January 29, 2012
January 21, 2012
I came to bury Caesar, not to praise him, and wound up praising him. I had my skewers ready and planned to make shishkabob out of this film. But I cannot. Why was I all set to hate on this film? I thought it was Just Another Sad Tale of a Dysfunctional Family Where Dad Is Once Again Emasculated And For That We’re Going To Give It An Oscar. I thought the title was super-lame as well. It sounded like: Just Couldn’t Think of Another Word For “Family,” So Used Thesarus.com And Chose The First One. That’s not true either. The title is totally appropriate.
Since the trailer already gave away a key revealing plot-point (bad trailer! bad trailer!)--well, actually it gave away the “inciting incident” that kicks off the action—so will I. “The Descendants” is about a cuckolded husband, Matt King (George Clooney). It’s ALL about that. Except his wife is in a coma when he finds out. My fellow-screenwriting buddy insists that there is no arc for Matt, but I think there is. (Writer/director Alexander Payne does not have huge arcs for his characters, much like life. They tend to budge just a little bit.) Clooney’s character must choose how he will now FEEL about his wife (he can’t DEAL with her), and how he will DEAL with her lover. It’s a story of the choices surrounding FORGIVENESS. Who will we forgive? When? How? Why?
It’s clear that Matt was a neglectful husband and father, having been married to his work as a real estate lawyer. He seems to have a closer relationship with his rebellious teenage daughter, Alexandra (the amazing Shailene Woodley) than his precocious ten-year-old daughter, Scottie (the ever-so-natural Amara Miller), which seems to indicate that his distancing was a gradual thing. But his wife’s accident (that induced the coma) woke him up to his sorry state of affairs (pun intended) and he is doing his darndest to be a good parent now. However, dear old Dad vacillates between being a wuss AND sticking up for his affronted manhood (which includes appropriating his paternal authority), in many different ways.
This movie is incredibly tender (amongst all the brattiness and foul profanity). It is a real THEOLOGY OF THE BODY movie (with reservations) in more ways than one. First of all, Matt’s wife, Elizabeth, is in a coma for the entire movie—lying there in her hospital bed. And everyone TALKS to her because it’s HER and EVERYONE knows that. Elizabeth IS her body, her body IS Elizabeth—right till one of the closing shots (don’t wanna spoil).
Marriage is SACRED in “The Descendants.” To be unfaithful is a terrible, terrible thing. (The teenage daughter gets this in a big way, too.) However, one might argue that “love” is treated as something more to do with feelings. For example, it’s very important to the characters if someone REALLY “loves” someone else (whether or not they’re having a fling with them). But love and marriage are more than these deep-seated, je ne sais quoi feelings. What if one REALLY, REALLY “loved” MORE than one person? Should marriage then be “open”? What about polyamory? Polygamy? And yet, since we—particularly in the West—have adopted the “romantic love” version of marriage for centuries now, the question of choosing one person based on attraction/admiration and how that plays out is a very legitimate concern. Thornton Wilder’s play “Our Town,” and BJP2G’s “Love and Responsibility” comes in very handy here!
Matt is unselfish enough to want to follow what he believes Elizabeth “would have wanted.” BUT what if the one you love wants things that aren’t right?
Smarmy teens that know more than the parents? Check! But Dad engages richly with his teen daughter who really does love her Dad. Cussing teens (and kids)? Check! But I’m afraid that’s the reality in many, many families today.
Not a movie for teens, methinks. The message is: The teens are in control. You will get what you want (from your parents) in the end. We are living in post-parental-authority times. And not only that. The CLEAR message is: You can be as wild as you want as a teenager. You’re SUPPOSED to be bad. Do anything you want. Drinking, drugs (not too many hints at teen sex--almost avoiding?). Nothing bad will happen to you. You will “outgrow” it unscathed. (Bad things only happen to parents and adults!) Once again, Hollywood chants its mantra: NO CONSEQUENCES.
Very interesting scene when family is gathered in a hotel room and Scottie wants to watch the adult channel. She begins describing how her same-age girlfriend watches porn all the time in the basement. With boys over. Before Matt can take charge, Alexandra lays into Scottie and handles the situation. This scene is horrifying, and in some ways treated lightly, but there’s also a sharp point being made. No spiritual arguments are made, just an extremely crude “why porn is bad” diatribe.
I have problems with virtually naked teenage girls in barely-there string bikinis in films. I know that’s Hawaii (see also “Soul Surfer”), but there’s a huge diff between walking by (or even ogling) half-naked girls at a beach setting (still uncomfortable with THAT) and prolonged, voyeuristic gazing at a larger-than-life screen. True, these gals are RAIL THIN (that’s ANOTHER issue), but what makes it sooo creepy is how young they are. Like, hey, filmmaker, what’s your point here? (Would also like guys to weigh in here, please…??)
However, among my various reservations about this film, everyone is treated as a full-blown PERSON. No one is one-dimensional. No one is just a problem or an obstacle or a story device or a cheap laugh. Even the children and teens. Even side characters with one line (e.g., teenage kid who expresses his heartfelt compassion for Matt at a gathering). Tremendous human dignity here.
I completely forgot who the director was till the credits, and I see ALEXANDER PAYNE (UCLA grad, I might add, my screenwriting alma mater). He did “Election,” “About Schmidt,” “Sideways.” I had been thinking: “Who the heck is doing all these unblinking-but-not-uncomfortable, exact, exact, precise, precise, impeccable scenes?” And I just broke out in this big smile because ALEXANDER PAYNE HAS ARRIVED! He has a much brighter view of humanity now! But he has retained all his dark humor and distinct style. Maybe he was “practicing” with all those other films, just like I believe Terrence Malick was “practicing” for “Tree of Life.”
In conclusion? Give this movie all the Oscars you want.
--I have so much more to say about this film (and no time to write it)! Always the sign of a worthwhile film.
--Left theater uplifted.
--Massive, unartful, necessary and droning narration at the very beginning (Matt) and then he pretty much shuts up.
--“Descendants” takes its time in a very, very good way.
--Super-duper art direction.
--Alexandra’s boyfriend is one of the FUNNIEST characters I’ve seen in a long time. And the grandfather. I LAUGHED ALOUD. HARD.
--Undertheme: sale of a huge plot of land in Hawaii. But it’s not a simplistic “those evil developers” situation.
--We always hurt the ones we love.
--Lovely scene on beach where Dad is telling stories about Mom.
--NOT a lot of technology, cellphones, media. Perhaps even unrealistically so?
--Only a family can hate like that.
--Family: the good, the bad, the funny, the heart-wrenching.
--Clooney at his serious/comedic BEST.
--But of course, if Payne wants to show us the dark underbelly of human nature in those other movies: Go for it. Evil doesn’t just reside in the Hitlers of this world. Ordinary people can be little Hitlers, too. And Mother Teresas.
--Pretty much: No. False. Notes.
--Infidelity can be “smelled.” Physically and spiritually.
--We are “entrusted” with land and things and people.
--Real people! Acne, Alzheimers, imperfect teeth.
--GREAT LINE: “What makes the women in my life want to destroy themselves?”
--GREAT DIALOGUE: Matt: “Nothing ‘just happens.’” Brian: “Everything ‘just happens.’”
--Some of the close-ups of Matt are reminiscent of “The Passion of Joan of Arc.” I’m not kidding. Would NOT be surprised if that’s what Payne was going for.
--Luscious Hawaiian backdrop (that digital just can’t capture, sorrrrrrry!!!!), BUT the soft Hawaiian guitar and singing is an elegant accompaniment.
--Every single actor deserves an Oscar.
January 17, 2012
January 13, 2012
January 8, 2012
The premise: The MI team, while trying to prevent rogue terrorists (wait, aren’t they all rogue?)…. Let me rephrase. The MI team, while trying to prevent individual terrorists (as opposed to terrorist States) from sparking nuclear war, is intercepted by said individual terrorists who blow up part of the Kremlin. The upshot is that the Russians think the Americans did it. Ah, yes. We miss those Cold War days, don’t we? We were just so well matched: the Russkies and the Yanks. What a clever way to revive the old enmity--although the film is careful to say several times that there’s been a BIG mistake: “We are NOT enemies.”Are we listening, Mr. Putin?
The MI team consists of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, whose acting falters a bit: too casual, too flip for the part), Jane Carter (a tough but feminine, convincing, best-actor-of-the-bunch Paula Patton), and Brit Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg, who plays a hilarious, somewhat cowardly geek, glued to his computer). The story is set in Budapest, Moscow, Dubai and Mumbai. The pacing is perfect. Perfect and seamless from the winsome prison bust that springs Ethan and his lovable oaf friend, Bogdan (Frank Sinatra is key to these scenes), to the heart-stopping human fly maneuvers Ethan must perform on the outside of the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, in Dubai.
Nothing seems ridiculous or over the top in MIGP. There is a calm groundedness, humanity and humility pervading the excitement. And when Cruise explains it all to us with his intense, commanding presence, we just go with it. Women will love MIGP because of the LACK of gratuitous, mindless explosions and chases. There ARE explosions and chases (very cool ones, I might add, one involving the device of a sandstorm) but they MAKE SENSE. I wouldn’t doubt that J. J. Abrams’ (Bad Robot Productions) genius may be at work here. Even when things get a little overblown (I’m no spoiler!), you really won’t care because you’ve suspended your disbelief permanently in these expert filmmakers’ hands.
And it’s FUNNY. I mean, really funny. In all the right places. The agents fail a lot in MIGP. Things do NOT go smoothly at any point. Sometimes they lose nerve. They’re humans, not machines. This is such a welcome change in action movies! There’s an earnest, average Joe, underdog aura here.
--The gadgets are cooler than Bond’s.
--A lot of the fun is in the little details.
--See Tom run. And run and run and run and run and run.
--Um, I did not count ONE swear word. Not even “damn” or “hell.” And swearing would have been mighty appropriate in even one of these sticky situations. AND the name of the Lord was NOT taken in vain! Whoop! (When good men lead—including in Hollywood—good things happen. Thanks, guys. I also think family men are more sensitive about these things—directors like Abrams, Nolan, Spielberg, etc.) Also, very little boobs and gore. Pretty “family-friendly” action film.
--Very creative predicaments.
--Budapest, Moscow, Dubai, Mumbai: beautiful cities!
--Most unnecessary line of dialogue: “I. Need. That. Briefcase.”
--Best use of a car’s air bag in a film. Ever.
--Too bad Oscar doesn’t care about action-thrillers. Sigh.
--Dos Equis! Dos Equis!
--Love the old-time “Mission Impossible” music, graphics and cinematography at beginning….
--MIGP: brains and brawn.
--Catch the long DEAD SILENCE scene. Awesome.
--“Our media is no more truthful than yours.” –Russian to Tom Cruise.
--Good cat fight with unexpected ending.
--Is that how people park their cars in Mumbai?
--Moreau looks like a 14-year-old baby doll assassin.
--MIGP is devoid of snarky one-liners! MIGP is simply devoid of snark all together! Hip, hip hooray!
--The amazing Brad Bird directs (who woulda thunk it?)—yes, Brad Bird of stellar animated films fame: (“The Incredibles,” “Up,” “Ratatouille”). I guess a good story teller is a good story teller is a good story teller.
--Agent Jane Carter actually takes off her high heels to run! What a concept!
--Did anyone else think of Steve Jobs seeing Tom in the dark hoodie?
--The very end is lame and tame, opening the way for a sequel, but after such a sharp film, couldn’t it have been a little more snappy?