Johnny Simmons

It’s weird, I don’t think that 2010 has offered us a slew of that brilliant films (but more on that later) – but it’s only proof that good direction is not synonymous with great films. For me, seven directors ruled this year for me (the five nominees and the two finalists) – and it’s really something a head-scratcher narrowing the seven down to five. But, I must (wails) – here’s who I decided on.

           
(click on the photos for reviews)
       

Lisa Cholodenko for The Kids Are All Right

Like all that wine Nic keeps ingesting, Cholodenko’s work in The Kids Are All Right gets better with time. Even though I’d admit that subtle would probably be the incorrect adjective to attribute to The Kids Are All Right Choledenko’s work is so good here because it’s not officious. Perhaps, because she co-writes it, she’s especially aware of the mood that the script calls for and she directs it in turn with sudden spurts that are not jarring as she establishes scene, character and setting with a style that’s current (though, not quite modernist) and always conscious of the viewer’s attention span, without being pandering.
                           

                                                                                        

There’s something dangerously close to posturing in the almost funereal which Fincher (and company) decide to ground The Social Network, but in all honesty I don’t mind it. It works – brilliantly too, I might add – because Fincher has always been adept at reconciling themes with directorial choices. Just like he was able to discern the appropriateness of the mock-epic style for Benjamin Button he manages a taut, hypersensitivity here that makes more and more sense as this gloomy (but not repulsive) tale unfolds. It’s all part of the wonderful irony (similarly evinced in the script) that this “social” network seems so insular.

                   

Sometimes I wonder if what could be perceived as Michôd’s occasional apathy to the situations affecting his character is a detriment to the overall narrative, but like his protagonist J – an ostensible indifference is not proof of disinterest. It’s difficult to single out key moments and say, “X scene was well directed”, but that’s the way Michôd knows it should be. I’m not a fan of the word, but there's some organic in the way that it unfolds (ironic, considering the very unnatural bloodshed ensuing). More than even Choledenko, I’d say that Michôd is the director this year that seems to hold the best interest of his characters at heart – for better, for worse.

Together with Lindsay-Abaire Mitchell succeeds in turning this story of stagnant grief into a thoroughly cinematic piece. He doesn’t smother us with the eccentricities to convey the cinematic nature but simply lets if flow as naturally as possible. One trap that directors working on stage to screen adaptations often fall into is the tendency is to over-cinematise their films, but Mitchell is shrewder. He doesn’t avoid the narrowness of the theatre but uses that same closeness to create a cinematic perspective of characters bound by their emotions.
                                            

               
                                        

Well, turns out Polanski hasn’t lost it. I wasn’t an unabated fan of The Pianist, and I’m not even an unabated fan of The Ghost Writer but Polanski’s direction – though, not exactly vociferous – is impossible to ignore. He’s a master at thrill, that doesn’t sacrifice cleverness in its quest and The Ghost’s journey unfurls with that same interest in being thrilling, occasionally mocking but always conscious of the story and what’s to come. It’s a prime example of the sort of subtle direction, that’s still noticeable but stands up to more scrutiny on the second and third viewings.
                      

       

FINALISTS: I feel like a right heathen for leaving Alejandro Amenabar (Agora) Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs the World) off my top 5. They work on different genres, but there’s a singularity in what they achieve. Both find their fortes in managing to keep productions that are quite sprawling in check, and managing to make them strangely personal. Amenabar retracts the sprawling Alexandrian tale to something simple, but not slight and Wright ensures that Scott Pilgrim vs the World is consistently bombastic and larger than life but never out of control. Both men are credits to their trade.

SEMI-FINALISTS: it sort of comes off like I hate Darren Aronofsky and his work in Black Swan, I don’t. When I consider the issues I have with its script, though, Aronofsky’s direction becomes even more impressive. All the heights of the story, and the successes of Nina’s insular journey succeed because he’s so in touch with his characters; it’s the same way that Noah Baumbach (Greenberg) and Sofia Coppola (Somewhere) are in touch with their introspective, and vaguely misanthropic male characters. Baumbach must be more palpably prickly, and Coppola must be more reticent in establishing that languor – they’re both excellent in controlling their stories, though; I’m still a bit partial to his Elizabeth I but it’s clear (to me, at least) that Tom Hooper’s work in The King’s Speech is proof that he’s improved. Though the writing is an important part of the equation, the subtly surprising direcotiral choices from Hooper is one of the reasons The King’s Speech seems neither tedious or rote; Matt Reeves must be more deliberate in directing Let Me In, and he succeeds in creating the appropriate atmosphere for the drama that evokes a sad redolence that’s unexpected given the genre and the subject.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS: Martin Scorsese for Shutter Island; David Russell for The Fighter; Floria Sigismondi for The Runaways. They each have one thing in common, they each prevent occasionally humdrum screenplays from subverting their attempts to create good cinema, and ultimately that’s one of the strongest suits of a good director.
       
So, director of the year...? Who'd you choose?

The DGA nominees were announced earlier in the week and every Oscar prognosticators is wondering whether or not their shortlist of directors is going to match the list that AMPAS releases in the next few weeks. Speak to some critics and they’d tell you that the director award is more prestigious than the picture, and now with the ten-wide Picture field that sentiment seems more apt. It’s no surprise then that the DGA, like every other precursor this year, offered a list of the same group of frontrunners. I don’t have any legitimate complaint to lodge against them, because if these are the five they think have been most outstanding then there’s nothing to criticise there. The cited nominees were Arronofsky (Black Swan), Fincher (The Social Network), Hooper (The King’s Speech), Nolan (Inception), and Rusell (The Fighter) – if you’re paying attention you’ll notice that these are the five films up for the Golden Globe for Best Picture, Drama.

              

From all suppositions one could assume that this is the set of nominees that we can expect from the Academy, although most forecasters are predicting an upset for True Grit. Maybe I’m still a bit naive in this sense, but I still don’t see the correlation between boxoffice and awards’ accolades. Most are citing the surprise success of True Grit at the boxoffice as indication of a recent surge for the film awards’ wise. I’m neither here nor there on that. What strikes me as even stranger, though, is the sentiment that the DGA voted for the race as it was two months ago, and the AMPAS voters (many of them in the DGA) will have to take True Grit’s financial success into consideration to consider the race right now. Poppycock, I say. Who knows...maybe the voters are that fickle, but that just sounds absurd. Does the film being a success make it any better or worse directed? I have no idea (and by that, I mean a thousand times *no* it doesn’t). I’m thinking there will be an upset in the directing race, but I’m not sure I think it’ll be the Coens, but if not the Coen’s then who? The film that you’d most have expected to make a year-end surge (The Way Back) seems to have bowed out of the race with barely a whimper and I want to think that they’ll remember Choldenko but her work is really low-key and they’ll prefer to honour her in the screenplay category. I’ll stick to this quintet for now

                 

Predictions: Arronofsky/Fincher/Hooper/Nolan/Rusell

               

Not an awful group by any means and better in spades than last year’s line-up I did not care for. So I suppose I should be glad for small mercies.

          

Enough with predictions, though. If you had the choice to trade out one of the purported five who’d you take out? Who’d you replace them with?

The Social Network in a way defies logic. If it was written out as a musical scale the first ten minutes would be in accelerando. You’d expect that eventually that would have to cease and the consistent popping dialogue of the opening would abate, you’d be wrong. I could probably preface my review by indicating that I’m not a member of facebook and have a general lack of interest in social network sites but that statement would not only be innocuous, it’d be superfluous too. True, underneath it’s sophistication, witty dialogue and snazzy direction The Social Network seems to exist technically as a biopic but when stripped to the bare essentials it’s less about the founding members of facebook. It’s not even an assessment of society’s flawed values – at least not in absolution. At its core its basis is really just one of the simplest of paradigms – battling friends. This estimation isn’t a slight at the film itself because the fact that Sorkin’s screenplay and Fincher’s direction manage to turn this decidedly primeval concept into this is only proof of how much they’ve got going for them.

I’m not the least interested in how accurate the story is, my favourite biopic (a term I use loosely) is The Lion in Winter which is probably more accurately classified as literary/historic fiction. Like The Lion in Winter The Social Network depends – slavishly so at times – on its writing. Sorkin has an ear for dialogue, he’s always had this gift what he’s been lacking is a director to complement this and Fincher doesn’t emerge as the obvious choice. Truth be told I’ve always admired Fincher’s ability to turn good scripts into excellent ventures. He doesn’t strike you as the obvious subtle director but in his mindfulness of technique it all ends up the same place in a weird way. There’s a line where Eduardo turns to Mark and Sean and says, “Sorry, my Prada is at the cleaners, along with hoodie and “fuck you” flip flops”. It’s a line that has the potential to be so tongue-in-cheek I almost cringe, because that right there could be an indicator of The Social Network potential flaw. There’s a thin line between being cool and trying too hard but somehow Fincher manages to make it work. There’s a whole lot that’s going on, maybe even too much but for some reason it works. Maybe it’s because Fincher is able to match Sorkin’s relentless onslaught of dialogue with a direction that’s simultaneously exuberant and snazzy and yet interesting enough to distract us from the fact that the dialogue is the movie. It’s not that Fincher’s direction is smoke and mirrors but it ends up like communications theory – the means really is the message (or vice versa)

It’s this pop-pop-pop nature of the film that concurrently pushes its actors to step up their game while preventing from getting the usual “best performance” edicts that one would anticipate from a standard biopic. The Social Network is an ensemble film in absolution, and I’d be the first to point out a number of the cast members for individual awards. There doesn’t seem to be a false note among the cast and whether that’s Fincher’s niche casting or just the talent of the group is beyond me. Really, I’m least interested. It would be impractical of me to look under the hood and see what keeps The Social Network running: Eisenberg grounds the film, he’s the lead after all (a de facto one somewhat) but I’m as impressed with his turn as I am with Rashida Jones who has about ten minutes of screentime with a character that should be insignificant but emerges as one of my favourites of the film. It’s difficult to measure if Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake or Rooney Mara plays their roles best. Each has varying screen-time, each nails their performances. I’m not sure what algorithm Fincher and Sorkin use but the The Social Network works. I won’t say that it’ll be the film that defines our generation or whatnot, I mean who can really tell that sort of things until it happens. I will admit that after having been privy to a long spell of movies I was always somewhat reticent about I didn’t even realise that I was in need of a good 2010 film. When The Social Network finished I had that sort of naive feeling that cinema really was the greatest art form. It’s probably like the drunken stupor that Zuckerberg experiences at the film’s beginning – but that doesn’t make it any less real to me. I hate to sound sycophantic, but I’m a fan – a big one.

           

I liked The Curious Case of Benjamin Button more than the average person, it’s been on my mind quite much recently too, as you probably guessed from my nostalgic waxing. Like so many good films, it remains as proof that a long film is never necessarily a boring one. I like essentially everything in it, but Cate always stands out as my favourite part, and a favourite moment of mine depends on her. It occurs just a few moments after her first date with Benjamin where she’s at her most loquacious. But it’s the moment just after that always thrills me. As she lifts herself up onto the gazebo she says, 

 Cate is so in touch with the immaturity of Daisy, I’m amazed that the film is so recent. The impetuous young dancer is really just showing off for Benjamin as she does her moves. 

I love Cate’s reading of that piece in particular; it’s so indolent, as if she’s actually languishing in Lawrence’s words.

The lean in for the kiss that doesn’t come is lovely, and as so much with Benjamin Button it’s always thrilling to notice the effective makeup and special effects, even when they’re not the focus. 

It’s to Cate’s credit that we don’t find Daisy completely juvenile at moments like these. We need to be caught up in the radiance of Daisy, complete with the iconic red dress from designer Jacqueline West – and we are. I love the quiet show of emotion from Brad when she asks him, 

It’s not his greatest performance, but he’s completely effective as Benjamin. 

He too works hard here, though not as officiously. Why doesn’t Benjamin take up Daisy’s invitation? They’re both adults. He manages to make the rebuff, less so, and more of an act of believable maturity from Benjamin. 

As Cate dejectedly picks up her shoes and stalks off I’m always moved to wonder how a scene with no actual physical contact between the leads always seems so sensual.

It’s a weird thing when something seems both subtle and obvious at the same time, but paradoxes are everywhere in the world – especially film. There’s a scene in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button that I’m particularly fond of that could very well act as an illustration of the entire film. As Benjamin narrates piece, through (seemingly trivial) piece of unrelated events we lead up to the fateful accident of Daisy. The message pounded home is not subtle – every action has its consequence. Yet, I never think of this scene as heavy-handed. It’s the same with Benjamin Button. At my most understanding, I’m well aware of what could turn persons off from it – but each time I return to it I’m impressed, enthralled even. It’s just that special for me. I like how Cate and Brad manage to convince us of their youth as much as their age. Makeup can only do so much, and Cate especially is particularly vivacious as the young dancer.

I’d be at a lost to categorise The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to anyone who asked me. It’s not a fantasy, though its logic is something fantastical. It’s dramatic but it’s too humorous to be a drama, focusing too much on an ensemble to be a romance and as expansive as it is, too personal to be considered an epic. I’m still often in wonder that this was what Eric Roth decided to write from Fitzgerald’s not so short story. I’m a tempered fan of Fitzgerald, but for all its irreverence I never become completely sold on his narrative in Benjamin Button until the very end of the piece. I recall the immediate accusation of Roth’s regurgitation of his Forrest Gump plot for this venture, and I’m always at a loss. Surely, there are more films than these two that feature men in love meeting interesting characters along the way. But if Benjamin Button represents reaching the top without actually going over the top, Forrest Gump represents its antithesis. Not that I’m a hater of the 1994 piece, but whereas Forrest Gump reaches its zenith in its moments of delicious schmaltz Benjamin Button is most honest when it gets most simplistic. A simple conversation in a dance studio seems so lovely as Cate and Brad “meet in the middle” or Tilda Swinton’s unremarkable Elizabeth Abbot, becomes more than just the archetypical “older woman”.

But, it’s not that Benjamin Button is without its moment of ridiculous conviviality. Ben’s moment of healing in the church surrounded by the Pentecostal church (and it’s not a stereotype) is wrong on so many levels and yet absolutely hilarious. Taraji P. Henson’s Queenie is a breathing woman under her ostensible stereotypes. It seems easy, but Taraji decides to breathe life into Queenie when we least expect it, and continues to “act” even when it doesn’t seem as necessary. I love her first scene on the landing with her ever faithful Mr. Weathers. Her discovery of Benjamin is the strongest part of her performance and I’m always moved to believe in the honesty of her claiming of this grotesque child. The bit players move through the narrative, each giving their bit to the film, from Jason Flemyng's tortured father to Julia Ormond's sorrowful daughter.

These early moments, though, seem so far removed from the other sections of the film. In its own way, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a bit like many films in one. It’s seems discordant, but it’s still melodic in its own special way. It’s this same ostensible discordance that makes it what it is. As the final narration begins and we see the people in Benjamin’s love we come once again to the unsubtle subtlety, its intentions don't become twdry by its obviousness though. If had included films from 2008 and later in my list of favourites; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would be somewhere. Its scope is formidable, it’s technical achievements are flawless, the acting is excellent and the story though unusual is still real. Yet, it’s all so personal…and exquisite.I never expected to love it as much, but "You never knows what's coming to you."

 So, continuing from the previous entry, I'm taking a look at the films that I'm anticipating for the year 2010. Of course anticipating is often different from appreciation, but it can't hurt to expect good things in some of these. Some may fail, some may surprise...but at least a few will be as good as I hope. At least, I hope so.

             

This was rumoured to be a 2009 release, but nothing has come to fruition as yet. Joe Pesci and Helen Mirren star in this as a husband and wife team who open a brothel. The only thing stranger than Pesci and Mirren in a romance is Pesci and Mirren in charge of a brothel. They are both Oscar winners and the film is based on the true story of the Nevada couple to open the first brothel. I wonder what sort of skeletons are in their closets. 

                

Is this too high? It’s Angelina love, obviously. How could I not want to see the movie where she replaced Tom Cruise? And as underrated as her traditional acting skills are, most can agree that she’s a killer action star. So here’s to this. The plot is pretty much stock fare. It involves a CIA officer wrongly accused of being a Russian sleeper agent planning to assassinate the US President. Naturally she ensues on a journey to clear her name and find the perpetrator.

      

I was a fan of Inaritu's 21 Grams and Babel. The film centres on a criminal who is reunited with a childhood friend, now a police officer. I am a big of Javier Bardem and am expecting big things from this. I'm only wondering if it will reach here before the end of the year.
                 
 #27 Letters to Juliet

In retrospect I can’t justify how this is so high. I like Amanda Seyfried but not enough to go see Jennifer’s Body, and though I liked Gael in what I saw him I haven’t seen him at his best. Still pair them with Vanessa Redgrave [who I had a feeling is playing a cameo here] and then a European romance and I’m pretty much on board. I recently saw the poster which had Seyfreid and Redgrave with top billing which makes me really hopeful. I'm a big fan of Vanessa.

This could be great or it could be horrible. Christina Aguilera and Cher star in this one. A young up and comer [Aguilera] begins working at a Burlesque club in hopes of becoming a star; Cher plays her mentor. I don’t know what the look for this is going to be, or if it’s going to be a good film; but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I wasn’t interested. Christina Aguilera was one of those archetypes of teenaged boy lust. Cher? Not so much. But still, she's a good actor - sometimes. Add that to Kirsten Bell and the great Stanley Tucci and this is looking promising. Maybe.

      

It’s a true story starring Johnny Depp, which at least makes it worthy of contemplation.The story follows a wandering journalist who travels to Puerto and becomes obsessed with a woman. It sounds rather vague, but I'm expecting this to be a good one.

          

I still have hopes that Collin Farrell will one day get the praise he deserves. Ondine is based on a story of a fisherman who caught what he believes to be a mermaid in his net. I believe it’s based on a play I read years ago, but wasn’t too fond of it. It was well written, but I hated the ending. But I digress. tTe stills so far look good and with this premise I think Collin could impress me.

It’s probably wrong but in terms of the acting, my biggest draw here is Vanessa Redgrave. She seems like the perfect Shakespearean type actor, and this being a Shakespeare play only makes me want to se this more. Coriolanus is actually one his plays that I have not read. It's a tragedy and a history Ralph  f***ing Fiennes is playing the title character with Redgrave as his mother. Fiennes also directs. I've been waiting for Fiennes to get a good role and this is looking exceptionally good. I hope I'm not disappointed, I can't really see why Gerard Butler is there...but I'll let that pass.

             

Brad Pitt and Sean Penn star in Terrence Malick’s new film. Hardly any information has been released as to plot of this one, and I’ve never been a big fan of Malick. But Penn and Pitt are two actors I happen to like, and I’m just getting a good vibe from this. For what reason, I don’t know.

                 
Stay tuned for the next part. Which Redgrave film are you anticipating more? Are you anticipating Fincher? Malick?