Johnny Simmons

There’s a moment in Inception when Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb tells Ellen Page’s Ariadne that a dream is unique because we rarely remember the beginning or the end, because we always seem to be in the middle of it. It’s anyone’s guess if this is because the bookends are unremarkable, or just forgettable for in a way I feel that (inadvertently) Nolan might have identified one of the flaws in Inception. In a way, I suppose it’s a good thing that I saw Inception so late in the game. It’s still not accurate to say that I’ve gauged the playing field, I’ve read only one complete review of it. I’m acutely aware of the hubbub surrounding it but I can’t really discern the sides because I’ve avoided all Inception information. I have a natural inclination to overanalyse films I see and I went into Inception with that natural inclination even more heightened due to the claims that it was a cerebral experience. I’m not sure the film made good on those claims and thus my state of acute sensibility may not have been the best state to appreciate it in.

Essentially, Inception is a heist film. Cobb (along with help from his team) are noted for their ability to extract information from dreams but for personal reasons Cobb is lured into a new heist to perform the opposite – create an idea in someone’s dreams. The visceral portion of the story, which concerns the assimilation of three dream sequences, is played consciously alongside the emotional portion of the story which sees Cobb’s memories of his relationship with his dead wife Mal. Cobb’s reasons for performing this dangerous inception job is so that he can return to his two children who he is unable to see as he travels the globe avoiding arrest for the murder of Mal – an act he is apparently nnocent of. No one is a blank slate and whatever perceived objectivity we bring to a film is always tainted. In case you don’t already know I’m overly fond of Leonardo DiCaprio and despite my general indifference towards Nolan I’ll admit that DiCaprio’s presence in it piqued my interest. I don’t know it was this state of acute expectancy that made DiCaprio’s performance come off with less of a bang and more of a whimper. Considering that if it were up to me he’d have four Oscars (one, two, thee, four) I don’t think I’d say he’s untalented. And say what you will about Titanic but he proved he could at least hold our interest when the special effects were front and centre, but he seems decidedly unremarkable throughout the entire of Inception (and, yes, it hurts me to admit that) and seeing that his performance is imperative to sustain the very significant emotional arc of the story it’s no wonder that I’m left generally unmoved by it – but not necessarily uninterested.

True, Marion Cotillard ends up getting best-in-show honours but Inception is obviously NOT an actors’ showcase. In many ways Inception seems more like an extended pilot episode for a new sci-fi series and less like a complete movie. The ending and beginning, though each fair in its own right, are trite when I consider Nolan’s intent. I’m amazed at Cotillard’s skill though because she comes off with the most difficult task, being forced to move from perfect wife to shrieking siren in a mere second. She pulls off her task credibly but I’m inclined to believe that she’s not playing a real person but Cobb’s memories of her – which makes sense, in its own ludicrous way. I'm not sure if Nolan attempts to be mysterious but he ends up being esoteric because I'm not sure how the characters of Inception exist in the larger world. Was Mal as experienced at the thievery as Cobb...is it legal? I’ve heard Nolan’s biggest fan acknowledge his Achilles’ Heel as his female characters – and it’s true. But despite this Cotillard shines and though Ellen Page’s Ariadne is a woefully underrated character, and more of a glorified mouthpiece she manages to create something real, fleetingly yes but I’ll take what I get. I’m no fan of Page but I’d credit her with one of the film’s better performances managing to turn what could have amounted to a talking head into something that exists. It’s because each person in the film is playing a decided “type” that prevents the emotional connection from being salient. Other than the Mal / Cobb arc Nolan doesn’t care to turn these sketches into real people. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Cillian Murphy round out with Cotillard as the film’s strongest performances, Murphy in particular impressing me with what could have seemed to be something particularly hackneyed.

Inception has a whole lot of information it wants to convey to us and the result is that we spend a good deal of it getting a tutorial into the machinations of this dream world. It’s not that I balk at the plethora information put forth, to Nolan’s credit he is never condescending and the information is never confusing. Yet, there’s that striking feeling of lack of fulfilment. Yes, it looks good but it doesn’t take my (figurative) breath away.  Nolan spends a great deal of time focusing on the technicality of different levels of dreams that propels me to think that perhaps there's something complex for the audience to latch on to, but other than arbitrary locations there's nothing striking that differentiates any one level from the other. The technical aspects are handled well, but I'm tempted to say, "So what?" Then there's the fact that I couldn’t even love DiCaprio which threw me a bit  considering he's the film's only irreplaceable character (but not performance). Yes, it’s meticulously made - visually- but that doesn’t really thrill me. In the end, for me, Inception is merely adequate.

             

Nine, along with The Lovely Bones and Chéri from the unholy trinity of films from 2009 that I liked much more than the most.

    

I don’t find anything inherently dubious in the fact that I liked all three. However, my unreserved love of Nine makes me occasionally question my objectivity, the film was the one I was most excited to see last year in a way I wonder if I willed myself to like it. I’d seen 8 ½ once and my memory of it was not expansive. (like Alvodomar and Bergman, my knowledge of Fellini and other non-English directors is unfortunately sparse). I anticipated Nine because I’d had the Broadway Recording with the delectable Jane Krakowski on repeat ever since I ever found out that there was someone called Maury Yeston and read the book of the musical. From an adaptation perspective (using the musical and not Fellini’s film as the base) Nine is almost blasphemous. The bulk of the score remains (although key numbers are excised) but the screenplay bear little resemblance to the musical’s book. It is such that Nine (the film) most daringly inventive aspect is also its most exasperating.

It’s difficult to parlay my thoughts on Nine into a succinct or comprehensible review without sounding esoteric, supercilious or confused (hence this post). It’s understandable, Nine was notably panned by the majority or “important” people. Not since Le Divorce have I been so dismayed at the critical response to a film (that includes The Lovely Bones, Running with Scissors and Chéri) – incidentally that was another Kate Hudson piece with a cast to salivate over (Naomi Watts, Glenn Close, Leslie Carron, Stockhard Channing, Bebe Neuwirth). Apologies, I’ve digressed. Yes, Nine’s concept is so outlandish that it really is more abstract than realist, I’d even go as far as to approve its intentions and execution as something of an intricate piece of artwork…

Before I continue, though, I must express the slightest bit of confusion. It happened with Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and it happened with Marshall and Nine. Why are directors held accountable for the (perceived) flaws in a screenplay? With Nine the lines are admittedly more blurred. The quasi-reality of Guido’s musical consciousness becomes an enigma – one I’m not sure is the work of Marshall, Tolkin or Minghella (who’s dead and cant’ speak for himself). Perhaps, it’s some odd hybrid of all three. Though structurally Nine is only a distant relative of its stage incarnation (complete with Yeston’s approval, though) one of the things that some forget is that musical wise it’s difficult to make Lilli’s rapturous ode to French coalesce with the pseudo European pop beats of the dancing whores or the delightfully wordy and very Broadway opening number of Guido. In many ways, I expect the stage is kinder – we’d be more willing to accept the disparity in themes there.  Cinema is different. Each song almost exist on different parts of the spectrum and ignoring the exception to the rule – consistency in musical forms is essential to a musical. Nine’s solution (a tentative word choice) lies blatant in the script – ten scenes in the life of a man. With the bulk of the original significance in the actual number 9 out of the film and with the eponymous number oddly absent, it’s any question that the film just wasn’t called Ten. add the eight principal vocalists together with Guido’s younger self and Dante and we’ve acquired the ten most important faces of the film. The bulk of the film occurs in the ten days leading up to the making of it, ten numbers are song: “Ten sequences, each one set in a different period”…

This amidst its supposed cheer (so very deliberate). Nine is not about Guido’s demise but Guido’s eventual epiphany in ten numbers. There is no thread to bind the ten episodes, but the man himself. One of the final shots of Nine is a picture of the actual film’s title card, only this time Guido is making it. Nine (the one we’re watching) is the actual Nine that Guido’s trying to create. Am I being naïve in seeing the film as a literal creation / therapy session for our protagonist? Up until the epilogue with him and Lilli precisely the sort of slightly incongruous, oddly charming, delightfully schizophrenic thing that the “new” Guido would create. Remember, all he can make now is a film about a man trying to win back his wife. Pity may not always lead to love, but it’s close enough and it’s just the sort of thing that Guido would make for Luisa.

Nine is so obviously NOT rooted in reality. Marshall not-so-subtly tells us from the inception. Isn’t it odd that Stephanie – a Vogue reporter that Guido has yet to meet (chronologically at least) appears in the overture which celebrates the women in Guido’s life? The prologue acts as a beginning of our relationship with Nine but it’s all happened before – we’re now getting to see it. Measure it against the second appearance of the ensemble (sans Luisa) and the significance of the roll-call becomes more obvious.

I had a greater respect for seeing Nine this time around. Before it was just thrilling to watch and such, but I found even more method in Marshall’s ostensible madness, amidst the original fun – well as fun as a morose rumination on talent wasted can be. It is such that Daniel Day Lewis’ first impassioned (misguided) plea for world dominance is final look at the completely decadent Guido that is only hinted at. Though it’s still not my favourite actual number (look to Fergie) or my favourite song (look to Nicole); I feel great fondness for that first song. The more I see Nine (and I’ve seen it many times now) the more I come to appreciate his performance. His sensibility is precisely the type we need for Marshall’s concept. It also makes me appreciate the placing of this number as the first song in the musical – we can almost group the songs chronologically. We move from the present – Guido’s “wanting” of appreciation, his “wanting” of pleasure with Carla (which is reciprocated) and Lilli’s “wanting” of the music, the life and the laughter. Lilli yearns for fun in the moment, but she casts the narrative backward. She explicitly warns him not to do that, “That’s death.”, but he’s not known for listening. He’s looking back to Saraghina – already past. Incidentally, Luisa is looking back too, living in Guido’s past (just as Stephanie is, oddly). Guido is a bit like a hollow, albeit affable man. There is nothing to him but his movies. “My husband makes movies.” That’s it. Stephanie is not enticed by Contini, she’s enticed by Contini’s Cinema Italiano. What happens when the talent fades? Even Saraghina’s passionate urging to Be Italian doesn’t tell us much. what is it to be Italian? I don’t think Guido knows either. He isn’t helped by the fact that his mother wonders, “Do you think that so many will love you like I do?” She doesn’t answer, but she thinks no – Guido thinks so too, that’s his problem – he can’t give all of himself because there’s nothing to give.

As we head into the final trio of numbers (the three that resonate the most, despite – or because of – their bleakness) Claudia seems to be looking back but she’s moving forward really. Kidman’s “I’d rather be the man” just might be the most layered line reading of the entire film (in retrospect, her Claudia is the film’s biggest enigma). It’s this time around I notice – for the first time – the potential play on words in “Unusual Way” . Guido has made her whole by making a “hole” in her. An unusual way? Definitely – that’s why she’s moving forward without him, like Luisa. Like Guido too, actually. Guido, the man, is leaving Guido, the artist. He thinks he’s reached the epiphany – he’s wrong. The movie’s not the problem. He is. He’s such a mess of conflicting emotions that he doesn’t realise that he can make this movie – everything he needs is around him. He needs to realise that by making Nine (the movie within the movie) – a bit of catharsis, really. Notice how in that final roll call he looks not once at his supporting cast. He only has eyes for himself (well, the younger incarnation of himself). He’s not necessarily a “better” man – but he has the ability to become a more focused “artist”.

I am curious, though; does Luisa take him back when the film is complete? She’s masochistic enough, probably. The thing is, everyone wants Guido to give them more – they want all of him. What they don’t realise is that he’s giving all that he has to give. Nine came off to many as cloying, turgid, uninspired and [insert negative adjective]. I’m the opposite. For me it’s difficult to separate Nine from its protagonist. I love it for that. Am I the only one?

         

Walk the Line, Ali, and The Aviator were all critically acclaimed films that were also huge blockbusters. Major movie stars that happen to be at the peak their career headline stories about entertainers and public figures who are just as dynamic, and they become films that everyone puts on their must-see list. But this list highlights four great biopics that you may have missed, or just forgotten about. They deserve to be seen, too.

      

 Jimmy Stewart famously depicted Charles Lindbergh in this 1957 film directed by Billy Wilder. In the movie, Lindbergh prepares for and flies across the Atlantic in his plane, "Spirit of St. Louis," as he struggles with technical problems and his own faith. Recent movies like Aviator and Amelia may have better cinematography for up-in-the-air shots, but this is a classic movie that Stewart takes to another level.

    

The Last Emperor 

This 1987 film deals with the story of the last emperor of China, Puyi, and it is directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, who won an Academy Award for the movie. While China has a reputation for banning movies and propaganda that it believes undermine the integrity of the country, Bertolucci was granted official permission to film inside The Forbidden City. The Last Emperor earned nine total Academy Awards, an Oscar for every category in which it was entered.

       

Marion Cotillard won an Oscar for La Vie en Rose in 2009, but the French-language film was still not a blockbuster hit in the United States. Cotillard played legendary singer Edith Piaf, who was one of the most popular entertainers in France, especially during World War II. The young and graceful Marion Cotillard transformed herself into a rough, sad and often crude woman in a film that is supremely emotional and colorful.

           

Hollywood loves making movies about English aristocracy, and films like Elizabeth, The Queen, The Other Boleyn Girl and The Duchess have all starred famous actresses and performed well at the box office. The 1997 film directed by John Madden Mrs. Brown stars Judi Dench -- who has appeared in other English royalty films -- as Queen Victoria during her grieving widow years. As she befriends a Scottish houseman, Queen Victoria emerges from her isolation and learns how to live and rule again. The film was nominated for two Oscars, and won numerous other awards, including two BAFTAS and a Golden Globe.

             

I resent the current state of affairs that made me wary about seeing Nine. Sure, I’m not one to quake and  I do often go against the crowd – just see my reviews of The Lovely Bones and Up in the Air and you’ll get the picture. It’s probably because 8½ was everyone’s drawing board for reviewing Nine, one of those timeless classic – yadda, yadda ya. Truthfully I’m not too fond of 8½. Granted, I’ve seen it once but other than a lovely Anouk Aimee I wasn’t too invested. Then there’s the fact that other than the visual parallels (which are admittedly milked too much) I never thought Nine was an adaptation of 8½ anyways. It’s like criticising West Side Story for not being faithful to Romeo & Juliet. It isn’t. It’s based on a Broadway play in turn inspired by Romeo & Juliet. The same goes for Nine. But I don’t want to start this out as a defence. I’m too prone to rebuttal and we can’t all like the same things – still, this was putting me in a bit of a quandary. I’m  experiencing the critical version of Guido I suppose, I’m suffering from a block. So – instead of a review - a list!

                   

I WORSHIPPED – the music. Naturally. I like Maury Yeston, he’s a poor man’s Stephen Sondheim , yes, and Nine is his piece de resistance. It’s a shame that some of my favourites were cut but each of the ten songs is beautiful to me. Even "Folies Bergeres" which always irritated me from the Broadway Cast sounds lovely here.                 

I ADORED – Carla and Luisa and Claudia. They’re the three women most important and I suppose each is perfectly cast. Certainly Marion Cotillard is the best, but Penelope is not  that far behind. She’s no worse than the company she keeps in that Oscar nominated batch, I only hope StinkyLulu has a space for me in his smackdown so I can salvage the imminent 2s and 3s she’ll be getting. Claudia was never a big role, but don’t tell Nicole that – she plays it like a lead, and that’s what any Diva does. She sings "Unusual Way" in an alto which is more haunting that Laura Benanti’s mellifluous soprano.

                       

I LOVED – "Be Italian". I’m glad they took out the line "Be Italian" you rapscallion and vocally Fergie is the best Saraghina I’ve heard and she’s easy on the eyes.

             

I GREATLY APPRECIATED – all things technical. Lighting, cinematography, costumes, hair and makeup and set design were all splendid.

           

I LIKED VERY VERY MUCH – Judi and Daniel. I’m probably alone on both counts. "Guido’s Song" just may be my favourite number and I just love how Daniel enunciates his words. When he sings "I Can’t Make This Movie" I wondered how anyone could doubt him… and Judi, darling Lilli Judi is great, as per usual. People recognise Streep isn’t doing her best work but love her nevertheless. It’s a shame the same can’t be said for Judi. She’s awesome, I like her French.

                             

I LIKED (with slight reservations) – Sophia and Kate. I like "Cinema Italiano", so I won’t go there. Stephanie is superfluous, but I can see what they were aiming at. Sophia just has to look majestic and Italian, and of course she does. I would have preferred if she’d actually song the song "Nine", but "Guarda La Luna" is a pretty number.

               

I DISLIKED – the cutting of "Simple". I know, songs will be cut (see above) but Carla needed an emotional number, it’s a pity they wanted to turn her into comic relief only.

                       

I DID NOT APPRECIATE – the story. The runtime is standard for a film, but it all flies by and so much more could have been addressed. The subplot of Guido’s childhood could have been explored so much more and though “The Bells of St. Sebastian” is not my favourite number it is necessary, though I suppose it is more of a “stage” number.

I UNDERSTOOD (but did not love) – Marshall’s approach. It’s not just Chicago redux, you can’t sing a number like "Folies Bergeres" in real time, it’s obviously fantastical. His attempts at making Nine a literal world of Guido is obvious, but more could have been done to focus on his indecisivenes and his growth as a man - sans women.

                    

I’m alone for the most part, but what’s new? Nine is imperfect, but it is inspired. I’m waiting for Marshall’s next musical since this is not the film from Hell that it’s been touted as and though he needs to bring all his talents together I know he can make something excellent in the future. His problem is not that he's a bad director, his problem is that he doesn't know to combine his talents. My prayers are with him, I hope the backlash doesn’t destroy his career.

American Thanksgiving has come and gone and as December begins and Christmas draws nearer a young movie blogger’s fancy turns to Oscar buzz. It seems the norm. as the year draws nearer, all the prestige pictures are released and we can’t help but contemplate who will win what – and we predict. But I don’t predict the Oscars. I just don’t have the heart. Sure when it’s a few days before I’ll get a list of who I think will we nominated. I’m actually quite good at that, but I don’t have the longevity like some for year round predictions. I suppose then you’re wondering what exactly the title of this post means.

               

I’ve seen a little over thirty films of 2009 so far – not outstanding, but considering it’s not that bad. I’m already wondering what my own personal awards will look like next February. There are a host of films I’ve yet to see. But that only makes it interesting. Still, with only a few important titles under my belt I’ve already taken a liking to a few of the Supporting Women in films I’ve seen thus far. So I’ll take a look at them whilst looking ahead at the women who’re likely to uproot them.

           

Maria Bello in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee

Kristin Chenoweth in Into Temptation

Patricia Clarkson in Whatever Works

Marion Cotillard in Public Enemies

Diane Kruger in Inglourious Basterds

              

Each of these five women with their limited roles do much to improve their respective films. I’d have loved to have any of these women in my top 5 in any particular year, so I must pay tribute to them now since it’s likely that few if any will remain in my top ten by the time I’ve seen all the films I want to.

            

Nine: Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench perhaps Nicole Kidman or Kate Hudson

I know Cotillard is being campaigned in lead, but she’ll probably be supporting for me. If Nine hold up it could easily take three spots in my end of year awards.

The Lovely Bones: Susan Sarandon and Rachel Weisz

It’s very possible to see both these women taking a spot in my top ten or even the top 5. I’m looking forward especially to Susan Sarandon who was probably my favourite actress of the nineties.

         

Precious: MoNique, Mariah Carey perhaps Paula Patton

I won’t try to escape the buzz for Precious. I wonder if MoNique will top my awards... Still I am a fan of hers and she could very well take a place, and if Mariah is as amazing as they say, who knows?

          

Up In the Air: Vera Farmiga or Anna Kendrick

Vera Farmiga is my biggest draw to this film, and if she’s good she could end up here. I’ve been hearing good things about Kendrick, so she too could make a play for it.

           

Julianne Moore in A Single Man: With a little cameo she’s scintillating in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee in a nondescript role. I only wonder what she’ll do with a proper role here. I hope she doesn’t disappoint.

     

Natalie Portman in Brothers: I’m keeping my fingers crossed here. The trailer seemed promising enough.

                 

Drew Barymore in Everybody’s Fine: No one’s predicting this, but not being Oscar worthy doesn’t mean I won’t like it. Maybe I’ll like it, or maybe I won’t. But I’m looking out.

                  

Rosamund Pike in An Education: I was a fan of this young lady in Pride & Prejudice. I’ve never been a hater of a performance based on screen time, and regardless of how short this is, if I’m impressed so be it. we’ll see…

                

Marcia Gay Harden in Whip It: I should have seen this by now. Marcia has topped my Year End Supporting Actress list twice, will this be enough to land her there again? I doubt…but she could be in the running.

Is this supposed to be a horror flick? I haven’t watched a horror movie in a while – not quite my genre…but I guess I was misled by the previews because this is not quite a horror movie. I suppose thriller is more accurate. Alison Lohman stars as a young bank clerk who prevents an older woman from getting an extension on her mortgage. The old woman turns out to be a gypsy and she curses Christine, leading to the typical outlandish events…or maybe not so typical. As I said before horror or whatever this genre is…not usually my cup of tea. But this is a nice movie. It’s well made, edited wonderfully and the acting is good. Justin Long is a bit tepid as the caring boyfriend…but I suppose it was more an occupational hazard of the role. For some reason Alison Lohman really reminded me of Anna Paquin in this.
                                                     

The ending of the film is what sold it for most. At first I didn’t think that they were going to do it – I was actually hoping they wouldn’t…but they did. But I guess I was that invested…so I felt bad…or maybe the film was so good it kept you guessing. This is a good movie. Even if you’re not a fan of the genre. Check it out at least once. It’s nothing if not entertaining. And Alison Lohman is really good in this. But what thing worried me...if she's going to hell...what about me...?
                                                              

I saw this film a looooong time ago…and I posted not even a line on it. I was a tad disappointed. But I saw it again last week…and it’s improved. The hype was too much – I was expecting Scorsese and if there’s one thing I know…there’s only one Scorsese. You’ve probably seen all the reviews for this if you haven’t seen it…and it will be out on DVD soon I figure so the question is…should you get the DVD? I’m torn. The movie is not the masterpiece it was being advertised as but it’s a not bad. Marion Cotillard…I cannot stop singing her praises. She is wonderful in this film. I liked her bit role in Big Fish and I liked her in La Vie En Rose…but I think I may be falling… Now I really can’t wait for Nine. Off topic, but she reminded me slightly of Angelina Jolie how she looked in her first scene.

One of my friend’s favourite actor is Mr. Depp and I like him too, but I keep waiting for him to be outstanding. And he was good in this. It’s a good performance…but it was so passive. But if this film goes over well with the awards and he gets nominated…I will not mind. I can’t remember much being said about Christian Bale…but he was good too. If the script wasn't so weak with his character...I'd have given him more praises.
                                                                            

My main problem with the movie though is the Bale part. The strength of this film lies in the Depp/Cotillard plotline. Their chemistry is awesome. I think the film would have worked better had this been paramount and not the police hunting Dillinger. We’ve already seen this done countless times before…and it took so long for the film to find it’s footing…the editing was not very good as far as I’m concerned. The sound and sound editing though was impressive. Hmmm. Go get it... it was not a wasted two hours.