Steven Soderbergh

2012

Dude. I was so right about this.

Gina Carano is not an actor. Er, I guess she just starred in an action movie, so technically she is. But, as far as what we call “acting” goes, she’s not very good at it. There. I’ve got that out of the way, so we don’t need to talk about it anymore. It’s obvious.

But just get past it, because once you do that, this is a pretty dandy action picture. They don’t give Carano a lot to say anyway.

But she really knows how to use her physicality. And Soderbergh really knows how to use space. And these two things work together to make for some excellent fight and chase sequences, which are really the reasons to see this movie anyway.

The fights hurt to watch. They aren’t like typical action movie battles where people do things that they couldn’t actually possibly do, and don’t get hurt when they do them. These people get hurt. It’s not comfortable to watch. But it’s just refreshing to see action staged in a way that helps us know what is actually going on– we know where the characters are and how they’re interacting, instead of just being bombarded by quick cuts (I feel like I’m repeating myself… read my earlier post and you’ll see I am).

And speaking of the use of space– I’m going to say something here that will make me seem like I’m reading waaaay to much into this, but I still wonder: Was Soderbergh watching some Jacques Tati movies when he was making Haywire? I started thinking about this while seeing Carano carry an umbrella around with her for no real reason for a good part of the movie. Yeah, she was in Dublin, where it probably rains a lot, but… she never really used the umbrella for anything. Eventually, she uses it to jam a door, although that doesn’t give her any real advantage over the people chasing her. The entire time she has it, we expect her to use it to trip somebody, or yank someone’s neck, or something that Jackie Chan would do. But she never does. Was Soderbergh just playing with us? Or was he giving a little nod to Jacques Tati’s Monsieur Hulot? I only ask because of how much Tati also loved to play with space, and how important that was for his movies. Admittedly, Soderbergh’s use of space here, while good, is nowhere close to what Tati ever did, but, still, it’s obvious he’s enjoying himself with it.

Yeah, it’s a stretch, but who knows?

(Basically the same thing.)

At any rate, you know I love Soderbergh like I love few other directors. His movies just crackle. And I’m really glad to have been totally right about Haywire.

I don’t expect everyone to like it. I think some people will have too much trouble getting past the acting. But like I said before, if you can move beyond that in pursuit of a larger goal (some really fantastic– and authentic– action sequences), I feel like it’s a pretty big payoff.

Alexander Payne

2011

Original post here.

Amazingly, this is the first movie in over a year that I’ve seen a second time. I’ve wondered what I’d do once I saw a movie again– would I write a second post? I think I’ve decided that I will if I’ve got something to say that I didn’t say before, however unimportant. If I don’t, I won’t. Few of you will know the difference anyway.

So, just a couple of short things:

– My eyes started to well up pretty much as soon as the opening credits started. I knew what was coming, and I was starting to feel it already. That must say something.

– I can’t believe I didn’t say anything about George Clooney’s running before. The way he runs is somehow just right. I remember finding out that Toshiro Mifune altered his walking and running in Seven Samurai so that he would come across as more lower-class than he would if he just ran like he normally did. This is not quite at that level, but I doubt Clooney actually runs like that, and it works for this character.

– Is it an accident that Clooney and Robert Forster kind of look alike in this movie, even though Forster plays Clooney’s wife’s father, not his own father? Maybe, yeah. But I still noticed it, both times.

Kelly Reichardt

2010

Oh, my, people. What a movie.

I’ve seen this described as Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, The Wrath of God meets the Oregon Trail, and that’s not inaccurate. Watching it, I could almost hear a potential Herzog voiceover… “the settlers are no match for the unrelenting oppression of nature…”

The desolation here is crushing. And still, there are some truly exciting moments (more because of how they tell the story visually than because of what is actually happening): The loooong, sloooow dissolve early on that makes it look like the wagon train is appearing in the sky (this is also the shot that is used for the DVD menu, and when I saw it, I said to Amy, “Omigod! Look! That’s amazing!” It was also amazing during the actual movie). The women walking with their faces covered by their bonnets (are those called bonnets?), looking wraith-like as they float across the land. There are others. More than once, Amy and I looked at each other and said, “wow, that’s creepy.” You want a movie full of dread? This is one.

If you’ve ever had romantic notions about crossing the country as a settler, this should ruin those pretty quickly. It’s some kind of hell. Where’s the hope? (actually, it turns out it is in there, though you wouldn’t know it just by watching the movie.*) Yeah, there might be wagons, but fuck you, you’re walking. You can’t ride in the wagons because you’re too heavy. In fact, you pretty much have to throw all your stuff away because that clock and that rocking chair are too heavy for the oxen (or horses… honestly, I can’t remember) to pull without dying. And if you break an axle on that wagon? Yep, you’re making a new one. Out of a tree. Seriously.

Reading about this movie before I saw it, I kept seeing about how there’s not much of a plot and it’s quite slow. It is slow, and I guess there isn’t a conventional plotline, exactly, but I don’t remember feeling like it was dragging or anything. It does move along. But it also weighs on you.

It is an extraordinary movie. Had I watched this a few weeks earlier, it would have ended up very, very near the top of that Best of 2011 list I made. It really gets under your skin, and it stays there.

*PLEASE DON’T READ THIS UNTIL YOU’VE SEEN THE MOVIE. IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO KNOW THIS AFTER: Jim Emerson, who edits Roger Ebert’s website, says that, at the end, The Indian is walking directly toward the Columbia River– “Being somewhat familiar with the border between Oregon and Washington, I swear it’s there, just out of sight, between the brown and grayish rises in the final shot.” Fascinating. If it’s true, I love that they don’t tell you at all. And if it’s not true, I love that people can bring their own things to movies to make them a little bit their own.

Tomas Alfredson

2011

It’s complicated, yeah, but it’s not that complicated.

I admit that I didn’t know exactly the complete specifics of everything that was happening at every moment, but don’t worry that you won’t be able to follow the general story and the working parts.

Who doesn’t love intrigue? This is fun. And really, really dark. If you feel any uplift by the end, it’s because you’re appreciating some really solid filmmaking, not because the story is giving you anything to be hopeful about. Bleak.

But there are a number of genuinely fantastic pieces of filmmaking here. The opening(?) shot that pulls back through the window where we see the schoolchildren looking out over Budapest. That scene in the car with the bee (I giggled out loud during that scene just because of how excited I was about how good it is– we learn so much about these characters in that simple scene). The cafe in Budapest, of course.

I’m very, very happy to see Gary Oldman nominated (finally) for this, though I don’t assume he’ll win. He does melt right into Smiley. Mark Strong is also excellent, and it’s nice to see him not playing an overt villain (not that he’s a dandy guy here, but he’s not the embodiment of evil he usually is).

Just solid, solid work. There are exciting and interesting tidbits in nearly every scene, probably both for people who like a complex (but, again, not really that confusing) story and for people who want to geek out at mise-en-scene and all that.

Haven’t read the book, never saw the 1979 miniseries, so I’m not comparing this to other versions. Feel free to tell me how this stacks up against those.

Of those that I saw this year, here are my top ten. And another one. I should point out, I only selected these from the movies I saw for the first time this year– otherwise, Casablanca would take the top spot every year, and that would get kind of boring for everyone except me. Also, these are not necessarily movies that came out this year, but movies that I saw for the first time this year. As you’ll see.

And for what it’s worth, I’ve seen four movies so far in 2012, and at least one of them (maybe more) would have ended up very high on this list.  So there’s something to look forward to.

I won’t talk a lot about any of these, but you can click through and see what I had to say in my original post for each. I can see a lot of these trading places on the list if I did this on another day, but here’s where they are right now:

10) Midnight in Paris

Just purely delightful. Woody Allen can be great, and it’s easy to forget that when he puts out as many movies as he does.

9) The Illusionist

Kind of heartbreaking. I wonder what this would have looked like if Tati had actually made it?

8) Hugo

Another movie for people who love movies (much like the first two on this list, in a lot of ways). I was a fool to have any doubts about Scorsese.

7) Marwencol

What a strange and unexpected movie. Seek this out and watch it.

6) The Interrupters

OK, so, I haven’t actually posted on this yet. It’s because I originally saw it while screening movies for the festival, so I wasn’t allowed to talk about it. And then I wanted to wait until it looked like a wider audience could see it. Well, PBS Frontline will be showing it on February 14th, so I guess I can write a post about it now. Will do. Make sure you watch it. Helluva movie.

5) The Descendants

Yep, made me cry a little bit. Such humanity here.

4) Black Swan

Pretty sure I had this as my top movie of 2010. Such intensity. What a visceral experience. I’ve rarely seen anything like the performance of the ballet that closes the movie.

3) 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Like I said, this is the movie that beat No Country for Old Men at Cannes, and I can kinda see why (even if I would’ve chosen No Country).

2) Red Riding Trilogy

Yes, it’s three movies, but today it will be one. They all have to be seen for it to work anyway. I still think about these movies often.

1) The Spirit of the Beehive

I meant it when I said that this really is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

Also: The Tree of Life

This exists somewhere outside of lists for me, so I’ll just put it here.

Two things that must be said before the rest of it:

1) It has to be clear by now that I’ll fight on Steven Soderbergh’s side under pretty much any circumstances. I have a heavy, heavy bias in his favor. That said, I think he’s earned it. Still, it should be noted.

2) I’ve seen exactly as much of this movie as you can see in that clip above. I don’t have any special knowledge here.

I get the feeling some people are pretty skeptical about the quality of Haywire. I’ve seen any number of tweets and other comments wondering why in the world Soderbergh made this movie, how he “must be sleeping with” Gina Carano (we’re still saying things like that?), how the movie will be junk, etc. I think this really ignores the way Soderbergh has behaved in the past.

It has to be clear by now that Soderbergh is willing to sacrifice polished acting in pursuit of other ideals. Bubble used no professional actors, and was probably better because of it (the questions asked by the detective, an actual detective, scared the hell out of me and pretty much convinced me never to commit a major crime—NOT THAT I NEEDED CONVINCING—because of the way he got to the truth). He cast a real-life porn star (Sasha Grey) in The Girlfriend Experience, which gave him someone who could approach the subject with a matter-of-factness he wouldn’t get from a Hollywood actor. This isn’t anything new for him.

So: you watch the above clip, and the first thing you’ll notice is that, it’s true, the acting is not… good. Carano is obviously conscious of herself, and that comes through. Then Channing Tatum shows up, and it actually brings the level of acting down. Ugh, that guy.

BUT: look at the fight sequence. Look how different it is from the cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-ridiculously edited scenes that are so common in action movies today. Usually, you can’t even tell what’s going on, it’s just a bunch of visual noise and you just have to assume someone good is fighting someone bad, even though you have absolutely no sense of space (Quantum of Solace is a depressing example, but you can see it in the vast majority of action movies today). Here? This fight feels real. Those hits look and sound like they’re happening. Probably they’re not. But we know where the people are, we can tell how they are interacting in the space they’re in, and it seems like a real fight.

Soderbergh might have been able to accomplish this with “regular” actors (I don’t know if Tatum has any kind of fighting background, but he does have the physical stature to play this scene), but I’m willing to bet that the level of authenticity would have been lower. Instead, he finds a woman who really has experience with physical confrontation and exploits that. He doesn’t need to use those silly quick-cut tricks to cover up the fact that it doesn’t look real, because it does look real, because she knows what she’s doing. This is refreshing, and exciting. That scene is jarring and kind of exhilarating.

The acting? Whatever. Let’s say that acting can be about more than looking smooth and saying your lines well. Here’s something: if you can’t push past the lack of polish someone displays as a “conventional” actor in favor of another ideal, you’re a bad movie watcher. There’s something different happening here. Let it happen.

Update:For some reason, I used the phrase, “it has to be clear by now” twice in this post. I have no idea what that’s about. Apparently, I think you’re a moron if you don’t see these things.

Update x2: I totally knew what I was talking about.

Kansans for Vaccine Rights, an organization only made more vile by the use of cutesy Orwellian doublespeak, is trying to kill your children.  Actually, I feel a lot better now that I’ve gotten that part off of my chest.

The mission:

Kansans for Vaccine Rights (KVR) is a group of volunteers in Kansas working together to promote and protect the right of every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their families without the risk of penalty or discrimination.

And so there’s nothing wrong with that, except that what they’re saying is that they’d like the option of raising a kid with a much higher likelihood of contracting and transmitting diseases that we’ve already figured out how to prevent.  Jackasses.

And just for the record:  I will be discriminating against these opt-outs.  My kid will not play with your kid, I will not visit you for dinner, and you will not visit me.  Gonna ruin your life, I know, this boycott.  But that’s just the way it is.

Fuckin’ Kansas.

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal on Thursday apologized for an email that made fun of first lady Michelle Obama’s hair style and mockingly called her “Mrs. YoMama.”

According to the Lawrence Journal World, O’Neal forwarded from his personal computer the email that said, “I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Mrs. YoMama a wonderful, long Hawaii Christmas vacation — at our expense, of course.”

I know I hold my share of irrational beliefs, but lately I’m inclined to think the most egregious of those is my love of this state.

Bennett Miller

2011

Did I not love this like everyone else did because I know too much about the situation already? Is it because I know that it wasn’t really that big a deal what Beane did, and that you can actually do pretty well when you ride three fantastic pitchers to the playoffs a couple years in a row? And that when you get dropped in the first round AGAIN, everyone pats you on the head and says, “good work, with your numbers and stuff!” because your team doesn’t have any money?

I loved the tag at the end of the movie about how Theo Epstein won a World Series with the Red Sox just a year or two later using the exact same techniques Beane did. (Yeah, the exact same techniques, plus about a billion more dollars. It does make a difference. You can spend a lot of money really poorly, but you can also spend it intelligently, which Epstein did.)

Oh, the movie? It’s actually a lot of fun. C’mon, it’s baseball. And it’s Jonah Hill, who’s quite solid here. I just don’t think it’s this amazing movie that a whole bunch of other people think it is. It’s very good, and it’s worth seeing, but it’s not exactly special.

Here’s a very real possibility: I’m still pissed off that this is not Steven Soderbergh’s Moneyball. I completely admit that this could be why I’m feeling bitter about it.

But I also feel like movie geeks are overreacting a little bit here, and probably because the story sort of boils down to, “hey, the nerds beat the jocks!” That’s a time-honored storyline, and that’s fine. But I think that’s what’s really going on here.

You know whose team sucks now, and has for a good number of years? Billy Beane’s. It’s true. Is that because everyone started playing the same game as him, and the undervalued players were no longer undervalued? Or is it because he caught fire for a couple years (remember, according to this very movie, they went to the playoffs the year before he started this stuff) because his scouts built him a good farm system?

I understand the attraction of the storyline. It’s like playing the Warren Buffett investing strategy with baseball players. It’s nice to think things might work that way. And it’s not even that I think it’s bullshit, I just don’t think I’ve seen the evidence that tells me this approach is what worked.

Yes, I’m having a hard time separating my skepticism from the movie. I am. Also from the Steven Soderbergh thing.

What’s funny is that I liked the movie when I watched it, I think it’s just that all the praise is rubbing me the wrong way.

I really enjoyed the Art Howe stuff, especially knowing how he crashed and burned when he went to the Mets. At least he got paid, I guess.

The movie is good, but it could have been a lot better.

John Michael McDonagh

2011

“Go back to America with yer fookin appropriate Barack Obama!”

I haven’t read any reviews of The Guard, but I’m willing to bet most of them go something like this:

(ahem)

“Brendan Gleeson. Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson. Brendan Gleeson. Don Cheadle. Brendan Gleeson Brendan Gleeson.”

I have a feeling he’ll be overlooked when it comes to be Oscar time (hey, that’s right now!), but that’s a major shame.

There’s a point where Don Cheadle’s character, an FBI agent who is working with Gleeson’s rural Irish police officer, says to Gleeson, “I can’t tell if you’re really fucking smart or really fucking dumb.” And Gleeson just kind of smiles to himself. The answer is “really fucking smart,” of course, but he’s just got things the way he likes them, and sometimes that involves stealing a hit of acid from some kids dying in a car wreck? What’s so wrong with that?

But when the time comes to deal with the corruption in his department? He delivers. Actually, what I should say is, when the time comes that the corruption in his department starts to cause him some hassle, that’s when he gets going. Not gonna be having that.

Gleeson’s character here is so awful and so delicious at the same time, and I feel like it probably takes an actor of Gleeson’s stature to pull something like this off. I found myself wishing I could plop him down in the Yorkshire of the Red Riding movies. He’d sort that right out.

I learn that John Michael McDonagh is the brother of Martin McDonagh, who directed In Bruges, which has another fantastic Gleeson role.