MONDOmagazine

Revolutionary Road
Directed by Sam Mendes
Paramount Vantage

By Doug Nayler

It's even a period piece.

In an ideal world, films would be able to truly stand on their own merit. No comparison would even cross a viewer’s mind to anything that the actors, writers, or director had done previously. Nobody would be concerned about where a certain film stands in its genre’s canon. In this utopia, one would truly be able to approach everything with a fresh willingness to take it for exactly what it is. But, as we all know, this is absolutely not the case. The main reason any of us bother to check out a given film at all is because of the actors’ or director’s previous work, or hopes that it might be as good as a similar film that we’ve enjoyed. And so, like it or not, Revolutionary Road is inherently going to be compared to two highly successful, Oscar-reaping films of the 90’s: Titanic and American Beauty. The former because of the leads, and the latter because of its director, suburban setting, and subject matter. And I have a feeling that fans of the one are going to be in for quite a large shock, while fans of the other will be quite satisfied. I don’t know what someone who’s a fan of both films will feel, as I’ve yet to see evidence that such people exist in observable numbers.

Revolutionary Road, based on the popular novel by Richard Yates set in the 1950’s, takes an uncompromising look at the very troubled marriage of April and Frank Wheeler (Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio). Though the two remember a time where they were happy at what the world would have to offer them, and content in their love, it seems a very long time ago. As April now cares for their lovely home and children and Frank commutes into Manhattan to work at the same insurance firm that his father had, both feel deeply unhappy. The two blame each other and vent their frustrations by trying to tear each other apart. They seem on a surefire course to implosion until one night, April suddenly comes up with an unconventional idea for where to lead their life next. The move injects a newfound excitement in their lives, though none of their friends or neighbours can possibly understand why. But, even as the Wheelers enjoy their newfound liberation, April can’t help but worry that it may all come crashing down before they can even see it realized.

If the setting and premise sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because it is. Films like Far From Heaven, the TV series Mad Men, and the aforementioned American Beauty have explored the hollowness of the American dream in white suburbia before. In that sense, there isn’t anything especially new in the path Revolutionary Road treads. If one were to be especially cynical, they could even accuse Mendes of a return to his safety net after the lack of interest in his underrated Gulf War pic Jarhead. I am not so cynical. For, what Revolutionary Road lacks in originality of premise it easily makes up for in sheer intensity of performance.

A new direction.

One must suspect that Winslet and Di Caprio took a certain amount of perverse amusement in deciding to reunite for this film. While neither would deny that Titanic was the trampoline from which they shot into super-stardom (DiCaprio especially), it has most certainly become an albatross around the neck. Both are very serious, committed actors who have not wasted their subsequent ‘bankability’ often, generally pursuing roles that push them into new and uncharted waters. But by the same token, both must surely have had to endure much finger-wagging from disappointed studio executives expecting Titanic box office grosses that films like Little Children or The Beach just simply are not going to attract. Revolutionary Road is the anti-Titanic, eschewing all mythic, sentimental notions of the all-conquering power of love for just the sheer, naked reality of two people who are so unhappy but so emotionally intertwined that they can’t seem to find any way to make sense of it all.

Unhappily intertwined.

And this is where the film truly triumphs. Di Caprio and Winslet are obviously extremely comfortable working together. Working with Mendes (Winslet’s husband) seems to have given them an environment so comfortable that they were able to push their performances into very intensely honest moments of an almost Cassevetes-like quality. There were moments in the film that are of the sort one so seldom sees on a film screen, or even in daily life itself. They are the type of moments that only exist between people with a relationship so intimate that their most childish thoughts and insecurities surface without any thought of repressing them. The effect is as if the viewer is actually watching a marriage crumbling before their very eyes, in its most intimate detail.

And it’s for that exact reason this film will be rejected by those most passionate Titanic fans who go out to see it. For instead of finding hope for a love they’ve only seen in movies, they’ll get life in all it’s ugly confusion. And there’s a very good chance that will be what they’re going to the movies to escape.

As promised, MONDOFilm returns again with more Batman-riddled fantasies, all in the name of eluding any further dalliances with all the harsh, non-Batman filled parts of our lives. Last week saw members of the MONDO staff considering Tony Zucco, Bane, and the Riddler as possible villains for the next Batman film. So, who’s left?

The Case for Clayface

I’d like to propose Clayface as a potential villain. Many discount him, saying he doesn’t fit in a Nolan/realistic Bat-verse, but I imagine those same legions forget there have been several versions of Clayface in the past. Given how much focus has been given to the question of who can be trusted in Gotham, a Chameleon type character could really wreak havoc, and there could also be excellent questions raised about identity- always a concern for these “secret identity” characters.

My brother raised the interesting possibility of Maxi Zeus on account of all the references to a “New Rome” in Batman Begins and “Caesar” in The Dark Knight, but that’s mostly a joke.

What’s not a joke is this fellow Rod Taylor’s idea of Talia al Ghul, which would tie together with Begins so that not a lot would need to be explained about her, and would add the romantic interest thing, which is always important.

- Isaac Mills

The Case for Catwoman

There are a lot of places where further Nolan-directed Batman films could go (though I have a bad feeling that after this movie he may bow out). Nolan has intelligently stayed away from science fiction elements of Batman (the closest they’ve strayed is Scarecrow’s fear gas) and kept it closer to the mob element. The next film should probably continue with this trend. Luckily, there are a lot of smart characters who could be brought in, and who would hopefully live up to high expectations.

At the end of this film the Gotham Police chases after Batman. A pretty logical extension of this would be to have the mob exploit the situation in order to maximize the distrust between Gordon and Batman to the point where they might even become serious enemies.

The villain I most want to see tied into this is Catwoman. First of all, Catwoman is the only interesting potential love interest for Batman. It’s good that Rachel Dawes is out of the way, because not even the amazing talent of Maggie Gyllenhaal could save that character – she was just such a pill. I don’t think an enamoured Batman would be a compelling character unless the object of his love was Catwoman. She’s his equal in many ways: she lives the double life, she has background trauma, she can physically do the kinds of things that Batman can, and she also looks really good in black. The problem for both of them is that her moral compass is a lot looser than Bruce’s. The smartest way to depict Catwoman to make this plot turn credible would be to have her “Robin Hooding” from the mob. Her legal shadiness could also factor into Batman’s tensions with the police. I think it could work.

So it is either this or having all the mob bosses usurped by a half-dozen Joker knockoffs (e.g., Riddler, Penguin, Firefly, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, and the Ventriloquist), who would spread their brand of terror and greed throughout Gotham. All of them are characters with gimmicks that don’t stray too far into science fiction. You’d have to weave an incredibly tight narrative to get them all in, and they’d have to work as secondary characters that the viewer doesn’t need to bother to explain. It would also be neat to see a movie where Bruce is constantly beat down and loses even more ground than he already has.

- Miles Baker

The Case for Robin

I’ll admit, I’m going to cheat a little. First off, Robin is probably the least likely Batman character to appear in a third film. Bale has proclaimed total aversion to the idea, essentially saying he’d do anything possible to escape his contract. In fact, I believe that’s what the argument with his mother was about. But really, such strong aversion is understandable. On a comic book page a young boy keeping up with Batman may seem a little odd, but to actually see it played out on a screen has historically proved very difficult to swallow. Teenage angst just doesn’t combine with leaping across buildings in a believable way. And especially not in Christopher Nolan’s gritty, grounded take on Gotham, right?

Well, here I posit for you the only way I think a Robin film could be carried out effectively, and it builds off themes Nolan has woven quite steadfastly into his characterization of Batman: that only by being completely mentally unbalanced can Batman be unyielding enough to carry out his task. Unlike Harvey Dent, or Jim Gordon, Batman doesn’t feel the need to balance out a normal life with a family. To him, the mere concept is nothing more than a weakness his enemies could use against him. Now mix this with Bruce Wayne’s twisted sense of inadequacy compared to his own iconic father, and imagine this man realistically raising a boy. Bruce Wayne would be the worst father imaginable.

So, imagine a flashback by a mid-20s Dick Grayson recalling events from his childhood. When he’s younger he just remembers the thrill of developing his skills in hopes of earning Wayne’s approval. As he follows in Batman’s footsteps, he yearns to see the hero proud of him. But as he grows older, Grayson begins to understand just how incapable of love Wayne really is, being unable to sacrifice his own quest for anybody at all. And thus Robin strikes out in his own to become Nightwing.

As I said, I cheated a little. I suggest this not as the direction in which the next Batman film should go, but as the only way I could see the Robin character working within Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City.

- Doug Nayler

But why would he hold the button like that? I can't see his face...

The Dark Knight
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Warner Bros. 2008

By Doug Nayler

And here it is. After three years of sweaty, mouth-breathing anticipation, it’s here. The Dark Knight arrived in theaters this Friday weighed down with enough baggage to nearly crush it to death on site.

It’s hard to be a highly anticipated movie; to be a highly anticipated comic book movie must be almost insufferable. Each and every nerd the world over is turning his/her dewy eyes towards the screen this weekend expecting nothing less than the Batman film; the film that finally gets it right.

And imagine how crushed, how disappointed the entire Internet is going to be come Monday morning if The Dark Knight isn’t absolutely everything they’ve ever wanted to see from Batman ever? An unimaginable tide of people with too much free time (like myself) would start writing their precocious little reviews (like myself) explaining how hurt, misled, and sexually assaulted they feel at having been so disappointed. Christopher Nolan would become a Joel Schumacher pariah times ten, because unlike Schumacher, people actually believed that Nolan could make it happen.

Luckily for Chris Nolan, Warner Brothers, DC Comics, and Heath Ledger’s restless ghost’s publicist, The Dark Knight is very good. And while it may not be the Batman movie to end all movies, it is no slouch. There is lots here for the casual fan, the diehard virgin-for-life fan, and even the pretentious holier-than-thou art-film nerd. In fact, the only group I feel that won’t be satisfied with this film would be children, because they would just be traumatized.

But making The Dark Knight too disturbing for children to handle is just one of a large list of good decisions made here. The most obvious one is to continue doing what made Batman Begins so much more interesting than the standard superhero fare. So, Gotham continues to be a city with a plausable, familiar problem with corruption and organized crime in which a completely insane man in a bat suit follows his compulsion to clean up the streets. The Dark Knight really just builds upon the last film by creating the Joker as a distorted mirror image of Nolan’s Batman. What sort of man would have the same compulsion towards chaos that Batman has towards order? How would a man have to be to actually get up every morning and be the Joker? It is these questions that effectively drive The Dark Knight. And, as everyone already knows, Ledger’s performance does quite a lot to make this fascinating.

Heath Ledger’s absurdist vaudeville take on the Joker is menacing, at turns darkly hilarious, but never too campy. This is because every time the Joker is in the room, he brings with him an impending sense that things are going to turn very bad very quickly. If I had somehow avoided the massive media clusterfuck memorial Ledger love-in that preceded this film’s release (By the way, did you know he was dead?), and gone into this film not knowing he played the Joker, I never would’ve guessed. Nothing in how the character spoke, looked, or carried himself resembled the Ledger I’ve seen in any other of his films. There is only the Joker, laughing and dancing as he hopes to see the city tear itself apart at his feet.

Ledger’s performance is not the only one of note, however. Aaron Eckhart’s transition takes him from beloved Great White Hope D.A. Harvey Dent to Two-Face, a damaged shell of a man with nothing left but hate in his heart. Gary Oldman also shines as Lt. Gordon, beginning to realize what he stands to lose in Gotham’s escalating war. Unlike the psychopathic, nothing-else-matters drive of Batman and the Joker, these two men want to be normal people with families and homes. In a film filled with duality, Dent and Gordon keep their relationship just as involving as one hopes it would be.

And this brings me to my greatest criticism of the film, and one that will be equally difficult to overcome in any sequels that follow: the problem lies right with the character of Batman. Once Bruce Wayne becomes Batman (a journey given all its due attention in Batman Begins), then it’s really only a question of sticking it out, and finding nifty gadgets that help him do the job better.

While we watch Dent and Gordon torn to shreds in front of our eyes, Batman has almost no personal journey outside of the mechanics of the plot. And even when something (withheld for spoiler purposes) large happens that you think would greatly effect Batman, the emotional fallout is given very short shrift. With a villain so energetic and fascinating that he lights up the screen whenever he appears upon it, and two excellent supporting characters tackling such huge emotional weight, Batman’s daring-do and sleuthery strangely starts to pale in comparison. At no time does Batman (and though I do love Bale, his ‘Batman’ voice sounds even more like Disney’s The Beast here than in Begins) seem to truly have to reconsider who he is as a person. Batman’s existence is only ever threatened by outside forces, not his own internal conflict. And because of this, the audience often finds itself in the strange situation where the man in the giant batsuit with the grappling gun and matchless martial arts skill is the least interesting person in the scene. A problem I’m sure Tim Burton would understand.

So, though I was extremely impressed with The Dark Knight, it is for this reason primarily that I can’t go so far as to call it the Batman movie we’ve all been waiting for. It is, however, the Joker movie. Which is good enough for me.

That odd fucker sure has made a lot of movies.

By Leo K. Moncel, Doug Nayler, and Ian Passy

(Editor’s note: It has come to our attention that there has been some confusion between the work of Woody Allen and that of Woody Harrelson in the construction of this article. While this is regrettable, deadlines are deadlines, so we have been forced to publish this article with all errors uncorrected).

Woody Allen place as a key figure and contributor to the American film industry is without question. His charming southern drawl, overcoming his apparent inability to jump, descending from a proud lineage of assassins, a fondness of hemp and hemp related products, and the occasional nude workout session with the Wilson family all reinforce the almost universally recognized importance of Allen’s work. He also made, like, fifty films as well. And a lot of them were pretty good too. We all know Annie Hall, and Manhattan, and Deconstructing Harry, and The Purple Rose of Cairo, and especially Cheers. However, consider for a moment, Woody Allen films that have been overlooked by most. When your body of work is as extensive as Allen’s and this is bound to happen, and every so often it is worth it to take a look and re-examine some hidden gems. With this intention in mind, MONDOFilm presents three lesser-known films written and directed by Allen worth a second look.

Sweet and Lowdown
Sony Pictures Classics 1999

A particularly well done, but often forgotten, Woody Allen film is Sweet and Lowdown, released in 1999. While the film received relatively high critical praise and even had two Oscar nods, unfortunately, all of about the population of Sarnia ever actually got around to seeing this film. It’s a shame because although, I willingly admit I am not the biggest Woody Allen fan, I find this film particularly enjoyable.

It’s the story of Emmet Ray (Sean Penn), a fictitious 1930s jazz guitarist and his struggles, both internal and external. Utilizing a retrospective fake documentary style the story follows Ray through a Fellini-esque arc as he moves throughout the American landscape trying to find his way. Ray eventually meets a mute named Hattie (Samantha Morgan) who soon becomes the Gelsomina to Ray’s Zampanò a la Fellini’s La Strada (1954). In this homage to one of his favourite filmmakers, Allen pits the brutish and crass Ray against the sweet and unassuming Hattie and it is the relationship between these two characters makes the film.

While I think Allen is a talented filmmaker, seeing and hearing him annoys the hell out of me, and in Sweet and Lowdown, he graciously forgoes the lead role in order to focus on more important matters. Penn excels as Emmet, the obnoxious, self-involved, self conscious, neurotic, abrasive, and emotionally retarded world’s second best guitarist with women troubles. Emmet’s character lies, drinks, gambles, steals, shoots rats, uses and abuses the people around him, and cries whenever he hears the music of Django Reinheardt — the one guitarist more talented than him. The music of Django consumes him, and Django’s very existence terrifies him. Essentially, Penn plays a prototypical Woody Allen character, but he does it well without ever becoming too grating. He is a frustrating, yet interesting character; extremely talented, but also extremely flawed. Much like Fellini’s Zampanò, he is a character you hate to hate.

— Ian Passy

Zelig
Warner Bros. Pictures 1983

The mockumentary format is overused today, and sometimes used as an excuse for sloppy filmmaking (sorry, For Your Consideration), so it’s a genuine delight to come back to Woody Allen’s sharp and hilarious Zelig. Brilliantly recreating all the tropes of an historical documentary (archival footage with commentary from scholars and aged family descendants) the film introduces us to the incredible story of Mr. Leonard Zelig.

Zelig (Woody Allen) was discovered at dinner party in 1929 by none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald observed Zelig hobnobbing with millionaires and found him moments later standing in the kitchen ranting about the tyranny of the idle rich. Zelig had completely transformed his speech, his mannerisms, and, most significantly, his facial features and body type. Later, Zelig learns that he has no control over his ability. Rather, he is like a chameleon, transforming into the likeness of any males in his vicinity. News of Mr. Zelig’s bizarre ability travels the United States and this human chameleon becomes a national sensation. Zelig even gets his own fad dance at the height of the hysteria. After stints touring as an oddity, he comes into the care of Doctor Eudora Fletcher, who sees Zelig’s ability as a condition and seeks to cure him. Fletcher and Zelig begin to fall for each other, but is their love strong enough to overcome the freakish circumstances?

The hilarity of Zelig is in its ability to handle incredible absurdity with a totally straight face. The tone of the archival documentary is held so consistently that the desire to “buy in” to what’s happening on screen becomes tremendous. The sense of time and place that is sketched on screen is so sharp, so specific, it makes the perfect backdrop for the madcap story. What the film ultimately does is present a perfect caricature of the late 1920’s — here in this land ruled by the zany fad, the greatest oddity of all is paradoxically the greatest conformist in America’s huge, wacky melting pot.

— Leo Moncel

Interiors
United Artists 1978

Ask anyone even vaguely familiar with Allen’s work for his most familiar works, and you will immediately be told Annie Hall and Manhattan. Released in 1977 and 1979, respectively, these two works cemented Allen’s legacy as a major American filmmaker, and planted his neurotic, witty comedy into the collective consciousness. Allen’s wry observations and skits dissecting relationship hangups proved wildly popular with both films, a popularity that has made them iconic today. However, in between Allen released Interiors, a very dark drama about a family no more comfortable with each other than they are with themselves. At the time audiences greeted the film with an overwhelming sense of disappointment, expecting more sex jokes and less crippling insecurity and suicide attempts. However, hindsight has proven much kinder to the film, finally proving influential to some of America’s strongest modern filmmakers.

Interiors follows the lives of Joey (Mary Beth Hurt), artistically driven but at a loss to explain how, and her sister Renata (Diane Keaton), a successful writer, as they watch their father (E.G. Marshall) divorce their frigid, meticulous, and obsessive mother (Geraldine Page) and deal with the turmoil inherent therein. The resulting film is a sharp, insightful, and squirmingly honest look at very smart people who can’t understand why they can’t hold their lives together more effectively.

In recent years the film has begun to develop some very high profile fans. One of the most notable of these in Noah Baumbach, whose films The Squid and the Whale and Margot at the Wedding have drawn from a similar cast of affluent New York intellectual elite undermined by pervasive insecurity. Anyone seeing Interiors for the first time with a familiarity with Baumbach’s work can easily see the influences both formal and thematic.

— Doug Nayler

By Jess Skinner and Doug Nayler

Most people are aware that receiving an Oscar isn’t simply a matter of being the best in your category. There are endless other considerations that enter the mind of that small group of Academy Award voters. Often a director or actor will be recognized for an inferior movie because the voters feel guilty for overlooking them in the past (see: Martin Scorcese). People would argue that some years have more than a little to do with tokenism. And then sometimes, nobody has any clue what happened. But at any rate, there is one thing that is for sure: the Oscar selection process is so strange and weird, it’s impossible to predict them accurately. That said, we’re still going to try.

Best Picture of the Year

Nominees: Atonement, No Country For Old Men, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood

Jesse’s Thoughts:

Probable Winner: No Country for Old Men - This movie went a lot further than I thought it would. I expected quality, but not such a great wave of hype and praise. It arrived certainly.

Personal Favourite: There Will Be Blood - Daniel Day-Lewis eats everything alive and spits it back out in PT Anderson’s epic. A cynical melodrama it is, but also a truly bizarre slap in the face.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable Winner: There Will Be Blood – While I see the race this year as a dead heat between this and No Country, I’m going to give the edge to this one because the director prize is most likely going to the Coens.

Personal Favourite: As long as it goes home with There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men, I’m happy.

Best Director

Nominees: PT Anderson – There Will Be Blood, The Coen Brothers – No Country for Old Men, Tony Gilroy – Michael Clayton, Jason Reitman – Juno, Julian Schnabel – Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Jesse’s Thoughts

Probable: The Coen Brothers – Up-and-coming has nothing on long overdue, and Anderson still may have to crank out a few more deserving attempts to win.

Personal: Jason Reitman – You know, they say comedy does not get enough respect, and their right. Reitman doesn’t do anything flashy, but his is the invisible guidance holding everything together.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: The Coen Brothers – Agreed. They took the DGA prize, and it seems like everyones’ consensus is that there time is now.

Personal: PTA – Yes he’s still very young, etc., etc. However in pure quality of work the man has outshone most of his peers and each film just seems to get better and better. If he keeps it up, this prize is as good as his, but I think he deserves it now.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Nominees: Cate Blanchett – Elizabeth: the Golden Age, Julie Christie – Away From Her, Ellen Page – Juno, Laura Linney – The Savages, Marion Cotillard – La Vie En Rose

Jesse’s Thoughts

Probable: Julie Christie – Getting old and dying is something the Academy voters can probably relate to, not to disparage Christie’s performance or anything which I haven’t seen so I should just stop talking about.

Personal: Laura Linney – In The Savages, Linney perfects the kind of role she has been trying for a while. That is, the befuddled intellectual facing reality and all that. It’s an admirable achievement in what will probably be another loss for her.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Laura Linney – A wise, sage friend of mine has informed me that in the Best Actress category if there’s only one American actress, she always wins it. He’s pointed out to me countless examples where that’s been true in the past, so I didn’t argue; and this year Linney is the only American actress in the category. And besides, after The Squid and the Whale, Kinsey, and You Can Count On Me, I think Linney’s now in the overdue category, even if this role wasn’t as worthy as those two.

Personal: Marion Cotillard – Believably playing Edith Piaf from her teens to her 40s-which-looked-like-her-90s, Cotillard completely disappears into the role. It’s an extremely impressive display of acting.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees: George Clooney – Michael Clayton, Johnny Depp – Sweeney Todd, Daniel Day-Lewis – There Will Be Blood, Viggo Mortensen – Eastern Promises, Tommy Lee Jones – In the Valley of Elah

Jesse’s Thoughts

Probable: Daniel Day-Lewis – A fairly sure bet, if you are the kind of people who bet on the Oscars. I know who you are. This Irishman, previously seen in Gangs of New York, continues to display a knack for playing crazy fucking Yankees.

Personal: George Clooney – Clooney gets trashed by people I know. I go to his movies because it’s refreshing to watch an actor with that profile and reputation barely even try. I mean that in the most positive way. He just walks out, half-asses it and gets away with it. I admire that.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Daniel Day-Lewis – Are you kidding? This is the only sure bet of the night.

Personal: Daniel Day-Lewis – Part of the reason Lewis is a sure bet is because nobody else in this category has done a performance anywhere near the same league.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Casey Affleck – The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Javier Bardem – No Country for Old Men, Philip Seymour Hoffman – Charlie Wilson’s War, Hal Holbrook – Into the Wild, Tom Wilkinson – Michael Clayton

Jesse’s Thoughts

Probable: Javier Bardem – However silly he may look, Bardem is positively spooky as the shuffling killer, another in the Coen Brothers’ long line of stoic and implacable maniacs.

Personal: Tom Wilkinson – Giving the best acting performance onscreen in 2007, Wilkinson is so good he deserves to be the guy who should have won the award, sure to be robbed by hype and bad luck. Even more proof of how good an actor he is: after watching movies with him in them for years, it was only like two months ago I found out he’s English and not American.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Javier Bardem – He took the SAG trophy both on his own, and as part of Best Ensemble Cast for No Country. And with very good reason. If he hadn’t been as terrifying and fascinating in his role, the whole film would’ve potentially fallen apart.

Personal: Tom Wilkinson – For one thing, Michael Clayton is mis-titled because Tom Wilkinson’s role is what really gives the movie heart. And for another, from his roles in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to Normal and In The Bedroom, Wilkinson is one of the best actors in Hollywood today.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Cate Blanchett – I’m Not There, Ruby Dee – American Gangster, Saoirse Ronan – Atonement, Amy Ryan – Gone Baby Gone, Tilda Swinton – Michael Clayton

Jesse’s Thoughts

Probable and Personal: Cate Blanchett – Androgynous is the new retarded when it comes to Oscar-nominated acting, but Blanchett does a damn good job here and deserves the award. That having been said, I’d make a case for Amy Ryan, who was the best thing I could care to name about the otherwise forgettable Gone Baby Gone, managing to remain convincing despite everything going on around her not making an ounce of sense.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Amy Ryan – Don’t ask me why, but I think Ryan’s won enough of the other pre-Oscar awards to be credible as the night’s first big upset.

Personal: Cate Blanchett – One of the few truly fascinating things to watch in the nearly unwatchable clusterfuck that was I’m Not There is Cate Blanchett’s complete dissappearance into Bob Dylan circa Don’t Look Back.

Best Original Screenplay

Nominees: Diablo Cody – Juno, Nancy Olivier – Lars and the Real Girl, Tony Gilroy – Michael Clayton, Brad Bird – Ratatouille, Tamara Jenkins – The Savages

Jesse

Probable: Diablo Cody – A cinematic hipster icon for the modern age, Cody deserves some kind of award just for pulling off a movie like Juno and not completely missing the point.

Personal: Brad Bird – Ratatouille was the best reviewed movie of the year but somehow got nudged out of most of the important awards. Give them some sort of recognition, and I won’t get angry.

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Diablo Cody – Despite my constant misunderstanding as to why Juno is such a big thing, there is no denying that it is a big thing. And the screenwriting category is often where the more out there films that deserve more recognition get it. So, even though Alex Huls and I are apparently the only two people alive who don’t think so, everybody else thinks Juno fits perfectly in that category.

Personal: Tony Gilroy – I don’t think Michael Clayton’s going to get much on the award front anywhere else, so I think it should get it here. Gilroy deserves some real props from taking a very tired, boring, worn-out genre and bringing it back to life.

Predictions for the 81^st Academy Awards, 2009

Best Supporting Actor

Doug’s Thoughts

Probable: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight – I obviously have yet to see the movie, or any other film that could possibly be nominated, but this is just a hunch of mine. Mix the existing huge buzz and interest in Ledger’s turn as the Joker with the almost universal feeling that he passed away before he was able to reach his considerable potential. Add to that a related, new-found guilt amongst the Oscar crowd for not giving him a statue for his turn in Brokeback Mountain, and I think there’s already a very good chance that Ledger will get a post-humous statue. But, we’ll have to wait a year to see.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Directed by Julian Schnabel
Pathé Renn Productions, 2007

By Doug Nayler

Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric) was once the wild, jet-setting Editor of the French edition of Elle. Was, that is, until he suffered a stroke so serious that he became completely paralyzed. Completely with the exception of one eye, which he could blink. But because of his continued blinking proficiency, a method of blink-communication was developed. Once he’d mastered this system, Bauby wrote a book transcribed for him entitled The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Within Bauby meditates on his condition, his prospects, and his adaptation to his new condition. Bauby remembers the prospects of his life, family and career, both mourning their loss and considering how (if at all) he can maintain any of those previous connections. Only ten days after the release of the book, Bauby passed away. Not too long afterwards, director Julian Schnabel decided to adapt the book into a feature film. A feature film told mostly from the perspective of Bauby, who seldom is able to leave the medical institution in which he lives.

Yes, that’s right, a two-hour film about a man who can’t move and can’t communicate but through blinks. As seen from the man’s own perspective. I’m not sure about you, but I know my first thought was, “How the hell is that going to work?” Luckily, for those of us who spent the money and invested the time, Schnabel, his crew, and his actors all really knew what they were doing. This movie is fantastic.

More than anything else, two choices in this film’s approach to the story made The Diving Bell work. The first of these was the use of the camera to literally explore Bauby’s perspective during his recovery, as a man having to learn an entirely new way to see and exist in a world he was previously comfortable with. And so, from a first-person perspective, we see Bauby’s world. His head lolls about uncontrollably; his vision comes in and out of focus. And the entire time, we hear Bauby’s internal monologue trying to sort out what is going on. He is trapped, just as the audience is trapped, only able to see what he is pointed at. The result of this is some very unique, experimental cinematography. But unlike the cinematography tricks in say, a Tony Scott film, or an episode of CSI: Miami, the camerawork isn’t just a cool trick. It’s grounded fully in the experiential reality of Bauby, and thus fosters an understanding of his situation by the audience. It is this emotional connection to Bauby that keeps the viewer interested. But is it enough of an emotional connection to just blink with him alone in a room for two hours?

This question, however, doesn’t need answering because of the second choice of approach within the film. And that choice is to allow the film to travel with Bauby as he explores two of the only things he has left: his memory and his imagination. The audience is whisked away with Bauby as he imagines the places he would like to be, and rediscovers the events of his life that he remembers most dearly. It is here that Bauby and the audience both find a welcome escape from the reality of his situation. But, as with all fantasies, Bauby can only think about shaving his father (Max Von Sydow) or the waterfalls of the jungle for so long, before he must deal with his own life in reality again; and it is the conflict between the freedom of the mind and the confines of the body that drives Bauby to write his book. Thus, it becomes the central conflict of the film as well.

For me, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is that which true filmmaking is all about: taking an existing situation and finding a way to express it, so that people in the larger world can understand and relate in a way not possible with any other medium. And that is what I felt most strongly when I came out of this film. That, and a curiosity at how a man who can only blink one eye can constantly attract beautiful women to his aid and comfort.

2007: Revival of the Genre Films

By Doug Nayler

Before I get into my Top 10 list for this year, I feel that a disclaimer is very much in order. Actually, two disclaimers. The first of which relates to the film There Will Be Blood. There has been much discussion concerning whether this film is to be considered a film of 2007 or 2008. There is little consensus to be found online as to when it is being released where. There are claims of December 25th, 29th, and January 4th release dates. As far as I can determine, its earliest release in Canada is not until January 4th. For that reason I have decided to consider it a 2008 release. Otherwise I fear that it would be too grave an omission from consideration in a Top Films of 2007 list. And there are already enough omissions without adding a major one.

Which brings me to my second point. As you are aware, MONDO is a community of young, starving writers who have found a way to get our take on the worlds of art and culture out there. As such, many of our writers and editors (including myself) are also in school, and in many cases employed as well, to keep those mean people who own the buildings where we live from tossing us out on the street. So, unlike a “professional” film critic the amount of time I have to devote to film going is more limited than I would prefer. Thus, for transparency’s sake, I felt that this list should be accompanied by a list of films I have yet to see. All of these are films released in 2007 that I wish I could’ve considered before compiling my Top 10:

God Grew Tired of Us; The Good German; The Italian; Color Me; Kubrick; Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters; Red Road; Year of the Dog; Hot Fuzz; Zoo; Away From Her; Once; Paris, Je T’Aime; Paprika; A Mighty Heart; Rescue Dawn; Eastern Promises; Into the Wild; Lust; Caution; Lake of Fire; Lars and the Real Girl; Gone Baby Gone; Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead; Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains; My Kid Could Paint That; The Savages; The Diving Bell and the Butterfly; Juno; Grace is Gone.

So now, with all that said, here are my top films of the year:

10. The Lives of Others
While not as insightful a character study as the marketing copy made it seem to be, The Lives of Others‘ portrait of living, working, and relationships in Eastern Germany proved very compelling. The world the film constructed felt authentic, right down to the material of the couches.

9. Ratatouille
Damn you Pixar! Why must you keep making big budget, mass-appeal films that are still clever enough to bore into the chests of us cynics where they promptly tug at our heartstrings. While I still feel guilty about giving Disney my $12, this tale of a rat who wants to be a world-class chef is impossible not to like. Now if only Patton Oswalt could get a film more in tune with the tone of his stand-up comedy.

8. Superbad
Being a young Canadian male in his 20s who came of age not long ago, it’s probably not that surprising that I responded so strongly to in-his-20s Seth Rogan’s coming-of-age tale based on his teenage experiences in Vancouver. What proved funniest to me was how finely pointed the film’s jabs at male teenage insecurity were. I could’ve almost characterized it as too close for comfort if I hadn’t been laughing so much.

7. Michael Clayton
Legal thrillers are often fucking boring. As far as I was concerned, the ’90s orgy of John Grisham-ism had killed the entire genre. Enter Michael Clayton, an unsettling, heady film that understands that tension has to be built, not just thrown in with music. This film is also smart enough to know not to set the stakes of the story so high that it starts becoming absurd. The title is something of a misnomer, however. While George Clooney’s titular “janitor” is the fulcrum around which the story turns, it’s Tilda Swinton’s CEO and Tom Wilkinson’s off-his-meds defence lawyer who give the film its heart and soul.

6. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
I saw this film three months ago, and I am still trying to sort it out. This film features fantastic imagery, excellent performances, and one of the best train-robbery sequences I’ve ever seen. Yet the characters and the audience both wrestle with the nagging worry that the “point of it all” is always just out of reach. It makes for a fascinating new take on an old genre rife with archetypes and images buried in the modern subconscious. If only it had been more precisely edited, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford would probably be even higher on this list.

5. Knocked Up
While many have heralded Superbad as the superior of this year’s two Judd Apatow blockbusters, my money is on Knocked Up. Ever since his television days, Apatow has had a great skill for pulling great comedy out of characters and relationships that seem quite present day and relatable. This film also marked a much-deserved breakout role for Seth Rogan, the man with the perfect comic delivery.

4. Zodiac
The latest film from David Fincher has shown many an excited film nerd of the ’90s that he still has great things in him. Zodiac is about a serial killer, yes, but has more in common with a film like The Conversation than Fincher’s Se7en. The film focuses less on the killer or the crimes than on the toll it takes on the investigators trying to sort it out. Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, and Jake Gyllenhaal all shine as the investigators who each in turn are consumed by the case that won’t be solved. Like some of the others on this list, Zodiac is notable for taking a tired, winded old genre and turning it in a smart, unique direction.

3. Margot at the Wedding
Critics and audiences both hated this one, but I feel that the wrath is quite undue. The complaints focused primarily on how cruel and spiteful the characters were; how director Noah Baumbach was working out personal demons and “would’ve been wiser to spend the money on therapy.” I can only wonder if the film provoked such a strong reaction because it touched a nerve. The film’s focus on selfishness, insecurity, and the complicated relationships of family is genuine and unblinking. The dark, bitter tone comes as the result of how the film bravely refuses to pull any punches. If you’re willing to make the investment, Margot at the Wedding is a film brimming with hard truths.

2. The Wind that Shakes the Barley
Director Ken Loach’s take on the Irish Republican struggle in the 1920s makes a number of choices that cause it to stand out from other historical epics of the year. Instead of trying to show all the major players and events of the period, Loach stays focused on life in the rural Irish county of Cork. Here we see the conflict exclusively through the eyes of ordinary people who couldn’t take it anymore. And, like those individuals, the viewer only hears about the goings-on of the leaders and big conflicts in Dublin and Ulster. The result is a film that is much more accessible in its approach to history. By seeing how choices developed for the ordinary man joining the IRA, the viewer is engaged to wonder what they’d do in the same situation. And it soon becomes very apparent that it’s easier to define what you’re fighting against, than what exactly is the shape of what you’re fighting for. There are no easy answers here.

1. No Country for Old Men
Raved about by critics long before its release, No Country for Old Men was surprisingly able to live up to the hype and then some. In an age of hopelessly quirky-so-it-must-be-edgy “independent” films, it’s very encouraging to see the Coen brothers play it straight. What’s most successful about this film is the way that tension is built and controlled not through music or camera tricks but by simply, discretely showing the story unfold. Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, and Tommy Lee Jones deftly carry the weight of the film, and the Coens proved shrewd in allowing them to do so without unnecessary frills. This film doesn’t even have any soundtrack music, but you wouldn’t notice if I hadn’t mentioned it. The tone and momentum are so well developed you don’t ever miss it.

No Country for Old Men
Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen
Paramount Vantage, 2007

By Doug Nayler

From the very first screening, the hype was completely insane. Every early review by even the most hardened, cynical, pretentious critics was as if it were the messageboard post of a fanboy who’d just finished a new piece of Raising Arizona fan-fic. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing: “Their best since The Big Lebowski.” Who says this? Who ever makes a statement that bold? And yet, for No Country for Old Men, every critic at Cannes was falling over the others to be the first to sing its praises. What masterstroke had the elusive Coen brothers created here? And why can’t I see it for another six months?! This is the level of expectation with which I entered No Country for Old Men. How could it ever possibly be met?

Llewellyn Moss (John Brolin) is a stoic, grizzled man of the range who stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong. Mixed among the sun-baked bodies, Moss finds a satchel filled with $2 million. Moss soon decides that he should head out on the lamb, as the owners of the money will probably want it back at some point. This is a good decision on his part as Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a completely deranged sociopath of the completely unstoppable variety, is searching for Moss and the money by mowing down anybody that stands between them. And a few others just for kicks. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) meanwhile is expected to pick up the pieces, but instead finds himself wistfully pondering the point of his life spent stemming a tide of ruthlessness that never seems to end.

Adapted from the novel by Cormac McCarthy, in some ways No Country does for West Texas what Fargo did for Minnesota. This story is almost inconceivable without the impossibly bright and inhospitably barren plains where everything goes wrong. However, unlike Fargo, this film contains no parodic, self-winkery, or kitschy quirk. No Country for Old Men plays it straight, and in a completely unpretentious fashion. And this gives me true, teary-eyed hope for cinema yet to come: if the Coen brothers can successfully abandon quirkiness then maybe Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, and every other fucking director that’s ripped off all of them in the past five years can do so as well. One of the most unsettling things about this film is the subtle, untempered eye with which it is watched. No music to build the mood. No slick, jumpy, unbelievably oversaturated cinematography. Just stillness, wind, and horror.

The performances are completely spot-on across the board. Brolin centres the film perfectly as the newest in a long line of uncommunicative Coen protragonists. Tommy Lee Jones brings total believability to his old hero at odds with the myths he once took for granted. But it is most certainly Bardem who faces the most challenging role in this film. What part has been more stereotypically overdone than the inhuman killer? What could possibly be brought to it to make it interesting again? And yet, Bardem does something genuinely interesting with the role. He is not tortured by his violence, or troubled by his madness. He isn’t aroused or excited by it. He just does the things he does because they’re what he must do. And there’s never a glimmer in his eye of any question of why this is. And this is what makes him so terrifying and fascinating to watch.

There is a rub, however, and one that cannot be overlooked. If there is a place that No Country for Old Men could quite likely lose a viewer that’s been on board all the way along, it’s at approximately three-quarters of the way through. Here we find an almost fundamental aspect of film narrative construction that is completely subverted. I will say nothing more on the fact, but it will just as likely make one praise the genius of the Coen’s originality as it will turn an audience member right off. After a few days of great internal turmoil over this matter, I have submitted to the former case. Thus, begrudgingly, I cave to the popular critical opinion. Thus far, No Country for Old Men is the best film I’ve seen of 2007.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Warner Bros. Pictures, 2007

By Doug Nayler

This film is going to make for millions of unhappy teenage girls. Despite featuring the couldn’t-be-more-ubiquitous chiseled good looks of Brad Pitt, Jesse James is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mainstream film. Unlike this month’s other big western release 3:10 to Yuma, this film has more in common with out-there westerns like Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man or Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller than it does shoot ‘em-ups like Silverado. It’s such a heady, meditative, and uncommercial film that I can only assume any viewer will either consider it pure genius or hopeless pretension. I myself am still undecided.

The film opens with Jesse James’s glory days already past. His well-known gang is gone; his fires of rebellion and excitement are mostly curbed. Living under the name Thomas Howard, he pulls the odd heist while raising his family. Jesse has become taciturn and unpredictable. His brother Frank (Sam Shepard) is fed up and decides to part ways with his brother. Nobody, including himself, knows what to do with Jesse anymore. Bob Ford (Casey Affleck), a young man who has worshiped Jesse since childhood, becomes part of a gang of men that Jesse robs a train with. As Bob discovers what Jesse has become, he grows resentful that the man doesn’t live up to the legend, and starts to fashion his new destiny: becoming famous for being the man who shot Jesse James. The problem is, Bob can’t manage to hate the man enough to kill him. Much like Jesse, Bob finds himself in a state of indecision.

The main cast’s performances are consistently superb. Although the film is peppered with his patented smirk, Affleck skillfully embodies the character of Bob Ford and his mixture of worship, admiration, disappointment and hatred for his boyhood hero. The supporting cast is just as impressive. Though some may find the film’s many digressions into the lives of the secondary characters frustrating and unnecessary, I enjoyed spending time with these interesting characters; Sam Rockwell, Garret Dillahunt (Deadwood), and Paul Schneider all add depth.

The plot unfortunately gets lost brooding in the intricacies and paradoxes of the characters’ minds and lives; 40 minutes could be cut and not be missed. Making a film about a lack of direction can lead to a directionless film, and though this film is not entirely without direction, it certainly requires a commitment from its audience, and its ambivalent, unresolved tone is sure to frustrate a lot of viewers… especially the younger generation of Brad Pitt fans, who are probably not looking for an existential experience.

3:10 to Yuma
Directed by James Mangold
Lionsgate Films 2007

By Doug Nayler

Johnny Cash is completely responsible for 3:10 to Yuma. For many years, director James Mangold had been toting a script from production company to production company to remake a 1957 western based on a short story by Elmore Leonard. Nobody wanted it. “Are you crazy?” the studios said. “We’re going to lose so much money on a western. Nobody goes to westerns!” And, with no contrary examples more recent than 1994, Mangold had no other option than to give up and move onto some other projects. However, one of those projects Mangold ended up doing was the Academy-Award winning Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line. After that, suddenly anything Mangold wanted to do was a great idea. And those exact same studios were suddenly lining up to throw money at 3:10 to Yuma. So the legend goes, anyway, such is the business.

The 3:10 to Yuma is the train murder and bandit Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is to be sent off on to Yuma prison. Following a big, flashy robbery of his twenty-somethingth stagecoach Ben decides to push his luck by sneaking into the town the posse has just left from. Ben laughs, has some drinks, and finds a lady companion (in what is easily one of the weirdest seduction scenes I’ve seen in quite awhile). However, Ben is soon captured in part thanks to his being distracted by one-footed sharecropper Dan Evans (Christian Bale). Dan has had a rough time recently, with his landowner trying to drive him off the farm to sell the land to the railway. Dan needs to find some way to get some cash to get the family through the next few months. And when the opportunity suddenly arises to transport Wade to the Yuma train, Dan takes it. However, Ben, Dan and everyone else know that his gang is coming back for him.

The central focus of this film is the strange relationship between Wade and Dan, and that was a very good decision to make. Crowe and Bale are both ridiculously talented actors, and both carry the sort of quiet intensity that works very well in a western. The film’s most interesting moments come from the times when Ben and Dan are trying to get a handle on one another. Though their goals and values are completely opposed, there’s something that the two seem to truly begin to respect about one another. The complexity of this developing relationship is the through-line of the film and always what the viewer is eager to keep following.

The tragedy of the film, however, is that it’s rather schizophrenic. Because set against this very interesting, grounded central relationship is a series of very flashy, modernized action sequences. Perhaps I’m just a little hyper-sensitive when it comes to gunfights in westerns. Does it not seem over the top to have a man riding a horse be shot right in the bag of dynamite he’s carrying and thus explode mid-canter? Did the filmmakers really have to put that much effort into finding out a way to make a horse explode? You can’t have a high-speed chase on horseback, so it’s probably best to not even try. And yet all the gunfight sequences are shot in a very slick, high-octane manner that doesn’t really jive with the rest of the film. What makes this discontinuity so frustrating is the fact that it undercuts the more engaging aspects of the film. And it does this so consistently that about two thirds of the way through the viewer stops expecting the film’s strengths to come out on top. So in the end 3:10 to Yuma is not a great film, but a film with flashes of greatness that eventually get drowned out. So if you’re okay with that, I’d say it’s worth checking out.

Three cheers for celebrity decadence, directorial pretentia, and Noah Baumbach’s deep-seated psychological issues.

By Doug Nayler

With hundreds of films, 24 different screens, and enough hype to choke the entire world’s equestrian population (if there was some way to exchange ‘hype’ for something capable of doing so… perhaps a large number of softballs?) it gets very difficult to see even a third of what goes on at the Toronto International Film Festival. And I’m speaking strictly of the screenings, not even mentioning the all-night orgies at Holt Renfrew attended by Joaquin Phoenix and Roman Polanski. No, TIFF is nothing if not overwhelming: it comes into town like a hurricane, then leaves with a wake of destruction, as if it’s taken half the money in town with it. In part because it has.

Despite all this, I managed to successfully attend some films, and here are some comments upon them. I’ve decided to just give a series of mini-reviews to whet your appetites for the full length, uncut, hardcore reviews that will come when the films are actually released. So, without any further ado:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Warner Bros. Pictures, 2007

This film is going to make for millions of very unhappy teenage girls. Despite featuring the couldn’t-be-more ubiquitous chiseled good looks of Brad Pitt, Jesse James is not by any stretch of the imagination a mainstream film. Unlike this month’s other big western release, 3:10 to Yuma, this film has more in common with out there westerns such as Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man or Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller than it does to shoot em’ ups like Silverado. It’s such a heady, meditative, and uncommercial film that I can only assume any viewer will either consider it pure genius or hopeless pretension. I myself am still unsure.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that the acting is superb for almost everyone in the film. Who ever knew that Casey Affleck had range? Although the film is loaded with Affleck’s patented ‘look down and smirk’ maneuver, he subtly embodies the character of Bob Ford and his mixed worship, admiration, disappointment and hatred for his boyhood hero Jesse James (Pitt). He never really decides how he feels about what he does or the man he does it to.

However, it’s this very grasping, ambivalent, unresolved tone to the film that is sure to frustrate the hell out of a lot of viewers. The film is very effective in leaving the audience unsettled and conflicted about what has played out in front of them, but there are a lot of Brad Pitt fans out there that probably aren’t really looking for that experience.

Margot at the Wedding
Directed by Noah Baumbach
Paramount Vantage, 2007

Anyone who has any doubts that Noah Baumbach had a very dysfunctional childhood need only watch this film. His follow-up to the fantastic The Squid and the Whale proves itself even more biting and vicious than the previous film. Margot (Nicole Kidman) takes a trip to her childhood home, where her estranged sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is planning to get married. As tends to be the case in films of this sort, old conflicts and behaviour patterns start popping up right away.

The film is an excellent example of what can be done within a minute scope. The whole film takes place within the few days of Margot’s visit, mostly at the family home, and with really no more than 5 or 6 important characters. However, the arguments, conversations, and reactions prove more than compelling enough fuel for the film. One feels just as intimately trapped in the relational knot as the characters themselves. As a result, one feels instantly relieved at being able to escape after only ninety minutes, to face their own far less daunting friends and family. Poor, poor Noah Baumbach…

Short Cuts Canada Programme 3

Almost as a fluke, I was able to see one of this year’s Short Cuts Canada programs, featuring the best of Canadian shorts. Although all 8 of the films were well executed, very slick, and easily watchable, three really stood out for me:

Hirsute
Directed by A.J. Bond
2007

This is a clever and stylish relationship comedy masquerading as a time travel film, the hook being that the relationship is between a struggling scientist striving for time travel and his future self, returning successfully and more than a little arrogant. A fairly well trod premise for anyone who’s watched Saturday morning cartoons or the early work of Keanu or Michael J. Fox, but this short is smart enough to make the shtick its own.

Terminus
Directed by Trevor Cawood
2007

Although (and this could be said for all of the evening’s CGI-laden entries) seemingly considering its own visual tricks as both means and ends, Terminus is an interesting little film: a man in a subway station is surprised to find a colossus of concrete columns begins following him everywhere he goes. With no explanation for why this has occurred, the man becomes more and more unstable. Eventually, things build to a crisis point as he sees that most other people have a creature of the same sort following them that they’re mostly unaware of. Hell if I know what it’s supposed to mean, but it’s fun to watch.

Farmer’s Requiem
Directed by Ramses Madina
2007

The only film that I felt was truly extraordinary was this short piece, and it was easily the simplest of all those shown. The visuals consist of black and white footage of a dilapidated farm. In voice-over, the old farmer who spent his whole life there discusses his life and experiences. This is accompanied by the music of Godspeed You! Black Emperor. That’s it. However, these three elements combine into an absolutely beautiful visual poem that is completely transfixing from the first frame. It’s also only 9 minutes long, and (depending on music rights) probably cost half as much as any of the other films screened.

Sunshine
Directed by Danny Boyle
Paramount Vantage, 2007

By Doug Nayler

When one decides to make a film about flying into the sun in a ship named the Icarus, themes become apparent rather quickly. Human insignificance stacked against the incomprehensible volume of space; hubris in the face of natural forces that can’t be controlled or altered. However, Sunshine’s viewers eventually begin to develop the same nagging worries about the filmmakers as they have for the characters: how long can these people play with such large ideas before it all starts to go wrong?

In the near future, the sun is dying. In a last ditch effort to restart it, a spacecraft loaded with a massive payload of nuclear explosives is being flown into the heart of the sun. The movie follows the small crew (including Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne, Chris Evans, and Michelle Yeoh to name a few) of the Icarus II en route. The space is claustrophobic, relations are getting frayed, and the sun grows larger and more unfathomable each day. The pressure of the mission and the scope of the task at hand are always in the back of everyone’s minds, and it all keeps building. The film has a wonderful tension, almost as terrifying in its own way as that of 28 Days Later, director Danny Boyle’s last outing.

One of the film’s best choices is to focus intently on the isolated, subjective nature of the mission. The story starts years after the crew has left home, and just as they are about to lose any contact with earth. All that the crew has to go on are their own experiences of something that nobody has ever experienced before. Nobody except the crew of the Icarus I who were sent on the same mission, but they disappeared mysteriously. Spooky!

Unfortunately, in the end Sunshine seems unable to sustain its own weight. All its earlier, deeper meditations on our place in the universe and our own limitations are abandoned in exchange for a very conventional (yet completely out of the blue) suspenseful climax as the Icarus II finds the wreck of the Icarus I and continues on to the sun. It’s as if the scriptwriter got bored right around the beginning of the third act and decided to hire some slick script-doctor to “amp it up” and “take it to the limit.” This sudden left turn is all the more disappointing for the high expectations the film has earned up to that point.

However, despite the disappointing ending, Sunshine is still worth the effort. It’s a valiant attempt; an intelligent, emotionally arresting, and (most extraordinarily) believable sci-fi film that simply runs out of steam too early. As long as you don’t let the ending spoil the film, which it almost certainly will, you won’t be disappointed.