Tree of Life: 2.5 hours that nearly killed half the audience

It's true. People in the theater were laughing out loud at the apparent ridiculousness of it, a handful left the theater, and most were falling apart by the end. I mean, sure fine you didn't like it. But get over yourselves! Read the reviews and walk into it knowing what it's going to be like!

And what was it like? Well, it's a representation of life, from the beginning of the universe through the evolution of Earth/animals/humans, and into the afterlife. It loosely follows a plot for part of the film, but the character development is a bit unclear and there's no real progression or resolution in the story. There are moments of total abstraction (think the National Geographic Planet Earth series), and most of it is simply a juxtaposition of images, sounds, and ideas. And that's all it has to be!

So in general, I liked it. It had beautiful images, cinematography etc. I didn't let myself get too caught up in its abstraction (which most others did, and therefore rolled their eyes and laughed), and just took it as a series of images like those one would experience at an art gallery. You can analyze how/why those images fit together or don't, or you can take them just as they are. So if you're prepared to sit and watch a series of beautiful images and sounds for 2.5 hours, go see Tree of Life!

Feeling blue after watching Blue Valentine

I really enjoy "domestic dramas." Some examples are: Closer, Revolutionary Road and, well,  Blue Valentine.  There's a focus on acting and content (screenplay, cinematography, and editing), because the space and the story are usually somewhat confined. By this I mean, it's no Spielberg plot-driven epic with major special effects etc. And I appreciate subtleties in films, because as the viewer we're more challenged by subtlety. We don't have the distractions of overstimulation by special affects, quick editing and overt plot points.

So that being said, Blue Valentine... For me the highlights were the screenplay/writing and acting. I enjoyed some of the subtle foreshadowing throughout the film; but it was also this exact foreshadowing that made it so saddening all throughout. You know from the beginning (or maybe from the trailer) that they're doomed. The opening scene shows a young girl, oblivious to the real status of her parents' marriage, looking for their family dog. Already from the start something is missing in their lives. (And when Cindy (Michelle Williams) finds the dog's body on the side of the road, she cries-- tears symbolizing that the love she's been looking for has been dead for a while.) The little girl runs into the house to alert her parents that the dog is missing. We see Dean (Ryan Gosling) asleep on the couch--and Cindy asleep in the bed. Because the film starts by revealing to us (to some extent) the end result (unhappiness, a marriage that's fallen apart), the duration of the film becomes not what happens, but why it happens. And it tells this story through juxtaposing the past, how they met and fell in love, with the present.

One of the main take-aways for me (based on how the film opened and closed with the young girl) is that she's the one who's really damaged. She didn't have a choice, she's the victim of her parents' choices: her mom's choice to have irresponsible sex, to not get an abortion, to commit to a marriage with someone she had just met, and her dad's choice to drink all day, neglect his responsibilities and live in a fantasy world where "love" is all we need to survive. As someone who strongly believes in the importance of nurture (as opposed to nature), this theme resonated with me.

Another take-away from this film that I appreciated is the notion that not all love stories are happy ones. In fact, many aren't. We all go through a little heartache at some point or another  because of love. And this film did a great job of portraying that reality. Yes, the couple is adorable when they first meet and really click. Their love is very real--in that moment. But, as with many things, their love fades.

Lastly, the focus on time. I mentioned above that the film's temporal style jumps from the happy past to the dismal present. Ironically it doesn't exactly show what happens in between--how Cindy's progressed in her career, how the daughter has grown and been raised by them, how Dean's been dealing with the fact it's not even his biological daughter. But witnessing the present is enough for this film. It all falls in to place and makes perfect sense. They're on different pages, they've fallen out of love and that's it. In addition, it points to the future through a few symbols: the daughter being one, and more overtly a sequence when the unhappy couple goes to a "romantic" hotel to get drunk,  make love, and hopefully work through a few things. They choose a future-themed room that's decorated in metal, atmospheric wall decor, and spacey (blue) lighting. Perhaps this scenario is meant to provide insight into what their future together would be like--disjointed, separate, on different pages.

All in all, I liked the film for what it was. It wasn't necessarily original or shocking, but it told a story that resonates with all of us. We all have parents out there somewhere, some of us have kids, some of us have careers. And life's about balancing all these factors and being the best people we can be. So if you're interested in a domestic drama that doesn't necessarily end happily, go see Blue Valentine!

Midnight in Paris: an exploration of self-discovery

Midnight in Paris starring Owen Wilson was definitely worth seeing. I appreciated this film a) because I hadn't heard anything about it going into it, b) I like Owen Wilson as an actor, and c) the content was light yet had a surprisingly good amount of depth to it.

Summary: The film traces the mental/physical/emotional/personal journey of Gil, who's a struggling writer engaged to Inez (played by Rachel McAdams), a shallow and aloof woman who doesn't seem to care about Gil at all really. They travel to Paris, tagging along with Inez's parents who are there on business. Gil falls in love with the city and lets it take hold of him in a fantastical, whimsical way, and inform not only his writing but his true goals for his own life. The film spans different eras, unearthing famous art, music, culture and writing from each time period. Gil is inspired by all this art and uses these visions into past eras to leverage his own writing and passions. In short, it's a story of personal discovery, a story of finding who we really are--not just who we think we should be.

So what to say about this film... Firstly, growing up surrounded by art (thanks, Mom!), I definitely appreciated all the allusions and portrayals of famous figures I had heard so much about throughout my life (lovely cameo by Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali). But aside from the content and plot of the story, I enjoyed the form or style of the film--the way the various components (cinematography, lighting, sound, editing, etc) told the story. It managed to be light and whimsical, yet carry a message intrinsically linked to reality, a message we can all relate to--what are we doing with our lives? Who are we surrounding ourselves with? How can we maximize our own potential and be happy with who we are and what we do?

By the end of the film--even though it's somewhat open-ended to an extent--Gil has accessed deep characteristics of himself, and has made some important decisions for his life. His character shows growth in a new wave of confidence and self-realization, but there's still an openness to what else may come in the future. I think the film was definitely appropriate for our world right now--especially for those of us who are undergoing a similar journey to find our true identity and what we want out of life and our careers. There are a lot of unknowns, and there always will be. The film touches on this with a well-balanced mix of optimism and simultaneous truth and acceptance.

Go see it and tell me what you think!

The Infidel: A cross-cultural dramedy that will probably (unfortunately) remain relevant for a while...

I stumbled upon this winner OnDemand and while it wasn't the most fun to watch (in terms of sheer entertainment factor (even for a comedy)), the content definitely left me pondering for a while. It's a British film from 2010, that tells the story of Mahmud Nasir, a British Muslim who inadvertently discovers that he's actually been adopted into his Muslim family, and was in fact born Solly Shimshillewitz (no idea how to spell that)--a Jew. Mahmud, even though he's more/less casual with his religion, freaks out and proceeds to undergo a major identity crisis. He consults his Jewish neighbor for advice--which leads him to discover things like matzoh ball soup and Yiddish instead of the Torah and synagogue--all the while trying to prove his strength in Islam to impress his son's future father-in-law.

The film does a good job making light of a topic that is--and has been--very heavy and complicated for a long time (to say the least). In the end (spoiler alert) Mahmud ends up siding with the way he was raised, not the way he was born, and it's not because he's denying his Jewish roots, he does his fair share of open-minded "research." Regardless of why he chooses to remain Muslim, I appreciate that the character shows an open mind, an interest to learn, reveals how similar these two communities are, and ultimately how fabricated all the hatred is. The take-away is that we can actually find friends out of those we originally (and prematurely) considered enemies. We can find similarities where there were once differences, and we can ultimately house "opposing sides" within one body.

Hmmmmm.....

See it and tell me what you think!

Black Swan: Unoriginally Interesting

I finally watched Black Swan last night--better late than never. Quick overview: it was entertaining, had an interesting and timeless subject matter, and some great acting, but was fairly unoriginal. It was pretty much exactly what i expected, knowing Aronofsky as a filmmaker and understanding the nature of the film as a psychological thriller. It used all the classic/expected tools that merge a film's form/style with its plot/story: handheld camera, gritty film quality, mirror motif, two similar looking actors that play off the dual personality theme, etc etc. Additionally, the relationship with the mother was unoriginal as well, but that's ok. It was necessary for the plot. it was the typical controlling mother, trying to relive her past and/or live vicariously through her daughter.

While it wasn't necessarily original in these regards, it did still surprise me at times. For example, Natalie Portman's character, Nina, was timid, shy, and easily controlled. I did not expect this from the previews. I assumed she was going to be a high-strung control freak which is why she eventually goes crazy. But instead it seems her descent into insanity--or "perfection"-- was a result of her being impressionable, and was eventually her final attempt and success at taking control over her own life. I think the film did an interesting job of portraying her possession (by fear, anxiety, the threat of a competing ballerina, her sexuality etc) through the character of Mila Kunis. It made me want to re-watch Fight Club which does the same thing with Ed Norton and Brad Pitt. The parallels are actually really overt--it seems that Ed Norton's character is punching Brad Pitt but then we see that Norton's actually punching himself, just how Portman is fighting, kissing, etc Kunis but is really only interacting with herself.

More on Mila Kunis's character, Lily: I think she served a purpose as a foil character, showing the "wild" or "black" side that needed to be freed from Nina; however, she was totally boring at the same time. That character did not stray from Kunis's typical roles, and didn't challenge her as an actor. The character was not very complex, and didn't really surprise me at all throughout the film. Oh well.

Theme of body: The theme of body was again merged by both the style and content of the film. The cinematography highlighted the dancers' emaciated frames, and their scratches, nails, and wounds. The theme of dancing and ballet inherently concerns "body," since it's a physical activity and relies upon movement, flexibility, and of course a slender physique. Additionally, the concept of "body" in terms of Nina's ownership (or lack thereof) of her own was perhaps the driving theme of the entire film. Her body was her outlet--both as a professional dancer, and as a psychosomatic/masochistic/cutter type. But ultimately, her body is both what she has no control over, and the one thing she CAN control in her life (through self-inflicted pain/damage).

The ending (spoiler alert?): The ending was like a perfectly-wrapped package in the sense that she ends up stabbing herself with a shard of a mirror (which is a theme the entire time). Of course she stabs herself with a mirror. But this unoriginality didn't totally bother me, because at least the end was still kind of ambiguous. Some may say: yes, she for sure dies in the end.  I say it's not completely concrete. She sort of "ascends" into self-realization, which is also pure craziness. Yes she may have literally died, and something definitely figuratively died, but for me, I don't feel 100% sure of either, which I enjoy. I don't want the film to tell me how it is. I want it to let me think about it and argue all sides. So good job!

So in conclusion, the film was interesting and entertaining. I enjoyed it. I didn't roll my eyes once!

127 Hours: what would you give your right arm for?

I've been wanting to see 127 Hours ever since I heard about it, a) because i like James Franco, and b) because I've been fascinated by Aron Ralston's story (and i recently saw him on "Minute to Win It" and he seemed like a nice guy, not to mention resilient to say the least), and c) because it was directed by the same guy who did Slumdog Millionaire. The movie did not let me down.

As I mentioned in my previous post about finding a silver lining in bad movies, I'm a harsh critic, and believe that  there's usually room for improvement in most films. My friends were shocked to learn that i couldn't think of one improvement for this movie. I'm not saying it's the BEST MOVIE I"VE EVER SEEN, but I think it was perfect, just the way it was.

Summary: You probably already know what happened (and this isn't a spoiler since it's a true story and was all over the news when it happened) but here's a quick recap: Aron Ralston goes hiking/climbing alone, doesn't tell anyone, falls into a narrow cavern, his right hand gets smashed/trapped by a large boulder, and he's left for dead. He's totally stuck, and attempts for 5 days to free himself until he eventually resorts to cutting off his arm (which he does with a small, dull uni-tool that he had made more dull by trying to chip away at the boulder and by carving his name in the canyon wall). He ends up surviving and now is a motivational speaker. Woo hoo!

The film: The whole thing was filmed with only 1 main character (Ralston, played by James Franco) and pretty much only 1 setting (the cavern, which is a tight space, at that) yet the film managed to be interesting and provocative for the whole hour and a half. It was a lot more stylistic than i thought it would be (i dont really remember slumdog millionaire, it may have been similar): use of split screens, extreme close-ups (CSI-style), sound affects, dream sequences (to emulate him going crazy), etc. I thought James Franco was likable, believable, and consistent. And yes, the arm-cutting-off scene was really gross and i had to close my eyes most of the time. I mean, it only lasts a few minutes, but it's worse than any war scene or ER show, because you really feel for the guy, and have gotten to know him so well, and also because there's just blood everywhere since he doesn't have any supplies to help his impromptu surgery. Ultimately, the film does a great job mixing inner turmoil and the psychological aspect with an air of lightheartedness and fulfillment.

Anyway, as a harsh critic, i highly recommend this film. Get it on PPV for $5.99!

A Silver Lining: finding some good in boring Hollywood movies

Everyone who knows me, knows that I am a harsh critic when it comes to films. I do think i have a bit of the "holier than thou" mentality since i was a film major and just can't enjoy stupid crowd-pleasers. Somehow i always seem to find things i DON'T like about movies (even Inception and some other hits). SO, i'm dedicating the "Silver Lining" series to finding the good things in movies (and in life)...starting with the two i saw this week:

The Adjustment Bureau was an interesting one. I knew literally nothing about it prior to seeing it. While I didn't love the typical Hollywood romance and ending, the silver lining is that the concept was interesting enough to make for a good discussion about where society is today, and what's going on in the world.

Hall Pass was really dumb. I could barely focus on the movie because I was so distracted by contemplating whether or not i should leave the theater! I'm not even exaggerating. I almost left the theater (like 30 times). Anyway, the silver lining is... well... shoot. i'm already failing at my goal of finding something positive in any piece of crap. I guess the silver lining is that now hopefully i've saved a lot of people time and money by encouraging them to not see it.

Well that's all for now! Have you guys seen any good movies in 2011?