The Little Hours (4/5 Stars)

Ostensibly “The Little Hours” is based on “The Decameron” by Giovanni Boccaccio. This 14^th century work concerned a group of ten women who relocated to the country to wait out the bubonic plague. To entertain themselves, they each tell a story. There is only one rule: don't make it depressing like the plague. This movie is more likely to have been inspired by one of the short stories as opposed to actually adapted from it. I don’t know much about the actual short story except that it involved a convent of horny nuns and their adventures with the new gardener. That more or less happens in “The Little Hours,” but there is plenty here that is most likely anachronistic. Then again, there is also plenty here that isn’t anachronistic. And more than anything, the choices that Writer/Director Jeff Baena makes as to what to stay historically faithful to and what to not care too much about changing are what makes “The Little Hours” a superior movie and yes, very funny.

What stays the same is the general context of 14^th century Italy, specifically the Tuscan countryside where the convent is located. I know something about the context because of recently reading Will Durant’s “The Story of Civilization, Volume 5: The Renaissance”. (I may have been the only one  in the theater keenly aware of the historical context of one character’s paranoid obsession with Guelfs.) The characters, being of 14^th century Italy, and unaware of a brighter future with far more freedom, respond to their situations in historically correct ways. One particular nun, when told by her visiting father that the family’s money is tight and she probably won’t get a promised dowry (and thus dashing her hopes of someday leaving the convent to marry), is disappointed but does not get angry or disobedient. Although such a response would be unheard of today (just like it would be unheard of for any daughter to be forced into a convent for monetary reasons in the first place), it is this type of detail that provides the basis of catharsis later on in the story. This story, after all, is about life finding its way through the strictures of not just physical but psychological repression. That repression, though outdated, must remain heavy and the characters must believe in it for the movie to truly succeed. When successfully providing the basis for the reality of the movie, it provides high stakes for certain reveals that in this day and age nobody would care about. Those high stakes seen through a modern consciousness are quite funny. At the height of one particular comedic moment, I heard a sizable gasp in the audience (and onscreen) when one character accuses another character of being a Jew. (Gasp!)

What is changed is plenty. For one thing, although this is Italy, there are no accents and there is noone speaks like Shakespeare. The script is tailored not to the prose of “The Decameron” but to the comedic attributes of its very good cast of talented comedians. In supporting roles are the men. John C. Reilly plays a good-hearted pastor with a weakness for wine. Fred Armisen plays a traveling bishop who functions like a spiritual auditor (more in an accountant way than an inquisitor way). Nick Offerman plays the previously mentioned monarch obsessed with Guelfs. In the main roles are three of the most talented young female comedians around. First is Alison Brie (“Community”) the aforementioned girl who wants to leave the convent and marry but whose family decides is not worth the dowry. Next is Aubrey Plaza (“Parks and Recreation”) whose dead-pan bluntness and sullen rebelliousness makes her the perfect candidate for witchcraft. Finally is a new-comer (at least to me), one Kate Micucci, who is a comedic revelation. If the convent plays a little like high school with Alison as the rich girl and Aubrey as the goth girl, Kate is the unformed slightly nerdy girl that just wants to fit in with the rest of them. Although the characters are of the 14th century, the movie takes a purely modern and secular view of certain taboos (homosexuality, celibacy, drug-use, etc.). For example, witchcraft is not so much about being evil as it is about dancing naked in the woods on drugs. The witches are not unlike modern hippies.

Surrounded by all these colorful characters is Dave Franco, the humble gardener whose presence in the convent excites all of the repressed nuns. Dave wisely plays the straight man to the craziness abounding around him and never really goes for the laughs himself. That’s fine, because the story is driven by the women in it, and it is their choices as it pertains to the gardener (some of which can be decidedly categorized as sexual harassment) that reveal each of their well-rounded characters.

A movie like “The Little Hours” could not have been made before the digital revolution in movies. It is way too niche and obviously would be very difficult to market in any mass market type of way. If however you stumble upon it, give it a shot. I thought it was hilarious.

Marie Antoinette 10/04/06

fresh: This is a perfect movie. As good as they come and as well made as they get. Like Gandhi or Mozart never will there be another movie about Marie Antionette. An ace in the hole this one is. It's perfect and complete. There is no need for another.
Why do I love it so: Two good reasons. Here we have a subject much like Paris Hilton, but instead of making fun of a person like that here we are invited to sympathise. This movie is not a criticism of Marie Antoinette as it easily could have been (How many of us bad mouth Paris Hilton), it is just a picture into her life. Her exhorbitant, extravagant, ridiculously dreamy life.
Sofia Coppola does an incredible feat and pulls off a story about a person who basically does nothing and is about nothing but lives in the most extravagant place in the world. I'm of course talking about the palace of Versailles, where the movie was shot. By the way, if there ever was a lock on oscar nods for costume, makeup, set design, and cinematography this movie has it. It is one of the best looking movies ever made. Having said that here's another feat. We have all these great specatacles but none of them overwhelm the story. ln fact most of the jokes are subtle, and brought to our attention by the great acting chops of Kirsten Dunst (who I haven't liked all that much in the past) and Jason Schwartzman (who is quickly becoming a seriously respected actor) who have the confidence to underplay their roles in order to create an absurdist atmosphere between the normal people they are and the ridiculous wealth that is bestowed upon them. For us history buffs, recognition of those tiny bits of reality that poke their head into the movie at various times are especially gratifying.
All of this goes back to Sofia Coppola's direction. From what I saw this movie is flawless. From the transitions through montages to the modern rock music to the unabashed American accents, everything works in this film. Like her fathere she has great visual style and although I probably could not quote a great deal of lines from the movie, I could describe many a great shot of artistic and visual delights from ballroom dancing, to morning breakfast, to fireworks, to sunrises. Many people complained about the lack of a guillotine but I think the last shot says it all. I didn't find anything at all wrong with it.
Here's the second reason. Not only is this movie great, it's important. It's important because this type of movie is very rare. It is about a woman written and directed by a woman. It has a feminime touch to it. Not saying that this is better just saying its not prevalent. As we know most movies are about men, they are directed by men and they are written by men. Even in a movie about Queen Elizabeth or Joan of Arc, most of the characters are men. This movie is different. Most of the supporting characters are woman. This is great since it gives great character actresses such as Molly Shannon and Asia Argento worth while roles that usually don't exist. 
I was not completely blown away by "Lost in Translation" but this movie proved to me that Sofia has earned a seat at the table with all the other A-list directors. I'm calling at least an Oscar nod for her directing. Best picture nod might be a stretch.