Sherlock Holmes

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Starring: Robert Downy Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams

Guy Ritchie is a director who loves fight scenes, explosions, drugs, gambling, quick British wit, and guns. Yet his films are so smart, so cheeky, so understatedly hilarious, that I am always charmed into loving them.

The classic Sherlock Holmes has of course been re-vamped here, with Robert Downey Jr. playing Holmes, and Jude Law as Watson.

Watch the way Downey commands this role, physically. He uses not only his voice and facial expressions, but his whole body. Every movement, even the most subtle, is a deliberate choice. Of course, one could hardly expect less of the man who played the title role in Chaplin (1992).

I haven't read the Sherlock Holmes books in years (though maybe I would have if I had pictured Watson as anything looking anything like Jude Law). I do, however, remember The Hound of the Baskervilles and the dissection of seemingly supernatural events by the calculating and rational Holmes, a theme which is revisited here. The mystery is, of course, inconsequential. We don't really care who did it or why, it simply serves the purpose of providing the witty dialogue and fast-paced action scenes, though there are quite a few surprising pay-offs when we learn how the mystery unravels.

This is a purely fun movie. There's some smart, very witty dialogue and the action sequences are stylish and interesting, especially when we hear Holmes planning out his method of attack before hand. Don't expect this to take you back to cozy nights reading the classic Sherlock Holmes books, but it's interesting to see Ritchie take his usual story of London gang-life and apply it to Holmes' times. If you like Guy Ritchie, I expect you'll enjoy this latest film of his.

A History of Violence (2005)

Directed by: David Cronenberg

Starring: Mario Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Viggo Mortensen

I remember when this movie came out years ago and I chose not to see it, despite its rave reviews, because of its notoriously grizzly and shocking scenes of violence. I have been reading review after review, however, claiming that such scenes are not gratuitous, but are meaningful, integral to the story, and meant to shock you, so that you feel the real impact of violence on people's lives. So I decided to take a chance and see it.

The film begins with the "bad guys." They are having a slow morning at their motel. They are tired from too many days on the job, and move with sluggish reluctance. This is an interesting way to begin the film. So often films of this sort begin with the protagonist, and to start with the antagonists puts the audience on their side for a moment, starts the film off from their perspective. I won't give away the rest of the scene, but I will say that it ends with a whimpering child, holding a doll, and cuts to an angelic looking child screaming after a nightmare, in the home of the "hero," Tom Stahl. This is a cheap trick. It strips the scenes of their credibility (you can see in the girl's eyes that the director just said, "Ok, and remember after I say 'action' you scream and don't look at the camera") and is clearly an easy and in-genuine tug at our heartstrings.

Looking back on the film I see scenes rather than substance, scripted lines rather than atmosphere, cut-out characters rather than real people.

This is an interesting idea, and one with great potential, but it is hardly fulfilled here.

67th Annual Golden Globe Awards

I can't let the Golden Globes go by without at least mentioning my thoughts on them. I didn't see the whole show, but I caught some good moments. I'm just going to give a brief synopsis of my thoughts:

I'll admit that I am not a fan of Quentin Tarantino (for reasons which I will go into at another time), though I recognize and fully appreciate his gift as a director, and so was not as moved by the complimentary speech given by Christoph Waltz, who won Best Supporting Actor for Inglorious Basterds.

Avatar was not my pick for Best Picture, Drama, though I am not surprised it won. I do not agree with many other critics, however, who believe that this is a precursor to the Oscars, foretelling another 'Titanic' sweep by Cameron. I have a feeling that the academy will cave to the controversy caused by Avatar, though it will likely win some major effects awards, and well it should.

The highlight of the show for me was Meryl Streep's speech, after winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Julia Child in Julie and Julia.

"I just want to say that in my long career, I've played so many extraordinary women that I'm getting mistaken for one," Streep said. "I'm very clear that I'm the vessel for other people's stories and other people's lives"

If you've ever listened to Streep's other interviews, or seen her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio,' you'll recognize that this selflessness is what makes Streep stand out as one of the greatest actresses of our time. The great actors are the ones who recognize that their job is to tell a story, to give voice to those who otherwise would have none, and to do it with respect, honesty, and empathy. This is the power of acting, and Streep is one of my great role models for exemplifying that.

The other highlight of the show was seeing Martin Scorsese presented with the Cecil B. DeMille award. They were spot on when they said that not only is Scorsese one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, but his devotion to film preservation, his clear passion for film history and for the art as a whole makes him a true gift to this industry. This is a man who fell in love with film and did something great with that love. If only we all followed our passion with such fervor. Another incredibly inspiring role-model. I can't get enough of seeing him recognized for all he's done for cinema.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Directed by: Wes Anderson

Written by: Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbauch, based on the book by Roald Dahl

Featuring the Voices of: Eric Chase Anderson, George Clooney, Willem Dafoe, Michael Gambon, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Meryl Streep, & Owen Wilson

The whole time I was watching this film I just wanted to reach out and touch the characters. This is the magic of classic stop-motion animation. Unlike CG animation, where the fur may look just as soft but lacks the tangibility, stop-motion has an earthy, unpolished look, reminiscent of the original King Kong or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer or Yoda before his digital make-over.

Wes Anderson is a very talented director. Take a look at the shots in his films and notice the color palettes. Every scene has been deliberately painted with rich colors, turning an ordinary shot into a visual feast. If you watch any behind the scenes footage or take a look at the breathtaking book, The Making of Fantastic Mr. Fox, you'll know that Wes Anderson has that obsessive attention to detail characteristic of great directors. He'll repaint a set just to get it to that exact perfect shade of crimson, or make notes next to character sketches to 'add ribbing to the sweater,' 'adjust the angle of the shoulders,' 'make the fingers a little longer and finer.' It pays off.

For this film, Anderson combines his three dimensional stop-motion characters and sets with the occasional two dimensional backdrop, providing a decidedly picture-book feeling, as though you really are watching the characters in a children's book pop up from their 2-D page and come to life.

The characters here will be familiar to anyone who's seen any of Anderson's previous films (as will many of the voices as well). There's the over-confident, deluded but hopelessly charming wanna-be criminal, Mr. Fox (voiced by Clooney), his insecure, quirky but lovable son Ash, and a host of other characters, full of personality and real-life idiosyncrasies, hardly expected of children's book characters. The plot is fun and provides for plenty of strange and amusing situations. This is one of those few films that will likely be enjoyed more, or at least as much, by adults as children. Anderson's style certainly compliments Dahl's, and this film makes apparent just how much the two are cut from the same artistic cloth.

Another Look

Closer (2004)

Directed by: Mike Nichols

Starring: Jude Law, Clive Owen, Natalie Portman, and Julia Roberts

Art has two faces. One which has the ability to communicate at a depth which connects us, and one to exploit. Like the truth. The truth can heal, can build, can bind. It can be told out of pain to ease the pain of another. Or it can be told out of a self-satisfying masochism, to both feel the pain and watch it carve its forms into someone else. Closer explores these two faces and it brings us, willing or no, into the discourse. There is something strangely seductive and satisfying about listening to these people bear all, speak with such frankness, even in their deception, about their deception.

What I love about this film is that it is, it has to be, self-aware. We are not simply watching the characters, we are the characters. Not in our actions, perhaps, but in our fascination with truth, with deception, and with seeing pain made beautiful; romanticized. As Portman says, it makes us feel better. The photo exhibition in the second act act of the film implicates the audience, since Closer itself is like the exhibit: we are watching people experience pain. Someone writes about it beautifully, photographs it beautifully, and acts it beautifully, and so the pain, even at its most ugly, becomes beautiful. If you don't agree, look up the reviews from critics, who all agree that Closer is a great film. Art.

Of the truth, Law's character says, "with out it, we're animals," but with it, these characters are at their most brutal. It's not about the truth, it's about our intentions with it. And it's not about our intentions with it, it's about our subsequent actions. Why do we tell the truth? Why do we create art? Why do we communicate? Is it because we want to feel something deeper than our superficial layer to what we share beneath it all? Is it to bring us closer? Have you ever told the truth, not because it was the right thing to do or because it was brave, but out of self-righteousness or because you knew it would hurt the other person? This film toys with the fine line that exists here. It brings up questions about art, about love, and about our relationships with one another.

I saw Closer in high school and all I remember is a strange kind of draw to the rawness of the characters and the way they spoke to one another. Seeing the film again, six years later, I realize that this is exactly the feeling Nichols must hope his audience will leave with, and hope, further, that they will take the time to examine. It raises some fascinating and troubling questions.

My Friend Roger

Let's be honest, here. Roger Ebert is the godfather of the thumb, he started the stars, and brought reviews to your television with "At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert." In short, he mainstreamed film criticism. For years I have avoided admitting that he is not, technically, a film critic. At least not in the Cahiers du Cinema sense. Those were the guys who changed the face of film in its toddler years, from a low form of entertainment considered worthy of only the lowest class (which was considered to be immigrants, mostly), to an art form which merits as much serious study and analysis as the highest literature, and they did it all solely through the power of their prose.

Today, however, beyond universities and high brow film circles, you'd be hard pressed to find a true critique of a film. One which does not simply summarize the plot enough to pique our interest and then conclude with a quick, "yes, you should see this" or "no you shouldn't". Those are reviews. A critique delves into the depths and complexities of a film. It takes the film shot by shot, line by line, moment by moment and pays it the respect of examining its symbolism and figuring out what it is trying to say and how it relates to us, to our culture, society, and psyche. Critiques are the kind of thing that make my heart pound with excitement. In school I used to sneak down to the basement of the library where the film magazines were kept, and curl up to read about such insights as the symbolism of the landscape and the real meaning behind the title of Gerry. So called "critics" summed that movie up in 2 1/2 - 3 stars and a one-page summary, but the writer in this magazine devoted pages and pages to its visual symbolism and cultural significance. They couldn't care less whether mainstream America would enjoy the film. They wanted to know what it meant to us, as people, as a society, and to the art of filmmaking as a whole. That is what a critic is meant to do.

Roger Ebert will be the first to jump into this discussion of film criticism, and to defend his techniques to the ground, while joining in with my laments about the transformation of what is commonly considered film "criticism." He does so famously in a thought-provoking debate with Richard Corliss in Ebert's book "Awake in the Dark".

But it was Ebert, after all, who started assigning thumbs to films. And yet, I love the man. I always have. I credit him with nurturing my fragile and uncertain love for film in high school, and turning it into a full-blown obsession in college. He has a true love for film and writes with such passion that even when I'm my most angry at him (4 stars to Avatar, really, Roger?), I still can't deny that Roger Ebert does, and always will, hold a special place in my heart. His book, "Awake in the Dark," which is a compilation of some of his best reviews and articles, is one of my favorite books of all time. Something I turn to whenever I need to feel re-inspired, or simply want to nestle into the comforts of a friend also who shares my deep love of this art form. If you are one of the many who saw Citizen Cane and wondered, "What's the big deal?" try watching it a second time, with Roger Ebert's audio commentary. Talk about falling in love with a film.

I once saw Roger Ebert in person at a film festival. My dad and I walked behind him all the way to our next theater, and the whole time I shook with nervousness, furiously debating with myself whether or not to talk to him. In the end, I didn't, and I now regret it. This is a man who has shared his love of film with America for decades in a way no one else, in my mind, has been able to match. Yes, he contributed to the mainstreaming of film "criticism," but he is also responsible for helping thousands of people fall in love with the movies.

Really, though, this long entry is actually a bit of a tangent, inspired by an article I read by Roger Ebert today. Some of you may know that Roger Ebert has been going through serious health issues the last few years, which has left him unable, now, to speak, eat, or drink. But his pen (or, keyboard, I suppose) has lost none of its strength or passion. This article is not a review of a film. In fact, it hardly mentions the movies at all. Rather, this one is a very personal article, just about Roger Ebert himself. And it's a beautiful example of why I love the man so much: for the charm, humor, and depth of his prose, for his undying positive spirit, and for the way he writes as though to a friend. I would certainly recommend reading it:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/nil_by_mouth.html

(If you're looking to read some of the critiques I alluded to, that can't be found in your daily newspaper or on-line blog, there are a few great film magazines:

"Film Quarterly" is my personal favorite. Others include "Film Comment," "The Velvet Light Trap" and "Film Criticism." Most easily found at your library.

Where the Wild Things Are

Directed by: Spike Jonze

Screenplay by: Jonze & Dave Eggers, inspired by the book and illustrations by Maurice Sendak

Starring: Catherine Keener, Max Records

With the voices of: James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper

I love the beginning of this movie. It starts out with Max (played beautifully by the young Max Records), experiencing all the highs and lows, complications and injustices, manic love and hate, peace and wildness etched into each normal day of childhood. The illustrations and spirit of the book are, at moments, brought to life in an exciting and multi-dimensional way. There is a sadness to childhood and innocence, the movie suggests, and deep need for love among all of us, children and adults alike. The "wildthings" are, visually, pulled right from the book and transformed into three-dimensional characters complete with voices, expressive eyes, and feather-soft fur that trembles in the breeze. I'll admit though, that in the middle acts of the film I lost some faith in Jonze and Eggers. Maybe I was expecting the wildthings to have deeper voices, or was hoping for a slightly darker and more concrete plot line. Instead I found the plot with the wild things to be a bit vapid, only because it seems to reach for a depth that isn't quite there.

Overall, however, Where the Wild Things Are is a film about its characters and their complexities rather than about action or roller-coaster plot, like so many other family films, and that's what sets it apart. Don't expect the extraordinary, but enjoy the simplicity and humanness of this film.