Johnny Simmons

Friends with Benefits: directed by Will Gluck; written by Keith Merryman, David A. Newman and Will Gluck
  
After seeing Friends with Benefits I came across some interviews that director/writer Will Gluck gave in relation to the film and my attention was immediately caught when I saw him compare it to a Tracy/Hepburn scenario. More arresting, though, was his concept of the characters’ mindfulness. A significant scene in the film sees the two, until then, sex starved protagonists Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis) watching a romantic couple on screen played to anachronistic perfection by Jason Segel and the lovely Rashida Jones. Because these characters are so wise they’re able to point out the silliness of the romantic genre and the ludicrousness that has all those platitudes culminate in a happy ever after ending. The scene is delivered with a level of snark I accept, because even if I do feel badly for the genre romantic comedies tend to be embellished as of late with little to redeem them. In theory, it seems Gluck flirts with the idea of creating a response to decade and more of tired clichés – but, not quite...

A week after the fact, the occasional insularity of the film’s world gives me pause. Dylan is a mere denizen in New York, so that would explain his apparent isolation, but it’s odd that Jamie (portrayed as the poster-girl for all things New York) would have not a single friend in the city other than a man she’s met mere weeks before. The conceit of the film rests on the concept that the two, islands in the proverbial stream, are both lonely and horny and deciding that sex should be as friendly and casual as a game tennis decide to begin a game – a sports’ metaphor that’s awfully trite*. I think I’m getting lost in mixed metaphors. Naturally, the situation will go awry when one – or god forbid, both – of them realises that the situation isn’t as foolproof as it seems. Even tennis has its causalities.

More than a number of persons have credited the “success” of the film to the charisma of the two leads and Timberlake and Kunis definitely do have searing chemistry. For all his recent ubiquity, I like Justin Timberlake (although that’s more than possibly just residual appreciation from his music career) and though I’ve not seen Kunis in enough for her to move me I’m still interested in when she steps up the base line to serve (another sports’ metaphor, whoa). Still, fairly good performances hardly make fine cinema and though nothing about the film screams abysmal, the film around them doesn’t suggest priority. Patricia Clarkson shows up, as is her wont, to inject even more enthusiasm to the situation as Jamie’s kooky and somewhat loose mother. There’s a scene in the film which seems intended to mirror a similar one in Gluck’s last feature Easy A, and it doesn’t roll over the net unimpeded (ahem). It’s because Friends with Benefits spends a curiously short amount of time examining the purported issues of the characters. The film opens with respective hook-ups of Jamie and Dylan telling them that they’re emotionally undeveloped and damaged, and it’s not until well into the second half that they make up on any indication these emotional issues. Otherwise, Timberlake and Kunis prance around like any normal, good-looking young adult.
The clichéd romantic comedy within a romantic comedy which Segel and Jones star in plays on a loop at occasional parts of the film and Gluck’s intent is as subtle as a hammer to the head. The insertion is too saccharine to be condescending; it borders more on being annoyingly expedient. This, he seems to say, is the clichéd way – we’re going to be more self-aware. But, imprudently Gluck seems to think that acknowledging that a mountain is huge is as good as moving it. So, he mires his film down with a slew of witty comments on the state of affairs in the genre while resorting to the same ones to keep the film afloat, which results in an experience where the occasional pleasures are subverted by a pervading sense of confusion. I think I’d have appreciated Friends with Benefits more if it didn’t try to land its serve with a backhanded (gah, that metaphor again). It delivers in a cutesy ways of the genre, but by destroying the naive geniality of the genre it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. And, for all their clichés – the last thing you want is a romantic comedy which leaves you feeling uncomfortable. Gluck shows moments of perception, but they aren’t well imbued. Gluck takes the dive, but he doesn’t stick his landing.

(*I’m done with the sports’ metaphors, I promise. See how gauche that was, with the constant use of sports’ metaphors even as I said that they’re awkward? That’s sort of how Friends with Benefits comes off.)


C

Shhh, Patty is resting - and she should be, she's constantly turning up in movies and making them exponentially better....now she's turning to TV

I only recently said that Patty Clarkson should show up in everything and be awesome and now comes the news that Ron Swanson, the legendary character on Parks and Recreation (do not dispute that statement) is going to be the impetus for Patty's appearance on the show. Yes, Tammy I will be played this paragon of cinema. (via)If there's anyone who can instill fear in Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman, it's Patty.
          
Now I can't wait for Parks and Recreation to be back.

Ensemble films tend to turn up when you get to thinking about forgotten characters. With casts that are as expansive as most large ensembles there is some actor who ends up getting shafted – especially when their role isn’t as pivotal to the story’s major arcs. Thus, in a way, I can understand why this particular performance isn’t remembered more often but I still have massive love for

Judy is something of an emissary in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. It’s her house that Vicky and Cristina stay at whilst in Barcelona; it’s through her – tangentially – that they meet Juan Antonio and so on. Vicky Cristina Barcelona isn’t quite classic Woody so there’s a tendency for Judy’s appearances in the film to feel a bit perfunctory at times but that’s where Patricia Clarkson comes in. She’s more than adept at acting from the side-lines and infuses Judy with some interesting tics to make her more than just a springboard for the film’s bigger issues. One of her first lines in the film is her throwaway, “It’s so nice to have a little action around here” to the girls. It sounds a bit on-the-nose considering the hijinks they’ll get in to later but I like to think of it as proof of how much of an instigator Judy likes to be. She wants the girls to get into shenanigans so she can live vicariously through them, but as early as her first scenes you get the feeling that she’s jealous of their youth. When Vicky talks of her academic future and her fiancé, Judy glibly responds,

“All her conflicts will be resolved when he makes her pregnant.”

It’s not even said bitterly, that’s just what Judy thinks of married woman – no identity.

It’s a lead up, of course, to her big scene in the beginning of the film’s third act, after Vicky witnesses her kiss with her husband’s friend Jay.

“I haven’t been in love with Mark for years.”

It’s not the most seminal of monologues, she goes through the usual concepts of an unhappy marriage, a fear of getting out of it, the moment passing but it’s not so much the lines as Patty’s expressions through out.

 And that line, “I can’t leave him now, and I know I never will.”

Our final shot of Judy occurs after her misguided attempts to get Vicky to hook up with Juan Antonio. With her plans awry she settles, desolately, back into her routine – no excitement to vicariously enjoy. If that isn’t the face of a woman with a backstory, I don’t know what is.
Perhaps it’s not Woody’s Judy which is memorable…it’s Patricia’s interpretation of it.
      
Do you have any left over love for Patty in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, or is she lost in the shuffle?

FINALISTS: Michelle Williams for offering up a brilliant supporting turn in Shutter Island and a haunting lead performance in Blue Valentine; Andrew Garfield for offering up two good (if similar) turns in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go and James Franco for being a beacon in two lead roles in Howl and 127 Hours.

* Just in case you're wondering, Johnny Depp would win the alternative award here. He's easily the worst thing in The Tourist and Alice in Wonderland (yep, even worse than the Wasikowska's bland work in the latter.) He sinks Angelina's attempts to be at least interesting in the former, and other than a glimmer of goodness opposite HBC he's terribly vile in the latter. I hope it's not the beginning of a trend for him...

        

It’s all very subtle with Cairo Time, just like with Patricia’s performance. The plot-points and the climax doesn’t occur with resounding choruses or grand sequences, it’s all very simple and as close to the mundane reality of life. Yet, the film itself is never mundane. It’s beautifully crafted, backed by a lovely score and anchored by Patty front and centre (a rarity). Here’s someone who needs more leading roles, because really she turns the simple goodness of Cairo Time into something that’s just beautiful, in its weird assuming way.

VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA
Directed by Woody Allen



Let it be said that I love Woody Allen. He is one of my favourite filmmakers; of his last few films I particularly love ‘Matchpoint’, which showcased Scarlett Johansson’s best performance of her career. I went into this film with mixed emotions. I had read snippets of the script so I knew most of the ‘spoilers’ and I had heard raves for Penelope Cruz and some for Rebecca Hall. I had heard nothing said about Johansson’s performance in a role that Allen wrote specifically for her, which was surprising if nothing else. I was aware that there was a narrator in the film, but looking at the film made me realise how pervasive he was more than reading. I didn’t like the narrator idea. The narrator idea was not bad, but the actual narrator was not good. His voice was cold and distant and he did not sound at all interested in the story. Films with narrators that I have loved are ‘Chocolat’ and ‘The Age of Innocence’. In the latter film the narrator is not a character in the story, but she is very engaging. In the former film, at the end we realise that the narrator is the adult version of Juliette Binoche’s daughter. The reason I mention this is because it occurred to me that male narrators are not very effective. Off the bat, three primetime shows I know with narrators are ‘Desperate Housewives’, ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ and ‘Gossip Girl’ (my guilty pleasure). All these narrators are women, and they are very effective to somewhat varying degrees. The narrator in ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’ absolutely annoyed me, and it was half way through the film that I finally got used to his voice.

The script though, like most of Woody Allen films, was great. It was a good romp in the park without being over-hilarious. It was more ‘Hannah & Her Sisters’ than ‘Annie Hall’. There weren’t many ‘laugh out loud’ moments, but I’m sure there were smiles on your faces most of the time you were watching. Allen is notorious for writing great roles for women in his films (‘Annie Hall’, ‘Interiors’, ‘Hannah & Her Sisters’, ‘Husbands & Wives’, Bullets Over Broadway’, ‘Sweet & Lowdown’, ‘Matchpoint’ to name a few). Save for the last film each of these films had Oscar nominated performances from their women, and Matchpoint deserved one. As in those films, the women in this film stood out wonderfully. Patricia Clarkson had a relatively minor role, but she was effective as the meddling Judy, with just a trace of dark-humour and the hint of a fisher wife.

I have never seen Rebecca Hall in a film before, but she reminds me of a better acted version of Jessica Biels. It was during the first scene that I realised the striking resemblance to Biels when my sister asked me if it was her. In an odd way she also looked like a dark haired Johansson in some scenes, but I digress. In the film Hall’s Vicky calls Cristina (Johansson) a neurotic, but her character seems the more neurotic of the two. My favourite scenes for her were the ones she had with Johansson; they had a very believable chemistry and I’d like to see them in another film.

Penelope Cruz is a great actress, her performance in Volver a few years ago was pure genius, and here again she shows her beauty and vitality. It’s impossible to ignore the buzz she has amounted going into this award season and she has become something of a frontrunner. I won’t say what’s already been said about how great it is that she got to say her scenes in Spanish etc. That being said the build-up that the audience is put through waiting for this luminous Marie Elena is not a letdown. Cruz delivers on all points and we can definitely see why Juan Antonio is to some extent obsessed with her. I love the scene where she tells Cristina that she searched her bags the first night she was there, the humour was so authentic and there’s something so sexy about people with accents speaking English… but once again I digress. I wouldn’t be completely upset if she won the Oscar (although I wouldn’t mind if Kate Winslet, Taraji P Henson or Marissa Tomei won either).

Scarlett Johansson performs in her third Woody Allen film and she is as good as she was in the first. I find it strange that Rebecca Hall has been getting awards buzz for her role and Johansson gets none. I suppose it has to do with Hall being a newcomer. I have always had a weakness for Scarlett Johansson since ‘Lost in Translation’ and her performance as Vicky is so understated and subtle, more than people may realise. I don’t think it’s fair to judge her performance against Penlope Cruz or Hall for the same reason we couldn’t judge Jude Law against Matt Damon in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ or Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger in ‘Cold Mountain’. Both Matt and Nicole were playing the ‘straight’ man while their counterparts where playing these messed up and assertive characters that drew intense audience support and also huge awards buzz. In the same way I don’t think Johansson’s straight character was interesting as Cruz’s messed up Marie Elena. I preferred Jude Law, but I also preferred Nicole Kidman. In this case I’m torn. The performances are so different I can’t judge. It’s the same as in ‘Hannah & Her Sisters’. I couldn’t understand what made Diane Wiest’s performance so much better than Mia Farrow or Carrie Fisher (who was my personal favourite).

Don’t let my talk of the women fool you though; the men in ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’ hold their own. Led by the superb Javier Bardem who is very good as Juan Antonio, Kevin Dunn and Chris Messina are also good. Bardem’s performance was best when he was with Cruz. I have a strong feeling this was because of their Spanish connection. Every time he reminded her to speak English I’d laugh because he’d be speaking in Spanish and chiding her for replying in Spanish. Dunn & Messina never have a strong enough arc to steal the show, but as with any ensemble film, their presence was felt. Patricia Clarkson is marvellous as Judy. In a small role that could have been less, she sticks with me. After the end I kept thinking what happened to Judy and Vicky and their marriage?

If you failed to pick it up, I have been throwing out quite a number of ‘Hannah & Her Sister’ references and that is because I kept thinking about that film while I was looking. The dilemma that Vicky was put in reminded me some much of Carrie Fisher and Michael Caine in ‘Hannah’. I preferred the ‘original’, but this film had its own quirks that made it special. I liked this film, I’m pretty sure it will be winning the Golden Globe for best comedy and it will be deserved. I give this film a well deserved 8, and I find this strange. I give the acting 9.3 and the writing 9. But overall the film just feels like an 8... Go figure.