FOUR MOVIE REVIEWS: A PRAIRIE HOME
COMPANION, L’ENFANT (THE CHILD), KINKY BOOTS, AND
THE DA VINCI CODE
By Joel
Johnson
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION
Directed by Robert Altman; written by Garrison Keillor, based on a story by
Garrison Keillor and Ken LaZebnik; director of photography, Ed Lachman;
edited by Jacob Craycroft
With:
Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones, Garrison Keillor, Kevin Kline, Lindsay
Lohan, Virginia Madsen, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph, Meryl Streep, and Lily
Tomlin. Rated PG-13. Running time: 105 minutes
1/2
The
collaboration of Robert Altman and Garrison Keillor has yielded a wonderful
visual postcard—one with plenty of x’s, o’s, ’s,
and ’s—from Lake Wobegon—actually the
Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul, Minnesota. Regular listeners of Keillor’s
longtime radio show on National Public Radio (NPR) will recognize that the
Fitzgerald Theater is the homebase for the program, though it frequently
journeys to other venues around the country. Lake Wobegon—Keillor’s setting
for much of his weekly storytelling—is pretty much missing from the film. No
doubt it was a difficult decision to leave it out, but the challenge of
making a man doing a long monologue cinematic may have seemed just too
great. It might also have been that a tale from Lake Wobegon may not have
easily fit into the film’s own story.
It is a
pretty thin story. The longtime radio show is on the verge of extinction—not
because NPR pledges are down—but because a big heartless conglomerate from
Texas has bought the radio station WLT and has sent “the Axeman” (Tommy Lee
Jones) to pink slip the entire cast and crew. There’s a sense of gathering
gloom backstage as they consider their turn of fate and wax reflective. An
ethereal beauty (Virginia Madsen) with a mission shows up beguiling Guy Noir
(Kevin Kline), whose private eye business is on hard times, forcing him to
do security at the Fitzgerald Theater. The film revolves around Keillor’s G.
K., who tries to ignore that the show is coming to end.
Altman
and Keillor have attracted a terrific ensemble of actors (Meryl Streep, Lily
Tomlin, Lindsay Lohan, L. Q. Jones, John C. Reilly, Woody Harrelson, and
Maya Rudolph) in addition to A Prairie Home Companion regulars Tim
Russell, Sue Scott, sound effects man Tom Keith, singer Jearlyn Steele, and
the All-Star Shoe Band. While the action bounces back and forth between
what’s happening onstage and what’s going on backstage, the heart and soul
of the film is the musical slice of traditional Americana lovingly
delivered. Along the way, there are lots of smiles and laughs. I don’t know
if this will appeal to those weaned on video games and iPods, and I have
doubts that it will translate to an international audience (a crucial market
for many films), but should the four million weekly listeners to the NPR
show come see the movie, it will be doing just fine. I expect they will have
good things to tell their friends, and you just can’t beat good word of
mouth.
L’ENFANT (THE CHILD)
Written
(in French, with English subtitles) and directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc
Dardenne; director of photography, Alain Marcoen; edited by Marie-Hélène
Dozo
With:
Jérémie Renier, Déborah François, Jérémie Segard, Fabrizio Rongione, Olivier
Gourmet, and Stéphane Bissot. Rated R. Running time: 100 minutes
Luc and
Jean-Pierre Dardenne have spent the last ten years making compelling films (La
Promesse [The Promise], Rosetta, and Le Fils [The
Son]) about ordinary people coping with an assortment of moral dilemmas
to receive their daily bread—to borrow a phrase from a well-known prayer.
While the Dardennes do not subscribe to the so-called Dogme 95 manifesto
that Danish filmmakers Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg espoused, their
films have a similar spare directness that translates into a heightened
sense of reality and intimacy with their film’s main characters. It is not
surprising to learn that the Dardennes were documentary filmmakers before
they turned to fictional films. Their main characters usually are people who
live at society’s margins, facing tough decisions and conflicted loyalties.
They make bad choices not always because the choice is logical in an
objective sense, but because a flawed individual will often respond to the
world in ways that are logical only within that person’s skewed perspective.
So the Dardennes do not make films about heroes—even if their characters may
sometimes do something that could be construed as heroic—and yet it would
seem in L’Enfant that they have outdone themselves in portraying a
troubled, unsympathetic protagonist.
The
film begins with Sonia (Déborah
François)
carrying her newborn back to the apartment she shared with her boyfriend
Bruno (Jérémie
Renier). She
finds that he has sublet it. We soon learn that Bruno is a ne’er-do-well
petty criminal. The two new parents once reunited frolic together like
children. Bruno seems strangely indifferent to fatherhood. A profound sense
of foreboding sets in as one assesses their preparedness for the roles of
being parents. Bruno abruptly decides to sell his son Jimmy on the black
market. Bruno’s response to Sonia’s shock and dismay at what he has done
sends a chill: “We can have another one.” We then follow Bruno as he tries
to get Jimmy back and cope with the aftermath of what he has done.
While
most films seek to have the audience identify with the lead character and
have the audience rooting for lovers to finally get together, this film does
the opposite. I did not want Bruno and Sonia to get back together, and never
have I felt such a visceral dislike for a film’s main character. To be sure
there are plenty of other characters in films who have done more vicious and
evil things but never as the film’s lead character. If most films try to
anesthetize their audiences from their daily lives by making them feel
good, this one deliberately and spectacularly succeeds as a feel-bad film.
Yet how is the audience supposed to respond? Does the film shed light on the
human condition? Are the individuals or society responsible for the choices
that are made? We learn almost nothing about the formative experiences of
Bruno and Sonia since we simply observe their current lives. That we learn
that there are individuals ill prepared to take responsibility for their own
lives—let alone the lives of their children—is not altogether a revelation.
That reality confronts us regularly whenever we read the newspaper, read a
newsmagazine, and watch a television newscast. But what is it that we can do
to help “the child” of the title—whoever that is supposed to be? L’Enfant
is powerful filmmaking eliciting an intense emotional response to its story,
but to what end?
KINKY BOOTS
Directed by Julian Jarrold; written by Tim Firth and Geoff Deane; director
of photography, Eigil Bryld; edited by Emma Hickox; music by Adrian Johnston
With:
Joel Edgerton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sarah-Jane Potts, Ewan Hooper, Nick Frost,
Linda Bassett, and Jemima Rooper. Rated PG-13. Running time: 106 minutes
Feel
bad? Need an emotional lift? Inspired by a true story, Kinky Boots
may be just what you need. It starts with the altogether too common story of
factories closing because they are no longer able to compete in the new
global marketplace. Charlie Price (Joel Edgerton), the scion of the Price
family shoe business in Northampton (U.K.), reluctantly finds himself in
charge of the factory after his father suddenly dies. This is much to the
chagrin of his fiancée Nicola (Jemima Rooper), who has long conspired to pry
Charlie out of Northampton and has just gotten him down to London. Much to
Charlie’s dismay, he finds that his dad had been ignoring how the business
was awash in red ink. Charlie quickly discovers that to cut his losses he
must let go of fifteen workers. It’s not something he wants to do, he tells
them, but, “what can I do?” Unlike the others who meekly accept their fate,
Lauren (Sarah-Jane Potts) refuses to accept this shrugging of responsibility
and challenges him. What is Charlie going to do to make the business
prosperous again?
After
an abortive incident rescuing an apparent lady in distress, Charlie finds
himself recuperating from a street fight backstage at a campy nightclub
catering to “men, women, and those who have yet to make up their minds.” He
sees Lola (Chiwetel
Ejiofor), a black drag queen, perform onstage. Suddenly, a light bulb goes
on. Can he change Price Shoes from a manufacturer of conservative men’s
dress shoes to stylish women’s shoes that can take the pounding from being
worn by men? Thus begins an unlikely business partnership between Charlie
and Lola. Charlie, who washed out of every job in the factory, takes on the
assignment of designing a thigh-high boot for the drag queen market.
Needless to say, this is the first of many missteps in remaking the
business.
Although the film has a pretty clear
destination, screenwriters Geoff Deane and Tim Firth as well as director
Julian Jarrold do a good job of making the story twists meaningful for
character development and not simply as convenient plot contrivances. It is
a fairly complex story that gives epiphanies to several characters. Though
teetering on the brink of sentimentality, the film never leaves the rails.
Ejiofor, the Nigerian doctor trying to survive as an illegal immigrant in
London in Stephen Frear’s Dirty Pretty Things, is terrific as the
show-stopping Lola. It helps that behind the lead characters, the film has a
solid ensemble of supporting actors that make the factory setting feel like
a real workplace. However, the real audience-pleaser is a lively soundtrack.
This is an entertaining story of empowerment. If that doesn’t make you feel
better, I don’t know what will.
THE DA VINCI
CODE
Directed by Ron Howard; written by Akiva Goldsman, based on the novel by Dan
Brown; director of photography, Salvatore Totino; edited by Dan Hanley and
Mike Hill; music by Hans Zimmer
With:
Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jürgen Prochnow, Paul Bettany, Jean
Reno, and Alfred Molina. Running time: 148 minutes
1/2
Dan Brown’s best-selling thriller
novel has been made into a worldwide blockbuster film. This has happened
despite controversy, bans, boycotts, and less than impressive reviews from
movie critics. The critical response has run the gamut from poor to glowing,
but the overall consensus falls squarely in the zone of mediocrity.
So what do I have to offer to the
discussion of this film that quickly attracted a huge audience and is now
old news? Mr. Brown’s book has obviously hit a chord with a worldwide
audience. It has impressive momentum among readers—that is, it is hard to
put down—even by some that opine that Brown is not a very good writer.
Director Ron Howard, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, and stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have had incredible success, so the task of going from page to screen
was entrusted to an A-list team. However, the initial critical response
indicated that this team had laid an egg.
What went wrong? Opening the Cannes
Film Festival provided a high-profile venue from which to rollout the film
worldwide but meant that the en masse critical community needed to screen it
prior to the opening. This led to a critics’ screening the evening before
the festival opened just when the film journalists would be staggering off
their planes from wherever to Cannes. Appreciation of any film is partly
dependent on the viewer. Showing tired critics a long film (149 minutes)
that needs careful exposition of an alternative version of a well-known
story and also depends on an intellectual—as opposed to an action—hero for
its resolution is setting itself up for less than enthusiastic notices.
The Da Vinci Code is relatively slow moving—in comparison to other
thrillers. Tom Hanks—having a “bad hair day” for the entire film
shoot—delivers perhaps his least charming character. This character may be
totally consistent with the professorial protagonist written by Brown but
does little to add life to a film that continually needs dialogue to explain
the story to the audience. The film does benefit from the on-screen arrival
of Ian McKellen, who exudes charm and keeps the audience off-balance. This
is essential since the film basically unfolds in ways that while not
necessarily predictable—hardly seem particularly surprising.
Many Christians—particularly
Catholics—may have been deeply concerned with the negative portrayal of the
Church. The use of the Vatican hierarchy and the Catholic organization Opus
Dei as villainous foils is so outlandish that it is hard to take it too
seriously. There have been many sins committed by the Vatican over two
millennia, and the ascetic and authoritarian Opus Dei may have legions of
detractors, but only a lunatic fringe of filmgoers would think that they
would commission hit men. What is perhaps more attractive to readers and
film audiences and, for some, more dismaying is Brown’s alternative
Christianity. Brown’s storyline has Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene, starting
a bloodline, and that bloodline being transplanted from Israel to France.
The evidence to support this seems to be certain things that happened not
having any obvious explanation and then fitting the bloodline story as the
reason they occurred. So there is nothing that supports the alternative
Christianity such that believers should find their faith undermined. The
film does go out of its way to give deference to the strength of faith
within individual believers.
However, Brown’s book and now
Howard’s film certainly speculate about the relationship between Jesus and
Mary Magdalene. Could they have been married? Was she another disciple?
There’s not a lot to either affirm or disprove these contentions. They do
raise questions about how we look at sexuality and how we view gender
relationships. Is celibacy a more pure, Christlike lifestyle? Are men and
women equal before God? Is man the image of God and woman fashioned from a
superfluous rib? Clearly, the nature of God and the nature of Jesus—God
incarnate both human and divine—continue to challenge both our faith and our
intellect. It is the renewed and reimagined focus on this challenge that
makes this story so attractive and provides opportunity for people of faith.
