Sin #81: Where's the Magic?

So, there I am on the line for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part I” discussing with some friends the other installments on the Harry Potter franchise. One friend said he hated the third one, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, because it didn’t remain faithful enough to its original source; I claimed to have loved it because it finally made Harry Potter a true cinematic venture filled with wonderful sights and terrific performances. While the Chris Columbus movies were clearly family-friendly flicks, they still retained a certain appeal even though they sometimes felt a bit clunky and over developed. My favorite is still the fourth one, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” directed by Mike Newell, a movie that is fun, exciting and brooding with unbearable suspense (it also marks the arrival of Lord Voldemort in the physical shape of a bizarre and noseless Ralph Fiennes). The first four stories had a clear narrative arc; the first one introduced the characters and their magical world, the second delved into the back-story of its villain and the relationship with the hero, the third expanded the universe of characters giving weight to the conflict and the fourth gave a reality to the enormous threat that was Voldemort. In the fifth I expected a powerful confrontation but the movie stalled to the point of frustration and Voldemort once again remained inactive throughout; the same of the sixth movie. By this point I stopped caring.

So, I sat down on the first part of the last movie with some hope that they would turn the final story into a rousing spectacle but I must confess I was quite disturbed by “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 1”. First of all, the tone of the film is so bleak one would think Cormac McCarthy himself adapted the story and then, since the movie is divided into two parts, scenes drag on beyond belief. There’s a curious feeling that the filmmakers gathered a lot of deleted scenes and made a movie out of them. The result is a miasma of lethargy, all tease and no release.

“HP and the Deathly Hallows. Part 1” bears no similarity in tone to the rest of the movies (and it’s virtually the antithesis of the first movie). It also represents the first time where a movie in the series is so enclosed in its own literary universe and its fans that the casual viewers are left stranded in a muddled and insipid tale that adds irrelevant characters willy-nilly and doesn’t even give a proper ending to the important ones. The result is an emotionally shallow experience, which only sheds light on the financial issue of dividing the final movie into two parts (as a business-marketing plan its absolutely brilliant, but there’s no artistic merit for it).

I fully understand this last movie wasn’t made for me; it was made for the millions of people who read the book and analyzed every single detail in it. But every movie in the series was clear to non-Potter fans. For this movie you need a guide before entering the theater and still you would be confused at all the “padding” in order to make it 2 and a half hours long. The film is so clumsy in its editing that it’s not even structured to have a climax, it just sort of stops and presents the end-credits which is puzzling (the first “LOTR” finished with Frodo and Sam leaving the Fellowship but at least there was an exciting build-up to it).

Harry Potter was all about the magic but there is no magic here to be found (just the sad faces of its protagonists on the brink of doomsday). Maybe part 2 will all be about action, but after so much unnecessary foreplay I’m not interested anymore.

Sin #80: Watching Some Jackass

Youtube has taken the cult to fame to unprecedented heights; suddenly any kid now can upload a video of himself being ridiculous and get hundreds of thousands of hits (in other words, become famous through humiliation, either intentionally or not).

This weekend I went to see “Jackass 3D”, the third movie in this famous trilogy of depravity and scatological humor. The movies derive out of the MTV program that aired in the late 90s and became an instant hit among the youth of America. Some called “Jackass” the low point of our culture citing that teenagers were responding to its vulgarity and emulating the dangerous stunts. Of course some dumb kids did and got hurt but, hey, at least they got it all on video and can now share a laugh about it, right?

To appeal to our morbid sensibilities “Jackass” plays like a cathartic experience. These guys are hurting themselves for our own amusement (there isn’t any sense of exploitation in their antics and there’s a real camaraderie between Johnny Knoxville and his friends) and while some people cringe at the thought of watching male genitalia, all forms of body secretions and general physical violence, I believe “Jackass” is mindless and harmless fun.

Not all the jackasses on Youtube, however, are looking for fame; some got it by chance. Take Jack Rebney, for example. In the late 70s and early 80s he was a respected news journalist and business man with a bit of a temper. For a while he worked in commercials and found himself advertising the Winnebago trucks (more commonly known as mobile homes). The shoot was disastrous as a rambling Rebney found himself forgetting his lines, hating their idiocy and becoming very exhausted by the terrible heat.

The outtakes for the commercials were edited and released on old videocassette tapes (of course all of this was before the arrival of the internet) and people gathered to laugh at the “Winnebago Man”. When Youtube finally arrived and became a sensation, the videos were discovered by a whole new generation who could laugh at this angry old salesman. Something strange happened afterwards as Jack Rebney practically disappeared and no one knew about his whereabouts.

In the documentary “Winnebago Man” a filmmaker named Ben Steinbauer searches for Rebney. When he discovers a recluse living in a cabin in California he expects a mad-dog lunatic and finds an angry man who rambles on politics and social issues but is mostly hurt at being dismissed as a buffoon. He becomes a fascinating subject as he refuses to speak about his personal life and despises practically everyone. The movie takes a tragic turn as Rebney loses his sights and starts to become more and more dependant; at the end he finally agrees to visit a local festival where his clips are being shown. The response surprises him (and the audience is also surprised to find an intelligent man hiding behind a façade of hate).

There’s a temptation to call “Jackass” or even the Rebney videos guilty pleasures but through their absurdity they project a mirror to society. While the “Jackass” team is well aware about how they got their call to fame, Jack Rebney became trapped in a generational divide and failed to find any sense of joy. With “Winnebago Man” at least, he no longer can be seen as only a crazy, angry man and while that won’t give him any comfort (he couldn’t care less, he says) at least it comforts his viewers.

Sin #79: The World vs. Scott Pilgrim

“Anybody who hasn’t seen “Scott Pilgrim” is a motherfucker”

Guillermo del Toro

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” announces its singular vision even before it gets down to business with a pixilated 8-bit version of the Universal logo. It then introduces Scott (who plays the bass) and his punk band, Sex Bob-Omb; there’s Stephen Stills, the vocalist, Kim Pine, the drummer and Young Neil, the wannabe band member.

Scott Pilgrim is yet another variation of the Michael Cera persona, a charismatic and shy hipster in search of true love (a role he’s been developing in virtually every picture he’s ever been in). The movie, just like in the comic books it’s based in, breaks the hip world of teenage angst with over-the-top fights that put its characters in a meta-reality of geek heaven.

Scott is not entirely a likable character; he’s a slacker and a selfish guy who even cheats on his previous girlfriend, the sweet seventeen year-old Knives Chau, with Ramona Flowers (who seems like a cross between Clementine of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and Summer from “(500) Days of Summer”). To date Ramona, Scott has to defeat her seven evil exes (a colorful array that includes a mystical Hindu, a famous actor, a girl, a vegan, Japanese twins, and a music executive) knowing that with great power comes great silliness Scott uses all of his videogame-fuelled imagination to create wild scenarios.

“Scott Pilgrim…” might be the defining movie of the “geek” generation (I can’t imagine much appeal for older audiences). As someone who is only a little bit older than the characters I can totally relate to their problems. As a kid I grew up on movies, videogames and comics; I found solace on stories of mythical proportions that took me out of the boredom of real life (I was much more of an indoor boy, awkward and shy among other kids).

Edgar Wright hasn’t created a movie with “Scott Pilgrim…” but more of a distillation of all the pop culture elements of our youth. His references range from “The Legend of Zelda” to “Seinfeld” among many, many others. Wright is one of the most innovative of today’s filmmakers, capable of turning the head of popular genres and infusing them with a lot of style and an overt sense of loving tribute (his other two features “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” are wonderful films, discussed here: http://bhndthesins.blogspot.com/2010/01/sin-10-two-brit-flicks-by-wright.html). With “Scott Pilgrim” he shows an amazing command of sound and visual using smooth transitions that give the movie a very swift pace.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” was met very positively among fans but did poorly at the box-office which is a real shame since its one of the few summer movies that feels utterly original and presents a distinctive vision rarely seen among studio films. I suspect it’s one of those movies that will garner a cult following when it’s released on DVD and Blu-ray (it’s definitely such a rich experience that one viewing is not enough).

Sin #78: Life is Biutiful

Uxbal is a man with a lot of regrets. His failed marriage left him torn, alone to raise two small children who cling to him in an environment of poverty. In the streets he is involved with illicit activities aiding illegal immigrants in sweat shops. He also has a spiritual ability to speak to the dead, comforting the living as they mourn them.

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu’s “Biutiful” focuses intently in the life of a man who is dying and, in his last days, is desperately trying to make a difference for the people around him. He loves his wife but regrets that he left her alone on her alcohol addiction. He cares about the Chinese immigrants even though he knows that their working conditions are deplorable. After he is diagnosed with cancer he tries to redeem himself from his sins.

“Biutiful” packs an emotional wallop because Iñarritu never gives up on Uxbal and also because he is blessed with having Javier Bardem playing him. Bardem is one of our great actors, capable of turning a character into a fully developed human being full of frailty and guilt (he has gone from a cold-blooded psychopath in “No Country for Old Men” to a charming womanizer in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”); as Uxbal he delivers an unforgettable performance (which will definitely be rewarded with an Academy nomination). Iñarritu has always been a director of great global ambition and soaring emotions; this is his great virtue and biggest flaw. For “Babel”, his 2006 take on misery spanning several countries, he created fascinating vignettes that somehow could never mesh together (they’re lovely short films in search of a bigger meaning). Some admired his audacity while others despised his pretentious and rather annoying way of creating tragedies for characters who really should know better (like the subplot with the Mexican nanny, for example).

I remember how his first film, “Amores Perros”, created a sort of revolution in the Mexican industry proving that Mexican cinema could rise above the crude comedies and stereotypical poverty stricken stories we were accustomed to in the previous decades. “Amores Perros” felt like a more reality grounded version of a Tarantino movie and its stories and characters became haunting and poignant (even though the movie is far from perfect; from a more-less weak middle story involving a woman in a wheelchair and her dog to the lengthy final story involving a retired hit man).

For his next film Iñarritu gathered an amazing cast highlighted by Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio del Toro in the drama “21 Grams” that features scenes of stunning emotional power lost a bit in a miasma of narrative gimmicks. For the first act, the movie feels jumbled and confusing and only gradually reveals its true intentions. “21 Grams” is a very good movie but somehow there’s a feeling that Iñarritu puts himself between his characters with his overt style.

His first three movies were close collaborations with screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga but “Biutiful” represents Iñarritu’s first credit as a screenwriter (he does a good job with the material since it’s not very different thematically from his previous films). While some succeed better than others, all his movies are provocative works with astonishing performances.