Movie Review: Diane

Diane **** / *****

Directed by: Kent Jones   

Written by: Kent Jones.

Starring: Mary Kay Place (Diane), Jake Lacy (Brian), Estelle Parsons (Mary), Andrea Martin (Bobbie), Deirdre O'Connell (Donna), Glynnis O'Connor (Dottie), Joyce Van Patten (Madge), Kerry Flanagan (Nurse Jackie), Phyllis Somerville (Ina), Celia Keenan-Bolger (Tally), Ray Iannicelli (Al Rymanowski), David Tuttle (Minister), Marcia Haufrecht (Carol Rymanowski). 

 

Diane is one of those women we all kind of know, but we don’t often think about. She’s older now – retired, single, her only child long since moved out of the house. But she isn’t lonely in part because she’s always doing something – always on the move. She has a large contingent of people around her – Aunts and Uncles, cousins, friends and Diane is always popping by to check on them, maybe drop off a casserole to someone who is recovering from surgery. She spends a lot of time at the bedside of a cousin dying of cancer. She wishes she could help her son – Brian (Jake Lacy) – who is addicted to drugs but she can’t do much for him, unless he wants to do something for himself. He isn’t homeless – not yet at least. Diane is always running from one place to another – helping others, going to dinner with friends, volunteering at a soup kitchen, etc. For the most part, she seems completely selfless. At least at first.

 

Diane is played in a remarkable performance by Mary Kay Place – and if you don’t know the name, you know the actress – who has (as of this moment) 135 credits on IMDB, and has appeared on every TV show you can think of, and in countless movies you have seen. She is one of the great character actors out there – who shows up for a scene here and there, an episode here and there, and is always great – and never gets the credit, never gets the spotlight or the lead role she deserves. Here, Kent Jones – longtime film critic and Festival programmer turned filmmaker (he’s made some docs before, but this – at the age of 60 is his feature debut) has crafted a perfect role for Place – inspired by his own mother. He then filled out the cast with character actors all equally as good as Place – all of whom could (and probably should) carry their own movie like this. Estelle Parsons, Andrea Martin, Phyllis Somerville, Deirdre O’Connell, etc. The result is a movie full of people who know how to act, and know just what it means to be supportive in their scenes.

 

Diane is a tricky character – she starts as this cliché – the mother we perhaps all know, who is constantly worried about everyone else, except herself. This is the mother you often see mocked in shows – or on Twitter – as being overbearing, etc. – but very rarely do we get an exploration of them, and what makes them tick. As the movie progresses, and we start to get to know her Diane – and her past – it becomes clear that perhaps she isn’t motivated so much by “goodness” and “selflessness” – as it first appears – but by guilt. There is an incident in the past – a summer – in which Diane did something she has never been able to forgive herself for. And while everyone around her – including those that she hurt then – seem to have forgiven her, or at least moved on and don’t like to bring it up, she hasn’t. It isn’t an awful thing – no one died, etc. – but for her, she cannot forgive herself. And it haunts her in a way. Which raises the question – does it matter if she acts the way she does out of kindness or guilt? Is it what drives her that is important, or what she does?

 

The first hour of the movie seems to take place over the span of a few weeks and/or months. The last 30 minutes has a few leaps forward in time – everyone starts dying around Diane, as we expect that they will, either because we see them sick, or they are just old. Her son replaces one addiction with another – and they aren’t all that much closer as a result. And still, Diane keeps on chugging along – keeps up that mental list in her head of all the things she has to get done, all the people she wants to “do for”. Lessons aren’t really learned, as much as time just chugs along, indifferent to what Diane or anyone else thinks.

 

Through it all, Place holds the center of every scene, and does a remarkable job. Diane is more flawed, more human and complex than we think in the first few scenes. And she brings life to this movie that seems so simple at first, and becomes oh so complex by the end.

Movie Review: Hitchcock/Truffaut

Hitchcock/Truffaut
Directed by: Kent Jones.
Written by:  Kent Jones & Serge Toubiana.
Featuring: Wes Anderson, Olivier Assayas, Peter Bogdanovich, Arnaud Desplechin, David Fincher, James Gray, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Richard Linklater, Paul Schrader, Martin Scorsese, Alfred Hitchcock, François Truffaut.

Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest filmmakers in history – and remains so to this day – but he wasn’t always thought of in that way. He was thought to be little more than a popular entertainer by many people for most of his career, not a real artist. That all started to change in the 1960s – when French writers and directors started to expose the virtue of Alfred Hitchcock. No one did this more than Francois Truffaut, himself one of the great filmmakers in history, who said when he told American journalists that Hitchcock was one of his favorite directors, they asked why. So, over the course of a week, Truffaut, interviewed Hitchcock – going through his films one at a time. The resulting book is legendary in film circles – and remains as vital as ever. Kent Jones’ documentary Hitchcock/Truffaut both looks back at the interview, the book, and just basically Hitchcock in general. Of course, both Hitchcock and Truffaut are dead now, but Jones does get quite a list of modern directors to talk about Hitchcock (and a little Truffaut), and what he means to them, and what he means to cinema history. For Hitchcock fan like me, there is little new information in the film, even if it remains fascinating and entertaining throughout (it’s also great to have any excuse to see even excerpts of Hitchcock’s film on the big screen). I do, however, think the film may be more suited for Hitchcock amateurs – those looking for a way into Hitchcock, especially as the film moves along, and in the back half basically settles for discussions on Vertigo (1958) and Psycho (1960).

The film is well made by Jones – which shouldn’t be too surprising, since he’s worked with Martin Scorsese on a few documentaries like this in the past. Much like the Hitchcock/Truffaut book, which laid out in page after page, Hitchcock’s editing style, so you can see it laid out in front of you, Jones does the same thing here – and has the distinct advantage of having the movies themselves to do that with. The directors that Jones has chosen to interview are well chosen – the obvious ones, like Scorsese, Paul Schrader and Peter Bogdanovich (all of whom are film historians in a way, as well as being directors), and some of the more off the way choices like Wes Anderson (who doesn’t make films like Hitchcock at all – until you think about it for a minute). All of them are good filmmakers, who are able to describe what Hitchcock is doing, and what it all means. This is insightful, because it’s a different view than the critical writing we normally get on Hitchcock – a view inside the mind of someone who is processing things. And the filmmakers do not just focus on the technical level either – they dive into the meanings of the movies as well, and their symbolism.

But while the interviews are among the strengths of the movie, they are also the biggest example of the film’s biggest, glaring omission – there are no female directors who can talk about Hitchcock? Claire Denis, Sofia Coppola, Kathryn Bigelow, Lynne Ramsey, Jane Campion, Ava DeVernay et al have nothing to say about the master? This is perhaps even a little more troubling, giving the subject matter in Hitchcock’s films – he has often been accused of being a misogynist, so a female perspective seems like a necessity in a film like this, no?

That’s a problem with the film, but not a fatal one. The film still offers real insight into Hitchcock, and his place in cinema history – and I really do hope it inspires some people to watch (or re-watch) his work. The lack of women though knocks down what could have been a great doc, into merely a good one – one that offers very little new in Hitchcock (and nothing new on Truffaut, who eventually gets lost in the film), but is a good primer (or reminder) of just how good he really was.

DVD Review: A Letter to Elia

A Letter to Elia *** ½
Directed By: Martin Scorsese & Kent Jones.

In addition to being one of the greatest directors in cinema history, Martin Scorsese is also one of the world’s premiere film historians. His two epic TV documentaries, A Personal Journey Through American Film with Martin Scorsese and My Voyage to Italy, documented the history of American and Italian film respectively, and are among the most engrossing docs ever made on cinema history. He has contributed countless DVD commentaries on other director’s work, giving insight into the film that is fascinating. In short, Martin Scorsese loves films.

His new documentary, A Letter to Elia, which he co-directed with film critic Kent Jones, looks at the films and the legacy of Elia Kazan. Kazan will always be remembered for two things – being one of the best directors of all time, who helped to revolutionize film acting in his films like A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront and East of Eden. And of course, for being perhaps the most high profile name to go in front of Joseph McCarthy’s House of Un-American Activities Committee and name names of former Communists. This haunted his legacy right up to the end. Late in his life, when he received a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars, there were some who hated the idea of him receiving the award – and the usual standing ovation was somewhat muted – with some refusing to clap at all.

A Letter to Elia certainly does not try and shy away from Kazan’s involvement with HUAC – but it doesn’t dwell on it either. To Kazan, he was in a lose lose situation – on one hand, naming names would hurt the careers of others, and on the other hand, not naming names would have resulted in him being blacklisted. And according to Kazan, his best films all came after his testimony – he became a more personal filmmaker, and certainly in On the Waterfront you can see Kazan perhaps trying to justify his actions.

But what interests Scorsese isn’t Kazan’s politics, but rather the films themselves. He provides cursory analysis of films like A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Boomerang, Panic in the Streets and A Streetcar Named Desire, Wild River and A Face in the Crowd (which surprisingly gets very little mention). But where Scorsese really dives in deep is into On the Waterfront and East of Eden – and to a lesser extent, America, America. These are the films that helped to shape a young Martin Scorsese – who was in his early teens when those first two movies came out. Now, he recognizes the mastery of Kazan’s direction, and of all the different elements that went into making the movies. But as a kid, he was swept up in the emotions that they stirred – the faces of the characters, who seemed all too real to him. For Scorsese, these films helped him express feelings he had, but did not understand. They shaped Scorsese, not just as a filmmaker but as a person.

A Letter to Elia is only an hour long – it was made essentially as a special feature for a box set of Kazan’s films that was released back in November – including all the films Scorsese talks about (which is a good thing because previous to this Wild River and America, America were not available on DVD – they are now must sees for me this coming year). And yet, it still has the feel of Scorsese’s other documentaries on film. Watching this film, much like watching A Personal Journey Through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy, serves as a reminder as to why film buffs like myself fell in love with movies in the first place. Nowadays, it is all too easy to grow cynical about movies – film critics like to beat up on practically everything, and every year it seems like more and more critics are decrying it as the worst year ever for movies. A Letter to Elia doesn’t contain that cynicism – and for that, I think we should be grateful.