I tell many other writers if they want to continue writing, or at least start to working up to something good, they need to be doing it all the time. Penning 10,000 words a day, every day, from 9 to 5. Or even only half a day, in the mornings, during lunch, or from the time they get off work (I'm assuming they would be a lot better than me on that status) and write, write, write, write, write, until their arms fall asleep resting on the desk and the first slight vestiges of daylight leak into their dark cave.
So, going on with it, I decided - forced - that I would write about a couple of movies I saw in the last few days. No reason, other than that this is a movie review blog, after all, and that I simply wanted - needed - to write at that - this - particular time, unedited with lots of words and ramblings on about movies and nothing and loose ideas I try to summarize before the steam runs out.
So, here we go, maybe I can chug along and continue until that energy dies and I so abruptly lose interest...
 |
| Marie (Cecile De France) runs from the roaring waves of a tsunami |
"Hereafter" ☆☆☆
I was really stuck on this one, but I decided I liked it, though not by much, and it's not that it's Clint Eastwood. In a better light he's a terrific director, and happens to be directing better movies than he did in the 90's (or for that matter 3 decades ago), and choosing more fascinating stories, ones that are pure visceral drama and often hit harder than most indies try so hard to do. "Hereafter" doesn't show Eastwood slowing down, and neither does it's cast, with solid work from Matt Damon, Cecile De France, Byrce Dallas Howard, and others, and even the twin kid actors (who mostly did rather fine, though struggled with most of the emotional stuff); and Eastwood's crew, from editor Joel Cox, to DP Tom Stern, and Eastwood himself as the music writer, all brought the usual good stuff to this, and so did Eastwood. But in the end "Hereafter" isn't up there with Clint's other greater achievements this last decade, whose work was part of my favorites for those years, and "Hereafter" isn't on that list for 2010. Mostly, "Hereafter" struggled. The movie is a well-intentioned observation on life after death, and just like it's subject, is only speculative. Still, I wish the movie could have been more defined, more solid, and could have been better written, providing more juicy intermittent scenes with better dialogue.And this has all to do with the film's very talented screenwriter, Peter Morgan, and his screenplay.
Now, Morgan can write. So you know, he's the top prestige screenwriter in Hollywood right now, famous for doing historic period works ("The Queen," "Last King of Scotland," "Frost/Nixon," among others), and he's a very smart, well-read, very articulate writer, and can write very crisp, smart words in nicely set-up scenes. But in the case of "Hereafter," a script he wrote on spec, on a whim without really a clear idea about it but feeling and thread thought, isn't a very good one.
Though it could have been, but as Morgan dictated himself he wrote the screenplay on-and-off for years, not really thinking much on it, only feeling and personal experience (he lost a close friend in the time he wrote this). Not really an idea of it every being a sufficient, or even good, screenplay, he penned it thinking, "It might be good, it might not, we'll see where it goes..." So testing it's credibility, Morgan sent out the current draft (but not a final draft, mind), and it landed, somehow, to producer Kathleen Kennedy, who then sent it on to DreamWorks, on Steven Spielberg's desk (a former Kennedy collaborator) and who, miraculously, liked it and decided a movie should be made (we all know, if Spielberg wants a project, he has a project). The famous movie mogul then got the interest of Clint Eastwood, who, as it happened, became enamored with it. And so much that after looking through a huge pile of possible scripts of interest, "Hereafter," a movie that doesn't say a lot about why it should be made, became the next Clint Eastwood film.
It happened pretty fast, and "Hereafter" flew out of Morgan's hands, and the British screenwriter never got to touch it again. Not an unusual unjust Hollywood thing, but more surprisingly, Eastwood wouldn't change anything either. Not a scene, or a moment, or a line. Nothing. He did add detail, but Eastwood stuck to the very loosely constructed script that Morgan wrote. To his absolute horror, of course.
A script that was probably never to be read, or even produced, the way it was, and was given studio backing, an A-list director, an A-list actor, and a couple million to sink into the very impressive and well-staged tsunami sequence at the beginning of the film, a very convincing scene of horror that has more bearing after the events in Japan last Friday. However, it's a scene so large and complex and so out of place for a tame script from then on, it wouldn't have been considered on a smaller budget, an alternative Morgan actually considered had he decided he wanted to make the film, axing most of the storyline and sticking with the twin boys set in London, only shooting there instead.
With that, the "Hereafter" movie, written by a very talented writer, directed by a very talented director, just wasn't ready to be made. The script was weak. Simple.
That's the main problem the movie fails on, and why critics are divided on it, of Eastwood bandwagon detractors and the filmmaker's loyal supporters. In most cases anyway, the consensus is still the movie wasn't a par Eastwood flick, and was, quite openly, a different piece for him, and Morgan. Clint Eastwood, the hard-nosed Dirty Harry and rather cold-position depict-mans on hard life, made a rather sentimental movie, on a subject that wouldn't have had much bearing on a gun-slinging legend who doesn't blink when sending a lot of western baddies to the grave. And Morgan, who takes a lot from real life and does wholly convincing creations, writes wholly narrative and on a wholly fictional idea, and a very universal controversial one. And as it is Morgan's screenplay just doesn't have enough punch, or that type of...let's say "rounded emotion," and really lacks a core to it, a purpose. Though the movie is very much all of one theme, as why the script was written, it just seemed...thin. Good characters, some good moments made better by Eastwood (I really liked the scenes between George and Melanie in the Italian cooking classes), but there should have been more to this movie, more to the screenplay. Morgan, a smart writer who writes smart, snappy dialogue, writes kind of strained here, too grounded to reality it seems the movie could have used a bit more fantasy, more fuller dialogue and scenes, in it's exploration on fantasy. However, Eastwood's grounding to actuality, as if these events can happen, or even has happened, makes the idea of a hereafter less out there and more open-minded, and is a big strong point to the movie, even as I'm sure neither Eastwood, or Morgan, are trying to sell us the idea of life after death. The movie is speculation, nothing more. It isn't preachy. Sadly, that could be why most audiences didn't respond to it, where for most people ideas on Heaven and Divinity should be solid truth and be represented in plain light, the reason why "The Blind Side," another Warner Bros. film, was a massive hit, a movie about family centered on Christian values. Though that's getting off track, and "Hereafter" has no intention of siding, I think had it been made as an unlocked Christian film, it might have been better appreciated.
Anyway, Eastwood would probably not make a movie like that, nor would Morgan. These guys, though I'm sure very respectful of Christianity, leave "Hereafter" to questions. It isn't Heaven does or does not exist, I think that's redundant here. It's more if people pass on where do they go, where they are, the idea if we could speak to them, or not, that we could move on ourselves and always know that we are never alone, and if there is truly something like a hereafter, physically, mentally, or spiritually.
Yeah, I get it. Same concept. Heaven/Hereafter. But, I don't think Eastwood or Morgan are giving out any answers, as much as Warner Bros. would like them to.
"Hereafter" is a tricky subject, and a tricky film, but it's well done. Not very satisfying (I don't think Eastwood films really are), and doesn't have a climax to rival it's opening, but it's smartly depicted in the idea of character's interested in where we go when we pass on. Morgan, who I think - and he maybe too - only skimmed the surface of what would have been a compelling narrative fiction as much as his narrative historic biopics, but just needed more time to make it so.
 |
| Aron Ralston (James Franco) screams for help after his arm is trapped by a boulder |
"127 Hours" ☆☆☆ 1/2
Possibly the most unique depiction of a survival story every made. It may be heart-churning, intense at times, and ultimately inspirational, but it doesn't go all mushy, and isn't a straight forward telling of a narrative drama, but a wonderfully trippy, if also how hauntingly real, point-of-view experience through the eyes of a pretty excitable character, par a pretty excitable director himself. Danny Boyle, that Brit helmer whose career shot through the rafters with "Slumdog Millionaire," continues his supposed Oscar streak, directing the true life account of Aron Ralston, a young, capable, but silly and naive amateur outdoor-mans/adventurer who took a hike out in the barren mountain canyons in Utah and got his arm stuck, literally, between a rock and a hard place when a heavy boulder came loose and jammed his hand against a canyon wall, pinning him, right at the bottom of a 20-foot crevasse, out of sit of anyone, in the middle of nowhere. If anyone was hiking in Aron's remote world, it would be a long shot they would find him. And if planes or helicopters flew overhead looking for him, they would never spot him down the dark hole which is just another slit in an open barren desert landscape which Aron would be surely walking, lost, or collapsed, dehydrated and dying, but anyway out where he would be seen.
But never stuck and in the dark. Aron is a sure wilderness man and an experienced mountaineer. No one would be worried about him.
But he also is quite delusional in thinking nothing like being stuck by a rock down a deep canyon would happen. He's a loner, likes being out in the elements by himself, thinks he doesn't need anyone, knowing he would be accomplished to do anything on his own.
So the kicker: He didn't tell a soul where he was going, then decided on a walk-in-the-park excursion, alone, in a very remote part of the Utah desert without a cell phone, only a day's rations in food, and a few liters of water, which he must undoubtably save.
In those first minutes he tries to free himself, exerting all his energy and strength, from the boulder. It's heavy, and it's wedged pretty hard. Reassessing, he does an inventory of his things, anything that could help him get out of there. There's not much, but there is a small discount store pocket knife that he decides will be the best at chipping away at the rock.
Of which he then proceeds to do. Of course, it doesn't work. Out of ideas, Aron realizes he will spend a night in the crevasse, in only shorts and a t-shirt, where the temps sink to as low as 40 degrees out in the desert.
A full day passes. Thinking near pessimistically, already self-loathing, Aron takes his camcorder and films testimonials of himself, narrating his predicament and talking of his daily rituals.
A couple more days pass. His water is but a few drops. Dehydrated, he hallucinates, seeing family and friends, people he's turned his back on. In his video he reflects on his life, saying his apologies to those people he loved but never appreciated and keep at arms length. The visions pass, and they move on without him.
He knows, soon, he won't last another night alive. He says his goodbyes into the camera.
It's been 5 days. He knows there is one option. The only sure one if he wants to get out alive. He must use his dull pocket knife, and rudimentarily, and brutally, cut through his arm.
In Aron Ralston's book, "Between a Rock and a Hard Place," he depicts all of this. So we know he lives, and what he had to do to save himself.
That's what Boyle does, and what young, go-get-'em actor James Franco as Ralston does, in one of the performances of the year, depict in grueling detail the events of those five days as close as possible. Even the personal visions Aron has, done so wonderfully (and trippy) by Boyle. The best and one that hits the hardest of the son Aron sees himself with, the son he would have, knows he will have. Not really a prophesy, but a true vision that he will get out, and this is what will be waiting for him when he does.
Imagine, a 27-year-old young man with no ties and no thoughts of family and settling down, sees his future son. And it comes true! Aron's wife gives birth to a boy, Leo, not a few months before the release of the movie.
Even with that, that isn't why "127 Hours" succeeds so well.
Boyle, and Franco, and co-screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, concentrate on Ralston, of the man who figured he could live his life the way he wanted, without anyone, any ties, or any person. A person who soon finds he is alone, stuck and dying, and that maybe he had it coming, that the boulder that so paradoxically trapped him had been waiting years for him. Ralston, in the book, and in the film, even speculates it was a meteor, far from space, on a direct, unalterable collision course with a self-serving man named Aron Ralston. A part of a fate meant for him, knowing full-well he deserves what he got because he shut everyone out and so suddenly is left to die alone, knows this is right, must be why such an unlikely event had taken place to such an experienced, but self-centered guy.
Following Ralston, on his ways and the way he lives his life unbounded, and how Boyle depicts this, even going as far as to visually show us that boulder, those years ago, waiting for Aaron (and in the script, though sadly not in the film, the meteor in space), is what is the true success of "127 Hours." That idea, that theme, that a man so unattached finds he must will himself to survive through wanting to right his wrongs and live again, and go through the worst self-mutilation that none of us should ever have to endure, is the film's epicenter, and such a universal strong point in such a story like this, of a man who relished and lived in his outdoor adventurers but finds he wasn't living at all, to make the easy choice, but the hard decision: the will to live, and the pain of amputation.
Of course, Boyle does a few tricks to really get us in there with Ralston and make this all the more effective. He had his set, the actual size and width of the canyon, built as is, and his crew, and Franco, had to work in that small space that was only a couple feet across. That closeness, that intimacy, comes off so well, and Boyle doesn't waste time. He gets everything. The small, delicate maneuvers in reaching for a knife with a stick, tying cords, lightly sipping water, and painfully turning the bottle cap closed (one reason why the sound here is a true collaborative hero. It did get an Oscar nod, too!) And Franco depicting Ralston in all his glorious goofiness and self-pity and ultimate emotional drainage.
By not being so mushy or sentimental, it's a tour-de-force of emotion, of character portrayal, of intense, grueling depiction of survival and stunning vision of past life, "127 Hours" is a movie you would see twice, and be surprised you would get through a man cutting off his arm in agonizing detail, because you are with Aron Ralston all the way.
______________________________
Okay..., that should just about do it...
Until next week...or next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment