Although I like to offer my opinion on films, I am by no means qualified to be a "critic", by which I mean that other than a single film criticism course taken 23 years ago I have had no formal training in the language and aesthetics of cinema. What I have done is watched a lot of movies, read a fair number of reviews and critical analyses, and thought about and discussed with others what exactly makes a film worthwhile. As a result, I can safely say that I have a developed view of what I appreciate and value in movies and what I do not, and I approach every movie I see through this perspective. It is unconscious and I am not sure I could articulate what it is, but it is no less present every time I take my seat in the dark or in front of my TV.
One thing I have noticed is that when there is a critical consensus that a film is good, I tend to agree. It doesn't necessarily work the other way, which is enough to reassure me that I have not been brainwashed into accepting the critics' opinions blindly. And there are certainly exceptions, a recent one being the well-received but purely dreadful "Being Julia", featuring Annette Bening's desperate grasp for an Oscar and Jeremy Irons sitting wondering why he's still in such crap so many years after winning his little gold statue. But I have learned that I can put reasonable trust in the critics when trying to determine whether a particular film is worth my time and money.
Which brings me to "Brokeback Mountain", the "gay cowboy" movie that is the darling of the 2005 critical year. Looking at the critical response, it seems the subject matter is the only thing preventing the Academy from making New Zealanders of everyone who worked on the film. It is extremely well-acted, including an at first unrecognizable Randy Quaid, but of course the raves must go to Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michele Williams. Nothing in Ledger's career suggested he was capable of such work, playing a man whose every word is dragged out of him and thus carries greater depth and meaning. Likewise his current life partner Williams, playing his scorned wife. For my money, Gyllenhaal comes off a little too eager to play tortured, but so too his character is in better touch than Ledger's with the urges that drive him. Without giving away any of the story, I would suggest that Gyllenhaal's Jack Twist self-identifies as gay but is married as a cover (to a very brittle woman) so he can safely pursue his true desires, while Ledger's Ennis Del Mar is in denial of his true self and thus identifies as a straight man who happens to love another man. Thus ends my stab at pop psychology.
There is a real power to this love story, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to some viewers. Yet my response to the film is that I was never really bored, but never really interested either. Why does this movie leave me so cold? Some might say it's because I am not interested in seeing two men love each other onscreen. It certainly isn't my first choice - now two women, ala "Wild Things", is more up my alley - but I don't see that as the problem. For me, the trouble with "Brokeback Mountain" is that the story is told with the same reserve with which Jack and Ennis must behave in public. A great love story has heat, and there is none here. (I would be curious to know whether gay men feel differently.) Maybe that's a problem with a mainstream film - there is simply no audience for a film that shows two men in a romance with the depth of passion of Scarlett and Rhett in "Gone With the Wind", to use a film to which some critics have referred in their reviews. I don't know if I want to see that movie either. The straight man in me obviously would have some comfort issues seeing such a movie. But the film fan just wants a powerful experience in the cinema. If the gay "Gone with the Wind" is ever made, I will have to make that decision. For now, "Brokeback Mountain" is the best that Hollywood can offer - a film that really shouldn't offend any highly-developed sensibility, but doesn't aim for the heart - or groin - the way a great romance should.
In contrast, I watched "The Sea Inside" on TMN this weekend, spread out in three sessions over 18 hours. Surprisingly, this is no way diminished for me this film's power. Although the story of a quadriplegic man's desire to kill himself, it is without bravura courtroom scenes, dynamic speeches, raging at the world. Yet it is gripping from the opening frames, beautifully shot, magnificently acted (especially by Javier Bardem in the lead). A gentle study in desire, both thwarted and realized, seen in closeup. The most stunning sequence is when Ramon (Bardem) reviews with his lawyer a series of photographs taken many years ago when he still could walk. Some photos are only glimpsed, others lingered over, and we quickly learn who Ramon was and what he valued, and see how distant it is from his present. Yet we also get a sense of what he is made of, and why his resolve to die is so great. It is a perfect illustration of the power of visual storytelling, emotional but without pretense. Ramon's inevitable end, and the effect it has on others, cannot be denied. Yet this film is not a weepy, it is a tribute to the power of the human spirit, even when that power seeks to destroy itself, and a film well worth watching.
Finally, I watched "Hitch" with Nicole. Will Smith is relaxed and fun, Kevin James funny, Eva Mendes gorgeous. There are better ways to waste two hours, but not many, and a good time was had by all.
One thing I have noticed is that when there is a critical consensus that a film is good, I tend to agree. It doesn't necessarily work the other way, which is enough to reassure me that I have not been brainwashed into accepting the critics' opinions blindly. And there are certainly exceptions, a recent one being the well-received but purely dreadful "Being Julia", featuring Annette Bening's desperate grasp for an Oscar and Jeremy Irons sitting wondering why he's still in such crap so many years after winning his little gold statue. But I have learned that I can put reasonable trust in the critics when trying to determine whether a particular film is worth my time and money.
Which brings me to "Brokeback Mountain", the "gay cowboy" movie that is the darling of the 2005 critical year. Looking at the critical response, it seems the subject matter is the only thing preventing the Academy from making New Zealanders of everyone who worked on the film. It is extremely well-acted, including an at first unrecognizable Randy Quaid, but of course the raves must go to Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michele Williams. Nothing in Ledger's career suggested he was capable of such work, playing a man whose every word is dragged out of him and thus carries greater depth and meaning. Likewise his current life partner Williams, playing his scorned wife. For my money, Gyllenhaal comes off a little too eager to play tortured, but so too his character is in better touch than Ledger's with the urges that drive him. Without giving away any of the story, I would suggest that Gyllenhaal's Jack Twist self-identifies as gay but is married as a cover (to a very brittle woman) so he can safely pursue his true desires, while Ledger's Ennis Del Mar is in denial of his true self and thus identifies as a straight man who happens to love another man. Thus ends my stab at pop psychology.
There is a real power to this love story, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to some viewers. Yet my response to the film is that I was never really bored, but never really interested either. Why does this movie leave me so cold? Some might say it's because I am not interested in seeing two men love each other onscreen. It certainly isn't my first choice - now two women, ala "Wild Things", is more up my alley - but I don't see that as the problem. For me, the trouble with "Brokeback Mountain" is that the story is told with the same reserve with which Jack and Ennis must behave in public. A great love story has heat, and there is none here. (I would be curious to know whether gay men feel differently.) Maybe that's a problem with a mainstream film - there is simply no audience for a film that shows two men in a romance with the depth of passion of Scarlett and Rhett in "Gone With the Wind", to use a film to which some critics have referred in their reviews. I don't know if I want to see that movie either. The straight man in me obviously would have some comfort issues seeing such a movie. But the film fan just wants a powerful experience in the cinema. If the gay "Gone with the Wind" is ever made, I will have to make that decision. For now, "Brokeback Mountain" is the best that Hollywood can offer - a film that really shouldn't offend any highly-developed sensibility, but doesn't aim for the heart - or groin - the way a great romance should.
In contrast, I watched "The Sea Inside" on TMN this weekend, spread out in three sessions over 18 hours. Surprisingly, this is no way diminished for me this film's power. Although the story of a quadriplegic man's desire to kill himself, it is without bravura courtroom scenes, dynamic speeches, raging at the world. Yet it is gripping from the opening frames, beautifully shot, magnificently acted (especially by Javier Bardem in the lead). A gentle study in desire, both thwarted and realized, seen in closeup. The most stunning sequence is when Ramon (Bardem) reviews with his lawyer a series of photographs taken many years ago when he still could walk. Some photos are only glimpsed, others lingered over, and we quickly learn who Ramon was and what he valued, and see how distant it is from his present. Yet we also get a sense of what he is made of, and why his resolve to die is so great. It is a perfect illustration of the power of visual storytelling, emotional but without pretense. Ramon's inevitable end, and the effect it has on others, cannot be denied. Yet this film is not a weepy, it is a tribute to the power of the human spirit, even when that power seeks to destroy itself, and a film well worth watching.
Finally, I watched "Hitch" with Nicole. Will Smith is relaxed and fun, Kevin James funny, Eva Mendes gorgeous. There are better ways to waste two hours, but not many, and a good time was had by all.
posted by George @ 4:16 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home