Inherent Vice (2014); directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

inherentvice

In Joan Didion’s essay “Slouching Towards Bethlehem” there is a section that reminds me of the vibe that Thomas Pynchon captured in his druggy LA-noir set in 1970. Didion wandered through Haight-Ashbury in 1968, 1969, meeting people, hanging out, and in one section she describes a conversation she has with a guy named Steve:

A few days later I drop by to see Steve in his apartment. He paces nervously around the room he uses as a studio and shows me some paintings. We do not seem to be getting to the point.

“Maybe you noticed something going on at Max’s,” he says abruptly.

It seems that the girl he brought, the dark pretty one, had once been Max’s girl. She had followed him to Tangier and now to San Francisco. But Max has Sharon. “So she’s kind of staying around here,” Steve says.

Steve is troubled by a lot of things. He is twenty-three, was raised in Virginia, and has the idea that California is the beginning of the end. “I feel it’s insane,” he says, and his voice drops. “This chick tells me there’s no meaning to life but it doesn’t matter, we’ll just flow right out. There’ve been times I felt like packing up and taking off for the East Coast again, at least there I had a target. At least there you expect that it’s going to happen.” He lights a cigarette for me and his hands shake. “Here you know it’s not going to.”

I ask what it is that is supposed to happen.

“I don’t know,” he says. “Something. Anything.”

Something. Anything. California. The end of the road, the beginning of something else, the ocean launching itself off into the West, haunted by the Golden Fang ghost ship that is everything and nothing, something and anything.

Thomas Pynchon’s druggy paranoid laugh-out-loud-funny 1970s-California noir detective story feels damn near un-adaptable. The book is a maze of plot-threads, strange characters who float into the action, float out, and then re-appear 180 pages later. All is connected, but damned if I could explain any of it. The point is not really the solving of the case (although it is eventually solved), the point is to evoke a certain moment in time, the moment directly following Woodstock and the Manson murders, the 60s burning themselves out in assassinations and blood, leaving a wasteland of confusion and alarm behind. Drugs kept people docile and checked out, flower children turned out to be murderers, and politics took on a distinctly paranoid edge. Inherent Vice captures a time clouded by pot-mist and conspiracy. All is connected. None of it means anything. Tenderness is still possible, as is kindness, but it all feels exhausted, burnt out. The book is hilarious (one of the funniest books I’ve ever read), and the prose surges around, circular, feverish, lazy – sometimes all at the same time. The book itself feels like it is on drugs. It’s one of Pynchon’s most purely entertaining reads.

So when I heard Paul Thomas Anderson was doing Inherent Vice, I felt excited and apprehensive. If anyone could helm such a multi-tiered story, it would be him. And Doc Sportello was, within 1 or 2 pages of the book, an absolutely beloved character, and I also felt afraid/protective of the character being represented onscreen. But then I heard Doc would be played by Joaquin Phoenix, and I approved. None of this matters, since I was not in charge of the production (obvi). Whatever. I haven’t seen The Shipping News and I never will: I already know it’s not right, and it’s mis-guided and it’s horrible, based on who they chose to cast. If you love a book, you sometimes have that proprietary feeling about it.

joaquin

Halleluia, Anderson’s Inherent Vice is a big, druggy, gorgeous, hilarious dream of a movie. It is a story of tangents, of paranoia, of bad vibes and worse real estate deals, of an uneasy coalition of Jewish moguls and their Aryan Brotherhood biker bodyguards, the fear of cults, the deranged tail-end of the 60s burning itself out with little or no fanfare in the beach-y environs where the Pacific Ocean starts. Nobody is going anywhere, not even Bigfoot, the ambitious cop-slash-TV-star, played by Josh Brolin (hilarious, his head is completely square) who is frustrated by his whole life, compelled to walk on the wild side, even as he abhors all that hippie bullshit. His only comfort are his frozen chocolate-covered bananas that he slurps on at all times. It is a portrait of a society in decay, and what beautiful dreamy decay. Them’s were trippy trippy times. Or so I’ve heard.

It’s a movie to get lost in, it’s a movie that requires you to let go. The genre tropes are all there, the lonely detective, the misty-water-colored-rain-drenched memories he has of his sweet “old lady,” the wacky secondary characters, the cool as SHIT cars (this is a great gearhead movie), the secret meetings in foggy alleys, the going undercover in some weird ashram … Everyone’s on edge, Doc is hired to look into a specific case. He is then hired for another case. As he investigates, stoned the entire time, he starts to follow the threads, varying, intersecting, converging, confusing, and realizes all is connected. It is a conspiracy theorist’s wet dream. Everyone whispers about this mysterious ship called The Golden Fang. What is it? Who controls it? And … honestly … what does it have to DO with anything?

Hilarious, in its larger chaotic psychedelic weirdness, and in its smaller moments with beautifully-observed tiny bits of behavior (Doc shushing his “lawyer” as the waitress approaches the table, Doc nearly bursting into tears as he watches Bigfoot EAT a joint, too many moments to count), Inherent Vice is awesome because it doesn’t take itself too seriously, and – most importantly – gets the book. It gets it HARD.

Just one example:

In the book, Doc is asked to investigate the whereabouts of a missing saxophone player. The sax player was part of the whole surfer-music scene and then suddenly vanished, and his now-cleaned-up-junkie wife is very anxious to find out what happened to him. This appears to have nothing to do with the OTHER case, the main case, and feels like a tangent, in other words, but it’s not a tangent at all. In trying to find the sax player, Doc attends a party at some huge house filled with rock stars, their groupies, and a British invasion pop group called Spotted Dick. It’s rumored that the sax player is there somewhere. The second Doc walks into the party, he gets a bad bad BAD vibe. Like Manson Family vibe. It’s trippy, and since Doc himself is always stoned, you’re just not sure if he’s a reliable witness to reality. But he knows what he knows: these people are into some bad shit. It’s ominous as hell.

Anderson doesn’t linger at the party as long as Pynchon does in the book, but there is a dreamy nightmarish moment when Doc looks around the mansion, seeing naked girls, and long-haired guys, making flower wreaths, and putting pizzas on the table … and this is the configuration they all end up in.

10678861_918417181520749_2260683743849609462_n

And that right there is the brilliance of Anderson’s approach to this bizarre material.

Visually, that moment says it all, says what Pynchon took 6 pages to do (and hilariously so) in the novel. Best of all, the tone is right for the film, the tone is snarky and psychedelic, nightmarish and hallucinatory, with flashes of tenderness and caring, all of the varying parts of the scene clicking together to re-create that famous image, almost casually, and gone before it even solidified. But Doc knows what he saw, knows what he sensed.

The whole film is like that. Dazzling and funny, meandering and dark, anchored by wonderful performances from Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Benicio del Toro, Katherine Waterston, Reese Witherspoon. Gestures are important, shapes are important, the way bodies move through space, the way bodies connect or diverge, the shapes they make against the backdrops, or against each other … It’s a collage, fragmentary and beautiful, romantic and seedy, strange and fragile.

Wonderful acting, too, my favorite kind: performances that are solid in their details, grounded in their emotional reality, and almost schticky in their broad-ness.

It’s a hoot. For real. Didion again:

I ask what it is that is supposed to happen.

“I don’t know,” he says. “Something. Anything.”

Also:

We do not seem to be getting to the point.

Exactly.

Inherent Vice opens this Friday.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 28 Comments

Supernatural, Season 10, Episode 9: Open Thread

5-Supernatural-Season-10-Episode-1-S10E1-title-card-600x337

… coinciding with John Milton’s birthday. An accident? I think not.

Posted in Television | Tagged | 144 Comments

Making It Look Easy: Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in Morning Glory

Today is Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.’s birthday. Here’s a re-post.

Some actors seem to believe that unless they SHOW all the work they have done, their job is not worth doing. And if you don’t congratulate them on all the work up there on the screen, they will most definitely remind you of all that work. “I worked with a Latvian lute-player for 8 months, and I also gained 30 pounds which really helped me get into the character.”

More power to ya.

An interesting and frustrating aspect of this (if you let these things get to you) is that the actor who shows his work is more often appreciated and applauded than the dude who strolls around making it look easy.

Ease is something that has always been under-rated because it doesn’t make a show of itself, and it doesn’t look to be congratulated or noticed. The more splashy parts get the most attention because they DEMAND the attention. That’s all fine. Many great performances are of the “splashy” variety.

However, I really love the actors who stroll through their parts nonchalantly, charmingly, easily, making it look as natural as breathing.

Morning Glory gave Katharine Hepburn the first of her four Academy Awards. It is really a vehicle for her. I’ve seen the performance criticized, and I can understand the criticisms, although I think Hepburn is actually doing more subtle work than she is given credit for. This character is a broken woman. Although the film ends in triumph, the triumph is mitigated by the fact that Hepburn’s final monologue (she’s not afraid of “being a morning glory”) is said to a woman who is a washed-up actress now working as a wardrobe mistress, a woman who had once been an up-and-coming star like Hepbrun.

Fame is fleeting. I don’t believe that Eva Lovelace’s fame will be of the long-lasting variety that Hepburn herself enjoyed. Lovelace is too fragile, she is not destined to be the next Ellen Terry or the next Sarah Bernhardt. Those women had thick skins. Eva Lovelace very well might end up as a wardrobe mistress herself, a forgotten “morning glory.” The ending of the film feels more ominous than happy, despite the swelling positive music. Hepburn does not play the triumph. She plays the defiant, almost mad belief in ONLY the moment- lovely, sure, but on deeper examination it is what will be her downfall. Eva Lovelace is a showy part for Hepburn: it has a naive open-faced beginning, a cautious and sad middle, interspersed with a big drunk scene at a party where she does not one but TWO Shakespearean monologues, and then a sudden rise-to-the-top ending. The role capitalized on Hepburn’s strengths: her somewhat mannered way of speaking (much more marked early in her career), her blinkered ambition, her intelligence (she could not play dumb, and when she tried she was terrible), her self-centeredness, her theatricality and the vague sense of unreal-ness that Hepburn had back then, perfect for the playing of an actress-wannabe who lives primarily in a fantasy world. Hepburn was born to play such a part.

Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. plays a New York playwright named Joe Sheridan who takes a shine to Eva Lovelace. He senses talent in her, but he’s not sure if it can be used. He keeps bringing her up to his friend, the manager: “She’s got something, don’t you think?”

Nobody agrees with him, really. Everyone thinks she’s a bit cracked (when a young actress tells you in your first meeting that her goal in life is to eventually take her own life – onstage – you can be forgiven for thinking she’s batty.) But Joe Sheridan isn’t sure that there isn’t something else there, a difference, a beauty that could be transformed into genius on the stage. He keeps her in mind. He does not forget her after their first meeting.

Fairbanks, with ease and grace, plays multiple levels of this somewhat thankless role. He’s not just an earnest “artist” looking for a muse for his next play. Joe Sheridan is a nice man, a sweet intelligent man, who has his own uphill battles to fight in his artistic journey. He’s a success but he remembers what it was like to be a beginner, like Eva, and her hope and belief and enthusiasm touch him, touch him in a very deep place, that place where he remembers who he really is.

He knows, or he can sense, that life is going to be tough for someone like Eva. He senses it from the moment he meets her. That is why, months later, when they run into each other at a party, he says, “You know … I worry about you sometimes.” It’s quite an intimate thing to say to someone you barely know. He senses (unlike anyone else in the film, who either take advantage of her, or snicker at her theatrics) her fragility. He thinks she should be protected.

Fairbanks plays that type of man: a man who doesn’t sneer at weakness, but worries about it, for no reason other than he is a nice person.

It is a deceptively simple part: The “nice” guy who loves the girl, but she’s not interested in him except as a friend. You want to shake Eva and say, “PLEASE consider Joe Sheridan and put that horrible manager out of your mind!” But life isn’t like that. Love is messy and you fall in love with horrible people who don’t treat you well, especially when sex is involved, as it is with Eva and her manager.

Fairbanks could have played the part as a milksop, a weak guy, a lapdog. He doesn’t. Niceness is one of the hardest things for an actor to portray, in the entire cornucopia of qualities. Insanity? Piece of cake compared to niceness. What is “niceness”? What does it mean? What does it look like? And if all you’re doing is playing “nice”, will your work even be discernible? Shouldn’t you make it at least a bit dark and twisty so you will be memorable? Fairbanks is above those ego-driven concerns, and manages to show the essential character of Joe Sheridan, his decency, his sense of honor, without seeming weak or ineffectual. This is no easy task. He emerges as a friend, really the only friend that Eva’s got in the shark-fest that is the world of the play.

Naturally, though, there is more. He is also in love with her.

To play a man in love, who is also interested in the quality of life of his beloved, and to be concerned over her welfare and how she is treated, is a delicate thing. It requires subtlety and attention to detail. He could have mooned and sighed and pouted. He does none of these things. He seems like a good and serious playwright who keeps his eye on the ball, in terms of his career, but he sees in her a freshness, a humor and fragility, a charming unselfawareness, that touches him. He loves her. It’s that simple.

Let’s get down to specifics.

How does Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. DO all of this?

Surprise, surprise, it’s all about listening. If you want to see what real listening looks like, watch Fairbanks’ performance in Morning Glory. In his one-on-one scenes with Hepburn (the one at the party, in particular), he listens to her with a sensitivity and subtlety that seems quite modern, from another movie, another acting style all together. Nobody else in the film is listening quite like he is. And that’s right for the picture: he really is the only person with integrity, he really is the only one who SEES her. His way of listening helps him stand out. He seems natural, free, open. His behavior is not stylized or overt. He seems to be actually alive.

When he smokes a cigarette, he conscientiously blows the smoke away from her face. Totally naturalistic. When he listens, he listens. You can watch the responses and thoughts flicker over his face, even if he has no lines. There is a spontaneity to the performance.

There’s one moment in a scene with Adolph Menjou where Fairbanks starts to laugh and he actually snorts while laughing. It is startling to watch someone who actually seems incapable of “creating” anything on purpose. It all just looks like life. A lot of us snort from time to time when we laugh hard. But actors back then, in general, didn’t. He did. I love him for it! And I love that he slipped into this really nothing part with a sensitive purpose, an understanding of where he might fit in, what his real role was in the story.

If we don’t feel like Eva Lovelace is missing the boat by not choosing Joe Sheridan, then the picture doesn’t work. We are aided in this by the casting of the manager, the rotund fatherly Menjou. If the manager was, say, Clark Gable, we’d have a very different picture. Fairbanks is so handsome, so at ease in his own skin, it’s fascinating (and part of the tension) that Eva is blind to him.

What I am really left with is Fairbanks’ ability at creating a man who understands kindness. (Think of how, during her potentially embarrassing meltdown at the party when she decides to perform Juliet’s balcony monologue for the entire crowd, and he, from his spot in the room, throws one of Romeo’s lines up to her … so she won’t have to sit up there, waiting for a cue that will never come. That’s the kind of man Joe Sheridan is).

At the end, I ached for him. I ached for her, too, sensing the tough road ahead, but I really ached for him. She will always be the one that got away. And he must let her go. That’s the gentlemanly thing to do, first of all, but it’s also the right thing to do. He does not pout, or bemoan his fate. He just kisses her hand, lingering there, and then walks out of the room.

He’s a nice man. And he just lost.

Fairbanks Jr. does it all with such a grace that we may not even notice how effective the performance really is.

Watching Morning Glory, I am reminded of one of my favorite passages from the first of Fairbanks’ autobiographies, The Salad Days (review and excerpt here)

I did not aim to supplant or rival my father nor to outdo my grandfather as a business tycoon. I did believe, quite as a matter of fact, that I would be better at whatever I put my hand and heart to than most people and that any shortfall would be due as much to my own lack of interest as to anyone else’s superiority. I wanted very much to be my own self, well clear of anyone’s shadow, but I had no very specific goals in mind.

I have never lacked awareness of the diversity and potential of my talents. By the same token, I have never been burdened with the conceit that I was another Noel Coward or Chaplin or even a carbon copy of my father. I have, since maturity, known full well the limits of my capabilities (which I’ve never quite reached), the perversities of my personality, and precisely how much self-discipline I should, could, and would apply to get whatever I had to do done well. I may have exaggerated myself to other people, but I have rarely deceived myself. That is probably my only real virtue.

Reading that passage, it doesn’t surprise me at all that such a man could so convincingly and with such great ease create true niceness onscreen.

It’s the genuine article.

Posted in Actors | 14 Comments

We Are the Best! (2014); directed by Lukas Moodysson

large_vi_ar_bast_ver3

“We should start a band.”
“We seriously should.”

One of the perfect gems of 2014.

With all the hype about Boyhood (much of it deserved), it is wonderful to see a movie about young girls coming of age, a story that is equally as sensitive, kind, as well as scarily accurate. What are 13 year old girls like? Well, many of them are like this. I saw myself in each one of these characters. I remembered middle school. I remembered how passionate we were about the music we loved. The awkwardness of developing a crush, when literally 2 days ago (it felt like), you were 8 years old. Holding hands was the biggest deal in the world. And your friends were everything. These three girls are friends.

These are not cliched children. This is what it was like. For many of us. The fact that that needs to be reiterated and underlined just shows you how sad the situation is, that young girls are not represented properly, or at least not enough. There’s not enough out there to counter-act all the precocious sexualized dehumanizing bullshit that little girls face, especially as they hit puberty. Being 13 years old is its own thing. It’s not being 16, it’s not being 19. It’s being 13. What does that mean, what does that look like? I was 13 years old once, we all were. So few films really deal with it in a friendly way: girls are seen as prey, or on the rough road to adulthood, growing up too fast, blah blah. Yes, those things happen, too. But that’s the ABC After School Special theory of adolescent female-hood, it’s all treachery, one wrong step and you’re hooking under the freeway ramp! But what about other stories? About girls who know what they like, who try to be good to each other (and sometimes fail, and then have to try to do better), who support each other, who have other things on their mind than getting a date to the school dance? We Are the Best! is a bracing, funny, and intelligent tonic.

moodysson-promo

Who are these children? The three young actresses (Mira Barkhammar, Mira Grosin, Liv LeMoyne) are amazing. They have some real scene-work to do, some real issues to portray (one’s mom is a bit of a floozy, with a new boyfriend every week, one comes from a strict religious background and has conflicting feelings about going all punk – but that situation resolves itself in a human and unexpected way, rather than a cliched way), and they are all completely game, completely open to the improvisational reality of every moment. They are funny, smart, awkward, chatty, giggly, sometimes angry. It is 1982 in Stockholm. They love punk music, but punk has been declared dead. They missed the movement. They wear their hair in spikes, in Mohawks, they discuss punk music passionately and knowledgeably, they want to be a part of it. They want to live it. We Are the Best! remembers that brief moment in time, early in the 80s, before Madonna arrived, when things were still … rough, un-corporatized, when the sound was still ugly and raw. The girls are naive about music and politics and social change. Of course they’re naive. They’re 13 years old. The film does not disabuse them of their ideals. Time enough for that as they grow up. For now, they want to be punk rockers, they live, eat, breathe, punk!

We Are the Best! also includes one of the most purely satisfying scenes in any movie this year. A bunch of older musicians, all male, want to help the young girls out. They assume nobody can play an instrument, and so they (kindly, but still) mansplain the girls to DEATH about how to hold the guitar, and adjust the strap. The girls sit there, listening to this, laughing out loud. The second Hedwig starts playing, and she sounds better than any of those grown-up males do, jaws drop around the room. All the guys start nodding, enthusiastically, impressed. I felt like cheering.

We Are the Best! had a groundswell of critical support when it hit American shores, and is currently streaming on Netflix. Definitely one of the films of the year. I love a film that is so fully, so completely, so confidently, itself.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

The Books: Once More Around the Park: A Baseball Reader, ‘In the Fire,’ by Roger Angell

794783

On the essays shelf (yes, there are still more books to excerpt in my vast library. I can’t seem to stop this excerpts-from-my-library project. I started it in 2006!)

NEXT BOOK: Once More Around the Park: A Baseball Reader, by Roger Angell.

Roger Angell’s obsession with pitching and pitchers is one of the more obvious themes of his baseball essays. He returns to the topic again and again and again. Angell obsesses on it from all angles. How do they do what they do?

In “In the Fire,” he describes realizing, almost as an afterthought, that catchers are also amazing, and almost even more so, since they are hidden behind the plate, and what they do and how they do it is extremely mysterious (as opposed to the pitcher, who is out there, alone, on the mound, for all the world to see). Catchers obviously need to catch the damn ball. They also have to be able to hit. But what does the catcher position entail? What happens when a catcher calls “Time” and goes out to murmur with the pitcher on the mound? The catcher has to calm down the wild stallion of the pitcher, has to murmur encouragement, or suggestions, and pitchers (of course) are often fiery individualists who want to do what THEY want to do. How does a catcher manage that relationship? The catcher is in close contact with the umpires (often physical contact), and how does that relationship go? The more Roger Angell thought about the position, the more fascinated he got.

That fascination intensified as he set out to interview a bunch of catchers about their job and how they see their role. Turns out, nobody really asked the catchers about the ins and outs of their job. Reporters can be very pitcher-focused. So what Angell discovered was a bunch of men hungry to discuss their work, talk about how hard it is, how challenging, and try to get across the philosophical nature of what being a catcher is about. This isn’t news, but it is fascinating to hear catchers talk about it in their own words. Not only do you have to catch 95-mph fastballs, and knuckleballs, and curve balls, but you have to know what pitch should come next, you have to call the game, based on your knowledge of the pitcher as well as every batter that comes up to the plate. Does this batter always swing on the first pitch? What are his weaknesses? What are his strengths? How do we force him to swing at the pitch WE want him to swing at, how do we put him into a tiny box and completely de-fang him?

I could listen to catchers talk all damn day. The essay is huge, and made up mostly of quotes from the various catchers Angell grilled. Carlton Fisk is voluminous in his replies, but in the following excerpt, it is switch-hitting brilliant catcher Ted Simmons who takes the floor.

simmons

Excerpt from Once More Around the Park: A Baseball Reader, ‘In the Fire’, by Roger Angell

Bob Boone and Milt May have also had experience in both leagues, but they both gave a slight edge to National League pitching. May said that the N.L.’s preference for the slider – the faster breaking ball – as against the American League’s prejudice for the curve, might make the crucial difference. Boone said, “I think the real difference between the leagues is about six National League pitchers. Soto, Seaver, Carlton, Rogers, maybe Reuss, and any one of three or four others. Put ’em over in the American League, and they’re even.” (Tom Seaver, who came to the Chicago White Sox over this winter, has already made the switch.) “I would guess there are deeper counts in the A.L., but I wouldn’t know for sure. I know there’s more confidence in control in the A.L. In either league, it’s hard as hell to get a base hit, most days.”

Simmons wanted to be sure that I understood the extent of the catcher’s involvement with other aspects of the game – with his manager, for instance, and with the deployment of the defense on the field. “With some managers,” he said, “you can come to them in the dugout in the middle of the game and say, ‘This pitcher has had it. I assume you know that. But I want you to know I’m having to struggle with every pitch in every inning. I can’t set up a program with this man, because he’s faltering. Now I want some notion about your objectives. Do you intent to pitch him one more inning, or three more?’ Then if the manager says, ‘Wow, let’s get somebody up out there,’ I can say, ‘Well, O.K., I can get him through one more inning,’ and you work that inning like it’s the ninth, with nothing held back. But there are some managers who can’t respond to that assertive approach, because of their personalities – I can think of a half dozen of them that I’ve been involved with – and with those, well, you have to find some other way to get the message across.”

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Babadook (2014); written and directed by Jennifer Kent

large_babadook

3/4s of the way through The Babadook, I thought to myself, wildly, “I can’t take much more of this.”

I was desperate for it all to be over with.

One of the reasons The Babadook is so effective is that it is not just about the scares in the film, which are well-done and legitimately frightening. It is that The Babadook so clearly sets up what it is REALLY interested in, from the very first sequence. The Babadook is about some primal shit, man, stuff having to do with motherhood, grief, being a widow, being unable to let go, parenting a difficult child, and the sort of We Need to Talk About Kevin uneasiness of maybe having some unkind thoughts about your own offspring – and how destabilizing that situation can be. The Babadook is also one of the most acute and accurate depictions of sleep deprivation I have ever seen. As the film careens on, relentlessly, sleep becomes more and more of an issue for mother (Essie Davis) and son (Noah Wiseman, 6 or 7 years old, and completely extraordinary). Sleep deprivation brings with it emotional turmoil, frayed nerves, and, in some cases, psychosis. Mother and son are worn down to the nub by it, holed up in their depressing house, terrified of those who try to gain entryway. Nobody means well. Everyone is out to get them.

the-Babadook-4

Often, such set ups (anxious domestic life, buried anger, unincorporated loss, nervous parenting, whatever) are used as shorthand devices in film, manipulative and sketched-in only. It’s cheap, in other words. But in The Babadook, the emotional backstory is not a device. It is the film’s engine; it’s what it is really about. The film is ruthless in its commitment to those themes.

Visually, the movie is superb, that house, with its dark grey walls and creaking staircases, and impenetrable shadows, starting to feel like the prison that it is. And little Noah Wiseman is brilliant. He is one of the reallest little boys in cinema in recent memory: difficult, loud, confrontational, needy, traumatized. He is not lovable (aside from the fact that he is an innocent child: being lovable is another thing altogether and I am sure many parents are aggravated beyond belief by their own offspring, and then feel the resultant guilt and fear about even HAVING those feelings.) He is a handful, that’s for sure, and his mother is at her wits’ end. He is so terrified of monsters that he will not let her sleep. He badgers her, he fights back, he pleads, he expresses terror at her leaving him, he has built makeshift weapons, crossbows and catapults, in order to fight the monsters in his bedroom. Mother and son really aren’t welcome in other people’s homes anymore because Samuel is such a problem. He frightens other children. He almost kills one child by pushing her out of her own treehouse. Mother doesn’t know what to do anymore. The Babadook does not sentimentalize little Samuel, and it also does not make him into one of those “creepy kids” so common in cinema. He feels extremely real, and there’s one scene where he lies with his head in his mother’s lap, wailing and writhing in exhausted horror, and it was positively devastating to witness.

William Friedkin Tweeted:

Powerful words there, from the director of The Exorcist.

The Babadook unleashes emotions that are truly operatic in intensity, the underground ocean of love and anxiety and grief, experienced by this small family unit. When the screams finally come, when the horror is finally faced, it is as terrible as everyone had feared. But what was truly profound was the sentiment coming directly on the heels of the horror: Can you incorporate this into your understanding of yourself and your life? Banishing the horror to the closet or the basement will not get rid of it. You must face it. You must live with it. Only then can it be contained, managed.

There is no bright sunny peaceful day in the future. The Babadook suggests that total peace is impossible, anyway. Life is tougher than that. Parenting is tougher than that. There are losses that mark us forever. There are situations from which we cannot recover. Ever.

So what then? What is one supposed to do with that? How do we live with the unlivable? How do we incorporate the darkness into how we understand the world and our place in it?

still_babadook1

The Babadook is brilliant, emotionally harrowing and relentlessly honest.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 23 Comments

Miss Julie (2014); directed by Liv Ullmann

large_cKaXNDlstkB7E4YSXUY2VGCsxTl

Liv Ullmann directing August Strindberg’s wacky 1888 comedy, Miss Julie.

Jessica Chastain, man. But all three of the main actors – Chastain, Colin Farrell, and Samantha Morton, give phenomenal performances. It’s rather unforgettable, actually.

My review of Miss Julie is now up at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Foxy Merkins (2014); directed by Madeleine Olnek

large_viWnfGc4FpMEdgBXf2nubFQU5D0

Lots of funny stuff in The Foxy Merkins, but not enough to warrant the feature-length. It feels like a comedy sketch that goes on too long.

Their former film (director Olnek, Lisa Haas, and Jackie Monahan) was 2011’s Codependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same, and it was hilarious. A sort of yearning lesbian drama placed in the context of an Ed Wood film. I was looking forward to The Foxy Merkins, based on that one, and found it pretty disappointing. Still, some funny stuff!

Anyway, you can check out my review of The Foxy Merkins, up now at Rogerebert.com.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Supernatural: Season 2, Episode 10: “Hunted”

h11

Directed by Rachel Talalay
Written by Raelle Tucker

Let’s take a moment to note the first female director of the series (it is her only episode). Talalay does her best with a script that is all over the place. Gordon wants to take over the episode. He basically DOES take over the episode. But Talalay does her best to even things out and prioritize the Advent of Ava, with a truly loopy motel room design that is, at first, totally random (and I also would like to stay there indefinitely), but there is a method to the madness of that motel. The blue circles on the wall are psychedelic and strange, creating a dream-like psychedelic atmosphere that (somehow – for me, anyway) loops us in with the teaser.

Season 2 has a much more complex arc than Season 1, which was all Dad-Dad-Dad-Dad. Season 2 has multiple arcs set up from the beginning, each one inching its way towards a climax. There’s Dean not being able to deal with Dad’s death and John’s whisper at the end. That took up the first part of the season. Along with that, there is Sam, and the “problem of Sam,” seen through Dean’s eyes, and now, with “Hunted”, the “problem of Sam” is the rocket that propels us to the end of Season 2.

Continue reading

Posted in Television | Tagged , , , , | 93 Comments

Supernatural, Season 10, Episode 8: Open Thread

5-Supernatural-Season-10-Episode-1-S10E1-title-card-600x337

Go, Sheriff Mills. Maeve, your understudy, is waiting in the wings should anything go awry.

Posted in Television | Tagged | 66 Comments