Biopic etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Biopic etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

11 Kasım 2011 Cuma

J. Edgar (Friday, November 11, 2011) (98)

It's really not clear to me why Clint Eastwood made the movie J. Edgar. The film seems to be totally uninterested in getting into the mind of the FBI boss and seems to be particularly prudish with some of the sweatier details of Hoover's life, like how he had a "male life-partner" for thirty-some years.

The biopic shows Hoover (Leo Dicaprio) as an old man dictating his memoirs to a series of typists. He looks back at his rise through the Justice Department to become the head of the FBI. It goes into great detail about some of the bigger events in his career, such as the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder, his obsession with Communism and his secret files of political and social leaders of the age. It is very clear from the film that Hoover and his deputy, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), are lovers of some sort, though there are several scenes of aborted non-sex, leaving us wondering what their relationship really was. This is, of course, absurd that two gay men would live together (in separate residences in Washington) for so long and never have sex. Though I have to wonder what the point is in making a movie about a mysterious man that doesn't try to figure him out more. All in all it feels very disinterested in Hoover as a persona.

Clearly part of the problem has to do with the cumbersome script, by Dustin Lance Black, though Clint's direction is equally inelegant. On top of this, the makeup looks silly on Dicaprio and Hammer when they get older, and it's problematic that they speak like the young people they are now when they get older (yes, voices age like skin ages). This feels like a movie that has no point and no insights into its subject. It's pretty dull and not very well made.

Stars: 1.5 of 4

12 Mayıs 2010 Çarşamba

Nowhere Boy (Wednesday, May 12, 2010) (41)

This is a movie by studio artist Sam Taylor Wood about the young John Lennon (Aaron Johnson, recently of Kick-Ass) in his mid-teen years in Liverpool. He is a good looking young lad, interested in girls and rock 'n' roll. He lives with his aunt (Kristin Scott Thomas) and uncle in a nice middle-class area. One day he meets his birth mother, Julia (Anne-Marie Duff), who gave him up when he was a little boy. She is a bright, young, sexy woman who is overjoyed at being reunited with him.

The two have an instant connection over their shared love for American R&B and rock music. John subsequently meets a young Paul McCartney and George Harrison and has an instant musical bond with them too. They begin to play shows as the Quarrymen and gain a local following. As this is happening, John is fighting an internal battle over his true feelings for his mother.

There are a few different stories in this film. One is certainly John's musical journey from English skiffle to American R&B to blues and rock. His mother teaches him how to play the banjo and guitar (sorta weird, because I believe the fingering is different on both) and he picks them up with little trouble.

There is also a story of John as a rather reckless young man searching for direction and identity in the world. He goes from being a bad-boy in school to being a rock star and taking on more and more responsibility. His relationship with his aunt, who has become a mother to him, of course, grows over time too. Their relationship is strained by the arrival of his mother (her sister) and they work to see eye to eye about their bond.

The most unexpected part of the film is the suggestion that John had a very specific Oedipal crush on his mother once he met her at age 16. I certainly knew that John's childhood was rather emotionally strained (being abandoned by his mother in the arms of his aunt), but I never would have expected that he had any anything other than a totally typical relationship with his mother once they reunited. I also have no idea if this is merely Taylor Wood's interpretation of the story or if there is documentary evidence of such emotions.

My main problem with a bomb like this is that I don't know what to do with it. Does this information help me better understand him as an artist? Did it change how he saw women and romantic relationships? Her certainly had an unusual relationship with Yoko (one could even say that she became a mother figure to him), but was that just co-incidence and the result of being scorned as a child, or was it more Freudian?

Unfortunately there are so many layers to the story here that this ends up being simply another item about him. I felt that the psychological aspects of this relationship was never really examined and this Oedipal idea was really just a descriptor - like the fact that he had brown hair and liked to play guitar.

Taylor Wood does a decent job with the unfocused script of Matt Greenhalgh. This is her first major feature film and she definitely has an interesting visual style and vocabulary. One of the nicest parts of the movie is the use of colors and how the palette changes through the story. The film starts out rather typically in the dark grays, blues and browns of industrial Liverpool. John's aunt is a stern woman who wears heavy cardigans and dark-colored wool.

His mother, on the other hand, is light-colored, fresh and colorful. She has bright red hair, wears bright red lipstick and colorful sweaters and dresses. Perhaps this is a bit too overt (and rather contrived), but it is a nice visual touch, I think. I really shows the world he's coming from and the world he is moving to - and helps convey the eroticism he sees in his mother.

There is much too much in this film. Between the music and the history and the psychology, it is hard to keep straight what we are supposed to be learning in the movie. I get that there was tension between John, Paul and George from the first time they met. I get that they were all musical geniuses. I get that John felt abandoned and unloved (and that this was a major part of his relationship with Paul who had lost his mother years before). But why do I care about it all? This feels more like a grocery list of things rather than an examination of John. All of these details are presented to us, but basically nothing is analyzed or dissected.

I frequently feel that bio-pics about people before they were famous are rather useless and mostly just historical masturbation by the creators. The reason I care about John Lennon is because he was a great songwriter and singer. I don't really care that he was a typically anxious teen. That's not all that interesting.

If you want to tell a specific causal relationship story - that, say, John wrote music about lovers because he lost his mother - then do that. But don't show me details of a person's youth and then not connect them to his later life when he became famous. That's all I feel that we get here.

Stars: 2 of 4

20 Aralık 2009 Pazar

The Young Victoria (Sunday, December 20, 2009) (199)

Sometimes it feels like there's a new British royal biopic every year. Elizabeth, Elizabeth II, George III, Mary, Victoria - they're all great chances for directors to show off grand costumes and wonderful noble homes with manicured gardens and fantastic interiors. To this point, I've found most of them rather anonymous - that is, it's sometimes hard to tell one from another. They all blend together in their silk and gilt brocade, their stuffy accents and crystal chandeliers. The Young Victoria, however is a very nice movie - one that stands apart from the others by it's simple story and beautiful style.

Victoria (Emily Blunt) is a 19 year-old princess and is next in line to the British throne once her uncle William IV (Jim Broadbent) dies. She is also the niece of Leopold, King of Belgium. In order to consolidate power, Leopold introduces her to his nephew (and her cousin) Albert (Rupert Friend). The two have many interests in common and quickly fall in love, though they can only marry after her coronation. She stumbles several times in the first days of her monarchy when taking advice from a cagey politician, Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). She soon marries Albert and has to figure out the balance between being a loving, romantic wife and a strong and sensible leader for her country.

Unlike most of the recent movies about British royalty, this one has an interesting and beautiful style from French-Canadian director Jean-Marc Vallee. He uses the camera very well in a clever, but subtle way. In one wonderful scene during a birthday dinner for King William, we see a deep shot of all the wine glasses set up on the table. Vallee uses a rack focus to show the successive crystal glasses down the line. One is in focus, then the next, then the next, leading our eyes into the picture in a visually playful way. He uses these racking shots throughout the film to point our view in specific places. It is clever and dynamic and really great.

Emily Blunt is getting a lot of attention for her performance here, and she deserves it. Her Victoria is sensible, naive, feminine and powerful. She is utterly modern and strong. The other actors also deserve attention, particularly Rupert Friend who does well with a Belgian accent and plays the line between husband and adviser to the most powerful woman (most powerful person) on earth and foolish lover very well.

This is a simple story with a very tight and smart script (written by Julian Fellowes). It is a biopic as well as a more serious romance and an interesting historical political drama. I like very much that it says what it has to say quickly (it's only 100 minutes) and shows the first chapter of a tremendously interesting reign and life. It shows Victoria and Albert as soul mates and world leaders who would go on to change the course of modern human history. But it does this very gently and subtly. I look forward to the next chapter in this story - The Middle-Aged Victoria, I guess. Yes - I'm looking forward to a sequel... how strange!

Stars: 3 of 4

1 Kasım 2009 Pazar

Coco Before Chanel (Sunday, November 1, 2009) (157)

At some point in the near future we will reach a time when absolutely everyone who lived before 1950 will have a biopic made of their lives. This day will mark a small celebration when filmmakers will feel free to make movies not tied to dull life stories of semi-famous people. We will all dance in the streets as we realize that we don't have to worry about the casting of the William Techumsah Sherman movie (Willem Dafoe) or the life story of Babe Didrickson (Elizabeth Moss) or Jacques Cousteau (Scott Glenn), as all of those films will have been made. (For the record, I have not heard of any biopics of these people, but I would hope that if they ever come, they will cast these people in these roles.) In the meantime, we are left with yet another dull movie based on a dull life- Coco Before Chanel.

I guess Coco Chanel's life sounds good on paper. She was raised in an orphanage and got into 'cabaret' singing in Paris in the nineteen-aughts. ('Cabaret singing' in this film looks a hell of a lot like hooking - but I guess it was different and classier somehow.) She got set up with a rich dude who lived in the country. She was too low-class for him to introduce her to his friends, but she still lived with him and had lots of sex with him. Then she met an English friend of his who she fell in love with. Sadly he wouldn't marry her either because she was a filthy whore-like woman. Still, he got her set up in Paris as a hat designer in the later nineteen-teens - and somehow in Paris, hat designers also made lots of fancy clothes - so she became a fashion icon.

That summary is actually very fair to the movie - where almost 100 minutes are spent with her at her lover's chateau basically doing nothing. It's not even that we see her doing fashiony things like designing ball gowns or something. She spends most of her time on her back in bed with one of two men or bitching about how she wants some independence (as she eats bonbons off a silver tray in the living room of a castle). There is one scene where she makes her friend a rather frumpy dress for a costume party. There is another scene when she finds herself on vacation without an evening gown, so she goes to a dressmaker and asks for a black velour dress with no corset. Big freaking whoop.

Audrey Tautou as Coco is almost asleep, she's so boring. She's cute-ish, but not at all sexy and it's very hard to understand why men would be attracted to her. Her personality is direct and stern and almost never bright or positive. She generally seems like a serious downer who is unaware of her place in the world. (I'm not advocating for the subjugation of women, but it seems silly to me that she should be upset about her low standing in the world in a time when all women were treated as chattel.)

Mostly, the problem here is with a bad script. I think the concept of a biopic of Coco Chanel preceded the research that found that she was a rather unremarkable person before starting her fashion house. In addition, it is not explained why this has to necessarily be a story of her pre-fashion days - and not just a biography of her entire life. It would seem that if one were making a movie of her life, all the content in this film would be one scene when she was 'getting started' (the same way there was one scene in this film about her childhood in the orphanage).

I would have loved to know what she did that was so amazing for fashion (uncorsetted dresses; lower necklines; knit suits in two pieces), how she was inspired and what happened to her in the last 60 years of her life. I don't know these things about her and I would like to. I think that would all be more interesting than this forced, sad romantic tragedy.

Stars: 1.5 of 4