• Home
  • Meetings
  • Events
  • Blog
  • E-Board
  • Around Boston
NUFEC
.

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Beauty and the Beast

3/17/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Ah, rafraîchissant… It's nice that, in the era of constant remakes, corporate behemoth Disney is actually getting it right. Honestly, they don't have a choice: Disney’s classic stories and characters are too close to our hearts, too important in our collective culture. So thankfully, director Bill Condon delivers with Beauty and the Beast, the latest in Disney's reimaginings of classic fairy tales. He and writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos do the story and the original movie justice, never subtracting from the fantasy or the magic, just adding another chapter. They got the tone just right, leaving me with a smile from the first musical number onward.
​
As soon as that famous Disney logo with that famous song ended, I was immediately swept up in the stunning visuals of the film. They were opulent and lush all around, every detail helping to transport you, putting you back in that place of childhood when it wasn't so hard for you to commit fully to the imagination, to believe in the unbelievable. Moreover, the music was great (of course), with the immaculate vocals and the grand choreographed performances of the songs really being the foundation of the film. You could tell who was a classically-trained singer and who was not (looking at you EW), but all did beautifully well, culminating in a symphonic feast that matched the feast of the visuals.

And the actors were all sooo good… I absolutely loved the Gaston (Luke Evans) of the first half of the movie and his meilleur ami Le Fou (Josh Gad). Evans and Gad had so much fun with the characters, with Evans causing viewers to fall in love with the infamous villain. He’s almost too lovable, in that it causes his inevitable downfall to not feel quite cathartic enough. And it was so nice to laugh, with Gad hitting the comedic marks just right even in the midst of grand musical numbers. And the entire animated furniture ensemble shined through the CGI, particularly with Ewan McGregor as Lumière charismatically leading one of the best numbers of the film in “Be Our Guest.” It’s too bad we weren’t treated to more of Audra McDonald’s striking soprano in her role as Madame Garderobe, though.

The storytellers decided to add the backstory of Belle’s mother, which was a nice addition, though only a minor plot point that solely serves to help foster Belle's love for the Beast. And speaking of… I really feel that we don't have enough time with the Beast to really fall in love with him (much the opposite of Evans’ magnetism as Gaston). At the end, we only root for him because we know to from our familiarity with the original tale, not because the movie earns it by the end. In fact, the characters of the move’s namesake were some the least interesting characters of the entire film. It didn’t pose a huge problem while watching, but Emma Watson and Dan Stevens were certainly upstaged, as it were. The latter simply suffered from a lack of time to develop enough impact and depth in the character, while I would argue that the former was miscast in the role; not elevating the character, or selling the character’s storied adventurousness, headstrong and witty nature, or edge.  And while I’m complaining, I wish there was a larger presence of the French language in the film; it would have helped ground the sense of location, and really would have just felt more right. 

However, in the end, all the components of the film, while feeling a little rushed, really worked together to feel completely lovely, fantastical, and truly magical. The film takes viewers on an emotional journey, moving me to the brink of tears more than once. Moreover, the core of the story is so timely, delivering a powerful and pertinent message: it's what's on the inside that counts. No matter someone's exterior or past or even current situation, you can always connect, always feel, and always love, past difference, past hatred, past judgment. It was beautiful and simple, magical yet real, reminding us that human nature is often the most monstrous when steeped in hatred instead of understanding and love.

Rating: A-
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on A Cure for Wellness

2/17/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
But you're not well, yet...
​

Gore Verbinski leaves his viewers with an overwhelming sense of sickness in his latest feature, A Cure for Wellness. He, along with writer Justin Haythe, pull us into this world where wellness is a lie, but everyone is sick, and they manage to deeply unsettle viewers in the process with an end that rattles the bones.

We are introduced to the stunningly visual world of the film as it opens, looking up at the shadowy towers of New York City: the city is dark and murky, almost taking on a grayish-green sickly hue, with an ominously slow-moving and steady camera. We see an overworked businessman suffer from a heart attack, which immediately sets the tone for the film: something is off about this dense and depressing world. 

Soon thereafter, we meet Lockhart (Dane Dehaan), a 20-something yopro with a healthy amount of ambition and an ego to match. The company (some Wall Street money tyrant) that he works for is about to undergo a merger, but there are some irregularities in the books and they need a scapegoat; therefore, they send Lockhart to the Swiss Alps to retrieve Pembroke, the company's CEO, from a “wellness center” that he went to after suffering a mental breakdown. After arriving in Switzerland, bringing Pembroke back proves more difficult than he thought, and Lockhart becomes trapped in the uncannily too tranquil center. 

The film is a slow burn, very gradually building up. You seem suspended in most of the second act, floating around (not unlike the septuagenarians of the center), knowing there is some direction that you're supposed to be going in somewhere, but not quite sure what that direction is or how you're going to get there. Verbinski builds upon the psychological aspect of this thriller well: he plants little moments and signs in that suspense of the second act where the audience grips the edges of their seats. We know Lockhart needs to leave, and we know that he knows it, too. We can feel the actual time passing, creeping by as we lose a sense of time in the story, just as the patients do. We feel that ever-desired-yet-maligned sense of dread, but it’s so subtle and expertly done.

The actors do incredibly well in enriching this ominous world. Mia Goth steals scenes away as Hannah; she is completely believable as a prepubescent teen and plays the uncanny innocence of the only child at the wellness center excellently. Jason Isaacs gives Volmer a quietly mysterious elegance. Dehaan somehow makes an entitled prick likeable. Lockhart is, after all, the character with which we're positioned; we have little else to root for, but like him, we know something is wrong and sinister behind the idyllic scenery of the center. We begin to lose trust in our window into the story, just as he begins to waver in trust of his own mind, as well. He’s determined to finish his task, and his entitlement leads him to believe that he'll get exactly what he wants. A bit of sad backstory and past trauma give him just enough motivation to pique his interests and suspend his fears for just a second and agree to treatment after he is interestingly diagnosed with the same disease as the rest of the center’s patients, a move that later proves to be fateful.

Even our antagonist is potentially just as interesting as any other main character. We just aren’t ever awarded the privilege of exploring this character deeply, or much at all, which is disappointing. We are mostly limited to Lockhart’s point of view, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it just ends up feeling like a missed opportunity to add dimension to a character that could do wonders with it. He’s like Colonel Hans Landa or Hannibal Lector: if Verbinski gave him a little more to work with, the character could just sing. It almost feels like a few hard cuts had to be made in the edit that ultimately subtracted from the gradual build and intricacy of the story. Adding to this point: Hannah’s plotline is somewhat underdeveloped. It needs a little more time and attention in order for the story to really gel at the end.

Of course, it all eventually comes to that inevitable head, and it’s just so right; it’s definitely psychological, yet incorporates just enough violence and shock-factor to provoke a truly earned visceral reaction in viewers. We get the sensation for which we’re looking, and then we’re left questioning our values, our trust, everyone. You walk out of the theater not sure of what you just saw, still suspended in the wading tank of the movie, and seeing the world as a little darker, a little more unwell.

Rating: A-
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Fist Fight

2/17/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Are you familiar with the quadratic formula (or any formula, quite frankly)? You know how it’s always the same? And how it never changes? And yeah, a, b, and c can be different each time, but the formula is still used for the same thing. And it always does the same thing. You pop new numbers in the same spots, but it still looks the same. You still recognize it as the quadratic formula and always will. This movie feels like that: like the filmmakers entered new values for a, b, and c in the same formula and cranked out yet another solution for x, that while not being an identical solution, is still pretty much the same thing. It’s still x equals some zero, or in this case, some run of the mill standard R-rated Hollywood comedy.

Richie Keen’s Fist Fight depicts mild-mannered high school English teacher Andy Campbell (Charlie Day) attempting to just make it through an outrageously chaotic senior prank day on the last day of the school year. Amidst budget cuts and a bevy of genitalia-themed pranks, Campbell manages to get fellow teacher Ron Strickland (Ice Cube), who happens to be the most feared person at the school, fired. Strickland then challenges Campbell to a fist fight after school, a piece of news that spreads through the school and town like wildfire. At that point, Campbell has to decide whether to keep being nice or to nut up and fight Strickland.

So, it was funny. And the fight was pretty epic…

Ah, it’s just that we've all seen something like this before: it feels the same, formulaic, unsurprising, unchallenging, uninspiring, inoffensive (even despite all the genitalia humor). It wasn’t trying to reinvent the wheel or do much with said wheel at all.

Within all that formulaic stuff, the filmmakers did manage to include some good jokes that did incite genuine laughter in the audience. I mean, when you cast Tracy Morgan (in his first role after his tragic car accident, btw), you’re bound to have at least a few funny moments on hand. In fact, all of the cast was good (I mean, when are any of these guys not?!). I love seeing Charlie Day let loose (well, and yell and be emotional and generally picked on and walked all over, ya know, all those things that make him lovable), and Jillian Bell as guidance counselor Holly was a riot (and quite disturbing…). Still, the characters were all one-dimensional, with even Campbell’s arc feeling under-realized and under-thought. And Strickland as super self-serious borderline bully was painfully uninteresting.

So, with its too tidy ending and all, Fist Fight will leave warmish fuzzies in your heart and give you a few laughs, but it can’t do anything more for you than that. You could see every plot point and story moment from a mile away, but I guess that doesn't mean that moments like that haven't worked before. And if that's all the filmmakers were trying to do, then they were successful. So here we have it: it’s not fresh, it’s not horrendous. It’s using all that has come before it, that has passed for passable comedy before. It’s x= Fist Fight. 

Rating: C
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Split

1/20/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
“I think, therefore I am.” M. Night Shyamalan certainly meditated on this statement while conceiving his latest project, Split. The film immediately jumps into the story: three teens, friends Claire (Haley Lu Richardson) and Marcia (Jessica Sula), and troubled outsider Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) are kidnapped after Claire’s birthday party. Their captor (James McAvoy), takes the girls back to his secret lair, a windowless room with an unusually tidy bathroom. 

Later, we learn through psychiatrist appointments that the girls’ captor is Kevin, a young man with a past filled with childhood trauma that is the root for his Dissociative Identity Disorder (previously known as multiple personality disorder). Kevin has 23 different identities, with the dominant identity being Barry; however, recently other “repressed” identities have been taking him over. The girls meet these repressed identities, including Dennis, Miss Patricia, and 9-year-old Hedwig, all of whom tell the girls that they are special food for “The Beast,” a mysterious previously unknown 24th identity.

Overall, the film is ripe with instances of style for style’s sake, and its story feels very clunky: Casey has several intermittent flashbacks, revealing her to also have sustained serious childhood trauma and have learned how to hunt wild game, a skill that comes in handy in her current situation. Meanwhile, the other two girls attempt a few harried escapes only to be quickly foiled, while Casey takes a more cautious approach. The captive/escape plot is unsurprising and familiar. Cliché and heavy reliance on unnecessary exposition undermine any real sense of suspense. The ‘mental illness as horrific’ trope is initially uninteresting and uncomfortable, and the story is heavy-handed and prescriptive, hinging upon Kevin’s psychiatrist’s, Dr. Fletcher’s (Betty Buckley), belief that people with DID can, somewhat supernaturally, change completely in physicality with each different identity- a literal manifestation of mind over matter. Moreover, most of the characters are superficial and boring. The captives, aside from Casey, are given no depth, acting purely as means of raising the stakes for Casey’s escape. 

McAvoy’s performance, however, lifted the entire film. He was excellent, truly selling the character and making each identity special and believable, even occasionally transforming between identities from line to line, his entire face seeming to shift in structure. The audience spends quite a bit of time with Kevin, getting a tiny window into his perspective and world. Each of his personas are more interesting than any other character; in fact, I was somewhat disappointed that we don’t meet more of the 23.

There are a couple of good twists in the film (Shyamalan does have a reputation to uphold, after all). The first one is good and truly surprising, while the last major twist serves as just another schlocky way to further hammer in the aforementioned message and mask an otherwise dull ending. All of this leaves Split having the ingredients for a thought-provoking horror flick or psychological thriller, but never quite gelling into something great. 

Rating: C+/B-
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on The Legend of Tarzan

7/1/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​David Yates’ The Legend of Tarzan tells the story of John Clayton III's (Alexander Skarsgård) return to Africa, after leaving for a life with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie) in London, in order to save the people of the Congo from King Leopold's tyrannical drive to conquer and colonize their land. American diplomat Dr. George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson) acts as a catalyst in John's decision, convincing John to let him join in on the trip in order to investigate the possibility of a slave trade taking place on Belgium's behalf (despite the transatlantic slave trade having just been outlawed). 

The film opens with extreme wide shots displaying the magnificence of the Congolese jungle. We enter into the story with Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), an official sent by King Leopold II of Belgium to find and acquire rare diamonds from a certain part of the Congo at any cost. The world is interestingly steely blue and dusty gray, all the colors muted, as if masked by fog.

In fact, the cinematography was one of the most striking aspects of the movie. The African landscape and lush jungle began in muted, cold, crisp hues at the beginning of the film, then took on life and more vivid color once John and Jane entered and engaged with the landscape. This change in look and feel marks a distinct difference in the way the different characters interacted with their surroundings, symbolizing the joy and fullness of life that comes with respect for animals and the wild, and the harm and danger that come with the opposite. The camera was also often in interesting places, giving perspective from unique angles and with unique movement, and there was surprisingly deft use of soft focus. Altogether, the film was really good looking. 

The main thing that seemed to be lacking: the story. The story, in a way, seemed, while not an afterthought, certainly not at the forefront to me. The film is absolutely immersive and pulls the viewer in with the wonder, deep rooted motivations, and majesty, despite the story being slightly convoluted. However, this choice to prioritize an overall feeling over story could possibly be reminiscent of the wild and wildlife: a lot is unsaid, but much more is felt.

The film does manage to honor the classic film and story: throughout the film, John has flashbacks to his childhood, which act as a retelling of that classic story, providing background on not only his character, but Jane's, as well. Yates also seems to try to enter some subtle commentary on the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church during the time: certain people identifying with a religion with core values rooted in love, peace, and kindness somehow found a way to enact some of the deepest cruelty in history. Rom, in brilliant characterization (and with a brilliant performance from Waltz, as per usual), always carries a rosary with a cross with him, using it to protect himself, but also enact physical harm on others. This acts as a personification of the hypocrisy of the time, and speaks even to contemporary hypocrisy: using a symbol of love to hate. 

All and all, The Legend of Tarzan is an entertaining watch. It pulls you in, makes you feel, and honors the original classic while still attempting to push Tarzan into a contemporary and relevant space. It is holding back something, though: a more polarizing message, deeper characterization, more time in the landscape with the animals, a fearlessness maybe? Something… Essentially, the film is perfectly fine.

Hey, at least it’s not a total bust.

Rating: B
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

5/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here comes yet another movie crashing onto the scene garnering support for the argument that Hollywood has no new ideas: the sequel to Neighbors, i.e. Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, directed again by Nicholas Stoller and written by Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien, Nicholas Stoller, Seth Rogen, and Evan Goldberg. It follows the exact same formula and structure as the first incarnation and features the exact same people, with the addition of a few new college girls: basically, a sorority moves next door to Mac and Kelly Radner and their young daughter Stella, and in order to ensure the sale of their house and keep the potential buyers from running off, the pair go to war with the partying girls next door.

So, first thing’s first: the movie is definitely funny. It received a lot of genuine laughs in the theater, with some – ahem – boundary-pushing/went there bits and rehashed but-never-gets-old physical gags. But again, just like the first movie, the film rocketed into the story without taking time to set much foundation for character motivation, a choice that leaves the audience in a place where they don’t know why the characters care, or why they should care either. So again, I wasn't very invested in the story; it went from laugh to laugh without much build. The writing soccer team made some meager attempts at character work, mainly with Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) and college freshman alternative sorority girl Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), although most of it was completely vapid. 

Speaking of every Disney kid’s teenage dream, Efron is totally and repeatedly sexualized in the movie, which I assume is supposed to be the women-as-object foil. And may God bless him for taking on that role (*valley girl voice* I mean, he’s just like so brave...). But all literal drools sexualizing aside, Efron’s spot-on portrayal of frat dude forever Teddy, tragic and comic, is the most successful, watchable, and salient aspect of the whole movie (And he like can actually act, too! #talent!), the only character with the arc that’s not only relevant, but also effective, in a way.

Where the film somewhat failed lies in the writers’ attempts to shoehorn in quite the handful of thematic elements, including modern day feminism and female empowerment, sexism in college Greek life culture, bad parenting, and aging. These elements were heavy-handed and somewhat over-present, yet underdeveloped in a way in the film- definitely relevant and worthy issues, but not particularly done well here. It seemed like the writers had something to say, but never really said it. Maybe one could argue that this is purely an irreverent movie, and things like this don’t really matter in gauging its success; if that’s the case, then that’s fine. But if you’re going to try to make a point, then do it and do it well. Because not doing it well almost renders the attempts as exploitative or mocking. There was also a lot of villainizing of the “youths,” in general: they were rendered thoughtless, shortsighted, unreasonable, and just plain stupid in the film. I mean, I’m not arguing that experience and wisdom doesn’t come with age: I’m just saying that the portrayal in the film was incredibly unilateral, and seemed to focus more on generating laughs than creating believable characters with any depth. At some point, the whole “kids are dumb and selfish and destroy everything and must be stopped” schtick became – dare I say – just plain annoying (In the spirit of millennials: #eyerollsoneyerolls).

All in all, Neighbors 2 wasn't bad; it was funny. And in the land of failed sequels, it was actually a pretty good one, delivering similar spirit and laughs as its predecessor. However, it was like a rocket ship that runs parallel to the ground: it shot out of the gate, but, never rose or fell and, in essence, went nowhere. Moreover, the whole youth vs age thing, not even considering the bevy of other themes, was kind of heavy-handed, while still being short-sighted, undeveloped, and unwarranted. People of all ages are complex, and have complex thoughts and opinions and relationships with mortality and age. At the end of the day, college kids aren't children and 20/30-somethings aren't old. I would argue that the writers over-simplified a great and rich topic. All of us have some growing up to do, and no one ever quite figures it all out.
​

#zacefrontho

Rating: B-
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on The First Monday in May

4/15/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​The first Monday in May: one of the days of the year that the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City is always closed and the name of Andrew Rossi's insightful documentary detailing the creation of the Met’s Costume Institute’s most successful fashion exhibition to date, last year’s China: Though the Looking Glass.

The film opens on the 2015 Met Gala’s red carpet, an annual event intended to raise the entire year’s funds for the Costume Institute; it is slow and ethereal, suspending us in the intersection of the worlds of fashion, celebrity, and art. It is here where they introduce to what seems like the central question of the film: should fashion be considered art?
The film makes its case, arguing fashion as art, following a chronological structure as they count down to the Met Gala and the exhibit’s opening and following the Costume Institute’s curator Andrew Bolton through the curative process of this year’s exhibition. It’s not fast paced, but not slow, either, almost like how you would move through museum, examining each piece, then leisurely stepping to the side while still full of intent.

Despite the fact that the filmmakers seemed to set the story in the film up as if they were arguing fashion as art, I would argue that they were, in actuality, arguing fashion as relevant, as legitimate, as important. And I would argue that they succeeded in just that.

They demonstrated how fashion is a springboard for conversation and thought by using it to organically explore several weighty topics, including the expansion of the definition of art, stereotypes, racism, gender inequalities, shifting gender roles, globalization, sexuality, the power of media, celebrity culture, and more, constantly weaving in and out of the central storyline in several different directions. However, even in all of the deviations, the film never lost focus; the filmmakers always brought it back, always connected each storyline and topic in a successful and effective way. Some of the film’s strongest points even came from the deviations: a powerful direct contrast of Anna Wintour and the 'dragon lady' stereotype demonstrating the empowerment of women in fashion, a brief fashion biography of Bolton in which he leads the audience to reflect on, as he did, the “power of fashion to confront gender and sexuality,” a dissection of “Orientalism” in the West. Each topic has a purpose and a direct link to fashion as a whole and the exhibition specifically.

The film ends with a significant amount of time spent at the year’s Met Gala, returning to the red carpet, allowing the audience to revel in the pomp and spectacle of the event. We follow not only several celebrity guests as the walk through the exhibit for the first time, but also Bolton, in a grand, yet elegant, cinematic moment as he walks through the space of his creation, his obsession for the past eight months. It is a triumphant moment, the entire sequence of events portrayed in the movie leading up to this event concluding in splendor and completeness. 
​
The First Monday in May used a cultural event that some could render insignificant and instead proved its relevance by exploring several substantial and culturally relevant subjects, a technique that could cause others to lose focus, but instead was handled here with deftness and care. The filmmakers prove that fashion is more than just fancy, a vapid commodity that says nothing of value about the world we live in. They never lose focus, but instead prove that fashion has the power to incite meaningful and necessary discourse in a way that touches all everyday each time they get dressed.

Rating: A
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on I Saw the Light

4/1/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I went into watching Marc Abraham’s I Saw the Light not knowing much about legendary country singer Hank Williams. And I must say, I left the theater not knowing too much more. The biopic, while succeeding in the characterization of its focus, failed in most everything else.

The movie opens beautifully, with a slow, steadycam circling around our main character performing an acoustic song. The opening introduces us to and sets us up for the gorgeousness that is Tom Hiddleston as Williams: unflinchingly unapologetic with an attention to nuance in character that successfully convinces the viewer that Hiddleston is indeed Williams, the one aspect of this character in which the film didn’t fail. It also sets up a motif in coloring: the movie was drenched in glowy, yellow sepia tones, seemingly vintage and romantic, hinting at the idealized, romantic view that the public of the time had about Williams’ personal life, while, in actuality, it was just the opposite; this caused the yellow hues to then take on a dusty, sickly quality, symbolizing the deterioration of Williams’ life and health.
​

The framing was interesting throughout the film, employing much use of the close-up, with most central focuses right in the center of the frame. It seemed like the use of close-up was trying to bring us in, to get the viewer closer to the characters; however, it never really got us there. One of my biggest issues with the film is that I never much felt for them. Meaning, I know, just from life and experience as a human being, when things are supposed to be sad: when there was divorce or death portrayed, I was sad because I knew to be sad and of course it’s sad, seeing that this is a portrayal of someone’s real life. But the movie never made me feel sad. The film always hinted at attempting to take us on the emotional roller coaster that appeared to be Williams’ life, with ratcheting highs and deep, deep lows, filled with catharsis and movie-positioning that induce feeling in its viewers, what we have come to expect from movie-viewing experiences. But the film never really went there with all the emotional, cinematic material they had to work with. It mainly focused on Williams’ marital issues, but didn’t show much of them, resulting in supposedly traumatic or upsetting events seeming slightly sudden, happenstance, non-sequitur, and kind of weird. And that choice in focus led the filmmakers to miss a focus in and portrayal of the very reason upon which Williams made his fame: songwriting. We never saw the creative process behind Williams’ music; instead, the film just occasionally featured a performance from Hiddleston, only because the filmmakers felt they couldn’t completely ignore it. And even though he was drinking in most of the scenes, the film apparently trying to depict Williams’ downfall through addiction, they didn't even do his love affair with alcohol justice, depicting drunken scenes as a device to move us through the story, without much build to them, or fallout or portrayal of consequence after them. In fact, the pace was like that of the Alabama Williams was from - no highs or lows or drama, just moving along slowly to move, one foot plodding in front of the other, no sense of purpose or destination, like the heat rising off the street on a summer day.
​

Apparently, I Saw the Light was originally intended for an Oscar campaign. And while Hiddleston and Elizabeth Olsen, who played Williams wife, could have made the leading actor shortlists easily, with their depth in portrayal and disappearances into the characters, the vehicle for these winning performances was much, much less. The film had a great source material – a short, tragic life of a musical genius, riddled with addiction, affairs, and enigma – but didn’t do its icon of focus justice, making bad decisions in focus, storytelling, and script. All in all, it was very nothing. A nothing story, set to a nothing pace, saying nothing of importance about a very important person, who in fact revolutionized and helped define, spread, and create a genre. It was in effect, worse than merely flat-out bad: it was a disappointment. At least, it’ll inspire me to listen to Hank Williams’ eloquent music. Maybe I’ll learn something about him that way.

Rating: D
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on How to Be Single

2/12/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here we are, deep in the season of love: Valentine’s Day is nigh, and, as they do every year, movies reflect the emotion of the month with rose-tinted, heart-filled, tearful love stories popping up in the box office. Every year, there has to be at least one obvious choice to cause couples to sob into each other’s shoulders as they hold each other while silently dry-humping as they drift off to sleep amidst piles of hardly mediocre-tasting heart-shaped chocolates. And then Christian Ditter (Love, Rosie, The Crocodiles) crashes onto the scene with his punchy, anti-Valentine’s How to Be Single, a seemingly anti-love story, set in the heart of New York City, chronicling relationships/dating in the age of the hook-up, the young professional, the lost millennial.

We have Alice Kenley (Dakota Johnson), a young woman who apparently has always been in a relationship and doesn't know how to be alone, and consequently, doesn't know who she is, either. Alice moves to New York City after graduating from college and dumping/going on a “break” with her longtime college boyfriend Josh (Nicholas Braun), simply because she wants to “know how it feels to be alone.” When she gets there, she befriends her coworker Robin (Rebel Wilson), a wild party girl who decides to indoctrinate Alice into the New York bar scene and teach her how to be properly single (which mainly involves getting really drunk and sleeping with lots of guys). And so Alice’s journey begins…

Oh yeah, and then there’s Tom (Anders Holm), who owns a bar, is Robin’s friend, and explains classic guy douchebaggery to Alice (and sleeps with her a couple of times). And Lucy (Allison Brie), a serial online-dater who is obsessed with finding “the one”; she lives right above Tom’s bar. And Ken (Jake Lacy), and her sister Meg (Leslie Mann), and…

Actually, the abundance of parallel storylines proved to be one of the film’s weak points. The story was based on a book of the same title by Liz Tucillo (He’s Just Not That Into You), a format that can handle several interweaving, interrelated, and marginally related storylines; however, regardless of how pared down the screenplay was from the written text, the film took on too much that left the filmic story feeling quite scattered at times. For example, I don't understand the purpose of the David Stone (Damon Wayans, Jr.) character. Was he included to add another name to Alice’s list? Ok. But still, Ditter spent a lot of time on the character for an emotional moment that really didn't have much to do with the overall focus in the end. My main question: why do we (the audience) care? I care about my main character. Ditter also focused heavily on Meg’s and Tom's storylines, which still made sense in a way. However, it all added up to be a little too much; at least one storyline – I would argue the David one – should have been saved for another movie, another day.

Despite the anti-relationship-ish message, at the end of the day, just like its filmic counterparts dominating the season, How to Be Single is a rom-com, entirely enjoyable, solid, but not particularly great. It’s a little bit funny, a little bit sappy, but, overall, a rom-com done pretty well. It tries to capture the millennial love life, and does just that in part, but is a little bit too neat and too tidy to accurately portray that aspect of our culture. However, it is a palatable entrance into the modern day idea of love, arguing that one has to focus on herself or himself and self-love in order to find fulfillment in relationships and in the rest of his or her life.

Rating: C+/B-
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Time Out of Mind

10/14/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Oren Moverman’s Time Out of Mind is about George (Richard Gere), a homeless man floating about New York City. We entered his life at either a summit or valley in his life, depending on how you look at it, as he grapples with his homelessness and attempts to free himself from his current sad situation.

This movie is a real master class in storytelling through cinematography. While watching, the first things I really noticed were the shot types and camera positioning. Moverman and cinematographer Bobby Bukowski shot most of the film through hidden cameras, typically shooting from behind doors and through windows; therefore, most shots keep the viewer very distanced from George and the other characters, mimicking the literal distance and invisibility of most of society’s “interaction” with homeless people on a daily basis. This caused for there to be a very noticeable shift when they shot close-ups that brought us closer to George, usually in moments of vulnerability.  Each shot was static, either gradually pushing in or pulling out, giving a resounding sense of the overbearing time in which George is suspended, as he has nowhere to be and nothing to do, and must find ways to spend his days as he is constantly bombarded with his reality.

The sound design was also ridden with expertise. There was a lot of focus on diegetic sound; the static shots of the stillness of George in the city were contrasted with the sonic chaos of the city surroundings. And when the sound (rarely) ever became nondiegetic, it was very noticeable, almost strangely so.

I find George to be very interesting. I can't quite figure him out; it's hard to see his motivation. Which is not necessarily a bad thing- it's good to have deep, interesting protagonists. But he's a particularly murky protagonist. You know how when you watch movies, you know kind of what the character is or what that character does? You usually know the type of person or character you're watching? Well, you can't tell with this protagonist. Gere gives probably his most nuanced, gravitas-laden performance yet. The viewer very gradually receives information about our protagonist: an estranged and fed-up daughter, a dark and mistake-laden past. We’re distanced from him, physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's seems hard to connect at all; George is a frustrating character, rarely having much energy, often not being able to find the right words, sometimes making confusing decisions. But somehow, we’re pulled in. Moreover, we connect because we pity him, although as the movie goes on, it can somewhat difficult to keep that pity. But actually, the movie doesn't hit you over the head with pity and sorrow and preaching and doesn't call you to empathize with the character as much as it does make you think about his decisions and the reality of the situation that he's in. It makes for an interesting and unique movie-watching experience. It's easy to see how this choice in characterization highlights homelessness and how it works in our culture: one is distanced from these people in every way. We don't stop to see them. But as for the distance on the character and story level, I can't quite understand. I can't figure this guy out. I'm not sure we’re supposed to.

Time Out of Mind has no gimmicks, no typical, overused cinematic draws. Just subtle artistry and consciousness. On the surface, the movie is about the way that we treat the homeless in our society. About how they’re trapped in this system, and how it's hard for them to get out, even though we all convince ourselves that we want them to. But below that surface, there's a deeper meaning: a meditation on the economics of the second chance and forgiveness and how that works in our lives. It's about how, even though we disappoint so many people again and again, and how we disappoint ourselves countless times, the heart can still love and still forgive, if we allow ourselves to get there. About how you have to come to terms with the lows of your past and finally accept them, before you can do the work to get to the highs of your future.

Rating: A+
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    AJ Martin
    Andy Robinson
    Anime
    Anthony Formicola
    Anu Gulati
    Arjun Agarwal
    Arzu Martinez
    Ben Garbow
    Brandon Isaacson
    Brian Hamilton
    Carter Sigl
    Dan Simeone
    Discussion
    Elizabeth Johnson Wilson
    Eliza Rosenberry
    Emily Fisler
    Erick Sanchez
    Eric Tatar
    Essays
    Festivals
    Gabrielle Ulubay
    Grace Phalon
    Haley Emerson
    Here's Some Movies
    Ian Wolff
    IFF Boston
    IFFBoston 2015
    Interviews
    Isaac Feldberg
    Kunal Asarsa
    Library
    Lists
    Marguerite Darcy
    Marissa Marchese
    Marli Dorn
    Mary Tobin
    Meghan Murphy
    Mike Muse
    Mitch Macro
    Neel Shah
    Netflix Instant Watch
    Parth Parekh
    Patrick Roos
    Profiles
    Reviews
    Short Films
    Television
    This Week In Movies
    Tyler Rosini

    Want to Write for Us?

    Contact NUFEC at [email protected] if you're interested in writing for this blog!

    Archives

    October 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    April 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.