Inherent Vice

“Inherent Vice” is a movie you simply inhale, so rich with characters and humor as to live inside it.

Inherent Vice PosterPaul Thomas Anderson’s adaptation of “Inherent Vice,” Thomas Pynchon’s classic pulp crime novel, isn’t so much about drugs as it is the idea of drugs. It’s quite easy to say the whole thing is a trip, but then there’s an unspoken nuance to all the little details that make it feel like a hallucination. The plot is so dense you couldn’t map it with a flow chart, but the subtle humor behind PTA’s rich and ever growing cast of characters puts a satirical edge on the whole cloak and dagger ordeal. You don’t unravel “Inherent Vice’s” plot; rather, to perpetuate the drug analogy, you just inhale.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Doc Sportello, a ‘70s private investigator with a mutton chop beard sitting in a hazy blue bungalow, marijuana smoke drifting in from the frames. Like a sudden beacon of light in his calm world of Gordita Beach, Cali comes Shasta (Katherine Waterston), donning an orange, curvy sundress and “looking like she always said she wouldn’t”. Shasta’s an old ex of Doc’s, so she asks for his help. Her latest boyfriend is the wealthy real estate mogul Mickey Wolfman (Eric Roberts), and his wife and her fling want to commit Wolfman to a mental institution and steal his fortune.

Meanwhile, Doc gets a visit from the Black Panther Tariq Khalil (Michael Kenneth Williams) asking him to locate one of Wolfman’s associates, an Aryan Brotherhood biker named Glen Charlock. When Glen turns up dead, with Doc’s passed out body lying right beside him, Doc is hauled in by Lt. Detective “Bigfoot” Bjornsen (Josh Brolin). Bigfoot has a flat top hair cut and the hardened features of a man’s man who could find his place in just about any decade. He suspects Doc could help lead him to Wolfman and Shasta, who have now disappeared, and that Doc, stoned as he perpetually is, may know more than he actually knows.

That’s only the crust of all “Inherent Vice” has to offer, but this story and these characters alone feel so well drawn that you’ll follow it down just about any rabbit hole. The dialogue and narration by Joanna Newsom is all Pynchon, and in mere sentences he conveys personalities that seem fuller than anything in literature. Like “The Godfather”, these characters even have names that sink in even if you can’t place who they are. When they speak, they’re all business, but on closer scrutiny it’s pure screwball. At one point, Doc is attempting to track down The Golden Fang, which may be a boat, a gang, a company, or all three. How that makes any sense is anyone’s guess.

Very much like Robert Altman’s “The Long Goodbye”, whom Anderson owes a big debt in several of his films and especially this one, “Inherent Vice” is essentially a big pot for this rich cast of characters to stew. The film never stays put, but as Anderson follows Doc from place to place, there’s a sense of humor, sex appeal and sinister undertones that he carries along. We see it as Wolfman’s “sexy chicana” house keeper bends languidly in front of Doc as she serves his drink, or as Mrs. Wolfman’s hulking mass of a squeeze is introduced to us from the neck down.

But where Altman was potentially uninterested in the plot details of Raymond Chandler, Anderson is in deep with Pynchon’s mystery. At any point the film seems to be deceiving you, whether it’s a TV commercial beginning to talk directly to Doc, a group of troopers suddenly sneaking up on a remote building and disappearing behind brush, or perhaps most hilariously of all, a sudden outburst of “pussy eating”.

Did we really just see all that? Is any of this really happening? That Anderson plays with that perception constantly and still finds a way to cobble together all the pieces in ambiguous, uncertain ways, is part of “Inherent Vice’s” appeal to watch it not just once, but again and again, forever getting lost in its hazy, drug addled fever dream.

3 ½ stars

Selma

Ava DuVernay’s “Selma” is the rare biopic that feels modern, raw and yet still powerfully emotional and rousing.

SelmaPosterThe marches at Selma, Alabama, the boycotting of buses in Montgomery, the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, the protests in New York: these aren’t just part of a “cause”. All this isn’t just “activism”. These are people’s lives at stake, and regardless of which side of the line you stand, blood has been shed both then and now.

Lyndon B. Johnson called Martin Luther King Jr. just an “activist”, as it is depicted in Ava DuVernay’s “Selma”, saying he has one cause while the Presidential administration has 101. Much unnecessary controversy has been made over the accuracy of President Johnson’s relationship with Dr. King, but LBJ as he is seen here serves as a powerful symbol for why racial unrest in this country persists and why change continues to drag its feet.

“Selma” is a raw, emotional, and most of all modern drama that with modesty and dignity proclaims that injustice can’t be treated as just another issue on the table. Unlike other prestige biopics, DuVernay doesn’t for a minute allow melodrama into her film that would pretend that racism and violence are gone from this world. Her film is a poignant reminder of what was and how these people’s influences, both noble and ugly, still linger.

“Selma” focuses in on a small portion of Dr. King’s life work and is all the greater for it. DuVernay is able to dig into the thorny nuance of this particular event and draw modern parallels that ripple throughout the film. King (David Oyelowo) opens the film receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, and after a meeting with President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson), determines that help from the White House will not come soon enough. Their plan is to organize a rally in Selma and march all the way to the capital of Montgomery, nearly 50 miles away, in order to protest voting rights in the state.

King delivers a modest, yet powerful explanation of why voting rights for African Americans is so critical. Through fear and corruption of the courts, only two percent of blacks in Selma are registered to vote. Hundreds are then killed by the brutality of white cops and racist white residents, and all white juries led by a white judge fail to convict the killers of crimes because blacks cannot vote for the judge nor serve on the juries because they are not registered. This train of logic is crucial because a lack of convictions will certainly strike a chord with modern audiences.

And on the other side of the coin, we see repulsive logic that has most definitely carried its way through to 2015. George Wallace (Tim Roth), the then Governor of Alabama, explains to President Johnson that if blacks got the right to vote, they’d then want jobs, then schools, “then it’s distribution of wealth without work.” “Moochers” was not a term likely used in 1964, but DuVernay subtly makes her point about the way blacks are perceived today through this shocking lens to the past.

Civil Rights movies from period pieces (“The Help”) to the contemporary (“The Blind Side”) have framed their discussion of race through white people evolving, and it breeds melodrama and an assumption that things are for the better now. DuVernay doesn’t presuppose anything, and the politicking from King, Johnson and Wallace all remind of Spielberg’s “Lincoln” and the long, joint effort that went into creating change. She dodges the melodrama, keeps the film modest in scope and doesn’t lose any of King’s rousing words or messages.

DuVernay comes from the indie realm of filmmaking, and even “Selma’s” many moments of violence are visceral, in your face, raw, aggressive and all beautifully lensed by DP Bradford Young. There are fewer shots or moments of the movie dwelling on truly monstrous racists, and instead the bursts of violence throughout the film make all of “Selma” feel volatile. You can feel the tension as Dr. King begins to march thousands over Selma’s bridge out of town, and you can feel it as he or his cohorts sit in their homes, always in some form of danger from the hatred that surrounds them.

2014 was a year of great conflict, and of the movies the Academy Awards sought to recognize this year, many were biopics that focused on the heroics and struggles of the historians at the center. Of all of them, only “Selma” has captured the pulse of the nation yesterday and today.

4 stars

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The “epic” conclusion to Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” trilogy is hardly as epic as it purports.

TheHobbitPosterIt’s all come down to this. We’ve arrived There and Back Again in the most epic trilogy ever put to film, yes? “The Hobbit” is such a dense and important story that it absolutely had to be spread out across three films. Surely one movie is not good enough for one book? If so, is “The Battle of the Five Armies” the monumental finale you’ve been waiting for? Are you not entertained?

Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” franchise has been the most lumbering, ponderous, self-important and at the same time eye-rollingly lame collection of films. “An Unexpected Journey” was laughably cartoonish, featuring dwarf singing, trolls scratching their asses and a goblin with a scrotum dangling from his chin. “The Desolation of Smaug” was frustratingly pointless, both so over-plotted in exposition and yet under-plotted in creating a story with actual substance. And each film, shot in 3D and high frequency 48 Frames Per Second, has looked awful: fake, too bright, and plain un-cinematic.

Was there a question that “The Battle of the Five Armies” would turn this around? This third entry may be the least bad in the franchise, but now it is drowning in portentous overtones of war, conflict and impending doom on the horizon. Jackson continues to underutilize his main character, i.e. the actual Hobbit in “The Hobbit”, and loses focus on elves, orcs, dwarves and weasel humans who won’t die or disappear. It’s as overstuffed a film as any of the previous, and it’s oh so long.

“The Desolation of Smaug” ended on an unfortunate cliffhanger, with the dragon Smaug being unleashed from his mountain lair by the clan of dwarves, only to be set loose upon the simple human city of Laketown. That’s where “The Battle of the Five Armies” picks up, but it’s a perplexing way to start the film. Not only does the abrupt opening lose its suspense and excitement, Jackson can’t pull himself away from the many human characters making their escape, including the insufferable comic relief Alfrid, the snively coward of a human always inserting himself into otherwise serious sequences.

Even once the dragon is slayed things don’t quite get moving. Jackson then jumps away to provide a teaser to the original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, a distraction that’s little more than fan service in which Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Galadriel and Saurumon battle holograms of I’m not sure what.

What their meeting does explain is that now that Smaug has been slayed, all of Middle Earth will be coming to the mountain to claim the riches inside and its militaristically strategic location. As a result, the dwarves have barricaded themselves inside, still looking for the priceless stone that serves as a symbol for a leader’s rise to power. Bilbo (Martin Freeman) found it at the end of “The Desolation of Smaug” but now is reluctant to turn it over to Thorin (Richard Armitage) after seeing how the pursuit of it has driven him mad with power.

But the bluster Jackson musters seems misplaced. Thorin is king of nothing and these dozen dwarves amid five armies of thousands of elves, humans, and orcs seem to amount to a hill of beans. Yet still they chatter on endlessly about war, and only Bilbo avoids speaking his dialogue with an air of self-importance. One still wishes the film were about Bilbo and his growth more so than the MacGuffins and the gigantic battles.

Just like his plot exposition, Jackson has taken orchestrating CGI mayhem to a new level. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) executes a stunt here so laughably impossible that it’s plain brilliant on Jackson’s part. Legolas has knocked over a tower to create a makeshift bridge positioned perfectly between two mountain cliffs. In a fight with an orc leader atop it, it all starts to slowly collapse. Legolas then bounds (or perhaps glides is more accurate) up one stone at a time, each falling in a stepping stone pattern, which gives him enough time to jump on top of his opponent, then to safety, leading the orc to fall to his doom.

An isolated sequence like that, however absurd, is an example of the creativity Jackson still has and his ability to create a memorable moment of action filmmaking. I attest that out of all nine hours of footage across three movies, there is one truly great “Hobbit” film to be seen here. For how bloated and long this last installment continues to grow, “The Battle of the Five Armies” is not it.

2 ½ stars

Big Eyes

Tim Burton’s ‘Big Eyes’ is missing the gender politics and humor that would vitalize Margaret Keane’s story.

BigEyesPosterA woman is carefully studying one of Margaret Keane’s paintings of a waif like child with big eyes in a state of poverty and despair. She says, “It’s creepy, maudlin and amateurish. And I love it.”

Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes” tells the story of Margaret Keane, but his film only meets the last two criteria of Margaret’s paintings. “Big Eyes” feels like a standard biopic placed in a maudlin setting, but it lacks the surreal, absurd, cartoonish character that has defined even some of Burton’s worst films. In the process, he loses the humor, wit and even political point of view necessary to make good on Margaret’s story.

Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) was a painter in the ‘50s and ‘60s who attained enormous success with her “Big Eye” paintings. All portraits of children, the moody sketches were pure kitsch and possibly art, but regardless, they sold like hotcakes. Reproduced countless times over, it became possible to buy a Keane at your local grocery store.

The only problem was that Margaret saw none of the attention for her work. Her husband Walter (Christoph Waltz) convinced her that the work would sell better if people thought that it came from a man, so he took credit for himself and eventually became an established artist hobnobbing with Andy Warhol and being torn to shreds in the New York Times. Once the lie and Big Eye empire were established, Walter convinced Margaret that if she were to ever reveal the truth, the whole enterprise would come crashing down. Margaret remained silent for years until a circus of a legal battle in which Walter still claimed he was the sole painter of the Big Eyes.

Immediately Margaret’s story brings to mind women’s rights and what it means to be a female artist either in 1960 or 2015. Burton however doesn’t seem to have a political bone in his body, and he comments as little about the present as he does the past, seeking only to tell Margaret’s story in traditional terms.

Burton also misses an opportunity to take the courtroom material and make it truly outrageous. At one point Walter acts as both his own prosecutor and witness, leaping up and down from the stand with aplomb and play-acting the stereotypes he’s seen on old Perry Masons. Waltz executes the scene with charm, but he’s an actor who can go further, and Burton doesn’t ask him to, playing the moment mostly straight and not technically for laughs. The historical details of Margaret’s story are seedier and more outrageous than Burton even thinks to portray, something that seems peculiar given just how kooky and dark Burton can make established properties like Batman, Alice in Wonderland or the soap opera Dark Shadows.

Even bigger questions of truth, forgery and art seem to linger as untouched subjects. Something like “American Hustle” worked the idea of forgery into the very fabric of its storytelling. Even one of Burton’s best films, “Ed Wood”, explored the idea of whether even the worst art can still be called genius. Why can’t “Big Eyes” make a bigger claim about the nature of art, and how even kitsch and sentimental pap can still move people in a way that makes it art?

Keane’s art was all of those things but seemed weird enough to suggest there was an artist under those layers of canvas. “Big Eyes” amounts to little more than its surface level appeal.

2 ½ stars

American Sniper

“American Sniper” is powerful, classical storytelling by Clint Eastwood but is troubling one-sided in its depiction of war.

308555id1i_TheJudge_FinalRated_27x40_1Sheet.inddIn this country during every sporting event, there is a moment reserved for the armed forces who have served this country. It could be a tearful commercial for beer, insurance, cars, anything, or it could be a standing ovation for two veterans during halftime. They sacrificed their lives, did their job, and that’s all we as a nation ask of them.

To ask anything more of our military or to question how they do their job goes against America’s values in the 21st Century. To suggest that they did something that’s out of line with what’s good for the country or what’s good for others around the world is tantamount to treason. Blame the country, blame the system, blame the terrorists, but don’t blame the troops.

When we hear of a soldier like Chris Kyle, he’s not just a veteran or a hero; he’s a legend. Kyle was credited with over 160 kills as the most lethal sniper in American history. After four tours in the Middle East as a Navy SEAL following the attacks on 9/11, Kyle lived to tell his story in the book that became Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper”.

Having not read Kyle’s book or known the man, I cannot comment on his character. “American Sniper” depicts Kyle’s life work as a soldier with all the valor and respect anyone in this country would be likely to give him.

And yet the portrait Eastwood offers of Kyle (Bradley Cooper) is a soldier who killed methodically, who showed no remorse for his assassinations, who brought himself to kill children as a result of his work, who labeled his victims “savages”, who placed his need to protect other soldiers above his own family, and who showed disdain for loved ones who expressed uncertainty at the work they were doing. I look at “American Sniper’s” Chris Kyle and see a flawed person, perhaps someone who shouldn’t be called a legend so willingly.

Yet Eastwood’s film is not so ambiguous. Kyle’s fight is against evil and his goal is to protect soldiers at all costs, all of which is a necessity as part of this job. Eastwood even crafts a cinematic device in the form of a single villain named Mustafa. He was an Olympic gold medalist in sniping from Syria, but here he’s a ruthless assassin who can pick off Americans from a mile away, never speaking a word and only seen sitting by a phone spinning a bullet as he awaits troop movements. He’s the embodiment of pure malevolence and Kyle’s ultimate rival, and he must be stopped.

Depending on which side of the political spectrum you sit, this may be more than enough justification for total war against terrorists or it may be a gross misappropriation of humanity outside of America. It’ll give you an idea of the horrors of war, but it may either fill you with pride for the work of brave men overseas or leave you uneasy at what they did there.

Perhaps Eastwood doesn’t need to pick sides. In “American Sniper” he leaves politics out of the equation altogether, and though there are enough naysayers within the military’s ranks to question the pursuit of glory and violence, he doesn’t vilify Kyle’s actions or suggest that he should feel bad for the body count he amassed.

TA3A5741.DNG

What “American Sniper” provides is perspective. It gives insight into the effects of war on soldiers in a way many other films have succeeded at or failed at to varying degrees. And it best of all shows how a man like Kyle could choose war over his family. If “American Sniper” doesn’t make a bold statement of purpose about war, it at the very least tells a story and offers Kyle’s point of view with powerful, engrossing, classical storytelling. Eastwood proves he’s an old pro capable of stark action and emotion that will move everyone regardless of politics.

The film’s most revealing scene comes early during Kyle’s childhood. At the dinner table after a schoolyard brawl, Kyle’s father explains that all people are sheep, wolves or sheep dogs; people are either blind to the evil in the world, committing evil or sworn to protect the world from it. This philosophy guides all of Kyle’s actions and his motivation to engage in four separate tours despite the objections of his wife, and Eastwood doesn’t question this idea or view it with ambiguity. But who are the sheep dogs to pick out the wolves? Is there no middle ground between a dog and sheep? And does the sheep dog have the right to eliminate all the wolves, regardless of the flock?

This analogy thankfully doesn’t return in “American Sniper” to overstate a point, but those who do raise objections to war are often in the background. Kyle spots his brother going home after a tour, jaded and confused at what he’s done. Another close friend killed on the battlefield has his mother read a letter about the misguided pursuit of glory at his funeral. When his wife Taya (Sienna Miller) asks what he thought, Kyle says it was the letter that killed him.

With Kyle so resolute, it’s a shame then to see “American Sniper” so one-sided and to deny the Muslims depicted in the film as anything other than monsters. In each case of Kyle engaging directly with the Arabs who live in this war torn region, Eastwood flips the encounter into something more debasing. In the first, the man demands $100,000 for information on the whereabouts of a known terrorist. In the second, the man offers the Americans a feast, but does so only as a ruse. Kyle’s suspicion uncovers a stockpile of weaponry meant to kill them. The aforementioned Mustafa does not say a word, only murders. And Kyle frequently refers to those he kills as savages. After witnessing a woman and child brandishing a grenade meant for American tanks, Kyle says, “That’s an evil like I’ve never seen.” It’s here that the troubling sheep dog mentality rears its head, and Eastwood makes it feel as though he’s banishing evil from the world instead of killing people, innocent or otherwise.

In comparison, one of Eastwood’s best cinematic efforts was a pair of films that managed to show both sides of World War II, “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters to Iwo Jima”. The more patriotic “Flags” followed Americans who questioned the image sent back to the states after the battle at Iwo Jima, and “Letters” offered added depth to the Americans’ Japanese combatants and why they felt they needed to commit figurative or literal suicide as a natural expression of war. “American Sniper” lacks that counterpoint, framing much of Kyle’s story in flag waving terms that don’t sit well considering the violence on display.

Rather, “American Sniper’s” depth lies on the home front. Eastwood recognizes that there’s a torn dilemma between where home really lies for a soldier like Kyle, with his family of a wife and kids or his family of SEALs. The gravity of Kyle’s choice to do four tours lies in knowing what he’s leaving behind and how he rationalizes that he’s really protecting his family. Kyle’s wife Taya begs him to be human again, but it’s a touchingly realized moment when she realizes he’s not fully “here” when his mind is at war. If Eastwood fails at giving us the effects of war across international boundaries, he succeeds when crossing marital boundaries.

And yet the strength of “American Sniper” still does rest on the battlefield. When Kyle is seen sniping, Eastwood takes us into Kyle’s mental zone, focused to the point that time passes quickly in the background and that he can kill tirelessly without fanfare. It’s harrowing stuff always photographed clearly and crisply. Few directors outside of Eastwood have the ability to communicate a war shootout with such clarity.

Matching Kyle’s mental zone is Bradley Cooper, firmly in the prime of his movie star charisma and talent as an actor. It’s hard to imagine another actor fitting into Kyle’s combat boots, and Cooper takes Kyle’s focus to scary places. Sienna Miller likewise does strong work and brings much needed pathos to the film’s home front scenes.

After watching “American Sniper”, I’m still unsure about the real Chris Kyle’s heroics. Much has already been made about whether his depiction is accurate, and political proponents on both the right and left have sought to either champion or vilify Kyle to make a statement. But Eastwood above all has captured a powerful story with a character at the center who could be a legend, but is at the very least human.

3 ½ stars

Citizenfour

Laura Poitras’s documentary on Edward Snowden goes beyond politics to the nuances of how he made his escape.

Edward Snowden is sitting in his Hong Kong hotel room on his bed, laptop in hand, with a red sheet over his head. He’s taking certain precautions. Sitting in the same room are journalists Glenn Greenwald and “Citizenfour’s” director Laura Poitras. Snowden jokingly condescends about how they’re not being completely secure online, and then very casually remembers that the VOIP phone in his room could quite easily be tapped. “I don’t think that anything would surprise me at this point,” Greenwald says in response.

Poitras’s documentary takes you so deep down the rabbit hole that just about anything could happen, and no surprise would be beyond belief. “Citizenfour” is a real life spy story, the stuff of “All the President’s Men” and “The Conversation” in which a slow, sinister, mysterious burn can reveal the greatest twists and controversies. It’s a chilling, tingling documentary about how Snowden first wrapped Poitras and Greenwald into this mess and how he finally got out. Though it is as tense, entertaining and emotionally powerful as any fictional movie, “Citizenfour” and its subject matter makes for also the most important movie of the year.

So much was made and said about Edward Snowden’s revelations regarding the NSA. Was he a patriot or a traitor? What does it mean to have privacy in a digital age? What was up with Snowden’s stubbly beard? Continue reading “Citizenfour”

Palo Alto

Gia Coppola’s film is based on a collection of short stories by James Franco and stars Emma Roberts.

“What if I don’t think there’s a reason for why things happen?” Films about the high school experience try and bring their characters full circle, taking them through ups and downs that compose a coming of age as though that’s all there is. So when April asks this question of her history teacher, she tacitly recognizes that all these things that make up a teenager’s high school experience are just moments, ones that not every teen will share.

“Palo Alto” captures the more wistful moments of the high school experience. It has highs and lows that alone amount to only so much. Together however, they’re a richer yearbook in the life of a teenager. Gia Coppola’s film aims for the same high mark as “Boyhood”, making profound observations about life via all the little stuff.

Gia Coppola, who draws her visual style of candy color pastels from her aunt Sofia Coppola, finds a different narrative structure than Richard Linklater, borrowing instead from a collection of James Franco’s short stories. Rather than one overarching plot, individual characters provide glimmers of larger narratives and add up to a larger picture of this Palo Alto high school. Continue reading “Palo Alto”

Jodorowsky’s Dune

Frank Pavich’s documentary tells the story of cult filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky’s wild attempt to adapt Frank Herbert’s sci-fi tome ‘Dune’.

“Jodorowsky’s Dune” is a documentary about the greatest movie never made. Its first achievement is in convincing us this film is as great, as ambitious and as influential as the people involved would have you believe.

Its more impressive feat however is in making the case for cinema and the need to have spirituality, ambition and madness within every frame. “Jodorowsky’s Dune” will scratch the itch of the curious filmmaker and industry man who wants to hear a juicy, behind the scenes story of a troubled production, but it will turn them into cinephiles with the appreciation for real genius and vision.

Frank Pavich directs this account of the mad genius Alejandro Jodorowsky, a cult filmmaker from Chile who made outrageous and acclaimed midnight movies in the ‘70s, including “El Topo” and “The Holy Mountain”. Following the success of those films, he sought to adapt the sprawling novel by Frank Herbert, “Dune.” Jodorowsky had never even read the book, but he knew it to be something more than a story; it was an entirely contained universe set in space, and he wanted to create another world separate from literature or from cinema. Continue reading “Jodorowsky’s Dune”

Top Five

“Top Five” is Chris Rock’s passion project, written, directed and starred in by the comedian.

For all of the surrealism and cinematic wizardry to be found in this year’s “Birdman”, the film was above all the story of a man grappling with fame and reality. He put on a play to be taken seriously while battling the demons of his past life as a superhero star as well as his press and his peers all out to destroy him.

Chris Rock’s “Top Five” is the more grounded version of this struggle, a less symbolic and more searing industry critique of celebrity, race dynamics and the press in a modern world. And while Michael Keaton has been stealing headlines for “Birdman’s” narrative similarities, Rock’s story is the truly meta portrait, a film he wrote, directed and starred in standing in for his own stand-up routine and opinions. Continue reading “Top Five”

Ida

Pawel Pawlikowski’s Polish drama follows a nun trying to locate her parents’ grave in 1960s Poland.

In Pawel Pawlikowski’s “Ida”, the title character is a nun experiencing the outside world for the first time. She’s lived her entire life in solitude, innocent and naïve to her past or her culture. At just 82 minutes and in almost no time at all, watching “Ida” is like being released from your own protective bubble. Pawlikowski’s film is a shocking and powerful coming of age tale with the most picturesque visuals and a sly wit as part of a quiet, modest package. It’s one of the most surprising stories and cinematic achievements of the year.

Shot in the traditional Academy aspect ratio and in black and white, Pawlikowski channels early Dreyer for “Ida’s” impeccable look. His opening shot is an off-kilter framing of the title character that in a way places her at odds with the world, unsettled in the only home she knows. Inside this Polish convent, the conditions are poor, with chickens running around the grounds and the nuns painting and carrying a statue of Jesus as if it were a sacrificial lamb. During dinner the sisters eat soup as their spoons clink away in the room’s utter silence.

Anna (Agata Trzebuchowska) is on the verge of taking her vows, but the head nun tells her that she has an aunt living in the city, her only remaining family. Anna’s aunt is Wanda (Agata Kulesza), a hard-drinking, tough-nosed civil servant who upon seeing her niece immediately unleashes a bombshell: her name is really Ida, her parents are in fact dead, and she’s a Jew. Continue reading “Ida”