Lincoln (5/5 Stars)

Hmmmm….yummy political sausage….nomnom

Movies about the political process are about as rare as movies about marriage. We tend to romanticize politics by only making movies about campaigns, that romantic engagement between candidate and constituency, whose love for each other is consummated on election night right before the credits roll. Then like every romantic comedy that ends with a wedding we are left with the impression that everyone lived happily ever after. Love never faltered and the impassioned promises made in the campaign speeches were borne into reality by magical political storks. Abracadabra. Getting hitched/elected was the hard part and everything after was easy.

“Lincoln” the newest directorial effort from Steven Spielberg, is that incredibly rare movie that is about the actual work of being a politician. In it, our 16^th President, Abraham Lincoln, spearheads an effort to get the 13^th Amendment, which abolished slavery, passed by the required two-thirds vote in the United States House of Representatives. How rare is it for a movie to be about passing a bill in Congress? Well, according to what I’ve rated on Netflix, I have seen 1700 movies. I went through them all to find something similar on this topic. I found almost nothing. There are a few television series that have successfully written about the political process (Aaron Sorkin’s ‘West Wing,’ Armando Ianucci’s “Veep,” David Simon’s “The Wire) but to find a political movie that was not directly concerned with an election, I had to go all the way back to 1939’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Is it not amazing that whenever filibuster reform is discussed on the 24-hour news networks that they keep bringing up a movie from 1939? We literally do not have a more current movie to draw upon for examples of the political process. All we have is “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and that short cartoon from schoolhouse rock “I’m Just a Bill.” So when I say that “Lincoln” is the best movie I have ever seen about Democracy, you can take that with a grain of salt. The bar is extremely low.

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is a decent movie and great democratic propaganda for a nation on the edge of an apocalyptic war with fascism and communism, but it still makes the same goddamn mistake that every political movie has made since and in my opinion what has completely gridlocked the legislative branch we currently have. That mistake is the idea that an impassioned speech about principles will somehow convince the other side to change their position. It was bullshit when it worked in the 1939 movie and it is bullshit now. What I love most about “Lincoln” is that it shows politics how it should be done: down and dirty in the mud of power, greed, and nasty compromises.

For this reason and how it is so clearly and efficiently represented, the writer Tony Kushner should win an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. The job performed is to represent all constituencies that Abraham Lincoln has to appease to in order to pass the Amendment. There is the Conservative Republican led by Preston Blair (Hal Holbrook) who are anti-slavery but prize the preservation of the Union above all else. Lincoln has to promise them that he will take into consideration any peace offer by the Confederates, even if slavery is to remain intact, if it will end the war. Lincoln has to keep this secret though from the Radical Republicans led by the abolitionist firebrand Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones). The radicals are not merely for equality before the law but total racial equality (i.e. going into the south, breaking up plantations and redistributing property amongst the ex-slaves). Lincoln has to temper the positions of this voting block in order to make the idea of a 13^th Amendment palatable to everyone else. But even if Lincoln gets the unanimous support of all the Republicans in Congress he still needs twenty Democrat votes to get past 2/3rds. Practically all these votes are pro-slavery. So Lincoln decides to call upon three “fixers” from Albany (James Spader, John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson) to do some bribing. They focus on lame duck congressman who have lost the past election and will be out of a job come the next term. They are offered political posts like postmasters and treasury secretaries in exchange for a “Yes” on the 13^th Amendment. Each voter has his own opinions and motivations. It takes extremely good writing to get everything explained in such a way that is clear, creates suspense, and does not bog down the momentum of the story. It is accomplished and then some with enough room for Kushner to throw in updates from the Civil War and some domestic strife for Lincoln to deal with, i.e. the hysteria of his historically crazy wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) and the wishes of his son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to join a war effort that has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

This is all rather serious stuff; so much so that one of this movie’s greatest attributes is that it is also consistently funny. The three “fixers” provide a good part of the comedic relief but the main component of humor is Abraham Lincoln himself, played brilliantly by Daniel Day-Lewis. It has often been chronicled that the historical Lincoln was a great joke and storyteller and in this movie we are treated to a retelling of his best material. Have you ever heard of the one about Ethan Allan and the portrait of George Washington in an English outhouse?

The portrayal of Lincoln in this movie does great justice to the man as a politician. Many times I have read about politicians who were great at actually getting things done as opposed to politicians who were just great at making speeches (think LBJ and FDR as opposed to JFK and BHO). One consistent attribute is the ability to making others believe that they are in agreement without any real commitment being made. There are many great examples of that being done in this movie by Lincoln. The trick is to listen thoughtfully and then tell a rather vague yet humorous story. For instance in the beginning of the movie, Lincoln is speaking to a couple of black soldiers. The black soldiers speak of equal pay with white soldiers and having black officers someday. Then they press Lincoln on what will happen to them after the war. “I’m not very good at shining shoes and cutting hair,” one says. Lincoln then makes a self-deprecating joke about how hard it is for anyone to cut his hair. “My last barber committed suicide,” he jokes. Then the conversation is interrupted by a couple of other soldiers and the conversation topic is eluded. Classic Politician. This great technique goes back thousands of years all the way to Jesus. Instead of focusing on the details of current policy that can lead to many minor points of contention, tell a parable vague enough that everyone can agree with it in theory. The fact that Lincoln was able to do this in private and at the same time actually craft a definite specific policy that successfully passed is the essence of his genius. I am of the opinion that it takes genius to aptly portray genius and that is what makes this one of the best movies of the year.  

Skyfall (4/5 Stars)

Arthouse Bond

M recites Tennyson; Q critiques an oil painting, Adele sings the theme song, and the villain displays homoeroticism and serious mommy issues. This is not your father’s James Bond and considering how this movie ends will probably not be your father’s Bond for several more movies.

What is a James Bond movie? I do not count myself as a huge expert in the franchise. I have seen all of the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig movies but only two or three of the Sean Connery ones and none from the 70s and 80s. What I can tell though is that they all have a similar format: Action Sequence: either escape or chase. If in cars be sure to run into fruit carts - Song and Credits – Mission Briefing – Gadgets – Exotic Locale – Exotic Woman - Disfigured villain with crazy plans – Action Sequence: guns if men, melee weapons if women – Sex – Action Sequence: explosions this time? – Pithy one-liners over martinis and poker – Action Finale: use any gadgets not previously used – Sex: if not all gadgets have been used, here is your final chance – Credits and hook for next movie.

Of course, the problem with any formula movie is that they tend to be formulaic. At the same time, if one tried to do something that strayed from the formula, they might capture the wrath of die-hards that flock to these movies to get just what they have come to expect. It’s the franchise paradox: Do something original and make the core audience uncomfortable or do something standard and succumb to a barrage of comments that the first movies were better. It’s a lose-lose situation (not counting the box office.)

It is kind of amazing then that “Skyfall” can be persuasively debated as the best James Bond movie in the fifty years of the franchise. It is actually debatable. Whether this is true or not should be left to someone who has seen all the movies. (Not me!) I do however feel comfortable in saying this: This is the best-looking James Bond movie ever.

In this sense, the franchise has embarked on something truly original. It has gone through the trouble of hiring an Oscar caliber heavyweight duo to be the director and cinematographer of this movie. I am speaking of Oscar Winning director (American Beauty) Sam Mendes and his frequent collaborator and perhaps the world’s best living cinematographer Roger Deakins. I do not know the name of many cinematographers but many a time I have seen a truly good looking movie, looked up the credits and found the name Roger Deakins. Amazingly he has never actually won an Oscar, but there is hardly a year that goes by where he has not been nominated for one. His list of nominated movies include: True Grit, The Reader, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Wasn’t There, O Brother Where Art Thou? Kundun, Fargo, The Shawshank Redemption.  I believe after Scorsese finally won for “The Departed,” Roger Deakins has rightfully taken over the title of most snubbed. He should be nominated for this movie it is about time that he finally won.

Outside of a Tarantino movie or something from China, this particular skill is rarely used in action thrillers. But here it is. When James Bond engages in a fistfight with a sniper on the 50^th floor of a building, they are silhouetted against a serene vision of skyscraper blue. When he tussles with some heavies and a couple of komodo dragons in a casino, the scene is ensconced in delicious Chinese red. Back in Scotland the moors are distinctively gray, bearish, and heavy with the past. When there are explosions, the characters are framed just right for the audience to feel the full effect of the raging fires. Take your girlfriend to see this movie and if she doesn’t approve of the sex and violence tell her she does not appreciate great art. How many times after a James Bond movie do you expect to truthfully be able to say that again?

But hey we did not see this movie for the beauty of it, did we? Let’s talk about sex and violence.

The action has thankfully been returned to “understandable” after that sojourn into chaos, which was “Quantum of Solace.” I especially liked how each set piece differed in the type of action from the chase scene in the beginning to the standoff in the end. It’s good stuff and people die well, especially the victim of that giant lizard.

The women are not especially memorable and Daniel Craig continues his trademark Bond style of not being particularly focused on swinging his way through his movies. This is the third movie in a row where a female is introduced, seduced and murdered (by the bad guys) in a span of let’s say five to ten minutes. In fact, I think it is fair to say the Bond Girl in this movie is none other than Judi Dench, as the MI6 boss, M. Her part in this movie is substantial as the bad guy’s plot revolves around specifically exacting revenge on her. Much has been said about the misogynistic nature of James Bond, but like “Casino Royale,” this movie provides an actual excuse for his behavior. Bond is already taken. He is married to England and M, well, that abbreviation may as well be for ‘mother.’ At least that is what the bad guy, a disgruntled ex-MI6 agent out for revenge, played by Javier Bardem, seems to think.

It has been noted before that the novelty of franchise movies is contained in its villains. They are after all are the newness of the installment. I think it is a less of an insult to Javier Bardem’s Julian Asssange tinged cyberterrorist and more of a big compliment to the sure-handed competence of the last three movies to say that Daniel Craig’s orphaned thug of a James Bond still remains the most interesting character in these stories. That’s a big thing. This is not just a great Bond movie; it is a very good movie in general. Not just for diehards, for everyone.

Argo (3/5 Stars)

“You’re an associate producer at best,” says Alan Arkin to Ben Affleck during a telling moment. Ben Affleck is playing a CIA exfiltration expert in what is also his latest directorial effort, the historical action thriller "Argo." Affleck is speaking to a Hollywood producer played by Alan Arkin who has agreed to put up a front for a phony movie to help the CIA smuggle several Americans out of Iran during the 1979 revolution. The fake movie is a sci-fi epic titled Argo. Affleck will fly into the Iranian capital, Tehran, under the pretense of scouting locations for the fake movie shoot, find the six Americans who are hiding out in the Canadian embassy, disguise them as part of his film crew, and then fly them out of the country via the Tehran International Airport. This is a true story. At this point in the movie Arkin and Affleck are doing a bit of casting. Which American will be the screenwriter? Which will be the cameraman? Which will be the director? Affleck puts out the idea for himself as the director. Arkin shoots it down. “You’re an associate producer at best,” he says.

Two things are happening here: First and more obvious is the clever self-referential self-deprecating joke Affleck is playing on himself. His character is being told nobody would believe him as a director in the very movie he is directing ha ha. Second and less obvious is a demonstration of an actual critical element of movie casting. Specifically, the utility of casting a movie star. It has been said that casting a well-known star saves fifteen minutes of exposition. For example: when Bruce Willis shows up in a movie the audience subconsciously should expect a no-nonsense action-oriented character because they have seen that actor play that character effectively many times before.  So the movie can skip that one scene where the character establishes his badassness (if it would for some weird reason want to). We already know Bruce Willis is badass.  

Now what do you think of Ben Affleck? If you are like me, you do not automatically think “Director” either and I say this with the knowledge that he has competently directed two movies already. When I think of Ben Affleck, I think of a lightweight actor that tried a bunch of times to be tough in the vein of Alec Baldwin and never really pulled it off. I think of all those years he was fodder for dumb romantic leads in bad movies. I think “Bennifer.” And I think of that time he stood next to Matt Damon clutching an Oscar for “Good Will Hunting” and was pretty sure that was a Roger Avary type of Oscar. This history is what my subconscious delivers when I see Ben Affleck in a movie.

Now this does not mean that I think he is a bad actor. A movie that is well cast will simply recognize and capitalize on audience expectations. You can see this marvelously done in what is perhaps Affleck’s best movie, “Changing Lanes,” in which he plays a naïve pretty boy junior associate at a corrupt law firm. Nor does this mean that Ben Affleck is miscast in this movie! He just needs to be less of a major character and more of a supporting one. Much less of a major character.

There is a gross flaw in “Argo,” and it is a result of an imperfect understanding of what the central and most interesting conflict is in this story. The movie starts with a riveting scene in which the American embassy in Tehran is overtaken by a riot of Iranian protestors. We see how the six Americans from the visa office escaped while everyone else was taken hostage. We see them go into hiding at the Canadian embassy. And then these six people are bizarrely ignored for most of the movie as the story focuses on the CIA coming up with a plan to exfiltrate them by going to Hollywood and teaming up with a Hollywood makeup designer and producer to create a fake movie as a front for the operation. There are scenes in which the CIA and Hollywood argue over the screenplay, negotiate its purchase, and throw a party in which it is read and advertised by the press. I ask you, is this more interesting than what six Americans hiding for fear of losing their lives are going through for three months? I submit that it is not.

The worst effect of all this attention being paid to the plan being developed in the USA is that it is already vetted and explained by the time the Americans in Iran hear about it. All the good objections are stated, all the other plans are explained away, and all the work is done. When it finally gets to the people that matter we are already two thirds of the way through the movie. The six have not been given any depth as characters and when the movie finally focuses on them, only one is given a substantial role, and that is merely as a contrarian voicing all the objections we have heard before. At the end of the movie we have learned almost nothing about the people being rescued.

Imagine what this movie could have been if it were less enamored with CIA spies and Hollywood producers and more with the ordinary people being thrust into an extraordinary situation. It could have stayed with the Americans after they arrive at the embassy, we could have learned a little about their personalities and histories, we could have learned about their daily routine of hiding, we could have seen the scary developments happening in Iran through their eyes. For example there is a scene where Ben Affleck arrives in Tehran and sees from his cab window a dead man being hung from a construction crane. Why couldn’t the six be the ones to witness that? Would not that have a greater effect on them. And then two-thirds of the way through the movie, Ben Affleck, can show up on the doorstep with some cockamamie scheme to smuggle them out of the country in full view of everyone by disguising them as a film crew for a sci-fi epic named “Argo.” What a great way to use Ben Affleck's lack of credibility to enhance the suspense of the storyline. Would you trust Ben Affleck with a plan like that after watching the world disintegrate into chaos before your eyes? No of course not. That would be ludicrous. Therein lies the natural center of suspense and conflict for this movie. 

How does this movie build up tension? Well, by lying about what really happened. This movie will have you believe that the six Americans got away with merely seconds to spare. Seconds. I didn’t say minutes or even hours. I said seconds. When the final plane is taking off (I really don’t think I’m spoiling anything. We all know they successfully escape) a jeep full of angry Iranian soldiers is racing practically parallel to the plane trying to get the pilot's attention. I don’t need to check Wikipedia to know that did not happen. If the story were told correctly, it would not be necessary to enliven it with trumped up bullshit.

I make a big deal out of this because no doubt much of the thrill of watching a "True Story" is in knowing you are watching something that is actually “True.” Well, if it isn't, and I assert that some really important parts aren't, then what? Let's pretend for a moment that we are not watching a "true story" and simply judge this movie on the merits as if it were any other movie. If it we’re fictional, would this be a superior movie? The answer must be no. It is repetitive, misplaces its suspense, does not use its characters wisely, and offers plenty of red herrings where a superior movie would contain actual twists and turns in the plot. Bad events always seem about to happen in “Argo” but never actually come to fruition in any sort of way that would cast doubt on the most predictable of outcomes.

I’m hearing Oscar buzz for this movie. I don’t need to see any more movies this year to be able to say I’ve already seen at least five better ones in every category. “Argo” should not be nominated for anything. If it does get nominated and especially if it wins anything I will take that simply as more proof that Hollywood likes kissing its own ass. Sure they would nominate the movie about how Hollywood saved six Americans in Iran through the Power Of Movies! Just take a look at last year’s best picture, “The Artist,” if you haven’t already forgotten it. To the Academy there are movies about them and there are movies about us. All movies are treated equally I’m sure, but some movies are more equal than others. 

Cloud Atlas (5/5 Stars)

Earning the Melodrama

Ultimate Truth, Matters of Life and Death, Good and Evil, Chance and Fate, Love and Hate, The Inherent Nature of Man, The Shape of Things to Come, the Natural Order of Things, The Meaning of Life. All are weighty and serious subject. But just because something is serious does not a good movie make. In fact, it is far more difficult to make a good movie out of something serious than it is to make a good movie out of something trivial.  Bad movies about weighty subjects are worse than just bad. They are disrespectful. The best example I can think of is any movie about the Holocaust. If you are going to bring that up, it better be in a great movie. It is a subject that simply should not be half-assed. In this way, I tend to judge movies like “Cloud Atlas” which contain all of the above themes in a hypercritical way. They have to earn their melodrama. 

This movie is based on the book “Cloud Atlas” by David Mitchell and has been screen-written and directed by Tom Tykwer (“Run Lola Run”) and Lana and Andy Wachowski. The Wachowski’s have made great and terrible movies before. Very rarely are they ever in between. Their best has to be “The Matrix,” a movie with such top-notch action sequences that plenty of people probably did not notice its strong currents of philosophy and theology. Their worst was “V for Vendetta,” a disturbingly obvious piece of left-wing propaganda. Both movies display exceptional talent on behalf of its directors but as Roger Ebert is wont to say, it is the best directors that often make the worst movies.

It is my pleasure than to let you know that “Cloud Atlas” is one of the best movies of the year. It is a beautiful movie of great scope and ambition that sets out to achieve many many things and succeeds in practically all of them. The little inconsistencies or confusing tidbits that do exist can be readily filed under “who gives a shit.” 

“Cloud Atlas” is composed a six different stories employing the same actors that take place in different times and places, seamlessly edited together. The first story takes place in 1849. The main character, a procurer of Maori slaves played by Jim Sturgess, takes ill on a long ocean voyage between New Zealand and England and forms an unlikely bond with a Maori stowaway.  The second story takes place in 1936 London. The main character, a young “degenerate” played by Ben Whishaw, infiltrates himself within the household of an aging composer with plans to become an invaluable apprentice before revealing his true identity as a disinherited relative. The third story takes place in 1972 Long Island. The main character, a reporter played by Halle Berry, is investigating a corporate conspiracy to cover-up an impending meltdown at a nuclear power plant. The fourth story takes place in 2012 London. The main character, a down-and-out publisher played by Jim Broadbent, comes into a stroke of good when his client murders a book critic which makes his book, "Knuckle Sandwich," become a best seller. Unfortunately the author’s thug friends want their piece of the profits and the publisher has already spent it all on old debts. The fifth story takes place in 2144 New Seoul. The main character, an artificial human made specifically for slave labor played by Doona Bae, is rescued from her fast food restaurant/prison and becomes the symbol of a violent revolution. The sixth story takes place 106 winters after an apocalyptic doom maybe on Hawaii. The main character, a pacifist goat herder played by Tom Hanks, deals with a vicious tribe (not unlike the Maori) with the help of an interstellar human trader looking for a secret among the ruins of an ancient civilization that will save her dying planet.

The greatest achievement of "Cloud Atlas" is that all of the stories are equally good and what makes them equally good is that they reside in different genres with drastically different characters and yet find a way to complement each other. Take for instance the 1936 London. It is bereft of the action found in the car chases in 1972 conspiracy thriller and the futuristic cityscapes in 2144 science fiction epic, but it forms the important musical component of the movie which finds itself in every other storyline. Or for example the idea that a single theme, let's just call it "freedom," can be explored in wildly different ways, whether it is terms of the broad comedy in the 2012 storyline which culminates in the escape attempt from a nursing home by a quartet of elderly residents to the love story in the 1936 storyline between homosexuals that earns them the rejection of society to the actual revolution against a futuristic totalitarian state in 2144. These different stories comment on each other in unexpected ways from the 1972 discovery by Halle Berry of the Cloud Atlas Sextet written in 1936 which inspires her to continue her investigation in the face of mounting danger to the 2012 spontaneous shouting of the Jim Broadbent character during his first and failed escape attempt that "Soylent Green is People!" at once an absurd and funny exclamation given the seriousness of the reference in contrast to his own situation, but also a recurring and foretelling expression of something horrifying that was true before 1849 and will become true again in 2144. 

I think it is worth just going out and saying it. "Soylent Green is People!" is a reference to cannabilism from a 1972 science fiction movie about a futuristic dystopia in an overpopulated NYC in which a mega-corporations attempts to sell people as food to unwitting consumers. Cannabalism is a major theme in "Cloud Atlas." I'm not saying you are going to see people eat people in this movie, but it is brought up several times in this movie's debate about social darwinism and the natural order of things. The historical basis of this starts in the 1849 storyline. It should be noted that the slaves on the plantation are not any regular slaves. They are the conquered Maori tribe of New Zealand, which just happened to be a tribe of vicious warriors that practiced cannabalism and had successfully conquered and eaten all the other peaceful tribes around it before the Europeans conquered and enslaved them. So when the plantation owner (Hugh Grant) gets into a philosphical discussion with the young procurer (Jim Sturgess) about the natural order of race and brings in his Maori slave butler (Keith David) to defend his case, it is actually a pretty good question. Are the weak meat that the strong do eat?

"Cloud Atlas" is a three hour movie that feels like 90 minutes. There is so much in here and the pace is so quick that it recalled my experience in watching Robert Altman's "Short Cuts." It is sort of imperative that this movie be seen on a big screen in a movie theater. The scope requires a large screen and the plot's complexity requires your full attention. To wait to see it at home on DVD or streaming would be a mistake. 

For the most part I understood everything but some of the details in the sixth story about the Hawaiian goat herder. This had largely to do with futuristic linguistics of the characters. They had tons of slang that resembled English but not enough. I must confess I did not quite understand why Hugo Weaving was dressed up as some humongous evil leprecaun that apparently only Tom Hanks could see and hear. But that is not to say I did not enjoy the sixth story as well. I garnered enough of what it was about to sort of understand what was going on. It was sort of like listening to a song by Beck. The words sounded good even when the phrases didn't make any sense. 

And as far as using the same actors to play a multitude of roles in all the different storylines, was it necessary? No, but it sure makes watching the movie a lot of fun.