"While We're Young", bohemian like you

While We're Young 

Very nice and welcomed surprise. Didn't know what to expect about 'While We're Young'. I have a strange relation with Noah Baumbach's movies, Loved 'The squid and the whale', liked the utterly dark 'Margot at the wedding', but I don't want to watch it again. 'Greenberg' was quite ok too, but I'm scared to death to watch 'Frances Ha' (seems a movie for hipsters), and I thought this one could be a very weak film, something several reviews stressed. Happily, there was no reason for my fears.

'While We're Young' might easily be the most balanced and, I guess, accessible of Baumbach's films to date. That assessment means two important facts. First, the bitterness and poignancy of many of Baumbach's previous works is virtually gone. As a matter of fact, the movie is a comedy, a satire. And second, the characters are likeable. This is, of course, a matter of personal taste. But aside the aforementioned 'The squid and the whale', in my opinion, his best movie yet, that makes leading characters Josh and Cornelia, played with conviction and some sort of charm by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts, the most interesting, relatable, well-rounded, flawed, irritating at times and, therefore, human Baumbach has ever created.

Yeah, I have read the comparison with Woody Allen and, although I admit it hurts me quite a bit (I'll always be a fan) it is true that Baumbach has constructed a more credible, contemporary and refined story about the behavior of intellectuals than Allen's latest efforts. 'While We're Young' portrays this stucked couple trying to prove themselves they are still "in", still bohemian, still hip, although they have grown up. How do they try to connect with the times? Befriending, Jamie and Darby, played smoothly by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried, a free-spirited couple still in their twenties, after the younger hipsters approaches Josh after one of his boring classes on filmmaking (Josh is a documentary filmmaker).

'While We're Young' works admirably as a funny game of contrasts. Old friends having kids and making their existence surrender to the babies, while the couple of hipsters celebrate a 'street beach' event or an Ayahuasca ceremony (leaded by Dean Wareham in an hilarious role). One looks scary, the other one intriguing... but scary too? Baumbach is just saying: both generations are quite ridicule, and is pretty easy to mock them. Oh yes! Here's another unmissable vynil for your record collection. Oh yes! Can I have a better Ipod for my daily running exercise? Cool and laughable, childish, at the same time. It also makes you think about yourself for a second (and in a lightweight manner). As someone who is in between both ages, and who works/deals within a hipster environment but has never been or felt part of it, many of what appears in 'While We're Young' sounds extremely familiar... I'm writing this review while listening the new Churches album, completely shocked this is "what you should listen now" when to me sounds suspiciously similar to Carly Rae Jepsen. Didn't we agree 80s electro-pop is embarrassing?

The movie also attempts to explore one of the 'controversial questions': what's authentic then? It might the weakest side of the film, because Jamie's convictions as a filmmaker (Darby's to a lesser extent too) are not really exposed if compared with Josh's adamantium but lost aims. But despite that might be a shortcoming, it do serves well Baumbach's purpose of showing people with good and insufferable qualities as well, complex and multidimensional, trying to do something with their life as they keep growing. Highly recommendable, whether you are a young hipster or an old bore, hahahaha...

SCORE: 7,25/10

"Birdman", There's No Business Like Showbusiness

Birdman (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Can't really say what were my expectations with 'Birdman'. Praise was unanimous and the idea and cast highly promising, but I'm not among the fans of director Alejandro González Iñárritu, a risky and brave filmmaker that, in my opinion, frequently crosses the fine line between bold ambition to reach excess, grandiloquence and megalomania ('Babel', 'Biutiful'). But here it is: with 'Birdman', Iñarritu has reached a fantastic, at times mind-blowing balance between scope and format, between visuals and technical direction packed with a powerful story.

Black comedy? A dark satire on show business? A merciless account on this fake, social-media, techie, empty era where art is supposed to be tweeted? You name it. This is an up-to-date, very modern farce, a state-of-the-art version of 'Noises Off!' on which we are invited to see how yesterday's actor Riggan Thomson (brutal performance from Michael Keaton), once a very popular, iconic movie superhero tries to mount a Broadway play, on what it seems his last attempt to gain reputation, relevancy, respect and... also some direction on his chaotic life. But there are many, too many issues to deal with before the opening night arrives. Some have to do with the actors involved in the play, their egos and own traumas, some have to do with the crazy affair theatre seems to be, and the biggest, hardest ones, have to do with Thomson's head. While his family & career drifts away, his mind is not helping.. at all. The 'Birdman' is willing to fly again.

The amount of issues happening on 'Birdman' could had easily been a bit too much but, somehow, Iñarritu manages to reflect the doomed, frantic days before the play without loosing punch or pulse. It's an aesthetically addictive movie (it gives the fakey feeling it has been filmed in just one-take) and it keeps you surprised with its twists and turns. But there's also time to confront the audience with some questions about the role and meaning  of art in this ultra-quick, fleeting and cynical era; about acting; about addictions, fame, self-doubt, fear and human miseries. The script is sardonic, explosive, a bit cruel and clever without preaching. Iñarritu talks about emotions in a very specific universe he does know well (filmmaking) and is able to transcend it to talk about human obsessions. Bravo.

If the script is poignant, performances are mostly outstanding. As I said, Keaton is amazing, but he's not alone. Edward Norton is stunning in his role of Mike Shiner, the beyond-intense egomaniacal Broadway star Thomson's needs to work at the very last moment. And Emma Stone (these eyes, OMG) is haunting as Sam, Thomson's troubled daughter, rebellious and vulnerable, at first a cliche character that turns to be one of the most captivating and complex of the entire film, having some of the most striking lines (the "you don't even exist" verbal fight with her father) . Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianiakis and Andrea Riseborough are also excellent on their supporting roles.

Just a few minor things make me rate 'Birdman' a bit lower than it would deserve. One is the annoying music. I understand it might have something to do with the inner voices and evil inside Thomson's head but it's insufferable. Another flaw are some superficial-secondary stories that are dropped without notice (the pregnancy issue). And finally, the shocking but unsatisfying final scene (no spoiling). Whatever the case, 'Birdman' is a must-see tour-de-force of a movie.  

SCORE: 8/10

"Woody Allen: A Documentary", life through a camera

Woody Allen: A Documentary

I already wrote this: I owe a lot to Woody Allen, not only in terms of "cultural education" but also in terms of humour and a certain view of life. I was sixteen when a friend of a friend passed me a couple of films. The first one was Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" (Les Quatre Cents Coups). It grab me and shook me as very few things before. But it was nothing compared with the impact of the second film. I'm referring, of course, to Allen's "Annie Hall", that not only remains as a fundamental movie for me. I know that will "remain with me" forever.

This personal introduction explains why it was virtually mandatory for me to watch this documentary, even though I suspected there wasn't going to be a lot of new information for me on the director (seen it all, read it a lot). The surprise was that for a while, "Woody Allen: A Documentary", it does proof to be a quite revealing and very entertaining film.

Seems that director Robert Weide has had access (which is remarkable) not only to deconstruct the career of the Brooklyn artist, but also to film a bit of his daily life and creative process. During its first half, we have the chronicle of Allen's rising from teen writer to stand up comedian, TV star to a movie writer-director praised as an iconic auteur. For any devoted fan, the archive footage of his monologues and jokes on TV, along with the opinions of the people who are (look at his film credits!, always the same people) "Allen's gang": Jack Rollins, Charles H Joffe, Letty Aronson...is hugely enjoyable. But the contrast with his opinions on camera, his memories of childhood, and his writing habits (the scenes when he shows his working desk, his impossibly outdated German typewriter, and the scrapped notes he keeps that then will become scripts are precious), make this documentary A MUST-SEE.

Seriously, it could have been close to perfection. We start the recap of his filmography going movie after movie for a while (nice to see Martin Scorsese sharing his views on Allen's career). There's another precious chapter (it couldn't be any other way) with the apparition of Annie, or better said, Diane Keaton. Yes, as the movie says, count me among the ones that felt in love with her in this movie. There's one wonderful scene, with Allen incapable of not laughing in front of her, that it reveals much more than any declaration on their level of connection. But after "Stardust Memories" Weide changes the film structure. Gone is the idea of going film-by-film, and everything seems to be rushing from there on. A glimpse on the Mia Farrow-Soon-Yi scandal, although it is remarkable Allen share a thought on that too, a very quick jump into the 90s, another one on his late "lost period", and then his unexpected success with the charming "Midnight in Paris", all mixed with opinions on his legacy, and how actors (Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Penélope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson or Naomi Watts among others) enjoy his peculiar way of directing them. Too much in too little time, forgetting too many things...

Now I have found the film I've just seen is the cinema-release version of a PBS documentary which originally clocks at 191-minutes. That is an enormous difference in length (almost 80 minutes) which might help explaining why the second half of the film looks more disjointed and pressed. I'm sorry to say that if that's the case, well then it seems that, again, business defeated cinema. A commercial decision (reducing the film length) was prioritized instead of consistency and coherency of what potentially was a superb documentary on one of the most important directors, if you allow me to say, ever. I know that I will end watching the complete documentary sooner or later, so I'll let you know... For now, a recommendable documentary that could have been a must-see.

SCORE: 6,25/10