Does the cold sometimes blur your mind? Or maybe the warmth at home,
all the baking, the fireplace leaking smoke out, some cat fur floating around...
However, before all that you need to actually get there.
First you need to remember the way to your family
And buy a ticket for the dirty train ride.
Then you should assess how lonely you are for the holidays,
Especially in comparison to all the other people on the train
- It's a long ride.
At least outside it's colder.
But cleaner, definately.
And how cold is it at home?
How blurred will be the windows there?
I wish I could change it.
I hope they like my presents. And the cards.
And it won't be quiet.
It's not the windows actually.
There are ghosts outside.
They are playing in the puffy snow or fighting maybe.
Some of them are chasing after the train.
Some of them don't even notice it.
I don't know if they are happy fluffy ghosts or sad.
There's so much snow glued to them.
Stars: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa
Benoist, Austin Stowell, Nate Lang
“Whiplash”
follows the story of the young and promising jazz drummer Andrew (Miles
Teller), who attends a prestigious music school and manages to get into the
class of the most feared and respected professor - Fletcher (portrayed by J. K. Simmons), who easily becomes abusive when it
comes to getting the best performances out of his students. Although Andrew is
constantly tormented by Fletcher, they at least share the love for the music and
throughout the film the two develop a kind of love-hate relationship that
revolves around the pursuit of greatness and perfection.
“Whiplash” is
pretty much straightforward and to the point, but here that approach is
effective and electrifying. It might be hard to believe, but “Whiplash” is the
first feature film by Damien Chazelle and it’s based on his own experience as a
competitive drummer in high school. The movie was first realized as a
successful short film that attracted investors for the production of the
feature version.
As a result,
we can observe the collision between two fascinating characters reaching for
the limits of human abilities and willing to go as far as possible. It’s a
dialogue about talent, determination, ambition and where do you draw the line
between hard work and insanity, between true talent and mediocrity. “Whipwash” also greatly incorporates comedy and it has more tension and excitement than most thrillers
and action movies, because of its immediacy and raw emotion. It achieves that
with concise script, great editing and cinematography (including a lot of
close-ups, especially of J.K. Simmons’ face) and two breathtaking performances.
And while everybody is losing their minds over J.K. Simmons, can we talk about
Miles Teller? He is just as amazing in his portrait of ambition, perseverance,
struggle, at times desperation, even arrogance and physical pain. Still, J.K.
Simmons is instantly magnetic, although at first it looks like he’s just building
on R. Lee Ermey’s performance as Sgt. Hartman in “Full Metal Jacket”.
This film
literally shows the blood and the sweat one must offer in order to achieve greatness.
And if you think about the plot, there’s
a slightly unrealistic succession of events, especially towards the end of the
movie, used to heighten the tension and drama. And although you know why it’s
there by the end you are so entranced and drawn into this hectic, thrilling
world that you go with it. I guess, because of that, although essentially
realistic, the movie is also stylized, beautifully enhanced to immerse you in
its world and the turmoil of the characters.
What I also
like about “Whiplash” is that it doesn’t shy away from the arrogance of Andrew,
often something very common among the great or just ambitious artists. So, there’s
a tiny bit of “Amadeus” feel to it. Of course, there’s the “Black Swan”
comparison and although definitely less fantastical and more straightforward,
“Whiplash” describes just as well the struggles and obsessions of a young
performer that happens to be in one of the most cutthroat arts.
Also, there’s
a hell lot of actual drumming (a big part of it performed by Teller himself) and
I love it. I think that many directors would shy away from that, but Chazelle
definitely made the best decision, because every second is absolutely
enthralling and brings the audience closer to the drama and the characters. The
ending of the movie is stunning and (for me) makes “Whipwash” one of the very
best films this year.
Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander
Dinelaris, Armando Bo
Stars: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward
Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan
“Birdman” is essentially the story of
a washed-up superhero movie star, who’s trying to find meaning in his life,
torn between the allure of the Hollywood blockbusters he was once a part of and
the pure artistic success he could find by making “real” art on Broadway. To
what extend Michael Keaton plays himself is a matter of speculation, but casting
the man who was the first famous live-action Batman back in 1989 (also an
awesome Beetlejuice) was more than perfect. And not just because it’s “meta”:
admittedly older than the average superhero, with no cape or mask and at some
point only in his tighty whities, just like Bryan Cranston, Keaton relies only
on his great acting skills and probably delivers the role of his career. But I suspect
that we will get much more from him.
I must say that, despite Keaton (Riggan
in the film) being the star, the movie actually feels like an ensemble piece
with amazing performances from Emma Stone (his daughter Sam), Zach Galifianakis (his producer and
friend Jake), Naomi Watts as the actress Lesley and Edward Norton as the genius
on stage Mike. And probably because of that I often felt more interested in these
supporting characters. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton particularly stood out for
me, giving intense and emotional performances. Lesley’s desire to get on Broadway
and Mike’s struggle to be himself in real life, rather than on stage, are even
more touching than Riggan’s “virtue of ignorance” and vanity that allow him to often
disregard his family and loved ones.
And although not everyone wants to be an actor
or a writer, everybody reaches that point when they ask themselves “what do I
amount to?” So, it’s safe to say that film is rather relatable, but I
personally wasn’t as stirred or touched as much as I was watching other movies
in 2014. But I still don’t think the movie actually tries to get the Spielberg
effect and make the audience sob in unison.
“Birdman” explores its themes with a
lot of humour, unconventional camera work and even some fantastical imagery.
The camera floats throughout the theater, interestingly, almost like a bird and
bounces from one character to another. As a result in a very beautiful, almost
dreamlike manner the camera movement, along with the seamless editing
(digitally improved), colour pallet and the occasional winking at the audience
(like cutting off the music, the changing location of the drummer) accentuate
the amazing craft of movie-making and remind us of the very fact that we are in
a film. That’s why I don’t think that the very cinematic “Birdman” simply sides
with Broadway, while completely destroying summer blockbusters.
So, obviously, the most amazing thing
about the movie is the cinematography and editing. It is really gorgeous and entertaining
on purely visual level, if that makes sense. And no wonder – the film is
handled by some of the best, also Oscar-winners: Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Children
of men”, “The tree of life”, “Sleepy Hollow”) is the director of photography
and the editing is managed by Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione ("Good
Night, and Good Luck.", "Ocean's Eleven", "21 Grams").
The beautiful and fluid
cinematography that makes the film look like it’s just one continuous shot takes
you behind the Broadway scene and inside the world of the actors. And although
it has its particular flavor in this movie, it must be noted that the one-take
movie has been done some times before with projects like “Russian Ark” by
Aleksandr Sokurov or “Silent House” by Gustavo Hernandez and there are also
numerous movies with just a few takes like Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” (I give
this example, because we also have the floating camera here). But most
important is Hitchcock’s “Rope” from 1948 that also looks like one take (it was
actually shot in 10 segments, but only because the film magazine for the camera
is about 10 minutes long and must be replaced). And despite setting the film in
just two rooms, Hitchcock basically achieved the same effect that “Birdman” has,
but with no digital assistance.
Going back to the content - the
humour in the film is really, really great. I actually didn’t know that the
movie has a strong comedic side and was pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is
intriguing and snappy; Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are explosive. Still, I
have a few tiny, not really complaints… things I’ve noticed: There are a few
monologues (the speech that Riggan gives to the critic and especially his
daughter’s rant) that basically tell us in too many words things that we’ve
already understood quite well from the movie. To me these sounded a little bit redundant
and fake, despite
the fact that the movie is quite fantastical. I just don’t like over-explaining
in movies, but who knows – may be the idea of these scenes was to represent the
classic stage monologue. Thus, the movie feels a little bit self-important at
times, constantly trying to remind us how important and philosophical it is,
especially with these “Tree of life”-type of images thrown in the editing. For
example, I think that another movie from 2014 “Frank” deals with similar themes
more subtly and laconically.
And while I’m comparing - there was
one point in “Birdman” when I had the realization that it is very similar to “Back
Swan”. If you saw it you know, which scene I’m talking about. However, “Birdman”
had a delightful and surprising turn that proved me wrong. Still, there are
many similarities with the theme of ambition and perfectionism, as well as the
dream-like, hallucinogenic elements that the two films share.
What I really liked about “Birdman” is
that it bashes quite a lot the superhero movies, while somewhat ironically
turning its protagonist into a kind of superhero (because of his abilities, imagined
or not, and… his looks towards the end). I can’t get into more details because -
spoilers. This is also a bit of a spoiler: By the end of the film Riggan
manages to achieve both the popularity as celebrity he once lost (via social
media and viral videos) and the critical acclaim for his artistic work in the theater.
And however you decide to interpret the very ending, I think it’s still going
to be an appropriate conclusion to the story of a man on the edge of sanity,
fighting for his work and for his right not to be forgotten.
The movie currently has 8,7 on IMDB
- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt
8,0 from users and 89 from critics on
MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance
94% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/
Starring: Woody
Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, Anne Byrne
Hoffman
Gershwin’s
“Rhapsody In Blue” and a celebratory montage of New York sceneries that
resolves into a purposely over the top fireworks. That’s our introduction to
Woody Allen’s hometown in the classic romantic comedy “Manhattan”. The scene is
also accompanied with the narration by the main hero Isaac, who can’t decide in
what way to begin his novel, pondering on how his protagonist sees the
city.
Isaac’s
second ex-wife is writing a book on their love life and separation, while he’s
trying to maintain a causal relationship with 17-years-old student. At the same
time he falls in love with his best friend’s lover, after initially disliking
her. Yes, sounds so trite and soapy. But not when Woody Allen is behind the
camera. This is the kind of movie that even people, who, like myself,don’t like romantic
comedies, should see. It is a treat for every movie lover, if
solely for the masterful cinematography by Gordon Willis (“The Godfather”) and
editing by Susan E. Morse (“Hannah and Her Sisters”), because every now and then they turn the film into a living painting.
As
most Woody Allen’s films “Manhattan” also deals with intellectuals quipping at
each other, while discussing interesting cultural, but sometimes empty topics. As Isaac points out in one scene - in certain cases not “biting satire”,
but “bricks and baseball bats get right to the point.” Many of the heroes in
the movie are wealthy, well-read and a bit pretentious, but often simply lost and
lonely people. Woody Allen’s character looks for the answers to his problems in
the changing cultural landscape around him, later in the movie clarifying that
his book is about “decaying values”. And we can see how he often projects this pessimistic
view of the world on the new generation, represented by his young girlfriend Tracy
- “You were brought up on drugs and television and the pill”. But after all, he
is the guy that works for the television, the guy that constantly refuses to
accept the changing world and takes advantage of Tracy’s affection. And by the end she
is the one that wisely corrects him on the subject of decaying morals, because “not
everybody gets corrupted”.
When
you talk about “Manhattan” you can’t forget the masterful visual storytelling
that is particularly strong in two major scenes – the cabinet with the monkey skeleton
and the planetarium scene. The scene in the biology cabinet adds to the humor
of the situation, while making us ponder over love’s role in evolution and our
place in the universe as species. The monkey skeleton sits silently next to
Issac, who, as a superior specie that models himself after God, is trying to
make sense of love and human relationships. Still, the monkey comically reminds
us of the unpredictable, unclassifiable and often primal nature of love. In
terms of our feelings and internal drive, it is possible that we haven’t really developed
much. And the rest of the movie points to the same thing – sometimes the
obvious “good” choices are the worst and no matter how hard we try to be
informed, logical and to rationalize the world we live in, our nature is still
emotion-driven and intuitive. And just like with art, we can’t
always explain what sums up the ultimate chef-d-oeuvre.
In this world where everybody has a psychoanalyst, Woody Allen’s character ironically
states “Nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind.” But both Isaac and
Mary (Diane Keaton) are often described as “cerebral” or “rationalizing”
and we see that in the long run this is not necessarily the best way for them to
maintain a relationship. There’s something else that I've noticed - with
beautiful, yet simple cinematography and understanding of space, “Manhattan”
often separates the couples with shots that leave one or the other out of frame
during a conversation. This is emphasized and wonderfully realized in the scene
where Mary and Isaac kiss for the first time. Although it is very romantic and sweet,
for the entire scene they are almost never both in the frame, moving in and out
of the door frame, where the camera is fixed. I wonder, is there a possibility
that Allen decided to shoot the scene in this way in order to hint to us that no matter how much they try, Isaac and Mary can’t really become
one? It might be far-fetched, but I like the idea.
But
the best and most memorable scene from the movie is definitely the conversation
in the planetarium. In almost full darkness all we see is the giant planets and
these people’s tiny, almost unrecognizable figures. They walk through the
lonely and cold cosmos, discussing the small troubles we humans have, looking
so lost and insignificant next to the vastness of space. It’s such a beautiful and
surreal scene, provoking so many feelings and interpretations: Are they smallgrains
of sand drifting in the infinite darkness or simply aliens to each other? Maybe
they are alienated from their own world…
Speaking
of beauty and cosmic harmony, the soundtrack is comprised of wonderful
compositions by Gershwin, including instrumental versions for many of his
popular jazz songs. It is a powerful and energetic, but elegant companion piece
to the beautiful black and white cinematic version of New York that Allen gives us.
The performances are top-notch, I especially loved Mariel Hemingway, who is so
subtle, tender and poignant. As a whole “Manhattan” is philosophical,
funny, touching and magnificently shot – a true Woody Allen classic, well above
the average romantic comedy.
Stars: Rosamund Pike, Ben Affleck, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler
Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens
“Gone Girl” is a movie that reminds
us that David Fincher is one of the very best directors working today. He is
back on form with a haunting, visceral and stylized retelling of the Gillian
Flynn’s novel of the same name. Writers often fail to adapt their own books for
the screen, but Flynn did a fantastic job unifying all threads of the intricate
story into a coherent script.
The movie tells the story (or rather “stories”)
of Nick Dunne (portrayed by Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). The
mystery starts on the day of the couple’s fifth anniversary when Nick finds out
that his wife is gone. As the plot unfolds he becomes the center of media
speculations and his life turns upside down when he becomes the main suspect.
But while we see his version of the story, we also get the chance to peek into
Amy’s thoughts almost entirely via her diary entries.
What Fincher and Flynn did so well is
presenting us with two points of view, both not entirely truthful, both keeping
parts of the story in mystery. And that’s truly revealing, especially after we
find out who’s the “worse half”. The relativity of the truth is highlighted in
a scene where Nick Dunne insist on telling the “true” story and quickly gets corrected
– it’s “your” story. “Gone Girl” works perfectly as a thriller – it is atmospheric,
suspenseful and brutal when it needs to be. But the best thing is that it’s so
much more. A social commentary, a character study, an exercise in style, a treatise
on marriage…
In many ways “Gone Girl” is a film
about image – the image we create for ourselves, the way our loved ones see us,
the labels society gives us, the distorted personality that media can create and
destroy within a few hours for us. All the roles we assume in order to function
in society could easily distort our perception of reality and ourselves. In “Gone
Girl” Rosamund Pike struggles to achieve the perfect image of “The Amazing Amy”
– a fictional character her mother wrote a series of popular books about. And as
she says in the movie, “Amazing Amy” had always been one step ahead of her,
always perfect, always better. How do you keep up with that? Amy sometimes even
speaks as if she’s a fictional character and she might as well do what any true
dramatic hero might do in a classic play. Amy is beautiful, rich, extremely
intelligent and still her life is not always perfect. Surely, in “Gone Girl”
this problem is explored in its extremities, but in modern society the image,
the idea of the perfect job, the perfect family, the requisite success can often
become the basis for extreme egoism, apathy, depression and all kinds of psychosis.
Just like in “Nightcrawler” – the hero is the product of the society he/she
lives in.
SLIGHTLY SPOILERY PARAGRAPH:
What are the social expectations for
the perfect woman, for the perfect wife? One thing is for sure - these are some
of the factors that create the Amy we see by the end of the movie. That’s why I
don’t think that “Gone Girl” is in any way misogynistic, because how could Amy exist
the way she is and get away with the things she does, if she didn’t live in a
society with established stereotypes for women that she clearly takes
advantage of: the stupid, but beautiful girlfriend, the accommodating wife, the
helpless mother, the victim? Besides, it’s absolutely entertaining to see all these
concepts turn around by the end.
On the other hand, Ben Affleck’s character
is also exposed to social preconceptions – he is supposed to be “the provider”
in the marriage, he is more likely to be aggressive and should feel oppressed
because he doesn’t have the outstanding education his wife has. Thus, “Gone
Girl” explores both sides of what marriage “should” be and the image it has to adhere
to. Further on, the film shows how easily media (particularly TV news) can
manipulate any story and any “image”, completely turning around the opinion we
have for someone and even profoundly affecting their life.
“Gone Girl” has one of the most
magnetic, complex and unique characters we’ve seen this year and one of the
very few strong female characters in cinema. Gillian Flynn gave life to a hero
that’s anything, but the typical female from either criminal or love stories.
And Rosamund Pike made this extraordinary, bigger-than-life character appear absolutely
authentic and captivating. She can simultaneously make us hate her and be
sympathetic with her, while preserving the mystery and the wonder of the
character. It is definitely a stunning Oscar-worthy performance. Everybody else
in the movie also does a good job, but it’s her movie from beginning to end.
Only Neil Patrick Harris, who plays Desi, doesn’t seem entirely in place. His
acting is fine, but he is in the role of a rich stylish man, that inevitably
reminds you of Barney (I guess it’s ok if you haven’t seen “How I met your
mother”, but it got me out of the movie at times).
The entire film, not surprisingly,
looks great. The attention to detail, characteristic for any film by Fincher,
and Jeff Cronenweth’s work on the cinematography create a stunning atmosphere. Cronenweth
had two Oscar nominations for David Fincher’s films (“The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo” and “The Social Network”) and he’s certainly keeping up. For the last a
couple of films Fincher has also developed a symbiotic relationship with Trent
Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor’s music seems to be the perfect addition to
Fincher’s images. The minimalistic soundtrack for “Gone Girl” is just as
mysterious, elegant and atmospheric as the movie itself and it perfectly complements
the mood without being obtrusive. It gently seeps into the subconsciousness
like a perfume and blood scented mist. It does its magic in the background and you
don’t even realize when it’s present.
The movie has 8,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/?ref_=nv_sr_1
8,2 from users and 79 from critics on
MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/gone-girl
