The planning to create such an excellent and intelligent comedy must have taken months, or even years. It would take forever to find the right balance of empathy and disgust, hilarity and serious emotion only to bolster it. Yet, here it is all up on screen. Whit Stillman’s Love and Friendship feels like a film that could only have been focused by a single artistic mind. It’s a film that hysterically burns down the structure of the British hierarchy by ultimately showing it through manipulation. Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale (in a dramatic role she’s deserved forever)) is a true manipulator of the existing system, and yet is trapped in it. You can’t help but despise her as she manipulates such personable and beautiful people, yet the reason she has to is because of the rigid system that cripples all available love. It’s a fascinating characterization and Beckinsale only accentuates Lady Susan’s predicament through the acting that she pristinely pulls off. The dialogue is delivered in a way reminiscent to Noah Baumbach’s Mistress America, in that it never slows down. This gives a sense of urgency to what Beckinsale has to say; despite her bitchy (to put it lightly) demeanor, Susan is only barely staying above things. She talks like she is above everybody else in trying to control the system because it’s almost as if she resents it to the point of wanting to master it. The last shot of the film so perfectly ties this up that you’re left with a sense of both “Awww, but she deserves love like that rest of them,” and “Haha that b*** got what she deserved.” Beckinsale is so grounded in this movie that it’s impossible to separate her from any part of it. The supporting characters are used to challenge her worldview, with some defending it and others only supporting the almost tearful cynicism that Lady Susan represents. Susan’s own daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark), represents the more reasonable and enjoyable side of the system, existing in a different sort of idiocy or at least ignorance than Susan is. She seems to at least believe that the system doesn’t need to be manipulated. Clark manages to create such a great character out of Frederica, only accentuating how the nuance of her character compared to Susan, which creates a dichotomy in the system that only serves to make the world of Love and Friendship richer. All the entertaining or attention drawing characters do this. Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin shows the result of a person who has too much trust in his place in the system and is not willing to escape the established rules of everything, resulting in him seeming like one of the funniest yet ungodly endearing characters ever put to screen. It’s deliciously deceptive how these characters are built around each other only to support the underlying motivations of themselves. Good thing that they are so strong too. Much of the comedy and punchlines that are present in Love and Friendship are based off the audience being unaware of things that characters know. This leaves a lot of the moving pieces of the story to the dialogue. How Stillman structures his conversation all but alleviates any problems that could arise in following action based in dialogue by employing a good amount of natural repetition, and building certain tantalizing elements into the story that pay off in startling ways. Bennett’s Sir James receives the most tickling one of these near the end of the film in a moment of dialogue so uncomfortable and well played that it left the audience in stitches, and me squirming in my seat. The number of things to talk about in the excellent way characters are built to the way that compositions slyly push the almost radical point of the film are infinite. Love and Friendship is not simply about a woman controlling her loved ones; it’s about the person and world that would make her do such a thing and the emotion that Stillman, Beckinsale, and the cast and crew drag out that is unlike anything that can be seen in theatres today. I give Love and Friendship a 9.5 out of 10. ...for the record the .5 deduction comes from the fact that much of the action is based in dialogue, and the difficulties inherent with that. The film, as I already mentioned, finds it’s way around them, but it was an unavoidable problem.
1 Comment
The Nice Guys: Written and Directed by Shane Black, Starring: Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe5/22/2016 Looking at the first hour of Shane Black’s excellent The Nice Guys from a purely analytical standpoint will not yield a big response beyond the initial “this is awesome,” and “hahahahahahahha” that comes with a buddy cop film. That’s before the mid act though. The first hour is breezy character build up that gets everything into place, and that’s ok for a film like this. Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are a bruiser and a P.I. that are on the track of a missing porn actress. It’s a fine idea to base a mystery in. The most important thing about using story elements like this is that it offers the taboo forces of the exploitation film to come fill in the rest of the worldbuilding that The Nice Guys has to offer. Sure, 70’s L.A. is probably as lovingly created as it’s ever going to get here, but it’s nice to see the tone of the exploitation actually playing a part in what makes this movie so well-crafted. Don’t get the surprisingly saccharine marketing wrong though, The Nice Guys is a bloody, sleazy little picture, and that sleaze gives it an unaccountable amount of character. For the first hour or so, the film is running on its character, mainly leaving it to Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling, and the amazing newcomer Angourie Rice to keep the film going. This part of the movie is all set up, but it’s the good kind that doesn’t immediately reveal itself as such. Instead, it takes the route of being funny for the sake that: 1. The dialogue is actually really funny, 2. Crowe and Gosling are playing characters so close to their real life archetypes that you can immediately buy them as comic protagonists in the story, and 3. Writer/director Shane Black smartly leads the tone of the film into the almost meaningless energy-fueled vignettes that inform most of the surreal noirs out there. The art of exposition lies in the art of tricking the audience so that you’re not giving out exposition, and Black’s short clue gathering vignettes that slowly build the film up for its real punch make for an excellent distraction. The acting and the pacing are there, and the film could have probably survived on just that, even with the ever-prevalent fact that this is all exposition in one way or another hanging around in the background. That fact robs this section of the film of too much depth, but it all still comes together pretty excellently mainly on the shoulders of Gosling, Crowe, and the fact that the world that they occupy is really as interesting as the movie obviously thinks it is. But, that can’t stay forever. Soon, the film would have to buckle down and start revealing what’s actually happening, and with such a scattershot-vignette format, that part of the film could go either way. Fortunately, The Nice Guys actually gets both funnier and crazier when all this happens. The seedier aspects of the story really start to rear their heads, and the two straight men get caught up in something bigger than themselves. This part of the movie is sadistically satirical of everything about its own premise. Soon, it becomes almost a parody of Chinatown...while also paying off as satisfying as Chinatown. Many films feature third act blowouts, but not too many feature the converging excitement of a porno, a brutal fist fight, and a bumbling idiot trying to make sure something doesn’t get destroyed. Everything that doesn’t seem to cohere about The Nice Guys first hour comes blasting into relevance on the tail of its exploitation film inspiration. The large and exciting emotions that come from those only serve to boost the film’s satirical agenda (something that Gosling hilariously points out). The Nice Guys is the type of well-thought-out, intoxicating fare that should be appreciated. It’s a feverdream blend of hilarious buddy cop humor, archetypes of two of the greatest leading men of all time firing on all cylinders (quite literally most of the time), and explicit emotional passion of 70’s exploitation. It may seem a bit slight in its opening acts, but soon the true colors of the film are revealed, and it’s really, really nice guys. I give The Nice Guys a 9.5 out of 10. After looking at the marketing for The Meddler, the first thing one must think is that it’s a chick flick. What one might never expect is the fact that it’s a backhanded slap to everyone that thinks that’s the case. The story here is surprisingly inconsequential and is mainly a vehicle to set up as many situations showing the perverse nature of the chick flick as possible. Susan Sarandon stars as Marnie, a recently widowed woman who has lots of money. That last characteristic is extremely important here. Marnie, after not being able to connect with her daughter (Rose Byrne), starts to do good deeds for her daughter’s friends by giving away lots of money. Money is important to the central themes of The Meddler. There’s a lot of moments of people whole heartedly thanking Marnie for giving them so much money and making big speeches about it. This is all stuff that you’ve seen in every tripe Gary Marshall affair, but The Meddler has no interest in sinking to that level. It instead wants to show you that ultimately all of that is a facade, and the excellent direction from writer/director Lorene Scafaria ramps up how uncomfortable this is. People pour their hearts out over money, and Marnie hides her pain. Everything here is fake, but just outside the frame, the painful reality is sitting. Yet, lots of movies that have a good central through line aren’t perfect, and The Meddler is one of them. First, there is the unfortunate problem of trying to make a spin on a genre, but doing it by presenting the film in similar aesthetics. There will be people who simply see this as a straight chick flick, and that’s because it plays just like that. The comparison of Marnie’s almost scattershot character and the falsity of the proceedings is a difficult message to pull out, but if you look, it’s there. There’s also the fact that The Meddler plays extremely scattershot, and not all that interesting once you get past the darkness of its core. Some characters are simply forgotten after a couple of scenes and others are not given worthy arches. It’s a testament then to say that Susan Sarandon absolutely dominates and holds the film together. There’s other fine work from J.K. Simmons as a guy so nice you can’t help but wonder if he’s actually a bad guy, and Rose Byrne as the daughter who has to lift the other end of the film, but Sarandon completely embodies everything the movie stands for. Marnie may seem more like a catalyst than a character, but Sarandon hasn’t really been able to so fully dominate a film a recent, and she goes a long way in instilling Marnie with a sense of life. Behind those things, there’s not really much to The Meddler. It’s nice to see a film that isn’t scared to completely upend its target audience by making them think about the basis of what the genre really means to them. Too bad some of The Meddler doesn’t really coalesce. I give The Meddler a 6.5 out of 10. One thing overlooked about Joss Whedon’s legendary The Avengers is the fact that the story pivots on over the top, and the fighting personalities of its characters. Half the dialogue is the good guys clashing, and the problems that this mounts for the characters. That’s almost the whole reason why the movie worked. However, after that one “AVENGERS ASSEMBLE!” shot (you know the one I’m talking about) and the battle for Sokovia and New York, none of that could still be the case...right? Captain America: Civil War is here to show us that ultimately the Avengers are a team of people that don’t get along, It also proves that Marvel is so intelligent as a whole that they’ve technically created an excuse for the changing tone of the universe they’ve spent so much time crafting a certain way. That’s getting a little ahead of ourselves though. The story here, due to undisclosed events, Iron Man and Captain America are forced to fight each other, each forming teams that support their own ideologies. The background stuff is pretty easy to figure out once the movie gets going and really isn’t necessary to prove why the film works so well and hits so hard, but it’s an interesting story that addresses and enriches the previous mythology that the universe had built. The Avengers/Age of Ultron both left large body counts and terrors behind, even with the implications that the Avengers were saving people, and those deaths have to mean something. And, they do, but that’s the least of the real gut punches that Civil War has to hook you in. For that, you need to look at the Marvel Universe as a whole. By this point, it’s trivial to put it in any other context. There has now been 13 films in the Marvel extended universe each relating to each other, but Civil War is the first to use the ever-shifting tone of the universe to its benefit. The reason why The Winter Soldier ultimately didn’t work when related to the other Marvel films (even though it was a pretty good movie) was because of the ever-darkening and straightforward tone. Up until then, the universe had been more fun with The First Avenger and Thor representing the pulpy roots of the universe. The grounded sense of Winter Soldier seemed to take it down a level, but soon into Civil War you can see that this is only in the interest of the universes thematic arching. This movie wants you, as a member of the audience, to wish for the days when the Avengers were buddies. That can’t happen though...because now is the time for Civil War. This undertone makes the entire movie work, even when the pacing seems slightly off or the story takes yet another preposterous turn. Yet, Civil War is armed with a strong thematic backbone that, much like The Avengers, makes up for anything seeming slightly off. That said, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t fun to be had in the film. The normal snappy dialogue is present and mostly intact, as the comedic characters bolster the film. The newcomer that everyone has been waiting for (Tom Holland as Spider Man) is absolutely perfect. Holland perfectly portrays the “boy from Queens” attitude that Spider Man needs to show, while also creating an excellent sketch of a lonely and secluded Peter Parker. The promise of better days for the Marvel Universe are practically riding on Holland’s shoulders, and he carries the weight in an unbelievable way. When the triumphant moment of the Avengers coming together for a second time somewhere near the middle act of Infinity War finally comes, it’ll all have been building from how well Holland has sold the fact that the darker and more realistic tone of Civil War will not last. Even better, the incredible fun and milage the Russo’s and Marvel get out of him are astounding. The Russo’s also seem to be ones who are also doing their homework. The action in Civil War seems to evolve rather than stay the same as in Winter Soldier. The obvious jumping off point for it is last years Mad Max: Fury Road. For a moment, consider the lasting impact that film is seemingly going to have. It’s so revolutionary that even the directors of a Marvel movie adopted the action style of it. And, much like with Fury Road, the action in Civil War strikes down with a furious anger, providing a nice balance to the cartoonish characters and making you believe that they exist in the real world. It is inspired work. The actors though might be more inspired. Most of these guys have been playing these characters for over 9 or 10 films (Downey Jr. has been there for about all 13) and as the story gets darker, the characterization does too. The motivations of all the characters are not explicitly carved out in Civil War and it seems like a full-on acid test to check if these actors really have what it takes to make the film still work without the obviously carved out exposition. They all pass with flying colors. The darker tone of Civil War may be less fun compared to other Marvel films, but it means much more in the bigger picture than any of those ever could. This is the Marvel Cinematic Universe evolving to the next level of well-placed audience manipulation and the results both are and will be glorious. I give Captain America: Civil War a 9 out of 10. Green Room: Written and Directed by Jeremy Saulnier, Starring: Anton Yelchin and Patrick Stewart5/4/2016 There are a lot of gory, trashy, and vile pieces of work out there... that are absolutely AWESOME! The bad ones just don’t carry purpose. Those that do however can use their gory natures to push the genre to new heights, and when someone smart gets ahold of these the bar goes up even more. Enter Jeremy Saulnier. Saulnier's last film, Blue Ruin, was a full tilt revenge masterpiece of boundless violence, but everything about it’s characters actions made sense. The violence seemed earned because we weren’t just watching completely void tough guys shooting at each other, or chopping each other up. We were watching intelligent, if possibly mentally challenged people shoot, and stab through each other. Green Room, unfortunately by design can’t keep things quite as personally to the characters. Ruin was mostly focussed on one man, a character that could be intensely watched. Green Room has multiple moving parts which keeps it from that level. Saulnier however is a smart enough writer/director to make up for that though. Green Room isn’t the masterpiece it’s predecessor was, but it’s pretty damn close. The main reason?: Green Room gets bigger, but not more ambitious. There’s more characters sure, but the mechanics here are much more sparse and focussed. Green Room is about a punk band fighting neo nazi’s. Saulnier knows for sure that the safest place for his characters is in the presence of loud and even somewhat obnoxious noise, and the playing of these sound cues and designs against the audience makes the pretty bare characters into the full people that Saulnier’s films have previously showed. The main lead played by Anton Yelchin explains how much he and his band enjoy music, and feel the cathartic flow of it when performing. Couldn’t tell you his name though. However, this sound cue is used perfectly as moments of silent and sobering sound become the most dangerous. The film also has a vague punk band soundtrack to be heard outside of the green room of the title which shows the contrast of safety that the characters are in. They are that close to being safe, and in the music but instead they are in this room. The contrasts also seem to make Green Room a richer movie. The punk band in question is intentionally loud and obnoxious on stage, but is very soft spoken off. The Neo Nazi’s are horrible people doing savage stuff, but they seem the most reasonable, and level headed. Patrick Stewart accentuates that contrast as their leader, Darcy. Outside of the door he speaks in the voice of a kind grandfather, but is most certainly not. The dogs (oh the dogs) bite people’s throats off, but are still whining and loyal little dogs. The quietness always leads to violence, the loud noises (which should be the more dangerous ones) lead to safety. Green Room builds it’s wonderful contrast and mechanics on top of the characters. The results make sure Green Room is unforgettable. What is also unforgettable about Green Room is the other reason you should be in the theatre. Jeremy Saulnier is really smart about gory violence, and that intelligence is extremely refreshing when it comes to watching very realistic, trashy gore being shot with a level of respect. The tone of the film during the fights ends up feeling like the tone of Blade 2 in its violent middle act, and if anything reminds you of Guillermo Del Toro that’s a good thing. The situations that appear aren’t as special or new, but they’re all dressed up and great looking so there’s not reason to be worried. The actors seem to slip into the back of the movie though at times considering just how much fun the themes, and violence are. Yelchin is the only character we get to know from the punk band, however the violence and thematic material are so terrifying and effective that every time that someone gets picked off you feel it. Stewart really is as spectacular and gut wrenching as you’ve heard. He’s playing a character against type (i.e. the kind father figure), but playing it just like he’d play those. He’s wonderful. See it for the actors, see it to watch what happens whenever a gorehound movie has a purpose, and see it for the gore. Green Room is the beautiful horror experience we never see anymore, and you should not miss it. I give Green Room a 9.5 out of 10. |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |