The Triumph of the Commoner in LES MISERABLES

There are musicals, and then there are musicals. This adaptation of the smash Broadway show, itself sourced from Victor Hugo’s classic novel of the post French Revolution and the suffering plight of the populace has been transformed into an impressive film which will appeal to those open to its free flowing style of song and music. Think of this type of musical as operatic narrative with hardly a spoken line of actual dialogue. For the uninitiated and fans of traditional movie musicals, this may take some getting used to. If one can embrace the format, it is a well made, emotionally moving tale of love and hope.

Spanning the years 1815-1832, in Paris, France, the years following the French Revolution have left the country divided with its common citizens in poverty and hard labor. A prisoner, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), is paroled under the watchful eye of policeman, Javert (Russell Crowe). Stigmatized by his record, Valjean flees his past and makes a new life for himself as an upstanding citizen until a chance encounter exposes his identity to Javert, and the hunt is on. Meanwhile, in a related incident, a factory worker, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), has been unjustly fired and must struggle to survive and care for her young daughter, Cosette. As Fantine must resort to desperate measures and all hope begins to fade, Valjean intercedes, and while Cosette grows into a woman (Amanda Seyfried), their lives intertwine with a movement to rekindle the Revolution as a growing revolt pits commoners against French soldiers even as Javert closes in on his quarry.

Through these characters, we witness a wide range of behavior from treachery and betrayal to loyalty and unrequited love. It’s also about the secrets and the choices made especially by Valjean who comes to a series of crossroads in life. Jackman does a great job of conveying shame, guilt, desperation and anger, but those feelings give way to wanting to be a better man. His Valjean is the conscience of the film.

Hathaway owns her role as the doomed Fantine and has the chops to sing the signature song, “I Dreamed a Dream”. Her character’s descent into hell is not unlike the doomed characters in The House of Mirth or Sister Carrie. Crowe has the unsavory role of the obsessed Javert but proves an effective foil to Jackman. The folks that made TV’s The Fugitive must have modeled Inspector Gerard on Javert!

The storyline has numerous supporting characters and subplots including one involving a pair of crooked innkeepers played with villainy by Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. (What’s with these three name actors anyway?) There is also a nice musical, montage sequence that alternates and merges several different settings and characters; it is directly reminiscent of the pre-rumble sequence in West Side Story.

Production values are outstanding with the set designs realistically recreating 19th century Paris (with parallels to Dickens’ London settings) befitted with costume designs of the period. The camerawork relies heavily on handheld close-ups for realism. Of note, this is one of the few musicals that did not loop the vocals in post-production. Rather, the actors actually sing on camera, and fortunately they all acquit themselves well with these terrific songs. The effect is more akin to witnessing a live, stage production.

The end is memorable as wishes and legacies are fulfilled. When you figure the resources and talented cast directed by Tom Hooper (the King’s Speech) that brought this to the screen, it is a remarkable achievement. Because of the theatrical source material, however, just be wary of the way it’s all presented, narrative and all. “Vive la France!”

*** of ****stars

ZERO DARK THIRTY and the Ultimate Manhunt

Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal garnered Oscars for their war film The Hurt Locker a few years ago. While planning a film on the fruitless hunt for Al Queda leader, Osama Bin Laden, the fugitive was eventually tracked down and killed after a decade. The filmmakers subsequently expanded their film, gathered from several first-hand accounts, and the result is Zero Dark Thirty, a thoroughly detailed, complex study in the greatest manhunt in recent history. It is a fascinating study in the tedious work of the behind-the-scenes faceless men and women whose intelligence gathering efforts and in some cases obsessive determination culminate in the most stunning of missions.

As audio of frantic, desperate victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center plays in the background, we flash forward a couple of years to the Middle East and a torture scene of an Arab prisoner witnessed by newly transplanted CIA operative, Maya (Jessica Chastain), whose intelligence is matched by her sharp tongue and dogged stubbornness. As part of a group of operatives sifting clues and leads to locate terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, she comes into conflict with traditional, out of date methodologies. Her theory centers on a courier who could be the link to their target, but to identify, locate and follow this suspect proves confounding and fruitless over the years as other hopeful leads fail to pan out or prove deadly. More terrorist attacks occur globally and there is a greater sense of urgency when Maya stumbles upon a crucial, misplaced piece of information. A remarkable series of interviews in remote, secret locations and painstaking surveillance result in a possible hideout. The question is whether to take the chance of launching a strike mission based on imperfect, yet probable data and pl

ain, gut feelings. What follows is a minute by minute recreation of the subsequent, military mission to end all missions.

The infamous torture scenes are not so much violent as unbearable and uncomfortable. To center on these scenes misses the point of the film. While the story could have left out the bulk of these moments, they only serve to illustrate one of the means of collecting hard intelligence. The film also shows the toll these acts take on the human psyche of some of the interrogators.

Chastain’s character is quite the rebellious analyst who is unafraid to speak her mind or display emotion. What we don’t know is her background or her family or friends. This rough sketch of a character may serve this story adequately, but it denies the audience of more textured character development and audience empathy. She has a deep resolve that will keep her searching for years and endless interviews often in disguise to protect her identity as she herself becomes a target, looking for the one misstep or inadvertent mention of a name or detail. She even challenges and stands up to her superiors including the Director of the CIA (played with great effect by James Gandolfini) because of her self belief. Hers is a female operating in essentially a male dominated profession much as Jodie Foster proves herself in similar environs in Silence of the Lambs.

Bigelow excels with this intense, intricate screenplay. She is in her element during the last half hour of the film (where there is effective use of a minimal musical score and eerie, night vision camera work) as the stealth helicopters proceed to their target and she flexes her filmic muscles, which she does as well as any action director. John Milius (The Wind and the Lion) would be proud.

As a chronicle of the remarkable mosaic of intelligence work, Zero Dark Thirty is excellent. If it lacks a little heart and soul, that’s not the fault of the filmmakers so much as the source material. While it could have easily been a thorough miniseries on television, it has been distilled to a highly engaging tale of good old fashioned detective work of the highest order. When Maya reacts to the mission’s completion at the end, it is one of emotional release which the audience shares and could very well have been Bigelow’s own reaction to a job thoroughly well done.

**** of **** stars

The Power of Love in AMOUR

Most filmed love stories depict the beginnings and complications of couples searching for happiness and a future together. In rare exceptions (The Notebook) do we also see the waning days of love, and with Amour, we are witness to the end of a long union of husband and wife, whose longevity is matched by their love for one another. It is a bittersweet study in the challenges and hardships that are grim reminders that although life is finite, love transcends time. As written and directed by Michael Haneke (The Piano Teacher), the story is a realistic study of love, loyalty, and responsibility in a marriage.

Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) are a married, elderly couple who share a love of classical piano music and live in a modest apartment. One day, following a visit to a classical concert, Anne is paralyzed by a stroke, and as her body begins to fail her, she and her husband must adjust to a new way of living and the inevitability of the end. What transpires in the following days and weeks amid concerns of their daughter, Eva (Isabelle Huppert), will test an enduring love to its very limits.

Featuring two leading actors who starred in two of the more haunting, romantic films at the beginning of the French New Wave Cinema, (Riva in Hiroshima Mon Amour and Trintignant in A Man and a Woman), it is ironic that we see these veteran performers, as aged spouses. Riva makes us feel for her, and she conveys much feeling with her facial expressions particularly in her eyes or the absence of any reaction as she convincingly depicts the gradual deterioration of a human being physically and spiritually. Trintignant deserves credit for making us feel his plight as husband and caregiver. He gives Riva an equal in acting.

The contrast of their day to day routines is thrown awry by fate, and the hardship of caring for an physically impaired family member is heartbreaking. The details of hiring healthcare workers, helpful neighbors who buy groceries, acquiring a hospital bed or wheelchair, and even the simplest acts of human function are a challenge. When Anne asks to see a family photo album, we know this is a sign that this is the beginning of the end of her quality of life as she is reviewing her past and better times. There are moments you wonder how much can Georges take and to what lengths he will endure to support his wife’s well being. There are echoes of Million Dollar Baby in the incapacity of a loved one and how those closest must come to terms with life. It is a tragedy being played out before our eyes.

There is symbolism of a pigeon that repeatedly flies into the apartment; perhaps it represents a precious life that is a metaphor for Anne. Even the sounds of activity in their kitchen speak to their routine at mealtime. Indeed, most of the story takes place in their apartment. The absence of a musical score adds to its realism and immediacy.

Despite a somber tone, Amour is blessed with great performances that cap two legendary careers. Give Haneke credit for an ambiguous, bold ending with its memorable imagery; it reaffirms the power of love. The film says that this may be the end of a life but not the end of love.

*** of **** stars

The Meaning of Existence in LIFE OF PI

Yann Martel’s novel, Life of Pi, had long been considered unfilmable until Oscar-winning director, Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain), did the impossible. He (with an adaptation by screenwriter David Magee) has made a visually stunning adventure about ultimate survival and the meaning of existence in the universe. It is a unique film experience and one that requires openness and a certain suspension of disbelief.

Pi is an impressionable young boy whose exposure to religion develops into an embracing of more than one faith much to the consternation of his father. The family owns a zoo in the French part of India and one day are forced to uproot their lives and head to Canada by cargo ship. During a powerful storm, the ship sinks and all hands are lost except Pi, orphaned and stranded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with no help and a lifeboat filled with an unlikely manifest: wild animals including a tiger, oddly named Richard Parker. An unusual dynamic plays out as Pi struggles to stay alive in the elements and contend with the ferocious beast. As the hours turn into days and then weeks, Pi, left with only his instincts and ingenuity, is forced to improvise and utilize all his survival skills amid dwindling supplies. When hope begins to fade for rescue, some unlikely, awe inspiring events occur that mean the difference between life and death.

Lee, no stranger to computer generated effects (Hulk, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), has done a major accomplishment here by adapting the challenging logistics of the source material and making it accessible and compelling to an audience. He is no doubt aided by incredible advancements in special visual effects that form a significant portion of the film and recreate unforgettable moments including the fatal storm and the sinking cargo ship, the wondrous, luminescent phenomenon at night, and the depiction of animals in the lifeboat especially the tiger, Richard Parker, who becomes a major character. Some of the imagery is remarkable in 3-D.

Suraj Sharma is quite convincing as the young Pi; it’s a one man show for a majority of the film. The story, told in a flashback, is about Pi’s ascension to manhood, and he is in essence is a citizen of the world, not having been bound to any one religion. His curiosity and spiritual journey serve to make this an allegorical tale, and it is his relationship with Richard Parker that serves as a foundation to the story. He wonders about his deadly companion and ponders the question, “Do animals have souls?” In essence, Parker is Pi’s Wilson (from Castaway) but with a soul. Pi’s interaction with the ocean is not unlike the solitary figures in The Old Man and the Sea and 127 Hours, in which mother nature can be lovely and deadly, giving and taking, a sort of protagonist and antagonist.

There are unanswered questions. What really becomes of Richard Parker? And are we to believe this fantastic tale as fact or fiction or a warped truth? Is there a more plausible explanation? Maybe that’s just the point of the story: that life is full of questions and wonder, and sometimes truth is stranger than fiction no matter how unlikely it may appear. Audiences who are willing to completely open their hearts and minds, will find a rewarding experience in this tragic yet fascinating exploration into the miracle of life. And the movie does look hauntingly beautiful.

***1/2* of **** stars

The Game of Life in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Director David O. Russell (Three Kings) has taken Matthew Quick’s novel, Silver Linings Playbook, and adapted it for the screen. It is a topic near and dear to him as his own son has bipolar disorder like the lead character. By balancing dramatic situations with comedic overtones, Russell has accomplished a rare feat, an excellent drama with a superior cast that treads the fine line of humor. By making such a delicate subject accessible to the masses, he has made a really entertaining, crowd pleaser.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) suffers from bipolar disorder and, following a breakdown over a failed marriage and confinement to a psychiatric facility in Baltimore, has just been released to his parents’ care. Now back in Philadelphia and living with his parents, Dolores (Jacki Weaver), his doting mother, and Pat, Sr. (Robert DeNiro), a sports addict, Pat is determined to get his wife back despite a restraining order. He is so obsessed with getting back with his wife that he boils over on occasion with emotional outbursts which threaten to send him back to confinement. When he is not taking his meds or visiting his therapist, he runs in his neighborhood to get into shape in anticipation of repatriating with his wife, or so he thinks. One day he runs into Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), another troubled soul who not only has been widowed recently, but now sleeps with anyone. Their uneasy interactions lead to an unusual offer by Tiffany for him to partner with her in a dance contest in exchange for her being an intermediary and backdoor link to his wife. What follows are the revelations of emotional scars and the realities of finding happiness in the most unlikely places.

The cast is excellent, particularly the four lead actors. Lawrence portrays Tiffany as a seemingly naïve, young woman, but she turns out to be a bright, perceptive person who is not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with anyone. DeNiro has not had such a strong role in many years, and he shows just how good he still is. Even Chris Tucker, in an unusual supporting role, registers as Pat’s buddy from his psych group.

The film is about how people, who are trapped in their own patterns of behavior, are afraid or unable to reach out and take a chance in life. The depictions of mental illness are portrayed with realism. When Pat undergoes mood swings, it can manifest itself as uncontrollable rage brought on by a simple trigger. He has no filter to his reactions and responses which can be quite awkward and downright offensive. Much as Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good as It Gets laments if ‘this really is as good as it gets’, Cooper’s Pat tries to find the ‘silver lining’ in his life.

It is interesting to note that virtually every major character in the story has emotional issues in varying degrees. At one point Pat actually thinks Tiffany is crazier than he is. Pat’s father, a superstitious gambler and bookie, has his own issues with obsessive-compulsive disorder. His belief that having his son nearby to ensure the Eagles football team a victory, leads to an amusing confrontation with Tiffany.

When you have a cast that is this good, you have to look at the director, Russell, who orchestrates like a master conductor. Despite an uneven filmography in his early career, he is rapidly becoming the actors’ go-to director. His attention to minor details like the simple act of tying a tie, a quick reaction shot, or hand gesture enriches the texture of a characterization. His recent films (The Fighter) have taken noteworthy, acting ensembles and elicited superior, Oscar worthy performances amid strong storylines. Somewhere, directing legends, George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story) and William Wyler (The Best Years of Our Lives), are smiling broadly.

**** of **** stars

Revisionist History in DJANGO UNCHAINED

L’enfant terrible, Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds), has specialized integrating his encyclopedic knowledge of exploitive movies into reinvented, genre films stocked with top actors and highlighted by dialogue enriched scenes. The ultimate revenge tale in the guise of a slavery drama morphed into a western, Django Unchained is a highly entertaining adventure with a heavy dose of violence.

It is the pre-Civil War South where cruel plantation owners treat slaves inhumanely, and guns rule the landscape. A former dentist, Dr Schultz (Christoph Waltz), is a bounty hunter and seeks his quarry by enlisting the aid of a slave, Django (Jamie Foxx). It seems bounty hunting is a very lucrative profession, and it facilitates Django’s freedom and a means to search for and rescue his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from a wealthy slave owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). As Schultz and Django devise a plan to win Hildy’s freedom, Candie, who relies on the counsel of his slave-confident, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), begins to suspect a ruse and with time running out, it leads to an explosive, bloody end.

Although his films tend to function and be appreciated for their parts rather than the whole, there are, of course, the Tarantino trademarks. He knows how to build a scene, and part of the fun is the delicious interplay among the key characters. As in most of his films, his characters are put in situations where there is an inevitability, a destiny if you will as the tension and looming threat of violence gets unbearable at times particularly in the climactic dinner scene. He also has a couple of scenes early on which are meant to fool the audience in which things appear one way but are really a clever misdirection.

Foxx is quite the stud as the determined former slave, and DiCaprio is cast convincingly against type. Yet it is Waltz who shines here, and he makes the most of a role written for him.

As he has done in all his previous films, Tarantino has resurrected former stars and character actors in numerous supporting roles. Part of the fun is trying to recognize a face under heavy makeup. Try identifying Michael Parks, Tom Savini, Robert Carradine, Bruce Dern, Russ Tamblyn, Don Stroud, Franco Nero (star of the original titled film), Don Johnson, Dennis Christopher, or James Remar.

The film is heavily influenced by spaghetti westerns with the long stares and moody musical score. The action scenes are brutal and at times over the top; when has it not been so in a Tarantino film? One day perhaps, he should make a more intimate, gentle film to prove his versatility (like David Lynch demonstrated in The Straight Story).

At 165 minutes, the film could use a bit leaner running time, but it is good fun if you aren’t put off by the periodic, graphic violence. Tarantino may be a film geek with a nasty streak, but he definitely knows how to put together engaging, crowd pleasers, even if much of the material is cleverly recycled from older, obscure films. He has devised a crackerjack piece of entertainment, and while he says he wants to make a very limited amount of films in his career, if they continue to be as popular and well written as this and his previous work, we may have to wait a couple years or more for the next one. For his fans, it will be worth the wait.

*** of **** stars (add ½ star for Tarantino fans)

A Child’s Bond in BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

An independent film that burst on the scene, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a harrowing depiction of life in an impoverished, deep southern community. It focuses on how an isolated town responds to a disaster and, in particular, one little girl who sees the world through a prism. A little gem of a film, it boasts superior performances by an amateur cast.

In the Bayou country (and narrated from her point of view), a rebellious, young girl named Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), has a very personalized vision of life in her world where there is a natural order of humans and wild, prehistoric beasts who rule the land. Abandoned by her mother, her angry and sometime abusive father, Wink (Dwight Henry), is the only family who is there to care for her. When not drinking to excess, he encourages her to hone her survival skills in the wild. The two share an extremely poor existence living in rundown shacks and sharing camaraderie with other locals. As a prophesied, destructive flood uproots everyone’s lives, she must learn to survive and grow up fast. When personal tragedy strikes, she must come to terms with her family and her place in the world.

Shooting on location in the rural south has a colorful flavor and adds to the film’s realism. Using amateurs in the key roles makes the film authentic, and Wallis is the revelation here. In a role that would be challenging for a teenager, she shines, and never once do you think that this is a performance by an actor. Henry interacts wonderfully with her as the troubled father, and his was perhaps an overlooked, award worthy role.

It shows how a way of life can be changed forever when disaster strikes and how people respond to the major changes in their lives. The tight knit community has character and a closeness that transcends natural disasters and personal loss. They come together to help one another. Although Wink is stern and an alcoholic, he still teaches Hushpuppy the lessons in life and the art of survival in the wild. His rage and health problems are belied by the love for his daughter. Perhaps that’s the only way he can show her his love until the bittersweet end.

There is a surreal sequence where Hushpuppy and her friends make a trek to a distant bar where they meet a gregarious collection of seafarers, barflies and hookers. It is there she is befriended by a woman who cooks her a meal. Could this be her mother? The final scene between Hushpuppy and Wink is a touching moment of truth that distills all that has transpired before and reinforces their relationship. Despite all the hardships and conflict, there is ultimately the love of a father and daughter.

With mythical and allegorical overtones, this is a spiritual film that must be experienced to appreciate its unique take on a slice of the world as seen through the eyes of a girl whose fascination with how the universe works and her desire to leave her mark on the world is only exceeded by her love for her father and ‘family’.

*** of **** stars

LINCOLN Comes Alive

The subject of many films over the decades, Abraham Lincoln has been portrayed to great effect by such top actors as Raymond Massey, Henry Fonda, and on TV by Hal Holbrook. Steven Spielberg has assembled a great cast headed by Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, a chronicle of the last weeks of his presidency and his final important accomplishment before he was assassinated. As a slice of history, it is a fascinating insight into the political challenges that went into the 13th Amendment. As a portrayal of a historic figure, it could not be any better.

In January, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln (Lewis) has been just re-elected and must contend with major issues particularly the ongoing toll of the Civil War. Amid the inequality of the ‘colored’ soldiers and a growing personal conviction that was marked by his landmark Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln is passionate about getting the 13th Amendment (which would unequivocally free all slaves) passed in Congress. At odds with his headstrong wife, Mary Todd (Sally Field), and surrounded by a doubting cabinet and strange bedfellows, Lincoln’s challenge is to secure enough votes in Congress amid powerful opposition. With the potential of a Confederate signal for an end to the war, Lincoln must weigh the political fallout of ending a costly conflict and achieving lasting freedom for all Americans.

Lincoln is not intended as an all encompassing biography but rather a microscope into the President’s last great act of his administration, and it illustrates his sheer will and unshakable faith. It demonstrates his disarming sense of humor and philosophy, and he is depicted as an imperfect human whose relationships are depicted as often dysfunctional whether it is with his paranoid wife Mary Todd over the loss of deceased son or his rebellious older son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

Unwilling to compromise on his beliefs, Lincoln realizes that his legacy will be tied to this moment forever. It is revealing how the political challenges in Congress are dealt with in bold strokes or subtle, delicate wording. His battles with Congress have direct parallels with the current political climate.

Lincoln had the foresight to look ahead and anticipate his legacy and how the world will look on to this moment in history including the proposed Reconstruction of the South once hostilities ceased. The behind the scenes cajoling and arm twisting make for an interesting insight into the political process. As the momentous day for the important vote arrives, each congressman places his vote in a manner not unlike the founding fathers of 1776.

Daniel Day-Lewis has become the Paul Muni of our generation. By being selective with his roles, he has played larger than life period figures that have transcended their respective films. He inhabits this role perfectly, and the makeup work and vocal inflections are outstanding. When the war winds down and has taken an emotional toll on Lincoln, you see the President’s line worn face.

Sally Field is the perfect foil as Mary Todd, his opinionated wife. Tommy Lee Jones is a standout in an impressive cast of well known actors (including Holbrook as an influential citizen). His Thaddeus Stevens, whose support was instrumental in Congress, is an intimidating figure with an imposing demeanor. He gets some of the best lines. James Spader makes a fine, slimy operative for Seward, who is played with stern conviction by David Strathairn. Spielberg consistently gives a slave’s point of view to put things in perspective. The war and the amendment are seen through the eyes of former slaves particularly Gloria Reuben’s servant to Mrs. Lincoln.

The film is magnificently shot by Janusz Kaminski in a manner that emulates the iconic pictures of the period. You feel at times that you are witness to actual, historic events. We don’t actually see much of the Civil War battles but rather the aftermath in the bodies and limbs that are testimonials to the horror of warfare. Indeed, such themes recur in Spielberg films depicting World War I (War Horse) and World War II (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Empire of the Sun).

There is a certain reverence and awe when you watch this film because the details are recreated vividly. Tony Kushner’s screenplay is the blueprint that enables Spielberg to add to a body of work that contains some of the best documentations of American history (Amistad). There will be future film versions on the life of this remarkable historic figure, but it is difficult to imagine a better impersonation, period.

***1/2 of **** stars (add ½* for Lewis)