Noah

NOTE: MILD SPOILERAGE IN PARAGRAPH 5, IF YOU WORRY ABOUT THAT.

Noah came out yesterday, and it is a notable break in the typical cinematic dry spell of spring. It is also one of the more controversial movies to come out for a while, with many people claiming that it is disrespectful, if not sacrilegious. I will say that while it certainly isn't the Noah movie you would have made yourself, it is not the flat Roland Emmerich-style disaster flic or ground-up or cynical deconstruction you thought it might be, either.

The story is what is in the Bible: Noah (Russell Crowe) is told by the Creator (as God is called in the movie) to build an ark for his family and all the animals in advent of the destruction of the world. Non-believers led by Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) find out and aren't happy, and there is the ensuing drowning-related drama one would expect.

A chief point of controversy is that the film was co-written, co-produced, and directed by Darren Aronofsky, an atheist who makes (putting it mildly) pretty weird stuff. His approach here seems to be the same approach any of us might take when looking at Hercules or Gilgamesh: that of somebody else's foundational myth. He delves into extra-canonical legends and fabricates stuff to fill out the brief Biblical account. And, generally, his telling works, so long as you aren't expecting authoritative doctrinal exposition. I think the same rule applies here as it does to any adaptation: IT WILL BE DIFFERENT. 

That said, it is no soulless action movie. There are certainly sequences of rain-soaked, Peter Jackson-esque heroics, but much more of the film is a study of faith versus reality. It somehow takes the complicated role of both criticizing faith and being in awe of it. The scenes detailing miracles or the creation are actually pretty awe-inspiring, and can probably fit within your own theological framework. On the other hand, it doesn't ignore the fact that Noah, because of his faith, will effectively kill lots of people by not letting them on the ark with him. It also takes into account the times when God seems silent and one is left alone to choose.

Actually, I think Mr Aronofsky is here criticizing religious fanaticism rather than faith generally. Every time faith is shown by a character it is an inspiring moment, even in its mythological terms. The rub comes when the line between obedience and zealotry becomes vague. The non-believers have their own bloodthirsty, cultish beliefs which, as juxtaposed with Noah's decisions, make his righteousness seem almost as barbaric. It is here that a subplot is introduced involving Noah's belief that there is to be no more mankind after his family's eventual death, that the Creator is purging all humanity and only needed Noah to save the animals. This leads him to want to kill his gestating grandchild, which is understandably disliked by his family. I suspect that this, more than anything else, is where most of the controversy actually stems. And, I'm not sure it really even fits in the story Mr Aronofsky is telling. It seems pretty forced, something to give us drama after the waters recede and all the baddies have drowned, and it kind of derails the last third of the movie. Make of it what you will.

Technically speaking, the film is pretty good. The color palette feels somehow pre-historic: it gives the impression that it takes place on an Earth we don't have access to anymore, something still freshly post-Eden. The script is often the weak element in any given scene: the ideas it contains and meditates on are cool, but the dialogue is rarely more than functional. One final note: there is a continuous shot of the creation of the world as told by Noah, following the formation of the universe through the the appearance of man that, is super awesome. If you don't want to see the movie, wait for this clip to be online and find it just for its own sake.

Overall, I think much of the brew-ha-ha isn't entirely warranted. For all its departures, the film does tell the complete story of Noah. On the other hand, it is in the departures that contemporary concerns like environmentalism and religion are considered. So I say, check it out if you can separate it from Sunday school, but if you like your Noah the way you know him, it won't be a major loss.

Noah features Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, and Anthony Hopkins, and is rated PG-13 for violent stuff.

Writers: Darren Aronofsky & Ari Handel
Director: Darren Aronofsky

Special #10: Gone With the Wind

It's been a while since I've run an Oscar feature (I know you've missed them), and since the ceremony is this week I thought we'd have a go with 1939's seminal Gone With the Wind. This might actually be interesting for some of you because many of you have seen this, or have at least heard of it. As for me, it is certainly a spectacle, but I'm not totally sure how I feel about it.

The movie is the adaptation of Margaret Mitchell's novel about the fall of the south in the Civil War. It is a passionate romance of characters and place, and the adaptation has become one of the icons of American cinema.

And, truly, every inch of it is iconic. The photography is lush and evocative of the much-romanced south we all think of. Its scope is monumental (the movie comes in at just under 4 hours), a dramatic megalith on the scale of Wagner. It is worth the watch if only to witness the perfection of craft in such a young industry. But then, there is also the rest of it about which I am conflicted.

Most of that "rest of it" is the protagonist, Scarlett O'Hara, embodied by Vivien Leigh. The first time I watched the movie several years ago, I HATED it because of one or the both of them. Leigh has always bothered me as an actress (see: A Streetcar Named Desire), but her character in the movie is just as irritating. Of course, that is her arc, falling from spoiled plantation queen to fending for her very existence as the Northern imperialists rape the land she grew up on. Upon second viewing I have become more sympathetic, but only some. The movie is made watchable because of Clark Gable's potrayal of Rhett Butler, Scarlett's lover. By the end I felt to cheer as he finally tells her what I have been wishing to tell her the entire movie.

Is such an irritating character and her portrayal worth so much of your life in exchange for unfiltered cinematic beauty? This is one of the deeper questions pursuers of art must face. Why do you like watching movies? Is it for their aesthetic quality, for stories that resonate with you or challenge you, or some combination of these or other factors? Does a broken and frustrating character make a "bad" movie? I don't know, but this is why we watch anyway.

There are lots of ill feelings on my part, but overall I still think this is one of the more important films of our history. Together with The Wizard of Oz, also from the same year, color film signaled an important, if slow, industry shift. It is one of the rare films that becomes immortal on its own. Many require several adaptations or sequels, but Gone With the Wind sits in a very privileged class. It is appropriately ubiquitous, even if it remains divisive. I recommend it both as an historical artifact and as a worthy film.

Gone With the Wind features Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard, and Hattie McDaniel, and is not rated.

Writer: Sydney Howard

Director: Victor Fleming

Also, if you don't feel like four hours, here's the condensed version from Carol Burnett:

The Lego Movie

Well do I remember my days as a carefree lad, playing with my beloved Lego sets. My brother and I would devote hours on end to carefully creating worlds for our tiny Lego figurines to inhabit. We would follow meticulous instructions in order to build the models just right, and a lost piece was something truly lamentable.

Some friends also enjoyed Legos, but they combined all of their sets into one massive pile and drew thence to construct their own crude creations. This was something I never understood, because THAT IS HOW YOU LOSE PIECES. This denominational difference often caused strife when these friends would come over to play.

By now hopefully you've seen The Lego Movie but if you haven't, this conflict provides the central conceit of the movie: what happens when a maniacal overlord is seeking to destroy your world by ensuring that every block remains precisely in place? The Lego Movie is just as much fun as it should be, subversively reveling in everything that made playing with Legos great in the first place.

To be clear, it is not the giant multi-franchise commercial it easily could have been. Here, Lego is the medium, not the product. The animation resembles the stop-motion movies grown up nerds like me might make, but the scale is impossible and enviable for the amateur. Here, Batman, Gandalf, and NBA All-Stars mingle freely (and hilariously). It is an immensely enjoyable adventure.

I said that Lego was the medium, and I would like to explain that. So often, nostalgic properties are turned into movies for only vaguely artistic reasons. Think of disasters like Battleship or successful travesties like Transformers. The only reason for their existence is to mine happy memories for money. Even the upcoming Mr Peabody & Sherman looks more like a cheap base hit than anything else. The Lego Movie felt different because it is at once respectful and cheekily self-aware. On the one hand, it manages to remain true to everybody's own Lego memories and adventures, and on the other it knows that it is a commercial endeavor, and takes delight in not taking that fact very seriously.

The movie is truly funny, and makes brilliant use of established and contemporary pop culture references. My one quibble with that is that it won't become a "classic": much of its humor is too closely grounded in the present for kids a few years from now to really get. Not that it's important, because the best kid's movies are adult-savvy as well.

So I say that The Lego Movie is enormously fun and more than worth braving the crowds of 10-year-olds to see. I would even claim that your love would probably rather watch it than Endless Love or Winter's Tale this weekend, but maybe that's just me.

The Lego Movie features Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell, and all kinds of other hilarious people, and is rated PG mostly for an instance of non-graphic Lego nudity.

Writers: Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

Directors: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Here we are at the beginning of a new year, hooray and all that. My first cinematic foray of the year was Ben Stiller's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, out at Christmas. People have complained that it isn't really "true" to the iconic story by James Thurber, but I will suggest the possibly-heretical idea that this movie does well what most adaptations don't. Isn't that provocative? 

The story centers around Walter (Stiller), a lonely man whose life is only filled with the excitement his imagination creates for him. He makes up for in fantasy what his real life lacks. And, truly, this is the only commonality shared between the film and the story. The rest is totally fabricated. But I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.

At first, though, this vexed me. The story is considerably more despairing than the film, with Walter's final flight of fancy taking him stoically before a firing squad. It seems a disappointing life will always be there. The movie, though, always optimistic if sometimes cute, never gets that grim. Its premise is certainly sugar-coated, but also pretty valid. A man is not what he does, but really just what he is.

An early scene sees Walter trying to send a "wink" to somebody on an online dating service. The site, though, doesn't let him, because his profile is found wanting. Simply because his life hasn't been glamorous and successful enough means he is disqualified from participation in it. We have created a society built on this, particularly with social media. Remember last month when Facebook kept wanting to show you your biggest moments from the year? Those were the things other people thought were important by "liking" them, and may not have really mattered at all.

This is what Walter Mitty made me think about, and actually led to my enjoyment of it. There is despair in Stiller's Walter, but resolve also, and dedication. These are things he always had: his journey doesn't bring them out in him, but rather helps him respect and like who he already is.

Now, it is a pretty soft-cornered movie that doesn't ask or really give much in the end, or (more frustratingly) fully deliver on a promising premise, but after sleeping on it I think it is a fair adaptation, in the truer sense of that word. Indeed, it is often better than many "truer" adaptations, choosing to be a movie of its own and expressing itself in that medium. It is a fun watch, and certainly better than most of what gets thrown at the comfortably PG adult.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty features Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig, Sean Penn, Adam Scott and Jon Daly, and is rated PG for daydreaming adventures and name-calling.

Writer: Steve Conrad

Director: Ben Stiller

PS: There is another film about Walter, made in 1947 and featuring Danny Kaye as well as dream-dazzling Technicolor that looks slightly (and only slightly) more based in the text, if that is your thing.

5 of My Favorites and 1 I Wish Hadn't Happened

It's the end of the year, and I've put together a list of five of my favorite movies from 2013. This doesn't mean I consider these the best of the year, but these are the ones that have stayed with me. Narrowing down the list was a little tricky, and there are some on the cutting room floor that deserve a little more (sorry, Pacific Rim). But what can you do? Also included at the bottom is my single biggest regret of the year, cinematically speaking. The favorite list is ordered chronologically.

1. Oblivion

The one ray of light at the beginning of the year was this piece of sci-fi from April. This is a movie that I liked then, and has grown on me since. The whole thing feels cohesive, that it is all a part of its own world. The design, the story, the music, all work together to produce a couple of hours of entertaining getaway. It has a peculiar beauty and emotional current running through it that resonated with me. I know there were haters then, and you've probably forgotten about it now, but I'd say to give it a shot one night.

2. Kings of Summer

This one is I think less divisive, but also less circulated. It was a hit at Sundance, but I don't know that much of our local theatre-going public saw much of it. It is on DVD now, so there isn't any excuse. This movie really freshened up the coming-of-age genre for me. It is hilarious and touching and exciting, and it has a distinctive flavor. It is one of those that is as enjoyable watching the second time around as the first, because there is so much to experience. It isn't overwhelmingly dense, but each frame is loaded with summer and adolescence and things to be relived. It is sure to have something that you thought only you and your teenage friends ever did.

3. Blue Jasmine

My favorite character movies of the year came from one of my most idolized directors, Woody Allen. I feel that this is among his strongest movies to date, and much of that is because of Cate Blanchett. She is wonderful. There are so many layers to her character that many actresses might overlook or overexpose, but her precise, delicate touch is at once thrilling and tragic to watch. It is a tragedy for the 21st century. For all its drama and weight there is still some dark humor, but do not look for any comic neuroticism here. Allen writes best when he writes like this, and it is a treat.

4. Gravity

Of the movies I've seen this year, Gravity was the most unexpected and surprising. I do not remember such an engrossing, pervasive experience at a theatre. Fun-killers will say that its science is dubious, but since when are we watching a documentary? The elements that make it such a great movie are all sterling: the visual effects, the story being told, its sheer experiential quality. It is movies like this, not flashy action hoedowns and gaudy studio look-at-me's, that make going to the movies the special event it can be, and I'm glad that can still happen in our skeptical age.

5. 12 Years a Slave

I'm the first to be wary when people call a movie "important". It's a movie, not a movement. It is first a piece of art; anything else comes later and is often fleeting. I think the title "important" can only be bestowed decades later, when history has given it a more objective scrutinization. But, 12 Years a Slave is a movie that feels momentous once it is over. Its narrative is vital, and its delivery is flawless. It is respectful, but truthful, and will eventually become a part of our canon of art and literature devoted to the story of slavery. It is still playing, and I urge you to go.

.....

We have come to the real reason you are reading this, to discover what I was hating on enough to decry it in writing. There were disappointments this year, as there are every year. After Earth and Man of Steel come to mind. The one has suffered its anonymous death already, but the other has spawned offspring bred to combat Marvel's unstoppable box-office force. However the movie I speak of here was one that perhaps promised more, and has greater expectations trailing it. And that movie is Star Trek Into Darkness.

To be brief, I will say that its sins are many and grievous, but the chiefest of these is the central conceit itself. The character of Khan and his consequences for our heroes mean nothing more to uninitiated fans, and ruin the greatest entry of the franchise for everybody else. I am not worried about the rest of the Star Trek franchise, because nothing worse can be done to it, but I am most concerned about a certain other intergalactic property to which JJ Abrams is attached. I know not all of a film's problems can be pinned to the director (I look now at writer Damon Lindelof, who almost ruined the Alien world with his Prometheus meddlings in addition to killing Star Trek) but he most certainly signed off on their being given life. Star Wars: Episode VII has a LOT of convincing to do.

Those are my year-end thoughts, so what about yours? What were your favorite discoveries and hurtful let-downs?