THE DA VINCI CODE

THE DA VINCI CODE
Written by Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou and Ian McKellen

Writer's Note: I don't bother masking the conspiracy theory at the root of this film. Read at your own risk.

Ordinarily, I would think it grossly unfair to criticize a work directly regarding its translation from book to film. The literary medium offers its readers the opportunity to imagine the events unfolding any way they would like while the cinematic medium does all the imagining for you. In the case of Ron Howard’s adaptation of author Dan Brown’s international phenomenon, THE DA VINCI CODE, there isn’t much imagination happening on the filmmaker’s part though. Avoiding comparison here would actually be the great injustice as the immense anticipation that preceded the release of this film was all to do with the ultra-wide popularity of the book. Brown’s novel is easily digested. It’s lead characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, are being chased by numerous parties throughout lavish and romantic European settings. The chase and threat of capture keeps people turning the pages and the international flavour makes people feel as if in the presence of culture. For likely many others, and myself, these were the least intriguing elements of the book. What kept me coming back and barreling through hundreds of pages at a time was the book’s unapologetic and relentless blasphemy against the Christian faith. Brown immerses the viewer amidst characters and settings that exist to varying degrees in real life, thus blurring the lines between fiction and non. Somewhere in between the facts and the fabrications, Brown drops his theoretical bomb – that the ever-elusive Holy Grail, the cup of Jesus Christ, is in fact not a cup at all but rather a person, a woman. The woman in question is the infamous Mary Magdalene and the chalice is her womb, the carrier of the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Yes, you heard right, folks! Jesus got it on with the prostitute and she went on to have his child and their descendants are still here on earth today. I am not for attacks on Christians without purpose but this is not an attack so much as an alternate theory to the foundation their shaky religion rests upon.

I can understand why the Vatican is concerned about the impact this film could have. If you forget for a second, it’s easy to get sucked into all this lore and accept it as fact or at least as potentially true. That being said, it is borderline insulting of the Vatican to presume the filmgoing public is not intelligent enough to know the difference between history and plain story. Their concern is not for the entire filmgoing public though, it is more so for the middle of the road viewer who just passively absorbs images without thinking. When I think of these filmgoers, I think of the ideal Ron Howard fan. Howard doesn’t make bad movies (OK, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS was bad) but he also doesn’t make spectacular movies (and no, I don’t have an example to refute that). THE DA VINCI CODE has all the elements one would expect from a large-scale Howard production, from big names to big locations. But what it attempts to mask with size is not a lack of substance but rather a lack of control over that substance. Howard coaxes performances from the cast that are inconsistent and hollow. As Langdon, Tom Hanks is sensible, curious and introspective. Ian McKellan plays Leigh Teabing, a Holy Grail expert as playful and cheeky. On the other hand, the usually deep Alfred Molina is farcical and Audrey Tautou looks lost and confused as Neveu; at times she barely seems to know where to stand.

One of the book’s major criticisms, aside from it relying too heavily on conspiracy theories and barely bothering with style, is that it reads like a high-spirited Hollywood blockbuster. Ironically, Howard’s film interpretation plays out nothing like one. It is tiring at times and stale at others. The hackneyed script by frequent Howard collaborator, Akiva Goldsman, cuts out numerous Grail factoids from the book that lend to the theory’s credibility,  but yet still manages to get frequently bogged down in Grail history throughout the film. The result is slowed pacing during scenes that are meant to be suspenseful. Lengthy background explanations take place during car chases and moments when killers are waiting to attack in the next room, but the danger never presents itself until the explaining is all done (leading me to wonder if perhaps the attacker took a bathroom break). With the action forced to wait its turn, the viewer feels the flaws and loses their patience. Howard has taken a book that seemed to have been written with a film deal in mind and made a mess of the already carefully laid plans. As cheap as it is to say this, I must. You’re better off reading the book.

THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE

THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE
Written by Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner
Directed by Mary Harron
Starring Gretchen Mol, Lili Taylor and David Strathairn

How do you define a person who has always been between two worlds, one of presumed sin and one of supposed redemption? Especially when that person eventually succumbed to a split personality disorder in her latter years, as if to demonstrate her own point. If you’re director Mary Harron, you don’t shy away from showing the push/pull nature of THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE. You allow the character to drift back and forth between the healing forgiveness of the power of God and the church and the seductive illusion of control and dominance afforded to Page during her years as a pinup model. By doing so, audiences are offered a complex character that is propelled forward by a desire to leave her difficult past with a naïve enjoyment in others’ lust for her, and a struggle to reconcile her image in the eyes of God. Come the right time, it will no longer matter how many eyes are on her because there is only one pair that counts.

Shot mostly in black and white (with some unnecessary bursts of colour), THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE is at times a light, humourous comedy, making the film an enjoyable experience and also one that pokes fun at how seriously people believe in the corruption of pornography. But the delicate hand of the director is more palpably felt during Page’s times of despair. Harron is a sensitive, considerate director who does not throw Page’s numerous and devastating blows of abuse in the face of her viewer. Instead, she allows the surprisingly effective Gretchen Mol, who plays the title role, the chance to hammer the pain of her character into the viewer with fear in her eyes, exhaustion in her cries and shame on her skin. Whereas most directors, perhaps most male directors, would find it essential to show the heroine in painful positions in order to draw a link between the kinds of atrocities that were put upon her and where her life took her, Harron has too much compassion for her character, her actress and her audience. From fragility, Page learns to trust people again and as more and more photographers fall in love with her image, the more she falls in love with their admiration and the control she has over the gaze. By the time her poses cross over into the realm of soft-core S&M, she has found a way to combine her need to be respected with the objectification she has been accustomed to her whole life.

Mary Harron’s Bettie Page is a woman who yearns for control over her life and destiny, yet ultimately is always being told where to stand, how to smile and what to wear. When she finally realizes that none of her choices have been her own, she chooses to embrace God and preach his word to those who will listen. The true sadness behind this most important decision is that she is still letting someone else guide her blindly; she just has more faith that His direction will be better for her soul.

UNITED 93

UNITED 93
Written and Directed by Paul Greengrass
Starring Cheyenne Jackson and Olivia Thirlby

It was a morning that started like every other but ended unlike any other. While some made their way to work, others made their way to their couch, both with coffee in hand. Others still scurried about the Newark airport, carrying the same coffees and carrying on about everything and nothing on their cell phones. Everyone was so busy pretending their lives were so important, that their problems were so serious, that it mattered whether or not you got CC’d on that memo, that they didn’t see it coming. Amidst the windstorm of excess, greed and selfishness, a hatred had been brewing and was about to boil over. Paul Greengrass’ UNITED 93 tries to pinpoint exactly when that happened by taking the fateful morning of September 11, 2001, and placing it under a microscope. The experiment’s results are intense, emotional and life affirming. And with a few years worth of distance between that morning and now, we can look back and begin to ask why instead of just how.

It must have been a daunting task to write this film and then find the bravery to make it. Greengrass must have known how hesitant people would be to see this film and how disturbing it would be for those who did. He must have also known the risks he could run by sensationalizing the hijackings or trivializing the last moments of the real lives his actors were reenacting. Why else would he choose to cast no household name actors? Why would he choose to keep the actors cast to portray the four terrorists, who violently took over United Airlines Flight 93 with the goal of flying it directly into the White House, separate from the actors portraying the passengers or flight crew throughout shooting? Why else would he have spoken extensively with the victims families to perfect details like what they were wearing that day or what they may have been listening to on their walkman? He must have wanted to be as true to reality as possible, to respect and honour the hardship and tragedy the passengers on Flight 93 endured, as well as the devastating impact the combined day’s events had on the country as a whole. By not casting easily recognizable actors, the average viewer has an simpler time connecting with the average looking face on the screen. By keeping his actors separate during the shoot and it’s off hours, Greengrass set out to reinforce the distance between the groups and make the alienation of the terrorists palpable. And finally, by paying attention to character details, he exhibits a strong respect for the dead and deep sympathy for the bereaved. And though we may learn very little about the people on board, the little we do learn is hard enough to deal with as they accept their fates.

UNITED 93 is a tribute to the pain and sorrow that engulfed that particular Tuesday. Greengrass has crafted a unique interaction that transports the viewer back to that day, to that headspace and proceeds to offer a healing of the mind and soul that can only come by facing the darkness you’ve ran from. He does not presume what might have been going through the terrorists' minds while they executed their attack, choosing instead to simply show them as determined but scared, like any human being would be. He does not claim to know why they attacked the United States, but merely shows them as lost amidst an inundation of consumerism and meaninglessness, allowing for the viewers to speculate and ultimately decide for themselves. He does not insinuate that the American government took too long to acknowledge what was happening and react appropriately. Instead he shows the men and women of the army and traffic control as always one step behind, yet with an air of forgiveness because who wouldn’t be in that situation? And perhaps most importantly, when it comes time to take back the control of Flight 93, Greengrass does not have the passengers fight back in the name of the U.S.A.; they fight back because they want to live, because they value life.

Understanding the events of September 11, 2001, took some people contextualizing them as scenes in a movie, because only a good screenwriter could have devised such a sinister and horrifying plot. Thinking of it in terms of a movie, in terms we can perhaps more easily understand, also highlights the anticipation that the credits would soon role, the lights would rise and we could walk out and move on with our normal lives. It has been nearly five years and normalcy has prevailed for the most part. Still, walking out of UNITED 93, I left behind more than just the rolling credits and the rising lights; I left behind some leftover heaviness in my heart I didn’t know I was still carrying.

FRIENDS WITH MONEY

FRIENDS WITH MONEY
Written and Directed by Nicole Holofcener
Starring Jennifer Aniston, Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand and Joan Cusack

Centering stories around the lives of four very different women who happen to be friends for no particular reason other than because the screenwriters say so, is a common television practice. From “Sex and the City” to “Desperate Housewives” to even “The Golden Girls”, four women grow as archetype characters as the years roll on and the series develops. No specific story drives the characters’ progressions, just one scenario after the next that showcases how each personality type handles different circumstances. The formula succeeds as a long running series because the characters go through highs and lows, learn some lessons, struggle with some others. When applied to a feature film, the formula is boxed into a limited frame that ultimately highlights one focus. In the case of Nicole Holofcener’s FRIENDS WITH MONEY, Jennifer Aniston, Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand and Joan Cusack make up a foursome of women who struggle with success, remodeling, finding their calling or finding a worthy cause to donate the extra millions they have lying around. Everything in their lives is difficult and often uncomfortable. Everyone in their lives, including themselves, has issues and problems handling those issues. So when Aniston’s character, Olivia, claims “I’ve got problems,” in the last moments of the films, that’s really all the film amounts to, leaving out some of the causes and not bothering with any solutions.

It seems that every movie released these days starring Jennifer Aniston has the added pressure of successfully establishing her as a movie star. FRIENDS WITH MONEY takes the backdoor approach on this one as it is an indie film. If it doesn’t make a ton of money at the box office, no one ever expected it to. A high profile star does an indie film for credibility. She has done it before with fare like THE OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION and THE GOOD GIRL, but if the indie film doesn’t strike exactly the right chord with the critics then all that hard work is wasted. FRIENDS WITH MONEY will not be the film that gives Aniston the firm ground she seems to be chasing after so intensely. In fact, I’m not even clear why she agreed to do it in the first place. She has clearly proven she has a limited acting range with last year’s DERAILED (Horrid!) and RUMOR HAS IT (Aggravating!) but yet decided to star opposite women who are known for their strong presence and versatility. Cusack exhibits a calm, restrained quality not ordinarily seen in her work, while McDormand and Keener play women with internalized anger that is coming out of them in different fashions without their comprehension. Aniston plays the most lost of the four women and that is only further reinforced when she looks lost acting opposite such experience. She plays a stoner house-cleaner who just looks vacant at all times instead of a paralyzed soul, which is what her character calls for.

Very little is resolved at the end of FRIENDS WITH MONEY and having friends with money hardly seems to play a significant function in the film. Aniston’s Olivia is the only one without and the film focuses on so much more that does not derive from that particular dilemma. On the one hand, it would have been trite to make tired statements like the single girl has it more figured out than all her married friends or the girl with little to no cash is the happiest. On the other hand though, drawing at least one conclusion might have saved this movie from mediocrity.

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING
Written and Directed by Jason Reitman
Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello and Robert Duvall

Tobacco lobbyist, Nick Naylor, imparts many practical approaches to life’s many problems upon all the people he deals with. He tells people how to see things for a living and knows that they’re listening to him. No one person is perhaps listening to him more than his own son. And though Nick’s confidence might blind him into a false sense of security in life, he is not so far removed as to not know that the molding of his son’s mind is his most important job. Thus, when he tells his son that if you argue correctly then you are never wrong, it is not only the true beauty of argument, but it is also a strong, decisive direction to give your son. In that moment, he is a good father and not one of the most hated faces in America. This dichotomy between person and persona is what makes Nick Naylor real and Aaron Echkart’s portrayal of Naylor, as it is guided along its unexpected journey by director Jason Reitman, is what makes THANK YOU FOR SMOKING a real smart comedy.

Anyone I know who has avoided seeing this film has done so because they didn’t want to see a satirical look at smoking. The shame there is that this film avoids clichés whenever it can and doesn’t bother wasting its or our time positioning Naylor to learn a lesson about tobacco being bad. The lesson Naylor must learn is about pride as his is shaken during the course of the film by a disparaging piece of journalism. When life kicks you to the floor, it does not necessarily mean that everything you knew beforehand was wrong. Naylor had a pretty good idea about how to make life work for him but he stopped believing in himself. And when you can’t convince yourself of something, you certainly can’t convince others. Further to the root of this hilarious film are purpose and drive. Naylor’s biggest criticism from those who know him is pointed at his choice to lobby for big tobacco. It seems an easy place to start but it negates that Naylor is good at what he does. He can argue well for those who no one else would dream to argue for. It therefore becomes an inspiration to push yourself as far as possible when you find what you’re truly good at. And once you’re doing something, you might as well do it as well as you can because at the end of the day, everyone’s got their mortgage to pay for and you can’t come back with nothing. That’s a little approach to life I learned from a smooth-talking guy named Nick Naylor.

Son of director Ivan Reitman, Jason has clearly found what he’s good at. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is his first full-length film and it is sharp and witty. It has an energy that is infectious and a style that is both cool and hip, much in the way one sees smokers, minus the cancer, yellow teeth and bad breath. From the flashy pop-art of the opening credits shaped into cigarette packages to the usage of split screens, ironic subtitling and video, Reitman crafts a sexy, slick film that could have easily turned any of its viewers on to smoking. However, in perhaps what is Reitman’s most brilliant touch to this film, not one character ever lights up.

V FOR VENDETTA

V FOR VENDETTA
Written by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Directed by James McTeigue
Starring Nathalie Portman, Hugo Weaving and Stephen Rea

Evey: I wish I wasn't afraid all the time but I am.

A young lady speaks these words to a man in a mask who has imprisoned her in his home. This time in captivity is the most free she has ever felt. London waits outside these walls, as does her job, her friends and what she calls home. The insides of these walls are lined with art; the room is filled with history, music, colour and life. The mask the man is wearing is a Guy Fawkes mask, in honour of the man who once plotted to blow up the parliament building in London as part of a Catholic plot to overthrow the British government. The man behind the mask, known simply as V, plans to finish what Fawkes started centuries before, and blow up parliament in the name of the British people, so that they can reclaim the freedoms of life they gave up to their government out of fear years before. While the government and media, naturally controlled by the government, proclaim V a terrorist, V sees himself more as an artist. For V, the artist is one who uses lies to tell the truth, while politicians use lies to cover the truth up. The men behind V FOR VENDETTA clearly feel the same, as they make a terrorist into a sympathetic protagonist and draw undeniable lines between the ruling British government of V’s world and the current political relationship of the United States government and its people. As writers, the Wachowski brothers choose to highlight fear as the motivating factor in people’s lives, but go so far as to implicate the government as the major perpetuator of that fear. This is not a fresh accusation but the Wachowski’s go boldly further to accuse the government, fictional or otherwise, of not only maintaining a stronghold on its people through fear, but originating that fear to begin with, subsequently forcing the people to abandon the original motivating factor in their lives, love.

The frightened young lady being held captive by V is Evey (Natalie Portman). Director James McTeigue, longtime protégé of the Wachowski’s, instantly links Evey and V (played by Hugo Weaving) together in the opening sequence of the film by juxtaposing the two characters getting ready for their evening. They are both fixing themselves in the mirror, putting on boots. They both watch the same television news program and both shut it off at the same obnoxious point in the commentator’s monologue. They are both putting on their armour to protect themselves in the night, her from harm, him from human connection, and they both have similar views and ideals. The major difference, she’s going out to visit a colleague and he’s going out to blow up a building. As Evey, Portman is composed and confident. Throughout the course of the film, her character learns to open eyes that have been closed in fear since she was a small child when she witnessed her parents’ abduction by a government task force. With her eyes wide open, she can finally stare fear down and see there is a grander design that she is but a small yet vital part of. Weaving plays the role of V although it may be more appropriate to say the role of V is voiced by Weaving, as we never see him without his mask. Weaving’s delivery is both eloquent and polite making for a poetic and charming terrorist. Together, V and Evey are a delightful couple. McTeigue puts them in very simple and close situations, like sharing a breakfast V prepares for her or cozying up on the couch to watch V’s favorite film, “The Count of Monte Christo”, which Evey enjoys but finds sad as the hero chooses duty over love.

Evey’s quest is in all of us and we all must overcome our fear, as must she. Placing the viewer on par with a terrorist and his apprentice is what makes V FOR VENDETTA so poignant and effective. At a critical moment in Evey’s journey, which can also be ours, she must give herself over to faith and allow herself to be the person she wants to be. Her future self must choose to leave her present self behind her for the present self is too heavily controlled by her past to do what needs to be done to effectuate change. Explosions will ensue and life will be forever changed. It is the change that we cannot fear for we have sacrificed so much of ourselves to that fear. V FOR VENDETTA is dark and bleak. The citizens need deep extremism, shown here in a stylized pairing of bombs and fireworks set to Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture”, to wake them from their complacency. This is where my fears come into play. I fear that we are far too comfortable, far too afraid, and far too apathetic to respond to the call to overthrow those who impede our growth as individuals and as a species. I fear we believe change will come but that it will just happen without any work on our part at all.

V FOR VENDETTA is playful and cheeky. It is exciting and insightful. It can be very wordy but I like wordy. Ultimately, its very root is fearless and that bravery will energize and invigorate the viewer.

BLACK SHEEP’S BEST OF 2005 … THE WINNERS!

It is Friday, March the 3rd. I’ve just woken up and made myself a coffee. I had the choice between plain or flavoured. The plain is a solid reliable cup but the flavoured is special. I decided to go with special. After all, we are going into OSCAR weekend. Writing these reviews has given me the opportunity to see the majority of the films nominated at this year’s ceremony and I genuinely feel that much of the film that impacted me this past year has found it’s voice within the nominations. Many of these films showed no fear, giving us honest, brave images of marginalized sexuality or the cyclical ramifications of violence, while others opened the eyes of those who perhaps never thought to question the decisions made by their governments and reminded those who were already questioning, if not challenging, that there is hope. I was very happy with what I saw in 2005; often times I was surprised by just how much so.

Thank you for taking the time to visit this site, for your feedback and for passing the word. I have not written anything this past month as nothing has inspired me to visit the theatre. Look for a return in March. In the meantime, as promised, it is two days before the OSCAR’s, my coffee is damn good and these are my favorite films and performances for 2005.



BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

George Clooney, SYRIANA
Matt Dillon, CRASH
Jake Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Bob Hoskins, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Cillian Murphy, BATMAN BEGINS


And the winner is
George Clooney for SYRIANA





BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams, JUNEBUG
Maria Bello, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Scarlett Johansson, MATCH POINT
Thandie Newton, CRASH
Michelle Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN


And the winner is
Amy Adams for JUNEBUG





BEST POPCORN FLICK

BATMAN BEGINS
THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
PRIDE & PREJUDICE
WALK THE LINE
WEDDING CRASHERS


And the winner is
WALK THE LINE





BEST INDEPENDENT FEATURE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
MYSTERIOUS SKIN
THE SQUID & THE WHALE

And the winner is
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN






WORST MOVIE

BRIDE & PREJUDICE
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED
HOUSE OF D
SHOPGIRL
STAY


And the loser is
SHOPGIRL





BEST ACTOR

Jeff Daniels, THE SQUID & THE WHALE
Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE
Heath Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Joaquin Phoenix, WALK THE LINE
David Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK


And the winner is
Philip Seymour Hoffman for CAPOTE





BEST ACTRESS

Judi Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Felicity Huffman, TRANSAMERICA
Kiera Knightly, PRIDE & PREJUDICE
Naomi Watts, KING KONG
Reese Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE


And the winner is
Felicity Huffman for TRANSAMERICA





BEST SCREENPLAY

Woody Allen, MATCH POINT
Noah Baumbach, THE SQUID & THE WHALE
Dan Futterman, CAPOTE
Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Josh Olson, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE


And the winner is
Noah Baumbach for THE SQUID AND THE WHALE





BEST DIRECTOR

George Clooney, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
David Cronenberg, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Ang Lee, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Fernando Meirelles, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Steven Spielberg, MUNICH


And the winner is
Ang Lee for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN





BEST PICTURE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
MATCH POINT
MUNICH
THE SQUID & THE WHALE


And the winner is
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN



Good luck at the OSCAR's, cowboys!

BLACK SHEEP’S BEST OF 2005!

Hasn’t everyone done this already? Well, yes they have. Beginning before 2005 even ended, critics and associations of people who supposedly know a thing or two about film have been declaring their choices for the best film offerings of 2005. Here in Montreal, some of those films hadn’t even begun screening before the year closed. And there is a particular academy that has yet to announce their choices so I would like to take this opportunity to share my choices for favorite films, performances and contributions from 2005.

'Twas a great year for North American film, I felt. It was also a great year for me to finally get in the habit of regularly seeing films and musing on them for (hopefully) your enjoyment. With the Oscar nominations coming out this Tuesday, I am pleased to give you my nominations in the following categories:

BEST PICTURE
BEST DIRECTOR
BEST ACTOR, ACTRESS
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, ACTRESS
BEST SCREENPLAY
BEST INDEPENDENT FEATURE
BEST POPCORN FLICK
and
WORST FILM

To be eligible for this list, a film needed only meet two simple criteria. First, the film needed to be released during the 2005 calendar year. Secondly, I had to see it. As I’m not a professional film critic (yet), I can’t see everything so you might notice an omission here and there.

As I’m announcing the nominations two days before the Oscars, I will announce the winners two days before they do as well. Who knows? Maybe a large number of members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will read my blog and I will have a giant influence on their voting. I will be bigger than the Golden Globes, damnit!

In the meantime, please share your comments in the comment section and thanks for humouring me.


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

George Clooney, SYRIANA
Matt Dillon, CRASH
Jake Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Bob Hoskins, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Cillian Murphy, BATMAN BEGINS


BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams, JUNEBUG
Maria Bello, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Scarlett Johansson, MATCH POINT
Thandie Newton, CRASH
Michelle Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN


BEST POPCORN FLICK

BATMAN BEGINS
THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
PRIDE & PREJUDICE
WALK THE LINE
WEDDING CRASHERS


BEST INDEPENDENT FEATURE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
MYSTERIOUS SKIN
THE SQUID & THE WHALE


WORST MOVIE

BRIDE & PREJUDICE
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED
HOUSE OF D
SHOPGIRL
STAY


BEST ACTOR

Jeff Daniels, THE SQUID & THE WHALE
Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE
Heath Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Joaquin Phoenix, WALK THE LINE
David Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK


BEST ACTRESS

Judi Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Felicity Huffman, TRANSAMERICA
Kiera Knightly, PRIDE & PREJUDICE
Naomi Watts, KING KONG
Reese Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE


BEST SCREENPLAY

Woody Allen, MATCH POINT
Noah Baumbach, THE SQUID & THE WHALE
Dan Futterman, CAPOTE
Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Josh Olson, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE


BEST DIRECTOR

George Clooney, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
David Cronenberg, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Ang Lee, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Fernando Meirelles, THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Steven Spielberg, MUNICH


BEST PICTURE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
MATCH POINT
MUNICH
THE SQUID & THE WHALE







God, I’m a geek.

MATCH POINT

MATCH POINT
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Starring Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Scarlett Johansson, Matthew Goode and Emily Mortimer

The ladies who saved my seat at the nearly sold-out screening of MATCH POINT I attended, were having the same conversation probably everyone in the audience has had at one point in time before buying their ticket for the evening’s final showing.

“I know,” the lady furthest to my right exclaimed. “My boyfriend and I were watching the preview and then it was, like, ‘This is a Woody Allen film.’ It didn’t look anything like that.”

“I know,” the closer lady returned. “It looks really good.”

This leads me to two major points of contention when it comes to addressing MATCH POINT. First, the previews look like a drastic departure from Allen’s previous outings. It looks smooth, glossy, and conventional even. The other point refers to the widely established opinion of the movie-going public that it has been ages since Allen made a good movie. From two points, stem two questions. Is it really that different? And is it really any good?

Allen has been making movies for just over forty years so it seems reasonable to wonder just how much of a departure MATCH POINT really could be from a director whose neurotic mistrust of love and life looms over most of his offerings. Even as he gets on in years and no longer takes on the lead acting responsibilities, cutting down to merely writing and directing one film a year on average, the ghost of the Woody Allen caricature finds its way into his pictures (see Jason Biggs in ANYTHING ELSE or Will Ferrell in MELINDA AND MELINDA.) The lead here, tennis pro turned instructor, Chris Wilton, is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers. We meet him after Allen’s classic plain white text on black background opening credits, interviewing for a job and looking for a London flat. The young lad worked his way out of a poor Irish background into the pro-tennis circuit before retiring for a more stable life, where he could appreciate the finer things life had to offer, like opera and art. In opposition to past leads, he is well put together, focused. He has his eye on the ball, if you will. This is not to say he has everything figured out or is without fear. He knows he wants to do something of value with his life, isn’t clear on what exactly that is, but also does not let hesitation paralyze him. Upon meeting Chloe Hewett (the glowing Emily Mortimer), Chris’ biggest similarity to the Woody Allen archetype becomes apparent. Despite all his efforts and subsequent accomplishments, he is a pessimist. He may appreciate the finer things but his belief is the finest things are those capable of capturing and communicating everything that is tragic about life. Can a pessimist truly know love? Allen seems to think yes, at least at first. Chloe is an eternal optimist who has never known anything tragic about life and despite their differences, they fall in love while walking around London, which Allen frames like postcards in much the same way he has framed Manhattan for years.

Allen has a strong handle on the visual direction, allowing characters to walk in and out of the frame when we would expect them to. There are no surprises, just a natural direction, suggesting that Allen knows exactly what we will want to see as we watch from behind bushes or fences. More importantly, he has an even stronger control on this, his finest screenplay since 1992’s HUSBANDS AND WIVES. MATCHPOINT is ultimately about luck, how little importance we place on luck despite the significant role it plays in our lives, and how far we’re willing to push our own luck. Chris, a devout believer in the influence luck has on his life, decides to close his eyes and hope for the best when he embarks on an affair with Nola Rice (Scarlet Johansson), his soon-to-be brother-in-law’s fiancée. The two gravitate towards each other, pulled by an uncontrollable sexual desire. Separately, they each represent opposite ends of the luck spectrum. Chris is still riding his lucky streak, scoring his tennis instructor job, meeting Chloe, getting a job at one of her father’s business firms. Whereas Nola is still trying to escape her streak of bad luck, running away from her dead-end Colorado home, struggling to make it as an actress and eventually losing her fiancé, Tom (Matthew Goode). The question then is how much better is Chris’ luck when all the successes he stumbles upon are not what he wants but what he believes he should want?

Further strengthening Allen’s script, is the issue of class woven in and out of the entire film. Both Chris and Nola come from modest backgrounds at best and are dating members of London’s higher society. Tom and Chloe are happy, high-spirited people with all the time in the world to pursue their interests – opera, tennis, opening an art gallery. Chris and Nola have been working their whole lives to get where they are, with Nola finding she still has a great deal of work ahead of her and uncertain she has it in her to get there. For Tom and Chloe, there is no flipside to the coin and new opportunities arise all the time. They’ve always been lucky and what makes them descent is at least they can each acknowledge their fortunate existence. Nola has yet to truly know luck and lack of enthusiasm in her speech shows how little faith she has in potentially finding it. But it is the taste of a fortunate man’s life that is new to Chris Wilton. He has a driver now and his new flat no longer has a fold out sofa bed, but it does have one of the most spectacular views of London available. So when his affair with Nola begins to threaten his newfound cushion of a life, he is forced to make a decision for the first time instead of leaving everything to chance. This decision brings about a tension and discomfort that is so rarely achieved in filmmaking today. Allen manages to blindside his audience without using it as a gimmick or relying on twists to give the film its ultimate meaning.

Be it lucky in life or unlucky in love, Allen serves up a film about the game itself. We may all think that we have control, that we hold the power over our lives or that we are making the decisions that will move us forward. What Allen wants to remind us is that, like a game, we don’t get to make any of these decisions until it’s our turn to serve and we certainly don’t know what our opponents will do next, despite how well we think we know their game.

MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS

MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Written by Martin Sherman
Directed by Stephen Frears
Starring Judi Dench, Bob Hoskins and Kelly Reilly

The credits roll and instantly MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS is insufferable. A tiresome montage of animation and archival footage of monkeys, cherubs and ladies in suggestive situations introduces the film’s players as a flat jazz score attempts to liven the mood and pick up the pace. I felt I might be doomed to sit through an unexpectedly tacky offering from the director of groundbreaking fare like MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDERETTE and the writer of the gut wrenching BENT. I began to breathe easy shortly after as Judi Dench took to the screen as Laura Henderson. As a recently widowed lady of England’s high society, Dench delivers a sharp, snappy performance that had me jerking out embarrassingly loud fits of laughter, while she managed to maintain the tenderness and hope of a woman looking for meaning in a life without her great loves, her husband and her son who died in the first World War. At a friend’s suggestion, she takes up a hobby to pass the time after her husband dies and after passing herself on embroidery and charity work, she settles on a project that is nothing short of extravagant, and therefore nothing short of fitting for Mrs. Henderson; she buys a theatre in London’s West End. Though the venture starts out promising, the fickle patrons quickly turn away and Mrs. Henderson decides to do what any proper lady would; she suggests putting naked girls on the stage.

The nature of the theatre can be one of spontaneity and surprise, especially for those who have no idea what they’ve signed on for. Though this energizes the theatre experience both in the audience and backstage, it does not make for a solid film. Sherman’s script is without any consistent story arch, leaving the viewer wondering where this is all going and knowing that the answer is really nowhere. The only constant is the theatre itself and subplots run rampant in these wings and dressing rooms. Much like the “Revuedeville” show that runs all day at the Windmill theatre, these trivial plots arise and resolve themselves before making way for the next. There is expected banter and emotional tension between Mrs. Henderson and her theatre manager, Mr. Van Damme (Bob Hoskins); there is the inevitable controversy over having naked girls on stage; there is even a rising star with a frozen heart who manages to thaw it out in time to fall for a soldier, get pregnant and lose him. The only thing any of these situations has in common is that they all take place in the Windmill Theatre. And all that manages to save this disconnected story from feeling like a mismatched chorus line are the lively, exuberant performances from all the players. They wear their awareness of being naughty very well and parlay it into an amusing and jubilant show, while forming the foundation of a family, like only the theatre can, that the audience both roots and hopes for in between their hollers.

In order for the naked ladies to take the stage, they must remain perfectly still, like works of art in a museum. While naturally hesitant at first, the ladies shed their garb under the guidance of Mr. Van Damme. After all, this is England in 1937. Such things were just not done. Mr. Van Damme asks his girls, and throws the question out at any prudes in the audience as well, “Why do you think God gave you your bits and pieces? So you could be ashamed of them?” He goes on to tell them all that they are works of art. And while he plays the occasional prank that forces the ladies to move on stage when they are not allowed to, he does treat them with the respect and admiration any work of art deserves. The ladies are never exploited and are always incorporated into the acts like set pieces to enhance the song being sung or the dance being danced. It is always about the build up and not about the pay off. In other words, it is the difference between baring your bosom and baring your breast. And while the promise of naked girls may get the people in the seats, it is the show itself they leave with. Perhaps the same can be said of the experience for some of the folks I saw this film with.

MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS is inspired by true events and reality must at one point interrupt the fun and games. A few years in to the Windmill’s run, Germany begins bombing England. An overwhelming feeling of helplessness falls on the theatre and Frears poses another question to his audience. What is the point of some good, clean fun in troubled times? Though Frears’ decision to cut back and forth between archival war footage of bombings and fighter planes and the impact of these images on the players and patrons of Mrs. Henderson’s theatre is awkward at best, it still manages to make a point we all know well even more relevant. The show must go on. Why? Because there must be hope that a life we all know and love will return after the fear and we will feel safe once again. In a simple, and dare I say rather naked moment, one “Revuedeville” star asks, “Who’d ever dreamed that standing on a stage without any clothes on would feel like the safest place to be?” Any revue is bound to have elements that don’t work or take you out of the moment but it’s moments like this and many other hilarious ones that make it all worthwhile and catch you off guard, as if you were caught unexpectedly with your pants down.

TRANSAMERICA

TRANSAMERICA
Written and Directed by Duncan Tucker
Starring Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers

A perky spokesperson is on the television at the onset of TRANSAMERICA. “This is the voice I want to use,” she repeats, staring directly into the camera. Bree Osbourne (Felicity Huffman) watches this instructional tape, using it as yet one more step to ultimately eliminate every trace of Stanley Schupack, the man she once was and biologically still is, or at least she still will be for the next week. Bree is a pre-operation, male-to-female transsexual with a definite distaste for all things supposedly male. This means anything vulgar or classless and even her penis. She would much rather embrace all that is delicate, artistic, and insightful. These conscious decisions show gender as a performance, a calculated choice to put forth the parts of you that you identify as more innately masculine or feminine in accordance with who you want to be. In Bree’s case, the decisions she makes are often awkward and misplaced, from the jerkiness of her walk to her often difficult-to-process-how-she-rationalized-that-was-a-good-look-for-her ensembles. Despite that, the decisions she makes are her own and having made them and consequently sticking with them is more important than the decisions themselves. After all, she is about to make a much bigger decision that she will have to live with for the rest of her life.

Just as Bree can almost feel the jarring cold of the surgical knife on her skin, she learns that her one sexual fumble with a woman back in college, when she was still Stanley, led to the birth of a child. (Oh, those silly college experimentations.) That child, Toby (Kevin Zegers), has gotten himself arrested and sent to a juvenile detention unit up in New York City. In response, Bree’s therapist will not sign off on her authorization to go ahead with the surgery if Bree refuses to confront this boy and her past. Upon meeting Toby, Bree learns that he hustles to earn a living and enjoys his hallucinogenics, while he is still holding on to his dream of making it in the movies. He aims high but he’s still a realist, acknowledging that his big future in the film industry will likely be in gay porn. From the looks of him in his undies, I dare say he’s a pretty perceptive kid, not to mention a good shot at success. In the driver’s seat we have a timid and awkward father who will soon be a mother but has not divulged this much to her son. In the passenger seat, we have an ambitious and bright young man who has lost his way without realizing. And thus begins the great transamerican road trip from New York City to Los Angeles. Bree’s seemingly unsolicited act of kindness inspires Toby to be a better man and return that kindness to this stranger. This cycle continues along the way as we watch two people who are so acutely aware of the roles they portray to the world, shed their thick skins and take on new roles without even realizing they’re doing it. One is trying to be heard right now and the other has tried for so long not to be seen. Yet on this cross country trek, they both leave these acts they’re so used to aside and embrace their new selves as a mother who helps her child see his worth and a child who makes his mother feel more like a woman than any instructional videotape or hormone she’s ever seen or taken.

Felicity Huffman knows how to play a reluctant mother. As the exhausted mother of four, Lynette Scavo, on television’s "Desperate Housewives", Huffman exhibits her strengths as an actress by playing Lynette as a woman who relies on her instincts. She is protective and fierce while still sensitive and nurturing. While her television character’s hesitation comes from a lack of confidence in her abilities to embody one of life’s most natural roles, her TRANSAMERICA film persona holds back for mostly selfish reasons. She has not felt like herself her entire life. The look of disgust on her face when a doctor asks how she feels about her penis hits hard for how quick and harsh a reaction it is. Having a problem son to deal with, and eventually confront regarding his misconceived notions about his birth father, is a direct obstacle that she had not counted on. This is her initial fear but Bree is actually terrified that she has no nurturing capabilities just like her television counterpart. It is only by spending time with her son that she comes to learn that she has much wisdom to impart upon him, that she was not ruined entirely by her parents, or that she could stand to learn a thing or two from him as well.

The issue of control, having it in one’s life or over one’s self is a struggle for most, but can be even more of an arduous challenge for marginalized people, like a transsexual person. He or she not only needs to ingest numerous hormones in order be more like the person they feel they are inside, which is in complete contradiction to the body they’ve been given, but they then have to deal with the ignorance and judgment that is given to them each time they put on their armor and walk outside their door. TRANSAMERICA is a film about learning how to incorporate the person you’ve always known yourself to be with the person you so desperately want to become and about healing the relationships with the people you meet and touch along the winding road that gets you there.