Movie of the Day (11/13/2009)- One True Thing (1998)
Starring Meryl Streep, Renee Zellweger and William Hurt
Directed by Carl Franklin
- Do you ever find that when you are looking forward to a certian film's release that you virtually ignore most other films being released around the same time?? Such was the case with me and One True Thing back in 1998. I had become so pre-occupied with so many other films coming out around that time (Apt Pupil, Cruel Intentions, Ronin) that I let this film slip through my radar. Years later, through some reason which currently escapes me, the movie found me. And I'm so thankful it did.
One True Thing is about a successful young journalist Ellen (Zellweger) who spent her childhood idolizing her writer father (Hurt) while ignoring her doting mother (Streep.) After living in his shadow all her life, Ellen now spends her adulthood trying to make him proud of her. Upon a visit home for his birthday, news comes that Kate (Streep) has cancer. George (Hurt) asks ellen to come home and take care of Kate as she battles the illness. Both mother and daughter are not in favor of this arrangement, but give into it in the end. Throughout Kate's illness, Ellen begins to not only question the man she has always idolized, but also to finally examine the woman who has always been her mother.
On the surface this might appear to be a film worthy of made-for-tv status, yet the writing and the actors help elevate it to be one of the most enriching family dramas of the late 90s. Streep received her 11th Oscar nomination for her portrayl of a woman whose whole existence was devoted to being a mother. Though she lost to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love, one cannot write this off as just another Oscar bid by Streep. Indeed it is her performance that is the heart and soul of One True Thing. She inhabits qualities of all mothers and in her suffering, the audience feels her grieve for her family, rather than for herself. When she knows she is dying she cries, but not because of her own mortality, but for the fact that she still has so much more to give to her family. The main example of this can be found in the scene between her and Zellweger in her bedroom where Kate, for one of the first times, airs out her frustrations about her illness. It is, in my humble opinion, one of Streep's finest hours on screen.
Beyond just a brauva performance from Streep, the film should resonate with any person who has never particularly felt that kinship with a parent that we may have felt should have been stronger than it was. Its easy to love your parents I feel. However its even easier to disregard them, take them for granted, never realize what they do for us, and understand how much of their world we consume. After Ellen takes on many of Kate's duties when she is no longer able to, she asks her mother: "How do you do this everyday in this house and no one notices?" One True Thing not only makes us face this realization, but it also makes us recognize our own parents as genuine people with thoughts, interests, and opinions as opposed the institutions we eventually come to see them as.
Just as Ellen finally gets to know who her mother is, she also beings to realize that her father is not the mythical hero she has conjured up in her mind. The more Ellen becomes immersed in her mother's world, the more withdrawn George becomes, and Ellen realizes that she has inherited her disregard from her mother from George. Its disheartening to view the role model you looked up to your whole life with older, wiser eyes because it strips one of the comforting illusions and familiarity which have helped to shape who we've become. Yet for Ellen, as with most individuals, it is a necessary event in life.
One True Thing will never be considered a classic. More than a decade has passed since its release and the film is still being considered just another piece of dramatic fluff. Yet the film serves as a valuable reminder for people who take those in thier lives for granted. As both the tagline and Kate proclaim: "love what you have."
-please enjoy what I consider to be two of the best scenes in the film...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsOBIv69VAs&feature=related
Friday, 13 November 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Movie of the Day (11/12/09)- The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio
The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio (2005)
Starring Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson, and Laura Dern.
Directed by Jane Anderson
-The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio is a rarity. It is the sort of film that is seldom ever greenlit by Hollywood executives anymore, as evidinced by the extremely minimal theatrical run The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio received. Perhaps because there is no immediate draw in comparison to a film such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith (also released in the same year) that this is so. It truly is the loss of the cinemagoer who misses out on such wonderful stories such as this one which serve as true slice-of-life pieces with multi-layered characters and their compelling lives.
The film tells the true story of an American housewife named Evelyn Ryan (Moore) who pulled her family through the most dire of financial times by winning one writing contest after another. Evelyn's talent and continuous fortunes frustrate her husband Kelly (Harrelson) who works hard in a factory to support his family, but has a drinking problem. Despite the struggles though, Evelyn perseveres for both her love of writing and the love of her family.
Upon first seeing The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio three years ago, I tried long and hard to remember the last time I had seen a film such as this one; a story about real people with real struggles who are placed in situations not extraordinary, but ones that are brought about by life in general. The main appeal of films is to escape reality and enter a world where the ordinary has been transformed. Yet its refreshing to see tales such as this one where one person's very own life can be so captivating that it reminds us that real life itself too is extraordinary.
The film, which takes place in the 1950s, is beautifully shot, written, directed, and acted. In the title role, Moore fits perfectly into the shoes of a housewife whose every act is made for someone other than herself. She understands the motivations and reasons behind them. Her face also comes into play quite well. This might seem an odd point to make. But for me, Moore has usually failed to strike me as a facially expressive actress despite her obvious talents. Yet here she manages to capture Evelyn's grief, surprise and optimism almost effortlessly. It is quite honestly one of her finest performances.
Likewise Harrelson reminds one of what he is capable of when he steps away from the laugh-out-loud comedy genre and takes on a role such as this in which, as the Evelyn's alcoholic husband, he manages to make his character likeable while ensuring that the film never pities him.
Other than the core story of Evelyn's pronounced writing talents, the film's view on marriage is perhaps the key theme of the film. Evelyn is clearly a wife devoted to her husband. She forgives his drunken stupors, which includes wasting the family's money on alcohol, his tempermental behavior, and his overall aloofness with regards to her passion for writing. Yet Evelyn is so sure of the man she fell in love with and the kind of person he was and still is, that she never loses her faith in Kelly.
On his part, Kelly is perhaps the most conflicted character in the film. He endures public jibes about his wife's fortunes which tears away at his masculinity, instills feelings of resentment and jealousy and drives him to drink. Yet one never feels like he doesn't love his wife. He supports her at every turn, tries his hardest to correct the mistakes he makes, and above all else is genuinely happy and proud of her success. Kelly's biggest frustration however, and the possible reason for his alcoholism, is his own feelings of failure at not being able to provide his wife and family with the lifestyle which he feels they deserve. But to Kelly's credit, he keeps on trying.
What The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio is truly about is the perseverance required for life which everyone must recognize and adopt. Evelyn's writing in the film not only gives her a way of supporting her family, but also gives her a purpose in life which goes beyond the parameters of wife and mother. She takes great care and precision with her craft and loves it as if its another one of her children. This film is funadamentally another story about the classic American dream shown through the eyes of a woman who was not able to reap ALL of the benefits the country had to offer, but who took what she had and did the best she could with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVxiQbFsVSU
-please enjoy the somewhat effective trailer to an otherwise breathtaking film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzxipBfJ4qU
-an excellent scene which more than anything explains the crux of Moore's character
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxrCpNgVXCc&feature=related
Starring Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson, and Laura Dern.
Directed by Jane Anderson
-The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio is a rarity. It is the sort of film that is seldom ever greenlit by Hollywood executives anymore, as evidinced by the extremely minimal theatrical run The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio received. Perhaps because there is no immediate draw in comparison to a film such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith (also released in the same year) that this is so. It truly is the loss of the cinemagoer who misses out on such wonderful stories such as this one which serve as true slice-of-life pieces with multi-layered characters and their compelling lives.
The film tells the true story of an American housewife named Evelyn Ryan (Moore) who pulled her family through the most dire of financial times by winning one writing contest after another. Evelyn's talent and continuous fortunes frustrate her husband Kelly (Harrelson) who works hard in a factory to support his family, but has a drinking problem. Despite the struggles though, Evelyn perseveres for both her love of writing and the love of her family.
Upon first seeing The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio three years ago, I tried long and hard to remember the last time I had seen a film such as this one; a story about real people with real struggles who are placed in situations not extraordinary, but ones that are brought about by life in general. The main appeal of films is to escape reality and enter a world where the ordinary has been transformed. Yet its refreshing to see tales such as this one where one person's very own life can be so captivating that it reminds us that real life itself too is extraordinary.
The film, which takes place in the 1950s, is beautifully shot, written, directed, and acted. In the title role, Moore fits perfectly into the shoes of a housewife whose every act is made for someone other than herself. She understands the motivations and reasons behind them. Her face also comes into play quite well. This might seem an odd point to make. But for me, Moore has usually failed to strike me as a facially expressive actress despite her obvious talents. Yet here she manages to capture Evelyn's grief, surprise and optimism almost effortlessly. It is quite honestly one of her finest performances.
Likewise Harrelson reminds one of what he is capable of when he steps away from the laugh-out-loud comedy genre and takes on a role such as this in which, as the Evelyn's alcoholic husband, he manages to make his character likeable while ensuring that the film never pities him.
Other than the core story of Evelyn's pronounced writing talents, the film's view on marriage is perhaps the key theme of the film. Evelyn is clearly a wife devoted to her husband. She forgives his drunken stupors, which includes wasting the family's money on alcohol, his tempermental behavior, and his overall aloofness with regards to her passion for writing. Yet Evelyn is so sure of the man she fell in love with and the kind of person he was and still is, that she never loses her faith in Kelly.
On his part, Kelly is perhaps the most conflicted character in the film. He endures public jibes about his wife's fortunes which tears away at his masculinity, instills feelings of resentment and jealousy and drives him to drink. Yet one never feels like he doesn't love his wife. He supports her at every turn, tries his hardest to correct the mistakes he makes, and above all else is genuinely happy and proud of her success. Kelly's biggest frustration however, and the possible reason for his alcoholism, is his own feelings of failure at not being able to provide his wife and family with the lifestyle which he feels they deserve. But to Kelly's credit, he keeps on trying.
What The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio is truly about is the perseverance required for life which everyone must recognize and adopt. Evelyn's writing in the film not only gives her a way of supporting her family, but also gives her a purpose in life which goes beyond the parameters of wife and mother. She takes great care and precision with her craft and loves it as if its another one of her children. This film is funadamentally another story about the classic American dream shown through the eyes of a woman who was not able to reap ALL of the benefits the country had to offer, but who took what she had and did the best she could with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVxiQbFsVSU
-please enjoy the somewhat effective trailer to an otherwise breathtaking film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzxipBfJ4qU
-an excellent scene which more than anything explains the crux of Moore's character
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxrCpNgVXCc&feature=related
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Movie of the Day (11/11/09)- The Bonfire of the Vanitites (1990)
Movie of the Day (11/11/09)- The Bonfire of the Vanitites (1990)
Starring Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffith, and Morgan Freeman
Directed by Brian DePalma
-The Bonfire of the Vanities tells the story of Sherman McCoy, a Wall Street tycoon who, upon driving his mistress home from the airport, becomes involved in a hit-and-run with two African-American teenagers. Fleeing the scene, Sherman quickly sees his life begin to unravel as a down-on-his-luck reporter named Peter Fallow uncovers the incident which soon spirals into a media frenzy.
I begin this post by stating that I know how odd a choice The Bonfire of the Vanities is to make as a recommendation. I am aware of the film's reputation and all of its shortcomings and how the combination of big stars, meddling producers, and an uneven script have all conspired to make The Bonfire of the Vanities one of the most notable disasters in movie history. Yet I feel that there is more to this film than most people have perceived over the years. The origin of the film is of course the famous novel by Tom Wolfe of the same name. The book was widely regarded as a hilarious satire of New York's upper class and is now considered to be one of the most telling literary works of the 1980s. Its only natural then that Hollywood would want to capitalize on such a hot property by adapting it. The result was a film which decided to forgo the many ingredients which had made the novel so biting and powerful and instead opted to follow the traditional conventions of the Hollywood blockbuster. Audiences, most of whom had read the book, were disappointed as were the critics who found the film repetitive and obvious. The Bonfire of the Vanities has since gone down in history as a bona fide disaster.
Yet looking at the film without having read the book, The Bonfire of the Vanities succeeds on a variety of differing levels. First off, there is the level of comedy on display throughout the film, which, granted is not revolutionary by any means, seldom misses a beat. This is due in large part to the much controversial cast. While no one was necessarily in favor of casting Tom Hanks as the slimy Wall Street tycoon, Bruce Willis as the alcoholic journalist, or Melanie Griffith as the high society southern belle, the cast ably delivers the comedic touches the film nees while lending thier star power to roles that cast them against type. Despite this, one wonders how the film would have woked had the original choices (William Hurt, John Cleese, and Michelle Pfeiffer) been cast instead. The biggest surprise of all is Hanks who in my opinion gives quite an admirable performance as someone who is not necessarily a villain, but definitley not likeable. Hanks somehow plays Sherman McCoy as slimy while still making the audience side with him.
Almost as controversial as the casting choices, was the selection of DePalma as the director, who had been known for directing thrillers up to that point. Yet the director imbeds his trademark touches including high overhead angles and extended tracking shots (such as the brilliantly filmed opening in the world trade center) to make the film his own. Moreover, the film's criticism of society is one which DePalma has been known to tackle in the past and could be what potentially led him to helming the project.
It is that said criticism that is at the heart of the film which takes a very upfront attack on two societies; the callous upper-class who live on Park Avenue and the opportunistic lower class who live in the Bronx. While the contrasting attitudes and lifestyles of the two are distinctly presented, the script eventually shows them all as money-hungry, fame-seeking, status-attaining and morally vacuous. One of the problems many people had with the film was the fact that it presented its subjects as cartoons rather than characters due to the heightened nature in which they are presented. While this claim is just, one could also make the case that the exaggerated nature of the characters only adds to the satirical element of the film and keeps it from abandoning its comedic roots.
There is also the minor argument that The Bonfire of the Vanities was slightly ahead of its time. Made too soon after the 80s had ended the film's subject matter was simply too fresh to lend itself to a probing expose. Also, the depiction of the media as a powerful and driving force and outrageous scenes such as Hanks running around his penthouse apartment during a dinner party scaring off guests with a shotgun (my favorite scene) seems much more acceptable in today's cinematic world than in the early 90s.
The less than subtle nature also seemed to be a frustrating point with audiences who found the film's messages to be too blatant and 'in your face' in comparison w/the book. While I agree that the message of the film is not subtle by any means, the method of presenting the film's core themes is nothing new. In fact, this style of storytelling recalls the films of Frank Capra such as You Can't Take it With You and Pocketful of Miracles where messages of kindness and loyalty toward humanity were considered gospel and were hammered into the audiences minds from the beginning in more than obvious ways. Withthat in mind, it might be easier to look at The Bonfire of the Vanities as less like a failed literary adaptation and more like a modern day Capra film with a decidedly darker twist. Many of the key themes of the aforementioned films such as misplaced values and the emphasis on class distinctions are on view here and Freeman's grand speech about justice could easily have been taken out of one of Capra's own films verbatim.
Starring Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffith, and Morgan Freeman
Directed by Brian DePalma
-The Bonfire of the Vanities tells the story of Sherman McCoy, a Wall Street tycoon who, upon driving his mistress home from the airport, becomes involved in a hit-and-run with two African-American teenagers. Fleeing the scene, Sherman quickly sees his life begin to unravel as a down-on-his-luck reporter named Peter Fallow uncovers the incident which soon spirals into a media frenzy.
I begin this post by stating that I know how odd a choice The Bonfire of the Vanities is to make as a recommendation. I am aware of the film's reputation and all of its shortcomings and how the combination of big stars, meddling producers, and an uneven script have all conspired to make The Bonfire of the Vanities one of the most notable disasters in movie history. Yet I feel that there is more to this film than most people have perceived over the years. The origin of the film is of course the famous novel by Tom Wolfe of the same name. The book was widely regarded as a hilarious satire of New York's upper class and is now considered to be one of the most telling literary works of the 1980s. Its only natural then that Hollywood would want to capitalize on such a hot property by adapting it. The result was a film which decided to forgo the many ingredients which had made the novel so biting and powerful and instead opted to follow the traditional conventions of the Hollywood blockbuster. Audiences, most of whom had read the book, were disappointed as were the critics who found the film repetitive and obvious. The Bonfire of the Vanities has since gone down in history as a bona fide disaster.
Yet looking at the film without having read the book, The Bonfire of the Vanities succeeds on a variety of differing levels. First off, there is the level of comedy on display throughout the film, which, granted is not revolutionary by any means, seldom misses a beat. This is due in large part to the much controversial cast. While no one was necessarily in favor of casting Tom Hanks as the slimy Wall Street tycoon, Bruce Willis as the alcoholic journalist, or Melanie Griffith as the high society southern belle, the cast ably delivers the comedic touches the film nees while lending thier star power to roles that cast them against type. Despite this, one wonders how the film would have woked had the original choices (William Hurt, John Cleese, and Michelle Pfeiffer) been cast instead. The biggest surprise of all is Hanks who in my opinion gives quite an admirable performance as someone who is not necessarily a villain, but definitley not likeable. Hanks somehow plays Sherman McCoy as slimy while still making the audience side with him.
Almost as controversial as the casting choices, was the selection of DePalma as the director, who had been known for directing thrillers up to that point. Yet the director imbeds his trademark touches including high overhead angles and extended tracking shots (such as the brilliantly filmed opening in the world trade center) to make the film his own. Moreover, the film's criticism of society is one which DePalma has been known to tackle in the past and could be what potentially led him to helming the project.
It is that said criticism that is at the heart of the film which takes a very upfront attack on two societies; the callous upper-class who live on Park Avenue and the opportunistic lower class who live in the Bronx. While the contrasting attitudes and lifestyles of the two are distinctly presented, the script eventually shows them all as money-hungry, fame-seeking, status-attaining and morally vacuous. One of the problems many people had with the film was the fact that it presented its subjects as cartoons rather than characters due to the heightened nature in which they are presented. While this claim is just, one could also make the case that the exaggerated nature of the characters only adds to the satirical element of the film and keeps it from abandoning its comedic roots.
There is also the minor argument that The Bonfire of the Vanities was slightly ahead of its time. Made too soon after the 80s had ended the film's subject matter was simply too fresh to lend itself to a probing expose. Also, the depiction of the media as a powerful and driving force and outrageous scenes such as Hanks running around his penthouse apartment during a dinner party scaring off guests with a shotgun (my favorite scene) seems much more acceptable in today's cinematic world than in the early 90s.
The less than subtle nature also seemed to be a frustrating point with audiences who found the film's messages to be too blatant and 'in your face' in comparison w/the book. While I agree that the message of the film is not subtle by any means, the method of presenting the film's core themes is nothing new. In fact, this style of storytelling recalls the films of Frank Capra such as You Can't Take it With You and Pocketful of Miracles where messages of kindness and loyalty toward humanity were considered gospel and were hammered into the audiences minds from the beginning in more than obvious ways. Withthat in mind, it might be easier to look at The Bonfire of the Vanities as less like a failed literary adaptation and more like a modern day Capra film with a decidedly darker twist. Many of the key themes of the aforementioned films such as misplaced values and the emphasis on class distinctions are on view here and Freeman's grand speech about justice could easily have been taken out of one of Capra's own films verbatim.
In his review of the film, critic Roger Ebert stated that he was unsure of who this movie was for since no one who had read the book would appreciate it. In Ebert's comment lies the answer; the film is indeed better suited for individuals who haven't read the Tom Wolfe novel, as well as fans of the stars and director who can each consider the film as an interesting footnote in thier careers. In the end, The Bonfire of the Vanities is undenaibly flawed. But within those flaws is a film brimming with dark comedy, light satire and a timeless commentary on society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8svDYfWi2c
-the trailer of the film sets the tone in terms of the comedy and overall nature of the story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luui7KGzciY&feature=related
-the film's opening sequence which takes place in the world trade center shows us that this is a DePalma film and that his technique is adaptable to comedy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mufsIKsis
-F. Murray Abraham's first scene shows how the film treats racial and class politics with a decidedly, humourous edge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si55h9-MP_4
-as stated earlier, Morgan Freeman's speech is right out of a Capra film in that its virtually shoved down the audience's throats. The accompanying music only adds to this. Yet the scene should not be discarded, mainly due to DePalma's interesting angles which sees Freeman towering overhead and various characters are given tight close-ups in accordance with their part in the events...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)