Brüno

July 7, 2009

bruno

So there he was, getting repeatedly whipped by the dominatrix at that redneck swingers’ party, which he attended more or less on the advice of the gay-converter priest, and suddenly I could feel the whole weight of the cultural moment, as if this were some perverse sort of movie-comedy apotheosis.

Like that dominatrix’s breasts, the film is unmistakably unreal but ominously inflated. It’s unsettling to think that the inflation itself has become our new reality baseline. And it’s hard to know or even care anymore about what parts have been staged and who’s in on it and how much is true. But it’s not hard — and therefore rather unpleasantly satisfying — to see that when he’s getting whipped, that much at least is for real.

And he’s so willing to take a beating, it makes you wonder if he actually wants to get hurt. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Everybody has a kink. But you have to own it. It seems like the chief concern of Brüno — in which Sacha Baron Cohen’s faux-flaming, fame-craving Austrian fashion correspondent from Da Ali G Show comes to America and to feature length — is to push, hard, until somebody pushes back. Lewd innuendo intended.

When he’s not getting whipped, he’s hunching naked in the night and nudging at the tent flap of a rifle-toting hunter; or prancing in short shorts around some Middle Eastern city where orthodox Jews will chase him through the streets; or making out with his doting personal assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten) in a cage surrounded by a drunken, gay-hating mob. Really asking for it, in other words. It’s like Punk’d multiplied by Jackass, although hell if I know what that equals.

Then another thought occurs: If Woody Allen really wants to do misanthropy, maybe Sacha Baron Cohen, not Larry David, is the leading man he needs. Director Larry Charles evidently wants to do misanthropy; before Brüno, Charles’ last movie, Religulous, also used a gay-converter priest (among other easy targets) for sport, and before that he made Cohen’s Borat. Charles has specialized in situational comedy built not from jokes but from incendiary stunts, predicated on the merciless exposure of human shortcomings in an age of obliterated privacy, pandemic vanity, and desiccated dignity. For this, Cohen seems like the perfect muse. And I just thought it worth mentioning here that watching him get whipped somehow also made me think of Woody Allen.

Like Borat before him, Brüno is a satirizing buffoon. He doesn’t merely push boundaries; he gallops headlong across them. Or sashays. Or pedals his dildo-adorned exercise bike. He is critiquing the ritualization of preposterous juvenile shenanigans by ritualizing preposterous juvenile shenanigans. He’s not just giving small-minded homophobes the finger; he’s giving them the dancing, talking penis. And some gay people surely will consider him the embodiment of homophobia.

Brüno’s goal is to become famous. He tries to get an agent and some acting jobs. He attempts a few celebrity interviews. “These are Mexican Chair People,” he explains to Paula Abdul, inviting her to have a seat on a crouching man’s back. “Demi Moore has two of them in her house.” On another occasion, Harrison Ford tells him to fuck off. Then Brüno finds a pair of impossibly ditzy publicists, who suggest he take up a cause. “Darfur is the big one now,” he says. “What’s Dar Five?” They don’t get it. It’s genius, hilarious, awful.

One focus-group responder informs Brüno that his show is worse than cancer. Another suggests that what he needs to do is make a sex tape. So he somehow corners Ron Paul in a hotel room and tries to seduce him. Yes, that Ron Paul. Is there another for whom this would be more outrageous, more embarrassing? Anyway, it does not go well.

And we watch and laugh and cringe and judge. Satire should aim precisely and scour accordingly, but Brüno often feels unfocused and unclean. It’s like the comedy equivalent of an enhanced interrogation technique. Sure, it’ll rip the lid off a seething pit of prejudice and narcissism and stupidity, but what if it also causes those things, or really is made of them? There are scenes in which the humor goes so low as to have negative value. Which scenes these are will vary according to audience threshold.

This cultural moment feels like stinging tedium, like being whipped. But at least some people can get off on it.


I Love You, Beth Cooper

July 7, 2009

BethCooper

On the last day of high school, a debate-captain dork (Paul Rust) takes the opportunity of his valedictory speech to announce his obsessive affection for the hottie head cheerleader (Hayden Panettiere). Not unmoved by his sincerity, she treats him to an awkwardly enchanted evening, including a jaunt down the warpath of her meathead-soldier-coke-fiend boyfriend (Shawn Roberts). Simpsons writer Larry Doyle adapts his own novel, which was pretty much just a movie waiting to happen anyway, for director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Rent), who misapplies his buffing touch by dampening sharp edges instead of polishing stilted scenes. Thus does I Love You, Beth Cooper sparkle with benevolence even as it creaks with contrivance. Its fine premise deserves a finer film, but this mediocre one should at least earn its makers some money and future opportunities. Also with Alan Ruck as our hero’s sweetly supportive dad and Jack Carpenter as his sweetly supportive, possibly gay pal.


Tulpan

July 7, 2009

tulpan

After completing his service in the Russian navy, a restless and sensitive young man (Askhat Kuchencherekov) comes to live as a nomad with his sister (Samal Esljamova) and her shepherd husband (Ondas Besikbasov) on the barren Kazakh steppe. He’ll need to begin his own life, and for that he’ll need his own wife, but the only available woman within many miles isn’t interested. Director Sergey Dvortsevoy, co-writing with Gennady Ostrovskiy, continues an emerging tradition of ethnographic docudrama that viewers familiar with Byambasuren Davaa’s The Story of the Weeping Camel and The Cave of the Yellow Dog will recognize, and any fan of elegantly simple tales from exotic faraway places will appreciate. What’s special about Tulpan–aside from Jolanta Dylewska’s extraordinary cinematography, which seems always to know what revelations to wait for and how best to present them–is its tender, desert-dry comedic touch. Apparently it is possible to come of age alone in the void, while chasing sheep through the dust.


Chéri

July 6, 2009

cheri

It figures: Blockbuster season finally yields a movie for adults, and it’s this vignette from a bygone era about the dissolution of youth. Chéri (Rupert Friend), the 19-year-old son of a retired Belle Epoque courtesan (Kathy Bates), is a feckless and beautiful brat, taken on as an erotic disciple by his mother’s one-time rival (Michelle Pfeiffer), then taken from her by an arranged marriage to a more suitable girl his own age (Felicity Jones). To achieve this forlorn and magnificently decorated melodrama, Christopher Hampton has synthesized and adapted two Colette novellas for director Stephen Frears. It’s no help that the movie’s period trappings invite a comparison with Hampton and Frears’ more electric Dangerous Liaisons, in which Pfeiffer also starred, nor that its thematic concerns mirror those of Frears’ recent and more topical The Queen. And if you have to read in an allegory about aging actresses in today’s Hollywood to give it any currency, what does that say about the substance of the film itself? Even if not among the very best efforts from its distinguished screenwriter and director, Chéri is quite commanding when it manages after a while to gather some force. And maybe it is among the best from Pfeiffer, whose performance here is so wise and radiantly self-possessed.


Public Enemies

June 30, 2009

DeppDillinger

On the last night of his life, John Dillinger went to the movies. It was the summer of 1934, and Dillinger, the accomplished bank robber and evasion artist, had just enjoyed a prosperous several months as the raison d’etre for our nascent FBI: He was America’s Public Enemy Number One. The first, that is, and also the most important.

In the summer of 1934, with the Great Depression on, you generally went to the movies to forget your troubles. Sometimes you’d sit through pre-show newsreels beseeching you to look around at your fellow moviegoers, see if John Dillinger was among them, and notify the authorities if so. Sometimes your fellow moviegoers would cheer at the mention of Dillinger’s name.

And sometimes you’d see a film like Manhattan Melodrama, a tale of two elegant men on opposite sides of the law, played by William Powell and Clark Gable — the latter on his way to the electric chair, declaiming, “Die like you live: all of a sudden.” Not long after hearing those words, John Dillinger stepped out into the Chicago night and was shot down by the Feds who’d been waiting for him.

In Public Enemies, it’s not all of a sudden. It requires nearly two and a half hours of setup. But that’s not so bad, as the setup involves Johnny Depp withdrawing into the role of Dillinger, doing a long, coy take on the smooth criminal. It’s almost as if Depp’s testing his own appeal (strong as ever), and wondering how broken up we’ll really be to see him take a bullet through one of those beautiful cheeks. See it and find out.

The setup also involves glimpsing Dillinger’s rival, Special Agent Melvin Purvis, through a quiet, coiled-up performance by Christian Bale; and his girl, Billie Frechette, through an inviting one by Marion Cotillard. This is not history; it’s a fantasy, mostly having to do with the durable gangster-glamour of the movies. Being a Michael Mann film, it will boil down to a vision of two elegant men on opposite sides of the law — often mumbling in the dark, and with accomplished character actors flitting around them and seeming somehow underused. The vision can seem archetypal or hackneyed, depending on your taste for its crafty presentation. Mann likes gazing at the cop-criminal Janus face; we’ve seen it before in his TV show Crime Story, and in Manhunter, and in Heat, whose manly schematics this new film reiterates. His way of directing leading actors seems increasingly to consist of telling them: Just be the icons you are.

Given the title Public Enemies, and the adaptation (by Mann, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman) from Bryan Burrough’s all-inclusive 2004 book of the same name, you might reasonably have hoped for an ensemble piece. There are sightings of Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum), Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham), Alvin Karpis (Giovanni Ribisi), plus, you know, That Other Guy, and What’s-his-name, and Whoozit. The movie doesn’t make it easy to tell them all apart. But maybe that’s just because Number One is, well, Number One.

Depp’s Dillinger to a bank president, at the vault’s mouth: “You can be a dead hero or a live coward. Open it.” To a bank customer, moments later: “We’re here for the bank’s money, not yours. Put it away.” To Billie Frechette: “I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars, and you. What else you need to know?”

Fair enough — for a movie, anyway. And in the summer of 2009, with the great recession on, it’s better this than a film about Bernie Madoff.


Moon

June 29, 2009

moon2

“My upbringing was pretty weird,” says David Bowie’s son. I know: You’re thinking, No WAY. But sure enough–or so Duncan Jones, the artist formerly known as Zowie Bowie, told the New York Times a few weeks ago.

Jones was recalling the formative years during which his father introduced him to the likes of George Orwell, J.G. Ballard and Philip K. Dick, and let him hang around the set on movies such as Labyrinth. Now Jones has made his own film, the dauntingly pedigreed but quite self-sufficiently entertaining Moon.

Sam Rockwell stars as a near-future moon base laborer who for three years has, by himself, mined the lunar soil’s rich supply of Helium 3, with which his far-flung administrative overseer claims to be solving Earth’s energy crisis. But those claims are dubious. The plan involves converting the element into its gaseous form and compelling most of the human race to inhale it regularly so they all talk funny, forget their troubles, relax the pace of industrial development and therefore use less energy.

No, not really. But I almost had you for a minute there, didn’t I? The truth is that I’m stalling, because it’s hard to discuss Moon in detail without giving the real plot away, and the real plot is best discovered by the audience as it’s discovered by the protagonist: gradually, and with a piquant combination of good humor and dread. Of course this plot–developed by Jones with screenwriter Nathan Parker–is also pretty ridiculous. But it’s still less ridiculous than you might expect from a movie by a guy who grew up reading Orwell and Ballard and Dick and watching David Bowie work on the set of Labyrinth.

Let’s just say that Moon takes place on the mysterious frontier between space madness and corporate malfeasance. And it most certainly could have happened someplace else. Hell, our hero might just as soon be mining borax in the high desert of northern Nevada. The important thing is the quiet, airless brutality of the landscape in which he toils, the sense of distance from civilization and from loved ones. The especially important thing is that he’s alone. That way, when a very unlikely visitor arrives and turns out to be very unpleasant company, you’ll be as freaked out as he is.

In recent years, Rockwell has been building a fine body of work by wondering how men live with themselves, and Moon is all about that. There’s potential for much actorly gimmickry in this role, but his performance never descends; it’s a tour de force. It’s the entirety of the movie, yet also somehow simply one of several essential parts.

Such is Moon’s wily charm. It amounts to an assembly of nice touches–like Clint Mansell’s driving score, or the deliberate tactility of the production design, or the obligatory omnipresent talking computer being voiced by Kevin Spacey, whose performances always seem like facsimiles of humanness anyway. (That the computer looks like some contraption from your dentist’s office, and also expresses itself through crude variations on the smiley-face emoticon, only heightens the amusing/unsettling effect.)

As a throwback to the unabashedly philosophical, pre-CGI science fiction of decades past, the assembly works: Moon is a small movie of big ideas. Jones may have inherited some of his father’s spaced-out sophistication, but his film’s real achievement is remaining so down to earth.


Food, Inc.

June 28, 2009

foodinc

There’s just something unpalatable about yet another documentary whose credits open with a slick barrage of info-graphics and close (over Bruce Springsteen singing “This Land is Your Land,” no less) by telling you precisely how to live and which Web sites to visit. It has a whiff of crass salesmanship, of assembly-line prefabrication, and that doesn’t help when the subject being documented is the industrial ruination of American agriculture via crass salesmanship and assembly-line prefabrication. As for journalistic integrity, well, one of the primary sources is also one of the producers, namely Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser. All of that said, Robert Kenner’s film still seems both timely and necessary, and maybe even more constructive than Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me and the Richard Linklater movie of Schlosser’s book put together. With The Omnivore’s Dilemma author Michael Pollan, among other compelling characters, also on hand, Food, Inc. does have real nourishment to offer. In other words, it may look and smell like a glossy package of highly processed luncheon meat, but really it’s more like a big pile of organic cabbage. Yum?


Whatever Works

June 28, 2009

whateverworks

Woody Allen dusts off but doesn’t sufficiently fumigate a romantic comedy of misanthropy he conceived during the era of Annie Hall, and casts Larry David in a role once intended for Zero Mostel. Well, now we know what doesn’t work. David’s obviously much better off as a surrogate for himself on Curb Your Enthusiasm than for the Allen of yore; yet here he is as a condescending New York curmudgeon who, while only barely abiding the general misery of human existence, becomes involved with a much younger, much sunnier Southern runaway, played by Evan Rachel Wood. Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jr. play her parents, and the filmmaker gives them all some business, but that’s different from giving them characterizations and direction. More to the point is that even David’s choicest zingers suffer from an overall wrongness of timing. After Allen’s recent three-movie stint in London, it’s tempting to wonder: Would it have been better or worse if he’d tried to retool Whatever Works for Ricky Gervais instead?


Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

June 24, 2009

shiamegan

With that calamitous stateside civil war between shape-shifting space robots now a couple of years behind him, young Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is off to college. But it means parting ways with his protective pet Camaro, Bumblebee, and his girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox), to whom Sam swears he’ll stay true, even though neither of them wants to be the first to say, “I love you.”

Maybe they’ll get some perspective when a forgotten souvenir from their mechanized adventure fills Sam’s head with strange robotese runes, and suddenly another war is at hand. (No, it doesn’t matter what that even means.) Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) and his benevolent Autobots, now in covert alliance with America’s military, will again need Sam’s help to keep down the evil Decepticons, whose new plan involves filling our world with transforming, trash-talking, leg-humping, orifice-invading, explosion-making nonsense, then shutting off the sun. Thing is, after two and a half hours of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, total frozen silent darkness seems very appealing.

Pausing occasionally to gawk at babe brulée Fox (seriously, she looks like a custard, finished with a layer of sugar and a butane torch), the camera seems less jittery than in the first Transformers film, but still restless as hell — swooping, swirling, gliding off to nowhere in particular when it should be seeking out a better view of whatever it’s supposed to be recording.

As for that whatever, well, whatever. Weird how annoying it is not to be able to tell what’s going on when you know perfectly well that what’s going on is robots wailing on each other. Weirder how annoying it is to actually become incensed (then overwhelmed, then exhausted) by the cheesy idiocy of a movie developed from another movie developed from a crudely animated 1980s TV cartoon developed from a line of action figures. Even by the lowest possible standards, this should be so much better.

Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman muster the same “Oh, like you care about plot logic” abandon they supplied to Star Trek, with The Brothers Grimm writer Ehren Kruger also on hand apparently to polish up the leaden bloat. That being the most realistic-seeming metallic surface in the film does not constitute an advantage. Also, other actors are employed, for the mostly failed comic relief of D-list-sitcom shtick and wince-worthy minstrelsy. But really, it’s about the rock’em sock’em.

I was trying to go the whole length of this review without writing the words “Michael Bay,” just to see if it’s even possible. But Bay, America’s greatest-ever auteur of asininity, has a gift for just not going away.

Is it because he has something to say? How about Sam and Mikaela’s three little words? Right: First we’ll need some aimless, aggressive jingoism, for context. Keep your eyes peeled for flapping flags, solemn Marines and the biggest pair of truck nuts anyone should ever have to see. Come to think of it, maybe the movie’s several references to testicles are intended somehow to compensate for the neutering of General Motors, whose vehicles some of its heroes become.

Anyway, the climax occurs in Egypt, because it’s the world’s biggest sandbox and Bay has lots of toys.


Adoration

June 23, 2009

Adoration

In 1998, Atom Egoyan almost got an Oscar for killing off a busload of schoolchildren. You may think that’s a terrible thing to get an Oscar for, and maybe it is, but the reason he didn’t is that the award went instead to James Cameron that year, for killing off a boatload of North Atlantic seafarers. Timing!

Egoyan’s The Sweet Hereafter, which he adapted from Russell Banks’ novel, may have lacked Titanic’s transfixing mass appeal, but it did introduce American art-house crowds to an obscure Armenian-Canadian filmmaker whose mindful, marginal perspective on grieving lost life and innocence soon would become highly topical. So if Egoyan’s Adoration, from an original script, now seems late to the table of movies about life in the wake of 9/11, well, maybe timing’s just another aesthetic choice. After all, that wake is long and deep.

Like other Egoyan films, Adoration concerns itself with the technology of human communication, which includes memory, imagination, the Internet, prejudice, fiction, symbols, videography, mass murder, journalism, guilt, religious rituals and high school language education. It takes place within what one character calls a “community of people who remember a catastrophe that never happened.”

Paradoxically, that chimerical event is the part of this story that’s true–the part about a Jordanian jihadist who in 1986 tried to put his Irish girlfriend on a plane from London to Tel Aviv after putting a bomb in her luggage. The plan was to kill about 400 people, including the young woman and her unborn child. It didn’t succeed, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t shake people up.

For instance, when Simon (Devon Bostick), a Toronto high school student, gets an assignment from his teacher, Sabine (Arsinée Khanjian), to translate an old newspaper article about this incident, he decides to let himself and his class think it’s the story of his own deceased parents. Abetted by his own speculated flashbacks, Simon writes an essay ruminating on martyrdom, moral responsibility, his father’s motives, and how we all are haunted by the past.

As it happens, Sabine is a teacher not just of French but also of drama, and she encourages Simon’s fabrication. Her special interest seems peculiar, but there is the compelling sense of unsettled fate beginning to cohere. Simon’s performance eventually becomes an incendiary viral sensation on the Web, sparking rancorous commentary from his classmates, their parents, passengers from that fateful flight, and even survivors and deniers of the Holocaust.

This all proves especially challenging for Simon’s uncle Tom (Scott Speedman), an exhausted de facto guardian embittered not just by his sister’s death but also by a strained relationship with his own father (Kenneth Welsh), whose inclinations toward bigotry he may reluctantly have inherited. Whether any of them like it or not, Simon and Sabine’s increasingly consuming collaboration will prompt several revelations and test his uncle’s tolerance.

And, OK, ours. As coincidences accumulate, and the filmmaker’s orderliness crosses over into stiltedness, it becomes clear that the way through all this confusion toward closure will just have to be halting and circuitous. Besides, storytelling contrivance is part of what’s being examined here. Adoration, like other Egoyan films, might rightly be described as machinelike, with its own gearworks rather coyly exposed, but at least its power seems to come from striving, reeling human souls. Probably knowing full well that their characters will irk and compel in roughly equal measure, the principal actors–Bostick, Khanjian (Egoyan’s wife and frequent leading lady) and especially Speedman–make many brave and naturally audacious choices. Their implied faith in Egoyan’s earnest approach, like his faith in its potential for profundity, is touching. And of course all the arty brooding is well served by Paul Sarossy’s cinematography and Mychael Danna’s score.

So what’s it like to be a failed terrorist’s son, anyway? Is it ever something worth fantasizing about? Is it like a stifling dream, in which non-events become events and catastrophes, even without actually happening, create communities? You may think these aren’t pressing questions, and maybe they’re not, but neither was the question of what happened on the last days of the Titanic when people kept asking it as least as late as 1998.