Search This Blog

Showing posts with label mimi kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mimi kennedy. Show all posts

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Midnight in Paris (5/5 Stars)



How to be an intellectual without being annoying about it.

There are two men in this movie that know an awful lot about Paris. One is, Paul, played by Michael Sheen. He’s the type of guy who would interrupt a tour guide, played here by 1st lady Carla Bruni of France, with the words, “If I’m not mistaken, Rodin’s the Thinker was influenced more by his mistress than his wife.” First of all, he does not think he is mistaken and so is already disingenuous. Second, he is a jerk for upstaging the tour guide just in order to show off. I don’t know who influenced Rodin, but if Paul is right than he needlessly embarrassed the tour guide by making such a scene. If he is wrong than he needlessly made a complete fool of himself. All present should be annoyed. Than there is Gil Pender, played by Owen Wilson. He too is an intellectual, but his smarts show not by self-aggrandizing posturing but by a knowing wonder for the town. He keeps on bugging everyone to walk with him in the rain because as he says, “Paris is so beautiful in the rain!” The great thing about Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” is that it understands so well the difference between these two ways of being a know-it-all. There is a difference between an intellectual who goes, “Wow! I can’t believe we’re in the same bar that Hemingway drank at! Hemingway was so cool and he drank so much! We’re going to have an awesome time here drinking and talking about Hemingway!” As opposed to an intellectual who lectures, “If I’m not mistaken, this is where Hemingway drank. His “Farewell to Arms” was okay but I felt in “A Moveable Feast” he was not as sure of himself. Also he drank way too much. That’s why he killed himself. You people should revere me because I am so knowledgeable about where we are.” “Midnight in Paris,” shows a vast familiarity with the 1920’s Lost Generation of Paris. It name drops excessively both from the well-known and not so well known people and places of the time and even includes quite a bit of French and Spanish, none of it in subtitles. But the movie never feels or seems pretentious. This isn’t an Honors English lecture. It is an inclusive party with old friends and one of the most enjoyable movies of the year. 

Gil Pender is a Hollywood hack screenwriter. It is good money but spiritually unfulfilling. He has a dream of moving to Paris and working on his novel because, well, all his literary heroes hung out in Paris and wrote novels. He visits Paris with his materialistic fiancĂ© Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. There they bump into her parents on a business trip. The father refuses to enjoy Paris for political reasons. They also meet the pseudo-intellectual, Paul, who likes to label everything as romantic/surrealists/pre-new wave/etc/etc. One night, Gil chooses to leave the group and walk around Paris for no real reason but to do it. At midnight, a 1920’s car filled to the brim with flappers from the Rolling Twenties pulls up next to him. Before he knows it, Gil finds himself at a party where Cole Porter is playing the piano. A woman named Zelda starts a conversation with him. She is the wife of a guy named Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Zelda asks Gil what he thinks of the party. The bewildered/excited out of his mind/awestruck Gil doesn’t know what to say. “I know,” Zelda says, “this place is boring. We’re going to a better party. Want to come with us?”

What a trip! Not only is Gil meeting all his heroes, but also all his heroes are exactly as he thought they would be. Even better, they like him and are interested in the novel he is working on. Ernest Hemingway won’t read it himself because he is of the firm belief that a writer will either hate another's work or be envious of it and hate it all the more. But Hemingway will show Gil the manuscript to the only editor he trusts, one Gertrude Stein, played by Kathy Bates. As Gil enters the studio of Gertrude Stein she is critiquing one of Picasso’s new paintings with Picasso present and adamantly defending himself. “Gil,” Stein asks, “what do you think of Pablo’s new work?” Imagine that. Being asked to critique Picasso to his face. Having Stein read your novel. Drinking with Hemingway. Gil Pender spends a majority of the movie in a state of ecstasy. Owen Wilson, perfectly cast even at 40 years old, conveys a perfect sense of child-like wonder. There is a great shot with Gil back in the 21st century, wide-awake in his bed and whispering to nobody, “I saw Hemingway. Gertrude Stein is reading my novel. I’m Gil Pender. I’m from Pasadena.” What is really amazing is that this is a Woody Allen movie. Allen has done over forty movies now and there has been such a consistent strain of pessimism and nihilism in his work. That has completely evaporated here and in its stead is gorgeous scenery, great larger-than-life characters, sharp and clever dialogue, and a protagonist who couldn’t possibly be enjoying himself more than he already is.

Standing at about 90 minutes, this movie is also a great example of story efficiency. It takes about two minutes to introduce all the real-life people and their different attitudes towards Paris. It takes another five to introduce the idea of nostalgia and the cynical view that it is an erroneous romanticization of the past to assume that it was a better time than it is now (This theme comes up again ironically when one of the 1920’s artists suggests that the real golden age of Paris was in the 1890s.) The literary figures show up at all the right places in all the right times. I especially liked who Gil explains his perplexing situation as a man who spends the night in the 1920s and wakes up in 2010. He says this to some 1920s surrealists and they see nothing strange about his situation. Salvador Dali, played nicely by Adrien Brody, seems far more interested with his new favorite word “Rhinocerous!” There is also room for a budding romance between Gil and one of the art groupies named Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard. Overall the movie, like all good comedies, is not too long but contains quite a lot. It moves fast, is consistently funny, and very romantic. And don’t forget Paris. It looks as good as ever. 

Sunday, October 24, 2010

In the Loop (5/5 Stars) September 7, 2009

Climbing the Mountain of Conflict like a Nazi Julie Andrews! 


Writer/Director Armando Ianucci should be crowned the British King of insult comedy for his new political satire “In the Loop.” This is Iannucci’s feature film debut. He is best known for his TV Show “In the Thick of It,” which contains many of the same actors playing the same characters. That show and this movie are about the same thing: A no holds barred, hysterical, unsympathetic, and way too realistic feel of how a bureaucratic democracy works. They say that policy is like sausage: good to eat but you probably wouldn’t want to see how it is made. Well, welcome to the Sausage Factory, I sure hope this isn’t really what it looks like. “In the Loop” concerns the buildup to an American invasion into some Middle Eastern country based on faulty intelligence provided by the British Government. We get to witness the ground war of this bureaucratic obstacle course as the many ministers, senators, and office aides battle it out over the course of committees, lunch meetings, cocktail parties, and what not. It’s like as if ‘The Office’ was not about paper but weapons of mass destruction and everybody cursed like a sailor. The expletives and insults contained within this movie flow so freely and creatively and nonstop that sometimes I simply was astounded by the incivility of some of it (especially when the characters wouldn’t hesitate to direct their profanity at women). I was astounded that is when I wasn’t laughing my ass off. I haven’t laughed so hard and so often in a movie since I watched ‘The Hangover’ earlier this year. Before that I would have to go as far back as ‘Tropic Thunder.’ What I’m trying to say is that this movie is hysterical. At times I was literally rolling in my seat. And It Is nothing but laughs despite the serious subject matter. There is not a single dramatic scene and only one dramatic pause in the entire movie (I will talk about that later). The rest of the movie is simply nonstop clever insults and witty dialogue. I will now quote several lines courtesy of IMDB as there is no way I could possibly give the movie any justice by only describing the scenes. 

Simon Foster: Tobes, I don't want to have to read you the riot act but I am going to have to read you some extracts from the riot act, like section one, paragraph one: don't leave your boss twisting in the wind and then burst in late, smelling like a pissed seaside donkey. 
Toby Wright: Look, alright, I was late for the meeting, Simon, I am sorry, but it's not like I threw up in there, is it? 
Simon Foster: No, you're right, I'm being unfair. I should be thanking you for not throwing up. Well done, you're a star. You didn't wet yourself, did you? You're in the right city. You didn't say anything overtly racist. You didn't pull your cock out and start plucking it and shouting "Willy Banjo". No, I'm being really unfair. You'd got so much right, without actually being there in the beginning of one of the most important moments of my career. Thanks, you're a legend.

Or:

Lt. Gen. George Miller: 12:30. 
Bob Adriano: Hold on. General? Yeah... Secretary Linton Barwick asked me to let you know that his last meeting looks like it's overrunning, he sends his apologies. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: When will he be here? 
Bob Adriano: I don't have that information at this moment. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: What the fuck? Huh? Did he stand me up? 
Bob Adriano: No, no, sir. You're more than welcome to wait. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: Do you know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to take a nice big shit on his desk, just to let him know that I was here. Is that OK with you? 
Bob Adriano: I don't think he'd like that too much, sir.

Or:

Linton Barwick: My golly, I can't see why anyone would choose to work in a glass office, huh? Glass offices, in my opinion, are for perverts. 
Bob Adriano: I could request the glass be frosted. 
Linton Barwick: Frosting is on cakes, Bob. Now, what else happened in London?
Bob Adriano: Ah, generally positive, two glitches... 
Linton Barwick: Really, what? 
Bob Adriano: Karen flagged a report by one of her staffers. She's obviously trying to use it as some kind of roadblock. It's called PWIP PIP. 
Linton Barwick: PWIP what? 
Bob Adriano: PWIP PIP. 
Linton Barwick: What is it, a report on bird calls? What does it even stand for? 
Bob Adriano: I can't recall. It's factish. Intel for and against intervention. 
Linton Barwick: We have all the facts on this we need. We don't need any more facts. In the land of truth, my friend, the man with one fact is the king. You said there was something else, what is that? 
Bob Adriano: In the meeting with the Foreign Office, the committee was accidentally and briefly alluded to. 
Linton Barwick: Which committee? 
Bob Adriano: The... 
[quietly] 
Bob Adriano: The war committee, sir. 
Linton Barwick: All right, Karen is not to know about this, huh? She is an excitable, yapping she-dog. Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record. 
Bob Adriano: We can do that? 
Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that's the more accurate version, don't you?

Or: 

A.J. Brown: So, you made it in OK, right? 
Malcolm Tucker: Yeah, hunky-dory, thanks. Can I get a coffee? 
A.J. Brown: Sure, sure. If we just get started, my assistant should be bringing in coffee shortly. 
Malcolm Tucker: Your assistant? 
A.J. Brown: Yeah. So, item. We need to have a conversation about the mood of the British Parliament, the bumps in the road ahead and what not. 
Malcolm Tucker: I'm sorry, I don't... This situation here is... Is this it? No offence, son, but you look like you should still be at school with your head down a fucking toilet. 
A.J. Brown: Your first point there, the offence? I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it. Your second point, I'm 22, but item, it's my birthday in nine days, so... if it will make you feel more comfortable, we could wait. 
Malcolm Tucker: Don't get sarcastic with me, son. We burned this tight-arsed city to the ground in 1814. And I'm all for doing it again, starting with you, you frat fuck. You get sarcastic with me again and I will stuff so much cotton wool down your fucking throat it'll come out your arse like the tail on a Playboy bunny. I was led to believe I was attending the war committee. 

These quotes are simply a taste of what is in this movie. Every conversation, every line of dialogue is at par with what you have just read. “In the Loop” more than deserves a nomination for best Original Screenplay.
As far as the performances go, the movie goes the extra effort to make sure each actor has some sure-fire great lines and great scenes. Ianucci seems to have brought along the entire cast of “In the Thick of It,” including Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Chris Addison (Toby Wright), Enzo Cilenti (Bob Adriano), Paul Higgins (Jamie MacDonald, the crossest man in Scotland) and others. I hadn’t heard of them before seeing them in this, but they are some very talented cursers and I can only imagine that Britain has much more lenient censors than we do as they have obviously had an awful lot of practice. On the other side of the pond are the Americans David Rasche (Linton Barwick), Mimi Kennedy (Karen Clark), and Anna Chlumsky (Liza Weld). I’ve never heard of them either (but still very funny). The only actors that I recognized were James Gandolfini (Lt. Gen. George Miller), Zach Woods (Chad) from the UCB, and Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) who you might remember as the bad guy in Pirates of the Carribean. Every part in this movie is basically equal making this the best ensemble I have seen in a movie this year. 
As I mentioned before this movie has only one pause in it and it belongs to Peter Capaldi. He has just been cursed out by David Rasche and basically ordered to cook up some intelligence so that the Americans can have something to show the UN Security Council. The camera focuses on Capaldi’s face for a couple of seconds. That’s it and then he swears at the rest of the people in the room and leaves. The movie picks up the breakneck speed of jokes and curses once again. What I noticed is that this sort of running-by-the-seat-of-your-pants pacing not only helps the comedy by keeping the jokes coming but it also explains the characters so much. It is evident that the crisis that takes place is actually quite ordinary. The characters aren’t speeding up to take care of it. They are always this fast, desperate, uncivil and angry. That explains why the only people who keep these jobs are incredible assholes like Malcolm Tucker. The job draws these people because they are the only people who can survive in this environment. Nicer or shall I say less manic men like Simon Foster don’t have a chance. That’s as far as I will get in describing philosophy. I probably went farther than the writer/director wanted me too. His main purpose is definitely not to have us debate politics afterwards but to make us laugh until we have a heart attack. Mission Accomplished.