Monday, November 14, 2011

Review: The Artist (Advance Review)

By Sean Knight
Four out of Four Stars ****

French film Director Michel Hazanavicius’s The Artist is a wonderful homage to Hollywood of old.  It combines elements of melodrama, 30’s slapstick comedy and 40’s filmmaking sensibilities to create a black and white silent picture that was filmed in Hollywood with a half French and half American crew.  It’s a strange hybrid of creation, and one that probably shouldn’t work, but does.  It features two charismatic lead performances from French actors Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo, not to mention a hilarious supporting turn from American actor John Goodman. Dujardin won the Best Actor Award earlier this year at the Cannes film festival and, with luck, may be able to pull off a similar feat in January.  Audiences around the world have been responding with overwhelming praise for the film and it’s easy to see why.  That Artist is a sweet and infectious movie.  It wears its emotions boldly on its sleeve and there is a love of the cinema oozing from every carefully crafted frame.

What makes the film work so well is it’s simplicity.  The Artist tells the story of a famed silent film star who has to face the oncoming storm of talking pictures.  It’s about his fall from grace and, of course, there is a love story thrown in to boot.  It’s something we have seen before, but never done quite like this.  The hodgepodge of film techniques and references helps keep the film fresh, as does the filmmakers commitment to accurately recreating a silent film.  He doesn’t have his actors’ ham it up or wink at the camera.  They stay true to their characters while also understanding that in silent film there is a certain exaggeration that comes along with conveying intention and emotions up on the screen.  There are a few moments where Hazanavicius gives slight nod to silent movie conventions, but it is never distracting or obtuse.  There is so much love in the picture from everyone involved that it is clear that their intention is never to poke fun at, but to celebrate the silent medium. 

            A big story would have bogged the picture down with pretentiousness.  But, that is not to say that the Artist is small in scope.  On the contrary, the film is crafted in meticulous detail with the period setting most definitely in the forefront.  The cinematography, by Guillaume Schiffan, is a thing of beauty with each shot in the picture being it’s own unique work of art.  The film was shot very much in the style of the 20’s with very few modern techniques used at all.  There are a few sweeping crane shots here and there and a couple moments of special effects magic, but most everything is done in camera and to great effect.  I found out during the director talk-back that The Artist was actually shot in color and then post converted to black and white in order to achieve the various shades of gray.  The choice obviously worked out quite well for them, but its disheartening to learn that even black and white films are not filmed that way in this day and age.  The truth is, that black and white film stock is not in large demand and filmmakers are now inexperienced with it.  It is much easier for a director to shoot something in color and post convert to black and white in order to achieve the exact picture that they may want.  Hazanavicius claimed that Schiffan was very much his slave during the production, and that is evident when watching the film.  The director’s eye is all over the screen.  One great sequence, during the closing moments of the film, recalls memories of the great song and dance routines of Fred Astaire.  It’s all done in a wide shot so that the viewer can catch every move.  Movies just aren’t shot like this anymore.

            The Artist does outstay it’s welcome by about fifteen minutes or so during it’s middle section.  But so much of the film is so magical, that I was able to forgive a bit of bloat. I’m a sucker for movies about movies, and it is clear that Hazanavicius knows his stuff.  I hope that this film brings about an opportunity for him to do much more.  We could use a director with his taste, knowledge, and imagination in Hollywood today.  I’m interested to see how this film will catch on with a general audience that isn’t as film savvy as most festival or Awards goers.  One thing is for sure though – its Oscar prospects are huge and I have nothing but admiration for this beautiful nostalgic picture.


The Artist
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius
Release Date: November 23, 2011
Runtime: 100 mins

Friday, November 11, 2011

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 1: The 1970’s – Jaws (1975)

Welcome to the first installment of The Steven Spielberg Retrospective.  How this will work is very simple - every post Sean will kick things off with his insights and new discoveries for the film at hand.  Then J.J. (Jeanette, Jamie, whatever you want to call her) will post her first time viewing reactions below.  You will be getting two different accounts on the same film.  We may not always agree, but it will be interesting nonetheless.  Without further ado, our first film of The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 1: The 1970's -  Jaws.


Jaws
Release Date: June 20, 1975
Nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture
Won 3 Academy Awards: Best Sound, Best Film Editing, Best Music

Read on after the jump...

The Artist: Director Michel Hazanavicius Q&A

By Sean Knight


Last night I attended a very special advanced screening of The Artist in Chicago that concluded with a question and answer session with the director of the film.  It was great to hear about how the film came into being and the process in which it was made.  Below is an audio file of the Q&A.  I apologize for the sound quality but it was the best I could do in such short notice (I had no idea there was even going to be a Q&A until I got to the screening).  So turn up your speakers and Enjoy. A Full review will be coming this weekend.  All I can tell you in advance is that we have a major awards player on our hands.






Podcast Powered By Podbean

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Review: J. Edgar

J. Edgar Review
By Sean Knight
Three Stars out of Four


Clint Eastwood’s latest Oscar baiting picture follows the story of infamous FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from his early career, to his astonishing rise in power, and ultimately to his death.  Eastwood is working from a screenplay by Oscar Winner Dustin Lance Black whom is a well-known gay rights advocate and the marriage between the two is awkward.  There were many rumors and innuendos throughout Hoover’s career about him being a closeted homosexual and a cross dresser.  This is fascinating stuff especially for a man who was in such a great position of power.  Black clearly wants to focus on these rumors to try and get to know the real J. Edgar.  The film’s central relationship is between Hoover and his long-term colleague and rumored life partner Clyde Tolson.  The issue is that Eastwood, a well-known conservative individual, seems uncomfortable with the material and while he is able to shape a few tender and touching moments, the base of the picture seems oddly disjointed.  It’s as if Eastwood couldn’t escape Black’s screenplay’s obvious heavy interest in Hoover’s closeted homosexual life, but also couldn’t connect it to the story Eastwood was more interested in telling – Hoover’s rise to power and formation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

            The acting is uniformly excellent with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover and Armie Hammer as Tolson as the real standouts of the piece.  They are able to act circles around Eastwood’s skittishness with the material, with every glance, gesture, and line reading adding significant weight to their relationship.  You believe quite strongly that these two men were in love.  The problem comes when Eastwood refuses to fully explore that love and you begin to wonder why in the hell Tolson would put up with Hoover’s grandstanding and selfishness for so many years if their relationship was clearly going nowhere. There is one fire charged scene where Tolson confronts Hoover and tells him to never mention one of his “lady friends” again.  I found myself wanting to tell Eastwood the same thing.  Judy Dench plays Hoover’s conservative and overbearing mother to great effect.  Dench gets to steal one of the best scenes in the piece where Hoover tries to come out to his mother by saying “I don’t like dancing with girls and I think it’s time you should know this” and her reply is a simple “I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil.”  It’s powerful stuff and one of the few times Eastwood and Black provide clear insight into why Hoover is who he is.  Naomi Watts also has an intriguing supporting role as Hoover’s longtime personal secretary and confidant.   There is some clue as to how Hoover and her both have a keen understanding of each other’s sexuality, but it is never really explored. It’s an underdeveloped role and a shame, as Watts doest quite a bit with such a little amount of screen time.

            The film’s look has the similar drab and drained colors that Eastwood has been using a lot as of late and I don’t think it does the picture any favors.  It’s not that the film is ugly, but it has an air of importance’s about it that screams “prestige picture”.  But in the end it just becomes a sort of gloomy haze covering the entire film.  Much has been noted about the make-up.  I will say that the make-up is very broad and not always life-like.  It’s as if the designers were going for an iconic (if caricature) look to the characters that didn’t always play out how they hoped.  What is miraculous is that both DiCaprio and Hammer as able to play through the thick as molasses prosthetics and deliver real heartfelt performances.  They make you look past the caricature and into the souls of these two conflicted human beings.

            I’m not quite as down on J. Edgar as many in the press have been.  There are some wonderful scenes in the film and the acting is solid all around (it would not surprise me a bit if DiCaprio was able to win his first Oscar from this performance).  But the disjointed feeling of the picture cannot be ignored.  If Eastwood wasn’t comfortable with the subject matter or didn’t want to deal with the alleged homosexuality of Hoover than why did he take on Black’s script? It’s a fatal flaw in what could have been a masterful film.  At the end of the film there is a fascinating scene where Tolson enters Hoover’s lair, so to speak, for the first time after he has died and we see all the eccentricities and contradictions that filled Hoover’s life.  If only Eastwood had opened that door earlier and fully explored what was in that room.  Now that is a film I would have liked to see.

J. Edgar
Directed By Clint Eastwood
Release Date: November 9th, 2011
Run Time: 137 Minutes

Review: The Ides of March

The Ides of March Review
By Sean Knight
Three out of Four Stars

Director George Clooney’s liberal politics are well known to anyone who has followed his career.  He is an outspoken advocate on many progressive issues and is not afraid to speak his mind about the worlds current political climate.  His 2005 feature Goodnight and Good Luck about CBS Reporter Edward R. Murrow’s fight against Joseph McCarthy wore its liberal heart on it’s sleeve and was a reminder that fear mongering was not an option in today’s politics.  Clooney’s latest feature, The Ides of March, also deals with liberal ideals and politics except it is a lot more cynical than his previous pictures.  In many ways it shows that liberals can be just as corrupt as any republican and that in politics all is fair game.  The Ides of March follows the story of a young idealist (played by Ryan Gosling) working on a presidential campaign for a democrat (played by director George Clooney) in the heat of the Ohio primary.  The film shows Gosling’s eventual disillusionment with the political system and ideals he so loves and his eventual folding into the world of dirty politics.  The film and story are slickly made and acted, but The Ides of March doesn’t have much to say that most of us who follow politics don’t already know.  Politics is a dirty business no matter what side of the fence you are on.

            Clooney appears to be basing his presidential candidate as an ideal mash-up of President Obama and former President Clinton.  He puts a lot of words in the character’s mouth that any liberal would love to hear.  He makes the audience as well as the characters on screen fall in love with him.  But then Clooney and the script take a nosedive that is so predictable and something that we have seen so many times in real politics and in political films that it undermines the character he has been trying to build.  This “twist” sets in motion the events for the rest of the film and the disillusionment of the Gosling character.  I realize the point that Clooney is trying to make here – even the best of men and candidates make big mistakes and nothing is, as it seems.  Okay, but what does that point serve a liberal audience who has already lived through the Clinton impeachment and the eights years of home-style terror under George Bush?  The twist does play itself out well as far as plotting and character development go, but the whole time I felt like Clooney was elevating extremely predictable material.  It is a testament to his gift as a director that he was able to do this, but a major flaw with the film all the same.

            Gosling is in fine form as the young idealist and his transformation is believable and as real as the confines of the script will allow him to be.  Clooney himself is quite good as the presidential candidate in question and provides himself with plenty of juicy scenes that play up to many of the actors’ strengths.  But the two actors who steal the film out from under them are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti as two campaign advisors who have been playing this game a long time.  Hoffman and Giamatti can play this kind of role in their sleep, but it’s precisely because of that quality that their characters pop from the screen.  Giamatti in particular gets a great scene late in the picture that spells out exactly how the game of politics is played in today’s America.  The scene could very well be the thesis of the entire picture.

            The Ides of March boasts great production values and a killer score from composer Alaxandre Desplat.  From top to bottom The Ides of March is an impeccably made film.  It’s something that Clooney should be proud of.  But the fact remains that we have heard this story before and the film doesn’t provide any new insights into the political system.  Well not for anyone who has been paying attention the past few years anyway.

The Ides of March
Directed by George Clooney
Release Date: October 7th, 2011
Run Time: 101 Minutes

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Sean and J.J's Top 5 Most Anticipated Films of the Oscar Season

Below are our Most anticipated films of the Awards Season with commentary and trailers.  Enjoy!

Sean:
5. The Artist

Ever since The Artist’s debut at the Cannes Film Festival it has won numerous accolades and has steam rolled it’s way into the Awards Season.  Many are expecting the Academy to go for this in a big way, which would be slightly odd.  It is, after all, a French film about Hollywood in the 1920’s, it has a no name lead star, it was filmed in black and white, and to top it off it is a silent film.  But audiences have loved the film and it has managed to snag quite a few awards at various film festivals.  The movie is also backed by the Weinstein brothers, so you can bet that they are going to push this as far as it can possibly go.  Nobody plays the Oscar game better than the Weinstein’s.  Out of every film opening this season, this is the one that people need to watch out for.  I myself will be seeing the film this Thursday at an advance screening and will have my review out by the weekend. Trailer and the rest of our list after the jump...

Welcome Back! And a Special Announcement…


Hello!  And welcome back to Two Opinionated Bitches on Film.  We took an extremely long hiatus and wanted the opportunity to apologize.  When Jeanette and I started the blog we didn’t take into account how the distance between us was going to affect it.  We both lead two separate lives in two completely different states.  Communication was always an issue as to when the two of us were going to find time and get shit done.  Her and I both picked up our fair share of the slack until we both agreed that perhaps it was best to wait until we could both fully commit.  Lucky for me and the future of the blog, Jeanette moved up to Chicago this summer, but we decided to wait until she adjusted and we both had the time to really throw ourselves into this.  Well, that time has finally arrived.  Jeanette and I have made a commitment that we will both post at least four times a week and will keep the blog going with movie reviews, various film related articles, film news, and plenty of Oscar guessing.  The awards season is upon us and that led to deciding that now was the perfect time to get this started again as there will be a wealth of things to write about in the coming months.  We also have a project that we will be working on from now until the end of December.  We are proud to announce the Steven Spielberg Retrospective.


The Steven Spielberg Retrospective is a project we came up with in order to honor the director who, as it turns out, is having one hell of a year.  He has two films that he directed coming out in the thick of Awards season at the end of December, not to mention the fact that he produced several hits this year including Super 8 and Transformers Dark of the Moon.  The other reason for starting this project is that Jeanette made the embarrassing confession that she has barely seen any of Spielberg’s major works.  This was after drinking quite a bit while watching the original Indiana Jones – Raiders of the Lost Ark.  So the goal is simple – we are going to work our way through Steven Spielberg’s filmography from the mid 70’s up until today.  We are not going to be hitting every single film, but a vast majority will be covered including some of his not so great efforts.  What will be most interesting about this is that you will be getting the perspective of someone who knows and loves Spielberg’s work (me) and someone for who most of the films we will be watching will be a completely new experience.  We will also both make detours along the way to cover certain films of his separately (I know Jeanette will be covering his vastly underrated Empire of the Sun on her own) as well as some projects that he only produced (I plan on writing up a piece on Super 8 when it is released later this month).  It is an exciting project for us and a great way to get the blog going again.  And we have already started.  Last week we screened Spielberg’s 1975 thriller Jaws.  Expect pieces on that experience within the next couple of days.  And tonight we are screening his 1977 sci-fi follow up Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  A full screening schedule is listed below if you would like to follow along with us.  So welcome back to the blog and thanks for bearing with us.  Enjoy!

Sean and J.J.

Steven Spielberg Retrospective Screening Schedule
(Dates are tentative, but all films listed will be watched by the opening of War Horse, plus there will be surprise screenings and posts along the way! All responses to the films listed will be posted within two days of the screening)

November 8th – Close Encounters of the Third Kind (watching as we speak)
November 12th – E.T. The Extraterrestrial
November 14th – The Color Purple
November 17th – Hook
November 20th – Jurassic Park
November 23rd – Schindler’s List
November 27th – Amistad
December 1st – Saving Private Ryan
December 5th – Minority Report
December 9th – War of the Worlds
December 13th – Munich
December 17th – Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
December 21st – The Adventures of Tintin
December 25th – War Horse