At this point, a Terrence Malick film that wasn't about God would be like a Woody Allen film that wasn't about neurotics. Still, what's striking about Malick's latest, "To the Wonder," is that its spiritual elements fall flat. The most compelling part of the film is what it has to say about relationships.
Now, I'm pulling punches a little here: in a Malick film, everything ties back into the spiritual elements. But his depiction of how a relationship falls apart--here, one between Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko--is quite well-observed. He shows how close depression can be to love, how someone is often withholding a part of himself in a relationship, how women struggle to tame men's aggression and wandering eye. And of course, because this is Malick, it's conveyed beautifully with images and music more than words.
In contrast, the more explicitly religious material feels recycled. Kurylenko has a lot of voice-overs which could have easily been said by Jessica Chastain in "The Tree of Life": God is all around us and so on. Javier Bardem turns up as a priest who's lost touch with his faith. He doesn't come to any real conclusions, beyond a resolution to carry on. It's the same old stuff for Malick: the conflict between our love for God and our love for ourselves.
What I'm describing--a broken relationship, a doubting priest--sounds more like the stuff of a Bergman film, the material of many great dramas. But Malick seems uninterested in doing anything besides reaffirming his faith. He's said about all he can on the matter: When you depict the creation of the universe, as he did in "Tree of Life," where can you go from there? My fear is that Malick will have to choose if he wants to continue making interesting art or staying true to his God. There can be little doubt where his priorities lie.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Argo
"Argo" tells us that it is "based on a true story." The key word there is "based." That leeway gives the movie enough rope to hang itself.
The film tells the tale of a CIA operation to extract six diplomats hiding in Tehran during the Iranian hostage crisis. The CIA--with a lot of help from Canada that isn't acknowledged much in the film--flew out the diplomats under the cover that they were filmmakers doing a location shoot.
An obvious question emerges: Who would believe that a Canadian film crew wanted to shoot a movie in Tehran in the midst of an international crisis? I suspect the answer is that the Iranians simply weren't paying attention. The diplomats were picked up, went to the airport, made it through security, and left, with no issues.
But "Argo" makes it seem as though the Iranians are hot on the heels of the diplomats, which renders the whole thing ridiculous. The film uses some stupefying leaps of logic to manufacture pulse-pounding drama in the airport. (I won't spoil it, but I will say that I don't think a CIA operative would defy an order from the President.)
The film also invents a scene in which the diplomats are invited on a tour through a market for location scouting. We're told that they're calling the CIA's bluff. But if they really wanted to do that, they would have simply detained the diplomats, interrogated them, and uncovered the ridiculous ruse.
There are other problems. The first half of the film has some jarring shifts in tone, jumping between the very different spectacles of Hollywood and Tehran protests. It also tacks on a disposable subplot involving the son of a CIA agent. The first 20 minutes of the film are terrific, but they hit a note that "Zero Dark Thirty" sustains for over two hours. The rest of "Argo" is well-made, but about as fanciful as "The Artist."
The film tells the tale of a CIA operation to extract six diplomats hiding in Tehran during the Iranian hostage crisis. The CIA--with a lot of help from Canada that isn't acknowledged much in the film--flew out the diplomats under the cover that they were filmmakers doing a location shoot.
An obvious question emerges: Who would believe that a Canadian film crew wanted to shoot a movie in Tehran in the midst of an international crisis? I suspect the answer is that the Iranians simply weren't paying attention. The diplomats were picked up, went to the airport, made it through security, and left, with no issues.
But "Argo" makes it seem as though the Iranians are hot on the heels of the diplomats, which renders the whole thing ridiculous. The film uses some stupefying leaps of logic to manufacture pulse-pounding drama in the airport. (I won't spoil it, but I will say that I don't think a CIA operative would defy an order from the President.)
The film also invents a scene in which the diplomats are invited on a tour through a market for location scouting. We're told that they're calling the CIA's bluff. But if they really wanted to do that, they would have simply detained the diplomats, interrogated them, and uncovered the ridiculous ruse.
There are other problems. The first half of the film has some jarring shifts in tone, jumping between the very different spectacles of Hollywood and Tehran protests. It also tacks on a disposable subplot involving the son of a CIA agent. The first 20 minutes of the film are terrific, but they hit a note that "Zero Dark Thirty" sustains for over two hours. The rest of "Argo" is well-made, but about as fanciful as "The Artist."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
