Precious

What we have here is essentially a play that is horribly directed.  Two actresses dominate the screen in knockout performances that must thwart the amateurish directorial choices in a film of such low aesthetic quality.  Big name musical talent is cast that suspends all cinematic illusion when they first appear on screen and one says, “Look, its Mariah Carey without make-up.”  A bleak look into the struggles of one girl’s silent pain and her mad creature of a mother that clenches her daughter’s hand down a path of self-annihilation is a masterful tale that would have deservingly won numerous Best Picture awards had it not been for director Lee Daniels.

The Oprah machine must be churning out her political power to get her film kudos in every category.  Ensemble cast nominations are laughable.  Directing awards and all the accompanying accolades for Lee Daniels is ludicrous.  Mo’Nique and Gabourey Sidibe deserve the highest honors. Geoffrey Fletcher is deserving of an Oscar for the adaptation of the horrid book Push by Sapphire written in an offshoot of the English language

Mariah Carey plays a social worker.  It is a role that doesn’t require much skill that questions the much uncalled for hoopla over Carey.  Is she without make-up or is she made to look like that?  That is what came to mind.  So, it’s not Glitter with Carey all made up in Victoria’s Secret shaking it in the bag that she could not act her way out of.  On the flipside, Lenny Kravitz is a male nurse of the nurturing sort and in true Kravitz fashion is always cool and has an appealing onscreen persona.

Mo’Nique is Precious’ mother.  The beast’s consternating rhetoric continually forges and fortifies a timidity in a woman who is functioning at sub-standard levels and dishes out blame to her helpless child that lives dormant in a paralyzing state of fear, anguish, and self-loathing whose daydream fantasies offer her temporary flight from the heinous rigor of life’s cruelties.

Precious needs to accept who she really is and flourish into her own woman.  This means getting an education and fleeing from her abusive mother.  Her father is the father to her two children. Her mother is of the lowest common denominator, a welfare apartment dweller who debases her daughter and is repellent to everyone including her retarded granddaughter with the exception of the phony front she puts on for the social workers that send this woman monthly checks so that she may remain a beastly shut-in smoking cigarettes, eating pigs feet, and watching television incessantly.

Precious is a large student who is sixteen years old and still in junior high with one child that lives with the grandmother and with another on the way.  Educators that care see that the reclusive youth excels at math and is in desperate need of an alternative education.  At home, Precious is berated by her mother when the principal buzzes the bell, is restricted entry, and attempts to prod Precious into accepting an education at an alternative school.  The despondent girl irks her mother by this as the only important factor is for Precious to make sure that the white woman from the school does not interfere with her Welfare and that her daughter gets herself down to the Welfare office and stop thinking that she is better than her own mom.

The pregnant girl reluctantly goes to the new class and from here her life starts anew with more crushing bad news, the birth of her second child and the final escape from the entrapments of her family as she flourishes with her new “surrogate” family.  Along the way we are treated to the atrocities in which she has endured and the new tragic tribulations that embroil her path to a life of possibility, hope, and self worth.

Mo’Nique’s performance.  The actress is bare and all of this emotion is flooding the screen.  There is heartfelt sorrow and disgust.  The character is as vile in her silence as her boyfriend’s perverted soul.  At this moment in the social worker’s cubicle nothing else exists in the world.  It’s the tears, it’s the gasping, and it is the audacity of this woman to blame her daughter for her boyfriend’s sickness.  This is a cinematic moment that showcases the actor and heightens the film.  And it’s ruined.  The purity is adulterated with ridiculous zooming camera movements and cuts to Mariah Carey’s character.  Why?  This is direction?

The unobtrusive camera has a place.  The unnoticed edit is valuable.  Walter Murch would most likely have slapped the editor and director for such amateurish choices.  For example, Precious is taking a test and as she circles her choice for an answer, the shot is sped up and then slowed down.  For what reason?

Take a film with really low production value with talent that has made a future in Hollywood. Gabourey Sidibe is so talented and should mature into this actor’s caliber.  The perfect example is Madigan’s Million with Dustin Hoffman, an unknown actor at the time.  There is simple use of camera set-ups.  Be it that everything is terrible in the Hoffman film, but the simple camera techniques should have been employed to cement the cinematic illusion.

The Deauville Film Festival had a choice to make.  Present the Jury Special Prize to Cary Fukunaga, the director of Sin Nombre or to Lee Daniels.  Fukunaga is a director and writer that is of Scorsese caliber.  I would like to know what occurred in France that night when Daniel was presented with the honor.  What a mistake.

Since Precious is a film with black roles and black individuals at the helm, it may be looked at through rose-colored glasses by some.  In this country, there still is a limited number of “black films.”  Make more of these films.  However, enough with the stupid films starring Cedric the Entertainer!  But, to highly regard Precious as the best?  No.

As previously stated, dazzle Mo’Nique and Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe with praises for exceptionality.  Best director?  No way.

There is a black director that is consistent with innovative approaches to filmmaking along with his honest views and stories that hit the social arena hard who has never been properly applauded.  That man is Spike Lee.  Why is he shunned?  In the early 90’s a college graduate from USC was written about as if he was the next Orson Welles.  Director John Singleton’s major film debut was Boyz n the Hood.  Spike Lee was never regarded in such a manner at that time when Jungle Fever was released a month before Singleton’s film and he had already directed: Mo’ Better Blues (1990), Do the Right Thing (1989), School Daze (1988), and She’s Gotta Have It (1986).  Spike was nominated for a Screenwriting Oscar for Do the Right Thing.  He has also been nominated and has won several times awards for his work at the Acapulco Black Film Festival, American Black Film Festival, BET Comedy Awards, Black Movie Awards, and the Image Awards among others.  Good for Spike but I have no clue as to what most of these are.  Does Oprah not like Spike and will not weave him from her publicity machine?

With the award season a few months from full swing, hopefully Mo’Nique and Sidibe get their due as well as Geoffrey Fletcher and the others categories respectfully shun the rest of Precious, a good film that should be left at that.

Sin Nombre

God Bless America.  Trainloads of people head north to the border with the assistance of coyotes to reach Texas and to states as far north as New Jersey to an escape that exalts promises of a better tomorrow.  Has God forsaken Mexico and its southern neighbors?

Welcome to Mexico.  Juxtaposed against this beautiful landscape is something sinister.  Its inhabitants make a run for the Promised Land to the north and turn a blind eye to the rampant violence and succumb to the threats of the most heinous order by the outlaws that stain the nation with such ignominy.

The story is set in Mexico where two young lives are momentarily intertwined and headed for a date with destiny that must have been scribed by El Diablo himself from Hell.  Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) is a Honduran who travels with her father and uncle into Mexico to board the roof of a locomotive to cut through the country to make it to her father’s second family back in New Jersey.  This is where she meets Willy better known as El Casper (Édgar Flores).  This gang member saves her from her would-be rapist, Li’l Mango (Tenoch Huerta), his malignant deviant superior who was robbing and beating the illegal aliens and the downtrodden atop the rolling locomotive.  A previous incident stirs feelings against Li’l Mango and he is cut down machete style causing El Casper to be on the run.  Lost, confused, and dejected, he finds support in Sayra; she feels somewhat indebted to him and soon has a quick spark of a romantic notion.  Young and naive, the young Honduran ditches the train and latches onto her unsuspecting hero who views this as a form of penance to get her to the border.  El Casper is now lone Willy struggling to survive.

Prior to the train, El Casper lived a life within the confines of the gang in which he is a tatted member of Mara Salvatrucha.   Under the demonic auspices of Li’l Mango and the potentate El Sol (Luis Fernando Peña), EL Casper creates a rift between himself and these two as he goes on trysts to see his girlfriend Martha Marlene whom he hides from them as a security precaution.  The leaders are amiss as to his mysterious disappearances.  Casper assures them that he is on point and much like his name his talent is his ghostly-unnoticed presence.  His deceptiveness is perceived as a possible threat to them and blatant disobedience tat warrants punishment.

Casper recruits a young boy that will be given the name Smiley (Kristian Ferrer).  With all sincerity he cares for the pre-teen. Caring is sharing so he brings the kid into his conclave.  Smiley’s grandmother taunts Casper with insults and ranting that her grandson will amount to more than he has and will not be subjugated to the atrocities of gang life.  With grandmother back at home Smiley endures a 13 second savage beating as he is encircled and pummeled with fists and feet.  The young boy tears and wails in the aftermath but smiles when the gang leader pats his head and gives the nod of approval.  Now there is a sense of belonging for Smiley.  More than kinship to one another, there is the allegiance to their group much like the “our thing” that the characters in a Scorsese film wear as a badge of honor.  Also, birth names are replaced with monikers.  Whereas, Bobby Milk or Tony the Blade makes use of first names, the ones in Sin Nombre do not.  Li’l Mango had no idea that El Casper’s name is Willy.

This is the downfall of civilization.  The customs and morality instilled in a social society have been replaced by what is viewed as a heathenish existence.  The heavily tattooed face (almost mask-like) of Little Mango and his brothers in arms point towards the rulers of the land some centuries ago: the Aztecs and Mayans.  These ancient tribes are depicted as vicious and brutal.  Look at Apocolypto.  Sacrifices were offered up to the gods.  The director presents this same ideal in the communal living of the gang as well as the doctrine as dictated by EL Sol and Li’l Mango in which sacrifice must be made.  In the scene when Smiley returns with the news of Li’l Mango’s slaying, the group pays respect to his death in a group “howl” for lack of a better description.  Women are a shared, privacy is something viewed with scowl, tattoos are tribal war paint, arms are stockpiled, and violence is the norm.

Violence dominates the atmosphere.  The grim reality is that the life expectancy of these people is maybe in the mid twenties range.  Adopted kids are groomed into a society in which there is no way out, this is life, this is how one survives.  Not one person in this film has much of anything in the form of materialism.  The gang congregated and a toothbrush and container of orange juice was shared.  What remains absent is any sense of morality.  Fighting is of the norm.  In order to become initiated one is brutally beaten by the very brethren that they will consider a brotherhood, a family.  At command, the gang becomes a pack of animals and beats one of their own.  If one is sentenced to death, they kill without remorse.

Take the guys in Gommorah and compare them to the guys in this film. The mob in Napoli seems relatively docile and compassionate.   If the Sin Nombre characters ruled the roost there would be have no need to call the Magnificent Seven.

The film screams realism.  You won’t find any “cool” shots with Guns n’ Roses belting out “Out ta Get Me” as the train is rolling and when El Casper sustains physical damage he doesn’t burst out “I am still alive” in his best Eddie Vedder impression.  There is nothing glamorous about murder.  The grim hurt and maliciousness of the act reverberates.  Bullets kill quickly.  The aftermath of Smiley’s first kill who is then fed to the dogs leaves a sickening feeling as to the ghastliness of what young children embrace through ignorance and soon become.  Kids are killers.

What does the Mexican government do for its people and is there economic growth?  Something caused this problem.  The world in which Mexico exists is quite different from the one lived within the U.S.  Years ago, I traveled with my brother to Ensenada from Vegas.  We were in awe at the black trucks that pulled up and of the armed faceless men in black fatigues that jumped out and busted through doorways.  This happened several times in different areas in a span of a few hours.  On the way back military personnel armed with machine guns stopped us.  The teenage recruits were shaking down all of the Spanish-speaking drivers.  I pretended not to understand any Spanish and spoke with the most horrendous American accent mangling their language.  Thankfully, the machine gun toting teen was enamored with a Dr. Seuss Grinch lying in the car and was flattered that I loved his machine gun.  We were let go as carloads of Mexicans had their wallets emptied.

Sin Nombre should win the Best Foreign Film at the Oscars this year.  Cary Fukunaga wrote and directed a film certain to be listed among the top films for decades to come.

Where The Wild Things Are

Where did your fantasies take you as a kid?  From what angst did you suffer?  Did monsters exist in scary places?

Max is an adolescent with an absent father, a struggling single mother, and a sister interested in boys.  He is alone in a world where everyone is bigger than he and weighted down with possible feelings that he in insignificant.  This kid acts out, has temper tantrums, and bites his mother as he quarrels with the household and stands atop the kitchen counter and commands,  “I am hungry, feed me woman!”  The mother needs to give him a good beating and perhaps to see a psychologist.

Max has taken voyage to a place where he is king.  He sails off to an island of misfit melancholy monsters that are large Wild Things that have all of the psychological issues found in the characters in Girl, Interrupted.  James Gandolfini is Carol, the monster that acts out.  He is violent and he destroys their habitat. Carol is Tony Soprano with all of his psychological disorders embodied into this creature.

Was Spike Jonze the correct choice for the writer/director of the book adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s Where The Wild Things Are?  Jonze is the director of Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, a slew of music videos, and a producer of MTV’s Jackass.  Most expectantly would be the likes of Tim Burton or even Guillermo del Toro to helm such a project.  However, Jonze presents the material in a more cerebral approach that is not necessarily chock full of humorous delights and engaging whimsical character voices.  This is most definitely not a children’s movie.

I read in a companion book to the film that Jonze worked closely with Sendak to preserve the integrity of his work and to green light his own ideas.  The task must have been monumental. Dave Eggers and Jonze co-wrote the screenplay that amounts to an interpretation of a 16 or so line book that allows for the viewers to interpret the film in their own way.

The script is written in an adult manner that actually makes one feel empty and hollow.  We are in Max’s psyche and it is not a pleasant place.  When he leaves the island and returns home, he leaves behind pieces of immaturity and fragments of childhood.  It is sad.  He doesn’t venture forth past a rainbow and exclaim shouts of jubilee.  The film is not an easy one to sit through which would deter many to place it high on their lists of must-sees.  Many will not like this film.   Truthfully, I applaud the film and take note of its achievements but did not wholly enjoy it.

The monsters take on Max’s issues.  Carol, to whom Max bonds, acts out irrationally running amok much like his own tantrums.  Also, Carol lashes out at Max and proves to be his biggest threat.  KW, a female wild thing is not so receptive to Carol.  He wants her attention badly, which may be a representation of Max’s parents although there is nothing is the film to allude to the factors concerning his father’s absence.  KW also shields Max from Carol.

The Wild Things want family harmony.  Max is heralded as king and is there to eradicate any misbehavior and any unstable family squabbling.  Once the fortress is built, Max wants a place to hide and be alone.  Carol goes berserk.  Family is where they all pile atop of one another not to saunter off and hide in a hole.  Unfortunately, Max cannot bring harmony alone and abdicates his throne.  It’s time for him to sail away back home.

The creatures are something of a wide-eyed wonder to bestow.  The actors were fitted with huge costumes, CGI was employed, and the setting was spectacular.  Shot in Australia, the cinematographer Lance Acord is deserving of an Oscar.  The music is worthy of a listen.  Jonze, known for his music video work, was also once married to Sofia Coppola, the granddaughter of composer Roman Coppola. No doubt Jonze has been at least somewhat impacted by all of this.  His musical choices are on the money.

(Sofia Coppola made some very bold musical decisions in her film, Marie Antoinette.)

One facet of the film that needs clarifying for no particular reason other than to suit me is the year that this is supposed to take place.  The cars are mid 90’s and the electronics visible are not up to date.

Like a number of childhood books that have been made for the big screen, this is far superior to The Grinch and Curious George.  Jonze’s film acted as a catalyst to revisiting my childhood horrors.  Mainly, bad memories of television shows that I faintly remember in reruns entitled The New Zoo Revue and Sigmund the Sea Monster.  These were quite old at the time but still circulated on Channel 5.  When will the hungry caterpillar and Danny and his dinosaur be made into movies?

The Lovely Bones

Writers and poets have such a love affair with death and the afterlife.  Death plays chess in our world in Ingmar Bergaman’s The Seventh Seal and Orpheus is romanced by Death herself and travels to her world in Jean Cocteau’s version of the film Orpheus.  Both films are solemn and glib.  Peter Jackson is the latest to guide us into his lollipop version of the afterlife for a 14-year-old murdered girl in The Lovely Bones.  It’s Disney for the Dead.

In the 70′s, a new resident pervert digs a subterranean den for killing beneath the cornfields outside of Philadelphia.  George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) cowardly lures innocent defenseless Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronanand) inside and her soul escapes not yet understanding the mutilation its body has suffered.  Susie wonders in a world watching ours desperately trying to get back to her family.  George hides under the radar in an investigation led by Michael Imperioli and converges on the path of Mark Wahlberg’s paternal revenge.  Thirsting for the thrill of the kill once again, George gazes towards Susie’s sister Lindsey (Rose McIver).

The Salmon household is shattered as both parents react to their daughter’s death differently and their bond falls apart.  Mark Whalberg immerses himself in an investigation to catch the predator and his wife (Rachel Weisz) flees to California to work in the fields as a day laborer. The Mother-in-law (Susan Sarandon) is a drunk that adds some comedy to a tense situation.

This is where the film is at a loss.  It is unbelievable that the mother just upped and left to work with migrant field workers.  Sarandon’s character really adds nothing except time to the 135-minute film that should be trimmed by at least 15 minutes.  It was as if Sarandon had a cameo role and Weisz decided to leave the set and return for one last scene.  The third act is rather drawn out.  And Susie’s love interest looks much older than she and he came off rather creepy.  A while back I saw the trailer for the film and believe it is he who exclaimed that he did not kill Susie, yet this does not appear in the film.

As the 14-year-old wonders in LaLa Land, Susie wishes herself back in the room where Sean Cassidy is plastered along the walls and the memories of her first romance, only to be jaded by her murder, causes her much angst.  Her world is filled with color, dazzling sun filled days seamlessly mesh adjacently to star bright nights and all of earth bound realities and laws of physics are suspended.  Susie encounters a young girl with the message of “Don’t look back.”  She continues to hold on and witnesses that her actions manipulate the world in which she is now only a memory. Her father looks out into the night and faintly hears and sees her.  Hysteria and anger overtake him and he smashes the dozens of ships in bottles that he and his daughter spent time building.  His violent actions and emotions appear on the shore in the afterlife as large ships in bottles float close to the shore and begin to smash and sink in this magnificent  CGI world.

The acting is first rate.  At first, I didn’t recognize Tucci  He transformed into a pedophile.  His character has such depth.  He portrays the concerned citizen to the police, he gives off a menacing evil look that causes girls to shudder, and he deploys so much by doing so little in terms of dialogue.  He is neighborhood creep, concerned citizen, friendly neighbor, reclusive clean freak, unassuming man in the mall, and the meek mild mannered somewhat bumbling fool.  He is deserving of an Oscar.

The film combines action, drama, and suspense in a world of wonderment juxtaposed against the bleakness of the cold northeast.  Did you read the book?  I did not and those that have are criticizing the script for its lack of depth and simplification of the characters.  Susan Sarandon is one that is harping about her limited role.  This is true for so many films.  For instance, Anna Karenina is stripped to its barest and loses what Tolstoy’s 800+ page epic brings forth.  A film is meant to stand alone.  To all of those moaning about this, please present your script.

My Sister’s Keeper

Two Stars.  One for Abigail Breslin and one for Sofia Vassilieva, as the sisters Andromeda ‘Anna ‘ and Kate Fitzgerald.  This film had the potential to be a film worth the $30 million spent making it.

Kate’s parents (Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric) take a doctor’s off the record advice and have another child.  The embryo gesticulates and the child is given the name Andromeda ‘Anna’ Fitzgerald who was engineered as “spare parts” for the cancer ridden Kate.

The family of five endures the hardship delivered by the disease.  Mom quits her law career to champion her daughter back to health 14 years and still fighting, dad and mom are no longer harmonious, the brother seems a neglected useless character that hangs onto the hot aunt that is always around and sister Anna has been poked, prodded, and used as a salvage yard for her sister.  Alec Baldwin is hired as legal council to 11-year old Abigail.  It is she who contacts the man with the commercials who claims to have a better than 90% success rate.  Abigail no longer wishes to be harvested for Kate.  The mother and father are divided on the situation and Diaz, the former lawyer, represents herself against her daughter.  Baldwin is looked upon as the sleazy ambulance chaser type and in the end, we learn his reasoning for taking such a case.  To add compassion to the legal proceedings, the judge presiding is back in the saddle after the death of her daughter killed by a drunk driver.

Kate’s story is told through her scrapbook that was made not by her but obviously by a team of top designers.  Living a nightmare she finds solace temporarily through love.  Her romantic interest is a fellow cancer patient.  Instead of a prom in this film it is a hospital dance.  The teen love is bittersweet and just as disturbing to watch kids make-out on screen.

At films end, nobody is at fault, all ends are tied, and we should all just love one another.  Total hogwash.  The film can be seen as a pro-choice/ pro-life debate.  For the emotionally needy, there are lots of onscreen tears.

Cameron Diaz is supposed to be matronly.  She is supposed to posses some emotional depth.  She needs to go to that place where actors venture to drink from the grail of emotional know how.  Tears + yelling DOES NOT = Emotion.  Diaz is the hot woman in The Mask.  She’s the chick men crave in There’s Something About Mary.  She and Christina Applegate are hysterical in The Sweetest Thing.  Looks are fleeting.  With that truth recognized, where shall her career plummet to in ten years?   What if Meryl Streep performed like Diaz in Sophie’s Choice?

The family dynamic is a mess.  Dad leans towards Anna as Mom leans towards Kate.  The brother Jesse (Evan Ellingson) serves no purpose.  He disappeared for some length of time and went unnoticed by his family.  He should have been extracted from the screenplay. Ever present is Aunt Kelly (Heather Wahlquist) who is there to give emotional, physical, support.  She doesn’t do much in the film.  But her presence makes it known that when tragedy befalls a family, most relatives scatter like roaches exposed to light in darkness.

This is where the film is truthful.  Writing this from experience, most relatives are useless and shameful, and are not worth acknowledging when a family member succumbs to illness or a horrifying life altering occurrence.  Do not imply that blood is thicker than water here.

To stress the terminally ill effects of leukemia, the director found it necessary to have the young girl vomit repeatedly.  Yeah, we know she is sick and going to die. We got it.  Those moments in film time could have been used much wiser.  Only once was the vomiting used to symbolize strength and love and that was during the interaction between Kate and her boyfriend.

Jodi Picoult wrote the original novel.  The book’s ending differs from this film.  Abigail is in a car crash and is comatose.   The lawyer who has authority over her donates organs to her sister who lives on.  Real sappy stuff for the Lifetime Network crowd.  The network has made three of her books ino TV movies.  So sorry I missed those, I must have been busy watching  the traffic cam channel.

Jeremy Leven adapted the book for the screen.  He wrote and directed Don Juan DeMarco, wrote Alex & Emma, The Legend of Bagger Vance, The Notebook, and the upcoming Real Steel with Hugh Jackman.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY

Times Square 2009.  It is as crowded today just as it has been depicted in films for decades with one less key ingredient: the underbelly of a depraved society.  Corporate America has kicked out the grind houses of the 70’s and replaced them with generic retailers and chain restaurants.  The gentrification of the center of the world has displaced the great characters that are essential to films like Midnight Cowboy.

Where would Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo have made their acquaintance?  Tompkins Square Park is no longer considered the entrance to the nine concentric circles of hell and the Bowery is no longer the area to have a car squeegeed.  Perhaps New York is not the place for Joe and Ratso to meet in present day.  The location, in my opinion, would most likely switch to Vancouver, British Columbia.  Traveling to that area for a film in which I have been making was a breath of fresh air.  Derelicts, addicts shooting up in the street, shopping carts filled with belongings and storefronts gleaming with neon marijuana leaves enthralled the senses.  This exciting area leads to one of the most architecturally beautiful cities that I have ever had the privilege of shooting in.

The point is that film is such a wonderful medium that it documents the world of its time and the general consciousness of the day.  What was onscreen in Midnight Cowboy was shocking and garnered and X Rating.  It is nothing shocking by standards in the world of today.  This film remains the only film to have been branded an X and win an Academy Award.

John Schlesinger has been criticized for his direction of the material.  In 1969, Roger Ebert wrote, “…has not been brave enough to tell his story and draw his characters with the simplicity they require. He has taken these magnificent performances, and his own careful perception of American society, and dropped them into an offensively trendy, gimmick-ridden, tarted-up, vulgar exercise in fashionable cinema.”

Filmed in various styles, altered film stock, and use of gels is dominant in the film.  Sequences are in color and Black and White, soft-focus filters and colored gels are employed, and in one dream sequence, the golden tones glitter across the screen.  Yes, this does take away from the true gritty story of two people suffering.  Perhaps, in life, one may daydream of a better place and situation to temporarily alleviate the pains of realities harshness.  So is Schlesinger truly and deservingly faulted for this?

Examples of suffering, in which apathy is compelled with a call for divine intervention are found in films with extreme circumstances of violence and abuse such as The Basketball Diaries or Monster.  These two films are set apart from others in which the audience finds sympathy for characters such as Oliver Twist.  We needn’t be beaten over the head with a baseball bat like Joe Pesci’s character Nicky Santoro in Casino or Jake Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain to be empathetic.

What closely resembles a situation deserving audiences’ call to be appalled just like Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo is Maggie Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of Sherry Swanson is Sherry Baby.

Regardless of any criticisms, John Schlesinger was awarded the Oscars™ for Best Director and Best Picture.  His previous motion pictures were: Far From the Madding Crowd (1967), Darling (1965), Billy Liar (1963), and A Kind of Loving (1962).  All but Far From the Madding Crowd were shot in Black and White.  He continued to make films in the directing chair and as an actor until the year 2000.  He passed away three years later.

Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman both were nominated for Best Actor that year but were bumped off by another cowboy, John Wayne in True Grit.  Sylvia Miles lost to Goldie Hawn in Cactus Flower in the Best Support Actress category.

The story begins as Joe Buck, decked out in a cowboy getup, packs his bags and leaves his dish washing job behind and the Texan heads for New York City on a bus with plans of hustling the ladies of the city with his, oh so virility.  Proudly he announces his new line of work and saunters down the streets in search of skirts.  To his delight he finds a woman (Sylvia Miles) walking her dog and the two end up in her expensive NYC apartment.  He calculates what his services were worth when goes she ballistic.  The outcome is that he peels out a bunch of bills for her and her cab ride to see another customer.  He then meets Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) who promises Joe a job as a lady’s man through a friend, for a fee.  Ratso dumps him in a tattered building to a man that wants to pray with him under an electric Jesus and a lot of lights.

The hustler gets hustled and is soon barred from his rented room for non-payment and scours the streets sans personal belongings in search of anything.  Cruising Times Square, it’s apparent that women do not roam the street looking for male hookers or virile Texans to lavish with hats and boots.  Instead, he finds a young Bob Balaban in his lap at a 42^nd Street theater and he too doesn’t have the funds to pay Joe.  Unfortunately, a disgusted Joe doesn’t have the heart to beat him down or take the watch that could have been pawned for a bite to eat.

Joe once again runs into the limping street hustler Ratso and this unlikely being turns into Joe’s salvation.  Ratso offers him lodgings in the apartment that he squats in.  Ratso is a character that has never had love in his life, resents his father, and is falling apart.  He does live like a rat in an abandoned building scheduled for demolition.  Stating that he has never been with a woman, some debate among the audience has been raised about his possible homosexuality.  It’s not clear.

A friendship is bonded. The two, at first, were on edge about one another and eventually the duo survives against whatever the city hurls.  Both look after one another.  The team attempts to capitalize on Joe’s virility by infiltrating a gentleman’s escort service for women in a seriously botched attempt.  All of those golden daydreams of tantalizing the golden girls in Florida are forever shattered.

They steal fruit, check phone booths for change, and wander with wonderment how to make it big.  Ratso can pick pockets and slither his way through small incidents.  Joe is too baby-faced and lacks any street smarts to be the hustler that he dreamt of being.  These two could have joined Don Knotts and Tim Conway in The Apple Dumpling Gang.  For instance, Ratso breaks into a shoeshine box and has Joe seated in a chair to help clean up the tattered boots.  Ratso is soon encumbered with pairs of straphangers looking for his service.

The winter and it’s cold and snow bear down upon the city.  Ratso has become too ill and cannot afford a doctor.  Joe’s haunting memories are of his grandmother and the night that something terrible had happened to he and his girlfriend.  Ratso tells Joe to get rid of the cowboy gear.  He says that people laugh at him and that he looks like he is gay and cruising for tricks.  Joe attempts to have Ratso accept medical treatment and to get a job and oust himself from squalor.  They are too rooted in rut to help themselves.

In one dining dive, two odd characters flash Joe’s picture and he is invited to a Warhol type party.  Joe expresses to Ratso that they go to the party together or he doesn’t go in without his friend.  In this scene, without words, only expression, Dustin Hoffman proves to the world just why he is such an incredible actor.  This is the defining moment in their relationship.

The party was supposed to have been at Andy Wharhol’s Factory.  It was supposed to be where the in-crowd would hang out and want to be seen.  Joe churns the charm in looking for his sugar mama as Ratso pick pocketed and raided the food and stuffed sandwiches into his pockets.  There, Joe meets a woman that pays off for him.

I spoke to Adam Holender, the cinematographer of the film.  According to Mr. Holender, The Factory was recreated on a set that was in Harlem.  Andy Warhol loaned various artwork and pieces for the set.  In addition to these materials, he also loaned people.

The movie is about how paths are crossed for certain reasons and how one person is living another’s dream.  Joe dreamt of New York and Ratso lived it.  Ratso dreamt of living in the warmth of the Florida sun.  And on the bus ride out of the big city, Joe Buck left the cowboy hustler behind and all the foolishness that went with it as Ratso left the slums of New York as he was taken by his friend enroute to his dream of basking in the Florida sunshine.

GREEN STREET HOOLIGANS

The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!  The rules of the GSE as explained to Elijah Wood’s character are don’t let them know you were a journalism major and don’t ever call it soccer.   Unlike Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in Fight Club, Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) is a real person.  And he is the leader of The Green Street Hooligans.  Made of bone and of flesh that has been bruised and battered. It is he whom bears the brunt as proud leader of the GSE and mentor into the manhood of Matt Buckner.

The Green Street Elite firm for the West Ham football team is the great evil in the film.  It lures and seduces Matt Buckner (Wood) into a world of brawling street combat.  It is far from the secure and padded world that he lived in up until the day he arrived in England.   It is tough.  There are fists flying, aerial kicks to the gut and head, yet there are no guns.  This is battle mano a mano.  With some glass bottles and maybe a brick or two, opposing firms head on assault one another, toe to toe, in what could be described as a charge in a battle in the days of the American Revolution.  Reference is made to the street gang violence in America as not being tough when one hides behind a gun in a speeding car.

These members are not in it for anything else other than to defend their team, so they say. They are neither part of their local football (soccer) team nor do they represent that team.  They are an “unofficial” group that gathers on game day at home or travel to other stadiums to get rowdy and cause a great distress to the police.

Matt has trouble at first understanding what this is all about.  He was not privy to the trouble that European Football is beleaguered with.  Once understanding is reached, the meek harmless American strives to be part of an English firm.

At first, there is disbelief that Elijah Wood could become an ass kicking street fighter.  He seems harmless and most certainly not a threat.  In Ash Wednesday he pulls the trigger and in Sin City, Robert Rodriguez designed him to look sinister, much worse than Hannibal Lechter.

In comparison, another non-menacing face is Edward Norton.  Fight Club, American History X and 25^th Hour are films in which he is believable.  This film makes a believer out of the audience.  Wood carries his own and is enthusiastic as he partakes in the firm’s activities, punching and kicking, using his head for purposes other than a punching bag, and gloriously takes a beating.  He does this with gusto and real zeal.  As he mentions in the film, “once you realize that you are not made of glass…” his inner-strength and courage was found.  Which is what he was lacking and how he found himself in England.  After taking the rap for his politically connected roommate, he ventured off to see his married sister in the UK.  Behind him was an ever absent prominent journalist father, and a false confession of drug possession that bumped him from Harvard months shy of his degree.

Arriving on almost no notice, his sister Shannon (Claire Forlani) introduces him to her newborn.  She seems to be having a rather difficult period in her marriage and he is pawned off to Pete, her husband’s brother.  From the start, Pete is apprehensive and attempts to lose the American.  Matt sticks close to him, even after being knocked down by him.  From there he is given the rules and hangs with the GSE.  He goes to the game and afterwards leaves alone and is assaulted by an opposing firm.  Matt pleads with his attackers that he is an American and is not part of anything.  Moments later the assailants are assaulted by the GSE and come to their new friend’s aide.  Feeling the adrenaline rush, Matt sticks by Pete’s side through stage two of the battle.  Matt is commended for his valor and by taking on the opposing firm at all costs.  The boys are down right satisfied and deserve a draft of England’s best draught.

The director, Lexi Alexander, a female karate and kickboxer champion, developed and wrote the story from what she remembers as her childhood years in Germany watching the football matches.  She says, “At first we watched the games from the f-stand, also known as the family stand.  The real fans, as my brother called them were in the d-stand: D is for damage.   By invite only, this seatless, standing room only section caged in members of the firm.  A white flag read, “ City boys, Mannheim hooligans.”  As a karate instructor, Lexi Alexander taught students that belonged to this firm.  She was invited to d-stand and ran with the Mannheim, City boys firm.

This is a violent movie with guts.  Absent are guns and any glorification of the violence.

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED

I wish Rachel had never gotten married.  Perhaps we all could have been spared.

There is a story lost in this never-ending wedding video.  From the looks of it, it was a low cost, unedited, novice attempt at piecing together a weekend of festivities in Stamford, Connecticut.  Who would have guessed that this is the work of Jonathan Demme?  And please let us not speak of the nomination that Anne Hathaway had received.  She did a fine job but the material presented does not warrant an Oscar nod.  (The Oscar that is most laughable is Reese Witherspoon’s) Am I being harsh?  Not likely.

When sitting through a film, should it be tedious?  Maybe, if the film takes on a tough subject matter, if its graphic imagery is rather sour, or if the dialogue is grim.  Sure there are experimental films like Bruce Conner’s A Movie which are studied in film theory and laughed at by the general public.  Conner’s films are tedious.  Have you sat through the 8 hour 6 minutes of Warhol’s Empire?  It is a single stationary shot of New York’s Empire State Building.  That is tedious.  Have you ever sat through a Fellini film and asked what was going on?   Demme’s film is tedious because it is just terrible.  It is an experiment in low budget filmmaking.  It makes use of prosumer video camera and someone’s first draft of a script shot in what appears could have been done in 72 hours.  The camera work is poor.  Declan Quinn is a great cinematographer but he must have been under the duress of Jonathan Demme.  I did look for Lloyd Kaufman’s name in the credits.

From the director of the beautifully shot Beloved, his most well known films are The Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia.  This is a film about Kym, a woman who has been in and out of Rehab for ten years who returns home for her sister’s wedding.  Essentially, there are two films here: Rachel’s issues and a wedding video.  To sum it up, the film suffers from terribly composed scenes, lackluster characters, the endless barrage of nonsense and those phony plot points.  And I wasn’t sure what the supposed family dynamic of multi-ethnicities and the use of Arabic music and Indian wardrobe were to symbolize.

I am baffled as to how and why the screenwriter was awarded three wins and two nominations for this poorly concocted and totally unbelievable first draft.  The screenwriter, Jenny Lumet, took common cutesy wedding speeches, compiled them, and as a result, the viewer must suffer through a long drawn out rehearsal dinner.  What does this do for the film other than interrupt it?  Well, it presents the moment for Kym to make a speech that causes friction later on.  What a surprise.  Who couldn’t see that coming unless you dozed off.  And since I have worked in the wedding business, I have heard all of these speeches before including the ramblings of drunkards, the cokeheads, and the family misfits.  Which leads to the 12 step program meetings that Kym attends.  I have a friend that runs a program and I know others that attempt to get their lives in order.  There is nothing more terrible than seeing these people challenged on a daily basis to lead a normal life.  In the film, when people speak at these meeting, the dialogue is directly taken from information that is presented by speakers and available in pamphlets at these meetings.  There was no feeling in those scenes because it is all so plastic.   So many other films tackle this subject and present it believably and heartfelt.

More unbelievable scenes take place.  This time it is in the kitchen.  Rachel’s father and her fiancé have a match as to who can fill up the dishwasher with a larger amount of dirty dinnerware.  Of course, we are missing the subtext and the true meaning blah blah blah.  Again, it is some long drawn out contest only to cause another forced plot point.  A dish that belonged to the deceased brother who was killed because of Kym is pulled from a stack of clean dishes since the father was victorious in showing off his macho kitchen bravado and needed more dishes for the washer. And after there is that lull in the wash-a-thon, people just part to leave Rachel alone.  If this plate truly existed, it would have been placed somewhere else designated for the memories of the child lost or hung on a wall or hidden where it wouldn’t have a chance to be used by an unknowing stranger.  Another big argument that ensues is when Rachel overhears Kym as a fellow addict cries to her and commends her on being the person that he used as his rock to beat the addiction while they were in therapy together.  The man states that he can’t believe he has run into her like this. And neither can the audience.  The soon to be psychologist, Rachel, is horrified that her sister has lied on an essay in therapy and runs away leaving her sister behind and her hair undone for her wedding.

I read an interview with the director and he is so taken with the new technology that he employed it solely for this project.  His additional extended camera crew actually consisted of people picked up online.  He wanted to make a big wedding video.  He stated that he let these additional camera people edited their own versions of this film. Such a travesty.

Rachel getting married isn’t deserving of any more thought than this.

THE VISITOR

The title reflects Professor Walter Vale as he is embroiled in a relationship with a trio of foreigners that find themselves in his New York City apartment.  Walter is faced with setting free from his reclusive shell and reaching outward to those in need while facing inward to reconstruct his life for the positive.

While on leave from Connecticut to deliver a speech about a paper that he did not even write, Prof. Vale is startled to find a woman in his bathtub in his seldom used New York City apartment.  A male reacting to the screaming of his bathing Senegalese girlfriend accosts the professor.  After the scuffle it is revealed that the couple, Tarek and Zainab, are victim to a real estate scam and depart with no place to go after residing in the apartment for two months.  Vale peers from the window witnessing the newly homeless couple below and asks them to stay the night.  Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) is from Syria and is a vivacious soul finding solace through his drum.  He and the professor easily bond over their love of music.  A few days pass and the Syrian is unjustly arrested for evading the subway fare and finds an advocate in the professor who feels to blame for the arrest.  Zainab (Danai Gurira) leaves the apartment for refuge at a female friend’s place and is reassured that Prof. Vale has hired an immigration attorney for her boyfriend.  Vale neglects his job as he frequents the warehouse-like detention center in Queens bringing messages on behalf of Zainab and assuring Tarek that this ordeal shall soon pass.  The arrival of Tarek’s mother from Michigan is the catalyst for the professor to resign from his teaching job of twenty years and reassess his values.  Mouna (Hiam Abbass) is a widow that endures her son’s incarceration with the kindness that the professor expounds upon her.  Tarek’s situation is saddened by the elements that have landed him in such a place and the absolute unconstitutionality of the treatment that has befallen him allowable after the events of 9/11.  The outcome is neither corny nor contrived.  With a Q&A with Richard Jenkins after the showing, the audience expressed a want for the story to continue.  One woman suggested a part II.

Richard Jenkins’ character is a widower that clumsily pounces on a piano attempting to achieve the fluidity and mastery of his deceased wife’s talents while keeping her memory alive through this ritual.  Music is the element that bonds the Professor and his newfound friend Tarek.  With a tabla (drum), Tarek is able to tap into the professor’s soul.

Incapable of performing anything as complex as the recordings of his deceased wife, Walter has pursued a less complex, yet equally passionate instrument, the tabla.  As the music influences and infiltrates his being, the stuffy suited professor soon relaxes and lets loose.  He seems less uptight and even smiles.  It is an interesting comparison between Professor Vale and Tarek.  One has money, career, and property.  The other has none of these assets.  Yet, Tarek lives a fully rich existence and proves to be an honest man that is honest with himself.  Professor Vale realizes that within the context his own life, he has been living fraudulently for quite some time.

Richard Jenkins believed that his character was able to fool everyone, including himself, living a fraudulent existence.  For twenty years he has taught economics and it has meant nothing to him.  In the film, a student is late with an assignment and asks for an extension.  With harshness, and without further question, the request is denied.  The student responds by addressing that the course syllabus has yet to be distributed, thus, challenging the professor.   Jenkins stated that he believed that the student read right through Jenkins’ character and understood that the professor was indeed a phony.

The facial expressions and deliveries in the opening minutes are an indication of the stellar performance that continues throughout the film.  Jenkins’ expressions work flawlessly and he has justly been nominated for both a SAG Award and an Oscar for The Visitor.   Small everyday movements speak loudly.  In Washington Square Park, his head bobs back and forth listening to drummers performing with buckets.  In another scene while learning how to slap the drum skin he makes hesitant motions and uncoordinated movements.  Also, in a city park he walks and stops repeatedly before gaining confidence and with much abandon partaking in a multi-national, multi-ethnic drum line in which Tarek brought him.

The seriousness of the film’s subject matter is not diminished by several of its comedic aspects.   These are not zany over the top antics as they are smartly written into the film.

The very first scene is hysterical as the professor awaits someone in his upscale suburban Connecticut home.   The audience is thrown off guard by the intense overtone of an arrival that forebodes …the arrival of a piano teacher.  The head butting between she and the professor is truly a classic cinema must see.

More comedic moments occur as Tarek and Walter bond.  The student takes on some of Tarek’s traits.  The houseguest normally plays his drum in his underwear.  When seen by Walter, he dresses quickly and apologizes.  When Tarek is gone, Walter is caught with his pants down by Zainab and gives the same apologetic look from his drum and fumbles for his trousers.

The film required instruments to be played by the actors.  As for musical talent, it took Jenkins six months to play in a manner in which he described as a “pathetic.”  A friend taught him what he needed for this part.  However, he did play the tabla in the film.  The scene in which he is performing in the subway was shot in two takes.  There was a permit for the shoot but little time.  Transit riders in the subway were filmed as only two extras were placed in the scene.  The camera was set up on another platform as Jenkins whaled on the instrument.

Women are strong and respected in this film.  They are not the weak and preyed upon in the big city.  They command respect from the men in their lives.  Tarek’s mother survived her husband’s prison term in Syria and took care of him after his release up until his death.  Tarek must contact his mother on a daily basis.  She expects this.  Professor Vale keeps the house quiet and in order for both Zainab and Mouna.

Zainab designs jewelry and sells it on the streets of NY in areas such as SOHO.  She is seen as rather rigid and stern; Even more so than the professor.  Her scolding looks towards Tarek as they are left on the street after their temporary eviction is stone-like.  When the professor declines an invitation by Tarek to join them for the evening at a nightclub, she berates her boyfriend and states that she would be the one to entertain the professor, as Tarek would be playing his drum.  To her chagrin, the professor has a change of heart and does join them that evening.  And yes, she is stuck with him.  Much of her perceived “coldness” stems from her upbringing in which it would be unthinkable for her to live with a man who is not her husband.  Her faith does not permit this.  She is a proper woman.  Yes, she is living with Tarek, her boyfriend, but when he is arrested, the outpouring of emotion is sincere.  She truly loves him.  The only point in which the audience sees her soft side and gets a look into who she is, is when Mouna arrives in search of her son who has not contacted her.  Understandably, Zainab leaves Walter’s apartment for a female friend’s apartment.  Her departure leaves her with limited screen time.

Her character was developed but there seems to be no place left for her in the film.

Perhaps Zainab could have had additional screen time since it feels that Zainab’s role was cut short.  There was room for additional development had one character not been written into the film.  Jenkins explained that the professor did have a girlfriend in the screenplay.  After initial audience screenings, the two scenes with her were cut.  In the final version, it seems unfathomable that Jenkins’ character would have had a relationship.  His onscreen persona doesn’t suggest that he would have had one.

It is interesting to point out that Danai Gurira’s mother attended the same university that Richard Jenkins had.  Jenkins said that he did remember her mother because during his time at the university, there were a limited number of African women in attendance.

The Visitor had a screening at the university; the production flew in Danai’s mother from her country and invited several of her classmates to screen the film.

While in his own home, Walter does his best to accommodate his guests and learns much about their culture.  Mouna accepts the professor’s invitation to stay in his home.  Thrown together by a tragic situation, they bond through music.  We learn of their backgrounds and the determination that both share to save Tarek.  Both have a CD that was given to them by Tarek.  The professor holds one by an African drummer and his mother holds onto The Phantom of the Opera.  The professor surprises Mouna with dinner and tickets for Phantom since she has never experienced a Broadway Play.  During post-dinner theater, Mouna orders wine.  I am unsure as to why this was written in the script.  It is made clear that both Zainab and Mouna follow the Muslim law forbidding alcohol.  Her ordering wine just does not fit. According to Jenkins, Hiam Abbass lives in Paris and was the source of research for the role in the film as McCarthy spent two weeks there developing the work.  It’s doubtful that she would she have suggested ordering wine.

McCarthy’s film depicts the city through the eyes of its residents and long-term visitors.  There are no magnificent skyline views or the overwhelming I LOVE NY campaign shots that many screenwriters from other parts of the country pen.  The city displays its ethnic diversity that makes it so valuable.  The professor turns out to be the visitor in the very city that he calls home.  He is thrown into a world of new sounds and new tastes.  He is also subjected to an eyewitness view of the treatment that few police officers feel necessary to inflict upon people because of their skin color or ethnicity.

There are not any terrorists in this film.  The only real terror is being incarcerated without any rights, and for family and friends of those detained, the system does not offer any answers and clearly violates the laws in which this country based its foundation.

Tarek is in America, unaware of a deportation order and picked up in the subway by a group of thug cops for false claims of fare evasion.

Apart from your personal views on immigration, legal or otherwise, the mistreatment shown in this film is an accurate depiction of what occurs today.  Just a few years ago, if the police had picked up Tarek and it was confirmed that he was here illegally, he would have been let go.  Now that the systems in place work in conjunction with one another, the police transport the prisoner to the appropriate federal facility.   The windowless exterior of the facility in the film is an actual detention center in Queens, New York.

While watching this, one asks, “Is this America?”

When Walter Vale erupts and delivers a tirade against the injustices that he has been served we feel the angst of fighting the fight that is worth the effort and become irate as the guards behind protective glass just look at him, stupidly, without care or concern, repeating, “ Move away from the glass.”

In The Visitor there is heartbreak and injustice, heroes and heroines.  It is a fable of our time.