Sin #91: Parlor Tricks

Films about magicians share a common thread; they’re usually about loners. In Sylvain Chomet’s “The Illusionist” we meet an aging magician working in cheap pubs and old theaters (whose simple act involves hats and rabbits while performing to a very small audience, sorry leftovers after a Rock and Roll show). To survive, he also takes jobs on clothing stores and garages, jobs which he detests.

“The Illusionist” brilliantly captures the everyday details of the city of Edinburgh (a rich city known for its gothic architecture that, kind of, smells of wet stone and seaweed the last time I visited it). The visual style of the movie is similar to Chomet’s “The Triplets of Belleville” but the tone is different, it goes for nostalgia instead of whimsy. I wanted to love this movie as much as I loved “The Triplets” but I missed the sense of joy of the earlier film. “The Illusionist” introduces a young woman who follows the magician around but we’re never sure about the nature of their relationship (although it could be deemed creepy considering their age differences, it’s never depicted in a sexual manner).

Chomet’s “The Illusionist” shouldn’t be confused with 2006’s “The Illusionist” starring Edward Norton, Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti. That “Illusionist” was a traditional love story set early in the 20^th century. I liked the movie as an innocuous adventure with romantic undertones. Even though every actor is playing a stereotype (none more obvious than Rufus Sewell as the evil prince), the acting makes the film believable and very entertaining (even Biel shines in a role that is not your typical damsel in distress). The movie is a throwback to the more story-driven Hollywood genre pictures of old.

Shortly after “The Illusionist” was released in theaters, Christopher Nolan released “The Prestige”, a very different magician’s tale. The movie is yet another Nolan mind-bender focusing on the rivalry and obsession of two competing performers. The story is set within the invention of electricity, introducing Nikola Tesla as the inventor of a strange machine that may have supernatural powers (a whole movie could be made depicting the rivalry of Tesla and Edison during this period).

“The Prestige” is the kind of film that rewards multiple viewings, as every one of Nolan’s movies. The obsession in the story takes it to self-destructive consequences (in more than one sense) and the film clearly shows the risks of performing live stunts (we have to remember that Harry Houdini died in a fatal accident while performing). “The Prestige” is a richer experience than “The Illusionist” but it appeals to a different audience altogether (one more interested in dark and cerebral parables).

I’ve always liked magic. My father used to impress me with the most simple and banal tricks and on TV I always enjoyed watching David Copperfield and, more recently, David Blaine (even though I’m aware that editing is a big part of their performances). Still, there’s a fascination and awe for performers willing to give us seemingly impossible sights. Sometimes that’s all we need to distract ourselves from our mundane lives; what I didn’t know was the toll it took on them. After all, it’s hard to keep an audience’s attention.

Sin #90: Transcendental Crap

It’s no secret that Hollywood churns out dozens of bad movies every year; some of the worst break out through the gates right at the beginning, on January and February (months that have infamously become a dumping ground for failed productions).

Making a bad movie is easy enough (just ask Uwe Boll) but making a terrible movie that suddenly becomes a cult item must be a great feat (even though, as they’re making it, filmmakers have no clue as to the public’s reaction to the finished product). Take “Troll 2” for example; according to voters on the IMDB website it is the worst movie of all time. It was written and directed by an Italian couple who barely spoke any English and who thought they were dealing with some heavy issues.

Watching “Troll 2” is a curious experience. I expected to be entertained with its ludicrous plot but grew tired at its obvious incompetence and seriously bizarre sequences. There’s a kind of lunacy at work here that might have resulted appealing to the hundreds of “Troll 2” fans around the world but that failed to interest me in the slightest (was it too much to ask for campy fun?). The popularity of the movie was truly unexpected for its cast who were rightfully embarrassed at the film. The one positive aspect with the whole “Troll 2” fan lore support was the release of the documentary “Best Worst Movie”, which chronicles the impact of the movie as well as the lives of the people around the production (mainly George Hardy, who played the father in the film and who is a successful dentist, and all around nice guy, in his home town). He loves the attention and is thrilled to go around the United States promoting it.

“Best Worst Movie” is a much, much better film than “Troll 2”. It’s funny and poignant and entertaining. I saw it before even knowing of the existence of “Troll 2” and it made me curious to go back and check it out, only to realize that you really don’t need to see it in the first place.

One movie that does live to its infamy is Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”, a hilariously incompetent drama with some of the worst performances ever captured on film. The worst is by Wiseau himself, who manages to turn every line of dialogue with a hysterically funny delivery (“You’re tearing me apart, Lisa”, “oh, hi Mark”). “The Room” has become the pun of every joke since its release but it has gathered a cult following (even celebrities like Paul Rudd have embraced the film) and there’s still packed midnight screenings. The first time I saw it I found myself appalled at how every scene was seriously misconceived and the whole story was stuck in a narrative blender that was sort of…brilliant. I saw the movie again and was equally enthralled and by the third viewing I truly realized how special “The Room” was. Tommy Wiseau is the real deal, a man so endearingly incompetent (think of him as a successor to Ed Wood) that his films become instantly addictive. He recently released a short film titled “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” that is very funny, once again, for all the wrong reasons.

There are a lot of reviews making fun of Wiseau and his “Magnum Opus” but it’s a movie that lingers on our mind like a parasite refusing to die. That is no small feat for a movie with such a banal plot (in a way, the film is an experience, impossible to describe). So, is “Troll 2” worst than “The Room”? Definitely, and expect a “The Room” and Wiseau documentary anytime soon.

By the way, Wiseau is planning a 3D version of the film and is ready to release the Bluray edition with loads of extras. Thank you, Tommy.

Sin #89: The Royal We

Few can deny the public’s fascination with the British Monarchy. Amid the hundreds of books and movies written about the nation’s royalty one can find a real-life melodrama playing to all our voyeuristic needs. One of the most acclaimed movies at this year’s Academy Awards is “The King’s Speech” starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush. It chronicles the rise of King George VI, a man who’s had a terrible stammer his whole life and now has to give a speech amidst the beginning of another terrible war with Germany. Bertie, as his family called him, is a man unsure of himself who never thought he’d be King (in fact, his older brother was heir to the throne but was forced to resign after he chose to marry an American divorcee). The film is impeccably shot and acted and could represent a prime example of what insiders call “Oscar bait”, a term used to describe movies more interested in garnering awards than connecting with audiences (this term might be a tad unfair for the movie since the story is quite engrossing). The main reason to see “The King’s Speech” is to marvel at the performances, especially Colin Firth’s brilliant portrayal that captures every physical nuance in the stammer and also makes the King a wholly sympathetic and yet deeply flawed individual. He’s the frontrunner at the best actor award, deservedly so.

In recent years there have been several films about the monarchy. A few years ago “The Queen” gave Helen Mirren a best actress Oscar. The movie poised itself among the controversy of Lady Di’s death in Paris sparking enormous criticism for the Queen and the establishment after she refused to give her a proper Royal burial (even though she divorced Prince Charles, in the public eye she remained the “People’s Princess”, a term coined by Tony Blair). The story also introduces Blair as prime minister, portraying a clash between liberal and conservative views. What I like about the movie is that it remains neutral to its characters; the Queen herself seems to rise from the stereotype of an old bitter woman resenting the public’s sudden disapproval although that’s not to say that she’s portrayed in a flattering manner since there are times that her scorn for Diana is quite obvious.

One can go through every history book and find an interesting story to tell. On TV we had Jonathan Rhys-Myers playing Henry VIII (in an unlikely yet entertaining portrayal) with “The Tudors”, which just ended after four successful seasons. Once again Helen Mirren played a Queen in the great HBO miniseries “Elizabeth I” and at the movies Cate Blanchett played that same role in two films (the first was widely acclaimed while the second one was mostly ignored).

A recent example of a handsome and involving production is “The Young Victoria” starring Emily Blunt (very good in the title role), which portrays the romance with Prince Albert. The movie is beautifully made with great attention to period details and shot with a fresh and modern perspective (although it isn’t as jarringly anachronistic as in Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” which was all about blending pop sensibilities to a stylized version of 18^th century France).

There’s no denying that these movies play to our fantasies about monarchs. We place them among the common man and yet identify with their plights and even care for them. In a way, except for maybe their wealth, they might not be all that different from us.