Revolutionary Road (2008)

An Intelligent Premise Gone Bad

Revolutionary Road is a film where men last less than 30 seconds and women would be content with even 3 because they always have more pressing issues. For most of them it's the daily humdrum of suburban life while for April Wheeler, it's the continuous effort to find a way to start living the life she had envisioned for herself when she fell in love and got married. For this cause, she is even willing to work herself, take the responsibility to look after the family and give her husband, Frank, the time he needs to figure out what he really wants to do with his life. All she wants is to abandon their current lifestyle for good. Being a salesman at Knox and taking the train to work every morning like dozens of other men in suits and fedora hats (visualized beautifully in one of the film's most worthwhile scenes), Frank shares April's aspiration for a better, but more importantly, an exciting life that to them seems possible only beyond American suburbia. He is more than happy to cooperate. For a while at least.

This is a married couple who have pinned all their hopes and ambitions to Paris for no apparent reason, save for the rumor that they paid crazy amounts for secretarial jobs in government agencies in Europe; a rumor which they conveniently never question. For all we know, they might be choosing that specific city over dozens of others just because its name radiates a romantic and adventurous feel. When their exasperation is so extreme, there is no time for reasoning. They are so busy trying to get out that they have no time to plan where to get in once they do.

The fact that 'things' get in the way of all their plans is probably both favorable and not. It's good because once faced with the impossible amount of complications brought along, they wake up from their dreams of a blind date with Paris. But it's also a misfortune because everything happens after this point further accentuates their dysfunction as a couple. One of the film's rare accomplishments is to show us, at this point, that none of the parties in this family is solely responsible from everything they go through - they are simply not right for each other, as is most often the case in real life.

It's the lighthearted feel-bad movie of the year where dreams are made impossible by life itself. It becomes apparent with this film that director Sam Mendes of American Beauty is not at all done with American suburbia, whether it be the one we witness today or the one that our parents did years ago. This is fine, but the problem is, there are countless other films (Little Children, Edward Scissorhands, The Stepford Wives and its remake) and TV Shows (Weeds, Desperate Housewives) that address the same issue, either through parody or critique. Needless to say, all of the examples I have listed do an excellent job, both intellectually and aesthetically (except for later seasons of Desperate Housewives) and if one wants to tackle the same subject again, he/she must be able to top them. Or at least should hit a different note and provide us with something that hasn't already been done numerous times before. In this aspect, Revolutionary Road has nothing to offer.

Substantial problems in details further sink Revolutionary Road. First of such flaws is the fact that the film is drowned in overtly theatrical and disturbingly descriptive monologues; mostly reserved for Kate Winslet to make her appear more Oscar-worthy (but hey, it worked for the Golden Globes). Throughout these monologues, the whole point of the film (which I believe I was able to summarize quite exhaustively in the few paragraphs above) is repeated over and over again to a point that it loses its meaning and significance. Here is one of such monologues to refresh your memory:

No Frank, this is what's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for a man with a fine mind to go on working, year after year, at a job he can't stand; coming home to a place he can't stand; to a wife who is equally unable to stand the same things. Do you want to know the worst part? Our whole existence here is based on this great premise that we're... special and superior to the whole thing. But we're not! We're just like everyone else! Look at us; we've bought into the same ridiculous delusion; this idea that you have to resign from life and settle down the moment you have children. And we've been punishing each other for it.

Here is another jewel of a monologue about truth:

Why not? I don't need everything we have here; I don't care where we live. I mean, who made these rules anyway? Look, the only reason we moved out here was because I got pregnant. Then we had another child to prove the first one wasn't a mistake. I mean, how long does it go on?! Frank? Do you actually want another child? Well do you? Come on, tell me. Tell me the truth Frank! Remember that? We used to live by it. And you know what's so good about the truth? Everyone knows what it is, however long they've lived without it. No one forgets the truth Frank, they just get better at lying. So tell me, do you really want another child?

Come to think of it, this was the exact scene shown to the audience when Winslet's name was announced as a nominee in tonight's SAG awards. So I guess the fish bit the hook in this one.

If you are going to tell word by word what the movie is all about, then it is my humble opinion that you don't need to make the movie itself. If I'm going to be treated like a little kid in an elementary school, if the writer is so obsessed in making me understand his subject matter that he makes his characters describe themselves to the audience and if an inanimate object can draw the same conclusions from the movie as I do, than that movie is nothing more than a waste of two precious hours from one's life.

Not only the monologues but everything else in the film, every discussion, every argument, every single excitement and tension boils down to the same theme of 'living the life one wants' as opposed to what he/she is forced to. It's a powerful theme but the best way to cultivate it would be either to expand it (like Little Children did) or deepen it (like American Beauty) as opposed to keep repeating a single tagline. It is for this reason that I believe Revolutionary Road would've worked a lot better as a 15-minute short film and -needless to say- this is never a good sign for a full-length motion picture.

Another flaw I can think on the top of my head is the overtly theatrical lines/moments which distract the audience from the intensity of this could-be-real story. Here is an example...

(Frank discovers the rubber tubes and explodes)

Frank: Listen to me, you do this April, you do this and I swear to god...
April: What? You'll leave me? Is that a threat or a promise?

... and another one:

(John Givings, played by Oscar-nominated Michael Shannon, drops by with his mother Helen and father Howard to meet the Wheelers. Helen, who is obviously at unease with her son's extreme inquisitiveness and inappropriate questions, walks up to the window and tries changing the subject)

John: See, I've got a good many questions to ask and I'm willing to pay for the answers. Now I don't need to be told that a man who goes after his mother with a coffee table is putting himself in a weak position legally, that's obvious.
Helen: John, come have a look out this fabulous picture window!
John: If he hits her with it and kills her, that's a criminal case.
Helen: Oh look, the sun is coming out!
John: If all he does is break the coffee table and give her a certain amount of aggravation and she decides to go to court over it, that's a civil case.
Helen: Maybe we'll have a rainbow! John, come have a look!

Theatricalities like these work for certain films but certain films only. Revolutionary Road is not one of them.

While we are on the subject of John Givings, allow me to say that both his character and his performance is the most pathetic way to try to appear smart, unexpected and interesting. The mentally challenged ex math doctor is the least expected person to understand the complexity of the given situation yet -big surprise- it's no one but him who puts his finger on what's fundamentally wrong with the Wheeler family! In the 'look how smartly written and brilliantly acted this character is and be impressed by him' dinner sequence towards the end, he misfires even when delivering the powerful line: "I'm glad I'm not gonna be that kid". Yet it's the Academy this time to take the bait and before you know it, he is nominated for an Oscar in the supporting actor category which, by the way, has no sign of Ralph Fiennes's career-defining performance in The Duchess. It's one of those many instances when one tends to believe that AMPAS has no credibility left at all (But that's such a typical to say nowadays, isn't it?)

As for other performances, I can easily say that Winslet does her best with the lines she is given but Leonardo DiCaprio, whose ambitious transformation from a teenage heartthrob into a serious actor I had been admiring for a while, is completely lost in his role as the loving yet tenacious, aggressive and predictable husband who is constantly fighting for dominance and control. Not that there is anything significant that he's doing wrong but his presence is faint and insubstantial. Some roles are not good for certain actors and I guess this was one of such roles for Leo. The rest of the cast is just the way they're supposed to be - decent enough.

All in all, Revolutionary Road is built on a admirable premise but is a wasted opportunity merely because of the BAFTA-nominated screenplay. The fundamental flaws in its execution makes me unable to fully absorb a lot of its strengths, such as the incredibly intense and nerve-shattering breakfast sequence at the end where you immediately sense that something is terribly wrong but can't put your finger on it. It's the deep breath before the plunge. And it is one of those moments where the extent of Kate Winslet's talents become most apparent. To find the perfect balance between greatly disturbing and perfectly normal is not a job everybody can pull off.

4/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Achievement in Art Direction (Kristi Zea & Debra Schutt) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Achievement in Costume Design (Albert Wolsky) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Michael Shannon) - Academy Awards

• Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases (Roger Deakins) - American Society of Cinematographers

• Best Costume Design (Albert Wolsky) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Leading Actress (Kate Winslet) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Production Design (Kristi Zea & Debra Schutt) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Justin Haythe) - BAFTA Awards

• Best Supporting Actor (Michael Shannon) - Chicago Film Critics Association

• Excellence in Costume Design for Film (Albert Wolsky) - Costume Designers Guild Awards

• Best Director, Motion Picture (Sam Mandes) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Motion Picture, Drama - Golden Globes
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama (Leonardo DiCaprio) - Golden Globes

• Actress of the Year (Kate Winslet) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• British Actress of the Year (Kate Winslet) - London Critics Circle Film Awards

• Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role (Kate Winslet) - Screen Actors Guild Awards
  

Won:

• Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama (Kate Winslet) - Golden Globes

• Best Actress (Kate Winslet) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards

Who Should've Won, Who Should Win & Who Deserved

More Featured Articles For The Awards Season

I have been doing not so bad with the awards season film reviews that I had promised would be the primary feature on The Long Take until the end of Oscar Night, if you don't mind me saying that. I look back and see I have posted 7 reviews that is relevant and 10 posts in total this month and this is way above my average. I will take this chance to congratulate myself for learning how to fulfill my promises.

So far I have been posting reviews of films only because this is the time of the year when I spend the most time watching movies and I barely have enough time and energy to keep writing reviews for them as I go. I am still behind schedule as I am yet to review a few of the year's most talked about films (a.k.a. the ones with most nominations); but I am aware that in order to make this feature more complete, I need to write some higher-level articles that analyze what's going on in the awards circles at this time of the year. In line with this notion, I have pinned down what additional features that this article series need most; and I would like to share them with you, as always.

1. In all my arrogance, I have decided to inform you about who I think should've won in the Golden Globes, who should win in the upcoming Oscars and the films/people that really deserved to win in the categories specified by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). They might appear slightly confusing at first glance, so let me clarify:

• Who should've won in the Golden Globes is a post where I proudly declare my choices for deserving winners among the nominees presented by Hollywood Foreign Press Association. In years to come, this post will always come after the winners are announced because, frankly, I never have enough time to be able to see all the nominated films before the Golden Globe night and I don't want to make up my mind based on my prejudices and preconceptions.
  
• Who should win in the Oscars is a post where I write about my picks among the nominees presented by AMPAS. I should be able to post this before the Oscar Night because after that, the excitement for the whole thing dies down and awards season comes to an end.
  
• The year's real deserving winners is where I freely choose the should-be-winners for almost every Oscar category according to my own criteria - therefore the nominees are of no interest at this point. This one should come sometime after the Oscar Night because I want it to be more conclusive than tension-heightening.
  

For all these three post, I will also analyze, hopefully every year, what percentage that the awards organizations were able to get the winners right. Yes, I am that full of myself. On the other hand I think it makes more sense than trying to guess the winners, unless you are gambling on them (which I also did in the past) so at least I have good reason to be.

Due to the sheer number of categories, the commentary on each one needs to be short so don't expect anything epic.

2. Year's Oscar Commentary will be an article, where I will elaborate on notable aspects of the year's Oscar nominations. Although Stephanie Zacharek commented recently that this stuff was too unimaginative to be interesting, I still think I can see certain patterns in the way the Academy behaves and those should be of interest. Besides, every year there is a little bit of surprise here and there so it's not an entirely pointless effort.

I predict that it will be in the nature of this article to be kind of repetitive; you might see in it what hundreds of others have already said but every now and then I might catch something original so I'm hoping it'll be a worthy read. Obviously, I will not steal from people without giving credit but I don't read that much so I can't guarantee 100% originality. After all, a surprise is a surprise for everyone, not just me.

3. Conclusive Article of The Year will be an annual wrap-up of things and will include:

• Best 10 Movies of The Year: It's the tradition that everybody abides so why shouldn't I? There is no big suspense here as you can always track the latest situation with my best 10 list on the left bar. I will try to have a review for all the films in that list so that the list itself will consist only of links to my original articles and maybe a few sentences for each entry.
  
• Worst 3 Movies of The Year: Similar to the one above, I will celebrate the people who were able to come up with the most unpleasant things we have seen on the silver screen in the given year.
  
• Conclusive Commentary: A little bit of blabber about the year in general in terms of movies. Notable details, things to be remembered in the future and whatever else that I see fit.

The awards season period in The Long Take will come to an end with this wrap-up post so it will be the latest among all these.

So... More features means more promises - I can only hope I will be able to keep up. Until then, stay tuned.

Ghost Town (2008)

A Film By David Koepp The Talent Neutralizer

Before we go into the latest film that was privileged to star Ricky Gervais in it (of which there are only a handful), let's pause for a moment to pay our respects to the career of writer/director David Koepp, who has been ruining, with mesmerizing skill and determination, a high variety of promising projects for a couple of years now. I am aware that he co-wrote Jurassic Park, which happens to be one of my favorite films, but I have strong faith in Michael Crichton's positive influence in that one. Carlito's Way was good enough but after that came a number of other utterly unremarkable projects (which include but are not limited to The Trigger Effect, The Paper and The Shadow). He joined forces with Brian de Palma and Mission: Impossible became his first film to have posters where the name 'Tom Cruise' would be advertised in bigger fonts than the actual title of the film. This was closely followed by a second round with Steven Spielberg for a Jurassic Park sequel. I would have a couple of mean things to say about these two films, but I will save my breath for the really catastrophic part.

This brings me to David Fincher, whom I have always thought of as an extremely talented director. He does wonders as long as he does not team up with a guy who insists on telling the story of Forrest Gump over and over again; or with a guy who, in the best case scenario, will have hard time going beyond the ordinary. Thanks to the latter, an A-list director who had films like Fight Club, Se7en and The Game to his name until then, became responsible from something like Panic Room.

Koepp then found someone very much like himself in the talent department and adapted Spider-Man, which was a huge commercial success and did considerably good with critics. I didn't think it was a particularly bad film as well - it was nice in a TV movie sort of way. You know, the ones you forget after approximately a couple of minutes after watching. Not more than two years after that something incomprehensible happened and a project with the names Johnny Depp, John Turturro and Stephen King attached to it turned out to be even worse than Spidey. Before we could think what went wrong where, Steven Spielberg realized -in the hard way- that third time was not really a charm; Koepp wrote arguably his worst film that is known to mankind today and needless to say, it was a traumatic experience for everyone. For some reason though, Spielberg persisted the cooperation (because of box office numbers maybe?) until this time he ruined a whole franchise that had been sweeping a whole generation for years; alienating fan base so hardcore that until then was believed to have been impossible to turn away.

And now he takes one of the world's most beloved comedians and reduces him to Hugh Grant. In my book, that's a dead-serious atrocity.

Yes, I do believe that Ricky Gervais is one of the most talented of his generation. He is a real comedic genius and terrific performer; his collection of stand-ups (i.e. Animals, Politics and Fame) is a must-see, but the real extent of his talent is quantified by The Office (British version, obviously), Extras and his short, mostly-improvised gigs in the awards ceremonies. I loved his cameo-like appearance in Stardust and seeing him act against Robert de Niro was like a dream come true. That's why I was quite excited to see Ghost Town where he got to play a comedic lead, even though the whole thing looked like just another reprehensible romantic comedy.

With Koepp, I should've known better.

This is basically the story of a man who, after a bizarre set of events, is able to see dead people but more importantly, they are able to see that he sees them; the dead people in this case being the ones whose death left an unfinished business behind. And as semi-ghosts tend to do in cases like this, everybody has a small request from him so that they will be done with all the earthly matters and their souls will find eternal peace. Bertram Pincus (played by Gervais) though is a bitter asshole who couldn't care less. That is, until he strikes a deal with Frank (played by Greg Kinnear) who is good at convincing people to do things because that used to be his job before he kicked the bucket. The rules of the game are clear: Pincus will help Frank with his unfinished business and in exchange, Frank will convince everybody else to leave Pincus alone.

The rest is a melodramatic story of personal awakenings and -as always- the real meaning of life, spiced up with occasional funny moments. It is Sixth Sense and Ghost cooked in the same pot and finished with a heavy cream of romantic comedy conventions. I will not go so far as to say that Ghost Town is not enjoyable; it definitely has its moments and depending on how much you can tolerate movie cliches, you might even find it satisfying as a whole. As for me, I am used to watching trite films and not caring about them, even to write a review; but in this case my pain is to see Ricky Gervais being wasted in one of them.

5/10

Frozen River (2008)

Ankle-Deep Waters Of Storytelling

Until a short while ago, I had been trying my hand in writing short stories and novellas. During all my seemingly-endless efforts to create, I was lucky enough to have a wonderful woman as both by mentor and my tutor, who called me -much to my embarrassment- her 'fellow writer'. She was a professional writer, she had novels which I had read and admired. When I asked her to sign them for me, that's what she wrote: "To my fellow writer, whose works I tremendously enjoy".

She was a real intellectual; doing justice to the word which is frequently thrown around nowadays. Due to her father's job as a diplomat, she had constantly traveled and seen a lot. Aside from writing, she had worked as a translator, consular assistant, pianist and church organist. She had the incredible ability to look through what you had written and instantly know whatever was wrong with it. But more important than all that, she was always constructive in her criticism; she would never be condescending towards a newbie writer and never kill the enthusiasm he had for writing; all the while managing to make him understand, one by one, what she thought was significantly wrong with the 'work' she was given. I cannot even begin to imagine how many precious future writers she has been (and still is) contributing to artistically.

If I had written Frozen River's screenplay as a short story and shown it to her for feedback, I'm sure even she would've laughed in my face.

Courtney Hunt's directorial debut stirred much attention this year as an innovative independent film about universal nature of family ties (those between the mother and the children anyway). It's a film about a woman (Ray) with serious monetary problems who, in order to make her ends meet, starts smuggling people from Canada to U.S. using a river on the border which freezes during winter. Her accomplice is a Mohawk woman (Lila) who is too blind to count money but can see car tracks on the snow at night time without her glasses. Both sides of the river belong to a certain Mohawk territory so what they are doing is not illegal, Lila explains; but we as the audience, along with Ray, have doubts as to how much that explanation would suffice once faced with a border patrol.

Courtney uses a realist visuality which presumably should give the film a more stark and intense look, but in fact is absolutely amateur at best. I will go as far as to say that Frozen River is a living proof that not everybody can make films. Call me elitist, call me conservative, call me whatever you want but there is no way for anyone to claim that this is actually a good movie without confusing subtlety with mediocrity.

It's a family drama where the little boy wants Santa to bring him their house as a Christmas gift, which they are about to lose due to economical difficulties. The elder brother holds on for dear life to the blowtorch that his dad gave him because..., well, you know... he misses him so much and stuff. During the smuggling operation, border patrol will not search Ray's car, proclaims Lisa. "Why?" you might ask naively. Because she's white of course! Frozen River is like the combined personification of all the cliches that are out there to be used. It's the kind of story that I would be ashamed to have my name attached to, even if I had written it for a high school writing exercise.

On top everything, why they would advertise the film as a "gripping thriller" in the trailers, is beyond me.

3/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (Melissa Leo) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Courtney Hunt) - Academy Awards

• Best Actress (Melissa Leo) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Most Promising Filmmaker (Courtney Hunt) - Chicago Film Association Awards

• Best Director (Courtney Hunt) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Feature - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Female Lead (Melissa Leo) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best First Screenplay (Courtney Hunt) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Supporting Female (Misty Upham) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Supporting Male (Charlie McDermott) - Independent Spirit Awards

• Golden Seashell (Courtney Hunt) - San Sebastian International Film Festival

• Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role (Melissa Leo) - Screen Actors Guild Awards
  

Won:

• Best Directorial Debut (Courtney Hunt) - National Board of Review
  
• Spotlight Award (Melissa Leo) - National Board of Review

• Best First Film (Courtney Hunt) - New York Critics Circle Awards

• SIGNIS Award (Courtney Hunt) - San Sebastian International Film Festival
  
• Silver Seashell, Best Actress (Melissa Leo) - San Sebastian International Film Festival
  
• TVE Otra Mirada Award (Courtney Hunt) - San Sebastian International Film Festival

• Bronze Horse, Best Film (Courtney Hunt) - Stockholm Film Festival

• Grand Jury Prize, Dramatic (Courtney Hunt) - Sundance Film Festival

• Best Actress (Melissa Leo) - Florida Film Critics Circle Awards

Milk (2008)

Harvey Milk Deserves More Than Awards Season Hollywood

Despite the fact that it's quite far from being a cinematical masterpiece, Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain was a landmark on many aspects. It was one of the few gay-themed films ever to be nominated for Best Picture in Academy Awards. More importantly it was the first gay romance/drama to receive mainstream appreciation throughout the world. It was one of the rare cases where an Asian director tackled an entirely American concept and succeeded in telling a highly-sensitive story. But maybe the most important one of such landmarks has brought more harm than good, because Ang Lee's film has emphasized the phenomenon of a heterosexual actor portraying a gay character on screen more boldly than ever before and equated the notion, in our heads, to talent and success in acting. Provided that there isn't something disastrously wrong with them, the perception of such performances has been permanently defaulted to critical acclaim after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal.

Gus Van Sant's Milk is one of latest films to exploit this newly-found weak spot among critical circles. Encapsulating a universal message of tolerance and understanding, featuring a talented actor in the leading role playing a heroic but also eccentric historical figure and following a smooth and conventional plotline, the release date of Milk should come off as no surprise to anyone.

Whatever I have written for my review of Frost/Nixon (or more precisely, whatever Jim Emerson has written for me) is obviously valid here as well. Rob Epstein's Oscar-winning 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk renders Gus Van Sant's Milk utterly useless, save for the star-driven entertainment factor. How inconsiderate it is for Van Sant to take the story which is sensitively and masterfully told by Epstein and reduce it to this level, is yet another legitimate question to ask; but one thing is certain: It is quite disillusioning to see the famed director take the easy way out of this one.

As for Sean Penn, I don't think his depiction of Harvey Milk is particularly bad. On the contrary, I think it's quite entertaining to watch him and everyone around him as well for the duration of the whole film (Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin and James Franco are only a portion of Milk's the ensemble cast). As opposed to what the majority seems to be thinking though, I don't see anything going on here that is more significant than, say, Dustin Hoffman in Last Chance Harvey or Clive Owen in Shoot 'Em Up. It's mere simple-minded, relaxing fun.

In Jim Emerson's own words: "Watch these clips from The Times of Harvey Milk to discover resonant details that didn't make the Hollywood cut."

I will add only three more points to Emerson's rather short double-review:

1. Having witnessed the same phenomenon twice in 2008 made me realize one disgusting fact: Unless an issue becomes the subject of an entertainment-driven, multi-million dollar oscar-bait that is strategically released towards the end of the year and opens to wide critical acclaim, it will not garner attention. How important the issue is quite irrelevant. It doesn't even matter if someone was able to display a striking expertise in handling the subject and make a far superior documentary only a couple of years ago. People will take the bait and old school Hollywood oversimplification will win over his work to be declared 'a masterpiece'.

2. Along with the simplify-for-entertainment attitude, Milk embodies another atrocity often encouraged by the awards authorities: 'Imitate someone famous to grab a statuette'. This film is another one of those cases where actors cease to be actors and become mere impersonators. We, as the 21st century audience on the other hand, have learned well to shape our tastes in harmony with these handful of awards shows, all of which tend to favor such performances over others. We are constantly mesmerized by how similar an actor looks to the actual historical figure and how they talk in exactly the same way; all the while forgetting about everything else that makes a great film (or a great performance for that matter). Sean Penn in Milk is only this year's example; if you go back only a few years, similar cases are many.

Next time you see a semi-fictional biography, award yourself with this thinking exercise: Is there anything else to the film, other than the 'acting' job that has win you over? And is there anything else that the actor is able to accomplish, other than a decent impersonation of the celebrity?

3. The best way to tell the story of a historical figure is not necessarily going through everything he has accomplished in his life, one by one, as if lining up beads on a string. Like Todd Haynes of I'm Not There, one should have a firm understanding of the man himself and then reflect that information on screen using all the facilities made available by the language of cinema. Any less effort than this is a lazy attempt. In order not to risk misunderstanding, I will make one thing very clear: It is not my intention, by saying this, to formulate a standard approach to making semi-fictional biographies. I just want to stress that sometimes, for some people, what happened in their lives is not enough to define who they are.

Harvey Milk is such a person.

5/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Achievement in Costume Design (Danny Glicker) - Academy Awards
• Best Achievement in Directing (Gus Van Sant) - Academy Awards
• Best Achievement in Editing (Elliot Graham) - Academy Awards
• Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score (Danny Elfman) - Academy Awards
• Best Motion Picture of the Year - Academy Awards
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (Sean Penn) - Academy Awards
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Josh Brolin) - Academy Awards
• Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Dustin Lance Black) - Academy Awards

• Best Edited Feature Film, Dramatic (Elliot Graham) - American Cinema Editors

• Excellence in Production Design, Period Films (Bill Groom) - Art Directors Guild

• Best Film - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Leading Actor (Sean Penn) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Make up & Hair (Steven E. Anderson & Michael White) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - BAFTA Awards

• Best Actor (Sean Penn) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Director (Gus Van Sant) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Original Score (Danny Elfman) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Picture - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

• Excellence in Costume Design for Film, Period (Danny Glicker) - Costume Designers Guild Awards

• Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures (Gus Van Sant) - Directors Guild of America

• Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama (Sean Penn) - Golden Globes

• Best Cinematography (Harris Savides) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best First Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Male Lead (Sean Penn) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Supporting Male (James Franco) - Independent Spirit Awards

• Actor of the Year (Sean Penn) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• Director of the Year (Gus Van Sant) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• Film of the Year - London Critics Circle Film Awards

• Motion Picture Producer of the Year (Dan Jinks & Bruce Cohen) - Producers Guild of America
  

• Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture - Screen Actors Guild Awards
• Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (Josh Brolin) - Screen Actors Guild Awards

• Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - Writers Guild of America
  

Won:

• Best Actor (Sean Penn) - Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
  
• Best Director (Gus Van Sant) - Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
  
• Best Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - Boston Society of Film Critics Awards

• Best Actor (Sean Penn) - Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards

• Best Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin) - National Board of Review

• Best Actor (Sean Penn) - New York Film Critics Circle Awards
• Best Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin) - New York Film Critics Circle Awards
• Best Picture - New York Film Critics Circle Awards

• Stanley Kramer Award - Producers Guild of America

• Best Actor (Sean Penn) - Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards
• Best Picture - Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) - Southeastern Film Critics Association

• Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Sean Penn) - Screen Actors Guild Awards

• Ten Best Movies of the Year - American Film Institute Awards
  

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Life Is Stranger Than Fiction Sometimes

If you had been following Jim Emerson's blog this year, you should've had noticed several jewels that he wrote whenever he had some spare time from his rather pointless and puerile campaign to prove that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was not that much of a spectacle that pretty much everybody thought it was. Among the latest of such jewels is an article named: Frost/Nixon/Milk: Get Real, where he makes a tremendously accurate point; such that just because I don't feel like beating a dead dog, I will keep this review much shorter than usual. I don't want you to waste your time here and watch me regurgitate while you could go to Jim's blog instead and read the actual piece which summarizes, with the exact phrases and sentences I had in mind, why I disliked the films in question.

I will save the Milk part of the argument to a later post (which is destined to be a nutshell one for obvious reasons) but here is what Jim thinks in his own words:

Frost/Nixon and Milk are glossy products of the Hollywood awards season, prestige pictures in the grand red-carpet tradition of fashioning uplifting, larger-than-life entertainments out of semi-fictionalized semi-recent historical events. The thing is, both have been treated far more thrillingly on documentaries that are available on DVD. Think Frost/Nixon provided compelling drama, suspense and astoundingly rich performances? It can't approach the actual interviews, which have just been released as "Frost/Nixon: The Original Watergate Interviews." Think Milk was a moving look at a charismatic public figure and a key period in American civil rights? You have not begun to be moved until you see Rob Epstein's Oscar-winning "The Times of Harvey Milk", which is also a more complex, less hagiographic portrait of the man and his heady times.

Jim also makes available a five-minute clip from the original interviews which he thinks "provides more compelling drama and suspense (and adrenaline) than the entire feature film", and I candidly agree. For your convenience, I have attached the video here as well. Watch for yourself and decide whether Peter Morgan's play -or screenplay- does justice to what kind of power struggle dominated these interviews. You be the judge to the degree of accuracy in Michael Sheen's naive and vulnerable depiction of David Frost, who in fact appears to be a very strong character and a formidable prosecutor. Contemplate on whether or not Frank Langella's wildly praised, Golden-Globe-nominated performance as Richard Nixon is overdone, both in terms of intonations and the enigmatic nature of the character:

After I watched it roughly during Christmastime in Florida with my friend, we both had the same opinion of the film: It was decent entertainment and we were both disappointed that it wasn't anything more. The subject of Frost/Nixon interviews is like a glass of valuable single malt whiskey - in this case it is watered down with pointless subplots so that everybody would be able to drink it effortlessly and without being disturbed much by the strong, characteristic flavors as well as the long aftertaste (I'm sure my friend wouldn't appreciate this allegory though; he likes his scotch with diet coke, that disgusting little chap).

One interesting thing about the whole film though is how it sheds light on the background of the entertainment industry, even when it's disguised as a serious political interview. It draws attention to the power of numerous small details in a broadcast that make all the difference. The power struggle between the two men is good enough for a fictional accounting of the events but much less complex than and definitely far away from the reality itself. Every now and then but especially towards the end, the film becomes gripping and fluid too, thanks to its fast enough pace and carefully-constructed plotline. Narratively speaking, there might not be a lot of things wrong with Frost/Nixon but how necessary this film is and what it contributes to anyone or anything are the key questions here. Why would any self-respecting individual would prefer watching this instead of the real interviews (which are conveniently located on YouTube) if they are seriously interested in the subject?

Upon a closer, more considered look, Frost/Nixon reveals itself to be a waste of time for everything other than simple entertainment.

5/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Achievement in Directing (Ron Howard) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Achievement in Editing (Mike Hill & Daniel P. Hanley) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Motion Picture of the Year - Academy Awards
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (Frank Langella) - Academy Awards
  
• Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published (Peter Morgan) - Academy Awards

• Best Edited Feature Film, Dramatic (Mike Hill & Dan Hanley) - American Cinema Editors

• Best Actor (Frank Langella) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
  
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Peter Morgan) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

• Excellence in Production Design, Period Films (Michael Corenblith) - Art Directors Guild

• Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures (Ron Howard) - Directors Guild of America

• Best Director, Motion Picture (Ron Howard) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Motion Picture, Drama - Golden Globes
  
• Best Original Score, Motion Picture (Hans Zimmer) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama (Frank Langella) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Screenplay, Motion Picture (Peter Morgan) - Golden Globes

• Actor of the Year (Frank Langella) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• British Actor of the Year (Michael Sheen) - London Critics Circle Film Awards
  
• British Supporting Actor of the Year (Toby Jones) - London Critics Circle Film Awards

• Motion Picture Producer of the Year (Brian Grazer, Ron Howard & Eric Fellner) - Producers Guild of America

• Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture - Screen Actors Guild Awards
  
• Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Frank Langella) - Screen Actors Guild Awards

• Best Adapted Screenplay (Peter Morgan) - Writers Guild of America

• Best Director (Ron Howard) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Editing (Mike Hill & Dan Hanley) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Film - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Leading Actor (Frank Langella) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Make Up & Hair (Edouard F. Henriques & Kim Santantonio) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Peter Morgan) - BAFTA Awards

Won:

• Best Actor (Frank Langella) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
  
• Best Director (Ron Howard) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
  
• Best Film Editing (Daniel P. Hanley & Mike Hill) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
  
• Best Picture - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
  
• Best Screenplay (Peter Morgan) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards

• Ten Best Movies of the Year - American Film Institute Awards
  

The Wrestler (2008)

Aronofsky Declines As Rourke Rises, And They Meet Somewhere In Between

The Wrestler by the acclaimed director Aronofsky, whose earlier works include his magnum opus Requiem for a Dream and the magnificent The Fountain, is a touching film for reasons that go beyond the story told on screen. When Randy (played by Mickey Rourke, one of the most interesting careers Hollywood has ever seen) calmly complains, in a bar scene that "the 90s fuckin' sucked", he creates one of the most emotionally charged moments of the film. As you might already know, Rourke's career (and arguably his life) was heading towards the rock-bottom during the late 80s and early 90s when he quit acting and engaged in professional boxing despite his old age. Hearing him say those lines in a film where he makes his big comeback from pain and misery to appreciation and praise, is simply touching to say the least.

Recently in an interview published in Rotten Tomatoes where Rourke shared with us his five favorite films, he also declared: "[The Wrestler] is a movie I'm very proud of. It's the best movie I've ever made". It should come as no surprise, considering the numerous parallels one can draw between Randy and Rourke - replace wrestling with boxing and Randy's life with Rourke's film career, you pretty much have a different version of Mickey Rourke's life story; a version with an arguably sadder ending than what we have witnessed in the Golden Globe ceremony last night. And this is exactly the reason why the aforementioned scene (and maybe the film itself as well) works as a moving emotional climax.

The Wrestler is about a pro wrestler who lives with the haunting memories of his successful past as well as the lack of a lot of things in his life which he didn't realize were missing until he found himself completely lonely save for his buddies at 'work' and a stripper in a club where he is a regular. The story progresses, with incredible realism and attention to detail, as Randy uses his reputation to make his living by taking parts in scripted matches; until he is offered a comeback fight with his legendary 'arch-nemesis' The Ayatollah, in exchange for a huge bulk of money. And what starts out as an opportunity to make his ends meet and relive the excitement and pride which used to be so common to him in the past, evolves into his only chance to put meaning into his life; because eventually he comes to the realization that outside the arena, he is no one. He has no further chances in life and has nothing else to be proud of.

Randy is an optimist and cheerful character despite everything; even when he has to accept the job at a local deli to hand out pasta salad to older ladies who are never content with the amount of things, he is patient and he does his best to accept that lifestyle and go on. He provides a perfect balance to a film which falls slightly towards the depressing side (as they tend to, when Aronofsky's name is attached to them). But eventually, he goes mental over a fan's recognition of his face because that incident slaps the cold hard reality into his face. That specific moment also starts the turn of events, towards the end of which we find ourselves holding our breaths for a reason that I will not spoil within this review. But I should note that The Wrestler has nothing less than a perfect ending.

Rourke's performance received a lot of rave reviews and praise, and he deserves it - his depiction of Randy is considered and sober, if not too close to his own character at times. But then again, the whole film closely resembles his own life so maybe the best way to play the character for Rourke was to play himself. Towards the end of every year we have a couple of films like The Wrestler; films that mostly rely on the performance(s) of the lead actor(s) and don't offer much in terms of everything else. Last year we had Away From Her and La Vie en Rose; before that Venus and Half Nelson and even before them there were films like Capote, North Country and Monster. They are not particularly bad films and the performances were indeed mesmerizing but I would have hard time placing them among the films that I think will last, age well and be remembered for years to come. The fact that Aronofsky felt content with such a film was my only disappointment. After a masterpiece like Requiem for a Dream, he did The Fountain (which was flawed but great nonetheless) and now The Wrestler (with which there is nothing wrong except being relatively more straightforward and ordinary). I, for one, still think he's at the top of his game; but one would expect a talented director's work to mature with passing years and to start dealing with more significant subjects matters in more challenging styles. In this case, the very opposite seems to be happening. I hope near future (i.e. The Fighter and RoboCop) proves me wrong in this.

As for Mickey Rourke, I definitely felt great when listening to his acceptance speech during Golden Globes. There were probably better performances this year (and I still think he was far more impressive in Sin City than in The Wrestler), but he might go on winning all sorts of awards left to win. Because if there are two things that Hollywood loves unconditionally, they are happy endings and emotional comeback stories.

7/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (Mickey Rourke) - Academy Awards
• Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role (Marisa Tomei) - Academy Awards

• Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture (Marisa Tomei) - Golden Globes

• Best Cinematography (Maryse Alberti) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Male Lead (Mickey Rourke) - Independent Spirit Awards
  
• Best Feature (Darren Aronofsky & Scott Franklin) - Independent Spirit Awards

• Actor of the Year (Mickey Rourke) - London Critics Circle Film Awards

• Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Mickey Rourke) - Screen Actors Guild Awards

• Best Original Screenplay (Robert Siegel) - Writers Guild of America Award

• Excellence in Costume Design for Film, Contemporary (Amy Westcott) - Costume Designers Guild Awards

• Best Leading Actor (Mickey Rourke) - BAFTA Awards
  
• Best Supporting Actress (Marisa Tomei) - BAFTA Awards

• Excellence in Production Design, Contemporary Films (Timothy Grimes) - Art Directors Guild Awards
  

Won:

• Best Actor (Mickey Rourke) - Boston Society of Film Critics Awards

• Best Actor (Mickey Rourke) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

• Best Original Song, Motion Picture (Bruce Springsteen) - Golden Globes
  
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama (Mickey Rourke) - Golden Globes

• Best Performance, Male (Mickey Rourke) - Toronto Film Critics Association Awards

• Best Actor (Mickey Rourke) - Washington DC Area Film Critics Association Awards

• Golden Lion (Darren Aronofsky) - Venice Film Festival

• Ten Best Movies of the Year - American Film Institute Awards

• Best Actor (Mickey Rourke) - Florida Film Critics Circle Awards
• Best Supporting Actress (Marisa Tomei) - Florida Film Critics Circle Awards

• Best Actor (Mickey Rourke) - Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards
• Best Directors (Darren Aronofsky) - Kansas Film Critics Circle Awards
• Best Original Screenplay (Robert D. Siegel) - Kansas Film Critics Circle Awards

• Best Supporting Actress (Marisa Tomei) - Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
  

Gran Torino (2008)

Guess Who Gets The Car At The End?

Clint Eastwood ceases to surprise me. After such a long and successful acting career (53 years?) he has been so predictably average as a director that I have always felt ashamed on his behalf after watching his films. The great praise he has been receiving nonetheless only increases the pain.

But I will save my further complaints and all my reasoning behind them for another article I am planning for Eastwood. Instead, I will focus on his latest atrocity which is a new low, even for himself.


Gran Torino is one of those badass Eastwood films with a modern twist and only the illusions of complexity, where he plays a bitter old man, who despises everything in his life, with such superficiality that it upset me greatly to watch as a big fan of Clint Eastwood the actor. His racist mean bastard is already cliche and one-dimensional on the screenplay, but Eastwood takes it and reduces it into a mere bunch of snarls, spits and frequent public displays of his teeth. If he was told to play a cheap dog who is trying to make up for its cowardice by grumbling too much, I would say his acting was quite appropriate.

The film opens in one of the rare occasions that such a man would wear wear an expensive suit - his beloved wife's funeral. The first thing we see are his grandchildren making fun of the occasion and his sons murmuring about what kind of a nuisance he is in many ways (a little too much even for deliberate emotional manipulation, don't you think?). Kubrick was once quoted as saying: "scenes of people talking about themselves are often very dull". I will take it one step further and say that other characters talking about a character for descriptive purposes are almost as dull and definitely more annoying. It's the cheapest and easiest way to portray a character on screen which also shameless fakes a natural feel.

But speaking of both the opening scene and the wide selection of cardboard characters that film has to offer us, his asshole sons should not be left unmentioned; gossiping about him in his wife's (and their mother's) funeral, calling him only when they need something, buying him tools for old people and telephones with huge numbers on them as if it would expedite his old age and death, and so on and so forth. Does any sort of family dysfunction get more cartoonish than this? Was anybody honestly not expecting them to try sending him to one of those 'resorts' so that they could land on his property? There is more creativity in the porn industry in terms of characters and plot (well, in the French ones anyway). Besides, you get to see some boobs as a bonus for all your time.

He frequently orates about what he knows and others don't; looks down on people in the most expected and tired way, asking them what they know about life or death and he brags about what they used to do in Korea to settle things up whenever desperate measures were called for. It doesn't work as a glorification, it doesn't work as a characterization, so it's utterly useless. The relationship between him and the priest could be quite interesting if it also wasn't told in the most boring way known to man. Compare these characters to Valentine and the judge in Kieslowski's Red for example, and you will see how everything is properly done in masterful hands; because it's essentially the same relationship between the two although the characters are not necessarily the same. Somebody should inform Clint Eastwood of the power of 'showing' over 'telling'; ('showing' in this case not to be taken literally). It is always better to allow the audience to make the deductions themselves, even the simplest ones, instead of conveniently laying all the groundwork for them the follow the plot.

Unfortunately, Eastwood's (as well as writer Schenk's) sleeve never runs out of cheap tricks when it comes to dramatical manipulation. Throughout the film, 'Father' Janovich keeps showing up like a sticky piece of mud and when saying this, I am not assuming the position of Walt, who is clearly irritated by his presence at the beginning. No, the young priest simply does not belong to the story. He is not real and he definitely doesn't feel natural. He is just a tool for the film to show off. Janovich keeps playing the same cheesy variations over the theme of life and death and we are expected to be moved and/or impressed by his parasitic persistence and his so-called 'wisdom' that he presumably possesses despite his young age. After all, we are not old mean bastards like Walter Kowalski, and if he is beginning to be impressed, so should we.

Luckily, the priest barely appears in the second half of the film; someone with some brains must've talked some sense into screenwriter Schenk when proofreading the first half. But Janovich or Kowalski are not the only characters that leave a mark on one another, because Gran Torino is a film where everyone undergoes some sort of quick and implausible change. Even the kid eventually finds the courage in himself to act cocky around his intimidating role model; although the young actor cannot find the talent in himself to act such moments properly. As suddenly and unconvincingly as that, Walt turns into Thao's grandpa, scolding him for being a softball and giving him precious advices on the arts of love. And then there's the young girl, the brave soul that Walt likes and empathizes with; which gives her the right to subliminally lecture him about tolerance, positivity and certain disadvantages of xenophobia (not having the chance to taste delicious asian food being one of them). The Hollywood trailer voice man should enter at this point, as profoundly as he tends to do: "An impossible friendship... that would change them both... forever...".

Did you feel it touching somewhere deep within you as well? Were you as moved as I was?

In the past, there has been some terrible films with Eastwood's name attached to them, and even more average ones, but this is definitely and ultimately the rock-bottom. On one hand, I am aware that I am being too harsh on him, maybe a little bit too rude as well (after all, biggest blame does not belong to him but his screenwriter) but on the other hand I am simply frustrated at no matter how dramatically this man fails, the critics and Academy members are always there to praise him to the sky (I am confident that he will be overrepresented in the Oscars this year; if not, I will be pleasantly surprised). Granted, he is a legendary figure in filmmaking, but all the buzz that had been going on for the past couple years is simply too much.


Sometimes, when I feel really hopeless and lost, I like to think that he is in fact smarter than all of us; and that he at one point discovered everybody would be hailing any of his films under any given circumstances. I imagine him smirking, when reading all those favorable reviews on newspapers and magazines; planning his next step in his master plan to confront everyone with their blind admiration to himself and his latest works.

Sadly though, I know this is not the case.

1/10

Note: This article is a part of the 2008 awards season review series which will be the primary feature of The Long Take until the Oscar Night. The information below will be updated as listed awards are handed out and more nominations are announced.

Nominated For:

• Best Actor (Clint Eastwood) - Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

• Best Original Song in a Motion Picture (for the song 'Gran Torino) - Golden Globes

• Excellence in Production Design, Contemporary Films (James J. Murakami) - Art Directors Guild
  

Won:

• Best Actor (Clint Eastwood) - National Board of Reiew, USA
  
• Best Original Screenplay (Nick Schenk) - National Board of Review, USA

• Ten Best Movies of the Year - American Film Institute Awards