Grey Gardens (2009)

In 1975 Albert and David Maysles were filming a documentary about the life and family of Jackie-O when they caught wind of an aunt and cousin of hers who were allegedly living in an old estate in the East Hamptons that had fallen into absolute squallier. I don’t mean to imply they lived in a high end home that was dirty, I’m talking straight up, unfit for human habitation level nasty. Diseased animals running around, trees growing in the living room, windows broken, no heat or electricity. Needless to say, the Maysles were fascinated and created a documentary, Grey Gardens, that was so scandalous and popular it essentially created the modern form of the general audience documentary. It’s not just that these two ladies were living this way in this neighborhood, but that they were absolutely bizarre shut-in’s who, despite it being the mid-1970’s, acted like they were high society ladies from the 1930’s, talking about making it big some day as a soft shoe or cabaret act, though neither was anywhere near under 50 years old. They were clearly nuts, but their zeal and their childlike view of the world and society made them near and dear to the hearts of millions in the 70’s. 2009’s HBO film Grey Gardens recreates key moments from the documentary but also gives the audience a wider peak into the lives of these two gals. Director Michael Sucsy says his approach was to look at the documentary footage and try to discern what aspects of their story they seemed to think were important and fill those out with back story. So he would show the back story and then follow it with a recreation of the relevant bit from the doc. He clearly has a deep respect both for the women and for the original doc, as his recreation is painstakingly detailed. For example, the ‘perpetual bachelor’ music teacher, who only appears in a portion of the film, wears a diamond ring and the ring the actor is wearing in the movie is the actual ring the teacher used to wear. Some of the costumes worn by Drew Barrymore are the same pieces worn by little Edie. In other words, the production design is really great. That said the very best thing about this movie was Jessica Lange’s performance of big Edie. It is remarkable. In the featurette they put some of the documentary footage of Edie against footage of Jessica Lange’s portrayal thereof and it’s truly uncanny. She really nails this role and it’s almost scary how well she captured this bizarre woman. The Edie’s were unique, inspirational, sad, strange ladies who seemed just fine to be living in a setting a health inspector described as unfit even for animals and watching this replication and expansion of the amazing Maysles doc is certainly worth your time.

S'Good

The Baker

I hate to do this, but then again, with this type of comedy you really need to be a fan of the ‘type’ to like this movie. The Brits have a history of making movies about an outsider (or a problem that comes from outside) who unexpectedly makes his or her way into a small, countryside English village. Once there, the villagers break out of their ways (in which they are way set) and band together to do something uplifting and bond strengthening. This was done well in movies like Saving Grace, Greenfingers and Calendar Girls and mocked well in Hot Fuzz. The Baker fits comfortably in that lineage. This 2007 comedy by Gareth Lewis tells the story of Milo (played by the wonderful Damien Lewis, Gareth’s brother), a professional hit man who gets caught letting a ‘job’ get away. The Company interprets this as him losing it and considers him a liability that needs to be taken out. A friend within The Company tells him to go out to his country place in a small village way outside of London. Once he gets there, however, he finds a bevy of nosy neighbors and discovers that the cover is that of a baker, which poses a problem as he doesn’t know the first thing about baking. Over the course of the next hour or so he gives baking a real chance and also takes a chance on relaxing and enjoying the town. Problem is, the town is actually a hot bed of jealousy and in-fighting and they’re all too happy to try and use Milo’s services once they realize he’s not exactly a baker, but THE baker (a name they give him as though it’s his moniker). He learns he really doesn’t want to be that anymore and they learn that they ought to be grateful for each other instead of petty and jealous. Oh, and he just so happens to meet a quirky local vet played by the beautiful Kate Ashfield (of Shawn of the Dead) who seems to just be perfect for him. Now he just needs to convince The Company to stop chasing him, avoid the hitman they sent after him, persuade the villagers to get along with one another and maybe, just maybe, get the vet to overlook his past and fall for him. Watching Milo pull it off is fun, funny and easy to watch, even if it’s pretty predictable, formulaic fare. So, if you’re in the mood for something sweet and funny with a positive message, this is your flick. If you want something gripping and original, you may want to skip it.
S’good

Clip o' the Week

Three...Extremes

Three…Extremes is a 2004 collection of three short horror films from three of East Asia’s top film directors. It was released as a sort of exhibition experiment, but unlike other kitschy movie experiments of its kind, the filmmakers clearly put a good deal of time and money into these 45 minute vignettes. This means the visuals and the production values are really fantastic. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean the movies are all that good or all that scary. In fact, I’d say none of them were scary at all. The only one that comes close was the third one, but I wouldn’t describe even it as scary. The bad news is that none of them are all that great or frightening, the good news is the last two (and especially the third) were at least interesting and a little engaging. The first of the three is called Dumplings and is by Chinese director Fruit Chan, known primarily for Jackie Chan flicks and goofy Chinese comedies. It is by far the least worthwhile of the three. Chan is way out of his league here and serves up a dish that’s little more than disgusting and inappropriate. It’s way too on the nose about some of China’s more abhorrent practices and is never, even for a moment, frightening. It tells the story of a washed up actress who is obsessed with regaining some of her youth. She meets an odd woman who claims to have dumplings that will give you otherworldly health and vitality. The ‘scare’ comes when we learn just what’s in those dumplings. It’s too bad all of us watching it guessed it from the very beginning and were yawning our way through the rest. The second is the far better Cut, directed by Korean director Chan Wook Park, who is best known for his vengeance trilogy Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy and Lady Vengeance, and containing the really good performance of Byung-hun Lee. Park has a fantastic eye and clearly a vast knowledge of cinema history. His movies are visually stunning and contain good performances, but their themes are so consistent that they border on straight up repetition. For example, he’s downright obsessed with the themes of revenge and manipulation. His antagonists want to control and manipulate the worlds of their victims, driving the protagonists mad. Here is no different. The director of a film comes home to find an extra who has totally snapped that day. The extra sets up a Saw-esque situation for the director where he must choose to do something awful or else the extra is going to chop off a finger of the director’s wife every five minutes. So, once again, we have a bad guy who attempts to control and his victim like a marionette, quite literally here, and in an attempt to exact some revenge on him. It’s ok and is much better than Dumplings, but it’s still not fantastic or anything. The third is better still and is by Japanese filmmaking badass Takashi Miike. It’s called Box and is about a woman living with her memories of a tragedy that she inadvertently caused as a 10-year-old and that has all but suffocated her ever since. Her obsessions come to a head in a tense, emotional end climax that is clearly stemming from madness. It’s very well shot and well acted. The lead is really fantastic. Sounds great, right? Well, not so fast. The ending is awful. I mean, so bad it made me forget how good everything before it was. It was so out of sync with the rest of the movie that it truly ruined it for me. But oh well. Long story short, if you’re a cinophile and love to at least see what the great minds out there are doing, it’s worth a cursory look, but otherwise, I’d probably just skip it unless you happen to come across it flipping around on some lazy Saturday afternoon.

Saturday Afternoon

Bob le Flambeur

This 1956 French crime drama by Jean-Pierre Melville was his big breakthrough. It tells the story of Bob, a sort of elder statesman of the Paris crime world. Everyone likes him, even the police, but he's begun to live a pretty boring life as a expert for the police. Problem is, this means fellow criminals don't trust him and the police are always watching. His itch for adventure leads him to a plan to rob a casino. All he needs now is a plan and a team. It's classic. It may not have been the first of it's kind, but it unified a distinct style approach that influenced pretty much all movies of it's kind to follow. This and Kubrick's The Killing are basically the parents of every heist movie to follow. They may not know it now, but movies like Ocean's 11 and the Bond movies are direct descendants. Now, that doesn't mean that your liking those movies means you will like this one. Whether or not you like Bob depends on how you approach it. The acting is pretty poor and the story is really not that great. Melville also loves to keep a pretty darn slow pace. What makes it worth a watch is the style. His visuals and approach are just classic. If you like the heist genre, it's worth your time, like a blues guitarist listening to early blues recordings. Know what I mean? Seeing where what you love comes from.

Saturday Afternoon.

Sin Nombre

This 2009 Mexican drama by Cary Fukunaga follows two stories that intersect because their stories are not only headed to the same place, but are, in reality, the same story. One is that of a Guatemalan young man who goes by Casper and is a member of MS13, the nasty gang that stretches from California through all of Mexico and Central America. He is beginning to doubt his ways, but only in harmless ways, that is until something awful happens, at which point his doubts become a straight up drive to escape. He sees the possibility on a train that runs from south of Honduras clear to Texas. Problem is, the train ride itself may well be more dangerous than his life in Guatemala. But the train, has a defined end, his life, outside of death, doesn't really. The other story is that of a good, but very poor, Honduran girl, who was abandoned by her father 14 years ago. The movie picks up with her father showing up out of the blue, begging for her to come with him back to his home in New Jersey. Problem is, he's also pretty damn poor and spent just about all his money getting back to her. His solution, take that same train. This movie is really about the present state of things in our little Western world.This idea that one always has a choice, each individual shapes his or her life by their choices. This doesn't mean they are easy one's or that what we think will lead to betterment will actually do so, but it's our choice to make. It's also a movie about the quest for autonomy. We want more choices, more options. I don't mean this in a selfish way, sometimes, I can only imagine, it feels like we must seek more autonomy. What I mean is that there is something imbedded in our Western way of doing things that makes so many feel like there is always a better option out there. In the case of some characters in this flick, the grass on the other side was decidedly worse and they never should've made the decision to leave, but for others in the film, deciding to leave was likely the best decision they'd ever make. The point is, catching that train, heading out of town, to another place, another country, is indicative of our Western way and the results vary widely. Fukunaga spent two years in Mexico and Central America living with members of MS13, traveling on the very train line from the movie and trying to come to an understanding of those willing to take such risks, to go so far. He also shot the movie down there, on that train and cast many unknowns and non-professionals. It shows. The movie feels genuine, it feels truly informed. It's like, not only are you really seeing it, but you're experiencing it. The stories are engaging, the performances fantastic and the maverick style of shooting it makes the visuals very interesting. See this movie, even if you're not a subtitles kind of person.

Worth Watching.

Moon

Recently my parents were in town and we were headed to see Couples Retreat. I really didn't want to and joked that we ought to instead go see Moon. The reason this is a joke is because it appeared like these movies couldn't be more dissimilar. One is a big budget, vastly distributed and marketed, please-all comedy full of big stars. The other is a low budget, barely distributed, almost unheard of dramatic sci-fi movie starring...one person, Sam Rockwell. We arrive at the giant megaplex where couples retreat was playing and find that there are only a few seats left and they were practically buttressed against the screen itself. So, I brought up Moon again. We end up seeing Moon at one of my favorite movie houses in Portland, a place called Livingroom Theater, where it's never crowded, the seats are plush and have ottomans and waiters come in and serve you cold beer and good food on real plates, set with real silverware. Well, I'm pretty sure I can guess what Couples Retreat was like, but I was shocked by Moon. It was fantastic. Truly. Even my parents loved it, we all did. I say all this to point out the funny thing about movies and how they are marketed. One is clearly a better movie watching experience, yet most of the people who will ever read this review will never see it. The other is inferior and, even though we all know it won't have any surprises and very few memorable moments, most of us will most likely see it. Odd. Well, consider this my plea to skip the megaplex, find Moon and see it. This movie is sci-fi, but in the old school sense. In other words, it's quiet and tense, instead of action-packed and overbrimming with special effects. Moon may be low budget, but it's absolutely beautiful. Clearly every penny was well spent and in the hands of artists who knew how to use them. The acting is good too, but not over the top. Rockwell's performance was just natural, it seemed like he simply was who he was. And the story was great. Here's the basic story to get you interested, but, unfortunately, I can't tell you more without lessening the experience for you. A few decades from now America's discovered that the minerals of the moon are fuel rich, so, of course, we've begun harvesting them. Sound crazy? Well, don't think that, Bush actually proposed this in a speech about 6 years ago. Anyway, machines do the majority of the work, but someone has to be there to do repairs when needed and to send the fuel canisters back to Earth once they're full. But the moon is hostile and very very far away, so one person goes there and stays there for several years per stretch, when his or her replacement comes for a sort of shift change. Moon picks up during the last two weeks of Sam Bell's stint and, well, he's kind of losing it. Just when he thinks he's not going to crack, that he's going to make it out just fine, things get really really weird. See this movie. It is tense, interesting and never stalls for even a second, despite the fact that it's only one person on the screen for like 98% of the movie. This is a rare one and shouldn't be missed.

BA