Fortunately for the filmmakers of “Virunga,” but rather unfortunately for the sake of humanity, the titular Congolese park is a hotbed for a whole host of ills and tragedies. At the start of the film, director Orlando von Einsiedel introduces a set of park rangers who literally put their lives at risk to protect a population of endangered mountain gorillas from poachers. One ranger, rather touchingly, describes his relationship to them in these terms: “I am not a father. I am a mother [to these gorillas].”
As if that were not enough to keep them occupied, the multinational oil corporation Soco announces their intent to drill for oil within Virunga. Oil exploitation conflicts directly with conservation, naturally, so their proposed operation is technically illegal. But not to worry – Soco bribed the local officials to make it possible! (In a statement shown before the final credits, the company vehemently denies any wrongdoing or unethical interference.) The Congo, still sorting out its own internal sparring, never stood a chance to unite and block the destruction of their land.
When it comes to exploring the dirty dealings of Soco, “Virunga” relies heavily on the investigative journalism of French reporter Melanie Gouby and her hidden camera recordings. Her presence, informative though it may be, does slightly throw off the equilibrium of the documentary. von Einsiedel tackles so much, and at times, discerning the true center of gravity is tough. Who is the subject – Gouby or the nature conservationists? What is the central concern – the business, the oil, the land, the animals, or the general status of Africa?
“Virunga” manages collapse all its issues and questions into one mostly convincing narrative of capitalistic colonialism and civil conflict. It provides a wide view of all the issues without giving any of them short shrift, not giving an overly broad or cursory treatment to any of its individual components. Most importantly, the stakes are appropriately high. von Einsiedel structures many parts of his film like a thriller, and it feels even scarier because these are real people and animals at risk. If the world does not stand up and stop this injustice, an entire species could vanish from the face of the earth. B /
Towards the beginning of “American Sniper,” Bradley Cooper’s cowboy turned Navy SEAL Chris Kyle receives the instruction to make pulling a trigger an unconscious effort. Director Clint Eastwood and writer Jason Hall, however, ensure that the audience watching Kyle’s exploits are very conscious of the rationale and logic behind the dispatch of every bullet. No kill feels sensationalized to satisfy bloodlust, even when that sentiment disguises itself as patriotism.
The film simply portrays one man’s experience during four tours in the post-9/11 Middle East, opting not for any anti-military statement (like “Green Zone“) nor for a chest-thumping jingoism (like “The Kingdom”). Since Kyle is the protagonist and the eyes through which the viewer watches the film, of course “American Sniper” tilts in his favor. But he is not celebrated merely because of his record 160 kills; the film lionizes Kyle because of the value he placed on leadership and loyalty.
At this stage in the cinema’s grappling with what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, just telling stories from over there seems important. And that basically sums up the extent of what “American Sniper” is: a presentation of Chris Kyle’s narrative. Eastwood and Hall never fully commit to either showing the full terror of combating terrorism (a la “Lone Survivor“) or the grueling mental experience of the soldiers (in the vein of “The Hurt Locker“). They pull elements from each effectively, yet they never really advance a thesis or a broader takeaway.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, the world once again finds itself in a place of anger and fear towards the Islamic faith because of a few violent radicals. So often, the media tends to “otherize” these jihadists, completely denying them any shred of humanity because of their barbaric acts. Needless to say, any detailed attempt to actually understand why they do these things is totally off the table.
Thank goodness, though, for documentarians like Laura Poitras (who now seems almost destined to win the Oscar for her courageous and journalistic “Citizenfour“). She dares to search inside the hearts and minds of the people often made out to be the enemy, simply portraying them for who they are without taking a judgmental stance. Her second feature, “The Oath,” takes a long look at al-Qaeda operatists in Yemen.
Watching the film does not require sympathy with the terrorists. Poitras simply asks that they not be deemed savages without hearing their worldview. “The Oath” is my choice for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” for the way it puts a human face on jihadists and Islamic fundamentalists, going beyond their violent suicide attacks. Possessing an understanding of them based in knowledge rather than in fear and hatred can only elevate policy discussion, right?
Poitras focuses most of her attention on Nasser Al-Bahri, also known as Abu Jandal. By day, Abu Jandal is a taxi driver in San’a. Off the streets, however, he trains the next generation of jihadists. As he explains, “We don’t need everyone working in TNT and C4,” and his gift of switching the primacy of mens’ paths from men to Allah makes him too valuable an asset to sacrifice. He spreads awareness of why al Qaeda attacked, yet he is no longer actively involved in the prior planning or subsequent justifying of such attacks.
Abu Jandal is decidedly against America and the West, but Poitras does not hesitate the highlight the complexities of his background and character. Prior to the events shown in the film, Abu Jandal had served as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden himself. Yet when he saw the events of 9/11, he reacted with shock and dismay. Imprisoned at the time, Abu Jandal decided to share his knowledge with the American authorities and provided enough valuable intelligence to justify delaying an invasion of Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Poitras also details the trial of Abu Jandal’s former companion, Salim Hamdan, who faces trial of questionable ethics in Guantanamo. These scenes are colder and less intimate than the main narrative, playing like a classic political exposé documentary. Nonetheless, the storylines still pair well with each other.
In “The Oath,” the subjects are neither lionized nor demonized. Poitras simply allows to speak freely and openly about their beliefs without having to assume a defensive tone. This is an opportunity to learn and listen like few others ever presented.
Filmmakers rarely employ the first person narrative style – the only fictional film that comes to mind is Gaspar Noe’s experimental art film “Enter the Void.” It does occasionally crop up in documentary film, though, where films like Laura Poitras’ “Citizenfour” and Sarah Polley’s “Stories We Tell” directly involve their makers in the proceedings. Now, add Darius Clark Monroe’s “Evolution of a Criminal,” which marks another successful entry into this small canon.
Monroe explores his life’s journey in the form of a cinematic memoir, tracing everything from his upbringing through the very making of the film. Somewhere in the middle, he ends up spending five years in jail for a violent robbery he committed as a teenager. Times were hard for Monroe’s family, and he admits that he made a terrible mistake in an attempt to help out his struggling parents. With “Evolution of a Criminal,” he seeks to make amends and dispel certain myths along the way.
Chief among them, Monroe shows that criminality is not some kind of inherent character flaw, as is often presumed the case by the media. In his mind, crime is merely an action one takes, a choice for which he can hopefully make amends. (These conversations also carry an interesting and challenging racial subtext that deserves discussion amongst groups who watch the film.)
In order to reach the redemptive arc that makes the film so fascinating, though, Monroe does have to essentially restage the crime through filmic reenactment. These portions play like a rather derivative heist film and take up too much of the runtime, but Monroe does ultimately demonstrate their necessity. Seeing the honest expressions of shock from his family and friends, who never expected that the well-adjusted and successful boy they knew could be capable of such an act.
Knowing that the very subject of the film itself is on the other end of the camera registering and filming these reactions drives home just how real and personal this story is. Documentaries about the criminal justice system and the people within its auspices so often take broader brushstrokes (like “The House I Live In“), losing sight of individuals along the way. “Evolution of a Criminal” stays in a figurative close-up, and it delivers all the rich nuance that can be expected with such an intimacy of scope. B /
At the Tribeca Film Festival, “Zero Motivation” won the Nora Ephron prize, which honors distinctive female voices in filmmaking. Were the great humorist alive today, it is hard to imagine her not getting a giddy kick out of the film. Israeli writer/director Talya Lavie possesses the knack for a droll wit that would definitely tickle Ephron’s funny bone.
The Israel Defense Forces, which requires two years of service from all females of age, is not so much the subject of the film as it is the setting. This is not a film about violence, war, or militarism. “Zero Motivation” is about the challenges women face in their everyday battlefields: their romances, their friendships, and their workplaces. Sadly, the women face a battle for respectability in them all.
The closest the women in the film come to combat is hitting a mine on their pre-installed copy of Minesweeper. More than anything, “Zero Motivation” recalls the desktop drudgery of television’s “The Office.” And, to boot, Jim Halpert would get some mad inspiration out of their outlandish pranks. Lavie deploys other humor styles throughout the film, including some very clever and expertly timed sight gags in a scene of half-joking suicide attempts. She even manages to pulls off what seems like an impossible feat – making a joke about the Holocaust (besides the mean “Anne Frank-ly” line).
At times, “Zero Motivation” does feel like binge watching three episodes of a sitcom rather than a single, unified film. But with the patterns of media consumption changing as rapidly as they are, that hardly even feels like a criticism anymore. While her work might not be perfect, the world needs filmmakers like Lavie who are not afraid to put men in their place or call out a gendered double standard when they see one. B /
Abbas Kiarostami’s “Certified Copy” feels like a 2-for-1 movie deal, which is not necessarily a good thing. The film makes you think it’s one thing, then turns on a dime to transform into something else entirely. Such an abrupt, jarring transition makes for an inconsistent, disjointed watch.
“Certified Copy” begins intriguingly, almost resembling the “Before” trilogy by Richard Linklater. Kiarostami captures personal conversations between writer James Miller (William Shimell) and a mysterious French antiques dealer (Juliette Binoche) that quickly expand into the realm of the philosophical. They cover such topics as the nature of fun and the dialectic of art and reality. Not much pushes the film forward in this section, and it’s unclear what exactly brings the two characters together in the first place.
But out of nowhere, the plot moves in a direction where a case of mistaken identity turns into an unusual game of assuming and playing roles. I really don’t know how to describe these almost non-sensical scenes where the dialogue feels like a series of non sequiturs. If anything, the back half of “Certified Copy” resembles the surreality of “Mulholland Drive” or the absurdity of an Edward Albee drama.
Binoche gives it her all, and for that, she certainly deserves commendation. But not even a committed performance can save “Certified Copy” from swamping itself and its audience confusion. C+ /
9:43 P.M. Channing Tatum’s fake tan seems a little overdone tonight.
9:39 P.M. Michael Keaton’s son that he referenced in the speech, Sean Douglas, is a songwriter whose credits include Jason DeRulo’s “Talk Dirty.” Umm … well, that’s probably paying the bills.
9:34 P.M. Keaton thanks the HFPA for having a “comedy” category, but how much does it really celebrate comedies?! Anyways, nice to see someone as articulate and underrated as Keaton get some recognition.
9:33 P.M.BEST ACTOR (MUSICAL/COMEDY): MICHAEL KEATON, “BIRDMAN“
9:25 P.M. Richard Linklater: “We’re all flawed in this world, no one’s perfect.”
9:24 P.M. BEST DIRECTOR: RICHARD LINKLATER, “BOYHOOD“
9:15 P.M. Pretty sure McConaughey is sweating through his shirt. His jacket was definitely off.
9:14 P.M. George Clooney: “Thanks for keeping small films alive.”
9:12 P.M. Props to Disney for getting a clip from “Tomorrowland” into the Clooney montage.
9:08 P.M. Julianna Marguiles: “Has George ever asked you to tour a disaster area with him?” / Don Cheadle: “Yes, he invited me to the set of ‘The Monuments Men!'”
9:00 P.M. Hard to believe that two-time Oscar winning actor Kevin Spacey is only just now winning his first Golden Globe.
8:55 P.M. The backstage/hall cam is pretty awkward…
8:54 P.M. “House of Cards” snubbed once again. “The Affair” was horribly derivative in the one episode I watched.
8:46 P.M. Well, maybe Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Honorable Woman” will have to go on my Netflix queue. Here’s the link for anyone who wants to add it as well. I enjoy the sibling love with her and Jake, and I especially love her shoutout to the “actual women.” Basically, here’s my takeaway from tonight’s show:
8:44 P.M. Ok, is that how “Leviathan” is pronounced, all French like Lupita Nyong’o said it? I assumed it was “Luh-vie-uh-than.”
8:28 P.M. Anyone else noting how much the people on stage are sweating? The AC has to be broken or something…
8:27 P.M. No proclaiming that Hader and Wiig were the stars of “The Skeleton Twins?” Come on…
8:26 P.M. Ok, the North Korean jokes are getting old. It’s just kind of insensitive and monotonous at this point.
8:22 P.M. Full text of the George Clooney feminist joke, thanks to BuzzFeed.
“George Clooney married Amal Alamuddin this year. Amal is a human rights lawyer who worked on the Enron case, was an adviser to Kofi Annan regarding Syria, and was selected to a three-person U.N. commission investigating rules of war violations in the Gaza Strip. So tonight, her husband is getting a lifetime achievement award.”
8:21 P.M. Patricia Arquette: “Meryl, thank you for giving me a hug, I hope your DNA transferred.” Also, glad to see the winning women standing up for women of all varieties.
8:19 P.M. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: PATRICIA ARQUETTE, “BOYHOOD“
8:16 P.M. When they said Channing Tatum was in three nominated films tonight, I thought it must have been a flubbed line. But two of those were animated – “The Book of Life” and “The Lego Movie.”
8:13 P.M. Kevin Hart: “I’m here for this, it’s not about ‘The Wedding Ringer.'” Yeah, sure…
8:07 P.M. Nice feminist moment for Amy Adams as she racks up back-to-back Golden Globe wins. Not her best role or film, but she’s just so sweet and likable, darn it!
7:55 P.M. That could not possibly have been more awkward cutting between the shot of John Legend’s wife and the cutaway to Prince. “Selma is now,” said Common. Glad to see he also expressed solidarity with the two NYPD officers slain in the line of duty.
7:43 P.M. Too bad for Eddie Redmayne that the bomb that will be “Jupiter Ascending” drops on theaters as he’s trying to win an Oscar … Focus should ask WB to pull these trailers from awards broadcasts.
7:37 P.M. Bummer to see Julia Louis-Dreyfus go down. “Veep” is my favorite show … shameless plug.
7:35 P.M. Great to see artists stand up and cheer for freedom of expression.
7:33 P.M. Pretty shameless attempt to recreate the Ellen selfie…
Needed more people to top Ellen…
7:30 P.M. I just realized that I totally forgot a category…
7:26 P.M. Potentially the best speech ever from Billy Bob Thornton. “You get in trouble for anything you say these days, so I’m just gonna say thank you.”
7:25 P.M. Ouch for the “True Detective” shutout. Have to say, I agree (even though I have not watched “Fargo”). The show was overrated.
7:22 P.M. Ok, these rapid-fire show descriptions are not helpful.
7:22 P.M. Jennifer Lopez looking like she might have a wardrobe malfunction/nip slip.
7:17 P.M. Glad Joanne Froggat is shedding light on the plight of sexual assault survivors. This is such a great platform to spread awareness to important causes. Bonus points for doing it without ranting or preaching.
7:14 P.M. Miles Teller getting some nice notice in front of the entire industry. And gotta love all the Jason Reitman love!
7:12 P.M. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: J.K. SIMMONS, “WHIPLASH“
7:12 P.M. So did they actually flub the teleprompter? Was it actually spontaneous?
7:11 P.M. Hello, Jennifer Aniston’s leg.
7:09 P.M. Aaaand there’s the Bill Cosby joke.
7:07 P.M. Would you rather, Linklater or Iñarritu? “Once, five minutes per year” vs. “One take, two hours, no stopping.” Brilliant.
7:06 P.M. Tina Fey just dropped the mic for working women everywhere. Bravo.
7:04 P.M. A joke I could not type in real time – “Boyhood proves there’s still good roles for women over 40 when you get hired in your 20’s.”
7:03 P.M. Hi, Joaquin Phoenix! You da man!
7:03 P.M. Back off Emma Stone, she’s gorgeous!
7:01 P.M. Starting off with jokes on the Sony hack and the leaked emails – great, I guess, since Angelina Jolie isn’t there.
6:55 P.M. Since I’m running short on time, I’ll just post projected winners with alternates – and save my should win/be nominated picks for the Oscars live blog! Classic cliffhanger…
Best Song: Big Eyes from “Big Eyes” (alt. Glory from “Selma“)
6:20 P.M. Well, running a little late due to packing, but I’m ready to start the constant glueing of my eyes to the TV and computer screen. I’m looking forward to a hilarious ceremony that hopefully features some deserving winners! I’m not necessarily pulling strongly for a single movie, so I guess I’m Team Boyhood.
When Americans complain about censorship, that’s usually a term being liberally applied by Harvey Weinstein while yelling at the MPAA to give him the rating he wants. Be it “Blue Valentine,” “The King’s Speech,” “Bully,” or “Philomena,” the cry of censorship seems more like a PR maneuver in our country than an affront to human liberty.
Yet in “This Is Not a Film,” we get a glimpse at what actual censorship looks like in an authoritarian regime. The voice of filmmaker Jafar Panahi has quite literally been squelched by the Iranian government. After being convicted of propagandizing dissent again, he has been banned from making films for 30 years.
So rather than take it, Panahi creates a work that is, technically, not a film. He brings in a cameraman to his apartment where he is confined to house arrest, and they go through the motions of the film he would be making. Panahi describes what it would look like as he reads the script, staging and blocking various scenes alone in his living room.
The concept is a fascinating one – not to mention a courageous act of filmmaking. “This Is Not a Film,” in its surface efforts to avoid being a film, actually becomes a powerful document of resistance that shows true exile.
Yet while it is unquestionably a bold premise, the execution leaves a little to be desired. Perhaps Panahi would have been better crafting a short subject documentary out of “This Is Not a Film.” The cleverness of the idea wears thin quickly and tries our patience as it moves forward with a rather dreary naturalism.
But, in a way, how it turned out is almost beside the point. The most important aspect of “This Is Not a Film” is the simple fact that it was made. C+ /
Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall and the Movies that I am calling “Auteur Hour!” I have hinted at this since 2012 (yikes) and can think of no better way to kick off this series than with a look at the filmography of writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson.
For those who do not know, auteur is a French term meaning “author” that academic writers often apply to directors of films. The term and all that comes along with it provides constant debate within the cinematic community. Some think it provides a great way to honor filmmakers who use consistent patterns or motifs throughout their work, while others argue that the term serves as a catchall to redeem anyone who can carry something over from picture to picture.
Paul Thomas Anderson certainly qualifies as an auteur like few others in America with his fluency in the language and history of cinema as well as his virtuosic output. I had the chance to grab a quick photo with him before the world premiere of “Inherent Vice” – as you can see, both of us were pretty awkward. I stood speechless in the face of the man responsible for some absolute gems in the crown of cinema. If you want to stand in awe as well, check out some of these videos…
And now, to the point of the post, here is how I would rank the films of Paul Thomas Anderson. So without further ado…
Now that Paul Rudd has officially debuted as Ant-Man, I expect that we’ll soon have to start referring to him as “Marvel’s Paul Rudd.” Plenty of clueless fanboys will totally think of Rudd as the next Chris Pratt, a comedian that the comic-book magnate picks up from relative obscurity and turns into a bonafide action star. And I will be sad.
But then, I will wipe away my tears and watch another one of Rudd’s hilarious comedies. I will think of the time he and I shared a brief word in London, and I will remind myself of how his affable characters appear to accurately reflect his genial real-life personality. I will remind myself that he is the perfect choice to play me in the movie of my life no matter what career move he makes next (although BuzzFeed recently told me that Benedict Cumberbatch would play me, another choice that suits me fine).
And finally, I will watch one of his comedies that stand head and shoulders above nearly all the other mainstream output. For the most part, Rudd chooses projects with smarter wit and keener insight than the usual macho lineup of flatulence, misogyny, and homophobia. Perhaps chief among these is 2009’s “I Love You, Man,” the bromantic comedy that serves as my selection for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.” (Yes, I am fully aware this is hardly independent or little-known, although it certainly deserves to be more widely known.)
Rudd, rather than erecting a cool facade, plays his character Peter Klaven as unashamedly dorky and unabashedly earnest. Though he means well, Peter often stumbles over his own nicety into the verbal equivalent of a pratfall. The film begins with the happiest moment in his life: proposing to his girlfriend, Zooey (Rashida Jones). After the initial bliss dissipates, however, things get awkward as Peter seems unable to provide enough groomsmen to match Zooey’s seven bridesmaids. In fact, he does not even really have a potential best man.
Rather than disappoint his beautiful bride-to-be, and apparently unwilling to suck it up and ask either his father (J.K. Simmons) or brother (Andy Samberg), Peter goes on the hunt for a male best friend. After a series of hilarious misunderstandings, he comes across Jason Segel’s palatably absurd Sidney Fife, a friendly bachelor that stumbles into one of Peter’s open houses while scouting prospects for a wealthy divorcée. They hit it off immediately, easily finding conversation topics and mutual interests.
Sidney and Peter’s friendship is purely platonic, yet writer/director John Hamburg replicates the experience of watching a romantic comedy. We get the beginning stage of figuring out tastes as well as boundaries; we see the way that they bring fulfillment to each other’s lives; we have the classic blow-up fight that turns into a dissolution of an amicable partnership. As “I Love You, Man” progresses, it exposes the parallels between forging friendships and romantic relationships as well as the absurdities inherent in both.
Peter and Sidney are not just the average dudebro BFFs – they are types to explore and investigate the very nature of human connection. Although, in the hands of talented actors like Rudd and Segel, they are also fully fledged people that I’d love to slap the bass with any day.
Or, I should say, “Selma” is not just a Martin Luther King, Jr. biopic. It is so much more than just the story of one man.
Director Ava DuVernay and writer Paul Webb create their “Lincoln,” a film concerning the premier orator of his era set in the twentieth century’s ’65. This man, standing with little more than ideology and conscience, must work against a political establishment stacked against them. What is right, in the minds of these officials, must take a backseat to what the voting public is ready to accept.
But DuVernay, thankfully, disposes of Spielberg’s hagiography of Honest Abe that reeked of cinematic mothballs. She opts for a portrayal of Dr. King that focuses on who he was and what that allowed him to accomplish. In a way, not receiving the rights to use King’s actual speeches makes “Selma” a stronger movie. Whether organically or out of necessity, he becomes so much more than a collection of recognizable catchphrases that trigger memories of a high school civics class.
“Selma” certainly does not shy away from some character details that the history books often elide, such as his vehement opposition to the Vietnam War and his marital infidelities. Dr. King, as portrayed by David Oyelowo, does not always don his shining armor, either. The film’s most powerful display of racially motivated violence takes place when hundreds of protesters attempt to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, only to be brutally attacked by a cabal of police and townsmen alike. King is not there with them. He is at home, trying to smooth over a marital rough patch with his wife Coretta (Carmen Ejogo).
I read Sara Gruen’s acclaimed best-selling novel “Water for Elephants” at the zenith of its popularity and found myself rather underwhelmed. (What self-respecting novel gives only the most cursory explanation of its title?) Francis Lawrence’s cinematic adaptation did little to change my opinion. His “Water for Elephants” is pleasant and watchable, which is about all it has to offer.
In the film, Robert Pattinson stars as Jacob Jankowski, a veterinary student whose life takes a screeching detour when his parents both die during his last exam. Saddled not only with his own grief but also with their debts, he opts for a somewhat cliched escape route by joining the circus. He stows away and quickly moves up from shoveling horse droppings to taking care of the show’s star animals.
He quickly discovers that his humane veterinary practices have little use in the profit-hungry Banzini Brothers circus, run by the shrewd but cruel August (Christoph Waltz). As if that is not enough to make him worry about both occupational and personal security, Jacob finds himself smitten for the boss’s wife, star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). Romantic rivalry quickly runs cold as Jacob’s arrival quickly accelerates the dismembering of Marlena and August’s already fragile relationship.
Lawrence prefers to leave the tensions at a standstill rather than letting them progress towards their boiling point. As a result, “Water for Elephants” often feels flat and unexciting. At the very least, when the sparks fail to fly at the clashing of the three leads, the environment is always believable and interesting. The film does a nice job romanticizing the elegant, balletic movement of the circus performance as well as the extravagant moveable architecture of the spectacle.
In a sense, it adds to the story a visual element that has to remain imaginary when experienced on the page. Too bad Witherspoon, Waltz, and Pattinson could not add more flavor with their characters. C+ /
No one should expect a first feature to set the world on fire (only “Citizen Kane” really has). Right out of the gate, a novice filmmaker has so much to learn both about the form itself and the process of executing a vision. Usually, it just marks a rough draft to show what the filmmaker can eventually become.
Ava DuVernay’s directorial debut, “I Will Follow,” is certainly no exception. The 80 minute film is essentially a one-act play in structure that she shoots as a Lifetime movie. Set in a time where “could be” has turned into “should have,” the gentle elevator muzak serves as an invitation to a walking cliché. The film recalls Matthew Weiner’s “Are You Here,” another first feature that gets mired in easy traps for rookies.
Her protagonist Maye (Salli Richardson-Whitfield) journeys from messiness to orderliness and ignorance towards knowledge as she sorts through the estate of her late aunt. In the process, she takes an inventory of her own life. So, in essence, nothing particularly revelatory.
“I Will Follow” is not all bad, however. Every once in a while, a glimmer of poise breaks through. DuVernay does manage to find some interesting editing tempos that provide some life when the story and acting gets almost unbearably hokey. There are some compelling family dynamics, namely between Aunt Amanda’s daughter and nieces; resentments that were bubbling under the surface during her life find screaming release in her death.
Perhaps with better actors and a less cloying underscore, these scenes would play out more authentically and artistically. But plenty of great filmmakers have begun their careers in the B-movie realm. Look no further than the “Roger Corman Filmmaking School,” which produced such ingenues as Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Jonathan Demme, and James Cameron. So take heart! Just because “I Will Follow” is pretty crummy does not mean Ava DuVernay’s work moving forwards will be of a similar tenor. C /
To fight violence, you need to know what it is. And in “The Interrupters,” a documentary that follows the CeaseFire group as they work to halt youth violence in Chicago, many somber explanations are proffered that really give us a sense of what these fighters are up against. Violence is learned behavior and also a disease – it’s what these kids expect to be their cause of death.
Steve James’ documentary ultimately proves to be about as untidy as the task of fighting this epidemic. The narrative he crafts out of his observations is rather scattershot, and very little attention is given to developing the arcs of certain important figures in the story.
Still, “The Interrupters” collects some rather moving moments that make the documentary a worthwhile watch. In one particularly somber montage, we see several makeshift mausoleums erected to honor murdered children. What else really needs to be said?
James makes sure we understand the fear that the normalcy of constant violence inflicts on the children of these Chicago communities. But, at the same time, he also makes sure we understand that this problem can’t just be solved by well-meaning white ladies like “The Blind Side” intimates. James unquestionably communicates the passion of these violence interrupters to turning the tide on youth violence, and we can see that they have slowly begun to inspire their community.
“The Interrupters” is at its best in these instances where can see and hear from the boots on the ground fighting the battle. CeaseFire’s CEO Tio Hardiman provides some very profound commentary, as do many other of his foot soldiers. They do their job with near perfection and noble intent; James, in telling their story, brings merely the latter of those two attributes. B /
I haven’t used this category of post in almost three years, so I figure it’s due for a good dusting off. Here, I’ll give you a sense of what I’ll be up to this month at “Marshall and the Movies” and what might be cooking at a theater near you.
F.I.L.M. of the Week
You might have already noticed (that’s doubtful), but I have chosen to move my long-running “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column from Friday to Thursday. The decision was manifold. First, I wanted to take advantage of #tbt opportunities on Facebook. Second, I needed the space on Friday to run reviews of new releases, which are often embargoed until opening day. I look forward to bringing the same underseen or underrated titles to your attention on a new day!
Paul Thomas Anderson
I hinted last month that I would post a recap of the “On Cinema” that I heard PTA give, but I wound up focusing all my efforts on finishing all my 2014 reviews. That and a ranked filmography will be coming next week to celebrate the release of “Inherent Vice.”
Golden Globes Live Blog
One last hurrah for Tina and Amy! I’ll be typing my thoughts the whole time.
Sundance Spotlight
The year always gets an injection of fresh energy from the outset thanks to Sundance, the American festival committed to highlighting new voices in the world of independent film. To run parallel with the 2015 festival, I will be publishing a daily review of a film that came out of Sundance – both the good and the bad.
A Most Violent Year
Finally, I can share my thoughts – January 30, unless A24 changes their minds.
In theaters
I am SO stoked for “American Sniper” on January 16. Holy cow.
In terms of actual January releases, though, the film that most intrigues me is “Girlhood.”
It’s going to be a good month (I hope!) – what are YOU looking forward to?
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, the world once again finds itself in a place of anger and fear towards the Islamic faith because of a few violent radicals. So often, the media tends to “otherize” these jihadists, completely denying them any shred of humanity because of their barbaric acts. Needless to say, any detailed attempt to actually understand why they do these things is totally off the table.
Filmmakers rarely employ the first person narrative style – the only fictional film that comes to mind is Gaspar Noe’s experimental art film “Enter the Void.” It does occasionally crop up in documentary film, though, where films like Laura Poitras’ “
At the Tribeca Film Festival, “
When Americans complain about censorship, that’s usually a term being liberally applied by Harvey Weinstein while yelling at the MPAA to give him the rating he wants. Be it “
No one should expect a first feature to set the world on fire (only “
To fight violence, you need to know what it is. And in “
I haven’t used this category of post in almost three years, so I figure it’s due for a good dusting off. Here, I’ll give you a sense of what I’ll be up to this month at “Marshall and the Movies” and what might be cooking at a theater near you.
Golden Globes Live Blog
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments