Just watched...

...Terrence Malick's 2011 masterpiece "The Tree Of Life."

I had been meaning to see Malick’s “The Tree Of Life” ever since it came out in 2011 and won the Palme d’Or at Cannes. I love Malick’s films, and I have “The Thin Red Line” listed on my All-Time Favorite Films List to the right on this page. But after hearing a lot of general grousing about this film, I was a little anxious. I had hoped it was not “incomprehensible” as many critics claimed. Even the word “pretentious” was leveled at it. But that actually gave me a clue as to what to expect. I have noticed, after my many years of being here on this planet, that when people sneer slightly and use the word “pretentious” to describe a piece of art—film, painting, sculpture, dance, etc.—they might as well be saying “I’m too stupid to understand what that was about. I suspect as much and that threatens me because I don’t want to appear stupid. So I am going to attack it and set myself higher.” I am not saying that a piece of art can’t fail, can’t lack for anything, or can’t fall short of its aim. If that is the case, it is better to be specific… as specific as possible. Calling something “pretentious” just does not cut it. What about it made you think it was pretentious? Was the story convoluted? In what way? Did you feel pieces of the narrative were left out or not alluded to? Were there leaps in logic that did not make sense? Did you feel the theme was unfulfilled because of costume choices, lighting choices, music choices? Was the acting flat or unbelievable? Was the melody based on something else or uninspired altogether? Did it fail to engender emotion in you? WHY? Just saying that something is “pretentious” is not enough. If you make a sweeping dismissive comment without anything to back it up, then you look like the fool you are trying not to be. And if you automatically label anything that is trying to say something profound as “pretentious,” that is proof that you can’t grasp larger concepts. To make a large-concept piece of art, the artist, whether novelist or director or composer, must reach, must take the risk and work on a grand scale. Profundity is not automatic grounds for criticism or penalty but there are many who are threatened by such vision. I don't think I have ever earnestly used the word "pretentious" in my life. It is a meaningless, hollow word for me.

Terrence Malick was a philosophy major under Stanley Cavell at Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa so it is only natural that he would involve very large concepts in his original screenplays and films. As I mentioned above, “The Thin Red Line” is one of my favorite films and considering his background, it is clear to see in that film existential ideas translated into poetry… cleverly disguised as a war film (at the end of the day, it is anything but). When an artist makes a large-concept statement, I like to pay attention. It is rare to begin with that someone dares to make a large-concept statement and it shouldn’t be dismissed with an easy wave of the hand as “pretentious.” And “The Tree Of Life” is one of the largest artistic statements I have ever seen on film. The scope, the intent, the vastness of what Malick conveys in it is breathtaking, heart-stopping, mind boggling. I don’t want to give away too much detail. As I have said here on “Oh, By The Way” in past film reviews, I don’t want to take away the special experience of seeing a film for the first time, seeing a film the way the director intended, for everything to come at you fresh. I will say that on the surface, and really, it is only the surface, the film is a study of a rather dysfunctional family in Texas in the 1950s and 60s. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are stunning as Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien. Having said that, I assure you the point of this film is not the family themselves, and I have not given anything away in this magical film. No, not magical...magical is diminutive. That word makes it sounds like something for children. It is… it is holy. And I absolutely do not mean that in an “organized religion” way. It is holy in the sense of "transcendent." Malick has dared to tell a story that transcends itself. It references a reality and truth that renders the story into its own context, and by extension, does so for all of our lives. We all exist in our own context but belong to something much, much, much larger; something we cannot hold in our minds for long without losing hold of where we are, who we are, what we do, what we wish for and live for. But there it is. That is the truth. The film encompasses and is a survey of this duel nature of the universe itself ("grace" and "nature"), of creation and destruction and the very human, mistaken way of seeing those two things as separate entities. Remember: transcendence. Despite the fact that characters in the film are religious and talk to “God,” the film is decidedly anti-religion with the juxtaposition of individual lives and situations against the beginning and end of our solar system. How ridiculous to talk to a pretend man in the sky and ask questions about "why" things do or don't happen when all around us screams and reels the workings of the cosmos itself through the birth of stars in stellar nurseries, the evolution of life, and the eventual entropy and collapse of all. There is an enormous difference between "religion" and "spirit"... they are separated by light years.

The impressionistic, non-linear narrative of "The Tree Of Life" reminds me somewhat of Tarkovsky’s “The Mirror” in that it is an assortment, a mélange, a kaleidoscope of experiences, memories, thoughts, fantasies. And not just of one person, as in the case of "The Mirror," but of a group of people. Just like “The Mirror,” telling a story this way is very dream-like and creates a direct path to the pre-conscious. And in this way, “The Tree Of Life” is one of the few films in the history of cinema that are actually purely cinematic, just like dreams. Film is a visual medium and Malick uses it to his full advantage, giving us a vast expanse of information and ideas visually, without much dialogue. When people speak in the film, or more commonly when we hear their whispered thoughts and inner monologue, it is as if someone has called your name while you are asleep. Dreams can only convey a narrative or an idea to us in one way: it shows us pictures. A dream can’t—and indeed does not need to—tell us what it wants us to know, it shows us. That is the language of signifiers. That is the primordial, pre-conscious language of our psyches, our souls. That is our first, original language before words. Watch. Look. See. Understand. We are given everything Malick wants us to grasp, but not in a way that matters on this physical plane. While the visuals are gorgeous and pristinely filmed—the film is a miraculous, true study of present moments (the way Tarkovsky studied rain hitting a tree leaf, for example)— and the special effects are some of the best I have ever seen, one must interpret and feel “The Tree Of Life” for it to work.

Recommend? If any of this review resonates with you, if any of what I have said strikes a chord with you, then please, by all means, partake of this transcendent artistic experience. Invest in it.
Watch. Look. See. Understand.

http://www.twowaysthroughlife.com/
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thetreeoflife/

Just watched...

...Tarsem Singh's dark fairy tale "The Fall."

Tarsem Singh has been on my radar since his first film "The Cell" which was a highly stylized hallucinatory exploration of the psyche of a serial killer. Unfortunately it starred Jennifer Lopez, but she was sufficient and did not detract from the dazzling imagery and the spectacle of the film (and no, she did not play the serial killer--that choice role went to phenomenal actor Vincent D'Onofrio). Singh's follow-up film to "The Cell" was a remake of a Bulgairan film called "Yo Ho Ho" and although I have not seen the original, I can tell that it is nothing at all close to what Tarsem Singh created. Again using grand sets, some built, most real locations, that are startling and surreal, along with costumes by legendary designer Eiko Ishioka (who passed away just last year) who also created the mind-blowing costumes for "The Cell," Singh made another film that is a glimpse into a world of supreme beauty and imagination. Singh's work tangentially reminds me of Greenaway's films in that they are not so much filmed as much as they are composed, like a great painting... each shot meticulously designed and executed.

The narrative takes place between two levels of reality. The first level is at a hospital in southern California in the 1920s where a young stuntman in silent films who has been injured executing a stunt tells a story to a little girl who is recovering from a broken arm. The second level is the reality of the story itself, as it transpires in the little girl's imagination and heart, and by extension, in the mind and heart of the story teller. The dramatic tension comes from the overlapping and intertwining of these two levels of reality. It is fascinating to see how the events in a made up story can alter the "real world." The result is touching, adventurous, funny, and a little cruel.

Actor Lee Pace is excellent as the troubled stunt man and then-five year old Romanian actress Catinca Utaru is a lovely little miracle to watch. Most of the scenes between her and Pace were improvised; as Pace told the story, Catinca's reactions are authentic, and, according to the bonus features and what I have read of the filming process, only marginally shaped and guided by Singh. Many of their scenes were filmed through a slit made in the hospital drapes hanging around the beds, so as not to distract Catinca from her interaction with Pace.

While it is a supremely magical film, I will note that some scenes were lifted, almost identically so, from the great film "Baraka." Singh did a similar thing in "The Cell" with certain scenes modeled after classic or surreal paintings. I can understand that as an homage to a great work of art or artist. To recreate a painting on film seems to be still somehow authentic. But lifting imagery--nearly exactly--from another film (without a reason or some sort of internal logic in the film) seems a bit like cheating. But I will say that while I was struck each time it happened ("My god," I said out loud, "that is a scene right from 'Baraka'!"), it did not derail me out of the film. There is certainly enough original imagery and spell-binding art direction to keep anyone riveted (maybe the fact that the rest of it is so original and interesting makes the lifting of "Baraka" material that much more puzzling).

Recommend? YES!

http://www.thefallthemovie.com

Just watched...

...the very recent "Silver Linings Playbook" with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.

For the SAG awards, since I am a voting SAG member, I received a screener copy of "Silver Linings Playbook" and it turned out to be a peculiar experience. I did not know too much about the film going into it, which is how I usually like to see a film. I want to experience it and have it unfold for me as the screenwriter and director intended. In an effort to give you roughly that same experience (which I generally try to do in any film or book review here on "Oh, By The Way"), Bradley Cooper plays a young man who is bi-polar. It seems like a formula for an Academy Award nomination, or even win. Characters who are mentally unstable or who have handicaps are usually sure-fire Academy fodder. But watching it was another story. It seemed at first like it was going to be a statement or exploration of bi-polarism or mental illness, perhaps commenting on the stigma that is still attached to such issues or how people with such conditions are treated. But then it seemed like it wanted to be a family drama. Well, I guess those two areas often go hand in hand. But then it seemed like it wanted to be a romantic comedy. And then it was a feel-good, can-do movie. And then... well, I don't know, it got a bit muddied by then. Are there good performances? Yes. Bradley Cooper is good and Jennifer Lawrence really stands out. De Niro seems a bit wasted, but whatever... he adds some nice texture. And was it an interesting story? Well, yes. But it just felt, stylistically speaking, disjointed. Still good. Just... peculiarly cobbled together, as though a different writer and director stepped in every 15 minutes...

Recommend? Um... okay, yeah sure.

http://silverliningsplaybookmovie.com/

Just watched...

“Argo” directed by and starring Ben Affleck.

Because I am a member of the Screen Actor’s Guild (it does say "Actor" in my profile, right?), as well as the American Federation of Television and Radio Actors since the two unions recently merged, I get screener copies of SAG Award nominated films each year (producers and the union understand screener copies help in the voting), and it is a nice way to catch up on films I have yet to see. And the awards are coming up quickly…

My first screener film to arrive in the mail was “Argo” and I was not at all prepared for how truly engrossing and effective this film is. Despite the fact that it is based on actual real world events, the outcome of which we already know, it still felt alive, immediate, and incredibly suspenseful. It felt like anything could happen. And that is good film making.

As some readers who are old enough to recall (as I do quite vividly), when the Shah was overthrown in Iran in 1979, the revolutionaries stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took hostages. The kidnapping of those men and women lasted over 400 days. But a small group of six American embassy workers managed to escape and hid out in the Canadian Embassy, until a very out-of-the-box-thinking CIA operative dreamed up a plan to fly into Iran and rescue the six. The plan revolved around creating a fictitious film production company, using an actual Hollywood script, faking Canadian passports, and marching the group out, right under the noses of the guards at the airport.

Ben Affleck did a superb job directing, giving it an air of the type of film that rarely gets made anymore. Indeed it is a filmic homage to the 70s, the last period of quality films from Hollywood. It opens with a vintage Warner Brothers logo (the three slashes that make a “W”) and I squealed, “I haven’t seen that in a long time!” There are of course a lot of production design touches to enhance the 70s feeling, like costume and music. But I can’t emphasize enough how the film relies—refreshingly—on narrative, suspense, and character, like they used to, instead of chase scenes or explosions. The entire cast is very good as well, and added to the tension and verisimilitude of the story.

There has been some criticism of the film, mostly about how it downplays the role of the Canadians in the rescue. Looking at historical fact, this seems to be true, but it does not spoil my enjoyment of the film. I am willing to give bigger thanks to our neighbors in the north for the "Canadian Caper" as it is now known, and acknowledge their extremely vital role. I also understand how films condense and edit stories for the sake of clarity, time, and overall flow. Affleck has since put a comment at the end of the film acknowledging Canada's role.

The remaining criticism is aimed at how one-sided the Iranian people are shown in the film. I can’t see that so much. I am aware, first hand, of how the Iranian people were made up of many who were Westernized, forward thinking, and liberal. In 1979, I met several people who got out of the country while they could—just before and immediately after the ousting of the Shah. The film actually does show one of the characters managing to get out of the country, so we are made aware that there was a segment of the population who saw what was coming and wanted no part of it. I know there are people still there who would love to escape. And I have a current Persian friend, whose family did get out just in time, who had no problem with how her people are portrayed in the film. So that aspect did not bother me. But let’s not forget that the rest of the American embassy workers, along with many civilians, and some non-Americans—52 of them in all—were held for 444 days; if the film is one-sided, which I feel it is not, that is a good reason to remember the events, and the people who perpetrated them, with gravitas. The film feels alive and immediate because, sadly, we find ourselves decades later in very similar territory, what with the Libyan Embassy, turmoil in the Muslim world, and continued strained relations with Iran. The events of the film could have happened last month, or perhaps will happen again.

(And on a completely personal and superficial note, Ben Affleck looks amazingly sexy with that shaggy hair and beard! In fact, he has never looked better. Yowsa!)

Recommend? YES!

http://argothemovie.warnerbros.com/#home

Just watched...

…"The Hunger Games," to see what all the fuss was about.

I did not read the Suzanne Collins novel the film is based on, and now that I have seen the film, I am not very motivated to read any of the trilogy.

I knew some things going into this film, such as the book was aimed at a young/tween audience (as is the film), there was some controversy about the violence, and that it takes place in a dystopian future a hundred plus years off. Okay, I can be on board with those things, I can work with that. Could be interesting...

But right from the beginning, I found myself on shaky ground. The film tosses off, on precious few title cards, an extremely brief explanation of how things got to be the way they are. Something something war, something uprising, kids fight to the death, something or other… and here we go. Okay, WHOA, slow the roll. Say what now?

But suddenly there I was in a future whose premise made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The mechanics of it all do get a little bit more fleshed out than that, but not by much. Apparently there was a citizen uprising many years ago, and in order to quell any such future uprisings, the fascistic government in power, once a year, takes a boy and a girl from each of the Dust-Bowl-poverty-stricken twelve districts of the nation (no longer called United States of America, but Panem), brings them to the ultra-wealthy Capitol, and drops them into a televised gladiator game to the death. SERIOUSLY.

Now, there are so many things wrong with this that I had trouble focusing on the film. I am aware that in literature for children and young adults, there is a great tradition of children and youngsters in the stories going it alone, fighting odds, doing heroic things, without the aid of adults, or often, despite the active hindrance of adults. It is to show children and young adults that they have power, that they can be brave and thoughtful and loyal, that they can figure things out too, to teach them a sense of independence. It is present in books for very young children, like the classic WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, where Max faces down a forest of untamed and ferocious animals. And then look at the HARRY POTTER series, for more advanced readers. The adults in the story, even the magical adults, are rather helpless, clueless, and stand by while Harry, Ron, and Hermione plow head long into one dangerous and literally life-threatening adventure after another. But the trio face evil itself in the bravest test of friendship and courage that could make adults shrink in fear. So yes, this theme is employed in literature for children and young adults. But creating a story where 12 to 18 year old young people are slaughtered by adults for their enjoyment oversteps the boundary of the established motif. I simply cannot imagine a culture, even a depraved and callous one, shrugging their shoulders and giving up young children to be tortured, stabbed, blown up, burned, and torn asunder by wild animals. The book, and of course by extension, the film posits that this is done by the government to prevent another uprising among the people. I cannot think of anything that would undoubtedly CAUSE an uprising more than to take helpless children and kill them. When “the people” have nothing left to lose, they will find a way to topple the regime. The fact that the population of this country has been sitting idly by for 74 years while this corporate-sponsored infanticide has been going on is bizarre. Now, I know some people would counter me with examples of the daily and systematic destruction of children around the world, in Africa, in the Middle East, even here in America, in Sandy Hook for example. And of course those things happen but they are not ritualized, glorified, held up as a “common good,” and broadcast as a “game” on television. I am fairly sure that such a culture, were it to exist, would not exist for long because, at its core, the psyche of that culture would be sick. It would not be able to sustain itself.

Okay, now that I have complained about the premise itself, it doesn’t change the fact that that is what the story is. From that point, I will say that the book, and again by extension the film has been touted as being a critique of government control and the cult of reality television, while commenting on issues of feminism, religion, poverty, and war. I saw nothing of that. Yes, it is true that the children are part of a reality television show for which they are groomed and trained like a twisted version of “The Voice” or “Dancing With The Stars.” And this particular game show results in the death of 23 contestants with only one winner. You’d think that would be a searing commentary on our current mindless culture of being voted off/ “Real Housewives of No-One-Really-Cares-Where”/”Big Brother” but it is not. If that is what the filmmakers were aiming for, they missed it, and not by “just-this-much” but by pretty far.

All in all, a mentally, emotionally, and spiritually frustrating experience. And I am sure, from what I have read, this is not a case of the film straying too far from the book (I understand that the violence was toned down for the film!). I can however separate out some worthwhile filmic elements such as acting (the kids—and some of the adults—did just fine with what they had to do), production design (which ranges from WPA Dorothea Lange photographic recreations to fascinating futuristic gadgets like holograms and mag-lev trains), and costumes (many of them outrageous hybrids of Louis XVI and Art Deco styles that reminded me a bit of Jean Paul Gaultier's work in "The Fifth Element"). Physically and visually well done. But that can’t shore up the gigantic holes in the rest of the fabric of the film.

Recommend? No.

http://www.thehungergamesmovie.com/index.html

Just watched...

...this year's "Snow White and the Huntsman" with Kristen Stewart and Charlize Theron.

I look forward to this extended holiday time at the end of every year because it means that my partner and I can catch up on films we have wanted to see, the never-ending Netflix queue, and whatever we have been saving on our TiVo for a time such as this. In between holiday dinners, we eagerly devour film after film. And this is how I came to sit through "Snow White and the Huntsman."

It seems there has been a recent surge in films that re-imagine old fairy tales. So far, this recent penchant for re-imagining simply means that a film studio adds what they think "tween" audiences want, which pretty much ruins the story and any chance for a meaningful exploration of the universality of said fairy tale, which is why such tales have survived in the collective unconscious so long.

After viewing “Snow White and the Huntsman,” much like the recent Little Red Riding Hood film “Red Riding Hood” with Amanda Seyfried, the result feels unnecessary. It was good enough, but why bother to begin with? This version of "Snow White" feels forced and dreary (I have yet to see Tarsem Singh's comedic version "Mirror, Mirror"). Kristen Stewart as Snow White seems sufficient but does not possess either the beauty that would drive a wicked queen to insane jealousy or the spirit and fortitude to command followers, as she does in this modern re-imagining. The only reason for her presence in this film is to draw in the tween "Twilight" crowd. Charlize Theron as Ravenna, the wicked queen, does a fine job with what she is given, thankfully resisting the urge to chew scenery, to which lesser actresses would have surely succumbed. Chris Hemsworth is sort of wooden, but then again, he is playing The Huntsman. Not much depth there to plumb. The only engaging parts of the film come with the addition of the dwarves (played charmingly by a superb cast of venerable British character actors), the spectacular costume design, and the impressive special effects which are seamlessly blended into the live action.

Recommend? Meh. It’s worth a look for the art design, effects, and costumes. Other than that… not really.

http://www.snowwhiteandthehuntsman.com/

Just watched...

...the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" in the on-going effort to stay on top of my "To See" list and the Netflix queue.

I remember when the new (at the time) NC-17 category came into use in the motion picture industry. It seemed to be a great way to distinguish which films to see, since anything interesting and independent has always been subject to censure. Before this category, any film that was thought to be stronger than an R-rated film was given an X-rating—which is ridiculous when one considers that in the waning days of the original Hays Code such great films as “Midnight Cowboy,” “Last Tango In Paris,” and “A Clockwork Orange” were all rated X. The first film to be rated NC-17 is the marvelous film “Henry and June.” But over the years, greed took center stage instead of story-telling, directing, or acting, and a film with an NC-17 rating now becomes pariah to any studio saddled with it. There is no money spent on advertising or promoting the film, most mainstream theater chains refuse to run NC-17 films, and such a film is pretty much doomed to utter commercial failure. It's all about what sells...and what sells is violence, guns, explosions, and a very limited, commercially sanctioned view of sex.

But what is not known to the general public is that the MPAA—the ultra-secretive, nearly-Fascistic motion picture industry organization—gives films these initials which, when investigated, ends up being completely arbitrary and meaning very little. The identities of the MPAA members are kept hidden and their draconian methods are never discussed with the outside world. It all sounds like some dreadful cult...except this cult not only influences and restricts its own members, it is actively working to restrict what the viewing public—you and me—can and can’t see, like some pinched-in, constipated, reproachful school marm.

In 2006, filmmaker Kirby Dick decided to infiltrate this bizarre cabal of supposedly “concerned parents of 5 to 17 year olds” in an attempt to discover who these people are, what hypocritical logic guides their decision making, and why they have the amount of power they do in the first place.

And what the film discovers is really at once shocking, expected (how film references of sensuality are excised almost always in favor of violence, which plays into the United States’ grotesque fascination with guns), and frustrating. In their entry, Wiki boils down all the salient points quite succinctly: the discovery that many ratings board members either have children 18 and over or have no children at all (typically, the MPAA has suggested it hires only parents with children between the ages of 5 and 17); that the board seems to treat homosexual material much more harshly than heterosexual material (this assertion is supported by an MPAA spokesperson’s statement in USA Today that "We don't create standards; we just follow them"); that the board's raters receive no training and are deliberately chosen because of their lack of expertise in media literacy or child development; that senior raters have direct contact in the form of required meetings with studio personnel after movie screenings; and that the MPAA's appeals board is just as secretive as the ratings board, its members being mostly movie theater chain and studio executives. Also included on the appeals board are two members of the clergy (one Catholic and one Protestant, who may or may not have voting power).

The hilarious twist to this film is that once Kirby Dick discovers their secrets, he incorporates it all into this very film which he then submits for a rating from the MPAA, the very people he just exposed!

Recommend? Yes, it is pretty entertaining but certainly has cultural and societal implications that touch nearly everyone.

http://www.ifc.com/videos/this-film-is-not-yet-rated

Just watched...

..."Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring," a 2003 South Korean film from director Kim Ki-duk.

In the continuing effort to try to stay current with the ever-growing Netflix queue, we finally watched this film I had been meaning to see for quite a while. I came across some production stills from it a few years ago and it looked like a must-see piece of art. I am so glad it did not fall off my "To See" list.

This gorgeous, simple film about a very small Buddhist monastery—which floats on a pristine lake in the untouched beauty of a mountainous region—with a single Master/herbal healer and a small boy apprentice touches on ideas of inner and outer desires, dissatisfaction, atonement, love, and karma.

Divided into five sections, one for each of the seasons in the title, we trace not only the literal quarterly shifts of the year, but also the figurative seasons of the life journey (spring is childhood, summer is adulthood, fall is old age and winter is death) of both the Master and his apprentice.

When a mother brings her ill teenage daughter to the floating monastery to be healed, the now-teenaged apprentice falls in love. But as the Master tells his young charge, “Lust awakens the desire to possess. And that awakens the intent to murder.” The young apprentice runs away despite the warning, and the wheel of karma is set in motion. The cycle of seasons, the cycle of life...

Both the compelling story and the breathtaking visuals make this film a rich experience (see stills below). The recurring motif of doors plays an important part in the film--where they are, how they are used, and who uses them, sometimes even when there is no wall! Much of the action takes place without dialogue, which reinforces the quietude of the surroundings of the monastery; it also helps us concentrate on the deeper meaning of the story itself. It unfolds like a gorgeous ancient Korean painting on silk.

Recommend? Yes. Truly beautiful to see and to contemplate.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/spring/

Just watched...

...David Cronenberg's 2011 film "A Dangerous Method."

Freud and Jung. It seems like the men and their difficult relationship were and still are examples of how different we as human beings can be. Only Freud with his personality type and experiences could have created psychoanalysis, and only Jung, with his own personality type and experiences could have created analytical psychology.

Adapted from the 2002 stage play "The Talking Cure," which was in turn adapted from the non-fiction book A MOST DANGEROUS METHOD: THE STORY OF JUNG, FREUD, AND SABINA SPIELRIEN by John Kerr, Cronenberg's film captures a sort of short-of-breath tightness that creates anxiety and tension. As a film device, it works quite well. Of course Cronenberg started out as a gore director, then horror, then horror psychology, and now he is delving into a kind of dark psychology that clearly descends from his past films. This tightness could have something to do with the fact that this film adaptation comes not only from a stage play, but that the screenwriter, Christopher Hammond, is also the playwright. On a stage, there is no luxury of expansive locales, no enormous cast of featured actors and extras (generally speaking), and no sweeping sense of story. We are focused on a few places and a few individuals.

In this case, we are focused on Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Jung's first patient, Sabina Spielrien. The basis of the film is rooted firmly in fact. After treating Sabina for a while, Jung wrote to Freud in order to consult about Sabina and the psychoanalytical techniques Jung was using. They corresponded about Sabina's case and struck up a friendship. Freud considered Jung to be the heir apparent to psychoanalysis. But as the two continued to correspond and eventually meet, their differences in their personalities and experiences became more apparent to each of them, ultimately resulting in a contentious split. During this time, Jung "cured" Sabina of her emotional issues. She wished to be a psychologist, and with Jung's encouragement, she became his student and eventually his colleague.

But this is where things get a little dicey. It is now widely held that Jung and Spielrien had a sexual relationship. Her letters, discovered in 1977, mention such an affair. Letters between Jung and Freud also mention Jung's "indiscretion." But Hampton and Cronenberg do what Peter Schaffer did in "Amadeus." Did Salieri poison Mozart? There is no evidence to support or deny such a claim, but the play puts forth intriguing suppositions. As does "A Dangerous Method." Did Jung take advantage of an unbalanced young woman? Did he have a sado-masochistic affair with a patient? These are details we do not know. And I must say that although I understand the dramatic and artistic license that is being taken here, and do appreciate it on an artistic level, I regret that it colors the life, work, and legacy of Carl Jung. I will confess that I am a Jungian at heart; Jungian beliefs most closely match my own. And the fantastic work that Jung did not only in the realm of psychology, but in the realm of literature, the arts, of the study of global cultures and religions, and human development itself is a little overshadowed by this dark--and at times, lurid--fiction. The film leaves off at the beginning of Jung's personal breakdown and the start of his greatest work into the world of the unconscious. I am aware that this film is not a straight biography of Jung, but it leaves me wishing it were.

Having said that, the film itself, for what it is, works well. The period sets, costumes, and details are correct. As I mentioned earlier, this is a tale of anxiety and tension and Cronenberg directs it with an appropriate sense of anxiety and tension. He also gets the best out of his actors. Michael Fassbender plays Jung with a restrained subtlety and Viggo Mortensen plays Freud with a quiet prickliness. Here are images of the originals and their film counterparts:

But special mention goes to the talented Keira Knightley for her intense, agonizing portrayal of Sabina Spielrien: agonizing for viewers and for Knightley since she had to occupy a very dark, exhausting place for the duration of this project. Knightley had the unenviable task of being mentally unstable but all the while making complete sense. Her storyline and performance touch on issues of child abuse, sexual abuse, and the belittlement of women during that period. Spielrien became a psychologist despite--or perhaps because of--her mental instabilities. But more than that, she became a psychologist at a time when women were not thought to have the brain power to do much than play a pretty tune on the piano or to do some embroidery. Spielrien might deserve a film of her own.

Recommend? Yes, it is worth seeing for the performances and for a bit of historical background on the birth of psychology. But if you are not familiar with him, please do yourself a favor and discover the rich legacy of Carl Jung.

http://adangerousmethod-themovie.com/

Just watched...

..."Pollock," a biographic film of modern artist Jackson Pollock starring Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden.

Ed Harris had been wanting to make a bio-pic of the life of Jackson Pollock for nearly ten years when all the moving parts of the pre-production phase of a motion picture came together to allow him to star in and direct "Pollock." The film opens in 1941, when Pollock was just another unknown artist in Manhattan, drunk, living with his brother and sister-in-law. Enter Lee Krasner (played by Marcia Gay Harden, a role which earned her a Best Suppoprting Actress Oscar!), the future Mrs. Jackson Pollock. We see their marriage, his rise in the art world, and his eventual artistic breakthrough of "drip paintings," all the while drinking, grumbling, smoking, and suffering what might now be diagnosed as manic depressive or bi-polar episodes.

The film looks great. It works as a period piece and of course Harris looks like Pollock... take a look below at the real Pollock dripping paint and Harris dripping paint (Harris actually did all of the art work seen in the film).

Harris and Harden are splendid as Jackson and Lee. And the film works quite well as an art history lesson. Pollock's contribution to the direction and evolution of modern art cannot be exaggerated--Amy Madigan plays Peggy Guggenheim, art collector extraordinaire, who commissioned Pollock to create a massive mural for her home in New York. However, I am puzzled by one thing: from the film, I do not know why Lee Krasner loved Pollock so and stood by him through binge drinking, affairs, and abusive behavior. Krasner was a very strong woman and seemed to be able to live a self-determined life. The film showed us nothing of what might make Pollock a lovable--or even sympathetic--character. Could she have been passionate about him simply for the art itself? It is possible that Krasner saw the revolutionary style Pollock was creating. Perhaps she believed in the art and not the man, although it is true that she promoted him fiercely. From what we are given in the film, it is hard to say. In fact, the whole film, while interesting and well done, is told with a curious sort of detachment. And I think it was a deliberate choice on the part of Harris to direct the film with a little bit of distance and a chill... perhaps to recreate Pollock's personality for us, the viewers.

Recommend? Yes, I think so. But see if you can find any redeemable quality in Pollock besides his art...

Just watched...

..."The Color of Pomegranates" by Soviet director Sergei Parajanov.

Made in 1968, this film explores the life of Armenian poet Sayat-Nova, or "King of Song" in Persian. Born as Harutyun Sayatyan in 1712, Sayat-Nova was a wool-dyer, musician, singer, composer, courtier, priest, and archbishop. We see his life, not told literally, but in an abstract way, through his poetry, and through the imagination of the director, Parajanov. Using symbolism and allegory, the story unfolds in a series of highly stylized, stunningly beautiful tableaux vivants. The way each of these scenes is carefully composed, framed, and filmed (there's nary a shadow to be found among the extremely well-lit sets) vividly recalls illuminated miniatures from Armenian (as well as Persian, Indian and Medieval European) culture. What we see is a completely presentational style, with characters and objects arranged facing out as if on an altar, while actors behave as if they are performing some sort of solemn, arcane, ceremony. The result is something that unfolds with the gravitas of a Noh or Butoh performance.

The film might be confusing to anyone who is not familiar with the history of Armenia or with Sayat-Nova. Indeed, the use of symbols, metaphors, and allegory are obvious once one learns that, in a scene early in the film for example, the colors of skeins of wool being hauled out of vats of dye are the colors of the Armenian flag, or that, during the opening sequence, the pomegranate juice soaking through white linen table cloths form the boundaries of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia. Even scenes within a bare room or that feature minimal objects feel sumptuous and ripe with meaning.

The film is hypnotizing, telling a story like a dream, using only images (no character actually speaks what anyone would consider to be "lines"), and the spell of the film is helped with a soundtrack of classic Armenian folk music. It is fascinating to experience how Armenian culture seems to be at once Middle Eastern, Asian, AND Eastern European.

Recommend? Oh yes, it is gorgeous. But don't expect a film with a clear narrative through-line. This is more like a series of paintings, inspired by the words of a poet and the rich cultural legacy of ancient Armenia, captured on film.