DVD Review: Bill Cunningham New York

Bill Cunningham New York ***

Directed by: Richard Press.

Bill Cunningham is one of the happiest people I have ever seen in a movie. He lives precisely the life he wants to live – nothing more, nothing less. Until he was evicted, he lived in an artist’s apartment in Carnegie Hall in New York. It has no kitchen, and he shares the bathroom with another tenant. His tiny apartment was packed with filing cabinets, boxes and books. He sleeps on a mattress on top of more files. He is 80 years old, and has been doing the same thing every day for decades now. And he loves every minute of it.

Bill Cunningham loves clothes and shoes. Yes, he goes to the fashion shows and takes pictures of the new clothes by designers, but that isn’t what he truly loves. He loves being on the streets of New York and taking pictures of regular people with a unique style. He notices trends far before anyone else does, because he’s on the street, snapping pictures and he sees them develop before his eyes. Fashion magazines and designers love him for that. He isn’t paparazzi, because he doesn’t know and doesn’t care who the celebrities are. He is interested purely in the clothes they wear that make him happy. He pedals off to events all over Manhattan on his bike – he’s on his 29^th, the other 28 having been stolen. He doesn’t care.

For someone so interested in clothes, Cunningham doesn’t dress in any way that would make him stand out. He wears practical clothes, including a smock made for garbage men, which he dons for two reasons. The first is that his camera always rips them and they’re cheap. The second is that it has many pockets for his film.

Cunningham’s work has been featured in all sorts of magazines over the year, and now he has a regular segment in the New York Times. The people who he puts in there are always happy to be seen there. That is, after all, why they dress the way they do in the first place – to get noticed. And Cunningham never takes mean photos of people looking awful or tripping. Again, that doesn’t interest him.

Cunningham seems completely at peace with himself. He has found a job that he loves and is good at, and that’s enough for him. He is always smiling, always talking, always laughing and the film doesn’t feature one interview subject with anything negative to say about him.

There is only one scene where Cunningham seems uncomfortable in the movie. Richard Press, the director, asks him about his personal life and whether or not he’s ever had a romantic relationship. “Are you asking whether or not I’m gay?” Cunningham asks, but even this doesn’t faze him. He’s open about his lack of romantic experience. What throws him is when he’s asked about religion, because it seems the only time he isn’t working is when he goes to mass on Sundays. For once, he can’t think of anything to say.

I enjoyed Bill Cunningham New York, even if I must admit, I don’t really see what the point of the movie was. Perhaps it’s as simple as showing a man who is completely and totally happy. That is a rare occurrence that it warrants a documentary.

DVD Review: The Smurfs

The Smurfs **

Directed by: Raja Gosnell.

Written by: J. David Stem & David N. Weiss & Jay Scherick & David Ronn based on the characters of Peyo.

Starring: Hank Azaria (Gargamel), Neil Patrick Harris (Patrick Winslow), Jayma Mays (Grace Winslow), Sofía Vergara (Odile), Tim Gunn (Henri), Jonathan Winters (Papa), Alan Cumming (Gutsy), Katy Perry (Smurfette), Fred Armisen (Brainy), George Lopez (Grouchy), Anton Yelchin (Clumsy).

As a kid, I remember watching The Smurfs TV show and enjoying it, even if all these years later, I don’t remember much about the show itself other than the Smurfs were blue, lived in mushrooms and were constantly fighting against Gargamel and his cat Azarel. Oh, and that Papa Smurf was the only one who got to wear red, and apparently there was only one girl smurf, Smurfette. Everything else, is long forgotten, so I approached the new Smurfs movie hoping that it would tap into that kid who used to love them so (as the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies have done in their best moments). Sadly, it doesn’t. It’s a very colorful movie, a very quick movie, with a lot of kiddie potty humor and not a whole lot else. Kids will love it, but unlike the best kids movies, this is one that parents would be advised to stick in the DVD player and find something else to do for two hours.

The plot centers around the Smurfs, once again, trying to twart Gargamel (Hank Azaria), who wants to capture them to get their “essence” which will make him a much more powerful wizard than he already is. Clumsy Smurf accidentally leads Gargamel to the secret Smurf village, making everyone flee, and then stupid Clumsy, takes the wrong path and is followed by some of his friends – Papa, Smurfette, Gutsy, Brainy and Grouchy, where eventually they end up being sucked into a portal that takes them to New York City, with Gargamel and Azarel close behind them. Now, they need to find a way to reopen the portal and get home, while also trying to dodge Gargamel. They are helped in their efforts by Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) and his pregnant wife Grace (Jayma Mays), who they accidentally meet and befriend.

There are a couple of jokes in the movie I liked – but I think they were mostly showcased in the preview, like Patrick asking them if they get their names at birth or after they exhibited certain personality characteristics (to which the Smurfs just reply “yes”, which of course makes no sense), or Patrick asking if they never find that song they always sing annoying. But for the most part, nothing much made be smile much, let alone laugh. I have to admit that Neil Patrick Harris does what he can in the role of Patrick – making him much more down to earth and believable than he has any right to be. And Hank Azaria has a blast going completely and totally over the top as the bumbling idiot Gargamel. He’s so inept, that even though he is an evil wizard, you don’t have to worry about nightmares for the kiddies.

The Smurfs was made for children, so perhaps it’s unfair to criticize the movie for being something that kids will like, but adults won’t. And make no mistake, children will like The Smurfs, even if the movie does run a little on the long side (over 100 minutes for a freaking Smurfs movie). Still, if you have young children and buy the DVD, you’ll most likely be tempted to break it at some point, as that song will get stuck in your head as the kids watch and rewatch it. The Smurfs is what it is – a movie made strictly for kids – nothing more, nothing less.

Movie Review: The Artist

The Artist ****

Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius.

Written by: Michel Hazanavicius.

Starring: Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris), Missi Pyle (Constance), Beth Grant (Peppy's Maid), Ed Lauter (The Butler), Ken Davitian (Pawnbroker), Malcolm McDowell (Extra). Uggie (The Dog).

The Artist is pure cinematic bliss. It takes place in Hollywood between 1927 and 1932, just as silent films were being replaced by talkies. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is one of the biggest silent stars in the world – making a series of seemingly goofy “adventure” films, where he mugs for the camera, gets involved in endless sword fights, wins the girl, and rides off into the sunset – always with his faithful pooch beside him. But like many silent film stars, he is about to discover that talkies will ruin him. It requires a different acting style when there’s sound, and Valentin cannot be heard when he tries to speak. He will be abandoned by the studio he made so much money for, and by his wife. The stock market crash wipes him out financially, and now he’s washed up and broke.

His story is contrasted by the story of Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). She is young and pretty, and meets Valentin when he is on top of the world as a silent star. She gets works as an extra, and gradually works her way up in the ranks. When the silent era ends, the studio wants new stars, and they fixate on Peppy, who turns into the biggest star in the world. Yet, she never forgets Valentin, who was so nice to her early on in her career and who gave her such wonderful advice.

Written and directed by Michel Hazanvicius, The Artist is an almost completely silent film. Made in the style of the silent films of the 1920s, complete with inter titles to give you the dialogue, The Artist recreates the lost era of silent filmmaking. For fans of the era, like myself, Hazanavicius’ film is a wonderful homage to the time period, full of movie references. It is pretty much a perfectly made film – with his wonderful cinematography and the amazing score which recreate the era just about perfectly.

And it must be said that French stars Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo throw themselves into their roles with gusto as well. As Valentin discovers, acting in talkies is different that acting in silent films, and yet both of these stars nail the different acting style perfectly. Dujardin looks like a silent movie star, and his mugging in the films comedic scenes is just about perfect, and yet he still manages to be dramatic enough as Valentin’s life spirals down the drain. And Bejo is the perfect ingénue, with a natural screen presence. Throw in a stable of Hollywood supporting players – particularly John Goodman as a cigar chomping Hollywood exec and James Cromwell, as Valentin’s ever loyal chauffer, and you have a wonderful cast.

Yes, The Artist is about as deep as thimble. There really is not much here beyond its surface level. And yet, I find I don’t really care about that. The surface is so utterly charming, so funny, so pitch perfectly crafted on a technical level, that I found resistance to be futile. The movie wins you over in its opening scenes, and never really lets you go right up until it’s finale. The movie is, simply put, just pure, unadulterated cinematic joy.

Movie Review: Into the Abyss

Into the Abyss ****

Directed by: Werner Herzog.

All they wanted was the red Camaro. Michael Perry and Jason Burkett were teenagers – just over 18 – and they knew another kid, Adam Stotler, and his family had a Camaro they wanted to drive. They planned to go over to his house and ask for a place to spend the night, and when everyone was asleep, steal the car. When they get there however, Adam is out, and only his mother is at home. They change the plan, tricking her into letting them in the house; they shoot her in the head, wrap the body up and dump in a nearby lake. When they return however, they discover that the gates of this gated community are locked for the night, and they don’t know they code. Undeterred, they sit and wait – and when Adam and his friend Jeremy Richardson – come back, they fool the two of them, take them out to the woods and kill them, then go back to Adam’s house and steal the Camaro. And Adam’s truck for good measure. They spend the next couple of days joy riding and bragging about what they did. The police move in, a shootout ensues, but the pair is quickly arrested. Perry confesses leads investigators to the bodies of the two boys and at trial is found guilty and given the death penalty. At a separate trial, Burkett is also found guilty and given life in prison with no possibility of parole for 40 years. What may have tipped the jury away from death was his father speaking at the sentencing hearing, blaming himself for what his son did, because he spent most of his own life in prison.

This is the story that the Werner Herzog’s new documentary Into the Abyss tells. It is one of the saddest films of the year, and one of the unlikeliest anti-death penalty documentaries I have ever seen. I have seen many anti-death penalty documentaries over the years, and normally they focus on flaws in the system – taking on the cases of innocent or possibility innocent people who have been condemned to death. That isn’t what Into the Abyss is about. There is way too much evidence against them to believe that Perry and Burkett are innocent of the crimes they were convicted for – although Perry says he didn’t do anything, and Burkett says he was there and didn’t kill anyone no one really believes them – not even Herzog. When he first meets Perry he tells him “Just because I’m here, that doesn’t mean I have to like you. I just don’t believe that the State should execute people”.

What Herzog does in Into the Abyss is detail the crime, and then details the sad lives that everyone involved in the crime have lived. You do feel worse for Burkett, who with a father constantly away in jail and a mother in disability raising five kids in a trailer park, never seemed to have much of a chance. Perry did have a more supportive family, but chucked it all away because he didn’t want to go to school – he didn’t want to do much of anything except hang out and do drugs. He admits as much, and he leaves a lasting impression on the movie, with his goofy smile. He still seems to be just a kid. Still, the details of both of their lives leading up to the murders are heartbreaking, even if their stories are far too commonplace. The interview he gets with Burkett’s father, also in jail, is just plain sad.

But Herzog never excuses their crimes. He interviews the police who investigated the crimes, and the family members of the victims, who are still dealing with their loss 10 years after the murders. Richardson’s brother, who looks tough with his tattoos, can barely hold himself together on camera, breaking down in tears multiple times as he talks about his brother. And Adam’s sister (who also lost her mother in this crime) is just as shaken up, although she appears to be able to hold herself together just a little bit better. Their interviews make one thing clear however – they will never get over their loss.

Herzog also gets an interview with a man who during his time with the Texas penal system (where this crime took place) oversaw over 120 executions. It got to a point where they were executing two people a week. He was a staunch advocate of capital punishment when he started, but after so many executions, he just couldn’t take it anymore. Even if you agree that some people deserve to die for their crimes and the State should have the right to execute people, you have to ask yourself if the State has the right to ask their employees to do it. How is a prison guard in charge of executing prisoners supposed to deal with being there and strapping down the condemned and watching them die. Over 120 times. I’m not amazed that some guards eventually crack under the weight of what they have seen – I’m amazed more don’t.

Werner Herzog is one of the mad geniuses of film. He often injects some strange things into his documentaries – like the part of his last documentary, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, about cave paintings, where he ends the film talking about albino alligators for some reason. What all these Texans made of this crazy German is something I don’t know, but at times, they do seem to be shaken by his bluntness. I mean this in a good way – Herzog doesn’t pussyfoot around. But he also doesn’t go off on any of his tangents in Into the Abyss. He realizes this story is sad enough as it is, and it doesn’t need these forays. There is only one moment – in the movie’s first scene, an interview with the Prison Chaplain, whose job it is to be with the condemned until they die, where Herzog asks a completely off the wall question. The Chaplain talks about golfing, and seeing the trees and having encounters with the squirrels. Herzog, always interested in animals, asks the Chaplain to tell him about one of those squirrel encounters. His answer surprised me. From such a seemingly innocent question, comes the first time in the movie that someone will break down crying. It won’t be the last. Herzog has made a powerful film about the death penalty, and he does it not by skirting the issue, but by facing it head on. If you want to execute someone, the least you can do is get to know them.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: Johnny Got His Gun (1971)

Johnny Got His Gun ***

Directed by: Dalton Trumbo.

Written by: Dalton Trumbo based on his novel.

Starring: Timothy Bottoms (Joe Bonham), Kathy Fields (Kareen), Marsha Hunt (Joe's Mother), Jason Robards (Joe's Father), Donald Sutherland (Christ), Alice Nunn (Third Nurse), Marge Redmond (First Nurse), Jodean Lawrence (Second Nurse), Diane Varsi (Fourth Nurse).

Dalton Trumbo was one of the most successful screenwriters in Hollywood history, despite the obvious handicap of being blacklisted by the McCarthy hearings in 1947. While blacklisted, Trumbo continued to work under assumed names – and saw two of his screenplays (from The Brave One and Roman Holiday) win Oscars. He eventually received an Oscar for The Brave One in 1975, one year before his death, and 19 years after it won the Oscar, and in 1993, the Academy finally awarded him an Oscar for Roman Holiday, even though by then he was dead. He only directed one film in his career – based on his own novel Johnny Got His Gun in 1971. Trumbo wrote the novel based in WWI in 1939, on the eve of WWII, and made the film during the height of the Vietnam War. It is relevant no matter what war it is about because it makes the point that all wars are wrong. The great Luis Bunuel had wanted to direct the movie, but for various reasons, it never happened with him at the helm. So instead, Trumbo took over. The result is not a great movie – it bares all the flaws that many first time filmmakers have in trying to accomplish too much, and being weak visually, but its impact remains immediate and painful. As long as wars continue to rage, the film will remain relevant.

The film stars Timothy Bottoms as Joe Bonham, who on the last day of WWI, gets hit with an artillery shell that blows off his arms, legs and face, but miraculously he survives. The doctors believe that he is a vegetable, and he is a fascinating patient – by all rights he should be dead, but he isn’t. So they keep him alive. What they do not know is that Bonham’s mind still works, although he has no way to communicate with anyone else, and cannot hear or see them. He lives in his dark world with nothing to keep him company. The army doesn’t even know what his name is.

The movie is made up of flashbacks to Bonham’s life before the war – with a strict father (Jason Robards), sympathetic but weak mother (Marsha Hunt) and loving girlfriend (Kathy Fields), surreal fantasy sequences (that apparently, Bunuel had a hand in writing), that include Bonham as a sideshow freak, and a Christmas party, and his present, lying in the bed with nothing. The only thing that keeps the present bearable are a series of four nurses, who treat him kindly. While the doctors and the army think he’s a vegetable, and so they needn’t worry about him, these four women take care of him, and treat him with dignity.

The scenes in the present are shot in stark black and white, and while Trumbo could hardly be called a gifted visual stylist, the images are memorable, mainly because of what is being shot – namely Bonham wrapped in bandages, with his face covered. A haunting moment where his bloody bandages are cut off, and fall to the floor, is subtle, and yet more effective than something more graphic would have been. The past and the fantasy sequences are shot in color, but it is color that looks drained and fuzzy – these were happier times than the present, but still not particularly happy.

For the most part, the performances work. Bottoms, would along with this film starred in Peter Bogdanovich’s masterpiece The Last Picture Show, seemed on the edge of greatness that he never quite achieved (the last time I saw him on screen was as the drunken, oblivious father in Gus Van Sant’s Elephant in 2003). Here though, he captures the young man who went off to war because it was the right thing to do, and now wants nothing more than to die. Robards is fine as his father, who believes in America, and democracy, and even though he cannot say what precisely America is fighting for, believes his son should be fighting for it. Donald Sutherland is in fine form in a small role as Jesus Christ, in Bonham’s fantasy sequences, who offers no real guidance.

There are far too many moments in the film that do not work for Johnny Got His Gun to be a great film – the worst example is of a strange Christmas party, with a man saying over and over again “I’m the boss, this is champagne, Merry Christmas” for reasons that I could never figure out. I also think that the film at times gets too preachy for its own good – hammering points home again and again until it becomes redundant. But having said that, I do have to admit that there are moments in Johnny Got His Gun that are unforgettable and haunting – ones that will likely stick with you forever. Johnny Got His Gun is not a great film, but it contains greatness in parts of it.

Note: The heavy metal bank Metalica was apparently a big fan of the book and movie, and wrote one of their best songs, One, in 1987, based on them. The music video for that song is included in the DVD, and at 8 minutes long (it is a long song), incorporates many of the best moments from the film. I actually think the 8 minute version on display in the video is more vivid and effective than the longer movie. The band apparently bought the rights to the movie outright, which is why it took so long to make its way to DVD.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: Antoinne et Collette (1962)

Antoine et Colette (1962) *** ½

Directed by: François Truffaut.

Starring: Jean-Pierre Léaud (Antoine Doinel), Marie-France Pisier (Colette), Patrick Auffay (René), François Darbon (Colette's Stepfather), Rosy Varte (Colette's Mother).

There has never been a cinematic alter ego for a director as well known Antoine Doinel was for Francois Truffuat. Truffaut’s first film, The 400 Blows, followed Doinel as a young teenager, struggling at home and at school, and eventually turning to street life and petty crime, before being sent to a reform school. This was the film that made Truffaut’s reputation, and remains one of the seminal works of the French New Wave. Truffaut based the film on his own experiences growing up. In 1962, he was approached to be part of an omnibus film, Love at Twenty, and decided to make a sequel to The 400 Blows, called Antoine et Colette, where we know see Antoine a few years older, on his own and supporting himself working at a record factory. He becomes obsessed with a beautiful girl named Colette, who he meets at the orchestra. The rest of the film follows Antoine’s attempts to win her over – but she just wants to be friends.

The film is short – about a half hour – but it certainly does stand the test of the time, and is one of the best films about unrequited love I can remember. Jean-Pierre Leaud once again plays Antoine, who has settled down a little bit in the year between the movies, become more mature and responsible. He no longer has to depend on anyone but himself for support – his parents are out of the picture, he doesn’t go to school, etc. He can do what he wants. What he really wants is Colette.

The early scenes in the film are brilliantly staged by Truffaut. We see Antoine settle into his seat at the orchestra, and then catch a glimpse of the beautiful Colette. Again and again, he shows up there to try and catch a look at her, and later, he tries to maneuver himself into a position where he can sit next to her. Eventually, the two of the talk, and flirt, and agree to meet again. What this means to Antoine, and what this means to Colette, of course, mean two entirely different things.

Antoine et Colette is an amusing, light hearted film. I’ll bet most people can relate to poor Antoine, having a crush on someone as a teenager, and believing their relationship is far more than it is to the other person. I enjoyed the scenes where Antoine meets her parents, and tries to be respectful, and how much sympathy they have for him. But if nothing else, Antoine should have clued in that Colette thinks of him as little more than a friend when her response to his love letter begins “Your letter was very well written…” Not exactly the response he was hoping for.

Antoine et Colette may be a minor work by a major director, but that doesn’t mean it is not worthy of attention. This is the film that often gets overlooked in the Antoine Doinel catalogue, because it is a short. But there is genuine emotion here – the last scene is almost heartbreaking – and it really is Truffaut pouring out his soul. For some reason, I had not seen any of the Doinel films after The 400 Blows, but after watching this film, I intend to correct that as soon as possible.

DVD Review: One Day

One Day * ½

Directed by: Lone Scherfig.

Written by: David Nicholls based on his novel.

Starring: Anne Hathaway (Emma), Jim Sturgess (Dexter), Tom Mison (Callum), Jodie Whittaker (Tilly), Rafe Spall (Ian), Patricia Clarkson (Alison), Ken Stott (Steven), Heida Reed (Ingrid), Romola Garai (Sylvie).

There are things that work in literature that simply do not work when they are adapted into movies. I can think of no better example that One Day, which was a very good book and is now a very bad movie. The screenplay was written by David Nicholls, who also wrote the book, and actually follows the events of the book very closely. All that’s missing is the emotions in the film. I don’t even think I can blame stars Anne Hathaway or Jim Sturgess, who are good looking and at times charming in the movie. But the story of Em and Dex, that so moved me in the book, left me cold when I saw the movie. The biggest mistake the filmmakers made, I think, was thinking that the book would work as a move in the first place.

The movie, like the book, checks in with Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Sturgess) every July 15^th for approximately 20 years – from their drunken first meeting, when sex seems to be in the air, to their evolving friendship, to the breakdown of that friendship to the rebuild of something more. As a book, this worked, but as a movie it does not. The characters never really get a chance to breath – and there are times when it seems like 5 years have gone by in the span of 10 minutes. Perhaps a TV miniseries, with each year given a half hour, would have worked. It would allowed the characters the space and time they needed to chart this evolving relationship, and make the characters three dimensional. Instead, we get a dumbed down version of the book. The movie is essentially a Coles Notes version of the book.

We know from the beginning that Emma and Dexter belong together – but something keeps getting in the way. They first meet at a graduation party, so the possibility of a University romance is thwarted as they’re both about to leave. He’s from a rich family, so he’ll soon be gone travelling the world for a few years, before coming back, getting into TV, and falling into a cycle of partying, drinking and drugs. She’s from a poorer family, so takes a job as a waitress at a crappy restaurant, waiting for her writing career to take off, eventually becoming a teacher, before finding success. At every point, either one or the other, or sometimes both, are unavailable, so they remain friends – even though the connection they share is deeper than that.

The movie, quite simply, feels rushed. They have to jam 20 years into just over 100 minutes, so many years are given the shaft, and we never get to know them as individuals, let alone what their relationship is really like. And the movie – either in the writing or editing stage – jettisons much of what makes these characters well rounded, eliminating some of the less sympathetic things each does (Emma’s affair with her married boss, Dexter trying to make a booty call while watching his infant daughter for the night for example were both in the book, but ignored for the movie). As soon as the movie starts to settle down and get into a groove, we flash forward yet another year, and have to start all over again.

Would I have liked the movie had I not read the book? Perhaps a little more than I did, but probably not much. The movie is too scattershot to be truly involving, and there is a real possibility that without having read the book, and as such been able to fill in the blanks the movie leaves, that I would have found it even less satisfying.

Directed by Lone Scherfig, who did such a great job with An Education a few years ago, One Day seems to me to be miscalculated. The movie needed to find a way to take the books literary structure, and make it more cinematic, and they failed miserably. Even something as seemingly small as the way they reveal the date change in every scene annoyed me (way too “cutesy” and groan inducing). Many directors experience a “sophomore slump” after making a successful debut, and I hope that’s all this is for her. One Day, as a movie, simply does not work.