Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

Okay, let me say right at the start that a lot of reviews of Million Dollar Baby are giving away spoilers, and while this annoys me as a rule, I do find myself somewhat sympathetic to them this time around. If you are already planning to see this movie, don't read any more about it, just go ahead and see it. My one sentence, non-spoiler review is that it is an incredibly well made-written-acted-directed movie about a story that just didn't do it for me.


SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
If you've read this far, let me state again, that if you have any intention of seeing this movie, you will be better off without the spoilers, as the movie will lose much of its impact on you if you know too much. I suspect that part of my muted reaction was due to being a little guarded. I had not read specific spoilers, but I had guessed at some of them from some of the semi-spoiler reviews. Below, I will go into specific detail about what happens, thus completely giving away the ending. If you intend to see this movie, stop reading now. Consider yourself warned.


Okay, so that's sufficient warning I think. Essentially, at the end of Act 2, the movie changes direction entirely. Hilary Swank's character gets sucker-punched, falls on a stool and breaks her neck, leaving her a quadriplegic. After suffering with her condition for a while, she asks Clint Eastwood's character to help her die, and though he initially resists, he eventually does help her.

This disappointed me for a number of reasons. First of all, it's such a complete departure from the expected plot that, while I generally enjoy being surprised, the twist really makes the film into a completely different kind of movie. It's no longer a sports movie about fighting for your dream, and instead, it has become a human melodrama where the character decides to give up fighting and commit suicide. Now, euthanasia is a very complicated, emotional issue, and though I'm generally against it, I do find the motivations behind it to be sympathetic.

Now, I didn't want Clint Eastwood's character to help Hilary Swank's character to help her die. However, I believe that his character would do it. The actors, writing etc. create believable, deep, interesting characters that act in ways consistent with their natures. I believe the story, I just didn't much like it.

It's a shame really. The movie is so well made. The acting, the writing, the direction. All top-notch. I really wanted to like this movie. I mean, who genuinely wants to dislike something? Ultimately, the movie failed to really engage me emotionally. I think some of that at least was the result of me feeling guarded, as I mentioned above. I didn't KNOW what was going to happen, but it was one of the possibilities I had considered. Because I was aware of what might happen, I didn't let myself get too emotionally invested, and therefore my reaction was not as genuine as it might have been if I had been really surprised.

That is the reason that I gave the advice I did above. I might have enjoyed the movie more if I had been really surprised. You can never unlearn spoilers, or re-see a movie with a surprise in it. If I had been going in clean, the movie might have captured my heart more effectively. I should point out however, that there are many, many movies that captured my emotion even when I did know, or guess, what was going to happen. Some of the movies that have made me cry the most have been ones where the basics of what happens at the end are known from the very beginning (Moulin Rouge, Titanic, frex.) So, I'm not going to let Million Dollar Baby completely off the hook in that department.

Ultimately, as I said at the beginning, the movie is incredibly well made. The acting is superb. The characters believable. The direction sure-footed and interesting. Everything about the movie is great, except that, frankly, I just didn't like the story very much. Your mileage may vary.

I've updated my Oscar Marathon Spreadsheet. As of this posting, I'm at 66.3%.

Let me state right up front, I have never seen a stage production of Phantom of the Opera before. Whew, it's good to get that off my chest. I had heard snippets of the music, and knew the broad strokes of the story (opera singer torn between two lovers, one normal but boring and the other mysterious but scarred and crazy), but that was about it. What that means is that I cannot compare the movie to the stage musical, and I am viewing everything through the filter of a Phantom newbie.

And the result? Well, I liked it pretty well.

I suspect that I would enjoy it more on the stage than in the movie theater, however, because it requires a level of suspension of disbelief that I am far more willing to grant to a stage musical than to a movie. It's not even about the musical elements, but rather that the entire story is told in a sort of short-hand, where instead of providing the characters with deep characters and detailed motivations, the storytellers just sort of ask us to take their word for it.

Why does Christine keep going back and forth between Raoul and the Phantom? As best I could tell, it's an example of: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." She seemed to be in love with which ever one was present at the moment.

I spent big parts of the movie wondering how the Phantom managed to build such an elaborate underground lair without anybody knowing about it. I wondered why Christine snuck out in the middle of the night to a snow-covered graveyard wearing little more than a nightgown and a sheer silk cape. I wondered, given the hugeness of the phantom's lair and the ongoing speculation about him, why no one seemed to spend any time actually looking for him. *shrug* None of these are big problems, just things I wondered about, when in a stage production, I probably would have just taken them for granted.

I can report however, that the movie's visual look is very good, with rich, lush, interesting sets and costumes and shots, etc. Very nice film to look at. The music won't be a surprise to anyone familiar with the music. For all the hype I heard about the 'new song', my Phantom-fan friend that I saw the movie with couldn't even tell me which one it was. I like the music more than the lyrics, I think. In many spots the actual words of the song seemed odd to me. The oft-repeated "The PhAAAAAAntom of the Opera is there inside my mind," for example.

Anyway, I had a good enough time for my eight bucks and two hours. I think there are better movies out now, so I wouldn't rush out to this one unless you're already a PotO fan, but if you do catch it, I doubt you'll want your money back.

The thing that really struck me as I watched Hotel Rwanda, a movie about the genocide that occurred there in the mid-90's, is that people need someone to blame for their problems. Everyone has problems, and it's human nature to define some group that is different from you in some way and therefore responsible for all the problems in the world. Whether it is black or white, gay or straight, Shi'i or Sunni, or in the case of Rwanda, Hutu or Tutsi.

Back when all this was happening, I found the whole thing somewhat confusing, (even beyond the violence, which I've never been able to really comprehend anyway,) because I had no idea what the difference was between the two groups. What was it about the Tutsi that made all the Hutu want to kill them? I assumed that there must have been some significant difference, because why else would they be killing each other? In the middle east, it's generally religion / land. The Holocaust was based on Eugenics. Why did the Hutu's and Tutsi's fight? I assumed it was something similar.

I was both right and wrong. Right that they are fighting over political power, wrong in the sense that the whole conflict is little more than an elaborate version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. According to the movie, the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi is pretty much just visual. Tutsi people tend to be taller, have lighter skin and thinner noses. When the Belgian colonists ruled the country, they divided up the groups and gave power to the minority Tutsi, giving them all the good jobs while the majority Hutu were left to starve on the scraps of society. When the Belgians left, they left the Tutsi mostly in charge. At that point, of course, the Hutu seized control, turning the Tutsi into a despised minority. Many Tutsi rebelled, and there was sporadic fighting for years. Then, one day the Hutu president is on his way to sign a peace treaty with the Tutsi rebels and his plane is shot down. He does not survive. Already angry, but suddenly enraged, the Hutu take it upon themselves to cleanse the entire country of the Tutsi "cockroaches." Of course, fighting the actual rebels would be dangerous, so they decide to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians, including men, women and children who have never lifted a weapon in their lives.

I'm sure that is all an oversimplification, but my point in explaining it is just to take a moment to express the helplessness that I sometimes feel when I look at world events. As horrendous and deplorable as the ethnic cleansing was, the Hutu had themselves been oppressed for decades, and there had been tribal warfare before that. Yes, genocide should be stopped, but who really started it? The whole thing also makes me think about the war in Iraq, and how we (the USA) decided to liberate people from totalitarian government there, but the people dying in Rwanda and Sudan don't rate as high. Then again, what would we do if we were there? Pretty much the only thing that we could do is try to stop all the violence, but as soon as we leave, it will start again, and besides, look how Somalia turned out. I feel like we should have done something, but I'm not sure what we really could have done without occupying the whole country indefinitely.

Anyway... all that is the setting of Hotel Rwanda, a movie based on a true story about the manager of a four-star Rwandan hotel who saved hundreds of refugees from slaughter. He is a Hutu, but his wife, (and by extension, his children) are Tutsi. Some of his employees are Hutu, some are Tutsi. The situation is already tense, but when things go bad, things happen quickly, and keep getting worse.

Don Cheadle plays Paul Rusesabagina, and Sophie Okonedo plays his wife Tatiana. Both are nominated for acting Oscars. I've loved Don Cheadle for a long time, for his roles in Out of Sight, Boogie Nights, Ocean's 11, Traffic, and on and on. He's better in this than I've ever seen him. I don't remember ever seeing Sophie Okonedo before, but she's wonderful. The movie was also nominated for a Best Original Screenplay, and I can see why. The long intro to this review is proof that the movie was thought-provoking. It was also harrowing, thrilling, funny, terrifying, sad, and wonderful. I think it is important to see movies like this. So often, we watch a war, (or a genocide,) on TV, and we don't have any real understanding of what's going on. Joaquin Phoenix (in a minor role as a photojournalist,) sums it up well. He has shot some footage of the massacres going on, and Don Cheadle's character is horrified, but hopeful. "Surely, the world must intervene now," he says. Joaquin says: "You know what I think? People are going to watch that on TV and say 'Oh, my god. That's horrible.' And then they'll go back to eating their dinners."

I've updated my Oscar Marathon Spreadsheet, and I'm now at 55.4%.

I know I kind of went into this with my Kinsey review, but I just want to say again how much I am already enjoying this effort of mine. By setting a goal like this, I force myself to get up and out of my apartment, to do things that I wouldn't normally do. It requires planning and creative thinking to find some of the smaller pictures, and it encourages me to see movies that I might not otherwise see. Sitting in the theater tonight, I felt more excited and happy and exhilarated about all the marvelous opportunities life has to offer than I have felt in a long time.

Okay. Now that that's out of the way: Being Julia

This film is on the list due to Annette Bening's nomination for Best Actress. Now, I've always liked her. I think of her primarily for her role in American Beauty of course, but also for her parts in Mars Attacks and The American President, among others. (Point of Interest: One of her fellow nominees this year is Hilary Swank, who beat out Ms. Bening for the Oscar in 1999, Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry and Annette Bening in American Beauty. That year, Hilary Swank was the underdog, this year, it seems it may be Ms. Bening) The movie itself is a period piece set in the London theater community during the 1930s.

I knew little more about the film than that, and the general impression that the plot was somewhat similar to All About Eve. There is more than a passing resemblance to that classic film, but this movie has a wonderful spirit all its own. I did not have very high expectations really; I was seeing it because it was on the list. But this film really is delightful. Annette Bening plays Julia Lambert, an actress who has always been widely regarded as a star, but who is beginning to wonder how long she has before she is stuck playing "mothers, grandmothers and old maids."

So when a young man (half her age) begins to make his intentions known, she is so flattered that she indulges him in a fling, which becomes an affair. It is wonderful at first, but it doesn't last, and the way all the characters deal with the situation comprises the rest of the story. There's a nifty device where her first director, (Michael Gambon), who is now deceased, appears to her to give advice. Her husband (Jeremy Irons) is loving and appreciative, though their relationship is more intellectual than physical. Her teenage son is young, but smart and insightful. The young man suitor can't quite make up his mind whether he's a gold-digger or not. And Julia Lambert, well, she's been on the stage for so long that it's sometimes hard to tell when she is acting and when she isn't, even to herself.

The movie is very charming, and in my opinion, Annette Bening has solidly earned her nomination, and though I have not seen Hilary Swank in Million Dollar Baby yet, she has my current vote for the gold. The rest of the cast is fabulous as well, and I left the theater with a big smile on my face.

I have updated my movie spreadsheet. I am now at 52.2%.

Had to drive up to Chapel Hill to see this one, but it's nice sometimes when you really have to go out of your way to seek something out. Also, I discovered that two of the movies that I wasn't sure how I was going to see will be playing there soon. Bonus!

Anyway, Kinsey is a bio-pic (Another one! There's a lot of them this year) about Doctor Albert Kinsey, the man who pretty much blew the lid off of sexual repression in the 50's. The movie shows both sides of his life, the side that tore away some of the ludicrous misinformation that permeated society about sex, and the side that hurt many of the people around him because his "scientific" approach to sex frequently left out the emotional component.

Liam Neeson and Laura Linney both do wonderful jobs with their roles (Linney was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, which is the reason for the movie's inclusion on my list) and the movie is well written and well made in general, but I can't say that it engaged me emotionally. Interesting and thought-provoking, but that was all really. It was pretty good, but not great.

I have also updated my movie spreadsheet. I am now at 51.1%.

So I've been meaning to put up a pair of detailed reviews but I keep not getting around to it, so I think I'll just go for a pair of quickie reviews, or else I'll never do it at all.

The Aviator

Okay, Martin Scorsese is a freakin' genius. But then, maybe you knew that. I already did, but it's always nice to have one's opinions validated. With The Aviator, he just demonstrates his considerable directorial skill yet again. Early in the movie, he uses an old-fashioned color palette to evoke the original color movies, then gradually evolves it as the story progresses. He uses overlapping dialogue and unusual cuts to create mood, and...

Well, enough of the film-geek stuff, is it a good movie? Yes. Leonardo DiCaprio once again knocks it out of the park, expertly showing both the charisma and the craziness of Howard Hughes, and Cate Blanchett is a wonderful Katherine Hepburn. The story is a good one, full of big dreams and terrible setbacks, tragedy and determination. Good stuff.

Finding Neverland

Another biopic, this one about J.M.Barrie as the creator of Peter Pan. Johnny Depp plays Mr. Barrie, an overgrown kid and a playwright who has been failing to wow lately. His wife loves him, but is frustrated with his childish impracticality. Then one day, he is writing at the park and he discovers a small boy under his bench. Soon he has met the boy's three brothers as well, and their widowed mother. They haven't doing so well since the death of their father, but the fun imaginary games provided by Mr. Barrie soon has them coming back to life, and playing with the children, George, Jack, Michael, and Peter, soon has Mr. Barrie feeling inspired again.

It's very sweet and, I should warn, very sad. It's a wonderful movie with great performances by Kate Winslet and Johnny Depp. Freddie Highmore, the boy who plays Peter, the biggest role of the four boys, is also playing Charlie in the upcoming Willy Wonka movie, yet another reason to look forward to it. So anyway, if you're a fan of sweet tearjerkers, Finding Neverland is an excellent choice, but bring a tissue. Half the theater was sniffling.