The Kids are All Right

What's the difference between a traditional family, and a family with homosexual parents? Not as much as you'd think, at least according to Lisa Cholodenko's “The Kids are All Right.” The family in this movie parented by lesbian partners Nic (Annette Bening), and Jules (Julianne Moore) seem to have many of the same problems as traditional parents. Their children seem to be normal children: 18 year old Joni (Mia Wasikowska) is about to move out of the house and into college dorms, and 15 year old Laser (Josh Hutcherson) has to deal with both his fluctuating identity and who he really wants as his friend.

Joni and Laser are half-siblings, they both have the same sperm donor. Nic had Joni, and Jules had Laser. I don't know whether or not they told their children which of them had which child, though it's pretty obvious and it comes up here and there. The parents, Nic and Jules are very different it would seem. Nic is a perfectionist doctor who, like many people, desire control in her relationships. Jules is much more of a free spirit. Always trying to start up a new business (this time it's a landscaping venture), and seemingly always never really finishing it, Jules often gets under Nic's skin. This is the most basic and underlying marital squabble in the movie and it's rather cliché, but we have to set up the family is imperfect somehow right?

The issues really start to flare up when Laser convinces Joni to contact their biological father because he can't and she's old enough to do it. She obliges and they meet Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Paul made his donation when he was 19, he's now at least (does math in head... 19 + 18=) 37, a little too old to still be finding himself, though it seems that's exactly what he's doing. From the beginning Joni is obviously much more interested in Paul, for some reason Laser keeps him at a distance (is he trying to protect his sister? His mothers? Himself?) After an awkward scene where Jules and Nic walk in on Laser and his friend watching their (the mother's) male gay pornography (weird? Idk), Jules and Nic sit Laser down and have a talk. Thinking they know about Paul, he admits to his and Joni's meeting with their father, Jules and Nic just thought (hoped?) he may have been gay.

The rest is rather typical, and only interesting because it includes the different aspect of having a same sex couple at the head of the family. Paul is the endlessly friendly and amicable guy who just happens to end up having an affair with Jules. Nic eventually finds out (as they always seem to do), and there is a falling out. Paul tries to convince Jules to run away with him with the kids and Jules flatly refuses, she still loves Nic. The movie ends with the family coming together (without Paul) and sending Joni off to college. We see at the end that of course there is still hope for Nic and Jules. It wasn't all so bad.

I had a problem with this movie. I don't have a problem with the aspect of homosexuality, other than apart from it, this movie would have been just another domestic romance and nobody would really be talking about. No, my problem with it is that none of it seems real. We don't see why Nic loves Jules, or why Jules loves Nic. They're obviously attracted to each other, but we don't really ever see their personalities working together. Perhaps the director simply wanted the audience to assume that aspect. Would I have assumed it had it been a heterosexual couple? Probably not. Also, the whole thing seems to be under a time crunch. Everything has to be resolved by the time they drop Joni off at college. Yeah, that'd be nice, but I can't believe that it works like that in real life.

The homosexual aspect of the story does elicit some interesting questions, though the movie never seems to want to answer them. Are we supposed to? I guess so, though I don't really want to know about the psychology that drives a lesbian to passionately desire the man who donated the sperm that fathered her child. I'm sure somebody does though.

The acting is OK, nothing special. It's not the acting that will draw you into the movie, it's the story, and the story is better than the acting though not good enough to merit the praise it's getting.

5/10

The Social Network (2010)

Facebook is the epicenter of social interaction in this society. Notice, I didn't say "virtual social interaction." It most certainly is that, but it's eclipsed pretty much every other hub of social togetherness. I can't think of another movie that has done what David Fincher has done with "The Social Network." Maybe there wasn't really as much drama surrounding the beginning of the internet, or of the invention of the cell phone, the television, the radio or the original telephone. Then again, I'm not entirely sure the timeliness of this movie is what makes it good. What makes "The Social Network" excellent, is that the story, true or not, is absolutely Shakespearian. 

 

When i was student teaching, one of the classes I taught was Mass Media. After I saw "The Social Network," I thought that it would be a great idea to take my Mass Media class on a field trip to go see it. For whatever reason, a field trip never materialized and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The themes present in "The Social Network" are more apt for a World Mythology field trip than one focused on the effects of Facebook on society. Themes in this movie include greed, revenge, friendship, loyalty, ambition, and morality.

The movie opens on a conversation in a darkened college bar. Aaron Sorkin's writing is immediately apparent in the quick choppy and seemingly natural style of dialogue. We're introduced to Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg in a role it seems he was born to fill,) as the main protagonist of the film. Or is he the antagonist? Well whatever he ends up being, he's the main character. We quickly find out that he's particularly inept at social interaction. He understands too much about humans and understands very little about people. He's incredibly smart but lacks any sort of real emotion. That is until he gets drunk after being dumped by his girlfriend. Then we see emotion, kind of.

                

 I said that Zuckerberg is the main character of the movie. I suppose that's true. However, the main storyline follows that of the relationship (was it ever a friendship?) between Zuckerberg and his partner (again never really a friend), Edwardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield.) Whether or not Savarin really believed Mark to have been his friend, the audience quickly becomes aware that Mark Zuckerberg considers people only in-so-much as how they can help him.

               

The more successful Facebook gets, the more distant Zuckerberg gets to Savarin. Afterall, he doesn't really need Savarin anymore, and isn't he, Zuckerberg really the author and architect of it all? It all comes to head when Savarin is notified that given some creative contracting he's been demoted from a 33% stake to a .33% stake. That sucks.

               

Justin Timberlake surprises in his performance of Napster founder, Sean Parker, who weasels himself into the Facebook inner circle and in the end forces Savarin out.

               

 I'm hesitant to call Zuckerberg a tragic anti-hero, I feel as though it gives him too much credit. Then again it's hard to call a real living person any kind of literary term because then we must think of who the author is. As for the movie, whose author is Sorkin, I believe Zuckerberg's character is very tragic. I don't believe he means to hurt people. The story of Facebook is tragic and ironic in that by trying to be popular through being successful, he had to destroy a great number of friendships and relationships. I don't know if the real Zuckerberg is happy. I hope he is. I am, that I've seen this movie.

                 

The movie is excellent. The writing is superb, (I would be surprised if Sorkin didn't win an Oscar). The acting is spot on (who knew Timberlake could act?) The editing is flawless, and the soundtrack is timely and perfect. This movie is not an epic, although the themes and emotions that are presented in it are those that are in every epic. This movie represents a trend in our media consuming society where everything is getting smaller, closer and more intimate. We sit at our desks, on our couches, in our beds and fellowship through computers. We stay in our houses yet we travel across the world. Epic can be found in the most domestic of things these days.  

 

                 

I have no idea if the story of "The Social Network" is true. It probably isn't entirely accurate. However, whether or not it's true, "The Social Network," is real. Whether or not what happened in the movie happened in real life, I have no problem believing that it could have. Everybody has issues. I don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is a unique and particular bad guy in society. I think that society is just harder to forgive faults in people who have created something that we rely on. I wouldn't worry too much about the real Savarin, I've heard that the settlement from his lawsuit has gotten him enough money to forget about what happened.

                 

Again, and finally, the movie is very well made and entertaining. What more can you ask for?

10/10

Shutter Island (2010)

"The Nazis used the Jews, the Soviets used prisoners in their own gulags, and here in America we tested patients on Shutter Island."

Shutter Island, the newest offering by acclaimed director Martin Scorsese, is a methodical journey into the underbelly of psychology, paranoia and insanity in the early 1950s. Every scene, ever moment in this film is deliberate and calculated. I'm sure many who see this film will mistake that carefulness with simple boredom and slowness. That is unfortunate. This is not a happy movie. It is a movie that is a part of the film noir genre reminiscent of the time in which it takes place, when detectives chain-smoked and drank, and it was just a part of the job. It's a dark film played in shadows and moonlight. It's unlike anything Scorsese has ever done, and he has proven his dynamism yet again. 



Martin Scorsese has never really been defined by the stories he tells but this one is worth a description, sans spoilers. The movie opens up on a boat. U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Marshall Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are on their way to a federal institution for the criminally insane. This institution called Ashecliffe, is located on Shutter Island, a former Civil War military fort. It's 1954 which means that Daniels and his partner are decked out in film noir essentials: fedoras, trench-coats, and a lit cigarette smoldering between their lips.

They've been assigned a case involving an escaped prisoner: a woman who murdered her three children. According to the chief medical director of the institution (Ben Kingsley), it seems she had simply "evaporated through the walls." A little detective work shows that, of course, things are not as they seem. For film noir, they never are. Shutter Island is no different. The story, like much of the rest of the film, is told in layers. Daniels discovers hidden conspiracies, while at the same time Daniels himself holds his own secrets, for instance, the fact that Daniels had done independent research on Shutter Island and its inhabitants even before the case of the missing murderer was sent to the U.S. Marshall's Office. It doesn't take long for the audience to realize that nobody in this movie can be trusted. So many secrets, so much deception. In an ironic touch, the only really straightforward character in the whole movie is a patient housed in Ward C, the ward with the highest security. 

I won't ruin the climactic last 45 minutes of the movie, which isn't spectacular, but it didn't have to be. It was satisfying, minus the last five or so minutes. Now I haven't seen every Scorsese film. I've seen the first, and now, his most recent, with several in between. With that in mind, I can't think of an ending to one of his movies that is anywhere near as ambiguous as this one. That's definitely not to say it's a bad ending. It's not, it's just not what I expected from Scorsese, which, I wouldn't doubt, might very well have been his intention.

The ending might not be classic Scorsese, but the rest of the film is. Shutter Island is simply Martin Scorsese doing film noir. The formula is there, all the puzzle pieces fit together. In the film noir genre, Shutter Island is a decent addition, nothing spectacular. What makes it so utterly Scorsese, and brilliant? It's the spaces in between the puzzle pieces that we see the brilliance of Scorsese. The flashes that interrupt the scenes, both of light, as well as photos and memories, glimpses and glances. This is where we see the director at work. We also see him in every scene in that we never see a scene where the camera itself isn't moving. Even in the long straight shots of a patient being interviewed: take a look at the corner of the screen and you'll notice even then, the camera is moving in. They say a fixed shot with no camera movement makes the audience observers, objective and judging, while a moving camera, even a subtly moving camera makes the audience into participants, subjective and collaborating. Maybe that's why this film engrossed me so much.

The pacing was pitch perfect. Never did I wonder what time it was, or how much was left. Never did I think that the story needed to speed up or slow down. If watching Shutter Island wasn't necessarily a comfortable experience (it is a suspenseful movie, you will jump), then it was the right experience the most apt experience for the story it told. 


The film calls for great acting, and that is just what it got. DiCaprio and Ruffalo are cast perfectly as the jaded and flawed U.S. Marshall, while Kingsley alongside film veteran Max Von Sydow are also perfectly placed as the infinitely suspicious institution administrators. However, I believe the best cast decision by the director was to employ Ted Levine as the sadistic Warden of the institution. The short amount of screen time Levine has only increases the mystery and creepiness of his character.

I said earlier that Scorsese has never been defined by the stories he works with. That's because he is defined by the ways in which he tells the stories. Shutter Island
proves this. There is little to link this movie to Scorsese's other films, and yet, it is so completely Scorsese.

I'd like to end this review with the last lines of the movie, which, I believe, sum up nicely the philosophy that undergirds this film:

Is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?


8/10

Avatar (2009)

James Cameron has waited over a decade to accomplish Avatar. There is a lot to be said about this movie. Cameron has accomplished what George Lucas admirably attempted more than thirty years ago in Star Wars, and what Peter Jackson tried to translate from literature earlier this decade in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Cameron has seamlessly created for himself a fully realized world, right down to the language and religion that permeates the story. It's as fully realized a world as can be made for the big screen. 

Apart from what Cameron has created, this movie is a technological achievement that puts it head and shoulders above any movie ever created, and if it does not get an Oscar for special effects, it will be the biggest snub in history. I saw it in 3D and it was the sharpest 3D experience I have ever seen. Often you lose brightness and clarity when you put those glasses on, however the opposite is the case here. This was the sharpest and clearest picture I have ever experienced in a movie theater. I would normally credit this to the theater; however, it's clear that it was the filmmaker's brilliance that made this kind of clarity possible on the big screen. 

The story of Avatar is a good one. Many people see it as unoriginal, they say it's a story they've seen before. Of course you've seen it before, it's a good story. Good stories are told often and in many different ways. Avatar's story is provocative, timely, engaging, and just plain good. There are countless other summaries of the plot, so I won't waste time writing about it here. It's a long movie, to be sure, however, it has to be long to tell the story it wants to tell. There might be some superfluous scenes; however, the viewer is so engrossed in the gorgeous visuals they don't mind. 

I saw no memorable failures when it came to the acting, human and Na'vi alike. It's a very well put together cast. Sam Worthington as the protagonist, Sigourney Weaver as the cautious and defensive head scientist, Zoe Saldana in a great physical performance as the Na'vi princess, and Giovanni Ribisi as the greedy administration type, and Stephen Lang as the blood hungry Colonel. Specifically, I'd like to mention the performances of those actors tied to the CG Na'vi creatures. We don't get to see their actual faces, but they were no less a part of this movie. It's exciting when an actor's performance can be so completely and accurately realized in an exotically modeled CG creature. Makeup can only take you so far. What Cameron has perfected is a technique that will redefine what Hollywood believes is possible in filmmaking. 

Avatar, is the Star Wars of this generation. It has taken what was thought impossible, and made it into something that is visually spectacular. It's easy to find flaws when you're looking for them. There are many in Avatar if you want to go and find them be my guest. However, if you want to go to fundamentally entertaining and enjoyable movie, go, with an open mind and a big bucket of popcorn to go see Avatar. 8/10

P.S. Avatar has been nominated for 9 Academy Awards including: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visual Effects.

Who's That Knocking at My Door (1967)

Who’s That Knocking at My Door is director Martin Scorsese’s first widely released film. Originally titled I Call First the film contains two distinct story lines that Scorsese competently combines into a product that is greater than the sum of its parts. Both stories follow a young Italian-American in Little Italy. One story documents his interactions with his friends, the other, a beautiful young lady.


The young man, named J.R. played by a young Harvey Keitel, is quite content with the lazy life he lives with his friends. He doesn’t have a job, and when he’s not with his girlfriend played by Zina Bethune, he’s screwing around with his violent and immature friends. Most of the screen time dedicated to J.R. and his friends is spent with them yelling at each other, fighting with each other, or drinking with each other. One particular scene comes to mind as particularly disturbing. The leader of the group of friends pulls out a gun. J.R. and his friends start laughing and screwing around. The scene turns slow motion to highlight the terror that is on the face of the young man caught in a strangle hold with a gun pointed at his face. The viewer’s never quite sure if this is all a joke. Most of the characters onscreen either don’t care, or aren’t sure themselves.

Often times I asked myself “why are these guys friends.” I can’t imagine Scorsese wrote this for reasons other than the fact that that’s just how it was. J.R. seems to be a representation of Scorsese himself. Scorsese also grew up in Little Italy, and they both have a strong interest and passion for movies. The character of J.R. is the product of this environment. These scenes construct the violent, chauvinistic, and immature character of J.R. so that when we see him in the scenes with The Girl(we never find out her name), the differences are highlighted.

The first scene with J.R. and the Girl is a charming one. It’s early on in the film so we’re not sure if he really is the kind of guy he is with his friends or if this charming man chatting up a young lady about John Wayne in a French Magazine is who J.R. really is. For most of the movie, the scenes between J.R. and the Girl are very charming and enjoyable. Even their make-out scene on the bed made me believe that this was what real love and passion looks like. It was both sweet and sensuous. But again, it seems that the dynamics between J.R. and the Girl early on in the film serves as a foil to how things end up between them. It’s in his relationship with the Girl that we find what the movie is about. The emotional climax of the movie comes when the Girl confesses to J.R. that she’s not a virgin, that she was raped before they met.

This is something that J.R. can’t deal with. An earlier scene reveals J.R.’s attitudes toward women. There are girls and there are broads. Girls are virgins, broads are whores. You can’t marry a broad. The imagery throughout the film dictates a deep rooted Catholicism. The first scene of the film is one of a statuette of the Virgin Mary and there are many references throughout. He puts his girlfriend on a pedestal as the innocent virginal young woman that he believes he can marry. When his image of her is shattered he feels like he’s been betrayed and calls her liar. When he can’t forgive her into marrying him, (he believes she’s done something wrong) he outright calls her a whore.

The film is about guilt, Catholic guilt. Catholicism has led J.R. to see women as either the Virgin Mary or whores. Since no woman can possibly live up to that, all women in J.R.’s life are whores, and he treats them as such. He disrespects all real women and that is his greatest flaw and it’s one that he’ll never get over.

This film was shot in black and white and the camera work often includes long uninterrupted shots. This leads to a definite sense of realism that doesn’t shy away from awkwardness. This means that much relies on the abilities of the actors, and in this the movie does not disappoint. The acting is sound and never over the top. When a character yells a response to every muttering of his friend, it’s not because he’s overacting, it’s because his character would do that.

This film is Scorcese’s first film and I would say it was clear even then that Scorsese was going to be a force in filmmaking. This is not to say that the film was perfect, it wasn’t. Choppy editing made for a less than smooth viewing, however it doesn’t distract the viewer too much. Another detriment to the movie, a gratuitous scene representing J.R.s sexual fantasies, was required by producers to release the movie in America. Scorsese filmed it and put it in. It’s clearly a separate entity to the rest of the film. Despite any shortcomings, this film shows that Martin Scorsese has the ability to make a movie so purposefully and which such conviction that the viewer can understand exactly what the director is trying to say.

It’s a good film and a great first film. 7/10