The Company You Keep

This evening I watched a low-budget indie flick made in Canada in 2012 but just released a couple of weeks ago. Never heard of it, you say? Uh-huh. Critics didn’t like it  much, so it can’t be worth watching? Uh-huh. And while it may be a thriller, it’s sure not an action film, so why bother? Uh-huh. Playing in only one theatre in Winnipeg for a week or two (that being the Globe, which is the closest thing we have to an art-house cinema, though it often plays junk)? Uh-huh. The masses don’t like it any more than the critics (so why would anyone make such a thing anyway?). Uh-huh. Why even put it on the blog and waste our readers’ precious time? Uh-huh.

What if I were to tell you that this film was directed by Robert Redford and stars Redford, Shia LaBeouf, Susan Sarandon, Julie Christie, Chris Cooper, Sam Elliott, Brendan Gleeson, Stanley Tucci, Terrence Howard, Brit Marling, Richard Jenkins and Nick Nolte, and that it was a fantastic ensemble performance? A spark of interest, perhaps. And what if I were to add that this is a political thriller that subtly asks why young people today are not protesting the outrageous corporatism and militarism that rules our world the way young idealists did back in the days of the Vietnam War? 

What’s that, Vic? Watch a film that’s actually about something, a film that’s thoughtful and provocative, when we can watch Iron Man 3 or Star Trek Into Darkness (which ends with a tribute to those who’ve been fighting since 9/11)? You gotta be kidding, Vic! What’re you smoking?

I’m sorry, are you detecting some bitterness here? What’s that? You think even that last sentence might have been written in a facetious tone? Come on! We all know you can’t read tone! Just think of all those emails you’ve written that were misunderstood. 

I think I digress. The Company You Keep: a quiet, understated, intelligent and engrossing political thriller about a group of 70’s radicals (Redford, Sarandon, Christie) who have been hunted by the FBI for decades for supposedly being involved in a bank job that cost a guard his life. When ‘Sarandon’ gets caught, a journalist (LaBeouf) starts putting the pieces together and soon everyone is on the run again. 

No, it’s not a perfect film by any means. Some of the dialogue is clunky and I had the constant feeling that this film could have been much better (i.e. the story told more effectively). But give me The Company You Keep any day over the escapist waste of time that most of today’s films represent (yes, I’m getting upset about Star Trek again, but you’ll have to wait until tomorrow for that). I loved this film and give it a solid ***+. It will probably even make my top ten of 2013. My mug is up.

The Great Gatsby

After a brief interlude with The Gatekeepers, the critics and I part company once again on Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby. The critics found the film way over-the-top, an overblown dazzling spectacle, full of style but with little substance. Leaving aside the obvious parallels between that description and the man Jay Gatsby, who builds a castle on Long Island to impress the woman he loves (who is married to another man, who has a mansion of his own across the bay) and holds the world’s wildest parties every single weekend for New York City’s wealthiest and oddest folks, the critics seem to be missing one vital piece of the equation, namely that this is not just a filming of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, but that this is Baz Luhrmann’s filming of that novel.

The Great Gatsby is a non-musical Moulin Rouge set in 1922 New York instead of 1899 Paris. This comparison may not impress some critics, but Moulin Rouge happens to be one of my favourite films of the last twenty years, so it impresses me. Yes, the first hour of The Great Gatsby is outrageous, overwhelming, frenetic, chaotic and full of insanely colourful cinematography. Buhrmann comes from the ‘no-shot-should-last-more-than-five-seconds’ school of filmmaking. Whether this is designed to appeal to the younger generations, who have some issues with attention deficit, or whether it is Luhrmann himself who has these issues, is beside the point. It’s what Luhrmann does and while it is occasionally distracting, it also fuels the sense of eye-popping wonder which lies at the heart of Luhrmann’s films. 

If all of The Great Gatsby was this frenetic, I would add my voice to the critics who panned the film, but, like Moulin Rouge, The Great Gatsby settles down (for the most part) in the last half to focus on the tragic romantic tale of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), as husband Tom (Joel Edgerton) and Daisy’s doting cousin Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), the film’s narrator, watch from the side. This is a story of how the pursuit of wealth and the American Dream is both hollow and unhappy and it is told in a remarkably haunting and effective way (I have not read the novel, so cannot speak to how well it handles the source material).

The acting in The Great Gatsby is a little uneven. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Gatsby and he continues to display his formidable talent with a stellar performance as a vulnerable man pretending to be something he is not. Tobey Maguire is solid as Gatsby’s neighbour (and Daisy’s cousin), who, against his better instincts, gets caught up in a story that quickly gets out of control and which he always knows will end badly. Carey Mulligan is never other than outstanding in all of her roles, but her talent is under-utilized here. The weakest link is Edgerton, who is unconvincing as Tom, a chronic philanderer who is appalled when his wife shows an interest in another man. 

My biggest complaint with The Great Gatsby is not even mentioned by the critics. As you know, I despise 3D and will never watch a 3D film if I can watch it in 2D. The Great Gatsby was made for 3D and, in watching the 2D version, you can tell by the film’s poor colour (especially in the day-time scenes) that this was made for 3D and that this fact has negatively impacted the cinematography throughout. It could have been so much more beautiful!

And yes, there is a disappointing superficiality to the character development, limiting the emotional connection of the viewer. Nevertheless, for me, this flaw was overstated by the critics. I am giving The Great Gatsby ***+ for being a solid piece of entertainment that felt both old-fashioned and wildly original. My mug is up.

Je vous trouve très beau

I am always on the lookout for French comedies and one of the surprise favourites of recent months has been Je vous trouve très beau (I find you very handsome). 

This is the story of a middle-aged French farmer who really needs someone to do the laundry and care for the animals after his wife dies (due to a faulty milking machine). It doesn't take long before he turns to a match-making service that is well represented with would-be brides from Romania. As is no doubt already clear, this is a somewhat silly but warmhearted story about a relationally restrained and very pragmatic man.

Apart from interesting characters and humour that usually works, there is just a little more depth to the character development than one might expect. I'd love to comment on that but don't want to add a spoiler. Mugs up and recommended for a light and delightful evening. ***+  

The Gatekeepers

The Gatekeepers is a brilliant, amazing, fascinating, depressing, profound and terrifying film. It could not be more different from 5 Broken Cameras, the other Israeli nominee for Best Documentary at this year's Academy Awards (see review below), and yet the underlying message is the same, namely that the only way to peace in Israel/Palestine (and, indeed, in the Middle East) is the creation of a Palestinian state. 

While 5 Broken Cameras gave us a very grassroots look at Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation during the last few years, The Gatekeepers looks from the top down, focused on interviews with six former heads of Shin Bet. Shin Bet is the big Israeli internal security organization, in charge of protecting Israeli citizens from terrorists, whether those terrorists are Palestinians or Jewish extremists. 

Instead of defending the reputation of Shin Bet over the years, the six leaders question the effectiveness of its policies. While some of the leaders defend their decisions to order the murder of terrorists or their involvement in collateral damage (deaths of innocent civilians), they all suggest that Shin Bet has been helping to lead Israel down a path toward, as one of the interviewees said, ‘a very dark future’. With the exception of Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated by a Jewish extremist), Israeli prime ministers have, according to these Shin Bet leaders, handled the Palestinian situation very poorly, basically putting the country in ever-greater danger rather than negotiating with the Palestinians to create a Palestinian state. 

The Gatekeepers is an awesome technical achievement by director/cinematographer Dror Moreh. He uses some form of special effects (CGI?) to turn old photos into something like moving images and invents countless unique ways of conveying information. The six interviews which form the heart of the documentary are filmed in a style that feels cold, with grey and blue predominating, but the stark lighting and colours create a feeling of suspense and gravity that make this a riveting film.

The Gatekeepers is worthy of its overwhelming critical acclaim (the critics got one right!) and gets an easy ****. My mug is up for this must-see.

Still Mine

Walter, this is a film (released yesterday in Winnipeg) you should have been able to watch first - it’s filmed in New Brunswick (St. Martins) and is based on a true story about an old (late eighties) couple in St. Martins who fought against the local authorities in an attempt to build a small house on their land. Apparently it was big news in the Telegraph Journal, so maybe you read about it.

Specifically, Still Mine tells the story of Craig Morrison (played by James Cromwell), a long-retired lumber man (he has his own sawmill) who wants to build a house where he and his wife can spend their final days together. His wife, Irene (played by Genevieve Bujold), is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, with memory problems that grow worse as the film (which covers a two-year period) goes on. When she falls down the stairs, Craig knows the new house is the only future he and Irene have together (though his seven children are not so sure).

Unfortunately, building a house, even on your own property, requires permits and a ton of paperwork and inspections. If you’re not a builder, this can be daunting, and Craig does not have the patience for it, especially since he is an excellent builder using top-notch materials. Though his work exceeds the standards being measured by all the codes, he does not follow the rules and finds himself in front of a judge for defying a stop-work order and for 26 code violations. That’s sort of where the film starts, but also where it ends. 

Still Mine was written and directed by Michael McGowan. He tells the story in a remarkably understated way, which worked very well for me. The dialogue could use some improvement, but Cromwell’s acting is good enough to overcome that flaw and he gives us a solid feel for all the mixed emotions Craig experiences during those tumultuous two years. Bujold and the other Canadian actors provide excellent support, with Campbell Scott a good choice for the lawyer trying to help (without much success). The cinematography is outstanding. The score is rarely used or needed but it is effective. 

Still Mine cannot avoid comparisons with Amour, the winner of the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (see review below). Like Amour, Still Mine is the story of an old man coming to terms with living with a woman, his lifelong companion, who is losing her hold on the world around her. Both stories are told with a minimum of sentimentality. Both films are quiet and understated. Both films feature a strong loving relationship and the involvement of children. In terms of pure filmmaking, Still Mine can’t compete with Haneke’s masterpiece. And yet I think I enjoyed Still Mine more than Amour. It certainly engaged me more on an emotional level. And maybe I was connecting to the rural New Brunswick setting which was my home for eight years. 

I am giving Still Mine a solid ***+. My mug is up. 

Collaborator

Oh, the pain of what could have been. It's so hard when a movie seems to have such potential and falls short.

Consider the possibilities: a playwright is held hostage by his childhood neighbour. They are poles apart in just about every way, but in the midst of the tense situation, the playwright gets the criminal talking by doing an improv exercise and by offering a chat with a famous friend. Communication channels are opened up between opposites. One wonders how much of what has bogged down the life of the beer-swilling gun-wielder has been the lack of ability to imagine and communicate.

But alas - a few great ideas and barely developed plotlines are just left hanging. Martin Donovan wrote, directed and acted in the lead role, and I have to wonder whether that was a mistake. Sure this sometimes works, but it can also lead to a lack of input from others who could give perspective and help overcome blindspots. I suspect part of the problem comes in the fact that the movie didn't succeed in finding that tricky balance between thoughtful dramatic dialogue and comedy. Too often the humour didn't quite succeed, and the serious drama was foiled by the slightly comic tone.

Still, it made me think and I never considered turning it off, and that is not nothing. So I will give it ***, a mug reluctantly held up but I'm sadly wishing it could have been more.

Oblivion

As I mentioned in my previous review, 2013 has not, thus far, been a good year for film. So neither mediocre reviews from film critics nor the presence of action-hero Tom Cruise were going to stop me from seeing the latest sci-fi blockbuster during opening week. What they did do, however, was provide me with those ever-so-helpful low expectations. 

As a result, Oblivion was one of the few films I’ve seen this year which succeeded in capturing my attention (i.e. it captivated me). This success was largely due to a very slow-paced start. It may have reminded me a little too much of Wall-E but it was the perfect way to begin this story, a story which actually focused on providing the thought-provoking intelligence I look for in a sci-fi film instead of on the action too many recent films have offered (with Tom Cruise, who’d have thought?). Not that there wasn’t a fair bit of pointless action in the film, but it was by no means what the film was about. 

I am not, of course, going to tell you what the film is about, but I’ll provide the setting: In the near future, aliens attack the earth. They lose the war but what’s left of the earth after the war is uninhabitable, so all surviving humans are evacuated to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons.  But Titan needs energy, which is supplied by humungous fusion reactors sucking up the earth’s oceans. Jack and Victoria are assigned to look after the drones protecting those reactors. They are the earth’s last caretakers (sound familiar?). 

Then one day Jack spots a small ship crashing to earth and goes to investigate (despite protestations from Victoria). What he finds in that ship will change everything, and I will say no more about that.

While I wouldn’t call his performance outstanding, I have no complaints about Tom Cruise in the lead role (and he appears in almost every scene). The two women who play Jack’s love interests (Andrea Riseborough and Olga Kurylenko) are very well cast and also perform commendably. The cinematography is outstanding and the score, while occasionally overwhelming, is also very good.

So if Oblivion (written and directed by Joseph Kosinski) is an intelligent, well-made and well-acted film, what are the critics on about? Well, the truth is that Oblivion has its fair share of flaws. It may be intelligent, but it’s not original, stealing ideas from many greater sci-fi films, so there is some inevitable predictability in the story (tempered by the fact that there are so MANY ideas involved, it’s impossible to predict all of them). 

Added to this is the weird ending, which either lacks the intelligence I just mentioned or I lack the intelligence to figure out how anything that happens in the last twenty minutes or so is remotely plausible. And then there’s the disappointment that comes from watching a film with thought-provoking ideas fail to give those ideas their due. In other words, the film is rather superficial and should have been better.

Nevertheless, Oblivion has much more to offer than most of what passes for sci-fi these days, including thoughts worthy of theological exploration (once enough time has passed that I can refer to the plot). In my opinion, the critics were way too hard on this film, which I am giving ***+. My mug is up.