In the Loop

July 25, 2009

In the Loop (2009) ****

Directed by Armando Iannucci

If these are the people behind the decision to go war, then the world doesn't stand a chance! In the Loop is a broad comedy, but there's something truly horrifying at its core. Though never mentioned explicitly, the screenwriters clearly comment on the Iraq War, and the lack of communication between intelligence organizations, as well as post-9/11 public outcry, led the United States into a war we arguably never should have been in the first place. In the Loop is about bumbling idiots--in reality, those who convinced themselves and the American people that war in Iraq was necessary may not have been bumbling. That's the only difference between reality and fiction in that matter.

Yet, this isn't a preachy film; instead, Iannucci brings us an Office-like satire on the weaknesses of bureaucracy which contain some of the biggest laughs I've had in any film so far this year. Not one character is ultimately likable, and yet, very few are two-dimensional villains. With the exception of James Gandolfini, all of the British and American actors really deliver the laughs so well that I wouldn't be surprised if quite a number of those in its relatively unknown cast become big stars someday.

The stakes are laid out when British Cabinet Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) mistakenly makes a comment in an interview claiming that war is inevitable. This leads to a sequence of events trying to fix the effects of the snowballing snafu which ensues. Meanwhile, the American State Department tries to secretly form a war committee by creating it under a different name, but a romance between a young British staffer and a young American staffer causes the story to be leaked along with a research memo laying out all the reasons why war is not the best option. Eventually, representatives from both countries end up at the United Nations in order to vote to begin the war. With all the press leaks, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), the Prime Minister's foul-mouthed Director of Communications, must throw people under the bus in order to keep the Prime Minister's desire to go to war pristine.

When it really comes down to it, public opinion ought to have nothing to do with whether or not a country declares war. National security and human interest are the only things that must be truthfully examined. War is an awful prospect, and it should be avoided if at all possible. Yet, all of this wisdom gets thrown out the window completely in In the Loop. Everything serves at the mercy of garnering public support to go to war. One must wonder whether art imitates life.

The documentary-like, handheld camera work doesn't draw attention to itself; on the other hand, it doesn't add much to the effect of the plot either. That being said, director Armando Iannucci ought to be lauded for the performances he extracts from the talented cast. It is also nice to see My Girl's Anna Chlumsky back on screen again as the American staffer who wrote the infamous memo mentioned above.

The real stand out performance belongs to Peter Capaldi. Few characters are more profane than Malcolm Tucker, and he's not afraid to verbally pummel people to the ground; however, one can't help but smile every time Capaldi appears on screen. He plays angry just right, giving his character some real depth while uttering lines that are among the film's biggest laughs. Hopefully, he won't be forgotten during awards season.

Unfortunately, James Gandolfini plays an unnecessary character with no depth whatsoever. His Lieutenant General George Miller isn't just unlikable; he's a sociopathic monster, and Gandolfini doesn't help any by yelling some of his lines at the top of his lungs. Further, within a cast that's relatively unknown, his fame proves distracting--every time he appeared on screen, I kept saying to myself, "Look, it's James Gandolfini from the Sopranos." He's outacted by newcomers and unknowns--it's kind of sad!

Filmspotting's Matty Robinson had two problems with In the Loop which I completely agree with. First, the whole thing sort of feels like the pilot for a television series, and perhaps it might work better in that medium. He's absolutely correct in the fact that these characters could come back week after week with completely new international issues which they will no doubt botch. Second, the stakes aren't high enough for the audience to really invest in the conflict itself. By the end, it's hard not to look back and wonder what all the suffering these characters endure is ultimately for. Had the characters made different choices and the decision about the war went in the other direction, would it really have made a difference within the world of the film? Granted, in reality, if the decision to go to war in Iraq had gone the other way, then that would have been truly significant; however, the fictional war within In the Loop doesn't prove to be all that compelling in allowing us to invest in the outcome of the U.N. Council's vote.

Overall, films don't come along very often which are as intelligent, funny and biting as In the Loop. Think of it as The Office meets The West Wing meets a bunch of truckers talking in a bar. In the Loop might just be remembered as one of the few valuable films made about the Iraq War.

(500) Days of Summer

July 24, 2009

(500) Days of Summer (2009) ****1/2

Directed by Marc Webb

Most romantic comedies attempt to hint at the truths of falling in love, and most fail. Why? Because too often there's a push and pull between authentic emotion and narrative progress which muddles the final product. It's important for guy and girl to get together in the end; therefore, filmmakers manipulate the situation to pander to what they think audiences want to see. Pandering never effectively comments on reality--never. (500) Days of Summer's screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber and director Marc Webb throw out (just about) all rom-com conventions and cliches in order to present a film that's truly original in a disrespected, tired genre.

A high number of pipes connect in order to hold everything together. Most fit easily, but a few do not, making the final product slightly disjointed. That being said, one can't help but applaud the risks that are taken by including whimsical sequences which rarely draw too much attention to themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if, after watching, a person initially forgets that he or she just witnessed a dance sequence, a split screen between expectation and reality, an inconsistent narrator and a non-linear narrative structure which relies heavily on flashbacks and flashforwards. Webb and the screenwriters provide a narrative that flows organically out of itself, and as such, the unconventional elements feel appropriate yet original.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays everyman Tom Hansen, a well-adjusted, stuck-in-the-mud greeting card writer who studied architecture in college. He immediately falls in love with Summer Finn, the girl who turns heads everywhere she goes. Played by spritely Zooey Deschanel, Summer believes love is a myth, while Tom holds onto the belief that his one and only soulmate is somewhere out there. They connect in every way except for the fact that Summer doesn't want anything serious, while Tom can't accept ever giving up someone he cares so much about. The film showcases 500 days, starting with the first moment they encounter each other. The two of them aren't romantically involved the whole time--they don't get together on day one and somewhere in the middle, they break up, only to encounter each other again at a wedding, which leads to a party where Tom hopes they will get back together. By day 500, things take a permanent shift, though whether or not they end up in each other's arms is up to you to discover for yourself when you see this achingly charming movie.

I really like Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He's an actor who's not afraid to take risks, which is all too apparent when watching him in Mysterious Skin. With 2007's The Lookout and 2005's Brick, Levitt has proven that he can carry a movie on his shoulders, though I think he has a little bit more to learn in order to become the next Sean Penn or the next Tom Hanks. That may sound like a harsh criticism, but I think it's actually the opposite. When Levitt is good, especially in (500) Days of Summer, he's absolutely fantastic, and as such, he potentially could be the next Penn or Hanks. Unfortunately, like Leo DiCaprio, Levitt doesn't quite know how to underplay a scene effectively. When called upon to deliver the histrionics, both Levitt and DiCaprio are almost unrivaled in their effectiveness. When called up to play straightforward and ordinary, they both seem to play their erroneous ideas of what straightforward and ordinary ought to be. Still, I reiterate that I really like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I can't help but connect with just about any character he plays, especially Tom Hansen. You can't help but wish him to end up happy.

Deschanel, on the other hand, is the real deal at this very moment. In my opinion, she's worthy of an Oscar nomination for her brilliant performance as Summer, and more than anything, I admire the fact that she's more than willing to make her character pretty unlikable. Because of her deep-seated issues, she proceeds to play around with Tom's emotions, which frustrates him, and because of our empathy for him, it also frustrates us. Yet, at the beginning of the 500 days, it's obvious why Tom would fall for Summer. Deschanel herself has presence a mile wide and a mile deep, and she does things with her face and her line delivery which makes Summer infinitely more interesting than she would have been simply on the page. Even during the film's final moments, when Summer makes a total transformation which I personally found inauthentic, Deschanel completely commits, giving Summer another layer which comes off believable even if the situation itself isn't. (500) Days of Summer has made me a real fan of her!

With charming supporting performances by Geoffrey Arend and Matthey Gray Gubler as Tom's childhood friends, Chloe Moretz as Tom's wise-for-her-years younger sister and the great Clark Gregg as Tom's boss Vance, (500) Days of Summer is an excellent, quirky, mumblecore romantic comedy in the same vein as Juno, though it's not simply trying to be a ripoff, despite the fact that the title graphics are drawn by the same person/people that drew Juno, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and Away We Go. Can we please retire this style of graphics? Because of the risks its takes, (500) Days of Summer could have been a total train wreck; instead, it's one of the best films of the year so far.

The Hangover

July 22, 2009

The Hangover (2009) **1/2

Directed by Todd Phillips

The premise is brilliant--four guys go to Vegas for a bachelor party and wake up the next morning hungover remembering nothing about what transpired. They start with the last thing they remember which leads them to a clue which leads to another and another and so on. Screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore pretty much have free reign to add in anything they think would be funny and inspired. On the other hand, because of the inherent flexibility of the plot, the choices they make ought to be absolutely hilarious! Everything should work because, at the conceptual stage, anything unfunny could easily have been discarded.

The Hangover, one of the biggest sleeper hits in film history, now standing as the highest grossing R rated comedy, contains one of the most consistently hysterical first forty-five minutes I've seen. The four men are cleverly introduced, giving us all the information we need to know very quickly which later becomes key to understanding character motivations during their investigation. The three main actors in the film now sit on the precipice of superstardom because of The Hangover's success. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis have gone from B-list talents to having the world of comedy cinema at their feet. Massive stardom is theirs to win or lose.

-

Cooper has the looks and charisma of a leading man, but of the three, his performance did the least for me. His character, named Phil, is a cool-guy schoolteacher who is supposed to be the glue that holds all of the zany pieces of The Hangover together. Don't get me wrong, I think Cooper as Phil is just fine, but personally, I found myself more impressed by Ed Helms' Stu, a good-natured dentist. Though Stu has moments where he almost loses his cool completely, Helms never once goes over the top, making me root for him, and in turn, making me root for all three. This affection proves ironic considering how irritating, albeit hilarious, his character of Andy is on The Office. Helms proves to be a solid actor who deserves the spotlight as much as Bradley Cooper, if not more.

Galifianakis' Alan is the brother of the bride, and as such, he's the outsider considering the fact that he's not lifelong friends with the other three. Alan is pretty damn weird, and Galifianakis nails just about every uncomfortably kooky utterance. Though he straddles the line between funny and annoying, he never fully crosses it, and refreshingly, there are moments of vulnerability in Galifianakis' performance which go to show that he isn't simply making fun of his character. We laugh at Alan, but we also like the fact that he's around, even if he can't be within 100 feet of a school or a Chuckie Cheese.

Huge laugh out loud moments come a mile a minute up until a moment in a police station with two sadistic cops. I stopped laughing completely when the male cop screamed one of his lines at the top of his lungs. Up to then, even though the happenings on screen are totally over the top, the characters stay believable, never going too far to try and milk an obvious laugh when it isn't deserved. Someone yelling at the top of his lungs isn't funny... and no cop would ever talk that way in real life. The female cop, on the other hand, doesn't resort to screaming, and as such, her lines, though just as crazy as his, come off much funnier and much more believable. Sadly, what follows is a stupid scene involving a taser which may sound amusing in theory but just lays there dead on screen.

A brief encounter with Mike Tyson proves moderately interesting, but what comes right after is the single worst aspect of The Hangover--Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow. What a total misfire from the screenwriters, the director and Jeong himself regarding Chow's characterization! His scenes of Love Guru type humor have no place whatsoever in a comedy that keeps its ridiculousness grounded in reality. Sure, a theater full of people might laugh at the jokes Jeong flings, but I sure didn't laugh one bit. In fact, I felt embarrassed and angry at the same time.

The last twenty minutes, thankfully, get back on track, though nothing in the last hour measures up to the hilarity in the first forty-five minutes. When Phil, Stu and Alan wake up and realize that their suite contains a chicken (why is never explained which I applaud), a tiger and a baby, and that the groom is missing, and that Stu is missing a tooth, and that they stole a police car, and that Stu is married, and that... well you get the point, The Hangover shows us how funny it had the potential to be from beginning to end. Personally, I think it could have been a lot more successful, though if one measures success in box office revenue, then I ought to shut up quickly!

Tribute to Frank McCourt (1930-2009)

July 19, 2009

Tribute to Frank McCourt (1930-2009)

Frank McCourt, one of the most successful and revered retirees in history died today from skin cancer at the age of 78. In 1996, there was a book that came out of nowhere from a first time author called Angela's Ashes. It became a sensation, eventually winning the Pulitzer Prize. McCourt's semi-autobiographical vision of childhood hell is engrossing and surprisingly hilarious! I remember reading it in college, and though I really loved it, I don't think I ever want to read it again. It's pretty unflinching!

McCourt grew up in Ireland and immigrated to New York in the 1950's where he worked as an English teacher in the New York Public School system for 30 years. One of the most charming books I've ever read was McCourt's third called Teacher Man, which recounts his fascinating first year as a teacher in one of the worst schools in NYC. Once he retired, he wrote Angela's Ashes and followed it with 'Tis and Teacher Man.

It's never too late to make your dreams come true. McCourt's unconventional life is proof of this.

The film version of Angela's Ashes isn't very good, and I can't recommend it. The book on the other hand is a must read, as is Teacher Man.

Rest in peace!

Ikiru

July 19, 2009

Ikiru (1952) ****

Directed by Akira Kurosawa

The visual beauty of Ikiru cannot be denied. Few films I've seen are better shot, better acted and more emotionally honest. Unfortunately, unlike Rashomon, I can't forgive Ikiru's contrivances. Rashomon is one of the best films I have ever seen, but there are certain elements in it that aren't perfect. For example, in order to hear the murder victim's side of the story, a medium is used to channel him from beyond. Even though there's a mystical Japanese quality that's quite apparent, the decision to use a medium ultimately seems bizarre and just a little far-fetched. Ikiru, because its subject matter is much more grounded in reality, needs to keep everything relatively close to the grain. More often than not it does--but not always, and therein lies its shortcoming.

The first hour and a half equals Rashomon's brilliance with a performance for the ages by the great Takashi Shimura as cancer-riddled Kanji Wantanabe, the head of the Public Affairs department within the vast bureaucracy of the city government. He's worked for decades, and now that he knows he only has months to live, he falls into profound and justified self-pity when he realizes that he has nothing to show for his life's work. His job is meaningless, and his son and daughter-in-law are selfish malcontents who can't stand him.

Wandering aimlessly in the night, Wantanabe encounters a novelist who tries to help ease the pain by taking him to gamble, to a dance club, to a brothel and to a bar. Nothing helps until the next morning when he encounters a young woman who works in his department. She wants to resign and must seek his signature. He invites her to his house, much to the disgust of his son and daughter-in-law, and when he see the holes in her stockings, he buys her new ones much to her delight.

Her companionship gives him temporary pleasure until she becomes tired of the fact that they really have nothing at all to say to each other. Ultimately, he concludes that the only real way he can make any difference with his life is through his job, and he spends his last months turning a landfill into a park in which children can find joy. I'm not giving anything away when I say that he does ultimately die. Wantanabe's wake is consumed with the heads of different bureaucratic departments discussing whether or not he truly deserves credit for the park and if his motives are pure.

The narrative structure starts off linear until the final hour which comprises the wake and includes flashbacks of the months he lobbies for the park. As the department heads get more and more drunk, they begin to judge themselves against Wantanabe's accomplishments. At first, they try and convince each other that he wasn't really responsible for the park. Then, they try and make excuses for his behavior claiming that he was only doing it because he knew he was about to die. Next, agreeing on his virtue, they begin to loathe their own moral inferiority, and finally, with everyone totally inebriated, they vow to live their own lives doing good the same way Wantanabe did!

The ending is similarly damning/redemptive as the achingly beautiful final sequence of Rashomon. In Ikiru, the comment on the human condition isn't as profound, which actually makes it much more digestible and therefore more practically inspiring. There's an almost Christian morality, albeit very liberal, which flows through both films. Based only on the two films I've seen, I judge Kurosawa to have an optimistic philosophy which he chooses to reveal through profound suffering. The glimpses of sunlight in his messages are most welcome considering the ordeal that the main characters go through.

Again there's an almost operatic quality to the acting which doesn't work as well this time around in Ikiru with its modern setting and its urban truths. That being said, Shimura's huge performance compels so much that it's impossible not to be affected when staring into his big, glassy, blinkless eyes. Unfortunately, some of the department heads during the wake seem to want to match his grandeur, and sadly, they simply don't have Shimura's presence. Wantanabe is the focus of the film, and as such, it's permissible if Shimura desires to steal focus. The supporting actors simply come off petty trying to upstage each other.

I hope that the remaining films in the marathon do not fall into the trap of having details contort in service of the story. Ikiru's clunky final hour, its ridiculous scene of reporters interviewing the deputy mayor outside of the wake and its inconsistent acting make me a little concerned that I won't be giving any more five star ratings to future films in the marathon. That being said, I have no doubt that all of them will contain magnificent cinematography!