore, I’m infinitely grateful to Chazz for nudging me towards watching Paranoid Park. This film is the best film from 2008 I’ve seen at this point, and it’s also the newest entry on my list of the 100 Greatest Films I’ve Ever Seen!

In one sense, Paranoid Park is an unfolding mystery where we are given blurred details concerning a situation which is later fully revealed. Because of this, I am going to be vague regarding its plot. The movie centers around a sixteen year old skateboarder named Alex, played spectacularly by newcomer Gabe Nevins. People will probably disagree because of Nevins’ unrefined acting and understated performance, but I believe he’s worthy of Oscar consideration—he’s that good! Without realizing it, Alex has trained himself to become emotionally numb due to the pain he’s feeling regarding his parents’ impending divorce. Therefore, he and his friends escape from their harsh realities into the world of skateboarding.

He begins the film writing what seems like an essay titled Paranoid Park, referring to a seedy skateboard park on Portland’s East Side. At first it seems like Alex had a pretty normal evening, but after being questioned by a police detective about a murder near the park and after seeing photos of the dead body, Alex begins to write all over again two different times. Each new draft presents new pieces to the puzzle as Alex processes what happens until everything is made clear. Then the film concludes with Alex dealing with this situation, and through the heightened emotional state he’s in because of what happened, he’s finally able to confront other parts of his life which he hadn’t adequately dealt with before.

The entire film is shot like a low budget documentary and all of the performances are presented in a neo-realistic way similar to Truffaut’s The 400 Blows, another film about an apathetic teenager coping with life’s difficulties. At two different points in the movie, Alex’s mind wanders which allows the film to show a real life montage showing actual skateboarders performing tricks. The way Van Sant’s direction and screenplay present these scenes help us see Alex’s escape from reality which skateboarding provides.

There are blatantly poetic and surrealistic touches that play without an ounce of pretension. At times, Alex begins to see things and do things in slow motion. At one point, we hear Alex’s voice triplicated and overlapping showing us Alex’s confusion and panic. Also, Van Sant keeps us guessing before things are revealed. For example, I mentioned above that he’s seemingly writing an essay presumably for school. Later on, he mentions that his girlfriend is a virgin who has made it clear that she wants to have sex with him. At that point, I stopped believing that he was doing an assignment. Yet, what he’s writing and why is wisely withheld until the end which kept me guessing.

There are individual scenes that are refreshingly smart and surprisingly authentic in tone. One clear example involves a police detective questioning a group of skateboarding teenagers at their school. These kids make disrespectful jokes in just the right way. They’re testing the limits of what they can get away with this new authority figure. The detective is obviously intimidated by these wiseass kids, which I thought was brilliant. As a high school teacher, I can tell you that a group of teenagers can be extremely intimidating at times. Also, I know for a fact that teens are always testing authority figures in order to illicit a reaction. You’ve got to know how to deal with kids that age, and clearly a police detective doesn’t have the experience or the skills necessary to earn these teenagers’ respect. I’ve never seen a movie capture this idea so authentically.

Another great scene takes place between Alex and his girlfriend Jennifer, played by the only main actor with any previous acting experience, Taylor Momson. Momson played Cindy Lou Who in How the Grinch Stole Christmas and is presently a regular on Gossip Girls on the CW network. I won’t give away the topic of their conversation, but I will applaud the fact that Van Sant executed this scene with no sound. Instead, we see an uninterrupted inaudible shot of Jennifer reacting to what’s being said. Momson absolutely nails her performance in this scene. It’s one of the most satisfying touches I’ve seen in a movie in quite a while.

A final brilliant scene is clearly open for a lot of interpretation. It involves Alex’s thirteen year old brother excitedly describing to him what happens in a scene from the movie Napoleon Dynamite. We learn early on that his brother sometimes gets so upset because of the divorce that he throws up his dinner. I love how this scene reemphasizes Alex’s family problems by showing that his brother is also escaping from the harsh realities of their family situation. Also, because we transfer Alex’s brother’s pain back to Alex, we come to understand that Alex’s new problems are added to serious existing issues. You really feel for this truly descent kid.

Paranoid Park also contains an eclectic soundtrack including songs from all different genres, such as death metal, hip hop, classical, opera and folk music. Each song gets at the core of what Alex is thinking and feeling at that moment. As satisfying as the murder mystery is, I think Paranoid Park excels even more as a brilliant character study. Van Sant refreshingly shows us a fully realized fictional character simply existing in this unimaginably horrific situation rather than telling us what to think and feel. It’s wonderful to have a filmmaker totally respect his audience the way Van Sant does in this movie.

I’ve always believed that skateboarding is a wonderful thing for teenagers to get involved in. Most of the kids that I teach that also skateboard aren’t the sort that would feel at home playing sports or performing on stage. Therefore, they find their niche through this impressive activity. Not to be stereotypical, but I believe many skateboarders are the sort that tend towards breaking the law, so while they are skateboarding, at least they’re not causing trouble. It’s precisely when Alex isn’t skateboarding that he causes mischief resulting in profound tragedy. Paranoid Park paints a glorious portrait of the world of skateboarding through the fully realized character of Alex and the emotional obstacles he must skate past.

American Gangster

September 28, 2008

American Gangster (2007) ****

Directed by Ridley Scott

Do Ridley Scott and screenwriter Steven Zaillian go too far by choosing to arguably idolize New York drug kingpin Frank Lucas, played flamboyantly by Denzel Washington? Perhaps the better question ought to be—does this movie go far enough into presenting Lucas as the monster that he truly is? Without question, American Gangster is a spectacularly well made film, and it includes an exceptional performance from Russell Crowe as struggling Detective Richie Roberts. Ruby Dee, playing Lucas’ Mama, received an Oscar nomination for her performance which lasts all of fifteen minutes out of the film’s two hour and forty minute running time. Her one memorable scene absolutely lives up to the hype, and as such, I believe her Oscar nomination is completely earned. Despite its successes, I’m still brought back to that original question—is American Gangster irresponsible?

I’ve heard this film compared to another that I haven’t seen yet—Brian De Palma’s Scarface starring Al Pacino. That film has become legendary in hip hop circles because of its flashy glorification of a gangster lifestyle. There’s an irreverent celebration of lawlessness that one can take away from American Gangster similar to Scarface. It’s interesting for me to write this review after watching Trainspotting, a much more unflinching examination of the effects of drug abuse. Frank Lucas ruined many lives, and I don’t care if he has the potential to be an inspiration as an unlikely successful black man. The guy’s crimes are truly unforgivable, and I think Steven Zaillian ought to have emphasized the man’s evil actions more directly.

Two parallel stories are given pretty much equal screen time. The first is the story of Frank Lucas who was once the driver and bodyguard of the biggest drug kingpin in Harlem named Bumpy Johnson. After Bumpy’s death, Lucas makes it his mission to continue the success started by his mentor. Clearly Lucas has the brains, the guts and the thirst for power necessary to thrive as a heroin drug lord. His plan is ingenious—smuggle in the purest heroin in the world from Vietnam and sell it on the streets cheaper than what other dealers with a lesser product are demanding. He quickly becomes very rich and very powerful.

He also acquires many enemies which makes him become increasingly paranoid to the point where he’s willing to kill one of his enemies in broad daylight on a crowded street. Another he kills by smashing his head in with a piano cover. We see Lucas begin to unspool and considering what he’s capable of, that’s not a good thing for sure.

The other story involves Detective Richie Roberts, a man who’s lousy in his personal life but is honest and talented as a narcotics cop. He’s also putting himself through law school at night. He severely neglects his responsibilities as a father and an ex-husband in order to focus on bringing down the most powerful drug lord who he learns is none other than Frank Lucas.

Roberts is asked by the District Attorney of Essex County, New Jersey to head a special investigations unit because he’s one of the only honest guys in a district filled with crooked cops. He’s able to bring in his own guys, many of whom seem like they would have problems dressing themselves in the morning let alone capturing bad guys.

Roberts and his men dedicate all their effort towards getting enough information to bring down Lucas and his brothers who all work for him. Eventually, Roberts figures out where Lucas’ heroin is coming from, and in trying to figure out how it’s smuggled into the United States, he’s forced to open the coffins of dead American soldiers in order to implicate Lucas. This leads to a final shootout that’s extremely tense and wonderfully executed.

The film ends with Lucas and Roberts face to face. This scene is extremely satisfying considering that we’ve spent the entire movie watching two great actors in Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe apart from each other. Now we get to see the sparks fly between the two of them. Crowe especially does an excellent job during this scene, which is the film’s best by far. American Gangster concludes by showing and then telling us exactly what happened to both Lucas and Roberts after the on screen events transpire. All I’ve got to say is that I’m glad this is all based on a real life story because the relationship between Lucas and Roberts after Lucas is caught is so far fetched that I never would have believed it otherwise. Real life can often be harder to swallow than the movies, that’s for sure.

Ridley Scott’s direction is quite effective, giving this film an epic feel which matches its long running time. I’ll admit that two hours and forty five minutes went by very fast while watching this movie. However, I had a problem with some of the supporting players including Ruby Dee’s Mama, Cuba Gooding Jr.’s Nicky Barnes and Lucas’ baseball playing nephew, all of whom had scenes that seemed to set up tangential storylines which never materialize. Also, I felt that the film’s portrayal of crooked cops went a little too far. Yes, it’s tragic that nearly fifty percent of the police in that district were convicted of being crooked, but the film cynically seems to raise that percentage much closer to one hundred.

If you decide to watch American Gangster, you will see great acting, great directing and overall a great thriller. What you won’t see though is a final judgment of Frank Lucas as a parasite laying waste to society. I strongly believe that it’s irresponsible to glorify individuals like Frank Lucas who would be better off never having lived at all. Even with a few cinematic flaws in the film itself, it is this movie’s failure to condemn Lucas as irredeemable that ultimately keeps American Gangster from being called a masterpiece.