THE CONSTANT GARDENER

Director: Fernando Meirelles (International/Brazilian film work resume)
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Hubert Kounde, more

2005 was an extraordinary year for film, and The Constant Gardener is a movie that will suffer for it. This story of western corruption and exploitation of Africa would have been a notable film in most years. It’s not quite at the level required for Academy Award consideration, but it’s one of those films that would have been mentioned in the same breath with contenders most years. In ’05 I think it’s unlikely to get that level of exposure, although the Golden Globe for Rachel Weisz’ performance may prove me wrong.

In structure this is a topical thriller set in Kenya, but with some unique plotting. Rachel Weisz is in fact never “alive” in this film. Her fine performance is given in a series of flashbacks after she is found murdered on a back road in the bush. Fiennes plays a low level diplomat searching for truth after his wife’s death. Was she unfaithful? Was there something more? It’s an intriguing search for buried truth revealed only by thin slivers of evidence poking above. Eventually a plot of international intrigue takes over the story, and although I found this part less effective than the earlier scenes, it’s far from terrible.

Yes, this film is a liberal poster child, showing the corruption of the huge multi-national corporations and their various government partners. If you’re the type to get upset with viewpoints of this sort, you’ll be happier to stay away. As a story it’s not nearly as smart, balanced, or complete as Syriana, but it’s still strong from start to finish. There are definitely bad guys in this film, and they're the global corporations. However, the best part of this film comes in the midst of the plot, where we’re trying to find out if they’re the only bad guys.

Rachel Weisz gives a very good performance as a young liberal crusador. Fiennes is also quite good as her more temperate, diplomatic husband searching for answers. A fine film in most ways, although not subtle or complete enough to be a great one.

Standouts: Weisz and Fiennes performances, a good script and solid direction.
Blowouts: This story of exploitation of Africans never humanized the Africans being hurt. It felt more like white-man’s guilt, than a real quest into their lives.

Grade: A-

1/24/2006

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

Director: Joe Wright (No major film work)
Starring: Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFayden, Simon Woods, more

Here is a film that paints much of the same subject as Memoirs of a Geisha, yet shows how much more sharply the image can be conceived. Most of my arguments against Geisha could apply to this film. P & P is sappy at points, there are helpless women galore searching for their prince. This film just does everything better, both in the framework and in the details of the story. P & P is a very good movie because each piece fit perfectly with each piece next to it and as an artistic whole. Of course, maybe if Memoirs of a Geisha had been written by one of the great writers of western literature it would have been better. Makes sense, huh?

Pride and Prejudice is yet another of the Jane Austin stories put to film. Austin is surely one of the most influential female writers of all time, and justifiably so. In her tale of the struggles of women in her society to find a mate, all of the facets of the story are extremely well balanced: The plot is twisting and perfectly maintained, the emotional highs and pacing extraordinary, and all of this is wrapped in a delightfully lighthearted theme and subject. This is definitely a story almost perfectly suited to its setting.

The plot follows a family of 5 girls (I think …) searching for their husbands. They are a landed family, on the lowest fringes of the upper crust. These noble girls were raised far away from any city on a small country estate more concerned with farming pigs than learning the etiquette of court. They all have their struggles with men, but it is Keira Knightly, in an excellent performance, as the second daughter that is the center of the story. Over the course of the film she learns that prejudice against the rich and powerful can be as wrong as theirs is against the poor and downtrodden. In the end she gets the rich husband that she at first so disliked. Basically, this story again shows how a book should not be judged by its cover. Almost every character in this film is misjudged at first. Whether the rich are seen as foolish or uncaring, and the poor are seen as uncouth , they’re all wrong in the end. Certainly this is a wonderful story.

Keira Knightly deserves credit for holding this film together. It would have failed mightily if she hadn’t been up to the task. Luckily she was. This English period piece was quite good in most every facet. It’s not nearly at the level of the greats such as Howard’s End or Remains of the Day, but it certainly deserves a seat at that table of frilly, and wonderful, anglophile film literature.

Standouts: The story itself, most every other facet was well done.
Blowouts: A sappy moment here or there that seemed to go just a bit to far.

Grade: A-

1/23/2006

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

Director: Rob Marshall (Chicago, TV work predominantly choreography)
Starring: Zhang Ziyi, Ken Watanabe, Michelle Yeoh, Youki Kudoh, more

There are movies that I am simply not well-suited to review, and this is one of them. Memoirs of a Geisha is a film about, by, and for women. It's a lush melodrama set in a Japanese period fantasy world that is deeply evoked. Could a man appreciate this film? Absolutely. Am I the man for the job? No, probably not. The audience at my showing was 80% women and 20% their boyfriends/husbands. I fell solidly in category #2.

I think of this story as a shot of Pretty Woman with an exotic Japanese period chaser. I had many of the same problems thinking about Pretty Woman as this film, and in the end I come to some of the same conclusions for both: That both movies may have significant flaws, but they are deeply appreciated by those in the intended audience.

For my part I could view this film intellectually and say I hate that this is a story entirely at odds with anything positive for women’s rights. The women here are helpless slaves learning to love their exotic lives as high-class whores until a rich man comes along and frees them from their bonds. That’s just disappointing to me. No woman in the film, excepting the girls' mistress (pimp), ever learns to stand on their own two feet.

I could view this film artistically and describe the gorgeous film sets and locales that create this world. Of course I could also tell you about the bits of trite dialog and narration, and melodramatic story construction.

I could describe the plot and tell you that this story is about the little girl raised to be the best geisha in her town. She overcomes the nefarious schemes of the other competitive geisha, and finally charges the most money of any geisha in history to lose her virginity! Good for her. I wonder if she gets an asterix next to that stat since she led the league. There is a brief period in the story where World War 2 intercedes, but the war seems to be a tangential affair for this romance. In the end the young geisha gets her man. He’s handsome, and nice, and rich, and just a great catch all around.

I could describe the film in all of these ways (and have), but really, just like in Pretty Woman, this film exists purely for its emotional value. It is a dream where women can rise from their perceived inadequacies and meet the man they hope they can meet. There is nothing wrong with this, and this film works quite well as this fantasy. There’s no difference between this fantasy and many of the film fantasylands that I happen to love, except that it isn’t my personal fantasyland.

In the end, creating a personal fantasyland for the audience is the main entertainment goal of any film. As such I have to applaud this one for greatly succeeding. This has nothing to do with the artistic success of a film however. And for the reasons I noted above, I think that this movie failed on that count.

Standouts: Lush sets and photography, a sweeping romance for the ladies.
Blowouts: Some cheesy melodramatic dialog and plot points, and thematic material I disagreed with.

Grade: C+

1/10/2006

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Director: Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ice Storm, Sense & Sensibility)
Starring: Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal

So it turns out that the gay cowboy movie is quite a lot more than just a gay cowboy movie. One of the best films of 2005, this story is bursting with quite a lot of exceptional material and only some of it is exclusively about homosexuality or cowboys. Oh, in the foreground this is absolutely a love story between two Wyoming men, but much of this story is relevant to any love forbidden by society, or religion, or class, or ideology. In a way it’s a story of how a society can be so absurdly and obviously wrong, but more to the point it’s a story of two lovers doing what they can to enjoy their short lives in that wickedly confused society.

Brokeback Mountain begins with these two men working as sheepherders on a mountain in Wyoming for a summer. They are alone for a brief time in the spectacular world of the American Rockies. This first third of the film is simply gorgeous in most every way. There are beautiful shots of the Rockies and the wilderness and the men sharing these wonderful things. Once the characters are forced back into society, the film becomes more complicated and less purely beautiful, but no less evocative. They marry women and father children and make money because that is what men do. Eventually they come to realize what they’ve really missed by neglecting their own love. By this time they’ve experienced enough in life to know fully how dangerous what they are doing is. They truly were risking their lives in this cowboy society. At one point Ledger’s character tells a story of a couple of tough old queers who shared their lives in his hometown when he was a child. They ended up dead. This is a real possibility for the men in this story, and a painful one. They must remain hidden.

This script is sharply written, and it deeply evokes the lives of these two men. We see the struggles for money, and to some degree acceptance. We see how they struggle to maintain all of their relationships, not just a sexual one. We see how their hidden homosexuality affects others. Most wonderfully in my opinion, we see how their homosexuality is a much more rich and complicated subject than most of the nurture versus nature arguments can fathom. We see sexual love, and emotional love, and how those two are intertwined. We see sexual repression and emotional repression and how these two can be intertwined. It’s a wonderful story, exceptionally well written, well told, and beautifully shot. It’s also filled with fine acting, and not just by the main characters - although Ledger’s repressed cowboy (and only some of that is sexual repression) is an exceptional creation. I hope he receives an Oscar nod for his work. I also expect Ang Lee to get a nomination, as well as the scriptwriters (one of whom is Larry McMurtry I should note).

Standouts: Excellent direction, photography, acting, and script. This was a beautiful movie in many ways. I think it has a chance to turn into a "classic" of film.
Blowouts: Almost nothing was seriously wrong.

Grade: A+

1/04/2006