The Truman Show was a fairly popular film when it came out, but few seem to remember it 10 years later. This is not like Liar Liar or Ace Ventura; this is Jim Carrey really breaking out as an actor. It also seems relevant in today's world of reality television. Students should know that someone saw this coming.
Jim Carrey pushes himself into an entire new level of films with the unexpectedly fantastic film, The Truman Show. Carrey stars as Truman Burbank, an insurance salesman who lives on an island off the California coast. Truman, however, is unaware of one important fact: everything and everyone he knows is fake.
Truman is actually an unknowing participant in the world’s longest and most extravagant reality television series. Laura Linney plays Meryl, his actress wife, whom he believes to be a simple nurse. The two live on an island that is really just a studio creation. Every person in the town is an actor who tries to convince Truman that his fictional life is real. Truman relies on his best buddy Marlon (Noah Emmerich) for support and sanity. Marlon keeps him in the veiled belief that everything is real.
The trouble starts when Truman notices a few odd things about town. The first disturbance in his everyday life comes when he father (Brian Delate) shows up on the island. Problem is, he supposedly has been dead since Truman was a child. Out of nowhere, several people come to take his father away. The next day, the local newspaper explains their actions as “homeless cleanup.”
Later on, Truman notices that an elevator in another office building has no backing. Before he can get a good look at it, security guards usher him outside. Marlon and Meryl try to ease his suspicions, but he cannot forget what he has seen. His paranoia leads him to question, for the first time, the validity of his life. When he cannot leave the island, he gets even more suspicious.
The film then shifts behind the scenes to show just how this series was created. A mysterious man named Christof (Ed Harris) started the show when orphan Truman was born, and has been following Truman for all of his life. In a rare interview, Christof defends his radical idea to a national audience.
After his initial questioning of reality, Truman seems to settle down, but he remembers one strange incident in his life. The film flashes back to his collegiate days, when his love interest was not his future wife but a mysterious girl he later fantasizes about (Natascha McElhone). After he tries to romanticize her, she tries to tell him the truth about his life, but is hauled away. Even though he married Meryl, he continually obsesses with this fantasy roommate. Her image, and his hope to find her really drive him to question everything.
Peter Weir directs a unique and original film with great care. Even though it is about a reality show, Weir treats the film with a great sense of dramatic seriousness. He does, however, play with the idea. Many of the shots in the film replicate the hidden cameras in Truman’s world. Weir blends the actual dramatic world of the film with the pseudo-real world of Truman.
This film establishes Carrey as more than a wacky comedian. His flashy, false style plays perfectly for his character, who is clueless. Linney and Emmerich have a strange task as actors playing actors playing real people, and they pull it off well. Harris keeps Christof enigmatic.
The real beauty of this film, besides its solid directing and acting, comes in its symbolism. It can be read as a Platonic message about seeing beyond the curtains of the world. Audiences may not get all of the deep social and philosophical subtext, but chances are they will enjoy this tale of a less than real life
CINEMATICS SCHEMATICS
CINEMATICS SCHEMATICS
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Atonement (in short)
This British adaptation is getting lots of critical attention. I can see this winning the big awards (it got the Globe for Best Pic). It has good acting, fantastic direction, a strong emotional pull, and it just feels like an English Patient or such type that could win. I'd be okay with that, I guess. It's not bad. But I wonder if people who don't like No Country for its nontraditional ending will go for this instead, because it's a curious last hour here as well.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
No End in Sight
I realized recently that I hadn't seen any new docs this year, after plowing through a ton of great ones last year. 2006 might have been The Year of the Documentary, but I wanted to see some of the touted ones this year. This one is another Iraq doc, done by Charles Ferguson, who is not a normal filmmaker but just a concerned guy who had the cash to make this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/movies/26ferg.html?fta=y
I didn't need another doc to tell me that things are f----d up over there or that it was a big mistake. Kinda knew that, people. But this is interesting for its detailed list of how things went bad after Baghdad was "freed" and its impressive talking head cast. Ferguson managed to get interviews with a lot of key people who were over there, including Colin Powell's number one assistant. This is very in-depth on details that most didn;t pay attention to. The conclusion? Power brokers like Rumsfeld and Jerry Bremer didn't just f--k up, they really, really, really, really, REALLY f----d up after they thought it was over, even though they had people working for them who said otherwise. Terrific.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/movies/26ferg.html?fta=y
I didn't need another doc to tell me that things are f----d up over there or that it was a big mistake. Kinda knew that, people. But this is interesting for its detailed list of how things went bad after Baghdad was "freed" and its impressive talking head cast. Ferguson managed to get interviews with a lot of key people who were over there, including Colin Powell's number one assistant. This is very in-depth on details that most didn;t pay attention to. The conclusion? Power brokers like Rumsfeld and Jerry Bremer didn't just f--k up, they really, really, really, really, REALLY f----d up after they thought it was over, even though they had people working for them who said otherwise. Terrific.
Friday, December 28, 2007
I Could Never Be Your Woman
I have always loved Paul Rudd, from his appearance in Clueless to his association with members of The State in films like Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten. He carries this film to a sweet level. You might have loved him before, but in the rare case you didn't, you will now. He's a struggling actor and the love interest of TV producer Michelle Pfeiffer, who is in charge of a Degrassi- type teen show. She leans on him as her new star (yes, he's playing an actor, who is playing a high schooler, when he's almost 40 in real life, which is part of the fun). She also leans on her daughter, Saoirse Ronan, better known as the young girl in Atonement, for hip new ideas and high school slang. This is a pretty funny satire of Hollywood, a charming rom com, and a warm family story all at once. Amy Heckerling, who directed Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High, scores again with a fun look at life in SoCal that has heart. In fact, I'd say it's a lot like Clueless: cute, but also much funnier and more interesting than you expected.
So why, you may be wondering, haven't you heard of it? Well, basically, Heckerling got the shaft from studios. They bounced it around and never gave it a theatrical release, even though it's very deserving of one. Unbelievable. The only thing I can find wrong with it is a strange character played by Tracey Ullman, who acts like Pfeiffer's conscience. She's annoying, but that's about it. This is a really likable film, and you'd think they capitalize on Rudd's growing popularity. See it for him (and sweet cameos from Jon Lovitz, Fred Willard, Wallace Shawn, and the Fonz) and love the Rudd like never before.
So why, you may be wondering, haven't you heard of it? Well, basically, Heckerling got the shaft from studios. They bounced it around and never gave it a theatrical release, even though it's very deserving of one. Unbelievable. The only thing I can find wrong with it is a strange character played by Tracey Ullman, who acts like Pfeiffer's conscience. She's annoying, but that's about it. This is a really likable film, and you'd think they capitalize on Rudd's growing popularity. See it for him (and sweet cameos from Jon Lovitz, Fred Willard, Wallace Shawn, and the Fonz) and love the Rudd like never before.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
I'm Not There
I'm Not There -
Todd Haynes' biopic on Bob Dylan is...ummm... a lot of things, really, but I'm not sure what to make of it yet. It seems like he realized after he started filming that he couldn't go with a docudrama, because there have been lots of documentaries, most of them very good, about the man. So he went into fantasy and metaphorical depictions of Dylan's life, most notably by using different names and actors for various stages of Dylan's career. It works sometimes, but other times it's weird (still don't get what the Richard Gere segment is all about). Maybe Haynes made this hard to define purposefully to emulate Dylan. I can see that.
There are some great performances and ridiculous cameos, and the music is great, but it's such a strange mix of elements. This is coming from someone who loves Luis Bunuel and Terry Gilliam.... I can love weird, but I don't know if I love this. Still, if you like Dylan, or you like offbeat films, I think it's a great choice. It deserves to be seen, and heard (some of the covers here are fantastic - Malkmus? Vedder? Tengo????)
Todd Haynes' biopic on Bob Dylan is...ummm... a lot of things, really, but I'm not sure what to make of it yet. It seems like he realized after he started filming that he couldn't go with a docudrama, because there have been lots of documentaries, most of them very good, about the man. So he went into fantasy and metaphorical depictions of Dylan's life, most notably by using different names and actors for various stages of Dylan's career. It works sometimes, but other times it's weird (still don't get what the Richard Gere segment is all about). Maybe Haynes made this hard to define purposefully to emulate Dylan. I can see that.
There are some great performances and ridiculous cameos, and the music is great, but it's such a strange mix of elements. This is coming from someone who loves Luis Bunuel and Terry Gilliam.... I can love weird, but I don't know if I love this. Still, if you like Dylan, or you like offbeat films, I think it's a great choice. It deserves to be seen, and heard (some of the covers here are fantastic - Malkmus? Vedder? Tengo????)
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Charlie Wilson's War
After a lot of hype and big names, this hasn't really been getting great reviews. For good reason: it's not nearly as rollicking as it promised to be. Tom Hanks is fine and squinty (is he turning into Ian McKellan?) as the title man, a boozing Texas congressman who gets help from annoying Julia Roberts to fund a war for Afghanistan. He then turns to Phil Hoffman as a CIA agent for know-how. Hilarity ensues. Kind of.
I'm disappointed that Mike Nichols, a theater guy who always gets great performances, let Hanks and Roberts waltz through this without any gusto. Phil is good, but that's just Phil. Amy Adams is wasted. The action scenes seem out of place. The idea of mixing comedy and tragedy works when it's dark, not fast and flashy. It feels more like a longer version of the West Wing, and you can see Aaron Sorkin trying a little too hard here to be snazzy. Somehow, every building has long hallways to walk through.... just like the Studio 60 set.... and the Bartlett White House... I'm just saying. A decent attempt, but really short of potential, especially in the end when they try to get serious about how they ignored Afghanistan and created more problems, and then it's just over. You can do better.
I'm disappointed that Mike Nichols, a theater guy who always gets great performances, let Hanks and Roberts waltz through this without any gusto. Phil is good, but that's just Phil. Amy Adams is wasted. The action scenes seem out of place. The idea of mixing comedy and tragedy works when it's dark, not fast and flashy. It feels more like a longer version of the West Wing, and you can see Aaron Sorkin trying a little too hard here to be snazzy. Somehow, every building has long hallways to walk through.... just like the Studio 60 set.... and the Bartlett White House... I'm just saying. A decent attempt, but really short of potential, especially in the end when they try to get serious about how they ignored Afghanistan and created more problems, and then it's just over. You can do better.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Juno
The parallels between this and Little Miss Sunshine are interesting. They were indie flicks with some good character actors and some decent names; cute, very cute; quirky and funny, in the modern indie tradition; with good scripts by first-time writers. I also, however, though they had some flaws, and shouldn't have made the Best Picture race. Apparently, this will be in the running.
Juno has a lot going for it, from Michael Cera's face to Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner surprising you to the ubiquitous J. K. Simmons. Ellen Page is a great and smart actress at such a young age. Sometimes, however, the dialogue veers toward overkill, and the conflict comes and goes. Don't get me wrong, it's very good; it's just not on par with No Country for Old Men and the top films of the year for me. I would absolutely recommend it, though. It caught me off guard in places with dramatic turns, and the soundtrack was cheerily strange.
Juno has a lot going for it, from Michael Cera's face to Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner surprising you to the ubiquitous J. K. Simmons. Ellen Page is a great and smart actress at such a young age. Sometimes, however, the dialogue veers toward overkill, and the conflict comes and goes. Don't get me wrong, it's very good; it's just not on par with No Country for Old Men and the top films of the year for me. I would absolutely recommend it, though. It caught me off guard in places with dramatic turns, and the soundtrack was cheerily strange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)