Beeswax

Andrew Bujalski one of the kings of mumblecore has created a simple little movie that just follows folks existing through a series of time. The "story" gives us a chance to follow along as twins, one in a wheelchair one not, deal with parents, problems and make life decisions. We're plopped directly into the middle of the story and are forced to play catchup for the first 30 minutes or so. Or at least I was. And not just because I had a hard time following some of the dialog. I'd blame that on the film - but this seems to happen so often to me at Northwest Film Forum that I'm not sure if I should really blame this on the whole Mumblecore things or not. Regardless, eventually you start to get a sense (understanding is too strong a word) for what may have gone on before the camera started. I don't actually think that's a bad thing - as it feels far more natural and provides a positive challenge to understand the characters more than a very traditional narrative would. I sort of like that there's not a need shown to explain each and every aspect of their lives to the audience.

I could talk a bit about what they're doing and what they're up to. But too much detail is going to really take away from sorting through it all and forming your own opinion. One co-owns a store and is dealing with a difficult business partner, the other seems a bit more adrift and is looking for work. Will the scenes we see playing out amount to something huge in their lives, a pivot around which they'll be successful or failures, or sound and fury signifying nothing? If you need to know the answer to that when you leave the cinema then may not be your film. It's more a chance to peek into their lives as a voyeur and draw your own conclusions. For what it was I enjoyed the experience, liked the characters and felt my brain was engaged.

Though I've got to admit, I didn't even realize they were twins (let alone sisters) for a while. If you're not accepting of a bit of confusion - really just don't go. And if you must go, avoid turning to your partner to ask about the character's relationships. They probably aren't 100% sure either.

The Road

I'd intended originally to see this movie at the Telluride film festival where it premiered. On the plus side there was an extended Q&A available with the film's star Viggo Mortensen. On the negative I figured there was going to be a huge crowd and I didn't want to end the festival on a downer film. So I decided to wait. On Thursday I lucked into a screening during the day courtesy of SIFF.

The film is set in a post apocalyptic America. The reason for the world dying is unclear, and the specifics aren't really all that important. Almost all animals have died and vegetation is on its way out too. Surviving humans have no electricity, no technology and only the food that has survived since the disaster. The worst instincts of human survival have set in and people are resorting to cannibalism to feed themselves. The strong are victimizing the weak and the concept of "being good" seems to be the stuff of legend. Into this universe comes "The Man" who is on the road South to warmer climates with his son in tow. Over time via flashback the birth of the son and the fate of his wife (Charlize Theron) are explained.

The trailer makes it look as if it's an action adventure sort of thing. It's really not. Much slower paste, and most of the horror (with some exceptions) comes from the ever present fear/paranoia that's haunting everyone. Part of the man's training of his son is on what to do to survive, but at the same time he's nearly constantly also encouraging him not to be afraid to kill himself if he's about to be captured (and presumably eaten). It's a desolate world they live in, and human contact is few and far between. When interaction does occur it's always colored by deep (and reasonable) mistrust of anyone who is not family. More of the film is about this tension than "action" sequences of the sort in the trailer. Come to think about it it's possible that every action sequence is in the trailer.

I haven't read the book the film is based on. Many who've both read the book and seen the film suggest the onscreen version suffers in comparison. Perhaps then it's lucky I'm coming to this material fresh. Given some of the conversations I've had with folks who had seen it I went with not highest of expectations. No avoiding the fact. This is a grim movie - but it's well made with strong performances by Mortensen and the boy who plays his son (they're in practically every scene). The father tries to maintain hope of a sort in his son that they're going to a better place. Though once you take a look at their environment you rapidly begin to reset your expectations about how positive things could possibly end up. My HS English teacher never got tired of saying something about the road being a metaphor for life (or was that the river in Huck Finn?). That seems to apply here and as such I watched not really with a focus on their destination but on what the journey consisted of. Not that the destination will leave you shocked - though it's possibly a bit more positive than I expected.

In summary I found it a reasonably interesting, well acted, well shot film - even though I'm not sure I really needed to see a movie about the end of the world. Probably far better in the storytelling/film sense then the upcoming 2012 blockbuster end of the world porn. And not as depressing as Precious.

Finally, does anyone know if Viggo has some sort of recent contract rider that demands Guy Pearce always appear in his films if only briefly?



Screening note: From what I could tell the main reason for this screening was to give Christian clergy in the Seattle area a chance to see this film ahead of the official release. The note I got mentioned that there'd be a post-film discussion facilitated by a pastor. Which made me wonder just how disturbing was this film going to be? But from a bit of eavesdropping before the film, and the fact they were giving out "sermon notes" (and the fact they said this) I eventually determined the purpose was to use the film as material for discussion with their congragations. I can see how the whole film could certainly be used as a discussion of morality, ethics and life/death (the film's environment almost seems like Purgatory too). Unfortunately, I didn't get to stick around for this discussion as I had to beat it back to the office. If by some miracle (joke intended) someone eventually gets a chance to hear one of the derived sermons (or was in the audience) I'd love to hear about it.

(Untitled)

Adam Goldberg (who I still haven't fully forgiven for The Hebrew Hammer - an awesome concept that just didn't rise to the occasion) stars in this film set in the NYC art scene. The film managed to bring a level of depth that I didn't expect and my opinion of it has been evolving upwards the more I reflect on it.

Goldberg plays Adrian Jacobs, a moody self-involved experimental musician. He makes a living playing the piano in restaurants and clearly hates himself for it. His passion is the creation of what to me comes across as dreadful noise. What I suspect is more accurately supposed to be referred to as atonal music. One of his best lines is a rant at a party along the lines of "harmony was invented as a conspiracy to sell pianos." This music doesn't exactly draw rock star crowds - but that's to be expected for someone whose signature move appears to be rattling a chain in a bucket. His brother is an artist as well - a painter of relatively bland, non threatening works of abstract color that are in vogue at hotels, doctor's offices etc. He's a commercial success but longs for acceptance in the art world. Yep - the grass is always greener. They could take this path - but thankfully generally don't make it the main point of the film.

It's easy to laugh at Goldberg's performances and the film seems designed to initially encourage you to do so. And laugh you will. We meet the experimental art scene in NY when the gallery owner that manages his brother's sales attends a performance and is struck by Goldberg's work. He's invited to perform at her gallery. We get a sense as to the financial underpinnings of the scene - some money comes from "collectors" occasionally purchasing work from the very experimental main gallery, though the real money is coming from more mainstream sales of the "back room" (aka Goldber's brother's paintings). The pieces in the gallery also initially come across as laughable (for example bizarrely posed taxidermy) - though every once in a while there was something that struck me as truly interesting looking. Not that I'd want it in my living room - but this is clearly a different sort of art. There's a bunch of the standard stereotypes thrown in, most notably the rich collector who buys works he doesn't like as a financial investment or for the feeling of belonging the purchases buy him with the hip scene. There are lots of what I believe are intended laughs in the beginning from the art and the lifestyles of those involved.

Goldberg starts up a relationship with the gallery owner. But while she genuinely seems to respect his music he finds the visual art just as laughable as most folks would find his music. This creates friction with her of course. At the same time the film somehow managed to twist my thinking around where I was wondering "should I really be laughing at this" - even in the face of some of the "art" becoming so minimalist it became hard to imagine purchasing. My takeaway was that in the midst of the uncomfortable, ridiculos and occasionally ugly works there probably is some true genius mixed in. Though perhaps with quite a lot of hot air and hype mixed in. The surest sign of this for me was when Goldberg attends a tribute to one of his musical heroes. That music while clearly not danceable is interesting and impressive enough that I was able to understand what Goldberg's character is shooting for - even if he's not at all able to achieve it.

So I give the film positive marks for having me leave the film with a slightly different view than I went in with. And a few jokes about blowhard art folks who have no appreciation for past masters but no tolerance for criticism of their work is always amusing. I didn't love it - but I thought it was interesting. Clearly art is in the eye of the beholder (sorry couldn't resist). And thanks to the folks at SIFF who made this free preview available I'm glad I went. Especially as I'd wanted to catch this in Palm Springs back in January.

The Invention of Lying

This is one of those films that struck me cute in the trailer but if figured it couldn't sustain. Then I read some reviews that called it mean. Given these two things it took me a while to get out to see it. And I mainly went because it was playing nearby. So I was pleasantly surprised when I found it pretty decent overall with an unexpected anti-religious streak to rival that of Religulous. Possibly the most bluntly logic vs. faith argument I've ever seen in a commercial Hollywood film. Not that it's mean spirited about it, just that it strongly takes a religion is the opiate of the people approach to things. More on that in a sec...

The film is set in a world where humans have not evolved the ability to lie. Or more accurately to utter anything untrue. Not to spare someone's feelings, not to commit fraud, not even to write an entertaining story. Apparently there's truth in the joke "it's not lying, it's a gift for fiction." The people of this world are just like us, but their movies involve watching someone read an account of historical moments. Admittedly, that may be better than some films I've seen in recent years - but overall it seems their world is is suffering. There are some flaws with the way the setup is presented in the movie- for example just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to blurt out every feeling and embarrassing action. But having the characters do so must make the humor writing easier (and the first meeting of the film's obligatory romantic interests so much funnier).

As you'd expect, while such candor has some upsides it can also make things incredibly painful, especially if there's anything at all imperfect about you. The main character is a middle aged man (Ricky Gervais) without the body of a movie star and a job he's not exactly rising in. So his prospects are pretty grim, especially in the female companionship department. After losing his job in a moment of desperation he suddenly evolves the ability to lie. Fame and fortune quickly follow. How exactly are some of the more amusing aspects of the film.

Later in the film he accidentally creates the concept of religion (I'll leave the details to the film). At which point one of the core messages of the movie starts up - that religions were created by (possibly) well meaning people to explain the randomness of the universe and the inevitability of death. In doing so they make their point similarly to Bill Maher's earlier film but significantly change the tone of the film.

Oh, yeah - the more directly on the surface main story is his attempt to get Jennifer Garner who sort of likes him but can't get past his visual appearance. That's one of those mystifying things where she does "grow" over the course of the film. But at the same time she's so unpleasant it's hard to understand why he wants her after a while.

Overall it made me laugh, though the second half's turn while appreciating the effort (and the ability to get the film made) turned it into a lesser comedy. It's no Liar Liar companion piece is all I'm saying. Lot's of well known actors showing up in small roles gives you something to do ("hey, is that Ed Norton") if you get bored. Overall in the B- range to me. No reason to avoid it on video - that's for sure.

Act of God

A documentary about lightening. Or maybe about the randomness of the universe. Or perhaps about how the human mind feels a need to put a reason everything. So come to think of it the film has a lot in common with 'The Invention of Lying.' Except that it's rarely funny.

In the positive column the film has some great footage of lightening. Both video and dramatic still photography. There are some affecting personal remembrances from folks who've witnessed its random devastation - either to themselves or to those around them. There's a lot of talk about how lightening changes things - though besides the obvious bolt from the heavensness aspect of it, not a lot of explanation on how it might be different than something than say, being diagnosed with cancer. The filmmakers travel the world to hear these stories, even including an African religion which seems centered around thunder and lightening.

During the film there's plenty of time to think about the ramifications of all this - in part because there's really not a lot of information being conveyed. That is beyond the opportunity to witness the terror and beauty of the natural phenomena itself. That alone may be worth seeing it - and if you're going to go you should shoot for the theater experience. It's just not going to be the same at home.

There are unfortunately some negatives too. Mainly - I felt even more underwhelmed than I was watching the earlier film Manufactured Landscapes. In that case I appreciated that I was seeing new and interesting photographs of startling environments. Here I didn't feel I really learned anything significant about lightening - and it seemed as though a little more explanation about the phenomena is owed. Some of the personal stories were interesting (all were tragic)- but only one or two felt deep enough to have a memorable impact. There's a parallel piece about a group of neuro-scientists which exists mainly to show that lightning (as electricity) is a larger version of what takes place in our brains. They're monitoring the brainwave activity of an improvising guitar player off and on through the film. This part never really did anything for me - except at the end where he plays an improvised experimental pieces. Which included rattling chains in a bucket - and made me laugh thinking about (Untitled).