Lars and the Real Girl

Lars and the Real Girl is the biggest surprise of the year so far. It somehow manages to take what on the surface seems like a "frat pack" movie (man falls in love with a sex doll) and turns it into something tender, heartbreaking and emotionally resonating.

I am positive that the movie takes mental illness and skews it to its own benefit, but using the doll as a extension of Lars problems proves to be a convincing ploy. By all logic and expectations, I should have no connection to this inanimate hunk of plastic; but I grew attached to her so much, I think, because I knew as the townspoeple did that Bianca was so important to Lars who was important to them.

The film also portrayed the townspeople and Christians as caring, helpful, and decent people. I want to move to that town. It doesn't exist, but write me into a town where people care that much about their neighbors.

The second best film of the year so far behind Zodiac.

****1/2

Dan in Real Life "I was able to relate to this blunt sting of emotion that comes with angst and sharp emotions. Adult angst."

When I was watching this movie with my mom on Saturday the word "saccharine" came to mind. Partly, it was because I wanted to seem smart, even to myself. Partly, it was because it fit. Dan in Real Life is sweet, but not so sweet that it rots your teeth. Instead, it was the kind of sweetness that left my spirits buoyed about the possibility and necessity of love the way only the fictionalized world of film can do (that's both sad and pleasing).

In short, Dan is a columnist, widowed dad of three young daughters, and part of a larger family of brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and parents that gather together to close down their lakeside house for the year. Dan has a meet-cute with Marie (Juliette Binoche), who he really likes but is dating his brother (Dane Cook). Dan tries to balance his new elation and hope for this woman with his devotion to his brother and temperamental daughters. The emotional turmoil that ensues equals hijinks and emotion that entertain and satisfy that warm, fuzzy part of my being.

The film doesn't stray much from the order of events you'd expect from the set up, but what raises this film above the trappings of a sitcom or cookie-cutter rom-com is its strength of characters (particularly Dan and Marie) and strict believability in the way the characters handle the events while still maintaining the genre's sensibilities.

Steve Carrell continues to show depth and range beyond what he became known as on the Daily show - the clueless but endearing and pleasant buffoon. That continues in The Office (albeit with a more room for development). Now that he's in films that embrace his range, I'm beginning to latch onto his skill and persona. His solid work in Little Miss Sunshine was deserving of more recognition and his work as Dan only serves to further his nuanced forty-somethings. His Dan is going through growing pains normally attached to adolescence - the thrill of impulsive love - that somehow link a diverse audience to this family man. I don't have kids. I haven't lost a wife. But I was able to relate to this blunt sting of emotion that comes with angst and sharp emotions. Adult angst. It makes for a very good character.

Julliette Binoche, whom I must admit I just recently discovered in her small role in Paris Je T'aime, makes up the other half of this interesting infatuation. I am amazed by her subtle specificity. Her face carries so much information on it in action and reaction that I thought I could read her so much better than many of the female characters I have seen in more traditional rom-coms. She's also believable. Even when Dan and Marie's interactions are pulled directly from the rom-com rulebook, she and Carrell are able to give a sense of spontaneity that rings much truer than what I've seen before. The fact that I really, really liked her and Dan made me really pull for them. And because of that, the conflict was all the more involving. Conflict without investment in the characters and situations surrounding it is fruitless.

Eventually, the film does pull off one of those familiar sweet as candy endings, but by then I was so rooted in the characters that I was able to dismiss (well, mostly) the derivitive nature of the moment. The fact that the ending is open and closed shows off some of the films respect for its characters.

That respect extends to the family as well. The family interactions are familiar, but still ring of authenticity in the relationships. Family members are uniquely pleased and annoyed by each other because there is that foundation of love. So, even when characters respond in ways that further the conventions of the genre, I was satisfied that a loving family was being portrayed in that it saw one of its members struggling and reacted in a way related to truth from that ideal.

It's a solid, crowd-pleasing movie that left me smiling. Among all the rough and tumble of the films at the multiplex this time of year, I was very happy to leave a film not only excited about production values, acting, directing, writing, thrills, chills, sadness, and relevancy, but also for the good I felt coursing through me as I walked out of the theater.

****

Paris Je T'aime

Paris Je T'aime is an anthology of short film love letters to Paris. Each of the film's 18 shorts deals with love with Paris as a setting. Some of the world's premiere directors filmed a short for the anthology including the Coen Brothers (Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou), Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting, Elephant), and Alexander Payne (Sideways, Election).

Each of the short films is only about five or six minutes (and seem shorter), so I had difficulty at first because I spent such little time with characters before the next story would begin. I began to feel at ease when some of the directors took special care when constructing their stories with beginning, middles, and ends in a more traditional sense.

I felt a wide range of emotions while watching the short films. For the most part, I felt truly satisfied by each segment, though some were much more successful than others.

I liked how the films were able to take an idea like love in Paris and stretch it more than just falling into romantic love. Some people narrowly missed love, lost it, or lost it and then regained it. There was also familial love, love for life, and love for Paris itself.

I was impressed how well some of the directors told their stories. I was continually amazed by how many films were able to surprise me in such a short amount of time. Just when I thought their narratives were going in one direction, they zig-zagged a different way.

Some of my favorite segments were Faubourg Saint-Denis by Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) about a blind man's recollection of fleeting love found quickly again, Quartier de la Madeleine by Vincenzo Natali about a giving of self for love for a vampire, and Place des Fêtes by Oliver Schmitz about a dying man making one last attempt to charm a beautiful woman who has eluded him.

Not all the films are good. I did not take to Porte de Choisy by Christopher Doyle about a salon products representatives dream hair appointment, or Parc Monceau by Alfonso Cuaron about a father and his daughter talking about old habits and new trials. Neither film handles the time frame well. Porte de Choisy tries to fit too much all at once into its tiny run time, and Parc Monceau does not do enough with its run time.

That proved to be the deciding factor in determining the quality of the segments - How well did they entertain or captivate their audience in the amount of time they had? How did they structure their shorts? What were they trying to do, and did they accomplish that?

More often than not, Paris Je T'aime sweetly and sometimes sadly told short stories that will last much longer in my memory.

***1/2

Across the Universe

Across the Universe is one of the worst films that I have seen in the theater in a long time. It is a mess of a movie.

The film follows a rag tag group of young people during the turbulent 60's. Our protagonist is a English lad named Jude. He goes to America to find his dad, but stays after meeting Max and his sister Lucy. Lucy and Jude are destined to be entwined in young love.

That's really the story. It is as thin as a paper cup and just as disposable and recyclable. Everyone who has seen a movie about the 60's has seen this plot or elements of the plot before. It tries to touch on everything - hippies, music, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War and the struggle of the "radicals'" protesting at home among every other instance of 60's nostalgia you can imagine.
The characters are also 60's stereotypes masquerading as memories.

The problem is the filmmakers love The Beatles (whose music makes up the entire musical's soundtrack) too much. The story exists because of the songs, not the other way around as it should be. The story is thin because it merely bides its time with a loose narrative as an excuse to fill time between musical interludes. Those small pieces of narrative cannot sustain the audience's interest, so the filmmakers chose to make the time in between songs short and forgettable so we can push right on through to the next number.

Some of the musical pieces serve as bold interpretations of The Beatles musical catalogue and contain interesting images, but most stick out like sore thumbs in the context of the narrative. A few of the musical numbers did stand out as quality pieces of filmmaking including "Let it Be" during race riots, "Strawberry Fields Forever" in a Vietnam and artist freak out montage, "Across the Universe" on a subway car, and "Because" lying in a field of tall grass.

Still, the film has no subtlety in its purpose: to use as many Beatles songs as possible. That means having characters named Jude, Lucy, and Prudence. Max might as well been named "Eleanor Rigby" to keep the trend going.

Certain things bothered me above all. There was use of a heightened reality common to film musicals, but that was no excuse for a lifeless and bland film in the midst of all the vain attempts to shower the audience with vibrant life. I have never seen a better example of style over substance.

Another annoyance was the love story. I could not be invested in the two lovers' fates at all. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the recent indie musical Once with its wonderful characters and lovely love story. The big deal is that the love story is really the meat and potatoes of the narrative. If I could not care about the love story, I was doomed to not care about the whole movie.

The film did manage to find some level of balance and relative skill in the third act, but by then it was too late. I was turned off by the movie early on and had no hope for reinvestment.

*1/2

Once

Once is a charming backstage musical of the indie kind.

The story is ultra-bare. Basically two musicians meet-cute and dance around their attraction for each other as they talk about past loves while making beautiful music together. The film is really short (less than 90 minutes), probably because it could tell its story in a short amount of time well.

I was talking to my brothers on the way home from the movie about how the characters had so much subtext in their conversations and interactions. But there is still so much mystery to what their intentions are. Are they falling in love. I thought so. But I didn't know. That's key. I knew very little about the characters, probably because the characters don't know that much about each other or their intentions. I did want to get to know them better. I sort of wanted to spend more time with them. I liked them enough to feel that way. I wanted them to get together.

I was disappointed in the direction their lives took, but I was thankful for the time I spent with them and the genuine moments I spent with them and their music. I was thankful that somehow I was satisfied by the wonderful ending although it was different from the way I expected it to end. I was thankful people get to make deeply personal films like this and show them to me in small theaters with other thankful audience members. It's a bittersweet story about two people figuring their lives and each other out.

I will say that I wasn't totally convinced by the acting. The characters and performers are charming, but there is some noticeable hints of these musicians learning to act.

****

Knocked Up

This film is juvenile and crass. The guys in this film are kinda creeps. But I liked the film. It made me laugh. I guess I'm immature. I could say I loved it because of the love story and complex look at becoming a parent (which was nice and well done), but I laughed out loud like a 14 year old boy amongst all the toilet humor and rude behavior.

I liked the performances. I liked the characters (save for a few of the slacker friends of Seth Rogen's character). I wanted the two mismatched characters to fall in love and be great parents. But I knew they shouldn't. I didn't believe it when it happened. When Seth Rogen's Ben decided to grow up, it happened in a rush, in a montage. The change appeared easy because it happened so abruptly. He had spent the whole movie acting like a immature shlub, but then he got it in his head that he needed to change, and it just happened.

Reconciliation seemed forced. It ended neatly, tossing away what had been a fairly realistic approach to the awkwardness and difficulties of relationships. But I kind of expected that. It's a romantic comedy. Good things must happen. I did appreciate the sometimes awful things in the relationship that happened along the way. I guess I'm odd that way. It made for good comedy, you know, except when people were being horribly mean to each other.

I probably should give a *** rating given all the problems I just pointed out, but I was somehow charmed amongst all the uncharming behavior. Plus, I've gotta give a nice solid rating to any film that makes me laugh as much as Knocked Up did. The mushroom scenes in Vegas are classic hilarity. And despite the unrealistic ending, I was satisfied by it. It gave me what I wanted even if it shouldn't have.

***1/2

Chad Betz Reviews Once

Editor's Note: I will begin posting Chad Betz reviews whenever he feels like sending one in. Please take the time to look over his reviews. They are much more insightful and wonderfully written than anything I ever wrote.


Saturday, June 02, 2007

Once might be the finest musical ever, and that's because it's the first musical that really captures why music is important to the lives of those given to it. By making its actors of musicians and musicians of its characters, the film allows its musical scenarios to play out naturally. By making music the action to the characters' inner monologues in the moment, not outside of it, not big production numbers surrounded by birds and children's choirs and cute dance choreography, by doing this the film keeps us focused on the music and the people playing it. And this is music that is about real life situations and the real emotional reactions to those situations; as the songs play out so does the relationship between the film's main two characters, unceremoniously named "guy" and "girl."

That's what pop music is about, right? A "guy" and a "girl" and all that entails. In its brief span, Once manages to draw out these two archetypes with an understated balance of sadness and joy; all the while backstories limit their fleeting current story together, so their "once" happens in front of our eyes like a dream cut to factual tape, shaky handheld camera and rough editing making us feel like a friend watching a home video rather than a distanced observer in a cold theater. It's the anti-Chicago.

Musicals are often romanticism, and this is a musical about finding romanticism that's honest with how we live life from day to day. It's simultaneously morose and hopeful, and I can't think of a better film representation of how music can do what Paul Schrader suggests drama does: document the incremental movements of the human soul. Once is both music and movie while avoiding grand leaps and pompous gestures... it is nothing but beautiful, painstaking increments, which are as much a part of the soundtrack as the soundtrack's a part of them. The first time "guy" and "girl" make music together is a scene I don't think I'll ever forget, and that's because it captures a moment that so many of us have cherished or still long for, that instant where you see a reflection of the best parts of your own soul in someone else, and it quietly shakes you to the core. For now it's just you, her, and the God that made you both.

Those are the moments for which we live. That someone finally made a musical about such moments feels utterly right.

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.

****

The Science of Sleep

Imagination station. Michel Gondry's mind at work. The story is about a guy who mixes dreams with reality. It has been suggested that the whole film is a dream. I don't think so. I think it can be interpreted in different ways, you can choose to ignore certain clues and focus on others. But that doesn't really hinder from enjoying this little film. I love Gael Garcia Bernal in the movie, but I still find the character grating at times. It's hard to imagine a man being so childish (though that may play into the "movie's a dream" scenario. He's endearing in his own pathetic way. And I root for him. I think that's important in this kind of movie. He's in love with Charlotte Gainsbourg (lovely and amazing), but not able to "get the girl." But I root for him. I love her as much as he does, so I root. The visuals are amazing. The dreams are funny and whimsical to say the least. It's a good film each time you see it. I bought it and the only regret from doing so is that the making of doc revealed all the secrets to the magic of the film and took away my sweet ignorance to the people behind the scenes.

****

The Fountain

The Fountain is one of the best films I saw last year, but certainly would be further down the list if based soley on that. It is my fourth highest favorite film of the year for different reasons. The movie is so damn ambitious. I admire it. It has big ideas. Old ideas made fresh. And its slow, but wonderfully so. Whispered words and bark eaten in space. The light on the back of Rachel Weisz's neck. The sight of a funeral on a snowy farm. Wonderful images all working toward telling the story. The story can be difficult to follow with its bouncing from way in the past to the present to way in the future. But it works to tell of a love, an obsession that stood alone through time. Sounds pretentious, huh. Yeah, maybe. But so what. It's a beautiful film worth watching again and again. After the first time I saw the movie, it rolled about in my head for days, keeping my thought hostage when I was supposed to be learning or listening to conversation. And I liked it. I liked asking questions after the last reel finished. There's a lot to be asked. Such as, with a director so confident, a story so rich, and a pair of talented performer to guide us, why are there moments of unreal emotion, stretches of inauthenticity and, GASP, overacting? I couldn't explain. I'm not sure the people involved in the making of the film could tell you. In spite of a few moments of forced emotion and crazy eyes, I found Hugh Jackman's peformance in The Fountain to be my favorite of his. He's constantly seeking to stretch his limits, to explore his acting range. I guess I never really felt he had done that before. Sure, the fruits of his labors can feel over-the-top at times, but at times I was completely on board with the guy.

As the music (a highlight of the film) swelled, my heart did the same. The last big hurrah of the film really punctuated the feelings I had for everything prior.

***1/2

Stranger Than Fiction

I haven't felt as happy or as satisfied for years as I was leaving the theater after Stanger Than Fiction. I think I really loved the film for how it handled its clever premise. The plot sets itself up for what could have been an awkward, poorly done meeting of two of its characters, but I think the film handled the situation wonderfully. I also love how the film allows Will Ferrell's character to hear a narrator's voice (from a woman who actually does exist) without explaining why. The answer would have been trivial to the plot. Who cares why he can hear it? I like films that keep us caught up with the characters' available knowledge rather than concocting answers to questions better left unaswered. Will Ferrell was very good. He showed great subtlety in his performance that I never would have guessed was in his range. I also really got into the love story. Sure, it was "cute." But it also felt real in a very surreal way. The film doesn't depict reality in the way we know it to be, but the reality it portrays is very real on the screen. And that's where I took it all in. Great script, too. A lot of comparisons were made to the work of Charlie Kaufman, but I think Zak Helm found his own voice and told a story much sweeter and more endearing than anything Charlie has written. But Charlie's the best out there, so...ya' know...

****1/2