December 12, 2003

Cold Mountain is like a new book of poetry. Some pages you cherish, some you never bother reading a second time and some just don’t make any sense.

When Anthony Minghella told me that Malick’s The Thin Red Line and Olmi’s The Tree Of Wooden Clogs were his key inspirations going into the tone of his film, I could see what he was trying to do with the movie. I had to go out and find a 25-year-old videotape of The Tree of Wooden Clogs to be sure. But there are images from the 1978 film that are clearly reflected in Cold Mountain, as are some of the conceptual conceits of The Thin Red Line…a film I adore, by the way.

But in adapting the Charles Frazier book Minghella strayed, in my eyes, from what made both of those films so great. Both films were absolutely focused on their unique visions. Cold Mountain wants to have it both ways. It wants to be a tough, ruthless tale of desperation in wartime, but it also wants to be an epic love story and it wants to be a beautiful “Hollywood” movie with movie star turns and perfect lighting and images. ( I guess that’s three ways.) It strikes me that Minghella, as a director, was sticking himself in the same place as the characters in his film, perfect on the surface and raging underneath. Unfortunately, very rarely can a director - no matter how talented - get away without picking a clear, singular perspective.

So what we get in Cold Mountain is Nicole Kidman, Renee Zellweger and Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing to the back row, Jude Law going completely internal, Brendan Glesson being the only character with perfect pitch, the great Ray Winstone being well drawn but undefined as a character, Kathy Baker left unchallenged and Eileen Atkins stealing her scene as a character right out of the best moments of Olmi and Malick, simply being instead of indicating.

The journey that Jude Law’s character takes does not feel epic, only dangerous. I don’t know the book, but it’s as though every supporting character that Minghella put in the movie didn’t have enough screen time so he extended their scenes beyond our caring. Only the opening battle sequence is just long enough. That sequence is as beautiful and powerful as anything ever put on film, including the opening of Saving Private Ryan. It doesn’t grab the audience in the same way as Ryan, but its comment on the ugliness of war is every bit as strong. But the war is over for us as viewers about 20 minutes in. After that, it’s all about roaming vigilantes who never even ask whether someone is a deserter or what their status is. They shoot first, ask questions never.

After he leaves the war, Law’s scenes are the road trip home. I could forgive a lot of the problems with the journey if Minghella stuck to the magic moments he gets. For instance, Natalie Portman has an incredibly powerful moment with Law as a woman who hasn’t been touched by a man in so long that a simple touch of the hand makes her break down. It is a great moment about the absence of loved ones during any war or time of stress. But then there was a whole sequence built onto her story after that which repeated the least interesting and most obvious theme in the film, man’s inhumanity to man.

This keeps coming up over and over - and the truth is, it’s meaningless. This is not a movie about bad guys. The harshness of the time is real enough, but that is not what this movie is about. It is a movie about the journeys of our individual lives and the ultimate power of love.

This is the movie theme of 2003. The journey - usually involving death - that takes one to a place of peace. Lord of the Rings, House of Sand & Fog, In America, Mystic River, 21 Grams, Big Fish, The Last Samurai, Man on The Train, Swimming Pool, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions… even Calendar Girls and Finding Nemo! They are all on this track. I suppose most movies are journeys, but the journeys are more literal this year and death is oddly a requirement of enlightenment.

I guess that takes me to my core problem with Cold Mountain. In the end, the only character who really gets an arc is Kidman’s Ada. And that small journey is not worthy of so grand an enterprise.

The heart of Cold Mountain is Ada growing into a “real woman” in the face of the war and her personal losses. Inman’s journey really doesn’t change who he is, regardless of the speech late in the movie that suggests otherwise. His actions, which we see as an audience, are very much the same. On the other hand, Ada really has changed. But how does the change in her change – or not change - her love for Law’s Inman? Who is Ada as the story evolves? We never really find out.

The fact is, the surface overwhelms the subtext. Renee Zellweger seems like she is going to burst out in “I’m Just A Girl Who Can’t Say No” or break out some fresh cornpone for Jethro, Jed and Ellie May at any second. She ends up with some well played dramatic moments, but it is too late. Nicole Kidman as a 30-year-old virgin in 1864 requires some explanation other than “every man wants her.” Recovery from things like these is possible, but pretty tough.

It feels as though the film veers between too much and not enough.

Too much is the Giovanni Ribisi sequence, which mixes the idea of an unexpected betrayal and Homer’s sirens. The ideas really don’t belong together… which is not to say that Minghella doesn’t make a well-thought-out, handsome effort. But the idea of “no good deed goes unpunished” and the meaning of seduction do not flow naturally into one another.

Not enough, for example, is the lack of exploration in the meaning of deserting the Confederate army.

There are many beautiful moments in Cold Mountain. Some are among the most beautiful ever put on film. But the depth of this romantic journey seems to be reaching for greater themes that it never quite reaches. And in failing to reach the greater themes, it manages to miss the intimate ones as well.

Minghella is one of the best directors in the world today. But he comes up short this time out. It happens to the best of them.

READER OF THE DAY: THE CATALOG MAN writes: “I consider myself an avid filmgoer, but color me disinterested at all of the talk of hirings and firings. Yes, Michael Eisner should probably not be the honcho at Disney for a number of reasons (one of them is that he reminds me of my old dentist...never a good thing), but is this the best time to be pointing the finger? Disney is having a great year, ABC's failures notwithstanding. Can you say "the top 2 movies at the box office?" With Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean also being Oscar contenders, and the DVD's of those two doing phenomenally, it's almost as if Roy Disney thought the train hadn't left the station.

Also, having finally seen The Missing, it's clear that Ron Howard has changed dramatically in his style and he hasn't changed at all. The movie is great, but it's extremely formulaic. Everything in it can be predicted to an exact science; it just helps that you have Tommy Lee Jones and Cate Blanchett on the screen (and the cinematography is also a boost).

Finally, the answer is: No, it's not wrong to have watched a screener of POTC. I just re-watched it on DVD, and found more to treasure about Johnny Depp's performance and the film in general (is it too much to hope that Depp and Jack Black could get nominations for Oscars?). It may not be a masterpiece, but it's great entertainment, and sometimes you need that.”

FIBS writes: “See, I'm not the only one that feels this way about Uma! I saw Kill Bill again the other night at a screening followed by a talk with Uma. One thing that I picked up on the movie, is Tarantino's use of sound. Check out the Viveca A. Fox sequence when they're walking on broken glass and then on cereal. As for Uma herself, in person the woman is beyond beautiful. There is something about her that is luminescent.

It is silly that because of these dopey awards, I should feel obligated to bring up Charlize Theron's performance. It is insidious that these awards should turn them into horse races. However, it is understandable in the case of a Monster. The best actress Oscar could make that movie a $200 million worldwide grosser when all is said and done. That's what someone from Lion's Gate told me how much Monster's Ball has grossed from all markets and venues. (Just think if they'd had a video game!)”

GREEN IN AMERICA writes: “I'm beginning to hate the little red dots. The print tracking dots. They're generally fairly invisible, but hit a sequence with a lot of "white space", say the storm in Master and Commander, and there's no missing them. Then it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture waiting for the next one to pop-up. I go from being wrapped up in the story to looking for the damn dots.

Don't they see that they're essentially pre-scratching a $10,000 print? Is the value they get in prosecutions and deterrence really so great as to be worth that? I think they're badly underestimating how discerning and demanding moviegoers' eyes have become.

I went and saw the extended edition of Fellowship of the Ring last night and the red dots were all over it. Come on. This thing has been out on DVD for over a year. Who is going to risk taking a video camera into a theater to capture that? I have to wonder how thoroughly they're thinking this thing out.”

E ME: What will you be seeing this weekend?