More Than One Lesson

I was recently speaking to an old friend and he revealed his general dislike of film critics. This was, of course, quite off-putting, as he knew that this is what I consider my calling to be. I asked what it is exactly that bothers him about critics. His answer was intriguing; he talked about the recent Mira Nair film Amelia, which stars Hilary Swank as famed female pilot Amelia Earhart. As the film’s release approached, he was excited to see the film. However, upon release, the majority of film critics panned the film, stating that it tried too hard to canonize its subject, rather than treat her as if she were a real person. Knowing that Earhart is already a rather mythic figure, the opportunity to see a realistic, human portrait of the missing pilot was an exciting prospect for most critics. But it was not to be and the disappointment of the film critic community was palpable.

[…]

“For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
-Romans 15:4

Quotations are important to me. In my apartment, there are three large stacks of blank notecards and a black permanent marker, so that whenever a new one comes into my life, I can write it down. There are about 50 next to this keyboard right now – quotations from movies, books, songs, interviews, and many from The Bible.

[…]

FANTASTIC MR. FOX (2009)
Directed by: Wes Anderson
Written by: Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach
Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Michael Gambon

I think “delightful” is a good word to describe Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox. In a time where the animation world is dominated by CG, it’s fun to see a divergence from the norm. In taking on a well-loved classic, Anderson and his team give it a pleasant, whimsical re-imagining.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on the children’s novel of the same name by Roald Dahl of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” fame. Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) is a lovable scoundrel trying to steal from three of the meanest farmers around. Things get complicated when the farmers decide to fight back. The cast is mostly woodland creatures; fox, badger, rabbit, weasel, and so on. But we also get some great moments with the evil farmers. The ringleader is voiced by Michael Gambon, who expertly gives us both sinister and hilarious moments. Among the rest of the voice cast we find Wes Anderson regulars such as Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman.

The look of the movie is one of the things that gives it so much charm. The color pallet is full of soothing fall colors, and the landscapes are beautiful in a simple way. That’s the way all the animation is. It goes in the opposite direction from the super-realism attempted in some animation, which gives it a lot more character. It has its own aesthetic as well, coming from relatively unknown animation company MacKinnon and Saunders. And everything in it encourages you to come along for the ride.

The script is simpler than other Anderson films, being based on a children’s book, but that doesn’t make it any less interesting. It still has a recognizable crackle of Wes Anderson/Noah Baumbach dialogue. There are a few moments when the film seems to pop out of its kids genre to throw something to the indie-movie lovers, who will undoubtedly be out in droves.

Because it’s simpler (I wouldn’t call it simple, but simpler), the story is not as compelling or moving as Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore. Also lending to this is the mere fact that it’s animation on animal faces – you’ll never get the same emotion from an animated image that you would from a true human face. But the movie isn’t trying to change your life, it’s trying to tell a good story in a fun way, and it succeeds.

You’ll see here some of the same “father” themes that regularly pop up in the work of both Anderson and Baumbach, but not to the same degree. The story arc between Mr. Fox and his son Ash (Schwartzman) has a heartfelt setup and a tender pay-off. The character interplay is enough that it will have something for all audiences, even if it doesn’t blow your mind. Anderson’s directing style is also still there, for certain. There are lots of straight-on close-ups, long wide shots, and his typical attention to set design. A scene showing the animals in different levels of the sewer will remind savvy audiences of the presentation of the Belafonte in The Life Aquatic. And as always, there’s lot of great classic rock music, from the Rolling Stones to the Beach Boys.

Some might question whether or not this is a movie for kids, considering the big debate over Where the Wild Things Are this October. I think Mr. Fox will be enjoyable for both kids and adults. The animation is fun, the story is basic enough for kids to follow, and hey, it’s got talking animals. It moves quickly enough that it shouldn’t lose children’s attention. At the same time, the themes are pretty universal, so parents can take something from it, and they’ll get more of the jokes.

It belongs in a different category than his other films, but Fantastic Mr. Fox is still a great offering from Wes Anderson. It’s a fun ride, it might pull at your heartstrings a little bit. I’d say…well, I’d say it’s delightful.

In this episode, Tyler discusses Pete Docter’s Up and what we as Christians can learn from it.

BENJAMIN SEAY was born and raised in Jacksonville, FL and received a BFA in Theater Arts from Elon University in North Carolina where he also studied history and political science. He was brought up in a Christian home and received Christ as his redeemer in the 5th grade. Since moving to LA he has been seen on the Award-winning series Mad Men and the cult-favorite Veronica Mars as well as in TV commercials and independent films. After many years of an ultra private and ultimately weak relationship with God, Ben found his first permanent church since his teen years and a great community of spirit-filled artistic friends. In his spare time he enjoys playing the guitar, family geneology, and writing.

JULIE AND JULIA (2009)
Written and Directed by: Nora Ephron
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci

The story of Julie and Julia is one of two lost people who use the act of preparing meals to find a purpose. Julia is Julia Child, (Meryl Streep) world-renowned chef who introduced French cuisine to American audiences. Julie is Julie Powell, (Amy Adams) a woman who decides to cook every meal in Child’s cookbook within a year and blog about her experience. Both women are married to kind, supportive, and understand husbands. The similarities between the two women pretty much end there.

Julia is a very tall woman with a big personality to match. She is loud and full of life. She is very personable and seems to bring joy to the lives of others. She is married to Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) and even though they are both in their forties they are very romantic and very vigorous in their physical relationship. They adore one another and it shows. We open on her story as Julia and Paul are moving to Paris because of his work in the American Embassy. Julia finds that Paris is thriving with excitement and culture and she falls in love with it. She loves the city and she moved to support Paul but she still needs something to do with her time. She loves eating so she decides to become a chef and quickly finds that not only does she love eating but also she loves preparing food. She isn’t out to prove anything to anybody, she just wants to do what she loves and she wants to do it well.

On the other hand, Julie is a petite woman with a gloomy personality. When we open on her story, she is moving into a shabby apartment in Queens with her husband Eric (Chris Messina). Within the first few moments in this new apartment, she has a break down from the stress in her life. She doesn’t want to live in Queens, she wants to live somewhere with more prestige. All her friends are successful businesswomen and she works a small government job, helping the victims of 9/11 with their insurance claims. She needs to find a purpose in her life because she needs to feel successful. She needs to be validated in the eyes of her friends. Her marriage is strong, but she isn’t always as engaged in it as her husband. She is more concerned with herself than her marriage.

For the first half of this film, the opposite personalities of these two women work well together. It is essentially the same story taking place in two different time periods. It is a case of iron sharpening iron, the weakness of Julie and the strength of Julia make for an interesting dynamic. Both women are trying really hard to establish themselves, and the two stories are strengthened by their opposite motivations and goals.

In the second half, the individual stories change and, rather than feeling like two stories working together, become two separate stories. The story of Julia Child becomes about who she is, her marriage, and how she came to author one of the most famous cook books of all time. Success in the culinary world is not the focus of the story about Julia Child. The focus is Julia herself and it is a great story. It is very easy to root for this character because she is so lovable. Streep gives into the force of nature that is Julia Child with reckless abandonment.

Child is not the kind of person who lets the bad times slow her down. There are moments in this film in which Paul gives her bad news and you see her take it for the briefest of moments before she changes the conversation. Streep makes it clear that Child is not simply brushing it off. She has this look on her face that lets you know she is processing the bad news and when she is done she moves on to something else. For some undisclosed reason (in the film at least) Julia and Paul cannot have children. We first come to know this because in one scene they are walking in a park and pass a baby carriage. Julia looks back at the baby and then down at the ground. Paul then puts his arm around her and they keep walking and talking. This is a brilliant scene and the credit goes to Streep and Tucci for completely selling the scene without making a statement.

In the second half of the film, Julie’s story becomes all about her. She is writing this blog and cooking these recipes because she needs to validate herself. It isn’t about wanting to do something she loves. She is doing it because one of her best friends has just started a blog, which has met with instant success. Throughout the film, she is constantly keeping track of how many people comment on her blog and celebrates each time the number is raised. At first, it is fun to watch her tackle the recipes in Child’s book, but, after awhile, it becomes completely about her vanity.

Julie is always complaining about everything and her husband just tries to hear her out. He is standing by her as she works on this project and cheers her on. She doesn’t appear to be interested in anything that he is doing. Their marriage feels just as real as Paul and Julia’s, but it is completely different. Whereas Paul and Julia had a marriage based on mutual edification, it is one-sided with Julie and Eric. In short, Julie Powell is a bitch and I want to credit to both writer-director Nora Ephron and Amy Adams for letting the character be a bitch.

Last week, I shared my respect for Adam Sandler and Judd Apatow, because they had the courage to let their main character be a jerk for the purpose of the story in Funny People. Adams and Ephron are doing the same thing in this film. The character isn’t completely unlikable. She is just shallow and narcissistic, and it serves their story well. The story is about a woman trying to prove herself to society, and they are okay with letting it be vain pursuit. Adams is not unlikable in this performance; she isn’t a villain. She is okay with playing the character as she is, without trying to make her cute so the audience will like her.

The only problem with it is that it is happening at the same time that we are rooting for Julia Child. These are two great stories, but they don’t always play well together. Still, I highly recommend this film. It is so refreshing to see a film that is based on character, not cheap thrills and, when it is done as well as this one, it is worth checking out.

CORALINE (2009)
Written and Directed by: Henry Selick
Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, John Hodgman, Ian McShane, Keith David

When I was growing up, I had a small collection of VHS tapes. On these tapes were various Disney movies, such as Robin Hood, Peter Pan, and the Sword in the Stone. My parents had no qualms about letting me watch these movies, though many of them, I’ve come to realize, are deeply disturbing. From the pink elephants in Dumbo to the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland to the fate of Lampwick in Pinocchio, many of these films had images that seem as though they would be too intense for children.

And yet we watched them anyway. Because maybe it’s okay for children to be a little frightened on their way to learning a lesson. It’s with this in mind that I write my review of Henry Selick’s Coraline. The story is very basic. A young girl, feeling neglected by her parents, entertains herself by exploring the nooks and crannies of her new house. As she does, she finds a small door leading to a parallel world.

This other world looks exactly like our own, but a little better. Her parents are attentive and loving, the neighbors are welcoming, and the animals talk (some even put on a show). The one creepy element in this world is that all the other humans have black buttons where their eyes should be. No matter. What these people lack in aesthetic beauty, they more than make up for in positivity and love. Coraline has a hard time pulling herself away from this wonderful fantasy. Why would she ever want to go back home? Nobody pays attention to her. Do they even notice she’s gone?

As Coraline goes back and forth between worlds, she discovers that everything is not what it seems in the other world. The more truth she reveals, the uglier the world becomes. Soon, she finds that it was all a lie, created by the Other Mother to ensnare listless children.

The parallel world and its inhabitants begin to turn into grotesque caricatures of humanity. In some cases, the inhabitants disappear altogether. In one particularly unnerving scene, Coraline finds herself speaking to an empty suit that walks and talks. Many of these scenes seem as though they might be too intense for children, seemingly its intended audience. But, then, boys turning into donkeys is pretty frightening, too, but that didn’t stop multiple generations of children from watching Pinocchio.

Perhaps it is necessary for these scenes to be so unsettling. It really drives the point home. Coraline, faced with a drab and boring reality, chose to try to escape it, embracing something that seemed too good to be true. But, when faced with the horrifying alternative, she realizes just how much she truly cherishes her parents and her friends and her neighbors. Over the course of the film, Coraline discovers that, while running from one’s problems might seem like the easiest thing to do, it might simply land one in a different- sometimes worse- set of circumstances. Perhaps it is better to simply stick it out and deal with one’s problems, insurmountable though they may seem.

This is a very adult concept: accepting personal responsibility for bettering one’s own situation. However, for children, it might be a bit too subtle. The solution? Throw in a talking cat, and a terrifying spider-like villain, and creepy mechanized henchmen. These fantastical elements keep kids deeply involved in the story, much in the tradition of the old Grimm’s fairy tales.

The animation, art direction, and voicework in Coraline makes for a fun, memorable movie watching experience. But, unlike many other children’s movies, it has a lesson to teach. It’s a lesson that kids can really benefit from. Probably some adults, too.

In this episode, Tyler discusses Armando Iannucci’s In The Loop and what we as Christians can learn from it.

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009)
Directed by: Michael Mann
Written by: Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, Ann Biderman
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup

As is the case with most Michael Mann films, Public Enemies is a brilliant technical achievement. From the authentic art direction to the crisp editing to the energizing digital cinematography, this film has all the technical elements required in a memorable film.

It’s a shame that I didn’t care about the characters at all.

Public Enemies is about John Dillinger, the legendary bank robber whose exploits made him a would-be folk hero across the country. The story of Dillinger- and the lawman that pursues him- seems like it would be great material for Michael Mann, who revolutionized modern crime movies with his exceptional Heat. Certainly a technical master, Mann has been a favorite of mine for years; not just for his directorial flourishes, but for his ability to relate interesting stories about fascinating people. Watching him delve into what made Dillinger tick could have been a deeply satisfying cinematic experience.

Unfortunately, however, Mann has allowed himself to get so mired in the minute details of the period and the intricacies of the events that he forgot to make Dillinger relatable. The character certainly doesn’t have to be sympathetic, nor does he need to be an open book. As a film watcher, I like having to figure some things out for myself. However, in order to do that, I need to be given some information. Just give me the slightest hint of character motivation and I’ll be happy to take it from there.

Such things are not to be found in Public Enemies, however, as I left the theater feeling no closer to knowing who John Dillinger was than when I entered. The same goes for Melvin Purvis, the federal agent tasked with catching Dillinger. His motivations remain as elusive as those of his quarry. We sometimes feel that Purvis is conflicted about the measures to which he must go in order to gain the upper hand, but we don’t know why. Does he not have the stomach for it? Does he secretly admire Dillinger? We just don’t know.

The story of Dillinger and Purvis has been related before, most notably in John Milius’ 1973 film Dillinger. In that version, we got a strong sense of who this man was. Played with gusto by Warren Oates, Dillinger seemed like a living, breathing person, not the shadowy legend embodied by Johnny Depp. Oates’ Dillinger is not remarkably likable; he is more of a charismatic brute. But at least he has a pulse.

I don’t know why Mann was apparently reluctant to dig deeper into his subject. He is clearly committed to preserving the authenticity of the period and events; perhaps he felt strongly about not overly fictionalizing an already larger-than-life historical figure. Whatever his reasoning, Mann’s hard work at bringing Dillinger’s world to life ultimately amounts to nothing. What does it matter how amazing this created world is if we don’t care about the people inhabiting it?

There are a couple of characters that stand out. Marion Cotillard transcends the fairly thankless role of Billie Frechette. In films like this, there is almost always a woman whose job it is to worry about the protagonist. Here, Cotillard imbues Frechette with credible vulnerability, helping us to believe that this woman still exists when Dillinger isn’t around. Billy Crudup is also memorable as J. Edgar Hoover, who capitalizes on the crime wave to snatch more power for himself. Played as an unshakable optimist, whose smile doesn’t even fade when being berated by his superiors. Lastly, Stephen Graham creates a truly loathsome Baby Face Nelson. His recklessness and indifference to human life does more to define our protagonist by contrast than anything Dillinger does directly.

For me, the most notable directorial choice is in regards to the violence. Michael Mann has never glorified violence. In his career, Mann has done everything he can to emphasize the fragility of the human body and the inherent brutality and heartlessness of violence. He takes no joy in depicting these scenes, and we take no joy in watching them. We cringe when innocent people are hurt, as one would expect. What’s interesting is how heartbreaking it is to watch Dillinger’s men go down. Dangerous though they may be, when they’ve been shot several times and are slowly bleeding out, their sad acceptance of their fate reminds us that these men are human beings, too. The graphic depiction of Dillinger’s assassination may seem excessive to some, but I view as wholly necessary.

It is unfortunate that only in death do we feel something for these characters. Perhaps if Mann had put as much humanity and care into depicting these people’s lives as he did their deaths, Public Enemies could have been one of the best films of the year and a worthy addition to the gangster genre. As it is, it feels like little more than a missed opportunity. A prime example of style over substance.

G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA (2009)
Directed by: Stephen Sommers
Written by: Stuart Beattie, David Elliot, and Paul Lovett
Starring: Channing Tatum, Siena Miller, Marlon Wayans

The action in G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra is coherent. I was able to follow what was happening on the screen because it was clearly shot and well edited. For some time now all actions scenes have been cut together in an incoherent mess. Quick cuts and handheld cameras have become the norm and it is refreshing to view a film in which those techniques are not employed. Nothing about the action is impressive. It is just coherent, much like the rest of the film.

For this film to be a complete disaster it would have had to strive for greatness. For it to be a failure on epic proportions it would have had to have nearly impossible to reach aspirations. To be labeled a “complete mess” the filmmakers would have had to demonstrate some level of incompetence. There are no boom mics in any of the frames and as I mentioned the actions scenes are well put together so they aren’t totally incompetent. To achieve the “so bad that it’s good” status the filmmakers would have needed to demonstrate some level of commitment to the material. G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra cannot be classified as any of these things because it doesn’t aspire to be anything more than on the screen. It does succeed in achieving that goal.

Director Stephen Sommers is like a high school student who just does the work he was assigned. He doesn’t put any effort beyond getting it done. When it is finished, he turns it in and walks away from it. The teacher might ask him if this is his best work, but he doesn’t care. It’s done and he can move on. This film is effortless; as in it is completely without effort.

The first indication of this complete lack of effort is the quality of the special effects. This film has a great reliance on special effects, which is confusing because they are so poorly done. Yes, they do look fake but there is more to it. There are scenes in which the audience is supposed to be in awe, but all I could think about was how cheap the effects looked. I have seen independent shorts with better special effects than this film.

Sommers relies on effects when he could have gone without them. There are shots of the characters doing super human jumps and, rather than relying on practical effects, he uses CGI. Most filmmakers try hard to make their CGI blend into their live action, but not Sommers. For shots in which he could have used live action, it was much easier for him to use a cheap looking CGI character. In the aforementioned independent shorts, the directors try to shoot around their CGI limitations. That would be too much work for this director; he puts his cheap looking effects front and center.

The three screenwriters don’t seem much more interested in doing any kind of work. There is a particularly annoying plot device concerning a tracking device in a briefcase. First the good guys have it and then the bad guys steal it. Then one of the good guys steals it back only to lose it again to the bad guys. Both sides know that there is a tracking device in the briefcase and rather than remove the device or the contents in the case they take turns turning it back on and off. Of course the story is filled with contrived dialogue and ridiculous situations, but it is the lack of creativity that bothered me the most. There is a complete lack of spectacle in this film.

This is a film that was based on a cartoon that was made to sell toys. It should have been easy for the filmmakers to indulge themselves in this outlandish film. They could have gone off the wall and really had some fun. It didn’t have to be a great movie, because it never was going to be, it just had to be a fun and exciting film.

The only people who seem to be having fun are the cast members. Sure, some of them really chew the scenery, like Dennis Quaid. At very least he is having fun. Marlon Wayans plays a character named Ripcord, and he is the comic relief. He is irritating, but at least he is committed to the film. Channing Tatum doesn’t really have any sort of commanding presence but he plays his part with a slight grin on his face. Now don’t get me wrong, they are not great performances. They are simply engaged. There are only two performances that really do stand out in this film.

Sienna Miller plays a villain named Baroness. Miller’s approach seems to be the complete opposite of that of the filmmakers. She plays her part with complete conviction and really understands the film. She completely commits to her character, and there is a sort of twinkle in her eye that tells us she is really enjoying herself.

The same goes for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as The Doctor. He is a very talented actor who doesn’t water down his performance just because he is in a movie based on a toy line. He also plays his part with complete commitment even though he is wearing heavy make-up and is hidden in his Darth Vader like costume. He could have played the costume, but instead he plays the character.

If the filmmakers had the same level of commitment to the material as these two actors then this movie would have been totally different. It wouldn’t have been a great film but it would have been an entertaining film. As it stands, it is neither impressive in success or failure, it is simply forgettable.