Pride and Prejudice (2005)

The expectation: I thought that we would do a hat trick of romantic flicks today since I rewatched this film yesterday. I will start with this- I am a Jane Austen fan. She may be dry to read at times in our contemporary context, she may describe every single detail in a room entered by a character, and her writing may come off as inundated with feminine perspective, but I think that her tales, once examined, are scathingly hysterical for gender studies. But of course, that takes tremendous focus. I try to remember the context of the times in which she was writing and that makes it all a bit more accessible for me (and the people I know). But, alas, not everyone likes Austen and that I have come to accept. What I cannot understand is the recent insertion of Jane Austen into contemporary pop culture narratives. I think that these new 'revisionist' takes on Austen- tales of how she is interpreted- make her accessible at a cost. She is no longer appreciated for her work, but stygmatized for her romantic themes, her costumed characters, her description of china, etc. So, taking all of this into account, I was not sure what to expect from this film. On the one hand, I love her writing, even if it is a bit stretched, and thus, I love the 1995 British version told in 6 hours. But, it is 6 hours and not a lot of people want to watch that. So, the tension is now between authenticity and accessibility.

The result:
The pace of this film is exactly what it should be. It moves slowly, as Austen's world would have, and it tells all that you need to know while focusing on the environment- rural countrysides, decorated mansions, domestic spaces, and country entertainments. Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Bennet is breathtaking, and Matthew Mcfayden, although he sometimes seems a little bored, plays a fitting Mr. Darcy. The true gem of this film is the filmmaking itself. Director Joe Wright wields a camera as if he were a true artist, framing shots that take advantage of every corner and of natural light and settings. He orchestrates the most beautiful long shots that I have seen- and they fully capture Austen's gendered confinement to domestic spaces. All of the supporting characters are just as they should be- settling into their roles. Overall, the film does justice to Austen, retaining its core while stripping the story down into a format that we can all enjoy in our modern context. For some reason, I feel that it is a more healthy and productive fantasy- to be wooed by a story that we cannot be a part of- from a time period that we cannot have back. Does this give us a healthy outlet for our romantic projections? I like to think so.

What to look out for:
Those beautiful long shots- Joe Wright is a genius- they take a lot of work to set up and film correctly.
Although the costumes are not really what they should be according to the time period's fashions, they are beautiful. Pay attention to the colors.
Austen's subtle wittiness. You have to really focus but her dialogue can be incredibly hilarious.

Flickr photo by Ben Sutherland

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

The expectation: I saw the trailer for this one and I immediately got very excited. I tend to think that love is rewarding because of its fickle nature, because it has the ability to change on you without a lot of notice. Told through the eyes of Tom Hanson, the film chronicles a relationship between two people whose expectations of a romantic relationship differ tremendously and I was hoping for both perspectives- the rationalist and the idealist. And of course, I revel in the tragically creative interactions they have. Heartbreak in a light and comedic fashion.

The result: The narrator begins. He sounds like your grandfather- or the very welcoming voice from Pushing Daisies. This film reminded me a lot of that show; the stylized narrative, packaged nicely for the viewer to comprehend with a narrator who speaks directly to you, gives the film a fairy like quality, as if the story is being told to you while you drift off to sleep. In that way, the film is like one of your friends and it gives itself a familiar credibility. It questions general assumptions we have about how we perceive of love in our culture- how it is never what your deepest dreams and ultimate fantasies make it out to be, but that doesn't mean that it can't also be incredibly rewarding- even if it ends. Tom Hanson and Summer Finn, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel respectively, meet, court, date, woo, fight, mope, pine, grieve.....
Their characters are enlivened by each other, through the good parts and the bad, and the actors come off as sincere and incredibly genuine. The film is not told in chronological sequence, but jumps around to different moments in the relationship to give the viewer an objective sense of specific moments remembered, instead of chronicaling the normal progression of a relationship. We all know how relationships play out, we have experienced the various stages of this progression. But we remember them differently. We remember specific moments and how we feel within those moments- in the same way that the film gives us selective moments and emotions within the larger tale. Because of this, each one of these moments is heightened in our own memory through its contrast with other memories. And we remember these moments differently, even when in the same relationship- and the film provides multiple views of specific moments in the relationship where the context changes. While one view might give the impression of happiness, another will provide clues of apathy and stagnation. Although the supporting characters often seem goofy and immature, overall, this is one of my favorite films of the season. It is smart and funny, creative and colorful, heartbreaking and yet still light, and of course hopeful and serene. And of course, I tend to prefer fall over summer when it is cooler and crisp, not stifling and unbearably hot.

What to look out for:
The two leads- both are exceptional (and so are the rest of their careers). If you haven't seen Gordon-Levitt in Brick (2005) or The Lookout (2007)- you must. He is definitely one of those brilliant actors to look for in the future.
Director Marc Webb's cinematic choices- song and dance scenes, cartoon animals, split screen ingenuity, narrative devices. All incredibly fascinating without making the film over the top or cheesy. I cant wait to see what he does next!
The music- thanks to Ross for my introduction to The Smiths years ago.

Flick photo by Protectorrr

Julie & Julia (2009)

The expectation: Oh, I wanted this to be very very good. I knew it would be funny and cute- but I longed for it also to be smart and informative- creative and challenging. I just finished reading Julia Child's memoir "My Life in France" not one month ago, so I knew way too much about her going into this movie and I tried to lower my expectations. Do I ever succeed in that? Apart from that, no one can question the immense talent of Meryl Streep, the striking presence of Amy Adams, or the comic genius of Stanley Tucci, but I had to temper my excitement when I learned that this film is a product of Nora Ephron- writer and director. Famous for stylish romantic comedies, Ephron is good a what she does, creating romance for the feel-good patron, making us all swoon with the fantasy of happily ever after (how different this is from my last post). While her films are still to be appreciated, I wanted more for Julia Child; I wanted the film to be not just fun and lighthearted, but precocious and revealing- like Julia was herself. We shouldn't just get to walk away from this one wanting to eat French food. We should want to cook it.

The result:
Oh, how I am constantly disappointed. As I could have guessed, Streep, Adams, and Tucci are fantastic in their roles and just watching them is worth going to see this film. But, as Ephron promises, the film is cute and funny, fluffy and easy- with powdered sugar on top- like a cake made from a box. Julie (Adam), bored with her life, challenges herself to cook through Julia Child's cookbook, "Mastering the Art of French Cooking", and write a blog about it. Juxtaposed with her journey is Julia Child herself- taking cooking courses, struggling to succeed, interacting with food and her husband, and generally causing trouble. Within their stories is a theme to finding self-confidence, facing and conquering obstacles, failing tremendously, and then of course succeeding wildly by the end. Ephron would want me to say that it is this self-confidence gained that allows for professional success- but this makes me incredibly suspect. Were these women not professionally successful, their personal journeys would not really be worth anything to the rest of us. The story is warm but not very interesting. There is no other connection between the two women apart from their struggle with cooking. And I think that Julia Child is exploited a little through this product. She never liked the idea of fame- she just wanted to share her love of French cooking and the scientific recipes she so laboriously worked to perfect. This film, by not challenging the viewer, by catering to the viewer's need to feel good, focuses only on Child's celebrity persona and exploits the nature of her nostalgic relationship to us all. As I left the theater, I dragged by head to the conversations around me about where to go for dinner, patrons searching for French cooking, needing something more from the film as it lingered. Ephron created the smell in the air but it is up to us to really find something to satiate the real hunger. I went home and cooked a coq au vin- purple chicken!

What to look out for:
Meryl Streep. What an amazing lady. She makes Julia Child alive again- and the personality I can only know through memoirs, cookbooks, and stories, is captured with such intensity and sharpness by Streep. Thank you.
The trailer. Excellent marketing. You can stop here if you want to. Watch it a few times.
PBS on Julia Child- watch her in action- but I warn you, the minor (careless) errors they make in the film will piss you off after you watch the originals. (How can you not know that Child always ended her shows at the carefully arranged table setting, not in the kitchen?!)
http://www.pbs.org/juliachild/

Flickr photo by Milica Sekulic's

Funny People (2009)

The expectation:
Already done with the comedy smash hits Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin, Judd Apatow makes smart comedies that drown their deeper issues with a smothering of hilarious lightness. He has a skill for adult comedy- where issues about life surface so that you feel as though the insecurities we all have are shared, are common and mundane. I have never been a big fan of comedy for the sake of itself- I think I only liked Dumb and Dumber because of its pop culture status- it gave the film an importance that I would not have attributed to it before its fame. But I guess that means that I don't really like cheap comedy- I like smart comedy and more so, black comedy. Comedy that has something to say while still being funny, comedy that is scathingly brutal. While Adam Sandler is usually in the former, Judd Apatow is more in the latter. So the question is, who do I trust more, the actor or the director?

The result:
Since I couldn't make up my mind about this film beforehand, I think that I liked it more than I should have. Adam Sandler plays a version of himself- George Simmons, a successful film star and comedic genius who used to work the stand up circuit- but he finds out that he is very sick and kind of has a breakdown. The film doesn't get too existential from here though. It doesn't really retain its hilarity either. I hoped that Apatow would fall back on his "Freaks and Geeks" subtle, yet scathing comedic style, but he tries to do both the dark comedy and the light at the same time and it does not work. It becomes rather trite and boring. However, there are some good parts to the film, some brilliant moments, but overall Ira, played by Seth Rogen, and the other Apatow troupe members, come off as trying too hard with characters who don't try hard enough to be funny in the face of death. They pity and sympathize, they grovel and worship, and they obey and desire, but they never really befriend George and so they cannot really become what he needs- friends who should lighten the serious weight of impending doom by utilizing the skills they have learned through their profession. I think that really funny people are those who can make the right jokes at the right time- not just when they have a microphone on stage. Comedies traditionally start tragically and end with lightness (or with a wedding- according to Greek traditions)- but alas, this film starts with that lightness and made me feel tragic by the end. Maybe the film was just way too long....

What to look out for:
All of those great cameos- our generation's funny comedic actors make an appearance as themselves in the world of Hollywood. Great one liners accompany them- and cement their personas to the rest of us. I can't imagine what their lives must be like walking around with that kind of label ("I thought everyone loved you, Ray")
The skinny jokes towards Ira- seamlessly blending fiction and reality is a hard earned skill.
Leslie Mann- I really like her for some reason. Not only is she Apatow's wife, but she always understands her role in his comedies.

Flickr photo by Meshmar2

Whatever Works (2009)

The expectation:
Woody Allen again. I didn't mean to do two in a row but this one is his most recent so I was excited for the contrast. Larry David is known for his similar rants to Woody Allen's-although maybe a bit more rash and angry (and less slapstick)- so I thought that he would make a good character for Allen to write and direct. Rachel Evan Wood plays the young girl, Melodie, who is taken in by an angry physicist 'Boris Yellnikoff' (David) and her role is so remarkably different from anything that I have seen before that I did not even recognize her in the trailer. I was very excited though- you either love Woody Allen films or you hate them- and I like them!

The result:
It is good to see Woody Allen's return to New York-his beloved city- and he knows how to film it. His writing is consistent; he maintains that great critical rant that gets channeled through Larry David. But I think Larry David is a great comic actor when he is allowed to improvise, and you can tell between the moments he improvises and the moments he is speaking Allen's words. Woody Allen definitely writes the best for himself and I think his messages -although similarly pessimistic- get lost in David's crass delivery. The film gets a slow start because David seems as though he is mocking Allen through this delivery. I almost wanted to punch him. I guess Allen should have let him improvise more. But Larry David has his moments and the film blossoms because of the supporting characters: Rachel Evan Wood is a fantastic, southern, unformed girl who gets involved with David, both of her parents give the film interesting moments, and Boris' (David) friends provided an added charm. Allen also incorporates some theater tactics into the movie, like breaking the fourth wall, that give this film a unique touch. Overall, most of the very smart, funny parts are in the preview- so you will really enjoy this film if you don't watch the trailer. And the ending gives the film a triteness that somehow makes it all not worth watching. It all wraps up into one nice, pretty bow, making the issues that have surfaced throughout the film unchallenged, unimportant, and undermined. I just wish Allen was younger and could have played the part himself. Then maybe the film would have included a session with an analyst. Alas!
Not my favorite Woody Allen film.

What to look for:
Patricia Clarkson as Melodie's mother- she can play a great southern woman and a bohemian artist all in the same film. Look closely at her artwork- it is very good.
The music- Woody Allen's take on gypsy jazz. He always has great scores.
Larry David's deadpan slapstick- unlike Allen, he can pull it off.

Trivia: Woody Allen wrote the script for this film in the early '70s, with Zero Mostel in mind for Boris, but the script was shelved after the actor's death in 1977. Allen didn't change much of the script- just brought the political and social commentary up to date.
Check out this interview:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/06/16/woody_allen_larry_david_evan_rachel_wood

Flickr photo by All Glass Photo

Bananas (1971)

The expectation:
I personally think that Woody Allen is a comic genious. He definitely has his own unique style and I think that he writes great films for himself to star in. I had the chance to see this film on the side of a truck, outside at a local brewery- the perfect setting for this casual and funny film. I expected early Woody Allen- neurotic, creative, a little odd, and severely confusing. I also expected at least one session with an analyst!

The result:
Woody Allen, I think, is at his best when he stars- in addition to writing and directing, probably because he writes characters that are always himself. I feel that if I met him on the street I would know his personality immediately- that probably isn't fair, but too bad. Bananas is the perfect title for this film because not only is the plot increasingly crazy but the characters also do ridiculous things, and Allen tries to incorporate a lot of slapslick into the film. Woody Allen is not the best at slapslick- he has his own style that mixes lethargy and self-deprecation into the delivery that I feel he can only pull off. He has managed to create a persona that has pushed him through his career- the pitiable failure who you don't especially like- but that we can all relate to. The film touches on nationalistic exploitation, US interference, clashes between police and protestor, and revolutions turning into dictatorships. There are a lot of these 'important' messages taht I think get hidden within the comedy instead of being highlighted through comedy-as we are prone to see sometimes. As we all know- comedy allows us to process the difficult moments we can have as a culture- but this Woody Allen's story is a bit too ridiculous to take it seriously at any moment. As its title says- Bananas!

What to look out for:
The session with the analyst is there...therapy is good for all of us.

Flickr photo by Megkip