The Passion of the Clint

It's seeming more and more likely that I will be wrong when it comes to my Best Actor Oscar predictions. I have been a sole supporter of Brad Pitt's bid to get his second Oscar nom for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I don't particularly know why I've supported that pick, but I guess it just seemed like a "nominateable" performance from a film which certainly looks "nominateable". But the tide has been changing, and now a new (well, not so new) horse has been thrown into the race, and that's Clint Eastwood. That's right, the filmmaker who has seen a renaissance in his career this decade is becoming a super strong contender to win his first acting Oscar for the film Gran Torino.

I wasn't too excited about Torino after finally seeing the trailer (truth is, I'm still not really that excited), but ever since it appeared the buzz for Eastwood has been building slowly and surely. The trailer poses the storyline as almost like a Dirty Harry 6: Retirement's A Bitch. Like he has in most of his recent screen performances, he snarls and growls, almost like WALL-E, except without any of the redeeming qualities. In a year where actors like Sean Penn, Frank Langella, and Mickey Rourke seem like locks, the on-the-fence nominations (i.e. Richard Jenkins, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt) seem like the ones who will have to make space for Eastwood's career achievement nomination.



Guess which one has enough gravitas to credit an Oscar nom?

But really, as much as everybody loves Clint (and I mean loves Clint), doesn't it seem like the annual parade of recognition is a bit gratuitous? As fellow blogger, Nathaniel, stated in his blog The Film Experience, The New York Times is actually making a case that Clint deserves the award for simply never having won an acting Oscar. They seem to forget the fact that Clint has also won four other Oscar statues as a director and producer. I don't really know how you can make the case that Clint deserves more.


"Well, I guess as long as I'm here, I'll take a few more."
-Clint Eastwood







I should probably hold my complaining until after I actually see the film, but I wouldn't be surprised if all this worship turns into some serious backlash.

GREAT FILMS: The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

GREAT FILMS: THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)
Directed by John Ford

Sprung from the mind of the literary genius John Steinbeck, during the depths of The Great Depression came a masterpiece which completely embodied the troubling times for many Americans. Beyond that, he wrote a novel so compelling and grand that few stories before or since have been as cherished or studied. That novel was The Grapes of Wrath. Sandwiched between his other classics Of Mice and Men and East of Eden, The Grapes of Wrath was a massive success, winning Steinbeck the Pulitzer Prize. Few filmmakers would have had the bravery or the pride to take on this immortal story, but John Ford, probably the most mythic of all American studio directors, was just the man to do it.

The film assembles what is easily one of the greatest ensemble casts in cinematic history. For the iconic character of 'Ma Joad', Ford recruited veteran actress Jane Darwell. Playing one of the signature characters in American literature, Darwell possessed the strong-minded Ma so fluidly, yet with such grace, that she was able to walk away with an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress when it was all done. For the shamed profit Casy, there is John Carradine. With his lanky limbs, and long face, Carradine's portrayal of the worn-down former preacher is a perfect characterization of one of the book's most important characters.

It's the film's main character though, Tom Joad, that guides the film along. For that all-important role, Ford was able to get an actor with whom he'd just worked with a year earlier in Young Mr. Lincoln. It was then very young Henry Fonda. Fonda, always the face of imminent wisdom and grace throughout his career, has his greatest screen performance in The Grapes of Wrath (did you really think his best work was On Golden Pond? Didn't think so). For the role of Tom, Fonda did not rely on his kind eyes or suave sensiblility, but instead dug into the deep, dark core created by Steinbeck.

That is probably what makes the film so great, it never eases up on Steinbeck's relentless narrative. Telling the stories of oppressed migrant workers during The Depression was never a stretch for Steinbeck, but none of his other books are as damning of the American system the way Grapes of Wrath is. Steinbeck knew that it was not the problem of the parts that caused the biggest economic meltdown in American history, but the problems of the whole. Most importantly, the people who ran it all, they were the ones who should be held responsible. Most would expect Ford, a respected studio filmmaker, to lighten up on Steinbeck's bitter portrayal, but he instead trekked on.

As we watch the Joad family--forced from their Oklahoma home by banks, and traveling to California in search for work--what we are really seeing is every American family. This was the vision that Steinbeck had hoped for, and that is what Ford delivered. The Joads are not from Oklahoma, as much as they are from the Heartland. As farmers, they are the life and blood of this country, the ones who work the hardest. The close-knit family also representing the strength of will in the hearts of all Americans. By machines and technology, they are whisked away from their home of decades--there is no need for their labor anymore.

At least, no need for it in Oklahoma, because there is plenty of work in California, where they're headed. Where they hope to find oppurtunity, they find nothing but more hardship. Not only is there not enough work to go around, but they also encounter extreme prejudice from those Californians who are scared of all the desperate 'Okies' stealing the work oppurtunity. American families pinned against American families, fighting for the right to eat that day. It was an ugly scene. Steinbeck based the novel on trips he took to visit the migrant workers during the mid-1930's. No other novel of his, though, represents the plight of the migrants more than The Grapes of Wrath, where he makes the case that the American government not only let them down, but made them inhuman.

But let's stick to the greatness of the film. John Ford won his second Best Director Oscar for this film. The combination of Ford and Steinbeck is a perfect storm of such magnificence, which has a rare chance of ever happening again. We have arguably the two greatest Americans ever in their respective professions collaborating together. Sure, Ford changed Steinbeck's storyline around here and there (including cutting out the brilliant, but controversial ending of the novel), but he still encompassed the rebellious spirit. The American will that lays within the hearts of characters pulsates, and the religious imagery that Steinbeck so strategically peppered throughout the story still speaks with much profundity.

The film of The Grapes of Wrath is culminated in two scenes. Both scenes have their place in the book, but are done much differently in the film. Ford, knowing the dramatic power of each part, places them in ominous moments in the film, where they can reach their optimum effect. The first scene is one between Fonda and Darwell. Tom hopes to sneak out and leave the family, before a crime he's committed incriminates all of them. Before he can leave, Ma stops him, and pleads with him to stay, in which Tom responds with his majestic "I'll be everywhere" speech, that still stands as one of the great monologues in movie history. The second scene takes place at the very end of the film: The Joad family, having gone through all they've gone through, drive on forward, while Ma explains to all of them "We're the people that live", exclaiming the tried and true spirit that kept so many American families going even during the darkest times.

The Grapes of Wrath that will always be relevant, as long as there are those people who have to fight every day just to keep the lights on. It's a testament to what is glorious about being an American. The idea of The American Dream has become so convoluted over the last century. It is not about making as much money as you possibly can, or becoming the most grandiose of powers. The American Dream is about getting by despite race, creed, sexuality, religion, etc. We are a country with a twisted, sometimes horrible history, but we have landmarks of grace and success. The Grapes of Wrath gives a small taste of what it means to struggle, and the strength it takes to survive it. After eight years of the Bush Administration and economical destruction seemingly coming down the pike, it'll be interesting to see if the American people still have the valor that people like the Joads had in even harder times.

Australia (***)

AUSTRALIA
Directed by Baz Luhrman



***

Lo and behold the most grandiose film of the year, Australia. It's been seven years since the last time we saw Baz Luhrman behind the camera. He's the man behind such sensory assaults as Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge. Those films, though larger than life, are still nowhere in size compared to Australia, which is meant to be Luhrman's grand opus, the film he's chosen to be remembered by. The film is an opus, clocking in at nearly two hours and fifty minutes, and luckily, the film is quite grand as well.

As the film opens, we hear the narration of a young Aborigine boy named Nullah (the debut performance from Brandon Walters). He tells the story of how he met Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman), and how she would go on to meet The Drover (Hugh Jackman). Ashley, a member of the rich English aristocracy, comes to Australia to meet with her husband, who lives in his ranch named Faraway Downs with a large group of Aborigines, including Nullah and his mother. Mr. Ashley has assigned The Drover to bring Sarah to him when she finally does arrive.

Lady Ashley is immediately turned off by the rock 'em, sock 'em atmosphere of the Land Down Under, and despises The Drover upon first meeting him. The Drover is a pretty ominous fellow, you see. His job is to drove cattle, but he plays by his own rules, and that's it. "No one hires me, and no one fires me," he says, and anyone who hears it knows that he means it. When Lady Ashley finally reaches Faraway Downs, she is greeted with the knowledge that her husband has been murdered by the Aborigne King George, and that the next biggest cattle breeder, King Carney, will gladly take Mr. Ashley's livestock off her hands.

At first, Lady Ashley is content with giving away the ranch, and being rid of the place, until one of Carney's men, Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) reveals a dirty secret about how the native Aborigine people are treated. Nullah is a "half-cross" as they say, meaning he was born after his mother slept with a white man, and because of this, he should be taken away, to be raised with the rest of the half-crosses. Lady Ashley, for the sake of what's right decides to keep the ranch, and with the help of The Drover, hopes that she can keep the business growing, and keep little Nullah out of harm's way.

Sure, the film's melodrama is almost as gratuitous as it is unapologetic, and sure, the film's delve into visual effects can be a little silly (Really, Baz? CGI cattle? Really?). I don't know if this is the Australian Gone With The Wind like Luhrman wanted it to be, and maybe that's why the film works. Seems to me, this film reminds me much more of those epic westerns of the 40's and 50's such as Red River or Giant, since those film's also took the time to tell the difficulties of raising a farm and cattle. In the background of all the plot, the film takes place at the beginnings of World War II, when Japanese threatened to attack the nearby border of Northern Australia, and you better believe explosions and battle scenes make an appearance.

The film's infamous production is almost as stirring a story as the film itself. After being pushed back for six months, principle photography took over nine months to complete, and then there were also emergency re-shoots just months ago to recover lost footage. The budget ballooned by over thirty percent to $150 million. In the editing room, Luhrman was said to have been juggling between eleven different endings, while getting continuous pressure from the studio to pick the one that was the most upbeat. With a rough cut running time of 196 minutes, he was then pressured to cut it down to the more manageable 167 minutes. All of this sounds like the recipe for one giant turkey of a film, but Luhrman salvaged what he needed, and came out with quite a captivating film.

Luhrman filled the cast to the brim with some of the world's most famous Aussies. Kidman and Jackman are both a romp in the film, neither seeming to take the film's overwrought, sentimental storyline to seriously, unless the scenes demands it. Kidman, especially seems content with playing a much lighter character than a film like this usually demands. It's the kind of performance that get Kidman-haters something to talk about, but it's just broad enough to fit the scheme of the film. Walters, playing what is essentially the film's main character, does a fine job as Nullah, even if I don't agree with Luhrman's endorsement, when he called Walters the "next great movie star" (can we please wait until these kids have released movies until we starting saying things like that?).

Australia will certainly turn off a lot of high-brow film lovers who scoff at it's broad appeal and exaggerated special effects. Luhrman has always been a filmmaker who has made divisive films. This is probably his least alienating picture, though, since it encompasses so many things including high drama, strong romance, frivolous action sequences and minor moments of comedy. The film's approach certainly isn't very subtle, but who said good movies always have to be? The film will keep you enthralled for every minute you're sitting in the theater, and isn't that all you want for your ticket?

So Here We Go.....

The awards season has officially kicked off with the release of the National Board of Review awards. Truth be told, the NBoRs are never much to sneeze at in terms of Oscar traction, but by being the first of the group each and every year, it is essentially the season opener if we're thinking in sports terms.

The big winner, so to speak, was Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire taking home Best Picture. The crowd-pleasing film continues to wow audiences after it's big win at the Toronto Film Festival. Despite going against heavier material such as Doubt and prestige pics like Frost/Nixon (remember how much they adored the dark and pretigious last year?), it seems to be the consistent winner so far, early in the race. Best Director, however, was handed to David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The Fight Club director has always had a strong cult following, but has never had awards appeal, but he already seems like a lock for Benjamin Button.

The acting awards were well spread around. For Best Actress, the NBoR looked over Meryl Streep for Doubt and Kate Winslet for Revolutionary Road, to give it to the less illustrious Anne Hathaway for the beautiful Rachel Getting Married. For Best Actor, projected front-runners Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) and Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon) were also passed over for Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. The buzz for his career acheivement acting Oscar had to start somewhere, and the NBoR is the best place to start.

For Best Supporting Actor, they jumped off the Heath Ledger Dark Knight bandwagon, and gave it to Josh Brolin in Milk. Brolin, it's possible, will probably be given many awards as a blanket for all the brilliant supporting performances in that film. The one category that seemed to go according to plan was Penelope Cruz winning for her fiery supporting turn in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. The Original Screenplay award went to Nick Schenk for Gran Torino, while the Adapted Screenplay award was a tie between Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire and Eric Roth for his extended take on the incredibly succinct The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Other awards of notice were Dev Patel (for Slumdog Millionaire) winning for Best Breakthrough Actor Performance, while Best Breakthrough Actress Performance went to Viola Davis for Doubt. Best Directorial Debut went to Courtney Hunt for Frozen River (while Melissa Leo won the Spotlight Award for the same film, along with Richard Jenkins for The Visitor), and Best Animated Feature went to WALL-E. To round everything out, Best Ensemble Cast went to the cast of Doubt. The rest of the NBoR awards, including lists of the best films of 2008, best Foreign-Language film, as well as Best Documentary here's a link to see them.

The National Board of Review is not as big of an Oscar precursor as say the Golden Globes nominations next week, but don't scoff at the effect an early bid can have. I was most surprised by Eastwood's win, since I was thinking that the 'Career Achievement nomination' would be going to stage actor great Frank Langella. If the NBoR is any indication, the Best Actor shortlist will have to make room for both of them. Slumdog Millionaire has got the first jump on the awards season, but we'll see what happens as the next Oscar precursor awards (New York Film Circle awards, LA Film Association) all come next week.

Frost/Nixon (***1/2)

FROST/NIXON
Directed by Ron Howard



***1/2

Frost/Nixon is not the first film to showcase the most infamous president in American history, but its probably the best. Nixon is such a mystical figure in political folklore, as well as a physical representation of the phrase: "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Directed by television icon, turned filmmaking veteran Ron Howard, the audience is given a bird's eye view of the legendary interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon which went about solidifying the former president's disreputable reputation.

The film opens with Nixon (magically captured by Frank Langella) while giving his resignation speech. With his stature tarnished by the Watergate scandal, Nixon escaped from the presidency, and then orchestrated the now famous "crooked deal" with incumbent president Gerald Ford who granted Nixon a pardon suspiciously quickly. The country celebrated the departure of the unbelievably unpopular president, but there were many who were bitter that he was given a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card. Commiting the biggest political crime in history, Nixon would never stand trial.

On the other side of the world, there is David Frost (again, magically captured by Michael Sheen), who hosts a talk show in Austrailia. He wants to interview Nixon for his show. Frost was never a man known for his political leanings, nor had he ever made devisive statements about Nixon. Frost was known as a womanizer, whose interviewees were mostly members of pop culture. So what does Frost want with Nixon? Ratings--big, glorious ratings. With the help of his producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), he hires two crack investigators (Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt) to give his interview bite. They want him to drive Nixon into the ground, but Frost's priorities seem to be a little more commercial.

Nixon agrees to these interviews, for more than one reason. For one, Frost promised a direct payment of $600,000, but more importantly, Nixon saw the flaky Frost as his ticket back into the respect of the American people. Many of his colleagues, including his cheif of staff Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon), tell him that his elloquence and intellectual ability can make mincemeat out of Frost's inquisition, and convince audiences that he is not the corrupted monster he was pictured to be.

The interview scenes are expertly executed, as the showdown between Frost and Nixon is the most captivating part of the film. Ron Howard, the lovable, Oscar-winning director, creates such an intense atmosphere when the two men sit in front of each other. The film manages to replicate the shocking interviews almost entirely, while still giving them more life and drama. Behind Frost were a group of men who desperately wanted to see Nixon brought face to face with his crimes, and when Frost delivers, both in the real thing and in this film, it is quite an exhilarating experience.

Sure, Howard decides to take the spectacular, theatrical way of telling the story, as apposed to a fly-on-the-wall, realistic approach, but it makes sense because the character of Nixon is always going to be something of high drama. What point does Howard have telling the story sensibly when not one man in it is sensible? Both Frost and Nixon were larger than life, and the film certainly represents them as so.

The film is based on the hit stage play of the same name by Peter Morgan. Morgan wrote the screenplay, and does a great job of taking away that long, stretched-out feel that most play-to-films have. The film has some of the most fluid editing of the year, with its 122 minutes flying by without seeming rushed. It posesses a visual style which switches between polished, scenic shots and long, steadicam movement but never seems uneven. It's a calling card of most Ron Howard movies that things are executed incredibly precisely, and Frost/Nixon is no different.

The reason those interview scenes are so captivating, is because Frost/Nixon possesses one of the greatest dual performances I've ever seen. So rarely have I seen two actors, playing entirely different characters, possess the skin of the ones they play so perfectly, while never once blinking in front of the other. Michael Sheen, also brilliant as Tony Blair in The Queen, captures the masquerading essence of David Frost so completely, while never becoming a true hero to root for. Langella, who one a Tony for the same role on the stage, doesn't necessarily look or sound like Nixon, but he really lives in it. He embodies the idiosyncracies of Tricky Dick; his clever sense of humor and the foreboding paranoia.

Other than a slow start, I loved virtually everything about this movie. Even the supporting roles by Rockwell, Platt, and Bacon are fantastic, distributing laughs and gravitas in equal measure. In an age where an incredibly unpopular president is about to depart the White House, this film is particularly relevant today. One of the beauties of American society, is that anyone, despite stature or rank, can be held accountable for their actions. Nixon (like another president we know) was a man who felt that the power of the presidency gave him rights that no other Americans had, gave him the power to break the law and cover it up. Frost/Nixon is a picture-perfect representation about the disintegration of that man.

December Oscar Predictions

BEST PICTURE

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler

BEST DIRECTOR

Darren Aronofsky, THE WRESTLER
Danny Boyle, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
David Fincher, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Christopher Nolan, THE DARK KNIGHT
Gus Van Sant, MILK

BEST ACTOR

Richard Jenkins, THE VISITOR
Frank Langella, FROST/NIXON
Sean Penn, MILK
Brad Pitt, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Mickey Rourke, THE WRESTLER

BEST ACTRESS

Anne Hathaway, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
Sally Hawkins, HAPPY-GO-LUCKY
Kristen Scott-Thomas, I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG
Meryl Streep, DOUBT
Kate Winslet, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Josh Brolin, MILK
Robert Downey Jr., TROPIC THUNDER
Phillip Seymour Hoffman, DOUBT
Heath Ledger, THE DARK KNIGHT
Michael Shannon, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Penelope Cruz, VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA
Viola Davis, DOUBT
Rosemary DeWitt, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
Marissa Tomei, THE WRESTLER
Kate Winslet, THE READER

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Dustin Lance Black, MILK
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, BURN AFTER READING
Jenny Lumet, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
Robert D. Siegal, THE WRESTLER
Andrew Stanton, WALL-E

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Simon Beaufoy, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
David Hare, THE READER
Peter Morgan, FROST/NIXON
Eric Roth, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
John Patrick Shanley, DOUBT

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Roger Deakins, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD
Chris Menges, THE READER
Claudio Miranda, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Wally Pfister, THE DARK KNIGHT
Eduardo Serra, DEFIANCE

BEST EDITING

Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Matt Chesse & Richard Pearson, QUANTOM OF SOLACE
Chris Dickens, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Dody Dorn, AUSTRAILIA
Elliot Graham & Gus Van Sant, MILK

BEST ART DIRECTION

Briggite Broch, THE READER
Donald Graham Burt, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Michael Corenblith, FROST/NIXON
Nathan Crowley, THE DARK KNIGHT
Catherine Martin, AUSTRAILIA

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Lindy Hemming, THE DARK KNIGHT
Michael O'Connor, THE DUCHESS
Ann Roth, THE READER
Jacqueline West, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Catherine Martin, AUSTRAILIA

BEST MAKE-UP

Judy Chin, SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK
Fionagh Cush, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Peter Robb-King, THE DARK KNIGHT

BEST SOUND MIXING

Anna Behlmer & Andy Nelson, AUSTRAILIA
Ben Burtt, Tom Myers, & Michael Semanick, WALL-E
Chris Munro, QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Ed Novick, THE DARK KNIGHT
Mark Weingarten, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

BEST SOUND EDITING

Christopher Assels & Peter Staubli, QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Michael Babcock, THE DARK KNIGHT
Damian Candusso & Nigel Christensen, AUSTRALIA
Dustin Cawood, Teresa Eckton, & Al Nelson, WALL-E
Ken Fischer & J.R. Grubbs, IRON MAN

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Alexander Chaliovski, IRON MAN
Atsushi Imamura, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Nathan Matsuda, WALL-E

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Alexandre Desplat, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Danny Elfman, MILK
David Hirschfelder, AUSTRAILIA
Thomas Newman, WALL-E
Howard Shore, DOUBT

Best Original Song

"The Call" from THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN
"Rock Me, Sexy Jesus" from HAMLET 2
"Little Person" from SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK
"Down To Earth" from WALL-E
"The Wrestler" from THE WRESTLER

BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM

The Blind Sunflowers (Spain)
The Class (France)
Gomorra (Italy)
Maria Larrson's Everlasting Moment (Sweden)
O'Horten (Norway)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

I.O.U.S.A. (dir. Patrick Creadon)
Man On Wire (dir. James Marsh)
Standard Operating Procedure (dir. Errol Morris)
They Killed Sister Dorothy (dir. Daniel Junge)
Trouble The Water (dir. Carl Deal & Tia Lessin)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Kung Fu Panda
WALL-E
Waltz With Bashir

Milk (****)

MILK
Directed by Gus Van Sant



****

The passing of Prop. 8 in California. The loss of Brokeback Mountain at the Oscars to the trivial Crash. All symbols that even in today's seemingly advanced society, there is still severe prejudice against the homosexual community. More than any other movement that has fought for human rights, the homosexuals are the ones that strike the most fear, because their is no skin color for gay. That fear has produced some of the most bigotry this country has ever seen, and it still resides in our country today. Yes, there have been many broken barriers over the last couple of decades, but in Gus Van Sant's new film Milk, he gives a look at the beginning, when there was the most need for a fight.

Van Sant tells the story of Harvey Milk (played brilliantly by Sean Penn), a gay activist in the 1970's who was elected city supervisor of San Francisco, becoming the first openly gay man ever elected to political office. Living forty years in the closet, Harvey's world is changed when he and his boyfriend Scott (James Franco) move to San Francisco, where homosexuals feel the most free to express their culture. They open a camera store, which is less of a store, and more of a gay congregation where many can come to visit and not feel ashamed of their orientation. Their place becomes the beacon of the homosexual community.

Not everyone is pleased with Harvey and Scott's new standing in the city. Angry religious figures, with the violent support of the police, begin taking the business of brutalizing gays into their own hands. Upset with the blind bigotry, Harvey decides to run for city supervisor. No one should have to live with hatred and dismissal of other cultures, Harvey feels. He runs on the campaign that all men are created equal, no matter what their sexual persuasion may be. He loses three straight years, and his new found political obsession drives a wedge between he and Scott (James Franco), but his forth time is a charm, and now Harvey has worked his way into the machine he'd spent so many years protesting.

Even after gaining his position, Harvey still had many battles to fight. He had to fight the growing influence of Anita Bryant (shown only in creative splicing of news video): a former Orange Juice provocateur, turned battler for Christian values whose campaign across the country enabled anti-gay laws in various cities. There was also the barrage from State Senator John Briggs (Dennis O'Hare), who fought diligently to get all homosexual teachers fired, along with any gay supporters. Harvey's biggest roadblock comes from his own county, in fellow city supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), whose own insecurity and fear produces a hatred for Harvey even he can't understand.

Throughout the film Van Sant strategically places real news video footage into the filmed pieces of the narrative. Not only does this help bring the audience to the time period, which was the 1970's, but it purposely puts us into the media circus created in this battle for human rights. The subject of an Oscar-winning documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, Milk knew the advantage of the press. His first campaign photographed him with full beard and a ponytail. Knowing how this would handicap his chances at the election the second time around, Harvey cut them both off, and nearly duplicated himself into another political suit. Once again, proving that not all homosexuals possess a hippie style, but can look just like anyone else.

The film's incredible attention to historical detail is impeccable, down to the members of Harvey's political team. He constructs a super team of gay men, including the feisty Cleve Jones (Emile Hirsch), campaign manager Rick Stokes (Stephen Spinella), reliable do-man Dick Pabich (Joseph Cross), and the lesbian political strategist Anne Kronenberg (Allison Pill). No person is misrepresented or fabricated, if only because these people were as larger-than-life as they appeared. They were just a handful from the angst-filled gay community, and they were able to funnel that anger through Harvey. The film makes the point to show that Harvey had an effect--sometimes inadvertently--on many lives.

Gus Van Sant himself, is an open homosexual, though his films have never pandered toward homosexual sensibilities. He's an incredibly artistic filmmaker, known for his incredibly cerebral, small pictures, including the Palme D'or-winning Elephant and the painstakingly misguided Gerry. He has made the venture into Hollywood pictures, including the Oscar-winning Good Will Hunting and the puzzling shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Milk may very well be his greatest achievement. It's personal in more ways than one, but speaks to so many audiences. Out of all of his films, this is certainly his least chilly and distant, and certainly his most triumphant.

But lets not get confused about where the film's main power source comes from, and that is the career-defining work of Sean Penn. A chilly, distant figure in his own right, Penn recreates one of the most heart-warming men of the Twentieth Century to the T. Penn has constantly battled with his own arrogant persona, but it has never stopped his growth as a brilliant actor. Milk is just another cornerstone to an well-established filmography, but it is also the most moving, the most unforgettable, and the most captivating.

There are numerous reasons why a film like Milk is relevant in today's society; maybe even more relevant today than then. Films like this must be seen, because they create a voice for all of those out there who only see certain cultures as a skin color, or a sexual orientation. Close-mindedness is brought on by those who are uneducated. The less you know about a group of people, the easier it is for some to hate it, to protest against it, to make laws which forbid it. Despite the fact that Americans frequently pat themselves on the back for the progressive-ism, we still have a lot of barriers to overcome. Harvey Milk is a man who fought to break those barriers, and even after his assassination in 1978, his work lives on.

I've Loved You So Long (***1/2)

I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG
Ill y a longtemps que je t'aime
Written and Directed by Phillipe Claudel



***1/2

When we think of the great premiere films from directors, our minds automatically go to Citizen Kane for Orson Welles, Blood Simple for the Coen Brothers, and most recently Michael Clayton for Tony Gilroy. You can add I've Loved You So Long to that list, for the budding new French filmmaker Phillipe Claudel. Not only does the film boast exceptional cinematic skill unseen in most rookies, but it also holds a handful of iconic performances in the most emotionally bare film released so far this year.

We are introduced to Juliette (Kristen Scott-Thomas) as she sits at the airport, a cigarette is glued between her fingers. Her expression is automatically one of a woman who is carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Her sister Lea (Elsa Zylberstein) races into the terminal, and spots her. They have not seen each other in over fifteen years, but now, Lea is forced to give Juliette a place to stay. Lea is overjoyed to be with her sister after so long, but is still a bit timid, and fears the unknown. The truth is, she barely knows this Juliette; the one that had vanished for so long.

Lea's two adopted daughters are excited to live with their new aunt, ready to indulge Juliette in playing piano and tours of their rooms. But Juliette is reserved, finding life reinstated to the family harder to adjust to, after being away from it for so long. Lea's husband Luc (Serge Hazanavicius) is bothered by Juliette's presence--why should his home have to house this mysterious, and introverted woman? Through various meetings and off-hand comments, we learn where Juliette has been this whole time: in prison--for murder.

Slowly, but surely, Juliette begins to adjust to living with her sister's family. She gets along with her parole officer (Frederic Pierrot), who introduces his own personal problems in their in-depth conversations. She meets Michel (Laurent Grevill), one of Lea's co-workers, and is sucked in by his sense of humor, and romantic intellect. Life is starting to come back to normal, but as more and more details are revealed about her heinous crime, the more and more she is faced with her own life decisions. With Lea trying to help her sister come to grips with her tormented soul, Juliette debates whether or not she is willing to go through the pain true closure can bring.

I absolutely love the way this film unveils its intentions piece by piece. We are never told a piece of information at the wrong time, and there is never a moment when a character reveals something that seems insincere. The film moves at an intentional novel-like pace, which may put some on edge, but is the perfect way to tell this story. Few filmmakers would trust this technique (it's one of the most unpopular among audiences), but what is probably more surprising is that this bold decision was made by a filmmaker on his first film. Few would have been as brave as Claudel, in sacrificing audience convenience for austere narrative structure.

But lets not forget those wonderful performances. Scott-Thomas gives what is probably the greatest performance of her uneven career. Her Juliette is a character filled to the brim with caged demons, its amazing she was able to pull this off with such delicacy. She's a straight powder-keg of emotion, with the pain of the whole world sitting in her strained eyes--even her smiles seem fractured. Scott-Thomas has seemed to me, to always be an actress who depended on her radiance, but that is certainly not the case here, where she wears nothing but muted colors and allows the character to be completely de-glammed.

Popular in French cinema, but nearly unheard of in America, Zylberstein gives a wonderful supporting turn as Lea, the supportive, but persistant sister. She has to hold back a lot of frustration and a lot of dismay in order to retain her status as the cornerstone of that family. Both Pierrot and Grevill are pleasant in their smaller, more light-hearted roles, but most importantly, they add even more depth to Juliette, who uses them both to figure out how she will succeed in her reconstructed life. It's a successful ensemble, which I also credit to Claudel, who in addition to his superior use of visual motif, shows that he has talent handling actors as well.

I've Loved You So Long is a movie that is equally devastating and gratifying. The brilliance of Juliette's character arc is what guides the film, and the combination of Claudel's intelligent, self-disciplined directing, and Scott-Thomas's ethereal, understated portrayal brings it to its full fruition. I know that I'm biased toward small, personal films which depend more on character than plot, so this is the kind of movie that is tailor-made for someone like me. It is not a film that is well-defined by genre, because the power behind storytelling as exceptional as this is universal.

Just Like You, But Sweeter

The most scathing scene in one of the most scathing films in recent memory. Has Clive Owen ever been better? Has Julia Roberts ever been braver? Closer is an example of how to make an excellent film out of an excellent play. Later this year, I hope Doubt and Frost/Nixon can pull off the same feat.

The Emergence of 'The Wrestler'

I wasn't too excited about this film until I saw this trailer. Mickey Rourke seems to be on a streamline toward his first Oscar nomination, if this is any indication. This is probably the last trailer of any of the major fall films, so I guess we are finally at the point where intangible buzz gives way to actual opinions of the films as they're seen. Part of me still feels that this small gem will sneak into the Best Picture shortlist, but as all of the films are being dumped into theaters in December, we (well, I) have a lot of watching to do.

Synecdoche, New York (**1/2)

SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK
Written and Directed by Charlie Kaufman



**1/2

Everything that I've admired about films penned by Charlie Kaufman is the limitless creativity and fearlessness in which the strangeness is unleashed. After Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I figured that there wasn't really any way Kaufman could surprise me with anything on the screen. That is, until Synecdoche, New York, in which not only does he write the screenplay, but is also given the reigns as director. The result is a film which purposely goes out of its way to make sure that its audience is off-balance.

The entire film is essentially one, huge ambitious metaphor for life. The phrase "synecdoche" means "a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent a whole, or vice versa", and essentially the story of Caden Cotard (played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman), is something that stands in place for everybody's lives. Obsession with death, romantic anxiety, eccentric characters (all Kaufman specialties), are displayed ad nauseum throughout this picture, but its supposed to stand for the pain and romance we all experience.

There's no way to truly explain the plot competently, because the plot is not necessarily adequately told. Essentially, we follow Caden throughout his life. It begins with Caden directing a re-enactment of Death of a Salesman, in which Claire (Michelle Williams) is his sexy lead actress, and Hazel (Samantha Morton) is his sincere, sweet box office attendant. His marriage to an artist named Adele (Catherine Keener), is on incredibly shaky ground, and she swiftly decides to take their young daughter, Olive, to Belgium with her lover Maria (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

Depressed without his wife and daughter, and disappointed with his lack of romantic success with Hazel, Caden uses a "genius grant" he receives, and decides to begin working on his own play. This is not just another run-of-the-mill play, he wants it to be large, and personal. He wants it to thematically scorch the Earth, and change theater, representing life as it is. Becoming more and more ambitious, and wanting to display realism, his own life spills into the play. His impulsive marriage to Claire is even sabotaged by Caden's inability to separate the play and reality.

As Caden's life becomes more and more convoluted between reality and fantasy, so does his play--and so does, quite frankly, the film itself. Minor characters, such as Caden's stand-in Sammy (Tom Noonan), and Caden's narcissistic therapist Madeleine (Hope Davis) weave themselves in and out of the movie, with little to no purpose. We are previewed to truly unpleasant images, such as poop on numerous occasions. As soon as you think, as the viewer, you have any kind of grasp on this film, it wrangles its way out of your hands violently and disappears.

Every character, even the reasonably normal ones, have eccentricities. Adele is a famous artist, but paints portraits so small that people have to wear binoculars to the exhibitions. Hazel lives in a house which is constantly on fire, though never burns down. Maria switches on and off between having a German accent and not having one. The biggest quirk in character, though, has to be in the daughter Olive, who starts off as a sweet, precocious young girl, and in no time is transformed in to a German stripper with a pretty exotic body tattoo. I don't doubt that these quirks have meaning and sub-text, but why make it so frustrating on the audience that has paid good money?

Truth be told, the film is a giant mess throughout, though it may be the most breathtaking giant mess in cinematic history. Kaufman, though taking his oddness and nearly spilling into pretension, does still keep his knack for creating compelling characters. The performances from Hoffman and Morton (the two most centralized characters) are very strong here, and small, supporting turns from Emily Watson and Dianne Wiest (as actresses in the play, respectively) are strong, sometimes funny highlights. No other screenwriter today is better at expressing emotional degradation.

The movie does take advantage of its 124-minute running time, and stretch it out as far as it can go. For a film that purposely makes no sense 75% of the time, this makes it feel particularly longer. Not that there is ever a boring moment, because there is always something alarming or bizarre awaiting in the next scene. You do find yourself curiously connected to Caden throughout his journey, and perhaps you can even buy into Kaufman's metaphor of Caden's life being everybody's life. But it's obvious that in his directorial debut, Kaufman has no idea how to use restraint. This is the type of film that would make David Lynch fans scratch their heads, and though I feel it is a film that should be watched by everyone, its almost certain that it will not be enjoyed by everyone.

Happy-Go-Lucky (***1/2)

HAPPY-GO-LUCKY
Written and Directed by Mike Leigh



***1/2

Certain actors would have to spend years to pull off the balancing act that Sally Hawkins performs in Mike Leigh's new film, Happy-Go-Lucky. It is a work of delight, charisma, and poignancy all wrapped up into a pleasant little film. Leigh, whose films Secrets & Lies and Vera Drake are usually gloomy and emotionally heavy, goes into unfamiliar territory here, with a film so upbeat, that it's to the point of unnerving. Of coarse, I mean that in the very best way possible.

Much has been said about Leigh's "method", where he essentially goes without a script, and allows the actors to create scene by scene with improvisation. I don't know what it is about his system which brings about the best in actors, but it always prevails. His "slice-of-life" filmmaking technique creates such a permeating atmospheric tone that we are sucked into the lives of the eccentric characters that pass across the screen. Happy-Go-Lucky is a film taylor-made for this production theory, because the ad-libbing adds to the film's comedic flow.

The film is solely about Poppy (Hawkins). She is a thirty-year-old elementary school teacher who sees her life through rose-colored glasses. She lives in bohemian England in a flat with her flatmate Zoe (Alexis Zegerman). Her spontaneity leads her into things such as flamenco dancing lessons, and wearing clothes that look like they were made by her young students. Her happiness is infectious to most, but pestering to some, as her glowing world view is mistaken for immaturity and indifference by some of the people who love her most.

There is no particular focus to the plot, other than to follow the days of Poppy. She decides to take driving lessons with an instructor that has an incendiary attitude, named Stan (a hilarious Eddie Marsan), where they constantly bicker. She has to deal with one student in her class that has violent tendencies. She has to juggle the insecurities of two younger sisters on opposite sides of the social line. Finally, she is able to meet Tim (Samuel Roukin), a social worker who helps children, and may be the one person who can handle her constant bubbly-ness.

No other film this year embodies it's central character the way Happy-Go-Lucky does. This story's structure does not move scene to scene, because Poppy is not the kind of character that moves from scene to scene. She takes time to notice certain books within a bookstore, and we stop to notice them with her. She wanders off into a back alley to spend quality time with a lonely homeless man, and we sit there with them, and we feel their closeness. It takes the time to see the world through Poppy's eyes, and though we may not agree with her purposeful lifestyle, we never doubt that she has the right state of mind.

The film is primed with a wondrous supporting cast, including an over-enthusiastic flamenco dance instructor (Karina Fernandez), who is haunted by the infidelity of her ex-lover from years ago. Also, Roukin's Tim is a fresh slice of warmth in the film. Eddie Marsden, as the manic Stan, is hysterical and haunting. Stan is the complete antithesis of what Poppy is and stands for. He approaches every scene foaming at the mouth, ready to catch Poppy by surprise, but the fact that she's always two steps ahead of him makes him that much more furious. His surprising disclosure toward the end is one of the film's high points.

Of coarse, though, the biggest star of this film is Hawkins. She is an actress of little popularity, but she has made her way in and out of various films since 2000. Much like Melissa Leo in Frozen River, this brilliant performance is an example of what can happen when a certain actor is simply given an oppurtunity. On paper, Poppy is nothing more than a stock character; the giggling, incompetent friend whose naievity is at some times endearing, but at most times annoying. Through Hawkins, she is a woman of immense depth, charm, and captivating personality. If she is not considered for an Oscar nomination in the coming months, there is no justice.

It only took 35 days for me to be able to see this film after its original Oct. 10th release, and under such long-waiting anticipation, a film can wither within my own overinflated expectation. Luckily for me, there was nothing disappointing within this darling picture. Hawkins holds the entire movie together with her enchanting performance, but is perfectly buoyed by Marsan's supporting turn. Though unlike most of Leigh's films in tone, it is not lacking in quality, as it is one of the best films so far this year.

Backlogging

What is backlogging? Well, if being used in the literary form, it's a term that refers to a work that is unfinished and has no relevant plans to be finished. But for the purposes of this article, we'll talk about what "backlogging" means in terms of the movie release schedule. Backlogging is a strategy used by movie executives, in which highly anticipated and prestigious films are held until December or later in hopes of winning Academy Awards. This system, occupied by most if not all film studios gives off the impression that there is no sense in going to the theaters in January through November, because nothing of quality comes out until Christmas.




Happy-Go-Lucky

"Official" Release Date:
Oct. 10th

# of theaters:
4

Actual nat'l release:
??????






This theory, though successful, truly stretches the boundaries of what it means to be a great film of a particular year. If a film is "released" in 2008, but a majority of people don't see the film until 2009, where's the merit? Why not just release it in 2009? Because in the hopes of slipping into the Oscar race, more and more times we are seeing films being released on December 31st, in a coup to be relevant by the time Oscar season is in full swing.

This has completely affected the way we watch movies. Despite the fact that In Bruges and WALL-E are two of the most brilliant, imaginative, and wonderfully-made films of 2008, neither film is receiving award traction, because both were thrown into theaters way before fall season, where films like Doubt or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button seem to be in a battle royale over which can meet the hype.

Great films need weeks, sometimes months to process properly. If a film wins Best Picture at the Oscars and it was released just a month prior to it, then where is the true worth of the award? All it shows is that people have liked your film for a month, but there is absolutely no way to see how this film's staying power will be years from now.

I speak about backlogging, because this year, essentially every hyped film has come off disappointing. In a set-up to collect gold statues, studios feel like they can wait longer and longer as if the wait will make the experience that much more delectable. Same goes for films with an expanding schedule as forth-moving as the DMV. The truth is, every month of the year deserves its own great movie. We should not have to wait till the holiday season to watch anything of quality. That way, we have more time to savor it before we hand out the awards.

Role Models (***)

ROLE MODELS
Directed by David Wain



***

Role Models is a nifty little comedy. It holds a formulaic plot, but not the kind that makes you gag, but the kind that draws attention to the plot and not the formula. Despite popular belief, this is not one of the many films micromanaged by the sleepless Judd Apatow, but a film done by Wet Hot American Summer director David Wain. Like American Summer, Role Models has a hilarious side and a sweet side, and neither side ever has to be sacrificed for the other.

The plot focuses on Danny (Paul Rudd) and Wheeler (Sean William Scott), a pair of underachieving young men who work for a company that processes the powerful energy drink Minotaur. Their job entitles them to travel from school to school, and while Danny preaches to the students how drinking a Minotaur can help them stay off drugs, Wheeler participates by dressing in a minotaur costume and prancing around, shouting "Minotaur! Taste the beast!". Wheeler is perfectly fine with his station in life, but Danny is essentially depressed with his job and life.

To make matters worse for Danny, he is dumped by his girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks--holy christ, this girl is in everything lately), because she no longer wants to deal with his constant crankiness (a conversation about the dubious size names at Starbucks is particularly hilarious). Danny's anger boils over when he and Wheeler drive their Minotaur truck onto a statue, and they are both arrested. Since Beth is a lawyer, she is able to negotiate with the judge so they don't have to serve jail time, but commit to community service at Sturdy Wings, where they have to look after lonely, troubled young boys.

Sturdy Wings is run by the startling open Gayle (the hilarious Jane Lynch), who works there after recovering from a nasty drug addiction. Gayle assigns Danny to Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse aka "McLovin"), a teenage nerd who lives only to play LAIRE, a sort of live-action cross of World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons. Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie (Bobb'E J. Thompson), a prebuscent boy with a flair for four-letter words, and a constant thirst for mischief. The two debate about what is more torturous, dealing with these two phishers or going to jail, but over time, they find their times with the boys to be a virtuous one.

The reason why this movie is such a pleasure, is because (unlike say, Zack and Miri) it presents its comedy on a visceral level. There are no sight gags, and it felt so good to watch a modern comedy that didn't have a major character get kicked in the nuts. Instead, the comedy comes out of the depths of characters' psyche, and with two comedic actors the likes of Rudd and Scott, the story is allowed to run wild, while all the time running right on time. There is never a debate about where the story is going, or who will get the girl, because it takes solace in its comedic givings, not in its plot contrivances.

Not that there aren't contrivances, but it's something we're able to get over pretty quickly. This is a super-light film, and though its profanity and minor sexual content may state otherwise, it's just as cuddly as any Sandra Bullock romantic comedy. The best, most funny, moments within the film come from scenes involving Augie and Danny's involvement in LAIRE, where all the participants partake in medieval warfare, and play it with the utmost seriousness. When you're stabbed with the rubber sword, you're dead, and no one dare break that rule.

This is probably the first film that I've ever seen in which I saw Sean William Scott in a major role that was actually funny (though his minor cameo within Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen). Watching him school the foul-mouthed Ronnie in the arts of watching female breasts and listening to KISS is hilarious. Rudd also does a good job playing the kind of character that has become his bread-and-butter over the last few years. His career has always been based on the contrast between his boyish good lucks, and the words that fall out of his mouth.

Role Models is an adult film striving to be children's comedy. To be sure, with a few edits here and there, I don't think this film would be so off limits for young children to see. Part of its charm lies within its precociousness. Steady performances by Rudd and Scott, enhanced by brilliant comedic turns by Lynch and Thompson is a perfect equation for a successful comedy. You leave the theater with nothing, really, but satisfaction.

...but you didn't say 'God bless you' when I sneezed.

Yeah, Zack and Miri Make a Porno was a serious dud, but let's not forget the charming pieces within Kevin Smith's filmography, like this wonderful sequence within his religious satire Dogma.