After an August spent mostly outdoors, I have started
screening some of the 2011 award nominees which are now coming from the library
and confirmed what I expected – it was a lean year. Scripts seem to be the weak
link. Production values are high, acting is not a problem and direction is
adequate, but a movie cannot rise above a poor screenplay. These movies are
often too lengthy, probably because the editors couldn’t rearrange and snip an
inherently bad script into something better, so they just left it alone. Maybe
another manifestation of the problem is the overuse of established actors in
cameo and bit parts. Their appearance is distracting from the story, and the
money paid for the use of their name in marketing the film would have been
better spent paying some good writers to come up with a better script.
Ironically, as scriptwriting classes and software have expanded, scripts seem
to have worsened.
Here is what I have watched since I posted my last list.
[The ratings I give are on my own number system which is explained at the link
on the sidebar].
This Is What
Democracy Looks Like – 2000 (3.3). Using footage from scores of people who
filmed in the streets during the 1999 demonstrations against the WTO at their
meeting in Seattle, and integrating subsequent interviews with participants and
organizers, this documentary was put together by local media activists and does
an inspiring job of presenting what is obviously a more genuine telling of what
happened than what was shown by the mainstream media. The prospect that this
would become a model for labor, environmentalists and social activists to unite
in effective opposition to corporate tyranny enabled by corrupt or incompetent
government is tremendously heartening. The reality that it has not yet happened
is profoundly disappointing. The special feature interviews with Noam Chomsky
and Vandana Shiva are lucid and especially informative. You can watch the movie on line at YouTube.
Foyle’s War – (Seasons
One and Two) 2003 (3.2). This British mystery series is stylish as expected and
covers an interesting time, the early days of WWII on the home front, when emotions
are high and there is fear of a German invasion. Our widowed police detective
has to cover murders on the home front while intermeshing with war related
matters. The story arc includes his son who is a young RAF pilot, his sergeant
who is a disabled war vet and his driver who is a young woman in military
service. The stories involve new crimes each episode and all take their time to
develop before a clever solution is found perhaps a bit too rapidly to give the
viewer a chance to figure it out, especially since the clever police always
seem to have a little more information than we do.
Foyle’s War –
(Season Three) 2004 (3.2). The mystery aspects of the series continue in the
same vein, but with each episode we are learning about new ways that people
coped with and capitalized on (legally and criminally) what took place on the
home front in the early stages of the war. The story arc involving the son and
the female driver heats up and there is a hint of Foyle opening up to the
possibility of an interesting woman coming into his life.
Midnight in Paris
– 2011 (2.9). Owen Wilson takes over the Woody Allen role while Woody just
directs this romantic comedy about an American writer engaged to the wrong
woman, in which the couple visits Paris with her parents and the man ends up
wandering around on his own and being taken back in time to Paris of the 20s,
where he interfaces with the creative celebrities and meets a woman with whom
he is a better match. Despite winning the screenplay Academy Award, the script
is nothing new, except for one twist that comes before the predictable ending.
The Beauty of Paris is well captured by the cinematography, the celebrity
characters are fun and entertaining and the overall experience of the movie is
quite pleasing.
The Help – 2011
(2.8). This movie about the struggles of African-American domestics in 1960s
Mississippi seems like it was rushed into production to capitalize on the
popularity of the novel on which it is based and the presence of a President
Obama in the White House. The subject is certainly worthwhile and interesting
but for all the extra length of the film there is an uneven feeling that
important things were shorted while trivial received too much time. The family
relationships of the domestics with their own children and with the men at home
or in their own community were barely shown. In fact the role of white men was
seriously downplayed, including the omission of scenes of sexual harassment and
physical intimidation. The script had no dramatic flow beyond the question of
when other domestics would agree to tell their stories to the young white woman
who was writing a book about domestics. Some of the problems with the script
can probably be traced back to the novel and some are from the adaptation which
was done by the director, a rather inexperienced childhood friend of the novelist.
The infamous chocolate pie incident was in “bad taste” [pun intended].That the movie
is passable is due to the inherent appeal of the domestics themselves and of
the fine performances by the actresses who portrayed them.
Moneyball – 2011
(2.7). Using computer generated analysis to identify undervalued baseball
players enabled General Manager Billy Beane of the Oakland team to build a top
team with a bottom level budget. This story was told in a very good non-fiction
book which I enjoyed reading and it could have made an equally interesting
documentary. Unfortunately the choice was made to film it as an overlong drama,
and it does not work very well. The statistical analysis at the heart of the
story is glossed over in the script, but is not replaced by anything dramatic.
The significant back story of Beane’s unexpected failure as a player is only
touched on piecemeal. The conflict with the on field manager falls flat. Beane’s
personal life is barely touched except for a few cloying scenes with his
daughter. The resuscitated players, the old scouts, the computer expert and
every other character seem to have no personal stories, except for the one old
All Star player in the twilight who Beane asks to become the leader in one
brief scene and then who then tries to offer leader type encouragement to
another player in another brief encounter. Read the book.
Monsieur Lazhar –
2011 (2.7). Surprisingly, a one man play is the basis for this foreign Oscar
nominee French Canadian piece about an Algerian immigrant who takes over as
teacher for an upper elementary school class whose teacher has committed suicide.
The movie takes place in and about the school and in other locations, so it
never feels stage bound. The acting is good and the kids are realistically
appealing. It is a slow moving film but of reasonable length. There is some
drama but it is seriously underdeveloped. This is a very introspective story as
the students and teachers awkwardly deal with the death and the immigrant deals
with his own issues which he keeps to himself. It would be interesting to see
and compare the play.
1981 – 2009
(2.7). In the year of a title the family of a sixth grade boy who is a bit of a
dud moves to a new area in Quebec. This movie primarily follows his adjustments
to his new school and classmates and secondarily shows the effect of the move
on his parents and younger sister. The movie is pleasant enough, perhaps because
it liberally borrows bits from other films and TV shows, but the bottom line is
there is nothing particularly memorable or informative here. The acting and
direction are a little better than the script.
The World According to Monsanto – 2008 (2.7). The filmmaker in this
Canadian TV documentary used Google as a source of information about what
Monsanto has been doing to effectively take ownership of the world food supply
by dominating and aggressively extending biogenetically engineered seeds.
Traveling the globe to track down the Google sources, and then interviewing farmers, activists, scientists
and public officials, and showing the damage done by Monsanto, the movie makes
a strong case against the corporation. However, sometimes the science is a little
technical and repetitious and one wishes some of that screen time had been
spent on presenting more about who actually runs Monsanto, such as the Board of
Directors, and who are the largest owners of shares and what is being done to
attack the company from within, by shareholder resolutions and whistleblower
support, and what is being done to try to mount a viable defense against this
monolith.
Sliding Doors – 1998 (2.7). Gwyneth Paltrow plays a woman living
parallel lives after she misses a subway train in one version and catches her
boyfriend in bed with another woman, while in the other version, she misses the
train and misses catching him in the act. The script cleverly intertwines the
two lives and manages to hold attention, but ultimately does not really have
anything to say beyond the obvious.
Once Were Warriors – 1994 (2.2). A drama from New Zealand about
domestic violence in a modern day Maori family and a strong woman who manages
to rise above it, should have provided an opportunity to celebrate the history
of Maori culture, inform viewers of the prejudices and politics that impact the
modern Maori, inspired victims of domestic violence to break out of the cycle
and shamed perpetrators into mending their ways. This movie did none of these
and instead stereotyped the Maori as alcoholic perpetual partiers, ignored
prejudice and politics entirely, made the victims unsympathetic and left the
perpetrators intact. That this list of failures was accomplished with a bad
script, poor direction and amateurish acting should not be surprising, and is
certainly disappointing, especially since some people have actually praised
this movie.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your review of "The Help", I think. I hear your saying that the movie was superficially covering an important sociological topic involving black-white race realtions in a certain region of the country and at a certain time, not far removed from present time, but that you enjoyed it anyway.
I would not blame the movie makers' rush to get it made for its shortcomings, because I think the movie makers were trying to make a movie as close as possible to the very popular book. I liked the book better than the movie, partly because the movie tried to hard to follow the book. A case in point was the discarded toilets strewn on the lawn. In the book, it made an amusing image in my mind, understanding it was exagerated, but the scene was all farce in the movie.
I thought the book really did well to show how the blacks were treated in our youth in some regions of the country, in a way that could and did appeal to the masses lest we as a society not forget. The movie also accomplished that, but not as well.
Of course it said little about how the blacks were treated in Seattle or Chicago, but that's a different book(s).
Jan and I watched "The Killing Fields" from Netflix last night in peparation for our trip to Cambodia and Vietnam. It was as good as I remembered, but one thing bothered me on this viewing. The movie referred to Nixon at least twice and the context was that he was somehow at least partially to blame for the Khmer Rouge coming to power and the mass killings they did once in power. I checked and the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975, after Nixon was long gone.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the movie is well done on all accounts (except the Nixon stuff). It reminded me of the events there and gave me an idea of the scenery, although I think it was filmed in Burma. I've got more reading to do before we leave.
John, you may be right that the movie of The Help sometimes portrayed the book too literally. Not having read the book, I cannot say how well it captured its subject, but from other reading and hearing from people who lived in the South at that time, I would say that what the movie did show of how whites treated Negroes [the term of the time] was accurate. As for Seattle at that time, having lived in the Negro community growing up, I would say the white treatment of Negros was also unfair, just more subtle and to a lesser degree. I don’t know if there is such a book about Seattle, but it would be an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteI saw The Killing Fields movie so long ago, it is hard to remember. Refreshing myself with brief online research, I am astounded by the magnitude of the genocide, particularly as a percentage of the overall population. As for Nixon, I think the claim is that his administration backed the anti-communist strongman government against the Khmer Rouge in the civil war, which created a backlash against the government and helped the Khmer Rouge come to power. See for example this article.
Jan and I saw Hugo from Netflix yesterday. We enjoyed it but we did not think it was worth all the hype we saw when it first came out. At that time the president of the company I work for called an all employee motivational meeting held in a movie theater and after the business meeting everyone had to sit through Hugo, I suppose because of the uplifting messages of optimism and "never say die". Fortunately meetings with my client precluded me from attending. Still I liked it well enough watching it with Jan.
ReplyDeleteSusan and I just watched Hugo and were disappointed. Fantastic sets, excellent cinematography and fine direction were somewhat wasted on a mediocre script. After an excellent beginning sequence before the opening title, the movie lagged and the story became tedious and scattered. I'll write more about it when it is included in my next list.
ReplyDeleteJan and I watched Mdagascar II on TV. We thought the script, the animation, the voices and the music were very good. It was funny and fun to watch.
ReplyDeleteI saw one of the Madagascar movies on DVD when it accompanied grandchildren on a visit to our house. As I recall it was kind of fun, but I am not much into animated movies suitable for young kids. Guess that shows I am lacking as a Grandpa.
ReplyDeleteWe did not have grandchildren with us when we watched the movie. We thought it was a good movie, and we were not biased by having grandchildren with us. Your taste in movies should be independent of whether or not you are lacking as a Grandpa.
ReplyDeleteYour comment suggests an interesting question about how our tastes in movies may be affected by others, those who participate with us in the choosing of a movie to watch and those who watch it with us. We have previously discussed how to choose movies to watch with a companion, but I don’t remember us talking much about how the actual viewing experience is affected by those who watch a movie with us. In a movie theater the audience is in the dark and proper decorum is not to chatter during the show; but the audience often spontaneously reacts to what is on the screen and as long as we share the general reaction, the audience may enhance our experience. However, the audience can also be rude and inconsiderate, thereby detracting from our enjoyment. At home watching a DVD, we can choose our own audience, but we are also more inclined to chatter and interrupt the flow of a movie. I prefer to watch movies with other people who want to watch and hold their comments until after the show, but the home viewing experience is so informal that we all are inclined to add our own running sound track.
ReplyDeleteMy taste in movies is reasonably wide, even more so if I am invited to watch with someone who really enjoys the type film that is to be shown, as when I watched Madagascar with the young ones. My comment about me lacking as a grandparent because I am not much into movies for kids was misguided. I expect there are many movies my grand-kids and I could enjoyably watch together.
Jan and I watched The Descendents from Netflix tonight. I thought it handled its maudlin theme well. We enjoyed it and thought the actors did well. The Shailene Woodley character reminded us of our oldest grandchild.
ReplyDeleteThe Descendants is on my next list, to be published quite soon. As I recall, the Shailene character turned out to be a good person, so your granddaughter must be one also.
ReplyDelete