Spontaneous Musings

Seen several movies lately - Walk The Line, Mission Impossible III (wasn't my choice, I had gone to a group outting and this was the film they picked, personally I would have picked Poisdeon.), and My Neighbor Totoro. Plus Ice Harvest and Derailed reviewed in depth below.

Walk the Line is a servicable bio-pic about Johnny Cash's romance with June Carter Cash. During the film, I felt sorry for Cash's ex-wife Vivian and her children - whom he abandons in the film for June, his music and his drug habit. Not necessarily in that order. I can see why his daugher by Vivian had troubles with this film. The film unlike Ray, focuses more on the relationship between Cash and June as well as the drug habit, and less on the music. But like the Ray Charles film - both deal with angst over a brother's death. For Cash - it's his older brother Jack's accidental death in a sawmill, for Ray - it's his younger brother's death by drowning. Both blame themselves. Both retreat into music to deal with it. Both become musical icons for their times. Wasn't in love with the film. But like Ray, fell in love with the music and rushed out to buy "The Legend of Johnny Cash" - a 12 tune retrospective of Cash's music sung by Cash.

Mission Impossible III is no more or less what it claims to be - a Tom Cruise action film, except this one comes complete with long torture sequences. The characters, outside of Cruise's, are barely developed and tend to be "stock". We have the lovely girlfriend/fiancee who is a nurse or doctor (not sure which), the sadistic villain (underplayed by Philip Seymore Hoffman), the wet-behind the ears agency bureaucrat (Henry Thomas), and the nasty chief (Laurence Fishburn). The rest are Cruise's team - who will apparently do anything he wants regardless of how crazy it sounds. They are the most entertaining part of the film, but aren't given much to do and aren't seen that much - Michell Yeoh, Billy Crud-up, and Ving Rhames (I would have been far happier watching these three than Cruise). The film starts with a torture sequence and more or less ends with one. The same one. I'm not spoiling you on that - since you sort of can figure that out for yourself within the first five minutes. The twists in the film aren't hard to figure out. I figured out the big one way before the reveal. And wondered if perhaps I've watched too many of these things - because now I know what's going to happen before it does. There's an unbelievable scene at the end, that I can't reveal without giving the plot away, but it took me out of the movie and I'm good at ignoring stuff like this. Is it a good film? Not really. Serviceable, accomplishes what it sets out to do, but nowhere near as good as action films such as Bourne Identity, French Connection or for that matter the first two Mission Impossibles. Is it a bad film? Nope. It does what it sets out to do. Is it entertaining? Depends on what you like - if you love the tv show Alias, enjoy chase sequences and wild stunts and seeing Cruise get beaten up - you'll like it. If not? Pass.

My Neighbor Totoro by Hizayku Mizakyu (whose name I can't spell) - is a sweet little film about two kids coming to terms with their mother's illness and a move to a new place. Like the directors other anime films - it mixes fantasy and reality. Nowhere near as brilliant as Sprited Away or Howl's Moving Castle, Totoro is fun and sweet and hits the right marks. A good film to rent for the younger set. By younger - I mean 6-10 years of age.



In the past two weeks, I have seen two films that can arguably fit under the definition of "film noir" or black film. Actually, they may be more "retro-noir" in keeping with the Angel Series, which was a blend of retro-noir, gothic fantasy and horror. Noir film is a genre of film-making that started back in the 1930s and presents a bleak view of the universe. In noir, the hero is an anti-hero, damaged, surly, and somewhat nihilistic in point of view. He has usually done something or is in the midst of doing something irredeemable by our moral standards of conduct and the hope of redeeming him is never truly realized. Noir - true noir, tends to depict a world that is more black than gray, or a very dark gray, much like the storn clouds forming outside my window, but since its heyday in the 30's it has gotten a tad lighter and grayer around the edges.

Retro-noir goes back to that darker landscape. Where the anti-hero walks or drifts off into a bleak horizon or simply dies. Never redeemed. In modern, non-retro noir - the anti-hero is less of an anti-hero and the landscape while gray, has an optimistic feel to it. Ice Harvest as defined by the director, Harold Ramis, is retro-noir, Derailed, is modern noir that may be trying to be retro, but never quite succeeds.

Derailed starred Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston, while The Ice Harvest starred John Cusak, Billy Bob Thornton, Oliver Platt and Connie Nelson. Both were based on novels of the same name.

Of the two, Ice Harvest is the better film, if the less well-known. It came out during the December rush and got lost between Chronicles of Narnia, King Kong and all the Oscar contenders. Derailed, more well known, borders on unwatchable, and while it hits most of the noir notes, it is far more predictable and lacks the sense of humor that Ice Harvest provides in spades.

It also fails where Ice Harvest succeeds in re-visiting the noir landscape and the existential dilemma, no meaning exists in life. Derailed has a manipulative sub-plot about a sweet little girl who needs a new kidney that is the daughter of the protagonist and whom the protagonist will do anything to help/save. Her appearance alone removes the film from a true noir set-up. She provides the anti-hero with his way out, his redeemption, not to mention a meaning. Ice Harvest, on the other hand, provides a more realistic vision, there is a little girl - but the protagonist doesn't truly care about her. He gets her presents, but more as a second-thought. She is not his redemption and she does not provide meaning to his life. Children are no more important than adults in Harvest, just human beings who happen to be small and are barely seen, while in Derailed they are romanticized, the most important things in life, what connects us to each other.

Both films on their face - have the traditional noir set-up: stolen money, the protagonist in desperate straits, a femme fatale, an antagonist, the sense of meaning being drained from life, and a sense of no way out. But of the two, Ice Harvest is a true noir, of the sort that I haven't seen in quite a while. They rarely make these types of films anymore and when they do, they tend to small films much like Ice Harvest that you might be able to find at a local art house. Derailed is basically a "revenge thriller" or "modern take on the noir genre" with a protagonist that it is difficult to care too much about and a manipulative script. We've seen this type of film before, more than once - with "Payback", "Get Carter" and a whole host of other films of that ilk. The plot of "Derailed" is simple - disgruntled man with inattentive wife and sick daughter, meets a married woman on train, they plot an illicit affair after three encounters. Before they can have one at a diliplated hotel, a robber bursts into their room and proceeds to rape the woman. Then blackmails both parties with their illicit affair. The woman claims to have no access to her money and since she's been raped and had an abortion - the guy pays. If I tell you more I'll ruin the movie. Let's just say at a certain point it flips and the protagonist takes his vengeance. It's fairly predictable. I found the rape sequence and what they do with it somewhat offensive, and this is coming from someone who usually doesn't have problems with these sequences on television and film. Clive Owen works well in the film, but you leave it wishing he'd find better movies. Aniston is miscast.

Ice Harvest's plot is not quite that simple and the characters are all somewhat shady. All anti-heroes in the tradition of the Coen Brothers' classic "Blood Simple", or the film, "A Simple Plan" - also starring Billy Bob Thornton. The story is about a crooked mob lawyer who steals 2 million dollars from his boss with the help of a friend. The two plan to use the money to leave Witcha Falls. In true noir fashion - the story is not about the robbery but about its aftermath. The first scene is what I more or less summarized. All the action takes place in one night, Christmas Eve, and it is entirely in John Cusak's (Charlie Artlis) point of view. Charlie is a character who seeks the path of least resistent, which is not an easy sell but Cusak manages to pull it off with charm and wit, making Charlie likable. The meaning has been drained from his life. Outside of lusting after the proprietor of a local strip joint, Renata, Charlie cares about very little. Renata is played by Connie Nelson and has a throaty purr and the straight blond locks and narrow sultry face that reminds one of Lauren Bacall, Lana Turner or a young Kathleen Turner. Her hair blond and straight, lips perfectly red and eyes caculating and seductive. Cusak has made a career out of playing characters like Artlis - deftly infusing them with charm and wit. This character makes one think of his performance in The Grifters and possibly Grosse Point Blank.

Ice Harvest unlike Derailed, has something to say, it focuses on the existentialist dilemma. We are alone in the world. Our deaths have no meaning and tend to happen randomly without rhyme or reason - they are in effect a cosmic joke on us. All we can be sure of is that we are responsible for all our own actions and we will eventually die alone. There's a phrase that appears twice in the film that sums up the theme - "As Witcha Falls so falls Witcha Falls". The place itself is a flat, bleak, homogenized surburban landscape filled with strip joints and bars. In the DVD commentary, they mention that it is filmed in the suburbs of Chicago - even though the book and film take place in Witcha, Kansas. They figure the two look alike. Having been to Witcha - I'd say they are right. Witcha looks like the landscape in the film. And it fits the typical towns in noir - which are usually cities on the edge of civilization, bleak nowhere places that everyone wants to leave but can't figure out how. The bleakness is emphasized with blue and gray colors in the set design and lighting. Also the director, Harold Ramis in a surprise turn, decides to go with rain as opposed to snow, making the setting even more dreary and grainy.

Harvest's center piece is a scene around a lake in the dead of night involving the dumping of a body in a trunk that is hilarous. I laughed through-out at the dialogue, delivered in dead-pan comic timing by Cusak and Thornton.

The end of the film, doesn't quite hold with the classic noir formula and may be the film's one weak point or flaw. But the alternate endings do, specifically the first one - that you can find on the DVD extras. While I understand why they went with a more positive ending (modern movie audiences don't like unhappy endings), the bleak ending works far better and I think if left intact would have made the movie a true classic. The only true flaw I see in it at the moment is the ending.

If you are in the mood for a true old-school noir film - rent Ice Harvest. It is a male-dominated film, with the exception of Connie Nelson's character few women appear as full-fledged characters on screen - as most noir tends to be. Women are little more than objects and the world in which everyone lives is grungy and streaked with dirty rain. The anti-hero, Charlie Artlis, drifts from strip-joint, bar, and briefly his ex-wife and ex-family's home. But the story works and leaves you with the sense that no matter how bleak your life feels it's better than this. It also plays with what it is like to be a man in this society - or at least that's what the screenwriters and author tell you in the commentary. The screenplay is taken directly from the book and does not veer from it.

Derailed, on the other hand, leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth. Predictable and humorless, the film drags in the middle (I fast-forwarded out of boredom mostly) and the ending unsatisfying. It never explains why Owen's character does what he does. And the audience's sympathy as a result is never truly with him or with Aniston. It's odd, but I felt more sympathy for the crooked lawyer Cusak plays in Ice Harvest.

Overall?
Ice Harvest - A
Derailed - D