Movie Round Up

Movies: Rubber, Mud, Kill List


Rubber

You may have heard of Rubber. It's that movie where a tire comes to life and begins killing animals and people telepathically. Oh, and the tire's name is Robert.

You might ask: why a tire? Luckily, the movie answers this question in an opening monologue by one of its characters. Stephen Spinella, playing Lieutenant Chad, addresses the audience and asks why E.T. in the movie E.T. is brown. Why the characters in Love Story fall in love. Why, in The Pianist, the talented main character has to hide from the Nazis when he's clearly such a talented man. The answer to all three questions: No reason.

"No reason" is the thesis of Rubber. It's a movie where absurdity is valued over reason. There is a meta-story to the story. As the Robert-the-psychopathic-tire plot unfolds, a group of people in the desert sit there and watch it, as if they were watching a movie. At one point the film begs the question--if no one is watching, what happens to the characters in the film? Do they just go home? It's kind of like that old brainteaser: if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

So it's best to see Rubber with an open mind. It's not a horror movie and it's not a comedy, although it has elements of both genres. It's also not a heavily symbolic story with an actual deeper meaning that can be unlocked by going over the clues, like, say, Mulholland Drive. In order to have clues and a deeper meaning, Rubber would have to have reason, and as stated early on in the film, there is no reason. The only message I can extract from this movie is that the audience makes the film and without an audience, a film is nothing. So maybe that's the answer to all the above questions: why is E.T. brown? Why do the characters fall in love? Why does Robert the tire attain sentience and blow up people's heads? For the audience. Whether they understand it or not.

3.5 out of 5 stars


Mud

Mud should be a better movie than it is. Starring Matthew McConaughey as the titular character, Mud had the potential to be a creepy and taut Southern-fried thriller. But it had far too little momentum for that and instead is a slow semi-retelling of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. In Mud, two young teen boys, Ellis and Neckbone, live on a river somewhere in the South. They regularly explore a nearby island, and one day they discover a motorboat high in the branches of a tree. It turns out that there is a man, who goes by the name of Mud, hiding out there. Mud is on the run from the law, and in exchange for food, he promises to let the boys have the boat when he's done with it. Mud is waiting on Juniper (Reese Witherspoon in a trashy and thankless role), his "true love", to arrive so they can run away together. Mud is basically a poor, Southern Jay Gatsby--waiting on a women he can never really be with. The boys--romantic Ellis in particular--are intrigued by his story and try to help reunite him with Juniper. However, seeing as Mud is a wanted man, helping him escape is not so easy.


I saw this movie at the Alamo Drafthouse, and I have to say that the best part of the experience was the beer that was served to me in my seat. Although Mud is in not really a "bad" film, it's very slow and underwhelming, with surprisingly little at stake. A better movie would have made the character Mud more menacing (or, alternatively, more charming), and make the audience feel wary of him. Instead, we know from the get-go that Mud is a good guy and he's not going to harm these boys. There's no sense of danger or suspicion. For a film about a fugitive trying to get back together with his sexy-trashy girlfriend, Mud sure doesn't have that many thrills. It's not very sexy, it's not very violent, and it's not very profound.

I would recommend skipping Mud and seeing director Jeff Nichols' 2011 film Take Shelter--a truly frightening and thrilling film--instead.

3 out of 5 stars


Kill List

Unlike Mud, Kill List drips with malice and unbearable tension. From the quick cuts in the middle of scenes to the ominous soundtrack that will raise the hair on the back of your neck, you know right away that something is terribly wrong in Kill List.

Jay, a former hitman, has been out of work for 8 months. His wife is growing increasingly angry with him, leading to screaming fights between the two of them and putting the emotional welfare of their son at stake. When Jay's army buddy, Gal, encourages him to take a job putting his killing skills to work for a vast sum of money, Jay reluctantly agrees. As the two men make their way down the hit list, it becomes apparent that Jay is in no way prepared for this job. Suffering some kind of PTSD, Jay's method of killing becomes more and more deranged. There are some truly disgusting scenes of violence in this movie that even got the best of me, and I can generally handle movie violence. It's one of those movies where the violence occurs a little ways off screen and you are praying that the camera won't pan down...and then it pans down. Kill List is not for the faint of heart or stomach.


So, it would seem that this movie is all about a deranged contract killer's descent into madness...except that is isn't. There is something far, far more sinister going on around the periphery and the final 30 minutes is a combination of insanity and fear. And the worst part is there's really no explanation for the events that occur. But it is truly effective as a horror film. It didn't exactly keep me up all night, but I was definitely disturbed by it.

I'm being coy on purpose. If you like horror films--especially ones that use atmosphere, rather than jump scares, to create a sense of dread--see Kill List with as little knowledge about it as possible.

4 out of 5 stars

The "Meh" Gatsby

Movies: The Great Gatsby

What makes a novel "unfilmable"? For me, it's when a novel deals more in ideas than plot, when symbolism figures heavily into the novel, and when the prose is so beautiful, it simply can't be replicated in any meaningful way on the silver screen.

In many ways, Baz Luhrmann is the ideal director for the latest screen adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Who better to direct a story about the consequences of opulence and extreme fixation than one of the most stylistically opulent directors whose stories invariably focus on intense and fixated love? Yet, ironically, the failures of the film are predictable when one reviews Luhrmann's previous works.

Luhrmann, a director I do like, succeeded in his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet because his style was new and fresh at the time: anachronistic, hyperactive, colorful and fast-paced. And even though the film romanticized what is a very misunderstood plot (two teens commit suicide--it's a tragedy, not a love story for the ages), the youthful intensity of pre-Titanic Leo and post-My So-Called Life Claire made the short-lived romance between the characters burn. Come on. That scene where they kiss in the elevator? My 12 year old self knew is was fucking hot, and my 27 year old self still knows it's hot. Chemistry, man.

Likewise, Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge! also worked. First of all, Luhrmann could go as crazy as he wanted because there was no story that the film was based on. And the setting--turn of the century Paris--was begging for Luhrmann's frenetic style. And once again, the leads had enormous chemistry. Ewan McGregor's optimistic bohemian who is destroyed by the loss of his love and Nicole Kidman's jaded courtesan are as believable as they could be in a film as theatrical and costumey as Mouiln Rouge!

Unfortunately, Luhrmann's style doesn't work with The Great Gatsby. The novel, which can truly be called the (or, at least, "a") Great American Novel, for its heartbreaking take on "The American Dream", is too sincere and too dignified for a sexual, colorful, Jay-Z-filled movie. It's not Luhrmann's fault: the material is so rich that any interpretation is bound to cheapen it.


The actors come off as far too sincere. Leo could play a punk rock/beach bum Romeo, but he can't play Gatsby. If Robert Redford couldn't pull it off, who can? Leo is an intense actor, and roles like Billy in The Departed and Cobb in Inception suit him. But he walks a fine line between searing the screen with his squint and sneer, and falling into a parody of himself, which he does in this film.

I initially liked the idea of casting Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway--the wide-eyed, somewhat effeminate narrator and observer--but Tobey is just too Tobey to be believed. And Luhrmann gives him a frame story that isn't in the book and comes off as super-cheesy and pointless.

Carey Mulligan pulls off Daisy Buchanan well enough. She captures Daisy's airiness and vulnerability and, perhaps accidentally, avoids too much depth. Which is good, since Daisy is a profoundly shallow character.

The only actor who seemed to be able to accurately and fully realize his character was Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan. Edgerton plays Buchanan as a arrogant prick with a secret insecure and frightened side. Buchanan is all swagger when he feels that what's his (i.e. his wife and mistress) is secure. But when something (or someone) threatens to diminish him--either by threatening his privileged place in society, or by stealing his wife--he crumbles into a mess of unfocused anger, and even sentimentality. I thought Edgerton's performance was the deepest one. He managed to make it clear that Buchanan is not remotely a good person, but not exactly a "villain" either.

Other than the acting, the movie was certainly pretty and the soundtrack was bangin'. But all attempts to show what the book is actually about come off as cheesy and shallow. Let's be clear: The Great Gatsby is not a love story. It's about a man who doesn't like himself and his roots, so he creates a story about himself and then lives it, even if he must lie, cheat, or steal to make this dream of himself a reality (he's basically a less asshole, far less talented version of Don Draper in the 20's). And all of this subterfuge is for a woman who doesn't really deserve him anyway: a woman who couldn't love a penniless man if she wanted to. Daisy is a figment of Gatsby's imagination as much as "Jay Gatsby" is.

Additionally, The Great Gatsby is an uncomfortable and even cruel take on "the American Dream"--Gatsby does everything a white, middle-American man is supposed to do: he pulls himself up by his own bootstraps (through bootlegging, ironically!). Yet he can never truly be considered a success because 1) he's new money, and success is measured in this world by how old your money is and how little you had to do (be born) to come into it, and 2) because he achieved his wealth through criminal activity. The Great Gatsby reveals how the game of success in America is rigged. If you are born poor and lowly, you will always be poor and lowly. And if you try to weasel your way in with the truly privileged classes, you're bound to be punished.

The film, of course, doesn't really touch on these themes, instead preferring to present Gatsby and Daisy's romance as TRUE LOVE. It's not--she doesn't even come to Gatsby's funeral. The movie really pounds home the green light at the end of Daisy's dock--the symbol of all Gatsby's hopes and desires, so close yet forever out of reach. Seriously, Luhrmann shows us the green light like, 7 times. We get it. HOPE UNFULFILLED. Attempts to take the material seriously result in over-acting, corniness, and general insincerity.

I can't really say I'm surprised, and, hey, I ain't even mad! It was a decent attempt, but sometimes art can't be re-imagined in another medium. Like Lolita, The Watchmen, and The Scarlet Letter, attempts to bring The Great Gatsby to the big screen are doomed to wither in comparison to the source material.

3 out of 5 stars

Authoritative Voice

Movies: Compliance

The film Compliance is deeply, deeply disturbing--all the more so because it is based on actual events. Now, sometimes when a film claims to be based on true events, the "truth" is often twisted to the benefit of the story. The events that occur in Compliance are practically a play-by-play of what actually happened in reality. And in order to explain the movie to you, I pretty much have to give the entire plot away. If you don't want to be spoiled, I urge you to stop reading and watch Compliance when you're in the mood for a film that will destroy your faith in humanity. Maybe this weekend? :) :)


So, in real life, in April of 2004, a man called a McDonald's in Kentucky pretending to be a police officer. He told the manager on duty that an employee--a young female--had been accused of stealing money from a customer earlier that day. The manager, Donna Summers, took the employee, Louise Ogborn, to the back of the store, and under the direction of "Officer Scott", searched her belongs, strip-searched her, and kept her clothes from her. Ogborn was forced to wear apron while they all waited for the police to arrive. Since Summers had to get back to work, she called her fiance, Walter Nix, to come in and watch Ogborn. For the next two hours, Nix forced Ogborn to perform jumping jacks in the nude, he inserted his fingers into her vagina, he spanked her, and he forced her to perform oral sex on him. Yes, he was told to do all this by the supposed Officer.

When the police got involved in the case, they discovered that similar prank phone calls had occurred dozens of times in 30 states. The investigation lead to the arrest of David Stewart. Stewart was eventually acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

In Compliance, director Craig Zobel changes the names, the restaurant (it's called "ChickWich" in the film), and some of the details, but the rest of the story remains the same. As Zobel imagines it, these events occurred within a perfect storm: ChickWich's manager, Sandra, is having a terrible day because an employee didn't close the freezer door the night before, resulting in $1500 of spoiled food. Young employee, Becky (Dreama Walker, of Don't Trust the B--- in Apartment 23 fame), gets on Sandra's nerves as she texts instead of working and acts like a typical sassy teenager. When the call from "Officer Daniels" comes in, the man on the other end sounds authoritative and alternatively professional and a little intimidating. He easily convinces Sandra to search Becky's belongs and, eventually, strip search her. Occasionally, Becky talks to the officer, who seems to know all about her drug addict brother, and uses that information to frighten her even more.

It seems bizarre that no one stops and says "Hey, I think this situation is actually illegal!", but with the stress of the situation and the amazing power an authoritative, white man's voice has over...well, all of us, you can kind of understand how Sandra and everyone involved would allow things to escalate.

The shit really hits the fan when Sandra calls in Van, her fiance, to "guard" Becky while Sandra works out front. Van is portrayed as not a very intelligent man, and although he initially resists the "Officer's" directions to strip Becky, make her bend over, expose herself, etc, he is eventually convinced. These events do not occur when Sandra is in the room and, in fact, when she comes in to check on Becky and Van, the two immediately cover Becky back up and separate. Both of them know that what is occurring is fucked up, but Becky is too frightened and vulnerable to fight back and Van is...I suppose mesmerized at the power he is given over a naked young woman--power authorized by another man's voice and nothing more.

Again, the events are unbelievable to me and yet...they happened. Dozens of times. As did the Milgram Obedience to Authority experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment. The combination of respect for authority figures that is instilled in us from childhood, combined with stress and fear, can make people do horrible things that look insane from the outside, but seem to make complete sense to the person who is doing them. One of the best scenes in Compliance is that last one, in which Sandra is interviewed by a news anchor who asks what she thought when she came in to the storeroom and Becky was still naked. Sandra claims "She was never naked. She was always wearing an apron." When they roll the security tape to show Becky, obviously naked and clearly begging Sandra for help, the camera stays on Sandra's face as shock, horror, and ultimately denial cross over it. In the last lines of the film, she makes awkward small talk with the anchor--choosing not to fully accept her part in the horror.

Some reviewers initially argued that Compliance was exploitative and aimed more to titillate the audience than make them feel empathy for Becky. In my opinion, the film desexualizes the events as much as it can. The stark lighting, the ominous music, and the acting--oh, the glorious acting!--make it clear that THIS IS NOT OK when Van spanks Becky and makes her do other things. While there are definitely elements of the pornographic, this film clearly does not condone the violence that occurs.

As I mentioned before, the acting really makes the film. Ann Dowd gives a wonderful and (mostly) sympathetic performance as Sandra--the middle-aged, schoolmarmish manager. She's a woman who genuinely thinks she is just doing the right thing, although it gets ugly when she claims to be a victim just as Becky was at the end. Dreama Walker is perfect and fearless as Becky. She's plays a perfect 19 year old: one moment she's sassy and owning her youth and attractiveness, the next she's angry and frightened at being accused of stealing. Finally, she is--as the title suggests--completely compliant out of fear and exhaustion. Her eyes just go dead. It's horrifying. Even Bill Camp, who plays the dimwitted, predatory Van, gives a great "ugly" performance. In real life, Walter Nix, who raped Louise Ogborn during the McDonald's prank call, was remorseful and served 5 years in prison. It's amazing to me that this man did these things that were so clearly abusive and awful...and then immediately called his friend and said "I did a bad thing". I mean, I guess it shouldn't be amazing...but to me the whole thing is mind blowing.

Compliance is a rare movie that kept me glued to my seat. Despite the fact that I read a lot about the movie before I saw it, I couldn't tear my eyes away. If the film seems exploitative, it's probably because it's about someone who was exploited. And it's an excellent example of how easily we trust (and/or fear) those who claim to have authority over us--even if they're just a voice on the phone.

4.5 out of 5 stars