Showing posts with label Eddie Redmayne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eddie Redmayne. Show all posts

Sunday, December 20, 2015

The Danish Girl


The Danish Girl (film) poster.jpg

Released:  November 27th, 2015
Rated:  R
Distributor:  Focus Features
Starring:  Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ben Whishaw, Amber Heard
Directed by:  Tom Hooper
Written by:  Lucinda Coxon
Personal Bias Alert:  loves Vikander, haven’t read the book

6.8 of 10





            Welcome to your stuffy British Oscar bait!  You’d be hard-pressed to make a film more tailored for awards season than The Danish Girl, which has the distributor, topical storyline, and pedigree to make its run blindfolded.  In a way, that appears to be what it’s doing, as after a rousing premiere at the Venice Film Festival it stumbled in Toronto and has been limping along ever since.  But it’s still got foolproof nominations for Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander, who’s strategically running in the supporting category, and remains in consideration for several other categories.  That’s the power of perception for you, because taken on its own accord, The Danish Girl deserves little more than a polite nod as you leave the theater.

            That topical storyline has to do with the growing prominence of transgendered people in Western media.  The Danish Girl draws upon the story of one of the first people to ever get sex reassignment surgery, the artist Einar Wegener/Lili Elbe (Redmayne).  I say draws upon because this story plays very loose with the facts, an easy freedom that isn’t inherently negative, but unfortunately wasn’t used here to form a well-structured movie.

            The Danish Girl is adapted from the novel of the same name, which I’m assuming is where the focus on the relationship between Einar and has wife, Gerda Wegener (Vikander), comes from.  It’s an excellent plan to root the story in the universally relatable situation of loving someone who’s changing before your eyes, and the pairing of such emotive actors as Redmayne and Vikander really allows that story to take off.  They play off of each other so well, vivaciously bubbly when they’re in love and misty-eyed when in rough patches, that the complexities of their ever-changing relationship is remarkably easy to track.

            The problem is that screenwriter Lucinda Coxon doesn’t match this relationship’s emotional arc to the plot’s structure, allowing the turning point in the relationship to come far too early and for the same dynamics to drag along for long stretches of time.  The plot itself becomes very bogged down in the physical aspects of Einar/Lili’s transition, from the adoption of feminine movements to the surgeries themselves.  This is understandable considering that her physical transformation is what she’s remembered for, but this doesn’t bear much emotional heft on its own.  By not pairing the plot’s climax to the couple’s relationship, the back half of this film becomes remarkably dispassionate, and its ending feels like nothing more than a rote bid for tears.

            Director Tom Hooper has a certain self-aggrandizing tone that he uses as his de facto mode of storytelling, which has led to two straight Best Picture nominations and certainly produces austerely beautiful films.  The Danish Girl proves to be no exception, as everything from the score, sets, costumes, and cinematography is impeccably done.  His framing of shots have often resembled posed paintings, which fits nicely with the galleries and workshops much of this film takes place in.  Stills from this movie would look lovely framed and hanging on a wall, but this style matches poorly with the film’s uneven emotional resonance, so much so that when the couple’s relationship ebbs from time to time, the film becomes very flat.  Hooper does nothing to address the story’s shortcomings, apparently feeling that a nice presentation was all the screenplay needed, which indicates a massive failure to understand the story he was tasked with telling.

              Thank god for Redmayne and Vikander, who prove to be the only ones capable of injecting some life into these stiff proceedings.  It’s encouraging that, for all of The Danish Girl’s Oscar maneuverings, the two people who truly delivered at their jobs are the only ones assured of its golden recognition.

Other Notes:
Ø  Ben Whishaw and Matthias Schoenaerts give solid, if stiff, supporting turns.
Ø  Whishaw may be one of the few people to have appeared in more films than Vikander in 2015.
Ø  I adore the way this film shows people painting through the back side of the canvas.

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Jupiter Ascending


'Jupiter Ascending' Theatrical Poster.jpg

Released:  February 6th, 2015
Rated:  PG-13
Distributor:  Warner Bros.
Starring:  Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean
Directed by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Written by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Personal Bias Alert:  likes big sci-fi spectacles, likes the Wachowskis

4.5 of 10






            Excess.  Excess is the Wachowski’s enemy, and they often lose to it.  Their first film, Bound, is known for excess violence, Speed Racer for excess color, V for Vendetta for excess words, and The Matrix Reloaded for excess raves.  By that trend, Jupiter Ascending fits right into their catalogue, delivering what is a decent story that’s done in by an excess of metaphors, world building, and general oddities.

            Jupiter (Mila Kunis) is a young, broke immigrant who discovers that Earth is but a small part of a big, well-populated universe when a rich dynasty she unwittingly belongs to tries to kill her to protect their inheritance.  Saving her repeatedly throughout the film is Channing Tatum’s Caine, a wolf-human hybrid who spends much of the movie skating through the air on hover shoes.  Did you notice anything familiar in that summary?  You should, because for all its window dressings, Jupiter Ascending is a tale as old as time:  people fighting over wealth.  Structurally, it’s laid out like many a classic fantasy stories where the main character discovers and accepts their newfound power.  And the woman doesn’t really get to do much beside get saved by a man that she, of course, falls in love with.

            Even with the annoyingly stereotypical gender dynamics, it’s hard to argue that this plot setup doesn’t work.  It’s so familiar from the first installments of Star Wars, Harry Potter, and pretty much every sci-fi/fantasy series that it slides down like butter, easy and delicious.  The problem is, the Wachowski’s try to cram in so much half-baked commentary and needlessly complex world building that the whole thing becomes bloated and difficult to swallow.  Sidetracks that seem to exist only to discuss capitalism, predeterminism, and to cause general boredom leaves viewers wishing the Wachowski’s would just stick in the reel of Ferris Bueller’s advice on -isms and leave it at that.  It’d save everyone a lot of time and leave a leaner, more sure-fire plot.  Plus, we’d all get to watch some of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

            What you can’t knock the Wachowskis for is delivering a bad-looking film.  The trailer, which has been kicking around for months after a delayed release, promised fantastical new worlds, completely realized by two of the best visual directors working today.  Jupiter Ascending certainly delivers, giving viewers a planet-hopping extravaganza complete with strange outfits, spaceship dogfights, and a flying reptilian/dinosaur creature.  There’s actually many strange-looking aliens, again a bit too much, but at least the Wachowski’s aren’t short-changing the visual splendor.  It is, for this reason, worth seeing in theaters without the 3-D.  3-D will only muddle the image of some crisply rendered CGI, denying you the pleasure of the Wachowski’s meticulous eye for detail.

            Forty years from now, if I had to sit down with a young film buff and explain why the hell the Wachowski’s matter, I’d probably show them Jupiter Ascending.  It’s not their best nor their worst work, but it might be the most emblematic of what they do as filmmakers.  They take classic genre storylines, spruce them up with lavish, slightly over-the-top visuals, and are never dissuaded from telling stories exactly how they want them to be.  They brush off people like me who say their movies are too overdone, they invent new camera techniques to achieve the exact shots they want, and they never pander to Hollywood’s status quo.  It’s important to remember that Jupiter Ascending is a big-budget film that’s neither a sequel nor an adaptation, an oddity that few can get funding for in today’s Hollywood.  It takes people like the Wachowski’s, with a firm belief in what they do to make these kinds of films, even if their films are a bit of a mess, Hollywood would be a lesser place without them pushing us forward.

            Other Notes:
Ø  The performances were universally solid, even Eddie Redmayne.  He delivered exactly what was asked of him.
Ø  The romance between Kunis and Tatum wasn’t given the time to work.
Ø  SPOILER ALERT:  Sean Bean doesn’t die.