Why Jessica Should Give Certified Copy Another Chance

My friend Jessica, aka “Lobby” of The Velvet Café and the Filmspotting Forum is a wonderful film blogger.  One of the best, actually (you can see a link to her site on the sidebar).   She has wonderful opinions of film and she expresses them in such a personal, interesting way.  However, sometimes—only occasionally, mind you—she is terribly wrong.

For instance, I would claim that 2011 has produced three masterpieces of film.  Perhaps more, after all I haven’t watched A Separation yet or This Is Not a Film.  But there are three that will be discussed and watched happily for decades to come: Tree of Life, Melancholia and Certified Copy.  Jessica didn’t really care for two of them, and hasn’t watched the third and probably is now nervous about watching the third, because I have lumped them all together.

Although I might want to defend Tree of Life, I am here to talk about Certified Copy.  Jessica said that she wasn’t really interested in a very long art discussion.  And it’s true, I wouldn’t either.  And that’s what the film begins with—a discussion about whether a piece of art is to be valued equally as it’s certified copy.  It’s an interesting notion, but one that has been discussed to death in other good films like F is for Fake, My Kid Could Paint That and Exit Through the Gift Shop. The subject has been exhausted, and I would be exhausted to watch another film about it.

But Certified Copy is not about art.  It’s about relationships.

It is using the example of a single relationship, which at times is a courtship and at times is a couple fifteen years married,  to talk about the nature of relationships in general—all of our relationships, but especially our most intimate, long-standing ones. 

There are many questions the film brings up about our relationships:

Do we change over time or are we just perceived differently by others?

Is our value intrinsically our own, or do we only have the value others give us?

Must our relationships have a goal, or is it enough that we just enjoy the experience?

Is the goal of life to produce, or to be happy?

Is it acceptable to avoid the difficult things in relationships, or should we work at “fixing” them?

I admit that the film is a difficult one to watch.  The two principles, brilliantly portrayed by Juliette Binoche and William Shimell, spend most of the film arguing, bickering.  The fact that we don’t know whether the couple are complete strangers or deeply intimate is a distraction. 

Actually, let’s talk about that—see how much of a distraction it is?  But it goes into the  theme of the film.  At the beginning of the film, it seems obvious that William and Juliette don’t know each other, that she’s attracted to him, but also extremely upset at some of his opinions.  About halfway through the film, they speak as if they have had a rocky marriage, one in which he separated himself from her and their son for most of the marriage.  They also have connection with another couple who are getting married in the same place they got married 15 years ago.  And most of the way through the film, they pass an older couple, leaning on each other in order to walk. 

I believe that all four of these portraits are of their marriage, or that they all speak to different parts of the same marriage, or all marriages.  There is the courtship, where we are getting to know each other.  Then the wedding, in which the relationship is most idealistic.  Then a number of years later when the ideals are cast aside and a choice is made to continue to live together or to separate.  And, finally, old age where the decision to remain together leads to interdependence.  

What I believe the film is saying is that all four of these stages are the same marriage.  They aren’t different relationships, but the same one.  The individuals haven’t really changed.  But each stage gives them a new opportunity to perceive each other and how we value each other differently.

And this is why I love this film: I have never watched a film that more helps me understand the nature of long term relationships.  Mind you, I haven’t seen Scenes From a Marriage yet (although I will soon), but this film is deeper and more thoughtful about relationships than any film I have ever seen.

So, Jessica, if you are reading, I hope that give Certified Copy a chance.  Another chance.  I think there’s a lot there, more than anyone can catch in one viewing.  Really, it’s the up and coming thing.  Like indoor plumbing ;)

Just Another Review of Moneyball

                  

I don't like sports films.  At all.  I mean really. Some quick unpopular opinions: Hoosiers was boring. Field of Dreams had some good moments, but overall was dull.  I did really love The Natural, but that's because it's a fairy tale, not about sports at all.  I like Grimm, I don't like sports.  I don't watch them, I think they are a waste of billions of hard-earned dollars.  There, I feel better having gotten that out of my system.

If Moneyball had been about baseball, I wouldn't have liked it.  Instead, it's about courage and ambition and how family effects business decisions and geeks v. tradition and lots of other human stuff.  Really, it seems that Sorkin is giving baseball the same treatment he gave Facebook-- it's about people, not about sport.  Well, it's not just about people, it's about risky business decisions and how it pans out.  But "panning out" has as much to do with relationships and a personal perspective that includes one's past.  In a sense, Moneyball is this years' Social Network, but not quite as good.  That still leaves a lot of room for good.

The one other thing I loved about Moneyball besides the script was the two main performances.  Pitt didn't look or sound like Pitt at all before 2011.  And this can only be a good thing.  This was a very human performance and his pacing was so different.  Not once did he give us his trademark grin.  And Jonah Hill was simply fantastic as the shy, geeky kid just coming into his own.  This is the kind of performance Hill should do more of, because he can actually act.  The couple comic lines he did here is more funny than many whole films he was in.  

I highly recommend this film, especially to people who don't like sports films.  That's what Jessica of The Velvet Cafe did for me, and I'm passing it on to anyone else who thinks a movie about baseball statistics must be the dullest thing ever.  Baseball statistics ARE the dullest thing ever.  This movie is wonderful.  


(originally posted on the Filmspotting Forum)

Absolutely No Theme To This Group of Reviews

I've just started listening to Kermode and Mayo's Film Reviews and am impress how many reviews they can punch out in such a short period of time.  I do this myself, but not as entertainingly as them.  Still, let's talk about the films I've seen this last week:

Do all the situps you want-- the film won't get tighter

Limitless (2011)
Lots of irritating edits, a meandering plot that doesn't go anywhere and the moral seems to be that if you're the smartest person in the universe, you can become rich, powerful and eff off anyone you want. Still some nice tension, sometimes. Mostly forgettable.  3/5

Kidman and Eckhart looking delightfully normal

Rabbit Hole (2010)
Amazing performances.  I don't think I've ever seen Kidman or Eckhart has ever given more realistic performances.  Every time I see them I know they are acting-- but not here.  It was wonderful to see them become these troubled characters.   The pacing and arc is almost perfect.  But still, the movie seemed pretty small.  We didn't see their anguish just after the death, we only see the grieving and the process their marriage goes through when it is subtle and seemingly without an end.  Brilliant, but I just didn't care enough, I guess.  Perhaps I should have.  Should I feel guilt about not caring enough?  4/5

Human existence is shocking-- even eating!

Life In a Day (2011)
This is the obvious choice for the winner of "Top Five films To Show To An Alien".  If you want to know about humanity, here it is.  It's all real, all ordinary and yet, somehow, extraordinary at the same time.  It is beautiful and disturbing, shocking and touching, dull and busy.  In the end, I felt that I spent an hour and a half watching cool videos on You Tube.  Lots of interesting stuff, but I don't know that any of it will stick with me next week.  4/5

Barbara Stanwyck involved in criminal activity-- running through a stop sign!

Witness to Murder (1954)
I watched this for Noirvember, but I was so tired on Nov 30, I finished the film in December.  Me falling asleep wasn't the fault of the film, though.  It was so much fun.  Barbara Stanwyck as a woman who witnesses a murder (in the first minute of the film!)  She turns all Rear Window on us, but with way more doubts than Jimmy Stewart.  George Sanders (Shere Khan!) is the killer who is causing doubts upon her sanity, both with the police and with herself!  There's some great points about feminism here (like when the policewoman is chasing the killer and then suddenly disappears so the MALE detective can fight with him!), and some Hitchcockian turns (but Vertigo is a few years later).  Still, great film.  4/5

Grant (looking aged) and Hepburn (looking eternally young)  in Beyond Sunset

Charade (1963)
This is not a thriller, in my mind, but a comedy.  Cary and Aubry just keep the sit com rolling and I haven't laughed out loud at a film for a while.  Just for fun, James Coburn, Walter Mattheau, and George Kennedy are there as the clueless bad guys.  My favorite bit is where the boy goes up to James Coburn and asks if he is a cowboy, like in the movies.  The film is so busy having fun, I don't care if the plot is a little confusing or the end doesn't make any sense.  It's like most Bond films-- the joy is in the journey.  4/5

By the way, all of these films can be watched on Netflix Instant, so if you have Netflix, you have no excuse.  And, yes, I do rate a lot of movies something other than a 4, it just happened to be a particularly good week for film.  My chooser ain't broken yet!

Never Let Me Go: Half The Truth

Never Let Me Go is the story of a love triangle that must, by necessity, end in tragedy.

Don’t worry, I didn’t give away the ending. We see this in the very first scene. There is a mystery to uncover, and the script is masterful in its slowly unveiling the mystery of this alternative history of the world. Everyone in this world is healthy and whole. No one has any serious health problems, everyone has good work, and seems at peace.

Everyone, that is, except those who suffer so that society might be perfected.

Society has always been built on the backs of human beings. There has always been a division in the economic system, at least two classes—a servant class and a class which reaps the reward of the servant class.

The greater the civilization, the greater the level of human sacrifice. Some societies actually killed them, other societies enslaved them, in our society we make human beings work two jobs and punish them if they become homeless because of layoffs. This is not because society must function on a two-tier level. It’s just that it always has.

In order for this to work, we must dehumanize the lower classes, and if not completely dehumanize them, we must make them immoral, to blame them for their own poverty and social standing. Only in this way may we feel free to justify our economic slavery, our denial of good health and the benefits we enjoy. We may toss them a bone, and we expect them to be grateful because although we aren’t allowing them to have shelter or health care or a decent education or any real economic share of what we are enjoying, we know that they would be worse off if we weren't offering them as little as we are. It's the excuse the masters always gave to ease their guilt of having slaves.

How I wish this film was made to point out that the alternative reality was not an alternative at all, but it is how we live, today. The third world, the immigrants—legal or illegal—the homeless, the working poor: these are the Ruths, Kathys and Tommys of this world. But rather than highlight the similarities, it seems to highlight the differences. Somehow, it would be worse if the human sacrifices for economic freedom is well dressed, white, gorgeous, Anglo Saxon and speaks with an educated British accent. It helps us feel for the oppressed and downtrodden, and helps us forget that the Latino we buy fast food from or the migrant worker who picks our vegetables in South America are the real, living tragedies.

This movie is to help us feel comfortable in our oppression. Look, it says, at least we aren’t doing human sacrifice. We haven’t gone that far, and we could have. At least we recognize our social lesser as being human, even if we don’t treat them as our legal equals. But it does not move us to act for those who suffer for our lifestyles. It allows us to remain complacent.

I am not saying that Never Let Me Go is a bad film. It is will made, beautifully shot, and well acted. It has all the pieces of a good film. However, it could have been a great film, a film that changes the way we see the world. Too bad it's not.

The State of Indie

Wait, no, not THAT Indy! I'm talking about independent cinema. (Thanks to ses for the joke)

What is independent film? It is a kind of movie that is made outside of a major studio, which provides an opportunity for unique films to be made. Since Robert Redford's Sundance Festival and Soderberg's Sex, Lies and Videotape, indie films have been a force to be reckoned with, with some obtaining bigger budgets and big name stars. Indie films are simply a part of the cinema landscape now, with films like Reservoir Dogs, The Big Lebowski and Requiem for a Dream being just a few examples of independent cinema gone viral.

Just as mainstream cinema seems to be going more for the successful visual and the clever staging (like Inception and Black Swan) and even psychological drama seems to be psych-lite, independent film is focusing more on character. I want to give three examples of indie films to get an idea of where successful independent film is heading:

Please Give

This film is about a couple who has a successful business reselling retro furniture they obtain from estates. They see themselves at times as vultures, waiting for people to die off, and not more so than with their neighbor, a 91 year old who is renting a space they lease, but when she dies they expect to use her space to expand their own. Their success in this makes Kate (Cathrine Keener) neurotically guilty and want to hand out fives or twenties to people on the street. It also makes their marriage seem more like a business partnership rather than a intimate relationship.

This is a good character-driven story, and it opens up some ideas about guilt and wealth that are rarely seen in cinema. Unfortunately, the characters that the film focuses on are generally unlikable or so filled with their own self-focus that it is hard to appreciate them. The plot follows the characters well, making real people out of the sometimes eccentric personalities, but in the end, for me, these people are simply not the kind of people I want to spend time with.

Greenberg

Speaking of unlikeable characters, the title character played by Ben Stiller is immensely unlikeable. He is socially crippled, finding the wrong thing to say almost every time. I wrote a review of this film in a previous blog, so I'm not going to go in detail here. It is just enough to say that this, too, is strongly character driven. Stiller gives an amazing performance, and the plot never missteps by making a character say or do something out of what seems natural for them. But do we really want to know these people better? Greenberg is purposely unlikeable, and the only reason he is in any kind of relationship with Florence is because she is so used to acting for others, not really even knowing what she wants. But who wants to spend time with such extreme characters, who are not really likable, but simply pathetic?

The Kids Are All Right

This film is about a lesbian couple who had children through a sperm donor 18 years previous. Now the children want to meet their absent biological father. So they contact him, which causes the family's tenuous existence to topple.

This film is an example of the best of what independent film can be. Again, this is a character-led drama/comedy and there isn't a single misstep with character. At times one of the mothers, Nic is simply angry and controlling and the other mother, Jules has an affair, both of which could make these characters seem flat or unlikeable. However, the characters are so carefully written and played that we still feel connected to these people, even though they have made decisions we don't like.

We recognize these characters, not just in an abstract sense of "I know people like that", but we recognize aspects of their lives as being similar to our own. This isn't just "lesbian couple" or "organic farmer" or "children of lesbian couple" as if they were labeled in a zoo. These are people who in some ways are just like us. The emotional reactions are real for us. If we were in similar circumstances, we would react the same. The awkwardness of the first dinner with them all and the desperation to make it all right in the second dinner together is so perfect. We can feel the tension and appreciate the attempts to make relationship.

I would really like to see more films like The Kids Are All Right. Character-driven drama is important in film and we need to see well made ones-- as all three of these films are examples of-- but also we want to resonate. And to be able to resonate with characters that are so different, socially, than ourselves, is a real success.

Why Enter The Void Is the Prototypical 2010 Film

Enter The Void is a film which follows the adventures of a drug addict after he dies. We follow him as his carelessness destroys not only his life but his sister's and his friend Alex's. The film is two and a half hours in his head, one long very pretty, very depressing drug dream.

This film is like an extreme version of most of the films I watched in 2010. Some cutting-edge visuals, stylistically innovative, but ultimately lacking in substance or meaning. I'm not saying that there's no meaning, its just that the meaning is shallow compared to the effort and time used to convey the meaning.

Gasper Noe said that he created the film to show the emptiness of humanity. If that is the case, then why portray both an animal side to sexuality and a mystical side? And if death is simply a really long drug dream, then the movie isn't really about the emptiness of humanity, but the emptiness of the protagonist. If he wanted to show the emptiness of humanity, then he should have shown us a seemingly fulfilling life and how it was actually empty. Instead, he gives us a pathetic example of a human being and lets us spend two and a half hours roaming around his cranium. Thanks a lot, Noe.

However, visually the film was stunning. Very 2001-ish with a lot of neon and fractal-type images. I can't recommend it for all that, though. One other thing, if you are interested in watching the film, despite my half-heartedness, there is a lot of fairly graphic sexuality here, and at times it feels more like a porn film than mainstream. For myself, as well as for others, I would not recommend this film just because of that. 3/5

But what does all this have to do with 2010? So many of the praised films of 2010 are much like this one-- either filled with miserable lives, or full of stunning visuals but having little substance.

Black Swan-- Amazing visuals decorating a pretty simple, predictable film about psychological collapse.

Inception-- Nolan tells you exactly what will happen in the second half of the film, and fulfills his promise with amazing visuals, but is completely predictable.

The Social Network-- A bunch of miserable characters told in a very entertaining fashion.

127 Hours-- Danny Boyles style is remarkable, but it is still a story of a guy whose arm gets stuck under a rock for 127 hours. We know what's going to happen, so the rest of it is style.

I could go on, but you get the point. I'm not saying that these films aren't good-- again there are a lot of stylistic innovation and clever visuals. But that doesn't make these movies great. There simply isn't enough theme or mental stimulation to make them excellent, in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, a great film stimulates both the mind and the senses. For the majority of films I've seen from this last year my senses have been stirred, but my mind has only been tickled, not challenged.

The Mobsters of 2010

For the most part, I am terribly weary of watching mob movies. I loved the Godfather films (all three) and The Wire is just fantastic, but why should I bother seeing more? Sure, I heard Sopranos was excellent, but that's a lot of Italian mafia to swallow. I saw enough of Scarface to never bother seeing the rest of it. Senseless violence, destructive personalities, assassinations, corrupt cops... it's all the same and if I want to see a half-truth, why should I see such a negative one, filled with evil people "trying" to be good or whatever?

Animal Kingdom (2010)

"Just another day of killing with the family."

See, this is what I'm talking about. Josh's mother dies and he moves in with his grandmother who's boys are all hard core criminals. Josh's narration at the beginning talks about how they all know that they are right on the edge of losing everything. So, we know how the movie's going to pan out, don't we? Pope is one of the more selfishly evil characters I've seen, and frankly, everyone else is only marginally better. No stand out performances, just a lot of senseless killing. There's a lot I might forgive of the film, but almost every character is just stupid.

However, I do think it has the best use of Air Supply of any movie. 2/5


The Prophet (2009)

"It's a lonely business, being the head of a crime syndicate."

But this French film, filled with Corsican and Arabic, reminds me of why I still occasionally watch mob films.

It is smart and mystical and powerful and sad. It is as starkly realistic and as intense as a season of The Wire (although without the award-winning dialogue).

It follows Malik into prison, his home for six years, as he is faced with a Hobson's choice from a Corsican mobster who runs the prison: kill a man or I will kill you. It could be see as a paint by the numbers rags-to-riches criminal story, but Malik remains so boyish, and his friend Ryad is so real and the ghost of his first kill haunts the screen. There is a lot in this movie, and it is worth watching.

(For those who haven't seen the film, skip this next paragraph.) One of the most fascinating aspects of the film is the mystic side of it. Malik is visited regularly by the ghost of his first kill, Reyeb, who is a criminal who will testify against his boss. I think that the development of Reyeb is fascinating, especially after he dies. He is a hash dealer who wants to trade sexual favors for drugs. After he died, he hangs around Malik, with little animosity. By the end of the film, he is giving Makik visions and encouraging him to worship God. So the ghost of Reyeb seems to be pulling Malik one direction, but his criminal reality is leading him, without pause, toward evil. This is a fascinating way to create moral tension, one which I've never seen in a mob movie before. Religion plays a role in Malik's life, but by the end of the film, he seeks out Reyeb, but Reyeb cannot be found.

Yes, it has a lot of violence, much of it seemingly senseless. But this movie is so well acted and conceived and is just original enough that it is worth whatever discomfort it might give you. 4/5

Hey, I Know This Guy! Greenberg (2010)

It's unusual for me to do this, but I watched Greenberg cold. I had never seen a previous Noah Baumbach film, I didn't really have a clue as to what Greenberg was about, I had never seen a trailer or read a review. It was refreshing to come to a film so fresh. And yet, it was soooo familiar.

I would swear that Ben Stiller followed around a couple of my friends. I am a minster to the mentally ill, among others, and Stiller's character here is just like a couple people I know. So self absorbed that every difficulty is someone else's fault and every conversation is centered around him. When someone acts in a normal manner, he gets angry and would possibly walk out without warning. Greenberg (and my friends) are those who, even if not specifically diagnosed with a mental illness is so socially crippled that they don't really have friends, simply victims. Or those who try, ever so slowly, to make them into fuller human beings.

I just want to say that Greenberg is realistic, for the most part. I recognize the character of Florence and although her depth of passivity is rare, it isn't unknown. And the thought of throwing these two characters together is fascinating and it was interesting to watch.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the excellent characterizations of Stiller and Gretta Gerwig, watching Greenberg was like watching a social train wreck. It is amazing, and it keeps your attention, but in the end you feel a little dirty and you wish it could have had a different ending. Tragedy is terrible, even when it is deadly quiet.

Mother (2010)

"Love is insanity."

I'm really enjoying South Korean cinema. I love the breaking of genre, the humor mixed with pathos and tragedy. And this is among the best that I've seen. And Kim Hye-ja is almost a miracle. I couldn't take a break from the movie because I couldn't stop watching her. Even the most insane actions were truly believable and larger than life. I also loved how the movie leads us to make character judgments on a couple people, only to find we were wrong about them, or at least that they were more complex than we originally thought. Every scene had a new surprise. What a wonderful, true, powerful film.

"Mother won't let anyone dirty you through."

The question I'm left with: is it possible for love to go too far? We talk about love being blind, but is blindness really something we want to strive for? This movie shows that even the purist form of love, the loyal love of a mother for her grown but developmentally disabled son, can cause harm to others. This is why love is only really love when it is focused not just on one person, but it is something we have for all people.

Again, this is an excellent film, both to watch and to consider.

4.5/5

The Illusionist 2010

"Although nothing really changes, that doesn't mean you don't get left behind."

My daughter Mercy and I went out to see this tonight. You all probably know this, but it is based on an unfilmed script by Tati, the director of Mon Oncle and Play Time. I haven't seen any films by Tati, but I can see the influence of early film here. First of all, for all intents and purposes, it is a silent. And although it is about an older man caring for a younger as if she were his daughter, so without a romantic element, the main relationship has the flavor of Chaplain's Modern Times or City Lights.

I could see this being a classic silent film, and frankly, I think that animation is the perfect medium for this style of cinema. It is very reminiscent of the first half hour of Wall-E, and we can see Pixar using this same style of cinema, to even greater effect. But The Illusionist, instead of pressing for the quick plot or the quick laugh, is slower and yet still very entertaining, and thus it is utterly charming. This is a quiet film, and at first you wonder what it is about, then you wonder if it has a point, but it seduced me by the end. And it won me over with the ending. How wonderful and sad and touching. Passages of life and all that.

Nothing deep here, just a fine story well told. 4/5