LIFE ITSELF (2014)
As
much as I admired Roger Ebert, for his writing, his personality, his fortitude,
his love of movies and criticism and his devotion to the ideals of being a
newspaperman, I never imagined I would be so moved, so affected by this
wide-ranging, funny, insightful and, ultimately, heartbreaking documentary
about his life. Steve James, who directed the equally impressive “Hoop Dreams”
(a film championed by Ebert), began the film five months before the prolific
writer’s death in April 2013, which enabling him to interview Ebert in his
final days and film him during the last rehab stint of his 10 year battle with
thyroid cancer.
This
is not an easy film to watch, as James does not shy away from showing Ebert’s
jawless face and his struggles to recover from another setback that as viewers
we know will be his last.
The film keeps returning to those final days,
but the heart of the film is looking back at this man’s remarkable life, based
on, and with some narration from, Ebert’s autobiography, also titled “Life
Itself.” From his boyhood in Urbana, Illinois where he published his own
community newspaper as a teen, to his days as editor of his college paper at the
University of Illinois, Urbana, Ebert seemed destined to make his mark in
newspapers. By college, he was already a skilled, impassioned writer, noted in
the film by his thoughtful, moving editorial written for the school paper after
the infamous bombing of a church in Alabama that killed four young girls.
After a few months at the Chicago Sun-Times
(his paper for life, despite offers from bigger and better newspapers), he was
given the job of movie critic without even applying or interviewing for it. He
was 24 and it was 1967. Talk about timing: the movie culture and the art of criticism
were about to come of age; within eight years he would become the first film
critic to win the coveted Pulitzer Prize.
Then there’s the drinking: every night at
O’Rourke’s, a hangout for journalists and other writers, he held forth. He is
described by old friends and colleagues as one of the great storytellers they
ever knew and, of course, always ready for an argument. By the end of the ‘70s,
he was in AA and never had another drink.
The film also chronicles his somewhat
surprising association with sexploitation filmmaker Russ Meyer, writing the
script for the cult favorite “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” A few of his
friends offer a simple explanation of why he got involved—and Ebert himself
admitted in a book about Meyers: to hang around women with large breasts. “Life
Itself” doesn’t pull many punches.
The most famous part of his working life, of
course, was the television show (under various names starting in 1975) in which
he and Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel reviewed the week’s movies, giving
them either thumbs up or thumbs down. James again is unflinching in giving a
complete report. Richard Corliss, Time magazine critic and one of the pair
show’s most vocal critics, is given screen time to talk about the negative
aspects of the trend in reviewing created by “the thumbs.” But more interesting
for most viewers will be the love/hate relationship between Siskel and Ebert.
The film uncovers some hilarious outtakes in which the critics do not mince
words about their dislike for each other.
And that’s just a few of the highlights. I
can’t recall a documentary about an individual that gives you such a full
picture of the person. Even though I probably know more about Ebert’s career
than most viewers, I was constantly surprised by the film and the way in
portrayed this famous figure—certainly one of the most famous newspaper
journalists of the past half century.
And even if you could care less about movies
and newspapers and writing, this film offers a life-affirming, heartbreaking
account of someone who never gave up (hell, became more productive) in the face
of a catastrophic disease. I also came away with a greater appreciation of his
wife Chaz, his constant champion who kept him going during those difficult
final years.
It
has been awhile since I cried as often during a film as I did during “Life Itself,”
not only at the sadness of his cancer fight, which took his voice and ability
to eat and drink, but the sometimes hilarious, sometimes poignant remembrances
of his longtime newspaper buddies, fellow critics and filmmakers (most
prominently, Martin Scorsese, who became very close to Ebert). Thorough,
fast-paced and superbly structured—James balances stills, interviews, clips
perfectly—this is as good as nonfiction filmmaking gets and a must see for
anyone who has ever spent a day in a newspaper, a night at the movies or
appreciates a life well lived.
DEATH OF A SALESMAN
(1951)
When
a play about an aging travelling salesman opened on Broadway in 1949, it was
immediately hailed as a landmark. More than 60 years later, Arthur Miller’s
“Death of a Salesman” remains the essential drama of the American theater.
Yet,
the film version, released just months after the original production closed,
nominated for five Academy Awards and reasonably well reviewed, was released
only a few years ago on DVD (I don’t believe it was ever available on video),
using a poor quality print. I had never been able to get my hands on a copy
until I came upon the film posted to YouTube. While it’s divided into 10 minute
chunks, and is a dark and scratched-up print, it at least offered me a chance
to see this film that has been at the top of my “must see” list for 30 years.
While I’d be hard pressed to call it a great film, “Salesman” features one of
the best ensemble performances you’re likely to see as it presents the play’s
devastating indictment of the American dream.
The film has a dated, uncinematic look and
the direction doesn’t do enough to emphasize the story’s tragedy, yet the
acting is so riveting, filled with emotional truth and verbal fireworks, that
you forget its shortcomings. (Better, in my memory, than the two later TV
versions.)
Fredric March, one of Hollywood’s most
acclaimed actors in the first 25 years of sound who had won his second best
actor Oscar in 1946 for “The Best Years of Our Lives,” plays Willy Loman, a
tired, bitter, occasional delusional man who is also disappointed by his sons’
lack of accomplishments. Biff (Kevin McCarthy), a high school football star who
was spoiled by Willy, has spent his twenties drifting around the west, while
Hap (Cameron Mitchell) has held a steady job but doesn’t take life very seriously.
Anchoring the family, or tying to, is mother-wife Linda (Mildred Dunnock), the
one person who sees life as it is not as Willy imagines it to be, often forced
to throw cold water on the pipe dreams of these foolish men. Alternating
between bitter arguments and overblown optimism, this quartet represents an old
fashioned belief that being well liked, fitting in with the crowd, and showing
enthusiasm was all one needed to be a success. The harsh realities of modern
American business, based on results not some old boy network, haven’t quite
sunk in with Willy and cause much of the discord between him and Biff.
Next door, a low-key Charlie (Howard Smith)
and his nerdy son Bernard (Don Keefer), understand the rules and, much to
Willy’s surprise, are successful; Willy doesn’t even appreciate the money
Charlie slips him every month to make up for his fading salesman income or his
friendship in a world that has turned its back on him.
Willy
is a tragic figure on a Shakespearean scale; a simple, common man who wakes up
to find everything he built his life on has collapsed, replaced by something he
doesn’t recognize and can’t grasp. In some ways “Death of a Salesman” has become
more relevant in recent years as the economy, the culture, technology and the
way the world operates is again taking a giant leap, leaving a generation of
workers out in the cold and decimating entire industries. Our country abounds
with Willy Lomans.
March,
taking over the role from Lee J. Cobb who originated the iconic character on
stage (and repeated the performance in a 1966 TV production; in 1985 Dustin
Hoffman played the role), is especially convincing in portraying the
vulnerability of this once over-confident salesman and the manner in which his
mind slips back into time, suddenly thinking his sons are still teens or that
he’s the company’s top man. Or the way in which he himself turns into an
idolizing boy when he imagines his brother Ben, whose mining success is
legendary, giving him advice. While March isn’t remembered today as fondly as
Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, Cary Grant or Gary Cooper are, he was their
equal, or better, as an actor, whose range was second to none during
Hollywood’s Golden Era.
Matching
March is Dunnock, who originated the role on Broadway. This tiny, delicate
actress, who spent most of her film career playing crazy aunts or noisy
neighbors, gives a powerhouse performance, simply mesmerizing in expressing her
devotion and protectiveness of her ailing husband. In a long, agonizing scene
in the kitchen in which she spells out to his sons what’s going on with Willy (“attention
must be paid….”), she is devastating and heartbreaking.
Dunnock had been on stage since the early
1930s, but, at age 50, was just starting her long film and television career, which
lasted until 1987. Her Linda Loman is not only the performance of her career
and one of the best of its time.
McCarthy, who also went on to an incredibly
long and distinguished film and TV career, made his movie debut as Biff (played
on stage by Arthur Kennedy) and clearly is trying hard to keep up with March
and Dunnock. Frankly, it’s a thankless role as he attempts to satisfy his
father’s and mother’s ideal of what he’s suppose to be while trying to explain
to them he’s not. Cameron Mitchell, another omnipresent movie and television
supporting playing in the last half of the 20th Century, repeats his
stage performance as Hap, the hapless brother. In the less showy role, he’s
solid as he mostly sits on the sidelights as long, vitriolic arguments ensue.
Where
“Salesman” falters is in the rather pedestrian and sometimes confusing
direction by Laslo Benedek, who is best known for the 1953 Marlon Brando
motorcycle film “The Wild One.” Benedek and screenwriter Stanley Roberts (who
does an impressive job of cutting the play down to two hours) never find a
smooth way to transition from reality to Willy’s memories—for viewers
unfamiliar with the play the time shifting is hard to distinguish in this
version.
Adapting a play, especially one so acclaimed,
to the screen is never an easy assignment. Here, possibly because of a limited
budget, the filmmakers fail in the attempts to open up the play with the
resulting picture looking like an early TV movie rather than a feature film.
The most obvious comparison is what Elia Kazan (also the stage director for
“Salesman”) does in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” which was released the same
year. Kazan brings an inventive, strong-handed direction to “Streetcar” that is
nowhere to be found in this “Salesman.” But in terms of jaw-dropping acting,
March and Dunnock are just a slight peg below the fireworks created by Brando
and Vivien Leigh. That alone makes it worth seeking out.
A MOST WANTED MAN (2014)
I hate to use the phrase old fashioned,
tempting many of my readers to hit the Page Down button, but that’s what best
describes this superbly made, brilliantly acted spy thriller.
Believe it or not, before Jason Bourne,
Ethan Hunt and even James Bond, movie spies didn’t attempt Cirque du Soleil
styled acrobatics or fight off six enemy agents with a ball point pen and a
kitchen chair. The top spooks, as they’re known in the intelligence community,
are usually balding, fat, and alcoholic, with razor-sharp minds and an
encyclopedic knowledge of the world’s many bad guys.
At the center of this fast-paced,
cerebral picture is German master spy Günter Bachmann, who heads a secretive
anti-terrorist unit that takes care of the business legitimate agencies can’t
do legally. In John le Carré’s 2008 novel, on which the film is based, Bachmann
shares the spotlight with Annabel Richter, an immigrant rights lawyer, and
Tommy Brue, a private banking executive. But this superb adaptation, by Andrew
Bovell, brings Bachmann front and center, in the form of the late Philip
Seymour Hoffman, who gives one of the most accomplished performances of his
too-short career. If I had never seen Hoffman before, I would have assumed the
actor was some acclaimed German stage actor giving the performance of his life.
Set in Hamburg, a hotbed of terrorist
(where the Sept. 11 plot was put in motion), the story follows the fate of Karpov
(Grigoriy Dobrygin), a young Russian-Chechen man who slips into the country to
claim his inheritance held in the very secretive bank run by Brue (Willem
Dafoe). Working as the go-between is the sympathetic Annabel (Rachel McAdams),
who quickly surmises that Karpov isn’t a terrorist, but a very confused young
man struggling with his horrific life and his father’s legacy (a corrupt
Russian military officer who raped his mother).
But behind the scenes, watching every
movement of this trio, is Bachmann and his team (which includes the superb
German actress Nina Hoss and budding film star Daniel Brühl), who see this as
an opportunity to turn a respected Muslim leader who secretly supports
terrorism around the world. But Bachmann is up against a ticking clock as the
mainstream German intelligence agency wants to grab Karpov and throw away the
key, with the support of the equally short-sighted Americans (represented by a
subtle, tough performance by Robin Wright).
Le Carré, best known for his cynical,
insightful Cold War novels, often featuring disillusioned British spymaster
George Smiley (“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” made it to the big screen in 2011),
hasn’t lost a beat since the Wall came down, now mostly focusing on the
post-9/11 chaotic mess we find ourselves in. He doesn’t take sides or
sentimentalize, just offers a piercing look at the way the world works; or
doesn’t, in most cases.
Dutch director Anton Corbijn (who made the
slick, lamentable “The American”) serves the great writer well in “Most
Wanted.” Actually, le Carré has been pretty lucky with the film adaptations of
his works, with first-rate movies made from “The Spy Who Came in from the
Cold,” “The Russia House,” “The Tailor of Panama,” “The Constant Gardener” and
the aforementioned “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (which in 1979 was also turned
into a brilliant TV mini-series starring Alec Guinness).
McAdams,
who has never had such a serious, juicy role, captures both the idealism and
the efficiency of this gutsy, resourceful lawyer (if not her accent). Though
the role has been pared down from the book, it still offers this actress, who
mostly finds herself stuck in maudlin romantic fantasies (or a sexy diversion
for “Sherlock Holmes”), a chance to show she is more than just a pretty face. She’s
extraordinary in her mostly wordless scenes during an intense interrogation.
But everyone pales in this film to
Hoffman’s consummate portrayal of Bachmann. I’ll be shocked if this doesn’t
earn Hoffman a rare posthumous Oscar nomination. There’s a scene late in the
film when he’s sitting at his desk (a rarity, he usually is on the move),
drinking, of course, and pondering the case. Suddenly you can see in his face
that he’s figured something out, that he knows his next move. Nothing needs to
be said. It’s all in his eyes, the subtle shift in his body. Hoffman clearly
understands this character; a man who lives for his work and is extraordinarily
good at it.
BOYHOOD (2014)
For nearly three hours, writer-director
Richard LInklater leads viewers on a guided tour of the life of Mason, from age
6 to his first day of college. That this ambitious film felt like a tour to me
explains what it lacks: an intimate, emotional connection that elevates drama
to something more than play acting.
In Linklater’s recent films---“Me and Orson
Welles,” “Bernie,” “Before Midnight”—he has created a distance between his
story and the audience, for better or worse. In “Boyhood,” I found it a
distraction; even as I wanted to feel sympathy, attachment to the main
character, the film kept me at arm’s length.
But reading the overwhelmingly positive
reviews, I find myself in the minority. Most critics have anointed the film a
masterpiece, with much of the praise centered on Linklater’s method rather than
the results. If you’ve missed the stories on the movie, the director filmed it
over a 12 year period, shooting a few days every year or so, allowing the main
actors (most importantly Ellar Coltrane’s Mason) to age naturally on screen. A
fascinating idea—a documentary-like concept (as done in Michael Apted “Up”
series in seven year cycles)—but, for me, it didn’t change the movie going
experience. Having the same actor playing a character from age 6 to age 18
makes for a nice story, but, for me, adds nothing to the quality of the movie.
There is plenty to enjoy in this
methodical epic as Linklater’s dialogue is spot-on; few screenwriters are
better at capturing how people communicate, with both words and silence and expressions.
As we watch Mason and his sister Samantha (played by Linklater’s daughter Lorelei)
raised by single mom Olivia (Patricia Arquette in her best role in years) and
part-time father Mason Sr. (Linklater favorite Ethan Hawke), there are more
than a few poignant moments that will no doubt hit home for parents. Yet most
of the plot points—changing schools, dealing with step-fathers, teen rebellion,
first romances—can be seen in various
forms every night on television.
Most of film focuses on Mason dealing with
his parents, shortchanging his relationships with contemporaries; the scenes
with his high school buddies and his first girlfriend are the most engaging. I
used to buy into the Hollywood cliché that teenagers have nothing interesting
to say, but now that I talk to them every day I see that writers have gotten
that completely wrong. Some of the most engaging conversations I’ve had over
the past three years have been with 16 and 17 year olds.
Let me be clear: I welcome a film without a
real plot, without a series of melodramatic scenes, without bigger-than-life
characters; yet “Boyhood” never got under my skin, never made me cry, rarely
made me laugh (is real life really that serious?), leaving me wishing the
director had spent more time creating compelling characters rather than being
satisfied with chronicling their aging.
BEGIN AGAIN (2014)
There’s something infectious about this
musical fantasy that taps into the chaotic world of the contemporary music
industry, where YouTube is as big a player as Columbia Records. While it lacks
the romantic heartbreak of Irish writer-director John Carney’s first hit film “Once”
(now a hit Broadway musical) or that movie’s memorable tunes, “Begin Again”
benefits from iconic New York City locations and a pair of charismatic
performances by Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo.
Knightley’s Gretta arrives from English
with her brink-of-stardom boyfriend and writing partner Dave (Adam Levine) and
soon finds herself as unwanted baggage. Dragged to the stage during an
open-mike night, Gretta attracts the attention of Dan, an alcoholic, down on
his luck record producer, who can hear what her fragile song would sound like
with a full band and production behind it.
The filmmakers try to be clever by showing
how both of these characters arrive at this meeting point, which becomes overly
repetitive and exceedingly predictable. But the film picks up steam once the
pair decides to go off the record-making grid and record an album of live songs
outdoors around the city. This all plays out as Gretta continues to carry a
torch for her star-struck boyfriend and Dan, separated from wife Catherine
Keener, tries to forge a relationship with his rebellious daughter (“True
Grit’s” Hailee Steinfeld).
Yes, the entire plot is one endless
cliché and all of the characters are stereotypes, but it’s done with the same
sincerity and wide-eyed romanticism that made “Once” such a surprising
pleasure.
It’s one of the hard-working Ruffalo’s
best performances; Dan has made a complete mess of his life but he can’t help
but put everything into making this thin-voiced, inexperience young woman a
star. Knightley would be the last
actress I would have cast in this role, but she’s convincing as an out-of-fashion
music rebel, a throwback to the ‘60s who so sincerely believes in her music
that nothing can make her sell out (I told you it was a fantasy.)
I realize that Levine is a major pop star,
but his lack of acting skills were topped, for this listener, by his irritating
singing style. Another music figure, Mos Def, has a very amusing role as a
former discovery of Dan’s who is more than willing to help out on his latest,
far-fetched endeavor.
Some of the best moments of the film are
when Dan and Gretta are roaming the streets of New York (beautifully shot by
Yaron Orbach, the DP on “Orange is the New Black”), getting to know each other
in the city that never sleeps. Like in the early Woody Allen films, the city
becomes the character you can’t take your eyes off of.
RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011)
and
DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2014)
I was never a
fan of the original “Planet of the Apes” movies, finding them heavy-handed and
unintentionally campy, with any attempt at seriousness undercut by Charlton
Heston’s oversized dramatics. I had no interest in Tim Burton’s 2001 reboot,
which remade the 1968 original, and never saw it.
It seemed to
be pure greed that inspired yet another franchise of “Apes” to arise in 2011
and I ignored, but the film actually scored some very good reviews, even
landing on some critics Top 10 lists. So when I saw that “Dawn” was about to be
released, I rented “Rise” and was impressed.
Much more intriguing and complex than the originals, “Rise” takes us
back to when this all started, in the lab, where a scientist Will Rodman (James
Franco) is furiously working on a drug to alleviate Alzheimer’s disease. But
things go terribly wrong when an ape, which had been given the drug, escapes,
causing all kind of havoc and forcing the end of the research program. Yet, it
turns out, the drug works on humans, as Will tries it out on his
dementia-suffering father (John Lithgow).
At the same time, the scientist saves one of
the lab apes, named Caesar, and raises him as if he’s a child. Turns out, he’s
a very smart child. Without revealing too many of the details, let’s just say
that Caesar puts him newfound intelligence to good use, spreads it among other
apes, essential creating a new species, destined, because the long-term effect
of the drug is deadly to humans, to dominate Earth.
“Dawn” opens
about a decade later, with Earth’s population down to just scattered groups who
have somehow survived the epidemic, but are struggling to survive as most of
man’s infrastructure has been decimated. (I was never quite clear how that all
happen).
Meanwhile,
the apes have multiplied and flourished in their home base in the Muir Woods,
north of San Francisco.
Their idyllic lifestyle is disturbed by a
scouting party of humans from San Francisco hoping to restart a power dam as
their last chance to bring power to the city. Caesar, who still has some trust
in humans, allows them to do their work, but a small group of apes who are
jealous of Casear’s power (mostly the conniving Koba) leads to inevitable
conflict and, ultimately, a battle between apes and humans.
The
CGI/motion capture apes are nothing short of amazing; made distinctive enough
that you recognize characters and understand the nuances of their conflicts. Of
course, behind Caeser is the astonishing Andy Serkis (Gollum from “The Lord of
the Rings” and “The Hobbitt” films) one of the great film artists of our time,
who helps create a complex, sympathetic ape who is far and away the most
interesting character in the film. Of course it helps that he can talk, but I
don’t think I’ve ever seen a more compelling animal character in a movie.
What
holds the film together is the presentation of the community formed by the apes
and the way they interact with the group of humans—Malcolm (Jason Clarke), his
girlfriend (Keri Russell) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee)—in their mist.
Both
Serkis’ Caesar and Toby Kebbell’s Koba are more interesting than their human
counterparts; Clarke is especially dull as the nominal lead actor (he reminded
me of Matthew Perry and that is not a good thing). It would have been nice to
have an actor who could stand as an equal to Caesar.
Gary
Oldman, who seems to show up in all these big-budget, fantasy films, is solid
as usual as the leader of the human group who does what he thinks is best, but
just can’t appreciate that the apes represent the planet’s future.
The
first film, directed by newcomer Rupert Wyatt, was a bit plodding, but “Dawn,”
helmed by Matt Reeves (best known as the creator of the TV show “Felicity”),
moves at the kind of fast-paced clip you except from this kind of popcorn
picture. But, most importantly, husband and wife writing team Rick Jaffa and
Amanda Silver return from “Rise,” this time joined by Mark Bomback, to continue
this fascinating story (using characters from Pierre Boulle original 1963
novel). Clearly this couple is the hottest screenwriting team in Hollywood; they
are lined up to write the sequels to “Avatar” for James Cameron.
Like
all quality science fiction, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” offers insight
into how we are living our lives now and the state of humanity. Yet it is the
apes that emerge as the group we root for, in large part because Caesar
represents, more than any of the humans, the best of humanity. Unlike most of
these tent-pole movie franchises, I’m actually looking forward to seeing where
they take this one.
MILLION DOLLAR
ARM (2014)
If
you don’t expect much more than what you’d get from a feel-good TV movie but do
care about baseball, this story of two young Indians earning a shot to play for
an American professional baseball team is rather enjoyable.
Jon
Hamm plays J.B., a down-on-his-luck sports agent who (not unlike Jerry Maguire)
must sign one star athlete to keep his business afloat. When that fails, he
stumbles on the idea of turning a star cricket hurler into a major league
pitcher. (They both throw a ball toward a batter, but the similarities end
there.) After he receives backing from
financier Chang (the always imperious Tzi Ma), J.B. heads off to India, with
little more than a hope and prayer. There he is joined by an ambitious
go-getter Amit (Pitobash) and, later, by a veteran baseball scout he’s hired (a
particularly sarcastic Alan Arkin), to travel the country holding pitching
contests, with the winner scoring a trip to the U.S. and a tryout.
The
contest goes exactly as you expect; an endless parade of clueless wannabes
until they find a couple of youngsters who can fire the ball close to 90 mph.
Rinku (Suraj Sharma of “Life of Pi” fame) and Dinesh (Madhur Mittel) become
classic fish-out-of-water (after Hamm plays the same role in India) as they end
up staying at J.B.’s house. From there, the picture is a cute sitcom, with the
Indians as “the kids” and J.B.’s next door neighbor (Lake Bell) as the
prospective “mom,” while baseball training serves as their school.
The find of the movie is Pitobash, who turns
Amit into a comic foil for J.B. while proving invaluable in keeping this shaky
operation going. This very short, always upbeat character brings desperately
needed energy to the film. Hamm, who I previously had seen only in small roles
(I don’t watch “Mad Men”) seems like a pleasant enough performer, but a bit
bland in a Ben Affleck/Ryan Reynolds way; he seems to spend the movie standing
around waiting for someone else to say something interesting.
This
rather obvious script is by the very talented Thomas McCarthy, who, as a
writer-director made “The Station Agent” (2003), “The Visitor” (2007) and “Win
Win” (2011), all films worth seeking out if you haven’t seen them. Surprisingly,
the director of “Million Dollar Arm” is Craig Gillespie, responsible for one of
the most interesting pictures of the past few years, “Lars and the Real Girl”
(2007). I guess I can blame Disney for neutering the edge both these filmmakers
usually bring to their work.