Flick of The Day: Take Shelter

The old Hollywood adage goes that the best way to win an Oscar is to make a film about somebody with a disability or illness. It is indeed a well forged path to fame and fortune though it has to be said rarely gave these films dealt with something like mental illness in a realistic and grown up manner. As enjoyable as films like A Beautiful Mind and Shine were, there was a real lack of authenticity in their portrayal of the difficulties mental illness causes. It is a pleasure then to see a film that is written  in an authoritative manner with a deeply sympathetic portrayal of a man pushed to the edge by his mind. Today's flick of the day is Take Shelter.

Take Shelter

Michael Shannon is Curtis LaForche, a hard working family man from rural Ohio. He lives a typically banal existence with his wife and young deaf daughter in a small house on the outskirts of town. Curtis works for a gravel company and his life would be otherwise unremarkable until one day he begins to suffer increasingly terrifying dreams. These portents of doom take the form of a huge storm and his various friends, family and even his dog attacking him. The visions gradually become apocalyptic in nature as the skies rain oil and black birds fill the sky. Curtis seeks  help from his local doctor while keeping it from his wife and we learn that as a child his mother was hospitalised for schizophrenia. His nightmares comes to dominate his life and he becomes obsessed with extending and provisioning the storm shelter in his back garden. Gradually his life breaks down and we begin to question whether Curtis is himself suffering from schizophrenia or indeed a prophet of doom. Will the storm come?

Shannon has quietly built a career over the past few years combining scene stealing turns in films like Revolutionary Road and  Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans with small roles in blockbusters and recently as Agent Nelson Van Alden in HBO's Boardwalk Empire. He is gradually becoming one of the great character actors working today and his role as the troubled Curtis is his best work to date. He brings a taciturn dignity to Curtis which makes his gradual disintegration all the more compelling and heartbreaking. Fundamentally a good man, you begin to realise that there are only two outcomes to his story. Either he is suffering from debilitating mental illness of the apocalypse really is coming. We are not headed for a happy ending obviously. It is the desperation in his eyes that means you can't look away, he doesn't want to be ill and yet doesn't want to abandon his family for the safety of an institution like his mother did. 

While Shannon carries the film as the central character, plaudits must also go to Jessica Chastain for her realistic portrayal of his loving wife. As Curtis crumbles she tries to hold things together and to get Curtis help. There is a real depth and humanity to her portrayal.

Curtis: You think I'm crazy? Well, listen up, there's a storm coming like nothing you've ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it

Jeff Nichols direction brings the whole story together by creating a sense of impending doom as the film closes in on you. His execution of the nightmarish sequences is worthy of some praise as they are genuinely unsettling. As the film moves toward its dread filled denouement, Nichols ratchets up the tension and the storm clouds gather on the horizon.

This ending when it comes  is ambiguous at best though I found it a satisfying finale given what has come before. Without giving anything away, it would be fair to say that the ending is significant for leaving us, the audience to draw our own conclusions. Given the abrupt cuts from dreams to reality previously, this is an unusual move but a good one. Overall a fine film and one sure to be a winner at awards season if there is any justice. Thought provoking and well acted throughout, this is the perfect antidote to the asinine fare so often served up by American cinema.

Flick of The Day: The People Vs Larry Flynt

Biographical films or Biopics are a very hit and miss affair, their success as a film depends greatly on the subject. There has to be an entertaining story to tell or else it can be a very dull affair, I'm thinking of the likes of Amadeus or Casino Jack. The subject need not be likeable, the success of Raging Bull attests to this, and today's flick of the day is just such a film, The People Vs Larry Flynt, telling the varied life and times of American pornographer, Larry Flynt.

The People vs. Larry Flynt [Blu-ray]

The film opens in 1953, in dirt poor rural Kentucky, where a young Larry brews and sells moonshine to help his family before moving forward to Cleveland in 1973, where Flynt is a small time strip club owner played in a career best performance by Woody Harrelson. Losing money hand over fist, he decides to create a newsletter to advertise his club, and Hustler magazine is born. A self styled down to earth alternative to Playboy, Flynt becomes a millionaire overnight. Along the way he meets and falls in love with a stripper named Althea, played with abandon by Courtney Love. In and of itself, this would not make for a compelling picture, however due to his ability to push the boundaries of good taste and an unwillingness to back down, he soon becomes the subject of a crusade from the Christian right to have him shut down, led by James Cromwell  as the kind of narcissistic book burner that could only be found in the American mid-west. Flynt becomes a devotee of his right to free speech and aided by his crusading lawyer played by Edward Norton, he travels the country defending his magazine in courtrooms and in the media. It is on one of these trips that he is the victim, along with his lawyer of an assassins bullet. This radically alters his life leaving him paralysed from the waist down, and his antics from thereon are a corollary of this. As the film moves to a conclusion, both in his life and his legal struggles, it is both heartfelt and moving at times and regardless of your opinion of the man, it makes for compelling viewing.

Director Milos Forman, perhaps best remembered for his film version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, has crafted a unique film here. A strong script is backed up by some very fine performances from Harrelson, Norton and particularly Courtney Love.

Blow Dried Jerk: Uh, Mr. Flynt? I don't wanna step on your toes but things have changed since you were actively running the company. I mean I look back at the stuff you did in the 70s and it was uh sorta racy and crazy. But the country is different now. Reagan has rebuilt America and the moral majority is gaining power. 

Larry Flynt: You're fired. 

Blow Dried Jerk: Excuse me? 

Larry Flynt: You get the fuck out of my building. Doug get him out of here. You blow dryed jerk mother fucker. Take him out of here and throw him in the incinerator, cut him to little pieces and feed him to the animals out there. Get out of here.

Ultimately though, the film is carried by Harrelson in a very entertaining performance. Perhaps it is favourable direction, but Flynt's no nonsense approach to life and his home spun patriotism make him a likeable if not endearing figure. 

If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you

An enjoyable and thought provoking film, anchored by some great acting, this is well worth a viewing regardless of your opinion of Larry Flynt. It garnered a number of Oscar nominations upon its release for Forman and Harrelson, it lost out in a year dominated by Anthony Minghella's The English Patient.

Flick of The Day: Catfish

The perils of the Internet age are not something that has been really examined in any detail by the Hollywood mainstream. Indeed technology in general has been poorly treated, with David Fincher's The Social Network being the only mainstream release to look at social networking, and even then it was more the form of a hagiography then anything else. Today's flick of the day, Catfish, would seem to be quite a welcome change. A documentary that examines the perils of an online relationship.

Catfish

Nev Schulman is a New York based photographer, specialising in dance portraits, who lives with his brother Ariel and Henry Joost, both film-makers. One day out of the blue, Nev receives a paiting of one of his photographs from an 8 year old girl in rural Michigan, Abby Pierce, a child prodigy. They become Facebook friends, broadening into a family network that includes Abby's Mother, Angela, her attractive 19 year old sister Megan and her father Vince. Nev becomes enchanted by Megan, a talented songwriter and dancer and he begins a long distance relationship via Facebook and telephone, the tools of the modern day romantic. His brother Ariel and Henry decide to document the relationship and this forms the basis of the the film. As the relationship develops, they discuss meeting in person and Megan sends him copies of her songs to listen to. However Nev discovers that these songs are taken from someone else's work on YouTube. Hurt and worried she has lied about other things, he wants to call it off. However Ariel and Henry convince him to continue. They decide to travel to Michigan to confront Megan and the family and get to the bottom of the mystery with a shocking though not unexpected conclusion.

Catfish is an engrossing film if nothing else. It has the kind of fiendishly addictive storyline that drives so many great documentary films. You really feel like you can't take your eyes off it. There have been allegations, naturally that the film is not true to life. You can draw your own conclusions but personally I would be of the opinion that the events are portrayed as they occurred, though perhaps not filmed at the moment they occurred. Also, it would be fair to say that the film-makers are somewhat disingenuous in their actions. I think any logical thinking person would have guessed what was at the end of the tunnel early on, and that they choose to keep themselves out of the loop as long as possible to make the film more entertaining and it is difficult to argue that it makes for compelling viewing.

Ultimately though the directors seem to have missed the point of the story. They seem focused on showing how shocking they believe the ending is and miss the fact that it is a sad story more then anything else and never investigates why people choose to misrepresent themselves on the internet if there is no monetary gain.  This wider context would have been useful and again I come back to my earlier point about how they allowed themselves to be taken in for the purposes of the film. I firmly believe this and it becomes obvious at the end, who is exploiting who here? The big city hip artistes or the small town loners?

That said, the film is definitely worth seeing if only for the many questions it raises, surely the sign of a worthy documentary. While not as good as the promo below makes out, it is still intriguing.

Flick of The Day: 12 Angry Men

It is difficult sometimes to understand the popularity of some films. I'm sure you can think of at least one film that is near universally popular and adored but that you just can't bring yourself to enjoy. Then again, popularity has rarely been an indicator of greatness. If it were then Titanic would be the greatest film of all time, rather then an over-long teen romance punctuated by explosions. That said, to every rule there is an exception and if there is one film that is both well liked and acclaimed then it is today's flick of the day, 12 Angry Men, director Sidney Lumet's classic psychological drama of a deliberating jury.

12 Angry Men

On a sweltering Summer day in a Manhattan courthouse, 12 white males deliberate on a teenage Puerto Rican boy accused of murdering his father. A fantastic ensemble cast of some of the best character actors of the day each bringing their own views, backgrounds, suspicions and prejudices to the table. Martin Balsam, Lee J Cobb, Ed Begley and Jack Warden each give stunning performances as the various jurors. After the first ballot, the vote is 11 to 1 to convict with the sole dissenter being Henry Fonda, Juror Number 8 and the film's conscience. As Fonda persuades the others to re-examine the evidence piece by piece, cracks begin to appear in the case and we learn more about the backgrounds of each of the men. Cobb's Juror Number 3 is a bully with an estranged son, Warden's Juror Number 7 wants to get to a ball game and has a natural mistrust of foreigners. Others are loath to make a wave, some want to blend in but to a man they have not examined the case in their own minds. As Fonda chips away at the case, he brings more jurors to his side as the temperature rises throughout the day until each man draws his final conclusion and a decision is reached.

A landmark film on its release, it has withstood the test of time because it asks fundamental questions of the jury trial system and does so in an entertaining and persuasive manner. Fonda has never been better in his role as the doubting Samaritan but it is a real ensemble piece and some of the best performances come from the lesser known talents. The cross section of society in the characters is well balanced, though this being the 1950's all are white males. 

Juror #3: Everything... every single thing that took place in that courtroom, but I mean everything... says he's guilty. What d'ya think? I'm an idiot or somethin'? Why don't cha take that stuff about the old man; the old man who lived there and heard every thing? Or this business about the knife! What, 'cause we found one exactly like it? The old man SAW him. Right there on the stairs. What's the difference how many seconds it was? Every single thing. The knife falling through a hole in his pocket... you can't PROVE he didn't get to the door! Sure, you can take all the time hobblin' around the room, but you can't PROVE it! And what about this business with the El? And the movies! There's a phony deal if I ever heard one. I betcha five thousand dollars I'd remember the movies I saw! I'm tellin' ya: every thing that's gone on has been twisted... and turned. This business with the glasses. How do you know she didn't have 'em on? This woman testified in open court! And what about hearin' the kid yell... huh? I'm tellin' ya, I've got all the facts here... 

Juror #3: [He struggles with his notebook, throws it on the table. The photo of him with his son is on top] Here... Ah. Well, that's it - that's the whole case! 

[He turns towards the window as the other jurors stare at him] 

Juror #3: Well... say something! You lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts. You're not goin' to intimidate me - I'm entitled to my opinion! 

[He sees the picture of his son on the table] 

Juror #3: Rotten kids... you work your life out! 

[He grabs the picture and tears it to pieces. He suddenly realizes what he's doing] 

Juror #3: [Breaks down] No. Not guilty. Not guilty.

Lumet's real genius as a director here, is how the tension ratchets up as the day progresses. The film opens as a reserved almost up tight piece but as the claustrophobic jury room closes in on the men and the tension begins to mount it opens up into something very special. The camera seems to take a tighter view of the men's faces and oppressive heat takes it toll. Ultimately the tensions reach their natural conclusion and the jurors are forced to confront their own prejudices in the search for the truth. There are some fine set pieces along the way and each actor is given their chance to shine for really this is an actors piece.

Currently sitting at Number 6 on the IMDB Top 250, a position apparently owed to the fact that it is one of the few black and white films that American schoolchildren are exposed to though it is a fine film and worthy of its position. That said, it is a product of its time. As noted, the jury is all white and all male and the cigarette smoke hangs in the humid jury room. 

[last lines] 

Juror #9: Hey... what's your name? 

Juror #8: Davis. 

Juror #9: My name's McCardle. 

[pause] 

Juror #9: Well, so long. 

Juror #8: So long.

12 Angry Men is a interesting compelling film even today and well worth a look. Directed by the legendary Sidney Lumet who passed away earlier this year, it is a fine example of his work which includes such diverse work as The Pawnbroker, The Verdict and Dog Day Afternoon.

Flick of The Day:The Big Lebowski

It would be hard to argue against the Coen Brothers as the most consistently entertaining and talented film-makers of the last 25 years. They have consistently delivered great cinema across many genres, from their debut with the suspenseful thriller Blood Simple to the gangster epic Millers Crossing, the darkly comic Fargo and their Oscar winning western True Grit. Perhaps their best work, or at least their most quotable and comic picture is 1998's The Big Lebowski. Today's flick of the day, it is a deeply funny comic riff on a Raymond Chandleresque caper.

The Big Lebowski

Jeff Bridges, in a once in a lifetime performance, is Jeff 'The Dude' Lebowski, a layabout bowler and a Creedence Clearwater fan in 1991 Los Angeles. The Dude spends his days bowling and arguing with his two friends, ex-surfer Donny played by Steve Buscemi and Vietnam vet cum psychotic Walter played by the incomparable John Goodman. Arriving home one evening, he walks in on two hoodlums looking to collect a debt owed by a Jeffrey Lewbowski and his trophy wife Bunny to a Jackie Treehorn. One of them decides to urinate on The Dude's rug when the case of mistaken identity becomes apparent. The Dude decides to contact the big Lebowski and get compensation for his soiled rug. He is quickly drawn into a web of double crosses as he seeks to get to the bottom of the disappearance of Bunny Lebowski involving a trio of German nihilists, a pornographer,  a teenage car thief, a private detective, an artist who describes her work as "strongly vaginal" and Dude's crazy friend Walther.

The Dude: And, you know, he's got emotional problems, man. 

Walter Sobchak: You mean... beyond pacifism?

This is a gem of a movie, an absurdist take on the kind of hard boiled detective tales so often set in Los Angeles and penned by the likes of Chandler and Hammet. It has the kind of gleefully bizarre cast of characters that one only encounters in a Coen Brothers picture. Bridges' The Dude is a latter day stoner Philip Marlowe and his interactions with his crazy Vietnam obsesses friend played by Goodman are a highlight of the film. 

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter? 

Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Less of a cogent tale then a series of encounters between The Dude and the oddballs which populate Southern California. In that sense, it is perhaps the most quotable film of all time with so many witty one liners, it is difficult to pick your favourite. Add this to a series of bizarre dream sequences  set to the music of Kenny Rogers and you have a film that really can't be missed.

The Dude: Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man. 

Malibu Police Chief: Mr. Treehorn draws a lot of water in this town. You don't draw shit, Lebowski. Now we got a nice, quiet little beach community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around, bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off face. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? 

The Dude: [after a pause] I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. 

A commercial failure on its release in 1998, perhaps because its unstructured tale of idiocy clashed with the kind of crowd attracted to the Coen's work after the roaring success of Fargo. In the years since, it has come to be seen as the true classic it is and indeed has spawned a whole cottage industry of Dude related paraphernalia and even a festival.

Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Ultimately, this is the kind of film you either love or hate. You either buy in to the bizarre circumstances and run with it or you don't. It is a brilliant film held together by a fine ensemble cast and with perhaps the best script the Coens have ever written. A real must see.

Da Fino, Private Snoop: I'm a brother shamus! 

The Dude: Brother Seamus? Like an Irish monk? 

Da Fino, Private Snoop: What the fuck are you talking about?

Flick of The Day: Pater

I have often pondered the cultural divide between nations, particularly when it comes to cinema. It often appears that European cinema is far more cultured and worldly than the standard multiplex fare created in Hollywood but then perhaps that  is just a perception formed by the fact that we tend to only see the higher quality films from Germany, France, South Korea, etc exported to our shores given the costs of subtitling and release. I am sure each of these countries produce plenty of dodgy action and schlock horror flicks. We just never see them. That said, there is undoubtedly a wildly different attitude in cinematic taste from country to country. The less developed a country, the less developed its tastes though this is not a hard and fast rule. Since the dawn of cinema, it was the art form of the poor working classes. Imagery transcends language barriers in immigrant communities so much easier than other forms.

With this in mind, today's flick of the day is Pater, an experimental narrative from France which received an inexplicable 17 minute standing ovation at Cannes and yet will probably never receive a cinematic release outside of France. A matter of national taste surely.

Pater

From director Alain Cavalier and actor Vincent Lindon, two doyens of the French avant garde cinema comes this experimental political satire. Over a serious of lunches and meetings over the course of a year, the two men take on two characters and create a narrative around them that is at once compelling and complex. Cavalier becomes the President of France, an ageing politician looking to retire. Lindon is his new Prime Minister. Together they aim to change France forever by instituting a maximum wage in France. As the meetings progress, they become more drawn into their tall tale and the characters they have created, ad libbing conflicts and speeches they will give as they lurch from one policy decision to another. 

While never likely to be a commercial success outside of France, there is an interesting film here. Filming with handheld cameras and playing without a script, this is as much about film making as it a story.  It is interesting to see talented people become drawn into roles they have invented and driven from the beginning. At one point, Lindon acknowledges this, saying that he now walks down the street wondering why the nation doesn't consult him on important matters like his character.

I think it probably says much about France that this film was such a success at Cannes. As a nation, they would seem to have more time for the arcane and the odd then other nationalities I can think of. Alain Cavalier has long forged his own path in French cinema and it is a testament to his talent that he can attract an actor of the calibre of Vincent Lindon to such a non-commercial project. While not to everyone's taste, it stands up as piece of cinema if not as a piece of entertainment.

Flick of The Day: The Ides of March

The political thriller is very much a phenomenon of the 1970's when films like All The Presidents Men, The Parallax View and The Candidate took advantage of the cinema going public's cynicism and lack of public trust in the wake of the Watergate scandal. For the first time, people began to question the character of their political figures with a degree of circumspection. This kind of introspective and downhearted view of America gradually disappeared during the Reagan era, when the enemy was no longer within but in the left wing ideology of films like Salvador and a former flick of the day, The Killing Fields. Today's flick of the day, The Ides of March, then is very much a throwback to a different era from its stark opening credits to its dark hearted ending, and all the better for it.

The Ides of March

George Clooney makes a welcome return to form as a director after 2008's misbegotten Leatherheads with this extremely well acted old school thriller. The cast is stellar, Clooney himself is the idealized Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Morris on the cusp of victory in the primaries. His campaign is guided by the hard bitten campaigner Paul, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and the idealistic Stephen Myers, played by current Hollywood golden boy Ryan Gosling, most recently seen in Drive. Together they are engaged in a bitter war with the opposing strategist played by the ever reliable Paul Giamatti. A great ensemble cast but this is very much Gosling's movie. He holds the screen in a manner that at once confirms him as an actor of note, if his previous performances in Blue Valentine and Lars and The Real Girl were not enough.  Stephen is approached by Giamatti to switch sides in the final days of campaigning for the Ohio primary and neglects to tell his boss Paul about it. He soon finds himself on the outside looking in but not before discovering a dark secret involving a staffer played by Evan Rachel Wood with tragic consequences that could derail Mike Morris's campaign.

Adapted from a play called Farragut North by Beau Willimon, this film's theatrical origins are evident from early on with some long dialogue heavy scenes. This is no bad thing though for it allows the actors to really put some meat on the bones of their characters, something so often missing from modern thrillers. Gosling gives a very powerful performance as an idealistic young man, a true believer who sees his innocence completely dispelled. The best scenes are the one on ones between Gosling and each of the other leads. A tension filled scene in a Hotel room between Gosling and Hoffman, a look behind the curtain of idealism between Giamatti and Gosling and finally a dark late night game of verbal chicken between Clooney and Gosling. Each scene gives the sense that Clooney deliberately built the film around his actors, giving them the opportunity to show off their considerable talents. 

Ultimately though this is a drama, and a downbeat one at that. By the end, everyone including the audience is stripped of their innocence and the films ends quietly and ambiguously. Indeed, at the screening I attended nobody moved as the credits began to roll which I have always taken as a sign of a film hitting its dramatic targets. 

Tom Duffy: Get out, now. Or otherwise... 

Stephen Meyers: Otherwise, I'll end up like you? 

Tom Duffy: Yeah, you end up being a jaded, cynical asshole, just like me.

It could be argued the film is deeply cynical about the American election system though my personal view is that it is if anything more realistic than one would care to imagine. A fine drama, backed up by a superb male cast who make the best of their roles and Clooney deserves credit for having the gumption to cast himself as the slickly packaged candidate, a role so perfect for him that  you could easily see it ruined by casting somebody else. A fine film and well worth your time.