Monthly Archives: May 2012

Youth in Revolt: Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom

Written by . Filed under Reviews. Tagged , , , , , , , , , . No comments.

Wes Anderson’s cinema seems to exist on a grid, and this has never been more apparent than in the opening shot of Moonrise Kingdom, in which the camera moves along a strict path in a household, introducing us to its rooms and inhabitants. Very quickly we already have such a strong sense of the character’s environment, in this case the young Suzy (Kara Hayward), whose pleasant looking home—a life-sized diorama of what should be the habitat for a happy family—is broken, but as Anderson lets on, only quietly so. No more than a couple minutes into the film, Anderon’s best qualities as a filmmaker are on display: his ability to build character through every facet of expression (mise en scène, framing, colour, performance, camera gesture), and his ability to reveal the flaws within what seems to be perfection. Anderson, known for his precision, exemplifies it here, but at the same time Moonrise Kingdom is his most free film since Bottle Rocket. He has developed a wonderful sense of when to depart his rigid aesthetics for simplicity and naturalism, and in the two young leads has found a subject more attuned to his form than ever before.

The two lead actors, Hayward, and Jared Gilman, who plays the orphaned Sam, each make their screen debuts in the film. Anderson seems to have cast them carefully, looking for slightly awkward, very normal looking children, whose performances would be far from perfect, and are all the better for it. In other terms, Anderson avoided a “Haley Joel Osment”, specifically choosing the kid who Shyamalan would have discarded. The choice is an intelligent one, that results in a relief from the tightly mannered performances that permeate Anderson’s work. Both Hayward and Gilman’s deliveries come wrapped in an apt naivete, one that clashes with the surprisingly mature way that they conduct themselves—a clash between their youth and their taste of independence. They act older than they are, like many children do, but the adults seem to be just as dishonest and fragile. Anderson renders the emotions of his characters on the same scale, be they young or old, as all of them struggle with similar issues of love and abandonment. It is in the film’s respect for children that its most potent beauty is found.

The most distinguishing feature of Moonrise Kingdom is its portrayal of children: their emotions, intelligence, validity and, most of all, their sexuality. It wouldn’t be something worth singling out if this were a French film, but to have a twelve-year old girl remark that she likes a boy’s erection in a mainstream, PG-rated American film is a big deal. That sort of frankness towards youth sexuality is an unusual occurrence on American screens—and a welcome one. Anderson’s honesty and tenderness towards his young subjects is something that would make Truffaut proud, and is rivaled in recent years only by Richard Linklater, whose gentle, naturalistic approach to direction in School of Rock also evoked the great French auteur’s name—and his allegiance to the young. The children in Moonrise Kingdom are more than happy to mange themselves without the meddling presence of adults, and are more than capable of doing so. Sam and Suzy make their way to each other and take off into the wild, where, with Sam’s boy scout skills, they use pulley systems for transporting their stuff, catch food, cover their tracks, fight off unwanted attention, and set up a camp on the shore (the best he’s ever seen, Edward Norton’s Scout Master Ward will later confess)—a utopia wherein they discover how to give voice to their feelings, and dance in their underwear. I’d venture to argue that such an image, one of two lovestruck twelve-year olds shaking it on a beach half-naked, is probably one of the best American images of youthful expression. This movie is theirs, before it is Anderson’s, and that’s what makes it one of his best films.

As for the adult cast, which includes a sidelined Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman, they are vital as contrast to the central couple. We see adults try to organize themselves but are mostly inept at dealing with their own problems. Alone, we witness them as being confused, insecure, and sad. None more so than Scout Master Ward, whose lonely nightly recording of the day’s camp activities, with one session that ends with him breaking down, is not given a solution—something Anderson usually likes to provide, even in his strongest works like The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited. Wes Anderson has always interrupted his pop fantasies with real, affecting darkness. Doing it in a film of storybook compositions—Moonrise even more closely resembles the look of a children’s book than The Fantastic Mr. Fox—makes it all the more complicated, a children’s universe plagued by adultness. The film’s negotiating lightness and heaviness lend it a depth and authenticity of emotion, giving a weight to the otherwise cutsey Roald Dahlesque silliness. No interruption is more startling than when Walt (Murray) and Laura Bishop (Frances McDormand), the estranged mother and father of Suzy, are shown sleeping in separate beds. Walt stares up, and miserably states “I wish the roof would blow off and I’d be sucked into space”, to which Laura replies “stop feeling sorry for yourself”. Coupled with a crippling shot of the ceiling, its mundanity profound and its stubbornness relentless: it will not budge.

Combining this portrayal of failed adult romance—again, without solution—with such a lively, lovely portrayal of youthful romance is bittersweet. To what end will their love survive? Anderson gives us no indication, of course, but instead celebrates the discovery of romantic feeling, and, moreover, the discovery of another person’s mutual suffering and alienation as a means to find solace. In a flashback montage of letter-exchanging between Sam and Suzy, the momentous nature of such a discovery is captured splendidly. It is, after all, a film about how and why people find each other—perhaps all of Anderson’s films are. When Moonrise arrives at its climax, Sam is asked to accept an adult as his guardian, an establishment of trust that the film has been working toward. Set on a church roof against a mise en scène of dark blues on a stormy night, in an uncertain world, Sam reaches out his hand. The agreement will be on his terms. It’s a beautiful movie moment, a gesture not easily forgotten.

Post-Script: To think, I mentioned nothing of Anderson’s clever narration, delivered in direct address by Bob Balaban. Anderson has always tried to develop interesting ways to frame his stories with narration, but this may be his most ingenious way to situate the narrative in a reflexive context. One unforgettable shot: A beach at night, completely dark, Balaban switches on a light so he can be seen on camera, narrates in direct address, switches light off, the characters arrive on shore by boat.

A couple of updates from MUBI-land

Written by . Filed under Festivals, News. Tagged , , . No comments.

Our CEO Efe Cakarel has produced a new short from Apichatpong Weerasethakul, which was shot on the LomoKino camera. You can watch Ashes for free on the site. As with all of his films, its quiet beauty resonates immediately, existing somewhere between poetic abstraction and slice-of-life simplicity, with the presence of a vague political context. Utilizing the LomoKino’s limited shot lengths to his advantage, Apichatpong imbues Ashes with a mesmerizing rhythm.

In other news, I’m compiling some of the highlights among critic responses as the Cannes Film Festival progresses. Follow along in the Notebook.

In Response to Cinema Scope’s “The Best Fifty Filmmakers Under Fifty”

Written by . Filed under Articles, News. Tagged , , , , . No comments.

The excellent new issue (number 50!) of Cinema Scope includes a list (and accompanying pieces) on the best 50 filmmakers under fifty, and it is impressive, giving attention to the giants of contemporary world cinema such as Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Jia Zhangke, while still finding space for worthy mainstreamers like the Andersons (Paul Thomas, Paul W.S., Wes) and David Fincher. However, with any such list, even one as well put together as this, there are some disappointing omissions. I’m sure attention is deserved by many other filmmakers, but for me there are three exclusions in particular that should get a mention, each of whom would easily place in my top 20, perhaps top 10 in this category. They are as follows:

James Gray

James Gray is the greatest American filmmaker under 50. The genius of his cinema is in its calculated return-to-basics storytelling—that of family, tragedy—and to apply a formal rigor utterly lacking in Hollywood cinema (outside of obvious heavyweights)—an absence Gray laments. His contemporaries all come with caveats. With Soderbergh, we question his motives as much as we find interest in his shifting aesthetic ambitions, occasionally drawing zero on his interests beyond cinematography and editing. With Fincher, one has to take the bad with the good, though the good is perfect. The Andersons all come with their own issues. One is maybe too careful, too concerned with his own auteurism, one is talented but only fleetingly original, and one made Alien vs. Predator. James Gray’s films seem to come free of any similar problems. His little-seen debut, Little Odessa, was brilliant, and everything since has been in masterpiece territory. No other filmmakers mentioned have the same level of quality in every aspect of their work. Completely unpretentious, and just as concerned with writing significant stories and characters as controlling the mise en scène and compositions, Gray’s ambitions come off as the quietest. He’s also the best at working with actors, responsible for Mark Wahlberg’s most interesting performances, and for fostering the greatest working American actor, Joaquin Pheonix, who reaches new heights with each successive film they make together. The patterns in Gray’s films are not difficult to discern, all revolving around the existential battle between family and independence with ambiguous, heartrending consequences. However, Gray is not guilty of repeating himself. Each film has expanded and altered his framework, with his greatest achievement, Two Lovers, dispensing of genre with rewarding results. He is fiercely intelligent both intellectually and visually,  he is sophisticated and disciplined. In an 18-year career he has only given us 4 films, but they each come with a weight we only recognize in the best cinema—a cinema that feels immortal.

Mia Hansen-Love

It astonishes me to look back at Kent Jones’ 1996 piece “Tangled Up In Blue”—on a then relatively unknown Olivier Assayas—to see how clearly and acutely he articulated the young cinema of a future master (noting, among other things his “sensory excitement in pure movement”). Here we are, at the same point in the career of Mia Hansen-Love, and she is not some secret to be revealed in the pages of Film Comment, but a recognized force in contemporary cinema. This is partly an indication of the different context in which her films have debuted. It is also, of course, in correlation with an age where word on every film, every filmmaker, every festival, can be consumed at every moment. For me it is impossible not to connect Assayas to Hansen-Love—and hopefully this isn’t condescending as she isn’t in his shadow so much as sharing a spotlight. I wonder if this would be the case were it not for their relationship (he has long been her mentor & lover)–I think yes. One recognizes similar interests and sensibilities, motion, emotion, warmth, music and a Renoir-esque reservoir of generosity. Summer Hours most clearly contains elements we can find in Hansen-Love, but perhaps we can assume this represents a mutual exchange, considering Hours came after her beautiful debut, Tout est pardonné.

Looking back at Jones’ piece, and how it holds up years, and films, later, is sufficient proof of great film criticism—meaning significant proof of great film criticism is originality of perception. May I then suggest, knowing that criticism and film mirror each other is the most curious ways, that proof of great filmmaking is singularity of vision. This is a quality Jones did not fail to find in abundance in Assayas. What is Hansen-Love’s singularity? She has the same investment in defining the universe of her cinema via the registration of emotion on characters’ faces, though with Assayas, Jones rightly saw political and societal implications in these gestures, which are not as easily located here. As with Assayas’ early cinema, Hansen-Love is fixated on adolescence, maturation, freedom and the lack thereof. In approaching this territory, Hansen-Love seems more universal than Assayas. The stories she tell aren’t all that new: first love, heartbreak, loss of a loved one, etc. but the way she tells them is. She can convey the subjectivity of her protagonists while balancing the scale so perfectly that we never feel biased, we recognize the circumstance of each character. This is why we can depart from the lead of Father of My Children and feel the weight of loss without losing focus, and why we never grow angry with Lola Créton’s young lover, lamenting his exit, welcoming his return—we care for both of them, all of them. Hansen-Love’s singularity is in showing us something we’ve seen in ways we haven’t.

Judd Apatow

This is the choice of mine most likely to be greeted with scoffs, indifference and condescension, but for me Apatow is one of the great American directors. He has impacted an entire industry with his style and comedic philosophy, changing the path of the American comedy for better. The range of his influence wouldn’t mean so much were his own work not so bold, ambitious, and deeply human. At the time of its release, The 40-Year Old Virgin felt monumental. It made everything else look so dated and superficial. That it, in turn, now feels dated compared to the far superior Knocked Up and Funny People, is only complimentary to how Apatow and the comedy have evolved so much and so quickly. For too long, romantic interests in comedies were disposable necessities, and “friends” were just actors hired to work together. But in Apatow, all of a sudden the people mattered and so did their relationships. No matter how silly or vulgar the characters and the films get, the humanity, the heart, never gets detached. Much is owed to the brilliant performers, and to Apatow for presenting them to us. Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, etc. A brand new mine of comedic talent in the cinema, all for the most part brought to you by Apatow, who is smart enough to know that the key ingredient to funny movies are funny people. Touchingly moral, his films offer more meaning than the “serious” fare too often praised in the mainstream. The heaviness of Funny People is not a disguise, and Knocked Up says much about being a good person. The constant casting of his wife and daughters could be seen as self-indulgent, but actually they reveal Apatow to be what he really is—a great sentimentalist, maybe the last.

Something Worth Avenging

Written by . Filed under Reviews. Tagged , , , , , , , , , . No comments.

The world always seems to be ending. Always a go-to plot device for countless works of fiction, it is relied on to help create an epic scale, a do-or-die intensity, but it usually seems so tired, unconvincing—too often unaccompanied by smart storytelling. The world always seems to be ending in the work of Joss Whedon, but it always feels like it actually will, the stakes always feel high. It’s because he creates worlds worth saving—ones that reflect our own, no matter how cartoonish they appear. It’s because his characters, his heroes, always have to make a decision. One has to choose to save the world. It is in grand, pop-operatic gestures that Whedon imbues all his work with something real, something serious, even existential. You wouldn’t know it at first, not from seeing the pulpy, CGI-laden mise en scène of The Avengers, but it’s something you feel, that you recognize in the big moments—and Joss has always been a master of moments. Moreover, it’s something you rarely, if ever, feel when watching movies of the mega blockbuster variety (certainly not other superhero films). I’m not going to argue that The Avengers is a high work of cinema, or without its flaws—which from both the perspective of a Whedon disciple and a cinephile, it does—but that doesn’t mean it’s not a little-giant miracle of a movie.

Logic would not dictate that The Avengers would be this good, it has no right to be. The preceding Marvel movies of the franchise have ranged from bad to average, with the possible exception of Thor, thanks mostly to Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. But The Avengers is not the sum of those parts, but its own whole—one guided by a filmmaker who understands the art of the ensemble. All of Whedon’s great works are founded on character interaction. Whether in Buffy, Angel, Firefly or The Avengers, everything comes from the characters. They create meaning with each other, which is what creates meaning in the film. The arc of the film is a simple one. At first, these disparate heroes clash egos, until the game gets real, and they set aside their pride for something bigger than themselves. Simple but effective, the film is at its best when all of the personalities are mingling together with either corrosive or productive results. Whedon’s token banter permeates the dialogue, but only in such a way so as to carve out the uniqueness of each character, and to create a battle of wits to punctuate the bigger battles. Hawkeye is the character mostly left on the sidelines, but the screen time amongst the rest of the team is remarkably well balanced. Even Nick Fury and Agent Coulson have their moments, and actually feel like characters, unlike in the previous films where they felt more like expositional statues. There is a hierarchy of character arcs, perhaps, with Iron Man coming along the furthest in this regard, shedding his individualism in a powerful climax. The most fascinating is probably Loki, who almost acts as a composite of The Avenger’s shortcomings, representing a psychopathic reflection of their pride—he is also graced with the most memorable dialogue, a twisted monologue in particular. In the other Marvel films, the characters, with few exceptions, were never all that interesting or well-rounded, but here their motivations and behaviour are all part of an organic mold. It is because of this strong sense of character that we actually care about the action. At all times something emotional and moral is guiding the action.

The film’s impressive villain, Loki (Hiddleston), unleashes an alien race unto to New York. The government and S.H.I.E.L.D., led by Nick Fury, have a couple strategies prepared. Aside from their team of superheroes, they have nuclear weapons, something that becomes a topic of debate within the film. When the heroes discover S.H.I.E.L.D. have been building weapons, the team really starts to come apart. Later in the film, authority figures that Fury must answer to—talking heads on giant screens, ominous military men—opt to use weapons. Fury’s refusal to abide, and the actions of The Avengers, represent a resistance to the imperialist impulse that often drives alien invasion films, which typically serve to affirm America’s arrogant nationalism. Any thematic ideas Whedon plays with, are dealt with more subtly than we’ve recently seen in other Hollywood heavyweights, like Avatar, and The Dark Knight. The Avengers acts as an antidote to the heavy-handed and unsustainable serio-comic universe of Christopher Nolan. Whedon eagerly embraces the silliness of comic book style, creating what is probably the most authentically comic-booky adaptation so far. In not taking the universe too seriously, Whedon turns The Avengers into exactly what it should be, a seriously fun, but funnily serious work of escapist pop art.

I referred earlier to the big moments of the film, of which there is no shortage, and most should go unmentioned, but I must divulge one, at least. The Hulk has a generous amount of show-stealing moments, one of the most memorable being one wherein Whedon’s devout atheism makes a proud appearance. Loki mocks The Hulk and asks him to recognize his status as a God, to which Hulk responds in the way he knows best: smashing. It’s a startling moment, as the film’s intimidating antagonist is turned into to a rag-doll and slammed repeatedly into the ground. A God is nothing next to a very angry man. It’s moments like these that only Whedon concoct, like the wonderfully hilarious last shot that subverts the trend of post-credits plot development (if you can avoid having this spoiled, do so).

Though the competition isn’t exactly chock-full of great films, The Avengers probably stands as the best superhero film Hollywood has produced. Not only that, it is one of the most supremely entertaining blockbusters in recent memory. I can’t remember having this much fun at a movie since seeing Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Edgar Wright, 2010). Joss Whedon is primarily praised as a writer, and rightly so, but between this and Serenity (2005), he has proven adept at creating momentous, thrilling action sequences that retain their coherency while generating spectacle awe. The epic third act showdown is pure escapist exhilaration, and there is something oddly moving about Whedon’s long, single takes that track each Avenger, first in that circular shot of them standing united, and again in a sprawling, digitally assisted take of each hero involved in their own individual battle—individual, but they’re fighting for each other—and for a world worth saving.

2012 Watchlist: April

Written by . Filed under Lists, Misc.. No comments.

Re-watches are indicated by an * | Masterpieces will be in bold | To make things interesting, my 5 most satisfying viewings (not necessarily the “best” films) of each month will be indicated by red font, my 3 least satisfying by blue font | Venue & format indicated by the following: (C) = cinema viewing, (H) = “home”/TV viewing, (S) = school (F) = film, (D) = digital, (DVD) = DVD, (BR) = Blu-Ray, (CF) = computer file or online

Kindergarten Cop, Dir. Ivan Reitman, 1990, USA * (H/DVD)

Freddy Got Fingered, Dir. Tom Green, 2001, USA (H/CF)

Norwegian Wood, Dir. Tran Anh Hung, 2010, Japan (C/F)

Bon Cop, Bad Cop, Dir. Erik Canuel, 2006, Canada (S/DVD)

The Cabin in the Woods, Dir. Drew Goddard, 2012, USA (C/F)

Pickpocket, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1959, France * (C/F)

Le diable, probablement…, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1977, France (C/F)

White Material, Dir. Claire Denis, 2009, France * (H/BR)

The Trial of Joan of Arc, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1962, France (C/F)

Les dames du Bois de Boulogne, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1945, France (C/F)

Les anges de péché, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1943, France (C/F)

Funny People, Dir. Judd Apatow, 2009, USA * (H/BR)

Dragon Eyes, Dir. John Hyams, 2011, USA (H/CF)

Lancelot du Lac, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1974, France/Italy (C/F)

L’argent, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1983, Switzerland/France (C/F)

Une femme douce, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1969, France (C/F)

The Deep Blue Sea, Dir. Terence Davies, 2011, UK/USA (C/F)

Shame, Dir. Steve McQueen, 2011, UK (H/CF)

We Need to Talk About Kevin, Dir. Lynne Ramsay, 2011, UK/USA (H/CF)

Au hasard Balthazar, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1966, France * (C/F)

A Man Escaped, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1956, France * (C/F)

Four Nights of a Dreamer, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1971, France (C/F)

The Raid: Redemption, Dir. Gareth Evans, 2011, Indonesia/USA (C/D)

Mouchette, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1967, France (C/F)

Diary of a Country Priest, Dir. Robert Bresson, 1951, France * (C/F)

The Yards, Dir. James Gray, 1999, USA * (H/DVD)

Nightwatching, Dir. Peter Greenaway, 2007, UK/Poland/Canada (C/F)

Rock-a-Bye Baby, Dir. Frank Tashlin, 1958, USA (H/CF)

The Errand Boy, Dir. Jerry Lewis, 1961, USA (H/CF)

The Big Mouth, Dir. Jerry Lewis, 1967, USA (H/CF)

Previous Months:

Jan/Feb, March