site statistics

Pages

Showing posts with label Edward Norton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Norton. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)




Wes Anderson is one of the few directors whose style of film-making I absolutely loathe. I took a liking for Rushmore but other than that, I found all his films either plain lazy or too subtle for their own good. I just couldn’t decide which. I never managed to find the motivating factor behind his characters and their actions. It echoed the experience of watching a foreign film without subtitles. But what’s worse is the distant way with which he treats his characters. Anderson writes damaged characters and weighs them down with heavy baggage from the past while he rolls on the floor laughing with his finger pointed at them. I don’t believe Kubrick or even The Old Mallick saw their characters with such iciness. While those two auteurs saw their characters through alien eyes, Anderson sees his through those of a heartless little prankster. Even crueller is the bright-and-sunny exterior; a clear indication that the film-maker takes pleasure in torturing his characters. To make a long story short, I rarely get Anderson’s films but when I do, I’m mostly appalled.

When Terence Mallick returned after a twenty-year hiatus with The Thin red line, I can only imagine how people must’ve felt. This was a different Mallick. He wasn’t just seeing his characters, he was feeling them. This particular trait was predominant in The New World and more so in The Tree of Life. As feeling became more and more abstract, Mallick’s films became more and more amorphous. Wes Anderson takes a similar turn with Moonrise Kingdom.

Friday, August 31, 2012

The Bourne Legacy (2012)




As of now The Bourne Supremacy is my favourite of the film adaptations of The Bourne Trilogy. Mainly because it doesn’t involve a pretty lady risking her life simply to be a part of this ride. Of course, their relationship later develops into a half-baked affair. Well, that’s fiction for you. And I’m not complaining. I’m just naturally more inclined towards realism. The Bourne Legacy, within its fictional confines, is the most realistic instalment to date. Rachel Weisz’s character doesn’t hop on because she wants to begin an affair with Jeremy Renner’s Aaron Cross. She has no plan, not a clue about saving herself from a very powerful organization and she needs Aaron Cross, just as much as he needs her pharmaceutical experience to disinfect him. 
 
Despite running in parallel to the previous instalment, The Bourne Legacy somehow doesn’t share so much with its predecessors. It’s the same world but the approach begins from elsewhere, the take is different and the perspective is through another pair of eyes. The hunted doesn’t interest film-maker Tony Gilroy as much as its hunter, or hunters. The Bourne Legacy is The Ghost Writer meets Michael Clayton meets Bourne, in that order. Even the swarm of antagonists are given a fair share of screen-time and their mastermind, Eric Byer (Edward Norton), a good deal of characterization. 

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Stone (2010)

Some people tell lies. Others live them.

Jack Mabry while appearing to live the life of a ‘good’ human being is confronted with thoughts that aren’t supposed to occur to such a person. He’s been married for over forty years, has never broken the law and works as a parole officer trying to reform people. But what does that do to him? There isn’t a soul he trusts; he’s carved that way. Prison inmates are trying to keep up with him by creating an impression and get him to believe that they’ve turned over a new leaf. With all the experience he’s had, he sees through all of it. Not for long.

Gerald Creeson better known as ‘stone’ is under the supervision of Jack. Empty and pointless is what he believes his life is as long as he’s in prison. There’s desperation to break free. He believes he deserves it. Attempting to needle the vulnerable side of Mabry by sending his sexy wife, Lucetta, to meet with him, he hopes to be released. How long could that last?

Lucetta is no femme fatale, as the trailer would have you believe. A buoyant, effusive, middle-aged nymphomaniac is what she is. Stone tells Jack that she’s an ‘alien’.

Madlyn, Jack’s wife is like stone. Jack has threatened her before and the memory of the experience doesn’t fade away. She’s stuck in a loveless marriage and doesn’t have the nerve to raise the issue about her ‘soul being kept in a dungeon’.

There’re some interesting issues raised by the film, and without being answered or taken a stand for or against, are put in front of us through the characters. Does sin come naturally to human beings? Does being physically imprisoned mean no freedom? Are we all hypocrites after all? Is it foolish to sought after the righteous path? Is there a definite righteous path? Is there a higher power watching over us and our actions?

Jack is the lead character and it’s his perspective that is the focal point of the film, which is why we don’t know what’s happening. Like him, we don’t know whether to trust the characters or not because clearly they all have their own motives. The narrative doesn’t intend to spoon-feed its viewers. You have to see the film again through the eyes of each character, pay attention to their reactions and understand their motives with which you determine whether they have done what Jack believes they did, or not. This is no ordinary thriller. It’s heavy. It’s complex. It’s an in depth character study. John Curran’s real deal is in displaying these characters, how they feel. What’s going on inside their heads.

Acting is first rate. Robert Deniro, a name that echoes unforgettable characters- Jake Lamotta, Travis Bicke, Jimmy Conway, Vito Corleone and a lesser known Rupert Pupkin, has shown that even at this age he’s capable of doing much more than what he’s been doing for the past ten years- frowning, cursing, head tilting and spastic nodding. Edward Norton, who has proven time and again that he’s not merely an actor with expressions but a character artist, delivers a gritty performance. This one’s nothing like his other characters. People have complained about this role being similar to Primal fear and American History X particularly because all three of them are prisoners but that’s just being myopic. That’s like saying Robert Deniro is not versatile because he’s played only gangsters and tough guys, or even more abstract- in almost every movie of his, he’s malicious. It’s not what viewers choose to reduce those complex characters to, with a word or two. It’s the way the characters are played. Vito Corleone and Jimmy Conway are both Italian Mafiosos but are their characters similar? Not at all. In spite of all the praise I’ve given these two actors, it is Milla Jovovich who steals the film. Her performance is something that I’d characterize as a combination of Karen Black in Five easy pieces and Uma Thurman in Pulp fiction. She’s the soul of the film. Frances Conroy is spot on with the character. She doesn’t have much screen time but when she’s on screen, you see her dying within and losing hope, shred by shred.

The director, John Curran and the screenwriter, Angus Maclachlan have made an original film that works only because the actors understand its subtleties. The other elements although unable to atomize themselves on independent merit are all appropriate. The sound design is at a strangely different frequency focusing more on background noises, the score is haunting and the cinematography, I have to point out, would’ve really enriched the feel of the film had it been shot in black and white with low key lighting- in the realm of film noir. What’s left at the end is an incomplete puzzle of a film that you’re expected to finish. Stone doesn’t go easy on you. It is a film of major distinction that made me feel privileged as a film viewer. For my intelligence was not just respected, but trusted.

Rating-9/10

Large Association of Movie Blogs