Tuesday, April 28, 2015

While We're Young

Two quotations frame While We’re Young. It opens with a quotation from Wallace Shawn’s translation of Ibsen’s The Master Builder. The passage expresses fear that a knock on a door threatens invasion by the young. At film end we hear the master builder Paul McCartney singing about another knock on a door, but now the stance is Let ‘em In. What is feared at the beginning is accepted at the end. That frame situates the film in the tension between accepting how life has changed us and trying to act otherwise. That is, how do we live? From our essential core or as what we pretend to be? Will we act out of our core or play assumed roles? Will we be honest or deceptive, to ourselves as well as to others?
The three main actors play documentary film-makers of varying degrees of integrity. Hero schnook Josh (Ben Stiller) made a successful film about The Power Elite but has now spent almost 10 years bogged down on a documentary about “how power works in America,” rooted in the penal system. He and wife Cornelia (Naomi Watts), a documentary producer, are seduced into a friendship and professional collaboration by the younger couple Jamie (Adam Driver) and wife Darby (Amanda Seyfried). Josh is alienated from Cornelia’s father, the venerable documentarian Leslie Breitbart (Charles Grodin), who defines himself and his art when he’s honoured at the Lincoln Centre. (The fourth generation documentarist may be the friends’ baby at the end, coolly texting or shooting or editing on a smart phone. tba.)
All three men prove variations on Ibsen’s Master Builder. Leslie’s star career came at the cost of selfishness, neglecting his family and a mercilessness that he finds lacking in his son-in-law. Josh uses his epic delay as an excuse for not living. When he rationalizes the couple’s childlessness he says “We have freedom. What we do with it is not important.” Jamie manipulates Darby, Cornelia, Josh and Leslie to make a successful film about his troubled schoolmate, Kent. But Jamie’s lies and manipulations undercut what value his film may impute to him, as he turns the film about the suicidal, idealistic war veteran into his own success story, on the cover of — aptly — Vanity Fair.
Director Noah Baumbach early cites Godard’s genre distinction: Documentary is about someone else; fiction is about me. That is, fictions are personal expressions, documentaries about the outside world. Josh initially believes documentaries should be about him too, so his current film shifts from American power to himself, to his impotence. He tells a potential funder the film is about the impossibility of making that film. His film chokes on his self-concern. 
In contrast, Leslie’s Lincoln Centre speech defines his art as focusing on subjects more interesting than him, of not imposing his perspective but allowing his subject to open itself out. But as he admits, “We were pretending to be objective — to get to the truth of experience.” As Leslie praised Josh’s first film, “it was wonderful and entertaining. We could see ourselves in it.” But it’s fiction not documentary that’s supposed to reflect ourselves. Documentary should show us others. After the honour ceremony, when Josh forces Jamie to admit his fakery to tell his old classmate’s story, Leslie rejects Josh’s “purism” and integrity: “Different things matter now.” Confronted with Jamie’s deception, Leslie admits “Dishonesty is more entertaining.”
Leslie’s apparent retreat from his spoken ethic makes sense. How Jamie dishonestly seduced Josh, Jamie and Leslie into his project does not invalidate the power of Jamie’s film. For his subject schoolmate, Kent, is himself an intriguing amalgam of fact and fiction. His bio is an anthology of roles. At school he was the star athlete but also a poet. His memorable line encapsulates a being made up of unreconciled polarities: “I want to be unbridgeable.” He was a war hero in Afghanistan until/because he blew the whistle on an American war crime. Now he’s institutionalized after a suicide attempt, but at his kid’s birthday party he can still muster the resources to play the clown. His regurgitation of colourful ribbons is a salutary contrast to the faddish shaman’s vomiting rite. For all Jamie’s dishonesty, Kent is telling his own story, in contrast to Jamie’s stealing Darby’s story of losing her mother to ovarian cancer. Both men struggle over a line. “Life happens,” the broken soldier remarks. “Life has other plans,” Jamie adds. It falls upon Josh to provide the full line, John Lennon’s “Life is what happens to you when you’re busy making other plans.” However incomplete, each man’s version is its own truth.  
Josh played along when Jamie suggested re-staging Josh’s Google discovery of Kent’s heroic, damaged past. But Josh is angered to find Jamie’s entire friendship, from its first flattering approach, was a deceptive ploy. In life as in film-making one can choose between being honest and deceptive, real and acting. We can live as in a documentary or as in a fiction, on which line Baumbach posits the whole film. Using the Wallace Shawn translation at the beginning points to the continuity between life and art, because Shawn translated Ibsen for his own 2013 film of the play. Baumbach’s fiction gains a documentary feel when Leslie is introduced at the Lincoln Centre honours by the unidentified (and uncredited) director and film historian Peter Bogdanovich. The liberal philosopher whom Josh has been interviewing on tape, Ira Mandelstam, is played by Peter Yarrow, who trails clouds of radical political glory from his years in the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary. In another cultural spectrum there’s even a fourth-generation Hemingway, Mariel’s daughter Dree, playing Tipper. Life and art intertwine in these references. So too in their different arenas of scripting roles and posing alternative selves.
Initially the two central couples play at each other’s lives. Jamie and Darby live a self-consciously retro life. They use a typewriter and ride bikes and roller blades, make their own ice cream and furniture, collect vinyl albums, disdain of Google, in short, have cast themselves into the image of 1950s lives. Their falseness is implicit in Jamie’s first praise for Josh’s “hyperreality.” The “hyper” undermines by exploding the “reality.” Josh will learn to reject what he initially admires, Jamie’s refusal to distinguish between the high and low — brow in art, road in life.  
The 45-year-old new friends start playing at being young — taking hiphop classes, wearing a retro hat, walking the subway lines, even denying the advent of Josh’s arthritis. Josh finds his false new self flattering: “My name sounds so much better when you say it.” At the acme/nadir of their pretensions they take a shaman’s peyote ritual that leads to Egyptian fantasies and a communal puke. That’s as ridiculous as their married friends’ baby music classes. 
The couple cast themselves as younger because they don’t want to play the roles of their new-parent friends. But they’re turned around by their experience with Jamie. Josh  eventuality realizes the falseness of Jamie’s “hyperreality.” It’s another unreal. In a world where self and role are inextricable, the con advises integrity. Prepping Josh for his funding interview, Jamie instructs: “Be yourself. Everyone else is taken.” The line has a second meaning. By proffering his false self Jamie “takes” in everyone else. Jamie provokes Josh’s realization:  “It’s your responsibility to be honest — whatever.”
Hence perhaps the surprising resolution at the end. At first we infer Josh and Cornelia have had a baby, but they’re caring for their friends’. By adopting a baby the couple are finally assuming the responsibilities of caring for another, the unselfishness of the parent. But in the context of characters constantly playing roles — most extravagant in the crazed druggie playing hedge-find manager, or vice versa — adopting specifically a black, Haiitian baby may suggest the playing of a yet more dramatic role. If parenting is a reality this self-absorbed couple’s adopting of a Haitian baby smacks of hyperreality. The couple that feel almost as awkward around children as they do among real adults undertake the challenge — a fashionable feel good move but a challenge — of adopting a black baby. They’re again overplaying, so unrooted in themselves that they still can only choose a role to play. Filmmaking and life are like that. Of course, with this new role our couple will be no longer young.




Sunday, April 26, 2015

The Salvation

Kristian Levring’s great Danish western draws less on the American classic than on Sergeo Leone’s operatic extension. Hence the soft-focus opening on a railroad station, as if the Leone set of Once Upon a Time in the West has receded in memory  — as the ideals of the American west have. Like Leone, Levring uses the western to examine contemporary America and how far it has strayed from its original ideals. Where Leone used the western to address America’s engagement in Viet Nam, Levring’s interest is America’s contamination by and sellout for — oil. 
The nation’s Edenic lure to immigrants figures in Jon and brother Peter coming to America to escape the ravages of Denmark’s war with Germany. After seven years Jon brings over his wife and son, only to have to imperil his and his brother’s lives to avenge their rape and murder. 
In the last shot the camera pulls back from the villain Delarue’s charred ruins of empire, revealing a landscape of primitive wooden structures drilling for oil. In the classic western the villain is the unvarnished outlaw or his civilized successor, the imperialist rancher or the banker. Here the villainy is in the oil oligarchy, the corporation that hires Delarue to drive out the settlers, buy up their land too cheaply, all the while maintaining the pretence of law and order. That is the new “civilization” in name only.
Delarue sells the town “protection” like an ur-Mafiosi. The germinal town has an undertaker mayor and a preacher sheriff — both emblematic — who cowardly submit to Delarue while futilely waiting for help from the remote feds. In an early scene the town serves up a legless man and a widow to try to appease Delarue’s vengeance. That surrender evokes Obama’s appeasement of Iran.  
We’ve met the oil in passing. It lurks under the town’s name, Black Creek. In a few shots it’s a burbling infernal pool, like a living evil force. It has contaminated the well water. Worse, it contaminates the roots of American society here, as it undercuts the town’s feeble attempt to bring civilization to the desert. It poisons the promise of freedom and equal opportunity that has lured generations of immigrants to America. And still does.
The film contrasts two pairs of brother. Delarue glosses over his wild brother’s tendency to rape and to murder, to justify his vengeance. Peter and Jon risk their own lives in each other’s defence, Jon finally driven to avenge Peter’s death. In morally opposite ways both prove themselves their brother’s keeper. 
The mute Madelaine comes to embody a more courageous and moral America than the town officials. Captured by savages, who cut out her tongue, then corrupted by the Delarues’  business, she tries to escape after Delarue forces himself on her. The corporate villains have brutalized her badly as the supposed “savages.” When the righteous citizens want to kill her Jon intervenes. By saving him from Delarue she has earned her salvation, as Jon earned his by avenging his loved ones’ murder. 
     Of the townsfolk only the murdered woman’s grandson moves to help Jon, fatally. He, Jon and Madelaine, by their active will and uncompromised values, earn the salvation that the town seems undeservedly to get. But those oil derricks suggest otherwise. The town has been saved from the Delarues but the more pervasive poison of the oil wealth looms. That brings us back from the wild west of myth to our too sadly real now.  

Friday, April 17, 2015

The Riot Club -- CALL discussion notes

     Two Oxford freshmen join The Riot Club, a 10-man fraternity of privileged hedonists (aka drunk druggies). Alistair is a snob aspiring to match his (ugh) Tory MP uncle. Miles also has aristocratic connections but is more down to earth, comfortable with his new regional girlfriend Lauren. Barred from Oxford pubs for their destructive rowdiness they move their annual dinner to ambitious landlord Chris’s rural pub. When Charlie, a hired prostitute, declines their group sex job they proposition and humiliate Lauren. Angry, drunk and drugged, the lads trash the room. When Chris intervenes Alistair beats him so savagely he’s hospitalized. Believing the club is more important than the individual, the boys decide not to reveal what happened, then to require the newest member Miles to assume all the blame. But from DNA evidence the police charge Alistair, who though expelled has his career and future assured by the Riot Club members present and past. 

Consider some of these questions:

  1. The Empire in ruins, why should we be interested in the party life of some snotty Brit undergrads? 
  2. Compare the arcs of the virtuous Miles and initially sympathetic Alistair. Why is the latter more prominent in the narrative frame?
  3. What evidence is there of this film’s beginning as a play? What does its opening out reveal?
  4. What’s the effect of changing the title from the play, Posh, to The Riot Club? Does it evoke the American David Fincher’s Fight Club?
  5. Miles is played by Max Irons, son of Jeremy and Sinead Cusack, grandson of Cyril Cusack. Who cares?
  6. The director is the well-known Danish director of Italian for Beginners, An Education and One Day. Any connections? e.g., in An Education 16-year old Jenny’s father directs her every attention into qualifying for Oxford, which leads to a problematic relationship with an older man (who pretends to be only a culture vulture). One Day follows the annual reunion of two young people who’d spent their grad night together. In Italian for Beginners several provincial solitaries use an Italian course to find love. How is Ms Scherfig an auteur? 
  7. Does this British film reflect anything of the current Danish cinema?
  8. How might this film address Britain’s current national election? Canada’s? 
  9. What’s the point of the characters’ names?
  10. Isn’t subordinating the individual’s interest to the group’s supposedly a good thing? 
  11. Why does the film open on the historic period of the club’r origin?
  12. What’s the effect of the last scene? The club’s powerful alumnus says “We don’t make mistakes,” then Alistair walks out, past a group singing “Oh Come all ye Faithful,” and smiles. 
  13. What’s the function of the pub-owner’s daughter? How does she compare/contrast to Lauren?  
  14. List the various kinds of snobbery here.
  15. What does the nine-bird bird signify? (It was to have been 10).
  16. Does it matter that the club was founded to honour a nobleman named Ryot?
  17. How does the pub owner’s characterization relate to the lads?
  18. What's the thematic function of the two boys' fathers? The club alumni?
  19. What are the implications of Alistair's older brother preferring a career running a hamburger truck? 


Consider the following dialogue:
  1. Alistair: I’m sick to fucking death... of poor people.

2. Mugger: Just put in the PIN number and take out 200.
    Alistair Ryle: [after a long pause] It's actually just PIN. The 'N' stands for number, it's Personal Identification Number. So, if you say "Pin Number" you're saying "number" twice. You're saying "Personal Identification Number Number".
[chuckles]
Alistair Ryle: It's just wrong.

3.George Balfour: Back to the trenches boys.

4.Harry Villiers: I'm just bringing the sexy back.

5.Harry Villiers: So we're at the top university in the world
    Alistair: Arguably

7. Charlie: I'm really sorry, I don't do more than two visits in a row without a break, so...
Alistair Ryle: What break do you need, if you're just lying there?
Charlie: I'm not just a live version of the sock you wank into.

8.Guy Bellingfield: Excuse me, I'm in charge here!

9. Are you posh?

10. This is our last chance to disport ourselves without everyone watching us.

11. Lauren: You were there. And you did nothing.

12. We have to stop apologizing for what we are.

13. We have the right to get what we want.

14. I’m done with societies. I’ll have nothing more to do with them.

15. Let’s not spend our three years avoiding the shag we had in freshies week.


Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Kumiko: The Treasure Hunter -- CALL discussion notes

Following a treasure map, a lonely and introverted 29-year-old Tokyo Japanese woman finds a VHS of the Coen Brothers’ film Fargo buried in a cave. In the film she watches the Steve Buscemi character bury a satchel of money in a snow-covered field. Believing that scene to be real, she sets out for Minnesota then North Dakota to recover the money. First she sets free her pet rabbit Bunzo on the subway. She uses her boss’s company credit card until it is cancelled. From an ice covered lake she digs up a satchel that turns out to be a piece of slate. In a snowy field she finds the satchel of money and Bunzo, then triumphantly ascends the snowy screen and disappears. 

Consider the following questions:
1. How is Kumiko characterized in the opening and closing shots? Why the contrast between sun and snow? How is space used in both?
2. Why is the VHS tape found in a cave? Why VHS?
3. What’s the point of Bunzo the rabbit?
4. How would you define the director’s shooting style?
5. Is director David Zellner’s appearance as the policeman significant?
6.The plot is based on a real situation, which led to the discovery of a Japanese woman’s corpse in a Minnesota field in 2001. Does this affect your reading of the film?
7. What larger themes does the film open? The power and limitations of film/art perhaps? The contrasts between Japanese and US culture? Any others?
8. What do the individual stages of Kumiko’s odyssey signify? Is there any order or interplay between them?
9. How do we read the happy ending?
10. What is the style and function of the comedy?
11. How does the music work? Especially how in the snowy awakening scene? The “Dream” song at the airport?
12. How does the film evoke Fargo? Psycho?  Anything else?
13. How do we read Kumiko’s clothing? The red hood? The blanket?
14. What’s the significance of the boss? The other Office Ladies? The mother?  The old friend with daughter? The library security guard? The hospitable woman? The bus driver? The cop? The joyriding teenagers? The deaf cabbie?
15. How do we read the film’s Tokyo? at is the significance of the Spanish conquistador?
16. What’s the role of gender here? Why does the cop report the castration of Paul Bunyan’s blue ox Babe?
17. What do the phone scenes signify?
18. What do the tea spit and dry cleaner scenes signify?
19. Why does Kumiko need to send Bunzo off on the subway?
20. How do we read the stretched videotape?



Reflect on the following lines of dialogue:
  1. This film is based on a true story.
  2. We all have to find our own path.
  3. Thief!
  4. A normal film is a fake.
  5. That’s an American folk tale, or something like that. 
  6. It’s not fake!
  7. Solitude is a fancy loneliness.
  8. If we didn’t have these cultural barriers….


Friday, April 3, 2015

Tru Love (2013)

In the opening image a surge of water smashes through shards of ice. That’s the emblem of the three central women’s growth in his drama.
Alice Beacon (Kate Trotter) first appears as a hard, frozen face in a cab, behind black glasses, under her husband’s ghost's cold hand. (The workaholic lawyer pops round to give her advice — but still smokes in bed.) When she leaves Toronto to return to (frigid) North Bay Alice is in another cab, but now radiant and ebullient. 
The Beacon she provides is summarized in her advice to her daughter, Suzanne (Christine Horne): “Life slips away so quickly…. Most people are too asleep to notice.” And in their last scene:  “Lose myself, find  myself. It’s all the same in the end…. If your heart breaks I hope it breaks wide open.”  
What lit up Alice is the Wonderland she discovers through Suzanne’s lesbian friend Tru (Shauna MacDonald, who with Kate Johnston also wrote and directed his fine, sensitive film). In Tru’s world a waitress wears a “Pussy Whisperer” t-shirt.  The love that gradually grows between the 60-year-old widow and the 30-ish Tru (nee Gertrude, Hamlet’s randy mom) does break Alice wide open. She dies of an aneurism on the train home. But she dies at last alive, in her first throes of passionate love — that was missing in her shotgun marriage — and on a new level of understanding both of herself and with her daughter. 
Though Suzanne compulsively tries to “protect” her mother from that grand passion, the experience breaks through her carapace against her own emotion. Alice forces her to confront the mysterious feelings she has preferred to evade through work. The experience brings Suzanne as well as Alice out of the shadow of the father’s death.
Though Tru is apparently the worldliest of the three women, Alice lights her way anew too. Tru has been compulsively untrue to her lovers, too self-absorbed wholly to commit to them — or even to remember their name — and too cowardly to confront the superficiality of her engagement. She lives on an island. Her joy with Alice and her tension with Suzanne discover a new depth of feeling and an openness that enable her to resume and correct the last relationship she’d fled. The spiked shirt she wears in her melancholy is an emblem of her earlier defence against vulnerability. 
Two pictures distinguish Suzanne’s and Tru’s lives. Chez Suzanne an androgynous face wears a muffled mouth, an emblem of the boyish woman whose life is strictly her law career. In Tru’s kitchen, where she indulges her zest for food, French music and brightness the pic is of brilliant flowers.  Alice has lived Suzanne’s life — sandwiched between two generations of neglectful lawyers — but Tru brings her into joy. It proves contagious.    
     With a crisp script, first-class direction and superb performances, this film clearly deserves wider audience.