My glib, sarcastic response to Lincoln is “How much suspense can you really get out of whether or not congress voted for the 13th Amendment?” I had that thought before and after the film, but it was honestly the furthest thing from my mind while watching Lincoln. This is a film not about the ends but the means and in that it succeeds.
Stephen Spielberg takes Tony Kushner’s screenplay and manages to pull off a very entertaining film about congressional roadblocks and backroom deals. It is not a beautiful or even particularly stylish film–save the unexpected dream sequence in the first few minutes–but it gets the job done. It’s competently made and amplifies the drama of congressional debate just enough to be interesting without slipping into melodrama.
The acting is all fine. These are not the most dynamic characters ever committed to film but the cast makes you care for them anyway. Daniel Day-Lewis’ Lincoln is folksy and charming in a believable way. Tommy Lee Jones nails the perseverance and withering wit of Thaddeus Stephens. Sally Field has the flashiest role as Mary Todd Lincoln, but her performance is honest enough to avoid “Hollywood crazy” hysterics when she slips into depression or anger.
Even with the crack about suspense when it comes to well-worn history, Spielberg does manage to build quite a bit of it in the film. Kushner gives him some nice arcs to play with–Robert Lincoln wanting to join the war against his parents interests, Thaddeus Stephens fighting with his own party over how far equality should go–that help with this. The biggest strength, though, is the backroom dealings of Lincoln’s unofficial assistants.
A trio of hired guns come in to pick out which lame duck Democrats are the most likely to vote in favor of the 13th Amendment with a little encouragement. They are hired to guarantee 20 more votes for the Amendment out of 50 or so potential candidates. The suspense actually kicks in when the numbers just don’t grow fast enough. You know it will pass in the end, but somehow the minutia of how the Republicans force the passage is just fascinating. Somehow, against my best efforts, I, too, began to nervously count the votes during the climax.
If forcing the audience to invest in a story that has an outcome taught to every public school student in America isn’t solid filmmaking, I don’t know what is. Lincoln is not the most thrilling film of 2012 or even the most inventive, but it is perhaps the most focused release of the year.
The standard of mental health care in the world has improved tremendously in relatively recent history. Just over a hundred years ago, the go to solution was dropping off troublesome relatives in a sanatorium for an extended or even permanent stay. Bodies were irreparably altered to create more docile patients and this was deemed the right thing to do.
Hysteria is a film all about one of the last mainstays of “why bother learning the truth when we can lie to ourselves for our own comfort?” mental health care. Hysteria, the condition, was at one point viewed to be an epidemic, with upwards of half of the female population unable to control their mood, temperament, or willingness to bow down to men at every turn.
The film deals with a young doctor learning all about the revolutionary private massage technique that can boost a woman’s spirits through purely physiological means. When the nonstop flow of patients eager to be…treated by the handsome young man becomes harmful to his own health, he enlists a friend obsessed with electricity to create an electronic massager for the same purpose.
Hysteria is a surprisingly sweet comedy about breaking through boundaries and the absurdity of treating conditions you have no real knowledge about. The older doctor who teaches the younger doctor the technique has an outspoken daughter who tells him again and again that Hysteria is not a real condition. He, in turn, diagnoses her with one of the most severe cases of Hysteria he’s ever encountered. The push and pull between father and daughter, the old and the new, defines the shape and rhythm of Hysteria.
For all the greatness director Tanya Wexler coaxes out of such a strange subject for a quasi-romantic historical comedy, the screenplay by Stephen Dyer and Jonah Lisa Dyer leaves much to be desired. This is a film set in mid-18th Century England. The characters randomly switch from the imperial system–liters, meters, etc.–to US customs units–inches, pounds, etc.–with no consistency or predictability. The language and grammatical structures are accurate to the period until they are blatantly anachronistic.
All the good will built up time and again by a skilled hand behind the lens is diminished with every abuse of period accuracy. Once you establish full period design–bustles, top hats, cravates, and metal shoe cleaners outside every office building–you have to stick to it. If you want to pull the Baz Luhrmann anachronistic history, you better establish it from the start and stick to it.
Hysteria is a period film that magically time travels every five minutes or so with something so outrageously modern it throws you out of it. A charming little story with excellent acting and a sharp wit is brought down by lax screenwriting.
Damsels in Distress is one strange, overwhelming film. The film is presented as a pseudo-Brechtian drama/satire (scenic title cards and all) and set in a parody of Ivy League schools. Writer/director Whit Stillman pushes the actors to adopt bizarre posh accents and stiff, overly formal mannerisms to sell the insanity of the elitist college system.
Violet, Heather, and Rose bring transfer student Lily into the fold of their unofficial campus activism on her first day. The girls run the Suicide Prevention Center, solving depression and anxiety through the therapeutic art of classic American tap dancing. Violet, however, proves herself to be in a constant tailspin. The girls do whatever they have to in order to keep their fearless, selfless, moral leader’s sanity intact, no matter how crazy the scheme.
Damsels in Distress is best described as affected. It’s off-putting in a deliberate way that takes a good chunk of time to get used to. The stilted speaking patterns and completely random dissection of well-known slang and abbreviations are bizarre to watch. Yet, it becomes clear soon enough that it is an intentional device.
The core group of friends are living in an alternate version of modern times. They dress in 1940s and 50s fashions, view hygiene as the great cure of society’s ills, and believe it is their duty as attractive young women to fix every dumb and grubby man they encounter. With their knowledge of mental health care, I’m surprised there wasn’t a scene where they diagnose another female coed with Hysteria or General Malaise.
The awkward nature of the girls is heavy-handed, but it’s used for a very clear and important point. No matter how strange a person is, she is still a person. She has to learn to fail and grow up in her own way by her own moral standards. If you’re biggest goal in life is to start an international dance craze, who is to tell you that your goal –your true ambition–is a terrible mistake?
Damsels in Distress is a coming of age comedy about a group of friends who don’t really have a sense of humor. Everything is earnest and aimed at perfection. They are not the brightest or the most talented, but they have their convictions. That has to count for something in the world.
The big issues is how well the intentional alienation devices work on you. The film is quiet and even-keeled the whole way through. In one scene, a riot breaks out. Does Stillman put the focus on the action? Of course not. He focuses on the girls commenting on the action before quickly abandoning the whole scene.
Damsels in Distress is never louder than a college lecture hall and never more expressive than a college student after pulling an all-nighter. It is a strange, twee little journey through a semester of college and no great revelations are made. Yet, the dry wit and strange one-liners will linger and haunt your memories. The experience is almost like a time-release pill. The longer you think about it, the better it gets. It’s strange in the moment but great in the memory and in that it succeeds in bringing the college experience to life onscreen.
Les Miserables is an epic pop/rock musical adapted to the screen as a slight and claustrophobic show. Jean Valjean is released after 19 years of hard labor incurred from stealing a loaf of bread for his starving nephew. He vows to make a better life for himself and rises to great prosperity as the mayor of a large town. He stands by as a loyal factory work is cast to the streets for having a daughter but, once again, vows to set things right by taking the daughter in as his own. Cosette, now an adult, is oblivious to Jean Valjean’s true identity even as France appears to be on the verge of collapse with a student rebellion growing in numbers every day.
Tom Hooper did not have an easy job directing this bloated, three and a half hour mega-musical from the 1980s. Les Miserables, though a popular show for decades, is a troubled one. Originally written in French and quickly translated to English for the West End, the sung-through show settled for spectacle, suggestion, and character development over linear storytelling or the clear establishment of relationships. You know Jean Valjean is at odds with Inspector Javert and Marius falls head over heels for Cosette, the daughter of the disgraced factory worker Fantine. Eponine is always at Marius’ heels though he never notices her. Everything else is open to interpretation, including events that should play as clear as day in the overall narrative, like death and blatant lies.
Thankfully, you won’t easily get lost in this adaptation. Tom Hooper and screenwriter William Nicholson, under the guidance of the original creative team Claude-Michel Schonberg, Alain Boubil, and Herbert Kretzmer, restructure the book to actually tell a linear story. Instead of having Fantine sing about hitting rock bottom just because she’s fired from the factory, Fantine now hits rock bottom through the clearer than ever narrative of “Lovely Ladies” before she “Dreamed a Dream.”
It’s smart choices like this that make the story flow in an accessible way with the added help of some spoken dialogue. I would love to see the rights holders agree to license live stage productions that use the newly reordered score. Then the show would be as close to perfect as it can be.
Unfortunately, two huge problems distract from this excellent restructuring of the story. Tom Hooper selected close-ups as his device of choice, showing fully staged musical numbers as nothing more than shifting backgrounds behind a crying singer’s face and chest in all but a handful of songs. True, we get to see the pain the miserable cast is going through quite clearly–they’re all ugly singers, by the way, with snot running down their noses and mouths open wide like gargoyles on a drain pipe–but we lose the physicality of the songs.
One song sees Javert and Jean Valjean have a sword fight where we only see the tips of their weapons but every bead of sweat on their foreheads. Another song sees Jean Valjean pacing in a monastery, though the expense of actually designing a set like that was wasted when Hugh Jackman could have sitting on an office chair in front of a greenscreen for all we know. The few moments where we see the full bodies–”Lovely Ladies,” “Master of the House,” “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, “Red and Black,” “At the End of the Day (Factory Section),” “Do You Hear the People Sing,” and the finale–are the moments where the true potential of Les Miserables is shown.
This is a musical. We need to see the action unfold. You don’t design dozens of locations to such beautiful extravagance and then focus on the actors’ faces and wigs alone. That’s insanity. Aside from the wasted locales, the actors’ performances all suffer when we’re shown nothing but their faces. Acting is a full body experience, especially with the staged movement of a musical, and focusing on the face alone is a poor decision.
If you can see the tears on the actor’s face, you know they’re sad. Do we really need close-ups covering half the screen with one face and a stationary background when surely cutting in a bit more variety in a three to five minute song might show some of the nuance of a performance beyond trembling lips and pensive stares?
There is a secondary issue at play that almost forces Tom Hooper’s hand in this decision. The much touted live singing of Les Miserables is a failure of music direction. With few exceptions–Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, and ensemble members with one line to their name, these are not musicians performing in a musical. They’re big Hollywood actors who can carry a tune performing in a musical. They do not have the training or the experience to direct themselves on how music should come together. Giving them full control of the tempo of their songs kills the power of the score because they don’t know, musically, what to do with them.
Rubato is one of the trickiest things to get right in musical theater. The actor instinctively wants to slow down or speed up to sell a moment in their performance. Yet, without the proper balance between the fast and the slow, the song loses its shape and even its meaning. Very few songs in the score of Les Miserables call for rubato, let alone 10 second pauses in the middle of a line so an actor can cry and show how much they deserve an award. It’s a distraction, at best, to anyone with a sense of rhythm or style.
Forcing the orchestra to follow what the singer is doing on every song is a huge mistake and it compromises the beauty of the property. Les Miserables has problems as a musical, but that score is flawless. The greatest strength becomes the greatest weakness just to indulge an experiment in throwing out the rules of movie musicals.
Rating: 5/10
Thoughts on Les Miserables? Sound off below. Be aware that I do work as a music director for live musical theater and do not speak from ignorance on the challenge of reining in actors to preserve the integrity of the score and show as a whole.
I finally played Journey for the first time last night. Money is always tight around here and the idea of spending $15 on a two hour game seemed wasteful to me. With an after holiday sale and the discount afforded to me by Playstation Plus, I was able to pick up the game for a price I deemed reasonable.
I’m glad I finally got to play it. I’m mad I didn’t buckle sooner and just pay full price.
The beauty of Journey is how the game design forces you the empathize with everything happening around you. Early stages teach you to free bits of trapped scarves from ancient ruins while wandering through a desert filled with headstones. Soon you begin to encounter other players trying to accomplish the same unspecified goal as you. You begin to communicate without words and team up to create bridges, free scarves, and continue your journey to the mountaintop.
The environmental design and score add on another layer of emotional reality to the game. The beauty of the scenery and music is undeniable. These are breathtaking landscapes that slowly shift from sand to caverns to snow constantly reformed through light and weather phenomenon.
Yet, as the environment begins to darken and dangers actually emerge from the shadows, the joy of discovery takes on a more somber tone. The shift really happened for me when I encountered the first group of scarves I couldn’t save. I could see them, trapped in a stone and glass tower, endlessly tormented by some glowing machine. I tried interacting through my bright white aura–enhanced by all the scarves who joined me on my journey–but nothing could free them. It saddened me. Then the light went away and the machines came after me.
At first, I actually resented the help of other players in the game. This was my journey to complete and freeing that scarf or unlocking those relics meant I couldn’t solve the puzzle myself. I wanted to ride the scarf dragon, but my unwelcome partner stole the experience from me. I abandoned him as fast as I could and moved onto the next stage.
This distrust and resentment became my own downfall. Another player was up ahead when the enemies first approached and attempted to warn me again and again of their pattern. I refused to take their advice. I watched in horror as my beautiful scarf, twice the length of my body and constantly flowing behind me, was torn apart by the mechanical beasts that trapped the scarves in the impenetrable tower.
Had I cooperated with my unintended partner, neither one of us would have been hurt. Instead, a far more empathetic player risked their own safety to guide me through the level and there was no way to thank them. All I could do was extend my aura and hope they read my mistakes as incompetence rather than fall adversity.
Everything changed after that. I teamed up with whoever was nearby, stayed in constant communication, and crossed the finish line stride by stride with my new allies every time. Only when the path narrowed so much that we physically could not advance together did I reluctantly abandon our shared journey.
There have been a number of smaller games in recent memory that have tried to force you to think about your surroundings and your fellow characters. Limbo placed you in a child-kill-child world of death traps and massive spear-tipped spiders where your choice was fight or die. Dear Esther forced you to retrace your own steps and discover what happened in your life as you prepared for your inevitable death. The Walking Dead game literally made you choose who deserved to live or die as you couldn’t possibly save both people in time. Even flash games like Dys4ia forced you to assume an entirely different life to explore a very personal story.
If this is an actual trend, no matter how small the games, I welcome it. We can use a healthy injection of empathy in our lives. Learning to trust other people, cooperate, and explore how our actions impact others is a good thing. Games like Journey might not be the most exciting experience you’ll have, but they are strong and provocative ones that deserve attention.
William Friedkin and Tracy Letts get each other. They made that clear in their first collaboration Bug and the second go around proves it. Letts and Friedkin share a vision for Killer Joe and, for better or for worse, they stick to it through the end. The opening credits even announce that William Friedkin is directing a screenplay by Tracy Letts, which acts as a nice warning beacon for people who irrationally hated Bug and didn’t learn their lesson.
Chris Smith gets kicked out of his mom’s house after a late night fight and crashes in his dad’s trailer. Soon his step-mom and sister Dottie find out the real reason for his visit. Chris and Dottie’s biological mother has a $50000 life insurance policy where all proceeds are set to go to Dottie. Chris suggests they hire Killer Joe to take care of the dirty work, buying him out of his debt to a drug dealer and giving the whole family a leg-up in the world. Killer Joe is a police detective who doubles as a hitman. You play by his rules or you pay the price. Too bad no one in the Smith family is very good at following the rules.
Of all the plays Tracy Letts could have adapted to the big screen, Killer Joe seems the least likely choice. It is his first play, written during grad school, and it’s more of an experiment than anything else. You can see the mind of a young playwright at work trying to emulate Tennessee Williams for maximum dramatic effect.
Dottie is the ghostly presence that never leaves the house and might not exist, at least not the way the family thinks she does. The dad is the gruff but lovable family man and the step-mom is the sharp-tongued foil to his every move. Chris is the young heir who brings on the family’s destruction and Killer Joe is the outsider forced into circumstances he could never anticipate. Think Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with blood and beer cans.
Taken as an attempt to translate the southern gentility of Williams to the trashy trailer park stereotype, Killer Joe is a success. The film only has a plot to bring the characters to big revelations about their identities. What plot twists happen exist just to air out everyone’s dirty laundry for the sake of catharsis. The violence brings the family together and the forced etiquette at the hands of Killer Joe tears them apart.
William Friedkin once again proves his mastery of the technical craft of filmmaking. The film is mixed to perfection. Not one disturbing line is left unintelligible no matter how soft or loud. You can see everything you need to see because the lighting design is functional and artistic. Color is played with to define dominance in the story and the cast is kept in muted neutrals–save Killer Joe’s jet black uniform–to take on new life as the color filters slowly shift throughout a scene.
Ultimately, though, the experiment of Killer Joe falls short on film. There’s not enough substance to balance out the extravagant makeup effects that define the action of the film. The characters evolve in ways that makes sense onstage–big revelations yield character changes rather than organic arcs–but read as static and unbelievable on film. Bigger is better and more is more on film and a one room play focusing on characters alone isn’t going to go anywhere no matter how many set changes you throw in.
Here’s Part 2 of the 12 Great Films You Missed in 2012. So far, we’ve looked at horror, sci-fi, history, and experimental prestige films that slipped by without notice. What will the second half of the list bring to the table? Keep reading to find out.
7: Thin Ice
How You Missed It:
That’s an easy one. This was dumped to a February release on 53 screens with no marketing and only word of mouth to keep it open. The film actually stayed in theaters through May, but dropped screens every week.
Why You Should See It:
Thin Ice is a really cool dark comedy/crime caper with a great cast. The only weak link is the “you’re not going to believe this story” premise that always preps the audience to distrust everything you put onscreen. The actual story is shocking in all the right ways. If the distributors or producers were actually invested in the film, there would have been a big push for Billy Crudup, Greg Kinnear, and screenwriters Jill Sprecher and Karen Sprecher to pick up some awards from the critics groups. They easily would have been shortlisted for what they put out there.
I have a sinking feeling that no one involved in the distribution of the film thought the summer blockbuster fans would sit through a foreign language action film. It was a mistake. When the film did well in a very limited release, they jumped straight up to hundreds of theaters with no real marketing push and the sales went stagnant. Then they didn’t know what to do, so they let it linger in select markets until only $34 were brought in on the final weekend of release.
Why You Should See It:
The Raid: Redemption is the action/thriller you’ve been waiting for. It’s a high stakes espionage film about a top notch team of agents called in to take down a mob boss who controls a gigantic, towering apartment complex. The action is used to develop characters because the story itself is so simple. The new score for the US release does wonders to bridge the gap between Indonesian and American cinema and culture.
I’ve spent the past week going through my archives and building spreadsheets of reviews for all the media I cover. By the time I got through 2012, I realized what an amazing year it’s been for film. To make the cut for my Top 10 list for 2012, a film needs to score an 8/10 or higher; only one of those 8/10 films can get in at this point and I still haven’t seen Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, or Django Unchained.
Yet, there are a number of strong, inventive films from 2012 you might have missed for any number of reasons. Maybe they bombed at the box office due to a poor marketing campaign. Maybe they only did a one week qualifying release in New York and Los Angeles and spent the rest of the year shipping out screeners to critics and Academy members. Maybe it’s a genre of film you don’t typically seek out or a big budget blockbuster that you dismissed in summer movie season. Whatever the case, these 12 films deserve your attention.
As a quick note, this list purposely excludes the end of the year one week qualifying releases like Rust & Bone and Amour. Even if I do get to see them before 2013, they’re going to open in a more substantial way in the next few months.
1: The Devil’s Carnival
How You Missed It:
The Devil’s Carnival decided to steal a page from the golden age of Hollywood and screen as a series of events. Darren Lynn Bousman toured the show throughout North America with large, immersive screenings. Cast members and circus performers showed up to interact with the crowd before the hour long film played. The ticket price was high for a film–$22 just to get in, significantly more for the full experience–and the lower price sold out quickly in most markets.
Why You Should See It:
Forget the nightmare of the previous Bousman/Terence Zdunich collaboration Repo: The Genetic Opera. The Devil’s Carnival is an old-fashioned musical with a dark edge. Three cosmic revenge stories pair recently deceased sinners with carnies and attractions that riff on Aesop’s Fables to create big music hall-styled song and dance numbers. The cast is great and the songs are strong and memorable. This is what horror musicals should be like.