Friday, January 28, 2011

Barney's Version (***1/2)

BARNEY'S VERSION
Directed by Richard J. Lewis

***1/2

Barney Panofsky is the kind of character that is tailor-made for an actor with the talent of Paul Giamatti. Grumpy, condescending, always quick to jump to judgment. How is it that Giamatti is able to dig so deep and find the inner charm, the shining humanity that's been hidden away? He's done so with films like American Splendor and Cold Souls, and more specifically in an incredibly dense performance in the 2004 film Sideways (one of my own personal favorites). Hell, he's probably the only actor that could have done so well in John Adams, the HBO miniseries that covered the life of one of history's greatest curmudgeons. He does it again in Barney's Version, a film that chronicles the perpetually rough-around-the-ages (and fictitious) life of television producer Barney Panofsky. We're talking about a man who can't even open his flip cell phone without making it seem like a burden. Yet, somehow, Giamatti makes him captivating.

The film is based on Mordecai Richler's 1997 novel of the same name - and bares a striking resemblance to his most beloved work from 1959, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. We get a snapshot of Mr. Panofsky's most formative years, as a man with a penchant for kicking back cigars and an obsession with professional hockey. When we first meet Barney, he's in Paris, he's there with his friends, Leo (Thomas Trabacchi), a provocative painter; and Boogie (Scott Speedman), a brilliant writer with a weakness for various vices. Barney's about to get married to Clara (Rachelle LeFevre), a crass, mentally disturbed woman with a flair for the dramatic and a talent with painting. He doesn't particularly love Clara, but he feels obligated because she's pregnant. This is a running theme in Barney's Version: getting married out of obligation and not for love. Needless to say, that marriage is short and taxing, getting off to a bad start once certain secrets are revealed.

Barney's second wife (Minnie Driver) is a verbose, obnoxious woman with an insanely rich father and a Master's Degree in which she's particularly proud of. This is an even shorter marriage (as far as commitment is concerned). At his wedding reception, he meets Miriam (Rosamund Pike), a beautiful woman in a ravishing blue dress who is kind and smart. Barney thinks he may have finally fallen in love, and when she updates him on the Montreal Canadians hockey score, he knows she'll have his heart forever. So, he does his best to rid himself of his second wife, all the while sending flowers weekly to Miriam's office in New York. When the second Mrs. P decides that a sexual ran-de-vouz with Boogie is in order - an event that leads to Boogie's sudden, unclear death - Barney finally has a reason to get a divorce.

That Miriam is even able to warm to Barney is a testament to her unbelievable heart. This was a man who successfully sabotaged to marriages and professed his love to her on their first meeting - on his wedding day. But she is able to love him and marry him and Barney may have finally found the woman that can make him happy. We never question Miriam's decision to be with him, mostly because Rosamund Pike fills her with such grace and wisdom. Pike is a woman who is beautiful in a regal sort of way (which made her perfect casting for 'Jane' in Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice), and it makes sense that Barry would fall for her so instantaneously. But credit must go to Pike for detailing Miriam with such patience and attractiveness. She loves Barney because she sees how she's able to bring the love out of him.

The film is told in a retrospective format, as an aging Barney, struggles with Alzheimer's Disease. He must deal with the publication of a dastardly novel written by a detective convinced that Barney murdered Boogie. Whether or not Barney did actually have a hand in Boogie's death is left fuzzy until the film's end, where Barney puts together a story that seems perfectly sensible to him, even if it might not to others. What matters in particular is that the audience buys this explanation, and this leads to the film's central achievement. Director Richard J. Lewis is able to make Barney endearing and fascinating. We don't groan when we see him make another bad decision or speak too soon, we genuinely feel bad for him as he steps on his own toes once again. Not since last year's Julia have I ever rooted so strongly for such a wrongheaded human being.

I've heard that Barney's Version barely scratches the surface of Richler's novel and I'm sure that may be true. It's swift and sudden in certain moments where a book is sure to be delicate and patient. From what I've read, the film's screenplay adds the character of Izzy (Dustin Hoffman), Barney's loudmouthed father who's able to have moments of wisdom slip through in between naughty stories about his younger days. It's no surprise that Hoffman is terrific in the role, providing mounds of comic relief and showing wonderful chemistry with Giamatti. Having never read the novel, I can only say that the film spans time in a way that's efficient and effective, glossing over the usual details that make books what they are: not films.

Paul Giamatti recently won a Golden Globe for his performance in this film and while it's not career best work, it certainly deserves to be ranked amongst them. What he does with Barney is so pure, often forceful, but with enough general reticence to make him bearable. When Barney begins to depreciate from Alzheimer's, it's a sequence that is truly heartbreaking, but not in the usual manipulated movie way. It's heartbreaking because watching Barney fade is to see someone we know ourselves fade. That's how well we feel we've known him by the end. Does the film's final act become a bit of a tear-jerker? Why, yes, but its earned that right. It showcases the illness in a way that's personal, but not merciless, and all the pain we feel comes right from the eyes of Giamatti who really makes you love this schmuck.

I don't imagine this film will hit it off with American audiences. Unfortunately, a man of Giamatti's physical specimen will probably never be able to lead a hit film. The film was just nominated for an Academy Award for its make-up, a nomination that is so just that I'm surprised that it actually happened. But the film was made in Montreal, so perhaps those Canadians care little for Oscar gold, since a formidable campaign was never really shown. It is the kind of film that is right up the Academy's alley: quirky and unique in its own way, but dealing with topics (disease, dated costumes, marriage) that they love to dig their teeth into. Well, like Barney, I don't exactly see Giamatti enjoying putting on the tux for a Sunday night.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

And the nominations have arrived...

Yesterday morning, alongside the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, a very vivacious and enthusiastic Mo'Nique stood upon a stage in front of a flood of reporters announcing the nominations for 2011 Academy Awards. Not many surprises overall. Much has been made of The King's Speech and True Grit being the big winners, thanks to their total number of nominations (12 and 10, respectively). Some have even been as bold as to say that front-runner The Social Network underachieved with eight nominations - this speaks to how touted this film has been throughout precursor season, that eight would be considered a disappointment. I personally don't think that total number of nominations matter a whole bunch in the grand scheme of things (The Hurt Locker and Avatar were both tied for nine nominees last year). I'd like to think that people don't change their mind based on something that superficial (and if The King's Speech does eventually win, it would establish a change of heart). So, here's the list of nominees announced this morning, but if you'd like to stick around for a little deeper analysis, here you go:

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH
David O. Russell, THE FIGHTER

**4/5 on my predictions**
Let's just go ahead and jump in with what is probably the biggest snub of the morning. For the third time, Christopher Nolan received a DGA Best Director nomination, but did not get the same respect from his fellow peers in the Academy. I did mention that Nolan was the only one of the predicted five that felt the most vulnerable, considering the Academy's somewhat aversion to him. His film Inception was a high concept Sci-Fi unlike anything most moviegoers have ever seen, and his devoted fan bases are still licking their wounds from the Dark Knight fiasco in 2008. So, I'd imagine that this latest snub seems particularly cruel. Instead, they opted to reward the - interestingly, now prestigious - Coen Brothers for their megahit True Grit, which while good, seemed very middlebrow for the Coens, no? Well, perhaps that's how they'll finally get blanketed with praise and commercial success (which is what happened). Russell, Hooper, Fincher, and Aronofsky all walked away with their much expected nominations, so there's not much to say about that.

BEST ACTOR
Javier Bardem, BIUTIFUL
Jeff Bridges, TRUE GRIT
Jesse Eisenberg, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS

**4/5 on my predictions**
There were rumblings that Bardem would sneak in. The reason? Because he's really fucking good in Biutiful. I worried that nobody would get around to seeing it, considering that it's in Spanish and it has a very goofy release schedule. I guess everyone did a good job watching their screeners. Of course, this came at the expense of my beloved Ryan Gosling, whose wondrous performance in Blue Valentine went unnoticed. We'd all like to think that Jeff Bridges' overall solid, but unimaginative work in True Grit would get sidelined to take on both of those fantastic performances, but we all know that the Best Actor category likes to scale older, so they couldn't go under the age of fifty on all of the nominations. But this is all a race to see who will finish second to Colin Firth who is stampeding toward his first Oscar. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and James Franco's version of Aron Ralston in 127 Hours round out the rest of the nominees.

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Nicole Kidman, RABBIT HOLE
Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

**4/5 on my predictions**
I was so genuinely afraid that Nicole Kidman's fantastic performance in Rabbit Hole would get snubbed that I tried to smoke screen it in my predictions by making a terrible prediction of... Julianne Moore (my all-time favorite actor who, realistically, never had a shot). Well, even though I do think Moore is deserving, I'm glad to be wrong on that one. And despite being a fringe candidate most of the season, Michelle Williams was able to sneak in and get a nomination for her great work in Blue Valentine (her co-star wasn't lucky enough to have the same fate). Jennifer Lawrence's subtle, but daunting work in the tiny indie Winter's Bone (which had a huge day) was able to sustain it's buzz from July, and get the young actress her first Academy Award nomination. Rounding out the five, were the two Golden Globe winners: Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right and overall front-runner Natalie Portman for Black Swan.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER
John Hawkes, WINTER'S BONE
Jeremy Renner, THE TOWN
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

**4/5 on my predictions**
There had been a lot of talk that John Hawkes would get a nomination for his gritty performance in Winter's Bone, and that conversation only got stronger when he received a SAG nomination. I thought The Social Network wave was strong enough to keep Andrew Garfield's humble performance in the race. I was wrong. I was afraid that Mark Ruffalo would be the culprit if Hawkes made his way in, so I didn't go for him. Luckily (well, unluckily for Garfield), we were able to get both. Jeremy Renner's fiery performance in The Town was able to get the actor his second nomination in as many years. The rest of the list is comprised of the two front-runners: Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech and Christian Bale in The Fighter.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, THE FIGHTER
Helena Bonham Carter, THE KING'S SPEECH
Melissa Leo, THE FIGHTER
Hailee Steinfeld, TRUE GRIT
Jacki Weaver, ANIMAL KINGDOM

**5/5 on my predictions**
Still having trouble trying to grasp the fact that the Academy considers Hailee Steinfeld's role in True Grit as "supporting", but it is a pretty terrific performance, and her strong-minded cowgirl was able to bump out more high-profile candidates like the Mila Kunis and Barbara Herschey from Black Swan. Jacki Weaver was able to withstand Animal Kingdom's incredibly low profile and get a nomination (I'm told that it's a much deserved nomination, which is why I can't wait to get it on my netflix queue). The two Fighter girls, Adams and Leo, were able to keep their strong run growing (and I expect Leo's string of good fortune to continue - even though I'm genuinely surprised that she's not splitting votes with Adams). And Helena Bonham Carter fills out the ballot in a no-brainer nomination (has there ever been such a lock that has no chance of winning? Seems odd to me).

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David Seidler, THE KING'S SPEECH
Scott Silver and Paul Tamasay & Eric Johnson (& Keith Dorrinton - story), THE FIGHTER

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt (and John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich - story), TOY STORY 3
Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy, 127 HOURS
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
Debra Granik & Anne Rossellini, WINTER'S BONE
Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

**9/10 on my predictions**
Nothing too surprising here, unless you count Mike Leigh's nod for Another Year - but when Leigh is always the surprise screenplay nominee, doesn't that stop being a surprise? And despite getting snubbed once again as a director, Christopher Nolan gets his second career nomination as a screenwriter (the screenplay should be nominated just for the screenplay alone, because the screenplay itself has its splotches). Out of all the major categories, Original Screenplay is the most up in the air, since The King's Speech's David Seidler hasn't exactly pulled away, with The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right having a serious shot at winning. In adapted, all good work is represented. Even though I'd like to hope that Michael Arndt's script for Toy Story 3 has a real shot, this is really just a contest for who gets second place to Aaron Sorkin's extraordinary screenplay for The Social Network.

BEST PICTURE
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

**9/10 on my predictions**
127 Hours held strong, much to my (pleasant) surprise. And Winter's Bone finished off its magical run from a small Summer indie to a four-time Oscar nominee. True Grit rode ten nominations to a Best Picture bid, while Inception made the list (though when Nolan was forgotten once again, there was some real nervousness coming from the Inception camp) as well. The rest of the list went as expected, setting off a moderately enticing showdown between The Social Network and The King's Speech (not sure why I'd call something as arbitrary as an Oscar race as a "showdown", but that's what I heard Meredith Viera say on the Today Show). The two biggest snubs here? My beloved Blue Valentine was left off, while Ben Affleck's The Town was also snubbed despite strong evidence otherwise was beginning to arise before the nominations came out.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with their decisions. You can't make everyone happy - and in the case of Gosling, Moore, and Garfield, they certainly didn't make me happy - and the Academy did a relatively solid job of spreading the wealth. And for those of you wondering, I finished...

**82/105 on my predictions** That's 78%, ya'll. Easily the best I've ever done.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Final 2010 Oscar Predictions

Official Oscar Nominations will be announced bright and early on Tuesday morning, and with that comes the final nomination predictions on this blog. What does it mean to correctly predict those nominated in each category. Absolutely nothing. But what does it matter at this point. It's all good fun, like picking which team you'd like to win the Super Bowl. As I do every year, I'll try to supply each category with at least one wild card choice because what's the fun of having the same choices as everyone else does? Oscar rarely goes chalk, so you might as well have fun trying to guess which surprises there may be. So, without further ado, here are my picks:





BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, TRUE GRIT
Jesse Eisenberg, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS
Ryan Gosling, BLUE VALENTINE

I'm sticking to my guns: the Academy will not nominate two old men in Westerns, even if they are as legendary as Duvall and Bridges. Earlier, I was sticking with Robert Duvall's overall dull work in the overall dull Get Low, but since then, True Grit has turned into the highest grossing Western in what seems like decades (not to mention it is certainly the highest grossing film within the filmography of the Coen Brothers), so I'm going to go with Jeff Bridges rebirth of Rooster Cogburn. With that open spot, I'm predicting (hoping) that Ryan Gosling's brilliant performance in Blue Valentine gets to sneak into the top five. Eisenberg has become a lock over the last few weeks as The Social Network has dominated all precursor awards, while Franco and Firth have been sure things for months. Other possible spoilers: Javier Bardem, Biutiful; Paul Giamatti, Barney's Version; Mark Wahlberg, The Fighter.

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE
Julianne Moore, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

I know, I know. You'll say that I've let my Julianne Moore obsession blind me. Well, that's true - in a way. Lesley Manville's performance in Mike Leigh's Another Year was a hot commodity ever since the film premiered at Cannes in March, but a lukewarm box office showing (not helped by a puzzling release schedule - still haven't gotten a chance to see the film) has really derailed her candidacy. Nicole Kidman's work in Rabbit Hole has consistently been recognized throughout the season, but that film has also had an underwhelming commercial showing. I would not be surprised if Julianne Moore, every bit as good in the film as Bening, gets her fifth career nomination here. Portman and Bening, both Golden Globe winners, are certified locks now, and Jennifer Lawrence has surprisingly sustained her awards attention this late in the game - which means she's built up good will, so I feel she's safe. Michelle Williams isn't a slam dunk (though she should be), but if I'm considering Manville and Kidman last minute scratches, then she should easily take the fifth spot. A few long shots that might spoil the party: Tilda Swinton, I Am Love; Noomi Rapace, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo; Hilary Swank, Conviction.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER
Andre Garfield, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Jeremy Renner, THE TOWN
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

This is the easiest category to predict, I feel. Even the winner seems obvious at this point. Since the beginning of awards season, Christian Bale has won close to every award for his portrayal of crack-addicted Dickie Ecklund, brother and trainer of boxer Mickey Ward, in The Fighter. Mark Ruffalo's astounding work as the free-love sperm donor in The Kids Are All Right may be dangling dangerously on the fence, but they couldn't possibly live with themselves if they didn't nominate that great performance, could they? I say he's still in (hopefully). Renner and Garfield both garnered unexpected traction once their respective films became commercial/critical smashes. As for Rush, his fantastic speech therapist in The King's Speech is the only thing standing in the way between Bale and his first Oscar. He likely won't come out with the win, but Rush will definitely get the nomination. Additional possible challengers: Justin Timberlake, The Social Network; John Hawkes, Winter's Bone.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, THE FIGHTER
Helena Bonham-Carter, THE KING'S SPEECH
Melissa Leo, THE FIGHTER
Hailee Steinfeld, TRUE GRIT
Jacki Weaver, ANIMAL KINGDOM

Based on things I've heard people say, if you've actually seen Animal Kingdom, then Jacki Weaver should be a slam dunk. But most people haven't - including me, but I have it coming soon in my Netflix queue. I'm gonna say her loyal supporters give her enough to sneak her in. Then there's the curious case of Hailee Steinfeld, who is the main character in True Grit, in almost every scene, yet she's being campaigned as "supporting". Hmmm. Well, she is very good in the film, so I think that she's in, but the level of category fraud here is pretty astronomical (all-time category fraud: newcomer Timothy Hutton as the protagonist in Ordinary People wins Best Supporting actor - pretty shameless). The two Fighter girls are locked into the top five and deservedly so, and Bonham-Carter's charming performance in The King's Speech has seemed like a lock for months, despite not really winning any of the precursor awards (it helps her, though, that The King's Speech is peaking at the moment). Still have a (long) shot: Mila Kunis or Barbara Herschey in Black Swan; Dianne Wiest, Rabbit Hole.

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David O. Russell, THE FIGHTER

I was sticking with Danny Boyle's directorial work for a long time in 127 Hours, but the film has faded quickly, and since many were turned off by Boyle's showiness to begin with, I'm going to have to leave him off this late in the game. Thanks to The Fighter taking off in December, David O. Russell has a cozy spot in the top five. The other four seem relatively safe, and I feel confident that this will be the five names announced tomorrow morning. The only one who may be slightly vulnerable is Nolan who, in a post Dark Knight universe, is always at risk with being left as a bridesmaid on nominations morning. Other candidates: Debra Granik, Winter's Bone; Roman Polanski, The Ghost Writer; and (duh) The Coen Brothers, True Grit.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Derek Cianfrance, BLUE VALENTINE
Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumber, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David Seidler, THE KING'S SPEECH
Scott Silver and Paul Tamasay & Eric Johnson (& Keith Dorrinton - story), THE FIGHTER

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt, TOY STORY 3
Simon Beaufoy & Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
Debra Granik & Anne Rosselini, WINTER'S BONE
Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

As you may have noticed, I'm predicting a surprisingly nice pick-up for Blue Valentine on nominations morning. As much as I love Black Swan, its screenplay is its weakest point and I see it being dropped from the top five, and Derek Cianfrance's script manages to slip in. Inversely, I'm seeing a rather disappointing turnout for 127 Hours, though I do think it's clever, limited script will get recognition. The rest of the nominations feel pretty safe to me. In Original, Mike Leigh's Another Year or the Austrailian Animal Kingdom could be a possible spoiler. As for adapted, the race to lose to Aaron Sorkin could possibly be joined by Roman Polanski's contemporary film noir The Ghost Writer or David Lindsay-Abaire's script for the severely under-appreciated Rabbit Hole.

BEST PICTURE
Black Swan
Blue Valentine
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

So, yes, I am saying that the long shot Blue Valentine will make it onto the top ten. I see 127 Hours falling out, and with that I think the small, brilliant film from Derek Cianfrance will be able to sneak in. Most people have been claiming that The Town will take that open spot, but perhaps its my own ambivalence toward that film that ceases me from including it. Having ten nominations leaves the door open for mediocre crowd pleasers to make it in, which is what happened last year when The Blind Side was able to endear Academy members enough to a shocking nomination. That could happen again with The Town (though I'll admit that it's head-and-shoulders a better film than The Blind Side is), but I'm holding out hope. The rest of the nominations are somewhat predictable. True Grit's surprise commercial success has vaulted it into the picture, and Winter's Bone surprising endurance despite a small release back in July has seemed to have worked. But, I mean, The Social Network is going to win anyway, right? Well, the Producer's Guild awarding The King's Speech might have thrown us a curve ball.


Saturday, January 22, 2011

Made In Dagenham (**1/2)

MADE IN DAGENHAM
Directed by Nigel Cole

**1/2

There are certain film actors that are imbued with such wonderful likability that they fill their screen characters with such unavoidable watchability. I think Sally Hawkins is the newest member of this group and in Made in Dagenham she continues this trend. As the Women's Rights activist Rita O'Grady (not a real person in history, but real enough for the movie I suppose), Hawkins charms the audience so much that it is almost enough to distract from the film's by-the-numbers screenplay and mundane, often scattered direction. She's able to make the movie a pretty fun experience when all is said and done, and even though we've seen a hundred movies just like this one before, at least we can appreciate the wit.

Rita is one of 187 women working for the famed Ford Company factory in Dagenham, England. They may not put the actual car together, but they sew and hem the fabrics and the leathers for the seats and the armrests. Doesn't seem like the greatest responsibility until you sit in a car seat that's busting at the seams, and you realize just how uncomfortable an improperly manufactured car seat can be. What these women do is skilled, complex labor, but yet, the Ford company does not feel like paying them as if it is. It doesn't help that the head of their union is more interested in indulging in free meals and round trips through Europe, than actually furthering their cause. But when the Ford Company treats them as merely a burdening issue that will soon go away with a little patience, Rita and her group of strong-minded, sharp-tongued girls leave the plant and go on strike.

Albert (Bob Hoskins), the girls' factory manager, brings up one point to Rita that they'd never considered. They will never get paid fairly because no matter what happens, women will always be paid less than their male counterparts. Why? Because the companies can do so, they will do so, and that is how it has always been. So, Rita, along with her witty group of girls decide they will not come back to work until equal pay amongst men and women becomes legislation. This alienates the men, who get laid off once the car plant cannot produce seat furnishing. This includes Rita's oafish, but lovable husband Eddie (Daniel Mays) - whose character has one of the single most hackneyed character arcs in movie history: love wife, made nervous by said wife, dismiss wife, challenge wife, break and come begging back for mercy; we know as soon as we see him.

It's not long before their equal pay strike and hits the news, and even captures the attention of Secretary of State Barbara Castle (a fiery performance from Miranda Richardson). Feeling a kinship to these women, Castle legitimizes their cause and stands behind it - but even she has political hurdles she must cross before making equal pay a reality. Made In Dagenham is the kind of movie where you do not even fathom there being a solemn note by the end, and seeing Barbara Castle's appearance only strengthens that. It's the kind of film that strategically moves all of its heartbreak to the middle - men berating them, trouble at home and in society for shutting down the plant - so that the ending is even that much more uplifting. Which is fine in the overall scheme of things, but it certainly leaves the movie without any real feeling of suspense, and when the screenplay itself decides to tell the story without any real edge or innovation, you walk in knowing what you're going to see once the opening credits come up.

But there is one major subplot that has real heart. It includes Lisa Hopkins (Rosamund Pike), the wife of one of the Ford agents trying to break the women's strike. When Lisa and Rita strike up a kinship, it seems a bit like an odd pairing, but Lisa presents a personal, realistic window into the world that these women are fighting against everyday. "I've got an Honors degree from Cambridge University," she tells Rita, "but my husband speaks to me like I'm a fool." In only a handful of scenes, Rosamund Pike's performance is gentle, but powerful, allowing a seemingly superfluous character make an indelible stamp on the film. So much so that I almost wondered what a film solely about Lisa would have been like, but I guess that's besides the point.

The film does have terrific performances. The factory women (including great work from Andrea Riseborough, Jaime Winstone, and Geraldine James, amongst others) are a hoot, not subscribing to the usual ladylike behavior that's expected from their fellow Englishwomen. They make snarky remarks, cuss, and have sex, and this group of actresses fills them with enough unapologetic charm that it doesn't seem like a put-on. And Hawkins (who I've loved since her masterful work in Happy-Go-Lucky) does do a good job in a kind of role she'd never tackled before. Does director Nigel Cole fully exploit her greatest qualities? Not all the time. I sometimes felt towards the end that Rita spent so much time crying that it made it hard for me to believe she could accomplish anything. But Hawkins is able to dig deep and bring soul out of a very sweet, overtly emotional woman.

I can't imagine anybody walking out of Made In Dagenham disappointed. It opened with a giant thud in America, which left its Oscar chances fleeting, at best. It's satisfying in the kind of way that fast food is, but certainly you could eat something a lot better - and surely Made In Dagenham could have had a lot more spark. As it stands, all of its excitement stems solely from its cast, which wasn't afraid to be bare of ethics and embrace crassness. I feel like there were a lot of wasted opportunities here. Perhaps too much time was spent trying to shoehorn the film into a lighthearted comedy. Either way, Dagenham is worth seeing for the performances from Hawkins, Pike, and James alone. And Miranda Richardson does score occasionally when she is on the screen. It's also a bummer to find out that Rita O'Grady never actually existed, but who knows, perhaps the real story could have been even duller.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Looking Back: Malcolm X (1992)

LOOKING BACK: MALCOLM X (1992)
Directed by Spike Lee

Looking back on some of the best films from past years.

Few men are more larger-than-life than Malcolm X, and so it would seem that few men are more equipped to have a movie made about them. He was provocative, incendiary, memorable, but more than anything, he was a powerfully influential African American leader during one of the most tumultuous racial times in this country's history. But what director Spike Lee did with his film Malcolm X was smart; he did not make it a film about the Civil Rights Movement, but about the man Malcolm was. History has painted Malcolm X as an extremist, the inflammatory response to the peaceful preaching of Dr. Martin Luther King. Lee doesn't try to ignore Malcolm's more notorious moments, but rants become a lot more clear when you have a real understanding of who's doing the ranting.

I think Malcolm X may be the greatest biopic ever made (Sure, Raging Bull is probably a better overall film, but when you consider the true definition of the expression "biopic", Malcolm X embodies that phrase better than any other movie). It helps that the man behind the reigns is Spike Lee, because he was perhaps the only filmmaker at that time who wasn't afraid to make a film that will dutifully alienate white audiences. Malcolm X is an easier pill to swallow than his other masterpiece, Do The Right Thing, but it still holds in it that unapologetic braggadocio unique to Lee's filmmaking sensibility. As if to say, "This is a black man making a film about another black man, and that very film is for black audiences. If whites decide to appreciate that, well, that's just gravy."

The movie covers Malcolm X's entire life: from his beginnings as a two-bit hustler in Boston to leading millions of African Americans as the lead minister of the controversial Nation of Islam. It chronicles each and every evolution (which there were many) that Malcolm took which led to him becoming one of the most important Afro-American leaders in history. Lee does not focus solely on his most prosperous moments, but in fact, an entire hour and a half passes before the Malcolm X we know and learned about appears preaching on the streets of Harlem. And here is where I think the film is it's most audacious. When you look at other great biopics, such as Raging Bull or Lawrence of Arabia, the window of time covered is limited to the moments of the person's highest visibility. Malcolm X isn't only interested in the Muslim Malcolm X, but the criminal and convict that was Malcolm Little, and the more passive Malcolm X who emerged near the end of his life after taking a pilgrimage in Mecca.

But Malcolm X is a political film, or at the very least, it questions some of the political leaders of its time. It flatly shows the CIA playing a role in the assassination of Malcolm. It displays the Nation of Islam, led by the human deity Elijah Muhammad, as a double-crossing, insecure organization. The only person who is able to make it out of the film unscathed is Malcolm X. Many have given their displeasure that the film takes such a gracious stance with a man who has become so polarizing in the history books. But I don't mind it much. This is a film about the man Malcolm X, but more than that, it is a film told almost entirely from his point-of-view. When he's robbing and running numbers early in the film, we're with him. When he's a disrespectful, highly penalized prison inmate, we're with him. Even when he's a misguided, self-righteous spiritual leader, we're with him. Spike Lee's screenplay (written along with Arnold Perl) does such an excellent job of empathizing with this powerful personality, by casually showing us his flaws and insecurities, but never judging them.

Which leads me to the performance from Denzel Washington, which rises above simple imitation and physical transformation. Sure, it's admirable that Washington is able to embody Malcolm's essence to the point that we forget that we're watching a performance on the screen. But what makes this the greatest performance in this formidable actor's career is the transitions that he reenacts so effortlessly. Malcolm Little's transformation into Malcolm X in this film is not gradual (or else this movie may have been even longer), but rather violent and striking. But Washington is such a skilled performer and so honest, that he's able to find the true core of the character and make it feel gradual. And of course, he recitations of Malcolm's famous speeches (sometimes word for word) are engrossing and above all entertaining. Washington only lost his much deserved Oscar at the 1993 Academy Awards because people needed to finally award Al Pacino for his good, but pacifying work in the middling Scent of a Woman. History has shined kindly, though, and most realize that Washington really did have the year's best performance.

Is Malcolm X too long? At 202 minutes, perhaps. I would think that when you're capturing the essence of a man's entire life, a three-and-a-half hour movie is probably too short. You could probably have a valid argument against Lee tacking on a ten-minute epilogue to the film's end (you could say that it only restates what the previous three hours already had), but I think that is an example as to how personal and how important Spike Lee saw this film to be. I don't know if any other filmmaker would have been able to make this movie without it becoming stuffy and generic. Lee fills it with so much charm and energy, and he sustains it for such a long, arduous movie. It never slows down. So, yes, as a number, 202 minutes is too long for your average movie. But for Malcolm X? It's the appropriate length for one of the best historical films ever made.