"Jack Goes Boating", Indie Movie Sinking

Jack Goes Boating

I've been delaying this review, for personal reasons, but mainly because I wanted to put some distance between Philip Seymour Hoffman's death and writing the following lines. ""Jack Goes Boating" was his only movie as a director and, needless to say, I was hoping for the best. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Something that hurts.

"Jack Goes Boating" is an odd relationship's drama, adapting the 2007 play, directed by Peter Dubois, where Hoffman starred in. He and two of the three other lead stage actors (John Ortiz and Daphne Rubin-Vega) also reprise their roles in the movie. The story itself is pretty simple. Jack (Hoffman) is an extremely shy, socially awkward (anti-social?) man whose married friends Clyde (Ortiz) and Lucy (Rubin-Vega) arrange a blind date with Connie (Amy Ryan), a woman with even bigger social problems than him (mental illness?). There's a connection between the two, one that impulses Jack to take risks in his life and try to learn doing things that would please her. 

Jack's character is ultimately sweet and, to some extent, optimistic. He realizes the interest Connie has in him, and that makes him change. The screenplay puts the weight in what look as mundane activities, like learning to swim or cook (eventually also going boating), but the spectator feels compelled for what it seems a conscious transformation of a curious man trying to improve, get out of his extremely lonely and narrow world. For love. Add some fascinating scenes at the pool, the special lightning the snowy city seems to have, and we could be in front of an odd sequel of the wonderful "Punch-Drunk Love". That's not the case.

Why? Because this is an actor's movie (it should be) but I couldn't believe them, not to mention be engaged, with any of the characters. Characters are exaggeratedly closed-off emotionally and we don't know anything about their past, so the spectator lost them (imo). To my view, this is an example of a movie on which we clearly cross the line between the much needed ellipsis to an under-defined, insufficient script. Trying to be more precise: with the amount of information we have while watching, to me Jack and Connie have serious emotional and mental issues, but that's left wide open. "The normal couple" that helps Jack, Clyde and Lucy, soon reveal as not so normal, as they have been struggling with pretty bad relationship problems themselves, but again, the spectator is left to fill the plot holes by itself. For me, it was completely unbelievable. And although this could be just a personal impression, the lack of engagement with the actors provokes the disappointing feeling of watching a very slow, dragged, lifeless movie with very occasional sparks (the foursome dinner, the friends conversation inside a car) and what could have been a very interesting take on sentimental relations.

To my understanding, "Jack Goes Boating" tries so hard to be quirky. It's "indie" in that annoying way that makes a vast amount of people avoid this sort of "small" movies. In this case, I would blame a script that looks too secluded and airless, relying too much on the physical presence of the characters, as it we were still in front of the original play at the theater. I still owe you a last discovery, a last amazing performance Philip.  

SCORE: 4,75/10

A tribute to Philip Seymour Hoffman

The best actor of his generation is gone. A terrible finale for an immense talent. I have never been so sad about an artist passing away, but Philip Seymour Hoffman wasn't your average actor. Here’s my modest tribute, a brief countdown through his best 10 perfomances imo, to an incredible career that has ended too soon.

10. Punch-Drunk Love- Dean Trumbell

For many, Hoffman will be remembered as an infallible secondary actor. While that consideration is unfair and utterly reductionist, it's true he has given us so many unforgettable non-leading roles, like the raging "Mattress Man".

9. Boogie Nights- Scotty J.
Speaking of secondary roles, the ridiculously shy, fatty, gay member of the impossible porn filming crew that has a crush on Dirk Diggler is hard to forget. Paul Thomas Anderson and Philip Seymour Hoffman are going to repeat on this list, if you were asking...

8. Almost Famous- Lester Bangs
I mean, Hoffman becoming Lester Bangs? What else a music fanatic would ask for? Unfortunately the film wasn’t as remarkable (despite its undeniable charms) as Lester's, sorry, Philip's, performance.

7. The Master- Lancaster Dodd
Bad joke warning. Hoffman gave a masterful (sorry about that) performance here, one so immense and powerful (alongside Joaquim Phoenix) they made this imo failed movie a must watch and celebrate.

6. Magnolia- Phil Parma
If Paul Thomas Anderson was capable of making Tom Cruise look like a great actor here, imagine what he did with one of the best. The desperation, loneliness and torment of his performance as the personal nurse to the dying host of a children’s game show was heartbreaking.

5. Happiness- Allen

And if we talk about loneliness, what about the pervert looking for happiness in his obsession over neighbor Helen? Todd Solonz made an incredible fierce, brave movie, one that itches and irks, bursts and suffocates the viewer. And he found an infallible actor in Hoffman to give a face to one of his most striking characters.

4. Love, Liza- Wilson Joel

Oblivion and utter sadness. Hoffman IS the movie.

3. The 25th Hour- Jacob Elinsky
One of Monty Brogan's childhood friends, and Hoffman most striking secondary role. As the introverted, restrained teacher he incarnates self-repression, suffering because of his inability to interact with real world. What should we say to him?

2. Synecdoche, New York- Caden Cotard
The face of torture, a monstrous performance for a monstrous film. Hoffman is compelling, painful to watch, depressing, terribly empathic, nonsensical, all at the same time. As complex and imperfect as this exaggerated (meaning that in a good way) look of what it means to be human and live life.

1. The Savages- Jon Savage
It's an excellent, flawless little indie movie (with the great Laura Linney), but the reason it tops this list is because I do believe (or I want to believe) that's the closest Hoffman, the actor, showed who was Hoffman, the human being. Fragile, good natured but terribly pessimistic. This dialogue on the film summarises it. Jon Savage: [about his girlfriend] She's moving back to Poland. Wendy Savage: What, you and Kasia broke up? Jon Savage: No, her visa expired. Wendy Savage: So that's it? Her visa expires, and it's over. Jon Savage: It's either that or we get married and no one's ready for that. Weren't you ready to keep living, Philip? We'll miss you.

"The Master", under the auteur cult

The Master

Another example, perhaps one of the finest to add to my recurrent debate on the purpose of cinema and the concept of auteur. Paul Thomas Anderson has, in my opinion, three extraordinary films in his, to date, great career: "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch-Drunk Love". An ok debut with "Hard Eight", and then two movies where everything has become too "intellectual": "There Will Be Blood" and now, "The Master". I think I will call it the "Malick's syndrome", or the "Dude, where's my movie syndrome?". 

Perfectionism and ambition should be considered virtues on a filmmaker. Also being a polariser of audiences isn't bad per se (probably producers won't agree), as it usually means the director takes risks and wants to leave the mainstream pattern. Anderson, like Malick, have been following their own path since they decided to put themselves behind a camera. But rejecting commercial success doesn't automatically mean making great movies.

Anderson's way of filming is pure perfection. It's pointless to waste time trying to find something to criticiseize in what regards to technical aspects, so critics, you can sharp your pens here and look for the most bombastic praise: it will be more than deserved. On the other hand, I don't agree with the annoying score of Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood, who repeats all the tricks we heard on "There Will Be Blood".

As a matter of fact, "There Will Be Blood" and "The Master" seems to be connected. Both are epic, reflective depictions of human behaviour in heavy turmoil. Both are spectacular, uncomfortable and absorbing study-characters. And both have deep resonances with the country in which they both take place: the United States. But for me the difference lies on what Anderson cares about their stories. While on "There Will Be Blood", the "superficial" story, the oil prospection, was the solid pillar among the film evolved, on "The Master" there's not much for the audience to keep them focused on.
 
Indeed, the main attraction on "The Master" comes from the mind-blowing performances of two gigantic actors, Joaquim Phoenix as the tortured Freddie Quell and the infallible Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a peculiar cult named The Cause in post-WWII America, plus the more subtle but equally powerful work of Amy Adams as Hoffman's wife. Their relationships and attitudes are what keeps the viewer connected with the film. But unfortunately that means "The Master" works better as a collection of distorted scenes that will blow your mind, not really as cohesive unit. Each time Hoffman and Phoenix share screen the film ignites, but the narrative structure doesn't allow that intensity to last. Anderson trio of characters should be included among the most-complex, fascinating and absorbing that have been ever written in cinema. But even the best characters need a story in which they evolve.

My concern is that I'm sure Anderson made his film less straightforward, more oblique, on purpose, convinced that credits him as a better auteur. The superficial story of the cult, on which the clash and connection of the two leading roles arise, had an incredible potential in its own. Fanaticism, religion, loyalty and belief, with the Scientology clearly on the background... But Anderson doesn't care about telling us a story, abandoning the cult subject and letting his film sinking into a regrettable chaos. Yes, at times its a highly and perversely attractive chaos, thanks to his filmmaking talents and propelled by the amazing actors. But the lack of cohesion and direction results into a frustrating and forgettable film as a whole, once finished.  

Powerful, masterfully filmed, with a superb trio of actors ready to knock you out with their performances... but at the same time little direction, resulting on, for me, a failed film.

SCORE: 5,75/10

"The Ides of March", the politics of betrayal

The Ides of March

Loyalty and betrayal are always relevant topics, whether we are talking about personal relations, work, or, like "The Ides of March", about politics. Being such a delicate subject for a film focused on a democrat's primary elections, the risk of resulting forced, or a caricaturisation, or a preachy and unwanted moral lesson, was obvious, but George Clooney and his top-notch cast achieve what seemed almost impossible due the nature (and development) of the film: leaving us wondering about the characters while our bowels are still shaking.

Because "The Ides of March" is bleak, even to the point of depression. It doesn't talk about material corruption, something that's so frequent around us that for example in Spain that our government has decided to concede an amnesty (sorry for the side note, but this is so shameful I will need to vent it from time to time). No, its much worse. Its about human condition and its corruption, its degradation. In that sense, the film is not just a political thriller-drama (as director, Clooney uses wisely both styles/tones). It's about people taking chances, some of them based in their aspirations and some even in their "ideals", and how these decisions turn into dramatic consequences, affecting others, and forcing the adoption of new measures. Come hell or high water? That's the dilemma that the movie poses, and Clooney's message, although somewhat open, is discouraging for humans.

As Clooney did with the brilliant "Good Night, and Good Luck", he directs, co-writes (again with Grant Heslov plus Beau Willimon, author of the play "Farragut North" in which the film is based) and acts. He excels in the three areas, showing a firm pulse in what regards to style, close to the 70s (but the good, meaningful seventies, recalling Sidney Lumet's films) and aplomb on the script, with a rewarding care on the actors.

And of course, we need to talk about the cast. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ryan Gosling and Paul Giamatti together, plus Clooney? How can someone do wrong with such a trio of amazing actors? The scenes between Gosling and Giamatti are superb, and the same can be said about where Gosling and Hoffman share the screen. Unfortunately, there aren't "duels" between Hoffman and Giamatti (they only share one scene). I have goosebumps just thinking of that possibility. Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei and the aforementioned are equally excellent in their secondary roles. Side note: the reasons why Gosling is among the best actors I have seen in decades can be clearly found in "The Ides of March" (or "Blue Valentine"), not in "Drive".  

I do believe "The Ides of March" could have even been better, though. The story itself , the thriller that "explodes" and justifies the superficial development of the film is a bit questionable, allowing Clooney the "cat and mouse" games that, in my opinion, are a bit too spectacular, drifting from 0 to 100% too fast. But I do understand that what lies behind of these "games" are just for the sake of showing human behaviours when they are put into so much pressure and tension, when their career and ideals are confronted, when anger shows, when they fear loosing, and when their (our too) miseries are revealed. "The Ides of March" shows, that politicians (Republicans and Democrats, both get their share), journalists (Clooney hits hard again here, so deservedly) can be as mean as human. All our doubts, complexities, insecurities, ambitions and miseries are reflected on Gosling's face at the unforgettable final scene of the film. Yes, we can (be like that).

SCORE: 7,5/10

"Moneyball", Brad Pitt hits a home run

Moneyball

To start with, there aren't many memorable sports films (boxing being the exception), just a few worth remembering. But the perspective of watching a movie about baseball was even more discouraging. Sorry folks, but I simply don't get baseball. It is such a boring game, in my opinion. So, a good film about baseball? Hard for me to believe it. Before I watched "Moneyball", that is.

"Moneyball" is, of course, about baseball, which made me miss some superficial details, or not sharing the emotional part of the games (few) we see during the film. But luckily it is more about the insights of a game, its nature, and need to evolve. And foremost, is the story, excellently constructed and brilliantly performed, of human beings.

Going to the "message" of "Moneyball" (I know, delicate subject), this is not the first movie that pretends to show us an inspiring "true" story, in this case the one of the Oakland A's, a team with low economic possibilities that managed to compete with the rich & powerful teams of the league, but have to face rebuilding after a successful season with very limited resources. That's when manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, decides to make a drastic move in order to still be competitive. "Moneyball" then becames a film about standing against and overcoming the odds, combating the usual pattern that would condemn his team. It is unoriginal, but its quite moving and, as I said, despite being about baseball, that's just the backdrop. As a Spaniard is easy to make the analogy with our incredibly unbalanced and unfair Soccer League, not to mention other minority sports.

There are two major factors why this film succeeds: one is the striking, always intriguing and powerful script, written by Aaron Sorkin (who's also responsible of another brave screenplay, "The Social Network") in a great job adapting Michael Lewis' book. In a movie where dialogue is everything, this is always refreshing, dynamic, and alive. Even the familiar scenes, or the flashbacks in time, that could easily introduce a cheesy, unnecessary dramatic element to the film are there for the purpose of showing a more accurate portray of Beane's life. Praise director Bennett Miller and Sorkin for that.

The other driving force are the actors. Brad Pitt convinces as Billy Beane, portraying a character that, as every human being, is complex, imperfect and demanding. Without overacting or forcing any scene, Pitt is able to achieve a very remarkable creation: what we see in every scene is not an actor, but a person struggling against the enormous challenging he is facing. But even is Pitt is excellent, to me the surprise, and the actor that "steals the show" is Jonah Hill, who plays the Harvard "nerd" Pete Brand, the person that will give Beane the chance to compete against the rich teams with a new system of analysis of the players and the game that will shock the entire league (not to mention their own team). He is superb in his role, a mixture of fragility and doubt with a passionate, fierce conviction in what he does. Of course, Philip Seymour Hoffman (as always) is also great in his role as the Oakland's coach, but I would have love he had received some more scenes to develop his character a bit more.

Overall, a quality film, with great acting, direction and screenplaying. It might not be groundbreaking in its content or its conclusion, although is far more interesting than a vast majority of the sports genre. But if you allow me the easy end, is a solid, and very pleasant, home run. From a non-baseball fan.

SCORE: 7/10

"Synecdoche, New York", biggest paranoia ever filmed

Synecdoche, New York

Another example of a movie released years ago (the film is from 2008), that never make to Spain, due to the singular "criteria" of distributors and cinema owners of this country. But they can keep accusing everyone of piracy... End of the rant.

Is kind of surprising, but in a very positive way, that in a time were cinema is only interested in selling tickets with unnecessary remakes, bloody awful pirates and superhero movies, there's still a chance for a film like "Synecdoche, New York". A very personal view of an author, Charlie Kaufman. The man behing the scripts of some of the most risky and brave films from the last decade, like "Adaption" or "Being John Malkovich". And co-responsible, with Michael Gondry, of one of the best films ever, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

"Synecdoche" is Kaufman's debut as director, and also his most ambitious film, in terms of conception and ideas. It builds on recurrent subject themes of his previous work, but mostly, and being a film about creating art, is easy to link it particularly with "Adaptation". But its a, staggering, XXXXXL version of that film. It might be the biggest paranoia ever filmed.

It also equals the level of pessimism of "Eternal Sunshine", maybe even goes further. Caden Cotard's (Philip Seymour Hoffman) extreme hyponcondria won't make you laugh, it is crude, and his struggle is condemned well in advance with paranoia. Humour, if any, only masks weaknesses or adds a feeling of surrealism to the lightest consequences of the monumental synecdoche that his impossible play is. Because the movie is about a play. The most realistic, and poignant, play ever made, about life and its obstacles. A play that intends to be a perfect copy of Cotard's tragic life, and the people that surrounds it.

"Synecdoche" is not an easy film, far from it. It demands patience to the spectator, and some sort of special stomach, because the majority of people that are going to expose their lives in front of our eyes, are damaged. As a film it has flaws, biggest ones in my opinion being the slow start, hard to get attracted to start, and a slight feeling of pretentiousness. But if you give a bit of credit to Kaufman, the challenge of watching the film turns into an absorbing and moving experience.

Some credit should also be given to the cast. What an stellar one! Hoffman, again, is perfect on his tortured role, and you will feel compelled by his mistakes and pains as the movie develops. At the end, Cotard's life is being showed in all honesty. And it is as imperfect as human. And surrounding him, a special credit has to be given to Samantha Morton (Hazel), the always excellent Catherine Keener (Adele) and the equally great Michelle Williams (Claire). They are essential to explain Cotard's life. And his play. And they sustain the film.

"Synecdoche" is a failed masterpiece that tries to find an answer to existence. It attempts to achieve levels of profundity unparalleled in cinema. Conclusion? Mine is that at the end, existence is what we make of it, because we have the starring role in the play that is our life. It is an exclusive role, and no one else will play it. So we better learn how to play well. Because the world, our stage, won't wait for us. It might not be the perfect film, but the risk and brave attempt of Kaufman has to be loudly praised.

SCORE: 7,25/10