nan | 楠木

Milk is the biopic of Harvey Milk, a symbolic figure in the US gay rights movement (as the first openly gay person elected to public office in California), but who otherwise might be an unknown name to the public. The source material is decidedly intriguing, since Mr. Milk did not enter politics until he was in his 40s, and he died abruptly in office under very bizarre circumstances – he was shot by his peer, a Mr. Dan White, who also killed the mayor of San Francisco in a double homicide at City Hall.

Given this richness in material, and the sheer firepower of the cast, it is arguably not surprising that Gus Van Sant has offered a fine civil rights film. (This is not to deny Mr. Van Sant of his credit – there are plenty of examples in cinema where excellent raw material was converted into nothing but waste.)

Sean Penn has already received a lot of praise for his performance, so I will not go into a pointlessly lengthy discussion – suffice to say his acting is spirited and emotionally charged. He is given plenty of opportunities to shine, with numerous public speaking scenes where he delivers powerfully inspiring speeches. Once again, he proves he is one of the most skilled and truly talented actors working today.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, the film takes a very conventional approach to the highly controversial topic. Milk is an easy film to follow and enjoy, as long as you can tolerate, if not accept, the basic concepts of gay rights. There are a few intimate gay scenes, but there is nothing explicit or directly offensive – I think these scenes are themselves a gauge of how tolerant the audience is on the issues being discussed (while their presence will limit the film’s appeal and box office potential). The cinematography deserves praise for creating a very “up and personal” feel, as we are literally by Milk’s side, watching him from the front row as he rallies the troops or observing him from behind as he addresses 10,000 people.

This review would not be complete, of course, without a discussion of the core issues. I think Milk would serve as an excellent introduction of the gay rights movement, and it presents the gay community’s case in a clear manner – they are simply looking to be allowed to live their lives in their own way, and get equal treatment from society. Of course, the film is imbalanced as in somewhat portraying the religious anti-homosexual movement in a simple derisive manner (they are referred to as “bigots” throughout the film by Mr. Milk). Regardless, the debate is one between liberal gay activists and religious conservatives. It may be easy to label the religious conservatives as a group of prejudiced hypocrites, but religion deserves to be well-respected (which is a hard concept for us post-80s Chinese, since we are so disconnected with our own cultural and religious heritage), and there is some truth in that society requires the preservation of certain traditional values and morals.

On the other hand, social progress by definition means the abolishment of obsolete values, and in terms of gay rights, the heart of the matter lies in the recognition that homosexuality is not a disease to treat but a natural and permanent part (of course, major controversy here over the word “natural”) of our society. If you accept this statement, then the rights demanded by the gay community are a mere exercise in logical deduction. However, the complexity of the issue is exactly here – it is a fundamental and perhaps irreconcilable difference in philosophy and worldview, and even if we had irrefutable evidence supporting the “natural” claim, the debate would only be an extension of science versus God.

The debate is currently gridlocked. Milk does not further the debate, but interestingly, it does offer a simple but powerful word that could be the “cure” – “hope”. For the gay rights movement, it is hope that has kept it alive in the face of seemingly impossible odds. For society as a whole, it will also be “hope” that eventually pushes us to resolve our issues. Hopefully.

8/10

I’ll confess – I had zero knowledge of this film prior to watching it – I thought this was going to be a war epic or something, judging by the “deceptive” title (which further betrays my ignorance of American literature); and I didn’t realize the significance of it starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet until I saw them appear on-screen – it’s their first reunion after Titanic, the biggest blockbuster in movie history! And only when the credits rolled up, did I realize that the director was Sam Mendes – so that’s why the style felt so familiar!

My ignorance and some mockery aside, this is a great film. It builds up a brilliant portrayal of suburban life in 1950s, and then unapologetically tears it up. It is a beautiful (if that’s an appropriate word in such circumstances) anatomy of love, marriage and life.

Mr. DiCaprio and Ms. Winslet are the Wheelers, a young couple living in a nice suburban house upon Revolutionary Road. They have two children. Mr. Frank Wheeler commutes by train to town every day. Mrs. April Wheeler is a housewife. They have a car, and they are on good terms with their neighbors, who they often socialize with.

Materialistically, they couldn’t ask for more. Spiritually, they have nothing. April, in particular, feels particularly empty and trapped – the “hopeless emptiness”, as another character would later term it in the film. Perhaps in desperation, she makes a bold proposition – give up everything they have, and move to Paris. She will find work as a secretary; he can contemplate what he really wants to do in life.

Frank is enchanted by this idea. He is sick and tired of his day job, which involves doing nothing and occasionally sleeping with the secretarial staff (out of total boredom). For a while, the couple seems to have rediscovered the magic of life. But then again, things always seemed to good to be true, and as several complications force them to reconsider their plans, the couple encounters a brutal marital crisis, which leads to the cinematic climax of the film.

Without spoiling too much of the film, I would like to say that this is family drama at its very best. It is a especially bold examination of the hollowness of the “routine family life”, and the Wheeler’s brief but tragic struggle to recapture their life’s purpose is particularly poignant. And as a side topic, the film offers one of the best direct arguments for legalized abortion, in that it gives females freedom and equality.

For this brilliant portrayal, both of the lead protagonists are worthy of praise. Mr. DiCaprio has long proved his capabilities as an actor since Titanic, and here he again demonstrates his intensity in front of the camera. Ms. Winslet’s contrastingly quiet and more reserved performance is even more noteworthy, and she crafts a vivid image of the female seeking liberation in the 1950s. And again on a side note, Michael Shannon steals every scene he’s in as one of the film’s most eccentric (and ironically, most truthful) side characters.

With this film, Sam Mendes has furthered the discussions he first presented in American Beauty. This is a great film with lots of intelligent and catchy dialogues, and there are so many good lines that it would be injustice to only paraphrase one or two here – just go watch it, and savor every moment of this hauntingly beautiful drama.

9/10

While the revelations and observations are not totally new, Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona is still a delightful romantic comedy. With a superb cast including Rebecca Hall (Vicky), Scarlett Johansson (Cristina) and Penelope Cruz (not Barcelona, but Maria Elena who resides in Barcelona), as well as Javier Bardem as the man who is causing all the sizzle and stir among those fine ladies, this film is at its least a highly enjoyable soap drama.

Of course, since it’s written by Woody Allen, you can ensure that the plot will be somewhat complicated and the dialogue "sophisticated” if not witty. Indeed, Mr. Allen simply moves the intellectual dialogue from New York to Barcelona – the underlying content is the same, only the setting is different. Under the sunny Catalonian skies, everything about love seems to take on a new perspective.

The plot. Vicky and Cristina are two Americans in Spain, looking to enjoy the sun and the sights, and in Cristina’’s case, some romance. The girls, while best friends, are immediately established as the exact opposites – Vicky is reserved and rational, while Cristina is flirtatious and emotional. Vicky is engaged to Doug, a successful New Yorker, and is looking forward to a content and perhaps straightforward life – which is exactly what Cristina is trying to avoid. When they meet Juan Antonio, a divorced Spanish painter who doesn’t hide his desires, Cristina is immediately flared up while Vicky finds him repulsive.

However, in Mr. Allen’s typical fashion perhaps, with a twist of chance (Cristina falling ill), it is Vicky who develops a real relationship with Juan Antonio first. Juan Antonio, a true womanizer, quickly moves on to the eager and waiting Cristina, using Vicky’s engagement as an excuse (not wanting to endanger her happiness, as he claims); Vicky however, is truly stirred by the momentary passion and begins to doubt her relationship and her future life with Doug. For Cristina, all is not well either, as Juan Antonio’s ex-wife, Maria Elena, soon reemerges and it’s truly “three’s a crowd”. Ironically, Juan Antonio and Maria Elena seems to be able to live pleasantly together with Cristina “maintaining the balance”.

In Vicky Cristina Barcelona, there is no true resolution – for most of its main characters, life at the end of the film is the same as it started, the only difference being the chaotic brief interruption of some very messy relationships. The process is revealing for the audience, however, as some time-tested old questions about love is well presented – should you pursue that “true love”, even if it meant endangering what you already have and hurting others? And do morals exist when it comes to love, or is it “all’s fair in love and war”? For the audience, perhaps your predisposition will determine you answer – in other words, this film will probably not change your view – but the narrative will make you think twice.

A bit about the cast. Mr. Bardem seems very comfortable as the old hand at love, and is fitting as the Bohemian artist. Ms. Hall has very good potential – she is actually a very young actress, yet her performance here is quite on the mark and she holds her ground against her established counterparts. Ms. Johansson is once again the femme fatale, and the image she is projecting is not very different from her portrayals in The Other Boleyn Girl, The Prestige, The Black Dahlia or Match Point. While it’s fine (and natural) for actors / actresses to have some inherent qualities which is shown in all their characters, I do think she should start experimenting new roles or she will become stereotyped. As for Ms. Cruz, her numerous nominations are already proof of her fine performance – she literally steals the scene the first moment she appears.

8/10

Edward Zwick has a taste for heroic epics, with memorable films such as Glory, Legends of the Fall, Courage Under Fire, and more recently, the fine Blood Diamond. He has also had misfires such as The Last Samurai, which was a beautifully shot film but quite criticized for its potentially racist world-view. With Defiance, Zwick takes on World War II and the Jewish struggle, and the result is also somewhat of a misfire.

This is not to say the film is not entertaining – it’s quite hard to do that when you’re telling the true story of a group of Jewish people trying to escape the holocaust by living in the forest and employing guerilla warfare to fight the Germans. This small group is led by the Bielski brothers – Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber) and Asael (Jamie Bell), who were smugglers before the war and now lead the rebels. Having lost all their loved ones, the brothers have different views on their resistance – for Zuvia, the eldest, it is not about revenge but survival, while for Zus it is a matter of blood for blood. Their differences eventually leads them upon different paths – Zuvia opts to take in as many people as he can into his camp, while Zus joins the Russian army to fight the Germans.

The most potent message raised in this 135 minute action film – it is a war film, after all, and the action is the central piece – is humanity in inhumane circumstances. During a typical speech scene, Tuvia declares, “even though we are hunted like animals, we will not become animals.” While somewhat clichéd, the film does discuss this question quite well, and there is a scene in which it is surprisingly thought-provoking.

Daniel Craig is a good actor, but he needs to be careful of being stereotyped as James Bond. His performance in this film will not help him in that regard – it is simply Bond with a Eastern European accent – although this might not be entirely his fault. Liev Schreiber, who has long been a familiar face as a supporting actor in Hollywood films, gives a more authentic performance and is potentially scene-stealing.

In the end, this film does not go beyond previous works depicting the Jewish people in the terrible Holocaust, and is more of a genre film aimed squarely at the male demographic. Definitely not the Oscar material that Mr. Zwick perhaps had in mind.

7/10

Blood Work is a  conventional crime thriller with a late twist in the plot. Clint Eastwood stars as a retired FBI who is the beneficiary of a heart transplant after the donor is brutally murdered, and he is prompted to solve the murder of his heart donor. The film has a mildly interesting plot, and Eastwood is always an entertaining actor to watch, however this is a mostly forgettable Saturday night thriller.

6/10

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a lavish production and a sincere effort, which deems it worthwhile; however, the plot is ultimately disappointing, and the central premise of the film amounts to no more than a plot device which raises more questions than the lengthy 160-minute film could answer.

Brad Pitt stars as Benjamin Button, who unlike everyone else, is born an old man and gets younger as he ages. Considered an abomination at birth, he is abandoned by his father, and raised up at an elderly house by an African American woman, Queenie (a delightful performance by Taraji P. Henson). Set in New Orleans of the deep old South, racism could certainly have been a key topic of the film, however it is mostly ignored.

It is during his childhood at the elderly house, or shall I say, “elderly years”, that Benjamin encounters Daisy (Cate Blanchett), the granddaughter of one of the inhabitants, and the “old” and the young immediately develop a deep friendship. It is clear that this friendship certainly has the potential ingredients of romance, but it will take the narrative quite some time before that potential is realized.

There are many other sub-plots and intriguing lines of narrative in this lengthy film, however the romance between Benjamin and Daisy, and how they cope with the consequences of Benjamin’s bizarre condition, is the central piece and also the most well-developed (some of the sub-plots feel too showy and shallow). It is a warm but sad story, of love in impossible circumstances – if you knew that it would never be “happily ever after”, would you still pursue it? And how do you live with the consequences? These are the questions that this romance raises, and while the film does not answer it fully, it does offer enough material for us to ponder. As for the characters – unlike Benjamin, whose “curious case” makes him surreal and difficult to relate to, Daisy is the truly interesting and authentic character, and her self-reflection of her life is deeply involving and emotionally moving.

The script, written by Eric Roth, who also wrote Forrest Gump, certainly shares some similarities both in form and substance with that earlier work. In both cases, the central protagonist is eccentrically unique with a strange condition, and the plot revolves around how that difference makes him experience and view life very differently. And in both cases, the plot mingles historical events into the narrative, which profoundly shapes the character. And both films are at heart very romantic love stories in their warmly naive and fantastical fashion.

However, if truly compared to Forrest Gump, then Benjamin Button would fall short. Most critically, Forrest Gump was devilishly clever at portraying the broader social issues, and Gump, whose adventures may make him look like a wanderer, has a clear central mission in life – to live with a conscience, and to love Jenny with his whole heart. In comparison, Benjamin Button portrays no social themes, and Benjamin is a character with no life values – what does he want out of life? What does he want to achieve? He remains a wanderer throughout the film, and it seems he has no purpose in life.

Even more, the film fails to answer the most interesting question it posed – if you could live your youth with the experience of an old man, how would you do it differently? Unfortunately for Benjamin Button, by the time the film gets to Benjamin’s youth, the narrative has already dragged on for almost two hours and is simply bearing too much weight to squeeze out room to contemplate those bigger questions in life.

Despite this central flaw, this is still a great studio epic and worthy of 3 hours. The romance is emotionally charged, and Mr. Pitt and Ms. Blanchett deliver fine performances. The director, David Fincher, has a resume of edgy, dark films – Se7en, Fight Club, Panic Room and Zodiac. This is perhaps his most mainstream and emotional attempt, and the director deserves recognition for a meticulously detailed film. It’s not a masterpiece, but it is a fine film.

8/10

Gran Torino is an uneven film – there are moments both emotionally absorbing and mildly boring, and while the underlying plot has a lot of substance, many elements are attenuated in the execution. Regardless, it features Clint Eastwood’s final cinematic performance in a lead role (as is reported by media), and the sheer intensity of his character makes this film worth watching.

The 78 years old Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, an unapologetically politically-incorrect veteran of the Korean War. He is a total outcast, living in solitude in a neighborhood increasingly occupied by Asians (which he has nothing but the utmost disdain initially). His relationship with his family is a train-wreck – he has nothing to say to his two sons, and in return they are only thinking about how to inherit his house and send him to an elderly home. Walt’s only remaining trophy from life is his vintage 1972 Gran Torino, which lends the film its title and is the premise for Walt’s unlikely friendship with his Asian neighbors.

The family living next door is Hmong immigrants from Asia, which the film describes as having moved to the US to survive communist persecution after supporting the losing side in the Vietnam war. Thao, the quiet and introvert teenage boy from the family, and his sister Sue, run into trouble with the local Hmong gang (his cousins), and gets rescued by Walt on several occasions. Walt, who is literally “Dirty Harry – twenty years later” in those scenes, seems to be less interested in helping his neighbors than simply keeping some shady characters off his front porch. However a genuine friendship is formed in the process, which shapes Walt’s beliefs and removes some of his prejudice. The majority of the film dwells on Walt’s relationship with Thao and Sue and how they interact with the local gang.

Without discussing too much of the plot – suffice to say there is a significant twist for the climax – I think it’s fair to say that Gran Torino had a lot of potential in its source material (it touches on a slew of social and spiritual issues) but the result is decidedly mixed. The film’s narrative suffers from dramatic changes in pace and mood. At times the film feels like a slow comedy, while there are also moments where you would not be far off by terming it Dirty Harry 6. (I am generally very against such practices, as it makes the film as a whole fairly inconsistent in tone and style – though this is just my personal preference.)

While the plot is somewhat meddling, Eastwood’s character shines through. Walt is symbolically very “Eastwood”. It is perhaps the type of character that Eastwood has played all his life, from his roles in spaghetti westerns to Dirty Harry to William Munny of Unforgiven. It is the role of the quintessential social outlier, the rogue who swims against the tides, the person who embodies the traditional virtues lost by society. Even “the man with no name”, the quietly sarcastic and materialistic protagonist of the Dollars trilogy, was at heart a big softie with lots of compassion and empathy.

After more than 50 years in the film business, Eastwood has long mastered his art. His on-screen presence is subtle but dominating, and his worn-out voice is captivating. And he doesn’t miss any chances to impress – as the credits appear, it’s Eastwood’s voice in the eponymous song of the film, written by none other than Eastwood himself.

In this sense, you could argue that Gran Torino is a final encore of Eastwood’s acting career. It may feel very much like a monologue, but it’s nonetheless a fascinating one. It will likely be fondly remembered as this screen legend’s final bow.

7/10

The Wrestler is Darren Aronofsky’s  fourth full-length feature film, and it is a fascinating but perhaps routine character study. Mickey Rourke, whose own film career seems to be mirror the wrestling career of the protagonist he portrays, is right at home – this is (again) one of those situations where you believe that the role is made for the actor / actress. Be warned, this is a film with real emotions, however subtle and reserved they may be, and there are certainly a few scenes where you will be on the verge of tears.

I say that the character study offered here is routine, since there are certainly numerous great films telling the story of the underdog or the beaten-down small guy. The film opens with news clippings of Randy “the Ram” in the 80s – that glorious time of professional wrestling – where Randy was once the biggest star of all. Fast forward 20 years, and Randy is not living off the vast wealth (which he should have accumulated), but instead is reduced to wrestling in the independent circuits and barely making enough money to live in a trailer park.

What went wrong in those 20 years is obviously interesting material, however the film leaves this question largely unanswered, though it is pretty obvious that Randy wasted the best years of his life, messing up his career and his family. What the film focuses on is how he tries to cope with his run-down life. We see him making futile attempts to salvage his relationship with his daughter (Evan Rachel Woods), as well as trying to find a soul-mate and partner in the unlikely choice of Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), a single-mom strip-teaser. Furthermore, we see his larger struggle to rediscover his personal identity – what is his place in this world, and how does he want to be seen and remembered?

Comparing The Wrestler with the other Aronofsky film I’ve seen, Requiem for a Dream, and it is immediately evident how skillful the director is at building haunting impressions. Some of the wrestling scenes are frighteningly gory, but even the quiet dialogs between father and daughter are just as emotionally powerful. While The Wrestler is certainly a good portrayal of the wrestling scene, its ultimate purpose is to tell the heartbreaking story of an ordinary individual and his struggles against the torrents of life. This film is not ambitious enough in material to win the favor of the Oscar in terms of Best Picture, but Mickey Rourke will be a serious contender for Best Actor, and he wholly deserves the title.

8/10