Review: "Magic in the Moonlight"

Director: Woody Allen
Runtime: 100 minutes

A movie may show a character acting in an unpleasant manner without being unpleasant itself. It's a lesson you'd think Woody Allen would know by now, given that he's made nearly 50 features. Everyone has been twisting themselves into knots wondering if they can separate Mr. Allen's personal life from his art. This is an important conversation, but it's one that's been taking place for months now. It shouldn't be brushed aside; it's far too sensitive a matter to simply be ignored. Yet rather than continue wringing hands over the separation of art and artist, it's now time to look at how badly Mr. Allen has blurred the lines between character and tone in his latest offering, Magic in the Moonlight.

The character in question is Stanley (Colin Firth), an acclaimed stage magician (albeit one who performs in yellow face as Wei Ling Soo) who enjoys debunking mystics and mediums claiming to be the real deal. From the moment Stanley removes his disguise backstage, he is demanding and off-putting. He has just as little patience for psychics as he does for missed music cues, and he wastes no time in berating those who fall short of his standards. 

At the behest of his old friend Howard (Simon McBurney), however, Stanley decides to take some time off to debunk a new arrival on the psychic scene. Her name is Sophie (Emma Stone), and she's currently in the progress of trying to sneak her way into the vast fortunes of a rich family in the south of France. What follows is an expected series of developments, mostly built around Stanley's questioning of his faith in science and logic. 

Yet even at his lowest point, Stanley remains a thoroughly obnoxious figure, and the film around him starts to sour quite early as a result. Stanley seems to have been modeled - intentionally or not - on the personality of Richard Dawkins, which is so militant in its insistence on science that it manifests as condescending rudeness towards anyone not 100% on the same wavelength. Yes, he's right, but does he have to be such an ass about it?

Firth and the rest of the cast are, at the very least, not sleepwalking through their roles. No one's going to win awards for this one, but everyone seems like they're trying to put some actual magic into what is ultimately a blah story. Despite the almost 30 year age gap, Firth and Stone have a few nice moments together (which is helped by them being at odds almost the entire way through) and a few exchanges here and there are amusing. Eileen Atkins ultimately walks away with the movie as Stanley's aunt, even as she's mostly used as a wry sounding board for her nephew's ranting. 

Where Magic in the Moonlight finally sinks itself is when it refuses to give Stanley any legitimate comeuppance. There's a point in the third act where the movie seems ready to end with Stanley where he deserves to be, but then another 15 minutes roll along and the "charming" ending we're supposed to smile act comes (literally) knocking. Stanley's arrogant bluster is often too caustic to find humorous, and he changes so little that he (and the film) don't come close to earning what happens at the conclusion. 

Though I understand why some are now uncomfortable watching Allen's movies in light of the past few months, even the absence of such scandal would do little to help here. With Magic in the Moonlight, one can separate the art from the artist or bind them together warts and all. Neither position will change the curmudgeonly quality that pervades this lazily directed romp that lacks even an ounce of magic.

Grade: C-

Review: "Blue Jasmine"

Director: Woody Allen
Runtime: 98 minutes

Remove a few small items from the frame like cell phones, and Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine could take place almost anywhere in the past 50 years. There are no mentions of social networking or tablet computers, and the music (as always) is made up of jazz standards. In essence, Allen's latest could easily be a product of his output from the mid-70s and early 80s. Nowadays, Allen's films that receive a positive critical consensus often feel like minor pleasures, and a far cry from the good old days of his prime. By contrast, Blue Jasmine, despite its share of small flaws, feels like the first Allen film in years that feels like it belongs in the company of Annie Hall and Manhattan. 

A pseudo-retelling of Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire," Blue Jasmine still feels very comfortably like its own story. Whereas Williams' play (and its film version) only included the briefest mentions of the past, Allen spends much of his trim film jumping between past and present. This juxtaposition, in which we witness the rise and fall of Jasmine French (Cate Blanchett), lends the film an angle that makes it more relevant for a 21st century audience. When she arrives in San Francisco to stay with her working class sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins), Jasmine has more than her fair share of baggage. Allen, wisely, uses his flashbacks to gradually unpack it over the course of the narrative. 

The jumping between past and present could have undercut the film's development, but Allen's script is smart enough to use the two time periods to build on each other. Mostly known (and sometimes criticized) for his focus on the upper classes, his look at Blanchett and Hawkins' characters proves surprisingly well-rounded. In the end, both the fallen-from-grace Jasmine and the rough-around-the-edges Ginger have their share of problems, yet their differences ultimately make them incompatible of really helping each other. Ginger, playing the Stella to Jasmine's Blanche, gives Jasmine a place to stay after she loses everything, but that's about all she can really offer. By the time Jasmine leaves behind her cheating husband Hal (Alec Baldwin, effectively used) and flees to the West Coast in ruins, the damage has already been done. 

Very much like Ms. DuBois, Jasmine has a bit of a problem when it comes to nervous breakdowns, certainly not helped by her newfound addiction to booze and pills. In a nice referential touch, the titular character is named for Blanche's favorite scent, which lends an appropriately effervescent connection between "Streetcar" and Allen's bitter comedy of manners and malaises. The most obvious similarity here, basic premise aside, comes down to the leading lady, and Allen's transition could not prove more spot on for the 21st century. Whereas Blanche was a product of the plantation world, Jasmine comes from good genetic stock and managed to land herself a rich husband to whisk her off up to the 1%. 

As such, when Jasmine finally descends upon San Francisco, she brings with her a haughtiness that clashes with the earthier working class. Though Ginger does her best to put up with Jasmine's self-centered neurotics, her newest boyfriend (Bobby Cannavale, always an enjoyable presence) can't muster up the same amount of sympathy. Jasmine is far past counting on the kindness of strangers, and that's putting it mildly. In these clashes between the haves and have-nots, Allen's script achieves a more expansive vision, even as it functions as a freeform character study. Yet because his principal characters are sharply drawn, the relatively uneventful narrative still possesses a sense of free-flowing movement. 

At the film's core, of course, is Blanchett's Jasmine. The regal Australian actress seizes the role by the throat and never lets go. Having spent time performing on stage, and largely avoiding lead roles, it's electrifying to see her back in the spotlight, more alive than ever. It's a very big character, filled with nervous tics and mood swings galore, but Blanchett finds enough room in moments both big and small to avoid overacting. 

Sally Hawkins proves a nice counterpart as the film's second largest role, her earthy and casual turn an appropriate counterweight to Blanchett's alcohol-soaked theatrics. Despite the flashiness of Blanchett's powerful turn, Hawkins is never overshadowed to the point where her scenes are a distraction. As Allen charts the paths of both sisters, he remains remarkably balanced in exploring both women, who are two wildly different sides of the same coin. A host of supporting roles, filled out by Baldwin, Cannavale, Louis CK, and Andrew Dice Clay are also handled effectively as they prop up the rest of the story. 

Like Tennessee Williams' work, the performances and writing of Blue Jasmine take a few minutes to adjust to. The film may not have the full-blown melodrama that characterized Williams' work, but there are aspects of Blue Jasmine that feel more than a little heightened. As for Allen, where his script provides engaging material for the cast, his directing can be a little clunky. As effortless as the transitions from past to present seem in retrospect, there are times when transitions come off as rushed. Allen, who has been working steadily for years now, occasionally lets his need to churn out an annual film get the best of him. In the first 20 minutes or so, the performers already appear ready for take off, while Allen's direction feels in need of further refinement. However, once Blue Jasmine gets its hooks in, it becomes an immensely satisfying comedy, with just the right touches of darkness and Allen-esque neuroses. 

The prolific director is already gearing up to shoot a film for next summer, and he shows no signs of slowing down. Yet even though the director has already moved on to his next project, it's worth taking the time to really savor Blue Jasmine beyond Blanchett's stellar performance. This film, awkward opening moments aside, feels like a glimpse at the director in top form. More than just "this year's Woody Allen movie," Blue Jasmine is a funny, smartly-observed character study that is at once perfectly contemporary, yet still timeless in its themes and subject matter. 

Grade: B+

Trailer: "To Rome with Love"

Though not set for release until June 22, Sony has finally rolled out a first look at Woody Allen's follow-up to Midnight in Paris, which became the director's biggest financial success and earned him another writing Oscar. Allen's track record seems to go one hit, then one or two misses, which doesn't bode well for To Rome with Love, though that's hardly concrete evidence to go on. I'd love for Allen's love letter to Italy, which features three separate narratives, to be his second successive success for any number of reasons. First, it's the first time in a while that Allen has appeared on screen in addition to writing and directing. Second, the cast is wonderful, and the three narratives should keep things lively. Allen has quite the cast assembled (as per usual), and the material here looks both engaging and funny (Judy Davis' jab at Allen's IQ and his line about the family of his daughter's boyfriend are gold). I don't like that so much of the Baldwin-Eisenberg-Page-Gerwig segment is spoiled while the other two segments reveal less, but hopefully there are still some surprises left over. Surprise worked well for Midnight in Paris, which teased none of its time travel in the trailer, so here's hoping there's something else to the triptych of stories than the obvious.


Trailer Grade: B

2011 DGA Nominations: And the race gets weirder...

As many critics awards as their are across the nation, at the end of the day it's really the guild awards that act as better indicators of who's winning AMPAS' favor, especially in a year as uncertain as 2011. We certainly saw that last year when The Social Network won just about everything under the sun, until The King's Speech trounced it at the guild awards and on Oscar night. The SAG, PGA, and WGA have all announced their nominees, leaving only the Director's Guild. And with their nominees, they've thrown a wrench into some Oscar campaigns, while giving others a boost.

The Nominees:

Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris

David Fincher - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Michel Hazanvicius - The Artist

Alexander Payne - The Descendants

Martin Scorcese - Hugo

Who got a boost: The biggest winner after today has to be Fincher and Dragon Tattoo as a whole. Ever since the first screenings, the film was being labeled as one that would make little to no contribution to the awards race. In the past few weeks the film has scored with the PGA and WGA, and the DGA nod is just icing on the cake. For the film to miss out on a Best Picture nomination and/or Best Director nomination is becoming increasingly unlikely. Star Rooney Mara may have missed with the SAG, but could still end up as a surprise Best Actress nominee, as one of many nominations the film looks likely to score now. So even though Dragon Tattoo isn't necessarily a threat to win the top prize, at the very least it can consider itself a strong contender, which is quite to comeback considering all of the doubters.

Then there's Woody Allen and Alexander Payne. Payne's film has generally stood a better shot, but there was always the chance that he would get pushed out by contenders with "bigger" films. After today, though, he's become even more of a sure thing, though the actual win is doubtful. The same goes for Allen, who could score his first Best Director nomination since Bullets Over Broadway (1994). If either of these two men takes the DGA prize, however, it will only serve to further upset the Best Director race.

Who took a hit: Unlike Woody Allen, whose film also launched in early summer, Terrence Malick was allowed any love from the DGA, or any major guild for that matter. Considering the divisive nature of Malick's film, however, it's not entirely surprising. Drive's Nicholas Winding-Refn and War Horse's Steven Spielberg, however, should probably not get their hopes up for the remainder of awards season. I'm sure Refn had a fan base within the DGA for Drive, but at the end of the day the voters favored established names (well, aside from Spielberg). Of course, there's always room for surprises come Nomination morning, but knowing the DGA's close alignment with the Academy, I suspect the chances for the above-mentioned trio are at long last dead. Such a shame...at least for the first two. War Horse has, to be honest, felt like nothing but an afterthought and an obligation rather than a legitimate contender.

Review: "Midnight in Paris"

When one has made as many films as Woody Allen has (40), it's easy to feel that the work is becoming repetitive. As one of the most prolific auteurs ever, Allen has had his shares of triumphs and failures. And yet he's always pressed ahead, never taking too long between films. Starting in the mid-2000s, Allen hit something of a turnaround, leaving his beloved New York to write love letters to the great metropolises of Europe. It hasn't been without setbacks (You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger), but Europe seems to suit Allen well, as evidenced by works like Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and now, Midnight in Paris.

First, a moment of honesty. When I first saw the trailer, I actually feared for the worst. All I got was that a man takes walks around Paris at midnight and "finds himself," and that everything else seemed rather, well, stupid. When Allen is on fire, he's fantastic, but when he's not, he can be horribly tedious, and I feared for the worst with this film. But the secret to Midnight in Paris that makes it work turns about to be those midnight sequences, which the trailer couldn't have done more to misrepresent.

After a picturesque opening montage of the city of light (one that could have used some trimming), we're introduced to American writer Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiancé Inez (Rachel McAdams). Gil is, to put it lightly, in love with Paris. Inez? Not so much. He's a romantic who loves the idea of Paris in the 1920s, she's convinced that he's suffering from what the pedantic Paul (Michael Sheen) calls "Golden Age syndrome." One night, trying to get a break from Paul's pseudo-intellectualism and Inez's condescending right-wing parents, Gil gets lost wandering around the city, and finds himself (literally) transported to the Paris of his dreams.

And it's here, in those midnight sequences that the trailer(s) refused to spoil, that the magic kicks in. Gil begins fraternizing with everyone from the Fitzgeralds (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill) to Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody), and even receives writing advice from Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates). These encounters, whether one-hit wonders or repeated, are charming, surprising, and at times hilarious. While there he also encounters the (fictional) Adriana (Marion Cotillard), part-time lover of Picasso and Hemingway. What initially starts as a charming relationship soon evolves into a microcosm of the film's central idea: that people always long for an idealized version of the past. For Gil, a man of the 2000s, it's the 1920s, but for Adriana, it's the Paris of the Belle Epoch. So even though Midnight in Paris is a love letter to Paris, it has the smarts to not go overboard in its idealizing of the past, reminding us that we can still enjoy the works of the past in the present.

However, like the Paris of Gil's fantasies, Allen's latest does have its share of problems, even if they often get buried under film's infectious charm. As fun and surprising as the historical cameos are, there are times when Allen's film falls prey to name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping, with plenty of luminary figures not even getting more than a few seconds of screen time. Meanwhile, in the present, Michael Sheen's Paul, though used to great effect, vanishes after a certain point, often-mentioned but suddenly never heard from again. Allen also throws in a rather pointless scene involving missing jewelry, one that comes dangerously close to evoking his writing at its worst: drawn-out, tedious, and not even remotely amusing. And as a work of story-telling, Midnight actually feels like a half step down from Vicky Cristina Barcelona, despite lacking that film's irritating omniscient narrator.

Thankfully, Allen has assembled an ensemble that makes even the film's weakest moments go down smoothly. The bigger cameos, like Hiddleston and Pill, or Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, are true delights. Brody's Dali, however, is perhaps the best, in a one-scene role wherein he proposes to Gil that he paint him like rhino with a melting mouth. As the film's lone fictional blast from the past, Marion Cotillard brings a lovely presence to Adriana, even if the role feels almost too basic. Her chemistry with Wilson really works, and it's almost a shame that Allen wraps up their arc so quickly, instead of really exploring their gradually diverging views on the past. Back in the present, Rachel McAdams is saddled with a rather one-note role, which she handles adequately. More entertaining are her parents (Kurt Fuller and In the Loop's Mimi Kennedy), wealthy Tea Party-supporters who begin to grow suspicious of Gil's recurring midnight strolls. The show, however, belongs to Wilson. A California-ized version of the Woody Allen persona, Wilson's odd charm meshes perfectly with Gil's (and thereby Allen's) sensibilities, showing us that New York isn't the only city home to sensitive neurotic writers.

Midnight in Paris may not rank among Allen's finest, and it may have its share of flaws, but there's certainly a lot to love. The cast is game, the script is light and funny, and at a clean 90 minutes, it's the sort of small fantasy that you wish would go on for another 20 or 30 minutes. Allen's conclusion, that we can still enjoy the past in our own present, isn't executed with much depth or emotional resonance, yet it still works as a frothy love letter to one of the world's great cities thanks to its wit and irresistible charm. For a director now 40 films in, Midnight in Paris is proof that age has yet to rob Allen of his capacity to create thoroughly delightful cinema, regardless of whether or not you find it somewhat minor.

Grade: B

Cannes Review Round-Up: "Midnight in Paris"

Over France, the Cannes Film Festival is finally underway. And with the opening night selection screening complete, reviews are starting to pour in for Midnight in Paris, the latest from the uber-prolific Woody Allen. A few weeks ago I read one or two lines of buzz that hinted that the director's latest Paris-set effort was actually one of his best in the past decade. And if early remarks are any indication, those two sentences of hype were right:

Living in Cinema - Craig Kennedy: (4.5/5 stars) "Consistently amusing yet never straining for a big laugh, it feels effortless yet never lazy." Kennedy also praises the whole cast, especially Wilson, Sheen, and Cotillard.

Thompson on Hollywood - Anne Thompson: (N/A) "Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen's best movie since Deconstructing Harry in 1997." "[The film] has long term Oscar potential."

Hollywood Elsewhere - Jeffrey Wells: (N/A) "The advance buzz was correct: Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a goodie." "It is time well spent, and a time-trip worth taking."

Entertainment Weekly - Dave Karger: (N/A) "...I'd say the consensus will be that Midnight is easily his best film since Vicky Cristina." "The movie really belongs to Owen Wilson, who gives a droll and charming performance."

Rope of Silicon - Brad Brevet: (B+) "...inventive, imaginative, and charming." "...Sheen absolutely crushes the part." "As Adriana, Cotillard again brings a performance you can't help but be entranced by." "Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy of the sort you wish Hollywood would aspire to."

Screen Daily - Mark Adams: (N/A) "...an amusing and elegantly constructed love letter to Paris, rich on romance, humour, and culture, and driven by a nicely pitched performance by Owen Wilson."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy: (N/A) "As beguiling as a stroll around Paris on a warm spring evening."

Guy Lodge (on Twitter): (B-/C+) "Sprightly and choux-sweet first half, gradually bogged down in skit-sized conceit and Woody's binary view of women."

Foundas on Film - Scott Foundas: (N/A) "...Allen has, I think, delivered one of his masterpieces - a movie about the romantic pull of yesteryear."

The Telegraph - Sukhdev Sandhu: (2/4 stars) "Some of its conceits are funny...[but] it devolves into a sweaty, over-crowded cocktail party."

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw: (3/5 stars) "...a shallow examination of nostalgia with endearing performances by Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard."

Cannes Verdict: A thoroughly charming and engaging romantic comedy led by strong work from Owen Wilson and a lively supporting cast.

What I watched this week: Missing entries

Even though I've been posting a lot of reviews lately, I've realized that I've been neglecting my "What I watched this week" series for quite some time now. As a make-up, here's a condensed set of reviews for my undocumented viewings from January, before I wrap up January with the "Best of the Month" post later today.

Cabaret (1972) dir. Bob Fosse

Notable for winning eight Oscars without taking home Best Picture (it lost to The Godfather), Bob Fosse's screen version of the acclaimed Broadway musical is a complex and entertaining look at the lives of outsiders during the rise of Nazism. In addition to Bob Fosse's fantastic direction and choreography, the film benefits from strong performances from Liza Minelli as the boisterous Sally Bowles and Joel Grey as the eerie, seedy MC (both performances and Fosse won Oscars). Other cast members don't fare so well (leading man Michael York is on the bland side), and the subplot involving Marissa Berenson's romance feels slight. Still, the film deserves praise for the way it tackles so many complicated subjects - namely sexuality - with depth and sophistication.

Grade: B+/A-

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) dir. Woody Allen

One of Woody Allen's best-loved films, and deservingly so. While some of the prolific auteur's recent work often delves into tedium, Hannah works on all fronts, as both a comedy and drama. The entire ensemble is strong, especially Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest (both of whom won Oscars). And while some story strands feel a bit hurried in their resolution (Caine's affair with Barbara Hershey's character), this zippy film tackles potentially heavy subject matter with enough intelligence and lightness that it becomes engaging, lively, and wholly entertaining to watch. One of the best scenes involves the titular Hannah (and her sisters) discussing any number of problems over lunch, as the camera circles around them repeatedly. It's a work of masterful directing, shot composition, writing, and acting, that exemplifies Allen at his finest.

Grade: B+

The Vanishing (1988) dir. George Sluizer

What starts as a simple enough case of a missing person gradually becomes deeper and stranger as it progresses along. George Sluizer's slow-burning thriller features surprisingly strong characterization, especially when it comes to the kidnapper (Bernard Donnadieu). By gradually piecing together how/when/why Donnadieu's Raymond Lemorne kidnaps Saskia (Johanna ter Steege), the film becomes a surprising mix of mystery and character study. And even though it drags a bit in finally getting to the point of it all, it has an unsettling, wickedly poetic ending that more than makes up for it.

Grade: B+

The Sting (1973) dir. George Roy Hill

"Heist Film" and "Best Picture Winner" aren't the sort of terms that normally go together, but that's exactly what happened with George Roy Hill's 1973 crime film. Though it marks one of the major collaborations between Robert Redford and Paul Newman, the film's strongest performance actually comes from Robert Shaw as the duo's nemesis. An intimidating presence from his first scene, Shaw pretty much makes the movie, which is a little bit too long for its own good. Still, it's lively and fun, and has enough suspense and twists to make it worth the ride.

Grade: B

I am Love (2010) dir. Luca Guadagnino [3rd Viewing]

Heeeeere we go again. Well, they say the third time's the charm, and that's sort of what happened to me with this film. It's actually much more subtle than I gave it credit for in how it portrays Emma's (Tilda Swinton) feeling of being trapped, and some of the hidden nastiness of the Recchi's comes out. The photography and music also gelled together much better, and for much of the film I found the viewing experience quite thrilling. Unfortunately, the screenplay still has a handful of issues that hold it back. Even though Emma feels trapped, the film still doesn't quite justify her desire to run away. She doesn't hate the family she married into, and even if her husband can sometimes be a little stern, he's done nothing (in what we see or in what is implied) to make him a "bad guy." Worse, the chef Emma has an affair with isn't even remotely charismatic or alluring, which hurts the idea that Emma falls for him over his cooking (one last time: she's filthy rich and lives in Italy; great food is NOT in short supply). But nothing about the film is a bigger offender than the ludicrous ending. Now that so much of the film has improved for me, this part is even worse than before, because it ends on a hollow and unsatisfying note rather than a triumphant one. Even with the incredible choice of music, the close-ups become laughable. Worse, the fact that Emma runs away from her family (and civilized society as a whole, one could infer) right after her eldest son has died and the whole family is genuinely in mourning comes off as being in rather bad taste. As I mentioned in my review of Enter the Void, I am Love is a film that wants to be a thrilling pure cinema experience, but unfortunately falls short because it doesn't give the same attention to characters and writing as it does to its stunning aesthetics, thrilling as they can be.

**I've just realized that I can never talk or write about this movie without going on a rant. Sorry...

[Final] Grade: B-

Insomnia (2002) dir. Christopher Nolan

After watching Inception for what feels like the 10th time, I decided to go back to one of Christopher Nolan's earlier films, and found a pleasant surprise. Insomnia actually makes me wish that Nolan would (after The Dark Night Rises) take a break from the BIG stuff, and do something smaller like this or Memento. It's also, to me, proof that Nolan is a better director than he is a writer. Written by Hillary Seitz (and adapted from a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name), the screenplay is much less reliant on expository dialogue (some of which is beyond unnecessary in Inception), and has an overall better flow than the writing in some of Nolan's bigger productions. And, like most Nolan films, the standout isn't the performances, but rather the construction and execution of the story, which Nolan does a fantastic job of. And while the ending may hit something of a cliched note, this steadily paced thriller actually ranks as one of Nolan's best films.

Grade: B/B+

Richard III (1995) dir. Richard Loncraine

Though not quite as out-there in its imagery as Julie Taymor's Titus (1999), this 1930s set telling of the Bard's play benefits from engaging visuals, clever staging, and a magnificent performance from Ian McKellan. There's plenty of menace in McKellan's Richard, but he doesn't over do it, and even adds tiny little quirks of almost child-like glee to his character's scheming. Unfortunately, Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. don't fare as well, and their American(ish?) accents clash with Shakespeare's word play. Maggie Smith, on the other hand, completely sells her role in the limited time she's given, and a series of curses she bestows upon Richard to his face is so intense you can almost feel her voice dripping with poison. And when the film reaches its climax, it ends on a wickedly funny note, and uses its time period and location to brilliant effect, even if it results in some slightly stiff green-screen work. Not quite as visionary as Titus, but certainly striking and memorable for a number of good reasons.

Grade: B/B+

What I watched this week: Nov 1-7

Overall, one of the best movie-viewing weeks I've had in quite some time...

Last Year at Marienbad (1961) dir. Alain Resnais:
Considered one of the last great black and white films, Resnais' tale of past love (which might not be real...) is a bizarre, mesmerizing work. The set-up could have been simple: a man tries to convince a woman that one year ago they had an affair at a luxurious hotel. And yet, from the first frame, Resnais' film is anything but. As a block of voice-over narration is repeated ad nauseum, the camera glides through hallway after hallway of a mysterious hotel. This goes on for what feels like 10 or 15 minutes, before we see the first characters, none of whom are of major importance (on a strictly narrative level). And yet once the Man (Giorgio Albertazzi) starts speaking to the Woman (Delphine Seyrig), it only becomes more strange, more confusing, and more fascinating. Above all things, it's a masterwork of cinematography and editing.
The gorgeous gliding camera work, mixed in with appropriate wide shots and a crane shot or two (one stunner involves the camera rising up from behind a pair of statues). As far as editing, the film seems to have level upon level. In one instant you'll see the Woman in her room in a white dress, and the next instant she'll be in a black one; this may happen with a shot in between, or may simply happen consecutively. As far as trying to keep the different strands figured out (how both see it, how they imagine it, etc...) it's best to simply let the images unfold if this is your first viewing. Along with the eerie music (most of which comes from a rather dingy sounding church organ), Marienbad is a haunting, mind-bending tale featuring gorgeous production design and a script and story that will probably continue to reveal details after each viewing.

Grade: A-

Au Revoirs Les Enfants (1987) dir. Louis Malle:

Only my second Louis Malle film, this tale of boyhood relationships picked up Venice's Golden Lion, and for good reason. In the midst of World War II, Julien slowly develops a friendship with new classmate Jean Bonnet. The pair attend an all-boys Catholic boarding school, generally away from, but never complete separated, the horrors taking place in Europe. The majority of the film could have easily been mundane, but Malle's beautiful screenplay keeps things moving just enough without rushing. The relationship between the boys feels real; they don't immediately become best friends after some single incident. They get closer, and then one gets angry at the other for one reason or another, and so on. But what really carries the film, is its point of view: war and its effects through the eyes of a child. There is not an ounce of bloodshed in the story, nor any death, and there's a purpose for that. When the film reaches its final 20 minutes, it becomes agonizing and horrifying to watch. It easily ranks up there with the best sequences in cinema history, despite its total lack of flash or grandeur. It is a heartbreaker of stunning power, without ever being manipulative. To put an end to my rant, suffice it to say that this is film making of the highest order, and whether it was based entirely on Malle's childhood or not, is a beautifully human story of friendship.

Grade: A

Manhattan (1979) dir. Woody Allen:

With directors as prolific as Woody Allen, sometimes it's easy to forget the strongest works of their careers. Thankfully I made myself watch Manhattan, and I couldn't have been more pleased. This is classic Allen, all the way down to the character the famed auteur plays and the references to Bergman and Fellini, the quick bursts of laugh-out-loud hilarity, but it's also Allen at his finest. He isn't trying too hard, and it's too early in his career for him to rehash past work. I particularly love the opening sequence, in which Allen's Isaac tries to write the opening of his book describing New York City, as Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" plays majestically over the gorgeous black and white photography. The film's other strong point is the way in which Allen almost seems to be poking fun (quietly) at the film itself. It opens with grand images of skyscrapers, yet then jumps into the intimate relationships of a small group of people. In the film's best scene, Isaac and Mary (Diane Keaton) discuss their relationships in the planetarium, as objects of far greaert importance loom in the background, emphasizing how small and trivial their issues are in the grand scheme of the universe. It's just one example of a master working at the top of his game, and it's actually reinvigorated my interest in Allen's filmography, even with the beating that You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is taking.

Grade: A-

And in repeat viewings...

I am Love (2010) dir. Luca Guadagnino:

I wasn't really fond of this when I first saw it over the summer (my review), but I remember being so shaken by this film that I've been dying to give it another look. Sadly, after seeing again, little has changed, although my general bitterness towards the film has lessened somewhat. What this film is to me is an interesting idea with simply one too many things wrong with it mucking up the works. I'd love to say that Swinton is great, but I can't. She has a few good scenes, it's true, but even though I made it my goal to really pay attention specifically to her, I just got lost in Guadagnino's relentless style, and not in a good way.The stand out for me is still Flavio Parenti as Swinton's eldest son, and he's the closest the film has to a truly interesting, worth-caring-about character (I'd say the same for the daughter, but the role is too limited despite the conflict she has). Upon looking at the film, so many of the lines, from very early on, carry strong meaning. The problem is that the dialogue carries too much meaning. Not in a blunt, beat-you-over-the-head way, but in a manner that's almost too low-key for its own good. For such stylish (and eventually over-the-top) execution, everything else is too low on the radar, making the "importance" of things like Emma's feeling of stillness/oppression feel academic to the point that they don't really register. And yes, those last five minutes are still a hilarious train wreck, and a total waste of John Adams' glorious music. Still, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I did find it a liiiiiittle bit better on the second go round, missteps and all.

Grade: C/C+

Trailer for "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger"

While I'm not as excited as I was while this was being cast/filmed, there's always the chance that this will be more in the vein of Vicky Cristina Barcelona and less in the vein of Whatever Works. I like the cast a lot, and depending on the execution, it could be a breezy, enjoyable romp. However, some of the word from Cannes was that the film was quite somber, though to what degree was never specified.