Che

Last year, one of my most anticipated films was Steven Soderbergh's Che. Being a fan of Soderbergh, I was very interested in seeing what he would do with a biopic. Would he make it unconventional, and turn it in to one of his "stranger" indie flicks (Schizopolis, Bubble)? Or would he turn in a normal film and go for a large distribution (the Ocean's series, although none of his films are really "traditional.")

Considering Che's length (the film clocks in at around 4 hours) the latter seemed somewhat impossible, and the film's audience was shifted to the arthouse when it was picked up by IFC, one of the few distributors with any balls out there (it was, after all, the only one to consider Lars von Trier's Antichrist.)
But now that the film is on DVD, anyone can see it, not just those living in New York or LA. Che lands somewhere in the middle of Soderbergh's "weird" and "normal" films. It's the best film thus far to be made about Che Guavara. The first part of the film, The Argentine, shifts between Che's and Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution and their brief time in America. Part two, Guerilla, documents Che's involvement in the Bolivian Revolution. Both parts are essential to each other, and should be watched and considered as a whole, not two separate films.

Benicio del Toro had some early Oscar buzz for his portrayal of the revolutionary. He's magnificent in the title role, the rare performance that fully embodies such a well-known and polarizing figure. His performance, as well as Soderbergh's direction, are not biased in or out of favor with the man. The film remains neutral, unlike the living Che-boner The Motorcycle Diaries (which is actually a really good film.)

Unfortunately, del Toro's performance went unnoticed by the Academy when Che shot completely under the radar. If you've got 4 hours to spend, give Che a watch. But if not, at least check out The Girlfriend Experience. If you live in New York or LA, that is...

CHE : A-

The Gambler

"You're crazy!" says Axel Freed's girlfriend in one scene of The Gambler. "But I'm blessed," he responds. He is about to make a risky move in a high stakes game of blackjack. The tension builds. Sweat drips down Freed's brow. The dealer lays down the card and... 21. A lucky draw, something Freed isn't used to.

It's this attitude of needing risks to feel alive that has Axel Freed in over his head in debt, $44,000 to be exact. If he can't come up with the money soon, the dangerous loan sharks he's gotten himself entangled with might kill him, or worse go after his family.

James Caan plays Axel Freed, a troubled teacher and gambling addict in Karel Reisz's 1974 drama The Gambler. Caan appears in every scene, every frame almost, of the film. His performance is amazing and made even more so considering the fact that Caan was battling a cocaine addiction during shooting.

The film was one of the many forgotten gems of the New Hollywood era. Soon after the Hayes Code was dissolved, American filmgoers were eager for more raw films with tougher subject matter than they were used to. Films like Easy rider and Bonnie & Clyde satisfied their thirst, while many films, The Gambler included, got pushed aside in the process.

Karel Reisz, who also directed The French Lieutenant's Wife and the excellent Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, keeps a steady eye on Axel Freed. The film is dark and gritty, yet entertaining, and Caan's performance is eminently watchable.

The Gambler is a character study above all else. The battle against gambling Axel Freed deals with on-screen is mirrored by Caan's off-screen personal demons. Another sad case of art imitating life.

The fake character, however, doesn't really want to give up gambling. Although he acknowledges that it's a problem, he loves the risk. He only truly feels alive when his livlihood is at stake. He's not in it for the game. In his eyes, everything in life is a game. He gambles for the rush of it, just to feel something. He's willing to take the risk to get that rush, unfortunatly hurting everyone around him and the ones he loves in the process.

THE GAMBLER : A-

This month's CINEASTES review has been hosted by Josh Wiebe at Octopus Cinema (http://octopuscinema.blogspot.com/)

Wendy & Lucy

Wendy and Lucy is American neo-realist filmmaker Kelly Reichardt’s latest addition to the movement, and her follow up to the acclaimed Old Joy. Wendy and Lucy stars Michelle Williams as Wendy Carroll, a young woman traveling to Alaska in search of work. Her only companion is her dog Lucy. Wendy faces challenges along the way (lack of money, broken car, etc.), but the worst of her setbacks is the loss of Lucy, who disappears somewhere along their journey.

Lucy’s disappearance is the main point of the purposefully simple plot. The film is not plot-driven; it’s a character film that’s really about the infinite search for the American dream.

Michelle Williams is amazing as Wendy. Her performance was one of last year’s best: naturalistic, youthful. She’s an easy actress to fall in love with.

Wendy and Lucy is, like Old Joy, a meditative and thoughtful film. Unlike Old Joy, however, this one never really meanders. There’s always something going on. I think that with time, Wendy and Lucy will be looked back on as a key film in the American Neorealist movement.

WENDY & LUCY : B

Doubt

**SPOILERS**

Last year’s Oscar-nominated film Doubt stars Meryl Streep as a nun who accuses a pastor (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) of molesting a child at their Catholic parish. Quite the taboo topic, and one not spoken about enough in movies. Doubt is one of last year’s most thought-provoking films. It left me thinking about it long after I left the theater.

John Patrick Shanley, the director of the film, adapted it to the screen from his own stage production. The movie, at times, feels like it would be a bit more adept for the stage, but that’s not necessarily a detrimental remark. I just mean that its dialogue drives it. At last year’s Oscars, it was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. I think it should’ve won.


The script wouldn’t have worked, however, if it were not for the performances. Oh, the performances. What a glorious cast! Meryl Streep is, as always, brilliant as the suspicious Sister Aloysius. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is, as always, stunning and natural as the accused Father Flynn. Amy Adams is, as always, wonderful as Sister James, the one caught in the middle of the two. All three of them were nominated for Oscars for their performances here, as was Viola Davis for her great but brief role as the boy’s mother.

I don’t only love the film for its script and acting, though. I love it for its ambiguousness. At the end of the film, we are never told whether Father Flynn committed the evil acts he has been accused of or not. We are left with a broken sister Aloysius crying on the shoulder of Sister James, questioning her own suspicions. Was Flynn guilty? Was Aloysius right to accuse him? Was she right to destroy his life and have him removed from the parish? We don’t know. We must decide for ourselves.

DOUBT : A-

Neo-Neo-Realism

I’d like to write about the milieu of current American independent cinema. Right now, a growing trend has appeared that many critics have dubbed neo-neo-realism; that is, a new film realism movement that employs many of the same techniques of the Italian neo-realism movement of the 1940’s headed by filmmakers like Vittorio De Sica, Roberto Rosselini and screenwriter/theorist Cesare Zavattini, among others. The films of this time and place, like Bicycle Thieves, Umberto D. and Open City were hugely influential.

These films were a reflection of post-World War II Italy. The poverty rate was high. Filmmakers created movies not as escapism, but as a way to reflect the times and the changes that had destroyed the Italian economy.

The first neo-realist movement has never been as influential as it is right now. Filmmakers like Ramin Bahrani and Kelly Reichardt are making films today that are basically just the next step for neorealism. Bahrani’s movies like Man Push Cart and Chop Shop (and now Goodbye Solo, which I haven’t seen but look forward to) take advantage of certain aspects of the previous movement. They use nonprofessional actors, a documentary-like visual style and conversational dialogue. Kelly Reichardt’s films, on the other hand, like Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy, are very naturalistic and political. Every single one of these films has been critically acclaimed, and much discussed on the arthouse circuit. Although Bahrani has only directed three films, Roger Ebert has already declared him one of the most important filmmakers working today.

I wanted to write about this current movement because I feel like we’re in the middle of something big happening right now. The American cinema needs a break from all the high-priced action extravaganzas. The neo-neo-realism movement (and I don’t care for that title, so I’ll dub it American neo-realism) is an answer to the politics and condition of our country. It’s been a while since American cinema has faced a new wave of change this swift. I think it’s just what we need.

Top Twenty : Films of 2008

This is the final Year End Top Ten (Twenty) until the end of '09. I hope you've enjoyed reading these as much as I have making them.

2008

1. Let the Right One In
2. Milk
3. Dear Zachary : A Letter to a Son About His Father
4. Revolutionary Road
5. Slumdog Millionaire
6. Doubt
7. Wall-E
8. Happy-Go-Lucky
9. Synecdoche, New York
10. The Band’s Visit
11. In Bruges
12. Frost / Nixon
13. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
14. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
15. Wanted
16. Shotgun Stories
17. Gran Torino
18. The Visitor
19. Iron Man
20. Man On Wire

Angels & Demons

Ron Howard’s latest flick is an adaptation of the sequel to Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. This film, Angels and Demons, introduces us once again to the character of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). This time, he must uncover the mystery behind the recent resurgence of the Illuminati, an ancient group of Atheist philosophers and intellectuals who were banished and tortured by the Catholic Church many, many years ago. Now they’re back, and they’ve stolen a bomb capable of destroying Vatican City and everyone in it.

I can’t say I was a fan of the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. It was dull, boring and preposterous, but while Angels and Demons is definitely preposterous, it is anything but dull and boring. Ron Howard has replaced the previous film’s long, monotonous talk sequences with action scenes. When Code needed to run, it stood still. That’s not a problem here. Angels and Demons is loaded with some really nifty special effects. It’s not convoluted like its predecessor, and it’s far from boring.

The whole film, however, is supported by its performances. Ewan McGregor is great as a priest who takes over rule of the Catholic Church after the Pope’s death while they find a new, permanent Pope. Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (who is often considered Israel’s best actress) holds her own against Tom Hanks (who is great here too, and not in enough stuff anymore).

Ron Howard is often considered by cineastes to be a mediocre director, the epitome of a journeyman who always turns in OK work, but never anything great. I’ve always defended his films. While he has had plenty of missteps in the past (like How the Grinch Stole Christmas), he has also directed A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13 and Cinderella Man, all films that I love. Plus, let’s not forget that this is one of the guys behind the greatest TV show of all-time (you read that right) Arrested Development.

But back to the film. If Angels and Demons is any kind of a sign, this is going to be a good summer for movies.

ANGELS & DEMONS : B+