Month: November 2011

“Worlds colliding, Jerry!  Worlds colliding!”

After seeing Lars von Trier’s latest movie, Melancholia, I couldn’t help but think of lines that George Costanza uttered to Jerry Seinfeld (of course in an episode of Seinfeld) when two different aspects of his life that he didn’t want to meet were on a collision course.

von Trier’s Melancholia does a similar thing but with literal repercussions, at least from my perspective.

Melancholia tells us the tale of two sisters who are polar opposites in every respect.  Justine is a  free-spirited career woman who’s blond, attractive and just about to have it all marrying a perfect man, and by her nature, rejects it all.  Claire is  dark-haired, gaunt in appearance and his given her life over to her very successful husband and perfect son, and yearns for Justine’s life.  This is literally set against the backdrop of the discovery of a new planet named Melancholia that’s careening through space, supposedly only going to pass by Earth.

That’s the broad description of Melancholia, a movie that I’ve been looking forward to for quite some time.  Danish director/provocateur Lars von Trier wrote and directed the film which has been receiving great acclaim.  That acclaim has been overshadowed by statements made by von Trier during a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival.  Those statements revolved around von Trier expressing some sympathy for Nazis in comparison to what he goes through directing a film.  As a result of those statements, von Trier has since been banned from Cannes and he has actively said that he’ll no longer participate in any sort of press setting.  I’ve seen the video of his making the statements, and from my point of view, it was more of von Trier basically putting his foot in his mouth rather than any sort of real Nazi sympathy.  Anyone who knows von Trier’s work knows that he likes to provoke and push buttons, and that’s all he was doing with this press conference, but at least from my point of view, it was hardly in any sort of malicious way.  Of course, I say this as an American who just doesn’t have the same perspective that the foreign press does, and so naturally, I tend to think this was all unfortunately overblown.

Will this affect how a potential viewer will come into this?  Honestly, I don’t know.  I know it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the film at all and I’d just hope that if you’re of the mind to see it, you’ll certainly give it a chance.

As I said above, von Trier like to push the buttons and it’s evident in all of his work.  He certainly does it with Melancholia with his two main characters who I don’t see as necessarily being “characters” per se, but more the personification of different aspects of woman in general.  Their portrayal can be seen as both sensitive and pretentious and that can certainly come at odds for how you’ll feel about them by the end.  I’ve come to embrace the pretentiousness of von Trier’s work simply because he knows how to balance it all with effective technical proficiency and leaves it all open to lively discussion.  Justine and Claire are at first glance, somewhat simplistic metaphors.  But after post-viewing examination, there’s way more there to go after if you’re inclined.  I’ve described how I see them in broad strokes, but as is the case with all of von Trier’s movies, he invites you to bring your pads and cleats to play and make your own interpretation.

It’s an absolutely beautiful looking movie that brings to play all of von Trier’s visual tricks.  Pristine composed shots that work in tandem with intentionally jittery handheld camera moments all designed to provoke and force the viewer to put together the pieces.  von Trier uses excerpts from Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde to punctuate his scenes and furthers the haunting beauty of his film.

Kirsten Dunst plays Justine and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays Claire.  Dunst has certainly received much acclaim for the work, even winning the Best Actress award at Cannes for her work here.  It’s no doubt her most complicated work, though as a character, she comes off very unsympathetic, but as I said above, I couldn’t just see her as a character alone, but more as an aspect/concept given personification.  It’s a very show-y performance in comparison to what Gainsbourg has to do and so for some, Claire might come out more slighted in the end.  But again, as a concept given personification, Claire is certainly true to how she’s set up.  That set-up is quite literally the polar opposite of Justine, and so it would seem fitting that she’s more downplayed.

von Trier has assembled some capable support for Dunst and Gainsbourg, but they’re strictly support to his concepts.  Stellan Skarsgård and Alexander Skarsgård play Justine’s boss and husband-to-be respectively (though they’re not related in the film).  John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling play Justine’s and Claire’s divorced parents who act more as definition to Justine more than anything else.  Keifer Sutherland and Cameron Spurr play Claire’s husband, John and son, Leo and again, act as definition to her concept.  It’s all good work, but as I said above, it’s strictly support for Dunst and Gainsbourg.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again, I’m a huge fan of Lars von Trier and any new movie from him is an event for me.  I found Melancholia to be mesmerizing, though I don’t think it will be that way for most, unless you know what you’re getting into with a Lars von Trier movie.  His movies aren’t passive experiences and require an audience to bring in their own interpretation.  His bleak outlook on life won’t give you a feel-good experience, but will certainly give you plenty to ponder after the fact, as long as you’re willing to take the ride.  Anti-Christ was von Trier’s “horror” film and now with Melancholia we’ve got his science fiction film, though they only fit the genres in the broadest of ways.  von Trier’s films have worked as trilogies and both Anti-Christ and Melancholia look like they’re the first two parts of a new one (I’d love to see what he’d do with his own version of an “action” film- though I’d also like to see him finish the trilogy that he started with Dogville and Manderlay).  Regardless of what he does next, I’ll be there to see it and I certainly do recommend Melancholia very highly.

J. Edgar, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, tells us the story of J. Edgar Hoover through his nearly 50-year career of building and leading the FBI.  With a script from Dustin Lance Black (Milk), J. Edgar doesn’t give a thoroughly detailed history, but more takes the route of a complex character study.  For the most part, it’s a pretty darn good movie, though it does have it’s flaws.

The framework used involves Hoover dictating his memoirs using various FBI agents through the 60s and early 70s.  Within this, the narrative jumps around through time starting with Hoover’s beginnings with the Justice Department all the way up through his time as FBI director under president Richard Nixon.

Throughout this, we see Hoover defined through his relationships with three people- his right-hand man at the FBI, Clyde Tolson, his mother, Annie Hoover and his personal secretary, Helen Gandy.  The most defining moments occur with Tolson and Hoover’s mother.  These moments are also the ones that most define Hoover’s repressed homosexuality, and show how that repression gave him his drive for power using questionable methods.  The relationships with his mother and Tolson are very strong and defining, but they don’t show a complete picture.  Where it falls short is with Hoover’s relationship with his secretary, who in the end does the most to preserve Hoover’s legacy.

Helen Gandy starts off as an object of desire for a young Hoover before he’s been made the head of the FBI.  She rebuffs his advancements and prefers to keep their relationship on a professional level.  Hoover makes her his personal secretary.  Gandy stays with him up to his death, being (as shown in the movie) the only person who knows what’s in all of the personal files that Hoover kept on people like Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.  She’s loyal to him to the end, but the reason why for that extreme loyalty is never really touched upon and to me anyway makes this a huge fault in the film.  Hoover commanded respect for more than just intimidation with his power, and Helen Gandy would’ve been the ideal way to show that.  Now this can be easily explained away that there just wasn’t too much source material on Gandy to make these speculations and that’s certainly understandable, but without this, this portrait just isn’t as complete as it should be.

The movie covers Hoover’s accomplishments in broad strokes primarily focusing on Hoover’s early days of busting Communists and tracking down the suspect in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindburgh baby.  Little is said of Hoover during the McCarthy era of hunting Communists other than Hoover calling McCarthy an opportunist.  Involvement with John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King is touched upon, but with little depth, with his dealings with Robert Kennedy being the biggest exception.  Thanks to what’s shown around the Lindburgh kidnapping, we are shown the major advancements of the use of forensic evidence in crime investigation and I certainly appreciated that aspect of Hoover’s career being shown.  This is a long movie, weighing in at 137 minutes and even at that length, Eastwood and Black bit off a little more than they could chew.  I’m not necessarily expecting this to be a total history of the FBI, but I would expect that other key historical events would’ve had more to say about Hoover’s character, beyond just his personal relationships.

Now with that said, J. Edgar is still very much recommended to see.  The reason for that is in it’s tour-de-force performance from Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role.  For a time after Titanic I used to roll my eyes whenever I saw DiCaprio in something that had him as a more mature character, but after he made The Aviator with Martin Scorsese that all started to change.  Now, I think DiCaprio’s one of the very best actors out there thanks to movies like The Departed and Inception. His portrayal as J. Edgar Hoover is the driving force of this film and it’s just spectacular.  With deliberate and careful vocal intonation and an intensity in his eyes, DiCaprio’s Hoover isn’t just a man to be extremely despised or thoroughly celebrated.  In my eyes, it might be his best performance yet.

Armie Hammer plays Clyde Tolson and it’s certainly a far cry from his performance as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. He’s way more obvious about his homosexuality in comparison to DiCaprio’s Hoover and he’s the conscience of the film.  Where Hammer’s performance falls a little short is in scenes with him playing an older Tolson.  It’s not so much Hammer’s performance as it’s more with the make-up used to age him, it’s just not as convincing as that used with DiCaprio, and thus weakens the performance.

Dame Judi Dench plays Annie Hoover and next to DiCaprio’s performance, it’s the next best in the film.  Hoover’s drive is certainly well represented thanks to what Dench does with the part.  Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy and because of what I talked about above, she’s the least of our main cast.  It’s no fault of her own, she just doesn’t not have the meat that everyone else has to work with and it’s not only a shame for her, but also for the movie as a whole.

J. Edgar is a complex character study that’s worth seeing for Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance alone.  I came away from this film with more respect for Hoover than I had before even though he had some despicable methods for getting what he wanted.  That respect comes from what Leonardo DiCaprio brought to the table.  There is a man there that thoroughly believed what he was doing was the right thing and the way DiCaprio plays it, you just can’t quantify it as being completely good or evil, but necessary for how J. Edgar Hoover saw that the job needed to be done.