This year’s top ten – heck, the entire top twenty-five – is incredibly strong. By the time I saw Clint Eastwood’s American
Sniper last week, I felt undeniably that it belonged in my top ten. And yet
the ten movies already there were so dear to my heart, that there simply wasn’t one I could take away. How something
as sublime as Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel
could only be #10 on my list is still a mystery, which I suppose speaks to the strength of the movies on this list. As usual, the rankings are somewhat arbitrary, as any movie on this list could be justifiably called the best of the year.
Alejandro
González Inárritu’s Birdman is a tour-de-force of cinema. Michael Keaton gives the best
performance of the year as Riggan Thompson, a washed-up movie star most famous
for playing the superhero Birdman in a series of 1990s blockbusters. He’s now
writing, directing and starring in an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s What We Talk About When We Talk About Love
on Broadway. In the process, he’s haunted by the voice of Birdman, who reminds
him at every turn that he doesn’t belong onstage – he belongs in a blockbuster.
Tumbling in and out of Riggan’s world are his daughter and now assistant, Sam
(Emma Stone), his manager Jake (Zach Galifianakis) and a critically acclaimed
stage actor (Edward Norton) intent on sabotaging the production.
The main visual conceit behind Birdman is that it’s meant to look like one long, unbroken take,
and on a purely technical level, the film has some of the most impressive
blocking of actors and camera choreography I’ve ever seen. I mean, the camera
is always in the right place at the right time. Never once does the
filmmaking feel locked-in. I never wanted Inárritu
to just cut and take us to another location. The sense of place is so well
established in Birdman – I’ve rarely
felt like I’ve experienced something in a certain location as vividly as I do with
the St. James Theater and the surrounding area in this movie.
Birdman also
understands and conveys the spontaneity of live theatre better than any movie I
can remember. Because performing onstage is one continuous experience, the
effect of the film unfolding as one take is incredibly effective, never more so than when Riggan and his fellow actors are in the
middle of a performance, where it truly feels like anything can happen. The movie has what I might call a “stragefright” element, something
I’ve been hoping to imbue in one of my own scripts - a free-wheeling,
downright musical quality (can we talk about Antonio Sanchez's kinetic drum score?) and tempo that perfectly accompanies its depiction of a man flustering his way through an
overwhelming mounting of a production.
And even when we’re watching scenes with characters that
aren’t Riggan, somehow the entire movie feels like an experience ripped from
his consciousness. The experiential aspect of this movie, to me, is even more
of an achievement than that of Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013), which similarly had numerous long takes (and also
was brilliantly filmed by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski). But the camera
choreography in Birdman mimics the chaos and unpredictability of everyday life, all the while capturing
every nuance and painful private moment of a fascinating group of characters
(the film co-stars Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough and Amy Ryan). The marks hit
in Gravity may have been technically
challenging and awe-inspiring, but rarely were they in the service of brilliant
dramatic storytelling as they are in Birdman.
It's hard to think of a better ensemble cast this year
(although Foxcatcher’s central three
actors are a close threat), with Norton, Stone and Watts all deserving of
nominations for their work. Keaton is on fire here, in a performance that lacks
any kind of vanity. He has always been one of the most relatable and natural actors, not
just in Batman (1989) and Beetlejuice
(1988), but in Jackie Brown (1997),
The Paper (1994) and The Other Guys (2010). He is this year’s
Best Actor.
Birdman is full of
incredibly bold and strong camera and performance choices, and every one of
them pays off. As Riggan races onstage in his underwear from the audience (after
getting locked out of the St. James Theater mid-performance, surely one of the
funniest sequences in a movie this year), Inárritu’s
camera moves backstage, past Jake hovering in the wings, and drifts to a
hallway and lingers there. Inárritu simply
lets the rest of the scene onstage play out off-screen, calling to mind a
similar shot in Martin Scorsese’s Taxi
Driver (1976). The shot of the hallway gives us a brief respite from the
franticness onstage, but it also seems to grant a kind of dignity to Riggan, shying
away from the stage in embarrassment, in horror at what he has to do to
finish his performance. It’s representative of every technical choice in the
movie working perfectly in tune with an emotional choice.
Earlier in the film, when Sam goes on a tirade against
Riggan for desperately wanting to stay relevant, there’s not a cut (or, in this
film, even a whip-pan) to Riggan’s hurt reaction after she spews vitriol at
him. The camera stays on her face, and it’s absolutely the most powerful choice
(and, man, does Emma Stone seize that moment). I can imagine how this movie
would be edited by a filmmaker without Inárritu’s
confidence and skill, but in his hands, every character in Birdman gets their own private moment of pain and suffering, and
the harmonious way in which it all clicks together is the work of a master.
In an interview with Rolling Stone, Inárritu explains the movie’s subtitle, The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, as referring to “Riggan’s total
lack of experience in the theater world, how he goes into this for what may or
may not be the right reasons but, somehow, it helps him get to a place where he
can express himself better.” Beyond the film’s technical achievements and
stunning performances, the reason Birdman
resonates as much as it does is that the film doesn’t undermine Riggan’s
attempt to stage this ambitious vanity project; in fact, it celebrates his
risk. Throughout the film, Riggan is seemingly able to use his superhero “powers”
as Birdman to control various elements in his world – he can fly, he can make
objects move in his dressing room, he can send lights tumbling down onto
unsuspecting actors onstage – but we get the sense that it’s only in his own
mind, and nobody else suspects what he may or may not be capable of.
But, by the time we reach the wonderful final scene of the
film, Riggan has not rejected Birdman, but embraced him. And, for the first
time, someone else – specifically, his daughter – is able to see the powers
that previously only Riggan could see. His risk pays off, and someone else is
finally able to see him for who he truly is.
Richard
Linklater has made a version of all of the movies I could ever hope to make,
and more. He’s made the joyous backstage theatre drama (Me & Orson
Welles), the best romance in recent movie history (the Before Sunrise,
Before Sunset and Before Midnight trilogy), the story of the last
day of school at an Austin high school (Dazed and Confused) and a dark
comedy that explores the peculiarities of East Texas and its local flavor (Bernie).
With
Boyhood, his twelve-years-in-the-making
portrait of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from age six to eighteen, Linklater has made
his best movie, a masterful epic that brings to mind Terrence Malick’s The
Tree of Life (2011), both in its ambition and in its Texas setting.
Roger Ebert wrote in his review of The Tree of Life that he didn’t “know
when a film has connected more immediately with [his] own personal experience.”
I suspect many people will feel this way about Boyhood, too.
Oh,
how this film will resonate for those who grew up in Texas. Linklater gets
everything right – the recitation of the Texas pledge in public schools, the
sound of white winged doves calling out over suburban neighborhoods, the Bible
given to you at a certain age with your name engraved on the cover.
Near
the end of the film, as she’s sending her son off to college, Mason’s mother,
Olivia (Patricia Arquette), says, “I just thought there’d be more, you know?”
And that’s when the power of the movie hit me.
Though
the movie has been lauded for its incredible twelve-year shoot, the greatest
achievement of Boyhood is that you don’t really notice the characters
(and actors) aging. The movie is so entertaining, the transitions so seamless,
and the characters such a genuine pleasure to hang out with, that you lose
sight of the fact that they’re growing up and maturing right before your eyes.
By not focusing on overly dramatic or seminal moments that other filmmakers
might make the focus of their coming-of-age films, Linklater gives the whole
movie such a hang-out feeling that the trick is not thinking about the time.
And I thought there’d be more. But that’s how it happens. It’s all over too
soon, and perhaps the power of the movie doesn’t even fully register until you
realize it’s all over.
In
the first half of this film, Mason is pulled in many different directions, with
adults offering out various ways through life. It’s not until about midway
through Boyhood that Mason really emerges and develops a voice. That’s
not an arc we see much in cinema, particularly with so much emphasis placed on
active characters. But how are we formed? Aren’t we all slowly molded by the
world around us? Much of our childhood is spent not thinking about the future
and not making active decisions. We’re certainly not thinking about what we’re
doing as part of some larger life structure.
Each of Mason's failed or potential father figures in the movie remain in my mind. I think of the sadness of Mason's second stepfather, who is a good man and a war veteran. But because of Mason's experience with his alcoholic, abusive first stepfather, he disregards his second stepfather's advice. There's absolutely no judgment here by Linklater. I've read articles that refer to Mason's stepfathers as a series of deadbeats, which is an absolutely incorrect assessment when referring to his second one, just as it's entirely incorrect to dismiss the gun culture of Mason's stepmother's West Texas parents as ridiculous. It's more about where Mason is in his adolescence than the rightness or wrongness of any of these potential guiding figures. It's about paths - the ones laid out before you, the ones you choose, even when you don't feel yourself making a discernible choice.
Each of Mason's failed or potential father figures in the movie remain in my mind. I think of the sadness of Mason's second stepfather, who is a good man and a war veteran. But because of Mason's experience with his alcoholic, abusive first stepfather, he disregards his second stepfather's advice. There's absolutely no judgment here by Linklater. I've read articles that refer to Mason's stepfathers as a series of deadbeats, which is an absolutely incorrect assessment when referring to his second one, just as it's entirely incorrect to dismiss the gun culture of Mason's stepmother's West Texas parents as ridiculous. It's more about where Mason is in his adolescence than the rightness or wrongness of any of these potential guiding figures. It's about paths - the ones laid out before you, the ones you choose, even when you don't feel yourself making a discernible choice.
Many
of the major character changes take place off-screen. The movie is not unlike
Kenneth Lonergan’s Margaret (2011) in this respect, where characters are
allowed to leave a scene and have lives outside the movie. I think of Mason’s
father, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) growing from freewheeling dad in one section of
the movie to a slightly more conservative and mature man entering his second
marriage a bit later. We see how this change must have taken place. To witness
the change itself is not necessary.
The
actors in Boyhood are extraordinary, and you’d be hard-pressed to
argue that any other film performances this year are really comparable to what
Arquette, Coltrane, Hawke and Lorelei Linklater achieve in this movie. In
particular, I’d like to see Hawke at the very least get nominated for an
Academy Award for his performance – he’s an absolutely fantastic actor,
extraordinary in everything from Linklater’s films to Sidney Lumet’s Before
the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007) to Training Day (2001).
As
Linklater says in an interview, “At some point, you’re no longer growing up,
you’re aging. But no one can pinpoint that moment exactly.” I can’t wait to see
Boyhood again to see if I can pinpoint exactly where it happens, but I
have a feeling I’ll be taken away on Mason’s journey once again and forget
about that question altogether, enjoying my time with wonderfully real people.
I’ve
had my own boyhood with Mr. Linklater (see the pictures to the left). I don’t
mean to say he has any idea who I am, but by growing up in Austin and being
interested in film, I (along with many others) feel a certain kinship with him.
He
is our resident auteur, and more. He’s the friendly patron of the arts, the man
sitting behind me at Hyde Park Theatre’s production of Killer Joe. He's
the guy enthusiastically talking with cinephiles in between the Summer Classic
Film Series screenings of Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull (1980) and Goodfellas (1990)
at the Paramount Theatre. He came to Waterloo Video to sign the newly released
Criterion DVD of Slacker back in 2004, and I have my
copy proudly placed atop my DVD collection. “To Jack – all the best. Rick
Linklater.”
I’ve
never been more proud to come from the city of Linklater. The Texas auteurs –
Linklater, Terrence Malick, Wes Anderson, David Gordon Green – are responsible
for many of the best films of the last few years (including two more movies on this list, The Grand Budapest Hotel and Joe). I can only hope that in a few months, we’ll be referring to Linklater as an Academy Award-winning director.
Special
Note: In one of the scenes filmed at Austin High School, you can see the 2009
UIL One-Act Play State Champions banner hanging over the Preas Theater (for our
production of Over the River and Through the Woods, in which I was one
of the six actors). We didn’t just win State – we made it into a Linklater
movie!
The strange, horrifying true story dramatized in Bennett
Miller’s Foxcatcher begins and ends
with billionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) desperately wanting to fit in.
As the film opens, du Pont calls on Olympic Wrestling champion Mark Schultz
(Channing Tatum) and offers his Foxcatcher Farms estate as the training ground
for the 1988 Olympics wrestling team.
Du Pont has never known real friendship or love, and
Carell brilliantly plays him as a man who desperately wants both, but doesn’t
have the slightest clue as to how to attain them. The scenes of du Pont
watching the brotherly love between Mark and his
charismatic brother and fellow Olympic Wrestling champion Dave Schultz (Mark
Ruffalo), and trying to imitate that, are heartbreaking.
There are so many tremendous, funny and tragic sequences
in Foxcatcher, not the least of which
involve the bond formed between du Pont and Schultz. At one point, the wrestlers, while training at Foxcatcher,
cheer du Pont on when they see him at the shooting range firing a gun with
local law enforcement. Taking this as a possible sign of respect, du Pont later
brings the gun into the gym and fires a bullet into the ceiling – not to scare
anyone, really, but just in a desperate bid to have the guys like him. When he
later tries to bond with his wrestling team after a victory by getting drunk
and railing against his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), it's terribly sad. As the picture goes on, the bond between du Pont and Mark gets stronger and stranger. In a wonderfully bizarre sequence set to This Land Is Your Land as performed by Bob Dylan, they even give each other haircuts.
And yet there is something about Mark that makes his bond with
du Pont very real and striking and weirdly moving – they both seem very lost
and alone, and find in each other a kind of companionship, at least until du Punt goes too
far and humiliates Mark in front of his wrestling team. From there forward, it becomes Dave Schultz that du Pont courts.
The friendship between du Pont and Mark that sustains its
way through the first half of the movie remains a bit of a haunting mystery,
even after three viewings of the movie. What did they see in each other? Was
there a moment where either one of them felt they had found a friend, however
strange the circumstances were?
I cannot emphasize how strong the three central
performances in this movie are – Carell, Tatum and Ruffalo give the best performances of their careers. Tatum performing with his posture alone is incredible.
There are shots of him from behind where he expresses more with his back than
many actors can with their face. He plays Mark as a hulking, semi-inarticulate
brute, living in his brother's shadow.
But when Mark goes on a self-destructive eating binge
after losing a key match, it's only Dave who can train him back to make the weight maximum. And the scene that
follows – as Mark trains and Dave refuses to let du Pont into their world –
is crushing for du Pont, precisely because he can't seem to be a part of it.
Dave almost helplessly watches as this strange encounter between his brother and du Pont falls apart, and his genuine attempt to make things better for both of them leads to the film’s tragic conclusion. It’s almost as if Dave, who is the only one of our central three who has found a way to a normal life, has to be brought down to the misery of the other two men. Ruffalo is heartbreakingly great in this role.
I came out of Foxcatcher
feeling for all three men – even du Pont, whose loneliness must have been crippling,
and a figure as charismatic and seemingly happy as Dave Schultz must have seemed
frustratingly out-of-reach. Foxcatcher
works so beautifully because Miller, through mainly subtext and looks among these
three deeply different characters, makes the tragedy seems inevitable given who
these people are. He makes us feel the Shakespearean weight of this story through
subtext and small glances, and an inarticulable sadness that no amount of wrestling or
brief friendships can relieve. With Foxcatcher, Capote (2005) and Moneyball (2011), Miller has given us three of the great American films of the past decade.
There’s no one viewing of Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterful
adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s novel Inherent
Vice. This is one, like Anderson’s The
Master (2012), where you go back and discover more. After their collaboration on The Master two years ago, Anderson and star Joaquin Phoenix have outdone themselves here.
Doc Sportello (Phoenix) is a consistently-stoned private detective in early 1970s Los Angeles trying to make sense of an ever-evolving murder-kidnapping scheme brought to him by his ex-girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston).
Doc Sportello (Phoenix) is a consistently-stoned private detective in early 1970s Los Angeles trying to make sense of an ever-evolving murder-kidnapping scheme brought to him by his ex-girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston).
The party of the 1960s has ended when the movie starts. Doc is
always on the verge of discovering something – he has a vague awareness of the
larger, sinister forces that are corrupting Los Angeles – but it never quite
coheres. But even when it looks like he isn’t quite up to the task of
connecting the dots and bringing anyone to justice, sometimes Doc has moments when
he understands things quite well, I think. These moments, though, are fleeting, like brief flashes of lucidity
before crawling back into a melancholy hole of 1960s nostalgia. Even the chief
missing person, Mickey Wolfmann (Eric Roberts), is so drugged out of his mind
that he doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what’s going on.
The closest thing anyone has to resolution, really, is the
return of saxophonist Coy Harlingen (Owen Wilson) to his family from the grips
of a strange cult, which is really the most anyone can hope for in this world.
Both times I’ve seen the film, Inherent Vice strikes me as being at least partially about the
friendship between Doc and hippie-hating Los Angeles Lieutenant
Detective Christian F. “Bigfoot” Bjornsen (Josh Brolin), who both have been
sort of rendered useless and irrelevant in their time. They both seek
other careers – Bigfoot as an actor, Doc as a doctor. Bigfoot is an oaf who
can’t get any respect within his own department and with his own seemingly
conservative values, and the clues Doc writes down on his notepad are rarely
solved.
By the end of the movie, Bigfoot and Doc seem to bond mainly because they both seem lost, adrift in the changing of the times and their inability to really lay down the law.
By the end of the movie, Bigfoot and Doc seem to bond mainly because they both seem lost, adrift in the changing of the times and their inability to really lay down the law.
Martin Short, as Dr. Rudy Blatnoyd, is a hysterical
highlight, and his scenes give the movie a wild and frenetic energy that is
perfectly matched by the more melancholic feeling the rest of the movie
provides. We get brief glimpses at the “grooviness” of the old world, and it’s ridiculously entertaining. With Inherent Vice, many people may expect a film that captures that "grooviness" for two-and-a-half hours straight,
in the same vein as Anderson’s breakout masterpiece Boogie Nights (1997). But Anderson and Pynchon are more interested
in the afterglow, the feeling of the hangover that follows the party. When the
movie erupts in joyous moments of energy (such as when Anderson lovingly cranks
up Les Fleurs by Minnie Riperton), we’re suddenly energized by the comic
absurdity of it all. But for the most part, the movie is fused by a spirit that’s unlike any movie I’ve ever seen.
Not that Inherent Vice
isn’t absurdly funny even in its more melancholic scenes – in fact, it’s
probably the most I’ve laughed in a cinema this year (it’s funny that the best
comedies now come in the form of auteurs going for broke, with Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street easily being the
funniest movie of last year).
Though comparisons have been made to Joel and Ethan Coen’s The Big Lebowski (1998), these are very different films, in
that Lebowski revels in the lifestyle
and philosophy of The Dude. I think Anderson is onto something a little darker
here. The actual plot doesn’t seem to matter much in either film, but
in Inherent Vice, Anderson doesn’t
play for as much comedy with his stoned protagonist not understanding or trying
to make sense of the narrative.
The flashback sequence to a happier time – with Neil Young’s
Journey Through the Past playing over
Doc and Shasta running in the rain and falling into each other’s arms on a block in Los Angeles – is representative of the film’s wistful tone in general. That scene is immediately followed by
Doc’s strange present-day return to the same block, where an empty lot has now been
replaced by a dental facility in the shape of a tooth (land
development and the changing landscape of Los Angeles neighborhoods also play a
large role in the movie, not unlike in the great Los Angeles noir Chinatown).
The movie feels like a nightmare, with Doc operating in a world that no longer makes sense, facing an unsettling sensation of forces beyond his control. I haven’t read Thomas Pynchon’s novel, but a close friend
tells me this is one of the most faithful adaptations from book to screen he’s ever seen.
Not only that, but the movie actually unearths some of the key themes buried in
the book’s dense language. There’s no question that Inherent Vice leaves you with a very specific and unnerving
feeling, and for Anderson to go within the book and access not only the
complexity of the plot, but also to bring out the feeling in it, makes this
film an incredible achievement. The last scene will stay with you for days, and
though you may not know what, exactly, to make of it, there’s no question about
how it makes you feel.
Early in the fall, I was lucky enough to nab a last-minute
ticket to the World Premiere of David Fincher’s Gone Girl at the New York Film Festival. From the first frame to
the last, this movie is absolutely brilliant and horrifying. I haven’t seen a
movie that plays so well on our fears of the media ripping us to shreds.
Gillian Flynn, adapting her own novel, wrote one of the
year’s best screenplays. The film concerns Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), who is
suspected of having murdered his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) after she disappears
from their Missouri home, and the media circus that ensues surrounding her
disappearance. Fincher taps into a very scary reality, in which one lives the rest of their lives in fear of the media and public perception.
If you haven’t seen the film or read the book, you may want
to stop reading here. With Amy, Gone Girl
gives us a kind of female character rarely depicted onscreen – a cutthroat
woman aware of the cards stacked against her and willing to destroy the lives
of those around her to escape her marriage.
Actually, the film gives us many different kinds of strong
female characters. There’s diabolical Amy, yes. But there’s also Margo (Carrie
Coon), Nick’s twin sister and confidante, who wants to believe Nick is innocent,
but even she has her suspicions. My favorite character is perhaps Detective Rhonda
Boney (Kim Dickens), whose seeming no-nonsense attitude actually masks a pretty
admirable belief in innocent until proven guilty. She’s one of the few people
who actually still believes in the truth – not even her male counterpart,
Office James Gilpin (Patrick Fugit), is willing to give Nick the benefit of the
doubt, instead taking the media’s instant-blame bait.
Left on the sidelines are those who refuse to play the media-circus
game, like Tommy O’Hara (Scoot McNairy), who long ago resigned against Amy’s
efforts and has paid the price of being a leper. Gone Girl argues that you have to be a cutthroat piece of crap to
survive the circus. If Nick didn’t ultimately stoop to Amy’s level in the final
third of Gone Girl and cater to the
bait that the media wants, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. In
the end of Gone Girl, Nick and Amy
more or less deserve each other, though the gender divide between who is to blame
for this twisted marriage may make this the worst date movie ever.
This movie is a horror show, and nobody – particularly the
media – is left unscathed. Gone Girl
is disturbingly hilarious, and rather than hide behind politically-correct
generic notions of gender, Fincher and Flynn actually address the differences in the ways in which men and women can play
on each other’s deepest fears. I think that’s why the movie strikes such a
nerve and leaves you so unsettled.
The movie is prescient in so many ways, particularly in the way it lampoons (or, sadly, merely depicts) the way we respond to these kinds
of news stories. Fincher, who has
become the master of the procedural with his masterpieces Zodiac (2007) and The Social
Network (2010), scorches us again. He is perhaps the only big-budget filmmaker willing to show us the ugliness of the world in which we live.
The
quiet of outer space is astonishing in Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar. Taking a cue from the majestic silence of Stanley
Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968), it was a joy to sit in the cinema and experience the vastness of the
surrounding
planets, wormholes and galaxies Nolan puts onscreen, hearing only the beautiful
sound of the film projector running.
This
is a positively gigantic movie. It’s Nolan’s most ambitious film to date,
tackling huge themes and intercutting between stories set in outer space and on
Earth. How many films consider whether we’re ruled by emotion or logic – and
which benefits our survival? Interstellar
is also Nolan’s most life-affirming and emotional movie to date, trading in the
darkness of Inception (2010) and The Dark Knight (2008) for a tale of
resilience.
The
Earth is dying, and while most of the human race is scrambling to plant new
crops and farm their way to survival on this planet, former pilot and engineer
Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is not content to wither away on Earth and watch
his children die from the dust. He and his daughter, Murph, both adventurers
and explorers in spirit, stumble upon the remaining scientists and physicists
who comprise NASA, none of whom have Cooper’s experience and training as a
pilot. With no hope for Earth’s future in sight, Professor Brand (Michael
Caine) asks Cooper to pilot a mission into outer space to find an inhabitable
planet for the human race.
Nolan’s
dense, layered dialogue has developed with each one of his films into its own
kind of language, with its own unique rhythms. These are unmistakably characters
talking in a Christopher Nolan movie, and I mean that in the most complimentary
way possible. Hearing McConaughey deliver these lines is immensely satisfying –
I can’t think of a better actor to ground a film of this scope and magnitude.
McConaughey himself is a bit larger-than-life, and we believe him for every
second as he embodies the pioneering spirit that created America’s great space
program. Just as Leonardo DiCaprio was the perfect actor to bring emotional
weight and believability to the complex world of dreams in Inception, McConaughey is terrific here as the sincere pioneer who
can save the world.
Nolan
is one of the best emotional directors working, by which I mean that even when
questions arise about how things work
or what’s going on in the movie (even
with characters providing a necessary amount of explanation, you’ll still have
questions), Nolan is always there to guide us emotionally. But like Inception, which had a similarly heady
plot, Interstellar is meant to be
felt and experienced more than understood. And nobody can get you caught up in
a film’s momentum, excitement and emotional power better than Nolan. This is
exactly the kind of non-ironic, large-canvas epic that used to soar – closer in
feeling to the Hollywood pictures from the 1980s, with the spirit of The Right Stuff (1983) and many of the
best Steven Spielberg movies.
And
the film doesn’t stop there. Even during its resolution, Cooper keeps going –
he’s only interested in moving forward, pioneering the next wave. With each
film, Nolan keeps doing the same thing.
See
Interstellar in glorious 35mm or 70mm
film rather than digital projection, as Nolan would prefer. It’s far too rare
these days that any thought or care is taken as to how a movie is projected in
a cinema, and it’s gratifying to see Paul Thomas Anderson, with The Master, and now Nolan, with Interstellar, shoot their film a
specific way and insist that many theaters show it that way.
I
often walk out of movies and struggle to articulate the effect they have on me.
Roger Ebert was a master at this. He always had a perfect turn of phrase to
capture exactly what a certain movie felt like. Who else could write something
like, “I was almost hugging myself while I watched it” of Cameron Crowe’s Almost
Famous (2000)? I think of that quote every time I watch Almost Famous,
because that’s exactly how the movie makes you feel.
On
the opening night of Steve James’s new documentary about Ebert, Life Itself,
I was moved to tears, just as I had been the first time I saw the movie in
January. Walking out of Austin’s Violet Crown Cinema and seeing the peaceful
Austin skyline before me, a banner poster of Boyhood proudly draped over
the cinema, I was touched by a tinge of sadness.
Partially
because this journey isn’t yet over. Many of us left have yet to enjoy our
heyday. Some of us never get there. Roger Ebert did, and the morning after he
passes away in Life Itself, Steve James shows us a Chicago infused with
sunlight and purpose. Forty years ago, there was Ebert, part of the very fabric
of that city, informing the lives of its people. And now, he’s gone.
This
is to say I don’t know how to articulate exactly how I felt looking out at the
city skyline after this movie ended. Certainly, I was overcome with sadness,
knowing that Ebert is gone and not coming back. But I was also filled with joy,
knowing that a city – in his case, Chicago – could contain a man such as this,
who stood for the right things and whose writing guided so many people to see
pictures they may never have seen otherwise.
The
film’s score plays an integral role in this magnificent feeling. The music by
Joshua Abrams hits a feeling somewhere between triumphant and mournful. There’s
something truly grand about it – as soon as you hear it, it just feels right.
It’s the score a life like this deserves. With the aid of that score, those
final shots of trains running through Chicago the morning after Ebert’s death
give the movie an almost transcendental power. This movie embodies such a
specific feeling and attitude toward a man, his life and the city in which he
lived.
Watching
Life Itself, I understood, in a way, what people mean when they say
death is a beautiful thing. The movie’s celebration of life and reconciliation
with death took me aback. When I saw the film for the first time in January, I
was focused on how well the movie illustrates Mr. Ebert’s impact on cinema and
his relationships with many of the filmmakers he championed. But I may have
missed the fearless quality of the movie to look at something deeper, going
into the unknown and ultimately coming to peace with Ebert’s passing. I felt
Ebert’s bravery more this time.
I’ve
not seen a movie that treats death with such forthrightness since Sean Penn’s Into
the Wild (2007), at least in the sense that death is accepted in both films
and shown for what it is.
During
one section of the movie, Ebert’s friend Bill Nack recites the last page of
Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby by heart, and perhaps that’s as good a way
as any to reconcile this thing that happens to all of us in the end. Life
Itself is one of the best films I’ve seen, not simply because it captures
what made Ebert so important and influential to the film community, but because
it’s one of the few movies that’s left me with a profound impression about what
it means to face death.
So,
reflecting after the movie, I thought about this ether space – the space
between the old world, where Ebert was alive and influenced how I thought of
cinema, and this new world, where recent movies seem almost out-of-balance
without his writing and guiding them to their proper alignment. As Ebert goes,
so does a whole way of living, a whole time and place for me. He is more
than a part of my childhood. He is sort of the leader, along with Martin
Scorsese, of everything I hold sacred and thrilling in movies.
And
here was this new city in front of me, full of life and those who may never
know what kind of man was here for a time and informed the way we feel and
react.
Few movies pulse with the life and force of Damien Chazelle's Whiplash, which, like Birdman, is set to constant drum beats
and never stops moving forward with purpose and energy. It's cut exactly how a movie should be cut - it's a small-budget independent movie, yes, but it doesn’t have any of the handheld naturalism that seems almost required of indies nowadays. Birdman and Whiplash move at the tempo of real life, and both seem so alive that anything could happen at any moment.
Rarely have I felt a knot in my stomach that comes from a movie so correctly and viscerally showing me how it feels to sit in a big city classroom full of artists. Andrew (Miles Teller) is a drummer at one of the top music conservatories in the country, and he's willing to do anything to please his demanding instructor Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). The movie tackles the relentlessness with which one can pursue anything to be included in the pantheon of greats.
Yes, it’s about bleeding for your art, like Darren
Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010), but at
a certain point in the film, it’s also about having to face the fact that
you’re never going to be the best at doing what you love. And then, even once you've faced that realization, how quickly that can turn around in an instant. There's that thought that always lingers in the back of Andrew's head, No, but in the end, I
really will make it, and I will become the world's greatest drummer.
Andrew has to have all or nothing. When he gets
expelled from the conservatory, he shoves away everything related to music. A comparison might be if I had to go see movies knowing I had somehow been banished from the film industry. You can’t be around
the things that make you feel that way. You have to resign to the fact that
you can’t be a part of it, and then remove it from your life entirely. Andrew reaches out to his ex-girlfriend, with whom he broke up so that he could concentrate on his craft, but she has a boyfriend. He's alienated everybody.
When Fletcher seems to give Andrew another opportunity - only to sabotage him in front of an audience - Andrew decides to play his own music anyway. With his ferocious musicality, it's as if he says, I can only survive onstage. My family isn't enough, my girlfriend has moved on, and this is the only way I can express myself - so you're going to let me play my drums! The energy is furious. The ending is a whirling, dazzling display – like a furious opera that expresses the anger and powerlessness that Andrew and Fletcher cannot.
Whiplash so easily could have been a movie that simply asks, where do you draw the line between artistic obsession and taking it too far? But Chazelle knows it's more complicated than that. Fletcher and Andrew match each other in their intensity and near insanity, and the ending is almost joyous in the sense that they’ve found in
each other a kind of soul mate.
Andrew's father, Jim (Paul Reiser), gets a glimpse at the madness from the side of the stage, and he's essentially shut out of the equation. Andrew tried living a different life, a life without music, but he can't go back to that. It was empty. He doesn’t belong anywhere else – this is it for him. He only belongs onstage.
Andrew's father, Jim (Paul Reiser), gets a glimpse at the madness from the side of the stage, and he's essentially shut out of the equation. Andrew tried living a different life, a life without music, but he can't go back to that. It was empty. He doesn’t belong anywhere else – this is it for him. He only belongs onstage.
The
first thing that struck me about James Gray’s The Immigrant, which I saw
at last year’s New York Film Festival, were the faces of the actors in the
film - so many haunted, gaunt and pale faces. People looked different in 1920s
New York than they do today, and this is one of many important details that
lend a great authenticity to this movie. One of the most beautiful-looking
films I've seen in some time (photographed by Darius Khondji), the burlesque
houses, crowded tenement buildings and spectacular magic shows for Ellis Island
immigrants deeply rooted me in a time and place unlike anything I’ve seen
since Martin Scorsese’s Gangs of New York (2002).
Gray,
one of my favorite filmmakers, participated in a Q&A with the audience
after the screening. The film is full of breathtaking, sweeping images of 1920s
New York, and yet, like all of Gray's work, this is a very intimate movie. I
asked Mr. Gray if, when writing the film, he was thinking about the number of
large set pieces compared to the more intimate scenes with only a few actors.
Gray answered that The Immigrant is the kind of film United Artists
might have released back in 1978, but these days, it is, of course, very
difficult to secure funding for a large-scale, dramatic period piece of this nature.
So, yes, he did write thinking about the number of expansive scenes versus the
intimate ones, and tried to include many of the larger set-pieces in the
opening of the movie, allowing the picture to slowly grow more intimate.
Ewa
is referred to early on in the film as a ‘woman of low morals,’ as her behavior
and promiscuity on the boat to America are called into question. Throughout the
film, we watch as Ewa battles with her own sense of morality and what she feels
she deserves. She tests her morality by continually engaging in behavior she
feels certain will send her to hell, but in order to survive in America, she
has no other choice. Late in the film, Ewa asks her aunt, “Is it a sin to want
to be happy when you know you’ve done so many things wrong?” I felt myself
growing an extreme distaste for Bruno, who subjects Ewa to so many awful
experiences.
But
in the same way that the characters in Robert Altman's Nashville (1975) defy
our expectations of who will rise to the occasion*, so, perhaps, does The
Immigrant subvert our expectations of Bruno. Though both the audience and
Ewa may initially revile Bruno, my heart ultimately broke for him by the end of
the picture, because he is, I believe, a good man. He is truly and hopelessly
in love with Ewa and is trying, in his own flawed way, to earn her love. The
jealously, longing and fury in Phoenix’s performance is breathtaking; this is a
great companion piece to his extraordinary performance in Gray’s masterpiece Two
Lovers (2009).
Jeremy
Renner, as Orlando the Magician, enters midway through the movie and changes
the dynamic entirely. Imbued with a bit of magical realism, his character shows
Ewa that there’s something beyond the dreary life of prostitution. Again,
though, our expectations are challenged and a harder truth sets in – while the
dashing and charming Orlando appears to have all of the answers and offers Ewa
a way out of this life, does he really love Ewa like Bruno loves her? And,
ultimately, is he really looking out for Ewa any more than Bruno?
There
are not easy answers to these questions, and as the film goes on, the
relationship between Ewa and Bruno grows more and more complex. Is Bruno taking
advantage of her, or is he offering the best version of the American Dream of
which he knows? Talking about the movie after the screening, Gray described the
relationship between Bruno and Ewa as strangely “co-dependent." In the
final scene of the movie, there is a forgiveness and understanding between
these two that moved me deeply. The beautiful and haunting last shot of the
film illustrates their separation and their connectedness.
I
came away from The Immigrant feeling so much for both of these
characters. Joaquin Phoenix's Bruno belongs on a list with other recent
characters in cinema who, for whatever reason, stay with me and earn such an
unexpected amount of empathy (I think of Greta Gerwig in Frances Ha,
and, further back, Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine). After the screening,
I told Mr. Gray that I think his work is incredible - between The Immigrant and
Two Lovers, he has made two of the finest movies of the last decade.
*(In
her review of Nashville, Pauline Kael wrote, ‘Who watching the pious
Haven Hamilton sing the evangelical ‘Keep a’ Goin,’ his eyes flashing with a
paranoid gleam as he keeps the audience under surveillance, would guess that
the song represented his true spirit, and that
when injured he would think of the audience before himself?’)
At one point, I didn’t think there would be a richer film in
2014 than Wes Anderson’s The Grand
Budapest Hotel. And in many ways, there wasn’t. Second by second, I don’t
think there’s another title on this list that gave me such joy and haunted me as much as this film.
This is the first Wes Anderson picture during which I can remember experiencing real fear and dread - particularly during the chase sequence in which the henchman Jopling (Willem Dafoe) follows well-mannered Deputy Kovacs (Jeff Goldblum) into a museum. I sat there thinking, well, Jopling isn't going to kill Kovacs. But when he does, it's horrifying, because the film and its sensibilities are as refined and dignified as the great M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) himself. And slowly, throughout the movie, this other world starts creeping in - best represented by the crude and villainous Dmitri (Adrien Brody) and his family.
The civilized but fragile world - lovingly created by Anderson's brilliant eye, filled with romance and wonder - crumbles, and by the end of the movie, it's only but a memory of a memory. Thirteen years ago, Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) was my favorite movie of the year. The Grand Budapest Hotel may be his best film since Tenenbaums, and in any other year would have placed much higher on this list.
This is the first Wes Anderson picture during which I can remember experiencing real fear and dread - particularly during the chase sequence in which the henchman Jopling (Willem Dafoe) follows well-mannered Deputy Kovacs (Jeff Goldblum) into a museum. I sat there thinking, well, Jopling isn't going to kill Kovacs. But when he does, it's horrifying, because the film and its sensibilities are as refined and dignified as the great M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) himself. And slowly, throughout the movie, this other world starts creeping in - best represented by the crude and villainous Dmitri (Adrien Brody) and his family.
The civilized but fragile world - lovingly created by Anderson's brilliant eye, filled with romance and wonder - crumbles, and by the end of the movie, it's only but a memory of a memory. Thirteen years ago, Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) was my favorite movie of the year. The Grand Budapest Hotel may be his best film since Tenenbaums, and in any other year would have placed much higher on this list.
The Rest of the Best:
11. American Sniper (Clint Eastwood)
12. A Most Wanted Man (Anton Corbijn)
13. Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy)
14. The Homesman (Tommy Lee Jones)
15. Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer)
16. Noah (Darren Aronofsky) *full review coming soon
17. Wild (Jean-Marc Vallee)
18. Calvary (John Michael McDonagh)
19. The 50 Year Argument (Martin Scorsese and David Tedeschi)
11. American Sniper (Clint Eastwood)
12. A Most Wanted Man (Anton Corbijn)
13. Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy)
14. The Homesman (Tommy Lee Jones)
15. Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer)
16. Noah (Darren Aronofsky) *full review coming soon
17. Wild (Jean-Marc Vallee)
18. Calvary (John Michael McDonagh)
19. The 50 Year Argument (Martin Scorsese and David Tedeschi)
20. Ida (Pawel Pawlikowski)
21. Locke (Steven Knight)
22. The Drop (Michael R. Roskam)
23. Joe (David Gordon Green)
24. Love is Strange (Ira Sachs)
25. Enemy (Denis Villeneuve)
21. Locke (Steven Knight)
22. The Drop (Michael R. Roskam)
23. Joe (David Gordon Green)
24. Love is Strange (Ira Sachs)
25. Enemy (Denis Villeneuve)
Other Movies I Loved and Admired:
The Imitation Game (Morten Tyldum)
Night Moves (Kelly Reichardt)
Jersey Boys (Clint Eastwood)
Begin Again (John Carney)
I Origins (Mike Cahill)
Edge of Tomorrow (Doug Liman) *full review coming soon
Snowpiercer (Bong Joon-Ho)
Fury (David Ayer)
The Judge (David Dobkin)
The Imitation Game (Morten Tyldum)
Night Moves (Kelly Reichardt)
Jersey Boys (Clint Eastwood)
Begin Again (John Carney)
I Origins (Mike Cahill)
Edge of Tomorrow (Doug Liman) *full review coming soon
Snowpiercer (Bong Joon-Ho)
Fury (David Ayer)
The Judge (David Dobkin)
Unbroken (Angelina Jolie)
The Theory of Everything (James Marsh)
St. Vincent (Theodore Melfi)
Kill the Messenger (Michael Cuesta)
Frank (Lenny Abrahamson)
Magic in the Moonlight (Woody Allen) *full review coming soon
Big Eyes (Tim Burton)
Rosewater (Jon Stewart)
Exodus: Gods and Kings (Ridley Scott)
Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)
Men, Women and Children (Jason Reitman)
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves)
Muppets Most Wanted (James Bobin)
The Lego Movie (Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, Chris McKay)
The Skeleton Twins (Craig Johnson)
The Theory of Everything (James Marsh)
St. Vincent (Theodore Melfi)
Kill the Messenger (Michael Cuesta)
Frank (Lenny Abrahamson)
Magic in the Moonlight (Woody Allen) *full review coming soon
Big Eyes (Tim Burton)
Rosewater (Jon Stewart)
Exodus: Gods and Kings (Ridley Scott)
Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)
Men, Women and Children (Jason Reitman)
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves)
Muppets Most Wanted (James Bobin)
The Lego Movie (Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, Chris McKay)
The Skeleton Twins (Craig Johnson)
Best Director: Richard Linklater, Boyhood
Runner-Ups: Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher; Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice; David Fincher, Gone Girl; Christopher Nolan, Interstellar; Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel; Clint Eastwood, American Sniper; Damien Chazelle, Whiplash; James Gray, The Immigrant
Best Actor: Michael Keaton, Birdman
Runner-Ups: Steve Carell, Foxcatcher; Joaquin Phoenix, Inherent
Vice and The Immigrant; Jake
Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler; Philip
Seymour Hoffman, A Most Wanted Man; Channing
Tatum, Foxcatcher; Bradley Cooper, American Sniper; Ralph Fiennes, The Grand Budapest Hotel; Ben Affleck, Gone Girl; Matthew McConaughey, Interstellar; Tom Hardy, Locke and The Drop
Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, The Immigrant
Runner-Ups: Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl; Scarlett Johansson, Under
the Skin; Reese Witherspoon, Wild;
Hilary Swank, The Homesman; Felicity
Jones, The Theory of Everything; Amy Adams, Big Eyes; Jennifer Connelly, Noah
Best Supporting Actor: Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
Runner-Ups: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash; Ethan Hawke, Boyhood;
Edward Norton, Birdman; Josh Brolin, Inherent Vice; Robert Duvall, The Judge; Martin Short, Inherent Vice
Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
Runner-Ups: Emma Stone, Birdman;
Katherine Waterston, Inherent Vice; Rene
Russo, Nightcrawler; Carrie Coon, Gone Girl; Kim Dickens, Gone Girl; Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game; Jessica Chastain, Interstellar; Naomi Watts, Birdman
Best Original Screenplay: Birdman
Runner-Ups: Boyhood, Foxcatcher, Interstellar, Whiplash, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler
Best Adapted Screenplay: Inherent Vice
Runner-Ups: Gone Girl, Wild, A Most Wanted Man, The Homesman, The Imitation Game
Best Original Screenplay: Birdman
Runner-Ups: Boyhood, Foxcatcher, Interstellar, Whiplash, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler
Best Adapted Screenplay: Inherent Vice
Runner-Ups: Gone Girl, Wild, A Most Wanted Man, The Homesman, The Imitation Game
Jack thank you for guiding us through the year in movies with such delightful insight! (Also I can't believe you met Richard Linklater!!!!!) Happy New Year!
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you, too, Lauren and thank you so much for reading! Please visit NY soon!
ReplyDelete