Bringing Out the Dead

I was roaming around the Jeffrey Overstreet review website lookingcloser.com and found a review of Bringing out the Dead. I didn't really agree with it, so I thought I'd do the film justice on here.



Bringing out the Dead is about a lot of things: the sad state of the world, the strong hold of hopelessness, redemption. But what I really latched onto when I watched the movie was the theme of saving and being saved. This isn't in the spiritual sense of the word, though I guess it could be interpreted as such. Nicolas Cage needs to save people to save himself. Without that act, the act of bringing people back to life, he is losing his. He is like his patients, each spends a moment in between the living and the dead, waiting for someone or something to push them over in either direction. Cage's Frank has just been spending more time there than the people he loses. Frank needs saving. But he can't be rescued because he can't save anyone else. When he lets a patient die, he "saves" that man from the struggle he (Frank) can't win. And death becomes salvation. While it is easy to think this is when Frank is "saved," I think he truely finds his truth and a gentle push toward hope when he lets himself fall asleep in the arms of Patricia Arquette. He is letting someone save him. That's how I think the film's ending can be interpreted in a spiritual sense - there is nothing you can do on your own to save yourself. You have to let someone else do it for you.

I also think that this works as another form of the Wizard of Oz Syndrome (WoOS). Like the cowardly lion, the scarecrow, and the tin man, Frank is after something he already has. Frank desperately wanted to save someone, and he did, just not in the way he thought he had to. He "saves" Patricia Arquette's character, Marc Anthony's character, and the drug dealer. He doesn't bring them back from the dead, he just keeps them here with the living. And if Frank really saw, actually let himself see, that he was doing what he felt he had to do, the epiphany Overstreet talks about would have happened much sooner in a different way.

Great Movie.

P.S. - Overstreet usually gets it right.

****

The Game

SPOILERS

I've watched a couple of movies in the last week with a Wizard of Oz Syndrome. Heck, in The Game Michael Douglas even said he's pulling back the curtain because he wants to "meet the Wizard."

"And what is the Wizard of Oz Syndrome?" you may ask. Well, it's when you flip around the majority of the reality of everything preceeding the big reveal, the moment our hero or heroine wakes up and says, "I've had the oddest dream. And you were there. And you were there. And..." That is the case with The Game, albeit with a thriller twist. And like most WoOS movies, the satisfaction is in the ending. If it doesn't work, the film doesn't work.

The ending in the Game works for me. It rendered everything before it implausible, but I gladly hand over my disbelief in return for a mind-bending thrill ride with one of my favorite actors, Michael Douglas, and the handiwork of director David Fincher.

I must admit, the film loses some quality of experience on repeated viewings, but very few movies can rival the excitement I felt when I first watched it. First, problems. I found some of the hijinks to fall a little flat this time through. "Hijinks in a thriller?" you might say. Consider them "thriller hijinks." Michael Douglas gets tossed into this game that really kicks off with might be considered an unorthodox "meet-cute" scene not that much different from your average, run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. Only, in the Game, the guy and gal are being chased by police and angry dogs. The snappy dialogue between Douglas and the woman in the scene, played by Deborah Kara Unger, is a real bump out of the film. First, it's not realistic. Second, it's too cute. This movie is actually really dark and that scene really sticks out as one of those "Sesame Street - one of these things is not like the others" moments. Another one of those moments occurs when Douglas interacts with his televison's personality.

The implausibility of the plot does not keep me from loving this film, but it can prove bothersome when the big reveal happens. Even though I labeled this post with a "SPOILER" warning, I'm not going to ruin the twists and turns of the story. Just know that you do have to lay down your better judgment for a moment. It's not difficult to do, I swear.

The film really hits its stride after Douglas starts to unravel the mystery in Christine's apartment. The action picks up, the stakes rise, and all is right in the world of entertainment.

Pluses are many. Michael Douglas gets to do some of his familiar but amazing acting tricks. He plays the rich sour puss. He plays the man at the end of his desperation rope. He plays the vengeful spirit for all its worth. He does all this with considerable skill, which makes the "thriller hijinks" stand out all the more. But he is the audience's eyes and ears into this labyrinth of a mystery. And he portrays all the desperation, frustration, and confusion I felt as I watched The Game for the first time. Because I felt so connected to his character throughout the film, I felt the ending was justified and earned. So, the success of the film should be placed on Douglas' shoulders.

Sean Penn gets to do his familiar acting tricks. He plays it smooth, then lets out his whining shouts in that warbling foul-mouthed child's voice of his. But I like the guy and his talent. His role is small, but Penn knows how to support the lead. Sure, he chews some scenery, but there are few who I would rather watch chow down.

Fincher is the other driving force in the film. He doesn't appear for one second in the film, but his eye for staging a scene is always there. He uses a lot of low angles, hard lighting, and adds a gray tint to the movie. It adds to the already dark tone of the film. The low angles, coupled with various skewed angles portray the confusion of the film. The lighting and camera work during the scenes that take place at night are really remarkable considering many of the key scenes occur outside after dark. Fincher knows how to get the most out of his actors. Much has been written about his obsessive nature as a filmmaker, but I think the results are enough to excuse any hard headedness the guy throws around. He makes good movies. Even when they're so-so (Panic Room), they're made better than most of the movies out there. I say this because he knows how to construct a film. The credits show puzzle pieces splitting apart, and that is essentially what his films are - carefully designed puzzles that he can seperate and put back together at his choosing. The guy really knows how to build suspense and capitalize on the emotions of his audience.

Another big plus is the score. It contains one main theme, but that little piece of music accentuates the chills and thrills that are peppered throughout the film. Timed perfectly with the action on screen, the score often much scarier than what a piece of music has any right to be.

Themes...Well, the movie centers around a "remember what's really important in life" theme. Added to that is the idea that your life is your own; and death doesn't have to be a monkey on your back. While these themes are not exactly subtle, they are nowhere near a hinderance to the enjoyment of the film. And I can't really argue with them. But the real reward for living is the embrace of the good you have and could have if only you would let yourself have it. And it needs to be said even if it's shoved in your face a bit.

***1/2

Stay

Stay is not a great movie. It's tries too hard to be a great movie to actually accomplish its goal. It is, however, a very good film deserving of some love from viewers. I have a hard time getting people to appreciate this movie. It's "too confusing," "the ending was bad," or as my friend said tonight, "It sucked." Well, to that friend (as I tried to explain to them) and to you, dear reader, it certainly does not suck. I can understand why some find it hard to get on board with this movie after all is revealed.

It is confusing. It reaches sometimes for complexity that isn't there or is fleeting once found. But there is so much complexity that is there. There is so much ambition in the script. There is so much I need to ask the director and screenwriter.

The film certainly is disorienting. And in the case of Stay, I really liked that. The plot and the unique and always changing visuals kept me guessing. I kept asking not only questions about what I was literally seeing (i.e. - how'd they do all those transitions? How come I keep seeing double?) but bigger questions about themes and the reality of the film. It's a very well plotted film whose complexities really only come to further light upon repeated viewings. I gain more understanding each time I watch it. There are many new "a-ha!" moments when you get to process the plot and visuals after what is almost certain to be a frustrating first viewing.

But the frustration is good because I felt so rewarded at the end. It works. If it worked for everyone, I'd be a happy man. But like so many endings that change how we view all the story before it, it can leave viewers feeling cheated. I know there are not a lot of current M. Night fans amongst the few who might read this, but the guy used to do endings really well. I remember reading once that his endings (known for their twists) should seem inevitable upon subsequent viewings. That's one of the things I find I like in endings that can be categorized as twists: there're clues left along the way that you miss, but are right there waiting for you if you look for them. And, like Memento, Stay has one of those endings people will interpret different ways. Some won't be interested enough when the credits roll to bother to try their hand at figuring anything out. After all, many twists lay it all out for you with flashbacks and voice overs. Indeed, Stay lays out most of the revelations for you; but there are colors, movements, words, and meanings hidden within the film that never really get explained. Talking about them after the movie is done is both maddening and deeply satisfying. I got to think. I had to engage myself with the movie to like it. And that's okay. We shouldn't shy away from that kind of effort.

Then again, there were problems. David Benioff is one of my favorite writers. His two literary works of fiction are dear to me. I enjoyed his script for 25th Hour, which was based on his own novel. But some of the tremendous effort this guy must have had to exert to keep this labyrinth together shows. And not in a good way. The plotting is wonderful. The ability to see forward, backward, and around corners is evident in his script, but his ability to create cohesive dialogue is sometimes lacking.

I say sometimes because he handles the character of Henry Letham (played by the excellent Ryan Gosling) very well, others not as well. It seems to me that when Benioff formed the idea for this script in his head, it started with Henry and everything else was built up around him. So, Henry gets all the really good lines and complete thoughts.

The lead character is played by Ewan McGregor, but, again, I think he's secondary in thought and execution to Henry. He carries much of the point of view of the audience, growing more and more confused as the film progresses, and his descent into that state of disorientation and confusion is written and captured well. My real beef with Benioff is the scenes when McGregor's Sam Foster is having a quiet conversation with basically anyone other than Henry. There's a lack of reality in his lines, which may be excusable given the direction of the script, but it made it difficult to invest myself in the reality of the character. He never seemed as real as Henry or the world around them (if that's possible given the direction of the script). And I tip my hat off to Benioff that he was able to lack in this area and still keep me fully invested in the movie and its intricate storyline.

Like many of the films I have been watching lately, I have come to new realizations about actors I once held in high regards. There were Winona Ryder in Alien Resurrection and Ryan Phillippe in Way of the Gun. Now there's Ewan McGregor. I've always liked the guy. He has charisma to burn. I won't argue there. He's a very likable peformer, with lots of performances in solid movies. But he's not that good of an actor. Put your hate letters away. Just think with me about this one. Has he ever given a truly great performance before? Has he ever felt "real" to you? I'm not just saying real within the reality of a movie, because I realize he works great in fantasy films (Moulin Rouge, Big Fish, etc.). I mean real as a real human being. Does he behave in a manner where you could believe someone could be that way in real life? Because I think he really struggles in that way. He is almost always incredibly earnest when speaking, that idea never really being more clear than in Stay. One could argue that he never really has needed to act any different because his roles are usually in hyper real films (Trainspotting comes to mind) that eschew a traditional sense of reality. Perhaps. Good point. But I ask you if that is perhaps the mark of an actor of limited range. I think it is. He really bugged me in this movie. I needed to stay on board with his character because he was essentially my eyes and ears throughout the film, but he made it much more difficult than he needed to. Again, I like the guy. He does what he can do exceptionally well. But I expect more from an actor with this type of role, one with such importance.

Then there's Gosling, who is excellent and believable even when reality is confusing and questionable. His strength is all the more perceivable when he's on screen with McGregor's weaknesses. This isn't a great performance by any means. The film doesn't really allow for greatness, but it is pretty damn good. Gosling is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. While his performance as the troubled young Henry is nowhere near the same league as his breakout in Half Nelson, there is much to be applauded in his work here. He's believable in a film that sometimes (purposefully) is not. He can be devastating in one look, a skill he has shown in other work. He has lots of devastating looks to give in Stay because the poor guy's depressed as hell thinking he's going to hell for something he did or will do. Henry is also always able to draw you in even when he's being cryptic, as he often is. And Befuddlement is present here as well. He's kind of a cool looking outsider here in more ways than one. And Gosling makes all these things ring true. He may scream, "CONFLICTED YOUTH!", but it's such a equisite howling that I won't fault the guy.

The only other thing that really needs rambling about is the direction. This is going to be a love it or hate it part of the equation for many viewers, but I really loved what Marc Forster does with his material here. While his visual style and direction might seem overly indulgent to some, I saw it as very fitting and telling of the reality of the film. It fits like the ending fits - better for some than for others. But when the ending clicks, I think the other is almost certain to as well. Transitions are creative here, but may get a bit repetitive. They can be maddening when watching the film for the first time. However, they help create a cohesiveness for the film as a whole rather than just a sum of its very strange parts.

P.S. - If you can figure out what the color yellow signifies, let me know.

***1/2