Trainspotting

I must start off this review with a disclaimer:
I am a huge fan of Danny Boyle's work. I tend to use hyperbole when criticizing his work. I am able to find flaws. I don't like The Beach or a Life Less Ordinary.
And so I begin.

Trainspotting is a revelation of sorts for me. I realized I can see a movie in my youth as a disappointment and rewatch it as a treasure. Trainspotting is just such a movie.

I've complained about Ewan McGregor before on this site. I think it started when I reviewed Stay. I claimed he's too over-expressive. In Stay, he certainly was. But he really delivered an amazing performance in Trainspotting as Renton. I think what impressed me was that he was able to play the contradiction of the character so well. Renton is smart enough to see through all the glossy glamor of the drug world and the smiles and cheers of his mates, but he sticks with both. He leaves each. He comes back. Or sometimes each comes back to him. There's a loyalty to the character that can be almost maddening at times. Yet, he is prone to steal, lie, and curse his mates. He knows what he should do. He rattles off a list of answers to his dilemma in a short spark of dialogue at the beginning of the film. All are good reasons to "shape up" (as my mom used to say), but as Renton states, "Who needs reasons when you've got heroine?"

That's kind of the duality of the film. On the one hand, it portrays witty, rag-tag characters enjoying the high life, drugs that is, brick, scag, what have you. Sure, it's hard to watch them stick those needles in their arms, but they sure seem to be having a blast. I laughed. I've been trained to. Stoner comedies are run-of-the-mill now. If movies have taught me anything, it's that stoned people are funny. Trainspotting plays that up for almost half of the movie until the wages of sin become much, much clearer.

Characters talk about how getting high is better than sex. Their reactions don't deny this idea. But it is when they're getting high as a infant crawls around a floor covered in needles that you start to get the point. It's not funny. Even when the most famous scene takes place (where Renton emerges from inside a disgusting toilet triumphantly because he's found the drugs he shat out, I cringed. I really did. I got a bit sick to my stomach. I love the scene. Visually, it's unforgettable. I laughed. It's absurd. But the point of fact is the guy dived into the worst toilet in Scotland to fish out drugs that had been up his bum. Disgusting. The point where the film really switches gear from good times to bad times is when the same infant who had been crawling through trouble dies of neglect. What is the first reaction they all have. Horror. Intense fear. Then they shoot up. No calling the cops, an ambulance, their moms and dads, or a shady alleyman who can dispose of the body. They just sit on the floor waiting for the heroine to cook.

Even though the film portrays this depravity, it never really completely lets go of its humor. Horrible visions are counteracted with laughs in later scenes. I'm not sure whether to applaud or admonish that, but I do know I would have cried myself to sleep without it. And like Danny Boyle is prone to do, the film manages to end on a lighter note than the misery that proceeds it. A character promises he's going to be better, stop messing up, and make things right. I smiled, but all along I knew he'd be right back at square one soon enough. So, the movie provides the smile, but doesn't trick anyone. I don't think it tries to.

I enjoyed the acting. McGregor, Johnny Lee Miller, and Ewen Bremner have never been better. I also enjoyed seeing Kevin McKidd as Tommy. His character begins saying that a high is better than sex, but later in the movie his eyes betray his words as he becomes stricken with AIDS. Watching Robert Carlyle at work as Begbie is exhilerating mostly because he was shocking, crazy, interesting, scary, and funny at alternating times, though I never knew which Begbie would jump out at me at any given second. It's a performance that is ripe for showboating. I can't really excuse Carlyle from falling into that trap, but he can be brilliant in the role when he wanted to.

And ole' Boyle. Now I shall praise in hyperbole. The man knows how to carry humor into the depths of despair and fear. Visually, he always makes interesting movies. Trainspotting is no expception. Fans still talk about dozens of shots for a reason: the cinematography and creativity visually are stunning and instantly memorable. As far as handling his actors, he let Carlyle go a bit too much, as evidenced in his interview on the DVD. I also think he found a good tone with the humor. I laughed a lot out of nervousness, and I think that's a hard reaction to earn justly.

I'm a fan. It's an excellent movie. Cheers, mates!

****

Mr. Jealousy

I said earlier that I enjoyed Eric Stoltz in Mr. Jealousy. Well, scratch that. I loved him in Mr. Jealousy. Very funny, but in that dry sort of way that is very difficult for performers to achieve.

This film is very much in the Noah Baumbach style. Intellectuals on the cusp of true adulthood and maturity resisting any change. In the case of Mr. Jealousy, the young intellectuals are in their thirties rather than the just out of college gang in Kicking and Screaming. The Kicking and Screaming gang was just beginning to feel the angst of what a character in Mr. Jealousy might have called "Post-Euphoria." In Mr. Jealousy, everyone has jobs, goals, and relationships. It is those relationships that the film focuses on. It seems that maturing romantically, so to speak, has its own struggles. In the case of Mr. Jealousy, maturing means dealing with jealousy that rears its ugly head in every relationship Stoltz as Lester has had since adolesence. It's a problem I can relate to. Not just the jealousy, but the problems men stick themselves with that keep them from being happy with that special person already in their lives. In that way, certainly not stylistically, I felt this film was a kin to High Fidelity, where John Cusack faces the struggle to achieve his own romantic maturity.

Baumbach writes with a very personal tone which suggests he writes at least partly from experience. His scripts also reflect a common intellectual humor in their dialogue. Mr. Jealousy is no exception, but I think it can be said that he had improved some in the time in between the preceeding film, Kicking and Screaming, and his second film, Mr. Jealousy. His script is definitely more focused. And while Kicking and Screaming has the better lines, Mr. Jealousy holds its own in that category and stands apart with its more realistic dialogue.

Baumbach also adds an offscreen narrator to the mix in this film. His voice is conversational but dry and detatched. He seems only mildly interested with what is happening. And that's a plus. The narration is never really forced. No humor is created out of anything less than necessity. The narration is spare. It only adds to the moments it is used, rather than serving as a bump out of the reality of the film.

Stoltz is great, showing a real skill for subtle humor. He has some great reactions and lines delivered with just the right balance of realism and wit. Like Cusack in High Fidelity, it's very important to like the lead character in these movies because they're the ones sabotaging their relationships. They are to blame, but we as an audience have to sympathize somehow with their destructive behavior. And I did. I like Lester a lot. I was rooting for him the whole time.

The object of his jealousy and desire is played by Annabella Sciorra. My prior experience with the actress left much to be desired. She was the lead in The Hand that Rocks the Cradle. That movie sucked, unless of course you make fun of it with a group of friends. Then there was her brief work on Law and Order: Criminal Intent which can be categorized as solid but easily forgettable. But she is very worthy of both jealousy and desire in Mr. Jealousy. Her character has a playfulness and delightful clumsy streak that make her adorable. She asks questions like "What would you do if I bit you right now?" and makes them endearing. That's skill. Her clumsy streak lets the actress show off some physical comedy skills.

My buddy Chris Eigeman shows up in a supporting role. He's solid as always, but the real scene stealer is Carlos Jacott. He was the scene stealer in that other Baumbach movie, Kicking and Screaming, as well. He just pulls off absurdities in his character so well. In his Baumbach movies, he plays insecure men. Like Stoltz's character, I relate to Jacott's.

I must admit that I initially had a lukewarm response to this film, but with each subsequent film my heart grows fonder. The film has a slight storybook feel with its narrator and fragile romance, and I love it for that. The way it approaches romance and the pursuit of that romantic maturity we men have so much trouble finding rang true even when the situation grew unbelievable. When you can believe in the essence of a film, any absurdity is welcome because it doesn't detract from the joy of the movie, of Mr. Jealousy.

****

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

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

This is pretty much your standard coming of age film set in Queens during the 1980's. The film's writer and director tells his real life story. The film starts off aimless and confusing. I kept asking myself what I was supposed to take from it. But as the film went on, the drama increased and the confusion settled down. The further the film progressed, the clearer the vision became. At first, when I didn't like it, I likened the film's attempt at realism to be a kin to David Gordon Green's films, although his films are set in forgotten burgs and southern podunks (and are great whereas AGTRYS is merely good). The fact that Montiel's (the writer/director) film was set in the city gave the two filmmakers a stark contrast. Both filmmakers are content to capture bare bones drama - overlapping dialogue, seemingly meaningless moments to elaborate characters, and acting that strives for realism (although the realism in AGTRYS is clearly more stylized/heightened). I ended up liking AGTRYS quite a bit. The acting was very good. I didn't expect much from Channing Tatum because he's a former model whose success as an actor thus far was limited to the dancing romance Step Up. He ended up really creating a volatile character that polarizes and moves your loyalty back and forth. The guy's kind of a jerk. But he's also mixed up and looking for a place in this world (cue Michael W. Smith). He's doomed to be a thug, a charismatic thug, but a thug none the less. And he'll drag Dito down if Dito doesn't make a break away from Queens. That works. That was communicated very well. Shia Labeouf (as Dito) is great. He's the main character, filling the part of a younger version of the writer/director (Robert Downey Jr. plays an older versioN). He, like Tatum, takes an attempt at realism. Like Tatum, the results can be bothersome. We really don't get to know Dito Montiel unitl the introductions are over and problems start happening. Ultimately, his performance rings true. His scenes with Tatum and Chazz Palminteri as Dito's dad are particularly well acted. In truth, not a lot actually happens in AGTRYS until the end, but the characters are so richly presented that it makes a viewing worth while. The film succeeds at creating a sense of gritty realism and jerk cool. Antonio (Tatum's character) is a jerk, but he's cool. It's Dito's story, but you'll be more likely to remember Antonio when all is said and done.

***

Henry Fool

I was disappointed by this movie. I had been wanting to check out the films of Hal Hartley for a few years and had never gotten around to it. I saw Henry Fool on the shelf at the video rental place and couldn't pass up the opportunity. I was happy with the film for the most part for the first three-fourths of the movie. The characters were very original and the movie had a go-for-broke attitude that promised many surprises. The title character was a treat until he became the sad sack of the last fourth of the film. He was no longer interesting. I didn't like him anymore. The film lost speed when he lost speed. He was such a lively character, a great foil to the other lead, an aspiring writer who used to be a garbage man. Where the garbage man is primarily quiet and lack confidence, Henry Fool more than makes up with his vocabulary that falls out of his with arrogance. But the arrogance is more endearing because it is accompanied with confidence and countered by a relentless desire to instill his knowledge of the craft of writing on the garbage man. The film has some very funny things to say about writing, things that will make any aspiring writer grimace and silently guffaw. The charm of the film is the great short hand between all the characters. Henry Fool abruptly enters the lives of the other characters, but behaves in such a manner that he has every right to treat them with bluntness and familarity. And the other characters reciprocate. The film doesn't want to be a laugh riot, though it is very funny. It offers some short beautiful moments (a mute [?] woman sings softly) usually centered around the poem of the garbage man. But the movie lost its energy when the garbage man reads Henry Fool's opus that turns out to be literary scurvy. That in itself is funny, but what follows is not enjoyable at all. Where did all this gloom and seriousness come from? That isn't to say that the film prior was not gloomy or serious, but certainly not to the extent of the last fourth. Also, Fool is a convicted pedophile and I admit I was unable to look at him as the same charming wannabe world-changer once the fact was revealed. The fact offers the character some complexity and depth, but I found it difficult after the fact to like the character afterwards. Still, I managed to come out the film unscathed. It certainly is not a bad film. It strikes me as what indepedent film strives for. It is daring and edgy without appearing to show an obssession to be so. I will probably watch it again with the hope that it will surprise me with new positives now that all the negatives have already been catalogued and stored away in the appropriate warehouse.

**1/2