The Words - Joe P

Went to the Walmart RedBox was looking for a Sat Night flick with the wife.  I had been by there before a few days ago, but didn't come home with anything.  All I saw was movies that I want to watch Batman, Prometheus, Avengers, etc. so I played good husband again and didn't bring anything home.  This time I said, "your pick." A little back and forth and we decide on "The Words". I didn't check rotten tomatoes, knew it would be troubling because i knew that basic overview of the story, and its got quite a lineup; B Coop, J Irons, O Wilde, Z Saldana, D Quaid (who get prime billing by the way).

I just now checked the Rotten Tomatoes 22%. Yikes.

Its so hard to give thoughts on movies without completely ruining them to people who haven't seen them.  I don't think a lot of people have seen this, so if I can somehow convince you to see this movie I would be pleased.

3 Stories about writing...

A middle aged man, Quaid, is reading excerpts from his new book at its release party.

His book is the story of a young writer (Cooper) comes across an incredible story that has never been published. A story he found in a old leather briefcase he found in Paris. He is an aspiring writer who has lost all hope, because his work will never be good enough.  

"I'm not who I thought I was... and I'm terrified that I never will be." 

He doesn't have that intangible Hemingway ability to go to that place that really connects with the soul of the reader. In this story he finds everything he wishes he could ever dream to write. He decides to re-type it on his computer to feel what it would be like to write it.  He doesn't change a letter, not even misspelled words.

B Coops wife Z Saldana randomly finds the story on this computer. "It's so different from anything you've ever done before." At that time she saw in him everything she ever knew he could be.  She told him it showed parts of him that she always knew was there, but was never able to get them out in any of his other books.

So it goes… He publishes the book, becomes famous, they even publish all his other books.  An old man, J Irons, enters the movie and follows Cooper to a park bench and says its his book. That he wrote it. You then go into the what the book was about as the old man tells the story behind the story. A story of love, war, horrible loss, regret and how a young man wrote through it and it saved his life.

The story goes on and the 3 stories weave there way together and dilemma arise in all three, but at the heart of it is what will Cooper do? Come out as a fraud to world and his wife or continue to live the "Fiction".

Please watch it to see what unfolds, its not at all what you would expect and the Story the old man tells is truly moving. And it ties back in to Quaids story about Life vs Fiction. Please somebody see it. It's well worth your dollar and 2 hours.

My favorite part though is my fav part of any movie.  Narrative Identity… What would I do in that situation?  The movie is quite melodramatic, but i think it helps because it gives to time to process the the deep deep motives, pains, and anxiety of the characters. I thought it was quite beautiful.

The perfect scene is when Zoe tells Cooper what she thinks about him because she thought he wrote the book.  The word choice she had was perfect to show how difficult the choice would really be.  It actually gave me a scenario in which I don't know what I would have done. To be told that I had fulfilled all the expectations that my wife and family had always had of me.

It didn't connect with my wife the same way and it showed me the different motives of men and women. Respect vs Love to simply put it.

 - - -

Let me throw this out there too.

The movie is also very much about writing.

Can someone really write something that connects with the human soul unless they've gone through great trial? 

Can we truly understand and more-so can we express feelings that we have never have really been through in real life?

JP

Deserves at least to be in the 60's range on Rotten Tomatoes.

They missed the point on this one.

and D Quaid is not aging well in HD.

HOM Chats: Les Miserables - Ms. Green

HOM: Les Miserables is touted as one of the most grand and epic novels ever written. What do you think Victor Hugo would have to say about Russel Crowe and Hugh Jackman taking the reigns of two of the most iconic characters in literature and singing through some timeless human dilemmas?

Ugh. What a serious one to start with. And it’s by far your hardest question - you should have built up to this.

OK, well, it’s pretty incredible that this story is still drawing crowds on such a huge scale. I expect most authors would be happy with the thought that their work would have mass appeal over 150 years after they wrote it. There are maybe more interesting ways in which a film based on the book could have been made and would have been closer to the original material but no doubt less popular at the box office. I doubt we will ever know how Victor Hugo would feel about the modern musical as a vehicle for his story....However, I suppose you could argue that if you aremaking a Hollywood musical you couldn’t ask for bigger actors. I thought Hugh Jackman was great, he also has a musical background – I saw him play Curly in Oaklahoma! in the theatre about 10 years ago (pre big fame) and he was incredible. Russell Crowe....hmmmm. I didn’t love him in this film, possibly because people had told me he couldn’t sing and that distracted me. Um, that’s it. Easier questions please...

HOM: When I lived in London I had several folks come to visit. They were unanimous in their desire to see the Broadway production of Les Mis. I've seen the show in more than a few cities. My friends, sister and mother have more than worn out the soundtrack. I've thought about reading the book and then thought better about it. It's so long. I've even seen a member of the GLEE cast in the role of Eponine. Wether I like it or not, this story has played a major role in my life. It's like I couldn't grow up until I decided on which side I stood on--Javert or Valjean. Tell me about your relationship with the story, the Broadway show and now the movie? Where have you seen it and where do you talk about it?

Ha! Well, this is where you will gasp and say I have no right to comment on the film, but I have never seen the musical, read the book or listened to the soundtrack before....I know.  I didn’t have a clue what was going to happen - except that Anne Hathaway died - how else do you rouse so much ‘best supporting’ attention...

I did know the songs - at least the big ones - we sang them at school, plus they are inescapable in the same way that I could sing numerous well known tracks by 90s boy bands, even though I never attempted to learn them. They just infect your life. Which in this case is no bad thing, there are some good musical theatre tunes in there. But in terms of being a cultural reference point in my life, it is non-existent.

I actually think this puts me in a particularly great position to comment on the film, I have no point of comparison – I just judged it on its own merits (or lack of).

Which side did you choose? I didn’t realise there was a choice, I thought it was completely one sided – but maybe that tells you something about the film?

HOM: What were your expectations for the film? I had so many people telling me that it changed their life. I have a student that has seen it six times. I was told that I'd cry through the whole thing. I didn't cry. Maybe my expectations were too high to be met. Maybe I'm an anomaly in my saturation with all things Les Mis. Also, at what point does one give up on the full pronunciation--Lay Mizerabulls--and settle on Lay Miz? 

I think you can go right in with LayMiz from the start. You sound weird and formal saying Les Miserablés, plus you have to contend with how authentically ‘French’ you want to say it which risks backfiring.

My expectations were high, it was sold as an epic, must-see movie and I thought for once that may actually be the case (it hasn’t for so long). It has also been nominated for a lot of things, plus friends recommended it.

6 times, that is 18 hours of life! How on earth would this 3 hour dirge change your life? Please ask them and let me know, maybe I’m missing something? Or maybe I need to be 16?

HOM: You've mentioned that the whole thing was just kind of "underwhelming." I have friends that would, through clinched teeth, ask you, "Who do you think you are?" How would you assuage their distaste with your distaste for the film? 

Come on! This is serious epic movie material – there is potential bursting out of it and yet I was bored. Don’t get me wrong, there are good things about it – um, wait, let me try and think of some...OK, some of the performances were good (actually the smaller parts were among my favourites – Eponine, Enjolras, Gavroche), and I like the overall look of the film, but that aside I thought it consistently underperformed. The sets appeared small, the cinematography uninteresting, the singing was not all great, the big tunes often seemed inexplicably to have far too little impact, there were long sequences where I had to wait what felt like a very long time for something to happen. Is that enough? If not, I resort back to my previous point, perhaps the reason I didn’t like it enough is because I am not 16?

Following up my comment on question 1 - just discovered that there is a 1998 version with Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman and Clare Danes – I think that would be worth a look.

HOM: Is it true that every heterosexual (and maybe homosexual) female wants to have babies with Hugh Jackman? You don't have to elaborate on your answer. Just a simple yes or no will suffice. 

I think a poll would suggest a strong majority. That man can rock stubble.

But it’s also true that you want to be him, right?

 
HOM: I'm trying to think right now about movies that peak in their first scene. All that comes to mind is Cliffhanger. I'm sure there are others. Did this movie peak with a harangued Hugh tugging a gargantuan ship into a harbor? I have to admit that he made being a slave seem somewhat desirable inasmuch as their was a palatable vindication that went along with his plot. But then again, maybe that's just due to that really catching refrain, "Look down. Look down..." What do you think?

Yes! Totally agree. The opening sequence was great – visually exciting, incredible set/effects, emotionally involved right from the start, setting up the time/place/world they live in and the tension between the 2 characters. Plus it was one of the few musical numbers that included a big chorus of singers and was effective. It is by far the most memorable part of the film for me. Although I did find it impossible not to think of Wolverine when he lifts the mast, and again later when he jumps out of the sewer – it was like a poopy re-run of the part in X-Men Origins where he bursts out of the blue superhero goo.

Back to LeyMiz - it’s irritating when you are built up to expect great things by an opening and then it turns into a long (LONG) slide into mediocrity. The movie sets itself up to fail - if the start was as underwhelming as the rest of it, then at least I would have known what was coming. 

(My mum suggests Casino Royale as another ‘peaks in the first scene/sequence’ contender. Maybe a HOM top 10 is called for?).

HOM: What would you say about Anne Hathaway? Was she convincing at least? She's pretty talented I suppose.

Hmmm, she was definitely up there with the best in this particular film. But she didn’t really have to do that much. I don’t mean this to sound petty but generally if an actor starves themselves, shaves off their hair and their character dies they get a lot of attention for it. That said, she was very good with not a lot to do and the scene when she is at rock bottom and singing ‘I dreamed a dream’ in the abandoned ship was one of the most memorable moments for sure.

This is an aside, but I am confused by all this talk of her losing crazy amounts of weight – what was the point? If your actor has done that you could at least shoot them in wide shot so we can see how much effort they have put in. I actually felt sorry for her starving herself then being in the movie for 10 minutes during which we only see her face and shoulders.

HOM: What would have taken you full tilt? What was missing?

Er, some drama.....

It was an unbelievably unimaginative movie, the way it was shot was pedestrian, there were too many fairly dull close-up of actors singing (which is very difficult to do in a way that is interesting, or allows you to be expressive/still look normal). There were very few wide shots so we didn’t get an impression of scale or place. The result is that the film felt too small for the story and the big numbers didn’t pack any punch.

For example, the scene when they interrupt the funeral, signalling the start of the revolution - this should be an epic moment but instead it was a complete non event. A few people sang while they hung onto the sides of a carriage...Where was the tension, the impact, the sense of something big happening? They had a complete gift with the music and it seemed very under-exploited, I felt like it needed a sweeping John Williams score to get me excited and yet it was full of huge songs I already recognised – ridiculous.  None of this was helped by the fact that there seemed to be a maximum of 7 extra’s in shot at any time. When you have a budget that big you’d think they could stretch to a few crowd scenes....I mean, can you imagine what Baz Luhrmann or Quentin Tarantino would have done with this??

On a separate note, I thought Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers were great, but completely out of place. It was as though a light hearted storyline was tacked on but without any attempt to draw it into the style of the rest of the film. As a result, even when they were genuinely funny, it felt wrong to laugh and detracted from the impact of the preceding/following scenes. Actually if they had been really dark and sinister it would have worked better – alternatively if the comedy theme had been more consistent. As it was I thought it was a very strange addition.

HOM: I have many ways of measuring a good film. You don't placate me for most of my methods. With that said, one of my qualifiers hinges on my memory of a film after a first viewing. I can't remember many scenes from this movie. I think my memory is usually paired with emotion as it is easier for me to remember how I felt during a certain scene if I truly felt something during. Even now I can recall more than a dozen scenes from SPEED--I was overwhelmingly tense for years after that first viewing (first R rated movie--do you remember your first R rated move--wait--UK doesn't have same ratings--whatever). I think I was, I'm scared to admit due to undoubted push-back I'm about to receive, kind of bored for most of this movie. Was this a 'good' movie?

I could probably recite the entire script of Speed but that’s a different interview... but one we should do as Sandra Bullocks’ socks need to be discussed. And I can remember my first ‘15’ movie, it was The Full Monty – which is engaging in an entirely different way...Can’t remember the first ‘18’ I saw.

Anyway, to your question – nah, it wasn’t good, and I was bored too. This just felt like a huge missed/wasted opportunity to make something fab. What a shame. I expect people might defend the film on the basis of it being true to the musical (which I obviously can’t comment on) – but I don’t think that’s a valid excuse, this is a movie, and should be enjoyed/judged/discussed on that basis.

Just reading this back I realise I have been very negative, maybe a bit unfairly – I think it’s partly because I expected so much and, for me, it seriously didn’t deliver. I have plenty of friends who loved it. My frustration with it is perhaps because I think it’s a privilege to get to make movies like this and it’s so galling when they are under-cooked. 

Pop quiz, hot shot.....

HOM Chats: Zero Dark Thirty - Nell

Ok...

Overall respose is that I think this is a good movie. Other thoughts:

1. Jessica Chastain is distractingly beautiful, to the point that I just couldn't quite believe her in that environment.

HOM: Yeah. I have thoughts about writing something that would carry a title along the lines of: "Where Have All the Hollywood Leading Ladies Gone?" The essay would be structured around the idea that there's probably too much content coming out of Hollywood that is just too plastic for there to be space for old school, silver screen enigmas. Ms. Hepburn came along at the right time. Jessica Chastain might could prove to have that kind of staying power and good looks. But I think the age of Hepburn is over. TMZ would have had her and Howard Hughes for lunch. Would men in their 60s still have framed photos of her in their basement if that was the case? Maybe Twitter and Facebook have made it impossible for Leading Ladies to have that kind of prominence. A cliche question would be to ask Chastain if she thinks that her attractiveness helps or hurts her. In this case, you might be saying that it hurts her. I wonder what she would say. 

2. Her hair is amazing, totally amazing, but completely unrealistic in this film

HOM: Interesting, that you notice something like this. You could interview me about this movie for a few hundred hours and I probably would never arrive at talking about her hair. 

3. Joel Egerton plays a really small part. Surprising. But then maybe people want to be in Kathryn Bigelow's movies so much they don't care - like Guy Pearce in the Hurt Locker - such a small part...

HOM: What is it about this phenomenon that is exciting for the cinephile? I love reading about stars foregoing paychecks just so they can work with certain directors and whatnot. Who else has this pull? Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Adam Sandler (ha), Scorsese? Oh, and what about the names that are doing this "Move #43"? Weird. It seems to be that the sign of an A-lister is if they show up in European or Asian commercials. Apparently they do it to free themselves up, financially speaking. This way they can pursue the projects they believe in. Geez.

4. I am surprised and pleased that it has been recognised so much by the Oscars, BAFTA's etc.

HOM: I like that you mention the BAFTA's and not the Golden Globes. I'm currently trying to figure out why I am so blah about awards season. I don't think anyone would disagree with me that the pomp of it is silly. But I still feel the need to say that I think it is silly. It's silly (but I always watch). 

5. About 2/3rds I thought needed cutting a little.

HOM: I noticed, more than usual, how the splicing was working or not working. I agree with you on this but then again I wonder (because I don't know much about film making) if K. Bigelow likes it that way.

6. I agree with someone I heard on the radio - I was totally gripped during the whole end sequence, even though everyone knew what was going to happen.

HOM: Yeah it was kind of meta in that we all knew what was going to happen but we wanted to see how K. Big was going to depict it. There is a story from my childhood that fits in here. My Mom tells it. She uses it to make the point that I was a very weird child and liked movies too much. I was like 9 or 10. As a family we were watching Jesus Christ Superstar. I fell asleep pre-crucifixion. In the morning I asked my Mom how it ended. My Mom was like, "Um, Kyle, sweetie. He gets crucified." I was all like, "Um, yeah, duh." Then we had a really cool conversation about how that movie pissed so many people off. We had the same conversation on steroids, years later, after my first viewing of The Last Temptation of Christ. Man. That movie is heavy. I won't give away the ending if you haven't seen it.

7. So weird, Elizabeth Bennett from the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice adaptation playing a CIA agent!

HOM: How did you manage to slip in a Colin First P&P reference? I have a friend from my grad program that's hilarious. She and I have this ultra-ultra-nerdy game that we play. In this game you have to be in the midst of a conversation in which a story is being told about something that has just happened in one of your lives. After the story, when it is time for the other party to weigh in on what should be done now that this event has happened, before weighing in, you riff on the options by starting your response with, "If we were in Pride and Prejudice you would have to..." Try this sometime. It's a whole bunch of nerdy fun.

8. Only one major thing is bugging me - did you think the Maya character was hard enough? I got the fact that this was her entire life, and she had the resolve and determination. And that she was supposed to be quite emotionless, but there was something that made me wonder if she had the really full on grit to do what she was expected to do in that job...?

HOM: Ya know, I don't know. I'm not sure that I can answer this one. There are two reasons why: 1) I'm a man and I'm not sure I can say how much grit a woman should have, 2) I don't know how much grit it takes to work in the CIA. With that said, I would imagine that the real Maya kicks major butt. I doubt she is as 'movie-star-looking' as Jessica Chastain. So maybe I'm agreeing with you. I think I am.

9. Massive lack of music, I think that's hard to pull off, and yet it didn't annoy me so musta have worked.

HOM: Yeah, K big has this locked down. Respect.

10. Interested in US response to it - is it seen as having a political point to make?

HOM: I think what's so cool about this movie is that it is undoubtedly political. However, it is prefaced with the prompt, "To what extent is this a political movie?" And this premise is genuine in that it's not supposed to be leading. I think the movie allows the war hungry, patriot to stand up and cheer while also giving the NPR listener the space to sit and contemplate on the vastness of global terrorism, torture and war. In my opinion, that's one reason why this movie is great. 

Think that's it.

HOM: Cool. That's it for me, too. Good talk.

Django - Nell

If you ever needed proof that Quentin Tarantino can put on a show (or that he can’t really act), Django Unchained is it. ‘Intense’ doesn’t come close. It’s less a movie, and more like entering the circus for three hours (not helped by the fact it was so hot in the cinema it resembled the temperature of a circus tent at the end of a very long week). Visually arresting, loud, brash, emotionally draining – Django Unchained is an assault on the senses. A depiction of an abhorrent moment in history, and a comedy. Who else but Tarantino?

I think it’s probably fair to say that most fans won’t be disappointed. This is 70% spaghetti western, 15% history lesson, 10% comic book, 5% hip hop. Exactly. However, it is also a movie, and a subject matter, that has been given the Hollywood treatment. Which means there are no great surprises (actually I am struggling to recall any), the pressure never lets up, and it is very glossy (OK so they gave some very pretty actors bad teeth but I think a historian might have something to say about almost everything else). And of course, it has caused plenty of controversy.

If anyone else were to attempt a film about slavery it would be a serious drama. Painful, gritty, challenging, probably unwatchable. Although Tarantino doesn’t shy away from some of the realities of the subject matter, and there are some truly gruesome scenes which I won’t ever forget, there is a certain detachment from the true pain of it – a Tarantino sheen - and consequently the really hard questions aren’t ever quite asked. As you would expect there’s a lot of violence, but it barely touches on the emotional or psychological trauma. Perhaps this is because the world in which Django’s story takes place is hugely stylised, and that exaggeration removes the final bite of reality.

As a piece of film making this movie is immense in almost every imaginable sense. The characters border on caricatures – for example Leo plays ‘Monsieur Candie’ the proprietor of Candyland, complete with eccentric outfit, long cigarette and a mad glint in his eye – it’s almost the evil Mad Hatter. All the leads pull it off – Christoph Waltz in particular stood out for me – and the exaggerated characterisation fits the style of the film. However, their two dimensional depiction means you never achieve a real engagement with them, you don’t get inside their heads. The most affecting and memorable moments are the horrible acts of violence against minor characters and not our heroes story. Consequently the brutal world which they inhabit is always kept at arms’ length, and the unbearable is made watchable. To me, that rings a little of cheating.

The soundtrack is huge. It’s in your face, overbearing and very entertaining - a mash up of traditional Western riffs and a bit of hip hop (used cleverly at times – unless I’m reading too deep, it acknowledges social changes and contemporary cultural interpretations which are not spoken in the script). The production design is also remarkable - the sheer intensity of colour throughout is impressive and I think I can remember every costume, when does that happen? This all adds enormously to the sense of drama and recalling the film now (at 3am and maybe 10 hours and several glasses of wine after I saw it), it feels like stepping back into the madhouse. That’s not the wine talking - this film is just so....BIG. And I can’t remember the cinema feeling like that for some time.

That isn’t to say there isn’t a serious side to the movie and some of the best moments for me are when Tarantino challenges the audience; using the characters to lead you to a point where you suddenly realise you are uncomfortable; making you question what it’s OK to laugh at; pointing out the indelible footprint of this era on contemporary America...He is also adept at making characters that endorse the status quo appear crushingly stupid, so blinded by their meaningless positions of power, almost deranged in their condoning of slavery - although at times that makes them comical, which again (inappropriately?) lifts the mood on a very, very heavy subject matter. Perhaps one of the most interesting questions he asks of us is in the role played by a barely recognisable Samuel L. Jackson, I don’t want to give away too much, but his part in Django’s story touches on some challenging, and timeless, human characteristics. Ultimately though, these issues are acknowledged and not addressed - but then the spaghetti western is hardly known for its delicacy in dealing with debates on human rights, the shadow of history or the brutal truth of human nature...

I want to say that I really loved this film, and on one level I did. As a piece of film making I think it is pretty incredible – the cast are brilliant, the direction is spot on, it’s genuinely laugh out loud funny, it is truly an ‘experience’. Whether this is an acceptable way in which to make a film about slavery, well, that’s an entirely different question - one which is sparking a lot of debate – and as the power of the cinema experience fades it seems there are elements that I am increasingly uneasy with. One thing I would say is that I think Quentin Tarantino may be the only director out there who could have got away with it.