Remember Hero and House of Flying Daggers? (Oh, crap, haven’t reviewed House of Flying Daggers yet. IGNORE ME!!) Well, that same director, Yimou Zhang made yet another period martial arts movie, this time with Chow Yun-Fat and a grandiose sense of scale that would make Cecil B. DeMille jealous. Here’s 2006’s Man cheng jin dai huang jin jia aka Curse of the Golden Flower.
Story
Take a whole bunch of plot elements from Shakespeare’s Tragedies, throw them into ancient China and wait for the body count. Explaining it further will simply complicate things, but here goes. Emperor Ping (Yun-Fat Chow -- using the names as they appear on IMDB here) is a bearded badass warlord who rules with an iron fist. He’s got a beautiful wife, Empress Phoenix (Li Gong), whom he is poisoning daily in order to drive her insane (he can’t kill her outright because her father is a powerful lord). Thing is, she knows he’s poisoning her and she’s planning a coup to get her revenge. Between the two of them, they start manipulating the three Princes: Prince Jai (Jay Chou), Crown Prince Wan (Ye Liu) and Prince Yu (Junjie Quin) like pawns on a chessboard. The plot gets heavy.
And then ninjas show up. Yes, this is China, but damn it, the Emperor has a small army of guys who dress in black, strike from the shadows and generally behave exactly like typical movie ninjas.
Visuals/Effects
Directed by Yimou Zhang and cinematography by Xiaoding Zhao, the first thing that strikes you (and continues to strike you throughout) is the sheer volume of color that explodes onto your eyeballs. Gold figures prominently, but next to that, there’s a dazzling rainbow that is constantly assailing your brain. I imagine if you this movie was combined with LSD, heads would physically explode.
Color saturation overdose aside, the movie, like Yimou’s other films, is strikingly beautiful. The fights are breathtaking and brutal and have a punctuate the narrative nicely.
Writing
Written by Yimou Zhang and based on the play “Lei yu” by Yu Cao, the plot really does feel like Shakespeare’s Tragedies were stitched together into a Byzantine framework of subterfuge, betrayal, rebellion, tyranny, lust, incest, poisoning, shocking revelations and so on. All that’s missing is cannibalism. I’m saying this is a bad thing, since the end result is a complex but coherent creature with its own personality. Just don’t go into it expecting a happy ending.
Sound
Original music by Shigeru Umebayashi. The score is quite appropriate for a movie of this grandeur, with the action sequences being accompanied by a thunderous score.
Conclusion Curse of the Golden Flower is one hell of a visual trip, and its helped by a significantly deep storyline that is full of crazy twists and turns. It begins as a slow boil, but by the time shit hits the fan, it REALLY hits the fan. Very recommended.
This next one will be…interesting. 1951’s A Streetcar Named Desire is a cinematic classic based on arguably the most popular play by Tennessee Williams, a playwriting titan of the 20th Century. But the thing is, I’ve never been particularly big on Williams’ work. He’s certainly a good writer, but his plays never really connected with me, possibly because I had to write an essay on The Glass Menagerie back in High School that was a chore, a bore and not very good.
Like I said, this will be interesting.
Plot
A former schoolteacher who fancies herself a southern belle falls on hard times and “visits” her sister in New Orleans and moves in. Her sister’s loutish husband isn’t exactly keen on this idea, and the small apartment they live in becomes an emotional powder keg. You bet your ass DRAMA ensues.
Characters Blanche DuBois: Vivien Leigh does an excellent job as the main character. Blanche is about as flawed as a self-centered, self-styled Southern Belle can get. She shows up claiming to be just visiting and doesn’t leave and the reasons for her arrival in New Orleans are slowly revealed. A brilliant actress, she says a lot with her eyes.
Stella Kowalski: Kim Hunter plays Blanche’s sister. She’s been living and working in the Big Easy for a long time now and is expecting a baby. She’s sympathetic, but as the story goes on, she shows some pretty glaring character flaws herself.
Stanley Kowalski: Marlon Brando throws down one hell of a performance in this. Stanley is a straightforward, hard drinking tough guy who can sit with the palest of white trash. At the beginning, he’s kind of befuddled by Blanche’s arrival but slightly amused by it. His interactions with Blanche start off harmlessly comical, like watching a chimpanzee at a typewriter. But guess what? Stanley is a complete asshole and Brandon really hammers that home by the end of the movie.
Harold “Mitch” Mitchell: Karl Malden plays one of Stanley’s poker buddies. He develops a soft spot for Blanche, goes out with her a few times and is a pretty decent guy. He even stands up to Stanley in a few points, which is pretty damn badass.
Visuals/Effects
Directed by Elia Kazan (who also directed the stage version that most of the film’s cast played in) with Harry Stradling Sr. as DP. Visually the movie is striking. The set design is great, the lighting outstanding and there are some truly iconic scenes, like the famous “STELLLLLAAAA!!” moment, to be found in this film. But, and this is a big one for me, the movie felt like it dawdled in a lot of places. A LOT of places to be honest, with some scenes going on interminably well after the point was made.
Writing
Based on the play by Tennessee Williams, adapted by Oscar Saul and screenplay by Tennessee Williams. Williams wrote a lot of stuff about the miserable lives of common people and this is no exception. There are no heroes in this story and everyone has some pretty enormous flaws. We get some really gritty character development too. I never got into Williams, but he is a good writer.
Sound
Original score by Alex North and the use of music in this film is fantastic. The main theme is a haunting, gloomy and very “New Orleans” kind of sound and numerous smaller themes pop up throughout, fading in and out and its only by the end of the movie when you realize their significance. I can’t say more for fear of spoiling the impact of it, but the music and how it is used in this are incredible.
Conclusion A Streetcar Named Desire is a technically accomplished, excellently acted, musically brilliant movie that…for some reason, I didn’t like. It’s not a question of enjoyment, since this is not the kind of story you read/watch for pleasure, but aside from the moments I thought were genius, I just kept on wishing for the movie to get on with it. This is odd. On paper, this is a great movie, but in the actual act of sitting through it, I kept looking at my watch hoping for the 122 minutes to pass quicker than they did. I was not riveted to the screen, though possibly this may have been a side effect of watching Casablanca immediately before Streetcar. This is an important movie on its merits, but I was not engaged by it.
Sometimes onomatopoeia is the only way to express an intro for a movie. Thus, it is with a resounding SIGH that my obsession with Arthurian Legend brings me to 1995, and a Jerry Zucker film called…First Knight.
I hope you appreciate this.
Plot
So, in the waning days of Camelot, border troubles in England-land by a would-be bandit king cause a young noblewoman to marry King Arthur while a creepy stalker falls in lust with her, eventually toppling a mighty kingdom in the process. And then there’s like two, maybe three fight scenes in 134 very, very long minutes.
Characters Guinevere: Julia Ormond plays the female lead character. Guinevere is just so wonderful. Her father died, leaving the town/community/land/place of Lyonesse for her to run. It is a place of happy peasants who will happily play kickball with their lady and who will happily be scammed by wandering swordsmen. When the Bad Guy threatens her land, she readily accepts a wedding proposal from King Arthur. A proposal given before the beginning of the movie, that’s how wonderful Guinevere is. Anyway, she jumps into a carriage escorted by Arthur’s troops and travels to Camelot when wouldn’t you know that the Bad Guy’s goons ambush them. Anyway, the carriage goes out of control and she eventually gets rescued by Lancelot, who was just passing through. She gets to Camelot and gets kidnapped by the Bad Guy’s men because she was so considerate of her peasants that she never bothered to check if the hooded fellow in the boat claiming to be from her village actually WAS from her village. Seriously, she deserved to be kidnapped for that. Anyway, the whole “adultery” angle with Lancelot is played pretty badly, with other characters repeatedly saying that Guinevere is innocent in the matter, taking the blame off of her, even though the whole situation where Arthur finds her sucking face with Lancelot is entirely her fault. The audience is being told its not her fault, even though the actions seen say differently, and that we should still like her. And I realize I’ve written a lot about her here, but honestly, she’s at the core of my problems with this film. I realize its not a 1:1 ratio, but she’s pretty damn high on my Mary Sue scale.
Lancelot: Richard Gere is the other character that ruined the movie. The Lancelot he’s given is a traveling sellsword, a commoner who goes from town to town making money off of villagers who aren’t as good at sword fighting as him, jaded fellow that he is. Which isn’t all that bad of a place to start a character at. Sure, its not the actual Lancelot from Malory and other sources, but whatever. That’s not the greatest offence. He first meets Guinevere when he rescues her from the Bad Guys and immediately starts hitting on her, and continues to do so after she tells him she’s going to be married to Arthur. Obviously as a commoner he’s not bound by rules of honor and whatever, but at that point he’s really no better than the Bad Guys aside from not actually tearing her clothes off; the innuendo and the leering looks are still there. He talks about being in love and everything, but he continues to know nothing about her as a person. When she gets to Camelot, he follows, eventually navigating a really stupid device called the “Gauntlet” to get an audience with the King (and with the future Queen, obviously). Arthur takes him under his wing, and when Guinevere gets herself kidnapped through her own stupidity, obviously Lancelot chases after her, not out of any loyalty or friendship to Arthur, but because he’s simply obsessed with the woman. There’s a sloppy rescue, and the two finally start asking the important questions of a budding relationship like “So where are you from? What are your hobbies?” but its well over an hour into the film at that point. Anyway, they do the whole “I love you but I can’t” spiel, and she marries Arthur. There’s a battle against the Bad Guys and Lancelot proves his battle worthiness and finally, FINALLY gets some character development in seeing that yes, Arthur is indeed one of the good guys helping to fight the good fight against injustice, and he decides to do the noble thing and leave Camelot because he doesn’t want to hurt Arthur, but the two DO hurt Arthur by smooching when he walks in, so there’s the trial and the bad guys bust in and mortally wound the King because this asshole had to be a creepy stalker who was more interested in getting into Guinevere’s pants than either working for a greater good or getting to know her until its too late. Now the reason why this character section is so damn long is because this IS OUR HERO, THE GUY WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR. THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF A CREEPY STALKER, CAMELOT FALLS AND DARKNESS DESCENDS UPON THE LAND, AND HE’S STILL SUPPOSED TO BE THE HERO OF THE MOVIE. THIS IS HOW YOU DON’T WRITE LANCELOT!
King Arthur: Sean Connery received top billing, but he’s really a secondary character, reacting to the two “heroes” of the film. He shows up fairly well into the film, and sure, he throws a pretty fair performance, but its all reactionary. There’s the whole December-May Romance thing thrown in, but Arthur’s shown as a hero in decline, and, well, he’s ultimately too good for the Guinevere of the movie. When he’s finally betrayed, there’s a lot of pain there, and it actually does hurt, so he does a decent job of that. Its just that he gets marginalized in the love story so much, and that the whole “Lancelot & Guinevere are good and belong together” thing gets shoved down the audience’s throat when anybody who knows even the faintest about the Arthurian cycle knows that when Arthur died, England went to shit. So yeah, I really felt bad for Connery having a weak character to work with who died a punk-ass death at the end of the movie (like it’s a spoiler for a thousand year old legend).
Prince Malagant: Ben Cross is the Villain, the rebel lord who doesn’t want to drink Arthur’s Kool-Aid and tow the line. Apparently he was once a member of the Round Table, but left under unhappy circumstances and has been a thorn in the king’s side. He’s the Bad Guy, and ultimately responsible for Arthur’s death. Not Mordred. Not Morgan le Fay or any of the established legitimate threats for the canonical Arthur’s fall, but Malagant. I will admit that Malagant is the most interesting character, since he’s got the most depth. He’s an asshole who’s ultimately in it for himself, he’s disillusioned with Arthur’s dream, and he’s nihilistic about Arthur’s God & Law & everything. He makes his living as a border raider, leading an army of like minded individuals who manage a surprising number of odd feats for the period, like elaborate traps to catch Guinevere, a distant, slightly soggy hideout that’s pretty well fortified, and hand crossbows suitable for cavalry use, which didn’t become popular in Europe until at least the 1200s. Seriously, these guys are fucking resourceful and why the movie isn’t about them is beyond me. When Malagant isn’t on screen, the movie suffers from his lack of glowering and scene chewing. Sure he’s officially the Bad Guy, but damn it if I wouldn’t rather watch him than the idiots we’re saddled with for the actual movie.
The Round Table Knights: I lump them in together because while each one has a name of an actual Arthurian Knight (like Agravaine or Gaheris or whatever) each one is as interchangeable and as lacking in any personality as the next. Being blonde or having a beard are not valid characterizations. They’re just there to be there and are completely wasted in the story.
Now, we need a badass, and none has presented himself. There is one guy in Malagant’s army that, during the runaway carriage scene, chases the carriage down on his horse, leaps up onto it, climbs to the roof, hacks his way into the passenger compartment with an axe and leaps into it. Sadly, he’s knocked out of the moving vehicle by Guinevere and crashes into a tree, but do you know how hard it is for a horseman to actually do that? That anonymous henchman had a pair of brass ones, was just trying to do his job of capturing the lady, and for that brief moment of screen time, he almost got shit done. The movie suffered so much without him as a recurring character, and he was the only character I felt real sympathy for.
Visuals/Effects
Jerry Zucker. This is the same man who co-directed Airplane! Feel free to sigh as a tiny part of you dies. I don’t want to say that there’s nothing of merit here visually, because its generally very well shot. There are some great visual scenes, particularly the torch-lit nocturnal arrival at Camelot and the overhead shots of the Round Table, but the overall pacing of the movie is, well, glacial. Worse is the costuming. I’m willing to let a lot of ahistorical bullshit slide when it comes to movies, but this movie doesn’t even try. Crossbows?? Uniforms for KNIGHTS?? Half-plate armor?? Crossbows?? Everything in Camelot is BLUE? Everything for Malagant is BROWN? CROSSBOWS!? Any one of those elements might be forgivable. Hell, if it was a pure fantasy movie made for the Sci-Fi channel, set in a I-just-made-it-up-right-now kingdom called Terania, I’d be willing to let all of them slide, but this is a KING ARTHUR MOVIE. That kind of shit will NOT fly here at RMWC.
Action scenes. Yeah, there are some of those, but only two of note. The night battle outside of Lyonesse is actually sorta, kinda cool, but over really quickly. The final battle inside Camelot during the day, while a legitimate fight scene that’s given time and spotlight, just comes way, way to late into the movie for me to care. By the time the climactic fight scene came up, I was over at my movie shelf organizing things and scouting out films for later viewing, that’s how much this movie drew me in (hint: not a lot). By the end, I simply Did. Not. Care.
Writing
Lorne Cameron and David Hoselton wrote this movie, and I lay most of the blame squarely on them. The Lancelot/Guinevere dialog is just painfully bad, and that’s what most of the movie is. Character development is minimal at best and there are only like four characters that get any spotlight in a 134 minute movie. Arthur & Malagant get some interesting stuff, but neither get a lion’s share of screen time. Pacing is pretty terrible, and the ahistorical nature of the movie is laughably bad. I hate to say this, but the writing is so bad all around for this movie without any redeeming qualities. They don’t even use an oubliette right.
Sound
Oh, Jerry Goldsmith, this terrible movie does not deserve your awesome musical score. The soundtrack for this movie is entirely appropriate to Arthurian legend, with equal parts Epic and ADVENTURE! If you absolutely must subject yourself to this movie, do so only through the soundtrack, which actually kicks all kinds of ass.
Conclusion
When I first saw this movie in high school, I thought it was long and boring. When I gave it a chance recently with my “grown-up” sophistication, I thought it was long and boring and terribly written. Really, the writing is the ultimate bearer of guilt in this movie, with unlikable heroes, terrible dialog and terrible pacing. It fails as an action movie, and it fails as a Romance (both the magic & mystery kind from Medieval times featuring courtly love and the modern kissy-face kind), both of which are pillars of Arthurian cinema. There are really only two reasons for seeing this movie. First, you might be under duress. Second, you might be like me and willingly subject yourself to Arthurian films whether they be good or bad. Otherwise, AVOID THIS MOVIE. Gnaw your arm off if you have to! Divorce your wife of fifteen years and abandon your children to a step-dad named Otis if you have to! Convert to Scientology if you have to! Just don’t subject yourself to this film!
However, this is NOT the worst King Arthur movie I’ve ever seen, but that little turd will be saved for another soul-crushing time.
I wasn’t joking when I said 2000 was a good year for Oscar bait that I’d go for. Ang Lee’s Wo hu cang long (hereafter referred to as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for simplicity’s sake) is a period drama that involves swords, revenge, death and love, and squared off against Gladiator at the Academy Awards.
Plot
Based on the fourth book of a five novel cycle, the movie is about a teenage girl on the cusp of her arranged marriage who would rather be independent and run away. To that end, she steals a famous sword from a famous swordsman and causes nocturnal mischief under the aegis of her mentor, a man-hating criminal. The warrior and his almost-but-not-quite lover set out to reclaim the sword. Quite a bit of DRAMA combined with ADVENTURE! follows for the next 120 minutes.
Characters Jen Yu: Zhang Ziyi in her breakout role as the rebellious noblewoman. She’s at the center of the story, and brings quite a bit sympathy for a character that is ultimately a spoiled, rich bitch who doesn’t think things through leading to bloody consequences. But there’s a reason for her anger. She’s a character that is stifling in a rigid society that demands proper behavior at all times from people at all social stations. But it doesn’t excuse her actions in the least, and several people die because of her.
Master Li Mu Bai: Chow Yun Fat plays a veteran warrior of great repute who is trying to retire from his lifestyle and settle down to a life of quiet contemplation in a temple. As a gesture of this retirement, he makes a gift of his great sword, the Green Destiny to a local official/friend of his named Sir Te. The sword has a habit of being stolen that irks him, and the sudden appearance in the town of a woman named Jade Fox keeps him from hanging up his sword for good. Li Mu Bai has a quiet dignity and strength that’s just plain badass, especially when he starts fighting. There is, however, more to him that it seems. There are hints that the contemplative life of a monastery doesn’t have the answers or serenity that he seeks, and his longtime friend and partner, Yu Shu Lien, is revealed to be one of the most important things in his life. Speaking of which…
Yu Shu Lien: Michelle Yeoh plays Li Mu Bai’s friend and love interest. Her father established a “security firm” and she eventually inherited the business of professional ass-beating. Her friendship with Li Mu Bai goes way back, but due to societal constraints and personal hesitations, neither acted on their feelings for each other in the past. She becomes a close friend of Jen Yu’s during the film, bonding like sisters, and she tries to steer the young girl along a path that is more moderated than the one Jade Fox offers. A stoic, mature warrior woman, she conveys phenomenal volumes of depth and sympathy with subtle facial expressions and movements. For being both a smart and capable warrior, businesswoman and general fascinating character, she takes my nod as Badass of the Film (though Li Mu Bai is easily a hair’s breadth away from being it).
Lo “Dark Cloud”: A wild bandit leader who met Jen Yu when he raided her caravan and stole her comb. She took offense to that and gave chase, and the two had a whirlwind romance. That’s revealed in a flashback. Lo comes to the city to find her and take her away from the repressive courtly life, but in a lot of ways, only makes more trouble for everyone when he shows up. He’s a wildly audacious free spirit of a character, and his open, honest love for Jen Yu is a great contrast to the severe restraint of everybody else.
Jade Fox: Cheng Pei-Pei plays a bitter, angry woman who acts as Jen Yu’s maid/servant, but is also tutoring her in the ways of combat. She infiltrated a monastery once and murdered Li Mu Bai’s master after observing the school’s combat techniques and sleeping with him. She hates men in general, largely because they keep women down in society, but she’s also pretty psychopathic as far as mentors go.
There are a few other important characters, like Sir Te who I mentioned already and a police inspector/officer who’s in it quite a bit. He’s trying to track down the stolen sword and bring in Jade Fox as well, but he’s there mostly to get his ass kicked.
Visuals/Effects
Pretty. That’s the first impression. Ang Lee’s eye for Dramatic storytelling and setting the mood are great in this film. Colors are lush and the second act is defined by desert browns and the third by forest greens. Its very nicely done.
Of course, being a martial arts film in the Wuxia tradition, there’s plenty of fightin’ to see, and they’re easy on the eyes. The three that particularly stand out to me are the fight in the tea house where Jen Yu tears up a restaurant fighting a bunch of goons who only wanted a friendly sparring match, the incredible duel with Yu Shu Lien in the “dojo” and the iconic fight between Jen and Li Mu Bai in the trees. Extensive wire work was used to make all the leaping and soaring and standing on thin tree branches possible, which was amazing at the time, but it has aged a little bit. Not so much that it breaks suspension of disbelief, but if you’re jaded, the treetop fight really stretches it. Just roll with it.
Writing
Du Lu Wang wrote the book and I know nothing about the series it belongs to. Hiu-Ling Wang, James Schamus & Kuo Jung Tsai handled the script adaptation. And there are some interesting contrasts with Gladiator. First, its written in Mandarin Chinese, but second, the pacing is more drawn out as the characters backstories and connections are slowly revealed. It’s a more sophisticated method that adds layers of depth to the characters in a very good way. The plot itself delves very heavily into the Romance genre (classical Romance, not modern kissy-face romance) and despite being about only a few characters, feels very epic in scope.
Sound
Composer Tan Dun & Yo Yo Ma worked together on creating the sound for the movie, and its not what you’d expect of an ADVENTURE! score. Most of the themes are haunting cello work, and the action scenes go heavily into percussion. Overall, its very restrained, moody with elements of passion bubbling under the surface and totally appropriate to what’s on screen.
Conclusion Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is an excellent, excellent film. Beautifully shot with compelling characters and story with haunting music, the movie does fire on all cylinders. It was also something of a gateway drug into the realm period martial arts films from Hong Kong.
For the Shawshank review, I mentioned that I don’t normally go for Oscar-bait dramas. After reading that, a friend insisted that I sit down at watch 2008’s Rachel Getting Married, because it is chock full of DRAMA. It also has Anne Hathaway in it, who is an actress that I rather like (and not just because she’s gorgeous).
Plot
So a young woman who’s in drug rehab comes home to her dad’s house in Connecticut to take part in her sister’s wedding. DRAMA ensues for the next 113 minutes. That’s pretty much the basic plot. Take a wedding, and a recovering junkie and watch the sparks fly as you realize just how dysfunctional their family is.
Characters Kym: Anne Hathaway is just about the cutest recovering addict I’ve seen on screen. As a character, she’s probably the most interesting out of the bunch, and its interesting watching the movie pull back the layers on her until you realize what went so very wrong in her past that made her the defensive, snarky wet blanket that she is during the wedding preparations. It’s a credit to Hathaway’s acting chops that she’s able to do all of that and making her neither a complete bitch or a total mary sue. Instead, she’s a somewhat likable flawed character who still has a long way to go as far as getting back on her feet.
Rachel: Rosemarie DeWitt is the titular Rachel who is getting married. Seeing as we the audience started the film attached to Kym, Rachel is in the unenviable position of competing with the audience’s sympathy when the two start cat fighting. Sure, she’s not a recovering addict with a guilt complex, and yes, the wedding is all about her and all, but damn does she get all passive-aggressive bitchy about things at times. Its hard to like her sometimes, especially since she feeds the DRAMA fire just as much as Kym does.
Paul: Rachel & Kym’s dad. He comes across as a rather likable guy who’s very protective of his troubled daughter, but he’s also got some stuff bubbling under the surface that is only peeked at a handful of times. He’s one of the funnier characters, being a “goofy dad” character, but he’s got a sadness to him that makes him likable and sympathetic. What the hell, he’s this film’s badass because he’s got the unenviable task of keeping this wedding on track despite the DRAMA.
Sidney: Rachel’s groom. He’s apparently a musician of some kind and comes across as a nice enough guy, but since this is a wedding movie, he’s an inconsequential figure because he doesn’t have any DRAMA to speak off.
Kieran: One of Sidney’s friends from Hawaii in town for the wedding. He’s also a recovering addict and bonds with Kym (nudge nudge, wink wink) before the festivities since he knows how tough rehab can be. After that initial bonding (hur hur) between the two, he kind of gets sidelined for the duration of the movie.
Visuals/Effects
The director, Jonathan Demme, uses a documentary style of camera work, going for the shakiness of a handheld camera following the characters around. I’m not a big fan of obvious camera shake throughout a movie, but I can acknowledge the story conceit of it. HOWEVER, the movie itself shatters that conceit by placing the camera in various positions where it would be either ridiculous or impossible for an actual cameraman to be. Example A: at one point early on, Kym is walking into an upstairs room alone. The lighting is dim and dramatic, and the camera follows her in its normal handheld way. The only problem is that the camera is being carried along at ground level looking up at her. On the one hand, it’s a pretty good atmospheric shot, but on the other, why would a guy at a wedding party be doing that sort of thing when the normal impulse would be to carry the camera at normal height. Example B: Kym drives a car off the road (at slow speed) and into some foliage. The camera starts off in the passenger side as she hits (nothing wrong with that) but then immediately after the airbag goes off, the camera cuts to a front view of the car as the headlights are turned off. Yes its dramatic, but the conceit is that there is a cameraman following her at all times. How could he have gotten out of the car that quickly to get a shot of the lights turning off that quickly without magical powers? Moreover, how could he be that much of an asshole to run out of the car for a dramatic shot without checking on the driver’s safety in the first place? Moreover, wouldn’t the camera guy be injured or perhaps thrown through the windshield himself at the impact? Its that kind of documentary-style,-but-not-really thing that bugged the hell out of me during the movie. Shooting it as a documentary (like Spinal Tap) would be one thing, but doing all those kinds of normal filmmaking techniques makes me ask why they didn’t just use a steadi cam and be done with it instead of interrupting the willful suspension of disbelief?
Writing
The script by Jenny Lumet is largely pretty good for the DRAMA it contains. Characters have unique voices and the dialog sounds like real and plausible things that characters would. However, the pacing of the whole thing is all over the place. A lot of scenes just drag on forever and ever, outliving their purpose. The Wedding Rehearsal Dinner scene, where a couple important character have length speeches, then Kym gives a bizarre, awkward speech that is full of character building, and then the scene continues onward with characters that are tangentially relevant to the plot giving not short speeches and I’m sitting there thinking, why? The scene has already taken care of the plot points. If I wanted to subject myself to the often long boring stretches between interesting stuff, I’d look to real life.
And speaking of odd things, the whole wedding atmosphere of the movie is really weird. Who has their rehearsal dinner two nights before the actual wedding? Why in God’s name are all of the musical performers moved into the house for the weekend like a band of gypsies? Are there no hotels in Connecticut? And what’s with the theme of the wedding? There’s one guy that looks like a Hare Krishna, two of the musicians look (and play) like High School battle of the bands contestants that got eliminated early on, the rest of the musicians wandering the grounds look (and play) like a band of wandering minstrels (they had at least one lute). I wanted to shout huzzah at them every time I spotted one. I realize they may do things differently in rich, white, liberal Connecticut, but it would’ve been great if one of Sidney’s family members (Sidney’s black, by the way) commenting on just how weird the white folks were. (I mean, Connecticut isn’t exactly known for its racial diversity). Sound
Minstrels, battle of the bands kids, various other weird musicians littering the yard like performers on the streets of Quebec City outside the Chateau Frontenac (an unexpected analogy, I admit, but one that I can use from experience). Despite the obviously eclectic nature of that, the only really memorable elements were the appropriately moody strings, which often jumped to frenetic.
Conclusion
This film ultimately left me with a great big “meh.” Anne Hathaway’s performance (and a few side characters) carried the film for me. The often sluggish pacing, borderline pretentious camera choices, and the sometimes forcefully applied “This is a DRAMA, so have some MORE DRAMA!” scenes didn’t appeal to me. Its not a bad film by any means, but there’s a hollowness to it that I can’t place my finger on. I realize that this is probably a case of “your mileage may vary” but as it stands, I’m not going to truly recommend this film (aside from Hathaway’s performance).
Every once in a while, I like to expose myself to the Oscar-level drama films. Stuff that is generally accepted as having a message, and is about something important. It helps me justify that impulse monocle purchase of a few years ago, because I’m classy. Don’t know why I started that off as a lead in to saying that I saw 1994’s The Shawshank Redemption for the first time recently. Going in, I knew two things: it was based on a Stephen King story, and it was about prison.
Plot
Well, its definitely about prison. Shawshank Reformatory, to be exact. A young New England banker is sentenced to life in Shawshank for the murder of his wife. He spends the next twenty years adjusting to life on the inside, interacting with the other inmates and changing peoples’ lives. Oh yeah, and it’s a period film that takes place over several decades (it is 142 minutes long)
CharactersAndy Dufresne: Our hero, played by Tim Robbins. A whiz with money, he endures his prison term with stoicism, confident in his innocence. He starts up little hobbies, like carving a chess set, or setting up a library for the inmates, or helping the guards with their income tax forms, or trying to avoid prison sodomy. Andy’s whole arc is about how a guy like him can not only survive in prison, but also take advantage of things so as to more or less thrive. He’s a persistent, doggedly patient man, and seems determined to bring a little culture into the big house. Of course, there’s more to his serene patience than he lets on, and by the end of the film, you realize just how much of a magnificent bastard of an intellectual badass he is.
“Red” Redding: Morgan Freeman is the narrator, a long-time resident of Shawshank who’s got quite a successful smuggling racket going on, providing goods at negotiable rates. He’s sly and knows how life is on the inside, and eventually becomes Andy’s best friend. He actually gets a very real character arc as Andy keeps prodding him to feel hope.
Warden Norton: The (generally) soft spoken warden of Shawshank who says “Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me.” He’s a quietly threatening presence, but favorable to those on his good side. He and Andy get an interesting dynamic going when he discovers Dufresne is quite the number cruncher, but near the end of the movie, the warden gets into a weird twist where he suddenly becomes truly eeeeeeviiiiilll for no clear reason. He was a hardass before, but he becomes a real asshole, and I never picked up on “why” exactly.
Captain Hadley: Warden Norton’s dragon (look it up on tvtropes), he’s the muscle of the guards, a balled up fist in a metal gauntlet holding a granite fist broken off of a very large statue. He’s a mean bastard who’s not above beating the shit out of the inmates when they get out of line, but he can be reasoned with, as Andy finds out. This leads to a hilariously badass moment when he confronts an inmate named Boggs in his cell. Interestingly enough, he’s played by Clancy Brown, a veteran voice actor and the man behind the Superman: The Animated Series’ Lex Luthor.
Tommy: A young delinquent with a small role, he has an arc where he gets taken in under Andy’s wing so he can study for the GED exam. He’s a likable guy but not in the movie for long.
Brooks: An “institutionalized” man and the guy who ran the prison library when Andy got there. His major arc was the sad tale of his life after being released from prison and unable to adjust to life on the outside.
Visuals (Direction/Effects)
Filmed on location at the Mansfield Reformatory and other places in Ohio, director Frank Darabont did an excellent job capturing not only the grim mood of prison, but also the period feel. Hell, watching it, I thought the movie was made back in the 80s and not the early 90s. In terms of fantastic shots, the one iconic shot of Andy in the rain that gets used for every clip about the movie stands out. The context of that is, of course, spoilerific, but it’s a great moment.
The pacing of the film is slow, which is understandable, considering the length of time Andy spends there. The payoff near the end is completely worth the wait, though I have to admit I was getting a little antsy in places wishing the plot would stop shuffling its feet.
Writing
Based on a Stephen King short story and adapted by veteran scriptwriter (and director) Frank Darabont. Both of those men can write very, very well. In a drama, characterization is the crux of the story, and it abounds in spades. Just about anybody with an important supporting role gets some kind of arc, and the overall story gently nudges the audience into thinking that hope isn’t really such a bad thing. It could have been shoved down the audience’s throat, but the film doesn’t really get hamfisted about it very often. I appreciate its respect for my intelligence. Oh yes, and the dialog is much sharper and wittier than I expected.
Then there is the payoff, which is so brilliantly set up and perfectly well-earned by Andy that you can’t help but laugh all the way through it. However, and this is entirely my own opinion, the story seems to lose a lot of steam after the payoff scene. I don’t know, maybe I just feel that way because the payoff was so brilliantly and intellectually delicious that I felt like it should’ve been time to drop the curtain and roll the credits.
Sound
Its been a few weeks now, but the movie has a score and a number of period songs that work well. Aside from that, nothing else to report.
Conclusion The Shawshank Redemption is a very good movie that deserves its accolades. Oddly enough, it was nominated for several Oscars, but never won. It’s a great movie with fantastic characterization and dialog. A slow burn of a plot, but it rewards the audience’s patience. Yeah. I can recommend it with confidence.
