Undone, Amazon - 2019

Undone

2019

TV-MA - Series of 30min ea.

Since SCANNER DARKLY the replacement of real actors with cartoonified versions has risen exponentially as a new millennial style favorite, at least in looks.  There are practical reasons for the use of this "augmented reality animation" style for this particular show.  The subject matter and circumstances, which involve willful manipulations of time and space, sometimes in a frantic pace, and repeated visual tricks that would be very expensive and daunting to implement by any practical or SFX team for a production, make it a great idea.  You can animate a scene change MUCH easier than in a real live production.  And it's also much easier to be naked in front of children when you're animated as well.  Right.  Yes, that does happen here.  There's a reason, just hold on now, don't         flag my post, ok?   

The very real and solid performances from Rosa Salazar, who plays Alma, and Bob Odenkirk, who plays her deceased dad, and the other actors in the lineup make the animated versions of themselves sometimes even more alive than a real appearance.  There are some very genuinely funny and moving moments throughout.

The story moves forward at a very rapid pace, and logically develops what should be considered a very complex, interlocked situation, with multiple twists and backstory, and does it in such a succinct way, the writing crew with Kate Purdy and Bob Waksberg leading it should probably get an award.  There is SO much information both on the plot level and the relational level compressed into these brief episodes, when done viewing the very quick season I was amazed at how much distance with these characters I felt like I had travelled.  Nicely done.

Ok, that's all aesthetics and production.  How about the meat of the story?  It's all about the strangely shaped central core area of the brain of those often traumatized and marginalized schizophrenics in our world, and how in reality they are "shamanistic" and capable of bending time and space.  Yep, so far, that's what it appears to come down to.  Fascinating study in theoretical physics, metaphysical manipulation, genetically flawed savants, and...time travel without a flux capacitor involved.  Or is it about a simply disturbed and misguided young lady who is malfunctional?  Well, that's where the last episode leaves us hanging still I'm afraid, like every great media marketing ploy ever conceived before it.

So for a far-out spin in psychobiology, but a VERY good spin at production value and great storytelling...you can check out Undone, and for free if you're a Prime member.

Amazon that is, Texas Tea, Millionaires, Movie Stars.

-Agitatus

In Full Bloom, Adam VillaSeñor - 2019

In Full Bloom 2019

R - 85 min   Adam VillaSeñor, Reza Ghassemi, Narrative Feature (85min)

Set after WWII, In Full Bloom follows two fighters, a down and out boxer from the US and the other, the Japanese champion. We follow each of their inner journeys as it culminates into a world championship fight against both men that will test the very limits of their spirit.

This is amazing. Best fight scenes I've ever witnessed since Raging Bull. That film was amazing of course because at the time it was made, the kind of fight scenes that Scorcese created had not really been invented, so there was the "first to market" effect, and this film most likely owes much to that. But the realistic nature of the fight in this film, combined with the depth and focus of the story inside the minds of these 2 men made this incredible. I felt it overly melodramatic at first, until I understood that the entire film was at least in keeping with that style, and it turned out to be a psychological drama and in a unique portrait style, like a great painting, that was being staged more than the American-ish styled event-driven, or goal-driven storytelling we are used to. It transcended my expectations and somewhere right around the time of the blindfold sequence, facing the fear in the forest, it became instead an engrossing reality. 

THIS IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL DRAMA AND WORK OF ART...not a traditional-based film that follows a narrative that forms a history and surroundings, side-scenes, like in Rocky where we have so much side-story that builds the drama. This sticks as close to the inner drama of the fighters as you can get, even incorporating highly stylized arthouse dream sequences in motif rather than personal historical moments like Rocky and his trainer "get up ya bum!"  There is none of that. It is very much like the plain difference between a character-driven film and the plot driven film. The plot had no place here, even though you can look for it in vain. There is history here, sure, but it's cut off and relegated to the personal realm, so these men become all men who struggle with the same fight, and not just a moment dragged out of a news drawer and given new life with revisitation.

I was bothered at first that the American's experience was almost totally shot in a red locker room, until I also realized that, yes, the story needed to be placed in the present-tense situation, but more-so this was in keeping with the character's mindset, his situation being the present-tense, his experience being a past so very different and distant. He was fighting an inner demon, a red one, claustrophobic, tightening around him, like the pressure on his chest. It was perfectly good storytelling. Incredible. Will watch again.

As I say this however, I am also hesitant and wondering if, like many outsider types of films, this one being Japanese, will make it in pop cinema here in the states.  I am now a fan. I get it. Congratulations on a powerful piece of art. PS: on further reflection...you know how sometimes a great visual drama piece falls apart in the story department, like something doesn't make sense, etc? This one did NOT do that. Everything makes perfect sense, as far as I can figure right after seeing it. There is a tie-in everywhere, right down to the last line "I just wanted peace". This ties back to the WWII fight scenes. Super well-written

Adam VillaSeñor, Reza Ghassemi, Narrative Feature (85min

Set after WWII, In Full Bloom follows two fighters, a down and out boxer from the US and the other, the Japanese champion. We follow each of their inner journeys as it culminates into a world championship fight against both men that will test the very limits of their spirit.

IMDB Link

- Agitatus

Heartland International Film Festival SHORTS - MY Picks that made it in, and MORE.

Heartland Festival Shorts

My time as a Screener for the Heartland International Film Festival SHORTS was well-lived.  I screened over 240 films for the festival this year, and while that may seem like a great number of films, consider that the festival received over 3100 entries, just for the Short Film competition!  There are over 60 screeners worldwide that view the films for inclusion, and several advanced committees that co-review them for final judging after we're done with them.  We're now currently reviewing the many feature-film length entries, expected to again take awhile to get through.

LINK:

Indy Shorts - next Week!  July 25-28

My top list included films from many genres and styles, BUT...of course not all of my picks were included in the final entries.  However...5 of them were.  I was told that out of that many films and screeners that to have more than 2 of my picks included in the lineup was a very good thing.  Meaning...I have good taste?  Well, tastes are not all that matter at a festival.

Film festival screening and judging are very subjective kinds of things, to some degree, because "tastes" run in as many directions as there are people.  However, there are basic rules to aesthetics, mechanics, and overall good judgment that form a base of criteria that almost everyone must follow to have films included in a list of "must watch" films.  Each film is viewed by at LEAST 3 screeners, and at least 2 committee members to be included.  Each one must pass through at least 2 levels of judgment prior to being given the "boot", meaning "not this year" or "try again next year".  So it's not as subjective as it might seem, especially when the screeners, like myself, must first pass a fairly rigorous and daunting exam of our tastes and judgment by viewing a few example films and making assessments that are both numerical on a scale, and written.  Each film screened by me had to be viewed for at least 5 minutes prior to moving on to another film, given a scale of 1-5, 1 being "weak", and 5 being "amazing", and also a Thumbs-Up or Down, meaning "I think this film should be included in this festival".   And consideration for the guidelines must be in play there as well.  THEN...we need to write a short reasoning why we came up with our judgment.

The basic bottom line summary of what we look for is summed up in the following statement:

Heartland looks for a solid blend of message/story and artistic/technical quality, and ultimately asks you to consider this question: does the given film combine a strong story or unique vision with technical skill? 

So, the guidelines are fairly basic and easy to assess if you ask it only that way, and honestly, the way that I completed my task for these films was to create my judgment almost right away when the film was finished, fill in the boxes, give it a number, and write a few sentences.

Well, if you follow me as my blog reader, you know that "a few sentences" are not that easy for me, and so it proved true for the festival entries.  On about 20% or more of the entries I wrote about, I spent a few paragraphs about them, especially if they were on the extreme ends of the spectrum, either 4s and 5s, or a 1.  What I ended up doing so that others may not need to spend a great deal of time reading through all of my comments was summarizing first with a few comments, and then posting the rest of my assessment in another paragraph that started with, "Other Comments, if you care to read them..."

So here is MY personal pick list, and if you're among them and you didn't make it in, sorry, but you did get my support.  I'll list the 1st 5 that DID get included in the festival first, by title, style, selected category, Director/Writer, and country of origin, run time:

Guaxuma - Animated - Finalist for Grand Prize - Nara Normande - France/Brazil - 14 min.
Judas Collar - Narrative - Official Selection "Beyond the Healines" - Alison James - Australia - 15 min.
Pinchpot - Animated - Official Selection "For the whole family" - Greg Holfeld - Australia - 5 min.
Reality Baby - Documentary - Wild Card Official Selection - Nodlag Houlihan - Ireland - 13 min.
Patision Avenue - Narrative - Wild Card Official Selection - Thanasis Neofotistos - Greece - 13 min.

Congratulations to those 5!


- Agitatus

A Hidden Life, Terrence Malick - 2019 Premier

A Hidden Life 

This highly anticipated "next" film of Terrence Malick, has opened at Cannes.  Release dates not available elsewhere as of this writing.   But like the investors in Malick's work are not in it for the money, us fans of his work are not into his films like some TV series.  It's been 3 years in the making, we can wait a few weeks until it hits the theaters. But be sure, I'll make sure it's a perfectly good theater with a great screen, great sound system, and a fresh bulb in the projector.

Malick's work continues to fascinate me, in the same way Bertolucci's has, the magnanimous poetic image weaving its own tale it seems.  The naturalist can take in a Malick film and come away I believe saying they "slept with nature".  The filmmaker can do the same, and without a doubt say "I've seen an auteur".  The historian..."uncannily period perfect".  Most film directors...."I want to get the performances he does out of his actors".

Part of what all of us in these categories usually don't think about is just how much time and patience Terrence spends "getting" those moments.  I would love to visit one of his sets sometime to see him work, but I know about his work via others' experiences, how this film took 3 years to complete, plus viewing his other films, especially The New World, it's not a secret to me at all any longer.  Especially considering how short a period of time every day the "magic hour" is and how much he shoots during those times, either sunup or sundown, and I'm sure spending most of the day preparing for those few brief magic moments to happen.  It's the love of the thing, the beauty of the art form, not a paycheck, and not a metal statue or a  nomination, or a star in a sidewalk.

Well, ok I'm going to stop now before writing a book.  Just look for it to be out and get your ticket.

- Agitatus

Love and Revelation, Over the Rhine - Music/Vinyl - 2019

Love and Revelation

2019 Over the Rhine

Linford Detweiler and Karin Bergquist's 1st album in 4 years since Meet Me at the Edge of the World.

I just found out about it today.  I'm slow, I know...too many irons.

But I found a really good article on it with a website that I haven't seen yet either, and so I'll defer here to that.  Please read it...very accurate and complete picture of the album as far as I know, and also a good review of OTR if you're not familiar with them yet.  And...why aren't you??

Ok, here's that link:

Love and Revelation on All Eyes Media

Over the Rhine's Home Site

- Agitatus

Cold War, Pawlikowski - 2018

R 1hr 29min Drama, Music, Romance

At first glance, the title and sparse pictures that announce this film on IMDB or in my case my Amazon Prime, make it appear to be a gritty version possibly of something like Red Sparrow, only B/W, to make it more of a period piece.  And considering the atmosphere we've been in since Trump has taken office, not taking sides here, just commenting...Cold War seems to be a more contemporary and relevant term that Millennials and 00s are getting to know, while the rest of us review Dr. Strangelove and Trumbo.

So, enthralled by the fact that this is Pawlikovski that directed (knew that name instantly when I saw it), and that it was included with my Prime membeship!  awesome....I took off time from my regularly scheduled 3 or 4 Film Fest films and watched this instead.  Ok, let me back up here....where in the world have I been, you may ask that you have not seen or even heard of this film yet?  Yes, it took a blogger on Tumblr of all places to bring my attention to it, and someone I'm not even following.  First of all, I missed the Oscars, not such a big deal, but since January I've seen over 190 films now for the Heartland International Film Festival.  So it took Pawel's name at the bottom of the row of Black and White stills from the movie to get my attention and look it up only to find that it swept awards in EU and was nominated for Oscars here.  Wow, instantly on the new "must watch" list.  So...like I said, I decided to take a break from HIFF and do this instead.  I really needed a full-length break into something else.

And as I mentioned, even up through the first 20 min. of this film, and beyond, I had the suspicion that this was one of those plot-driven works where she makes love with this man so he's thinking with his pants and she ends up spying in the U.S. and becoming some major faux-pas in the intelligence gap right after the war, and this is how she got in. 

Could not have been more wrong.  I'm going to enjoy going back now and viewing this again with the right frame of mind.  This is an analogous dance between the romance and the times, the times themselves being the echo and taking a back seat to the relationship on screen, a perfect mirror in fact, perfectly played as a game of ping-pong across the borders of 3 countries and 3 major cities, and they, the couple in love..with really no country to go to.  The Polish immigration official put it fairly accurately to Wiktor, the lead male character, "I don't know how to help you.  You are not French, and you're not a Pole either.  As far as we're concerned you don't exist."

But exist they did, for a time, always finding each other amid their other parallel lives. They become the object of hope that was carried through that time across the generation that followed the great war, and also the ultimate object of despair and resignation.  The ending is one of the most controversial and yet perfect ones I've ever seen.  But the stuff in between...wow...

 This is near perfect cinema.  I could go on and on and talk about the cinematic features of this film that make it the captivating and great piece of art, poetry, and especially music that it is, commenting mostly on the absolutely opaque similarity to films made in the 60s (if you had sat me in front of this with no indication of when it was made, it absolutely would have fooled me - a perfect rendition of that period, right down to the types of shots and cuts made and the grain and lighting- incredible film study here).  But I believe I'll drop off here and defer to a New Yorker article that does a better summary than I could. (see this link: CLICK HERE).  Instead, I believe I'll do a follow up at some point with another post at a later time, and just say this...I rarely go directly to the purchase page and buy the BluRay version of any film.  This one...no brainer...I got it right away.  Will be here tomorrow.

In the meantime...See the film.



- Agitatus

Jerry Saltz - Tiffany Primer on Art photos - Rated 8yo or less

Tiffany & Co.
The NYTimes
Art that is Digital


Senior art critic Jerry Saltz steps on the screen hosted by Tiffany & Co. and placed in the NY Times web space.  Cutesy, expensive, and well-produced product telling us that Art is important, and that digital art changes things. Yes.  But evidence of flawed thinking abounds.  The moment I'm referring to the most, out of many in this #1 of the series is the moment near the end when Jerry holds his phone, vertically I might add, which rebels against good media convention in the first place, and takes a picture of a live art piece that was just invented on set of the video, and is MUCH wider than his screen is allowing.  Ok, so it's for posterity.  But then he turns and states (his one vertical picture of the horizontal art in place on his phone now)"This is going to look so good on my wall".  And then he talks to the camera in the next shot and goes on to say, "You see what I did there?  It's the same cave, but it just got a lot bigger."  Ok, he's trying to tell us that his photo made the artwork more accessible because it's going out to the internet, or it's going out via his fairly bad or at best limited representation of that.

To WHOM is Jerry talking to?  Some little kids?  This is kindergarten crap.

Jerry Saltz is creatively lecturing on the new platform afforded everyone today, and gaining his space online probably before funding runs out for further programs, and probably also compliments of the NYTimes as we are told they are as left-leaning and artsy a crowd as it gets.  I'm guessing NY Magazine and NY Times are not very far apart in ideology.

This is simply a saccharine space-filler from an art "fan" point of view and will make people feel good about spending so much money on colorful objects created from imagination and fashioned to look like something you've never seen before...because honestly you haven't...because it came from someone else's mind, and they are out to put it in yours.

Granted, art seen is better than art not seen, for the most part, but if you're going to talk about it, please do it justice and examine it for real, and turn the dang camera the right way.  

The Upside, Cranston/Hart/Kidman - 2017

The Upside 2017    Released 2018

R - 126 min

-->

This one looks both up and down.  Up a long way from the bottom where the reality of the street and life with each other seems impossible, and down a long way from what was a gloriously fulfilling life it would seem of money, privilege, invention, creativity, and a shallow bunch of followers, including those who could take advantage of that situation.

The crossed and ironic relationship between Dell, our man of the street, and Phillip, our man of the penthouse, is much like the Lion and the Mouse, comparable also to the Princess Switch, getting another side's view, or even at a distance, Rich Man Poor Man (ok, reversed because they knew each other and grew apart).  But the "upside" to this film and it's strength I believe is in finding the redemptive character that can lay in any person's kit bag, pulling it out, and giving it a chance to be nurtured.  It's not so much about the hustle, as it is laying the hustle aside when given an opportunity.  Ethical behavior and the thoughtful reflection of the effect of one's relationship on those we influence (Father to Son and Wife in the case of Dell) are key points on the very straight look at what could have/should have been (according to stats) the end of a family structure.  But the story doesn't pick a side and bring blame on the wealthy, or even the situation, rather it sticks closely to the view that, even on the bottom, you still have control of who you are. The story keys in on the actions and interactions and decisions of the characters, not looking for scapegoats here.  Hart's character gets confronted on many levels with regards to his sometimes unwise choices, and also brings up the vulnerability that he has for needing to prove, quite naturally so, that he is a provider.  It is a clear story about how that unravels in the hood, and how influence works in many directions to pull people down, and into a vortex of negative expectations. 

There is plenty of material for Kevin Hart the comedian to work with inside the script, and it comes out bold, yet contained from his live stage personality, which means.... Kevin has true acting ability and the range to draw the tear and the sigh as well as the guffaw.  His confrontations with every character are also balanced; teeter-totter like between him serving up a good dose of reality to the upper Crusties, as well as taking sometimes deserved hits to his own behavior.  Prejudices, we know are not completely undeserved, are also confronted as a barrier to the healthy function of repair to our social world, the most prominent case in point being made about the insipid neighbor that complains about Dell's presence in the building, and brings up Dell's prison record to demonstrate his distrust to Phillip.  Phillip turns the tables on the neighbor, with a comment on art that I'll not elaborate on because it's a spoiler.  So there is basically redemption all around in this film, putting it firmly in the class of "feel-good".

As for the Up-Side of Phillip's tale (Cranston), he definitely needed to care again, to be alive again, and that's the ironic hope that the man from the Bottom Side brings with him, reason to live, pointing out the vagaries of Phillip's position to the world, bringing a therapy that he was surely not aware of on hiring him.  Dell allowed Philip to...no actually encouraged him to get angry, to be real, to experience again (albeit at one point some of the experience had to do with some street poon that he had to bribe the doorman to ignore).  He did inevitably set him free on the inside, forced him out into the world, and became...the best candidate for the job.

The peripheral role played by Kidman as Yvonne was flawless, as usual for her.  She shines as a great actress once again and plays a pivotal "replacement" role in this story for the space where a spouse should have been, creating as well the inevitabilities of sexual tension as well as situation laughs that happen in a trio like this.  That character being drawn in the story also plays a huge role in her absence.  The vacuum of her leaving draws attention to the downward spiral of Phillip's near "2nd crash".  

Great stuff.  

- Agitatus

Box - the most insane new way of looking at flat space

BOX: Sept. of 2014?  Wow, it seems like this was created Tomorrow.



It's Insufficient to say this is cool, or even awesome.  I've watched this multiple times, and always with the same fascination as the first time, even though I know what's coming next in each segment.  It doesn't cease to amaze because like the Arthur C. Clarke quote at the end, the visualization, even though I know perfectly well how this works, is "indistinguishable from magic".

Mother!, Darren Aronofsky - 2017

Mother!       

2017

R - 127 min

HUGE

- Agitatus

The Infiltrator, Brad Furman w/Brian Cranston - 2016 - Movie

The Infiltrator2016

R - 127 min

Call this one a redemption movie, for Bryan Cranston that is.  He’s still the one who knocks but he does so with a warrant.

It’s no accident that Junior White, aka Walt Jr, aka Flynn (of Breaking Bad)’s favorite book was about the takedown of Pablo Escobar and his drug cartel, and the book was a gift from the now dead Uncle Hank, both Hank and the man who did the shakedown being his real heroes. This film is the antithesis of that for Cranston.

The shameful shakeout of Walter White needed to be reversed for Bryan to obtain some kind of equilibrium in the real world of screen acting.  Tough to shake a character as strong as Walter.  But Bryan has already done that in so fashionable a way.  

In The Infiltrator, we see a very nice mirror of the real life events that took place surrounding the Escobar cartel, and the man that went undercover to get him.  The film itself is great Hollywood stuff, but standard stuff.  I was not overwhelmed by it, but certainly it was engaging, because we all like to see how things turn out between good guys and bad, even knowing full well the story from real history.  Maybe sometimes we just want to see the replay, like in sports, or learn details that we didn’t know before.

This film gave us a perspective of the difference between small time and big time, which was the whole point in any case.  The relationship between the Cranston character and John Leguizamo’s as undercover partners mirrored that difference, as Emir (John L’s character) and Robert Mazur (Cranston) split up their methods during the course of the larger investigation.  Emir continued the chase after smaller time criminals and the dope itself to get to the real sources, while Mazur went after the money, indeed the better bet.  There are several times during the story when Emir almost gets whacked, and in a much less glorious fashion. 

But besides accentuating a particular method of detective work, the film itself was not over glamorized, or overly fast and jumpy, as some Fast and Furious fans might want it, or standard action fare.  This was evenly paced, well thought out directing and editing.  But for that reason it was also nothing spectacular, not “edgy”.  So it was excellently done, just not showy, and for the same reason, also a bit on the boring side.  There was tension, yes, but never unexpected or over the top enough to jar anyone.  

The best scene for Cranston, in my mind, was the very first one, as the inept Italian bowler flirting with the waitress and bowling with a criminal.  That was great.  However, for the rest of the film, I don’t believe that it put Brian’s acting to the test.  He just flows into this kind of role without becoming ruffled.  At least he makes it look easy.  Leguizamo is equally entertaining and realistic as the partner, and makes the bond between the two men very solid.

Good standard crime drama, solid performance, easy to follow, fun to watch.  Just not a jump up and down exciting film.  6 or 7 out of 10.

- Agitatus

The Purge, Election Year - 2016 - Movie

The Purge - Election Year

2016 

R - 127 min

Thrill ride for socialist adrenaline freaks, definitely not serious filmmaking.

From the previews so carefully edited to grab you and not let go, and buildup via the other 2 films of this trilogy, I was expecting something a bit more….overwhelming as far as scope.  Something along the lines of different locations across the states, interconnected webs of intrigue from those in power with ties to other countries, or quite possibly more of the inner social circles of those of the NFFA, the New Founding Fathers of America.  Instead, this was once again battle lines drawn between tightly controlled areas, characters, and personal focused drama on a limited scale that I would estimate demonstrated a smaller budget, studio execs not wanting to pour money into the incendiary series for fear of controversy or backlash, or quite possibly a look at the demographics of the previous 2 films and deciding it would not be worth it.  Only adrenaline junkies go see this stuff after all, in large part.

Contrary to that, however, we know that focusing on a particular group of people and subject in a story that has a large scope is one of the ways to effectively demonstrate the crux of the matter without making an epic that could end up being another Water World.  The hard part then is believability and impact. Convincing performances by all, and great editing tension and continual moving action kept this alive and made it the “thrill thing” that people go see most killer and chiller film, splatter films, or other pump-action flicks for.  This is really no different when it comes to that, as expected.

As far as bad guys, and girls, that was also limited, but well-played and came down to inept mercenaries working for the big guys with money, and some bad girls in the street who just wanted their candy bars.  Rather colorful group.

So getting past the cinema aspects and looking at the agenda, there is the socialist/moralist/idealist triangle of big private government interest taking advantage of their situation and providing a platform for extinguishing poor people that do nothing but suck resources from the economy, and also getting their kicks in a near-satanic kind of way by personally purging themselves in a private ceremony.  Conspiracy isn’t quite the word any longer at this stage, it’s more like outright legalized plans by white supremacists to rid themselves of social “vermin”.  Of course, to not make it seem like a white/black issue, the first person they sacrifice is a white drug addict.

The troubling aspect of this is the filmmaker’s almost overeager willingness to make this a vendetta against Christ.  No, I don’t mean Christianity, as in the church, but Christ himself (and consequently the images and hierarchy of church authority as well).  The name of Jesus was put front and center as the “excuse” that these twisted conspirators and control freaks used to justify their genocidal/sociopathic plan.  The church and state duo that is so often decried as an incorrect alliance by left swinging idealist and ACLU fans is seen firmly rooted here as the core of the NFFA’s justification, just as Christ and the Church have been used countless times as axe-swinging material over issues like slavery.  There was of course the underground group, mostly African American that included the token white guy who is our hero of the film, starring Frank Grillo, who come to the rescue in the end, and save the senator.  I’m not afraid of a spoiler here, because those of you who would actually bother to go see this will guess this is going to happen anyway.

Predictable, plot driven, and juvenile, the entire series is based on the old fashioned horror convention of “who’s gonna get whacked, and how bad, and do we get to watch?”.  

I repeat: Thrill ride for socialist adrenaline freaks, definitely not serious filmmaking.  HOWEVER, having said that, I’m betting that privately Mr. Obama and cabinet members got a screening, and enjoyed every gun-hating minute.

- Agitatus

Maggie's Plan - my Part II

Maggie's Plan  - Part 2

2015

R - 1Hr 38Min - Comedy, Drama, Romance

Greta Gerwig - Maggie 

Julianne Moore - Georgette

Ethan Hawke - John

Make sure you read the FIRST review of this, which was yesterday, the day before today, ya dig?
___________________
As with all things that seem pristine and pressed together neatly, after sleeping on it, the next day you’re sure to find wrinkles.  You plant grass seed and you find a patch you missed when it all grows up or the birds ate while you were away.  You turn the perfect tomato over on the vine to find a hornworm firmly embedded in the fruit’s shady underside.

After sleeping over the Maggie’s Plan initial review, I’ll have to say something troubled me while I slept that I woke up thinking about.  It was something clear to me during the viewing, but not as consciously clear as the flicker of the celluloid (or dancing digits) on screen.  This is not to negate ANY of my previous comments actually, because it’s a different subject, offbeat from the filmic language of actor, writing, directing, lighting.  This is a touchy subject nowadays for most of the urban and intelligent, as well as a mundane or mute subject across much of the rest of the culture.  So while stepping carefully to not offend, this topic must be explored, after all, it is central to the central character, therefore it’s central to the entire piece and affects the whole zeitgeist of the thing, if you get me.

Maggie’s Quaker life. 

Late in the film, Julianne Moore’s Georgette character sums her up while seated across the table from her as “simple, a little stupid, loving, kind, open hearted, warm” (not an exact quote, I’ve only seen this once) and then went on to say “I really like you”.  She summed up our filmic understanding of the Maggie character to the core.  We absolutely love her, you can’t help it.  The natural charm, the very honest approach, the wide eyes, her love for children.  But ultimately we’re also led to what could conceivably be a darker part of her, her double-minded hypocrisy, she’s called a hypocrite outright by her friend, and manipulator, or intruder into the lives of others, which she did so very unproductively throughout, admitting in the end her plan was a fiasco and ill-taken, ill-conceived.  Yet we also believe it was naturally inevitable, just like the ending (no spoiler here right?).  

But her faith plays a key role, a master manipulative role that hangs on her like a necklace.  The key shot in the film surrounding her faith, we find, is empty.  (Ok this is a spoiler, so if you haven’t seen this yet PLEASE DO NOT read further).  She attends a Quaker service.  We see a simple sign that is like a parking sign, so we can assume that it has been there for some time, or at least people don’t make signs out of metal and bolt them to an iron fence unless they intend to do something long-term.  The very next shot is so telling of the state of her faith, and the state of the Quaker religion.  It’s the alter of her inner sanctuary.  She sits alone at the meeting, not one other soul in attendance. She has stated to John about her meetings, “I still attend”.  However we only find out late in the game of the story that her faith has an empty, silent component.  Because her faith is directly tied to her behavior, and her behavior is that of idealistic dreaming that leads her down blind alleys, then her faith and the admission of mistaken values become one in the same, or part of the failure.  Her faith becomes nullified in the face of another kind of idealism, being urban, modernist, and ultimately religionless.  She resolves to break away with that life of manipulation, hence her assumed dreamy idealism, therefore we assume that the religious adherence must pass away with it, or that it did.

Her skittishness of things involving her body, her purity, is essentially viewed as tied with this as well.  She refuses the offer of physical love from her sperm donor, attempting to have a child by herself.  In the person of Guy, played by Travis Fimmel, is a perfectly fine specimen of a man offering love and affection that she seems to so obviously need and want, but she wants the fruit of his labor in a plastic jar, one that she emphasizes is “sterile”.  She had to say that of course.  His offer is truly sweet, given the circumstances, and understandable.   She claims, “That’s too complicated”.  This also strengthens the character’s puritanical prudishness and distance from romance and the evident opportunities right before her, reinforcing what appears to be a wayward idealism once again.  Sexual fear is yet another symptom of a wayward religion.

It’s typical of the modern idealist in the new age of abstracting reality from circumstances, of situational ethics and tolerance, buzz words for universalistic correctness, speech sounding like sound blurbs from a newscast carefully censored prior to air time, to dismiss religion along with “old fashioned” words like purity and faithfulness by dragging a wonderfully innocent character like Maggie (an old fashioned name as well), through the sullies and mud pits of the sophisticated and existential modern conventions of parenthood.  In the end, what we have is essentially a soiled virgin whose misguided beliefs are found to be subjugated to the supposedly more elevated personal triumph of “the real world”.  It’s all done comically, and with great cinematic penache, but also there is this sense of tragedy, at least for me there was that sense, a sense of loss of something larger and more beatific than the immediate and pragmatic, an overreaching sense of guidance, of God.  I believe that this is a universal desire, a reality.  Beneath our sometimes stoic standup against darkness there is a prayerful wish for Eden to be true, that we could return to the garden, but alas we are awash in those muddy sullies.

For that reason I’m sure that Rebecca Miller did not attempt to dream up a way to undermine belief, but one cannot separate the wayward or misguided idealism from belief in Maggie’s character, they are one in the same.  In the end, we are left to believe that the character has undergone a great change, or shift, and has come to realize that like her Quaker meetings, her belief in a world that is pure and unadulterated is also empty, and cannot exist.  That I suppose, is the sense of loss that I have, while also triumphing in the belief that she does eventually find the direction that she truly was looking for in the first place.

In place of that vacuum, Rebecca gives us a hope that if we look directly and squarely at ourselves, as we are, not as we would “like” to be, we can find the substantial and fulfilling life, despite it’s flaws.  This does not negate God, but simply puts our condition in a real perspective, an honest one, one that can accept a giant jar of pickles.

- Agitatus

Maggie's Plan - 2015 - Movie

Maggie's Plan 

2015

R - 1Hr 38Min - Comedy, Drama, Romance

Refreshing, invigorating, other positive words come to mind.  This is a SitCom. I hate that word, because it conjures up soap operas, at least in my mind, and wasted hours that people spend on a couch in front of half-hour relational entanglements and personal romantic and suspenseful tensions.  Well, there really should be a new word, a Relational Comedy.  A RelCom.  That’s what this is.

I’ll get to Greta Gerwig, Julianne Moore, and Ethan Hawke in just a moment, and a shining moment too, but first I want to touch on Bill Hader and Maya Rudolph’s roles.  I’ll call them both unexpectedly and pleasantly surprising.  Children of SNL, after the previews I’d seen, I was set for characters that were colored with that sensitivity of the SNL world, the quick and quirky changelings that you can never really believe in, delighted in yes, but of course were very put on.  As I said, I was surprised.  The directing and acting combination here throws us absolute winners of convincing characters that are also enjoyable.  In the middle of the first few sentences of Maya’s first appearance on the screen she does indeed become the friend character, and SNL is nowhere to be found.  Bill Hader, likewise, shed his Saturday personas, many of them, and spot on delivered a real and serious performance as a friend and dad, not to mention a perfect half-drunk scene were his “slip” was extremely well done and not “faked” at all.  Kudos to them both.  Well done.  They’ve managed to avoid the Jim Carrey syndrome of never being completely believable as anything other than an “over-actor” (quote from Liar Liar outtake).

The complete surprise to me here was Greta Gerwig as Maggie.  I say complete surprise here because ( I am now ashamed to say this because I feel like “where have I been?”) I have not seen her before in her other appearances in Frances Ha, Mistress America, or otherwise.  She has SOooooo many credits already.  Again, where have I been?  I need to see those films when I have time. She absolutely envelopes the screen with her natural and effervescent presence.  It just drips off the camera into the theater.  Her home-spun look and calm resolve play so well.  The scenes with the youngest child are classic beautiful and endearing beyond measure.  I think I could just watch those by themselves over a few more times.  This role seems written for her.  It may have been, I don’t know.   But she is the perfect antithesis to Julianne Moore’s exotic and overwrought character Georgette, with the French accent and ballistic scholarly credentials.  Moore of course pulls this off with ease it seems.  It can also be that Greta’s costumer for this role was spot-on perfect, down to the shoes we see in the opening, the done up hair, or like the one restaurant scene where I laughed at the outfit of the yellow checkered blouse conventionally 50s with the Middletown America turquoise (was it?) sweater.  Perfect, and schoolish, like her apartment piled with books.

In fact I need to pause here and just sum up the whole acting thing from every perspective: Incredible.  Every player in this film gives a stellar performance, and so therefore I must also believe that Rebecca Miler, director, has triumphed.  Talk about understanding the language of film and how to get a performance out of people.  Wow, she’s going to have a great career as a director.  That only goes back to ’95, even though she’s been acting since ’88.  Kudos to her as well for this breakthrough film. That’s what I keep wanting to call it.  Why?  Because I believe we’re in for more of here.  Like Clint Eastwood was at one time turning from acting to directing, Rebecca is just getting warmed up I believe.

Ethan Hawke and Julianne Moore.  Now here is a couple of seasoned actors who’s chemistry in this case could not be more perfectly matched with the roles.  The scenes in the snow, the bedroom farces, the antithetical proton/neutron attraction/attack synthesis makes the story and the plot work. The scene of Ethan’s character John coming out of his “closet” in the confessional kind of way to Maggie is absolutely perfect, stunning in fact.  So well written.  So here is where the writer gets the honors.  Great characters written well, and great casting all around.

So far, I believe that this film we should see up next year for an Oscar.  For which nomination I would not be sure, but writing might be my choice.

If you’re in to RelComs, this is a must see.

And one point that I’m proud of, I called the last shot.  I knew exactly where the film would cut at the end.  In fact, there in the theater, I actually held up my fingers and pressed them together at almost the exact same moment the closing shot went to black.  I still have that editing magic I guess.

- Agitatus