June 9, 2003

That’s a lot of grease…

I guess this means that it was just fast and just furious enough.  The Year of The Comeback continues.  Welcome back, John. 

The funny thing is that the word on Singleton is that he is more relaxed and pleasant now, having done his B-movie, appreciating a chance to return to the A-list, while Rob Cohen’s healthy ego seems to have gotten fast and furious after his B-experience.  There is a strong chance that Tyrese will outlast Vin Diesel, even if he never has quite the same degree of hype.  Hmmm… only the Walker remains the same…

All these big numbers are actually beginning to worry me.  It isn’t an embarrassment of riches, but it may be too much of a good new thing for too little of a week-old or two-week-old thing.  Anyway, the piece on that is on MovieCityNews and you can see it there.

WILL IT FLOAT?:  I first caught a portion of Niki Caro’s Whale Rider up at Toronto last year.  And I didn’t quite get it.  It seemed like the same old, non-Hollywood drama that we have been seeing for years.  It didn’t look great.  It was gingerly paced.  And it seemed a little high strung. 

The buzz from the movie has never stopped. 

I finally caught Whale Rider, start to finish, this weekend.  I paid $11.50 at Pacific’s Grove Theater… but that’s a while other story. 

Whale Rider isn’t my favorite movie of the year.  But it’s really a wonderful movie.  It is a little slow… it is a little flat in its imagery… but it really is lovely.  The actors in the movie are particularly sensational.  Cliff Curtis has been on the American movie scene for a while, since Once Were Warriors put him on the Hollywood map.  Rawiri Paratene as the grandfather is Mifune-like in his focus and intensity.   Grandmother Vicky Haughton reads like walking truth.  And Grant Roa is a Hollywood dream of a sidekick comic… come on over, you can have all the Jack Black roles he can’t handle and build your own spot to boot.

But it is the first time actress – and according to some press reports, perhaps only time actress – Keisha Castle-Hughes who is beautiful in a way that defies description.  There isn’t a second where you don’t see what’s going on behind her giant brown eyes… when you aren’t rooting for her… when you don’t wish you could be 14 again so you could moon over this strong, smart beauty in your social studies class.  My advice… stay away from Hollywood.

Something struck me during the course of watching this tale of a young Maori girl who is destined for leadership in a tradition that isn’t quite ready to see women as equal.  She is, in her tradition, The One.  In a somewhat abstract way, her grandfather is her Morpheus.  But this film is kind of an inverse Matrix. 

In The Matrix, Neo has to be convinced that he does, in fact, have the power to be The One.  It is Morpheus’ unassailable belief in Neo that brings him along.  Here, “The One” knows in her heart and soul that she must stick with it, no matter what the cost.  And she must find ways to let her “Morpheus’ teach her what she needs to know to fulfill her destiny. 

But at the base, both movies are about escaping the traps of the society in which you live.  The Matrix is steeped in technology and modern paranoia.  And Whale Rider is steeped in a respect for traditional culture, even within its limitations.  Two sides of a very big coin.

WHY ANTHONY LANE SUCKS:  I will make this brief.  But you’ll probably want to read Anthony Lane’s “review” of Finding Nemo first. 

Now… I guess it would be too much to ask that Mr. Lane simply say, “ I prefer movies with a more structured story.”  The truth is, I’m not even sure that’s what he does want.  I have read this review four times and still know only that he doesn’t like sugar-sweetened movies and that, for some reason, this film manifests this more than other Pixar movies… and apparently more than traditional animation… I think.

The thing I am most sure of is that Mr. Lane has a vast knowledge of things that have nothing to do with film criticism (“…Thumper in Bambi, whose tapping hind paw made me think longingly of Lapin de Garenne au Saupiquet”) and limited knowledge of what is actually going on in the industry (“As Disney builds up to its latest release, you can open a newspaper and see the simple words ‘Brad Pitt is Sinbad.’) 

There are clever lines that you might catch at The Oxford Comedy Cellar – “The boffins in the back office apparently solved the issue of see-through creatures with a computer shading system called “transblurrency,” a term usually applied to actresses who are in the process of thanking the Academy for their awards.”

There are bizarre show-offy analogies – “Ellen DeGeneres. She is the voice of Dory, a dumb fish who hooks up with Marlin—not unlike Ratso Rizzo, in Midnight Cowboy, with extra scales—and guides him toward his destination.”

And there is just plain stupidity – “Was it wise to expend such labor on a film about fish? Here’s the main problem with fish: they look like fish. Didn’t Pixar learn its lesson from A Bug’s Life, whose mild dullness could be traced to the fact that most of it was set in an anthill?”

Who the hell would want to spend three hours in a theater watching the story of a never-been salesman who is coming sadly to the end of his road?   Shouldn’t we just table that whole Vietnam thing after learning our lesson from Rambo?  Didn’t Julie Taymor realize that The Lion King was Disney Animation!?!  Why would she even bother trying to bring it to life with a bunch of characters with over sized heads?

Since when is subject matter off limits to an artist on the basis of inevitable boredom?

The bottom line is, Lane has almost nothing to say about Finding Nemo.  He didn’t like the premise.  He didn’t like the story.  He didn’t like the animation.  But instead of really explaining why, he uses most of his column inches explaining how clever he is. 

“Insects and fish: the bony extras of the animal kingdom, inexplicably promoted to leading roles. If Pixar ever got hold of Adam Sandler, I hate to think what would happen.”

Very clever… what does it mean?  Anyone… anyone…?

Ellen DeGeneres’ “gulping, darting speech patterns are the exact equivalent of the way in which her character swims, which is more than you could say for Esther Williams.”

Huh?   Non sequitor humor?  Is there any reason for referring to Esther Williams other than her familiarity?

“With Toy Story, the Pixar enthusiasts developed the ideal medium in which to tell their story. This time, they have pasted together a thin, sentimental tale that just happens to be the ideal vehicle for the demonstration of an improving medium. To authenticity, and beyond!”

Again, my greatest complaint… “This is a thin, sentimental tale.”  Okay.  I disagree.  But that’s the job.  All the froo-froo around the single genuine opinion in that trio of sentences is what drives me nuts! 

At the core of this review, as with most Lane reviews, is the idea that the work should never even have been approached.  What is that?   What is the point of criticism that projects failure before even entering the theater?

Time after time, Lane sets up a potential issue with the film, only to go to some other completely disconnected place that has nothing to do with Finding Nemo.  Too sugar coated?  No, but got to get the Thumper line in.  Too many stars promoting these movies?  No big names in this one, but Brad Pitt’s in Sinbad.  Stanton & Co make beautiful underwater images?  “You can feel Stanton’s picture admiring its own reflection.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have an admired movie critic who writes well and actually cares about film?  There are a few.  But thanks to Lane and the editors around the country who are equally as uninterested in film, they are becoming an endangered species.  Argh.

READER OF THE DAY:  BAUMS AWAY!!!  writes:  “Some critics really shouldn’t review movies like 2 Fast/ 2 Furious if it is going to give their constitutions such a flummoxing.  If they cannot take a movie on it's merits, without throwing all of their own personal bullshit into a review.  Well, these critics should not even go to the screening to begin with or their editors should not assign them to such films.

But they are not the problem, the fact that we live in a world expecting most things TO SUCK most of time.  Now that is the problem.  It has to be a problem, because people get their expectations raised with films like Reloaded (or The Phantom Menace), and when they feel failed by the film.  They go off on tangents of multiple varieties to find some way to slam a film they feel betrayed by.  Which leads one with the realization that people are scared.  Scared of caring for something so much, that when it comes off less than they expected, they feel betrayed.  At least it sure does seem this way a lot of the time.

Where does the above leave us?  I don’t know.  I have no idea how this has come to pass or if it will ever end.  One would believe, if most individuals eliminate their need to place expectations on everything left and right, the attitude of believing everything is going to suck most of the time should go by the wayside.  If not, I guess the world will have to deal with many a critic who cannot accept or tolerate a summer flick like 2 Fast/ 2 Furious.  As Lachey Hulme plainly states in Enter the Matrix, "Oh when, WHEN WILL IT END?"  I don’t know, but not soon enough that HULK will avoid it.”

E ME:  Did you make it to the movies this weekend?  Have you gone a weekend in the last month without going?