20th Century Women

Ever since the Oscar nominations came out, I have been obsessed with the idea of seeing all the movies. Have I actually seen any? Well....like I said. Obsessed. Idea.

But today I drove myself downtown to the little theater to see a movie by myself. Seeing a movie by myself during the day feels like even more of an indulgence than just seeing a movie. I should say that I did, in fact, see a Sundance movie during the day about two weeks ago, but that's ancient history now. On with the Oscars!!

So I should just say that, before today, I had seen Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea, and La La Land. Of those, Moonlight is my favorite. I love the look of it, and the acting, and the emotional melancholy of it. Also, it felt real and emotional without being sappy or trite. (Also, aside, am I the only one who thinks Andre Holland should star in a Prince biopic? I mean, eyelashes!!) I liked Manchester by the Sea, I think Casey Affleck was amazing in it (but he's also an asshole?), but it's all white people all the time. La La Land was good, but ultimately disappointing (sorry!!).

Which brings me to 20th Century Women. Oh. My. God. I love it so much that I'm probably not being completely honest about its flaws (it must have flaws, right?). But I LOVE the form of it, and I LOVE Annette Bening, and I LOVE the kid who plays Jamie. I love Greta Gerwig more than I have loved her in other things and holy shit, Billy Crudup. I mean, I can't believe it didn't get nominated for Best Picture.  I think the script is better than La La Land for sure. Oh well.

This movie is especially powerful/heartbreaking for those of us with sons, and maybe particularly with sons who are the exact age as the son in the movie, Jamie.

The movie is witty and wry and smart and sad. If you haven't yet, you should read this profile of Mike Mills from The New Yorker. Once I read it, I became obsessed with seeing the movie. I found his comments in the profile interesting, especially about making art and his relationship with his wife, Miranda July. For some reason, he thinks she is more of an artist than he is, but I would disagree. I thought her movie was flat and self-indulgent. His movie, I think, is transcendent and emotional and real, as well as being formally innovative and interesting. 

It is just so, so good that I would see it again if I weren't so obsessed with the idea that I can see nine movies in 19 days. Oh, that's totally doable. Except that I'm rather ho-hum at the prospect of seeing Hacksaw Ridge, so I might not see that. But I would totally see the rest, but I might not get to.

What is your favorite movie of the year?

Sundance: First Weekend

This is my second year volunteering at Sundance, at the Grand Theater on the SLCC-South City campus. It's a huge (huge!) venue, 1100 seats!, so I see a lot of people during the two movies that play during my volunteer shifts.
This year I am part of the "inside theater" team, which means I do a variety of things. On the first day, Saturday, I worked re-entry on the balcony. On Sunday, I handed out and collected ballots for the first movie, and ushered for the second.
Saturday was pretty easy. It had snowed over night, so the first movie was pretty slow. Overall, all of that day was pretty calm.
I'll run down the movies in order and give you my reviews!
"Novitiate": This movie was set in the '60s. It was about a young woman, Kathleen, who grows up and decides to become a nun. Most of the movie was set in the convent and followed the young women as they take their first vows, confess to their flaws (yikes!), and then go through the changes as a result of Vatican 2. This movie was interesting. It dragged in parts, but I certainly learned a lot about convents and nuns. I anticipated the obligatory lesbian love scene, but was disappointed when it actually happened. I'm sure it's accurate, but it feels cliched. In any case, I'm glad I saw it as it wasn't a movie I would ever have chosen. And I learned a lot. I'd give it TWO stars (out of five).

"Their Finest": This movie follows a young woman during WWII as she becomes a writer for a propaganda feature film that is supposed to increase morale. This movie was occasionally heavy, but overall it was a comedy, based on a true story, or true stories. I thought this one was very good. All the actors were great, especially Bill Nighy. He's always great. Parts seemed heavy handed, but all in all, I would recommend it. THREE stars.

On Sunday, I worked as a balloteer. This meant handing out ballots as people went in, then collecting them in a ballot box as they left. Crazy town!! People going in were very serious about rushing in and getting the absolute best seats. It was so hard to hand out ballots quickly. My co-balloteer said, "That was the worst ten minutes of my life."
I got to see the movie "Chasing Coral" which was probably the MOST beautiful movie I have ever seen. When I heard it was about coral, I thought it would be boring. First, they have the most amazing footage of underwater scenery I have ever seen. Sea Dragons!
Also, they have amazing scientists, etc. But the main character, besides coral, turns out to be Zack, this adorable young man (he's probably in his 20s) who LOVES coral. So some of the movie follows him as he documents coral bleaching.
The whole thing is incredibly heartbreaking. Basically, global warming causes the water temperature to rise which kills coral, which kills all the other life forms that live on coral.
Also, you probably knew already, but coral IS AN ANIMAL.  I still can't get my mind around that. It seems like a plant. It is not a plant.
This movie is excellent. Everyone should see it. Warning: you will cry. About coral. Yep, you definitely will. FIVE stars!!

Luckily, the second movie was not balloted. But it had Robert Redford in it. Sadly, he was not there. But people were crazy for this movie and the theater was pretty packed! I worked as an usher. Basically this means hovering around seats that have magazines draped over them and trying to enforce the "no seat saving" rule.
"The Discovery": Basically, RR is a scientist who discovers proof of the afterlife. People start killing themselves in droves. The movie centers on Jason Segal and Rooney Mara and what happens to them. I liked much about this movie. It kind of seemed like an extended thought problem. A lot of it worked. I liked the visual representations of the afterlife. As in any movie like this, at the end, there were many questions! I had to explain parts of it to a woman sitting next to me. But it made a certain amount of sense to me. I agreed with a co-worker who said the main couple didn't really have chemistry. Agreed! I like both of them, so it was hard to see that when they kissed...no spark. But, that said, I still liked the movie and would recommend it, especially if you like the premise. FOUR stars.

I'm excited to see some movies this week, but also exhausted!! It's fun to volunteer and see movies. I also get some tickets, but last year I didn't use them all. So, I probably won't this year either. Oh well.

"Looper"

Whoa! That movie should come with a warning label. Such as, "Really violent! No, really! And there some children in this movie. You are NOT going to like what happens to them!"
But...but! In spite of that, I liked it quite a bit.
But, like any time travel movie, I left the theater with questions, QUESTIONS!?!
(My questions were not necessarily answered, but were confirmed, here.)
But anyway, you know how it is with time travel narratives, you're all like...how did he come back if....
That said, I did enjoy it.
HOWEVER, I was a little bit sad that Joseph Gordon Levitt did not look like JGL. They made his nose all weird so he would look like a young Bruce Willis, which I think was a mistake, but I guess it's easier to make someone look like they don't have cheekbones then to make them  look like they do.
Also, I did not know Emily Blunt was in it, and she was good.
Also, Jeff Daniels. Enough said.
So, yes, I'd say see it, unless you are my 11 year old son, and then I would say, maybe when you're 18.

Quick Sundance Update

On Monday, we saw "Cold Souls," and our friend Don also happened to have a ticket, so he stood in line and saved us seats. I liked it a lot and gave it four stars, but I think Middlebrow gave it three. It could have used some editing in a few places, but parts were quite lyrical and beautiful. And it was funny and tragic. I like Paul Giamatti, but I LOVE David Strathairn. The story of this film was different from your average movie, and I think the filmmaker, Sophie Barthes, did a good job of mixing the strange with the every day.
On Tuesday we saw "500 Days of Summer" with Hightouch and The Historian. I loved this film, first because it stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. What's not to love? The movie started with an author's disclaimer, and Middlebrow claimed that from that he knew it was going to be good. It was a failed romance told from the perspective of the male, which was refreshing. My only complaint was that I don't believe anyone would ever break up with JGL. It's just not believable. He's adorable! I loved the dance number and the transtitions between scenes. This movie was part of the Premieres, not in competition, which means it already has distribution, etc. I think it could be quite successful, because it is funny and a little heartbreaking. Also, did I mention Josephy Gordon-Levitt? And his adorableness? Definitely see this movie when it comes to a theater near you. I'm sorry, but I don't know when that will be.

The Death of the Superhero: A Lamentation

I know I am not going to endear myself to all the movie lovers out there with this one, but. But....MB and I finally saw "Dark Knight" and we were not, to put it mildly, impressed. We mostly thought it was too long and too violent. As MB said, that's 2 and a half hours of our lives we're never going to get back. It was hard not to think that for the price of "Dark Knight" one could make 8 or so independent films that aren't perfect, but still leave you with something. Something!
What did I not like about it? So many things. Too much pointless violence. I know, I know, "cartoon" violence, but the Joker didn't feel cartoony, he felt much too cynical and real, with his knives and crazy makeup.
The film didn't have a coherent narrative arc, it had about 3 sub-narratives, none of which were central and therefore none of which were satisfying.
The fight scenes? I have to agree with the Davids (Edelstein and Denby) that they were so confusing. I couldn't figure out what was going on half the time. And mostly I didn't care. I did like the one stunt with the semi that flipped over.
I know that Heath Ledger will probably get an Oscar, because he should have received one for "Brokeback," but I didn't find his performance that great. It was probably the best thing in the movie, but that's not saying much. I mostly kept thinking about the dark places he had to go to in order to play that kind of role, and how that led to his taking drugs in order to sleep and that led to his death. Pretty sad.
I forgot that I had taken a vow not to see any more violent movies, and now I will enforce that promise. Luckily, MB has taken it too.
Mostly, I'm sad that superhero movies are no longer for kids. All the superhero movies I've seen lately are not really pitched to kids ("Iron Man," "Hancock") in the way "Superman" was when we were kids. I know optimism and a belief in justice aren't really popular these days, but what's wrong with letting kids believe in Superman? That he could reverse time in order to save Lois Lane? It's cheesy, I know. It's beyond cheesy. But I, for one, am sad that we live in such a post-post modern era that the only superheroes we have are not suitable for children. Is it really so hard to make a movie in which the violence consists of a few punches to the jaw instead of a man with half a burned face threatening a child with a gun? I mean really.
Mostly I'm just bummed that the movie seemed so pointless. At the end, I was just glad it was over. And I was really, really tired.
(for the record, MB wants it noted that he also disliked the movie. Greatly.)

Synecdoche, New York

We had a lovely time last night with Hightouch Megastore and the Historian. First we went to see "Synecdoche, New York," then we had dinner at a funky little place downtown.
Having finally seen the film, I allowed myself to read the reviews this morning. I had, actually, read the New York Times review, which is glowing. But my favorite was this review by Roger Ebert. I felt like Ebert really got the movie (in a way that I didn't!), but also that he was generous and smart, which I appreciate.
So: what's my reaction? First, I thought it was huge and sprawling, and ambitious, all of those good. I also thought it was beautiful. And a mess. A bit of a mess. I agree with Ebert that maybe I need to see it again to really get it, which I think is to Kaufman's credit. And I think the average American movie viewer (the people who made "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" the number one movie in America, at least for a time) are not going to have the patience for it. And that's fine, I think. Not everyone loves everything. I'm not saying it's above them, but that it takes attention and time. I mean, these are the people (sorry, Hightouch) who are sleeping overnight on sidewalks to see "Twilight." Maybe this movie is not for them.
So, I think this movie is for me. And, as one of its intended audience members, I have to say I felt bewildered at times. And, now, I think this is the point. The movie is not supposed to feel like a "movie" but like life. Sometimes it doesn't make sense. It's confusing. A lot of the time, you feel bad. You wish some of the events had gone other ways. When the characters are gone, you miss them and want them to come back. You want more of Adele. Where's Adele? Gone.
Much of the movie is touching and funny.
Okay, I have to say it: Kaufman is a genius. Damn him!