Playing With the Truth: Film in 2010

Based on a true story.

Inspired by actual events. 

I'm not sure if it was an actual trend in 2010 or just a common trait of the few movies that I saw, but phrases like those above seemed to appear on screen in quite a lot of films, including 127 Hours, Conviction, Howl, Carlos, North Face, and even more that I didn't see, such as Made in Dagenham, Casino Jack, Eat Pray Love, I Love You Philip Morris, Mesrine: Killer Instinct & Public Enemy #1, and Nowhere Boy, to name only a few (and to say nothing of the tricky-truthy documentaries like I'm Still Here, Catfish, and Exit Through the Gift Shop).

Are there this many films based on true events every year and I only noticed it in 2010, or is this a newly developing trend? Either possibility would surprise me. If this is common every year, why have I not picked up on it so acutely, particularly considering I usually see twice as many movies as I did in 2010, and that I have a running series about movies based on real life? On the other hand, if this is a newly developing trend - why?

I'm almost positive it's the former, that this is not a new thing at all, but in any case it doesn't matter. I'm always more interested in how these films depict the truth they are meant to represent and, in doing so, how they shape our understanding and perspective on past events. For example, when I ask you to imagine the sinking of the Titanic, what images come to your mind? What about Roman gladiator fighting in the Colosseum? What do you picture when you think of John Smith and Pocahontas, or the Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco, or the fate of United Flight 93, or the storming of Omaha Beach on D-Day?

You see where I'm going with this: for many people, films based on true events serve as the primary influence on the subconscious in remembering or imagining those events. If you've seen those movies - Titanic, Gladiator, The New World, Zodiac, United 93, Saving Private Ryan - you bring their images to mind without even realizing it, particularly when a.) the images are astonishingly rendered (Titanic), and b.) there are few other film adaptations, documentaries, or other visual aids to provide alternative images in your mind (United 93). In essence, perception becomes reality; what we see becomes what actually happened, even if it didn't actually happen.

But does it matter when those images and those memories produce a reality that didn't actually exist? Where does the truth end and the dramatization begin, and is the truth ever interesting enough to stand on its own, free of embellishment? I'm sure it's a question as old as film itself - as art itself, really - but I'd like to consider it in the context of five films I saw in the last few months of 2010: The Social Network, The Fighter, Fair Game, The King's Speech, and All Good Things.

300 Words About: The Other Guys

The Other Guys is: 1) an unoriginal slapstick laugher in the same vein as most B-grade buddy cop movies from the last decade; 2) a nonetheless distinctively styled film, punctuated by awkward pauses, timely pop culture references, and outrageous yet sacredly delivered dialogue that bears all the hallmarks of an Adam McKay/Will Ferrell production (the best being Anchorman, the worst being Step Brothers); and 3) a comedy with a conscience, complete with a closing credit sequence delivering devastating facts about the financial collapse and the evils of corporate greed. You know, because the bad guy in this movie is a financial swindler of some sort.

REVIEW: The Lovely Bones (C)

Exactly what is it about rape, kidnapping and murder that appeals so much to Americans - or at least to the Americans who tune in each week to watch "CSI" (all three versions), "Criminal Minds", "Without a Trace", "Cold Case", "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit", and "Bones"? That there are so many of these shows should tell you how popular this genre is; that I've never seen an episode of any of them should tell you how disturbed I am by that trend.

Anyway, I don't want to make generalizations about the viewers of these shows any more than I do about the millions of enthusiastic readers of Alice Sebold's celebrated novel, "The Lovely Bones", but suffice to say I don't belong to either group. If you do, you'll likely appreciate Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones much more than me, and you may even glean some meaningful insights from the melodramatic depths of what I considered a whole lot of sentimental muck.

300 Words About: The Happening

It's OK, Jess, it's OK. At least we're not in the theater watching this.

"We've sensed it. We've seen the signs. Now...It's Happening." That's not just the official tagline for The Happening, it's also a perfect summation of my expectations of M. Night Shyamalan's latest offering. I "sensed" it would be the uncontested worst film of the year, I saw the "signs" (simply his last movie, Lady in the Water), and now, indeed, it "happened". On Friday the 13th, Shyamalan pulled the veil off his latest disaster, and once again people are flocking to see it. I vowed I wouldn't pay for it. In a fit of confusion, I ended up paying for it. At least I illegally paid the student price, saving $1.50 in one of my wisest financial decisions in years.

To paraphrase the classic bit from Denny Green, it's clear that Shyamalan "is who we thought he was": the most self-righteous and contemptuous filmmaker currently working in Hollywood. It would defy logic to argue that he's unaware of how bad his movies are, but instead of seeking to make any improvements, he stubbornly continues to try to convince us that we're idiots, and that his conspicuous messages are the new gospel for mankind.

That's the real problem. It's not that the writing and acting are horrid, or that sense and logic are missing from the first frame onward, or that the thrills and chills are about five movies tired now after The Sixth Sense. It's not the terrible supporting characters or the unconvincing special effects or even the worst fake newscasts I've ever seen.

It's that in the middle of all of this, just when the movie should start making fun of itself, Shyamalan again throws a serious message or clichéd fright (e.g., doll on the bed) at us. In short, the difference between garbage like Jumper or Meet the Spartans (my favorite whipping post if you didn't notice) and garbage like The Happening is that garbage like The Happening tries to be serious.

Although Shyamalan preaches, "This is the best B movie that you will ever see," his sincere attempts at romance, suspense, and drama, combined with the heavy-handed message about Mother Nature's wrath, prove (at least to me) that he's just making excuses for the terrible reception. He had plenty of opportunity to make this over-the-top ridiculous - if that was his intention. Instead, he predictably implies that we're morons for not getting it.

I saw The Happening to find out if he could make a movie more offensively awful than Lady in the Water. Is it? I still don't know since it seems comparing two epically bad movies is as difficult as comparing two epically good ones, but I nevertheless truly recommend seeing either one (don't pay for it) in order to sharpen your movie senses.

REVIEW: We Own the Night (C+)

Background: You'd be forgiven in thinking We Own the Night is a sequel to The Yards, what with the same look, feel, leading actors, writer and director. Somehow, it's not, mostly because the police play a larger role in this one. Written and directed by James Gray (The Yards...and that's about it) and starring Mark Wahlberg (The Departed, Shooter) and Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), We Own the Night was filmed on location in Coney Island. No word on the inspiration for the story, but it's your basic brothers-on-two-sides-of-the-law plot, with a couple of twists.

Synopsis: Brighton Beach/Coney Island, 1988. Bobby Green (Phoenix) is a free-wheeling nightclub manager who is quickly getting involved in the growing Russian drug trade. Bobby's brother Joe Grusinsky (Wahlberg) is a celebrated young NYPD narcotics task force lieutenant, and their father Burt Grusinsky (Duvall) is the NYPD deputy chief. Joe and Burt try to persuade Bobby to act as in informant, but Bobby is just starting to earn respect from the Russians and besides, he's having too much fun with his girlfriend Amada (Mendes). Lucky for Bobby, the Russians are unaware of his police relations (because Bobby uses his mother's last name...?), but when Joe makes a bust at the nightclub and the Russians decide to wage war against the police, Bobby finds himself caught in the middle and wanted to fight for both sides. He chooses his family, of course, and even goes so far as to enlist in the NYPD. By this time, though, it's too late - the Russians are wise to the situation and all that's left is to see who can kill whom first.

I Loved:
+ The ultra-real car chase in the rain.

I Liked:
+ Eva Mendes showing some real acting chops - I was impressed.
+ The 80's soundtrack that helped set the mood.
+ Joaquin Phoenix's performance - solid again, and able to elicit both sympathy and disgust from me at different times.

I Disliked:
- That I felt like I was watching Mark Wahlberg in The Departed - his character could have been given some more unique traits.
- The anticlimactic, almost cliched shootout ending - it was kind of how movies used to end before Hollywood went all mind-trippy in the mid-90's. This was kind of refreshing, but still a letdown.

I Hated:
- Nothing, really, besides some graphic violence.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 9
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 4
Significance - 2

Total: 39/50= 78% = C+

Last Word: This is a classic shoulder-shrugger. It's entertaining and you maybe gain some insight into the war on drugs in the 80's, but it doesn't really take you anywhere. Looking at my grade, it was pretty well made, but it's just not an important movie. Joaquin Phoenix is at his best in roles like this where he can express a full range of emotions, compared with his stilted performance in Gladiator. You'll probably enjoy We Own the Night if you like police movies, drug movies, or bad television crime series. The acting is solid with the exception of the Russians, and the film color makes for an appropriate mood, but the story is unoriginal. Apparently it received a standing ovation at Cannes, which baffles me. Maybe the French have never seen an American cop movie, or maybe people were just glad to see a straight good guy vs. bad guy movie. One last thing - anyone understand what the title means?