Tiny Furniture

Deb 0 Me 2

This movie had promise, and then it started. Now I can’t blame the movie for this, but it was presented in the worst fashion ever. First off, it wasn’t a movie, it was a DVD projected onto the screen. To make matters worse they couldn’t get the aspect ratio correct so it was squeezed into a 4X3 format, making everyone very tall and skinny. I hate that. But it wasn’t the fault of the movie and I’m not counting that against it.

The movie seemed to be about disaffected youth, people with no goals or ambition, no direction, no skills (social or professional) who just hang around, let things happen to them and complain. The central girl in this movie did have the ability to manipulate her mother, but didn’t bother to use this skill outside the home.

If the point of the movie is to make you associate with boredom of these peoples lives, then they did a very good job. I just don’t go to the movies to get bored.

The Social Network

Deb 4 Me 2

Not the fault of the movie, but it was going for a few minutes before I realized it was the movie and not another preview of coming attractions. So the movie is running along and I notice it’s written by Aaron Sorkin; so I know two things, it will be well researched and it it’ll have a ton of dialog. It did not disappoint in this regard. A lot of verbiage, and I assume it was all correct in the context of computerese, which is a language I know little about. It made me realize how out of it I am in these times.

The text is punctuated by what I think is that new modern techno music, the worst music on the planet. I’m sure it is accurate to the time and place of the movie setting, but really obnoxious.

The people are young and bright Harvard students, but not necessarily hip. Most of the protagonists here are geeks and not really social adept. The actors were convincing, I really responded to most of them. There’s a lot of talking, and a lot of it is incomprehensible, and it goes by real fast, so it’s easy to miss some basic plot points. I assume the MTV paced minds this might be targeted to will pick up on everything, but my Howdy Doody paced mind missed a lot. Enough that at the end of the film I was puzzled by a lot of things that seemed unresolved.

Basically it is a docudrama about the guy who invented Facebook and the people surrounding him. Not a real charming guy. I was thinking about movies I had seen recently that might loan their titles to this movie. Waste Land would apply, so would Despicable Me. A bunch of intelligent totally repugnant kids who made huge changes in our society; for better or worse It is not really power they earned or deserved, they just did things because they could. Actually their motivation is much sicker than that, but I don’t want to spoil anything for you.

As the movie evolves and the characters are firmly established, the soundtrack settles down and the story telling progresses. I haven’t a clue about the high tech logarithms, but I do know about the base emotions that these children succumb to. These kids never even try to resolve their emotional issues but take refuge by using their intellect as a tool of revenge, damn the consequences.

I guess my real beef with the movie is that I felt left out, it was big on the loud and fast razzle-dazzle and low on the explanation of major plot points. I think everything may have been included in the movie, but they weren’t accessible to me.

Waste Land

Deb 9 Me 9

So we were going to see “Waiting for Superman” but missed the beginning so we dropped in on the next movie in chronological order, “Waste Land”. …never saw it coming. On the computer the analysis said it was a 1997 movie about Romania, there in the theater it said this was a new documentary about a contemporary artist who makes art from the world’s largest landfill. The difference seems to be Wasteland v. Waste Land (two words). You think they’d figure it out.

So the synopsis made it sound like its right up our alley. Neither of us had heard of the artist, Vik Muniz, and they did an admirable job of introductions. They established his credibility, his vision and his collaborators very nicely. Vik is a likeable guy who has a positive but difficult mission and apparently a man of credibility and means. The producers were willing to bet a camera crew and three years to follow his lead. I’m glad they did because I came out liking the guy, his art and his team.

As with many artistic visions, they morph as progress is made. Some aspects become clearer and some diffused as work progresses. This cat was no different and his assured ease and confidence in his vision carried him to success.

Briefly, the guy returns to his native Brazil, home of the world’s largest landfill, to create art using recyclable materials and the people of the island dump, referred to as pickers. These folks rummage through the tons of debris to find whatever can be salvaged. It is an amazing undertaking. There are thousands of these people attacking mountains of waste, smelly dangerous hideous city waste; 24 hours a day.

What Vik comes up with is astonishing, beautiful and a benefit to all those involved.

It is a terrific story and I recommend you see it, whoever you are.

Welcome to the Riley's

Deb 7 Me 7

Here’s another one that’ll go under the radar. It’s pretty slow but character development is good. I liked that all the people, and there’s really only three you need to follow, are doing the best they can given the cards they’re dealt. They’re all pretty sincere. For all its language and the central theme involving the ragged edge of New Orleans life, it’s a very tender little movie. I didn’t recognize any of the players from anything, which always helps me believe them. It seems most big actors have a formula or a pigeonhole they’re either in or trying to wiggle out of… these folks were fresh and very good.

My only gripe is there were a few instances where there were some big changes that happened in record time that pushed credibility, but the things in the plus column far outweigh the time compression. A great relief was that, like “the Visitor”, it didn’t have the Hollywood feel to the story, which was filled out well. I liked seeing it more than talking about it later. While watching the movie I could ride with any uneven waves of the story, and talking about them later just made them seem bigger than they were.

Nora’s Will

Deb 4 Me 6

This is a rare movie from Mexico and it was good for me to see it. Usually when I think of Mexico I picture the northern border states, the ones that are desert and rely heavily on tourist trade to support their meager economy. But in the south Mexico is a fertile and hearty land with big cities and farms abounding. I remember being there in 1980 and thinking this is a great, quick way to get a European experience that is only hours away and much cheaper. So seeing this Mexican movie set in an upscale apartment and centered around an affluent Jewish family, I was pleasantly surprised.

The whole movie is built on the back of a Hemingway-esque guy named Jose (no surprise there) played by Fernando Lujan. He was great. Someone else could have been cast in this role, but this cat carried the weight of the film with quiet assuredness.

And it is a very quiet film. Slow and quiet. No big movements here. When it was over we both had criticisms and wondered about a dozen issues that were presented but not resolved. Normally that pisses me off. But this movie was like going to someone’s house for dinner. It was a nice way to spend the evening, but I don’t need to go back and I don’t really wonder how their issues get resolved. They were good people, we had a nice time and went home. Did I mention this is a Jewish family in a heavily Catholic land? This presents several cultural clashes that never occurred to me and I liked that. I liked the kids in the movie, normally I consider them a pain in the ass.

The movie kept me engaged through each snail-paced scene and I enjoyed it. I figure an average movie is a 5, and this was just a hint above average. For Deb it was a bit below. It’s nothing I’m going to tell you to go see, but if you have a free evening, looking for some harmless entertainment, this might fit the bill.

I just remembered, most of you are renters. I liked it for an evening out, but I don’t think I’d like it at home on a TV.

Nowhere Boy

Deb 8 Me 7

First off, there was a huge line at the theater. I was sure all these young people were here to see this tribute to John Lennon’s youth. We got in the theater, there were two other couples and one guy dragged in after the movie started. That was it, a total of seven people there on opening Friday night. The mob was there to see Jackass 3D ..enough commentary on the times we live in.

I think a lot of people my age have a general awareness of the lives of the fab four, certainly a grasp on their lives as Beatles and after. This is a pretty solid look at the care and feeding of John Lennon in the early days, from conception all the way up to going to Hamburg. It’s a well told story, slow, but forever interesting. It’s an English flick, the accents are authentic and the acting is great. They actually shot it in Liverpool and it is apparently endorsed by Yoko. If you accept the story as true, it is quite informative (and knowing what lies ahead), quite engaging.

The movie left us with several unanswered questions. Some of the ancillary players were confusing, his college days were indicated by no more than two sentences; there is some room for criticism. We both felt the “toughness” of Lennon was underplayed and I wondered where his famous humor was. Something I would like to see developed in a film (about someone) is an examination of creativity. You know, how its developed or discovered, how the artist controls it or succumbs to it, its role in basic life, does it come into play only while generating art or does it pop up while brushing your teeth. I'm sure everyone has a different story and it's really the foundation for success; but neglected in every bio-pic I've ever seen.

Overall this was an enjoyable and informative feature.

HOWL

Deb 9 Me 7

I was very excited about seeing this movie. We have stumbled across a string of really good movies lately and my hopes were high. Yet, I am always skeptical about these movies. Too often movies about artists are made by people who don’t understand the art, or resent the art and make a hatchet job portrait. Rob Epstein and Jefferey Friedman created a sympathetic and effective way to pay tribute to this epic poem.

It is made in four parts, like the poem itself, and they are blended in an easy to follow way. There are actors who portray the central characters, and I know them all too well, Kerouac, Cassady, Burroughs, Ferlinghetti, Huncke and of course, the author of HOWL, Alan Ginsberg. Over time I have developed a paternal need to protect them from their detractors but for some reason I didn’t feel like this film was going to be a problem, and it wasn’t. The actors were certainly capable, and with the exception of Ginsberg, they didn’t try to cast ringers (which I would have liked, since there wasn’t a lot of depth to any of the supporting beats).

The film’s text was made from tapes and notes and transcripts and divided into four parts. One sequence was an interview, presented in a realistic manner, with Ginsberg expounding on his work in an honest and straightforward monologue, supported with an effective visual atmosphere.

Another segment was Alan reading his work to his peers in a compact coffee house that has become the icon of the period. I was happy they didn’t use the brick wall of the Hungry Eye that every club across America has appropriated.

The third element was the trial that Lawrence Ferlinghetti went through for publishing the work. This was skillfully adapted and I’m sure compiled from transcripts. I wanted more meat here; it seemed like the prosecution only presented a superficial attempt at banning the book. I was impressed with the casting choices too. It seemed that actors were excited about being involved with the film.

The last segment was the weirdest one for me. There was animation woven in as a sort of illustration of the text of HOWL. This took me by surprise, and I probably shouldn’t have told you (sorry) and redeemed itself pretty quickly. It was done by a guy named Eric Drooker. Ginsberg was a big fan of Eric, collected his work and initiated a collaboration with Drooker to do HOWL in its entirety. This was told to us in graphics at the beginning of the movie and I’m happy about that, it gave credibility to something that otherwise seemed strange. After the initial shock of seeing animation I quickly acclimated and really enjoyed the imagery that was created to support the words.

Everything about the movie is just what I wanted it to be, with one exception (which could be me). I was never involved. I was just watching. It had a clinical feel to it. This is a very emotional, passionate, piece of art that we are focusing on and yet the movie felt like an analytical exercise. But it was a positive movie and one that might encourage others to use their tools for honest expression.