The Sting/ Memento

October 23, 2008

The Sting (1973) ****

Directed by George Roy Hill

Memento (2001) ****

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Why review these two iconic films together? Because there’s really not a whole that can be said about their plots without dampening both films’ entertainment values. I am going to review both films, but in doing so, I plan to avoid spoiling either films’ gimmicks. Both The Sting and Memento manipulate their audiences to the utmost extreme, and often I hate films that do so; however, I enjoyed both immensely. Films as well executed as these two earn our investment, so when the credits roll, we embrace the roller coaster ride we’ve just experienced.

On the other hand, I didn’t enjoy either film as much as I hoped I would. On imdb.com’s list of the top 250 films rated by website visitors, Memento sits in 28^th place right below Sunset Blvd. and above (gasp) Citizen Kane! A little less shocking is The Sting’s ranking at number 94 right below Full Metal Jacket and right above Touch of Evil, neither film I’ve seen but both films I look forward to checking out soon. People my age and younger have really championed Memento more than any other film except maybe Fight Club. The Sting is clearly one of the most beloved films of all time, taking the Oscar for Best Picture in 1974. It’s clear why audiences fell in love with The Sting three decades ago. Everyone involved seems like they had an absolute blast making the film, and their joy is undeniably infectious. Yet, the film deserves to be placed in the second tier of great films, not anywhere near films like Sunset Blvd. or Citizen Kane. I guess I was hoping for a movie that might place high on my list of the greatest films I’ve ever seen. The Sting falls way short of Pleasantville, which is the film that now occupies the number 100 spot on that list.

In one paragraph, I’m going to say what I can about both films’ plots. Memento: Guy Pierce plays Leonard, a man who suffers from a short-term memory disorder which prevents him from holding onto any recollections at all of persons or events that he experiences. He knows who he is and everything about himself from before a traumatic event—one which sets him off on a vengeful lifelong mission. He can meet people time after time and still not remember anything about them or even the fact that he’s met them at all. Therefore, to live his life and to forward his mission, he uses an ultra structured system of notes, Polaroid pictures and tattoos to provide him with all the information he needs to get himself on track once he reverts back to complete ignorance over and over again. The Sting: Robert Redford plays Johnny Hooker, a two-bit con artist who decides to seek out a big time crook named Henry Gondorff, played spectacularly by the late Paul Newman, in order to steal millions from a ruthless Chicago crime boss named Doyle Lonnegan, played by Jaws’ Robert Shaw who dons the most pathetic Irish accent I’ve ever heard—note: I’ve never seen Tom Cruise in Far and Away so Shaw may have some competition for that title someday. Eventually, Johnny’s loyalties are stretched thin as the caper unfolds, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

I left out Memento’s main gimmick. The film narrative unfolds backward in time. Clever, huh? Well, I personally wasn’t blown away by this supposedly innovative way of telling a story. Though I can’t think of any particular examples from before Memento’s release in 2001, I can say that this narrative trick feels like it belongs on a weekly television crime procedural such as CSI or Without a Trace. There’s an episode of CSI that involves four dead bodies in a morgue that sit up and talk to each other, unraveling details about a crime which resulted in all four deaths. It’s not until the end when we learn which of the four murdered the other three. The talking corpses weren’t meant to be taken literally, but I personally found the whole thing a bit too whimsical for its own good. Not every episode of the show is so far out there—it’s only an occasional thing. The shtick in Memento to move backwards in chronology would feel right at home on CSI as one of these special episodes.

When I was a little kid, and even now to an extent, I sometimes brainstorm what I think might be cool, clever movie ideas that supposedly haven’t been done before. For example, I think it would be awesome for a movie to have someone find a time machine and use it to warn the government about 9/11 in order to prevent it from happening. Of course, if you think realistically about this mission, wouldn’t the government have to conclude that the man himself must have ties to terrorists if he knows about a plot to attack America? Therefore, he’d have to choose whether or not he was willing to go to jail for the rest of his life in order to prevent the tragedies that occurred that day.

Cool idea, huh? No? Well, either way, my mind sometimes wanders, and I’m sure that at some point before I was 20 in 2001, I brainstormed the idea that it would be great if a film could play out in reverse. I believe that it’s possible for a creative seven year old to come up with this gimmick on his own, and as such, I’m not all that impressed with Christopher Nolan’s so-called innovative narrative structure.

I am, however, awed by Memento’s execution. Much of the film’s success ought to be credited to Guy Pierce, an actor I really like mostly because he’s always refreshingly understated in the roles I’ve seen. He’s in just about every moment of Memento, and though the film is all about him, you never once feel like Pierce had visions of Oscar in his sight as he performed his part. The same is true about his work in L.A. Confidential. He’s in more scenes than Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe and Kim Basinger, and yet, he seemingly reigns in his performance in order to let those three really shine. As such, there’s not one scene in the entire film where you feel like there’s any competition from Pierce to steal the glory for himself. In Memento and L.A. Confidential, his humility adds a layer of success.

Redford received his only acting Oscar nomination for The Sting, and as good as he is, Paul Newman steals the entire film in my opinion. Remarkably, Newman’s performance in The Sting was not one of the seven acting nominations he received in his lifetime, which says quite a bit about the quality of his acting throughout his career. After watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Absence of Malice, Cool Hand Luke, Torn Curtain, Hud and most recently most of Sweet Bird of Youth, all films where Newman’s characters are deeply flawed and struggling with hardships, it was great to watch Newman play a character that spends the entire movie simply having fun. The supporting players in The Sting, especially Eileen Brennan and Harold Gould, help make it the good time that it is.

I saw the ending to both films coming from a mile away, and I wish I could elaborate more on why, but I don’t want to ruin either film by doing so. All I will say is that any film that doesn’t follow conventional rules can’t be trusted, and as such, I’m always questioning character motivation. Unlike a film like The Sixth Sense, which surprises us because it seems like any old ghost story until its conclusion, The Sting and Memento let us know early on that twists and turns are possible because of both films’ ambitions to wow their audiences. When I know that there’s a good chance that a movie is going to try and wow me, I’m usually never wowed. It’s like a balloon popping. If I know it’s going to happen, I might not be as startled as I would be had I not known that there were any balloons in the room at all. Still, The Sting and Memento, while not ultimately impressive in their cleverness, absolutely deliver great characters in satisfying crime stories where nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can be trusted.

(Label Note: EW Top 100 of the Last 25 Years (Memento), Best Picture Oscar Nominee (The Sting))

Requiem for a Dream

October 17, 2008

Requiem for a Dream (2000) ***1/2

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

Perhaps Aronofsky’s new name ought to be Mr. Happy Fun Guy! Requiem for a Dream is one of the bleakest, most grim films I’ve ever seen. It’s also one of the most provocative and unforgettable as well.

Requiem for a Dream tells four intermingled stories of addiction spiraling completely out of control. Ellen Burstyn, never afraid to take a role in a controversial film, plays Sara Goldfarb, a lonely, troubled New York widow whose son Harry (Jared Leto) steals and pawns her belongings in order to feed his growing heroin habit. Harry’s best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) naively agrees to go along with Harry’s scheme to dilute heroin in order to sell it on the streets to make money. Harry’s girlfriend, a talented designer named Marion, played by Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), seems like she has the most to lose, coming from an apparently upper class family who refuses to take her phone calls anymore.

Harry cares deeply for Marion, though their relationship can only last as long as both parties retain even the slightest potential to handle responsibility. As heroin breaks both of them down, Harry’s desire to protect Marion profoundly fails when faced with his symptoms of withdrawal once they run out of money and can’t buy another fix. Harry ends up begging Marion to do things with a man that she wouldn’t dream of doing sober. This sadly gives her a new way to get a fix which has the potential to destroy her completely. It’s clear that Harry’s not a bad guy deep down—he’s just been ravaged by a powerful disease, which is what addiction is.

It’s not just Marion that’s putting her body through unspeakable hell. Harry’s arm becomes more and more infected. The hardest moment to watch in the film graphically shows Harry sticking a needle into his brutally tainted vein. While Harry and Tyrone are on their way to Florida to follow through on a scheme to make money and score more drugs, Tyrone sees Harry’s arm and demands that they go to a hospital. It’s here that both are intercepted by the police in a Southern state that seemingly doesn’t like the color of Tyrone’s skin all that much. Harry’s removed from jail in order to receive the only medical procedure possible to save his life. Tyrone stays behind.

Sara, meanwhile, begins her own parallel self-destructive journey when she receives a phone call saying that she’s already won the opportunity to appear on a game show. She’s thrilled, and thus, she sets a goal to lose weight once she learns that she no longer fits into her one fancy red dress. At first, she uses her will power in attempting extreme fad dieting plans, and when that doesn’t work, she starts relying on strong diet pills, also known as “uppers,” prescribed by a doctor who doesn’t even talk to patients before pulling out his prescription pad.

She quickly becomes addicted, and once the high loses its effect, she begins to abuse the pills. This causes her to experience graphic hallucinations, the subjects of which are bizarre and extreme. Who knew that a refrigerator might try to turn the tables and attack its owner in hunger? Ultimately, Sara’s mental state completely loses touch with reality as she runs up and down the streets in her now-tattered red dress screaming nonsense at people as she futilely searches for that television show which she believes will make her dead husband and her heroin-addicted son so proud of her.

Throughout Requiem for a Dream’s multiple portraits of narcotic influenced self-annihilation, there is a dark humor that adds an accessibility which makes the film even slightly palatable, and dare I say, enjoyable. Aronofsky brilliantly uses quick edits and rapid imagery when characters either get high, experience a high, or come down from a high which successfully provides the audience with the sad reality that the lives of these characters are progressing rapidly out of control. Trainspotting, which I do believe Requiem for a Dream steals from to an extent in its execution, attempts to show the immense pleasure and nasty pain that one goes through when first getting high and then coming down from a heroin fix. Requiem instead demonstrates how quickly the disease of addiction can deeply grab hold of an individual turning him or her into a pathetic junkie. While watching Requiem for a Dream, you will laugh at times, but what you will take away is a deep sense of horror which overshadows everything.

As such, I feel compelled to ask, “What’s the point of this movie?” If it’s a cautionary tale against drug abuse, then I applaud its intentions. Yet, though I’m not a heroin junkie, the experience that these characters go through doesn’t ultimately feel genuine. With a scene as memorable as the one with the refrigerator, a potential drug user may see it as pure fantasy, because that’s exactly what it comes off as. Therefore, I think the horror that most viewers experience while watching the film will be kept at an emotional distance. As such, I don’t believe it succeeds as a cautionary tale.

There are other over the top moments, such as a shootout in the back of a grocery store and a party involving a sex act which is so heinous that it most likely single handedly merited the film its NC-17 rating, which I think hurts Requiem for a Dream’s credibility as an accurate glimpse into the dangers of narcotic abuse. As such, this isn’t an important message movie at all. Therefore, I don’t believe this is a “must see” for anyone thinking about using drugs. After watching Requiem for a Dream, I think viewers who would have used drugs before watching will still use drugs. They simply may avoid doing so in their kitchen.

Requiem for a Dream deserves to be judged simply as a film, and as such, it’s kind of sadistic. Therefore, it’s not for everyone. Also, the film is poorly written, containing scenes of dialogue that sound painfully amateurish. Aronofsky should have stayed far away from dialogue writing.

Yet, as a lover of great direction in film, I found Requiem extremely valuable. Aronofsky is a one of a kind talent behind the camera, and as such, I look forward to checking out his film The Wrestler which comes out before the end of 2008.

Burstyn deserved to win the Oscar over Julia Roberts in 2001, and Jennifer Connelly has proven herself to be one of the most interesting and talented actresses working today. Unfortunately, Marlon Wayans and especially Jared Leto are second rate talents who aren’t up to the task of their complicated roles. Leto’s New York accent was truly awful. At one point, he says the word “after” with a soft “a” sound when in reality a New York accent is all about hard, shrill vowels. Leto has model-esque good looks, but I’m not convinced that he has the acting chops to match. He’s in one important scene with Burstyn where she totally acts him under the table. It was sad to watch someone so completely out of his league.

The final image of the film involves two characters embracing which sadly feels totally inauthentic. There’s no real connection established between these two beyond the obvious one, and as such, their reunion at the end, even in its delusional reality, felt emotionally empty. I’d have preferred Sara’s story to be totally autonomous to the other three.

Requiem fails in more ways than one. Yet, I can’t think of too many films with better cinematography and editing. I think I can truthfully say that I’ve never seen a movie use sound effects more successfully, and Ellen Burstyn’s performance is one for the history books. She’s absolutely amazing! Aronofsky put me through an ordeal as I watched Requiem for a Dream, but with as talented a director as he is, I’m ultimately okay with it.