Z for Zachariah

Released:  August 28^th, 2015

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Roadside Attractions

Starring:  Chiwetel Ejiofor, Chris Pine, Margot Robbie

Directed by:  Craig Zobel

Written by:  Nissar Modi

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Zobel, can handle a slow pace

9 of 10

            What a wonderfully unusual little film.  A thriller with no action, a post-apocalypse with no explanation, and a faith with no judgement.  That’s only scratching the surface of this little gem from director Craig Zobel, whose previous film, Compliance, was another thriller that pushed people in all the right ways.  Zobel doesn’t make easy films, that’s for sure, but he does portray some of the smartest and most riveting dives into human nature, a man who seems to be part psychologist and part auteur.

            Z for Zachariah is about the tentative interactions between three strangers stranded in a protected valley after a nuclear event.  Survivors seem to have been few and far between immediately after the event and now are all but gone.  The girl, Ann (Margot Robbie), has lived in the valley her whole life and is startled by the appearance of Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor).  They are two quite different people, she a young preacher’s daughter and he an accomplished civil engineer, but they ban together all the same.  Eventually, Chris Pine’s Caleb enters the mix, and their carefully constructed life is thrown into disarray.

            That’s not to say that Caleb is a bad guy; Ann and Loomis are cautious with him, but they are cautious with each, as well.  Who the two men really are is what drives the narrative tension, and the literal inescapability of their situation keeps the question ever-present.  What would happen if even one of them shows a dark side could be devastating, the thought of which keeps all three survivors constantly on guard and in check.  The sort of complex, distinct personalities that each one of them brings to the table, along with the unspoken perils of their relationship, could only be pulled off by a team at the top of their game, and lightning was caught for Zachariah.  Zobel, as already mentioned, is a delicate director when it comes to molding such material, and writer Nissar Modi, with only her second produced screenplay, shows an incredible ear for minimal but loaded dialogue.  On the technical side, cinematographer Tim Orr captures their mountainous Eden with a cold beauty, and Heather McIntosh adds a prominent score that keeps the tension simmering.  Ejiofor and Pine knock it out of the park in roles that are very close to their usual type, but it’s Robbie who really pins the whole thing down.  What’s left of the world comes to revolve around Ann, and Robbie must make this fully-formed person a vessel for all the film’s conflicts.  That she manages this without making the audience turn on her is astounding, and it’s one of the best (and most complicated) performances by an actress this year.

            The film does take its time letting these dynamics play out, and the slow style will certainly turn off some.  But those who do like this sort of deep dive will find a rich social palette playing out before them, and the microcosm this little trio becomes delves into the good and the bad that society has to offer.  The ending is a slight disappointment, trailing off to a conclusion that seems too easy when compared to the rest of the film.  Still, the meaning of that last scene, like the earlier parts of the film, isn’t entirely clear.  Your own judgements will come into play, and a film that lays out so many aspects of humanity while still allowing you the space to react is a challenge well worth taking.

Other Notes:

Ø  It’s not all as serious as I make it seem.  There’s some majorly funny lines:  “Even at the end of the world she isn’t going to drink no damn cherry soda!”

Ø  I wouldn’t change a single thing before the last fifteen minutes.

Ø  This isn’t playing in a theater near me, so I caught it on demand.  I’ve watched it twice, and the film doesn’t fade on the second viewing.

Into the Woods

Released:  December 25^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Walt Disney Studios

Starring:  Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Tracey Ullman, Christine Baranski, Johnny Depp

Directed by:  Rob Marshall

Written by:  James Lapine

Personal Bias Alert:  not familiar with the play, have seen twisted fairy tales many times

4.5 of 10

            Between the singing, the never-ending story, and the kid with the cockney accent I felt like I was having a flashback to last year’s Les Misérables.  The kid is in fact the same actor, Daniel Huttlestone, here playing Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.  If you don’t already know, Into the Woods features a mashup of various Brothers Grimm fairy tale characters, something that was perhaps more inventive when the musical came out in 1986 but is now nothing to write home about.  Still, the movie does feature an impressive cast, most of whom we already know can sing.  Sondheim also has a certain clout, so I went in hoping this would be an enjoyable family film.

            Let’s get the obvious out of the way first:  all the actors pull off their parts.  There’s some variation as to how well they pull them off, but no one grinds things to a halt.  Emily Blunt and James Corden as the only original characters (a baker and his wife) are great together, a one-two punch of comedy, musical chops, and general affability that provides a solid anchor.  If the film had focused on this pair’s search for the four ingredients the witch needs to grant them a child, I would’ve been a happy camper.

            But alas, the film has some larger statements in mind, so we get meandering offshoots about Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), and Jack.  Did I miss anyone?  I may have missed someone.  Anyway, there’s a lot of side characters, most of whose storylines are pretty basic but feature big musical numbers that many in my theater reacted to like they were showstoppers (The princes’ Agony earned particularly big applause).  I was less impressed than my fellow Christmas morning moviegoers, finding Into the Wood’s brand of fairy tale skewering quaintly old hat and being more than a little thrown off by Sondheim’s wordy lyrics.

            Now, admittedly, these are all inherited problems from the musical, but what I was particularly unimpressed by was the translation into film.  I feel like there was a great opportunity to open this thing up, to really explore the titular woods and have some fun with the more fantastical elements, but it’s all left fairly monochromatic.  The big set pieces seem to always be just off-frame, an element that’s necessary in a play but frustrating in a movie.  However, the most troubling symptom of this is the woods itself.  It lacks any sense of personality or menace.  It’s just a jumble of trees that everyone seems to be walking through or talking about all the time.  Why everyone’s so concerned about it I don’t know because nothing very bad seems to happen there, at least nothing that the woods should be get credit for.

            By the time the bad things do start happening to people, it’s pretty clear that most of it is the character’s own fault.  It’s generally attributable to some underlying fault in the fairy tale, a twisted take on something you’re supposed to find Charming (Prince Charming, get it?  Hooray puns.).  The problem is that most of the things Into the Woods points out is incredibly basic, lacking any real bite for an adult audience.  It’s my understanding that the film is a watered-down version of the musical, which leaves me wondering why they would tone it down so much.  Wouldn’t a PG-13 interpretation allow them to keep more of the material that made the musical a hit while still reaching a wide audience?

            Luckily, many of the one-liners still worked and had me belly-laughing from time to time.  I wasn’t blind to the sarcasm underlying all this, it just wasn’t very well sustained.  I had to sit through long, boring periods before it shone through in a wittily sardonic line or at least a pleasant scene between Blunt and Corden.  These bright spots just didn’t add up to a complete product and only served to make the whole thing seem even more dull and drawn-out than it really was.

            Other Notes:

Ø  There was about 20 minutes in the middle where I was totally into it.  For the rest of the time it barely held my attention.

Ø  See, prerecording the songs works just fine.

Ø  Was the Rapunzel/prince storyline really necessary?  I feel like that’s an easy thing to cut out.

Ø  Why can’t you just have a wolf?  Why do you need Johnny Depp dressed up as a wolf?  And of course it’s Johnny Depp dressed up as the wolf.