“Hey,” Joe said, an unusual call coming from my wife’s cousin who lives and studies here in Arizona, “There were some people handing out passes for a movie tonight. Have you ever heard of THE FOUNTAIN?”
Usually, when there are Sneak Previews that are promoted and pimped in the local paper, these free pass features are free for a reason; the movie obviously needs some word-of-mouth for it to come close to being profitable or it’s a crap film that needs someone, anyone, to go see it. It was odd, really odd, to hear Joe tell me that THE FOUNTAIN was about to be screened for a collegiate audience. This wasn’t a flick for the frat boys, I thought, and everything I’ve understood about this film, reading the graphic novel months ago, it just didn’t add up as to why Darren Aronofsky would debut a film of this caliber in the middle of the desert.
It’s not like I don’t have a little state pride, I do, kinda, sorta, not really, but when I saw RAISING ARIZONA as a child that’s what I thought Arizona was like: desolate, sparce and teeming with dudes who wear panty hose on their heads and stick up Circle Ks. I’ll have you know that I wasn’t too far off when I came here over a decade ago. The point here is that, yes, this city is like Las Vegas in that this town shouldn’t be here. It’s a dust bowl and nothing ever happens here that’s of note to anyone outside of this enclosed metropolis that’s damn near claustrophobic inducing with the mountains that are threatening to squeeze everyone like a STAR WARS dumpster set on “Crush.”
“It also says that,” Joe continued, “That there’s going to be a Q&A with the director following the movie.”
I don’t know if you’re a fan or not of Darren’s but when you hear this kind of information from someone the first impulse should be to tell the messenger to maim and/or run a blade through anyone who stands in the way of getting those passes.
I asked Joe to get one for me.
The events that follow between hanging up the phone and meeting Darren poolside at a local hotel for an-honest-to-goodness 10 exact minutes will be recounted later but this introduction today is aimed at doing only one thing: To help get the word out about a movie that not only deserves Oscar attention next year but to let you know that Darren honestly needs help in making this film resonate through the throngs of moviegoers that pay to see movies.
I don’t want to write a review for this movie because I really think that my interview will kind of touch here and there about what I felt after seeing the efforts of six years worth of dedication to a singular story but, suffice to say, I have to say that I already know how you should approach this film. I figured it out after leaving the theater.
You’ve got to allow yourself to be open.
This movie’s specific gravity is going to weigh you down. It needs you to be available, emotionally and spiritually, but even if you’re not it’s going to affect you in some way. I learned by watching this film that there is a reaction everyone has after seeing it. Darren mentions that there is a lot that’s left open to interpretation but there is a story here. There is nothing that can’t be explained after you see it. I was worried, initially, that there is three, different, stories happening at once but to quell those who have seen the wicked trailer I can tell you that there is only one story you need to know before going into the film: a wife is on the verge of death and she wants to try and put into words what her husband cannot emote and will not express. This film is more about Hugh and the wretchedness that is caused by fighting inevitability; what happens, as well, when the tympany is too loud in your head to just be quiet, sit still and find peace.
That’s all the film is but you can see how that might be a little hard to squeeze in the trailer.
This film is the best there is for 2006 and, dare I say it, the real benchmark for every film to follow with regard to what it means to lose a loved one. The movie is sad and it breaks your heart in two, it made me cry just a little, but, by the end, you are allowed to finally breathe in the comfort knowing our protagonist has found what he was searching for.
The movie shakes you, again, if you let it, and challenges basic notions of the heart and what it means to die in 21st century America where we believe that death is challengable, defeatable. There is so much present that in the film that it would be larcenous to point out a few moments that really show how Darren’s style has evolved since REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, it’s a misnomer if you see any review that says Darren’s style has “matured” instead of recognizing that these movies are just different from one another in every sense, but those elements that you come to expect from him are still present. 
The music is woven and wrapped around every moment perfectly, the performances are just solid and the way you are brought into a world you’ve never been to before but by the end you understand it completely is sheer craftsmanship. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz give performances that feel completely devoid of any hubris and are nothing short of emotional believability.
Make no mistake, it’s a fool’s errand to think you can live forever but Darren has made a masterpiece out of a thought that tries to show you, really, what kind of an existence that would be for one person who can’t let go.
I’ve got the exceptionally short interview here for you next week but also know that I have another suprise up the sleeve inside this column and, hopefully, for some lucky readers of this site but like everything else worth waiting for you’ll have to come back next week and check it out.
THE FOUNTAIN opens in a week and a half on Wednesday, November 22nd.
And what would this column be worth if I didn’t mention BORAT? After trying to spread the good word of Borat Sagdiyev I am pleased, quite pleased, that Sacha Baron Cohen has shown the might of this movie’s power by absolutely destroying the competition with raking in nearly 30 million dollars. Not only that but something to keep in mind when looking at the raw totals is to also consider how many screens BORAT was playing on: 837. The 2nd place film? 3,458. Over 4 times fewer screens yet the film showed what I hoped would happen when it was released unto the world. No one could be more happier than Sacha who managed to score a huge payday for this outing and, I have to confess, I am happy too that I managed to interview Borat before the film’s opening; you can read all about that one-of-a-kind experience here. I could write on and on about this movie being able to live up to the hype, unlike many other filmic turds that have landed in the proverbial box office punch bowl but I just feel a certain amount of satisfaction of knowing that my comedic radar is still just as sharp as ever and that I didn’t run my mouth in supporting a film that completely sucked for nothing.
JONESTOWN: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PEOPLES TEMPLE (2006)
Director: Stanley Nelson
Cast: No one
Release: October 20, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: On November 18, 1978, over 900 members of Peoples Temple died in the largest mass suicide/murder in history. What drew so many people across racial and class lines to the People’s Temple? How could a diverse group of 900 people be convinced to drink the poisoned Flavor Aid that caused their deaths?
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Positive. I’m not one to draw much inspiration from song lyrics.
One tune, though, “Dogma†from KMFDM, has lingered with me for a long, long time. It goes, “The only reason you’re still alive is because someone has decided to let you live.â€
The thing that I learned after watching the deplorable things our government exacted on the residents of the Branch Davidians in a movie called WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT is that the government not only are the storytellers when it comes to explaining to the writers of history their own version what’s happened but that there isn’t a concerted effort to teach this kind of social studies inside the public educational system. I have never been exposed to a true explanation of what happened in Jamestown but it’s this kind of documentary filmmaking, exposing these tales to a little air and public scrutiny, that gets me all sorts of excited to finally feel I have a handle on all those “drink the Kool-Aid†jokes we’ve all heard in one context or another.
And this trailer begins, spooky as all fuck, with the sounds of distant church bells and a black scene with all the background information we need: “On November 18th, 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana, 909 members of the Peoples Temple died in what has been called the largest mass suicide in modern history.â€
You’ve got my undivided attention.
We see slow-motion file footage of the people who ostensibly made up the rank and file of this “cult,†the voice-over of someone who we don’t see explaining that no one joins a cult, that they are people who are joining a movement and are trying to be with other individuals who they enjoy being around, and it’s disconcerting. You realize that all these vibrant people are going to be dead quite soon.
Next up is a brief look into what these people were subscribing to when they all decided Jim Jones was on the level: they felt he was someone who could bring positive change. It doesn’t feel religious as it does social. Society was rocking and rolling in a tumultuous cement mixer of polar issues and people looked to Jim for stability. Too bad that when we first see Jim you can immediately see those crazy eyes of his; I mean, they look bat shit crazy.
It breaks your heart when you listen to one of the interview subjects talk about what these people were escaping in modern America, racism being one, but when you see a pack of kids just happy to be kids in this hippie playground you can’t turn away from what’s coming.
This is when you see a photo of Jim Jones with his fingers on a stack of clear plastic cups.
The narration of our interview subject, on the verge of tears as he tells of the pain that still swirls around his heart, telling us that those who were followers of Jim were just “fucking slaughtered,†the beep being the one thing that’s added to his twice echoed sentiment, all you can do is stare at the photos of the dozens of dead people on the ground. Entire families just face first in the dirt. Dead.
Gripping stuff and this trailer just begs to be seen for no other reason than to try and see what it was that moved these people into complete obedience and acceptance of their collective fates.
Director: Emilio Estevez
Cast: Harry Belafonte, Joy Bryant, Nick Cannon, Emilio Estevez, Laurence Fishburne
Release: November 17, 2006
Synopsis: Revisits the night Robert F. Kennedy was gunned down at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968. With an incredible ensemble cast portraying fictionalized characters from a cross-section of America, the film follows 22 individuals who are all at the hotel for different purposes but share the common thread of anticipating Kennedy’s arrival at the primary election night party.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Positive-ish. Now, memory escapes me on this one.
I think it was either Greg Speetzen or Doug Saam who I saw MEN AT WORK with when it was at the dollar theater in Barrington, IL. What I can remember, though, was that this movie was really a lot better than it has been credit for being. I still love to watch it for its golf clapping, for Keith David’s insane performance and, without spilling a single drop of irony when I say this, the man-on-man action on the children’s carousel was way hot.
I believe Emilio has learned a lot in the 16 years since his last major feature, discounting THE WAR AT HOME, and his experience really shines through in this trailer for a movie that I hadn’t really followed until now.
We start this trailer stoically with a really nice suite of music playing beneath a slow introduction of what is going on when we meet Sir Anthony Hopkins, explaining what it was like to be a doorman at the Ambassador hotel. It’s odd that this trailer doesn’t show its hand about the crux of what we’re all tuning in for, the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, but we gingerly jump like checker pieces around a whole lot of players in this movie.
“June 4, 1968â€
Seeing Emilio in that latter-day porno moustache, engaged in a game of bocce ball, makes me wonder about who he’s portraying, some kind of wag, some kind of stuffy playboy, but I forget about Mr. St. James when I see that Estevez splices in file footage of Bobby Kennedy into the mix of it all. It’s a bold, FORREST GUMP-ian move, but it’s so brief that it doesn’t feel disingenuous.
I hate to essentially say that this movie starts to delve into PULP FICTION territory with all the players in this thing, 22 people in total, and beside Hopkins, Estevez, Belafonte, Rodriguez, Slater and others spilling into the scenes it’s hard to get a firm grip on how this story is going to be told. 22 people is a LOT of storylines to keep in the air like a juggler’s balls, the film could live or die based on how well each person is allowed to be developed without giving short shrift to the film’s overall impact, but when I see Sharon Stone I briefly wonder if this could be a “re-imagining†of sorts with Sharon being the recipient of some bullets. It’s all for naught, however, as the tension slowly creeps its way into this thing.
The issues of Vietnam, civil rights, racial inequality and the sense that the world was at the precipice of something huge all get swirled nicely into the overall vibe but what’s really noteworthy here, and something that I can’t help but comment on, is the actual use of Bobby Kennedy’s speech as a way to define all the chaos of the moment that we’re watching.
Maybe that’s the point. Maybe having all these storylines and all these different motivations is the way Emilio is tying to illustrate what this assassination meant in a larger context; that it maybe wasn’t all about Bobby, perhaps. It was about the people living within the reality of what he represented.
Director: Bent Hamer
Cast: Matt Dillon, Lili Taylor, Marisa Tomei, Fisher Stevens, Didier Flamand
Release: August 18, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: Henry Chinaski (Dillon) considers himself a writer, and on occasion writes. Mostly he quests for the booze and women that sidetrack and seduce, rather than inspire greatness. When he falls for Jan (Taylor), the soulful connection fails to save either from their self-destructive ways, and the relationship totters between earnest connection and loathing.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Sure. MY BODYGUARD.
You watch a film like that and it encapsulates everything there is to know about Matt Dillon: he’s greasy, charismatic, threatening and possesses the kind of emotional tractor beam that prevents your gaze from pulling away. I’ve seen this flick more times across so many different periods in my life yet it still holds up thanks in large part to Dillon’s timelessness as a bully that we all have known at one time in our youth. Sure, the dingy city life that’s depicted in the movie has since been replaced with squeaky clean gentrification and a concerted effort to make suburban life, with all these white kids shooting up their high schools, seem a little bit more risqué than inner city existence but Matt Dillon keeps going on.
This movie looks like one of those parts that, while not as thrilling as him getting his ass kicked by Adam Baldwin, makes you cheer for a dude who has persevered as long as he has in an industry that has shorter shelf-life for their talent than a bowl of fruit salad.
To be honest I didn’t know what to expect from this movie but while I don’t think the trailer aspires to be anything greater than the sum of its parts I have to give praise here because this advertisement really feels like a small film all unto itself. The opening sequence is completely absurd. An apartment building is on fire, Matt steps into the hallway to find out what all the commotion is, gets barked at that it’s a blaze by a fireman and then proceeds to close the door and slips back in bed. How can you not like a guy like that as a protagonist? I’m not one to really suffer long sequences in a trailer but this works.
Quickly, we rip through the images of Dillon’s drinking problem. He drinks. A lot. We establish that this is all coming to us via the scribblings of Charles Bukowski, a man who had his own chemical issues as well, and then whip through a series of moments where it is implied that he is incapable of holding gainful employment and, surprise surprise, has a gambling problem.
Normally these things just add up to hackneyed storytelling but as I watch Matt I am transfixed by his innate ability to at once seem right at place sitting still at a bar, flushing his life away, and completely believable as someone who feels the motion in his fingers to write but just suffers from synaptic retardation; he just can’t get it together.
The accompanying quotes from the Post succinctly punctuate what we see on screen as Dillon just drifts back and forth on the screen with those who he is interacting with as it doesn’t seem like he’s acting, he appears to be occupying a person.
While this film looks like it has already come and gone the trailer is still a great example of what the sublime can be for those who want to be engaging, persuasive but not completely pushy.
Director: Christopher Guest
Cast: Ricky Gervais, Catherine O’Hara, Parker Posey, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levy, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge, Michael McKean, Fred Willard
Release: November 17, 2006 (Limited)
Synopsis: Christopher Guest turns the camera on Hollywood for his next film, “For Your Consideration.” The film focuses on the making of an independent movie and its cast who become victims of the dreaded awards buzz.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: The Film Just HAS To Be Better, Right? I’ll reveal a little sliver of my psychoses that not many of you know.
Ahem, well, whenever I see Fred Willard in anything, be it television or film, I cannot get past that moment in my life when I first came upon this wickedly sharp master of the sly. It was in a little movie called SALEM’S LOT and he was getting his swerve on with the wife of a crazy bumpkin who suspected the woman was stepping out on him and nearly blew Fred’s head clean off before showing his hand, revealing the shotgun he had stuffed in Fred’s mouth was not loaded. It wasn’t the tension of that scene, how perfectly it was captured, no. It was that floozy and Fred’s matching silk tennis short ensemble that I think a) freaked me out a bit and b) made me question why a dude would let himself dress up in silky underwear like that. Since that moment in the 80’s when I saw that film I have never been able to see Fred without first seeing him in those silky ball huggers. Thank Lord Jebus that Fred has shown he is much better at comedy than he was with getting smoked by a 10 foot tall vampire and this film, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, looks like comes correct in ways that A MIGHTY WIND slightly fell short of being able to accomplish.
“And you know what they say about blind prostitutes…You really have to hand it to them.â€
Catherine O’Hara shows her ability to assimilate any character she’s asked to inhabit as we’re introduced to her in all of her dumpy glory in this rather subdued opening for a movie that eschews flash and pomp with regard to how they’re selling this film; they completely depend on the actors to make the moments and, ah yes, Mr. silky short Willard knocks what looks like his first pitch straight into left field and over the fence. He’s just perfect as a dolt who doesn’t have a mean bone in his body and not a synapse that hasn’t been fried by a bad sense of humor.
I, unfortunately, can’t say the same about Eugene Levy who really does need to atone for his miserable turns in films, checks that he obviously needed in a bad way, since his precise wit sliced straight through his character’s malaise as a cuckolded husband in BEST IN SHOW. The joke we’re pitched from him is flat but the smiles pick up as Harry Shearer more than makes up for the lost moment in his portrayal as a wiener who is looking to make a serious comeback.
And, oh my, how far has Parker Posey come since her turn as ho-hum actress before landing in BEST IN SHOW, giving what I believe was a stand-out performance, and just coming correct as we see her overacting here in a film where she reveals to her mother that she’s a lesbian.
I am also buoyed here by Ricky Gervais, a man who deserves a turn to participate in this absurdness, who quite matter-of-factly suggests to a pack of filmmakers that they should tone down the level of “Jewish-ness†in their movie so “everyone can enjoy it.†He is so smooth when he delivers these lines that you damn well believe he means it with a straight face and without a drip of insincerity.
I can’t say that I am all that giggly when O’Hara tells John Michael Higgins about there being a rumor on the Internet which says she might be an Oscar contender and John responds blankly about what the Internet is. Personally, and I hate to be old school on this, but I have to say that I liked the moment in JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK more when Ben Affleck has to explain what the Internet is to Jay. It’s an easy joke here and I’m not sure it really hit me the right way.
“In every actor there lives a tiger, a pig, an ass and a nightingale. You never know which one is going to show up.â€
I like the ending to a degree in this trailer but I have to say that it’s really the riffing that’s inherent in the scenes themselves that will determine whether Guest has done it again. If there is enough Willard, Gervais and Higgins in this movie as the trailer suggests there might be then I think he has. While I think I set my expectations for this trailer awfully high, and to some degree I have to admit that it does disappoint a bit, what is funny is enough to get me out of the house to buy a ticket.
Comments: None
Leave a Reply |