Weekly Wilson - Blog of Author Connie C. Wilson

Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!

“Force Majeure” is Front-runner for Best Foreign Film Oscar

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjjzVbTBF8o
”Force Majeure,” a joint Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and French foreign film, is one of the front-runners for an Oscar nod in the Best Foreign Film category this year. Directed by Ruben Ostlund (“Play”), the movie is the story of a family of four that goes on holiday to a ritzy ski resort (Les Arcs in the French Alps, but augmented cinematically), only to find that, just as skiing itself can be a dangerous sport, relationships within a family unit can be unpredictable and risky.

The film covers five days with Tomas (Johanne Kunke), his wife Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongslo) and their two children, a small boy Harry (Vincent Wettergren) and his older sister Vera (Clara Wettergren).

There are also a few minor characters who enter the drama, including an old buddy of Tomas’, Matts (Kristofer Hivju), a divorced man in his forties vacationing with his twenty-year-old girlfriend, and a free-spirited married woman who expresses little concern for traditional convention(s).

The turning point of the film occurs when the family is seated at an outside restaurant and a “controlled avalanche” becomes not-so-controlled. All those who had been dining suddenly flee for their lives. Tomas, in particular, grabs his cell phone and his gloves and hot-foots it away from the table, leaving Ebba, his wife, to grab both children and pray.

As it turns out, the avalanche does not reach the chalet and Tomas returns to the table to rejoin a not-very-happy wife who comments later in the film that Tomas is “always running away from” his wife and children. The white fog from the near avalanche is as eerie as in movies like “The Fog” and, later, during a ski excursion on their final day (Sisla Dagen/Final Day), it also appears to hold all sorts of dangers for the family of four, but their patriarch insists that he will lead the way and all will be well as they ski down a slope where they can barely see their hand in front of their face.

Tomas—not unlike other men in real life—won’t admit what has occurred.

Ebba says, “It’s so weird that you won’t admit what happened.”

Tomas responds, “I want us to share the same view.” He also expresses the opinion that he wants to “put it all behind us,” which seems quite convenient, since he has come off as a bit of a cad. This “let’s sweep it under the rug and forgetaboutit” attitude is prevalent in many marriages, whether short-term or long-term, and the attitude never fails to breed resentment when it surfaces. In fact, when a situation cannot be discussed, openly and candidly, [but must simply be “forgotten about”,] for many personalities (like Ebba’s), the effect is to create a situation that cannot help but erode the relationship, whether that relationship is a marriage or simply a friendship. Some of us need to get things out in the open and talk about them. Others—especially if the situation might reflect poorly on them—-refuse to talk about it. That is part of the foundation on which this film’s issues rest.

The title “Force Majeure” comes from a legal term where an unforeseen event prevents a contract from being fulfilled.

Ebba cannot seem to put the frightening ordeal out of her mind. In fact, she seems to be experiencing a bit of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), reliving the event for Matts and his young girlfriend Fanny (Fanni Metelius) and the woman traveling alone who discussed her more “open marriage” philosophy and tells Ebba that she purposely left her kids home with their father as a welcome vacation from them.

“They need therapy,” says Matts to Fanny after Ebba shows a video of the event that puts the lie to Tomas’ tendency to minimize the event and dismiss it as a “force majeure.” This former buddy of Tomas’ even offers an extremely lame excuse for why Tomas might have run away, saying, “The enemy is this image we have of heroes” and suggesting an alibi along the lines of: “You were going to save yourself to dig them out…right?”

When Ebba trots out the story of Tomas defection under stress, Tomas says, “I don’t share that interpretation of events,” and adds, to his upset wife, “You’re entitled to your own interpretation.”

This inability to admit the truth nearly drives Ebba to distraction When Tomas finally does break down and admit that he is “a bloody victim of my own instincts,” telling Ebba that he hates his weaknesses, he has a near-breakdown. That wakes the children and becomes a scene requiring the wife (Ebba) to act as the steadying hub of the group, calming everyone down. She seems “the strong one.”

In a later skiing scene, Tomas has his chance at redemption when Ebba must be carried to safety. Matts also gets an opportunity to act responsibly and maturely in a scene on a bus being driven rather recklessly, when he instructs the panicked riders to exit in an orderly manner.

It was interesting to me that the only person who stayed on the bus was the risk-taking married wife and mother involved in a dalliance with another single tourist. She refused to consider herself a “bad” mother or wife because she was vacationing without her children and not adhering to society’s marital norms. She was the only one of those on the bus who toughed out the driver’s incompetence and took the risk (and, as a result, didn’t end up having to walk halfway down a mountainside when Ebba panicked and insisted that the bus driver let them all out).

It seemed that Ebba was being depicted, at this point, as being a bit of a ninny who over-reacted to things. I wondered how the film-maker could have it both ways: either she is the strong center of the family hierarchy or she is a personality who panics at the merest hint of danger.

Which is it, for Ebba?

The avalanche is considered a metaphor for small situations that snowball out of control. There have been comparisons to Ingmar Bergman’s 1973 “Scenes from a Marriage.” Ostlund won a Jury Prize at Cannes. “Entertainment Weekly” in its October 31st issue has termed it “a quietly devastating tinderbox psychodrama.”
The film is a comment on marriage, in general, since Ebba is heard talking to a girlfriend on the phone. Her comment is: “You’ve been in a relationship for five years and you want to fool around. I understand.”

So, to sum up, the film confirms the view that women, almost in a matriarchal fashion,  hold a family together, but hope for more support from the men in their lives (who often behave like overgrown children). These scenes were both psychologically revealing and humorous, as a resort employee has occasion to watch Tomas losing it.

It also gave us a sad glimpse into the psyches of small children who think their parents might be going to split. Both children are shown listening to their parents arguing and crying. Little Harry admits aloud that he is afraid his parents are going to get divorced.

The movie also made a good point about how, in a crisis, we sometimes do not behave as admirably as heroes do in the movies. The boredom of marriage, with its repetitiveness and the humdrum chores that accompany it, is aptly portrayed, both in scenes where the youngest child, Harry, is acting “owly” and in scenes involving preparation for bedtime. The bloom is off the rose. This is a family that must share space (in one case, they are all shown in the same bed) and, while there are rewards to having a family unit, those rewards do not come without sacrifice. The randy behavior of Matts and Fanny is in stark contrast to the ho-hum nature of Tomas and Ebba.

The movie, which has beautiful photography by Fredrik Wenzel and Fred Arne Wergeland using an ARRI Alexa, had a great message for all partners, whether male or female, who are in a long-term (or short-term) relationship: “Admit what you did when you’re wrong.” It is thought-provoking and both humorous and serious. Only the ending proved anti-climactic and was a bit of a let-down, but this solid, provocative film with solid performances from all, will give movie-goers much to ponder.

“The Look of Silence” Documentary Is Powerful Testimony to Man’s Inhumanity to Man

 

The heinous massacre of anyone who had been affiliated with the Communist party in Indonesia is the subject of “The Look of Silence,” a documentary directed by Joshua Oppeheimer that was produced by such important documentary and filmmaker names as Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”), Werner Herzog and Andre Singer. It is a joint production from Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom that tells a harrowing story every bit as horrible, in its details, as the Holocaust.
Indonesia’s transition to the “New Order” in the mid-1960s, ousted the country’s first president, Sukarno, after he had spent 22 years in power. One of the most tumultuous periods in the country’s modern history, it was the beginning of 31 years of Suharto’s presidency.
Described as the great puppet master, Sukarno drew power from balancing the opposing and increasingly antagonistic forces of the army and the Indonesian Communist Party, or PKI. By 1965, the PKI extensively penetrated all levels of government. The army lost power as the PKI gained it and this led to a coup.
On September 30, 1965, six of the military’s most senior officers were killed by the 30 September Movement, a group from within the army, and the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Within just a few hours, Major General Suharto mobilized forces under his command and took control of Jakarta.
Subsequently, over one million citizens who were on lists as being Communists were rounded up, hands bound behind their backs, and either killed immediately or imprisoned until they could be systematically exterminated, much like Auschwitz but in a much bloodier and more primitive fashion. It was a method no less systematic and inhumane testifying  once again to man’s inhumanity to man. The PKI, which was officially blamed for the crisis, was destroyed.
The film follows a local optometrist, Adi, age 44, whose brother Ramli was murdered in the anti-Communist purge. His mother and father’s lives were totally shattered by the brutal slaying of their oldest child. As Adi’s mother says, it was only Adi’s birth two years later that saved her sanity.
One interview subject says, “We did this because America taught us to hate Communists.”
The politically weakened Sukarno was forced to transfer key political and military powers to General Suharto, who became head of the armed forces. In March 1967, the Indonesian parliament (MPRS) named General Suharto acting president. He was formally appointed president one year later.
Suharto’s pro-Western “New Order” stabilized the economy.
However, those whose mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children were brutally murdered for no offense other than affiliation with the Communist party, the memories do not fade. They must live next door to those who murdered their beloved family members. We learn, as the film progresses, that Ramli, was gathered up, bound, and initially imprisoned. Trucks would take loads of 30 prisoners per truck each night and either hack them to death, throwing their remains into the Snake River, or, in some cases, the victims would be buried alive.
One survivor, Kemat, describes how he jumped from a truck with his hands bound behind his back and escaped through a warehouse. He reminisces, “Ramli was screaming for help saying, ‘They’re going to kill us.’”
“Were there any spectators watching the trucks taking people to be murdered?” asks Adi.
“No. Everyone was too frightened to watch,” says Kemat. “I thought, ‘I’m about to die. I’d better accept it. I’m going to be beheaded, my body and head thrown into the river. And then I ran.”
Adi, the protagonist, decided to search out each of those responsible for ordering the murders or implementing the murders of his brother and others (simply for being members of the Communist party). He used his vocation as a traveing optometrist as entrée.
As we learn, “In many cases, entire families were eradicated, and it happens to this day. Some Communists were starved to death in prison or released periodically to be killed by the local citizens.” The group responsible for the executions was Komando Aksi. Adi searches and finds Amir Hasang and Imang, leaders of the Death Squad in one city.
Not only are these perpetrators not ashamed of their actions, Inong, aged 72, who was the leader of the village Death Squad, appears onscreen as a bit of a loon, repeating that he would take two cups to the executions in order to drink human blood from the severed jugular veins.
“If we didn’t drink human blood,” says Imang, “we’d go crazy. Many went crazy. Drink your victims’ blood or go crazy.” He adds, “Human blood is salty and sweet.”
Imang also claims that he “only cut once.” pantomiming the use of a machete to cut a victim’s throat, but then adds, “Once I cut off a woman’s breast. It was just like a coconut inside.” He pantomimes how he would use a machete on a woman, and his wife giggles while he does so.
“But I thought you said you only cut once?” reminds Adi.
Imang becomes hostile. He says, “I don’t like deep questions. It’s over. Everything is safe now. The past is the past.” He also shows a book with sketches depicting how they killed their neighbors. There is absolutely no remorse or regret shown by anyone who, firsthand, either ordered the murders or committed them. The exception is one murderer’s daughter near the end of the film, who murmurs, “Sadistic” and semi-apologizes, saying, “Adi, we apologize. We feel the same way you do. We knew nothing about this.”
Aside from this one lone young woman, who appears to be about Adi’s age, nobody else—especially those who actually committed the crimes—shows any remorse or expresses regret. In fact, the head honcho at the time, Secretary General of Komando Aksi, expresses the opinion that he should be thanked for his actions and perhaps receive a free trip to the United States—perhaps to Disneyland—maybe a cruise.

It’s nearly impossible to believe how callous the killers are.

We also learn that children in school are indoctrinated with propaganda that teaches them things such as, “The Communists had to be killed because they were sleeping with each others’ wives.” The entire schoolteacher snippet is ludicrous in justifying the mass murder of 1,000,000 people.
Adi tells his small daughter and son that what they are being taught is all lies. One teacher actually says, “Some of the Communists want to be killed.” The teacher adds, “The Communists were cruel, so the government had to repress them. Their children could not work for the government or be in the Army.” [Actually, after the actions of Komando Aksi, there weren’t that many Communists left alive.]
There are extensive film clips of the Death Squad leaders explaining in great detail (and often with laughter) how they would systematically murder men, women and children. Their excuse, “I was only following orders.”
We learn that Adi’s brother, Ramil, who was then a young Communist male, was initially stabbed repeatedly in the shoulder and stomach (The Death Squad members laugh at the memory of his intestines spilling from his stomach.) He managed to crawl through the rice paddies back to his parents’ house, where he asked his mother to help him and make him a cup of tea. While she attempted to attend to his grievous wounds, the Death Squad Komando Aksi members—who received the names of their victims from the Army—returned to her house and promised to take her son to the hospital. She begged to go with him and offered two cows to barter for Ramli’s life; they refused.
Rather than taking Ramil to the hospital, he was taken back to the Snake River where he was stabbed repeatedly and then flung into the river, where he clung to foliage and begged for help. They fished Ramli out and cut off his penis. (The men demonstrated how this maneuver could be done from behind, with a push of the boot to the victim’s butt to push the corpse to the ground where the body would bleed out.) The victims’ bodies were then thrown into the Snake River. (Villagers would not eat any fish from the Snake River for two years, knowing that the fish had been feeding on human remains.)
Those in power made it appear that the people were rising up spontaneously to exterminate the Communists, in order to protect the image of the Army nationally and internationally. This was not true. The Komander Aksi members got lists of 500 to 600 victims’ names nightly from the Army and acted on that information.

When the Secretary General of Komander Aksi is seen onscreen, he seems completely unconcerned about his role in ordering the purge, saying, “That’s politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals.” This man continues to be head of the Legislature, since 1971 and says, to Adi, in a threatening manner, “Do the victims’ families want the killings to happen again? Sooner or later, it will happen again.” The message to Adi (who refuses to divulge his last name or city of origin): “Drop it!”
Throughout the film, the insistent messages are these:
1) The past is past. Forget about it. Don’t speak of it
2) I was only following orders.
3) Revenge for these murders will be taken by God after death.
One of the most revealing moments comes when Adi visits his Uncle (his distraught mother’s brother). He learns that his uncle was a guard and, in fact, in charge of guarding Ramil the night he was killed. Adi’s uncle is now 82 years old. The uncle protests, “I was just a guard. They came and took truckloads of 30 at a time. I was just told to guard the prisoners. I did not help! I did not take a machete and murder people!”
But, objects Adi, couldn’t his uncle have tried to defend his own nephew, Ramil?
“I did it to defend the state. Better just to follow orders,” says the elderly uncle.
When Adi later tells his mother that her own brother was complicit in the savage death of her son, Ramil, she is shocked at the sadistic news, saying, “I never knew this before.”
Some notable quotes from the film that illustrate Point One (above):
#1) “Because Joshua makes this film all the wounds are open. Forget the past. You want us to be open, but how can we be? I don’t want to remember. It’s covered up. Why open it up again? What are you trying to do? Just leave it? Let it go. Leave it to God.” (From various speakers)
The revenge motif (Point #3 above) is voiced this way, “It’s up to God to punish those who hurt our friends and family. It’s not up to us.”
This mini-Holocaust makes you instantly think of Auschwitz and the Nazi Death Camps, and those who made it obviously do not feel safe in Indonesia even now.
Nearly all the end credits (other than Joshua Oppenheimer) are listed as “Anonymous” because those who contributed video and reminiscences to this film still fear retribution. “The Look of Silence” is a joint production of Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom and it’s an eye-opening film.

“The Well” Is A Post-Apocalyptic World Movie with a Message for Our Time

Writer/Director Tom Hammock has been the production designer on 25 films, including “You’re Next” and “The Guest.” His directorial debut with “The Well” put all that experience to good use, as he selected the perfect location, costumes, music and cast for this post-apocalyptic  drama about survivors trying to stay alive in a dust-bowl-like world where water is the most precious commodity.
The movie is horror. It is thriller. It is social commentary. It is a reversal of all the normal stereotypes. And it is good—very, very good!
The film was shot in an area 2 hours outside of Los Angeles between December 1st and December 18th as quickly as possible, using 45 grueling set-ups in an 8-hour day. At the heart of the movie is a 17-year-old leading lady, Haley Lu Richardson as Kendall. When hired, Richardson had only one previous screen credit: an Arizona matches ad. (Richardson also appeared recently in an indie comedy, “The Young Kieslowski.”)
Had there not already been a movie entitled “Kick Ass,” this part would qualify. Richardson’s background in dance helped her to perform strenuous fight sequences. She is a real find. She appears in every scene of the film and the entire story is told from her point-of-view.
Hammock has created a dry desert world of Mad Max-like appearance, but without the larger-than-life characters of that franchise. These characters are real people who are desperately struggling to survive while a greedy water baron named Carson sets out to systematically exterminate all of them. He calls them hangers-on, saying, “If they’re alive, they’re consuming my water, and they can’t consume my water without my consent.” Carson is central to the story and is well-played by veteran character actor John Gries (“Taken,” Napoleon Dynamite”), whom Hammock met at a genre film meet-up in the L.A. area that Hammock hosted.
As we are told, “If the company drains all the water away from the aquifer, they control the whole valley.” Kendall, the 17-year-old survivor and her boyfriend Dean (played by Booboo Stewart, depicted as dying from kidney failure), is told by her boyfriend, “There was a time when a man owned the land, he controlled the water, but things are different. He who controls the land controls the water.”
This is a modern-day parable regarding wealth (in this case, water) and its unequal distribution. It is timely, making the film rise above generic film genre categories and become commentary on the world around us today. Ironically, oil is essentially worth little in Hammock’s world, while water is the most precious substance after a 10-year drought devastates the area. With a real drought ongoing in California, the theme is even more current.
And that Australia-like desert which is one of the biggest “characters” in the entire production? It’s near where Tom Hammock grew up, 2 hours north out of Los Angeles. All the farms are actual houses that were abandoned by their owners when the land, planted in alfalfa, turned to dust. (The script’s reference to years prior when rice paddies flourished had me initially wondering if the film location was somewhere in Asia.)
Carson and his red-haired daughter Brooke (well played by “America’s Top Model” contestant Nicole Fox) and crew view their task of killing all the settlers in the valley in these stark terms: “Think of it as the extinction of a species…You have to kill them. The vagrants only suffer. If it weren’t me, it’d be someone else.” They even take a minister along with them (Michael McCartney) who pronounces, “Pray for each of these desperate thirsty souls. Ten years of no rain.”
Since Kendall (Richardson) spends much of the film either hiding from Carson and his men or actively overcoming them in hand-to-hand combat, rifle or samurai sword in hand, the cinematographer, Seamus Tierny, did a great job properly lighting her as she crouches in a dark attic shrouded in a foil wrap to fool the heat-seeking machines the searchers use, or fighting men twice her size in stark sunlight in the next. (When asked about the lighting, Hammock said, “The majority was lit by a white sheet and a pizza box.”)
All of the normal power structures in the film are turned upside-down: it is Kendall, the female character, who is doing all the fighting (not completely new, since “The Hunger Games” and “Divergent”). It is her boyfriend, Dean, who is weak. Plus, ironically, it is water, not oil, which is the source of all conflict.
Kendall and Dean, her boyfriend, have an old Cessna airplane hidden away that they hope to use to escape to a more favorable climate, but they first must find a distributor cap that fits. Much of the story concerns Kendall’s efforts to find this distributor cap, an homage to the original Road Warrior film.
The rest of the story is Kendall foraging or checking on or rescuing a small boy at a nearby farm, Albie (Max Charles). Kendall struggles not only with the exterminators who wear truly horrifying outfits (and, at times, gas masks) but also with her own compassionate impulses. As the cliché says, “No good deed goes unpunished,” which proves true more often than not in the plot, co-written by Hammock and Jacob Foreman.
The costume design by Emma Potter is terrific, as is the spare musical score by Craig Deleon, who often scores for Michael Bay or Apple commercials. There is also an ongoing, menacing wind sound. Director Hammock, when asked what was most daunting about the filming, cited the windy dust storms in the area, as well as achieving the defining image of the leading lady coated in oil. They put Haley in a flesh-colored wet suit and made the oil out of black children’s paint, but the temperature was still in the thirties—cold and uncomfortable for their determined actress, shown submerged in the slimy stuff in the movie’s most famous still.
This is an excellent, entertaining psychological study on a par with “The Babadook” in that neither is straight horror. Each is a well-drawn psychological thriller—but the Uma Thurman-like “Kill Bill” action vote goes to “The Well.”

Don’t miss it. This enterprising young director should be going big places in his film future.
“The Well” premiered at the L.A. Film Festival. It played at the Chicago Film Festival on October 19th; a production deal is nearing completion.

“Creep” Is Low-Budget Horror Flick in Film Festival “After Dark” Series

“Creep” is a low-budget horror film directed by Patrick Brice, who also wrote the story with Mark Duplass, one brother of the duo Jay and Mark Duplass (“Jeff, Who Lives At Home,” 2011).

While “Jeff, Who Lives At Home” was a funny film that used well-known actors like Susan Sarandon, Jason Segel and Ed Helms and seemed to have a budget of some substance, “Creep” most resembled “The Blair Witch Project” in terms of its herky-jerky hand-held camera work and what had to have been a spectacularly low budget.

 

The film begins with an online offer made to a cash-strapped filmmaker on March 21,2012 to come to a remote cabin for a day’s filming. The pay will be $1,000 for the day. Filmmaker Aaron Franklin (played by co-writer/director Patrick Brice) is also told: “Discretion is appreciated” (whatever that means).

 

It is telling that the duo of Patrick Brice and Mark Duplass both wrote the story, directed the story and played the two leads. In that respect, it reminded me of “The Editor” from Canada, another schlocky horror film where the director was listed performing nearly every duty from wardrobe to star. A two-person cast, think “The Babadook,” can make a successfully spooky psychological thriller on a low budget, but this isn’t it.

 

Jay Duplass did not have a big role in Mark Duplass’ project this time out, as he is busy filming television’s new drama “Transparent,” among other projects.

 

Upon reaching the cabin in the woods (wink, wink, as the write-up says) Aaron meets Josef (portrayed by Director/Writer/Actor Mark Duplass) who seems sincere when he tells Aaron that he is dying of cancer and wants to make a tape for his unborn child, much like Michael Keaton did in the movie “My Life.” However, shortly after explaining that this was why he summoned the filmmaker, Josef suggests that they adjourn to the bathroom, where Duplass’ character (Josef) proceeds to take off his clothes and get in the bathtub for what he terms “a tubby.” The audience tittered— who wouldn’t?

 

When Aaron seems surprised and tentative, Josef (Duplass) says, “This is a journey into the heart. We’re going to go a lot deeper places than this.”

 

Well, yes and no.

 

Besides periodically donning a wolf’s head mask which Josef has dubbed Peach Fuzz and intentionally trying to startle the filmmaker at every turn (“I’ve got a weird sense of humor, man.”) the pronouncements that Josef makes (“Death. It’s coming. There’s nothing that we can do.” “I love wolves. A wolf loves other wolves and, yeah, it occasionally murders things.”) make him seem like a loon, which the audience realizes immediately. Aaron, however, is not as quick a study. The smattering of tittering continued throughout the film; if straight psychological tension like the excellent film “The Babadook” was the goal, the film missed its mark.

 

After (finally) managing to break free of his client and return home, a series of CDs and messages are sent to Aaron by Josef and Aaron is so alarmed by them that he calls the police, telling them he is being stalked by a man who is “really weird and super creepy.”

The police, of course, are about as effective as usual, which means not at all interested in Aaron’s tale of an unknown harasser (Aaron never bothers to learn Josef’s last name!) who, as it turns out, did not own the cabin in the woods at all, but only rented it.

 

One line near the end of the film (Josef to Aaron) is: “It just seemed dumb that you would just sit there and not look behind you.”

 

My opinion? It just seemed dumb, period.

“The Imitation Game” Is Strong Oscar Contender for Film And Best Actor (Benedict Cumberbatch)

“It’s the very people that no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” This refrain is repeated constantly throughout the film “The Imitation Game” as we watch Benedict Cumberbatch, ( a 3-time BAFTA nominee), inexorably move towards an Oscar nomination for Best Actor of 2014.

American audiences will know the 38-year-old Cumberbatch best from either his role as Little Charles Aiken, the slightly dim son of Chris Cooper, in “August: Osage County” or from “Star Trek Into Darkness 2.”
He also appeared in 2013’s “Twelve Years a Slave,” (Best Picture of 2013). His breakthrough role was as Stephen Hawking in “Hawking” (2004). British audiences have enjoyed him as Sherlock Holmes in “Holmes” (2010) and in a number of television roles.

For me, watching the very British film in Chicago at its Premiere here, it was like watching Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) and his buddies from television’s “The Big Bang Theory” try to crack the Nazi codes that will help the British and the Allies win World War II—only without the humor. The extreme intelligence, the arrogance, the emotional state that co-star Keira Knightley refers to as “fragile narcissism” is most analogous to Sheldon from television, even if that role is played for laughs and this one evokes the opposite of laughter.

The movie is based on a book by Andrew Hodges (who helped write the script) called “Allen Turing: The Enigma.” It is the true story of how a half-dozen genius mathematicians, logicians, cryptologists and computer scientist banded together at Bletchley Park in the south of England to figure out how to crack the German Enigma Code.

Every morning at 6 a.m. the Germans sent out a coded message. Unfortunately, the various combinations were 159 million million, which meant that it would take 10 men 20 million years to try to figure out just one missive. And the codes were changed each day; so deciphering one code would not help with the next day’s transmission.

At movie’s end we are told that cracking the code saved 14 million lives and shortened the war by at least 2 years. Alan Turin, however—an odd duck if there ever was one—was offered a choice between incarceration for being homosexual or chemical castration. This was his reward for saving the lives of millions. [It seems fitting that Queen Elizabeth saw fit to pardon him, posthumously, in 2013.]

And it seems quite fortuitous that a film that comes down on the side of gay rights is being released this year, when marriage equality is sweeping the United States. Just as last year’s Best Picture film had a topic that voters could get behind (anti-slavery), so, too, does this one. It seems inevitable that it will be nominated; it is very well done.

Add in the feminist point of view with Keira Knightley as the sole woman brainiac asked to work on the project.
When asked why she wants the others on the project to like her by Turing, she says, “I’m a woman in a man’s job and I don’t have the luxury of being an asshole.” Now, you have a double threat in the movie theme department. You can make that a triple threat when you add in the anti-war/anti-violence message (“Humans find violence deeply satisfying.”)

Morton Tyldum directed (“Buddy”, “Headhunters”) a script by Graham Moore and Andrew Hodges (Hodges is also the author of the book on which the film is based).

The film explains that wartime Britain was starving. Although the United States was dropping 100,000 pounds of food daily, the needed foodstuffs were being bombed into oblivion by the German blitz. If the dispatches between the Nazi headquarters and their troops could be decoded, it would be “like having a tap on Hitler’s intercom.” And genius mathematician (but extremely poor team player) Alan Turing, who conceived the concept of an early digital computer (“Christopher”) and built it form scratch, was the man portrayed as almost singlehandedly responsible for the breakthrough the team makes [after a random comment in a bar gives them a fresh insight].

Following their success, in this film from our British friends at Black Bear Productions, the film tells us that the Normandy Invasion, Stalingrad—really, nearly any major battle you can name from WWII—was made “winnable” by knowing the German strategies from decoding their messages beforehand, thanks to the Bletchley Park team that worked to decode Enigma after the device was smuggled out of Berlin by Paris intelligence. (Maybe the filmmakers should also put up a notation that, without the French stealing the machine in the first place, there wouldn’t have been any machine to work on decoding?)

So, as the script puts it, the British needed to “maintain a conspiracy of lies at the highest levels of government.” They managed to do just that and to keep it a secret for 50 years, but the strong warning about more wars was one reason the successful government project was classified as Top Secret for so long. (What if another war broke out and another code-breaking team needed to be assembled?)

The film opens wide on November 21st. Pro feminism, pro tolerance (and anti-homophobia), anti-war. This film and Cumberbatch’s strong performance in it will be top contenders in this year’s Oscar race.

Bill Murray’s Role in “St. Vincent” Generating Oscar Buzz

St. Vincent Director Ted Melfi managed to get Bill Murray to star in “St. Vincent” by being persistent and calling him “about 40 times” on his 800 phone line, because Murray has no manager or press agent. Says Melfi, “The hardest part about getting Bill Murray in anything is finding him, because he has no agent and no manager; he has an 800 number. I bet I called that 800 number 40 times. When he actually did call me back, at first, I didn’t think it was him. Then I realized that was his voice.”

 

“So Bill Murray says, ‘Meet me at LAX in an hour, which was 9 o’clock. And so I drive down to LAX, and, sure enough, Bill Murray comes down the causeway and says, “Ted? Let’s go for a drive.’”
“ We drive for 3 hours from L.A. to the Pechanga Indian Reservation and Casino. So, Bill says to me, “I like you. Do you wanna’ do this movie?”

I said, “Yes…that’s what I’m here for”
“Do you want to do it with me?”
I said, “Yes, and Bill Murray says, ‘Let’s do it!’”

“I say, the only thing is, do you think you could tell someone else besides me that this whole thing happened—that we were driving down the road and you agreed to do the film? I can’t go to the studio and say, ‘Hey! Bill Murray said yes in the back of a town car on the highway on the way to an Indian Reservation. That’s just not gonna’ happen.”
“I look at Bill Murray and I don’t just say, ‘He’s one of the greatest comedians of our time. He’s one of the greatest actors of our time. And what people don’t know about Melissa (McCarthy) is that this girl did 7 years of hard-core drama in New York theater. And the goal for us, on set, was to not be funny.” This is quite obvious in the dialed-down performance of the often over-the-top McCarthy. Naomi Watts’ part as the brash Russian hooker/stripper is quite the departure from the woman surviving the tsunami in Thailand, but she pulls it off (No pun intended). Writer/Director Melfi described her talent as “the tip of the iceberg.” Chris O’Dowd, as always, was genial and enjoyable.
Says Melfi, “I remember the first day, I said, ‘Bill—do you want to rehearse with the kid?’

And Bill says, ‘No.’ And I think, ‘This is not gonna’ be good.’

I bring the kid to the set and take him over to Bill and I say, ‘Bill, this is Jaeden; Jaeden this is Bill.”

Bill grunts. And walks away. And I think, ‘This is not gonna’ work out.’

And then they did a scene together and Bill comes up to me after and says, ‘The kid’s good.’ And I said, “Yeah—he’s pretty good.’ And Bill said, ‘He’s real good.’ Once he figured out that the kid was good and that he was not a “kiddy” actor, they became, like, very best friends. In fact, Jaeden got the part on Cameron Crowe’s new movie. And Jaeden goes to Hawaii and Bill is offered a part in the Cameron Crowe movie. And Jaeden goes, ‘You should do it.’ And so Bill flies to do the Cameron Crowe movie because Jaeden told him to do the movie, and they spent the whole month scuba diving. So, it’s like this most ridiculous love affair, father/son beautiful thing.”
Melfi shared the story of the film’s genesis (which he wrote and directed).  Melfi and his wife adopted his brother’s 11-year-old daughter after his eldest brother died eight years prior. Her Catholic school in Los Angeles made the assignment that is featured in this touching-but-funny movie. The students in Melfi’s daughter’s new school were assigned to write a paper on a “modern day” saint in their real life and a historic saint who shared the same qualities. She picked St. William of Rochester,  the patron saint of adopted children, just like Oliver in the movie. “And, ” adds Melfi, “she picked me. It was just like this touching, sentimental moment for us. And I said, ‘Okay. That’s the movie.”

“Vincent is a timeless character because so many of us get to the end of our lives and go, “That was it?”
“So, what’s amazing about the movie, for me is that this little kid, Oliver, who’s 12, tells him, ‘Dude, you did great. You served our country in the war. You took care of your wife for 8 years. You did freaking great, so be proud of what you’ve done.
“Too many filmmakers think to themselves that they have to put their stink on everything they make,” says Melfi. Using Michael Bey’s films as an example, Melfi said, “I choose not to stink up the place” ( “Last Call” appearance with Carson Daley). Says Melfi, “The film is about an older gentleman who is a Vietnam veteran who is kind of a drunk curmudgeon who doesn’t have much to live for any more until a little boy (Oliver, well played by newcomer Jaeden Lieberher) moves in next door to him.” The young boy  shows the boozy reprobate that he hasn’t been such a loser, after all. Murray becomes the boy’s nanny/babysitter while mother Melissa McCarthy works long hours as an X-ray technician.
“It is like The Isle of the Misfit Toys,” says Melfi. “Bill Murray is a misfit gambler. Melissa McCarthy is a broken-down single mom who can’t get her life together. Naomi Watts is a pregnant Russian hooker. So the only person who has their act together, really, is the kid.”
The film opens with Murray telling an Irish joke that involves confusion between the words porch and Porsche. (Fill in your own joke here). The joke’s not that funny, but, then again, the movie is not really a comedy, either. It’s more of a heart-warming “dramedy.” The humor it does contain is created by what we can call the Murray Mythos. Murray is laid-back. Eccentric. Cool. Funny in the Murray throw-away fashion. Gruff on the exterior; warm and fuzzy on the inside.
And, as we learn in scenes within the film, Vincent has been faithfully visiting his addled wife (in an expensive nursing home he can’t afford) for 8 years, even though she doesn’t remember who he is.
For me, the inclusion of Chris O’Dowd—who was so good in the little-seen movie “The Sapphires”—carried with it echoes of the younger Murray as he used to be on Saturday Night Live when he’d play everything from a bad lounge lizard singer to skits with Belushi and the gang. The troupe on SNL was truly remarkable. This cast is no less so, including Naomi Watts, Terrance Howard and the  trio of Murray, McCarthy and  child actor Jaeden Lieberher.
The scene we’ve all seen on television (official trailer above) where Murray tries to close out his bank account, only to learn that he has used up all the cash he received from a reverse mortgage and now has a negative balance is indicative of the kind of deadpan “so sad it’s funny” acting that Murray does so brilliantly.

What you don’t see on the film clip  is “the rest of the story.”

When the Asian bank teller initially asks him why he wants to close out his account, Murray says, “I do not want to tell you to go f— yourself, so let’s just leave it at that.” There are also some Murray Moments showing the cranky curmudgeon answering phone calls from telemarketers with his typical brioche.(“Come on, Coward! Try to sell me something.)
The film also drives a sharp stake through the use of the catch-all phrase, “It is what it is.” Murray boils it down this way, explaining that it really means: “You’re screwed and you shall remain screwed.”
Chris O’Dowd’s priest, a teacher at St. Vincent’s, the private Catholic School that Oliver attends, worked 12 to 14 hour days, flying in on the red eye and working for four days, as he was also simultaneously shooting a television project. O’Dowd’s scenes are  loose and genial. He gets the line, “Catholics are the best of all, because we have the most rules,” which he tells his classroom charges.
The concept of an adult who takes an innocent young boy out and exposes him to the seamier side of life was done earlier this year in Jason Bateman’s “Bad Words;” Murray’s taking young Oliver to the race track and a bar are scenes from the same playbook. The difference is that Oliver’s unsuspecting mother (Melissa McCarthy), who is waging a battle for custody of her young son, learns what “the babysitter” and his charge have been up to only when they are appearing in court. (The husband will be a familiar face from “Thirty Rock.”)

The other difference is that this is Bill Murray. Once Murray committed to the film, said Melfi, things fell into place. Other “name brand” actors wanted to work with Murray, in much the same way that marquee names known for taking films for reasons other than a gigantic pay-day attract other talented performers. This is an excellent cast, and they all deliver the goods.

It’s a fine movie with memorable performances. For emotional resonance, think of Clint Eastwood’s stint acting in “Grand Torino.” It’s always a pleasure to see Bill Murray in a role that lets him take the bit in his teeth and run with it, even if he’s running with a cigarette in his mouth and a drink in his hand.

So hunker down and enjoy the debut performances as well as those by an accomplished actor who seemingly can do it all.

 

One-on-One with Liv Ullmann, Star of Ingmar Bergman’s Films

One day after her film adaptation of the 1888 Strindberg play “Miss Julie” opened the 50th Chicago Film Festival, actress Liv Ullmann was kind enough to speak with me one-on-one about the film, her future projects, and life, in general. We met at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago and the beautiful Norwegian actress, muse to Ingmar Bergmann in so many of his films, was warm and welcoming.

 

Ullmann had much praise for her “Miss Julie” dream cast (Jessica Chastain, Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton) saying, of Jessica Chastain, “She is both cool and cold. She’s a young woman grappling with non-existence. I just think she’s a genius. It’s very much the way I act.” She added, “I think the actors’ movie is the actors’ movie” and praised the trio universally. Liv remarked on Miss Julie’s feeling of not belonging, indicating that she thought Ms. Chastain was remarkable as the female lead.

 

The director was no less effusive in her praise of male lead Colin Farrell, saying, “No one else could do the movie as he did it.” Although selected partially because of his handsome good looks, Ullmann remarked that, during filming, Farrell awoke one night and wrote a poem as though he were John the valet, writing to Miss Julie. “I tried to find a way to use it in the film,” said Ullmann, “but ultimately we could not fit it in.”

 

Ullmann said, of Farrell’s selection as the male lead, “I saw a lot of Colin’s movies and I could see that he is also a theater actor. For me, I like to work with theater actors because I like to make films that are film theater.”

 

I mentioned Farrell’s appearances in both “Tigerland” and “In Bruges,” both early films of his, and also repeated the quote that Al Pacino once called Farrell “the greatest actor of his generation.” Liv Ullmann said, “He was fantastic in “In Bruges.’ What first sold me on him for ‘Miss Julie” was what he said during a phone conversation.  It floored me.  I thought, ‘This is a soul mate.’ He’s an incredible actor and he’s going to bring what I think no one really will expect from him to television’s ‘True Detective,’ (with Vince Vaughan) because he has dimensions which you seldom see in a film actor. He shows you the good and, at the same time, he shows you the bad.”

 

I had brought along a Chicago Tribune clipping about an Atlantic Monthly article quoting Mayor Emanuel’s older brother, a noted oncologist and bio-ethicist, saying that 75 was the optimal life span. After that, suggested the Mayor’s older brother, you were not viewed the same way and might even be seen as pathetic.

 

Upon entering the room, I gave the article to Ms. Ullmann and said, “The Mayor of Chicago’s older brother says we all should die at 75.” This was a bit of a simplification, but the thought was definitely there in Ezekial Emanuel’s words. [Ezekial Emanuel is an oncologist and bio-ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania and has been singled out by his brother, the Mayor, as “the smartest one” of the three brothers].

 

Unfortunately, Liv Ullmann thought I had used the word “diet.” When she realized that the word was actually “die” she seemed as upset by Ezekial Emanuel’s remarks as I was. She is also deeply concerned about the class system and the unequal distribution of wealth that is occurring, world-wide, saying, “I believe more in its (the class system’s) existence now than ever!” She was praised for her humanitarian works from the stage on Premiere night by Colin Farrell.

 

New projects? “I will be doing an adaptation of ‘Private Confessions.’ Ingmar (Bergman) gave it to me years ago saying, “I don’t believe in God, but you do.” The National Theater in Norway will adapt it for the stage.” Ullmann said, “It is about connecting. How damaging is it to lie to one another? How damaging is it to be truthful?”

“After Dark” Film Festival Series Offers “The ABC’s of Death, Part 2”

“The ABC’s of Death,” Part 2, screened as part of the After Dark series at the 50th Chicago Film Festival on October 12th. The film is composed of 26 short films about death, assigned alphabetically and shot by 26 directors from around the world.
With titles like “B is for Badger” (one of my personal favorites featuring Julian Barratt as both Director and Star) and “F is for Falling,” done by the outstanding duo of Israel’s Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado (“Rabies”), the vignettes were often humorous and sometimes revolting.
“B is for Badger,” which Julian Barratt directed, falls into the category of humorous. Barratt not only directed the short film, but plays the lead part of Peter Toller, a pompous television talking head who has taken his crew to a remote rural area near a large nuclear power plant to make the point that the power plant has driven the badgers away.

Only it hasn’t.

The (unseen) vicious badgers are not only alive and well, but apparently very large and aggressive, as Toller/Barratt finds out firsthand, till he utters the director’s command, “Cut!”
Titles of the films, alphabetically, were:
“A is for Amateur”
“B Is for Badger” (**)
“C is for Capital Punishment” (*)
“D Is for Deloused”
“E Is for Equilibrium” (*)
“F Is for Falling” (**)
“G Is for Granddad”
“H Is for Headgames” (*)
“I Is for Invincible”
“J Is for Jesus:
“K Is for Knell” (*)
“L is for Legacy”
“M Is for Masticate”
“N Is for Nexus” (*)
“O Is for Ochlocracy” (Mob Rule)
“P-P-P-P Is for Scary”
“Q Is for Questionnaire” (*)
“R Is for Roulette”
“S Is for Split” (**)
“T Is for Torture Porn”
“U Is for Utopia” (*)
“V Is for Vacation” (*)
“W Is for Wish”
“X Is for Xylophone”
“Y Is for Youth”
“Z Is for Zygote” (*)
Of the 26, I’d say that roughly half, starred or double-starred above, were absorbing, interesting and fulfilled the assignment in style. The less said about most of the other titles, the better.
I don’t want to give away the plots of any of the short films completely but I did notice a disturbing trend. Just as comedians have to have a target for their humor [and, in this age of political correctness, that target has become harder and harder to find without offending some group or cause], horror needs a Whipping Boy or Girl target, as well.

 

It used to be that comics could make fun of ethnic groups (now “out”), sexual preferences (verboten), and so on, to the point that sometimes it felt as though the only group left that was “fair game” were midgets (aka, “little people”)—until they, too, weren’t. (Remember the midget-throwing scene in “The Wolf of Wall Street?”).
It seems that old people are the new target of horror. There is even one film entitled simply “Granddad” and in the short film representing the letter “I,” the three-man cast sets fire to their own grandmother. One Japanese film is entitled “Youth.” Sumechi Umezawa definitely does not represent the venerable Japanese tradition of honoring one’s parents. Its young star is a decidedly hostile teen-ager. “X Is for Xylophone” makes you worry about ever leaving your child in the care of her grandmother. So four (of 26)—or roughly 15%— are decidedly anti-elder.
Many of the films have tried hard to combine humor with horror, with varying degrees of success. (“B Is for Badger” by Julian Barratt is one that succeeded; many did not. “P-P-P-P Is for Scary” was not scary, but was like watching a bad Three Stooges short, without the fun of watching Curly, Moe and Larry.
Mention should be made of the excellent opening credits designed by Wolfgang Moetzel, which started the ongoing trend of either head-smashing or beheading. With so much actual beheading going on in the real world (not to mention smashing of same on “The Walking Dead”), I did not yearn to see beheadings onscreen. (There’s enough of that on the 6 o’clock news or on YouTube.)
So, for me, roughly 50% of these 26 short films were entertaining and palatable and I’ve marked them with asterisks. It would be hard to pick an overall favorite as I did enjoy the new short film by Aharon Keshales (“Rabies”), whom I interviewed at last year’s festival, but I also enjoyed the excellent “Split,” which used a split-screen technique to portray a husband speaking with his wife long-distance on the phone while an intruder breaks into the house and terrorizes her and their baby. Juan Martinez Moreno directed and Gary Reumer did a good job portraying the concerned husband trying to summon help for his wife while far away at the time of the attack.

Colin Farrell, Liv Ullmann and Kathleen Turner at 50th Chicago Film Festival

Chicago Celebrates 50 Years of Oldest Competitive Film Festival in North America at Premiere on Thursday, 10/9/2014
CHICAGO, IL (October 10, 2014) – Opening Night of the 50th Chicago International Film Festival was a golden celebration. Veteran actress Liv Ullmann, actor Colin Farrell, Festival Jury Member Kathleen Turner and “The Fugitive” director Andrew Davis joined Festival Founder and Artistic Director Michael Kutza on the red carpet for the U.S. Premiere of Ullmann’s latest film “Miss Julie” on Thursday, October 9 at the Harris Theater.

DSC_0071
Academy Award®-nominated and Golden Globe®-winning actress Kathleen Turner; acclaimed filmmaker and New German Cinema pioneer Margarethe von Trotta; Turkish director Ferzan Ozpetek (whose latest film, “Fasten Your Seatbelts,” is an Official selection at this year’s Festival); award-winning Israeli cinematographer Giora Bejach; and Iranian editor and director Parviz Shahbazi. And then came the moment the media and the public were waiting for: Liv Ullmann and Colin Farrell, together on the red carpet with Michael Kutza.

Once inside the theater, the audience was treated to video greetings from past Festival honorees and friends, including Davis; producer, writer and director Robert Zemeckis (“Forrest Gump”); and director Martin Scorsese, whose first film, “I Call First,” premiered at the 1967 Chicago International Film Festival. In his video message, Scorsese acknowledged the encouragement he received from both the Festival and a young film critic at the time named Roger Ebert.

Michael Kutza took the stage, acting as Master of Ceremonies, and introduced a video that illustrated the year-round work done by Cinema/Chicago, the presenting organization of the Chicago International Film Festival. After remarks from Chairman of the Governing Board Jeanne Randall Malkin, Representative Ken Dunkin, 5th District of the State of Illinois, and President and CEO of Columbia College Chicago, Dr. Kwang-Wu Kim, the lights went down and the audience was treated to a personal video message from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel acknowledged the role the Chicago International Film Festival has played in the City’s history.

Kathleen Turner ("Body Heat"), head of the jury at the 50th Annual Chicago Film Festival.

Kathleen Turner (“Body Heat”), head of the jury at the 50th Annual Chicago Film Festival.

The Festival then presented American Airlines with the Gold Hugo for Leadership in the Arts, in recognition of American Airlines’ continued support of the arts and the Film Festival. Judi Gorman, Regional Manager, Sales Promotion & Community Relations, Central Division Sales for American Airlines, accepted the award on behalf of its worldwide employees and commented that both American’s and the Festival’s missions are aligned to “promote cultural diversity and raise the profile of Chicago as a city that does work.”

After formally introducing the members of the International Feature Competition jury, the Festival went on to honor some dear friends who are no longer with us in a video remembrance. Among the “Absent Friends:” director and writer Patrice Chéreau; writer, director and Chicagoan Harold Ramis; director and festival honoree Richard Attenborough; and silent screen comedienne and the Festival’s “Godmother” Colleen Moore, among others. But the largest round of applause was reserved for the final image on the video presentation: film critics and supporters of the Festival, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.

DSC_0069Ullmann then joined Kutza on stage to present the U.S. premiere of her film “Miss Julie.,” based on the Strindberg play. Calling Kutza her “absolute favorite Festival director,” Ullmann declared films a “most important medium”—one that makes theaters a “magic place” where people can see “real life.” She described Farrell as a “genuine actor,” one who gave the best performance of his career for her film. Farrell returned the compliment by describing Ullmann as “the most incredibly deeply feeling” person he’s met and one whose work on behalf of the disenfranchised will long be remembered.

The morning after the premiere of “Miss Julie” I met with Liv Ullmann one-on-one to talk about the film. The review will be postponed, by request, until the film is released, as it is currently seeking distributorship in the U.S.

Robert Duvall and Robert Downey, Jr. Shine in “The Judge”

 

Robert Downey, Jr. and Director David Dobkin previewed their new film “The Judge,” co-starring Robert Duvall, in Chicago at the AMC Theater on Sunday, October 5th, 2014. It opens wide on October 10, 2014.
The film should earn a Best Actor nomination for Robert Duvall and Robert Downey, Jr., as the prodigal son, gives just as strong a performance (Best Supporting?). When Duvall is shown at his wife’s graveside saying, “You’ve always been my sweetheart and you always will be. I want you to know that. I’ll be back tomorrow and every day after that,” you get just a tiny taste of what will surface at Oscar-time in clips, and it resonated with the audience around me.
That is not the only powerful Oscar-worthy scene in the film. The courtroom scenes are equally strong and Duvall as a 72-year-old father with Stage IV colon cancer who must be helped in the bathroom by the son he is estranged from is equally powerful because it’s the way real life plays out.
The script, by Nick Schenk and Bill Dubuque has just enough of the saucy, insouciant Downey attitude to ease us into his more serious appearance here as a lawyer not unlike Matthew McConaughey in “Lincoln Lawyer.” Although filming actually was done in Massachusetts, the setting is (supposedly) Carlinville, Indiana and Downey’s character, is described by his old high school girlfriend, Sam (Vera Farmiga), this way: “You’re just a boy from Indiana who’s gonna’ do whatever he has to do to forget that.”
The main theme of the film concerns the relationship between fathers and sons, especially if the son in question was a problem child when a teenager. Not only was Downey’s middle child troublesome, he actually cost his older brother Glen (Vincent D’Onofrio) a possible pro career in baseball, causing a car accident while driving under the influence when they were teenagers. Dad has not forgiven nor forgotten. When Mom dies and Hank Palmer travels home, solo, for her funeral, the sparks between father and son fly once again.
Seven years in the making, the film is long, but the script is good. Downey gets to spout lines like, “Don’t get sued before you lose your next case” to small town attorney Dax Shepard, whom his father has hired to defend him when he is accused of a hit-and-run murder. Once more in the bosom of his family, Hank is obviously Dad’s least favorite child, while dear old dad (Downey describes him to his 7-year-old granddaughter as “just a dirty old mummy”) favors Glen (D’Onofrio), the oldest boy, and Glen has looked after younger brother Dale, who is described as “a dimwit shutterbug retard” by some locals.
The use of Dale’s home movies, which are his passion, allows us to see the boys when young, as we hear and see evidence of the growing chasm between father and son, caused by Downey’s wild antics as a young man. However, Hank cleaned up his act and graduated Number One in his Northwestern University Law Class, but his father, Judge Joseph Palmer (Duvall) cannot get past his resentment and disappointment in his middle boy, with sentiments expressed like, “You and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions.”
It is true that we’ve seen films with these plots before, but it’s a good bet that you won’t see many 83-year-old actors turn in a stronger performance ever than Duvall does in this one. And, having said that, Downey’s good, too. As are the supporting cast mates, including Billy Bob Thornton as the prosecuting attorney; Dax Shepard as a hapless local lawyer; Vincent D’Onofrio as oldest brother Glen; Jeremy Strong as the retarded youngest brother Dale; Ken Howard as the judge in the murder case; Grace Zabriskie as the mother of the hit-and-run victim; Balthazar Getty as a cop, and featuring Thomas Newman’s music and Janusz Kaminski’s wonderful cinematography, complete with a waterfall outside the Flying Deer Diner, (which old girlfriend Sam now owns).
There is a scene where jury selection is taking place and Downey—the slick Chicago lawyer from Highland Park—asks the jury how many have bumper stickers on their cars (or trucks)? Hands go up. Downey then asks what their bumper stickers say, and, among the answers are: “Gun control means using both hands” and “Wife and dog missing. Reward for dog.”
With each response, lawyer Hank gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down sign to his second-in-command (Dax Shepard), a lawyer who throws up before every court appearance. When Shepard’s character asks what sort of juror they should be looking for, Downey says, “People who can be persuaded to swallow their tongues. Anyone who has seen a Sasquatch.”
Lines like, “Everybody’s Atticus Finch until there’s a dead hooker in the hot tub” suit Downey’s snarky wit from his comic book turns as “Ironman,” but, as Downey said this night in his opening remarks, “Every 20 years or so I try to make a great movie. This is like free therapy. That’s all I’m going to say.”
Everyone knows, from Downey’s previous fast-talking image onscreen, that he can deliver snarky lines with the best of them, but Duvall gets some great lines, too. Here’s one: “Imagine a far-away place where people value your opinion. Then go there.”
It is the bull-headed, stubborn intelligent back-and-forth of these two old adversaries as they try to craft a defense for the older man who, admittedly, cannot remember all the events from the night of the accident. Judge Joseph Palmer has been on the bench for 42 years; he is worried about his legacy, while his outspoken lawyer son says, “Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your legacy.” There is the clash of small-town versus big city values, as well as the old personal wounds, whose scabs are, one-by-one, ripped open again.
At one point, a detractor says of Downey’s Hank, “You’re a shined-up wooden nickel.” Another says to him, “You really aren’t a pleasant person.” Still, Downey manages to make Henry “Hank” Palmer likable, as we see how hard he has tried to redeem himself in his father’s eyes, and how little rewarded his adult efforts have been. I was reminded of “The Great Santini” while watching Duvall in action.
Detractors (i.e., some other critics) have ripped the film for its length (it is long); for its “everyman” set of issues that appeal to all; for the lack of significant female leads and the almost superfluous old-girlfriend-back-home plot thread. One even criticized one of the scenes I found strongest, which is the elderly Duvall, weakening every day, having to accept help from his middle son in a dire moment in the bathroom. I’ve cared for three parental units as they faced their final days. It was Stage IV colon cancer that killed my father, although the situation faced in this film had more in common with my mother, who died of old age, but had more than one emergency trip to the hospital after passing out from extremely brittle diabetes. I’ve found her unconscious and had to scrub feces from the carpet after a coma sent her readings into levels so high they couldn’t even be measured in the hospital (800+). I’ve helped a proud dying man stagger to the bathroom. This is real life. Whoever wrote that it was treacly and sentimental is very possibly a young person who thinks they will live forever and never grow frail. (Good luck with that!)
An interesting side note: Tommy Lee Jones and Jack Nicholson were both considered for Duvall’s part, while the director this night said he had Robert Downey, Jr. in mind for son Hank when he first began developing the script 7 years ago. [Director David Dobkin (“Wedding Crashers”) helped develop the story, but did not script it. From there, said the Director, “We got a good script and took it to Robert and Susan (Downey’s wife).”
I enjoyed the film immensely and think Duvall and Downey, together onscreen, are a dynamite duo.

Page 96 of 160

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén