The Game

Nicholas is a world class pain in the neck. He's a millionaire, divorced, and lives by himself in "the biggest house on the street"  (a phrase he uses in the film to stress his importance and call attention to himself) which is his father's abandoned mansion. Think of Gordon Gekko from Wall Street, which should be easy since  Nicholas is played by Michael Douglas, and you'll get how much of a bad guy our main character is. At one point early on in the film, as it establishes his daily routine, he is shown eating breakfast standing up, perfectly still, while wearing a suit with his tie carefully slung over his shoulder so as not to stain it. The peculiarity of the image stuck with me. Nicholas seems robotic as he stands with perfect posture neatly consuming his breakfast. 


Director David Fincher seeks to portray him in the least humanistic way possible. He reinforces Michael Douglas's cold performance with an aloof and calculating style. Early on there are no handheld cameras or even significant movement of the camera. It just sits still at a distance mirroring Nicholas's rigidity, observing his perfectly controlled life. 

Into the equation comes Conrad (Sean Penn), Nicholas's brother, to shake things up. They meet for lunch. Conrad gets there significantly late, and upon arrival squirts water on his brother's face as a small practical joke. He then proceeds to make a quip about the jacket he was given to eat at the club's restaurant. Quite quickly, Conrad stands apart from his brother in every way possible. They haven't seen each other in two years, we are told, and yet Conrad waltzes into his brother's life as if nothing had happened and they had a healthy relationship. At first, I thought nothing of his demeanor, of his little jokes, but they actually turn out to be  significant for the film.

As a birthday gift, Conrad gives Nicholas a voucher for a game of some sort. What exactly is “the game” we don’t know, and neither does Nicholas. All his brother tells him is that it will surely change his life for the better. After clearly establishing this, director David Fincher has given himself a goal: to shock humanity into Nicholas, and fear into the audience, through his participation in “the game.” One of the pleasures of the film is slowly figuring out all of the pieces that go into “the game.” I will say one thing, though. The Game (the film) is a thriller, which becomes clearer as “the game” (within the film) unveils itself as increasingly macabre entertainment. One more note: Beware, this movie contains one of the scariest clowns in movie history.



 The level of commitment that went into this work is evident. Every piece of the puzzle (which is the main image of the opening credits) seemingly falls into place effortlessly, making the film go by in a heartbeat. From early on in his career, Fincher was an assured director. Part of what impresses me most about his films is the excellent pacing they display. None of his films are too long or slow, and I always find myself wishing they would last longer. Another of Fincher's strengths is his strong sense of visual composition. Often, Nicholas is framed by doors, archways, and people. Fincher shot the film so that the ceiling would be visible most of the time, making the audience feel trapped along with Nicholas in this bizarre game of which Fincher is in complete control. By the end, Fincher takes the story to its inevitable,cruel, logical conclusion and past it following perfectly twisted, perverse logic that I've come to expect from him. 



The score, I must briefly mention, by Howard Shore, is unnerving. It toys with the audience through its repetitiveness. The unassuming low-key piano set chills down my spine. The music rarely calls attention to itself, but its presence is felt.

Still, the great production value, high profile stars, great music and even a wonderful director can’t make a great film. The script should also be at the same level. Some of the choices Nicholas makes, such as participating in the game in the first place, simply don’t make a whole lot of sense. Plausibility is not the issue; this film is fantastically delirious, and I don’t want the films I watch to stay true to real life. The problem is that I don’t buy that the character we are introduced with at the start of the film would submit himself to such a ridiculous enterprise voluntarily. Look at The Game hard enough, think about it for a second longer than it asks for your attention, and the seams start to show, but while watching it, the movie  is an absorbing mind-bending experience.

Verdict- 3.5/4
The Game (1997) R 2h 9min. 

Lawless

A solid, entertaining, genre flick, Lawless has all the elements of a good western: the town on the edge of civilization, the isolated, tough hero living in his cabin in the woods, the girl who comes to town hiding from her past, and the ruthless deputy who materializes out of nowhere to settle the town under his control.

Tom Hardy

It also follows the conventions of the gangster genre. Set in the 1930s, under prohibition, Lawless follows the story of three brothers whose business is the manufacturing, transportation and sale of illegal alcohol.  It has the bootlegging, the, the machine guns, the suits, the hats, the rags to riches storyline, and the constant threat of death to our heroes. It's no masterpiece; it doesn't seek to reinvent either of the genres. Lawless plays it safe in that regard. However, what makes it worthy is the way this familiar material is handled.

Director John Hillcoat takes his time, carefully establishing the mood of the film. He focuses his attention on the atmosphere of the scenery, showing lingering shots of the woods surrounding the town. There is a dark, unsettling presence. It always feels as if is about to rain. It never does. It snows during a crucial scene. We are told countless times that our heroes, the three Bondurant brothers, are invincible, but we never really believe it. The violence in Lawless is crude, quick, and utterly unexpected. The film is extremely violent, but it's not exploitative.  Hillcoat portrays it as an unflattering reality of the times. However, it is not the violence itself that is most shocking, but the threat that at any time anyone can be attacked and killed, even the indestructible brothers. That is what makes Lawless so powerful.

Jessica Chastain

It also helps to have an immensely talented cast. Tom Hardy, although not the main character, quietly steals the show. He plays the eldest brother, Forrest, who is the leader of the all their activities.  Private and grumbling, he is the subject of a few jokes within the family, but Hardy is able to deliver a stone-cold stare that inspires genuine fear throughout the town (and I suspect among audience members too). Alongside him is Jessica Chastain, luminous as ever, playing Maggie, a girl from Chicago who just wanted to settle down, but who picked the wrong place to do so. I am surprised by how many different roles Chastain has played over her short career. Here, she exudes an admirable, defiant confidence  in scene after scene. The brothers might be invincible, but the toughest character around is Maggie. Also in this insanely talented cast are Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman. They are both severely underused.

Shia LaBeouf

The film instead centers on Jack (Shia LaBeouf), the youngest, as he seeks to prove himself tough enough to enter the family business. LaBeouf is outmatched. He's a perfectly capable actor, and could even become great  under the right director, but not here, not while he's anywhere near this cast.

I feel that Lawless should be a three hour masterpiece. It certainly had the potential. In the same way that he managed to build mood, the director should have taken the time to develop more thorough stories around the supporting characters. They were interesting enough to intrigue me, but not rich enough to move me. Still, Lawless is a very good way to spend two hours. Here's hoping for an extended director's cut.

Hardy and Chastain 

Verdict- 3/4
Lawless (2012)R.  1h 57min.

Screenshots from- http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lawless-Blu-ray/54237/

The Truthfulness of the Cinematic Image Part II: Rashomon

Compared to A Moment of Innocence, Rashomon is a relatively straight-forward film. It manages to question the truth without ever evoking any reality outside the world of the film. It takes place in a purely fictional scenario. The film starts during a rainy day in the Rashomon gate where a woodcutter, a priest, and a commoner meet to discuss a recent murder. As I stressed in Part I, this is the level at which most films exist, and should be seen as true, within the context of the story. The woodcutter and the priest begin to tell the three stories they both heard earlier in court from the witnesses of the murder. As of this point in the film, the audience has no reason to mistrust what they see, since both the woodcutter and the priest agree at least about what they heard in court. Then, the film shows the versions of events from the points of view of those involved. 

Akira Kurosawa, the director, was smart enough to understand that each flashback is subjective. The different characters are like the directors of their own flashbacks, the films within the film. In a masterful move, Kurosawa  is able to explore each character’s values and fears by examining their version of events. The bandit claims he killed the samurai in glorious battle. He values his strength, and his might in battle. His story features the most elegant and spectacular stunts and fights of all the film. The wife claims she killed her husband because he was unable to protect her. Afraid to be rejected as “spoiled goods,” she killed her husband ironically to keep her virtue. The Samurai claims he committed suicide, since he was powerless to defend his wife. In his version, no one defeats  him, and he gets to keep his honor, which is crucial for a samurai. 

The film does not end there, however. The woodcutter, notices the bandit, left out one story: his own. In the woodcutter’s final version, the bandit begs the samurai’s wife to marry him, the wife betrays her husband, then frees him and sets the two men against each other until they fight like animals, and the bandit is able to kill the samurai by pure luck. 

Some might say this version shows the truth, since the woodcutter has no incentive to lie. However, the woodcutter’s story merely reflects the his current mistrust of humanity by showing all human beings as corrupt and selfish. Kurosawa never reveals what actually happened, but he did show the truth of the personalities of his characters. Even though no one tells the story how it really happened, they all tell the story how they wished, or maybe truly believe, it happened thus giving the audience invaluable insight into the truth about themselves. Kurosawa was not interested in letting the audience know the objective truth. Instead, his goal was to show how human beings warp the truth for their own selfish benefits. 


Even though Rashomon may make audiences question the objective truth and the selfish nature of humanity, it is still a film by Akira Kurosawa, a very optimistic human being. He finds a way to end the film in an hopeful note, thus injecting the film with his positive vision of the world. By the end of the film, the priest finds a baby, which the woodcutter wants to take. At first, the priest is reluctant to give up the innocent baby because he knows the woodcutter lied about what he saw, and he has lost faith in humanity. However, the woodcutter tells him that he has a large family, and can take care of another baby. It is implied that he stole a dagger from the crime scene to support his family. The priest becomes more sympathetic towards him and hands him the baby saying, “thanks to you, I think I can keep my faith in man.” Then, as the woodcutter leaves the Rashomon gate with his baby, the sun comes out in sharp contrast to the pouring rain that pervaded the film, signaling for a better future to come for the woodcutter, the priest and the newborn child.

Verdict 4/4 
Rashomon (1950) 1h 28min

Random Thought
- Rashomon was the first film to shoot directly at the sun.

Roger Deakins

He was born in Devon, England 1949. He studied at the National Film and Television School of England. He has been nominated for 10 Oscars, as well as 11 American Society of Cinematographers Awards, winning 3. He is the greatest living photographer in the world. His name is Roger Deakins. Here are just a few of his memorable pictures.

Skyfall (2012)

In Time (2011)

True Grit (2010)

The Company Men (2010)

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Doubt (2008)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

The Assassination of Jesse James (2007)

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Fargo (1996)

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Oscar Predictions

Best Picture 

Amour 

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Life of Pie

Lincoln 

Les Miserables 

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty 

Should Win- Zero Dark Thirty: I've seen it twice now, and I don't think any new movie this year will match it ( but I hope I'm wrong!). It is chilling to watch Jessica Chastain's Maya slowly harden at the sight of war and torture, only to break down at the last second. The final shot of the film is breathtaking, and reason enough for this film to deserve its nomination. 

Will Win- Argo: It's a fun movie. I won't be angry if it wins, but it does not deserve it. Lincoln is the other top contender. The Academy does love a great historical biopic (see The King's Speech) and Lincoln is among the best. However, if there's one thing that it loves more, then that would be a great movie about movies (The Artist, for example). 

Best Director 

Michael Haneke (Amour)

Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

Ang Lee (Life of Pi)

Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Should Win- Steven Spielberg: I once asked my film professor what exactly he meant by "classical Hollywood style." He pointed me towards the films Steven Spielberg, and said, "that." Every shot has meaning, and advances the story. Every cut is motivated. You see exactly what is necessary to tell the story (nothing more, nothing less), exactly what Spielberg wants you to see. Spielberg made two more crucial choices. First, he personally convinced Daniel Day Lewis to play the beloved 16th president. Second, he narrowed his story down to the final months of the Civil War and Lincoln's life. Within this time period he found the compelling story of the ratification of the 13th Amendment. The result is a lean and focused 2:30 hour masterpiece. 

Will Win- Steven Spielberg: The Academy loves him, and it's been a while since he won for Saving Private Ryan. 

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook)

Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln)

Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)

Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)

Denzel Washington (Flight)

Should Win- Bradley Cooper: Mercurial. The role of Pat Solitano would have been disastrous in the hands of the wrong actor. Instead, its miraculous. My favorite scene involves Hemingway. If you haven't seen the film, go watch it right now. If you have, then you know what scene I'm talking about and will most likely never forget it. 

Will Win- Daniel Day Lewis: He gives some really impressive monologues, which are sure to get him the award. But what really impacted me about his performance was how he managed to make Lincoln seem so frail and vulnerable. Its scary to think that even Lincoln was just a guy from Kentucky. He had very real, very human flaws and DDL brings them out. 

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)
Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)
Naomi Watts (The Impossible)
Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

Should Win- Jessica Chastain: I still think she should have won for The Tree of Life last year. It is the greatest film of all time, and there is no excuse for it. She wasn't even nominated!! But I guess her work in Zero Dark Thirty is still much better than in The Help, for which she was nominated. As I said, it's all in the final shot. 

Will Win- Jennifer Lawrence: I had previously guessed Emmanuelle Riva would win, but it seems unlikely that a foreign actor or actress would win the award. Lawrence already won the Golden Globe, and her work in Silver Linings Playbook is phenomenal. It's incredibly fun simply to watch her and Bradely Cooper throw zingers back and forth with no filter to their thoughts or emotions. But, the performances are complementary. It would be a shame to see her win and to see Cooper going home empty handed. 

Actor in a Supporting Role

Alan Arkin (Argo)

Robert De Niro ( Silver Linings Playbook)

Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master)

Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)

Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

Honorary Mention- John Goodman: He is one of the most criminally underrated actors of all time (after Tim Roth, of course). He has never been nominated for an Oscar. This year he appeared in Trouble with the Curve, Argo, and Flight. In the last two, he gave performances that were as good as any on this list. His best was in Flight, where he plays Denzel Washington's friend/drug dealer. Comic brilliance. 

Should Win- Robert De Niro: Here, De Niro plays a controlling man with OCD and an addiction to gambling and football. On the surface, he is extremely unsympathetic. But De Niro unearths a caring father and protective husband. It's wonderful to see him in such great shape even 40 years after Mean Streets. 

Will Win- Tommy Lee Jones: Again, the Academy adores grandiloquent speech. However, Jones' best scene comes at the end of the film, after all the speechifying, as he shares a quiet, loving moment with his wife. 

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

Amy Adams (The Master)

Sally Field (Lincoln)

Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)

Helen Hunt (The Sessions)

Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

Should Win- Amy Adams: She made The Master bearable. That alone deserves glory, praises, and a trophy on top. Icy and unyielding are the words that come to mind in describing her character. Adams plays Peggy, the wife of Lancaster Dodd, the man who begins and heads  a Scientology-like cult. Dodd is sham. The film exposes him, and his false beliefs. It is implied, however, that she is the mastermind behind the cult. She is shrouded in mystery which the film does not try to solve. It is frightening. 

Should NOT Win (but will win anyway)- Anne Hathaway: The more I think about it, the more I despise her performance. No, the performance is fine. Its the director I can't stand. Tom Hooper made Anne Hathaway get into a coffin and sing about the horrible life she is living while she is being violated. All of this he filmed in one, suffocating long take/closeup. Creepy. All it needed was a little distance. I did not need to be crammed in the coffin with her. Its a shame, because Anne Hathaway is extremely talented and deserved better.

Random Thoughts

- I might expand this post but for now, here's some others I think should win.

Best Animated Film- Brave should win, Wreck it Ralph will win. 

Best Cinematography- Skyfall should win, Life of Pi will win. 

Best Film Editing- Zero Dark Thirty should win, Argo will win. 

Best Score- Lincoln (John Williams) should win, Life of Pi will win. 

Best Song- Skyfall (Adele Adkins) same thing goes for Adele. 

Best Special Effects-The Avengers should win, Life of Pi will win 

Best Adapted Screenplay- Silver Linings Playbook should win and could win, but it's too close to call between it and Lincoln.  

Best Original Screenplay- Moonrise Kingdom should win, Amour will win.
Best Documentary- should and will win Searching for Sugar Man