Movie Review: Hereafter

Hereafter **
Directed by: Clint Eastwood.
Written By: Peter Morgan.
Starring: Matt Damon (George Lonegan), Cécile De France (Marie LeLay), Frankie & George McLaren (Marcus / Jason), Bryce Dallas Howard (Melanie), Thierry Neuvic (Didier), Jay Mohr (Billy), Richard Kind (Christos), Rebekah Staton (Social Worker), Declan Conlon (Social Worker), Derek Jacobi (Himself).

Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter is a movie that seems to be building to something for its entire running time. But then the end of the film comes, and we realize that the film ultimately built to nothing at all. The film isn’t boring, because while I was watching it, I kept waiting for it to break out, to somehow make sense of all the material that it had presented us with, and give us a reason why we were ultimately watching the film in the first place. So when the end credits come, it’s surprising, because Eastwood, and his writer Peter Morgan, are both talented guys – but with Hereafter, what they missed was the reason they were making the film. Walking out of the theater, I had no idea what Eastwood was trying to say with this movie – which is the same thing as saying he says nothing.

The movie opens with a scene completely unlike what we have come to expect from Eastwood – a special effects laden sequence of a tsunami striking the shores of some seemingly tropical paradise (if they said where, I missed it). We have just met Marie LeLay (Cecile De France) and her boyfriend Didier (Thierry Neuvic) a few minutes before, and then we thrust into Marie’s fight for survival on the streets, as she gets swept into the water. As sequences like this go, this is actually fairly well handled by the usually minimalist Eastwood – but it started the film off on a strange note, one more suited for the work of Roland Emmerich than Eastwood. Marie will hugely effected by her near death experience – making it impossible to continue doing her job as a news reporter, as she is more interested in exploring the strange vision she had while dying – the standard issue white light and voices.

Next we meet George Lonegan (Matt Damon), a man who used to be a psychic, and is still living in his home town of San Francisco – was actually quite famous at it – but now makes his living as a factory worker. He hasn’t lost his “gift”; he just sees it as a curse, and wants to live a normal life. He is seemingly getting along okay, until his brother (Jay Mohr) shows up on his door with an important client that really wants a reading. George does it, but again wants to put it all behind him – and is seemingly taking a few tentative steps towards normalcy with a new woman (Bryce Dallas Howard), who soon finds out what he used to do, and once again George’s gift feels more like a curse.

Then there are twins Marcus and Jason (played by real life twins Frankie and George McLaren) living in London. They are around 10, but regularly have to take care of themselves, as their mother is a drug addict. Social workers want to take them away, and with good cause, but when the more assertive of the two brothers is killed in an accident, Marcus is left by himself with nothing but questions about the afterlife.

Eastwood intercuts between these three stories throughout the movie, and they all hold out interest to varying degrees (I found the story of the twins the most fascinating, and Marie’s least, with George somewhere in between). But we know, because we’ve seen movies like this before that the characters are on a collision course – which eventually the three storylines will intersect in one way or another. It is almost inevitability. And of course, they do intersect, but when that comes, it is a huge letdown, because nothing much happens.

I am all for ambiguity in movies – even endings that leave what happens up to the audience (hell I defended John Sayles’ ending to Limbo, which leaves us nothing), but I wouldn’t describe Hereafter’s ending – or anything else for that matter – as ambigious, just anti-climatic. For example, Matt Damon’s character is quite clearly portrayed as being able to communicate with the dead – he never gets anything wrong, and he is far more specific than the type of psychics who do what is known as “cold readings”, where the read the reactions of the people they are reading, and tell them what they want to hear (Eastwood even gives us an example of this in the film). So once we know Damon really does have this gift – and that the film is accepting it on face value – his character becomes far less interesting. The same goes for Marie, who again the movie simply accepts her story at face value, and then moves on. In fact, I would say the only one of the major characters who goes on anything close to approaching a real spiritual journey is Marcus – the surviving twin – who really does try to learn and explore what happens after we die. Both George and Marie don’t really go on journeys – George is simply running away from who he is (an idea the movie seems to embrace) and Marie simply compiling research (which is somewhat infuriating, since we don’t ever actually hear what her damn book is about). Marcus is the only major character who is really all that complex or interesting. I will say that I wish Bryce Dallas Howard had a larger role – she has but a few scenes – as she breathes much needed life into this movie obsessed with death, but the film sees her as just another pawn to move around for its own purposes, and not a real character.

Eastwood is a great director – one of the best currently working in America today. And because he is getting older (he has to be almost 80 at this point), I understand why a movie about death would fascinate him so much. But what drew him to Hereafter? Here is a movie that really does have nothing to say about death, or by extension life. It is one that simply sits there on the screen waiting desperately for something to happen.

Oscar Update: Directing and Writing

Best Director
I am interested to see if a lone director can still get nominated even if their film does not. Instinct would tell you know, but the directors have been known to branch out in the past and give nominations to films that didn’t stand a chance in the Best Picture lineup. But my guess is that all five director nominees this year will be for Best Picture nominees.

1. David Fincher for The Social Network – Your frontrunner for the moment, although this could easily change. Since the finally nominated him for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, he should find it easier to be nominated now – and with an all but guaranteed nomination for Picture, he gets in easily.
2. Danny Boyle for 127 Hours – He won for his last film, Slumdog Millionaire, so he has become an Oscar favorite. I have a hard time believing that they’ll nominate the film without him – since it is the kind of direction that gets noticed.
3. Tom Hooper for The King’s Speech – His film has been proclaimed a frontrunner, but this still may be a battle for him – as he is not a name director, and this is the type of film that can nominated without a director. Still, I think he can get in.
4. Christopher Nolan for Inception – He was snubbed, along with his film, for The Dark Knight so that could mean the Academy feels like they owe him a nomination. Or it could mean they don’t really like him. Still, this is an unquestionable directorial achievement.
5. Peter Weir for The Way Back – A hugely respected, Oscar veteran who has never won the big prize. Word on the film is good, so if they put together a good campaign on his behalf, he could wind up your frontrunner.
6. Mike Leigh for Another Year – He has squeezed into this category a few times, and given that Another Year in looking like a Picture nominee, it could easily happen again.
7. Joel & Ethan Coen for True Grit – The Academy has finally full on embraced the Coens – yet will they be able to get in for a Western remake, no matter how good it turns out to be.
8. Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan – Has been knocking on the door for a while now trying to get in. Word on the film is great, although it has a struggle to get into the Picture line-up. Your most likely lone director nominee.
9. Clint Eastwood for Hereafter – I never count out Clint, who the Academy simply loves, no matter what the critics have to say. Still, this will be an uphill battle for him.
10. Lisa Cholodenko for The Kids Are All Right – The film is looking secure for Picture, acting and screenplay, so it could push her into the lineup as well. Being a woman is no longer a strike against you – but the type of film this is may be.

Plus: David O. Russell for The Fighter needs the film to get in, and to overcome the feeling in Hollywood that he is a complete jerk. Ben Affleck for The Town still needs to find respect from his peers as a director. Lee Unkrich for Toy Story 3 will get a campaign, but since no one has ever been nominated for a animated film, it’s a tough get. John Cameron Mitchell for Rabbit Hole has some respect, and indie cred, but I think he’ll have a tough time cracking the line-up no matter what noms the film gets. Debra Granik for Winter’s Bone did a masterful job with this film, but it may be too small, too chilly for Oscar tastes. Nigel Cole for Made in Dagenham has made an undeniable audience pleaser, but even when they do get in, the directors often don’t. Aaron Schedeider for Get Low will need the film to squeeze into the line-up – a tough get – to even be consider. Sofia Coppola for Somewhere is a past nominee, but her film may be too slight to edge in. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu for Biutiful is a director like Boyle who always makes his presence known – but the film could be too dark for the Academy.

Best Original Screenplay
This is probably the weaker of the two categories – but also the harder of the two for their to be much movement. You can pretty much count on the top 3, perhaps 4, to get in.

1. The King’s Speech (David Speidler) – A much easier get than director, since people come out raving about the dialogue, which is said to be hilarious. Your frontrunner so far.
2. Another Year (Mike Leigh) – Leigh has got in many times, despite his improversational style of shooting, even when the film doesn’t crack the lineup. This one looks like it will, so he’s all but guaranteed.
3. The Kids Are All Right (Stuart Blumberg & Lisa Cholodenko) – Is more of a writer’s movie than a directors one. Hard to imagine the film missing this nomination which should be easy.
4. Inception (Christopher Nolan) – The direction is superb, but it all started with a tightly constructed screenplay. Tougher to get, because the film is all plot, but should sneak in.
5. Black Swan (Mary Heyman & Andres Heinz & John J. McLaughlin) – Easier than Picture or Director, the writers often embrace somewhat strange films but this one could easily fall to something else.
6. Made in Dagenham (Bill Ivory) – An audience pleasing hit, that seems witty through and through. Is it perhaps too lightweight for the writers?
7. How Do You Know (James L. Brooks) – They love James L. Brooks, so until I hear otherwise, I will keep him in mind.
8. The Fighter (Paul Attanasio & Lewis Colich & Eric Johnson & Scott Silver & Paul Tamsay) – Screenplays by committee are harder to get into the lineup. But the presence of Paul Attanasio should help to offset that. Still don’t know the quality of the movie though.
9. Somewhere (Sofia Coppola) – She won this prize in the past, so if others contenders drop out, she could move up.
10. Get Low (Chris Provenzano, C. Gaby Mitchell, Scott Seeke) – More of an actors film, but they had to have good material to work with – this could move up as well.

Plus: Biutiful (Armando Bo, Nicolás Giacobone, Alejandro González Iñárritu) is perhaps too dark and too foreign, but the writers don’t mind that as much. Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis, Cami Delavigne) is going to struggle if it keeps its NC-17 rating. Hereafter (Peter Morgan) is by a writer they like, but there are questions about the quality. Conviction (Pamela Gray) is perhaps too by the numbers for the writers. All Good Things (Marcus Hunchey, Marc Smerling) is a film I still don’t know much about. Due Date (Alan R. Cohen, Alan Freedland, Adam Sztykiel) could sneak in if it’s as funny as The Hangover. Morning Glory (Aline Brosh McKenna) could sneak in, but needs to seen as more than a romcom. Stone (Angus MacLachlan) has some supporters, but also many detractors. The Company Men (John Wells) is staying fairly quiet right now, but that could change.

Best Adapted Screenplay
A competitive category this year, which is only going to get more crowded.

1. The Social Network (Aaron Sorkin) – I really don’t see anyone challenging him for the win come February – now matter how the film does in the nominating round.
2. Toy Story 3 (Micharl Arndt) – Should be an easy get, as they often embrace Pixar – just not often in this category.
3. Rabbit Hole (David Lindsay-Abaire) – Features a playwrite adapting his own Pultizer winning play, but expanding it wonderfully. A writers dream.
4. True Grit (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen) – They have embraced the brothers more than any other group – and if this one is as good as it looks, should be easy.
5. 127 Hours (Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy) – May face a harder battle than people think – all the attention goes to the directing and Franco, but could well sneak in

6. Winters Bone (Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini & Daniel Woodrell) . – Took a sparse novel and turned into a great film. They are really hoping to get the Frozen River nod this year.
7. The Way Back (Peter Weir) – Perhaps more of a directors film, but if it becomes a major player, can easily move up.
8. The Town (Ben Affleck & Peter Craig & Aaron Stockard) – Needs to get more support in the big categories to make a move.
9. Barney’s Version (Michael Konyves) – Just like The Town, needs support in other categories to move up.
10. Never Let Me Go (Alex Garland) – The respect for the source material is unquestionable, but the film maybe too chilly.

Plus: How to Train Your Dragon (William Davies, Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders) is getting a real push, but two animated film in the same category? For Colored Girls (Nzingha Stewart) was a hugely popular play, but questions of quality are still out there. Tamara Drewe (Moira Buffini) is probably not classy enough to squeeze in. Fair Game (Jez Butterworth, John Butterworth) needs to make some noise in the other categories. The Next Three Days (Paul Haggis) looks like a regular thriller, but I’ve learned not to underestimate Haggis’ appeal. Love & Other Drugs (Marshall Herskovitz & Charles Randolph & Edward Zwick) needs to be more than just a romcom. The Ghost Writer (Robert Harris & Roman Polanski) is a directors film more than writing, but it does have some passionate supporters.

Year in Review: 1975

1975 is the only year in Oscar history where I agree that the five films nominated for best picture are actually the five best films of the year. But 1975 is such a rich cinematic year that I easily could have bumped up anything in the bottom five, and even some of the runners-up. Truly one of the best years in cinema history.

10. The Man Who Would Be King (John Huston)
The Man Who Would Be King is the type of old fashioned, adventure film that by the 1970s, Hollywood had pretty much forgotten how to make. Luckily, John Huston, a holdover from the studio era, knew just what to do in this great film. Sean Connery and Michael Caine play two former British soldiers in Indian, who decide to head over the mountains into a fictional Arab country, where they plan to rob the place blind, and come back rich as kings. After their treacherous journey, they arrive there, and the people end up mistaking Connery for a God – which is good for their plans, that is until Connery decides to take things just a little too far. But while the film is a thrilling, old fashioned adventure (right down to the characters politically incorrect attitudes), it is also a hard edged critique of imperialism – and certainly doesn’t glorify either the British nor the east, but sees them both as flawed. Yet what makes The Man Who Would Be King so memorable is that adventure story – told with a surefire hand of Huston, and brought thrillingly to life in the performances of Connery and Caine.

9. Jeanne Dielman: 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Ackerman)
There are probably only a small minority of movie watchers out there who would actually sit through Chantel Ackerman’s three hour and twenty minute Jeanne Dielman. It is a movie about repetition and routine, and how one woman (Delphine Seyrig) has structured her life so meticulously that one wrong move and her world comes crashing down. Her husband is dead, and left her with little money. She is trying to raise her teenage son by herself. She knows precisely what dinner she is going to make every night, and she prepares it in the same way. She is also a part time prostitute, welcoming middle aged men into her apartment during the slow time in the afternoon. She has her routines, and that is the way she gets through her days. Ackerman’s accomplishment with this film is to force the audience to watch – in detail and repeatedly – what she does on a daily basis. She shows us things that normally we do not see movie characters doing – cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. When the routine changes late in the film – because of an orgasm – Dielman is not able to deal with them and strikes out violently. The film is a statement on women’s roles in society, and how we don’t really see what they do. Ackerman forces us to. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this film to a wide audience – it would certainly bore most cinema goers, even the most adventuresome, and I don’t think I’ll be revisiting it again anytime soon, but it is a great film, and a true accomplishment for Ackerman, and for Seyrig who takes on a nearly impossible role, and does great things with it.

8. The Passenger (Michelangelo Antonioni)
Michelangelo Antonioni’s The Passenger is about a man who decides to become someone else. He is a reporter, played by Jack Nicholson, who is in the African desert to try and interview some guerillas. When he returns to his hotel, he talks to the only other guest, and then soon afterwards finds the man dead in his room. So Nicholson decides to abandon his life, and take over the strangers. He follows the appointments the dead man kept, and slowly discovers that the other man was a gun dealer. He meets a girl (Maria Schneider) who wants him to be someone he isn’t – someone with a purpose or a plan. Nicholson has neither. Like all of Antonioni’s best films, The Passenger is really about emptiness and purposelessness. People search for something (the girl in L’Aventurra, the body in the photos in Blowup, etc) without ever finding it – and it doesn’t really matter, because the purpose is really more in the search than in finding. In The Passenger, Nicholson isn’t even searching – he simply wants to disappear completely. And in one of the best, most intricate, most haunting closing shots in cinema history, he finally gets his wish.

7. Night Moves (Arthur Penn)
Night Moves is one of the strangest detective movies I have ever seen. It stars Gene Hackman is a great performance as a Private Eye who seems to have learned his craft from watching old film noir movies. He is hired by a former B movie starlet to track down her 16 year old daughter, who has seemingly run away. But the woman doesn’t seem all that concerned even as she hires Hackman, she seems to be trying to seduce him at the same time. Hackman takes the case, and it keeps on twisting and turning in front him, his search leading to one person after another, and each person he meets completely changes what he thinks has happened in the case. He will eventually wind up in Florida, where more beautiful girls seem to want to seduce him and by this point both Hackman, and the audience is completely confused by what the hell is happening, and then the movie makes it more complicated. I’ve seen the movie a number of times, and although I’m could piece everything together if I really tried, I don’t think I really want to. The joy in the movie is watching Hackman, playing a variation on his character in The Conversation, as a P.I. who is simply not smart enough to keep up with everything going on around him. The screenplay is full of great lines, and the supporting characters are a joy to watch, and Penn’s direction is excellent. What does it all mean? I don’t have a clue, and I don’t care.

6. Seven Beauties (Lina Wertmueller)
Seven Beauties is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen about WWII. It stars Giancarlo Gianni in a great performance as an absolutely worthless human being, who because he doesn’t see himself that way – in fact he sees himself in just the opposite way – is also a fool. He wanders through pre WWII Italy oblivious to what is going on around him, and obsessed with his own, and his family’s honor. When one of his sisters becomes a prostitute, he kills the pimp and chops up his body, and is sent to an insane asylum. When he is released, he is sent to the Italian army, and will eventually end up in a concentration camp, where he continues to preen and debase himself by trying, and eventually succeed, in seducing the surly female guard. But this wins him no favors either, and he is forced to make more morally reprehensible decisions, which he does. Lina Wertmueller was a daring filmmaker, and in Seven Beauties she takes huge risks. In a way, this is a black comedy, and in another way it is a film about cruelty and human debasement. It is impossible to feel sympathy towards Gianni, because he is such a lousy human being, a man obsessed with honor, who has absolutely none. Perhaps that’s the point, perhaps not, but whatever the reason why Wertmueller made this film were, it remains an absolutely fascinating movie.

5. Dog Day Afternoon (Sidney Lumet)
Sidney Lumet’s Dog Day Afternoon is an extremely interesting, extremely strange story of a bank robbery gone horribly wrong. Al Pacino gives a commanding performance as a Vietnam vet, who along with two accomplices goes into a New York bank to rob it. Things go wrong almost immediately, as one of his accomplices flee. Then they discover they have arrive the day after a cash pickup, and there is hardly any money in the bank – they decide to steal traveler’s cheques, but when they burn to register to make them impossible to trace, it attracts outside attention, and soon the cops are there, and a hostage standoff has begun. It is only gradually that the reasons that Pacino was robbing the bank in the first place come out. The film is vibrant and alive – the performances by the entire cast, especially Pacino, are great and bring these larger than life characters back to reality. Lumet’s direction is crisp and clean and the movie is just pure joy to watch – and you may just find yourself completely in sympathy with Pacino’s loser of a character, who tries so hard, and gets nowhere.

4. Barry Lyndon (Stanley Kubrick)
Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon is one of his best films – a strange, cold costume drama about the rise and fall of a poor Irishman, born Redmond Barry, who will become Barry Lyndon (Ryan O’Neal). The film is told in two parts – the first about Barry’s slow rise in slow status, culminating in his marrying a wealthy countess (Maria Berenson) and the second half recounting his fall from grace. At the time of its release, many critics, while admiring the great care in which Kubrick assembled the movie – the cinematography by John Alcott is marvelous and groundbreaking in its use of lighting, the art direction and costume design are perfect – remarked that the film was too cold and distant. But I think it is that coldness that makes Barry Lyndon the masterpiece that it is. Ryan O’Neal was a seemingly strange choice to play the lead role, but he does a great job with it – yes he is kind of dull, but the character is, and we don’t feel sympathy for him, because we are not supposed to – he is a narcissist to the core. Kubrick’s film is haunting and mesmerizing – a film that stays with you long after it’s over, and invites you back for repeated viewings.

3. Nashville (Robert Altman)
Nashville is one of the greatest accomplishments in Robert Altman’s career – and considering how many great films he has made, that is saying something. It may be the first, but it certainly wasn’t the last, of his films that be painted on a huge canvas, with over 25 major speaking roles, of characters all in Nashville and their interlocking lives. In a way, it is a musical – there is a lot of singing in the film – but the musical numbers are not the polished ones we normally hear in movies, but have a raw authenticity to them (the actors who sing the songs also wrote them for the most part) – and the lyrics mean something to the characters who sing them. It is a political movie, in that there is a Presidential candidate coming to town, and there is an advance team there trying to work out the details. It is a movie about relationships and sex, about hopes and dreams, about corruption and finally life and death. If the film is messy, that’s because life is messy, and rarely happens the way we see it in the movies. This is a movie filled with great performances – Lily Tomlin as a long suffering wife and mother to a deaf child, Keith Carradine as a folk singing womanizer, Henry Gibson as a self important star, Ronee Blakeley a fragile star, Gwenn Welles as a woman who finally realizes her dream will never happen, Barbara Baxley as a tough mistress, Barabara Harris as a wife who has run away – and those are just the tip of the iceberg. The movie moves at a dizzying pace, and keeps us moving from one scene to the next with effortless grace. Altman was one of the best American directors of his generation – and Nashville is one of his very best.

2. Jaws (Steven Spielberg)
I’m not sure if Jaws is Spielberg’s best film – but for me it is certainly his most enjoyable, most rewatchable film. Jaws helped to forever change the landscape of American movies – it helped to usher in the age of the blockbuster, for good and bad – and it also changed the way monster movies were made. Forced to shoot around the shark for much of movie – because the mechanical shark was not working – Spielberg has essentially made an Hitchcockian thriller, where the villain is a shark. That masterful opening sequence with the woman swimming is still among the most intense openings ever filmed, and the entire second half of the movie – that consists of Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw on that small boat tracking the shark is masterfully directed (and acted I must say, as Shaw’s monologue about his previous experience with sharks is among the most memorable ever put to film). Jaws is a monster movie, a horror movie that still has the power to scare you. It forever altered my childhood and to this day, I am still terrified of sharks. Thanks Spielberg.

1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman)
Some movies seem to transcend the time period they were made in, and remain relevant forever. Milos Forman’s brilliant One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is such a movie. Although made in the 1970s, based on a novel and play from the 1960s, the movie remains fresh and alive all these years later. Jack Nicholson gives his best performance – one of the very best of all screen performances really – as R.P. McMurphy, a low level criminal who thinks he has found an easier way to do his time – fake being insane so he can go to a hospital instead. When he arrives though, he realizes that the hospital is if anything worse than jail. The mental ward is run with an iron fist by Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) who demands almost control over everyone there – and that includes McMurphy. The movie is brilliant for several reasons – Milos Forman’s direction, which somehow never feels inhibited by being mainly stuck in the mental ward (and when they do leave for the fishing trip, they probably should not have), the screenplay which draws such rich characters for the large ensemble to play. And the acting. There is hardly any movie ever made that boasts a better ensemble cast then this one – led by Nicholson as the rebel, and Fletcher as the hardass, but even the smallest roles for the patients are well drawn. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is at times funny, at times tragic and is one of my absolute favorite films ever.

Just Missed The Top 10: Dersu Uzala (Akira Kurosawa), Farewell My Lovely (Dick Richards), Love and Death (Woody Allen), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Terry Jones & Terry Gilliam), Picnic in Hanging Rock (Peter Weir), Salo: Or The 120 Days of Sodom (Pier Paolo Pasolini), Shampoo (Hal Ashby), The Sunshine Boys (Herbert Ross).

Notable Films Missed: Grey Gardens (David & Albert Maysles & Ellen Hovde & Muffer Meyer), The Travelling Players (Theo Angelpolos).

Oscar Winner – Picture & Director: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman).
It is always satisfying when my favorite film of the year is the one that actually won the Best Picture Oscar – something that has only happened 12 times in their history). This year, the Academy couldn’t really go wrong with the films they nominated – any of them would have been worthy of the award. But I am happy that they went with Cuckoo’s Nest, which to me is much better than the other nominees, even though the other nominees are all masterworks in their own right. It is one of those rare films that everyone seems to love – high and low minded people alike. One of the best choices they ever made.

Oscar Winner – Actor: Jack Nicholson, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
It wasn’t a question of if Jack Nicholson was going to win an Oscar – simply a question of when. He was nominated in 1969 for Easy Rider, 1970 for Five Easy Pieces, 1974 for The Last Detail and 1974 for Chinatown and hadn’t won for any of them. So the Academy probably would have given Nicholson an Oscar this year regardless of what performance he won for, because his fifth nomination in 7 years made him well overdue. But it so happens that it was Nicholson’s good luck that he actually won for his best performance – something that cannot be said of his other two Oscar wins (for Terms of Endearment and As Good As It Gets). It is a great performance here, one of the best, ever, so the Academy made the right call for many reasons.

Oscar Winner – Actress: Louise Fletcher, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
The 1974 Best Actress winner, Ellen Burstyn for Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, was right to complain about the lack of great female leading roles in 1975. For the most part, women were shunted to supporting roles this year, which cleared the way for Fletcher – who really does have a glorified supporting role in Cuckoo’s Nest – to win this Oscar. But that doesn’t mean Fletcher didn’t deserve to win. She is pretty much perfect as a cold, heartless woman who rules the ward like a despot. It is a great turn, by an actress who would never really land a role this good again. But when she got a great role, she made the most of it.

Oscar Winner – Supporting Actor: George Burns, The Sunshine Boys
I highly enjoyed George Burns in The Sunshine Boys – almost as much as I enjoyed Walter Matthau as his partner who is even better. The movie is fun and lightweight – a portrait of an aging comedy duo who have outlived their time, but are still funny. Out of the nominees, I would have been inclined to give it to Brad Dourif – so great in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – but he was a newcomer in a film that had already won a bunch of awards, and they thought Burns was close to death (who would have guessed he would have pulled through and lived another few decades). The Academy however did overlook the best performances in this category – Robert Shaw in Jaws and Henry Gibson in Nashville. I wouldn’t have voted for Burns, but I’m not that mad he won.

Oscar Winner – Supporting Actress: Lee Grant, Shampoo
In many other years, Hal Ashby’s hilarious satire about a man whore hairdresser (Warren Beatty) sleeping with all his clients would have easily made my top ten list. But this year was just too strong to find a spot for it. Lee Grant is great as one of his clients – a little older than he normally goes for, but with a lot of money that he needs. She is no fool about who or what Beatty is, but likes him anyway. Unlike the lead category, this category was stacked with contenders – who could come up with five great nominees from Nashville alone (the Academy only did two, Lily Tomlin and Ronnee Blakeley) and Syliva Miles was great in Farewell My Lovely (another film I wish I could have included but didn’t have room for). Grant is a deserving winner though, so no real complaints.

Year in Review: 1932

1932 was a very good year for movies. For one thing, one of my all time favorite filmmakers made the best film of his career. For another, filmmakers seemed to playing a little bit more with sound and visuals than many had in previous years. It isn’t one of the greatest years in movie history, but there is a wealth of films that should be seen.

10. Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer)
Carl Theodor Dreyer certainly made better films than Vampyr – which is often considered a low point for the famed Danish director – but that doesn’t mean the film is without merit. Quite the contrary in fact. Vampyr has a wonderful, hazy look and feel to it. Shot on location, the film is shrouded in fog and is more dependent on atmosphere than anything else. Strange for a vampire movie, the film has a spiritual side as well (which should be no surprise considering the director). The film is certainly melodramatic, and really is impossible to take all that seriously, yet if you get on its wavelength and let the film wash over you, it becomes a rather spellbinding film. Vampyr is certainly minor Dreyer – there really is no denying that – but even minor Dreyer is more visually stunning than most directors can do at their best.

9. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Rouben Mamoulian)
This screen version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is memorable for several reasons. One is that explicit sexuality that the film embodies – particularly in the performance of Miriam Hopkins as a prostitute, who saw her role slashed away when the production code came into effect and the film was re-released in 1936. Another is for Frederic March’s excellent, Oscar winning performance as the good Jekyll, and the evil Hyde – two distinct characters that March embodies wonderfully well. But perhaps the best reason to see the movie today is to watch director Mamouulian experiment visually – not just in the transition sequences, which must have been stunning to audiences back then, but in all the sequences. There is a strange look and feel to the story. It isn’t a complete triumph, but it’s probably the best screen version we are likely to see of this story.

8. Horse Feathers (Norman Z. McLeod)
As with pretty much all Marx brothers movies, Horse Feathers has the barest of plots that the brothers use to string together a series of hilarious routines. This time, the movie is about college football, and an upcoming game between rival colleges Darwin and Huxley. Groucho is the President of Huxley, and is convinced to hire pros to play for his team (the constant jokes about the “amateur status” of college athletes still remains relevant today). Poor Zeppo (who was always unnecessary in the films he made with his brothers) is Groucho’s son, and Chico and Harpo are two icemen who mistakenly get drafted onto the team. There are a number of great one liners in the film (“Why don’t you bore a hole a in yourself and let the sap run out”), and as always Groucho is the star, but Chico and Harpo get quite a few laughes as well. Like all great Marx brothers movies, Horse Feathers is a piece of inspired lunacy.

7. The Most Dangerous Game (Merian C. Cooper & Ernest R. Schoesack)
The year before they would forever change American movies with King Kong, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest R. Schoesack made this film from the famed Richard Connell story. Joel McCrea plays a big game hunter, and sole survivor of a shipwreck who swims to a nearby island, owned by the strange Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks). Apparently, shipwrecks in the area are all too common, and there are still four people from the last one staying with Zaroff. By now, I think that everyone knows what happens next – the madman Zaroff means to hunt and kill each one of his guests on his island – but he has never encountered someone like McCrea before. The film has become one of the most influential of the 1930s – the basic premise has been borrowed by countless films over the years. And yet, this original version remains the best of the bunch – a haunting, exciting film that is pretty much all you could want from a movie of this sort.

6. Grand Hotel (Edmund Goulding)
Grand Hotel is big, glossy entertainment from a time when Hollywood still knew how to make such movies. The film was essentially an excuse to get some of the biggest stars in the world together for the same movie. The film stars Greta Garbo as a famed Russian ballerina, staying at the Grand Hotel in Berlin. Also staying there is former rich boy (John Barrymore), know a con man and thief, a dying accountant (Lionel Barrymore), his former boss (Wallace Beery) and a stenographer (Joan Crawford). Their lives intersect in interesting ways throughout the whole movie even though, as the old man who is a constant guest observes “Nothing ever happens”. This film has certainly become influential – it’s possible to see the large tapestries that Robert Altman often worked on in the film, and can also been seen as a precursor to things like the Ocean’s 11 movies with its large cast of stars. The film itself remains sublimely entertaining throughout – especially when Joan Crawford is on screen, who completely steals the movie with her sly sexuality (apparently she was even better in the original cut, but Garbo wanted her part trimmed down so Crawford wouldn’t upstage her, and since Garbo was the big star, and Crawford the relative newcomer they did it). A fine example of its kind.

5. I Am a Fugitive from the Chain Gang (Mervyn LeRoy)
Most of the time, when Hollywood makes an “issue” movie the result is preachy and unconvincing. But that isn’t the case with I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, a movie that effectively helped to change the American legal system, and outlaw chain gangs. Paul Muni gives one of his best performances as a man wrongfully convicted of a robbery, and sentenced to 10 years on a Southern chain gang. He escapes, flees to Chicago and makes a success of himself, only to be betrayed and end up where he started. When he escapes again, the system has succeeded in turning him into a criminal. The film is an indictment of the American legal system, but it works remarkably well as a drama as well, with Muni carrying the film in pretty much every frame – right down to iconic last scene where he fades into the shadows after delivering a killer closing line (“I steal”). I Am a Fugitive for a Chain Gang is perfect example of the fact that just because your film is a “message” movie, that doesn’t mean it cannot be entertaining as well.

4. Boudu Saved from Drowning (Jean Renoir)
Jean Renoir’s Boudu Saved from Drowning is a strange little film. On one level, it is a comedy about a bum (Michel Simon) who is saved by a middle class man (Charles Granval) when he jumps into the river Seine trying to kill himself. Granval brings him home, and tries to “rehabilitate” Simon into a regular middle class citizen. Simon is perhaps the most ungrateful houseguest in history – exposing secrets, seducing the family with his charm, and essentially getting them to see the hollowness of their own existence. Perhaps the film was meant as an attack on the complacency of the middle class, but Simon is hardly a sympathetic, truth seer either – he really is kind of an asshole, which serves to complicate the story even more. The film is filled with Renoir’s humanist touches, and really is brilliantly well structured – both as a story and as a visual experience. One of Renoir’s best films.

3. Scarface (Howard Hawks)
Along with The Public Enemy and Little Caesar, Howard Hawks’ Scarface has to be considered one of the best gangster movies from the early 1930s. Very loosely based on Al Capone, Scarface is a violent movie about a prohibition era gangster who shoots his way to the top. He is merciless in his killing, not caring if innocent bystanders get in his way or not. Of course, we know that he will be brought down by the end of the film, but until then he remains completely unrepenent and evil. Paul Muni gives what could be his best performance as Scarface, and the direction by Howard Hawks is crisp, swift and absolutely brutal. While the film may have lost its power to shock audiences the way it did in 1932 (in part because of all the violence in movies since), it remains a key film of the gangster genre, a riveting portrait of an amoral man who will do anything to win.

2. Freaks (Tod Browning)
Unfortunately, we will never get to see the original version of Freaks – the one that Tod Browning intended us to see. That is because after test screenings of his original 90 minute cut of the film went horrible (including one woman who threaten to sue saying the film gave her a miscarriage), the studio cut nearly half an hour of the film out, and spliced on a “happy ending”. But while what remains is certainly a bastardized film, it is still a remarkable one. Browning’s story of circus “freaks” is remarkable for several reasons – the biggest one being that he decided to cast real people who suffered from the deformities we see on the screen, instead of using makeup. The “freaks” in the film are the sympathetic figures, while the “normal” people are cruel, using them merely as their playthings. The main thrust of the story involves a trapeze artist who marries a rich, sideshow little person for his money, and then tries to slowly poison him to death. When his friends find out about the plot, they extract a shocking revenge. Freaks remains disturbing and surprisingly modern for a film made in 1932. The original version, which has been lost forever, may have been better, or may not have – we will never know. But what remains is still Browning’s best film – even if it did essentially end his career.

1. Trouble in Paradise (Ernst Lubitsch)
Trouble in Paradise glides so seemingly effortlessly that it had to be next to impossible to actually make the film. Here is a movie about a love triangle between a thief (Herbert Marshall), a pickpocket (Miriam Hopkins) and a rich woman (Kay Francis) that in lesser hands could have been a screwball comedy – and probably a damn fine one. But director Ernst Lubitsch tones it down, and makes the movie surprisingly subdued. Yes, the dialogue is witty and playful, but it is delivered with wry wit and an undertone of sadness instead of turned up to 11. Marshall and Hopkins seem tailor made for each other, but then Francis shows up. I think she knows right from the beginning what Marshall really is, but continues on with him anyway. She is not just another spoiled, naïve princess, but it something much more real. And perhaps that’s why Trouble in Paradise rises to such levels of excellence – it is a film about these people in an almost impossible situation, and yet it feels real from the first moment of the film to the last. The acting is brilliant, the screenplay ranks among the best ever written, and the Lubitsch’s camera simply glides. Trouble in Paradise is one of the very best films of the 1930s – on some days I may even say the best.

Just Missed The Top 10: Number 17 (Alfred Hitchcock)

Notable Films Missed: A Farewell to Arms (Frank Borzage), I Was Born, But (Yashjiro Ozu), Love Me Tonight (Rouben Moullimen), One Hour With You (Ernst Lubitch), Que Viva Mexico (Sergei Eisenstein), Shanghai Express (Josef von Sternberg), Smilin’ Through (Sidney Franklin), State Fair (Henry King).

Oscar Winner – Best Picture: Grand Hotel
Grand Hotel holds an odd Oscar distinction – it is the only film ever to win the Best Picture Oscar without even being nominated for any other awards. That’s right despite its huge cast, none of them were nominated. Despite its fine direction, that wasn’t nominated either, nor its screenplay. Such a thing would seem impossible nowadays (the closest I can recall happening is Four Weddings and a Funeral who in 1994 was nominated only for Best Picture and Original Screenplay). Although strange, that doesn’t mean the film is undeserving in any way. I think there was too many big stars for any of them to be nominated, but also for the Academy to completely overlook the film. It isn’t the best winner ever, but it is a great film, so I have no complaints.

Oscar Winner – Best Director: Frank Borzage, Bad Girl (actually a 1931 Film)
Frank Borzage is a highly respected director who I have to admit I am wholly unfamiliar with. I have never been able to track down any of his films – most notably Seventh Heaven for which he also won an Oscar or, this film, Bad Girl. It is said to be a realist film about ordinary people living ordinary lives, and also won the screenplay Oscar this year. When this becomes available – or if it is available when I can track it down – I will certainly watch it, as I am very interested in this director, who right now remains an unknown to me.

Oscar Winner – Best Actor: Wallace Beery, The Champ (actually a 1931 film)/Frederic March, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
The first ever tie at the Oscars was between these two actors – although unlike the tie that occurred in 1968 between Barbara Striesand and Katherine Hepburn, this one is somewhat controversial since apparently Beery actually lost to March by five votes, but someone thought that was close enough, and announced late in the ceremony (after March had accepted his award) that it was actually a tie, and the Academy didn’t have to guts to take the Oscar back from Beery. As for the quality of the performances, I think March was wonderful in the dual title role – although it isn’t the best work of his career. As for Beery, despite my love of director King Vidor, I have to say that I found The Champ to be WAY overly sentimental, and I wasn’t overly impressed with the film, nor his performance.

Oscar Winner – Best Actress: Helen Hayes, The Sin of Madelon Claudette (actually a 1931 film)
Helen Hayes would go on to set a record when she won her second Oscar for Airport in 1970 – the 38 years between her first and second win are the longest between victors in Oscar history (although it should be noted that Katherine Hepburn’s four Oscar wins spans 48 years between first and last, although there were two in between). You hear next to nothing about this film anymore – a melodrama in which Hayes plays a wrongly convicted woman who gets out of jail and turns to prostitution and theft to send her son to med school. I have to admit I don’t know much about Hayes, or this movie which remains unseen by me – but since I don’t know anything about her fellow nominees performances either, I really can’t complain.

Movie Review: 12th and Delaware

12th and Delaware *** ½
Directed By: Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady.

12th and Delaware is a fascinating documentary about one street corner in Fort Pierce Florida. On one side of the street, is an abortion clinic. On the other side of the street is the Pregnancy Care Center, a pro-life center where they try and convince women who want to have abortions to keep their babies. On the street outside, at seemingly all hours of the day, there are protesters against the abortion clinic, who hold up those graphic, bloody signs showing aborted fetuses, and the protesters yell at the people who work at the clinic, and try to convince people who are heading in not to. This is the ground war on abortion rights in America.

In the interest of full disclosure, I feel the need to mention that I am pro-choice. So if you pro-life, and want to discount my view on this documentary because of it, feel free. I respect reasonable people on both sides of the debate – and deplore people on both sides who sensationalize the issue. The documentary by Tony Kaye, Lake of Fire, is in my mind the definitive look at abortion in America – and gives everyone, the rational and insane on both sides – time to air their views, and lets the viewer reach their own conclusion – something the Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady claim about this film as well. The music gives them away though – the sinister sounding music that plays at times when the film concentrates on the pro-life side, and the rather more sympathetic music on the pro-choice side. Having said that though, I do believe that 12th and Delaware does a fine job at showing you both sides, even if the filmmakers clearly do show more sympathy to the pro-choice side. Afterall, like their previous movie Jesus Camp, the people in this movie get a chance to say whatever they want to, and its entirely possible if you feel differently about the abortion issue than I do, that you will walk away with a differing opinion on what is shown.

I found the film fascinating when it shows what the Pregnancy Care Center does to women who come to them looking for abortion. Setting up across the street for the abortion clinic is vital to them, because they are counting on people to get confused and come to them by mistake – thinking they are going somewhere that performs abortions. They don’t do that, but for a while anyway, they let newcomers think they do (they never come out and say they do perform them, but by the time many patients realize this, they have been there for a while, and been subjected to all sorts of consuelling, videos and information that talk about the risks of abortion). I have a problem with this, not because of what they do so much, as how they do it. They do deliberately mislead people, they manipulate them into doing what they want. The counseller tells one woman who says she doesn’t want to have the baby because her boyfriend is verbally and physically abusive that she should have the baby because maybe “the baby will change him”. Yeah, right. They tell women that abortion could led to breast cancer, and give horror stories and questionable statistics about abortion to try and change their mind. They give each woman an ultrasound to tell if they are pregnant, and how far along they are, and when they send the pictures home with them, they write “Hi mommy” and “Hi daddy” on the envelope. Their estimates on how far along they are always come in strangely low – perhaps because most abortion clinics will only terminate up to 12 or 14 weeks, and after that the procedure becomes more risky and invasive, and they’ll have to go somewhere else.

Many women see through the ruse fairly quickly, and want to get out of there. Some don’t, and are convinced. I couldn’t help but feel for one 15 year old who was convinced by the Pregnancy Care Center to keep the baby, and says that she is confident that she’ll receive a lot of support for them, and the baby’s father, once the child is born.

The protesters outside are also a rather interesting bunch. I have never quite understood why people feel the need to stand outside of abortion clinics and harass the workers and the women going inside – why they seem intent on making a difficult decision even harder. And why do they need the graphic signs? The hide behind free speech, but I think that unless Larry Flynt has the right to walk around with signs depicting graphic pornography, than the protesters should have the right to walk around with signs with pictures of giant aborted fetuses. Why should anyone have to look at that who are just driving by?

For their part, the abortion clinic seems more reasonable about things. They want to ensure that the women are making this choice themselves, and that they are taking it seriously – although they don’t really try and talk anyone with doubts out of the procedure either, they do seem more sympathetic to the women who are in an impossible, no-win situation. One thing I did find odd is that there is not one mention – on either side of the street – of adoption. Strange.

No, I do not think that the film is unbiased, and I do think the filmmakers should cop to that. Like Jesus Camp, they are obviously on one side of the issue, and are intent on showing us their side. But also like Jesus Camp, they do allow the people a chance to voice their views. They aren’t coaching, but are just capturing the type of counseling that the Pregnancy Care Center does, and showing the audience what it is they do, and what they do on the other side on the street as well. And if I feel that the filmmakers should cop to their intentions, that also goes for the Pregnancy Care Center themselves. They are deliberately misleading people more so then the filmmakers are. 12th and Delaware is a shocking, yet sad film. It is shocking because of what it shows us, and how some people on both sides of the debate will act in order to win. It’s sad because lost in all the shuffle is any real talk about the children who are born. Does the Pregnancy Care Center care what happens to the children who are born because they talked their mothers out of having an abortion? Or is simply getting the baby out of the mother alive enough?

Note: After watching the documentary, I did some more research on the issue of Pregnancy Care Centers. It seems they are extremely controversial, but that not all of them are like the one portrayed in 12th and Delaware. Time Magazine did a fascinating article entitled The Grass-Roots Abortion War, about centers like this one. 12th and Delaware is about this clinic, and ones like it, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some good ones out there. Like with any issue, it is important to get multiple perspectives on something – 12th and Delaware is a valuable movie, that allows its participants to air their views – but like any movie its scope can only be so large.

Movie Review: Exit Through the Gift Shop

Exit Through the Gift Shop *** ½
Directed by: Banksy.
Featuring: Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Thierry Guetta.
Narrated By: Rhys Ifans

We see in art what we want to see. Whatever the art form – painting, sculpture, film, etc – art really isn’t complete without an audience reaction to it. At that point, it becomes bigger than the artist and their intentions, because it is out of their hands and they can no longer control it. But there is also a human tendancity to not want to admit when we do not “get” something. Everyone else is raving about something, and we don’t want to feel left out, so we rave about it as well. I, for one, do not really have a problem admitting when I don’t “get” something. I was at MOMA in New York this past summer, and while I liked some of what I saw, I had no idea what the hell I was supposed to make of some of the other exhibits. What the hell am I supposed to “get” about a giant bundle of hay, or a rope string between two boxes? In terms of film, I do the same thing. I will readily admit that I have no clue what pretty much any film made by Jean Luc Godard made in the past decade was supposed to be about, because to me, it is just a jumble of images with no context. More recently, I admitted that I don’t think I quite understood Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, but also said I didn’t really care – it was such a rich visual experience, and left me with so many things to think about, that perhaps “getting it” was beside the point. I was thrilled enough just to experience it.

I mention all of this on top of this review, because ultimately what I think the documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop is about is the way in which we experience art. The film is directed by street artist Banksy, who delights in putting his art up in cities around the world. The art ranges from stenciling of rats, shots at coporations, to installations like his telephone booth in London, or his paint on the West Wall in Israel. The film isn’t really about Banksy however, but about Thierry Guetta, a Frenchman living in LA obsessed with capturing everything on his camera. On a trip to Paris, he follows his cousin, known as Space Invader, around as he makes his art, and plasters it around the city. What Space Invader does is take old rudics cube, and create characters from the old Space Invader videogame out of them. Why does he do this? I haven’t got a clue, but perhaps he just really, really likes Space Invaders. It is through him that Guetta falls in love with street art, and he starts filming all the street artists he can. He tells them he is making a documentary on this movement, but in reality, he is just storing the tapes along with all his other one of his family, which he never watches. Guetta becomes obsessed with tracking down Banksy – who is the most predominant street artist in the world, but is also extremely secretative about his identity. When he finally does track him down, and gets him to agree to be filmed, he finds him a nice guy – and Banksy likes him to. Then the street art scene explodes into the mainstream, with pieces of work being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bansky calls Guetta’s bluff, and tells him it is time to release his documentary so that people will know that they do not do this for money. Guetta, not wanting to admit he has no idea how to make a film, agrees and when he is finished editing his 90 minute movie, he flies out to show it to Bansky who says after a few minutes he realized that Guetta was not a filmmaker but “a guy with a camera and mental problems”. But Banksy wants all the raw footage Guetta shot – some of it excellent – and convinces Guetta to leave it with him so he can edit together a movie. To get Guetta off his back, he suggests that he do some street art of his own. He didn’t know the monster he would create.

The story behind Exit Through the Gift Shop is so compelling that it seems not quite real. This has prompted some to wonder if the film is really a documentary, or just another example of Banksy screwing with the public. Is Guetta really as far out and clueless as he appears to be? Is he in on the joke, being masterminded by Banksy? These questions don’t really concern me all that much, because whether Guetta really is in on the joke, or like Banksy says just a guy with a camera and mental problems, doesn’t really matter. What matters is the reaction that Guetta gets when he decides that street art isn’t enough for him – like his idol, he also wants a gallery show. He dubs himself Mr. Brainwash, and creates hundreds of pieces of art (or more accurately, comes up with some ideas, and has others do the actual building of the installations), rent out a huge industrial space in LA and gets ready for his willing public. He convinces Banksy, and others to give him some quotes to promote the show – which they do – and soon, Mr. Brainwash has become an art phenom. People line up around the block to see his show, and proclaim him a genius. The street artists, who gave him his start, regret it, because they see him as a complete hack – not an artist at all.

But what is the real difference between Guetta and other, legit street artists like Banksy or Shepard Fairey, who also appears in the film? I have no real idea why Fairey uses an image of Andre the Giant with the words obey printed underneath, and I’m not quite what all of Banksy’s works mean either, other than they are staunchly anti-capitialist. Yet, I can see a difference between their work and Guetta’s, which does seem extremely shallow. But is that because it really is that much shallower than the others work, or because the movie paints such a harsh picture of Guetta? Probably, a little of both, What struck me about Guetta, is that when he talks about his, he seemingly has no idea why he did it, or what it means. Listen to him describe a stenciling he did of Elvis, where he replaced his guitar with a machine gun bearing the words Fisher Price. What does this mean? Guetta will only say what he did, not what his inspiration or his point was. Or watch how he cynically turns 200 identical prints into “Mr. Brainwash originals” to use as a market tool. The difference between Guetta and Fairey and Banksy may be just that when the later two talk about their work, they really do seem to know what they’re talking about, and why they did it, even if I don’t get it. Guetta seems clueless. And perhaps that’s all an artist really is – someone who feels the need to express themselves in a way that while it may be confounding to others, means a lot to them. And that’s what Guetta is missing. But Guetta is also extremely entertaining – a con man who you could say has conned himself more than anyone, since he know believes he is a serious artist. You could say that, but then again there are all those people who bought his works for all that money, who after watching this film, will probably feel like sucker. And I’m sure, somewhere, Banksy is laughing at them.

Movie Review: Conviction

Conviction ** ½
Directed by: Tony Goldwyn.
Written By: Pamela Gray.
Starring: Hilary Swank (Betty Anne Waters), Sam Rockwell (Kenny Waters), Minnie Driver (Abra Rice), Melissa Leo (Nancy Taylor), Karen Young (Elizabeth Waters), Loren Dean (Rick), Clea DuVall (Brenda Marsh), Juliette Lewis (Roseanna Perry), Peter Gallagher (Barry Scheck), Ari Graynor (Mandy Marsh).

Conviction is a standard issue “inspirational” real life drama that is admittedly based on one hell of a true life story. Betty Anne Waters (Hilary Swank) is so convinced that he brother Kenny (Sam Rockwell) is innocent of the murder than he has been sentenced to life in prison for, that she decides to complete her GED, go to University to get her BA, then attend law school, all so that she can represent him, because none of the other lawyers he has had are any good. She loses her marriage because of her obsession, her kids, who still love her but want a more stable home life, opt to move in with their dad. She struggles part time for 18 years to get through all of her schooling. And she never once wavers in her commitment – or at least the movie tells us she never did, even if I suspect that in real life, at times she had to ask herself if all of this is worth it.

Betty Anne is played by Hilary Swank, in what most be described as one of her best roles. It isn’t that she is terrific in the movie, but that she plays it exactly the way it is written to be played (that of a selfless saint pretty much), and it is the type of role she excels at. Despite her two Oscar wins (for performances that were admittedly pretty damn great), most of the time, Swank seems uncomfortable or mannered on screen. But she does excel, unlike many actress, in playing lower class characters – and here she could be described almost as a redneck (especially in those early scenes set in the 1980s where she has the big hair), but Swank fills the role nicely. Sam Rockwell is even better as her brother Kenny – but then he has the showier role – being the constant charmer at the beginning of the movie, even going as far as mocking the police, and then later after years in jail proclaiming his innocence, he gets to rage against the system. Rockwell, always a good actor, makes the most of the role.

Yet Conviction seems oddly lacking in passion. This is after all a movie about love and determination – a woman who essentially gives her life so that she can free the brother she loves so much, and believes in when no one else does. Why then, does the film feel so by the book, and why aside from the occasional flash by Sam Rockwell, does no one in the film seem all that passionate about anything? Conviction does it job well enough, I guess. The supporting cast hits so nice notes – Minnie Driver is entertaining as Swank’s friend who never shuts up, Melissa Leo is appropriately evil as the cop who has it out for Kenny, and Juliette Lewis delights in going over the top as the trailer trash witness who makes everyone else in the film seem refined by comparison.

Yet I missed that feeling in the film, which to be felt oddly cold at times. Perhaps it’s because there is never any real doubt in the film that Kenny is innocent, and will eventually be freed. Perhaps it’s because the film whips through that more than a decade of Betty Anne working on getting through school so quickly that we never really feel her plight. Whatever the reason, I cannot really pinpoint it, but Conviction should be a rousing, heartfelt drama, but instead it feels kind of flat. It does what it does good enough, and always did keep me interested, but the film is sadly lacking something vital to make it more than just another cookie cutter inspirational drama. For a movie based on an incredible true story, the movie doesn’t quite ring true – and I think it’s because they never really get to know the characters outside of their actions as it relates to this case. It’s too bad, because this should have been a hell of lot more compelling that it turns out to be.

Note: I learned after I saw the movie that in real life, Kenny Waters died six months after being released from prison in an accident where he fell off a wall getting to his mother’s house. Why doesn’t the film mention this, at least in its ending scroll where it tells us what happened to Betty Anne and other characters? Perhaps because if Kenny died so soon after being released, it would undercut the inspirational storyline, but the filmmakers missed a real opportunity here. Adding this could have helped add a level of tragic irony to the story, and made the film more interesting as a result. I have never had a real problem with filmmakers changing true life stories to make it more dramatic, but here is an example where they changed a true life story to make it LESS dramatic, and that just seems odd to me.