A little break. I see a great many movies, almost everything. The Christmas (aka Oscar) season this year has been particularly good. Some capsule reviews.
The pick of the litter in my utterly subjective opinion are (in alphabetical order) Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire. The reason is that these are the most complex of all the movies on which I am going to comment. I do see an enormous number of them, to the extent that anything remotely formulaic or even straightforward has two strikes against it. None of these three movies could in anyway be called simple or straightforward.
The source of the complexity in Frost/Nixon is, as one might expect, the character of Richard Nixon. The trailers to this movie really didn't do it justice. It looked like it was going to be The Trial and Conviction of Richard Nixon as Conducted by David Frost. I have no special love for Nixon, but resurrecting these old liberal bete noires for another hearty round of condemnation leaves me cold. (This was a big problem for me with Good Night and Good Luck a few years back. Joe McCarthy died 51 years ago. Enough.) But the picture is not at all a demonization of Nixon - rather, an exploration of an unusually complex human being. As magnificently portrayed by Frank Langella (my front runner for the Best Actor), he possesses a definite wintry charm, a lot of pride, a lot of guilt, a lot of ambition, and a huge chip on his shoulder. Watching these different aspects of Nixon's character play out in various permutations is what gives the movie its fascination. The ensemble cast, both English and American, is excellent.
The complexity of The Reader can be illustrated most simply with the observation that the title is ambiguous as to which character is meant. The story begins in 1958, when a 35 year old woman (Kate Winslet) begins an affair with a 15 year old boy (played as a youth by David Kross, as an adult by Ralph Fiennes). Not the least of the achievements of the movie is that the evolution of the relationship, from a simple physical attraction to a genuine (if a little unusual) love relationship, is shown naturally and convincingly. The boy grows up and becomes a law student. He encounters the woman again, as one of the accused at a trial of SS guards. Her guilt is never at issue, though the degree of culpability certainly is. His reaction to the revelations at trial is the central theme of his life and the movie.
Those critics who have disliked the movie have interpreted it as a Holocaust movie, which it is not. It is a rather unconventional love story, told over the course of the hero's life. The picture is moving and effective. If I were to make one criticism, it is that Kate Winslet usually portrays such intelligent characters that it takes a long time to realize that this one is not at all bright - rather, a direct, simple woman. (She starts sleeping with the boy because he is attractive, and continues because she likes him more and more - the character needs no better reason for her behavior than that.) That isn't much of a blemish. The enthralling issue is what exactly the impact of the relationship (including the trial) has had on the hero, and why it is as profound as it seems to be.
Slumdog Millionaire is complex in a different way, crossing so many boundaries into so many different genres that it is awfully hard to say exactly what kind of movie it is. It starts life as a hair-raising look at the life of slum kids in Mumbai, touching lightly on themes of police brutality and religious conflict, then evolves smoothly into a sophisticated Bollywood romance. It is not a spoiler to note that the entire cast does a raucous dance number in a train station over the closing credits - a number that seems entirely appropriate, even though the movie is NOT a musical. It's that kind of picture.
If all this seems high spirited and fun, that's because it is, even though the movie surely doesn't begin that way. I will not say more as the picture is very plotty and constantly surprising. However, if all this sounds like great fun for children, be advised that the movie includes a graphic scene in which a naive eight-year old boy, believing he is auditioning for training as a singer, is instead chloroformed and blinded (all this vividly shown on screen) to make him a more productive beggar for the mob. Usually a movie with a scene like that is an absolute no-starter for me, which will give you an idea how strong this picture really is.
In the second tier are Milk and Doubt. Both are awfully good movies with very strong casts. But both are a little bit too linear to make my 'A' list. Sean Penn is another front runner for the Oscar. But the movie is mildly hagiographic, and also something of a Johnny One-Note. ("They're trying to take our rights!! We win!! We win!!") Also, the performance of Josh Brolin as Dan White is pretty poor. White was a man with real issues (obviously), and few, if any, redeeming qualities. But no one gets elected to a major urban office without at least flashes of personal charm, which are completely missing.
Doubt, surprisingly, is even more linear. One would think that a movie themed around dealing with uncertainty would be rich in subtext, but not so. The plot is actually a type of non-violent melodrama that is quite engrossing, but moves vector-like in a single direction. The cast is quite good, and the movie worth the trouble. But it does not stay with you.
Finally, there is Clint Eastwood and Gran Torino, or Dirty Harry Grows Old. It was great fun, with some nice elderly macho and a really charming cross-cultural story. But it probably has the weakest cast of any of them, and I am including Eastwood. The notion that he would get recognition for playing the same character in the same way for the last 40 years is somewhat astounding to me.
None of which changes that this has been a great six weeks for a dedicated movie-goer. The worst of these pictures is pretty good. The three best (Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire) are terrific.
Slumdog Millionaire is complex in a different way, crossing so many boundaries into so many different genres that it is awfully hard to say exactly what kind of movie it is. It starts life as a hair-raising look at the life of slum kids in Mumbai, touching lightly on themes of police brutality and religious conflict, then evolves smoothly into a sophisticated Bollywood romance. It is not a spoiler to note that the entire cast does a raucous dance number in a train station over the closing credits - a number that seems entirely appropriate, even though the movie is NOT a musical. It's that kind of picture.
If all this seems high spirited and fun, that's because it is, even though the movie surely doesn't begin that way. I will not say more as the picture is very plotty and constantly surprising. However, if all this sounds like great fun for children, be advised that the movie includes a graphic scene in which a naive eight-year old boy, believing he is auditioning for training as a singer, is instead chloroformed and blinded (all this vividly shown on screen) to make him a more productive beggar for the mob. Usually a movie with a scene like that is an absolute no-starter for me, which will give you an idea how strong this picture really is.
In the second tier are Milk and Doubt. Both are awfully good movies with very strong casts. But both are a little bit too linear to make my 'A' list. Sean Penn is another front runner for the Oscar. But the movie is mildly hagiographic, and also something of a Johnny One-Note. ("They're trying to take our rights!! We win!! We win!!") Also, the performance of Josh Brolin as Dan White is pretty poor. White was a man with real issues (obviously), and few, if any, redeeming qualities. But no one gets elected to a major urban office without at least flashes of personal charm, which are completely missing.
Doubt, surprisingly, is even more linear. One would think that a movie themed around dealing with uncertainty would be rich in subtext, but not so. The plot is actually a type of non-violent melodrama that is quite engrossing, but moves vector-like in a single direction. The cast is quite good, and the movie worth the trouble. But it does not stay with you.
Finally, there is Clint Eastwood and Gran Torino, or Dirty Harry Grows Old. It was great fun, with some nice elderly macho and a really charming cross-cultural story. But it probably has the weakest cast of any of them, and I am including Eastwood. The notion that he would get recognition for playing the same character in the same way for the last 40 years is somewhat astounding to me.
None of which changes that this has been a great six weeks for a dedicated movie-goer. The worst of these pictures is pretty good. The three best (Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Slumdog Millionaire) are terrific.
Recent Comments