Taking It Home: Invictus

("Taking It Home" is an alternative review style in which I share my thoughts on a movie's themes and how they may relate to my life, while focusing less on the acting, writing, technical aspects, or even plot of the film. It's a collection of the ideas I took home, "because the movie experience shouldn't end in the theater".)

More influential than any stump speech a politician could make... 

While watching Clint Eastwood's Invictus I was reminded of a little-seen documentary a few years ago about the space race. The astronauts interviewed in In the Shadow of the Moon gave fascinating and inspiring accounts of their experience with the outer limits, but the most lasting impression I have is their description of what was happening back here on Earth. As we Americans are reminded every summer, after years of competing with the Soviets to get a man on the Moon, the United States reached the finish line first, on July 20, 1969. We would go on to dominate space exploration for the next generation and ultimately to the present day.

But what wasn't clear to me until In the Shadow of the Moon, and what was reinforced by Invictus, is just how much collective pride a population can gain from what is, on the surface, a meaningless competition. Despite the social and political turmoil of 1969, for example, the United States experienced a brief period of pure, unadulterated joy because we beat the Soviets at a massive global game (more interestingly, according to the film, this American achievement was celebrated around the globe, and goodwill toward the United States peaked at a level not reached again until 9/12/01). The triumph of the South African National Rugby Team might pale in comparison on a global scale, but Invictus still portrays the Springboks' 1995 World Cup victory as an event almost as important as the moon landing - and ultimately more important than the U.S. Men's Hockey Team's 1980 "Miracle on Ice" (most recently revisited in 2004's Miracle).

You may be thinking, "Come on, sports are unimportant in the grand scheme of things and a distracting waste of time and money that could spend on much more important issues!". Tell that to Nelson Mandela (in fact many of his advisors did, as we see in the film). To take nothing away from Mandela's achievement as a black man being elected president in a racially segregated country after half a lifetime in prison, the Boks' World Cup victory was just as important to his political success - even more so, if I may be so bold.

Taking It Home: Gran Torino

"Minnesota Nice", indeed...

If Minnesotan screenwriter Nick Schenk needed any validation that his insightful screenplay for Gran Torino hits home with his fellow statesmen, I hope he happened to catch the comments about the film on a local radio show the other morning. I listen to an extremely conservative morning show on my 10 minute drive to work most days. It wakes me up for the day ahead - gets my blood pumping and my voice warm as I talk back to the outrageous commentary coming out of my car speakers. It's a one-sided debate, and I always win.

Anyway, this station was one of the promotional sponsors for Tuesday's night advance screening of Gran Torino, one of the best films of 2008. If you've seen the movie you know why a Fox News affiliate would be promoting it, and if you know Minnesota you'd know why Gran Torino is so comfortably set here (I'm ignoring the Michigan debacle for now). Chatting about the screening and describing his "knee-slapping", hootin' and hollerin' laughing spells during the movie, the morning show host boasted, "He reminds me of me....yeah, his character is me. So what? I'm proud of it."

He was talking about Walt Kowalski, of course, the racist, mean-spirited, ignorant, war-traumatized, hard-drinking, violent xenophobe whose vocabulary consists of grunts, growls, and unprintable epithets. Welcome to Minnesota, where hometown audiences haven't laughed this hard at a character's antics since the wood-chipper scene in Fargo.

The pitch black, George Carlin-inspired humor in Gran Torino wouldn't be so disturbing if it weren't so obviously grounded in reality, as evidenced by the warm embrace from the audience. This is how we are here, and "if you don't like it, go back to where you came from." It takes one to know one, and Minnesotans know Walt Kowalski well (look up the last name "Kowalski" in a Twin Cities phone book and you'll literally have pages of names to sift through). In fact if Clint Eastwood had given his character the appropriate accent, he could have slipped unnoticed into many a Minnesotan neighborhood.

Which is why it's so sad that tax rebates sent the production to Michigan, where the story feels familiar but yet out of place, like seeing Kevin Garnett wear a Boston Celtics jersey. Minnesotans were still heavily involved in the production of Gran Torino, however, including a number of local Hmong who took advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime last summer during the film's open casting call in St. Paul. Among the many eventual cast and crew were Bee Vang (who plays a main character, Thao), Sonny Vue (who plays Thao's gangster cousin, Spider),and Dyane Hang Garvey, the Hmong nonprofit director who served as the chief technical adviser for the film. Her role was to simply supervise Hmong cultural traditions, and the fact that she was involved at all means Gran Torino will introduce the Hmong to the rest of the country with at least some measure of accuracy (the killing of chickens is a tenuous local stereotype).

Beyond a penetrating introduction and indictment of these Minnesotan cultures - the "Walts" and the Hmong - Gran Torino also delivers provocative commentaries on religion, family, and war, no doubt a byproduct of Schenk's influences in writing the story. Although Walt's disillusionment with the Catholicism adhered to so faithfully by his wife is amplified by a pestering young priest, it's obvious that he has issues with organized religion in general (a wisecrack about Lutherans will fall flat outside of the Midwest). The symbolism of sacrifice at the film's end is a little overcooked (not only because a white male is once again the savior figure), but the conversations Walt has with the priest throughout the film are nonetheless poignant and probing.

At a deeper level, so are the discussions and implicit inferences about the cost of war. Both Walt and Thao have scars in their past, even though Thao may not have experienced military combat firsthand. His war experience is happening around him in his neighborhood, but his natural reflex is to retreat inside his shell, not reach for a gun and a six-pack of PBR, as Walt does with ritualistic discipline. Both actions have their consequences, but Walt's is the one that haunts me more. Considering over a million Americans have served, and possibly been traumatized, in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last several years, I'm concerned that many of them will go on to be the Walts of the 21st century.

I've only examined a few of the many social issues present in Gran Torino, and I have to say I'm proud that this movie was born and bred in Minnesota (it should be required viewing for everyone here). It's not a perfect film, but if you can tolerate non-actors acting and you're willing to look a little deeper than you may be used to, I think Gran Torino truly has the potential to enrich your outlook on the world.

What did you take home?

"Buzz" Goes the Oscar Bee - Some Theories...

Already? It's already time to start with the Oscar picks? I wait for the big day all year long, and here I am almost oblivious to the fact that it's less than 100 days away.

Getafilm is not the place to come for your awards coverage, but that doesn't mean I'm not obsessed with the Oscar ceremony, which I watch with the reverence of a monk. I don't watch it to celebrate the celebrities and the winners, but to commemorate the last year in film, which of course corresponds in many ways to the last year in my life.

Anyway, I don't cover the awards here, but there are many people who do, namely at Awards Daily, Cinematic Passions, Fataculture, From the Front Row, Inside the Gold, Living in Cinema and Strange Culture. And of course the Carpetbagger, In Contention, and The Envelope. Those are the spots where I'll be checking in over the next few months.

But in the meantime, and in the spirit of the loud buzz that is emanating from Hollywood since Thanksgiving, I have some general Oscar theories that I consider each year:

1.) A one word title is a significant advantage in the Best Picture race.

Since 2000, three Best Picture winners have had one word titles: Gladiator, Chicago, and Crash. Additional nominees since then include Chocolat, Seabiscuit, Ray, Capote, Juno, and more:

Considering this, keep an eye this year on Che, Changeling, Ballast, Doubt, Milk, Valkyrie, Hunger, and Australia. I'll also add these: WALL-E, Frost/Nixon, Happy-Go-Lucky, and W. They may not technically be one word, but close enough, right?


2.) The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) loves Clint Eastwood - like LOVES him.

Dig this: in three out of the last five years, Eastwood has been nominated for both Best Director and Best Picture. Both awards, three times since 2003! He even pulled a Best Actor nomination during that stretch, for Million Dollar Baby in 2004.

What does that mean this year? Gran Torino has to be considered a dark horse, if not a front-runner, for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. Barring some public relations disaster in the next two months, I could literally see it winning all three of those. Eastwood knows exactly how to play Oscar politics. He knows when and how to release his films, and he's treated like a king in Hollywood. Never count him out.

3.) Kate Winslet has to win an Oscar at some point...right?

The woman is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, having been nominated for Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress five times in the last twelve years. She just turned 33 years old. Are you kidding me?

This year, she is the only A-lister to have two possible Best Picture nominations in the race: The Reader, and Revolutionary Road, the more likely favorite that reteams her with Leonardo DiCaprio, 10 years removed from their career-making work in Titanic.

It's possible that she'll be nominated against herself for work in both of these movies, and if she still loses - wow.


Hmm, I thought I had some more but I can't remember them now. This is really the first time I've started to seriously consider next year's winners, so maybe they'll come back to me as the race kicks into high gear.

Do you have any annual Oscar theories?

REVIEW: Changeling (C-)

A full disclosure before I address this movie: For the last decade, there has been no actress who's bothered me more than Angelina Jolie. I don't know her and I don't mean to make any personal judgments about her. I think she has acting talent and I commend her efforts (whatever her motive) for bringing awareness to the plight of refugees worldwide.

But that doesn't mean I have to respect her lifestyle and it doesn't mean I have to like her movies. It doesn't mean I have to fawn over her children or her fashion sense, or that I have to ignore the fact that as arguably the most overexposed celebrity in the world, it's virtually impossible for her to disappear into any role. It doesn't mean I have to drop to my knees while she simply alternates between sexy killer (Tomb Raider, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Beowulf, Kung Fu Panda, Wanted) and tortured hero (Beyond Borders, A Mighty Heart, Changeling). It doesn't mean I have to listen to her pretentiously deliver the wisdom of an old soul as she waxes nostalgic about Hollywood's golden years (she's the oldest 35 year-old I've ever heard; you're not Meryl Streep, honey). And it certainly doesn't mean I have to accept the ridiculous notion that she has "died for my sins". Please.

I say all of this as a defense, because if you know this about me (and enough people do), you're ready to dismiss my criticism for Changeling as criticism for Jolie. But it's not. There is plenty enough wrong with this movie that has nothing to do with her, and it wouldn't be fair to tear down a movie for one performance anyway. Jolie gets a pass for this one, even though the costumed character of her Oscar-baiting performance reminded me more of an emaciated clown than a distraught mother. To be most accurate, this was Madame Tutli-Putli brought to life (let's forget I recently made the same comparison for a different movie). But Jolie was fine in her part, predictably balancing elegance with extreme emotional outbursts. So if wasn't her that I had a problem with, what was it?

For starters, the lack of a compelling story. On the surface, the true life tale of a mother battling with the corrupt L.A.P.D. over the true whereabouts of her kidnapped child sounds fascinating, but digging deeper it ends up being a bit of a bore. Equal parts Zodiac and L.A. Confidential, it lacks both the chilling moments of the former and the suspenseful intrigue of the latter. There's almost no way to form a natural connection with the characters (natural being the operative word, assuming you can ignore the manipulative filmmaking), which makes sitting through it for 141 minutes pretty tiring. There's a noirish feel around the entire production (especially in the visual style and setting), but Changeling is glaringly lacking in two of the most important elements of noir: character and tone.

Who are these people, and why should we care about them? Christine Collins (Jolie) is depicted as a saintly single mom, but we know literally nothing about her aside from the fact that her husband left her and her son, and now she works as a manager at the telephone company. She’s certainly the victim of a great tragedy here, but I guess I needed something else to latch on to. Besides, it seemed more like Angelina Jolie playing Angelina Jolie than anything else. Give me more background on Christine Collins and I’ll be better able to empathize with Christine Collins.

Even more one-dimensional than Collins is Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan from USA’s “Burn Notice”), the tough talking L.A.P.D. cop who writes his own rules, emotionally wavers between mildly annoyed and extremely irritated, and, for no identifiable reason, speaks with an Irish brogue. In the other corner is John Malkovich (Burn After Reading), a historically great actor who recently seems to be phoning in these blaring performances just so he has an opportunity to shout on cue. Add in a stereotypically insane villain, some annoying kids (who apparently don’t age at all during their adolescence), and evil mental hospital nurses who look like they just came off the set of an old horror movie, and you’ve rounded out the overall poor cast of characters. If not for Christine’s boss and Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) showing some flashes of believable emotion, there might not be a real person on screen throughout the movie.

In fact, the cityscapes and period touches feel more realistic than the people speaking, and it would be fair to predict Changeling receiving some Oscar consideration for its art direction (an opportunity for Best Costume was missed by having Jolie wear the same outfit throughout the movie). Beyond that, I would be surprised if the movie made any splashes during award season.

Oh wait, I forgot. The person responsible for this mess is also the person most beloved by the Academy in recent years: Clint Eastwood.

To take nothing away from a legendary career that spans four decades, I wonder if anyone has yet to gain the courage to tell Mr. Eastwood that his recent projects (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, all three Best Picture nominees or winners) aren’t quite as good as he’s tried to make us admit. The guy has a gift for manipulation, and I’m talking about his filmmaking, not his business practices. In Changeling, it’s evident in the cheap thriller moments (chicken spooks detective at ranch) and subliminal musical scores (throughout the legal proceedings), as well as unnecessary flashbacks (the ax and the ruler) and exaggerated running time (just because it’s long doesn’t mean it’s epic).

Angelina Jolie saves the world again at a theater near you...

I don’t want to call Changeling a bad movie as much as I want to call it a missed opportunity. On paper, the story really should have made for something more substantive, more moving or at the very least, more relatable to 2008. Kids are still going missing and the L.A.P.D. is still accused of corruption, but Eastwood fails to connect any dots and make this story relevant in the way that (never thought I’d compare these two “directors”) Ben Affleck did last year in Gone Baby Gone. Alright, so that movie took place in the present day – maybe that’s unfair. But at least Gone Baby Gone was mostly entertaining, wasn’t it? The same can’t be said for Changeling. Now excuse me while I inexplicably buy a ticket to see Eastwood’s Gran Torino next month…

Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 7
Production - 6
Emotional Impact - 6
Music - 4
Social Significance - 5

Total: 35/50= 70% = C-

300 Words About: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Considered by many to be the greatest Western ever (spaghetti or otherwise), The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo) is clearly still influencing filmmakers more than 40 years after its release. In 2007, we saw Hollywood usher in a new generation of Westerns (3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood), and watching Sergio Leone's classic recently, I found myself chuckling at the similarities. He so dramatically left a mark on the genre that it's nearly impossible not to accuse everyone of copying him. Consider, for example, how often we see extreme close-ups and freeze-frame character intros in contemporary films. Every element of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is seminal (e.g., the writing, acting, cinematography, score, etc. ), and yet it received not even one Oscar nomination. In fact, it didn't win any measure of any award - ever. I don't know what its eligibility status was as an Italian film, but its American competition in 1967 was stiff anyway: The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, In the Heat of the Night, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, to name a few.

Part of the genius of the film is its simplicity. It doesn't have twisting plot details or fancy special effects, and it's not meant to be a symbolic saga for the ages. Rather, it's an epic that finds its power in fascinating characters and an impossibly balanced blend of humor, action, suspense, violence, tragedy and adventure. We've seen versions of Blondie (Eastwood) show up in everybody from John McClane to Jack Foley to Jason Bourne. And Tuco (Eli Wallach)? He has almost no equal, though many have tried over the years. The ensemble cast is simply brilliant, but while it's perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film, you can't overlook the sweeping cinematography (it was filmed in Spain) or the iconic score by Ennio Morricone - easily one of the most recognizable ever.

If you were impressed with any Westerns from the Class of '07, do yourself a favor and take another look at The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It's currently making the rounds on the United Artists 90th Anniversary festival/tour, which is suffering from absolutely terrible marketing - including the lack of a website that I can link to here.