Holes Are Interesting, There Are Books About Holes: Cosmopolis (2012)

I am astounded by the amount of negative feedback mounted agains this, David Cronenberg's most recent filmic offering.  Well...actually I am not entirely astounded, but more so begrudgingly understanding in the derisive attitudes directed towards the piece.  Existing in an ethereal space that is both within the confines of the alienating cinematic stylings made famous by the Canadian auteur, while also managing to deconstruct the very relationship technology and space has to film output, Cosmopolis is far from Cronenberg's most viscerally engaging work.  Beginning and ending with some decidedly upbeat music from composer Howard Shore, one would almost immediately dismiss it as a work by the director whose use of the body as a space of cinematic violence has become a trope of sorts within his career, causing one to immediately compare other works that incorporate such themes and imagery as being always in contention with his, usually superior, offerings.  Suffice it to say, Videodrome, Existenz and many other Cronenberg works proved to be well ahead of their times, the two former pieces proving as, if not more, enigmatic as was the case during their original release.  While I would not go so far as to suggest that this is on par with those two films, I do think people are under-appreciating the winding, if decidedly monotonous styles of this film, which for all intents and purposes is focused on one young man's limo ride through a city.  Yet, Cronenberg who is ever prescient in his cinematic endeavors seems to use this car as a larger metaphor for the individual attachment to society by way of technological detachment.  Existing in a space of the heightened simulacra on a level of starkness compared only to Cronenberg's own work, or perhaps the more jarring work of Lars Von Trier, Cosmopolis constantly demands that the viewer move beyond what is portrayed in the foreground of a scene, to scrape away at the layers of depth within a moving image, at times even needed to dig deeper to find something in the very skin of the film itself.  Cosmopolis is about penetration, both in a literal and metaphorical sense and while it may seem as though Cronenberg is a filmmaker whose movies are primarily for his own enjoyment, it is rather obvious that he expects viewers to engage with the films on a tangible and textual level wherein simple observation bears few results if not absolute indifference, but a focused eye and mind can see something both poignantly disturbing and decidedly prophetic.

Cosmopolis centers on the day of Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) a son of a wealthy mogul, who has had his own success in the stock trade, thus spending much of his time simply cruising about the city and trying to get laid, either by his former fiancee or by many of the various women he encounters.  When told by his security guard that he ought to consider limiting his travels in lieu of an upcoming visit by the president, Eric stubbornly refuses and demands that he be taken across town to receive a haircut.  Along the ride, Eric meets with various acquaintances, whether it be tech gurus like Michael Chin (Philip Nozuka) and Shiner (Jay Baruchel) or people with whom Eric has had past sexual relationships, often re-consummating the relationships as occurs with Didi Fancher (Juliette Binoche) and Kendra Hayes (Patricia McKenzie).  Ultimately, however, Eric seems most intent on recreating a relationship, purely one of sexual means with his ex-fiance Elise Shifrin (Sarah Gadon) who is decidedly uninterested in his advances.  When a local religious leader and spirited social activist dies, a moment of civil unrest arises, all while Eric idly passes the time in his car, drinking, pontificating and at one point even receiving a prostate exam.  Eventually, the constant burden of having to worry about his security guard Torval (Kevin Durand) being extremely cautious with his whereabouts leads to Eric tricking him into deactivating the lock on his gun and killing the guard.  This shift allows Eric to move more freely about the city even enabling to finally get his haircut although it requires the opening of a barber well past business hours, a moment wherein the barber and Eric's driver share in stories of their past days as taxi drivers.  This moment proves to be the last of Eric's encounters, before he finally meets up with Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti) a hermit and hypochondriac that has purportedly spent the entirety of the day trying to kill Eric.  When in his sights, Benno fails to kill Eric, but instead of fleeing Eric climbs the stairs to his apartment and enters into his house, only to be confronted by Benno, the two sharing in a perplexing and winding confrontation before Eric assumedly succumbs to his fate, sitting facing the camera as Benno utters a few words, the screen fading to black before any shot is fired.

I want to reemphasize the way in which this film is seemingly working on a layer below the tangible, wherein, the to use a term in corporeal cinema, the skin of the cinema has been penetrated.  There are moments in Eric's limo where it would seem like the CGI is being executed in a very poor manner, making it quite clear that the outside is different from the interior, I would argue that this is not poor filmmaking, but a directorial choice on the part of Cronenberg to show Eric's movement from complete technology based detachment to the real which moves towards complete attachment to it in the closing moments of the film when the now less certain Eric enters the space of Benno's gross and filthy apartment, complete, no less with a mound of broken computer monitors.  It would seem to be in this bookended nature of the film that Cronenberg is tackling the issues of how a social understanding of the world fueled almost entirely by that which is attainable through social outlets.  The movement in and out of individuals within the space of Eric's vehicle represent the transitory and desultory nature of communication in this age, right down to what appears to be a cinematic recreation of a booty call.  Eric cannot seem to understand the physical barriers confronting his ability to travel the town during the presence of the president, because his world does not exist outside of the car and, therefore, he cannot physically understand such a thing as a barrier, a metaphor that perfectly extends to the seemingly unlimited amount of access he is afforded purely as a result of wealth.  Indeed, he is shown rather early in the film attempting to buy the Rothko Chapel, a space purportedly made for the community, which Eric hopes to possess for himself through financial means.  This acquisition without physically viewing an item takes on yet another layer of online identity as Eric can now consume the world from the comfort of his car computer, never being forced to deal with a grounded understanding of things.  Even events of heightened intensity are dealt with in a detached manner, watching a riot occur from the safety of his walled in car/computer, much as was the case with watching the Occupy Movement or in more violent examples the uprisings in the Middle East.  It is fitting that when he does finally leave his car and computer space it is to get a hair cut an act of physical destruction that leads to the further, assumed physical destruction of his body in the closing moments of the film.  The computer has allowed a person access to pretty much anything they could desire on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, yet the feeling of destruction and, ultimately, death must be felt in the flesh and in the real.

Key Scene:  It should be no surprise that the best scene in this film involves Eric receiving a prostate exam while talking to another woman.  Aside from Robert Pattinson knocking this scene out of the park in acting terms, it also takes on a wonderful layer of metaphor and psychosexual politics.

This is watch instantly on Netflix, however, it is worth obtaining on bluray, the lack of popularity has led to it dropping in price considerably, which both a shame and a benefit to those looking to obtain a copy of the film.

He Doesn't Like You Watching Us: Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

For someone who might have either actually read this blog since its inception, or happens to have trolled through all the posts I have made, will know that I am a huge supporter of the original Paranormal Activity film, citing it both as one of the major works in the horror genre, while also defending it as one of the best films of the year of its release.  Now, since then, I have managed to keep up with the franchise, not counting its foreign spin-offs, although I plan to hunt them down eventually and while I did not blog about them due to time restraints, or more likely a lack of an internet source during their respective viewings, I have decided to return to this film, for what I thought would be the final installment in the series, but as I have come to realize there is purportedly a fifth film in the works, one that seems to be focused n a family of color, which is both revolutionary in terms of sub-genre horror filmmaking, but also ripe with the possibilities of poorly executed narrative.  Either way, Paranormal 4 is a moderately successful addition to the franchise, paling in comparison to the original and falling short of the VHS based restrictions of the third film, but certainly trumping the second film which is outright the least realized of the series.  Here, in what begins to be an obvious set up for the next film, viewers are rushed through a narrative that is at times genuinely scary, but still wraps together far too quickly and manages to build upon nothing established in the first films, aside from the continual connections of one character.  The tricks are minimal and aside from a rather visually stunning use of the Xbox Kinect sensors playing heavily into the plot this was a surprisingly simple and predictable entry into the series.  This is particularly a shame since the extra heavy reliance on digital here in this film could have provided for a new level of paranormal invasion, perhaps even a complete destruction on the panoptic, surveillance like look at the movement of evil through a fractured household.  Paranormal Activity is certainly not a bad film, I was thoroughly scared throughout, but in the same sense I was always aware of how uninspired this film proved to be.

Paranormal Activity 4 begins by showing the through line of all the films Katie (Katie Featherson) playing with her infant nephew, whose name in the earlier film is Hunter, also showing her stealing the child before a card explains that the two remain missing to the point where this narrative jumps off.  The film now beginning on October 31st of 2011 looks at the life of a family, most specifically the daughter Alex (Kathryn Newton) who is attempting to deal with the fracturing relationship of her parents Doug (Stephen Dunham) and Holly (Alexondra Lee) while also proving a decent big sister to her younger brother Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp).  Furthermore, Alex is also interested in a neighborhood boy named Ben (Matt Shively) despite his rather obvious one-track mind and the condemnation of his presence by her parents.  When new neighbors move in however, things get a bit unusual when the young boy Robbie (Brady Allen) begins showing up inexplicably at their house at all times of night, first scaring Alex when he appears in the corner of their tree house late at night.  What follows is far more disturbing, when after an accident Robbie stays with the family for an extended period of time.  It is during this time that unusual events occur, things such as weird spectral presences emerging, or Wyatt and Robbie staring blankly for hours before talking to what appears to be nothing.  It is not until chandeliers begin nearly killing Alex, or knives that had gone missing begin falling from the ceiling that the remainder of the family takes notice.  However, at this point, Wyatt has become fully involved with the entity that has invaded their house, a small child that is indeed captured on the laser projection.  When attempting to uncover truth about the events, at the neighbors home, Alex runs into Katie who begins inquiring about Wyatt and his well-being.  This moment leads to Wyatt explaining that he is actually named Hunter, an issue that when brought up by Alex to her parents leads to them chastising her inquiries as being in bad taste, and when she has a final traumatic encounter with the paranormal while her parents are at dinner, things become irreversible as her mother and Ben are attack while she is at dinner with her father, upon returning and discovering the problem, she quickly runs to the neighbors home, only to find things far more disturbing than she could have imagined.

If, as I suggested, the first film is about the fall out of a relationship between two people played out as a metaphor of paranormal haunting, then this the fourth film is the first to truly look at how such a extended issue might affect a child.  Alex is a person suffering from finding an identity and certainty in the face of her parents failing marriage, always hyper aware of how things might affect the sensitive Wyatt, but also using this protection to mask her own insecurities, which are played out rather brilliantly in her relationship to Ben, one that is awkwardly sexualized, but never one of forced consummation.  It is clear that she is initially hesitant to embrace Ben, because he does not support her fears regarding the paranormal invasion of her house, or by extension understand her suffering at the sight of her parents fighting.  With this in mind, it is interesting to see how things shift when Ben is made aware of the reality of the paranormal, or by extension comes to understand the tense relationship between Doug and Holly and is particular witness to the incredibly unhealthy relationship between Wyatt and Robbie.  In fact, the invasion of Robbie into the space of the film, also takes on a shade of the metaphoric as many relationships attempt to fix their domestic issues by adding a child to the equation, here, as is usually the result, the act fails miserably.  The metaphor goes to the somewhat implausible by making it result in incredibly violent events, but this does serve as a nice parallel to the traumas faced by children born into such divisive households, ones where argument and anger prevail out over mild temperament and well-reasoned dialogue.  One could read Alex as the figure capable of doing precisely this, however, her inability to speak against the emotive is double through her being incapable of proving the presence of the paranormal to her skeptical and detached parents, each having their own mocking indifference to her concerns, perhaps because they refuse to validate the existence of the paranormal, or, more likely, because they are far too preoccupied with their own marital sufferings to create a space of dialogue for Alex and Wyatt.  As such, Alex finds herself forced to be a maternal figure to her younger brother a burden that weighs heavily upon her and is evidence very intensely in the last few seconds of the film.

Key Scene:  The real surprise her is how well Brady Allen, the child actor playing Robbie, delivers his performance.  Usually creepy kids rely on looks alone, but when Robbie stares into the camera in this film, it is all the more intense by Allen's great delivery.

This is on Netflix in both an R and unrated version, I am uncertain as to the difference in the two, perhaps a few less boob-based pieces of dialogue.  Either way, watch this and the other films in the franchise, which I believe are all currently available for streaming.

Retain, Even In Opposition, Your Capacity For Astonishment: Lincoln (2012)

I will do something that happens all to often on this blog, in my open choice to recant a previous belief that in regards to Oscar nomination for best male in a lead performance that nobody had anything on the excellent Joaquin Phoenix whose presence in The Master leaked through its crackled surface and glossy veneer to cut at the very question of a likable human being.  I was sure that even with my undeniable zeal for Daniel Day-Lewis that his performance would be lesser than what Phoenix provides.  While I still very much adore Phoenix and think his performance may well be the best of his career, when I popped Lincoln into view, I was aware from the moment that Lewis and his method acted version of Lincoln filled the screen that his acting would without question be far superior to his absolutely excellent counterparts.  It is something far different than There Will Be Blood, but, nonetheless, manages to show a very honed set of skills that jump out to viewers, each lengthy monologue welcomed with just the right amount of score by the infallible John Williams is more than enough to cause a viewer to become heavily invested in the film, so much so, that when it finally does end and the credits emerge the emotive drain is hard to ignore.  I mean to consider that alongside Day-Lewis' Lincoln are a slew of other respectable actors including, amongst others Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook and Tim Blake Nelson, and that is only naming a few.  I am not one to hold Spielberg in contempt for his particular style of filmmaking, especially in regards to its heavy handed nature, instead, I am fully aware of the stylistic choices he makes as a director and allow for them to permeate my experience, something I have attempted to do with more recent Michael Bay films with no success.  Even the detractors of Spielberg cannot deny the absolute magnitude and cinematic zeal of Lincoln, an absolutely inspiring narrative that is only made the more precise by a decidedly on-the-nose Tony Kushner script, Lincoln is what one should aspire to when making a biopic, in all its absolute intensity and surprising modesty.

Lincoln, despite being a film about one of America's most well-regarded presidents, nonetheless, considers a very specific portion of his presidency, the months leading up to the signing into affect of the Thirteenth Amendment, ultimately, and legally abolishing slavery in the Union, soon again to be The United States in a completist sense.  As history has shown, this was an incredibly complex process and one that Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) had to face while also handling the woes of his personal life, firstly, dealing with his mentally-troubled wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) and his gung-ho son Robert (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who felt it necessary to join the war effort to assure his self-worth, despite running the very real risk of losing his life.  Being the brilliant man that Lincoln was he is fully capable of navigating the various rungs of his administration, gathering respect from most everyone he talked with given his penchant for long-winded stories and breadth of factual knowledge, despite being almost entirely self-educated.  The problem emerges, not when opposition emerges, because Lincoln and his conclave of politicians are sure that they can obtain swing votes, it is the though that pushing the amendment through will only occur if a suggestion of its necessity to a peace agreement can be created, something that is problematized when the officers of the Confederate Army find themselves desiring piece talks.  Lincoln facing the decision to prolong slavery with the posibility of instant peace or ignoring these request with an assurance that the enslavement of man will end in The United States leads him to a multi-tiered moral quandary, which is only solved while rambling about geometry with a scribe one night.  Along with the help of Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) and the surprising swing votes of a handful of democrats the amendment is able to pass and slavery is subsequently abolished, not long after a crippling Confederate army surrenders and Lincoln allows them to flee accordingly.  While this is not a film about his entire life, it does, nonetheless, include his assassination, although it happens out of the scene, instead focusing on the trauma faced by his youngest child.  The film closes with an aging Lincoln offering a speech on prosperity and the human will, before somberly fading to black thus ending the epic narrative of a few months in America's bloodiest war.

Lincoln is an example of the classical Hollywood style properly realized.  I know many film lovers who suggest that Clint Eastwood is the last classicist making films and while I would tend to agree with that in the fullest, I would also argue that Spielberg possesses a certain degree of classicism, the only difference is that he came to his through evolution as a filmmaker, whereas Eastwood began as an actor in the world of Western classics and took this style into his movies.  One only need to break down any shot in Lincoln and realize that the stoic staged presence of each actor, paired with a set that defines the idea of chiaroscuro, as wall as the previously mentioned John Williams scores, make for everything one must have experienced when attending a film during the alleged "classic" era of Hollywood.  Even the sort of bombastic, hyper intensity one comes to expect from Day-Lewis is reigned in within this film, although, it is not ironic in the slightest, considering that the probable expectation would be this intensity seen in There Will Be Blood or Gangs of New York for such a major and visioned figure in American history.  Instead, Day-Lewis goes the way of simplicity with his version of Lincoln, finding himself far more concerned with portraying the man in his most humane, humble, a bit awkward socially and completely occupied with the notion of justice and a greater truth.  Similarly, much in the way of classical style the film is inundated with notable actors and faces, however, when this often happens in newer films characters constantly attempt to one-up one another, often making a mess in the process.  Lincoln is much more in line with the classic stylings and respect for large casts of respected actors, in the case of this film it is clear that everyone involved works in the space of Day-Lewis while also realizing that it is his space and they have just been fortunate enough to briefly share it for awhile.  A combination of hyper-intellectual dialogue on the part of Kushner, masterful scoring and a roster of classic style actors makes the case for Spielberg existing in the realm of classicism more and more with each film he makes.

Key Scene:  As much as I do not want to side with the Academy the monologue they picked for Day-Lewis when showing his performance in Lincoln is certainly the highlight of the film and is one of many brilliant moments.

This is obviously worth watching and I would even say worth owning.  It is a reminder of the power Spielberg has when committed to directing something visionary.

I Disappear, And If You're Smart, That Scares You: Jack Reacher (2012)

I am a big fan of films that are decidedly ambiguous in their moral commentary, it is not necessary, in my worldview that one must be provided answers to all life's large questions through a deeply engaging film, in fact, this is one of the many reasons I am enjoying the string of work coming from Paul Thomas Anderson.  However, with that in mind I am completely bothered when a film attempts to embrace some degree of moral ambiguity, only to make it blatantly clear that it has created a fine line between right and wrong.  The recent adaptation of Jack Reacher, from the novels of Lee Child, seem to exist in this problematic realm.  Before being critical I want to note two things.  First, I understand that this is an adaptation, therefore, it will be impossible to create a perfect reflection of any ideal character or subject study from the text, because you will invariably be required to cut elements out.  Second, aside from a few moments of less than stellar acting on the part of Cruise and a few of the other performers, this is a solidly composed and well-delivered film from a formalist frame of reference.  These elements help to explain why it got such surprising reviews even from people who found themselves to have preconceived notions about its assumed terrible nature.  I am bothered though because the version of the screenplay that does emerge on the screen is something of an absurdity, because it manages to paint an image of Jack Reacher, an ex-military police officer, as being something far beyond the morally straight, in his quest for truth, even if it means a bit of deception along the way.  Unfortunately, whatever version of the script this idea emerged never really came to fruition and instead viewers are provided with a character, and even villains who are supposed to navigate a grey area of moral values, only to end up reaffirming them, something I will elaborate on a bit later, because while I am quite critical of its implementation, I am also aware that this action film is a few strides ahead of its contemporaries, almost moving into the space of the superhero film.  Of course, the biggest travesty of this film is to include both Robert Duvall and Werner Herzog in the cast and only provide them with what probably amounts to a collective of fifteen minutes of screen time.

Jack Reacher begins with a tragic and unexplained shooting that leaves five victims dead, leading to a quick investigation on the part of the police force that pins the murders on ex-Army sniper (Joseph Sikora) who is immediately put into custody and severely beaten by fellow convicts who see him as a ruthless and psychotic killer, however, before this occurrence he asks for the help of man named Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) and before the attorneys can even attempt to hunt down the man, Reacher emerges from nothingness to involve himself in the case.  Reacher is a decidedly enigmatic individual, using only cash transactions and a completely nomadic lifestyle to avoid detection of any degree, as a clever aside he even changes his name when meeting people, always choosing a Yankees second baseman as his moniker.  However, Reachers arrival does not solve the case by any means and the district attorney and his young gun aid are set on putting Barr on death row, although the D.A.'s daughter Helen (Rosamund Pike) seems to insist that him having a fair trial is of the upmost importance, even if he is assured to be guilty.  Reacher seems solely concerned with obtaining a factual reason for each killing, believing that Barr's previous indiscretions as an ex-sniper void him of criticism and that there is clearly another layer of motive.  All the while, Reacher begins navigating the crime world and discovers that there are crime syndicates out to get a particular building company, and that Barr was likely framed by this syndicate led by The Zec (Werner Herzog) a grotesque giant of a man whose will to survive led him to chewing off his own fingers and completely losing any sense of relation to the world.  Reachers continual investigation leads him to also discover that the attorneys supposedly in charge of helping individuals are likely tied to the syndicate, putting Helen in an incredibly tense situation as her choices to delve deeper into the investigation result in her being a subject of scrutiny by her father and his aide.  However, Reacher knows that by finding one person to affirm Barr's character, he will be able to make it to the killers, finding this in Cash (Robert Duvall) a cantankerous old man whose work at a shooting rage allowed him to come into contact with Barr, as well as another man who Reacher suspects to be the real killer.  Of course, this is not the end of the film there is a large, excessive shootout leading to the death of nearly everyone involved, with the exception of the clearly delineated good guys.

I mention that the film ends with the good guys winning, because it spends so much of the film suggesting that everyone is capable of morally questionable decisions when in the appropriate setting.  For example, it is not necessarily within Helen's moral goodwill to invade the victims of the shootings homes, yet when told that it will help her case she does so with fervor, much to the anger of a father, who clearly seems intent on blaming Barr for his daughters death, completely throwing innocence out the window.  Even the attorneys on the case seem indifferent to morals, in fact, this becomes very clear by the end of the film, but as Helen makes clear, her father only chooses to pick cases he knows he can win, because such a reputation allows him to have sway over criminals even if they are innocent.  Reacher himself also navigates some questionable ethical territory when he steals multiple cars and creates an overblown police chase an event that causes a ton of damage and fails in his ultimate goal of leading the cops directly to the real criminals.  Furthermore, once his car is immovable he is afforded aid by a group of citizens who see his fleeing from a ton of cops as something to embrace, one man even offering him his hat to allow for a disguise as he hops on the bus and is driven away.  People within the context of this film seem uncertain about what role authority plays, particularly since it seems subject to its own levels of corruption.  One of the more intriguing conversations in the film centers around Reacher and Cash considering the threat of gun violence on the livelihood of his shooting range.  Reacher knows that he only need to mention that Barr was a frequent visitor to his range to get a paranoid soccer mom to get the place shutdown.  It is a decidedly valid threat and causes the film to exist in another layer of gun rights commentary, however, even when one assumes this to be an underlying theme it too is undermined and inconsistently discussed throughout.  Also, The Zec, proves to be a less than stellar character, whose willingness to but his body into pain in the name of survival has its own degree of intrigue, and his admittance to having no clue about his real identity speaks volumes to his complexity, but he is killed moments later, for what is a rather inexplicable reason.  Nothing is fully fleshed out in the moral world of the film and it is frustrating, thankfully, its showiness makes that somewhat bearable.

Key Scene:  The car chase was quite enjoyable, it had been sometime since I had seen one with any degree of excellent execution, aside from the obvious ones in a certain Ryan Gosling flick.

This was a free theater screening for me and made it somewhat less terrible I imagine, although I can say that it is worth renting, if only as an example of how not to approach moralism in film.

Sometimes Things Need To Be Reset: The Comedy (2012)

When I warn people about films being abrasive and controversial to the point of having moments that are downright unwatchable, it is usually a result of some sort of graphic depiction of sexual violence, as is the case with almost all of Salo; Or the 120 Days of Sodom, or it is due to their sheer disregard for political correctness in the name of a larger statement on art and middle American values, as certainly occurs within Harmony Korine's Gummo.  Yet what one receives when viewing last years The Comedy, a film starring Tim Heidecker of Tim and Eric fame, is a film that is equally abrasive in its visual offerings, as well as main character, without the sort of artistic detachment or political statements of the aforementioned films, and before you continue reading this post, I want to make it absolutely clear that my noting of this films off-putting and disconcerting elements are not a sign of a critique in any way on my part, in fact, I absolutely become mesmerized with The Comedy.  Of course, the title is decidedly deceptive and will surely prove to be an unwanted encounter for many people on Netflix who see the title and expect an outright hilarious film.  Instead, under the brilliant directorial vision of Rick Alverson, viewers are provided with an indie work that throws caution to the wind in deconstructing exactly how disconnected a privileged white yuppie finds themselves, particularly in the face of real world oppression and suffering.  The title is more than apt for a film that is rather sparse on comedic moments, although some of Heidecker's improvisation is glorious, in that it takes comedy in much the same sense that Shakespeare did, allowing it to simply depict the absurdity of certain detached groups existences, complete with all their frivolous absurdity.  Of course, The Comedy clearly lands on the side of condemnation, but that is not to say that it is not aware of the possibility of realization, especially within regards to the main character, whose movement between a world of PBR-fueled awkward sexual encounters to a very real understanding of the facts of death, allow for a narrative of the most minor of advances towards maturity, yet in the way of this biting film, viewers are left asking the question of whether or not such an inconsequential change allows for a avenue of forgiveness for the truly degrading behavior enacted upon others by the privileged bodies that occupy the filmic space.

The Comedy focuses nearly entirely on the experiences of Swanson (Tim Heidecker) a well-to-do kid whose money seems to be very much tied to the financial success of an ailing father.  His wealth allows him to circle himself with other trust fund kids who spend their days guzzling a bizarre combination PBR and high-end bourbon, while spouting off terrible sex based jokes, or diatribe against the system that seems to support those with little.  Swanson in particular, seems set on making persons exist within an awkward state as a means to find some sort of validation for his malaise fueled existence, whether this involves invading the work of immigrant landscapers, or suggesting that Adolf Hitler might not have been a terrible guy had his ideas properly panned out.  It is clear that even through all this, Swanson possesses a crippling sense of loneliness, often exiling himself to trips on his boat, or going to an "urban" club by himself in search of sex, with persons of a particular racial background.  It never appears that Swanson has any direction to his actions, at one point taking a job as a dishwasher, simply because he happens to be in the area at the moment and applies for the position, much to the confusion of the employer.  It is not until he pays a cab driver an absurd amount of money simply to drive his cab that things become problematic, especially when he refuses to respect the drivers request of calm and normal driving when he makes cat calls at a girl he passes.  This less than close run in with trouble seems to do little to change Swanson, in fact, when he goes out with a waitress on his boat, he sits curiously indifferent when after taking a combination of drugs and alcohol she begins having convulsions.  The closing scenes of the film involve Swanson apparently going on a biking purge, only to follow this by more absurd drinking and viewing of old photographs and porn with his buddies.  Yet,  the closing moments of the film show Swanson playing at the beach, happily welcoming a young boy into a game of innocent splashing, suggesting a longing for childhood, although his simplistic movement through the world certainly implies that this desire is already a reality.

The beauty of the film The Comedy is that it manages to use the genre of pretentious hipster mumblecorp (in this case negative, although they can be good) film to completely reject the sort of disillusion relating to the struggles of rich white kids trying to justify their lives.  This can be horribly delivered and fall short as happens in The Pleasure of Being Robbed, or work when the conventions are undercut in the closing sequences of Entrance.  The Comedy is decidedly on the side of undercutting, but there is no degree of suggestion that this could be redemptive, the PBR-infused inquiries into the questions of life that do indeed exist in so many of these films come crashing down when Swanson uses such moments to push people away from one another, most notably himself, and viewing this occur within The Comedy made me realize that it often occurs in a variety of mumblecorp films through the "look how much smarter" I am moments, again Heidecker just blows it absolutely out of proportion.  Similarly these films often take for granted the characters abilities to move through their landscapes, even if completely desolate, at least this is very much the case for Swanson and his other pals, who use cabs unapologetically, and demand that the cab drivers provide them with their every request, or they will flat out refuse to tip them as a result.  It is an element of the "struggling yuppie" that they often ignore their ability to move freely away from their problems, or better yet mask them with drugs and booze, hell, Swanson's boat is the ultimate form of excessive escapism.  Another tragedy lies in the characters of such films working in dead end jobs while assumedly aspiring to do something else, with little gratitude for the value of employment, particularly in the abysmal economy wherein many of these films were produce.  Swanson, again, takes a job just for the hell of it, never really considering that the work could mean the livelihood to another individual.  Of course, the most intense and baffling scene occurs in a church and sort of proves the centrifuge for the downfall Swanson experiences in the second half of the film.

Key Scene:  The shuffle sequence in the church will have you in awe, I felt my mouth dropping in confusion and awe, both moved and disturbed simultaneously.

This is a recent addition to Netflix Watch Instant and should be viewed before it disappears for one reason or another.

Nothing Is Beyond Money For You Robert, We Both Know That: Arbitrage (2012)

It is quite possible that if it were not for the existence of the wonderfully engaging and brilliantly disconcerting The Grey, that Arbitrage would stand to be the most underrated film of 2012.  In fact, it is no surprise that both films deal with similar philosophical issues, while simultaneously deconstructing the myth of unbridled masculine privilege.  One uses wolves and the cold, while the other uses financial stress and guilt to drive its point across, however, Arbitrage, unlike The Grey, commits to making sure its viewers understand the power and privilege that come with being rich, white and male, so much so that the film manages to almost cause a person to relate to a person who is completely engaged in terrible behavior.  It is a film that manages, to show both the glossy glamour of having such a sway in the daily lives of those below an individual, as to be able to mold and alter the world and those in it to bend at one's illogical and greedy will.  Director, and writer for the film, Nicholas Jarecki has managed to tap into everything that cinema has attempted to reject, while still managing to completely draw attention to its problems.  If the film were not so focused on the "idea" powerful character, I would be inclined to compare it to a Soderbergh film, especially, considering that it has the sort of dreary detachment from the characters, while also possessing an uncanny interest in their most arbitrary engagements.  Narratively speaking it is of the same vein as The Ides of March, a film from a year earlier, or, perhaps Michael Clayton, where, in both instances, George Clooney emerges as a man whose privilege allows him to do pretty much anything he needs in order to assure his safety and continued reign of power.  Arbitrage is much the same sort of film, however, it seems like Jarecki wants to remind viewers that in the case of this film, the privilege can only allow the main character so much access and his moments of having the upper hand will eventually falter, leaving him with nothing but his sense of momentary escape.  The pawns the formulate the other films of this nature are certainly present, however, by the films closing its is they who have come to realize their power in helping the king, if you will, win the game and their demands for providing such aid are more than reflective of knowledge about how much the king can truly provide.

Arbitrage follows the experiences of the incredibly successful financial broker and investment advisor Robert Miller (Richard Gere), as he is lining up to sell his brokerage firm to a buyer for a high profit.  However, slight problems emerge for Roger as he has managed to lose a considerable portion of his company's money to a ill-advised hedge investment in a Russian copper mine.  Fortunately, Robert has tons of friends in high places, therefore, allowing him to navigate through tax audits and various fraud inquiries with ease and lack of concern.  In fact, Roger is so aware of his safety that he openly lies to his daughter Brooke (Brit Marling) when she inquires as to the blatant financial discrepancies in their accounting records.  However, as he has just reached his sixtieth birthday and knows he has a successful retirement he engages in a party with his wife Ellen (Susan Sarandon) and acts completely disconnected from the illegal fraud he is engaged with for his soon to be sold business.  The story, however, also involves another degree of Robert's deception, particularly, when he steps out of his own birthday to engage in another evening with a woman named Julie (Laetita Casta) for whom it is suggested he has had a long standing affair.  It is not until Robert's buyer begins to get cold feet that he begins to worry, even going so far as to blow off an art opening for Julie to attempt to close the deal.  This decision leads to Julie becoming infuriated with him and ignoring him when he does arrive at her exhibit.  Nonetheless, Robert tracks her down later in the evening and apologizes, eventually getting Julie to agree to travel on the road for a few hours.  It is during this drive that Richard falls asleep at the wheel leading to a intense crash and the immediate death of Julie.  Frantic not for Julie's safety, but for the effects such an incident would have on his reputation, and, subsequently, his ability to close the sale, Robert takes advantage of the son of his former chauffeur Jimmy (Nate Parker) reminding the young man that it was he who helped pay for his father's expensive medical bills.  Robert attempts to completely cover up all possibilities of his involvement in the accident, he is met with opposition by Detective Bryer (Tim Roth) whose determination to prove that no man is above the law lead him to maniacally attack every course of option, even attempting to frame Jimmy with the hopes of causing him to snitch on Robert.  However, the film winds down, much as a chess game would, with defensive strategy and stalling, however, in the end the one with more in possession and a willingness to exploit others to his advantage always wins, and Arbitrage reminds viewers that this is no different, although the closing scenes certainly suggest that guilt becomes an intense burden.

Arbitrage is a film that brings to light the age old adage about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely.  I would love to say that Robert, as a character, comes to realize that he is a greedy and self-serving individual who understands that his terrible actions will eventually catch up with him, however, the film shows that an individual who absolutely ignores any sort of moral high road and throws his money in the right places can certainly get away with anything, including reckless endangerment to the point of involuntary manslaughter.  While the trailer for this movie uses the crash scene unapologetically, it really seems to be the driving force in this movie, prior to his accident, Robert was already walking on a very tight rope and when it breaks he is forced to put everything in front of him to soften the fall.  I mentioned the chess metaphor, because it works nicely to consider the way that "otherness" is a point of exploitation and oppression within this film.  Robert is able to put a person like Jimmy below him, because he clearly believes him to be of a lesser value than him in regards to human life.  Robert is a person of value who is self-assured to the point of hubris (going so far as to act unaware about what exactly as to what an "Applebee's is) whereas, Robert's blackness is often called to attention.  The scene where Robert's girlfriend, a woman of color, supports him, certainly plays into the degrees of intersectionality, which could be read as problematic, but considering the message of the film, it is clearly served up for ironic purposes.  Similarly, Robert seems to have no hesitations throwing his daughter, a woman, thus othered, under the bus in order to assure that he gets what he desires.  The magical moment comes when Ellen and Brooke realize that their two others can unite to attack the "self," Ellen and Brooke obtained their desired gains out of the process, lessening Robert, even if only to the slightest of degrees.  Furthermore, you could read Jimmy's obtaining of the money from Robert as his own victory, although it is absolutely clear that Jimmy's reward comes not from the economic gain, but from forcing Robert to acknowledge that they are now "even," or in a larger context equals.  Of course, these are all spoken affirmations and do nothing for the very real loss of Julie.  nonetheless, Robert is assumedly lesser privileged as a result, yet the film cleverly reminds us that even in that instance, Robert can still move through some pretty high places.

Key Scene:  The car crash is intense, even if you know it is coming, the degree with which the mood is heightened is filmmaking perfected.

This is a great film, I thoroughly enjoyed it, however, it is still a bit on the pricey side to purchase.  I would strongly urge renting it for the time being.

I'll Be Shooting For My Own Hand: Brave (2012)

It is almost always a sure thing that a film by Disney will at the very least look amazing, and it is only a notion extended when one considers that the best work by the company is often released by Pixar, which is exceptionally spectacular.  However, what is much less assured is to what social commentaries the films may make, for example, Wall-E serves as a gorgeous piece of 3D animated film while also being a surprisingly scathing critique of all things leading our technological society to brainless reliance on machines.  In contrast is Tangled, one of the more cinematic Disney film, that draws upon some excellent references to old school Robin Hood movies, as well as also containing a significant female character.  Yet, Tangled, like so many of its predecessors manages to regress into heteronormativity by its closing moments never really allowing the revolutionary gender politics it seems so intent on setting up in the films opening moments.  Brave, a film from last year, seemed to continually emerge as this sort of enigmatic feminist statement directed at kids, via a Pixar film, although, the more I think about it, I would argue that Pixar aims the narrative elements of its films at adults, while offering sound visual elements to capture children.  Regardless, Brave is, much to my surprise, quite embracing of women's singularity and manages to make a considerable portion of the narrative center around this element, as one young girl struggles to reject gender commodifications and perform in a way that she finds comfortable and liberating, regardless of the expectations of tradition.  Brave is both a highly entertaining film, as well as one that keeps its narrative focus direct and socially advanced.  It was quite easy for me to become captured in the flora laden landscape of the film occupied by vibrant characters and some of the best human-based Pixar animation to date.  It is an incredibly fast-paced film that is perfect for young audiences, yet manages to pack a heavy set of gender reconsiderations into its world in the process.  While it is by no means a superior film to Frankenweenie, I can better understand now, after viewing, why this film has received such rave reviews, and, ultimately, and Oscar.

Brave focuses on the young life of Merida (Kelly MacDonald) a princess, in a Scottish clan whose love for archery and living in the outdoors has emerged directly from the tutelage of her father Fergus (Billy Connolly) a king whose leg was lost defending his family and clan from a deathly bear attack.  This emphasis on athleticism and outdoor activities is much maligned by her mother Elinor (Emma Thompson) who hopes that Merida will willingly align herself with history and give her hand to a suitor from a nearby clan as a means of assuring peace in the area.  While Fergus is quite lacking in his support of such a decision, he does realize its necessity to assure clan peace, therefore, falling in line with Elinor when she forces Merida to follow the orders and give her hand to who ever wins a contest. Even after Merida attempts to win her own hand in the competition, the fact proves that she must still get married.  In a last ditch moment of frustration,  Merida visits The Witch (Julie Walters) who agrees to provide Merida with an escape in exchange for a metal amulet.   The spell takes the form of a cake that Elinor is to eat, Merida thinking it will only cause her mother to change her mind gives it to her in excitement, yet when Elinor becomes sick almost immediately after consuming the food things take a serious turn.  The spell Merida has obtained causes her mother to change, not her mind, but physical form into that of a bear, of course, leading to her immediate danger when Fergus senses the presence of a bear within his castle.  Escaping from the castle with just enough time to spare, Merida and her mother seek The Witch to alter the spell, but she is nowhere to be found, instead leaving a riddle as to how to reverse the spell, before her mother becomes like Mor'duu another person whose selfish desires led him to being turned into a bear.  Yet, the persistent chase of Fergus leads to a showdown in a stonehenge-like battlefield, where Merida brings a fixed tapestry that she had damaged earlier in frustration against her mother.  Realizing the seriousness of the matter, Fergus steps back and, with Merida in tears, Elinor finally becomes a human again, the family reunited and the clans at ease.  The narrative ends with Merida embracing her role as princess, but with the full knowledge that she can choose to marry, or not to, at her own convenience.

While I am fully aware that it is not a particularly radical film in its portrayal of unconventional gender roles, Brave, as a piece of animated film, could have been much more heteronormative and still probably made a ton at the box office.  However, the deliberate choice, on the part of the collective of directors and writers to make Merida her own individual, even in the closing moments of the film is quite a powerful thing.  The film is about choosing a lifestyle that is both comforting and rewarding, as opposed to preordained and mandatory.  Merida loathes the idea of feminine beauty and constant beauty regiments, emphasized by her unkempt hair and her disdain when it is trapped within a headdress.  Elinor does not seem so opposed to Merida's personal pleasures and enjoyments because she assumes that it is unnatural or playing against her gender, but because she is fully aware of the political consequences of her daughters choice not to act the part.  It is a larger commentary on institutionalization, internalization and fear of working against an unrealistic notion of the ideal.  In fact, I would not even suggest that this film outright rejects femininity, because, after all, it is Merida's fixing of a tapestry that allows her mother to return to human form.  I am not suggesting that now, textile and tapestry work is uniquely feminine, but within the historical context of the film that would have certainly been the case, therefore, the narrative seems to open up its necessity.  With both commentaries existing against one another it seems to be a film that draws out the necessity of possessing both masculine and feminine qualities, without being forced to exist within one spectrum at one time.  Furthermore, Merida's existence by herself in the films closing moments say that gender is not predicated on finding an other to fifth the dichotomy, but can certainly be its own stand alone element and should be entirely the choice of the individual in question.

Key Scene:  The archery contest is fun and hearkens back to the old Robin Hood films of the thirties.

This is not a film I feel is absolutely worth owning, however, it is quite enjoyable and certainly worth renting.

I Know How Fully Devoted You Are: Farewell, My Queen (2012)

This set of films for the month of March is taking a decided turn toward France, but that just happens to be the result of two things, either they were immediately available to me, or as in the case of this film, something I wanted to see before entirely committing to a top ten list for 2012.  Farewell, My Queen, a film by Benoit Jacquot, of whom I am not familiar with, is certainly within the context of my month of women in film, considering that it essentially focuses on the experiences of the storming of the Bastille and the subsequent attack on the residence of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, however, where many films would place the narrative centrally within the experiences of either member of royalty, this particular incarnation focuses on one of the servants to Antoinette, both fresh in the take on the popular bit of period piece, as well as likely riding the coattails of Downton Abbey and other upstairs/downstairs oriented dramas.  Even if it is existing in the vacuum of this thematic approach, Farewell, My Queen is decidedly its own work and focuses quite directly on the experiences of one woman, whose navigating through the spaces of privilege, while also being detached from them, serves as a half-expose on the French aristocracy of the era and wholly evocative, intrusive piece of cinema.  Of course, what makes Farewell, My Queen such a heavily noted film from last year is not any of the aforementioned elements, but what it decides to suggest about the theory that Antoinette was engaged in lesbian activities, during her life.  While the film could have taken this idea and run amuck with it exploiting nudity and sexuality without apologies, the exceptionally introspective and pensive film actually considers the romantic evolution of such a relationship, particularly how navigating such a socially unacceptable relationship might have occurred, through shared whispers and back room intimacies.  I will not go out of my way to say that Farewell, My Queen is a great film, it is indeed quite good and well worth watching, where it does fail is simply in its overly ambitious narrative a fault that one can only be so critical of in a overall soundly created film.

Farewell, My Queen, while possessive of multiple characters, focuses primarily on Agathe (Lea Seydoux) a young woman attempting to make her own in the world while working as the appointed reader to Marie Antoinette (Diane Kruger).  In the beginning of the film, Agathe is more concerned with making her advancement within the halls of the palace, despite being blocked by older women who see her as being disrespectful and precocious.  Marie, however, seems to take a particular liking to Agathe and talks very candidly with her about her opinions about life, of course, avoiding to do so when in the presence of others.  Yet, within hours of this being depicted, the Bastille is sieged and it becomes rather clear that the palace will be destroyed and beheadings will ensue for all those with power, Louis XVI and Marie being the first names on the list.  This revelation, understandably, leads the palace into a degree of anarchy, a facade of formality is attempted, yet as workers begin quitting or turning to the aid of the peasants so too does the sanity in the palace.  In the madness of it all, Marie finds herself revealing a deeply kept secret to Agathe about a relationship she has been having with Duchess Gabrielle (Virginie Ledoyen), one with a very real sexual element.  Agathe sees it as her duty to keep Marie's secret hidden, even with the presence of evasive questions and a complete dismissal of authority information transition.  When it becomes quite evident that to stay at the palace will be to assure death, Marie is baffled to find out that Louis expects them both to remain, a concern that worsens when she is told that Gabrielle will be leaving, leading to them having a final moment of intimacy without interaction in front of the entire royal court.  In a last ditch effort to assure her safety, Gabrielle plans to have Agathe dress as her during the escape, just in case they run into hostile peasants,  all the while Gabrielle will attempt to pass as a maid.  This plan proves successful for them, however, as history tells us things were less ideal for Marie Antoinette, yet, in a final challenge to the viewer the closing dialogue is Agathe reminding everyone that the film is of her story, not that of anybody else, no matter how historically important.

The film is about a lot of things, however, whether it be navigating class issues or accepting ones sexuality, it is overly concerned with the idea of performance.  This exists perhaps most obviously in the manner with which class and prestige are performed.  The various servants of Marie are expected to act in an upright manner, even when she is being excessive and completely detached.  In fact, when Agathe scratches her itching arm it makes a huge controversy arise where Agathe's job is threatened for acting of a lower and filthy class, even though it is established that Agathe is to always be below Marie, yet she is also expected to perform as friend to her at all times, exchanging opinions about trivialities such as fabric.  Of course, sexuality is also performed to a degree, Marie, who the narrative suggests to be at the very least bisexual, must also perform heterosexuality, when in public and even when things are falling apart, the concern for saving face makes her reject her bisexuality openly, and the same thing certainly holds true for Gabrielle, although one could argue that she is engaging in a certain degree of deception.  I would even stretch this another layer further and add the possibility that Agathe is also a lesbian, although she claims to engage in every action as a direct result of her devotion to the Queen as an authority figure, however, given the state of authority at the point in which the narrative emerges, one cannot help but think that her affection extends beyond mere aristocratic hierarchy.  Then there is also the very real performance which occurs on the part of Agathe and Gabrielle where they essentially switch identities, one becoming the object of desire for Marie, while the other moves away from that realm, perhaps into the roles they were ideally intended for, one cannot say for sure, yet it is rather evident that their both exist feelings that betray the acts they have up until this point been performing.  It is a brilliant multi-layered identity narrative which will likely benefit from multiple viewings.

Key Scene:  There is a scene where Marie is removing her wig and wiping off her makeup that says so much about her letting her guard down only moments later, it is cinematic metaphor executed to an otherworldly degree.

This is a solid film, I am still not a hundred percent sold on it, as such, I would suggest renting it to see what you think.

Superheroes? In New York? Give Me A Break: The Avengers (2012)

So I know this month is dedicated to women in film and I intend fully to still post at least one film a day from within that broad umbrella, but I have been viewing a streak of rather solid films along with the ones being posted about and I thought it would be a shame not to include some of them in between as well, especially considering that I am currently on break and need everything imaginable to avoid from actually having to write a paper that is due when I get back to school.  Furthermore, there are still and handful of movies I need to see from 2012 before properly making a list of my favorite films.  While The Avengers certainly could have been a contender in pretty much any other year of films, it will certainly not make to my top film list of this year, however, that is not to undermine its excellence by any means.  The Avengers stands as an excellent example of a superhero movie that is both wildly entertaining and also filled with philosophical reflections and more than a few political ideologies, yet, while they are made very present, unlike the far less successful The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers manages to allow viewers to come to such commentaries on their own, as opposed to wasting an already lengthy runtime attempting to shove them down their throats.  Yet, Joss Whedon, in his infinite wisdom, is careful not to invest too much interest in any single ideology and, in fact, shows the positive elements, as well as the very negative portions of any given situation.  Furthermore, having failed to see any of the franchised characters films prior to this, I only had their collaboration to go off of, and I found the introductions to each character to be absolutely captivating and succinctly executed, providing even the most unfamiliar viewer, such as myself, with the necessary information on their positive traits as well as their flaws.  The best part about all of this positive execution is that even if it were not to be present the magnitude and commitment with which the action sequences are shot is so stellar and fresh that it could have been entirely watchable on these grounds alone.  The Avengers stands as a promising outlook onto what the blockbuster film can and should be and is quite deserved of its financial success.

The film begins with work being done at an underground facility run by the top secret globally financed  agency S.H.I.E.L.D. whose work with the Tessaract, a highly powerful cube made of some impenetrable space materials, has caught the attention of Loki (Tom Hiddleston) a demi-god from the planet of Arsgard who sees the item as a means to take control of, and subsequently destroy the earth.  He begins taking over the plant by putting its employees under control with a mind-altering specter, taking control of both the Tessaract's main engineer and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) a highly trained archer who works for shield.  This all occurs despite heavy efforts by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to stop Loki, yet when Loki gets away and it is made quite clear that global destruction is his plan, Fury demands that the collective known as the Avengers be assembled to challenge Loki.  This group includes a vast array of personalities, whether it be Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) an ex-assassin turned S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who finds herself troubled by a criminal past, the gamma ray physicist whose temperment has led him from simply being Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to that of The Hulk, as well as the aptly named Captain America (Chris Evans) who stands as America's first superhero, which is solidified by his being frozen underwater and only recently revived to be part of The Avengers.  The group also includes the "genius, playboy billionaire" Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) whose technological skills allow him to be Ironman, a nearly invincible fighting machine.  Finally, considering that Loki is their main enemy, the group also includes Thor (Chris Hemsworth) Loki's adoptive brother and protector of both Asgard and to some degree Earth.  Further along the line they also pull Hawkeye from Loki's power and bring him back to The Avengers.  Suffice to say, this group must learn to play nice together, between dueling egos and past injustices, they eventually come together, but even their heavy degree of unity is challenged by the sheer power of Loki and his army of alien beasts.  This eventually requires a heavy moral push on the part of Fury and the sacrifice of a few officers in the process.  Fortunately, the group does eventually overcome Loki and safe the earth from being consumed in a large black mass.  All of them go their separate ways having grown from the experience, however, as a sequence after the closing credits suggests, it is far from their last bout together.

The film makes it blatantly clear that no individual within The Avengers is completely void of problems, whether it be Tony Stark creating a shell of a life of decadence to protect from the very real fact that he has shrapnel inches from his heart that could kill him at any moment, or Bruce Banner whose quest to advance humankind resulted in such frustration and disappointment that he can no longer control his mental state, or Black Widow whose negative past life has become so prominent that navigating through the current world proves nearly impossible.  Even the seemingly forward thinking Captain America suffers from relevance issues in his inability to relate to a contemporary world that does not embrace his jingoistic ideologies, let alone look positively on the image of the American flag.  One could read each of the members of The Avengers, including the demi-god Thor, as ways to approach issues in the world, Thor of course representing the placing of one's hopes in a higher power, Captain America as a putting hope in a group ideal, or Stark as a means to use money to escape the real issues of ones life.  However, as the narrative created by Whedon shows, none of these answers work with any degree of success when placed on their own, yet when a combination of these come together it helps considerably and they can take on even the most seemingly insurmountable of forces.  It reads nicely as a coming together narrative of diversity, even if the group is noticeably occupied by white bodies, something that will hopefully change in the years to come, as it relates to comic book heroes.  The brilliance comes not in this commentary, however, but in the reminder that in many instances this occurs through a shared ideal, one that transcends personal vendettas, and, often, this shared idea has been fabricated by some half-truth, in the case of The Avengers, it is overselling the sacrifice of an officer on the part of Nick Fury that really pushes them into action.  The film clearly asks viewers to consider if such exploitation is justified and, if so, who is to be praised, the superheroes or the man who put them into action?  If all this were not enough, it also critiques the way in which power is controlled by a council of shadowy figures, which seems to be more and more a truth in a world of global wars and back room political dealings.

Key Scene:  As great as "that one scene with The Hulk" is, I have to show favor to the Stuttgart scene, because it is a direct counter to the normal tradition of superhero movies and was much welcomed on my part.

This is certainly worth buying, although I would personally wait for it to drop in price before doing so, considering that it was mass produced, it is only a matter of time.

Death Is Good, But There Is No Love: Holy Motors (2012)

Holy Motors is most certainly the one film that I longed to see for a better part of 2012 after hearing mentions of it on a few of my favorite blogs and podcasts, not to mention as it began receiving awards by various critics associations.  Until viewing it last night, I had only heard descriptions about it, or seen very brief clips at one point or another, always more than enough to pique my interests and seek it out as soon as possible, fortunately, a friend had a copy that they passed along to me and I was able to digest the visual feast that is this film beyond simply looking at the poster, which is its own work of art. I am somewhat on board with the guys at Battleship Pretension when they claim that the film is far from a perfect film, but manages to go about its visual stylings with such audacity and vision that it cannot, and should not, be overlooked, even going so far as to make one of the top ten lists of two critics who I find to have some of the most refined and specific taste in the realm of film criticism.  Holy Motors is as much a sobering reflection on the state of performance in film, as it is a pondering of human existence on a larger scale.  It is a rare thing for a film to engage with the magnitude of 2001: A Space Odyssey philosophically, even more unusual that it manages to engage with the dialogue with any degree of success or validity, in the same vein as Irreversible, Holy Motors, from director Leos Carax, is yet another film from 2012 to make viewers really consider the way in which they consume movies, as well as the larger concept of truth and its tenuous relationship with what we have come to assume to be reality.  I found many of the episodes, as it is really the only way to describe how this film unfolds, to be absolutely mesmerizing, and even the weaker moments of the film exist on a plain so far above much of its competition that it exists as a bit of cinematic magic.  If it were not enough to simply praise the movie for being a visual experience, the performances in this film are more than perfect and Denis Lavant, in particular, brings one of his best delivered set of characters, since first coming to my attention as a delusional Charlie Chaplin impersonator in Harmony Korine's most "normal" film Mister Lonely.

Holy Motors has a plot, all be it a very vague and nearly incomprehensible one, but I assure you it exists some where in the nearly two hour time frame.  Needless to say the film mainly focuses on a man known as Oscar (Denis Lavant) who dons various make-up and wardrobe styles and travels around Paris, on assignments, yet the film chooses to open with an individual known as Le Demour (Leos Carax) who enters a theater only to view a crowd watching, what I have been led to believe is King Vidor's The Crowd, instantly, and magnificently making the film exist within the metacinematic, something that is extended when the narrative begins to follow Oscar in more depth as he engages in his various assignments, all of which apparently hearken back to moments in the history of cinema, whether they be the intensely intimate portrayal of him pretending to be a homeless elderly woman, clearly an evocation Soviet cinema of the early 20th century, or the shock political cinema of Passolini, which occurs when Oscar is assigned to play a grotesque man that kidnaps a model, played rather stoically by Eva Mendes, only to take her into a cave and strip naked, not to have sex, but, instead; to eat her hair.  The film also takes on less artistically embraced elements of cinema, having a sequence pulled directly out of a gangster film, or one which results in a CGI-feuled sexual nightmare.  In one of the films most bizarre moments, Oscar reunites with what appears to be a former lover named Eva (Kylie Minogue) thus thrusting the film into the musical realm, only to return to the darkly dramatic within moments.  The various stories entwine as Oscar moves through Paris in a white limousine and it becomes considerably unclear as to what moments are indicative of his personal life and which depict his "job."  The narrative then takes a leap into the decidedly absurd when Oscar's final job places him at his own home, with his family, who for no explicable reason are a set of monkeys.  The narrative then focuses on Oscar's chauffeur Celine (Edith Scob) who returns the limo to a garage named after the film, and as she leaves the limo with other similar vehicles, the cars begin talking to one another, waxing philosophic about moss on stones, thus ending the film rather abruptly considering all the combined aspects.

I am not even going to proclaim to remotely comprehend exactly what Holy Motors is about, because like the previously mentioned 2001: A Space Odyssey, any singular proclamation about the film is to only focus on aspects and often fails to consider the filmic text as a whole.  Fortunately, Holy Motors in its episodic stylings affords a viewer the ability to pick singular moments as a point of reference, thus leading me to believe that it is a film about filmmaking, much in the same way as 8 1/2 or Stardust Memories, which arguably uses similar techniques, but in a far less dark manner.  I say this because Oscar constantly bemoans his performances, not because he does not appreciate the notion of acting, but because he seems utterly convinced that the often draining performances he delivers are falling on deaf ears, particularly as a result of a technological landscape that embraces minimalism.  In one of the films most poetic scenes, Oscar reflects on an era when filmmakers were distracted only by the heaviness of their camera, a masterful existentially absurdist statement, which proves to be the grounding for the entire film.  It is hard to call Holy Motors a welcoming film, but this previously mentioned scene seems to be Carax's way of saying that society is equally dark and for any film to suggest otherwise would be to betray the power of the medium and its ability to reflect reality to some degree, even if in the highly stylized nature of this film.  It makes me consider its relationship to some of  my other favorites of the year, particularly The Master, Take This Waltz and The Loneliest Planet, all of which use cinema to show the stark betrayals of humanity, as well as their ever so brief moments of triumph, never once allowing the viewer to assure comfort and self-fulfillment.  I find Holy Motors to be in the same vein as the highly introspective, but decidedly distancing cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, in so much that it allows viewers just enough familiarity to become invested, but reminds them that even in familiarity the senses can, and will, be quickly betrayed.

Key Scene:  The intermission scene is decidedly awesome and serves as an awesome mid-point for an excellent film.

Bluray, Bluray, Bluray...

Experiments In Film: Paperman (2012)

So I know that this will more than likely go down as my least experimental film within this little aside on my blog, but I could not pass up an opportunity to elaborate on it after it won an Oscar last night, and since I have failed to see Argo I figured this would be far more appropriate.  Last night, however, was not the point in time with which I became familiar with this cinematic wonder.  Instead, I first saw it as an introduction to Wreck-It Ralph, which I enjoyed but fails to hold the narrative sway of this animated short, despite having plenty more space and time to work with.  Paperman, while at first glance does not appear to be experimental, at least in comparison to what is normally mentioned within this context, one has to consider that it is very much that since it is from Disney, a company not entirely known for experimentation, aside of course from the free reign given to Tim Burton.  Paperman, much like my favorite Pixar film, Wall-E, focuses on everything wrong with conforming to standards and fearing new experiences.  It takes the melodramatic and uses it such a welcome way, embracing both the power of silence and necessity of sound all swelling into an invested moment that will have you sitting up right in curiosity.  In a bold choice of only using black and white, director John Kahrs assures no confusion about the very clear statement existing within his film, and is sure to cement his place as a premier Pixar staple in years to come, which is more than welcome on my part, because I doubt the necessity of another Cars film.  Yet even for being in black and white, the short questions the factuality of life and exists in a realm of magical realism by its closing, reminding viewers that in the insanity of existence, sometimes love and human connection still occurs if the "forces that be" will it to do so.

The film is quite simple and lacks any sort of deception as to what it is about, viewers are shown a young man and a young woman who share a brief connection, when the young man's paper flies into her face, leaving some of her lipstick on the page in the process.  The two laugh, but nothing comes of it, instead; they go along with their lives.  Yet, when the man sees the woman in an interview in the building across from where he works, he attempts to get her attention by flying paper airplanes across the gap, much to the disgust of his fellow employees and supervisor.  When this fails and he is faced with a daunting task of more papers, he throws out convention and chases for the girl through the busy streets, and just when he thinks he has lost her, the hundreds of plains that fell to the ground begin guiding him towards her, at the same time when the girl stops to smell some flowers she sees the paper, with her lipstick on it, a coincidence to eeire to ignore.  The two then return to their original location, still in silence the credits roll and they are shown engaging in a cup of coffee at a diner, and one can only assume a great future.  Again, this is all animated in black and white, with the exception of the girls red lips and the lipstick mark, and aside from an absolutely wonderful composition from Christophe Beck is visually simple.  The story, however, is delivered with such assuredness and precision that it absolutely moves a person upon viewing.  I know it is a minor category as far as Oscars go, yet it is one of the outright correct decisions made last night and I can only imagine what kind of work we will see from Kahrs in the future, if this is anything, I would be willing to bank some possibilities on an animation revolution.  Also I am rather certain it is at the very least an indirect homage to The Red Balloon.

To find out more about John Kahrs, or to watch Paperman click either of the images below.

I Have No Funk. I Am Totally Funkless: Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

When I make note of famous indie time travel movies, minds will undoubtedly jump first to Primer a stellar low-budget deeply perplexing film from the genre that made huge waves upon its release in 2004.  However, I would never have imagined that an indie film would navigate again into such waters, let alone find itself financed by the Duplass Brothers, the certifiable power houses of the indie scene who appear to have their hands within anything and everything released in the world of independent cinema in the past year or so.  Yet, in Safety Not Guaranteed one is provided with a very much indie film, including one of the Duplass' in a leading role, not to mention a narrative that finds itself heavily invested in the idea of time travel, although, to be fair, very little of it actually has to do with actual time travel, instead, focusing on events leading up to a planned tripped by one individual.  Colin Trevorrow's fictional feature debut is a film that is ostensibly about time travel and at times this seems to be everything but the case for the film, yet as the narrative manages to show the idea of time travel is something shared by quite a few people and only actually attempted by a handful.  A narratively mature film, aside from a handful of unfortunate uses of the word friggin, Safety Not Guaranteed is exactly what should be expected out of an indie film, a standard very much set by the Duplass Brothers and a lesson that could still use of teaching to some indie filmmakers who find themselves embracing sloppy and misguided filmmaking and cool or indie, when in fact it is just bad and ill conceived.   Nothing about Safety Not Gauranteed reflects such misdirection and, in fact, beautifully stands its own compared to some heftier films claiming to be indie films, specifically, Silver Linings Playbook, which while good, certainly had a larger budget allowing for an all out marketing campaign and a means to accrue Oscar buzz.  I am more than willing to say that Aubrey Plaza puts on a better performance in this film than Jennifer Lawrence does in Silver Linings Playbook, but the way the  dice land results in one being relegated to her identity on Parks and Recreation, while the other is receiving far too much credit for what was essentially a run of the mill role.

Safety Not Guaranteed focuses on the somewhat disillusioned Darius (Aubrey Plaza) who is attempting to find income while dealing with her dead end internship at a magazine in Seattle.  She seems destined for monotony until she is afforded an opportunity to engage in a piece with head writer Kenneth (Jake Johnson) and fellow intern Arnau (Karen Soni).  The piece they plan to pursue focuses on a classified ad placed in a local newspaper requesting a partner for a time travel trip which threatens to be quite dangerous and the individual will receive compensation upon return.  The crew of course assumes that they will invariably meet an insane individual and have a piece solely in that right.  Darius seems to take a keen interest in it and her vested interest is likely a result of still reeling from the loss of her mother, for which she takes ungrounded fault.  When Darius meets Jeff (Mark Duplass) the man responsible for the ad she instantly realizes that there is much more to him than an insane individual, and becomes intrigued by the passion for which he pursues his desire to travel back in time, even finding herself opening up to him about her own loss.  Meanwhile Kenneth deals with his own past ties to the area, attempting to rekindle a high school romance with former girlfriend Bridget (Mary Lynn Rajskub) who brushes him of when he suggests that she come back to Seattle with him to take up within his life.  Enraged by his disappointment, Kenneth then goes on an drunken quest to assure that Arnau gets laid, something he believes Arnau should be doing at his young age.  Meanwhile, as the intensity of Jeff's plans grow, Darius becomes more emotionally invested in the outcome, only to realize that his past is far more complex and not quite as true as he may have claimed.  The confrontations of all the characters come to the forefront moments before the time travel is to take place and Darius decides to commit to Jeff and the two seem to successfully travel into the past, although on a metaphorical level they are far from the only characters to do so.

Many philosophical treatises, particularly those with a bit of Eastern Asian influence seem to adhere to the idea that living in the present is truly the only way to make it through life with any degree of success, and Safety Not Guaranteed is very much a film that considers such notions.  No character in the film, for the majority of the film manages to exist in the present, both Darius, Kenneth and Jeff live in their respective pasts, hoping to return to a time in which they could obtain lost loved ones, whether it be parental figures or hopeless crushes.  Even Arnau whose careful logic and hesitance is criticized not because it makes him uncool, but because it is a sign of him living in the future and completely missing out on enjoying his present.  In fact, it is not until any of these characters manage to absolutely free themselves from their concerns of any other moment but the now that they are able to embrace life, this occurs when Jeff and Darius spend an evening together before the morning of the planned travel, or when Arnau and Kenneth take to a fair in a wild and carefree manner, ultimately, the film makes sure to remind viewers that not all moments can exist in such transcendence, and that often times the pressures of future realities will rear their ugly head as in the case of Kenneth's incessant boss.  At other times unfortunate facts about the past will damage the opinions one may formulate about an individual, as occurs when Belinda (Kristen Bell) paints a picture for Darius about the psychologically troubled Jeff for whom she has grown to care for deeply, and if one is honest about it, is this not the basic premise for most time travel films.  The closing moments, like some of the classics in time travel, reminds viewers that at moments a perfect unity of occurrences can allow for a truly transcendent and shared experience to occur, even if said experience is something as physically impossible as traveling through time on a decked out hoover craft.

Key Scene:  There is a scene in which Darius explains her past to Jeff, in which Aubrey Plaza delivers a performance I saw coming out of nowhere that absolutely makes the movie much more than a sentimental comedy revolving around time travel.

An excellent little film that has been made recently available on Netflix Watch Instantly and is well worth investing a few moments towards.