FIVE (RELATIVELY) SHORT REVIEWS
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,
CASINO ROYALE, TURISTAS, BLOOD DIAMOND, AND THE DIXIE CHICKS: SHUT UP
AND SING
By Joel Johnson
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Directed by
Christopher Guest; written by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy; director of
photography, Roberto Schaefer; edited by Robert Leighton; music by C J
Vanston
With: Bob Balaban,
Jennifer Coolidge, Christopher Guest, John Michael Higgins, Eugene Levy,
Jane Lynch, Michael McKean, Catherine O’Hara, Parker Posey, Harry Shearer,
Fred Willard, Ed Begley Jr., and Ricky Gervais. Rated PG-13. Running time:
86 minutes
Christopher
Guest’s ever delightful troupe of improvisational players take on film’s
annual award season hoopla, especially the big kahuna—the Oscars—after
having skewered small-town musical theatre (Waiting for Guffman), dog
shows (Best in Show), rock (This is Spinal Tap), and
folk music (A Mighty Wind). For those safely protected from
entertainment trade publications such as Variety and Hollywood
Reporter, the phrase “for your consideration” is slapped onto countless
film ads begging for the attention (and votes) of the elect (members of
various guilds and the august Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences).
In For Your Consideration, the premise is delightfully set up by
aging actress Marilyn Hack (Catherine O’Hara) arriving at the studio lot and
the eager security guard being unable to remember any role she has ever
played. She has hit middle age—a terrible wasteland for most actresses—as a
woman’s screen employment typically steeply declines in parallel to her loss
of youthful attractiveness. She comes to the film set to play the ailing
matriarch in a low-budget World War II-era family drama called Home for
Purim.
Purim is an
obscure feast-day celebrating the deliverance of the Jewish people from a
massacre as told in the biblical Book of Esther. Marilyn Hack is on the
fast-track to film oblivion until….she hears that her work on Purim
is being heralded as Oscar-worthy. Soon Oscar buzz is everywhere, and
Marilyn isn’t the only one being buzzed about. Costars Victor Allan Miller
(Harry Shearer), playing Hack’s character’s husband, and Callie Webb (Parker
Posey), as her estranged daughter, are also hearing the O-word from the
alternately sycophantic and cannibalistic entertainment journalists. The
good-natured Miller, new to the Hollywood spotlight, is best known for
playing “Irv the foot-long wiener” in a series of ads. Webb, best known for
her own shrill one-woman shriek-fest stage show, is playing her first
prominent film in Purim.
The wake of the
Oscar buzz-machine chaotically widens, and we meet the army of cast and crew
that it takes to bring nearly any feature film to a theater near you. Guest
has brought along several of his better-known collaborators such as Fred
Willard and Jane Lynch (as the bantering hosts of an entertainment gossip TV
show), Eugene Levy (coscreenwriter as well as Miller’s smarmy agent),
Jennifer Coolidge (as the Brown Diaper Service heir-turned airhead film
producer), Bob Balaban and Michael McKean (as Purim’s scriptwriters),
and Ed Begley Jr. (as the married, but very stereotypically gay make-up
artist). The film has a lot of delightful comic bits as it loosely weaves
the narrative together. The looseness of the weave is almost inevitable
since it is built on a series of improvised scenes and features a very large
cast. Audience members may find it a distraction trying to pick out all the
stars roped in for cameo roles, but many will find that half the fun of the
movie.
The film loses
comic steam near the end as it turns more to pathos that it hasn’t fully
developed and earned. The endgame of a comedy film is frequently problematic
as satisfyingly resolving the comic premise often is more difficult than
setting up a humorous situation. This process can lead to abrupt
endings—which sometimes feels like just stopping the film—or an endless
series of needless scenes to tie up all extraneous storylines. For Your
Consideration actually does a fairly creditable job in resolving the
film. Still, in the memory of film fans, this film is unlikely to push aside
any of the Christopher Guest films cited above. Yet minor Guest is better
than most.
CASINO ROYALE
Directed by Martin
Campbell; written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis, based on the
novel by Ian Fleming; director of photography, Phil Méheux; edited by Stuart
Baird; music by David Arnold
With: Daniel
Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo
Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Ivana Milicevic, Sébastien Foucan,
Jesper Christensen, Tobias Menzies, Tsai Chin, Lazar Ristovski, Urbano
Barberini, Veruschka, Tom So, Ade, Charlie Levi Leroy, and Isaach de Bankolé
(Steven Obanno). Rated PG-13. Running time: 144 minutes
1/2
I was a young boy
when Bond phenomena first hit the world. My parents’ puritanical edicts,
allowing me to only watch films with the imprimatur of Walt Disney, could
not dim the appeal of Bond films like Goldfinger (1964) and
Thunderball (1965). This was the frigid heart of the Cold War. And it
had threatened to dangerously overheat during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I
recall how rapt my third grade classmates and I had been as we pondered this
event both in the classroom and on the schoolyard. Berlin was rent by its
infamous wall into sections for which one gambled life itself to cross from
east to west. Churchill had coined “the Iron Curtain,” and troops of NATO
and the Warsaw Pact faced off on either side across Europe in a perpetual
stalemate. China lay inscrutably behind its own “Bamboo Curtain” and was led
by the dangerous demigod Mao. The world was one far-flung chessboard with
the forces of the Free World and totalitarian Communism competing to occupy
squares in Asia, in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. A “hot spot”
in Southeast Asia needed to be defended lest a series of dominoes fall
throughout that region all the way back across the Pacific to our own
shores. We were told that fighting them over there was preferable to
fighting them here. Yet as much as we needed soldiers to fight in this war,
the need for clandestine cloak-and-dagger agents carried an even higher
premium.
Bond—James
Bond—was the cinematic standard-bearer for this world of danger and
derring-do. He had an array of gadgets that made even the bearers of the
awesome Johnny Seven (seven weapons in one toy gun) envious. More alluring,
depending on age and stage of sexual development, were the beauties with
whom Bond became entangled for good or ill. Alas, the mysteries of
international espionage and romantic intrigue were not to be revealed to me
by James Bond. By the time I could make my own decisions about movies, the
world had changed or, at least, my perception of it and so had Bond. The
tough, sardonic Sean Connery had morphed into the debonair Roger Moore. The
plots became more and more outlandish with technological wonders that seemed
well beyond our contemporary grasp. Villains were vicious maniacs with egos
of gargantuan proportions that had the futuristic equivalent of the armies
and the castle of the Wicked Witch of West from the Wizard of Oz.
Since I prefer reality-based dramas, the net result was that the Bond
phenomena that had been so enticing during my youth had become much less
interesting. I have had lukewarm interest in Bond films during my adulthood.
I have watched most, but not all, of the Bond films with relatively few seen
on the big screen and many not seen in their entirety.
This new film, the
third rendition of Ian Fleming’s novel after an early American television
effort featuring Barry Nelson as James Bond broadcast in 1954 and the 1967
film that featured David Niven, Peter Sellers, and Woody Allen all as James
Bonds, is the first Bond film with Daniel Craig as agent 007. The
announcement that Craig was to play the role created a firestorm of
protests. Bond aficionados complained that Craig was too blond, too short,
too this, too that, and, in short, just all wrong. Although not strongly
invested in Bond’s appearance or how his character is played, I did feel
Craig deserved a chance in the role. I had been impressed with his work over
the last several years since I first saw him stand out in the small role as
a would-be priest-assassin in Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth. Craig has
delivered a very powerful performance in an especially physically demanding
and complex role as Bond. He is icily efficient in dispatching bad guys. He
manifests an intense and roguish charm, but his heart is not so tightly
tethered as to be above actually falling in love.
Beyond Craig,
Martin Campbell’s film delivers a tough, action-packed Bond set in a harsh
present filled with money launderers, arms merchants, rebels, and
terrorists. Like most action-adventure films, the pace is breakneck with
little time to reflect on whether the story has major plot holes. For me,
the story either really did hold together or the plot holes were well enough
disguised so that I didn’t notice. The film boasts a superb cast. Mads
Mikkelsen, as the villain Le Chiffre, provides just the right mix of
restrained charm and menace to be an effective foil to Bond. Eva Green is
the newest Bond girl and accomplishes what many before her have failed to
do—steal Bond’s heart. Veteran Italian star Giancarlo Giannini exudes a
tired, seen-it-all charm. Versatile Jeffrey Wright is mostly wasted as CIA
operative Felix Leiter. Casino Royale is long and begins to feel long
as it winds down. Filmgoers may feel as if they had stayed a little too long
at the dining table on Thanksgiving. The title song does not match the best
in the series. Still, these are relatively minor quibbles for a film that
delivers an impressive new Bond, visceral action, brutal violence, beautiful
locations, romance, and exotic beauties. I’m looking forward to the next
Bond movie in a way that I never have before.
TURISTAS
Directed by John
Stockwell; written by Michael Arlen Ross; director of photography, Enrique
Chediak; underwater director of photography, Peter Zuccarini; edited by Jeff
McEvoy; music by Paul Haslinger
With: Josh Duhamel,
Melissa George, Olivia Wilde, Desmond Askew, Beau Garrett, Max Brown, Agles
Steib, and Miguel Lunardi. Rated R. Running time: 89 minutes
1/2
Director John
Stockwell and screenwriter Michael Ross combine the vulnerability of being
in an unfamiliar place with limited facility in the native language, the
growing demand for life-saving organs, a small cadre of young attractive
actors and (especially) actresses, and an exotic setting (Brazil) in their
horror thriller. These have served filmmakers since they first started
making films. This film’s claim to fame is being the first American film
shot entirely in Brazil. While this film probably won’t be the last U.S.
film shot in Brazil, the film’s Brazilian partners might be more selective
on U.S. projects. Stockwell and Ross may have trouble getting calls to Rio
and Sao Paulo answered.
This is a genre
film and, even under the best circumstances, would be a guilty pleasure.
However, the film disappoints in several ways. Terrific films are made all
the time using the elements noted above, and this one wouldn’t need a lot of
changes to become pretty good. Its problems start early with a hero who
isn’t very likable. Alex (Josh Duhamel) shows his colors in the opening bus
ride scene as an ugly American tourist and as unbearably overprotective of
his sister Bea (Olivia Wilde) and her girlfriend Amy (Beau Garrett). This
scene also begins showing a pretty ugly Brazil, and that is also a big part
of the problem. It is not that the film shows bad Brazilians, it is that it
almost exclusively shows bad Brazilians. Horror films particularly are wont
to have outlandish plots, but they need to establish a sense of reality for
the aberrant violence to be horrifying. If the audience quickly becomes
highly dubious of aspects of the film that merely set the stage for the
central story, the film has an uphill climb to be accepted by the audience.
While films often have protagonists that are flawed and may even start out
disliked by the audience, the script often takes pains to show how the
character is growing as the story unfolds.
Alex does become
less abrasive but never shows much growth. Unfortunately, none of the
characters get to show much three-dimensionality. Eventually, the initial
trio gets augmented by Australian Pru (Melissa George), who is the only one
who can speak Portuguese; Brits Finn (Desmond Askew) and Liam (Max Brown),
focused on babes and beer; and their new-found Brazilian friend Kiko (Agles
Steib). Things go from bad to worse when they get drugged at a beachside
party, and the Brazilian partygoers leave them with just the clothes on
their backs. Of course, that is very little because the film prefers not to
have fabric covering the nubile flesh.
Kiko leads them on a long trek into the wilderness. They
find a lovely place to swim with a beautiful waterfall and striking
underwater caves. Near this idyllic setting, they meet the charmless
self-styled medical Robin Hood Zamora (Miguel Lunardi). This is where things
get truly bad. It never feels quite like horror, but it does get pretty
gory. The action eventually moves back to the underwater caves. Beautifully
shot, these lose dramatic power because the audience has a hard time
figuring out who is who and what is being done to whom. This film is a blown
opportunity. The film would have benefited if the script had developed the
Brazilian characters into human beings. Writing more rounded personalities
for the tourists would have helped, too. Putting these characters from two
different cultures on a more equal footing would have better established
motives, conflicts, and fault lines. There’s likely a great film lurking in
these cross-cultural tensions, but this is definitely not it.
BLOOD DIAMOND
Directed by Edward
Zwick; written by Charles Leavitt, based on a story by Charles Leavitt and
C. Gaby Mitchell; director of photography, Eduardo Serra; edited by Steven
Rosenblum; music by James Newton Howard
With: Leonardo
DiCaprio, Jennifer Connelly, Djimon Hounsou, Michael Sheen, Arnold Vosloo,
Kagiso Kuypers, David Harewood, Basil Wallace, and Ntare Mwine. Rated R.
Running time: 138 minutes
1/2
As a director,
screenwriter, and producer Edward Zwick has been involved with many
noteworthy films: Glory (1989), Leaving Normal (1992),
Legends of the Fall (1994), Courage Under Fire (1996),
Shakespeare in Love (1998), Traffic (2000), I am Sam
(2001), and The Last Samurai (2003). These films have garnered
a number of Oscar nominations and carried home a handful of statuettes.
Zwick has been among the biggest winners on Oscar night, receiving a Best
Picture Oscar for his role as producer on Shakespeare in Love. Zwick
has successfully worked the system, collaborated with some of the biggest
names in the business, turned out studio projects, and also been able to
make meaningful message-oriented films. Perhaps the best example is Glory,
which told the much-ignored story of black troops during the Civil War.
Blood Diamond
is very much a message film with high aspirations for the film industry’s
award season. The film shows how the glittering jewels that are de
rigueur for couples becoming engaged have an ugly, dark side. They
finance wars. Al Qaeda has even been reputed to use diamonds to finance its
operations. The diamonds are sometimes called conflict diamonds or blood
diamonds. The term blood diamond refers both to the bloodletting
associated with its sale and sometimes to the stone’s color. The diamond
industry, which cleverly lobbied the film industry to showcase diamonds as
symbols for committed relationships, is seeing that same film industry tell
a story that could sharply depress business.
Blood Diamond
is set in the diamond-producing country of Sierra Leone in 1999, and a civil
war is underway. Marauding rebels under Captain Poison (David Harewood)
sweep into the village where Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) lives with his
family. Solomon is captured and forced to work for the rebels in mining
diamonds. He finds an enormous diamond. Although Captain Poison quickly
learns of the discovery, a government raid injures him and allows Solomon to
escape. However, Solomon decides to hide the diamond. The rest of the film
is about the many players who either directly or indirectly have an interest
in recovering the diamond. Rhodesian (now Zimbabwe) expatriate adventurer
Danny Archer gets arrested smuggling low-grade diamonds and learns about the
big diamond while locked up with those captured in the government raid on
the rebel diamond mining operation. Archer offers both his services and his
connections to renegade South African mercenaries under the command of
Colonel Coetzee (Arnold Vosloo) to help Solomon to reunite with his family
in exchange for the diamond. About a third or so into the film, the
resourceful Archer recruits American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer
Connelly) to help them. Soon she is tagging along and asking him probing
questions about the morality of how he lives his life.
Set in beautiful
countryside (filmed in South Africa and Mozambique), Blood Diamond
chronicles the quick and pitiless descent into chaos that repeats itself in
place after place across the globe. The film shows how young children are
forced to become soldiers and are taught to kill. Although Zwick’s film is a
propulsive action-adventure with an extremely high violence quotient, the
film has four very good performances. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers his second
outstanding performance of the year, continuing to prove that he is much
more than the Titanic heartthrob. David Harewood is memorable as the
ruthless rebel leader and reveals a softer, yet scarier side as he delivers
his ideological venom to his new child soldiers. Jennifer Connelly shows us
her character’s intelligence, confidence, and independence but doesn’t show
the swagger needed for working in a war zone. The most riveting performance
is by Djimon Hounsou as he hits all the right notes in portraying a good man
negotiating moral quicksand trying to reclaim his family from hell. The film
shines a light on miseries that we usually ignore and illustrates how amoral
greed can fuel the horrors. This is a message worth getting out even though
Charles Leavitt’s script gets overeager to deliver nuggets of social justice
commentary. Still, this is an entertaining action film that has something to
say that resonates all too powerfully.
THE DIXIE CHICKS: SHUT UP AND
SING
Directed by
Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck
With: Natalie
Maines, Emily Robison, and Martie Maguire. Rated R. Running Time: 93 minutes
In The Dixie
Chicks: Shut Up and Sing, two-time Oscar-winning documentary director
Barbara Kopple (for 1976 film Harlan County USA and for 1990
film American Dream) and her actress-turned-codirector Cecilia Peck
have told the story of the Dixie Chicks. Though this group was already a
country-music phenomenon, the group became extraordinarily well known to
everyone, including those that loathe country music, when lead singer
Natalie Maines stated to a London concert audience as the Iraq invasion was
imminent: “We’re embarrassed that the president is from Texas.” Many
fans—perhaps even most at the time—wished that the Chicks—and Natalie in
particular—would just “shut up and sing.”
This movie shows
us the Dixie Chicks both before and after this comment. Although the film
makes a fairly convincing—if circumstantial—case for a conspiracy to punish
the Dixie Chicks for daring to use their celebrity to speak out against the
president, the film is about much more than that. We learn about the musical
rivalry between sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire while they were
growing up. We find out how lead singer Natalie Maines hooked up with Emily
and Martie. Their musical evolution is described as evolving from a
traditional Texas swing group during the mid-1990s into the popular country
music group that was top-of-the-charts at the time of the 2003 statement. We
see the women at home with their husbands and children. This is an intimate
portrait that even chronicles their pregnancies.
Although the
various aspects of the Dixie Chicks’ story are interesting, it is somewhat
difficult dealing with the constant changes as the story jumps back and
forth in time. The film is probably strongest in showing the
behind-the-scenes business of the music industry. This is less about the
ways used to ban their music from the airwaves and to destroy their CDs than
it is about the multifaceted machinations of managers, promoters, and
sponsors trying to link various products with the music of a performer or
performers. What shines through in this film is the solidarity of the young
women, their humanity, and their personal integrity. There is a sense of
incompleteness to the film since the perpetrators of the Dixie Chicks’
punishment have yet to be held accountable, and we don’t know whether the
Dixie Chicks will become fully vindicated. Can they ever regain what was
lost through the boycott? We don’t have—as Paul Harvey was wont to say—“the
rest of the story.” However, despite the price paid for their courage to say
what was said, we do know that the American public in its recent election
has issued its own repudiation of the president and his political party.
