Film Review: The Road (2009)

I had the opportunity to see a preview screening of The Road last night.

I'll warn you right now: if you're not willing to think for yourself during a film, don't even bother seeing The Road. It's a smart, subtle, dystopic suspense film that does not provide any easy answers. I can also proudly say that the trailer does not show any scene beyond the first twenty minutes of the film, a miracle in the modern age of film promotion.

Viggo Mortensen plays The Man, who is traveling south towards the coast of California with his son, The Boy played by newcomer Kodi Smit-Mcphee. The world as we know it is a wasteland: trees are leafless, the climate has shifted to near-freezing, and earthquakes and thunderstorms are a common occurrence. There are no animals left, only small insects like crickets and flies. Cannibalism is rampant and The Man and The Boy are trying to be "the good guys" and "carry the light"of humanity as they race against death to reach somewhere that might not even exist.

Viggo Mortensen is nothing short of excellent. He plays the perfect protective father willing to do anything to save his child from the threat of murder and worse at every turn. The performance is so layered, with no single emotion ever completely controlling his actions: a moment of joy at discovering food is mitigated by the memory of his wife or a moment of bravery overrun by fear. Director John Hillcoat smartly chooses to rest the entire narrative on Mortensen's shoulders, letting his performance carry a film thin on narrative but strong on character. There are absolutely devastating moments in The Road involving a gun and difficult decisions regarding what it means to protect a child. Mortensen took very shocking moments and made them seem reasonable to the character of The Man.

Another smart directorial decision by Hillcoat was to minimize the impact of Kodi Smit-Mcphee. I'm still not sure if it's the fault of the screenplay, the director, or his own lack of experience, but The Boy, such a pivotal role in the novel, seems insignificant. Most of the scenes require him to put on a blank stare and hold a stuffed elephant and occasionaly say "Papa." When Smit-Mcphee has something to work with in a scene, such as more than one word of dialogue or a different emotion, he's fine. Otherwise, the camera will mostly keep him on screen with Mortensen in every shoot to trick the audience into believing Smit-Mcphee is doing more with a tricky role then staring with a slack expression on his face into nothing.

The only cast member who manages to overshadow Viggo Mortensen is Robert Duvall as Old Man. The performance, though small, is pivotal to the narrative of the film and breathtaking. The amount of pain Duvall brings out of a backstory really interchangeable with any other in the film is a testament to his acting ability.

Director John Hillcoat uses a consistent series of rapid cuts whenever The Man and The Boy enter a new location. No shot will last for longer than five seconds as the screen jerks from a door to a window to The Man to the door to The Boy to a bottle to the floor to the ceiling to The Boy to the window to The Man to The Man to The Boy to a sustained shot. Each shot is a different angle and I found the effect disorienting and distracting. It's almost like Hillcoat didn't trust Mortensen and Smit-Mcphee to sell the danger of any enclosed space with their performance, a misguided assumption as the physicality of the entire cast is perfect for the film.

Be warned that there are three very graphic scenes in the film which had people leaving during the preview screening. The survey even asked if the graphic nature of the scenes was "too violent/not violent enough/just right." I think it's perfectly appropriate and casts the divide stronger between the good of The Man and The Boy and the evil of the cannibals and the danger of paranoid house squatters.

I believe less warning is necessary when I say you see a naked Viggo Mortensen a few times in the film. Apparently in a freezing climate, the smart decision is to go swimming without any clothing on. I'm sure that's a crucial survival tip and not an attempt to show Mortensen's bare rear end up close and personal on the big screen. 

Overall I was satisfied with the film. It's very much a character piece in the vein of There Will Be Blood: slow, methodical, and just enough plot to justify evolving the character. There will inevitably be a big Oscar campaign for this and if it takes off with critics, it could be the "prestige" film in the running for Best Picture.

Have You Had Your Greek Drama Lately?

When I was in high school, I was taught the alpha and the omega of Greek drama was Oedipus Rex. The sun rose and set on Sophocles and that was that. Onto [awful modern novel to meet racial/sexual/cultural sensitivity issues].

When I took other general Lit courses in college, I was taught that once you've read Sophocles, you've read all there is to read in Greek drama. It's just variations of the same things. Onto "The Yellow Wallpaper"* or Leaves of Grass.

Then I signed up for a Greek drama class to meet a pre-1800s requirement that apparently wasn't satisfied by any of the other pre-1800s Lit courses I took at my current and previous schools. Eye opening experience to say the least.

From the bizarre and disturbing imagery of Aeschylus to the rapid-patter pace of Euripides, there's clearly a lot to be explored. YouTube, of all places, is a wealth of resources on the matter.

For example, there are plenty of filmed adaptations of various plays that never really received a release in the US and are available online. Legal issues aside, it's brilliant to watch, say, Irene Papas play Euripides's Electra in a gorgeous black and white from 1962.

Or what of the scariest filmed adaptation of a stageplay I've ever seen, Aeschylus's Oresteia set to music by the National Theatre of Great Britain, complete with unmoving masks and period-esque costuming?

Even educational material is made more interesting by YouTube, with slightly more legal projects like History of Theatre.


So have you experienced some Greek drama today? Or recently? Or anything not named Oedipus Rex? Isn't about time?

*Oh goodie! I can embed Google Books now. Allegedly. I just saw it as an option and have to test it eventually. You've been warned.

Pro/Con: Memphis: A New Musical

Apologies. I don't know where my Where the Wild Things Are review went. I really don't. I posted it late afternoon yesterday and…nothing. I'll get up a new one some time this week.

Onto more pressing matters.

The new musical Memphis opened on Broadway last night and I'm really torn. To help me through this conundrum, I figured I can analyze its potential in a series of pro and con points.

Pro: If nothing else, book writer Joe DiPietro is extremely thoughtful. I mean, he based All Shook Up on an amalgam of Shakespeare and 80s Rock films.

Con: Joe DiPietro wrote the book of All Shook Up. You know, that Elvis jukebox groaner that limped onto Broadway a few years ago.

Pro: David Bryan of Bon Jovi wrote the music. He also worked with Joe DiPietro on the raucous Toxic Avenger musical still running strong Off-Broadway.

Con: Lots of people hate the Toxic Avenger musical because of the book, and score, and cast, and content…

Pro: An original rock musical on Broadway not adapted from an existing play/film/novel/painting/poem/memoir or culled together from ASCAP's discount file? How novel.

Con: An original rock musical that treads on all the same ground as Hairspray and All Shook Up and countless films: popular music and Civil Rights.

Pro: Seth Rudetsky claims the show is a stunner thanks to the cast of able dancers and excellent singers.

Con: The NYTimes hates it. HATES it.

Pro: Everyone else seems to love it.

Ok. So maybe we can give the creator of All Shook Up another chance, yes?

Just check out the Word of Mouth review from Broadway.com.

I hope it lasts long enough to get a cast recording. I'm still not as sold as I probably should be. I need to hear more of the music to get a better handle on the approach of the show before putting up the money for tickets.

Sketchy Recs: What to Do This Weekend: 16-18 October 2009

Read: Manohla Dargis's review of Where the Wild Things Are: This review is everything I love about good film criticism. Beautifully written, thoughtful, and objective. Dargis is one of the reviewers who brings this medium up to an art form itself.

Then

In Theaters: Where the Wild Things Are: Go see the movie. The reviews, despite appearing mixed on Rotten Tomatoes, all say the exact same thing. The narrative is thin, but the direction, art direction, score, and effects all make up for it. It's a thoughtful film with wonderful moments and a near-perfect marriage of the source material and Jonze's directorial sensibility. It seems arbitrary which reviews RT considered rotten since all the major critics, Salon.com aside, wrote almost identical reviews.

Have a great weekend.

Repossessed (1990)

When I think back to the colossal disappointment of Paranormal Activity (2009), I'm stuck. I want nothing more than to review the film in a fair and objective way to warn off my fellow horror fans from a film that rises, at its best moments, to the heights of mediocrity. I want to discourage the continued support of this film without warding off viewers from other low budget horror films. Some are actually good films that never receive a proper theatrical release and take years to find an audience. This one jumped on the hype machine of web marketing and somehow charmed critics that usually eviscerate any horror film for being both derivative and perverted.

I'm not at the point that I can fairly do that analysis.

Instead, I call to your attention the film I kept wishing I was watching during the entirety of Paranormal Activity: Leslie Nielson's 1990 send-up of The Exorcist, televangelists, and Linda Blair's career, Repossessed.

Is the humor sophisticated? Nope. Is it unexpected or breaking any new ground? Absolutely not. Is it a raucous good time that provides the clear solution to the protagonist's main conflict in Paranormal Activity? Yes. Yes it is. Who knew Rock 'n Roll was the devil's only true weakness?

May I present to you the absolute highlight of the film, the exorcism scene, which manages to be scarier and more entertaining than the entirety of Paranormal Activity? For those who do not want to be spoiled on a 19 year old film, I'll post the video after the jump.

And honestly, you can probably buy a used copy of this somewhere for less than the cost of a movie ticket. With shipping, it would probably still be less than a ticket to Paranormal Activity.

And Linda Blair hamming it up behind a pound of make-up is more realistic than any performance in Paranormal Activity.

And the continuity - even with the randomly appearing and disappearing props, illogical costume changes, shifting accents, and color commentary from pro-wrestlers – is far greater.

I really don't think I'm exaggerating. The holy water sequence is scarier than all but the last scene in Paranormal Activity. The direct references to Exorcist 2: The Heretic are scarier. The fake house plant in the corner is scarier.

Save yourself the trouble. If you need to see a horror film this weekend, go see Zombieland. You'll be less disappointed by Rob Zombie's Halloween 2. Support Trick'r Treat if you really feel the need to be a patron of independent horror. Just don't see Paranormal Activity.

Continue reading

Web: Food2

The Food Network has a growing chorus of critics, myself among them. It seems strange that a television network dedicated to food would bring in great chefs, like Mario Batali, Gale Gand, and Ming Tsai, to build their network, only to sever all of their longstanding contracts in recent years in favor of shortcut and convenience cooking, championed by Sandra Lee, Claire Robinson, and Guy Fieri, among many others. Personality is trumping ability and perspective, and the new series of mega-brand sponsored recipes segments, like Sunny Anderson for Fiesta Paper Towels, are indicative of what some perceive to be the dumbing down of the network.

Is it unexpected that the Food Network would seemingly bury a new connected project that actually dedicates itself to the older foundations of the network? Nope. Not at all.

Food2 is a sister site, if you will, to the Food Network. The bright graphics and constant encouragement to friend the site on Facebook or follow its Twitter seem to indicate a younger demographic, perhaps 20's-30's. That's fine by me. I'll put up with an obnoxious on-site Twitter feed of the creator's own tweets…I mean. Fine. I do all the same things. Except Facebook.

So far, the site features eight original web series, ranging from Next Food Network Star contestant Kelsey Nixon and Top Chef veteran Spike Mendelsohn providing two variations of the same recipe theme (Kelsey & Spike Cook) to an online dating show where two contestants prepare a budget meal on the streets of NYC to win a date ($12 Challenge). The series are well produced but the site fails them. If I want to watch all of Kelsey & Spike Cook in order, I'm screwed. The episodes are misnumbered for every series. There can't be more than one "episode one" of a show. Formatting issues aside, I'm excited to see what else Food2 can produce.

Food2 also features user generated content by way of Food Challenges. It might involve submitting a video, a recipe, or a photograph. Unfortunately for those of us not as connected, the challenges require Facebook or Myspace to enter. The results are still entertaining.

Recipes on the site are culled from all the connected sites: RecipeZaar, Food Network, Corporate Sponsors (like Newman's Own), as well as user submitted recipes. They are organized by a modified version of RecipeZaar's microcategorization, including mood (like munchies) and cooking style (like almost homemade). There are Tips and a Blog as well.

Is Food2 a step in the right direction? I think so. It's easier to find the type of food prepared in the heyday of Sara Moulton and Emeril Lagasse than it is to find a serious link to Semi Homemade cuisine. The user generated content should be an interesting feature when people actually find out about the site. But judging by the current state of the Food Network, who knows when that will be?

The Virginian by Owen Wister

Here is a phrase I never thought I would be able to write in my life: I found a really great Western novel.

It's not that I'm against the Western genre. I love the idea of the frontier and cowboys controlling their own destinies. There's a sense of wonder, almost fantasy, about this notion of the West in American culture. It's just that so many I've tried before focus on the violence and the conflict and are more serious than a history text on western expansion.

What I like the most about Owen Wister's The Virginian is the wit of the author. Take, for instance, this description of the vastness of the territory from a man straight off the train:

A land without end, a space across which Noah and Adam might come straight from Genesis.

Or a local's description of why a poker player should not be concerned with the decorum of the Virginian:

But a man like that black-headed guy is…need never worry you. And there's another point why there's no need to worry about him: it'll be too late!

What separate Wister's text from so many others I have tried is the sense of artistry. Wister does not forget that he is an author. He knows his role is to write this story of a cowboy as best as he can. It may be a bit unrealistic to assume the first person narrator would actually think in these terms, but it works for the novel. The reader is brought in as an outside observer attempting to reconcile this notion of "the West" into understandable terms.

Take, for instance, this aside on love:

Had any botanist set down what the seed of love is? Has it anywhere been set down in how many ways this seed may be sown? In what various vessels of gossamer it can float across wide spaces? Or upon what different soils it can fall, and live unknown, and bide its time for blooming?

It's pretty safe to say that a dedication to such picturesque language stops the narrative dead in its tracks. It works for The Virginian. The novel is so adept at attempting to capture the slower, more open nature of the idealized west that such distractions are welcome.

If you have the time to dig into a big old slice of America, you could do a lot worse than spending some time reading The Virginian. A man can't survive on modern Gothic and Weird Fiction alone. It's nice to swim in the earthy realism captured by Owen Wister.

Horror Board Short Story Contest: Voting Open

I would like to invite you all to visit the homepage of the Horror Board Short Story Contest. Voting opened yesterday, which means a new crop of stories is available to read, ponder, and critique.

I would really appreciate it if you guys could try to post some feedback to these writers. It feels like the contest is near mutiny because apparently, when I asked for feedback from the participants every step of the way in the contest, no one realized I asked them to point out any potential problems. Now I have people complaining that they don't like the site design, and they think I must be stupid to list the screen name of the writer, and why only 10 days to vote (already upped from a week, mind you, from some earlier feedback from people willing to put some effort into this), and why those prizes when DVDs would be more desirable, etc., etc., etc.

It comes down to this: I'm trying to fulfill my promise to these people that the contest will be as fair as possible. I'm inviting basically everyone I know to go submit feedback and vote on these stories. Even that's never going to be enough for some of these users.

Now I understand why the last organizer left IMDB for greener pastures…