Silver Linings Playbook

 I loved a lot of things about this movie like the engaging, tactile performances of Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, and especially Jacki Weaver.  It grounded all the craziness and the hectic tempo and made the whole film watchable.  I laughed.  I was drawn in.  At times I thought it channeled "Always Sunny in Philadelphia", which isn't a bad thing.  Keep Jennifer Lawrence and cast someone else as Pat.  Bradley Cooper didn’t fit.  He did a fine job but the casting wasn’t right.  Blame David O. Russell and all the executives for that one.

 I enjoyed the movie while watching it but I soon forgot about it.  What is it about "Silver Linings Playbook" that I can't swallow?  It won Audience Choice for Best Picture at the Toronto Film Festival so audiences like it.  Is it a, gulp, audience pleaser?  

 It had unusual three-dimensional believable characters that I wanted to listen to and follow around.  I remember all of them.  It felt crowded. 

 There was no intense emotional content.  It followed a classic form and structure so there are no surprises.  It was predictable.  I liked the happy ending and then forgot about it before the credits ended.  There was no impact.  I want impact.  

 I don’t believe or feel deep in my bones that Tiffany and Pat fell in love.  They got together in the end because the screenplay called for it.  It had to be.  Pat wrote a letter to Tiffany to tell her he loved her and that is the only indication that he felt that way.  I never saw it.  I never felt it.    

 A twenty-year age difference can put a damper on that kind of chemistry.  Why can't they be just a few years apart?  I can't make the leap.   Why can't they be the coolest odd couple in the world?  They aren’t. 

 This is a romantic comedy.  It has to express that the couple on the screen are passionate about each other, in some way.  It should be unrequited love, forbidden love, or love of two ships passing in the night.  It can't be a love that is expressed in a letter with two minutes left in the film. Surprise, Pat fell in love with Tiffany.

 If you saw the film do you remember Pat and Tiffany as a couple?  I don’t.  I think they had a few dates after the ending and broke up.  This is what disappoints me the most about "Silver Linings Playbook".  I can't jump on the Toronto band wagon yet.  I can recommend it as a crowd pleaser, and I guess that isn’t such a bad thing. 
 I will reserve judgment until I see it a second time.  The theater was full when I saw it the first time and I hate sitting next to people at a movie.  I like about 20 people max, all evenly spread out.  I need an empty row in front of me and behind me.  I need empty seats on either side of me.  I need room for my coffee thermos, my notebook, backpack, and coat.  I like it the most when there is no one else in the theater.  Then if I fall asleep during the movie it's no big deal.

Criteria for Judging Artistic Excellence in Film

A criterion is a standard or a benchmark by which something can be judged.  It usually includes a value that the subject is striving to attain.  For instance, a captivating plot of a movie could be a criterion.  A plot, by itself, is not a criterion, it is an element of film.

Consider these examples of criteria for judging a film and apply them to a recent film you have seen.  Try to be indifferent to the existence or the non-existence of the film you are judging.  And be sure to see the film twice before you even dare to analyze it.  Ignore all industry marketing campaigns.

Long lasting emotional impact

Narrative cohesion

Ability to sustain the cinematic illusion of a reality

Effective story structure

Expression of universal truths through the personal

Astonishing cinematography that contributes to the narrative whole

Passes the test of time

Meaningful themes

The 'wow that was a good movie' factor

Positive intangibles

Transformative acting

High context dialog

These are some, not all, of the criteria one might use to judge the artistic merit of a film and build an arguably true case that such and such a film is a good film.

2012 Contemporary Cinema Awards

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower", written and directed by Stephen Chbosky,
is the HANDS DOWN THE BEST FILM award winner of the 2012 Contemporary Cinema Awards just announced by the Screenwriting Program at Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, MN.  Criteria for this award include well written screenplay, astonishing cinematography, use of the personal to express universal truths, and most likely to pass the test of time.   There is a 'wow that's a good film' factor too.

 The 2012 Contemporary Cinema Awards (copyright and trademark) are a precursor to all the other award programs coming in the next several months.  It comes at a time when we can still think clearly about the artistic merit of contemporary cinema before shopping takes over our minds as well as the parking lots surrounding our favorite theaters.  The jury is made up of twenty four highly sophisticated and advanced critical thinkers whose lives are immersed in viewing and analyzing contemporary cinema.

 The MOST INCREDIBLY WELL WRITTEN SCREENPLAY goes to Stephen Chbosky, for his screenplay "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" adapted from his novel of the same name.  This award factors in high context dialog, coherent story structure, meaningful themes, believable characters, and unforgettable story.

"This Must Be the Place", written and directed by Paolo Sorrentino wins BEST POST MODERN FILM OF THE YEAR.  Post modern films are highly unique artistic visions not dependent on emotional content or spectacle, and usually made by a European director but not always.  What happened to all our good post modern film makers here in the USA like Hal Hartley, Nicole Holofcener, and Miranda July?

 MOST EASILY FORGOTTEN FILM goes to "2 Days in New York" , although I think Julie Delpy is a wonderful director and I personally love this film -- but the voters have spoken.

 Jennifer Lawrence wins BEST ACTRESS for her role of Tiffany in "Silver Linings Playbook"

 Ben Affleck wins BEST ACTOR for his role of Tony Mendez in "Argo".

 FABULOUS CINEMATOGRAPHY goes to director of photography Umberto Contrello for "This Must Be the Place".  This award has to do with unity and rigor of photographic composition and lighting that contributes significantly and subtly to the content of the film and is just plain astonishing to watch.  "The Master" came in a close second but tended to go off on tangents to photograph Joaquin Phoenix doing whatever.  When he drove off into the desert on the motorcycle I though this would be a good place to end the movie.  Where did he go to by the way?   What happened next?

 Which leads us to the NEARLY OUT OF CONTROL PERFORMANCE award which goes to Joaquin Phoenix, as Freddie Quell,  for his nearly out of control performance in "The Master".  Credit the brave visionary director Paul Thomas Anderson for saying yes to whatever Joaquin wanted to do.  I feel sorry for the actors who played across from him, especially the ones he beat up on the set.

 Go see all these movies.

James Byrne -- award winning filmmaker, professor of screenwriting, blogger time waster, owner of several crew neck sweaters.  byrnefilms@gmail.com

Cloud Atlas

I gave this my best shot.  I really wanted to enjoy this film, a multiple time frame adventure that dealt with life, death, love, hate, and all the other things it was supposed to deal with.  “Cloud Atlas” is lifeless and uninteresting.  The actors appear to be lost in the epic experience of making this movie.  It looks like they were told a line to say, and then they said it, and that was it.  The acting is uninvolved.  The dialog is overwritten and obvious.  There is no subtext.  The makeup is distracting.  Everything looks and feels fake.  When there is a lull in the story, a character is brutally murdered.  I haven’t read the novel.  I’m sure it was better than the film.

Sleepwalk With Me

Written and Directed by Mike Birbiglia

90 minutes, 2012

Was this a vanity project memoir, or a prolonged stand up comedy routine, or a precursor of great things to come?  I don’t know.  It was thoroughly enjoyable at the time of watching and completely forgettable an hour later.  On a second viewing days later, it was irritating.  Not the whole film, just the character of Matt.   Abby was terrific and the only fully developed character.  She had a vibrant presence and Matt was… I don’t what Matt was.

“I’m not saying I want to get married tomorrow, but I think it’s very weird that I spend all my time with someone who can’t even imagine the possibility,” says Abby.

Catalyst:  Matt and Abby move in together.

Turning point: Matt gets first job at some college.

Act II consists pretty much of Matt on the road, developing his career.

He meets a sage, the older comedian who gives him advice that changes his life.  Abbey develops into an object of Matt’s disdain and unhappiness.

Turning point:  Matt sleeps with waitress, realizes he shouldn’t get married but doesn’t tell Abbey.

Matt’s parents are one-dimensional.  Father is always angry.  Mother is always nutty.  They never change.  Matt never changes. Matt’s parents are one-dimensional characters and are the brunt of jokes.  Everyone in Matt’s life turns into punch lines for Matt.

Conclusion:  Matt jumps out of a window in a sleepwalking event and decides he better get some help or something.

Resolution:  “I don’t think we should get married”, says Matt.

                     “You’re right,” says Abby.

                     “How long have you felt like that?”, says Matt.   Abby doesn’t answer.

Fade out, the end.

Looper

Looper

Written and Directed by Rain Johnson

118 minutes, 2012

If you saw “Looper” ask yourself what do you remember about it?  Honestly, what is the singular lasting image in your memory from this film? 

One thing I look for in a good movie is narrative quality.   Are story events presented in some kind of organic and coherent fashion?  Or does the story patched together or held captive to some other agenda?

The only thing that seemed to matter to writer/director Rain Johnson was that he was making a drama set in a near future dystopia that featured as many people as possible being shot to death.  The body count by graphic person-to-person, gunshot was enormous, gross, and unnecessary.  The narrative was held hostage by a desire to show as many people being shot to death as possible justified by time travel.  There were no moral or narrative consequences to killing anyone.  Like they really weren’t dying because they were still alive in the future, or the past, or something like that.

The story was patched together by extensive voice over and on-screen titles.  Even these cheap, dumb-down tricks could not overcome the confusing and plodding storyline.  

Why do so many people like to watch people killing each other with a gun on a movie screen but then get upset when they see on TV news that someone went to work and shot five co-workers?  Or sadly, do those people who like watching gun violence on the movie screen give a shit that their neighbor, or a stranger, was shot to death by a handgun or an assault rifle?

The possibility of death creates drama.  Graphic murder, killing people for the sake of killing people with no dramatic purpose demonstrates an intellectual and artistic failure.  For the people who enjoy watching it, it represents a failure of thoughtful analysis and succumbing to a primitive need to witness violence.  You’re being played by the film industry and you don’t even know it.

Perhaps during development and making of the movie Rain Johnson and the producers realized it was truly a weak story that wouldn’t sustain interest or make any money, so they added as much killing as possible.  I think a better explanation is that they wanted to do this from the beginning and just couched it in science fiction, time travel terms.  Either way, “Looper” is a failure. 

There is a place for death and violence in story telling.  We should all think twice however about supporting and accepting films that demean and devalue human life in such overwhelming terms as the case is for “Looper”. 

If you went to this movie, ask yourself what do you remember about it?  What are the lasting images in your memory from this film?  You will probably answer ‘people being shot to death'.

The Master

The Master

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson; 137 minutes; 2012.

Every film is an experiment.  No one knows how a film will turn out until the last edit is finished and time passes.  This is one of the wonderful aspects of filmmaking, but the least understood by critics and the public.  When a studio and distributor gets behind a film, hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.  No one on the marketing side is ever going to say, “Hey this was a good try but not a very good film.”

Not every film has to be the runaway hit of the season, or a sure Oscar contender, or the best film ever made in the history of the world.  Films like “The Master” should be judged within the context of a lifetime of work.  Some films turn out to be better than others.  Each film can be understood and appreciated more deeply if seen on a continuum of films made over a career.

The marketing campaign for “The Master” wants this film to be declared an American classic.  By any honest evaluation it is not a classic nor is it even an excellent film.  

I want to examine the female characters in “The Master” to help understand one aspect of this film.  Peggy, Lancaster’s wife, currently pregnant, is strong and determined.  However, she is not an independent fully realized character.  She functions only in relationship to Lancaster.  She is bearing his child.  She protects him and what he is interested in.  She pleasures and demeans Lancaster at the same time by giving him a hand job to lessen his sexual desire so her won’t wander from the marriage.

Lancaster’s daughter, Elizabeth, serves no function at all in the story.  She makes a play for Freddie that comes out of nowhere and is unbelievable.

There are two more nameless women that fall under Freddie’s spell and end up in bed with him.  These are two more anonymous objects of desire.  Their purpose in the narrative is to show that Freddie is quite a ladies man and can bed anyone when he looks at.  These women are powerless objects.

Then of course there is an object of desire that is the replica of a naked woman with legs spread out and giant breasts made out of sand.  It turns out this is Freddie’s only true love.

Doris is Freddie’s supposed real love.  She is about seven years younger and is a sophomore in high school when Freddie joins the navy and goes off to World War II.  Doris is portrayed as the major reason that makes Freddie so unhappy.  There is no substance or narrative reality to their relationship so it has no emotional impact.  We see Freddie visit Doris in flashbacks throughout the film in meaningless scenes.  Finally Freddie takes a job on a freighter and tells Doris he’s leaving, doesn’t know when he’ll be back, and doesn’t know where he’s going.  Freddie is quite a catch.  He proves that he doesn’t give a damn about Doris.

The Freddie/Doris relationship illustrates one of the main faults of “The Master”.  Just because Paul Thomas Anderson, or one of the characters says something is true, doesn’t mean it is true.  The film suggests that one of the main reason why Freddie is so unhappy is the failed love affair with Doris.  This is a hollow reason and it doesn’t resonate.  The movie actually shows that Freddie does not care at all about Doris. The whole film tries to force a narrative truth on the viewer that just isn’t there.

It was originally Lancaster’s story and it should have stayed Lancaster’s story.  During early rehearsals it was changed to Freddie’s story.  It wasn’t Freddie’s story and to film it that way weakened the narrative truth.

“The Master” is like an incoherent but well orated sermon.  It’s supposed to be important so we listen really hard and try to make sense of it.  Half way through we realize there is no theme, it’s impossible to follow the logic, it clings to abstract references from the past, and the director is just making things up as he goes along.  Not every film is a good film, even if it is dressed up like something meaningful.