Saturday, February 28, 2009

In the Line of Fire: The Class


Laurent Cantet’s The Class has more in common with Saving Private Ryan than Dead Poets Society. This is, yes, another portrait of a passionate and compassionate teacher who is dedicated to shaping the minds of his teenage students over the course of a school year. But so often in this film, based on a memoir by screenwriter and lead actor Francois Begaudeau, schoolwork is to this classroom what politics was to the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944: incidental. First and foremost, this is a story of survival. The classroom belongs to the teacher, and yet he is the invading army, relentlessly trying to overcome tank traps of disinterest and land mines of disobedience in order to fulfill his mission to educate. Alas, some days he is cut down by the bullets of adolescent shenanigans so quickly that he never gets to fight the fight.

As with Steven Spielberg’s unforgettable depiction of D-Day, the gut-wrenching tangibility of this film’s battle is its triumph. The Class unfolds in a space so small that the action seems to take place in our lap, as if we have the one empty seat in the classroom of Mr. Marin (Begaudeau), who teaches French at a private school in Paris. The resulting claustrophobia reminds of 12 Angry Men, though the juror’s room in Sidney Lumet’s classic is airy by comparison. Within these walls there are good days, when the students are upbeat and engaged, and there are bad days, when the spiritedness of youth explodes like a powder keg. Mostly, however, Mr. Marin’s class epitomizes the term “controlled chaos.” Fittingly, as high or as low as the mood is at any given moment, things always seem an instant away from falling apart. Despite a consistently bright mise en scene that shames the overt weather cues of Doubt, The Class is wrapped in an aura of tenuousness.

All of this makes for a rather taxing cinematic experience. More often than not in this movie, at least two people are speaking at the same time – and that’s when things are going well. The cacophony is overwhelming to say the least, especially for non-French speakers trying to keep up with the subtitles. Perhaps parents or teachers will take it all in stride like Mr. Marin, who withstands most of the disorder with the kind of unflinching stoicism famously displayed by Robert Duvall’s Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. For me, however, there were times I wanted to scream at the kids to calm down and shut the fuck up. That’s a compliment. There’s nothing about The Class that suggests its primary goal is to generate sympathy for teachers, but it accomplishes that task anyway. I walked out of my screening feeling guilty for all the times growing up when I quite intentionally made things harder for my teachers. Their patience is deserving of sainthood.

Having said that, one of the most interesting aspects of The Class is its lack of romanticism for the teacher-student relationship. There are no remarkable Stand And Deliver makeovers to be found here. Sure, some underachieving students surprise on occasion, but more often than not the dedicated students do well while the others appear to tread water. Is Mr. Marin bringing out the best in his kids? Is he holding them back, failing to challenge them? Even he can’t be sure. The film leaves it open to interpretation. Mr. Marin’s only inarguable triumph is his dedication. Every day he’s trying. His Sisyphean task is to slip academics into the ever-so-brief lapses in his students’ ongoing efforts to learn about themselves.

In a strategic attempt to accomplish this, Mr. Marin allows the line between work and play to blur. His class in no way resembles the throw-away-the-books anarchy fostered in Dead Poets Society by Robin Williams’ John Keeting. Instead, Mr. Marin attempts to loosen the reins just enough so that his students won’t focus solely on their imprisonment. In short, he attempts to win their trust, even allowing a student to openly question him about his sexuality. For a time, this works, but it proves to be Mr. Marin’s undoing. Like Grizzly Man subject Timothy Treadwell, Mr. Marin eventually makes the mistake of complacency, forgetting that the protective instinct he has for his students only goes one way. Teens, as we know, aren’t altogether different from wild animals: when they spot weakness, they exploit it. In packs, they are especially dangerous.

And yet the students in The Class aren’t demonized either. They are teens behaving as teens. The performances here are unrestrained as if unscripted while working toward a calculated conclusion that is fraught with ambiguity – contrasting relief with regret, success with shortfall and optimism with disappointment. At the end of the film, Mr. Marin wonders what the children have learned during the year, and they wonder the same, leaving the truth unclear. Perhaps an equally important question is what, if anything, Mr. Marin has learned. Teaching in a city where multiracial classrooms are more than just a politically correct made-for-TV fantasy, Mr. Marin faces unusual challenges. While the smiles on the kids’ faces assure that the forthcoming summer will pass too quickly, the expression on Mr. Marin’s face suggests that for him summer won’t pass quickly enough. Once you’ve been bloodied in battle, the real world never looks the same.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Queue It Up: Sunshine


[In the aftermath of the Oscar romp by Slumdog Millionaire, The Cooler offers the following review of Danny Boyle’s previous film, written upon the film’s release in the author’s pre-blog era.]

Danny Boyle’s Sunshine puts the science back in science fiction. That’s not to say that this movie about a team of astronauts on a mission to jump-start the sun is realistic. It’s just to note that the movie has a kinda-sorta plausibility about it, which is to say that it doesn’t include aliens, droids, or robots that transform into cars. Thank goodness. Space in its pure form is still a playground of dramatic possibility. It needs no embellishment. By looking up to the heavens and taking what our solar system has to provide, Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland have created a wonderfully engrossing adventure that thrives on the credibility and tangibility of its not-quite-out-of-this-world setting.

For so many sci-fi movies, “space” is just another way of saying “magic land.” Setting a story in some far off galaxy, in some distant age, gives filmmakers a blank check to create their own rules. Han Solo famously told Luke Skywalker that “traveling through hyperspace ain’t like dusting crops,” but in the movies space adventuring is usually much easier than that – about as difficult as mowing the lawn. Yet in Sunshine, set only 50 years in our future, some present-day laws of physics still apply. Rather than blasting from planet to planet at light-speed, this story’s sun-bound voyage is one in which length is defined by years and in which navigating space requires consideration of the gravitational pull of other planets. In this respect, Sunshine is remarkably more like Apollo 13 than Star Wars.

Make no mistake, Sunshine has some Jetsons qualities, too. Traveling in a mushroom-shaped spacecraft called Icarus 2 – a curious name that suggests either a future ignorance of Greek mythology or a stunning lack of faith in the mission – our crew of eight is mothered by an all-knowing voice that is the female equivalent of HAL 9000. More than just the ninth crewmember, the computer brain of Icarus 2 can measure how much oxygen the crew is using, provide the location of each astronaut onboard and take outright control of the ship if the humans do anything that might threaten the mission. All of which is enough to make you wonder why Icarus 2 needs a crew in the first place.

To fuck things up, of course! That’s what humans do best. This crew better than most. Charged with delivering to the sun a Manhattan-sized bomb that might reignite the fading star, Icarus 2’s astronauts hold in their hands mankind’s fate, but not necessarily its confidence. Palpable in Sunshine is the sense that this operation is considered impossible, futile and fatal. (There was an Icarus 1, after all, and it disappeared without a trace.) So instead of sending the best and the brightest, Earth appears to have sent a ragtag group more befitting a suicide mission. Oh, the Icarus 2 crew is capable. Rose Byrne is the pilot, Cassie. Michelle Yeoh is the horticulturalist, Corazon, tending to lush garden (one of the film’s many triumphs in art direction) that provides food and oxygen. Cliff Curtis is the shrink, Searle, whose fascination with the sun suggests the he’ll be the first one in need of therapy. Etcetera. And somehow Cillian Murphy’s Capa is the only one who knows how to deliver the “payload,” the explosive package upon which the entire mission is based. Cross-training, it seems, was never considered.

Or maybe someone figured Capa needed company on the trip. Regardless, with that many rather useless souls gathered together, it’s only a matter of time before Icarus 2 finds trouble, even if trouble wasn’t out to find it. And, sure enough, that’s what happens. With one faulty human decision that demonstrates a stunning lack of priority, Icarus 2 wanders from its course and the carefully scripted mission turns into a deadly improv. Predictable? Yeah. Professionally indefensible? Of course. Unrealistic? Certainly. Entertaining? You bet your ass!

That’s the thing about Sunshine. You can poke holes into it all day. But many of the film’s less probable moments stand out only because some much of the action rings true. It starts with the ship: basic metal corridors on the interior, a giant power-conducting sunshield on the outside made up of numerous plates that can be adjusted to provide maximum protection (when three of these panels are damaged, evoking memories of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, we know it means trouble). Icarus 2 is at once basic enough to seem functional in the here-and-now and fantastic enough to convince us that it could accomplish this unparalleled mission. Meanwhile, what the crew lacks in universal knowledge it makes up for with conviction. This octet might not be the one you’d choose to save the world, yet you’ll never doubt the enormity of their assignment. The Icarus 2 must complete its mission … or else!

Over the last hour of this 108-minute film, that “or else” – that feeling of consequence – reigns supreme. What begins as a rather cerebral science-fiction film, in the mold of 2001: A Space Odyssey or Solaris, morphs into one of the most mesmerizing, pulse-pounding movies of the year. The tonal shift is so gradual that it initially goes unnoticed, though the mounting intensity of the outstanding score gives us a clue. By the end, Sunshine reaches into full-throttle, going so far as to adopt some horror techniques with a shocking twist that thrills with its arrival but does little to impress after that. If I had a vote, Boyle and Garland would have wrapped their story differently, but I can’t complain too much. For me, Sunshine was literally a gripping experience: I spent the latter half of the film clenching a fistful of my T-shirt without even realizing it.

Danger is magnified in space. In many respects, Sunshine reminds of James Cameron’s equally claustrophobic underwater adventure The Abyss, which also features a determined and resourceful crew operating in an environment in which the smallest mistake could lead to death. Few films are so effortlessly bound by such ominous peril. Blockbusters like this year’s Transformers spend millions on thrills alone but aren’t half this affecting. Sunshine has rich visuals and impressively realistic CGI, but it’s the plot that dazzles. Crammed with suspense and action, Boyle’s film delivers the most out-of-this-world adventure of the summer because it sticks to the world we know. A world that by itself has the capacity to fill us with awe.

[“Queue It Up” is a series of sporadic recommendations of often overlooked movies for your Netflix queue.]

Sunday, February 22, 2009

81st Academy Awards Live Blog


The 81st Academy Awards Live Blog is over. Enjoy the transcript and feel free to leave your thoughts about the night in the comments section. Thanks to all of you who stopped by.

(All times Eastern)

11:57: It starred Hugh Jackman and it felt a hell of a lot shorter than Australia, so that’s a positive. The 81st Academy Awards are history. Thanks all for stopping by! Here’s to the movies!

11:53: Jai Ho, everybody. (Should I know what that means?) Slumdog Millionaire wins Best Picture. Between Freida Pinto and the closing dance number, it’s a joy to experience. And I hope those kids who left such an indelible mark on this picture will be rewarded financially. Meanwhile, I hope we’ll be rewarded for (mostly) suffering through 2008 with a more 2007-esque year in film ahead. We’ll see.

11:52: And Best Picture goes to …

11:46: Sean Penn wins Best Actor. OK. I was ready for that. And if I didn't feel like Rourke had his lightning-in-a-bottle opportunity here, I’d feel better about this. Given all that Penn did to help Milk get made in the first place, he’s especially deserving. And if Milk isn’t going to win Best Picture, at least it wins something. (Plus it was an excuse to see Robin Wright Penn. And that’s always a good thing.)

11:40: Google? Really? Adrien Brody might as well have started his introduction: “I had no fucking clue who Richard Jenkins was until 10 minutes ago when they told me that I’d be introducing him.”

11:38: Best Actor is up. Please be Mickey. Please be Mickey. Please be Mickey.

11:35: Right actress, wrong film. Kate Winslet wins Best Actress. Hers is a tremendous career already, with her better days ahead, I’m sure. As you’d expect, her acceptance speech is confident yet humble, and as sincere as these things get. Class.

11:30: Seriously, Philip Seymour Hoffman looks like he crept in to rob the joint and sat down behind Meryl Streep. Note to producers: never seat him on the aisle.

11:29: Goodness. These women are all going to be crying before a winner is announced.

11:26: Best Actress time. Wow. All of a sudden things are picking up. The buzz is that this is Winslet’s year. Which reminds me: Did you catch the story earlier this week when Winslet said she’s going to stop doing nude scenes in movies? The story I read supplemented that announcement with the note that Winslet has been nude in 10 films. How the hell did they know that? Is that a statistic on the back of her trading card? If so, what’s on the front of her trading card? And can I have one?

11:24: Danny Boyle wins Best Director and does an impression of Tigger. I’m down with that. Boyle’s a solid filmmaker who has made a handful of films better than this one. Slumdog Millionaire isn’t going to be a movie that people cherish for years, but it sure is cherished now. And that’s OK. It says a lot about these times, when we’re all looking for hope. Says a lot about this year in film, too, which was far from extraordinary.

11:20: Reece Witherspoon looks radiant, if you don’t look at her dress, which seems inspired by that witch in Sleeping Beauty.

11:15: Nothing against Queen Latifah, but I don’t want to watch her walking the stage during the tribute to those who died in the past year. What a terrible presentation. I have a widescreen TV. If I didn’t, I would have struggled to tell who was being remembered given that picture-in-picture approach. Pleased, however, to see critic Manny Farber recognized. Charlton Heston and Paul Newman lost in the same year. Sad, and somehow fitting. And did I blink when they showed Heath Ledger?

11:09: Departures wins for Japan. If you had that in your office pool, you just got one that no one else did.

11:05: Time for Best Foreign Film. I’ve seen The Class and Waltz With Bashir of this year’s nominees. The Class is one of those films I’m pleased to have seen and yet have no desire to see again. Ever. The Class makes us feel like we’re spending a year in a high school classroom, which is to say that it’s often painful. I can’t count the number of times I wanted to yell at the kids to calm down and shut the fuck up. I don’t know how teachers do it. Hats off to you!

11:02: Danny Boyle has his hands on his face again, which means Slumdog just won. Again. They’re almost out of nominees, aren’t they? I mean: Congratulations for winning Best Original Song!

10:58: Peter Gabriel goes on strike for his part in the medley of Best Original Song nominees. This is the third year in a row that at least two nominees in this category have come from the same film, Slumdog in this case. Is it me, or is all this Slumdog love almost uncomfortable at this point, as if Americans just discovered India and think it’s really neat?

10:54: Bow-wow-wow, yippy-yo, yippy-yay, bow-wow, yippy-yo, yippy-yay. Slumdoggy Dog wins again. This is boring.

10:50: Here comes Best Music (Score). In a perfect world, this is a two-way race between WALL-E and The Dark Knight. Alas, no nomination for The Dark Knight. I’m wearing my Sunday clothes here … let’s give it to WALL-E. (By the way: James Newton Howard’s score for Defiance is a blatant rip off of his other story-in-the-woods score for The Village, mixed with, um, allusions to John Williams score for Schindler’s List.)

10:44: The last time we saw Eddie Murphy at the Oscars he was not winning for Dreamgirls. Now he’s presenting the humanitarian award to Jerry Lewis, even though Lewis recently said in an Entertainment Weekly interview that he wished he hadn't allowed Murphy to remake The Nutty Professor, dissing Murphy’s fart jokes along the way. Ignoring for the moment that Lewis doesn't have the right to call someone else’s humor lowbrow, the Academy Awards have been pretty damn awkward for Murphy.

10:41: You know what’s worse than ABBA? These damn Best Buy commercials.

10:40: Since we just blazed through the technical awards, an observation: Put me in the camp that doesn’t understand the nomination of Brad Pitt for Best Actor. His character is a cipher to be acted upon, and what little emotion he displays is often the product of CGI. Yes, that’s what the role calls for. I don’t fault Pitt. But if we’re going to nominate digitally enhanced performances, let’s give a nomination to WALL-E. Or let’s go back and nominate Andy Serkis for his portrayal of Gollum. Just sayin’.

10:35: Silence Of The Slumdog Millionaire Of The Rings wins Best Film Editing. I'm detecting a pattern.

10:32: Slumdog Millionaire wins Best Sound Mixing. A breathless sound mixer “can’t believe it.” Right, because everybody knows the sound mixer from Wanted was the heavy favorite to win.

10:29: The Dark Knight wins Best Sound Editing. Happy to see TDK pick up another Oscar, fanboys across the country stop beating their imaginary girlfriends.

10:25: Benjamin Button takes Best Visual Effects. There would have been something fundamentally wrong if it didn’t, considering the film is nominated for Best Picture.

10:17: Man On Wire wins Best Documentary (Feature). Happy about that. In a down year in film, that was one of the most enthralling and suspenseful stories, even though there was no doubt how it would end. In acceptance, tightrope walker Phillippe Petit performs some magic and Oscar balancing. That guy loves an audience, that’s for sure. That he knows what to do with that audience is what counts.

10:12: And it’s Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor. Justice. A “special” performance, indeed. And a “special” performance by his family in accepting his award. Amazing strength.

10:07: It’s gotta be Heath Ledger. For so many reasons. Most of all, that he gave us a tremendous performance despite monumental expectations and made it unique.

10:06: Cuba Gooding Jr jokingly criticizes Robert Downey Jr’s “blackface” performance by noting that “brothers need the work.” Uh, yes, Hanes man. Some of them do.

10:05: Seriously. What were the odds that Philip Seymour Hoffman would be the first person to wear a do-rag to the Oscars? Reminds me of that joke on The Office: “If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I’m going to be rich!”

10:03: It’s Best Supporting Actor time. All across the country bitter fanboys of The Dark Knight have lighters in one hand and Molotov cocktails in the other. If Heath Ledger doesn’t win, this is gonna get ugly.

9:58: And now I’ve got ABBA stuck in my head. They’re shutting down Gitmo because of cruelty like this.

9:55: Hugh Jackman does a song-and-dance number. Beyonce does a lip-synch-and-dance number. Sasha didn’t get very Fierce there, did she? Disappointing.

9:43: I thought Mama Mia looked plenty terrifying from its trailer. Now in a Pineapple Express-themed montage I just caught a glimpse of Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan wearing sequins. I won’t be able to sleep tonight.

9:38: Someone tell Jessica Biel that the front left of her dress is untucked. What’s that? It’s supposed to be that way. Oh. That’s a shame.

9:34: Best Cinematography goes to Slumdog Millionaire. Get out of the way, folks.

9:31: I give it to Ben Stiller. He’s unafraid. I found the real Joaquin Phoenix meltdown to be tragic. But out of tragedy comes comedy. Then again, a “Hasidic meth lab”? First time that phrase has ever been used, I’d guess.

9:30: Props to the producers for showing the James Franco and Sean Penn liplock in that love montage. Even just a few years ago, all we would have seen was a knowing nod or a peck on the cheek. Progress, folks. Progress. One tiny step at a time.

9:25: Here’s Robert Pattinson of Twilight fame. That tremble you just felt was the reverberation of thousands of teenage girls having a simultaneous orgasm.

9:23: Benjamin Button for Best Makeup Applied By A Computer. What’s that? That’s not what this category is called? Oh. Well. In that case, The Dark Knight just got screwed.

9:20: Again, I didn’t see The Duchess, but it just had to win Best Costume, didn’t it? Ho-hum, let’s move on.

9:17: But it’s Benjamin Button for Best Art Direction. Hmm. If the scenes that got Benjamin Button the win are eligible for this category, WALL-E should be in this category, too.

9:15: I didn’t see The Duchess, but Changeling would be a good pick here for Best Art Direction. It sure looked the part. Sadly, that’s about all that it did.

9:09: Dammit. I didn’t see La Maison En Petits Cubes. I did see Presto!, so if it's better than that, it’s tremendous. Speaking of which: When you rent WALL-E, be sure to watch the other short, Burn-E. Wonderful fun.

9:06: Andrew Stanton wins for WALL-E! The live blog can continue! I heard Stanton on NPR’s “Fresh Air” earlier this year. He said something I still haven’t forgotten. He called animators “shy actors.” Damn straight. Little WALL-E turns in one of the best performances of the year.

9:04: Looks like we’re coming up on Best Animated Feature Film. There isn’t a bigger slam-dunk in the pool this year than WALL-E, right? And deservedly so. It’s my best film (overall) of 2008. If it doesn’t win, I’m turning off the TV. (That’ll make for an interesting live blog, won’t it?)

9:01: Simon Beaufoy wins Best Adapted Screenplay. Let the Slumdog Millionaire party begin, I guess. It’s a sweet movie, but not sweet enough to dominate tonight. Let’s hope this doesn’t get all Lord Of The Rings.

9:00: Now Best Adapted Screenplay is up. I don’t like any of these screenplays.

8:58: Dustin Lance Black wins Best Original Screenplay for Milk. If this means it might upset for Best Picture tonight, I’ll be thrilled. That’s my favorite picture of the nominees this year.

8:55: I love Steve Martin. And after all the Sarah Palin stuff, I’m glad to see Tina Fey get some Oscar-night love. Best Original Screenplay time. I’d be really fookin’ happy to see In Bruges get some love here.

8:50: Penelope Cruz wins Best Supporting Actress. A well-deserved win. Although she’s even better in Elegy. Fitting start, because Kate Winslet will likely win Best Actress tonight for The Reader even though she was far superior in Revolutionary Road. Touching acceptance speech by Cruz. Grace, dignity and a peek at the real woman inside. This is why we watch.

8:47: I’m pulling for Tomei here. No truth to the rumor, by the way, that Tomei has gone online to bet millions on herself in the “Nominated Actress to Be Photographed at the Oscars with Her Nipple Uncovered” category.

8:46: Goldie Hawn? Bring back Whoopi!

8:45: Fucking Whoopi. Please go away.

8:44: You know the usual awkwardness when there are two presenters? Well, now we have the awkwardness of five presenters. Not an improvement.

8:43: Here comes the award for Best Supporting Actress. Marisa Tomei begins to weep when she sees that Jack Palance won’t be announcing tonight’s winner.

8:38: It’s official. Hugh Jackman can host these awards anytime. Terrific opener. More show, less biz. The way it should be.

8:36: Anne Hathaway, everybody. Have I mentioned loving her? Brilliant!

8:34: Thank you!

8:33: Can Hugh Jackman get a spotlight, please?

8:32: I dig the jazzy rendition of Lawrence of Arabia. And I’m happy to see Hugh Jackman tonight … because he isn’t Whoopi Goldberg.

8:30: Here we go!

8:23: Thank you, Jack Black, for not playing along with the hyperbolic, overly effusive, inane interview process. About time a celeb made one of these morons work.

8:20: The difference between men and women. Penelope Cruz remembered a dress she saw eight years ago. I can’t remember what I wore yesterday.

8:17: Here’s how you can detect Hollywood class: Miley Cyrus, in a movie not yet released, says she hopes to be at the Oscars next year for that role. Anne Hathaway, an established A-lister at this point, says she “never expected to be here.” Advantage to Anne. My love deepens.

8:15: I hope that Miley Cyrus interview we just saw was taped. Otherwise she’s been on the red carpet for two hours.

8:13: Zac Efron, born in 1987, refers to Dev Patel, born in 1990, as “kid.” Ugh.

8:06: Brangelina blows off an interview with Tim Gunn as if they don’t know who he is. Which is probably about right. Gotta say, I’m really disappointed to see just Pitt and Jolie here tonight. I was sure the Academy Awards producers would have instructed them to bring all kids and perform “Edelweiss” or something.

8:05: There’s Frank Langella. I’m glad to see a veteran receiving some props, but his Nixon is an impression of Nixon impressions. Go on YouTube and find video of the real president. You’ll see what I mean.

8:03: Tim Gunn conducts an “interview” with Amy Adams in which he essentially talks about her in her presence. Not a promising start. Ryan Seacrest was about this intelligent over on E!

8:01: By the way, West Coast peeps: Good luck watching Barbara Walters’ interview with Mickey Rourke without getting choked up. I really want that guy to win tonight. I think it’s going to be Sean Penn, and he’s deserving, but this should be the year of Mickey.

8:00: Welcome to the live blog of the 81st Academy Awards. Allison’s Red Carpet Live Blog is still going strong, so open up another browser window and multitask, people.

Before we get going, some “exciting” news from the E! broadcast. Apparently during tonight’s Academy Awards, winners will be announced by previous Oscar winners, rather than the person (often a previous Oscar winner) who introduced the nominees in the first place. In other words, it now takes more stars to screw in a light bulb. Somehow his subtle change was still a little too complicated for the “talent” from E! to figure out. Said one of the dumb beauties: “So now there will be a big star on stage to tell us who won.” Wait, you mean as opposed to before, when there was a big star on stage to tell us who won? Yeesh. Hopefully ABC’s crew will be better, but I doubt it.

Red Carpet Live Blog


This live blog is by Allison Ross of the wildly entertaining Tales From LaLa Land. The following unedited, uncensored views aren’t necessarily those of The Cooler – which doesn’t mean they aren’t accurate, or hilarious. Enjoy!

(All times Eastern.)

8:30: OK! I am signing off. Well, from my live-blogging duties. Jason is taking over from here so you can comment on his new thread above. I need to sit back and enjoy Hugh Jackman.

8:25: For The Love of Ray J, why am I not at the bar? That's where Judd Apatow, Jack Black and Seth Rogan are. THAT is the place to be.

8:15: ABC isn't quite as juicy as E! because there was something trainwreckalicious about Seacrest. Miley: "Angelina is my favorite person ever." Why am I not surprised?

8:08: Angelina Jolie does not seem to be playing along anymore. Unlike Brad Pitt, I never have a problem buying into her characters. More than anything, I’m always a little sidetracked by how pretty she is. I thought she was phenomenal in Gia and Girl, Interrupted. That is the Angelina Jolie that seems more real to me. Sure, she was great in A Mighty Heart and Changeling, but I prefer the darker (more real) side of her. She used to be so much fun on the red carpet – long kisses with her brother, dry-humping Billy Bob Thorton and all sorts of wild. Now, she has perfected the most icy of cuntfaces you’ll ever find. She barely mumbles a word to reporters, and when she does, her answers are laced with hate and her look says, “I will have to cleanse my perfect soul after answering such ignorant questions.”

8:05: OK, we have a Laef sighting. He LOVES Tim Gunn, as do I. I am very curious to see the interviewing tactics on ABC. Ryan was terrible. It was somewhat painful. P.S. Where the fuck was Jennifer Aniston on E!'s preshow? SJP: You are not French, and it looks like Matthew Broderick would rather be someplace else.

8:00: Laef is just now getting around to the blog. He is reading the comments and cracking up. Brad Pitt stopped for Ryan Seacrest, but you could tell he was like, GFY. You could hear Ryan Seacrest say, "Here comes Angelina..." and then his microphone faded out. She obviously ditched him. Holy crap, Alicia Keys looks glam. Going over to ABC!!

7:52: Gulianna needs new panties. She is clearly obsessed with the Jolie-Pitts.

7:50: Jessica Biel looks like shit. I know that sounds weird to say because she is not ugly by any means, but that dress is horrid. And what is going on with her hair and makeup? I feel like I could have done that. On the flip side, Kate Winslet is gorgeous. Her personality combined with her confidence and high cheek bones make her an actress that I can feel good about liking. She seems so normal and friendly. Plus, she forgot Jesus', er, Angelina's name at the Golden Globes.

7:45: I love Philip Seymour Hoffman. Not sure about his hat, but he kills it in every role he plays. I have an idea for next year. They should give Ryan Seacrest an earpiece. On the other end there will be someone with knowledge about the movies and nominees. They can feed him decent questions. Marion Cotillard is so pretty and I am really feeling this midnight blue that seems to be everywhere. Angelina has her cuntface on. As usual. I can not wait to see her talk to Ryan Seacrest. If he is so lucky. Her dress is boring as fuck.

7:40: So, I like Evan Rachel Wood's dress. The shape that is. Why on Earth would she wear a dress the same color of her skin? She was washed out. Oh fuck. The golden couple has arrived. Prepare for some SERIOUS awkwardness. Mark my words.

7:35: Did Ryan Seacrest pay Queen Latifah to say, "You are the busiest guy in Hollywood, huh?" Because now he has a safety net. He has too many things to think about, and it's clear. I LOVE the deep blue color of her dress. I LOVE Anne Hathaway's dress. It's probably not something I would pick out for myself right away, but it's so glamorous and pretty.

7:30: Alright, Ryan. I know you have 17 different jobs, but you really should do your research on the nominees. He seems to not know anything about the nominees that aren't consistently A-List (Marisa Tomei). I mean, it's awkward when he says things to them that are just wrong. Mickey Rourke did great. He's still somewhat sober. And, his suit wasn't horrible. It wasn't a tux, but good for him.

7:23: OMG. Is there a more awkward couple than Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick? They seemed completely uncomfortable together. I mean, we all know that our men don't know the difference between midnight blue and black (nor do they give a fuck), but do we need to hash that out on the red carpet?

7:20: Time out. Cruel Intentions is one of my favorite movies. I had no idea that Amy Adams was in that. Oh wait. It was Cruel Intentions 2. I did not see that. And, although I say I am boring, I really do like her necklace. OK, here we go with this Robert Pattinson guy. I don't get what all the fuss is about so let me see if I can figure it out. Well, he does have vampire teeth, which seems to have helped him.

7:15: Awww shit. Here comes Mickey Rourke and Seth Rogen. Surely they can make Ryan Seacrest WELL aware of how fucking dumb he is. Natalie Portman is perfection. She always looks so pretty. And, to top it off, she's smart. Love her. The Glamastrator is not working. They obviously aren't working together with Jay. He is talking about necklaces and they are showing legs, etc. Laef just claimed that Amy Adams in not hot.

7:05: OK, seriously. I like Taraji P. Henson, but under no circumstances should anyone every see your Spanx. ESPECIALLY at the Oscars.

6:58: Where the crap is Angelina? Jennifer?

6:55: I want whoever did Freida Pinto's makeup to do mine for my wedding. And, I've about enough of the awkwardness of Ryan asking them if they are dating. Let them love this moment! Heidi Klum: No. I am not loving that dress or all the jewelry. Also, it looks like she had her hair done by Zak Efron's hair stylist.

6:50: They should have had John Madden work the Glamastrator. I mean, is this a football game? Welcome to Hollywood, Slumdog Millionaire stars, where Ryan Seacrest asks you awkward questions about your personal life. I have to pee. And, I'm more stressed out than when I have to pee at work. Like, I am scared if I go to the bathroom, I will miss something and this will be the worst live blog ever.

6:48: Ryan Seacrest is a dick. He is ompletely unprepared for the Slumdog Millionaire kids interview. If it was fucking Pax, Shiloh, Knox, et al, he would have said their names AND spelled them out. Twice. Did he just ask a 7-year-old what kind of dress she is wearing?

6:45: I am sure this comes as no surprise, but Laef is unable to comment on the The Cooler because he is, um, playing some video game. The Sanch is also not interested. I am sweating because I'm trying to do four things at once and the laptop is really hot.

6:40: Ryan: FYI, I don't think Kevin Kline was serious when he said he watches American Idol.

6:30: I wonder if Ryan Seacrest is secretly jealous of Zac Efron's eyes. OK, Vanessa Hudgens is cute, but she is not even remotely close to looking like Audrey Hepburn tonight. Not feeling that dress. And, not feeling her, in general.

6:30: Wow. Ben Lyons just threw down the gauntlet on Nascar and the NBA. And P.S. I am already tired of Miley.

6:25: It is hard not to feel giddy for the stars of Slumdog Millionaire. They are still so unaffected by Hollywood. You can almost feel their overwhelming awe of being there.

6:20: Hugh Jackman: Yum. Funny, cute, smart. Really looking forward to all of the things he will bring to the table. AND he has a signal for his wife??? I likey. I wish he would have used his middle finger as his signal for Giuliana Rancic. Her diamond was ginormous.

6:05: Miley's dress looks like it might weigh 400 pounds. I like it. It's fun and sparkly and whimsical. Her hair is boring. I heard Ryan Seacrest on America's Top 40 this morning, listen to him every morning on my way to work, watch him on American Idol and see him on most awards shows. When does he sleep?

6:00: Well, here we go. I am excited to be blogging about everything there is to see on the red carpet. After reading my LaLa Land blog last night, my mom called to ask how I got credentials to live blog at the Oscars. I had to break the news to her that the live-blogging will be done from my couch in sweatpants. There is no way I would subject myself to the traffic that is sure to be congesting the intersection of Hollywood and Highland. Things I am looking forward to: Will Angelina snub Ryan? If she decides to speak to him, how bitchy will her bitchface look? Is it too much to ask Angie to revert to her old ways just once and dry hump Brad Pitt the way she did Billy Bob Thorton? What kind of gems will Mickey Rourke say on the red carpet? Will Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer walk the carpet together and will John give an answer that causes Jen to spank him later tonight?

Allison will be online at 6 pm ET to begin her coverage. Please follow along (hit the refresh key often) and add your thoughts in the comments section. The Cooler's live blog of the Academy Awards will begin at 8 pm ET.

Read more of Allison at Tales From LaLa Land.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Wrestling With The Reader


“Oscar-worthy” wasn’t the term running through my mind upon seeing The Reader in early January, prior to the movie picking up Academy Award nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress (among others). “Disappointing” was the word it inspired. Here is a film that is tantalizing in stretches but ultimately frustrating. It ends about 30 minutes too late, using that excess time for some extremely ill-advised plot developments that sour an otherwise respectably assembled film. In the final act, Lena Olin suffers through a scene that attempts to go so many directions at once that it ties itself in a knot. Meantime, poor Kate Winslet is forced to cap off a mostly engaging performance by donning heavy makeup and adopting a hunchback in order to portray decades-worth of aging, while the character opposite hers is played by two men almost 30 years apart. Oscar tends to like that kind of stuff, but I cringed at the indignity of it.

To the degree I was offended by The Reader, it was for those sins, and nothing more. I intended to write a review of the film at the time, but I found myself too busy. Days and weeks passed, and I was prepared to leave the film uncommented upon here … until I caught up on some reading. Earlier this week, I learned that there are others who were greatly disappointed by The Reader, and who, like me, are anything but excited about the prospect of the film picking up some golden hardware on Sunday. But that’s where the similarities end. Ron Rosenbaum for Slate has suggested that The Reader is the “The Worst Holocaust Film Ever Made,” while Rod Lurie for The Huffington Post writes that the film “gives ammunition to Holocaust negationists, to the Archbishop Williamsons of the world, to the people who would tell us that the Shoah is a mass exaggeration.”

These are heavy charges. In lieu of a typical review, I’d like to provide some thoughts in response. (Warning! Nothing but spoilers ahead.)

Before I go any further, take a moment to read the Rosenbaum and Lurie pieces linked above. Go ahead. I can wait. Ready? OK.

Let’s begin as Rosenbaum does, with the implication that The Reader is “The Worst Holocaust Film Ever Made.” He might be right about that. See, I don’t think of The Reader as a “Holocaust film” in the first place.

What is it about? I think The Reader explores two interesting topics, the first having to do with identification and the second having to do with ethics. When Michael (David Kross) learns that Hanna (Kate Winslet) was a guard in the SS who was complicit in the deaths of at least 300 people, his first emotion is shock. Hanna’s SS sins were committed before Michael knew her, before she comforted him when he was sick, before they became lovers, before he formed a youthful admiration of her. His first conundrum is to rectify these two disparate realities. Truth: Hanna is an accessory to mass murder. Truth: Hanna was nothing but a friend to Michael. This presents an interesting scenario with universal appeal. What would you do if you found out that someone you greatly admire had a checkered past? Would you disown your relationship with this person? Would you forever look at it differently? Should you?

Michael doesn’t know. He also doesn’t know what to do with his knowledge that Hanna willingly accepts a prison sentence that is based on an inaccurate charge. This is his ethical debate: Michael knows that Hanna is being judged incorrectly, but he thinks she is being punished fairly. (When it comes to the murder of hundreds, does it matter whether you acted alone or stood by with a half-dozen others?) But is this Michael’s decision to make? Does his previous relationship with Hanna, and his firsthand knowledge of her positive attributes, oblige him to come to her defense? Or does Michael owe his allegiance to those victims who aren’t alive to testify against Hanna? Aren’t some crimes so abhorrent that they can never be forgiven?

These are the issues of The Reader. In exploring these elements, yes, the plot structures itself around the Holocaust – an atrocity so well known that it doesn’t need further explanation (that’s why it’s handy). But does that make The Reader a “Holocaust film.” When you think about it, Michael’s ethical dilemma isn’t too far off from the one explored in A Few Good Men. Is that a film about the Marines? In a way, sure, but not at the heart. Same here.

Rosenbaum goes on to suggest that a New York Times article calling The Reader a story about “personal triumph” is a “depressing indication of how the film misreads the Holocaust.” But, wait. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the New York Times misreads The Reader? And if The Reader isn’t even a “Holocaust film” in the first place, isn’t Rosenbaum misreading the film as well?

I don’t disagree with Rosenbaum entirely. He argues that Hanna’s illiteracy provides an all too convenient (partial) pardon for her sins. I agree. But then he goes a step further, suggesting that Hanna’s illiteracy is a metaphor for “the German people and their supposed inability to ‘read’ the signs that mass murder was being done in their name, by their fellow citizens.” In other words, Rosenbaum believes that Hanna’s illiteracy pardons all of Germany. But this is rubbish. First, this reading ignores that the movie is told from Michael’s perspective and that even he doesn’t absolve Hanna. Meantime, Hanna doesn’t forgive herself. She accepts her sentence, rather than fight it, and upon earning her freedom she kills herself. These things suggest guilt, not innocence.

Still, I respect Rosenbaum’s discomfort when he calls The Reader (and Downfall) “revolting” for portraying the laypeople of Germany as “poor, unknowing … victims.” Yes, Hanna is a victim of sorts in The Reader. Yes, the character is made more appealing thanks to the beauty of Winslet and the use of “manipulative nudity” (though it’s hardly unusual to see unusually attractive individuals in movies). Yes, Hanna experiences a “triumph” late in the film as she learns to read. Yes, that triumph is an ill-advised development, first because it’s a sloppily executed distraction from the film’s established themes, and second because it creates doubt about its intent by briefly showcasing this mass murderer in an endearing light. But these things never made me fond of Hanna. I never felt sorry for her. And she ends the film remembered by Michael not as a lover but as an instrument of mass murder. This didn’t escape me. So why is Rosenbaum convinced it will escape everyone else?

It’s here that Rosenbaum’s case against The Reader gets messy. He quotes a Barnes & Noble summary of the novel that inspired the film that calls Hanna’s illiteracy “a secret more shameful than murder.” Yes, that’s irresponsible and sickening. But that’s a book distributor’s synopsis of a novel, any faults of which shouldn’t be held against Stephen Daldry’s film. Likewise, Rosenbaum is potentially misleading when he describes Daldry’s justification for why the church fire isn’t portrayed in the movie. Rosenbaum writes: “As I learned from the director … the scene was omitted because it might have ‘unbalanced’ our view of Hanna, given too much weight to the mass murder she committed, as opposed to her lack of reading skills.”

Please note that “unbalanced” is the only word Rosenbaum directly attributes to Daldry. The rest, at least potentially, is his interpretation of what that word means. Yes, it could mean that Daldry was afraid we would feel worse about Hanna’s injustices as an SS officer than about her illiteracy. Or it could mean this: Daldry wanted us to be able to see Hanna through Michael’s eyes. Remember, it’s Michael’s story. If the audience witnesses murders that Michael must force himself to imagine, then we might fail to relate to Michael’s conflict. According to Daldry’s design, our view of Hanna is the same as that of the main character: First we fall for Hanna, and then we learn about her past. Somehow we, like Michael, must figure out how both these Hannas could be halves of the same whole. Not depicting the church catastrophe enhances the mystery of the story and its ethical debate.

But Rosenbaum and Lurie don’t want debate. More than anything, they seem offended that Hanna is allowed to be painted with shades of gray, that she is anything less than a stereotypical red-blooded, Jew-hating Nazi. Essentially, they take issue with the fact that Hanna is humanized. This mystifies me. Isn’t the humanness of Holocaust orchestrators a key element of what makes their inhumanity so haunting? Aren’t we obligated to learn from the Holocaust precisely because these almost unthinkable atrocities were carried about by “regular” people? To this effect, Lurie quotes Winslet quoting Daldry saying, “These were young men and women who didn’t know what they were getting into.” It sounds overly understanding, I know. But both Winslet’s comment and Daldry’s are conveniently out of context. Couldn’t Daldry have meant that many World War II era Germans failed to imagine the full magnitude of Hitler’s ethnic cleansing, even if they were aware of it? (Never mind, by the way, that Winslet’s interpretation of the film and the film itself are two different things that should be tried separately.)

In my mind, if the Holocaust wasn’t started by “normal people,” we have less to worry about. Then we can just be on the lookout for psychopaths. The reality is that Nazis weren’t born with some unique genetic makeup. They were conditioned into a belief system that made evil seem permissible. This doesn’t make their actions acceptable in hindsight. It makes them terrifying. And while Rosenbaum and Lurie are busy ravaging The Reader for failing to provide us with yet another one-dimensional Nazi Jew-killer, they miss that perhaps The Reader is a metaphor for recent history instead.

Sure, there are few, if any, atrocities in the history of the world that are on par with the Holocaust, so maybe The Reader is too careless with its references. Nonetheless, perhaps Rosenbaum and Lurie need to see Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure. What they’ll find within that documentary are “normal” people who enlisted in the military and wound up doing abnormal, horrific, shameful things – things that were done in our name, whether we were aware or not, whether we endorsed their methods or not. (Does that make each of us culpable?) Certainly Lurie is correct that Hanna is “not guilty of the crime for which she is sentenced.” But she’s still guilty. The Reader makes repeated efforts to get that point across. And in the meantime many Americans who ordered, performed or condoned torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have avoided being charged with anything. But the guilt still applies. At least Hanna does time.

Lurie argues that The Reader is to blame because its audience, “many of them young people uneducated about the Holocaust, will take as fact what they see on screen.” If this is true – if this R-rated film is the only window to the Holocaust that we give “young people,” and if these “young people” are taught that this film is “fact” – then we’re the ones at fault. If people are so uninformed that The Reader could have such a profound effect on the definition of the Holocaust, we should be ashamed not of the film but of ourselves. In the end, blaming The Reader is a little too convenient. Almost like telling the story of a mass murderer who is made quasi-endearing through her sexuality and quasi-helpless due to her illiteracy, I’d say.

What say you?

Programming Note: Red Carpet Live Blog


Readers of The Cooler won’t have to wait until ABC kicks off its Academy Awards coverage for the live-blogging festivities to begin. I’m pleased to announce that my good friend Allison Ross, who fittingly lives in the 310 area code, will be guest-starring here to offer her rants and raves while watching the red carpet chaos that begins on E! at 6 pm ET/3 pm PT.

Allison is a regular commenter here at The Cooler, so a few of you might have discovered her by now. Her blog isn’t in my “Mostly Movies” blogroll only because Tales From LaLa Land is in no way a film-centric blog, though with a name like that it could be. Instead Allison blogs about her chaotic life, which tends to mean posts about drinking too much, spending too much (her soon-to-be-husband has her on a budget), watching too much TV, or getting too much ass in the face from her cat, which is appropriately named Dirty Sanchez.

Yep, that’s Allison for you. And that gives you an idea of what to expect Sunday. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. If I had to guess, Allison’s coverage will be uncensored, unrestrained and totally hilarious. I’ll be reading. You should, too.

My coverage will begin just before showtime.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Discovering Naomi Watts


She was a wide-eyed woman from Ontario, descending upon Hollywood with visions of stardom dancing in her head. In pursuit of her dream, she had flown into LAX, and she was staying at the home of an aunt who had connections to the film industry. In general, however, she was your stereotypical blonde wannabe just off the bus from the middle of nowhere – beautiful, star-struck and almost assuredly destined to be a waitress. Thus it was fitting that this wide-eyed woman was being portrayed by an actress who was beautiful, who seemed star-struck and who was almost certainly without talent. Actually, it was too fitting. It was painfully fitting.

The actress from Ontario was Betty. The actress playing Betty was Naomi Watts. And as I watched David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. upon its release in 2001, I pondered which actress (the fictional Betty or the actual Naomi) would be the first to star in an adult film. Flatly delivering lines while looking pretty seemed to be the extent of Watts’ talent, and thus Betty’s. True, I knew from experience that Lynch’s most Lynchian films had a habit of producing mechanical, deliberate performances. But this Watts actress I was seeing for the first time seemed determined to take it to a new level. She was tone deaf, and, even worse, she didn’t appear to realize it. This wasn’t just annoying. It was sad.

And yet fittingly, too fittingly, hilariously fittingly, this was all an act. Watts wasn’t clueless. I was. More than an hour into the picture, long after I’d given up on Watts, this happened ...


Betty's audition in Mulholland Dr. is the moment in which Lynch pulls Watts’ talent out of an empty hat. It’s magic – there’s no other word for it. With one scene, Lynch and Watts redefine everything that has happened before it – a switcheroo that would make M. Night Shyamalan envious. As she stands before some movie producers, across from an actor who is as unprepared for what happens as I was, Betty proves that her Hollywood dreams aren’t so unrealistic after all. The woman can act, and thus Watts can too.

Over the latter half of the picture, Watts portrays Betty with some of the same aw-shucks tendencies she established from the outset. But in the final 30 minutes of the film, as Betty is redefined yet again (and more completely), so is Watts.

If you haven’t seen Mulholland Dr., stop reading here. This post is an addendum to my discussion of that film with Ed Howard for The House Next Door. Suffice to say that Mulholland Dr. marks the moment in which Watts didn’t just introduce herself to me; she put me on alert.

Her performance is a marvel. Below I celebrate some of the deep, dark emotions she reveals over the film’s final act. Even as still images, the emotions are palpable. And yet, in final reflection, perhaps Watts’ best work in the picture occurs in the first act, when a very talented actress cons us into thinking that she has no talent at all.










Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The Conversations: Mulholland Dr.


Readers: The second edition of The Conversations is live at The House Next Door. This time around, Ed Howard and I discuss Mulholland Dr. At least, that’s the center of the conversation. We also discuss David Lynch in general, debate the benefits and drawbacks of surreal/abstract film and touch on Lost Highway, Vertigo and Kiss Me Deadly along the way.

Check it out. As usual, Ed and I hope that our conversation will lead to a larger one among our readers. So if you are so inspired, please leave your comments at The House Next Door.

Previous Edition of The Conversations:

David Fincher (January 2009)

Monday, February 16, 2009

Programming Note: Oscars Live Blog on Sunday


Confirming a comment I left last week, let it be known that once again I will be live-blogging the Academy Awards. The Cooler will hardly offer the only running commentary in the blogosphere Sunday night. Thus, even those of you planning to watch the event with a computer on your lap might have other engagements. Heck, many of you might be planning to live-blog the event yourself. But if you have time, please stop by.

In addition to my ruminations on the event, reader rants will be filling the comments section. At least, I hope they will. We’ll all have Monday to go into depth with our reactions, so consider Sunday a chance for some instant gratification, whether you want to celebrate, to complain or to marvel at the size of Nicole Kidman’s forehead. Whatever.

Coverage on ABC begins at 8 pm ET, but I’ll probably dive in somewhere during the red carpet hullaballoo. I never miss a chance to watch inane interviews that feel tired after just one question.

Hope to see you Sunday!

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Misty Watercolor Memories: Waltz With Bashir


As a soldier in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Boaz Rein-Buskila made 26 kills, and he can remember each one of them. In the opening of Waltz With Bashir, a genre-spanning film by documentarian Ari Folman, Boaz sits down with his friend and fellow war veteran and describes a nightmare that has haunted him for years – a vision in which his victims come to his apartment building at night with saliva dripping from their teeth and a desire to kill flashing in their eyes. That Boaz’s victims want revenge is obvious, but they don’t say so. Because they can’t say so. Because they are dogs. On orders, Boaz picked them off with a sniper rifle so that their barking wouldn’t alert the enemy to approaching night raids by the Israeli army. That was more than 20 years ago. Now, Boaz’s brain is the thing that’s howling.

If this is the traumatic aftermath of killing animals in wartime, what must it feel like to live with the memory of taking human life? Or what must it feel like to know that you stood by as innocents were murdered around you? These are the questions answered by Waltz With Bashir, which effectively depicts warfare as an exercise in which both sides come away defeated. The losers lose their lives. The victors lose their peace of mind. Both fates are genuinely tragic, though not equally so. Focusing specifically on the Sabra and Shatila massacres, in which Israeli forces effectively enabled (via inaction) the slaughter of thousands of Palestinian refugees by Christian Phalangists, Waltz demonstrates how the unconscionable has a way with catching up with our consciences. Most soldiers head off to war thinking that danger will be found in what they will do. Waltz demonstrates that what a soldier simply sees can be damaging enough.

The film is animated. It’s also a documentary of sorts. Waltz’s dialogue comes from Folman’s recorded conversations with the real men involved (except in two cases in which actors provide voice-over based on the transcripts). If this seems like an unusual approach, it is only slightly. Essentially, Waltz is a docudrama, like Road To Guantanamo, with animated reenactments instead of the familiar live-action versions. In actuality, Waltz isn’t that far removed from neoclassical documentaries – like Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure – that dabble in staged reenactments. In terms of storytelling and reportage, dramatization is dramatization. The most significant difference here isn’t in the approach but in the results – our reactions. There’s no confusion here, no blurring of the lines. Waltz isn’t out to document “what really happened.” Instead it portrays how these events are remembered by the men who were there and have since tried to forget. It’s a different kind of fact-finding exercise, but a legitimate one just the same.

The animation approach frequently liberates Waltz in its efforts to realize emotional truth. One of its stunning reoccurring images shows three soldiers who have been skinny-dipping in the sea emerging from the water to take in the spectacle of mortar-fired flares illuminating the black sky over Beirut. In the soldiers’ thin frames and smooth features we can detect their emotional vulnerability, their childlike naiveté and their alien-ness amidst a cold, rigid war zone. In another scene the omnipresence of fear and chaos in war is evoked by the sight of a tank rumbling through the night as its soldiers fire endlessly into the darkness at an enemy that only might be there – an exaggerated depiction that marries the psychedelic imagination of Hunter S Thompson with the artistic wit and political commentary of Gary Trudeau. Such scenes eliminate any doubt that utilizing animation to tell this story is anything less than an inspired course of action. Thus, a puzzlement of Waltz’s approach is that it’s so conservative with its inspiration.

Despite its capability for alluring visuals, Waltz is something of a tease. The flashbacks to the war are often dazzling, but the depictions of the here-and-now are unsurprisingly simplistic: two characters sitting in a room chatting, sharing memories, their limbs rising and falling deliberately, as if pulled by strings. The illustrations themselves, which combine the palette and gloss of the rotoscoped A Skanner Darkly with the simplicity of Persepolis, aren’t the problem. It’s a slick look. But when Folman is interviewing his former war buddies, there isn’t much to see. Though the animation elucidates the emotion of the war zone, it comes up short in instances when we must grasp the feelings of these older men by reading the expressions of their inky eyes. Talking-head interviews have no business in a film like this, but Waltz has plenty of them. It’s a victim of its own success. After showing us what’s possible, Waltz maddens in the too many instances in which it settles for less.

Still, the film’s most interesting decision is its final one. (Spoilers ahead.) After approximately 88 minutes of nonstop animation, Folman surprises us by cutting to two-or-so minutes of actual newsreel footage that takes us to the closing credits, images of Palestinian women and children screaming as they walk through the refugee camps and confront the carnage. The effect of this footage is as profound as it is clear. Folman is underlining that though some details might be misremembered and thus misimagined here, the atrocities that inspired this cinematic memoir are factual and shouldn’t be denied. I suspect this message targets first and foremost any Israelis who have attempted to shirk responsibility for inaction in Beirut while still wondering aloud how non-Nazi Germans could turn a blind eye to the Holocaust during World War II. That said, it’s a message with universal applicability.

Morally, the use of this archival footage as a final stab toward social consciousness is commendable. Artistically, it’s a mixed bag. Does it work? Absolutely. But it leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. That these final few minutes are amongst the most gut-wrenching in the entire picture suggests that perhaps Folman does us a disservice by failing to utilize such footage sooner and more often. The animated sequences of Waltz certainly convey the elusiveness and deceptiveness of memory, thereby teaching us a valuable and sobering lesson about the interminableness of the horrors of war. Trouble is, perhaps it does so at the cost of failing to depict the horrors of this war as effectively as a traditional documentary might have. It’s worth pondering: If the exception of the art is more powerful than its rule, what does that say about the rule?

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Experiment Continues


The Cooler is a year old today. For the author of this blog, the anniversary inspires conflicting reactions: “Already?” and “Only a year?” I’ve been writing about movies for a limited but faithful audience for some 12 years now. Over the past four years I’ve written reviews of most of the new releases I’ve seen in the theater. In that respect, publishing my writing on a blog hasn’t been all that significant a life change, and yet the past year of movie writing has been more rewarding than the previous five put together. Easily.

When I launched the blog, I called it an “experiment.” My fear was that I’d lose myself to it. Given my media background, I have a heightened sense of timeliness and deadlines (more heightened, alas, than my attention to grammar), and so in my mind there was a very real risk that starting a blog would mean sentencing myself to a second job, rather than enhancing an adored recreation. I had nightmares about pressuring myself to write reviews the day after a movie opened, and I knew from experience that the Internet is a forum with an insatiable appetite. What if my love affair with film criticism burned out trying to feed the monster?

That hasn’t happened. Cooler buddies Mark and Hokahey, who offered the strongest encouragement (er, nagging) to launch a blog in the first place, suggested that blogging could be what I wanted it to be – as much of a job or recreation as I desired. I wasn’t sure I believed them, but I decided it was time to try. One year later, it’s clear they were right.

The Cooler isn’t the best single-author movie site in the blogosphere. I’m sure of that. But I couldn’t tell you which blog deserves that honor, and that’s the secret to my satisfaction. The wonderful truth is that the blogosphere offers something for everyone. There are movie blogs that post a few times a month, some that post dutifully every day and some that post multiple times a day. Some are thoughtful, some are silly. Some are serious, some are sarcastic. There’s no right way to do it. If it were up to me, I’d post entertaining and thoughtful commentary almost daily, as Ed Howard does at Only The Cinema. But I don’t have the time. In fact, I don’t even have the time to keep up with reading Ed’s daily posts, much as I’d like to. So I comfort myself with the knowledge that while “real life” might cause me to go a week without posting, there must be readers like me for whom that pace is perfect. If the whole point of bringing my writing to the blogosphere is to share it with others, I post at a pace that is conducive to following along. I envy Ed’s output, I do, but I don’t feel compelled to compete with it. I can’t compete. I know that, and I’m totally okay with that. For me, that means I’m doing this thing right. (I didn't start blogging to be competitive.)

Speaking of Ed, I wasn’t familiar with him a year ago or even nine months ago. Now we’re not only fans of one another’s work, we’re collaborators. Last month, our first installment of The Conversations, coauthored give-and-takes on film, debuted at The House Next Door. (The second installment is in the works right now.) Likewise, before I ever traded thoughts with Ed, I debated documentaries with Fox, another blogger whose work I discovered within the year and who graces The Cooler with regular comments. At my blog or his, Fox and I tend to agree on only one thing: that we enjoy disagreeing with one another. Cyberspace is full of vitriol, but Fox and I have had countless passionate debates while fostering mutual respect, rather than forgetting it.

I could go on, but it’s safer to stop here – knowingly leaving out the names of many Cooler regulars and favorites, rather than risking the accidental snubbing of one or two. A year ago I wrote, “I believe this blog will be measured by what my readers bring to it.” I still think that. To all those who have left thoughtful comments and used my writing as the starting point to a larger conversation, thank you! Sincerely. As far as I’m concerned, that’s what it’s all about. It’s somewhat fitting, actually, that this post should follow my review of Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, because in the past year I’ve found that bloggers are a tight-knit, mostly supportive group with a camaraderie that reminds of the locker room scenes in The Wrestler. (That we do all this almost foolishly – for love and not money – only strengthens the comparison. Not to mention that I suspect that many of us do it half-naked, but that’s another story.)

Speaking of blogger camaraderie, an overdue point of blog business:

A few weeks ago Getafilm's Daniel Gatahun honored me with a Dardos Award that, due to a hectic real-world schedule, I have yet to acknowledge. Now, as I see it, there are three ways to respond to such recognition, two of them incorrect: 1) Get cocky and feel overly self-important, failing to realize that the Dardos exercise is more or less a chain e-mail of warm fuzzies; 2) Get cocky and act as if too cool to recognize a genuine compliment because it comes in a chain-esque form; 3) See the Dardos Awards for what they are at best: an opportunity to encourage and thank your peers. I choose No. 3.

On that note, I humbly accept my Dardos Award (more information at the end of this post), and I eagerly look forward to the second part of this exercise, which is bestowing the award on five other bloggers. I’m going to attempt to present the award to five bloggers who I don’t think have received Dardos Awards to this point, or who at least haven’t accepted them on their blogs, as far as I know. So, Dardos go to the following:

Craig of The Man From Porlock, who writes not enough for how much I enjoy him.

Ed Howard of Only The Cinema, who writes too often for how much I enjoy him (I can't keep up).

Fox of Tractor Facts, who is just so constantly wrong about everything, but who I begrudgingly read anyway (I jest).

FilmDr of The Film Doctor, whose daily reports of a two-week student filmmaking course still has me smiling.

Mystery Man of Mystery Man on Film, whose recognition of all the ways Indiana Jones sucks makes up for the fact that he admires the screenplay of Gran Torino.

Thanks, gents!

In the spirit of recognizing others, I’d also like to welcome a new blogger to the neighborhood. More accurately, I'd like to congratulate this blogger on moving out of The Cooler’s basement in order to have a place of his own. Cooler regular Hokahey, who has contributed countless comments and collaborated on a handful of posts here over the past year, is now blogging at Little Worlds!

In recent weeks, Hokahey has been plagued by some of the same concerns I had before launching The Cooler. But now he’s committed. I hope you’ll go over and check him out and leave him a fruit basket or something.

And with that, “the experiment” continues. The coming year is sure to lead to more collaboration, more passionate exchanges, another blog-a-thon and who knows what else? Whatever it is, you can cue up the Sinatra, because I’ll be doing it my way.

A heartfelt thank you to all the readers and commenters who have made an otherwise forgettable movie year so enriching.

-- Jason Bellamy


The Dardos Awards

The Dardos Award is given for recognition of cultural, ethical, literary, and personal values transmitted in the form of creative and original writing. These stamps were created with the intention of promoting fraternization between bloggers, a way of showing affection and gratitude for work that adds value to the Web.

Recipients are supposed to do the following:

1) Accept the award by posting it on your blog along with the name of the person who has granted the award and a link to his/her blog.

2) Pass the award to another five blogs that are worthy of this acknowledgment, remembering to contact each of them to let them know they have been selected for this award.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The Passion of … : The Wrestler


Singers don’t stop being singers because the crowd goes away. A musician’s talent is just as significant alone beside a campfire as in public before screaming fans. Competitive athletes can challenge one another, or themselves, as authentically on empty fields, courts and fairways as in sold-out stadiums, gymnasiums and golf courses. But what about professional wrestlers – hybrids of artistry and athleticism? For them, it’s different. Theirs is a craft that relies upon the response of an audience. When the crowd goes away, the skills of a professional wrestler become irrelevant. Magicians can relate. So can comedians. So can strippers.

Darren Aronfsky’s The Wrestler finds two of these audience-dependent performers losing their significance. Mickey Rourke is Randy “The Ram,” a somebody of professional wrestling two decades ago who is now just slightly more than a nobody. Marisa Tomei is Cassidy, a stripper with a rock-hard body that most 20-year-olds would envy and a face that reveals her double-that age. In image-based businesses, Randy and Cassidy no longer fit the prototypes. They are like Mouseketeers who have outgrown their ears. Once the ideal, they have become novelty acts perilously close to losing their novelty. That’s what they have in common. What separates them is the degree to which they self-identify by their professional personas. Randy, whose real name is Robin, has played his stage character so long that he struggles to find the private man inside. Cassidy, whose real name is Pam, steadfastly separates her professional role from her private life, struggling only when the lines begin to blur. And so it goes.

The Wrestler examines the inevitable loneliness that plagues those who must please others in order to please themselves. The self-centeredness that has estranged Randy from his daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood) belies the darker truth that Randy lives for the approval of others. Stephanie gets the shaft simply because she is one small voice competing against the full-throated cheers of Randy’s adoring fans – dwindling though they may be. Randy will do anything to entertain them: Bleach his hair. Bronze his body. Ingest steroids. Risk “bitch tits.” Cut himself with a razor blade. Put his life on the line. If you know anything about professional wrestling, you know that Randy’s bloody match against Necro Butcher isn’t the norm. Getting bashed with a folding chair is one thing. Wrestlers allow staples to be driven into their skin or windows to be shattered over their head only when they are desperate. In Randy’s prime, he wouldn’t have stooped so low. Back then, he didn’t need to. The cheers came easily.

This much we know without ever seeing it. One of the strengths of The Wrestler is the way it conveys Randy’s previous stardom with little overt exposition and without the use of flashbacks. The montage of glowing glory-days headlines that runs during the opening credits lays the foundation, but more effective are the numerous “locker room” scenes in which Randy interacts with other wrestlers. Most of these much-younger men now have more talent than Randy, but they don’t have his fame, and, as they’d say in Bull Durham, they’ve never been to The Show. Randy is a fallen star, but in that context the word star still applies. Randy’s peers of long-shots and no-shots positively adore him. He is for them a mythic figure. Their childlike awe in his presence is painfully sweet. Baseball fans might note how the wrestlers’ reactions to The Ram resemble the memorable scene at the 2002 All-Star Game when Ted Williams was wheeled onto the field and players broke ranks to get up close to the legend.

Likewise, The Wrestler is adept at conveying the depths to which Randy’s career has fallen. There’s the event in which his backstage dressing room is a children’s classroom. There’s the event where his head nearly touches the fluorescent lights of the drab, low-ceilinged venue as he balances on the top rope before his signature “Ram Jam.” There’s the humbling autograph session where the lack of fans walking up to the yesteryear idols isn’t as heart rending as the realization that so many of these battered and bruised wrestlers would be physically incapable of walking up to their fans. Amongst the general public, Randy is as much a relic as the original Nintendo that he leaves hooked up in his trailer so that in pixel form he can keep taking on The Ayatollah as if still in his heyday.

Rourke’s performance of Randy is an instant classic. Amongst films released in 2008, there isn’t a better marriage of actor and character – and that includes Jean-Claude Van Damme’s riveting performance as himself in JCVD. Think about that for a second. Rourke, the former Next Big Thing who left acting to become a not-so-good boxer and then left the public eye entirely, has a lot in common with The Ram. Both men are fighters and entertainers who fell out of the limelight. But Randy needs an audience while Rourke seems uncomfortable with one. Rourke’s pretty boy features long gone and his muscles returned (thanks to steroids, I’d suspect), he is every bit the gladiator, still fighting though he’s over the hill. If Rourke doesn’t do all his stunts in this film, he does most of them – at 56 years old. (Now think about that for a second.) But this role is about more than more than brawn. In Rourke’s eyes we see serenity in the ring and fear out of it. There aren’t many actors who could convince us that a barbed-wire wrestling ring is a sanctuary while a supermarket deli counter is hellhole, but Rourke does it effortlessly and naturalistically.

In an Aronofsky film that last trait is a rare commodity. The director of such films as Requiem For A Dream and The Fountain, Aronofsky has a visual gift but the subtlety of a rhinoceros. As usual for an Aronofsky picture, some emotions come about too quickly in The Wrestler, as if determined to remain cliché, particularly in the relationship between Randy and Stephanie. But Rourke and Wood are gifted enough to make it a non-issue. Meanwhile, Tomei takes an underwritten role and gives it oomph. Rather than underplay the Cassidy persona in order to foreshadow the unveiling of Pam the single mom, Tomei fearlessly honors Cassidy’s professionalism. As a result, Randy isn’t the only mark who looks at Cassidy’s naked figure and tattooed skin and buys into the illusion. We do too.

(Mild spoilers ahead) Whether Pam’s film-capping effort to save Randy is genuine, false or just another moment when Aronofsky impatiently throws character development into a microwave, I’m not sure. What I know is that the conclusion of The Wrestler is otherwise perfect. As Randy wheezes and grunts through his throwback exhibition with The Ayatollah – in what will either be his last match or the first of several ill-advised life-threatening potential last matches – our emotions are mixed. Do we cheer the bravery of a man who refuses to quit living the life he loves? Or do we cry for his cowardice, for his inability to let Randy retire so that Robin might live? Aronofsky leaves it open, but I lean toward the latter. Perhaps even more effectively than in Requiem, Aronofsky shows the cost of addiction. Randy’s drug of choice is public adulation. He’ll seek the cheers until it kills him. The Wrestler might be the first sports movie where winning means losing.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

They Can’t Handle the Truth: Revolutionary Road


Hyped as the film that brings back together again Titanic stars Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road is in danger of being remembered for a different reunion of Best Picture Oscar ingredients. It has hardly gone unnoticed, nor should it, that this adaptation of Richard Yates’ 1961 novel takes a tale of suburban depression and disenfranchisement and puts it into the hands of director Sam Mendes, whose American Beauty eviscerates the unspoken agony of Pleasantville-living. So let’s get this out of the way from the start: Revolutionary Road is no more about the suburbs than Casablanca is about a city in Morocco. Oh, sure, the setting counts. The quaint street where April and Frank Wheeler discover their malaise is as much a character in this film as is the pit of corruption, hope and shattered dreams that is Rick’s Café in Casablanca. But to conclude that Mendes’ latest film is a condemnation of suburbia is to miss the point.

Revolutionary Road is a conviction of the Wheelers. Their crime? Denial. Yes, Mendes’ film, from a screenplay by Justin Haythe, makes good on opportunities to mock suburban living, but this is mere decoration, like the tiny plants Kathy Bates’ matriarchic Helen gives to Winslet’s April to fill in the “messy patch” at the end of the driveway. Suburbia doesn’t make the Wheelers miserable. Instead suburbia is the mirror by which they recognize their long-denied unhappiness. Characters turning 30, April and Frank are for the first time realizing that they have emotional wrinkles. As much as anything, Revolutionary Road is about that transitional period of life when your identity stops being about what you are “going to be” and starts being about what you “are.” When April, having pulled trashcans to the curb, stands at the end of the family driveway and looks up and down the street, she sees not just the numbing suburban homogeny of the 1950s but also a lack of opportunity. Revolutionary Road is a path to more of the same. The only way April’s life can evolve is if she forces the process.

Which is precisely what she does. A good 30 minutes of the film are dedicated to April’s proposed family escape to Paris. She’ll work; DiCaprio’s Frank will find himself; and together they’ll be happy, less because Paris is a utopian paradise (though uncultured April thinks it is) than because they’re doing something new and yet familiarly exhilarating: chasing a youthful dream. Revolutionary Road is ultimately about how all this empty dreaming produces agony – the Wheelers are a bickering couple when we meet them, and before we leave them they devolve into hatred-spewing monsters – but the pain of their crash landing is directly attributable to the grace with which the Wheelers’ hopeful Paris vision is allowed to soar.

Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins and the team of Winslet and DiCaprio produce some of the film’s best moments here: Frank’s cat-who-ate-the-canary surveillance of the hustle and bustle of Grand Central Station; April’s radiant strut down the sidewalk after booking passage to Europe; the evening with Shep (David Harbour) and Milly (Kathryn Hahn) in which the dismay of friends only emboldens the Wheelers’ confidence. One can know that the Wheelers are headed toward an emotional apocalypse, but during this cloudless portion of the film the storms ahead are impossible to foresee. This juxtaposition is crucial, and it’s the reason that Revolutionary Road separates itself from your run-of-the-mill grim art-house fare. Momentarily, these characters feel as if they actually have something to lose. Their potential to be special is just that, potential, but it’s enough to make us think that maybe, just maybe, the neighbors aren’t wrong to put the Wheelers on a pedestal.

Instead, all this potential comes tumbling down, and what’s never made clear is whether the Wheelers were deluding themselves all along or were indeed this close to liberation. This isn’t a complaint. Even the Wheelers don’t know the truth. To use the word that instantly recalls The Shawshank Redemption, the Wheelers have become institutionalized. Frank is like Brooks the librarian, so resigned to his prison cell that he panics when he gets an opportunity to leave it. April is like Andy Dufresne, refusing to give up hope. In this case, however, the desperate attempt at freedom ends with further imprisonment. By the end of the film, April’s verve has been completely obliterated.

For this, it would be easy to blame Frank, who is cowardly, dishonest and too slick for his own good. But April is equally naïve, and long before Frank told her that he wanted to go back to Paris, he admitted that he had no clue what he wanted to do with his life. It shows. DiCaprio’s performance is a marvel. He manages to let Winslet’s April maintain the spotlight without ever holding back. If Winslet, delivering perhaps the best performance of her impressive career, is the lever that lifts Revolutionary Road to greatness, DiCaprio is the fulcrum – essential and all too easy to overlook. Not that Deakins could make such a mistake. His slow-zooming camera adores the face of DiCaprio’s Frank: ashamed in front of his children; euphoric in Grand Central Station; and fearful across the lunch table from his potential new boss. In these moments, DiCaprio is nearly motionless. Later, however, as Frank becomes entirely unhinged with emasculated rage, DiCaprio pairs pathetic weakness and frightening ruthlessness with an in-your-face bluntness that few other actors could match.

Still, this is Winslet’s film from the moment we first lay eyes on April, ashamed on stage in a community performance she will forever remember for shattering her aspirations of becoming an actress. As the stereotypical closeted housewife of the 50s, April makes for an easy sympathetic figure, but that’s not all that she is. If this isn’t the best performance by an actress in a leading role this year, it’s at least the most impressive realization of a truly multidimensional female character. To Winslet’s credit, April’s optimism is as visceral as her desperation, her blind devotion to Frank is as convincing as her eventual vengeful betrayal of her husband and her guilt over not finding complete fulfillment through motherhood is as heartbreaking as her lonely domestic imprisonment. On top of all this, Winslet takes everything DiCaprio can throw at her without ever falling out of the frame. Simply put, she’s extraordinary. DiCaprio, too.

These actors have come a long way in just over a decade. The previous time Winslet and DiCaprio shared the screen, they had to compete for our attention with James Cameron’s multi-million-dollar prop. Not anymore. This time around, it’s the Wheelers who are upending and sliding into an icy abyss, and the scene compositions of Mendes and Deakins appropriately reflect the character study. In the final act, Mendes allows the drama to get a little too stagy – in part due to a Michael Shannon supporting turn that wows upon arrival before overstaying its welcome – but with Winslet and DiCaprio in the spotlight it’s hard to blame him for standing back and admiring the view. More than a decade after they became overnight mega-stars, Revolutionary Road reveals Winslet and DiCaprio to be two of the greatest talents in the business. And it’s interesting to wonder: had Titanic turned out to be the pinnacle of their careers, might Kate and Leo today be filled with the doubt that ravages April and Frank? Maybe. As Revolutionary Road makes clear, worse than not being special is believing incorrectly that you are.