Song One

Anne Hathaway is terrific, wonderful, and any other positive descriptives that you could dole at her.  She holds within her a great dexterity, charisma, and a charm that flows off the screen and infiltrates the hearts of the audience.  So, what the hell happened in Song One?

Hathaway is the protagonist in a movie that focuses on the intimacy of family and friends while being closely connected through the lifeblood of music.  She plays Franny, a young woman working towards her anthropology Ph.D., who has to return home when her idiot brother gets hit by a cab when he crosses the road before looking both ways while wearing headphones.  Digital Projection Darwin says, 'you have been selected!.'  The dullard is a busker who quit college to... well, to busk I guess.  He also has a creepy obsession with an indie musician named James Forester (Johnny Flynn). Dullard has posters of James Forester on his bedroom wall, and all sorts of doodles in his diary.  When I said it was creepy, I meant creepy.

Well, surprise, surprise.  Franny meets her brother's hero and a relationship ensues.  The relational chemestry between Hathaway and Flynn is about as dry as five saltines crammed into your mouth at once, with very little happening through either dialogue or action to create a dynamic of charm or ye old stomach butterflies.  This is one of the most frustrating aspects of Song One, as it would be quite a feat to get such a flat performance from Anne Hathaway.  It reminds me of what Zack Snyder accomplished in Man of Steel, when he took the vibrant Amy Adams and transformed her into a mere placeholder character.

This is the feature film directorial debut of Kate Barker-Froyland, who also penned the script.  The last thing I want to do is to write someone off immediately, so don't think that I am going to curse down brimstone and the like over this.  From the feel and tone of Song One, I get the sense that perhaps this was just not the story that she was meant to tell.

It comes from the aforementioned drab relationship, but also the lack of influence that the music actually has over the audience.  In the very first scene we are greeted with the dullard busking (moments before he fails to look both ways.  Always look both ways, kids!).  When he sings, there is a passion and drive that emanates from both his strumming and vocals.  And then he is in a hospital bed, and we are unfortunate enough to then hear the music of his obsession, the one and only James Forester.

Forester's music is without life.  It sounds generic.  It feels like it could have been written and performed by anyone, giving no sense of how it would turn him into an indie sensation.  There is nothing recognizable about his songs, other than the fact that he uses a loop pedal during the performance.

This is where I feel the script fails the film.  It appears that the loop pedal (used by many performers and buskers in much better ways) is what the audiences flip out over, one of the instances in the film where it appears that Barker-Froyland does not fully understand the moving components music.  Another example of the misunderstanding of music is when Hathaway's mother, played by the wonderful Mary Steenburgen, talks about how when she dated a famous rock star, he taught her one of the hardest songs ever to play on the guitar, Blackbird by the Beatles.  This is like me trying to sound smart about food and mentioning that spreadable (or sprayable) cheese is as good as the real thing.  Blackbird, be it a nice song, is actually extremely easy to play.

It may sound like I am taking the music aspect too seriously and that I am just being a curmudgeon because the songs are not my cup of tea.  I really am not being that.  There is just a major disconnect between what the director believes music to be and what it is to the audience.  If you watch the movie Begin Again, which I highly recommend you do, you will see a terrific example of how music is made to tell the tale and capture the emotions and journey of the main characters.

With the two major components of what we are supposed to connect to and become passionate about, the relationship and the music, existing without life, there is little more to say about this movie.  I could mention the sound editing, which cuts with every camera cut, leaving a jilting feeling to the audio with very little continuity, something that may be helpful in a film where sound is so important.  What was needed was a flow, was a beat to Song One, for it to feel like it was music being made before our eyes.  What it was in actuality was a poorly edited and curated mix-tape that misses out on the over abundance of talent that the actors possess.

Rating - 1 out of 4 stars

Hannah's Pick: The Fighter

Well, I had a fairly good streak going on the blog, running the Monday to Friday life and getting reviews posted.  And then, all fell flat.  I wish there was a great reason for this.  I wish I could come up with a grand explanation as to why I was absent for the last few days.  Sadly, I have nothing other than a video game addiction that overtook me, which lead to a complete inability to track time.  I think I may have had a bug as well, but it was more so due to my desire to crush, kill and destroy pixelated villains in the name of good.

While many people look to this year as being the career renaissance of actor Matthew McConaughey, 2010 was the turning point in career of director/writer David O. Russell.  He had not directed a movie since 2004’s I Heart Huckabees and returned with The Fighter, which started off an incredible run of three movies in four years that would all earn Oscar nominations for best picture, best director, and a slew of acting nominations and wins.  I believe it is the first time in history that a director got such big recognition for three consecutive movies, and, as a pick from my wonderful sister-in-law Hannah, I thought it would be a great idea to travel back and take a look at the film.

One thing that Russell has managed to excel at in his films is the ability to draw captivating performances from his actors (Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both got nominations in all four acting categories).  These performances, combined with great script and direction, quickly create people who we are invested in and we become quickly wrapped up in the story.

The Fighter, a movie about the life of boxer Micky Ward, follows brothers Micky (Mark Walberg) and Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) as Ward finds himself in a battle between his own best interests and those of his dysfunctional family.  Managed by his mother Alice (Melissa Leo), the attention is never on what is most appropriate for Micky, but on the former glory of Dicky, who is battling drug addiction.  Micky soon meets a local bartender named Charlene (Amy Adams) and finally has someone in his life who puts his needs ahead of his brother’s.

A typical boxing movie can be a great thing, as we get to cheer for the underdog as they claw their way up the ranks with grit and determination.  The story of Micky Ward is indeed one of the underdog, but it plays out so differently than most other films.  The real focus in this film is the relationships that surround Ward, the support (or lack of support) that he gets from different people, and the choices that he must make regarding career and family.  The pugilistic elements is just a backdrop for a deep story of human connection that hits a head and shatters, needing to be either swept away forever or put back together.

Because the boxing is secondary, the action scenes are not the strongest to exist in a boxing flick.  There is little sense of the crowd and environment (except for a wonderful scene as Micky is preparing to walk out to the ring), which may have been an intentional decision to make it more about Micky and those who were ringside.  The voice over commentary of the action also felt a little lifeless and forced at times, which detracts from the emotional experience of the boxing event.

That aside, there is very little that can be criticized about this film.  The acting was a collage of performances making a piece of art, instead of simply one or two stand out roles that compel the audience.  The characters are such a part of each other in this movie that the majesty of the ensemble’s efforts propels the story to another level.  It is especially the chemistry between Walhberg and Bale that plays well on the screen, giving so much history and context of their relationship simply through their body language and how they interact together.

Ward’s life was one of blue collar upbringing, and that essence comes across in perfect clarity thanks in equal parts to the hair, wardrobe, and locations.  It is easy to forget just how far those aspects can go in immersing the audience in the tale set before them, and the attention to detail that each received in The Fighter increased the tone of the film and took it to the next level.

I may be more than a bit of a David O. Russell fan, but his style of storytelling is right up my alley.   I get really geeked out about movies that focus on creating deep and interesting characters, put them in a situation, and have them have to play off of even more deep and interesting characters.  Some people may think that to be a bore, but I would take that any day over run-of-the-mill special effects and explosions.  Russell is one of the modern masters at this craft, and The Fighter is an excellent case study of how impactful a story can be when we actually care about the choices of the people on the screen.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4 stars

Her

When it comes to movies about romance, relationships, and love, many different approaches have been taken and a lot of times we find the same stories being rehashed and tossed upon us.  We get the same, uninspired films about love that are more based off of the concept of passion than off of genuine care and commitment.  Her, written and directed by Spike Jonze, approaches it all from a bit of a different angle, and in fact looks at human social interaction with each other as well.

The plot of the movie is that our protagonist Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is recovering from his marriage ending and is beginning to understand his own social faults that assisted in the failed relationship with his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara).  The character of Theodore is indeed a complex one and is captured by Phoenix who delivers vividly the essence of someone who craves love and to enjoy the adventure of the fullness of life but is incapable of true openness and honesty.   It is set in the not so distant future, and onto the market comes an artificially intelligent operating system, which Theodore ends up installing on his computer, which gives birth to Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), the identity that the operating system assumes.  Theodore develops a connection with Samantha, and a romance begins between the two of them.

While the plot is a little far-fetched, it is brought out in the movie easily in a way that does not cost a huge degree of suspension of disbelief from the audience.  We end up seeing a lot of scenes that physically only consist of Joaquin Phoenix, but the dialogue between the two, as well as the delivery of their lines, creates the reality that Samantha is indeed there.  This is a very important hurdle that the movie needed to get over, because without Samantha properly coming to life for the audience, the movie is doomed to fail.  Spike Jonze needs to be credited greatly for the achievement of this, as well as the wonderfully nuanced performance of Phoenix, and the voice acting of Johansson who allows a great depth of emotion to be inserted into her delivery.

While we are watching this oddly formed relationship grow, we see the same struggles undergone that all people end up running into.  Perhaps this commentary by Jonze that there is no perfect mate that technology can create, that even the best advancements in science still fail in the same areas as humans do.  The couple runs into intimacy issues, hidden feelings, jealousy, and everything that is likely to poke its head into the lifespan of a couple.

While Theodore is going through this, his friend Amy (Amy Adams) is suffering through her own relational sufferings and also turns to the companionship of an artificially intelligent friend.  It is easy to watch this film and criticize the ridiculous foundation on which it is based, but do humans not do this sort of thing already?  In some ways, are some people not already married to their phones, tablets, or computers?  Do some people related better to others through electronic media than they do face to face?  How much more crazy is simply adding the AI aspect of the film, and does it actually rationalize the obsession with technological relationships better than any argument than we currently have?

Ultimately this film ponders on our connection with technology and how perhaps that changes us, as we get scenes of people just walking through crowds, amoungst other humans, but just buried into their own portable devices.  When the technology is gone, when we let it go, what beautiful and wonderful things are there for us?  Spike Jonze looks at all of this with a lot of heart and passion, pointing to the complexities of the human experience and the beauty of growth and companionship that our world, both aided by and with the absence of technology, has for us to embrace.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

American Hustle

After missing a post last night because of falling asleep too early (due to an anxiety attack and the drowsying effects of anti-anxiety medication), I am back in full force to talk about American Hustle, a movie that opened in theatres today.  I will be very straight forward and blunt in the fact that this is a movie that I have been anticipating for the last ten months.  Ever since I saw it listed on IMDB, and knowing nothing other than the title and who was involved, it has been my most anticipated film to see of the entire year.  Originally, it was to open in wide release on Christmas day which, while being the ultimate Christmas present, would have been hard to explain to my family why I needed to step out for a few hours.

As with anything that has a lot of personal excitement and anticipation, it is extremely hard for the event to live up to the expectations that the mind can create.  Over the past few months, while continuing to count down the days and stare at the calendar, I have been attempting to clear my head for this movie so that I was able to view it purely for what it is, otherwise it would most likely not live up to what I expected it to be.  The very opening scene of the movie, Christian Bale with a pot belly, skillfully and meticulously crafting his comb over to hide his bald head established a deep and rich feel to the tale that was about to unfold.  It was becoming everything I had hoped for… and then it changed.

The movie is directed by David O. Russell (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook) and is about the Abscam operation in the 1970s.  Bale plays Irving Rosenfeld, a con-man who is roped into helping F.B.I. agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) along with his partner in crime, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams).  Also in this film are Jennifer Lawrence, Louis C.K., and Jeremy Renner, a very deep and talented cast indeed.  Russell, along with Eric Singer, wrote the screenplay for this film.

Now, when I had said that after the initial scenes the movie ‘change,’ I am referring to a tone and pace adjustment that is kicked off as the film goes into flashback mode to establish the characters.  At times it felt a little clunky and forced, and I began to worry that this film which was Hollywood’s early Christmas present to me would in actuality be a lump of coal.    I do not necessarily believe that the mere fact that there were flashbacks were to blame, but more so the entire construction and delivery of about a fifteen to twenty minute section of the film.  I was still entertained, and was still enjoying it, but I was not hooked and there was no magic.

At that, I have said the only negatives that I can find possible to say about this movie.  It is easily my favourite film of the year, and was worth every moment of anticipation that has passed over the past ten months.  The skill of this movie is in the characters, who are multi-dimensional beings, all with strengths and failings, alienting and sympathizing aspects, who bring the story to life.  The more the movie progresses, the more we know the characters, and the more we become invested in every decision, every action, and every risk that they take.

This is really where David O. Russell is one of the best in Hollywood.  It is an amazing fact that his film last year, Silver Linings Playbook, had an actor nominated for every single one of the performance awards.  He seems to be able to create such vivid characters and allow the actors to fully embrace and take over their qualities that actor and character become one in a seamless and glorious marriage.  This is what hooked me to Silver Linings Playbook (my favourite film of 2012, I should add), and the art of this mastery is elevated even further in American Hustle.

As far as the acting goes, it is brilliant right across the board.  If it was not such a competitive Oscar year, it would be easy to assume that once again there would be a representative from this movie in each of the performance categories.  The reality, however, is that probably will not happen due to the depth of options this year, but the quality on display in American Hustle is such that it would not be a huge shock or disservice if that were to happen.  There was not one, at least to the best of my recollection, awkward acting moment where the delivery seemed flawed, forced, or merely just a line read from the script for the cameras. 

At the same time of all of my praise, this is not a typical type of movie.  It is about con artists, F.B.I., and very dangerous unsavoury folk, but it does not rely on the standards typical of that kind of film.  While most would indulge in gun-play, cat and mouse scenes, fights, car chases, and even a possible explosion or two, this film uses any gritty element so sparingly that it hardly seems to exist.  The reason for this is because everything ultimately comes down to the characters and the chaotic whirlpool that their lives become during all the unfolding of the operation, and it is engaging with brilliant moments of hilarity.  The humour is not from jokes forced into the script, but comes from these quirky and messed up people as they try to make their way through the mess around them.

As I mentioned, it is far and away my favourite movie of the year.  I will not say that it is the best movie of the year, but I had an incredible amount of fun viewing this film and was immersed in the craziness to a joyous extent.  While I was watching it, there was a young couple that walked out after having talked a lot and it seemed that this was not their cup of tea, and that’s going to happen.  It is not a hyped up explosive movie, but a tale that relies on getting the audience to become invested in the characters and care about what outcomes await them.  It is near perfect at this, and it executes it with many moving, crazy, and hilarious moments along the way.

Rating – 4 out of 4 stars