Big Weekend

Watched 4 movies this weekend.

The first was Hard Candy, which came out last year. I knew very little about this film going in. That it was about an underage girl meeting up with an older guy and that the "exploitation cinema experience" would ensue was the extent of my pre-watch knowledge. I wasn't far off from nailing the film's entire plot, however the degree of "exploitation" I was to encounter couldn't have been predicted.
I'll not spoil the film, as I will try not to do any time I write about a film, but there were some intense scenes. The film did an excellent job of pushing my button, and involving me in the story. Well done. Good performances, in spite of the extreme nature of the story. It's good to remind oneself that people are murdered or raped or assaulted all the time. That allows a film like this to remain relevant as the action stretches believability. Hard Candy, however, wasn't much more than a 3 star movie to me. I was involved, yes, but from the opening scene I hated the way it was shot. Everything was a CU or ECU. This was before the sense of claustrophobia would need to be present too. There were some moments early on, when we could get wider and "breath" as an audience but they were few and far between.
This was iPod film making. Made for the smallest screen possible. Does a filmmaker realize that these faces will be 30 feet high when projected? Do they realize that when a full shot is projected on the typical screen that we can see the facial expressions of your characters? This frustrates me beyond belief. Ingmar Bergman is famous for filming much of his characters in close-up, however there is an artistic intent there. A film that starts with an ECU of two characters talking in a coffee shop, before any real tension is even attempted by the filmmaker, reeks of laziness or unimaginative film making. It's a constant source of distraction for me.
In fairness, the style of shooting was less distracting later in the film when the tension was present and the pace increased. Like I mentioned before, I liked the film. I was involved. I give even more credit to the filmmaker for overcoming my distaste for his stylistic choices and the general sensationalism of the story to make me a participant in the film.



Then came The Queen, by Frears. It was a packed house at the Angelika, mid afternoon on Sunday, and we arrived late. That is a rare occurrence, but it happens to everyone once in awhile.
The Queen is about Queen Elizabeth's reaction to the death of Princess Diana. I remember Diana's death well. I found it puzzling that Americans were weeping at the death of a member of the royal family in another country. I was young at the time but it still perplexed me to this day. This film, with it's excellent performances by all, helped me to fill in the blanks and understand why her death affected people so. Helen Mirren, as the Queen, was the doppelganger of the real deal. Some of the scene's nearly moved me to tears.
I give credit to Kelly for pursuing this film and letting me tag along. I had little or no interest in seeing it but I'm so glad I did.
Let's say 4 stars.



Kelly and I came home and watched two more movies yesterday (Sunday 14, January). The first was Metropolitan, by Whit Stillman. I have seen The Last Days of Disco and parts of Barcelona, so I knew what I was getting into.
Anecdote: I worked with the producer and a coordinator of Whit Stillman's films and, while working with them, re watched The Last Days of Disco. I told the coordinator that I liked the film more than I remember and that I found it hilarious, some of the dialogue and the manner in which these people treated each other, was too fantastical to be anything more than comedy. She informed me that Whit Stillman did not make comedy's.
It may sound as if I will not like Metropolitan, but that is false. I enjoy the dialogue and Chris Eigeman's character and performance. The film is an entrance into a world I know nothing about. Perhaps most will have no interest in rich Manhattanites and debutante balls, but I find it as fascinating as Victorian society or the mafia underworld.
I'm also sad to say Whit, that I think the film is funny. I give it 3 stars but it could sway to 4 after I live with it for awhile. That is something that happens to me often. Opening Night, by Cassavetes, was the first time I finished watching a movie, didn't like it, couldn't stop thinking about it for weeks, and decided that it was a great film. Metropolitan has a chance.



Lastly we watched Kicking and Screaming, by Noah Baumbach. Loved it. Funny, smart, and speaking more to me, my life and my experience as a young(ish) man that feels directionless at times, than any film I can remember.
Performances and cast chemistry in particular, are the high points of the film. Parker Posey, Eric Stoltz, Josh Hamilton, Chris Eigeman (agian) all do an outstanding job. Carlos Jacobitt steals nearly all of his scenes.
The DVD, by Criterion, has many interesting and insightful extras. The fact that Noah Baumbach was 25 when he made this film makes me feel like a failure (which I am). It's an impressive debut and easy to see a direct line from Kicking and Screaming to The Squid and the Whale.
4 stars and little to complain about.