Sunday, September 03, 2006

Sigh of Relief

Well...

That was one-and-a-half days of utter and total torture that I have no desire to re-live. After clicking "Reload" on my inbox approximately one hundred times throughout the entire weekend and hearing about fellow festival goers crowe about scoring their first choices, I finally received a confirmation from the the TIFF box-office at 9:30pm this evening. Dreading the worst case scenario (like, say, receiving twenty-plus blank tickets), I initially peered at the results with tremendous apprehension. Overall? I was freaking out over nothing. True, I didn't make it into Kim's Time, Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain!, Almodóvar's Volver, Inarritu's Babel, Field's Little Children, Mitchell's Shortbus, and Aronofsky's The Fountain, but matters could be much, much worse. And considering I was in the second-last box opened and still managed to obtain several first-choices, I am a thankful son-of-a-gun tonight. Plus, I will still be "rushing" several of those films above (I am hopeful for Almodóvar and Mitchell especially), although it looks like I might have to skip two of my most anticipated films of the year - the Field and Aronofsky features. It sucks, but at least they'll be releasing in the next few months. The world has bigger problems than me not seeing studio pictures a couple of weeks early.

I'm not letting the disappointment of feeling those losses dull my excitement for films I will be seeing early like The Namesake (!!!), Breaking and Entering (by Anthony Minghella), Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro's next that has critics swooning), Rescue Dawn (by Werner Herzog), and The Fall (by Tarsem Singh, who pretty much re-defined eye candy with 2000's The Cell.) That's not mentioning the works by Branagh, Loach, Tsai, Panahi, Weerasethakul... That's a pretty damn good roster for coming in practically last in the advance draw.

Check out the list to the side to see the entire list, which I will be updating with grades throughout the fest. That is in addition to reviews, pictures, and other random observations about TIFF 2006.

Stay tuned...

Saturday, September 02, 2006

*Insert Sad Icon Here*

I just learned that the random draw has dictated that my envolope of festival selections will be processed after thirty-nine boxes of orders have had priority. I'm likely getting 2 or 3 of my selections, if I'm lucky. I'll be in mourning if anyone needs me.

Trauma-Rama

Everytime I step out of a shopping mall, fully exhausted and miserable, I vow never to return there again... but this time I actually (mostly) mean it. Admittedly, I never have good shopping experiences in tightly-closed areas with mass crowds of overstimulated teenagers and adolescents (who does?), but my experience yesterday at a downtown mall feels like the straw that broke the camel's back. Me being the exasperated camel, of course. As I moved from store to store, it seemed like things were getting progressively worse.

But before I get to that, let me backtrack a bit. For two years, I worked at the mall in my neighborhood, and that time marked a point in my life when I really began to think critically of what these spaces mean, and what they are geared towards doing. It is a building where individuals are presented with a certain exaggerated lifestyle ideal (whether in terms of fashion, physical appearance, home decor, etc) and then expected to live up this unachievable standard by purchasing things that will apparently help them project that sense of image and self-worth. That may be oversimplifying the matter, but this is what shopping malls seem geared towards encouraging. Walk into one on a Saturday afternoon, and you'll know exactly what I mean. In my case, over the years I was an employee at American Eagle, I watched so many preteen girls come into the store, try on clothes completely inappropriate for their age, and then either leave on a high (with bagfuls of new threads) or utterly defeated ("I'm hideous.") I've witnessed people's self-regard plummet, and to fill that gaping hole, more products are amassed to help heal the wounds. I've talked to overworked, unhappy mothers who confessed to visiting the place daily because the excursions distracted them from the loneliness they experienced at home. Work just became depressing for me, having to then push sales and promotions that I thought were ridiculous in the first place. I loved working with my fellow employees and managers, but the company's policies were growing increasingly ridiculous. Not long after, my investment in perpetuating these problematic ideas diminished; I simply could not continue "buying" into this any longer.

This may all seem very obvious to most of you, and surely many people who spend their weekends shopping or hanging out at malls are aware of these issues. And I'm not immune from this; I clearly buy objects, and I do engage in it regularly. Almost always, I find myself stuck in that same cycle of feeling terrible, because I cannot approximate an ideal (in whatever way.) Even so, I find myself growing more and more frustrated with how this culture becomes so obsessed with consummerism. My day yesterday just drove home my dislikes about the whole shopping experience:

On Friday, I commute into the city to drop off my film festival order to participate in the advance draw. As orders are ready on Monday morning, I decide to kill time around the city before heading back to my place. Because the Eaton Centre (a sprawling indoor concourse) is in the area, I decide to look at some clothes for the new school year. The first store I go to is Old Navy, which unsurprisingly offers nothing appealing. While I am looking at some jeans, this twenty-something guy makes eye contact and proceeds to ask me where he can find more woven shirts. It takes me a second to understand why he has approached me, and I hurriedly answer "Sorry, I don't work here." Embarrassed, he apologizes and ventures off, but not before adding "You look like you do." It is not meant as a putdown, because he is genuinely confused, but I still leave in a foul mood because, 1) I don't at all like the idea of being mistaken as an Old Navy employee; and 2) even if I do look like one, he still shouldn't have said anything, the stupid ass. And I'm not even wearing anything from that store!

Things didn't get much better at Mexx, which is empty when I walk in except for two overeager store employees. As soon as the man offers a greeting, I know it will be one of those situations were I will be followed relentlessly. "Hello, how are you?", he asks, and I say "Fine thanks, yourself..." The usual banter. Then, "If there's anything you need, please let me know." Okay, fine. Not three seconds later, "Are you looking for anything in particular?" I manage a polite smile and decline, "Just browsing." Another five seconds later, I'm looking at a sweater on a hanger; he interrupts, "If you like sweaters, then you'll like these." Intrigued to see how bad this will get, I follow him half-heartedly to a table with thin-knitted sweaters that look nothing like the one I was checking out. He explains the fabric on two of them, and then actually starts to give me cleaning instructions (!) as if I had decided to buy them already (!!). He matches them with striped button-up shirts and says how great I would look with all four articles. "Do you want to take them all?"... I hold my breath for about five seconds, then: "I think I'll look around some more, thanks." As soon as his back is turned, I fly out of there.

Okay, have already been mistaken for Old Navy employee and then harassed by very pushy Mexx sales associate. Can things get wose? Apparently, they can. Stupidly, I have the strange morbid desire to check out the newly-opened Abercrombie and Fitch, which is something of a novelty for Canadian consumers (this is the first one that has opened in the country, apparently.) Immediately, I am greeted with a eight-foot black-and-white poster of a toned, shirtless lad posing for the camera. The great paradox of their marketing to me is why all their models simply pose nude despite the fact that their company sells clothes. But moving on... trying to navigate my way through the narrow walkways is difficult, because the light is so dim. I bump into about three people before stopping to check out the price tags on some rugby shirts. $89. If I were going to spend that kind of money, I think I'd rather invest it in a dress jacket or formal wear, not on something that will look five years old after I wash it once. Aha! Now I've discovered their secret: I am convinced that the Abercrombie and Hollister stores are so poorly-lit because they don't want you to see how laughable their prices are. I am brilliant, I am. But my high does not last for long, as the store begins to hold full capacity; customers are dartling left and right. The lineup at the cash register sprawls around the store, and it grows longer by the minute. I am surrounded by robotic-like young adults, their bodies twisted and mutated into the very models shown on the walls. They're everywhere! I grow panicky. Something here isn't quite like the other ones, someone here doesn't quite belong... I push and shove my way out of the abode, vowing never to do that again.

So after that disturbing encounter with the cast of "Laguna Beach", I decided to cut my shopping day short. I speedwalk to the bus terminal and anxiously await my ride home; there, I'll throw on a ratty, old t-shirt, pull on pajama pants, and do some reading. At the end of it all, I only walked out with a pair of stone-grey corduroy pants from H&M, and even then, I'm not 100% sure about them. I'd return them, but I'm afraid of venturing into that place again. I guess what I've learned from this all is that putting myself in a situation where I always leave feeling worse about myself is not a healthy one. I know I have enough control not to plan another one of these outings, but I'm afraid what will happen once the holiday season comes around the corner. Will I be able to avoid the stores then? On-line purchasing, here I come!

Share your embarrassing shopping stories, folks.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Thoughts on Toronto

I thought I would refrain from talking about the upcoming film festival in Toronto for a few days, precisely because I still have no idea what I'm going to see. I can speak endlessly about my anticipation for the new Kim Ki-Duk or Werner Herzog films, but what is the point if nothing is for sure yet? But then again, this does not prohibit me from talking about what I would like to see, even if first dibs end up going to other people. The system works like this: if you've bought coupon booklets way in advance (like I did), you get a primary round to make your selections before the public can buy individual tickets. Your picks are then placed in a random draw; how well you do here can greatly influence whether you have a fantastic time (i.e. you get all your first choices) or a miserable one (you get one or two.) So until advance draws begin late next week, I have no idea whether I'll be able to see everything I want to. If all else fails, I can definitely resort to deperate measures and join rush lineups outside the theater. I've had good luck before (getting into "sold out" screenings such as Dogville, Brokeback Mountain, etc.)

Right now, I have the festival programme and order booklet in front of me, trying to choose from a wealth of potential treasures. It is frustrating, because sometimes a film fits into your schedule, but begins across town exactly at the time another of your choices finishes. It's tricky trying to factor in commuting, director/programmer intros, question and answer sessions, delays, etc.) I remember two years ago, a screening of The Machinist (which was supposed to begin at midnight) was pushed back for an hour-and-a-half. It was about three in the morning when we were let out.

As always, the programmers have done a fantastic job picking and choosing the most high-profile (as well as the hard-to-find) titles enjoying buzz right now. We have everything from Oscar bait (All the King's Men) to foreign extractions. Surprisingly, David Lynch's Inland Empire failed to make an appearance on the film list, which is strange considering Mulholland Dr. had its North American premiere here. Strange anomalies like this show up from time to time. More missing from the slate: Marie Antoinette, Hollywoodland, Children of Men and The Black Dahlia.

I know for sure that Volver, The Fountain, Little Children, Offside (Jafar Panahi), Time (Kim), Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul), Jindabyne (on Glenn's recommendation), and The Magic Flute (Kenneth Branagh) are musts right now (even though some are slated to open not long after in the Toronto market.) I know I could potentially wait for something like, say, Little Children which opens in October, but I don't think I'll have the willpower. Plus, if I get to see Kate Winslet in person, that is worth every extra penny on the ticket. I'm also adamant on making a screening of Mira Nair's The Namesake; many of you know I have been waiting to see this more than a year. However, the situation has changed: the release date has moved from this November to March of 2007. I'm scared this will become one of those films that keeps getting pushed back until everyone has lost interest - Nair needs excellent reviews here to ensure Fox is 100% behind the film.

Sadly, I won't be able to make For Your Consideration, which is playing at inconvenient times (read: I have class - sucks, yeah.) In an interesting bit of trivia, the film is an hour and thirteen minutes long! That's almost shockingly brief - what's the idea, Chris? Usually his films have extra footage galore, but apparently not here. Also sadly missing out on I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (Tsai Ming-liang, director of The Wayward Cloud, the best film you will never see this year), The Journals of Knud Rasmussen (Zacharius Kunuk, Norman Cohn), Manufactured Landscapes (Jennifer Baichwal), A Few Days Later... (Niki Karimi), After the Wedding (Susanne Bier) and so many more.

Anyways, here is a tentative list of what I am hoping for; in any case, I will update on Monday about what I will be seeing for sure.

The Magic Flute (Kenneth Branagh)
The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach)
Big Bang Love, Juvenile A (Takashi Miike)
Time (Kim Ki-Duk)
Brand Upon the Brain! (Guy Maddin)
Volver (Pedro Almodóvar)
Penelope (Mark Palansky)
The Fall (Tarsem Singh)
Stranger Than Fiction (Marc Forster)
Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu)
Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo Del Toro)
Offside (Jafar Panahi)
Little Children (Todd Field)
The Last King of Scotland (Kevin MacDonald)
Shortbus (John Cameron Mitchell)
The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky)
The Namesake (Mira Nair)
Starter For Ten (Tom Vaughan)
Breaking and Entering (Anthony Minghella)
Bobby (Emilio Estevez)
Infamous (Patrick McGrath)
Jindabyne (Ray Lawrence)
Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)
To Get to Heaven First You Have to Die (Jamshed Usmonov)
Times and Winds (Reha Erdem)
Cashback (Sean Ellis)
Rescue Dawn (Werner Herzog)
Outsourced (John Jeffcoat)

EDIT: I also have the option of "wasting" a ticket on an evening with Michael Moore, who will discuss his filmography and show sneak peeks of Sicko. What do you all think?
EDIT 2: Made some slight changes to the list here and there... Sorry, because Blogger is on crack and decided to be difficult about html tags (wtf?), all your comments were deleted. To respond: I wish all of you were coming too, and I will be updating as much as possible with capsule reviews, grades, pictures and other gushy celebrity gossip.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Please do some research next time around.

I was watching the NBC pre-show to the Emmys award ceremony (of which I will almost certainly not compose a post-mortem of tomorrow), and one of the hosts - Maria Menounos from "Access Hollywood" - did something so incredibly lame and idiotic that I didn't know whether to repeatedly beat my head on the wall to make myself pass out or, or... write a strongly-worded letter. Maria was interviewing both Warren Beatty and Annette Bening on the Red Carpet, and was making the usual fashion/show chitchat. And then - AND THEN - Maria said the following (or something very similar) to Annette: "So Annette, you've got an Oscar at home, are you looking forward to putting an Emmy next to it tonight?". Annette looked taken aback, took a few seconds to compose herself, and then responded gamely, "Well, he's got his Oscar at home." Maria seemed to realize that something was amiss, and then resorted to the "How much do you love her" shtick with Beatty. Annette did not look pleased (who would?), but she really was a good sport about it all (and saved the girl's ass.) Maria had better hope Running with Scissors nets Ms. Bening the Golden Guy this year, or she's never going to get back in the starlet's good graces.

Monday, August 21, 2006

#11 & 12 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

"The world doesn't give a shit about what I have to say... I'm so insignificant, I can't even kill myself." - Miles Raymond. In Sideways, this line does not appear until more than halfway through the film, but Paul Giamatti is so good at relaying the degree of his character's misery and self-hatred that the audience has already guessed as much. To put it lightly, Miles is a "sad" man, in every sense of the word. Wasting away his life teaching literature to clueless eighth-graders, he has few pleasures or hobbies to keep himself busy: wine-tasting and writing his mammoth semi-confessional novel. And yet, Miles still cannot look towards the future because he is always looking over his shoulder at what should have been. In a wordless scene, Giamatti stands in his mother's room (just having stole cash from her drawer) and looks longingly at pictures of himself as a teenager and of his ex-wife. His shoulders slump forward and his head droops, his eyes dark pools of regret and loneliness - it's an acting moment that encapsulates the entire performance perfectly. And when the past is too painful to confront, Miles turns to wine for a high, which almost constantly gets him into trouble. Watch carefully how Giamatti instinctively reaches for the bottle the moment things start to spiral out of control. The biggest blunder he commits is calling his ex-wife while on a double-date (!) and offers his regards on her recent re-marriage. This destructive behavior is most baffling to his best friend Jack (played with impeccable comic timing by Thomas Haden Church), who cannot understand why Miles is so intent on ruining so many good opportunities with his ever-foul mood and bad-sport mentality (see Giamatti's best line reading: "No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am not drinking any fucking Merlot!".)

However, when Miles chooses to open himself up to others, there is a shred of hope for him and the direction his life will take. This comes in the form of Maya (the dazzling Virginia Madsen), who is able to see Miles for the sensitive, deeply wounded soul that he is. In the most-talked about moment of the entire film, the two oenophiles share their experiences of wine: their intimate secrets and thoughts about the beauty of its production and the quality of its flavor. Giamatti is a pleasure to watch here, as his eyes glow in awe of this articulate, sexy woman, his cynicism melting away like a lone ice cube in the warm sunlight. Watch how he intially rejects her advances, berates himself later in the washroom... and then returns to softly embrace and kiss her in the kitchen. What tender, gorgeously-written (and acted) foreplay this is! The viewer is seduced along in the wordplay, by both these wonderfully human characters who have faults and shortcomings like everyone else. What a relief it is, then, to find in the end that despite a falling-out, these two will have a chance at making it together. Because imagining Miles sinking deeper into his depression (read: resorting to sneaking wine into a fast-food joint) and growing old alone would have been just too horrible to consider.


This is my last featured actor to have won an Academy Award for his performance, and what a marvelous victory it was that year (for all of us really.) The legendary smooch, the overwhelmed response, the stubborn refusal to stay within speech time constraints... I remember how I choked back on my pizza, jumped up and started shouting at my mother in the next room (Her response: "Mmhmm; Adrien who?".) I rejoiced not only for him, but the fact that a solemn, introverted turn like this beat out showy and grand work that voters usually like so much (read: the also magnificent Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, who was largely expected to take home the trophy.) But this is a difficult performance to watch or even revisit (let alone the film itself). When The Pianist begins, Brody introduces the audience to Wladyslaw Szpilman as a young, foreign-educated pianist who foresees so much opportunity in store for himself (his occupation: an acclaimed performer on the radio.) But once Poland is invaded by Germany, he sees his dreams rapidly disintegrate; not long after, he finds himself entertaining "parasite" patrons of a ghetto restaurant (much to the disdain of his embittered brother Henryk.) But the true nightmare lies ahead as Szpilman is separated from his family, left to to wander the wasteland of an exorcised, forgotten community. As Szpilman becomes further isolated from the world as a fugitive of the Third Reich, he recedes more and more into himself.

Moving from building to building in the abandoned Warsaw Ghetto, Brody begins to resemble an empty shell of a human being. He experiences minimal human contact, and his life transforms into a quest to survive and live just one more day without being discovered. And yet what Brody imparts so beautifully is how the love of music quite literally saves Szpilman's life. It is in front of a piano, as his fingers dart back and forth across the keys, that he is at his happiest. The experience is wholly spiritual. His face lifts, his eyes close - he is himself again. A human being of value and love. Conversely, when he is denied creating his art (simply because the sound of the music will give him away), he gradually moves towards death. One of Brody's best moments in this entire film is the climax, where he weakly insists "Don't shoot! I'm Polish. I beg of you..." despite being constantly fired at by Soviet soldiers (who mistake him for a German.) He is so haggard, exhausted, that he can barely identify himself; the scene really shows how far Brody went (emotionally as well as physically) to access this character's plight. It's a frightening thing to consider.

Notes for Fun:
Speaking of the golden guy so often in this entry, I thought I'd offer some random trivia about my upcoming top ten of actors and how they fared with Oscar and other guilds overall (Am I giving away too many clues?):

- Only two actors on my list were nominated for Academy Awards for their performances; neither won.
- Only one of the actors was nominated for a Golden Globe (and did not win either.) Interestingly, this person was not acknowledged by Oscar, while the two aforementioned actors were not recognized by the HFPA. Weird, huh?
- Two actors portray real-life individuals (although not necessarily within biopics.)
- Two SAG nominations (one individual and ensemble.)
- Zero National Board of Review citations.
- I have performances from 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004, but for some reason none from 2003 (at least going by imdb release dates.)
- Only two or three (depending on your view) of these can be considered "supporting" roles; the other actors are clearly the leads of their films.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

#13 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

Flashback: December 2001. I was attending an evening show of Richard Eyre's Iris and marvelling at the delightfully tender and fragile John Bayley character Jim Broadbent was composing on-screen. Despite Kate Winslet and Judi Dench giving searing portrayals of the writer Iris Murdoch, it was Broadbent's endearing work as her husband that touched me the most as I reflected on the film afterward. What my seventeen-year-old brain failed to register, however, was that this was the same character actor who played father (and father-figure) to both Bridget Jones and Satine earlier that year. The recognition came only later while reading various Oscar articles that this British performer had played opposite three Best Leading Actress nominees. I was dumb-founded; what a transformation from role to role! Whether leeringly crooning "Like a Virgin" as the manic Harold Zidler or quietly suffering his wife's infidelity as sad-sack Mr. Jones, Broadbent was clearly the Best Supporting Actor of 2001. But while cases could be made for either of those performances for this list, I think (shockingly) the Academy got it right when they rewarded him with the Oscar for Iris. Perhaps it isn't a "better" performance than the one he gave in Moulin Rouge!, but John Bayley is arguably the role that demanded more of him as an actor. I find it staggering to compare the actor to the character on-screen; he looks almost twenty years older, and carries the weight of those years in his body, in his eyes. Throughout the film, as Iris's mental state deteriorates, his love for and dedication to this brilliant woman never wavers. True, he becomes frustrated with her regression into almost-childlike dependancy, and past grudges are slowly unearthed. She is no longer the strong-willed, powerful woman he first fell in love with. Yet Broadbent is able to demonstrate how, despite these newly-formed complex feelings, Bayley remains forever connected to this woman he revered so much in life (indeed, he wrote the memoir this film is based on, Elegy for Iris). This is made so devastatingly potent in one of the film's final scenes, in which Broadbent's Bayley looks lovingly over his dying wife, his face beaming at her with such pride and sadness. The scene is not only heavy-hearted because a great mind has passed on, but because we are left to consider how this man will live on without her. The way Broadbent so respectfully shows us Bayley's idolization and regard for Iris is one of this film's many pleasures. It gets me every time.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Javier's Top Ten

Okay, with Javier's approval, I am now going to take a crack at guessing what the top ten to his deliciously addictive countdown of the Best Female Performances (2000-2004) will look like. So far, the list has featured several unexpected surprises (The Hours' Toni Collette, Kill Bill's Daryl Hannah) and the sturdy staples that would be found in any respectable critic's book (Adaptation's Meryl Streep, Before Sunset's Julie Delpy). Although I think I have a fairly good idea of Javi's favorite performances are, I still sense I'll be lucky if I predict even 6 out of the 10 spots. Why? Well, in his own words: "I think there might be some surprising inclusions (and omissions?), but others not so much." Thus, it is up to me to do some detective work and uncover what those not-so-surprising inclusions will be... This has proven to be more difficult than I thought because a) I've only known Javier since November, and haven't had time to discuss actresses with him that often; b) I have no way of knowing of he feels about movies/performances that we haven't spoken about; and c) Most of our conversations have revolved around the 2005 film year (obviously irrelevant for the purposes of this list).

Aside from that problem, the real puzzle that has me stumped is who will take the #1 spot, and I have it narrowed down between Nicole Kidman and her real-life BFF Naomi Watts. It's no secret that Javi loves himself some Mulholland Dr., and has already stated that the performance will place. And although there is no question that Watts will place high (top three at least), I'm asking myself how high... I know that Kidman's work in Birth has a lot of us bloggers in rapturous awe; as Nathaniel pointed out some time ago, it was like Bergman himself had extracted that icy, ethereal persona (heh) from within her. I feel like there is an upset in the air, but I don't think I'm brave enough to see it through - I'm thinking Watts just barely nudges her out. Then again, that says nothing for other work I am sure Javier adores, like Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream, Uma Thurman for Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, and Julianne Moore in Far From Heaven. What to say? I feel like I'm predicting the National Board of Review's end-of-year choices, because there is no reasoning on my part that sounds rational.

The Predicted 10:
1. Naomi Watts, Mulholland Drive
2. Nicole Kidman, Birth
3. Ellen Burstyn, Requiem for a Dream
4. Björk, Dancer in the Dark
5. Isabelle Huppert, The Piano Teacher
6. Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
7. Julianne Moore, Far From Heaven
8. Uma Thurman, Kill Bill Vol. 2
9. Patricia Clarkson, Dogville
10. Samantha Morton, Morvern Callar

The next ten that I can't let go of... (Snubees or Potential Surprises?)
Laura Linney, You Can Count on Me
Diane Lane, Unfaithful
Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation
Evan Rachel Wood, thirteen
Liv Ullman, Saraband
Charlize Theron, Monster (Doubt this though...)
Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give
Miranda Richardson, Spider
Gwyneth Paltrow, The Royal Tenenbaums
Michelle Pfeiffer, White Oleander

... and Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby (I know he loooves this performance. Am I right, Javier? ;)

#14 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

*Spoiler Warning*
There is one scene in Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge! that is so overwhelmingly sorrowful that it has me looking away every time I watch it (it is simply too painful to absorb fully). This is, of course, towards the end of the film when Ewan McGregor's Christian embraces the body of his just-deceased lover Satine (Nicole Kidman), looks up towards heaven, and emits a guttural, grief-stricken sob. The sound gives me shivers down my spine every time, and I almost feel as though my presence in the scene is intrusive. It is almost as if such a moment of horrific tragedy is not intended for my eyes; it is too personal, too private. And yet, I thank the cinema gods when I am lucky enough to encounter scenes that affect me so tremendously. It is impossible to think of this film without McGregor in the lead role, who is so committed and passionate writing his love story (both in in his life and on paper) that you cannot help but fall hopelesly in love with him. The moment he meets Satine, the most popular performer at the Moulin Rouge, he pursues her unapologetically despite the fact he is a penniless writer with nothing material to offer her. His hook? Love. It is enough, he argues, to keep them content and together ("I will love you until my dying day.") Credit must be given to McGregor, who sells not only Satine on this, but us as well; it is impossible not to believe him when such earnesty and devotion sparkle and dance in his eyes. When he insists "All you need is love!" to a flustered Kidman, it suddenly makes perfect and total sense (if only real life were that simple). To watch McGregor here is to experience pure joy; I find that I have a big goofy smile plastered on my face every time he breaks into song or tries to make Satine laugh. This is a fearless, sexy and emotionally naked performance, one of those rarities that we must acknowledge and cherish because they only come along once in a (singing?) blue moon.

Friday, August 11, 2006

#15 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

To me, one of the more puzzling trends of awards season 2004 was how Ethan Hawke never managed to get any heat for his Before Sunset campaign while co-star Julie Delpy was always listed as a potential dark-horse for various prizes. In fact, I recall a huffy rant I typed up two years ago on my RT Blog, appalled by a Warner Brothers Independent FYC ad that pushed the film, Delpy and the screenplay for awardage and yet had no mention of Hawke. True, some of those talents behind the film had better chances than he, but ultimately the Before Sunrise/Sunset saga is about the chemistry and banter between a duo. And as much as I adore Julie Delpy (see Javier's comments here) in this film, Ethan Hawke is just as integral to the film's greatness as she is. Immersing oneself in this masterpiece sequel provides a multitude of pleasures, one of which is studying how each other these characters have changed since we last saw them nine years ago. Most apparent seems to be the surprising reversal of life outlooks: once a cocky pessimistic young man, Jesse now attempts to focus on the few things that are positive about the world and his life (while Celine has become embittered and disenchanted by the many blows experienced over the course of her twenties). Despite the fact that he feels obligated to remain within a passionless marriage, he puts on a strong exterior. One of my favorite moments in the film is when he first glimpses Celine in the bookshop, but attempts to hide his elation and continue on with his group interview. You can see a hint of gleeful joy trying to escape his body while catching up with Celine in the quaint little coffee shop. Just as evident is the horny, sex-starved teenager taking control while thinking back to the intimate encounter in Venice, and considering the possibility of such a miracle happening again. It's a treasure of a performance, seemingly effortless, yet hauntingly deep and breathtaking in its complexity. Physically and mentally, he is worn out from the pressures of his home life, yet it is clear that reconnecting with Celine has renewed him. This is not an easy arc to complete (and all the while, keep the pain completely hidden and yet palpable), yet Hawke pulls it off so impressively. This is performance is a work of art, so winningly delivered and yet not a smidgeon rehearsed. Jesse's soul is so giving, and yet so desperately hungry for attention and acceptance. Hawke is so adept at giving us hints of this romantically deprived character that by the end, we are practically screaming for these two to jump each other already.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Snap

#16 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

Truth be told, I was tempted to give this spot to the entire cast (including Carly Schroeder, even though it would be cheating) of Jacob Aaron Estes's Mean Creek, each actor having shown range and depth beyond their few years (in fact, beyond most other adult performers currently basking in the limelight). Indeed, the acting featured in this film is, simply put, an embarrassment of riches - from Rory Culkin's soft, tender adolescent to Josh Peck's unexpectedly complex bully, any choice would have been befitting. But since I already barred myself from group citations early on in my rules, Scotty Mechlowicz it is (the film's stand-out). This performance was my pick for the Best Supporting Actor of 2004 (and I would have handed a Best Ensemble prize to the entire cast), and it still holds up even now. His compelling characterization of Marty may initially seem like nothing more than the standard teenage troublemaker, but Mechlowicz is always aware of how the history of violence and abuse inflicted against his character fuel his manipulation and degradation of others. In fact, Marty has grown to normalize this behaviour, erupting with fury when plans to humiliate Peck's George are called off ("I'm a man who likes to follow through with his plans."). There is a sense that this is all he knows how to do ("[I'm] bored as fuck."), and that he is unable to attain power any other way. At the same time, he is hungrily desperate for validation, trying to impress these young adolescents by boasting of his defiant accomplishments and demonstrating that rumours about his large penis are not without basis. However, once conditions during a boating trip quickly spiral out of control, the façade of leadership begins to disintegrate - Marty is unable to fix the dilemma with his usual shortcuts. Indeed, the film concludes providing little hope for Marty's salvation; he continues to believe that a life of intimidation and crime provides the only future for him. Mechlowicz's devastating breakdown while holding up a convenience store is a stunning moment of acting. Without the need for words, the actor perfectly exposes the traumatized child behind the posing exterior. In that moment, it is clear that Marty is just as much the inexperienced, painfully vulnerable youth as Schroeder's Millie or Kelley's Clyde. It's an image of openness and truth that stays with me even now, despite the fact I have only seen the film once.

Friday, July 28, 2006

The Latest Misfire

Why has this summer movie season been such a disappointment?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

#17 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

What a marvelous performance this is by Campbell Scott, who is so immersed in the world of this unsympathetic cad and - more importantly - unconcerned with making him lovable or even likable. So impressively sturdy are the words of Dylan Kidd's screenplay that Scott wisely avoids acting towards any redemption and instead is marvelously always in the moment, in the now. Roger Dodger is a rather fantastic movie on its own terms (it has simply improved with time), but it is impossible to imagine it hitting the same highs without the talents of Scott in the lead. Without his cutting sense of humour and sardonic quips, the film would have significantly lacked the same degree of "bite". Jesse Eisenberg, Jennifer Beals and Elizabeth Berkley (of Showgirls infamy) all deliver appealing, capable performances, but I'm convinced that it is Scott who keeps them on their toes, drawing out their very best efforts. Scott is an actor who I love to watch, mostly because I can observe him thinking out his character motivations. He clearly experiences and processes them, as opposed to going through the motions to get to the next plot shift. Particularly in this film, you can see the inner machinery running smoothly, fitting pieces together and formulating a fool-proof offensive. Just like Eisenberg's Nick, we are in awe of this man's flirtatious sway over women, and amazed at how he has his formula down to an exact science. Scott is magnetic in this film; his Roger is suave and alluring on the exterior, but bitter and alienated on the inside. Scott's challenge in this film is to let us experience these sides of his complex character without making us aware of such exposure. And - even more difficult - humanize Roger in spite of his appalling behaviour in influencing his impressionable nephew. Without a doubt, Scott brilliantly succeeds in every regard.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Delays

Once again, I'd like to apologize for the lack of updates recently; the last few days have been a whirlwind of wedding events, completing errands and various family obligations. I'll certainly have a lot to write about my trip once I get back: I simply require the distance (both physical and mental) to put my thoughts and emotions into perspective. There are still eleven days in Dubai to go, and a lot more work and attention is pending. The consensus on my vacation so far is mostly good, with some fantastic moments, and others not so much. Anyways, I digress... #17 on the list should be coming up soon for those who are interested.

By the way, thanks to you all for the birthday wishes. It was the first one celebrated outside of Canada since 1992, so that was an interesting experience. How does 22 feel, you must be thinking? Not any different than 21. There you have it, make of it what you will.

I really want to go see Pirates of the Caribbean 2 while I'm here, but I'm afraid the censors will delete that much-hyped kiss between Keira Knightley and Johnny Depp (yeah, you read that right). What to do, what to do?

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Dubai

Well, I've been here for four days now, and it's still hard to wrap my mind around that fact. It is both exciting and disturbing to revisit certain childhood places, now through the eyes of an adult. I'm not sure why - perhaps it's the fact that the passage of time becomes all the more felt. The city has changed considerably - it's now very much oriented towards presenting tourists with an exoticized, idealized version of the Middle East. It was like that when I was here, but it's like I've entered a world where very extreme polarities are mixing together without problem. Last night, my cousins and I went to a high-end hotel for some drinks, and it was like being an entirely different country altogether. All the services were being performed by migrant workers, and it was uncomfortable being in the place of a privileged traveler. I guess taking South Asian Studies and Women and Gender Studies courses is the reason why - it's a very strange feeling. I suppose this experience isn't any different than one I would have in any other country which depends heavily on Western/European interest. Anyways, I'm still having a wonderful time; it's not like I've been trying to behave like a know-it-all Canadian university student eager to deconstruct everything and catch politically incorrect statements. Ugh.

The heat is so intense that it's virtually impossible to walk outside in the daytime: try it, and you'll be drenched within minutes (read: seconds). We spend mornings and afternoons inside, and when the evening comes around, that is when we venture outside. Nighttime is only somewhat better in this regard, although the humidity is just as lethal. Morning hours (from around midnight to six a.m.) are the best times to take strolls or go running. My family is having a great time bonding, and a wedding always creates an atmosphere of excitement and anticipation. We've been eating out every night (the food is ridiculously cheap here), and so far I've had fantastic Gujurati, Lebanese and Pakistani dishes. It's good enough to make you want to move here. For the rest of the time, I've been sight-seeing (my camera SD cards are filling up everyday), shopping (oh dear), eating (of course) and trying to get LSAT preparation squeezed into whatever hours are left.

I have to apologize for my awful Benicio Del Toro write-up; it was done hurriedly in a packed internet cafe at two in the morning. I will try to post another one in the next day or so, but if not, please forgive me. I am too busy sleeping or fighting off the furious gaze of the sun.

As for more movie talk, on the plane ride(s) over, I watched 16 Blocks (well, five minutes of it before losing interest), Failure to Launch, and Philadelphia. None of them were anything to write home about. At the airport, I lucked out and got a two-pack of the Dardenne Brothers' Rosetta and L'Enfant for about 20 dollars (after conversion). Ridiculous! It's region two, of course, but my computer is not discriminating in this regard.

Hmm, what else? I wish I could post pictures, but the computers here won't really accept my memory cards. I'm starting to miss my HP Pavilion, which had those card slots so conveniently mounted on the front panel. It is, of course, still in the computer shop back in Unionville (my mother is keeping me updated). Le sigh. Hope you're all well, and I'll write more later!

Thursday, July 06, 2006

#18 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

Benicio Del Toro may have won an Oscar for his rich, affable work in Traffic, but in 21 Grams, he performs something of a small miracle, and that is single-handedly raise a film from utter and total negation despite having all the odds stacked against him (a director focusing on all the wrong elements, gimmicky editing that enhances nothing, a morose self-important screenplay, and so much more). In fact, Del Toro is the sole reason I return to this film at all, and each time I walk away from it with a new appreciation for his portrayal of Jack Johnson, a man holding on to life only through his unbreakable faith. Del Toro plays him as a man who is elated at having discovered the true purpose of his life (that is, to serve and perpetuate the message of Christ, his savior). He is so confident in his belief that he places his family, his work and everything else behind this commitment to worship. He passionately preaches (intimidatingly so) to anyone he can find, even if they want to hear him out or not. The errors and contradictions of his behaviour are obvious to everyone else but him (consider the mixed message he sends to his children, asking his daughter to "turn the other cheek", and then in turn lashing out against his son). But when he is forsaken by this benevolent God, Johnson finally snaps under the pressure of encountering one tragedy after the other. Del Toro is searing as this broken man, resembling a member of the undead - he walks among the living, but his humanity is robbed, his spirit extinguished. When confronted by his priest for having lost his faith, Del Toro is astounding in how he replies. "This is hell" he rasps softly, tapping his head before exploding "I did everything He asked me to do!". When I think of 21 Grams, that scene immediately registers, and I marvel at Del Toro's intensity, frustration and sadness. Jack is desperately confused at his place in the world now; having rejected spiritual guidance, he is nothing. Although the film is about loss, Del Toro is the only person who really seems to understand what he is exploring.

P.S. - This has nothing to do with Del Toro, but I am horrified - horrified - and appalled that Six Feet Under was snubbed for an Emmy nomination for Best Drama Series (in place of what? I'm a fan of Grey's Anatomy, but even I admit it's feel-good trash). At least they had the good sense of recognizing Peter Krause, Frannie Conroy, Patricia Clarkson and Joanna Cassidy, along with Alan Ball for writing/directing. I will end with my regular FYC push for Conroy - if she loses for Best Actress, I will crawl into bed and never emerge from it, lamenting how stupid and lame the world is. That is all.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

#19 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

I am having an inkling that this is the moment, right here, in which I lose a lot of you dear readers. Admittedly, comedian Jack Black is the kind of personality who is best enjoyed in very small doses. Before seeing his work in Richard Linklater's The School of Rock, I was not a big fan (to put it lightly). In a lot of his work, he goes too far, resembling an only slightly-less manic Jim Carrey; the end result is either blisteringly funny or abominably irritating. But Linklater clearly understands these respective strengths and weaknesses of his lead actor, and allows Black to channel his ferocious energies into a more approachable manner to his character. Make no mistake, this is still Jack Black, the obnoxious loud-mouth you hate to love. But he is also the hero of this story, much more human and thusly, a lot more accessible. Lazy, irritable, selfish, yet also responsible and loving when the time comes, I adore Dewey Finn because I see so much of myself and others reflected in him. I find it rather telling that Bridget Jones and Dewey Finn are two of my favorite screen characters in recent years - it is about time leads of romances and comedies are a little more flawed, plump and screwed-up than their bland counterparts. Detractors may argue that this is merely a variation on Black playing himself, and Linklater reigns him in only slightly so. To this, I say that while elements of his celebrity remain, Black is still acting nonetheless, as opposed to relying solely on that persona. He plays it up, and then builds on it. On the other hand, his Mr. Finn is not the equivalent of the saintly Mr. Keating played by Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. If that teacher was unorthodox in his approach to instruction, Finn is positively reconstructionalist. He vents his frustrations in the classroom, massaging his wounded ego with a rocking ode to himself because he was kicked out of his band. Furthermore, he actually goes out of his way to undermine the children's confidence ("Give up, just quit, because in this life, you can't win... because the world is ruled by The Man"). Finn's deception of his students, their parents and the school principal (a phenomenal turn by Joan Cusack) is pretty despicable. But they all come to gain as much from him as he does from lying to them. Consider how Finn offers the kids an education through the joy of music, playing with math and training them in rock trivia. Even in those inspirational moments which could dangerously veer into shmaltz, Black is there to kick the film back on track ("I like to eat! Is that such a crime?"). Indeed. I salute you, Mr. Black, with a raise of my "goblet of rock". I would attend your school anyday.

Friday, June 30, 2006

Apologies...

So, my dear readers... unsurprisingly, my HP Pavilion has crashed on me again, for the fourth time in about eleven months (bought in late July of last year). I'm really past the point of feeling frustration. As soon as I started hearing those strangled clicks and faltering beeps and encountering familiar blue screens, I started to pack up the lemon to send over to Futureshop (equivalent of Best Buy or similarly-themed technology shop) for repair. Hard drive crashes have become a part of my everyday life now, very much like having to visit the dentist for a clean-up or taking in your car for servicing. The only "good" news is that because of the extended warranty plan I have, if the computer so much as sneezes after this repair, I get a brand-new one. What I fear is the same thing happening all over again, since I get the same model; I'm considering asking for a Mac (although I doubt the plan allows for exchanges). Whatever, technology hates me, I hate technology. I am so looking forward to re-installing everything on my desktop, from iTunes to Anti-virus programs (snort). Hurrah.

The bad news is that I am mostly computer-less for the next few days (my mother, brother and I must share the old Dell we have - it barely has ten gigabytes on it), and the countdown has lost all momentum. Plus, I leave for Dubai on Tuesday, so the list may be in a little bit of limbo for the next few weeks. I will do everything I can to post whatever I can for the next few days, but if not, please forgive me for leaving you all in suspense (hah! all five of you that read this... but I appreciate your involvement).

Off to pack!

Thursday, June 29, 2006

#20 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

I suppose this is my equivalent of Javier's unexpected (but most welcome) inclusion of Toni Collette on his list for The Hours; I posit here that Kevin Bacon gave the best performance in Mystic River's powerhouse ensemble. Yes, it is not a showy submission (a la Penn, Robbins and Harden), nor does Bacon's character have the benefit of a sly, shockeroo twist coming his way (see Linney's Lady Macbeth monologue). In short, he has minimal time and space to make an impression, especially with so many actors making Oscar-bids around him. And yet, watching him softly and wholeheartedly support everyone else - all the while quietly experiencing a tragedy of his own - is like watching a different film entirely. Make no mistake, I am not attempting to disparage the other actors in Mystic River, who are stunning in their portrayals. As well, perhaps many would rather I turn to Bacon's work in The Woodsman to shower hosannas (as well they should - Bacon is so very underrated: still nomination-less!), but something about him here in this film always has me looking back over my shoulder. Consider how Bacon nails every one of those difficult scenes on the phone with his wife, never resorting to hammy dramatics and doing his best to remain composed despite the fact he is surely breaking down inside ("Yeah, nice talkin' to you too"). He is frustrated by her silence, yet he depends on them to give him some degree of sustenance and comfort (to his partner: "She calls all the time"). And then there's the scene where he is shown the resting place of Katie Markum's body, and the hardened way it all registers ("What the fuck am I going to tell him?"). Watch carefully at his eyes while Jimmy grows increasingly desperate outside for an answer ("Is that my daughter in there, Sean?") with a fatigued visage, unable offer any befitting response. It's a stunning moment. And recall that final, ambiguous gesture when he aims at Jimmy, determined to bring him down (and let him know about it). Underplaying every "big" moment with the confidence of a seasoned pro, I love this performance because it is so solid and lived-in. It defines "supporting". With all respect to Tim Robbins, who I greatly admire as an actor (especially in this film), he should hand over his statuette to Bacon.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

#21 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

In his Oscar-nominated turn in The Fellowship of the Ring, Ian McKellen disappears so completely into the role of two-thousand-year-old Gandalf the Grey, it is difficult to believe he is giving a performance. It is, excuse the hyperbole, an inhabitation; from the moment he appears riding his wagon-of-tricks, McKellen carries the full weight, power and grace of a noble wizard. Clad in drab robes and a pointed hat (which would look, let's face it, ridiculous on any other actor), Gandalf nevertheless is a character that is instantly accessible: McKellen plays him as the kind, tender caretaker that all of us would love to have watch over us. Over the course of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, he plays several roles: the wise old man, the father figure, the fellowship leader and - in his resurrection as Gandalf the White - graceful (read: kick-ass) warrior. But for me, it is in the first film that McKellen gives the most winsome and formative potrayal of this old soul, rejuvenating a familiar archetype. Despite the fact I knew going into the film that Gandalf would die (thus fulfilling the arch of the old wise man in fantasies), the scene still struck me in the gut. It is quite the achievement to stand out in such a stellar ensemble cast, but McKellen proves himself utterly and totally invested in this world. From wistfully smoking his pipe with long-time friend Bilbo Baggins to ferociously defending his clan from the Balrog in the Mines of Moria ("You... shall not... pass!"), McKellen keeps offering various shades to his character. His Gandalf is not always smiles and winks, but is stern and wholly uncompromising when the time arises. Equal parts dependable buddy and protective parent, McKellen's Gandalf is the kind of character you would hope to encounter one day in real life.

#22 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

In my review for Mysterious Skin a couple of months ago, I complained that the role of the druggie hustler looking for genuine love has become something of a tired cliché. In recent years, actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Kevin Zegers (who was Transamerica's MVP) have thankfully managed to avoid monotony and familiarity in their acting. But in Jacob Tierney's little-seen 2003 Twist, a gloomy and complex update of Oliver Twist by Dickens, Nick Stahl gives my favourite take on the character. Stahl has always struck me as a most generous actor; in all of his screen appearances, from the serene and endearing son in 2001's In the Bedroom to his unexpected involvement in T3: Rise of the Machines of all places, he is always willing to let his fellow thespians shine instead of greedily chasing the spotlight himself. This is perhaps why he remains so undervalued in the industry (a turn as a murderous pedophile in the despicable Sin City hardly counts as a quality gig); perhaps his dedication and egolessness is mistaken for blending into the background. In Twist, however, Stahl is mesmerizing and at the forefront as "Dodge" (The Artful Dodger), a male prostitute who regularly uses heroin in order to escape his situation. He does not take the slightest bit of pleasure in scoring tricks; rather, he does his best to avoid them, which in turn enrages his abusive pimp. Dodge is so desperate to avoid work that he regularly scouts the streets for boys willing to join the trade in his place. The performance is free of histrionics and calculation; interstingly, Stahl seems to get quieter and smaller as the film winds down to its devastating conclusion. Note the way he walks, hands crammed into his pockets and bracing the relentless severity of a harsh Toronto winter; he assumes a purpose and direction, but to where exactly? Dodger seems to realize that for all his attempts to escape, he simply brings himself closer to his own annihilation. As his world comes crashing down on him, with the arrival of an estranged family member and the death of a close friend, Stahl literally defines hopelessness and suffocating oppression. The film is an extremely unpleasant affair, and I respect it for not turning its gaze away from the sickening realities of the exploitive sex trade. But it is clearly Stahl who deserves much of the credit for making the film work as well as it does; if only all films could be blessed with so much conviction and willingness on the part of the leading actor. On a side note, I am glad that this little-seen effort managed to score Stahl a Genie nomination for Best Actor (equivalent of Oscar in Canada); Twist also scored another three nods.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

#23 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

A Home at the End of the World, an adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel of the same name, is a woeful wreckage of a film. It is not so much a "bad" effort as it is utterly flat as a piece of cinema; the thing just sits there, plodding through its plot points and suffering from a terminal lack of personality. But the only reason I did not regret plunking down cash on a pricey evening show was the presence of Colin Farrell in the lead, portraying the lovelorn Bobby. Second to perhaps only Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears in receving regular thrashings by the media, Farrell has been (unfairly, I believe) maligned for his personal life as well as his apparent lack of acting chops. Whatever his actions off-screen, I would have detractors take a look at this astounding performance before writing him off altogether (as well as his gorgeous work in Malick's The New World), because it's a keeper. While his co-stars either confusedly flounder about (Robin Wright-Penn) or feign investment (Dallas Roberts) in relation to their characters, it is Farrell who places the weight of the film entirely upon his shoulders. His wide-eyed terror at the possibility of testing unknown waters is not the least bit questionable, because Farrell invests him with such a gentle, susceptible spirit. He is so enchanting because we, along with him, see the world with new eyes and feel deep-seated ambivalence toward drastic change in life. Farrell plays him like a lost little boy who has never been able to grow up, who is unable to understand why the nature of relationships (especially those that are romantic and sexual in nature) change so quickly. Bobby's fluid sexuality is an element many other actors would have botched, needing to define or play him in a certain way. Farrell's Bobby is simply open to love, accepting it from any person because he was so starved for affection as a child. It's a fully rounded characterization, and an effort that should have received more attention than it did during awards season. At the very least, it's a much better performance than the movie it is featured in deserves.

#24 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

Don Cheadle is such a gifted, transformative actor, capable of re-inventing himself in fantastic ways, which thusly makes me wonder why it has taken him so long to be acknowledged as one of Hollywood's most dependable talents. From the sarcastic, back-talking heister in the Ocean's Eleven films to the wary-yet-committed social worker in The United States of Leland, it is difficult to believe that the same performer inhabits both those characters so masterfully. What is even more impressive is that he makes those transitions (and in all the screen work he has done) so pronounced without the help of prosthetics or other "look-at-me" gimmickry. As for Hotel Rwanda: I still am grappling with my feelings towards the film overall (I certainly like it, but am unsure to what degree), but one element I have no qualms with is the quality and passion of Cheadle's lead performance. As hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina, who was able to prevent the slaughter of over one thousand persecuted Tutsis during the 1994 Rwandan Massacre, Cheadle's heart and soul are literally on display throughout the film's running time - it is a shattering thing to witness. The performance transcends mimicry; rather, Cheadle attempts to hit at the essence of the man, rather than presenting him as a thinly-sketched sacrificing saviour, free of flaws. Hotel Rwanda's Rusesabagina is fully human and therefore imperfect, confronted with the most depressing of circumstances. His dilemma is essentially no-win from every side, and Cheadle portrays the indecision, pain and sadness of this man perfectly. In 2005, he was nominated for an Academy Award in the Lead Actor category. While his four competitors were merely adequate in their films, Cheadle was the only one in my mind whose work came close to "award-worthy" status, no contest. He should have won it.

Friday, June 23, 2006

#25 (Male Performances in Review 2000-2004)

In Arnaud Desplechin's intriguing soap-opery-but-surprisingly-not-trite Kings and Queen, Emmanuelle Devos's Nora and her relationships with the several men in her life may serve as the film's main thrust, but it is Mathieu Amalric as her emotionally unstable ex that steals the show, the stage, and even the chair you're sitting on. Thrown into a mental institution on suicide watch at the behest of his frustrated sister, Ismaël argues against, pleads with and finally attacks various members of staff, completely at a loss as to why he is being held against his will. The amazing feat of Amalric's performance is he convinces us that he is the lone sane person on-screen and all the people around him are behaving irrationally and without just cause, despite the fact that his character is a very sick man. I was in gleeful stitches watching the furious, embittered Ismaël sputter and rave at his non-plussed parents, or when he tries to justify to his sister why he sent her Christmas presents in July. Amalric is also very adept at capturing his character's manic, mile-a-minute thought process, and demonstrates how his past relationships with women have utterly soured his view of the female gender. This does not stop Ismaël , however, from contemplating having a tryst with a willing, interested patient in the hospital (Amalric plays beautifully against her, weighing the pros and cons of the situation). Perpetually horny, confused and all-the-while frazzled by his present situation, Amalric is fascinating to look at as he navigates his way through the dilemma at hand. It's a high-wire, loopy exercise, but Amalric always makes sure to humanize the man, so there is no danger of caricature or chewing the scenery. This is the genius of his work; it is hysterical, intelligent comedy, but grounded in a subtle truth about heartache, betrayal and illness that is visible in his body language. His interaction with his would-be son during the film's final moments is a tender, moving scene that does not resort to mawkish sentimentality. In a picture filled top to bottom with astounding acting efforts, it may be the film's best performance.

Top 25 Male Performances 2000-2004

"Oh good grief!" You are likely throwing up your hands by now and asking why I would add my voice to the multitude of acting list countdowns happening right now. Glenn just wrapped up his take on the best 100 performances so far this decade, while both Javier and Nathaniel are in the midst of their Top 25 Female Performances 2000-2004 and Actors of the Aughts lists respectively. Well, in a conversation with Javier, he generously offered to help me out with my creative blog-related dry spell by planning a countown of the best female performances (00-04) concurrently. While it would have been fun to compare notes, I was wishwashy on the idea and reluctant to invest myself in such a demanding project. But as the weeks passed by, I decided that it was necessary to keep myself occupied with such an ambitious task. But instead of totally stealing his idea, I wondered a similarly-structured list would fare with male actors. Frankly, it was not as exciting compiling this list as it was for these actors' female counterparts; while I could come up with more than eighty commendable performances by actresses easily, it took me hours to even hit the fifty mark with the boys. Why that is, I cannot say, although this does not take away from the fantastic performances featured on my roster.

Initially, it was difficult not to credit some of the performances on display from last year (Heath Ledger would have easily broken the top ten, if not the top five), until I realized that it was only because those efforts were fresher in my mind. To ready myself for the list, I opened up some DVDs to browse through some titles to see whether these performances were as good (or as awful) as I remembered them being. Indeed, some of my early favourites have fallen from grace (I'm not sure I even like some of them anymore, let alone love) while others that I took for granted or overlooked before now just play better with the passing of time. It will be interesting to revisit all these roles through this list, and explain why I feel that they deserve placement in such a competitive, limited lineup. I know there will be a lot of opposition to some of my choices, especially in comparison to who I left out, but arguing is half the fun I suppose. I look forward to all your thoughts, and feel free to call me crazy for my choices (although back up your opinions!).

As for the schedule, I am sad to say that the list might not be completed by the time I leave for Dubai (July 4th), although I will try my best. I would continue the list from there, but my cousin's parents do not use the internet, and I'd have to visit internet cafés regularly. And seeing as I'm on vacation, sitting in front of a computer would probably be a waste considering the sight-seeing I could be doing. Not that I do not cherish all of you, the few readers that find my blog halfway interesting... but... really now.

The "Rules":
1. Actors are limited to only one spot each on the list; for example, do not expect to see Jude Law and Jim Broadbent mentioned more than once, despite them having performed brilliantly in multiple films since 2000. I feel this is only fair to the other actors who, for various reasons, have not been working as often or are not particularly high-profile talents in their industries.
2. No ties are allowed (unfortunately - you know how fond I am of using them). I have to restrict myself this time around lest things get out of hand. 25 Performances = 25 Performances. EDIT: (December 31st: My apologies, but I've had to let this rule go. Damn my poor planning!)
3. I will go by IMDB release dates to save myself distribution confusion; so even though a film may have released internationally in 2005, it still might have premiered at a festival or opened in the country of production in 2004.
4. Even though this is a list of fifty performances, I will only be writing capsules on the first twenty-five selections. Do you want this list to go on until November? I didn't think so.
5. Obviously, the list is not set in stone, and the hierarchy is not meant to be taken very seriously; the difference in my regard for one performance listed at #6 and one at #29 is miniscule. Rankings after, say, the first ten are pretty arbitrary (then again, isn't this whole list?).

1-25: [subject to tinkering]

1. Haley Joel Osment, A.I. Artificial Intelligence
2. Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom
3. Dan Futterman, Urbania
4a. Ralph Fiennes, Spider
4b. Ed Harris, Pollock
5. Mark Ruffalo, You Can Count on Me
6. John Cameron Mitchell, Hedwig and the Angry Inch
7. Gael Garcia Bernal, Bad Education
8. Ryan Gosling, The Believer
9. Jude Law, I Heart Huckabees
10. Naseeruddin Shah, Monsoon Wedding
---
11. Paul Giamatti, Sideways
12. Adrien Brody, The Pianist
13. Jim Broadbent, Iris
14. Ewan McGregor, Moulin Rouge!
15. Ethan Hawke, Before Sunset
16. Scott Mechlowicz, Mean Creek
17. Campbell Scott, Roger Dodger
18. Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams
19. Jack Black, The School of Rock
20. Kevin Bacon, Mystic River
21. Ian McKellen, The Fellowship of the Ring
22. Nick Stahl, Twist
23. Colin Farrell, A Home at the End of the World
24. Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda
25. Mathieu Amalric, Kings and Queen

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

#6 [tie] (Film in Review 2005)


Every year, after assembling and putting to rest my top ten for what transpired cinematically during the previous twelve-month calender, I always encounter a film released during that same time-frame that sends me back to the drawing board. Back in March, I knew I would regret counting down my 2005 list without having screened Jean-Marc Vallée's C.R.A.Z.Y. (#6 - tie); clearly, I should have listened to myself and sought out the film immediately. The film, which tracks the highs and (mostly) lows of a Québécois family from 1960 to the early '80s, was the most honoured Canadian film released last year (it won a whopping 11 Genies). Aside from the frustrating task of having to now assign it a placement somewhere on this already jam-packed list, I am quite pleased to have finally encountered and embraced this magical, immensely personal treat. Although I have often stated that Noah Baumbach's The Squid and the Whale hit home harder than any other last year (Ali = Frank), this one is perhaps even more reflective of my life. In fact, watching the opening moments - in which a young, sensitive Zachary is chastised and belittled by his terrified father for behaving like a "fairy" - was akin to watching an eerie recreation of my childhood. It was not altogether a pleasant experience, although C.R.A.Z.Y. is thankfully not all morose and self-pitying as a coming-of-age story. In fact, like Baumbach's film, director Jean-Marc Vallée is always eager to present the flipside of the situation, unearthing macabre hilarity behind the sadness and family breakdown. Furthermore, C.R.A.Z.Y. thankfully foregoes exploring Zachary's formative years exclusively by way of his confused sexual identity, but through various lenses (religion, notions of proper masculine behaviour, nationality, the evolution of music and more).

Aside from the added layers of reading Zachary's relationship with his father in a national context (Quebec in relation to Canada as a whole), the film is just fun overall. Vallée's approach is anything but muted or straightforward; rather, he infuses the frame with a vibrant colour palette, including fantastic fantasy sequences and rich musical numbers. Indeed, the film's soundtrack is one of its many pleasures, presenting Bowie and Pink Floyd in a manner that makes them feel new and alive, as if one was hearing the tracks for the first time. The screenplay, also by Vallée, is inventive and witty (surprising, considering the familiar subject matter); although it occasionally falls back on a contrived moment here or there, such missteps are easily forgivable. Why? Because overall, C.R.A.Z.Y. is such a glorious, superbly-crafted ride. Like the best films about family, there are no attempts to gloss over pain and guilt, or (on the other hand) superficially tackle grief and resentment. It is interesting how my favourite films of 2005 all focus around the family - The Best of Youth, A History of Violence, The Squid and the Whale, Pride and Prejudice - in all their charms and flaws. This film beautifully encapsulates how we all function in relation to our loved ones: family members often drive us a little "crazy", but would we really trade them for anyone else? Because sometimes, they often surprise us with a display of love and acceptance we never thought possible...

Saturday, June 10, 2006

I like Fresca.

Yes, I am alive. There are many reasons why my blog has been rather neglected over the past weeks, but I don't think any of them are interesting enough to list here. Mostly, I think I burnt out after the 2005 Top Ten countdown, and it was difficult for me to get back into my film critic groove. To make up for this, I have been diligently spending time in front of the television and at the movie theatre, soaking in what 2006 has to offer. In regards to the non-film aspects of my life, I've been enjoying my summer break so far, trying to get fit (a 30-minute run everyday, with weight training thrown in there somewhere) and studying for the LSAT like a good, dedicated student. Some more good news is that I will be traveling to Dubai (in the United Arab Emirates) during the month of July to attend my cousin's wedding. I'm not really thrilled about flying in the wake of recent events here in Canada, and with a name like mine (snort), but it will be great to get away from North America for a while. I spent four years of my life in Dubai, so it will be exciting to re-visit certain family members and memorable places, only now as an adult.

Also, I am happy to report to those of you who are aware of my Diet Coke addiction that I have finally overcome it. I've now switched to ingesting ridiculous amounts of Fresca, which is probably the best drink in the world (no hyperbole here). Those of you who are saying "duh" should know that it's a drink primarily available in the U.S., and is hard to come across even across the border. Granted, neither beverage is particularly good for you (cancer-causing aspartame), but at least I am avoiding teeth stains and overdoses of caffeine. Aren't you all proud of me? Baby steps, people.

Oh, one more thing. Time to gloat. I suppose all those all-nighters and hours commuting back and forth to campus were worth it:

ENG253Y1 World Lit in Eng 1.00 88 A
ENG328Y1 Fiction 1900 - 1960 1.00 88 A
NEW326Y1 Indenture, Survival 1.00 82 A-
POL320Y1 Modern Pol Thought 1.00 80 A-
RLG280Y1 Compar World Rels 1.00 92 A+
G.P.A. - 3.88 (Grr.)

X3 - The Last Stand (Brett Ratner, 06) D+ [The majority of this movie's plot turns has largely faded from my memory, which should give a strong indication of how weightless and inept it is at story-telling overall. As noted before, I'm not an ardent fan of the X-Men film saga (B, B- respectively), but this third installment marks a signficant drop in quality. Brett Ratner, who has received a lot of flak for assuming control over the project following Brian Singer's departure, does a fine job continuing the look and feel of this superhero universe. However, he fails at weaving together a coherent narrative and believable three-dimensional characters. Bluntly put, the film, for all its "big" moments and attempts at seriousness (three major characters bite the dust... or maybe not), makes no impact whatsoever. Of course, a little depth would be too much to ask for, considering the sequel crams in several new characters it cannot accomodate, and attempts to adapt the Dark Pheonix saga into a few poorly-written scenes. I must admit that one or two scenes clicked - namely Mystique's tragic end ("She was so beautiful.") and Famke Jansenn's tortured intensity, but that was pretty much all that impressed this cranky critic. The film wears its subtext on its sleeve ("No needle shall ever touch my skin again."), and makes a major, offensive misstep by portraying rebellious mutants (representing society's outcasts) as tatoo-covered, body-pierced punks. The writing is even worse; from Wolverine and Scott's woefully obvious exchange ("I know how you feel" ... "Don't!") to the "furball" jabs directed at The Beast (Kelsey Grammer, doing his best to save the film), every line is a groan-inducing flub. X Men 3 has no heart, no complexity and often makes little sense (ice-skating when the apocalypse is imminent?). For all their flaws, the first two films at least hinted at greatness from time to time; this one just drools all over itself. Notice how I avoided mentioning Halle Berry? That was intentional.]

The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard, 06) C+ [It may be the backhanded compliment of the year, but this is one of Ron Howard's better films, smarter than usual and (for the most part) impressively constructed. Based on Dan Brown fictional novel (those who are offended by the text and film, please repeat this sentence several times), the film posits a history very different than the one told in the accepted gospels. The plot overall (a newly-found discovery followed by endless chase across European city, repeat ad nauseum) is less-than-engaging, but the wildly fascinating backstory about the development of the church following Christ's death really holds the ludicrous proceedings together. Whatever you think about Brown's fanciful theories, whether as a churchgoer or not, they must be lauded as a fantastic way of re-considering Christianity and the man (and woman?) behind it (which is no doubt why so many people are threatened by it). For about two-thirds of the film's running time, Howard maintains a gripping pace, using the Louvre, the streets of Paris and monastaries as dark, menacing abodes. But then it all becomes a little much - to say that the last half-hour is anti-climatic would be understating matters; this is where Howard begins his trademark audience pacification, driving home the point repeatedly. Still, that was not enough to sour the film overall; I actually enjoyed it a lot more than my final grade may indicate. The cast does solid work, with "best of" honours unsurprisingly going to Paul Bettany, who is fully committed to the intimidating, self-hurting Silas character. The rest of the cast - Tom Hanks (nicely understated), Audrey Tatou and Ian McKellen - are all well-suited to their parts.]

District B13 (Pierre Morel, 04) A- [Forget X-Men, forget Da Vinci. This is the definitive movie-going experience of the summer, a popcorn fluff piece with blockbuster payoff, but ambitiously brainy all the same. Set in 2010, in a dystopian Paris where impoverished neighborhoods have been sectioned off by towering walls from the affluent sections of the city, two men attempt to infiltrate the crime-rampant District B13. One is a cop who is ordered to locate and diffuse a dangerous bomb, while the other is along for the ride to rescue his sister from a corrupt drug lord. Employing parkour stunts (a phenomenon initiated by David Belle - who actually stars in the film - that involves jumping and climbing over buildings and other obstacles in an urban environment), the film is an absolute spectacle of action sequences and visual effects. Apparently, only 10% of the stunts were achieved through wire-work; the rest were actually performed through parkour tricks. Even if the film was solely an exercise in eye candy, that would have been sufficient for a time-pass, but the film earns bonus points for being open to interpretation. Allusions to the Third Reich's ghettoization of Jewish individuals and the Holocaust are very clear, and the film's conflict is reminiscient of the tensions in Palestine/Israel. It's there if you look for it, but is clearly not necessary to enjoy all the treats this film has to offer in spades.]

The Proposition (John Hillcoat, 05) B-/C+ [I reserve the right to change my mind about this one after a second viewing, because I have the lingering feeling that I missed something the first time around. What I must say right off the bat is that this film features an absolutely stellar ensemble cast (that should be up for a SAG nod later next year, but that obviously won't happen). Hillcoat's film reminded me strongly of a novel I read this year called Remembering Babylon, by David Malouf. The book explored the experience of early settlers to Australia, and was attuned to the subterranean essence (native aboriginal culture) that ran underneath the guise of European "civility" established on the land. Similarly, The Proposition tells the story of how a police captain (Ray Winstone) attempts to capture a band of trouble-making brothers, and how he and all the characters around him are affected by this conflict. For the most part, the film is an effective, blood-soaked western that presents us with severely flawed and complex characters attempting to negotiate a strange and unfamiliar terrain. My complaints are mainly directed at the figure of Martha Stanley; although impeccably performed by Emily Watson, her character's inclusion is merely a way to hint at the vulnerability of Winstone's Stanley authority figure, and what will inevitably happen (a violent disturbance of the outside world into the safe domestic interior of their home). Also, the Darwinian reading literally spelled out by John Hurt's creepy wanderer pretty much kills what the film is suggesting through its writing and direction. These two elements really soured the overall experience for me, but the film is a welcome change of scenery from what is being offered at the multiplexes right now. Worth a look.]