DVD Catch Up: Man on Wire(12/23/2008)
Like any other type of cinema, there are many different varieties of documentary. Michael Moore’s brand of first person issue exploration is one brand that’s pretty popular, another important variety are those that are filmed on the spot from beginning to end, and finally there’s the historical documentary; one’s made many years after the event and told through archival footage, new interviews, and reenactments. James Marsh’s new documentary Man on Wire is of the later variety.
The film tells the story of Philippe Petit, a French acrobat who made headlines in 1974 when he illegally tightrope walked between the towers of the World Trade Center. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that he succeeds at his stunt, he’s alive and well today and modern interviews from him are featured throughout the film. The film recounts Petit’s obsession with the building, one that predates even the construction of the structure. It shows the meticulous plan constructed by Petit and his co-conspirators to break into the building, sneak to the roof, shoot an arrow to the other tower, and finally string a rope across for his daring stunt.
The documentary in many ways plays out like a heist movie, one that ends with Petit’s stunt instead of a score. Marsh acknowledges the similarities and gives the interview subjects nicknames like “The Inside Man” or “The Australian.” Later the participants flat out say that part of the fun of the endeavor was that it was like a bank robbery. The comparison is apt. Petit had to “case the joint” to plan out the stunt, acquire disguises, make fake IDs, and finally sneak in undetected. Among their most brazen acts involved getting a tour of the building while claiming to be from a French architecture journal.
Oddly, Petit’s stunt was never caught on videotape. We see older footage of him walking across the Notre Dame and an Australian bridge, but the World Trade Center crossing was captured only with still pictures. Ultimately, this might only make Petit’s act seem all the more outrageous because the stills give the impression of what was going on while still leaving a lot to the imagination. The sight of him walking slowly in amateur video footage might have been a much more anticlimactic conclusion had such footage ever been shot. Really, the thought of crossing the wire is a lot more grand than footage of him actually doing it.
I can’t help but wonder how this documentary would have played out if Petit hadn’t made it across that wire, if he had fallen to his death midway through his feat. It might have played out an awful lot like Werner Herzog’s 2005 documentary Grizzly Man, a story of a man tragically killed by his seemingly insane obsession. Of course history is always told by the winners, and unlike the aforementioned Timothy Treadwell, Petit is alive to defend himself. One does wonder about his mentality though, would it not have been just as difficult to cross that length of wire if it were a safe distance from the ground? If risking his life was the source of his thrill couldn’t he have just as easily played a game of Russian Roulette?
I can’t say that a lot of these questions were really answered. Petit never quite explains what drove him, he simply says that the idea just popped into his head; when asked about his motivations by the press he copped out and said he had no reason. Frankly, I can’t quite believe that Petit is shallow enough to risk his life without any reason, and if he did he’s a really shallow person. Ultimately the film works better as a heist story then as a character study, and this is disappointing. It says something when the most critically acclaimed documentary of the year is basically a very well crafted heist film. Filmmakers working outside of the documentary field who make simple well crafted heist films don’t get half the praise that this documentarian has. Does this say something about the standards people have for documentaries? Perhaps, or maybe this one is simply overrated. I don’t want to sound too negative though, I like a well crafted heist film as much as the next guy.
***1/2 out of four
The Dark Knight(7/18/2008)
This year the comic book movie has really gone off the deep end with four superhero adaptations being released within three months with a non-comic book superhero movie thrown in for good measure. Many thought the first of these comic book movies, Iron Man, was one of the best movies ever in its genre. I was less impressed by Favreu’s film than many people seemed to be, it was good but also felt mostly by the numbers to me, especially when compared to Spider-man 2 and to a greater extent Batman Begins, which I thought was a much greater film than Iron Man ever dreamt to be. Now that the long awaited sequel to Batman Begins has come out I feel vindicated, this is a movie that puts Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk to shame.
The film is set a few years after Batman Begins and Batman (Christian Bale) has become a major presence in Gotham city. Between the two movies in the franchise Gotham has come to take on Batman as a controversial symbol for justice, among those who have been inspired by the dark knight’s crusade is Gotham’s new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent has launched a very successful campaign against organized crime. On a more personal level Dent has begun dating Bruce Wayne’s childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). But Dent isn’t the only one who’s been inspired by Batman, a deranged lunatic known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger) has emerged who stands opposed to everything Batman is fighting for. The Joker is an anarchist, someone with a very low opinion of humanity, someone who “just wants to see the world burn.” The Gotham underworld, who have become desperate, hire The Joker to kill batman. In order to do this The Joker starts murdering people and declares that he won’t stop until Batman has been unmasked.
The Batman film franchise started really strong with Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman, which to my mind is the very best pre-millennial superhero movie. Burton went a little too far with the sequel, but Batman Returns seems like a masterpiece compared to what was to come when studio hack Joel Schumacher took over the series. The less said about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin the better, let’s just say the series was in dire need of new blood. That blood came in the form of Christopher Nolan, director of a great movie called Memento. What he made was a brilliant recreation of the Batman series with Batman Begins, a film that took the Batman mythology and respectfully rewrote it. The secret of that film’s success was that it grounded the film in reality, but not through a cheesy method like turning it into a mockumentary or setting it outside of a comic book world. What it did was make Gotham feel like a real city, a world thought out from the street level up. It really examined the psychology of someone like Bruce Wayne and had the courage to explore it.
While Batman Begins was all about… well, Batman Beginning; this sequel is all about the consequences of Batman’s emergence. The film deals with the real effect someone like Batman would have on a major city both good and bad. On one hand people are fearful of him and the official policy of the city’s police is to arrest him on sight. Also the threat he poses to organized crime helped lead to the emergence of The Joker. But on the other hand his influence also created legitimate heroes like Harvey Dent and the emergence of good men like Lieutenant Gordon who could do nothing because of the corruption that pervaded over the city’s police.
David Goyar, Christopher Nolan and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan clearly take what they’re doing very seriously and one can see their respect, dedication, and thoughtfulness in the film’s excellent script. Like in the previous movie this film is narrativelly, psychologically, and thematically very well thought out all while accommodating the expectations of a Hollywood action movie without making it feel obligatory. The dialogue, especially The Joker’s lines, are very sharp while still naturalistic and believable within the context of a comic book movie.
Christopher Nolan’s direction is every bit as good as his writing and the film further solidify’s my confidence in Nolan’s great talent. The visuals here are really good, amazing cinematography by Wally Pfister and great editing by Lee Smith. More importantly this has one of the best blends of visual effects and reality I’ve ever seen. Unlike many similar movies, the effects here aren’t focused on creating fully CGI characters, Batman is actually a person in an elaborate costume and The Joker is simply made using makeup. Instead CGI is expertly blended into the texture of the film’s practical effects to a point where I can hardly tell what is real and what isn’t.
Christian Bale is one of the best actor’s working today, his ability to completely transform himself into a role in a movie like The Machinist or Rescue Dawn is truly amazing. The main brunt of his acting doesn’t occur while he’s wearing his suit but when he’s portraying Bruce Wayne, in these scenes he’s closer to channeling the homicidal yuppie he played in American Psycho. When Bruce Wayne is in public he’s a one-dimensional character, as he should be, that’s what he’s trying to make himself look like to the citizens of Gotham. It’s when he’s with others aware of his second life like Alfred or Lucious Fox when he opens up and truly becomes a complex character.
Like in Batman Begins this has a lot of really stellar actors in its supporting roles. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are back in their respective roles of Alfred and Fox. The great but not often seen Gary Oldman is also back as Lieutenant Gordon, who has an even bigger part here than before. Maggie Gyllenhaal is here in place of Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I thought Holmes was unfairly criticized in the first film, I didn’t agree with the decision to recast, but Maggie Gyllenhaal is just as good in the role. Aaron Eckhart has also joined the cast as Harvey Dent, the most high profile D.A. I’ve ever heard of. Eckhart feels exactly like a slick talking politician and he’s also great at portraying Dent’s darker side.
Of course the performance that has everyone talking is the late Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker. Ledger’s tragic death opened the door wide open for hyperbolic raves about his last completed performance. I resisted all the hype about his work here only to realize that he’s just as good as everyone’s been saying he was. Ledger’s take on The Joker is said to blow away Jack Nicholson’s work as the same character in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman film. But, this isn’t really a fair comparison; the Burton Batman films weren’t about making batman real, they were films that really embraced being comic books brought to life. Jack Nicholson did everything he was asked to do for his role, his Joker was a lot more true to what the character was like through most of the comic books up to that point. Ledger’s Joker on the other hand is a reinvented creation; like a serial killer, a monster, a terrorist.
This joker hardly ever laughs and never seems to smile outside of the scars going up the sides of his face. He’s simply someone who is amused by wreaking elaborately planned havoc on innocent people out of sheer insanity and anarchism. Put simply he’s a scary psychotic killer, someone with no remorse or regrets and seemingly no past or future. Ledger take this creation and brings it to life in an amazing way, this is easily the best screen villain since Anton Chigurh and Ledger’s work will be remembered for decades to come. There’s another villain that emerges toward the end of the film, and people familiar with the comic incarnation of a major character here won’t be surprised by who it is. This character emergence is very important thematically to the story, but I must say this is one of the few elements of the movie that are a bit iffy. I couldn’t help but think this should have been built up a little beforehand and I didn’t love how this sub-plot ended.
Many are pointing out that this is a very dark film, and this is true but only to a certain degree. Those looking for a lighthearted romp should look elsewhere, but on the other hand this is a superhero movie, not Se7en. There are scene’s in here that are darker in nature than what’s likely ever been included in a 180 million dollar movie, but deep down on a thematic level this isn’t as dark as it looks. The movie does show very low levels of human life, but it also deals with very noble examples of human courage and goodness. The movie’s ultimate message is not one of nihilism but of hope.
Of course if you’re just looking for some good action scenes you won’t be disappointed either. In the film you’ll be treated to some spectacular stunts, some very well designed action set pieces, a clever opening bank heist, and numerous very good explosions. The real standout though is an amazing car chase involving a semi truck, a SWAT van, a helicopter, the new bat mobile, and a motorcycle. It’s like they took both the car chases in Terminator 2 and combined them into one superchase that ends with an awesome stunt and I don’t even know whether it’s real or CGI. That chase is almost too good, it almost gets to a point where the film has trouble topping itself. For instance The Joker’s climactic scheme isn’t much more interesting or brilliant than his last three acts of evil insanity.
The Dark Knight is above all a triumph; it took everything great about Batman Begins and took it further. This isn’t just a great blockbuster, It’s a blockbuster that will shove the low expectations of anyone who claimed to love Transformers in their easily impressed faces. This is a movie that raises the bar for large budget filmmaking and proves that these movies shouldn’t be judged like competitors I the Special Olympics. Of course Batman Begins raised the bar just as high three years ago and it was quickly lowered by widespread cinematic amnesia, hopefully the standard this movie sets will not be forgotten. It does have a few imperfections, in fact I might love Batman Begins just a little bit more, but this is the best big budget movie I’ve seen in a very long time.
**** out of Four
Under the Same Moon(6/26/2008)
The trailer for Patricia Riggen’s Under the Same Moon boldly proclaims that “not since Cinema Paradiso has a film captured the hearts of audiences around the world [as much as Under the Same Moon].” Given that the movie swiftly came and went in theaters it can safely be said that that proclamation was, at best, wishful thinking on the part of Fox Searchlight and the Weinstein Company. Still it makes one wonder why foreign movies are having such a hard time breaking into the mainstream as of late. Pan’s Labyrinth came real close to breaking through two years ago, but never quite became a sensation along the line of Ill Postino or Crouching Tiger. My personal conspiracy theory on this is that the studios are deliberately sabotaging their releases so they can more easily do Hollywood remakes. But that’s a rant for a different day, because no one is going to want to remake this thing, and nor should they. The only reason this was largely ignored is that it’s sappy and manipulative.
The film follows dual stories of a Mexican boy named Carlito (Adrian Alonso) and his mother Rosario (Kate del Castillo) who’s working illegally on the other side of the border in Los Angeles. Rosario has been gone for four years and Carlito’s father has been out of the picture for even longer. Carlito’s only contact with his mother ocurrs when she calls him every Sunday, but after one fateful Sunday call he finds his grandmother dead. With this in mind, Carlito decides to travel alone from his town in Mexico to his mother in L.A. and wants to get there before the next Sunday call is made so his mother won’t worry. After the local coyote refuses to help him Carlito must rely on the kindness of strangers in order to get across the border and reach his mother.
Believability is probably the first o many problems this movie has. Over the years there have been a lot of precocious children on the screen, but it takes a special kind of precociousness for a nine year old to independently think that he can travel hundreds of miles across a foreign border, against all warnings from his elders, alone and on a very limited budget. Many adults are killed or arrested trying to do the same, yet this kid succeeds relatively unscathed. Every time the kid is about to get in trouble the film’s script has him coincidentally run into a random stranger willing to help him, usually at great expense to themselves.
Immigration was a huge issue for about a month last year, now it’s pretty well on the back burner but it remains a controversial subject. This film’s take on the subject is one-sided and simple: all illegal immigrants are saintly figures while everyone who isn’t an illegal immigrant is naïve, mean, or an obstacle. The only American citizens to be found here are nameless brutal cops, fascists with the gall to raid a sleazy tomatoes plantation who “generously” decide to hire a nine year old for dangerous work. Also to found are a pair of Second generation Mexican immigrants who are inept college students incapable of the simplest smuggling actions. But the most offensively un-nuanced of the American characters is a thoroughly witch-like and seemingly senile old rich woman who coldly fires Carlito’s mother for the most minor of offences without even paying for work that’s been completed. Admittedly, the mother’s other boss seemed relatively normal, but one token non-sociopath American character is not enough to make up for this insanely manipulative look at a major issue.
I’m sure one can find many Americans who do act a lot like the above examples, but only selectively choosing those types as examples and juxtaposing them with the saintly illegal immigrants here is intellectually dishonest. If someone like Lou Dobbs decided to produce a movie that featured nothing but lazy, drug dealing, or diseased immigrants people would label it propagandistic or at the very least a gross simplification of a complex issue and rightly so, Under the Same Moon is exactly the same but from a different side.
The film does step off its soapbox and focus strictly on its saccharine story in the third act, but this doesn’t help either because when divorced from its sophomoric politics is still a lame, sappy story. The movie is just as manipulative emotionally as it is politically; its trivialization of human suffering and overbearing score make Frank Capra movies look downright subtle.
This is little more than the hallmark card version of the immigrant experience and it pales in comparison to other better movies on the subject like El Norte, In America, and Maria Full of Grace. The movie was mostly ignored in theaters and should also be avoided on DVD. Speaking of which, the subtitles on the DVD I watched were actually captions, which continued through the film’s English potions and forced the viewer to read through descriptions of sound effects. This annoyance was yet another reason to leave this thing on the DVD shelf.
*1/2 out of four
