Movie Review: The BFG

The BFG

Directed by: Steven Spielberg.

Written by: Melissa Mathison based on the book by Roald Dahl.

Starring: Mark Rylance (BFG), Ruby Barnhill (Sophie), Penelope Wilton (The Queen), Jemaine Clement (Fleshlumpeater), Rebecca Hall (Mary), Rafe Spall (Mr. Tibbs), Bill Hader (Bloodbottler), Ólafur Darri Ólafsson (Maidmasher / Cook), Adam Godley (Manhugger / Lout #1), Michael Adamthwaite (Butcher Boy / Danish Driver), Daniel Bacon (Bonecruncher / Lout #2), Jonathan Holmes (Childchewer / Pub Landlord), Chris Gibbs (Gizzardgulper / Late Night Walker), Paul Moniz de Sa (Meatdripper / Lout #3), Marilyn Norry (Matron). 

 

It may seem silly to say, but there are times when I think that Steven Spielberg is underrated. There is a certain type of film lover who sees Spielberg as just a sappy sentimentalist, manipulating audiences into feeling good. This is silly in more ways than one – filmmakers who are more willing to go dark than Spielberg is, are just as emotionally manipulative – they just pull you in another direction. It also misreads the fact that Spielberg has, at times, been more than willing to go dark – even to end films darkly. Munich is the darkest film of Spielberg’s career – a film about how the obsession with violence and vengeance can seep in and poison every part your life. A.I. literally ends with all of humanity wiped out. Minority Report can be read to have a very dark ending if you want it to. And the much maligned War of the Worlds has a lot of very dark stuff in it – yes, in that case, he messed up the ending, but that doesn’t undo everything he did before then. Yet, even when Spielberg doesn’t go dark – and that is, admittedly, most of the time, he crafts films that appear completely effortless – so much so, that I think it’s sometimes easy to overlook just how complex they are. Last year’s Bridge of Spies is a breathless thriller – yes its classical in its style, but since when is that a bad word. His latest, The BFG, harkens back to Spielberg’s more kid friendly films – like E.T. which is one of the greatest films ever made. It is full of marvelous set pieces, and some of the best special effects in any film this year – special effects that enhance the story, rather than detract from it. Yes, the film skews young – a little too young for my tastes, and yet I’m sorry that my oldest daughter is just a year or so older so I could share the movie with her in a theater. It would be nice to show her a new movie that is a candy colored, animated film. The BFG is a children’s film that proves that not all of those have to be loud, obnoxious and brain-dead.

 

Based on the Roald Dahl book, the film is set in the 1980s, and is about Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) – an 8 year old orphan, living in London. She’s a precocious child – she stays up all night reading, and ensuring the safety of the orphanage and the children in it. Its during one of these long nights where she catches a glimpse of the BFG (Mark Rylance) – a giant, who unlike the rest of his kind, does not eat humans, but only wants to give children sweet dreams. Even still, the BFG cannot have Sophie spreading the word about his existence, so he kidnaps her and takes her to the Land of the Giants. This isn’t a safe place for her – the rest of the giants will eat her if they get the chance. But the BFG, who is actually much smaller than the rest of the giants, thinks he can protect her. The two, of course, bond – and set out to protect the children of the world from the rest of the giants.

 

The BFG is fairly light on plot – but then again, it doesn’t really need a lot of narrative to hold the film together. The film does an excellent job in just a few short minutes setting up Sophie’s world in the orphanage – and her personality. It’s rather refreshing to see the film centered on a smart pre-teen girl, who while she is adorable, isn’t annoyingly so. Spielberg hasn’t centered a film on a female protagonist in decades, but he does an excellent job here. Once we are whisked away into the Land of Giants, Spielberg does an excellent job at building that world as well – in particular, the expertly designed cave that the BFG lives in – a cave that has a dusty, lived in feel – that hides some beautiful secrets behind a waterfall – and also, some sad ones. Another actor probably would have been better for the films box office, but Mark Rylance is the perfect choice for the title role. He is sweet and innocent, without being cloying. He speaks a weird version of English, complete with a lot of silly words – which I know some adults will find annoying, but kids will likely eat up. The light narrative allows Spielberg to take his time with his set pieces – the scary moments when another giant, Fleshlumpeater (Jermaine Clement) tries find and eat Sophie for example. The best set piece is when, in the third act, the narrative stops cold and allows Sophie and the BFG sit down with the Queen of England for a robust breakfast – which is so silly and full of joy that the end of the film – the action climax – is a little bit anti-climactic by comparison.

 

I’m not going to argue that The BFG is one of Spielberg’s best films. It isn’t as deep as some of his films, and offers mainly surface pleasures, for a younger audience. Yet, it treats that audience with respect – which too many films of its ilk never do. And the work being done in the film is seamless. Yes, the film is that clichéd word – magical. Spielberg does this better than anyone else – and that’s harder to do than making something darker or edgier.

Movie Review: Eye in the Sky

Eye in the Sky

Directed by: Gavin Hood.

Written by: Guy Hibbert.

Starring: Helen Mirren (Colonel Katherine Powell), Aaron Paul (Steve Watts), Alan Rickman (Lieutenant General Frank Benson), Barkhad Abdi (Jama Farah), Jeremy Northam (Brian Woodale), Iain Glen (British Foreign Secretary James Willett), Phoebe Fox (Carrie Gershon), Monica Dolan (Angela Northman), Faisa Hassan (Fatima Mo'Allim), Aisha Takow (Alia Mo'Allim), Armaan Haggio (Musa Mo'Allim), Carl Beukes (Sergeant Mike Gleeson), Richard McCabe (George Matherson), Michael O'Keefe (Ken Stanitzke), Kim Engelbrecht (Lucy).

 

Eye in the Sky is a thriller, and a fine one, about drone warfare that deliberately – perhaps over deliberately – doesn’t give the audience an easy out – a way to feel superior to the film, or to make easy moral judgments. The film has no answers, but simply sits back and asks questions and then leaves it to the audience to decide what is right and wrong. In general, I appreciate this approach, although in this case, I felt the whole thing was too perfectly designed – it presents too perfect an unanswerable moral quandary – to truly have the impact it wants to have. This is a film that seems like it wants to inspire debate, but doesn’t really end up giving the audience much room for debate. No matter what side you’re on, you’re both right and wrong – and the film makes it too easy to simply throw your hands up and not take any side at all.

 

The film is about a drone mission in Africa, that is supposed to be little else than an observation one. Helen Mirren is Colonel Katherine Powell, who has been tracking a British Citizen, who has converted to Islam and become radicalized by her husband, for years. She finally thinks she knows where she and her husband will be, and has ground troops ready to arrest her. She has the help of the Americans – who have assigned drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), stationed in Las Vegas, to simply watch the house the couple is supposed to be at. But then things take an unexpected turn – this isn’t just a regular meeting, but is actually meant to prepare for a suicide bombing. They have eyes inside the house, and see men suiting up with bomb vests, to carry out an attack who knows where. Capture then has just become too dangerous – but letting the men leave to carry out their attack is also not an option. They could make Watts fire a hellfire missile at the house, blowing it up, but there will be collateral damage – seen here as a young girl selling bread outside the house, who will almost certainly be killed if they strike. But if they don’t strike, then how many other little girls – and their families – will be destroyed.

 

Eye in the Sky wraps everything up in a nice, neat little package then that becomes unanswerable. The bulk of the movie is the internal debates about whether or not to fire the missile. Legally, it appears, that they can fire the missile, but at the same time this mission wasn’t authorized to be deadly. The British bureaucracy dithers and twiddles their thumbs – passing the buck from one person to the next, none of whom want to make the decision. The higher ups in America are unsympathetic, and just want to fire the damn missile already. Watts, who actually has to pull the trigger, and thus, end the little girl’s life is much less sure.

 

The movie is well directed by Gavin Hood, who bounces between smaller films, and big blockbusters, and here has crafted a fairly tense thriller. The performances are almost uniformly excellent – Mirren, single minded and driven, not caring who dies if she can accomplish her mission, Paul, as morally conflicted (because that is after all why you cast Paul in anything), Alan Rickman as a General in the room with the British bureaucrats, who is frustrated by their lack of response (who also doesn’t think twice about the fact that he’s buying a present for granddaughter around the same age as the girl he may have a role in killing). There are fine British actors, dithering very British-like throughout the film. Barkhad Abdi, Oscar nominee from Captain Phillips, is pretty much wasted as an alley to the British and Americans, who is still the only one in actual harm’s way.

 

The major problem I had with Eye in the Sky, is that the whole thing seems overly calculated. It lacks true moral complexity, but instead has a manufactured one. In the end, I think, the movie takes the easy way out – it takes no stand on drone warfare at all, and instead, simply tells the audience there is no solution. Perhaps that is true – but the problem is that it’s fairly clear that is what the movie is saying from its opening scenes right down to the end. There is nothing that truly makes us re-evaluate our stance on the issues. The film dithers almost as much as its characters do, while criticizing those characters for doing just that. The film works, mainly, as a thriller. I just don’t think it’s nearly as complex as it thinks it is.

Classic Movie Review: Watership Down (1978)

Watership Down (1978)

Directed by: Martin Rosen.

Written by: Martin Rosen based on the novel by Richard Adams.

Starring: John Hurt (Hazel), Richard Briers (Fiver), Michael Graham Cox (Bigwig), John Bennett (Capt. Holly), Ralph Richardson (Chief Rabbit), Simon Cadell (Blackberry), Terence Rigby (Silver), Roy Kinnear (Pipkin), Richard O'Callaghan (Dandelion), Denholm Elliott (Cowslip), Lynn Farleigh (Cat), Mary Maddox (Clover), Zero Mostel (Kehaar), Harry Andrews (Gen. Woundwort), Hannah Gordon (Hyzenthlay), Nigel Hawthorne (Capt. Campion), Clifton Jones (Blackavar), Derek Griffiths (Vervain), Michael Hordern (Frith), Joss Ackland (Black Rabbit), Michelle Price (Lucy).

 

The film version of Watership Down has scarred and haunted a few generations of children now – children whose parents who showed them the movie not knowing what it was really about, and thinking that it would be a cute movie about animated, talking rabbits. Those parents (some of whom, apparently, still complain to the British Ratings Board – which did, ridiculously, grant the film a U Rating – for Universal) are idiots, as Richard Adams book has been a well-known standard for decades, and while the film certainly excises, or reduces, some parts it remains a suitably dark adaptation. Yet, for all the talk of traumatized children that comes up when Watership Down is brought up, it must be said – that while this movie is for everyone – that does, in fact, include children. No, I’m not going to show this to more my four year old – but when she’s 10 or 11, I certainly will. Watership Down is about, among other things, death and its inevitability – the rabbits go from one place to the next, and most of them remain one step ahead of death (some are taken, in some shockingly sudden ways), but eventually they will not. They encounter a world that lacks empathy, and doesn’t much care what happens to them – the humans in the movie are not really cruel – they, like most of us, just don’t spend much time thinking about the rabbits at all. As parents, we naturally want to protect our children, and preserve their childhood innocence – but we cannot do it forever. Yes, Watership Down will likely sear itself into your children’s memory – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The film version trims a lot of Adams’ musings on the type of God that rabbits would create for themselves – basically keeping it to a memorable beginning, done in a different animation style than the rest of the film – more basic, more primal – not unlike cave paintings, as it tells the story of how God is punishing the rabbits by making them prey to all sorts of other animals – but also blessed them with speed and smarts, to be able to hide from them. From there, we go to the main story involving a group of rabbits led by Hazel (voiced, very well, by John Hurt). The scared, shaky Fiver (Richard Briers) has had a terrifying vision of the future – of fire and blood, but many in their group will not listen to him. Hazel and others do, and end up fleeing their warren in search of something safer – before Fiver’s vision comes to pass (to the surprise of no one, that vision is man – expanding their own habitat at the expense of the rabbits).

 

From there, the rabbits move from one place to the next, always attempting to find some safety and security, and never quite finding it. The film does an excellent job at looking at the world around us from the point of view of the rabbits – how the most mundane things in our world, are deadly in theirs. There is a brief, but disturbing, section in which our heroes enter a warren with there is lots of room and lots of food – but its few rabbit residents seem nervous, scared and perhaps mentally unstable – they welcome the rabbits in, but there is something wrong here that they all sense – and eventually we’ll figure out what it is. The main conflict – that takes up the last half of the film or so – has our group meet another group of rabbits – led by General Woundwort (Harry Andrews) – a genuinely frightening animated villain – a large, scarred rabbit whose paranoia has led him, and his minions, to control their group with an Iron Fist – cracking down with physical brutality on the smallest of infractions, and keeping everyone trapped inside their warrens for most of the time. There are those on the inside who want out – and Hazel and company want to help. What makes this part of the story work so well is that, while he always remains a villain, by this point in the story you at least understand where Woundwort is coming from. Death is everywhere for the rabbits – and in his own way, he is trying hard to protect them.

 

In some ways, writer/director Martin Rosen really does allow the film to take the form of a classic animated film – including some comic relief, voiced this time by Zero Mostel, as a seagull who befriends the rabbits late in the proceedings. There are other signposts that show how a company like Disney could have approached the material, and made it less dark and more kid-friendly. It’s to Rosen’s credit that he never takes the film that direction.

 

The animation itself is, for the most part, merely serviceable. I appreciate the fact that Rosen and his animators didn’t want to make the characters look too cartoony – which they don’t – and the fact that he didn’t want to make snarling villains out of some of the scary creatures (the goofy looking dog for instance, who is just as deadly despite that appearance). However, a few sequences aside – the opening (which may have been directed by someone else), Fiver’s vision, etc. – the animation doesn’t look particularly impressive – it’s more workmanlike than anything else. The animation works – it doesn’t detract from the story by any means, but I think there are some missed opportunities here as well.

 

No, Watership Down is not for young children. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with movies that scare children – being scared can be a wonderful experience watching a movie, but I don’t think you want to traumatize your children, and that is what Watership Down will do to kids who are old enough to understand what is happening, but not old enough to process it. Yet, it is a great movie for that always tough to find movies for crowd around 10-12 – where they’re too old (or stubborn) for “kids’ stuff”, but not yet ready to deal with more mature movies (now, we simply plunk them down in front of whatever superhero movie has just come out – and if you’re a girl, tough luck, that’s all you get too – but maybe, one day, they’ll allow a girl superhero). Watership Down is a movie that can help children process and deal with death and their feelings towards it. Watch it with your older children – and be prepared to discuss it afterward. You’ll probably be surprised at just how much the kids will understand.

Movie Review: The Neon Demon

The Neon Demon

Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn.

Written by: Nicolas Winding Refn and Mary Laws & Polly Stenham.

Starring: Elle Fanning (Jesse), Jena Malone (Ruby), Bella Heathcote (Gigi), Abbey Lee (Sarah), Karl Glusman (Dean), Desmond Harrington (Jack), Keanu Reeves (Hank), Alessandro Nivola (Fashion Designer), Christina Hendricks (Jan).

 

No one is going to accuse director Nicolas Winding Refn of anything approaching subtlety. He doesn’t do things half way – he makes lurid, sexual, violent films, that at their best, revel in style, and are elevated by great performances and set pieces to become genre masterworks (like 2011’s Drive – a fairy tale by way of Michael Mann), and at worse, become empty, morose, slogs that revel in misery (2013’s Only God Forgives). Thankfully his latest film, The Neon Demon, is more of the former than the later – a knowingly shallow film about shallowness, The Neon Demon is disturbing from the beginning, and gets downright shocking in its final act. Winding Refn isn’t exactly saying anything new here about the fashion industry and society’s fetishization of young women, but he’s doing it all with such flare and style – and gets such good performances from his actors, who somehow don’t get lost in all the excess in every frame, I didn’t much care. The Neon Demon is the type of film you walk out, not sure what to make of – and even now, days later, I’m still not sure. I think I loved it – but honestly, I’m not sure.

 

The film stars Elle Fanning as Jesse – a 16 year old girl, fresh to L.A., who openly says she has no talent at anything, but is pretty – and she can make money off of pretty. The film introduces us to her drenched in blood, splayed out on a couch – but that’s all just for a photoshoot by amateur Dean (Karl Glusman) – the first of many creepy men behind cameras who will fetishize Jesse, even if he turns out to the be the nicest of the bunch, he still doesn’t much care when he finds out she’s only 16. It’s at that photoshoot that Jesse meets Ruby (Jean Malone) – who is apparently the only makeup artist in L.A., because no matter what shoot or fashion show we see for the rest of the movie, Ruby is the one doing the makeup (she also does the makeup for corpses for their open casket funerals). Like Dean, and soon everyone else in the film, Ruby is immediately taken in by Jesse and her innocence. Ruby introduces Jesse to a couple of older models – Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and Sarah (Abbey Lee) – and they’re the only ones in the movie who don’t immediately fall for her. Everyone else – from creepy photography Jack (Desmond Harrington) to creepier fashion designer (Alessandro Nivola) to creepiest motel manager Hank (Keanu Reeves) will do just that. In this way, the film reminded me a little of Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut (1999) – in which every character in the film that Cruise meets on his journey into the night responds to him in an overtly sexual way. Jesse is lusted after by everyone in the film – to use the old cliché, all the women want to be here and all the men want to be with her (although some of the women want to be with her as well).

 

It is hard to make a deep film about shallowness, and I think Winding Refn probably has the right idea in that he doesn’t really even try to do that. Jesse is, in many ways, a blank slate. She doesn’t reveal anything about her past, or really how she got to L.A., or even what her desires are. Fanning is a terrific actress – and there is something perfect about her casting in this movie as a young girl completely judged on her looks, who is pushed and pulled in different directions by the adults, and goes along with it. She was a child actor, so in a sense, there is part of that here – where a child is expected to perform an adult role. But Fanning does something interesting with Jesse – and keeps her that blank from beginning to end – there is no internal struggle with her. She is the embodiment of the fashion industry ideal – a beautiful, young girl, and a blank slate. Jena Malone has better role, and is brilliant in it, as Ruby – who certainly is more conflicted. Malone uses her slighted askew smile to brilliant effect in the film – she seems so nice, but there’s something untrustworthy about her, and a hunger about her performance that becomes more pronounced as it moves along. It’s one of the best performances of the year so far. As the two, older (and I use that term only in relation to Jesse) – both Bella Heathcote and Abbey Lee, are also quite good – letting their perfect, ice queen facades, break a little bit at a time, until their actions in the last act make complete sense. The various men in the movie are all creeps – many of them, as mentioned before, behind cameras. Winding Refn knows he’s one of them, right?

 

The film is all style – lurid colors, a brilliant pulsating score by Cliff Martinez (quickly becoming one of my favorite movie composers for his work here, along with Drive and Spring Breakers – and various Soderberg films). There is nothing subtle about anything that Winding Refn does- and that is precisely what works about his films when they do work. The Neon Demon, after all, takes some horrific turns in its last act – turns that are designed to shock you, and they do. Yet they work in the context of the film because they are logical conclusion to what Winding Refn setup through the first two acts.

 

The Neon Demon is clearly not a film for everyone. It will be one that is too slow for some, or simply too much for others. Some will complain about the over-the-top style, or the sometimes too on-the-nose dialogue. They will argue the film is misogynistic (I don’t think it is, but I can see the case being made). I won’t argue too hard with anyone who hates The Neon Demon. But this is a film that knows exactly what it wants to be, and achieves what it sets out to do. It’s then just a question as to whether what it achieves it worth achieving at all. You decide.

Movie Review: The Purge: Election Year

The Purge: Election Year

Directed by: James DeMonaco.

Written by: James DeMonaco.

Starring: Frank Grillo (Leo Barnes), Elizabeth Mitchell (Senator Charlie Roan), Mykelti Williamson (Joe Dixon), Joseph Julian Soria (Marcos), Betty Gabriel (Laney Rucker), Terry Serpico (Earl Danzinger), Edwin Hodge (Dante Bishop), Kyle Secor (Minister Edwidge Owens), Raymond J. Barry (Leader Caleb Warrens), Naheem Garcia (Angel Munoz), Brittany Mirabile (Schoolgirl #1 Freakbride / Kimmy). 

 

Make no mistake – the premise behind The Purge movies is more than silly, its outright ridiculous – that any government would allow 12 hours a year when citizens can break whatever laws they want isn’t even in the realm of plausibility – let alone that it would have the effect that the trilogy of films has said it has (having said that, as I pointed out in my review of the original film, the Purge isn’t really that much more implausible that a lot of teenage dystopia movies either – especially The Divergent Saga). Also, it’s pretty hard to deny that the films themselves are more than a little hypocritical – they are films that are quite clearly against the type of violence that happens on the annual Purge night in the films, while at the same time, the films revel in that violence – hardly flinching away as the characters – both good and evil, shoot, stab, hack and slash their bloody way through the movies. The movie isn’t doing something thoughtful – like say, David Cronenberg has done numerous times in the past, where he’ll give you scenes that satisfy your bloodlust, and then push them a little further, or make the audience sit with the results of that bloodlust, and make them question what it is they wanted in the first place. The Purge films really do want to have their cake and eat it to. Yet, despite these very obvious flaws in The Purge movies, I have to admit that the trilogy works despite them. If we expect the ridiculous premise of the film at face value – which you really do have to do in a film like this, because fighting it for 90 minutes is an exercise in futility, and will get you nowhere, you really do have to wonder what the film is saying about American society. This is a country that is so in love with guns that the feel that a classroom full of dead 6-year olds in a worthwhile price for unfettered access to whatever weapons they want. This is a country where it doesn’t seem like we can go a week without someone committing a mass shooting, leaving countless victims in their wake – even when they know there will be consequences to those actions. This is a country that allows Donald Trump to spew hate filled speech that encourages the fear of “the other”, which often leads to violence. Ask yourself this question – in today’s America, if there really was an annual Purge night, how many people would take part?

 

In the third film in the Purge trilogy, the anti-Purge activists seems to be gaining ground on the New Founding Fathers – the political party responsible for the Purge in the first place. More and more, people are starting to see that the Purge night is really a conspiracy to rid the country of undesirables – the poor and homeless who “suck resources” and do not contribute – while at the same time making huge profits for insurance companies, gun companies and the NRA – who then funnel it back to the New Founding Fathers for elections. But now, there is a new voice – Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) – who was the lone survivor from her family from a hellacious Purge night as a teenager, and is now a leader Presidential candidate, who vows to end the Purge with her first act in office. And, she just may well – the polls between her and her competition, Minister Edwidge Owns (Kyle Secor) are close. The New Founding Fathers then have a plan – under the guise of making purge night “more fair”, they remove the restrictions against killing government officials, which normally would have protected Roan. She can now be killed – and while her head of security, Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo, reprising his role from the second film) wants her to flee for the night, she refuses. It’s a mistake – because of course, the New Founding Fathers send some people after her, and Leo and the Senator have to go on the run to try and survive. They do so with the help of a trio of people they meet on the outside – deli owner Joe (Mykelti Williamson), who is determined to protect his store no matter what, his Mexican immigrant employee Marcos (Joseph Julian Soria), who will do anything to help him, and former gang banger turned good Samaritan Laney (Betty Gabriel) – who spends Purge night driving around in a triage van, and delivering the wounded to safety.

 

As the series has progressed, the scope of the films has gotten wider, and they’ve gone from horror films to more violent action films. The first film was very narrowly focused on one house – that of a man who makes money selling security systems to protect people from the Purge (Ethan Hawke) – and his family, who are not as safe as they thought they were (he tries to explain to his wife – Lena Headley – that his systems were never designed to be foolproof – but to really just be more a deterrent than anything else – she is not amused). The Purge: Anarchy went outside into the streets for the first time, to show just how bad things had gotten out there. Now, with The Purge: Election Year, writer/director James DeMonaco, is showing the macro view from the government on down, and how the wider America is dealing with things. This is one of the reasons why the film isn’t as scary as the first film was – which, after all, was basically a home invasion thriller, with a political bent that it abandoned whenever it needed some violence and terror. The Purge: Election Year does the same thing at times – bringing up its politics, but abandoning them whenever it needs to spill some blood. The film also continues the series’ racial point-of-view, which is muddled and problematic, if well-meaning. On one hand, it is refreshing to see a film actually get the racial mix of Washington D.C. right – as well as the neighborhoods (my visit to America’s capital was weird – one street is full of fancy restaurants and museums, walk a block and you’re amongst homeless shelters and drug clinics) – and the film does quite clearly know that is overwhelmingly minorities that something like The Purge targets (which has been true since the first film). Still, though, it’s fairly undeniable that in The Purge: Election Year, Roan is a “white savior” type character, and Frank Grillo gets to play the biggest badass – while multiple black characters sacrifice themselves on their behalf, which doesn’t sit right.

 

The Purge films may be silly and violent and hypocritical and problematic – and yet despite of these things, for the most part, I like the films. They provide a horribly cynical view of humanity in general, and American specifically (I would have liked the idea of murder tourism, which is mentioned here, more fully explored) – even as the film ends somewhat optimistically, it still undercuts that. Perhaps this is the last Purge film, perhaps not  - it seems like a fitting to stop, yet the film made three times it budget in its opening weekend, so more films may be too tempting to pass up. The films, as flawed as they are, do you give you something to chew on and think about – which a lot of films don’t.

The Films of Todd Haynes: A Conclusion

In terms of my updated rankings, I do not think anything has changed as much as the ranking of Haynes films. And yet, my opinions on the films themselves has not changed all that much – just what I preferred this time around. Ask me again in a month – or a year – and it could be something completely different (the top 4 are pretty much interchangeable).

 

I have always loved Haynes’ work, but after watching all of his films in such a short period of time, I have even greater respect for him. There is not a film he has made that isn’t worth watching – even if some are certainly stronger than others.

 

Anyway, my updated rankings are belong. 

 

10. The Suicide (1978) – Haynes’ first college film, including on the Safe Criterion Blu-Ray. I didn’t write about it before because a) I saw it out of order, and b) there isn’t much to say. It’s not bad for a student film per se – but it is very much a student film.

 

9. Velvet Goldmine (1998) – The weakest of Haynes’ features – it is his loosest film, and I don’t think it all hangs together – as well as being insulting to David Bowie (intentional or not). There are some great moments here – but I don’t think it adds up to all that much, despite all the ambition.

 

8. Poison (1991) – Haynes’ first film – a trio of intercut shorts – is wildly ambition, and technically impressive, but it does remain more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. A great place to start – but Haynes would do much better very shortly.

 

7. Dottie Gets Spanked (1993) – In some ways, this 30 minute TV short could have been intercut with Poison – except that it’s a comedy, so it would have ruined the mood of Poison, which was so depressing. The story of a young boy who is a fan of an I Love Lucy like TV show – and how that makes him an outcast. The film is slyly subversive, and funny enough to make you want Haynes to do another comedy at some point.

 

6. Mildred Pierce (2011) – Haynes 5 part miniseries, running 5 and a half hours, adapting James M. Cain’s novel is a wonderful period piece, that is far more concerned with mood and character than story (in fact, he spends so much time on those things, he has to sprint through a lot of plot in the final installment). Kate Winslet is wonderful in the title role – as a woman who sacrifices everything for her spoiled brat of a daughter, who doesn’t deserve it. It is a more faithful adaptation than the 1945 Michael Curtiz, Oscar winning film – with Joan Crawford – but not quite as entertaining. Still, an excellent miniseries – just a notch below Haynes’ best work.

 

5. Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1987) – There are many things to love about Haynes’ underground film – that used the Carpenters music to great effect, and Barbie dolls to greater effect, as all the characters in the film are Barbie’s. You may think that Haynes is doing all of this mocking his subject – but he isn’t. He actually seems to love Karen Carpenter’s music, and the movie is genuinely moving. This seems like a stunt – and maybe it is. But it’s a brilliant stunt.

 

4. I’m Not There (2007) – Bob Dylan is an impossible biopic subject, because I don’t think he’s ever let the public in on who he actually is, what makes him tick, and why he changes his persona so often, while remaining perfectly consistent in other ways. Haynes finds the only way to make a Dylan biopic and make it work – and delivers a stunning technical achievement, with many great performances. The drop from #1 to #4 is not because I love the film less – just that it perhaps moved me a little less than the top 3 this time through.

 

3. Far From Heaven (2002) – Haynes does a brilliant job of recreating the 1950s melodramas of Douglas Sirk – like Written on the Wind, Imitation of Life or All That Heaven Allows, but going further than Sirk ever could in terms of sexuality and race. Films like this – so stepped in homage – can feel like mere exercises – but Haynes’ films works brilliantly on its own terms in addition to be an homage. A stunning film.

 

2. Carol (2015) – This is perhaps the simplest of Haynes’ masterpieces – the film that doesn’t have as many ideas as the others. Yet, it is also among the most stunning visual achievements of Haynes’ career, and the best quietly moving. I’ve lived with this for a much shorter period of time than the rest – so perhaps this changes (either up or down) – but for now, this feels like the right place.

 

1. Safe (1995) – Out of all of Haynes’ films, Safe is the one that haunts me the most – the one I cannot stop thinking about. I think the first few times I saw it – years ago – it transfixed and confused me in equal measures. I wasn’t sure what to make of it. I’m still not 100% sure what to make of it – I just know I want to see it again. Right now. A masterpiece.

The Films of Todd Haynes: Carol (2015)

Carol (2015)

Directed by: Todd Haynes.

Written by: Phyllis Nagy based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith.

Starring: Cate Blanchett (Carol Aird), Rooney Mara (Therese Belivet), Kyle Chandler (Harge Aird), Jake Lacy (Richard Semco), Sarah Paulson (Abby Gerhard), John Magaro (Dannie McElroy), Cory Michael Smith (Tommy Tucker), Kevin Crowley (Fred Haymes), Nik Pajic (Phil McElroy), Carrie Brownstein (Genevieve Cantrell), Trent Rowland (Jack Taft).

 

Watching Carol for the second time in a matter of months – shortly after having re-watched all of Todd Haynes films only increased my love of his latest film. This is the only film in his career that Haynes did not have a hand in writing, and even though it does seem like it was tailored to him, I also noticed that even more than normal, Carol is stunning visual film – a film where more is communicated through looks and gestures, subtle camera move and shots, than in anything that the characters actually do say to each other. That has always been true in one sense or another of Haynes film – but it’s heightened here. Carol would work perfectly well as a silent film – with just Carter Burwell’s wonderful score carrying it along.

 

Carol is one of the best modern, cinematic love stories – an erotically charged movie that is more sexual and sensual than many, far more explicit movies could possibly be. It stars Rooney Mara, in a wonderfully subtle, quiet performance as Therese – an apprising photographer in 1950s New York, with a job in a department store toy section, and a perfectly nice boyfriend (Jake Lacy – who seems to specialize in playing perfectly nice boyfriends). It’s at her job that she meets Carol (Cate Blanchatt) – a rich housewife, going through a divorce from Harge (Kyle Chandler, who may not be as perfectly nice as Jake Lacy, but is far from a villain either – he’s just a sad man who loves a woman who cannot love him back). Carol’s there to buy a doll for her daughter for Christmas – but who allows herself to be talked into a train instead by Therese. On the surface, their initial conversation is innocent enough – but there is a charge between them even then. Blanchatt does something quite daring in these early scenes, as she acts lays on everything a bit thick – almost to the point of it looking like bad acting. It’s perfect for these scenes though because, of course, it’s the character not the actress who is laying it on so thick. For her part, Mara does a wonderful job conveying the confusion and tumult that Therese is going through – she knows that their relationship isn’t quite normal, and doesn’t know quite what to do about it – just that she wants it to continue. That the two actresses share this connection – without them verbalizing it – is one of the accomplishments of the movie.

 

There isn’t much plot to the movie. It is about how far these two women are willing to go – how much they are willing to sacrifice to be together. The film is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, but it isn’t really a thriller like she is mostly known for (like Strangers on a Train of the Tom Ripley novels) – although there is a tension of a different sort here. The two women will eventually hit the road together – on a cross country road trip to nowhere in particular – as Carol tries to escape her feelings of futility as her divorce threatens to turn nasty. It’s here the women really do come together after an extended buildup – even as them doing so could destroy them.

 

There doesn’t need to be much plot though – the movie has more than enough just when it’s focused on the two brilliant performances at the core – and everything around them that enhances that connection. The cinematography by Ed Lachman is probably the best work he has ever done for Haynes. The colors are more muted than they were in Far From Heaven – which went full Sirk – yet still classical in nature – a little film noir, a little 1950s melodrama. Carter Burwell’s Score is some of the best he has ever done – for Haynes, or anyone else for that matter, and is the perfect mood setter for the film. The costumes, production design, etc. are, as usual for Haynes, just about perfect.

 

Carol is another masterpiece from Haynes – but unlike many of his films, it’s the simplicity of the film that works so well in its favor. There are not as many ideas floating around in Carol as in films like Safe, Far From Heaven or I’m Not There for example. It is a much simpler love story. Complexity though doesn’t necessarily mean greatness – and the final moments in Carol may just be the best work Haynes has ever filmed. Carol is an erotic film and a touching love story all at once. It contains moments that haunt me – and as pure cinema, it’s as brilliant as anything Haynes has ever done.