Green Book (4/5 Stars)

There alot of interracial buddy movies out there. The genre was essentially born with In the Heat of the Night in 1968, the first interracial buddy cop movie, which seemed to spawn a different iteration every couple of years (a few examples 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour). Green Book belongs with the best of them and in a way is more than that. Other interracial buddy movies focus only on the race aspect of the buddy relationship. Green Book does more than that. The characters here are also separated by class and just as importantly, if not more so, their ideas about individualism.

The plot is disarmingly simple. It is based on a true story that took place within the space of a few months in the early 1960s. The Dr. Don Shirley, the celebrated concern pianist, is embarking on a cross-country tour, including the deep south, and has hired Tony "Lip" Vallalonga as his driver/bodyguard. Dr. Don Shirley is black and Tony "Lip" is white. But as I said, there's more. Dr. Don Shirley is upper class. Tony "Lip" is working class. And most importantly Dr. Shirley is an individual. He has eclectic tastes, has no family or close friends, and is not simply a good piano player but one of the best. Tony "Lip" on the other hand, is Italian. He's from the Bronx.

They mostly get along. Tony "Lip" may harbor basic 1960s prejudice against black people, but does not seem to apply them to Dr. Shirley, who has obvious class and money and will pay him a good wage for his work. Dr. Shirley appreciates the usefulness of Tony's skills and personality attributes even though he clearly does not want them for himself. They travel through the segregated south, but the hardships that prevail upon them there are never more interesting than how these two interact with each other. Most of it pretty funny in an odd couple kind of way, Tony "Lip" being the sloppy easy-going guy and Dr. Shirley being the neat uptight man. Tony "Lip" introduces Dr. Shirley to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr. Shirley helps Tony "Lip" with the letters he writes to his wife. By the time the movie was ending and Tony "Lip" was hurrying back to make Christmas dinner with his family, I was happily being reminded of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. This is an enjoyable movie. Is it one of the best of the year? (It has been nominated for Best Picture). I don't think so. I think it lacks the sort of ambition a Best Picture nominee should have. But I'm not unhappy with its presence.

What is a racial stereotype? It is a belief about the typical attributes of a type of people. If you would agree that there is such a thing as a type of people, than it follows that there exist racial stereotypes about them that are true. At one point in this movie, Tony "Lip" offers some fried chicken to Dr. Shirley. Dr. Shirley refuses it. What's the problem, says Tony, you people are suppposed to like fried chicken. Dr. Shirely takes offense. What's the problem, says Tony, if someone told me all guineas like spaghetti and meatballs, I wouldn't get offended. Now, we all know why Dr. Shirley would get offended. Perhaps a better question then is why Tony "Lip" wouldn't get offended. The answer is not a question of race, it is a question of individualism. Let's put it this way: The racial stereotype that black people like fried chicken is not offensive to Dr. Shirley because he believes a liking of fried chicken is inherently bad. It isn't. Nobody thinks that. Dr. Shirley is offended because he is being automatically placed into a group based on his race, when he, as an individual, does not share those characteristics. Tony "Lipp" on the other hand does not identify as an individual, or not nearly as much. He is an Italian. He grew up and lived his entire life in one neighborhood in the Bronx. He is not offended by the idea of a person telling him Italians like spaghetti and meatballs because he does not have a problem with being grouped with Italians and having others assume Italian characterisitics about him. When told a group of stuck rich guys won't like his last name, he says, if they don't like it, they can shove it, I'll wait outside. It's only a problem to Dr. Shirley to not be accepted or allowed to be something different from Black. Tony "Lip" is content with being Italian and does not want to be anything else.

America has a long history of promoting individuals and individualism like that of Dr. Shirley. Our culture say far less about the merits of being part of a group. The pitfalls of being part of a group are well known: less room for vanity, less chance of fame, and you have to suppress certain aspects of yourself that the majority believe are not beneficial or simply don't like. But what about the benefits? Everyone in Tony "Lip" neighborhood knows and respects him. His Christmas dinners are attended by a large amount of family and friends. Whether or not he needs it, his relatives show up to provide support. Contrast this with the situation of Dr. Shirley. He receives lots of applause for being an outstanding pianist, but he has no close family, he lives alone, his best friend might be his butler. This is not a result of his race. He has chosen to put himself on a pedestal apart from other people. His concerns about racial stereotypes are not always a blow against racial prejudice, sometimes they are an exercise in vanity. He wants other people to believe he is exceptional. To the extent that he is exceptional, he deserves that consideration. But this is unrelated to whether it is okay to assume a black person likes fried chicken. If most black people like fried chicken, and liking fried chicken is not a bad thing, it isn't offensive to say or assume so. It is at least not racially offensive. Individuals may be offended for being lumped in with a group and a lot of what seems to pass as racism nowadays can fit squarely within the latter category. Not being able to vote or sit in a restaurant. That's racism. Microagressions, I'm afraid not.

This movie was directed Peter Farrelly without his brother Bobby Farrelly. There is probably a story there. The Farrelly brothers were responsible for some of the best comedies of the 1990s (Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, There's Something About Mary), but have not been doing that great since. This is a good change of pace. 

A Dangerous Method (4/5 Stars)

I wonder how Carl Jung would react to this movie if he were still around to see it. There are some very private moments portrayed here. At one point the movie goes so far as to follow Jung and one of his patients into the bedroom for that most basic ritual of sadomasochistic sexual behavior. Part of me would think that Jung would be mortified that this would be up on a huge screen for everybody to see. But then another part of me reminds the other part of what exactly Jung was involved in. There is a fine comic moment in the film when Professor Sigmund Freud has Carl Jung over for dinner and politely explains to him that he should feel absolutely free to discuss anything and everything at the table. And there sitting at the table are all of Freud’s children, the majority of which are at or near very impressionable ages. This is based on a true anecdote. Freud’s children did indeed sit through many a dinner conversation that focused explicitly on sex, psychotic compulsions, and all sorts of other taboo conversational topics. So that part of me would not be surprised if Carl Jung would, instead of being totally embarrassed, actually take the stage at the end of the movie and ask the audience point blank what exactly they thought about it and please feel free to focus in on the kinky stuff.

The “dangerous” method refers to such behavior. Instead of repressing thoughts and conversation about sex, taboo, psychotic compulsions and the like, go ahead and talk about it and try to be as specific as possible as to why you feel and think the way you do. Such a therapeutic method was first suggested by Freud, but according to the movie was never experimented by him. Carl Jung apparently was the first and the patient he first tried it on was a young Russian woman named Sabina who came to his hospital in fits of hysteria. Jung puts her in a chair, sits behind her (presumably so she can’t see his reactions to her craziness and feel to shamed to speak more of it), and quietly asks her questions that would be very impolite in any regular conversation. Does it work? Yes, it seems to, at least in the sense that it grants the sort of relief one may feel after solving a complex riddle. The problem is still there, but at least now we know what it is. This movie work on the audience in the same way. We are presented with a person that is crazy. The seemingly random shrieks and fits are confusing and frightening. But we observe and listen and slowly achieve an understanding. Suddenly the person makes sense, her actions become predictable, and the fear and uneasiness that accompanied us dissipates. We feel relief.  The best of movies like psychoanalysis strive for that ecstatic “Aha!” moment. There is one such moment in this movie and if Keira Knightley gets a nomination for her performance (which is not unlikely), it will probably be that moment people are recognizing her for. (It should be said that bad movies work in the exact opposite way. Think of movies where the basic laws of physics are ignored, the characters act like aliens, or the repetitive use of cliché is foisted upon the audience. A sense of unease fills the viewer. I sometimes find myself getting mad.) 

Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are played by Michael Fassbinder and Viggo Mortenson respectively. Now here are two actors with Presence. They are perfect choices for playing intellectual heavyweights. I’ve praised Mortenson before (see review of “Eastern Promises”) but I have yet had the chance of writing about Fassbinder as he has only this year started to take on starring roles. Most people probably know him as Magneto in this summer’s “X-Men: First Class.” I remember him being very striking in that as well. There is something very solid about his face/person/body. I think he would make a perfect Roman Emperor or at least a marble statue of one. The scenes with Freud and Jung talking, whether in agreement or in disagreement, are always stimulating and make the movies best scenes. In fact, some of the best lines are supposedly taken directly from the letters they wrote each other. Those two could really turn a phrase and when they meant the words to hurt, the phrases could be especially piercing. It is a disappointment then that this movie treats Freud as a truly supporting character. The main storyline is the affair between the married Jung and his patient Sabina. When Freud enters the picture, he serves that storyline. His character lacks his own conflict or overarching ambition. It is spoken by Freud that he has many enemies to himself, his profession, and psychology in general, but these enemies are not shown or battled with. Freud is seen either through Jung’s or Sabina’s experience or not at all.

There is plenty of psychological talk about egos and sex instincts and the death instincts and the like. Some of it you may find familiar. Other topics not so much. The movie does a commendable job of not holding discussions back to a standard level of education. This may make some of the conversations inaccessible to understanding but not unentertaining. All the characters are especially intelligent and the screenplay puts up no obstacles to them expressing themselves at the peak of their intelligence. If you are a huge psychology buff, this movie will not disappoint. If like me, you know some things and not others, and are not entirely sure of the accuracy or usefulness of the whole thing, it is at least never annoying. In some ways it is rather comic. Psychology then (and now) is very new. Freud admits as much and goes on to say that he is probably wrong about everything being about sex and surely theories will be revised when more research is done. In the meantime he is just describing his scientific experiences as he observes them. I especially liked a conversation in which Jung describes one of Sabina’s childhood recollections about a preferable way to defecate. Freud nods his head and diagnoses her as anal-retentive and predicts that she is probably also especially fastidious, clean, organized, and the like. No, says Jung, actually she is quite the opposite. Hmm, says Freud, oh well maybe it’s a Russian thing. (Freud is very subtly funny in this movie. In real life he apparently was subtly funny as well. I am a huge fan of his book on jokes. When I write of comedy on this blog, it is mainly his ideas that I am espousing.)

Of course the basic problem with psychology is not that it is incorrect but that it has a tendency to be too vague and broad to be incorrect. It is not hard to find sexual motives or childhood neuroses as a part of any action we take. They are there. But that doesn't mean that it is the only reason why people do things. Really there are probably a thousand reasons why people do things and those only include the reasons we can think of. And that still ignores the possibility that people may indeed not have a reason for doing things. I am reminded of an anecdote from the comedian Louis C.K. about how he loaded the dishwasher one night and then didn’t turn on the wash. His wife scolded him and asked, “Why did you do that?” Louis relates to the audience, “Why did I do that? Do you understand what that question assumes? That I had a reason for not putting on the wash, like I had a thought process about it. Like I didn’t because I wanted to be a total dick and piss her off, which would really be the only reason not to run the dishwasher. Why can’t I just be stupid? Why didn’t I put the wash on? Because I am a total dumbass, that’s why.” I think this possibility is something rather thoughtful people like Jung, Freud, or Sabina tend to not think about, and I think it is because they spend so much time thinking about why people do things that they forget that most people do not think as much as they do about why they do things. They probably don't get laid enough either. 

Eastern Promises 09/23/07

I came into this movie with a bias against David Cronenberg the director. Almost an ultimatum. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, well screw you I won't see any more of you're movies. He is, without saying, not one of my favorite directors. In fact I've seen a couple of movies (Naked Lunch, and Madame Butterfly) that sucked more than sucked and one movie (A History of Violence) that left me scarred by the grotesque violence and befuddled by a strange ending. If this one wasn't great like they all said, then I would stick with my instincts and never see another of his movies again.
As it turns out I've added a corollary to my anti-Cronenberg sentiment. Don't see anyone of his movies except the ones with Viggo Mortensen in it. These two were made for each other and together they are turning in the best work either of them have ever done. This movie is a magnum opus of Mortensen. It's his classic. Most people will probably know him from Lord of the Rings, but this was the role he was born for and probably will be remembered for. There's screen presence and then there's Screen Presence and Viggo's gangster has the capitalized version. He's scary like no other. His demeanor is so controlled and intense. His posture is so straight. His hair is slick and he's covered in tattoos. When he's naked he's still not naked. He's got armor. This guy doesn't play a tough macho guy, he is a tough guy. And its not in you're face, it's outward and inward and all the way through played subtly in an over top way. Viggo would look from left to right and I would be like "whoa, he just looked that way. That was so awesome." That's Screen Presence. The guy is hypnotic.
Unfortunately Cronenberg plays the story safe near the end when he should be exploding it. It isn't a great story but its got a great charachter and just for Mortensen I would recommend it. Keep in mind that this is Cronenberg of course, so when someone gets stabbed or has their throat slit or is attacked in a steam room they really do get stabbed, have their throat slit, and fight for their lives in a steam room. It's cringe inducing violence, but hey, that's Cronenberg. You've been duly warned.

A History of Violence 10/01/05

I have never seen such graphic violence in a movie. Maybe in a horror or a war movie, but certainly not in a movie that plays so much like a drama. And it's not just that a man gets shot in the head, we see little parts flying in so many directions and then don't forget the close up of the accumulating pool of blood. What makes it more disturbing is the juxtaposition of it with a small peaceful little town. It's all very real. And I suppose it's well done (Good acting, good directing yada yada) but I started wondering where does this all lead too. Viggo Mortensen kills a few people and then kills a few more and then the body count starts getting really high. Pretty soon everyone in the movie is dead. I got a picture in my head of the writers in a room asking each other "What now, we've killed everyone." What now? What now? What now nothing. The movies over. When I saw the final blackout I thought the projector in the back was broken. I was expecting at least a half hour more of the movie. But it was over. I haven't seen so many people die since Shakespeare's Hamlet, and I was wondering what's next. But nothing. 
I suppose it should be a good thing when the people leave the theater wanting more, but I don't know. I was wondering if the entire point of the movie was a certain quest for survival. The quest ending when all the characters were dead. I read Roger Ebert's review and he said in so many words that it was about Darwinian survival of the fittest. I suppose that fits. If you want to see a fit man survive, there you go.