Review: Lars and the Real Girl

Lars and the Real Girl is a fine film. It really is. The screenplay by Nancy Oliver is top notch. Ryan Gosling’s performance as Lars, a man who has fallen in love with a doll used for less than savory purposes, is fantastic, as is the exquisite and refined supporting cast. So I guess the only thing keeping this “fine” film from advancing to the level of “genius” is its style.

On one level there is something compelling about making any film directed in cinema verite style. In the beginning its visual minimalism denotes Lars loneliness. And as the film progresses this style fades away with the use bright colours and other things which denote Lars’ increased happiness, yet artificiality. And while I understand and like this all very much, there is something about this style that seems too on the nose for me. It’s as if the director, Craig Gillespie, is trying to trick us all into feeling one way or another. All directors do this, but there something indefinably underhanded about this move. Lars and the Real Girl is completely believable and utterly, devastatingly honest, yet the director insists on emotional manipulation, which is unnecessary and wholly superfluous. The performance and the screenplay are strong enough that cinema verite style throughout the whole film would seem, to me at least, a more organic approach to the subject matter.

To the film’s credit and to my unexpected delight, it is funny, without being stupid. It is funny more in the way that when something is so awkward you have to laugh than beat you over the head with a joke kind of funny. With the potential to be turned into some soulless, heartless dribble all credit goes to those involved who saved this story from being turned into a star vehicle for Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell.

In conclusion, Lars and the Real Girl is a fine admirable film, but I would never wish to see it again and I am no better off or worse off for having seen the film. The praise it garnered last year is certainly understandable, but I am sort of glad it didn’t win any Oscars.

Speed Racher versus Indiana Jones

Somehow or other the critical lambasting of Speed Racer continues, as the bulk of the critical community comes to praise last week’s number one film Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Speed Racer is an imaginative and fun romp that utilizes CGI to its maximum potential, while remaining faithful to its source material and creating one of the most purely enjoyable and creative films I have seen in some time. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull is the opposite of this. It is merely nostalgia for three much better films. Its use of CGI is not only out of place, but plain stupid. Ending one of the coolest fight scenes I can recall from recent history with a Donkey Kong like sequence is one of the more stupid scenes I can recall from the film. But it doesn’t end there. There is not a part of this film that is really all that fun or interesting; with the noted exception of a fight scene that involves a sword fight from trucks. It may be pretty absurd, like the rest of the movie, but at least it’s still “cool.”

Steven Spielberg is a great filmmaker. A filmmaker who has in the past directed some of the highlights of American cinema, (e.g. E.T.) but who now can’t seem direct anything that doesn’t annoy me. Worry not, the film is fun and superior to Spielberg’s War of the Worlds and of course a million times more compelling than the insipid The Color Purple, but it’s simply not that damn good, and really really not as fun Speed Racer.

I hope that when the dust clears critics and fans will come to realize what a gem Speed Racer really is. So far, and I am pretty positive that this will change soon as more films fill our cinemas, Speed Racer is my hands down favorite film of the year. But, then again Cloverfield and Iron Man are both still on that list. I need to be seeing more films. I am full of excuses for why this is the case, but I spare you all. Sorry once more for the delay in posting.

Review: Margot at the Wedding

Nicole Kidman could make any movie she wanted to. She could make a film about the inner world of a paint mold and we would all probably watch it and admire her performance. Admire it not so much for its worth, but because Kidman could chose to make anything she wants and she continues to make films which are passion projects, instead of blockbusters. Perhaps The Golden Compass is a recent exception to this rule, but even that film wasn’t without controversy and her performance was pretty spectacular.

One of the films I failed to see last year (yes I am ashamed) is Margot at the Wedding. The sixth feature of one the best American directors alive, Noah Baumbach. His previous film The Squid and the Whale was a fantastic, comical and very real film about a family dealing with the effects of a divorce. Margot at The Wedding is also about family, but unlike The Squid and the Whale, it is less appealing, decidedly darker, but, to me at least, way more funny.

Margot at the Wedding tells the story of Margot (Nicole Kidman) and her son Claude (Zane Pais) as they attend Margot’s sister, Pauline’s (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wedding to the unemployed artist Malcolm (Jack Black.) Margot is over simply described as a heinous witch. With a different actress she may well have been just that, but Kidman gives her a bit of humanity, where even if we don’t like her, we still care what happens to her. The rest of the cast gives pretty solid performances as well, even Jack Black, who usually just annoys me to death. There are too many subplots to mention them all here. In fact there may just be too many subplots.

Perhaps the most compelling component of this film was the relationship between Claude and Margot. In fact the film spends more time on this relationship than the relationship between Margot and her sister. I can simply describe it as one the most intriguingly creepy relationship dynamics I have seen it quite awhile. And, for this reason alone, the film is worth a look.

I am going to cut this review short as the joy of Margot at the Wedding is discovering its idiosyncratic nature. However, I will say the film is not your normal run-of-the-mill comedy and it also not the Wes Anderson copy that some have called it. Wes Anderson is a fine director, sometimes, but Baumbach is in another more compelling league. Anderson if the flashy, silly side of family relations and Baumbach is the soul of them.

Also on purely technically note the sound mixing in the film annoyed me. However, the rest of the film was good enough that this very small, very particular issue is best left ignored.

Coming Up Next: Speed Racer Review, Trials of Darryl Hunt Review and Overated films.

Thoughts on Speed Racer

Film is without a doubt an art form. However at its most basic level film is tricks with light. Like the vaudevillians of old, film was, first and foremost, a means of entertaining the masses. And more than any other film I have seen recently, Speed Racer is an unabashed celebration of the eye popping power of tricked up light schemes. Many of the complaints against the film seem to be from a feeling that the film is all style and no substance. But with this film style is substance and the Wachowski Brothers have crafted not exactly a profound piece of art, but a testament to the power of movies and to why most of us love movies in the first place. Speed Racer may not move us tears, it may not make profound social statements (though it does make a few), it may not change the course of film history, but it does something more simple that. It gives a wink and a nod to pure gee golly gosh entertainment and for that it ranks high my book. It feels good to be nine again. Full review of Speed Racer and Margot at the Wedding coming soon.

Guillermo Del Toro and Magical Realism

Something that has always annoyed me a little bit is the free wheeling use of the term "magical realism" to define certain movements within film and literature that originate from Latin America. I thought of this again upon seeing a preview for Hellboy 2 and someone mentioning it as magical realist. I wrote this in MLA format as it is adapted from a much longer essay I wrote about the subject a few years ago. Bear with me, it is still in its smaller version a bit long. Also I will presume that you have either seen the films or are not afraid of those nefarious spoilers.

Talking Goats and Revolution: Magical Realism in the Films of Guillermo Del Toro

In the painting Torre de Pisa (Tower of Pisa), by Magical Realist Christian Schad, a women stares on at the viewer as if posing for a photograph. She is a stunning beauty, with penetrating eyes. All of our attention rests with her realness. We know her and we know her desperation. The classic 80’s film The Goonies is about a group of young kids searching for a pirate’s treasure, while being chased by a team of professional criminals. What these pieces of art share in common is that they both have been referred to as pieces of “Magical Realist” art. As is obvious, the term “Magical Realism” is a fairly fluid term with several definitions. However, there are basically two main ways to look at magical realism. The magical realism in its original state and the modern version of magical realism. One Latin American film director who seems to understand and exemplify both traditions is Guillermo Del Toro. This exemplification can be seen in his two critically acclaimed films Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone.

Some literary and art historians have spent their whole lives attempting to craft a prefect, all encompassing definition of the term “Magical Realism.” However, the original meaning of the definition is actually quite simple. In 1925 Franz Roh published a book in which he compared expressionist painting to a new form of painting. However, he failed to find a descriptive word to fit the painting form. So, perhaps on a whim, he called this new artistic phenomenon “Magical Realism.” To Roh this new kind of painting was a response to the harsh realities of an improvised 1920’s Germany. The popular art at the time was expressionist, but to Roh, this art seemed to betray the harshness of the realities of waiting in food lines and hoping against hope that you would be eating that night. However, realism would not work simply because reality was something unspeakable. So in simpler terms, Roh meant for Magical Realism to be a middle ground between the art forms. These paintings then were somewhat cold and calculated but also with a bit of “magic.” To Roh there was no inherent magic in reality and in life, but the “magic” he referred to was in the eyes of the spectator. That reality could be recreated was the magic of the art, not that the art was inherently magical. Roh saw this phenomenon as a uniquely European idea. In his opinion only the Europeans, in their sophisticated understanding of reality could be so bold as to make this sort of new art. This elitist idea is another idea that separates his use of Magical Realism with the magical realism of Latin American art. In later years the term New Objectivity, would be formed to describe this phenomenon. However, New Objectivity would later fall into two parts. One part would be taken over by a group of Nazis and turned into a catch phrase to describe various sources of propaganda art. The other would be like Roh’s, but with increased understanding of political realities. The idea of leaders with absolute power, like Adolph Hitler, causing the evil found in magical realist art came as a result. (Reeds)

To Guillermo Del Toro this New Objectivity definition seems to have an important place in his films. Perhaps the most striking way is the visual nature of Guillermo Del Toro’s films. In The Devils Backbone we see a world torn apart by the civil war in Spain. Like in many other films, and in life, this depiction is dark and dank. There is a great deal of violence and several bits of grotesque imagery, most notably we see the character Dr. Casares drink from a jar which contains a fetus. In this we see a familiar reality, but one filled with the sort of “magic” apparent in Roh’s writing. Realism here would be a dull repeat of many films and other artistic expressions. Expressionism might serve as too abstract a forum to evoke our emotions. The most striking image of the film is simply the image of the crucifix. It is quite common to see crucifixes in almost every aspect of western society, from the crucifixes that adorn churches and graveyards to many famous pieces of art. However the crucifix of the film is an image that represents Franco’s tyranny. The children in the film are the children of leftist in Spain. Those in charge of the school place the crucifix outside to disguise the school as Catholic. As in Roh’s definition, we take an ordinary crucifix, seen in ordinary daily realism and add to it the weight of oppression and foreboding to form both a unique image and a harsh political reality. (Dalton)

Pan’s Labyrinth, like The Devil’s Backbone, is set in Spain in the time the civil war. It is curious that a Mexican director would chose to set his two most critically acclaimed films away from the country where he grew up. To Roh the idea of “magical realism” was uniquely European and here again Del Toro conforms to the idea of New Objectivity. In an interview Del Toro mentions that he originally intended to set up The Devil’s Backbone during the Mexican revolution, but upon a chance encounter with Pedro Almodovar, he changed his mind. However, because the films are set in Europe, it allows for the villain to be European and thus conform to another aspect common in New Objectivity. Franco can be quite easily, albeit perhaps too simply, compared to Hitler, the enemy of many artists that made up the magical realist half of the “New Objectivity” movement. The ghosts and mystical creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone are the byproducts of the Latin American part of magical realism, but the real villains of his films are the power drunk fascists of the a specifically European variety. (Chun)

Capitan Vidal, the villain of Pan’s Labyrinth is finally destroyed in the end by the true revolutionaries, the opposing party. Capitan Vidal represents the tyranny of Franco’s rule and of the rule of all nations who give away their freedom. However, before his demise another character, a symbol of resistance, a fighter of liberty, otherwise known as the good guy, cuts open his face. The scene is extremely brutal. We as the audience watch the grotesque scene of the Captain sewing his mouth back together, without any anesthetic, save the alcohol in which he drinks throughout the majority of film. The celluloid is covered in red blood. Here not only does the villain suffer a major setback, but also we see a scene constructed that represents a major setback for fascism itself. Fascism thrives on the rhetoric of the mouth and we see a symbol of this fascism without the ability to help fascism spread. However, instead of asking us to feel the vindictive joy of revenge we are instead left with the distinct and surprising feeling of sympathy. Sympathy for a man who earlier in the film beat an innocent man to death with a glass bottle. Sympathy for a man who treats an innocent child, the hero protagonist Ophelia, in the same manner as a fruit fly. Sympathy for a man who has absolutely no concern for his dying wife save her ability to bear him a son. We feel for him because the image is just so brutal and so overwhelming violent. In other words the image is cold. It shows us a reality constructed anew. A new reality that is not the expected call to arms. New Objectivity simply presents the world as in a raw symbolic form. This doesn’t insight our need for revenge and is merely an observation. (Montagne)

There are entire books dedicated to the evolution of Magical Realism in its New Objectivity form to the “lo real maravilloso” that exists in the Latin American perspective. In fact in 1973 a group of scholars met at the Crongreso de Literatura Iberoamericana in Michigan State University to figure out what exactly magical realism was and whether or not the art or literature of Latin American could rightfully be called: Magical Realism. However, instead of clarifying things the meeting forwarded the confusion. Here is what is known. The term “lo real maravilloso” was coined by the scholar Alejandro Carpentier, who like Roh noticed an artistic movement and decided it needed a name. Whether it was misinterpretation of Roh’s German or just a misunderstanding of his original intentions is a matter of great scholarly debate. The basic difference between Roh and Carpentier is that to Roh Magical Realism is the middle ground between the extremes of expressionism and realism, but to Carpentier Magic Realism is a an issue of extreme ideology. Carpentier believes that in the everyday and mundane realities there is actual magic. A magic that requires a belief its own existence to exist at all. To Roh Magical Realism is a representation of reality where as with Carpentier Magical Realism is the magic that exists in reality. Other distinctive characteristics of “lo real maravilloso” are a change in geography, a less elitist attitude and the insertion of the traditional fable and myths. New Objectivity is best described as an observation of reality in a unique and sometimes political form. “Lo real maravilloso” on the other hand is more often a call to arms in both a political and spiritual sense. New Objectivity simply exists but “lo real maravilloso” demands our faith. Some scholars note that Carpentier merely used the term Magical Realism as way to grab attention for what he believed to be an overlooked but important literary tradition that sprung not from the influence of Europeans but from the minds of creative native people. While there is something decidedly elitist about this notion, there is also something rather poignant. (Reeds)

In an interview Guillermo Del Toro talks about The Devil’s Backbone with the following:

“I think there's an urgent need to know, an urgent need to believe that there's something beyond your monthly paycheck and the traffic jam. I think that in this era where being cool almost becomes synonymous with being cynical, and people who debunk are far more hip than people who believe, I think these movies are a refuge for people who want to believe.” (Chun)

With this quote we see Del Toro’s belief in the power of faith in the magic of everyday life. (Chun) In Pan’s Labyrinth, a child’s innocence stands out as the opposition to war. This is common, but a very large metaphysical sort of idea. It is seen in many ways in all forms of literature from all over the world. However in the world of the Guillermo Del Toro and “lo real maravilloso” this is shown in quite a literally fantastical form. In order to escape war, Ophelia from Pan’s Labyrinth does not just imagine a world where she is queen of mystical creatures, but instead she actually is. With New Objectivity the world can be seen as more real, but “lo real maravilloso” shows us such a hyper-reality that realness is altered. However, in order for us to fully comprehend and fully believe in the world of Pan’s Labyrinth we must have a child like faith in the possible existence of an altered reality. Not just the reality of existence, but reality of that which exists beyond existence. In The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth the main protagonist are always the children. Perhaps this is not only to show the idea of innocence lost in times of war, but also that the faith required to fully believe is the same faith as that of a child. Also the message is so universal and so genially powerful, that it serves as a call for peace. Both The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth are “anti-war films.” If the films were found entirely beneath the heading of New Objectivity they would merely note this with a cold calculated observation, but the films call us to find peace instead. (Katje)

One the most distinctive parts of Latin American Magical Realism can be found with the inclusion of myths and legends within the artwork. Some critics have seen this addition as a negative thing. Some audiences have seen the art of Latin American Magical Realism as perhaps inaccessible or plain juvenile. For Roh the idea of these myths and legends and sharing with them the name of great paintings would probably seem absurd. Here magical realism looses its elitism and becomes a genre of the people. However there is something very distinctly different about the legends and myths of the Latin American world. While there are millions of strange and interesting creatures, there are some that are distinctly Latin American. With the mythology of anywhere in the world, these creatures are not just things to fear. In The Devil’s Backbone the ghost is not something to run in fear of or to spend sleepless nights in worry over. Instead the “lo real maravilloso” manner the ghosts are sadness, they are consequence, they are entities that exist like emotion, sometimes invisible to the human eye and sometimes dead, but still living in our subconscious. The creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth are not just there as filler, they are symbols of power struggles, innocence and belief. It would be wrong to suggest that horror films of other places do not also show this sort of thing, it is correct to state that Guillermo Del Toro does this with great aplomb and in a particularly “lo real maravilloso” sort of way. When Carpentier invented the term “lo real maravilloso” he saw a worthy genre which was in need of a name. Without the influence of “lo real maravilloso” The Devil’s Backbone would probably be little more than a bad “B-movie” and Pan’s Labyrinth probably wouldn’t exist at all. (Atkins)

With the closing of Pan’s Labyrinth we see an extreme example of exactly what “lo real maravilloso” is all about. The scene exists in two ways. The literal level is pure tragedy. Ophelia, our hero perishes. She is killed by the representatives of fascism. The imagery is dark and tragic. At last our hero has fallen. However, if we have given in to the magic of the story, if we have the faith mandatory in understanding Magical Realism then we know she did not die, but did in fact take her place on the throne to govern the strange and intriguing creatures of the labyrinth. Here we see death as merely a stopping point. It is impossible not to feel emotion for Ophelia, but unlike with Capitan Vidal’s death we feel something else. A call to action. A call to cease participating in wars. Also we see myth and fable as the saviors and escapes from reality. We see the concept of afterlife, so important within many religious ceremonies but subverted away from the shinny golden gates of heaven and replaced with something more prominent in the mind of a child. Guillermo Del Toro says he wants us to believe in something beyond this world, something that can be “cool”, but not hopeless, with the power of “magical realism.” (Katje)

From the talking dead people of HBO’s critically acclaimed “Six Feet Under” to the complicated Japanese anime world of “Pokemon” the definition of “magical realism” has become a fad in labeling art forms which uses different approaches to the understanding of the world we share. Guillermo Del Toro however truly understands the world from a unique perspective. He sees the complicated New Objectivity as striking a balance in life. However, he also understands and strives for the magic inherit in real life itself. The film of Guillermo Del Toro use both forms of Magical Realism to construct amazing masterpieces of the human condition and shows us a world of magic that exists just beyond the horizon. Often in our jaded minds we overlook the stunning beauty that sits before us, and through his sometimes violent epics we see the sometimes tragic sometimes beautiful reality of a life with hope.

Works Cited

Atkinson, Michael. “Moral Horrors in Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth, The Supernatural Realm Mirrors Man’s Inhumanity to Man” Film Comment, Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p50-53.

Chun, Kimberly “What is a Ghost? An Interview with Guillermo del Toro” Cineaste, Spring 2002, Vol. 27, Issue 2

Dalton, Stephens. “When the Monster are Human.” The Times April 11 2006. (newspaper.)

Montagne, Rene. “Pan's Labyrinth' is Realer than Reality Itself.” Morning Edition (NPR), DEC 29, 2006

Reeds, Kenneth. “Magical Realism: A Problem of Definition.” Neophilologus, April 2006, Vol. 90 Issue: Number 2 p175-196.

Richstatter, Katje. “Two Dystopian Movies…and their Visions of Hope.” Tikkun, Mar/Apr2007, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p78-79.

Review: Iron Man

I hope you all missed me during my temporary exile from the blog world. But I have returned, armed with more time and a brand new review of the blockbuster hit Iron Man.

Let’s be honest. Who is cooler? Han Solo or Luke Skywalker? Who is more awesome? Superman or Wolverine? Most of us, with a few notable exceptions, would say Han Solo and Wolverine. Why? Because Skywalker and Superman are goody-two-shoes and Han Solo and Wolverine are bad asses. Both rogues, both anti-heroes who fight for good, but not from some eternal cause of greatness from within, but because they had to. That is what makes Iron Man so awesome, that and a stellar cast, a grade A director and one of the best uses of CGI I can recall from recent memory.

The story, if you haven’t seen it yet, is of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) a weapons dealing, womanizing, super intelligent, good looking millionaire. On a trip to Afghanistan to sell his new ware, a particularly lethal missile, he is kidnapped by terrorists and forced to build his first model of the Iron Man in order to escape. There is the buddy character (Terrence Howard) and the loyal servant Virginia “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow.)

Let’s recap for a second. Robert Downey Jr., one the greatest actors of our time, Terrence Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow. Let’s add to that the always interesting Jeff Bridges. And then let’s use this almost always perfect cast of actors in a superhero movie. The result is, as expected, a triumph of the highest order.

Beyond being fun the film does something else too. It refuses to shy away from its political messages, yet never allows these messages to take the center stage. X-Men and Spiderman both have a political agenda, this is certainly true, but in Iron Man the message is not nearly so hidden in the world of fantasy. Yes of course Iron Man is a superhero fantasy adventure, but it is also, above all else, grounded in reality. Thus the political implications of weapons dealings, of making wars and the like, become more apparent. You could argue with the validity of political discourse within most superhero flicks, but Iron Man wears its bleeding liberal heart on its metallic sleeves.

Another way the film is better than your average superhero flick is its utter defiance of all the rules of a good superhero movie. It breaks two of these in the last fifteen minutes so I will spare you this. But, in breaking these rules the film elevates itself to a level beyond most superhero movies.

Ultimately a good popcorn superhero movie should be about having fun and watching things go boom, but while Iron Man does all of the above, in the closing frames it does something else. Something I have read in other blogs and reviews that is a let down to some, but to me, it was the opposite. It becomes about more than explosions and fun and makes one of the simplest statements any film can make. That CGI and action sequences may enthrall our senses, but they will never trump the power of simple, trick-free, quality film making. So if you have some time to spare and promise not to chew your popcorn too loudly, your in for a good night at the movies. And, seriously, does it get better than that?