The Homesman

Released:  December 14^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Roadside Attractions

Starring:  Tommy Lee Jones, Hilary Swank

Directed by:  Tommy Lee Jones

Written by:  Tommy Lee Jones, Kieran Fitzgerald, Wesley A. Oliver

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t read the book, not a big Tommy Lee Jones fan

6.5 of 10

            The Homesman is the second so-called feminist western I’ve seen this year.  These are rare products, and arguably neither film actually fits into that category.  The other film, TIFF 2014 entry The Keeping Room, is set in rural South Carolina during the waning days of the American civil war.  The isolated farm and the events that take place there feels very much like the lawless west, but alas, South Carolina is not the west.  The Homesman may be disqualified on an even more nitpicky technicality.  Well, two, actually.  First, its stars have pointedly stated that it takes place in the midwest, not the west.  I feel that’s splitting hairs, especially when talking in the 1850s geographical terms the characters would have used, but the larger problem I have with it centers on its alleged feminism.  Now, I’m not going to sit here and argue that this films is anti-women (it’s certainly not), but I would argue that it’s actually commenting on something much larger than sexism.

            The Homesman is largely a two-hander between Hilary Swank’s Mary Bee Cudy and Tommy Lee Jones’ George Briggs, the unlikely duo tasked with escorting three crazy women across the frontier to a mental health facility in Iowa.  The title might more accurately be The Homesmen, or the title might be a tipoff that the film actually focuses on only one of the duo at a time, Cudy for the first two-thirds and Briggs for the ending.

            On the surface, the two characters are a mismatch.  Cudy is a disciplined, godly woman who cuts down the strung-up thief Briggs only because she needs muscle for her noble task.  As the film wears on and shifts focus between the two characters, we come to understand that they are both outsiders driven west by civilization’s utter disuse for them.  This is where I began to question the film’s inherent feminism.  Cudy and the three crazy women’s problems are certainly rooted in feminist issues, but Briggs is driven by problems traditionally inherent to men.  So yes, there’s feminism in there, but it’s secondary thematically to society’s mistreatment of all outsiders, not just women.

            Are you sick of the thematic talk yet?  Then let’s move on to the Oscar buzz surrounding this film.  It’s mostly fallen on Hilary Swank, a two-time winner that’s never received a nomination and not taken home the trophy.  This is most likely due to how well she plays a particular type of person:  the dreamer, a person who wants something difficult to attain and goes for it with a brash enthusiasm that borders on naiveté.  Cudy’s desperation for a husband despite her prickly personality and ‘plain’ looks (only in Hollywood would Swank be considered plain) allows the part to fall comfortably into her sweet spot.  The character isn’t nearly as well-rounded as her other winning roles were, but Swank works what she has to the best of her ability, which makes for a very good performance.  In a weak year for lead actresses, that might be just enough to land her a nomination.

            Before everyone actually saw the film, there was much buzz for director, co-writer, and star Tommy Lee Jones.  By playing such a large part in the making of the film, he would inevitably get lavish praise if it turned out well.  If it turned out as it did, which is just okay, then you could immediately mark him off your ballots in every category, even if only particular portions of his work was sub-par.  His performance is actually quite good, but it’s very Tommy Lee Jones-ish, which won’t get him anywhere in a crowded best actor field.  His directorial effort is pretty good, too.  There’s a stark yet beautiful cinematic style to the film, classically western without being too flashy.  The tone is drearily one-note, but the overarching themes are so bleak that this downfall is partially hidden.  The problems are primarily found in the writing.  The film is a bit loose, too long at the beginning and too fast at the end.  Characters suddenly beginning doing and saying things that don’t feel right, and I can’t help but feel that a pass by a more experienced screenwriter (all three credited writers have very short IMDB lists) could’ve saved the day.

            This is, in essence, a small film about two insignificant people.  Jones never loses track of that, focusing in squarely on these two troubled souls.  The problem is that there’s not many places left for these characters to go, leaving The Homesman as a beautiful, interesting, but somewhat monotonous piece of work.

            Other Notes:

Ø  There were a couple really obvious continuity issues.  Trust me, those things have to pretty much jump off the screen for me to notice.

Ø  Hey Hailee Steinfeld, stop hogging the period piece roles.

Ø  Jesse Plemons!  A Friday Night Lights connection is always a good thing in my book.

Thelma and Louise

Released:  May 24^th, 1991

Rated:  R

Studio:  MGM

Starring:  Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Brad Pitt

Directed by:  Ridley Scott

Written by:  Callie Khouri

Personal Bias Alert:  was familiar with the ending, generally enjoys Ridley Scott’s movies

7.5 of 10

            Boy did this film have a long gestation period.  Screenwriter Callie Khouri was hired in 1980, eleven years before the film’s release, a time period in which seemingly every actress in Hollywood was discussed for the two leads.  Directors and actors linked to the project were just as numerous, even for the small role that spring boarded Brad Pitt into hunky superstardom.  Eleven years is a long time, but it seems to have been well spent.

            Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis star as the titular duo, a pair of close friends just trying to get away for the weekend.  An unfortunate event at a bar puts the cops on their tales, and they flee across the southwest.  Trials and tribulations follow, but Thelma and Louise ultimately remains about two buddies going on a road trip.  From the beginning, Thelma stated that the trip was all about letting their hair down, and in that regard it’s a rousing success.

            The chemistry in buddy movies is just as important and just as treacherous as in romances, and it’s one of the places where the long search really paid off.  Sarandon and Davis are like real friends, comfortable wiling away the hours they spend together joking, bickering, or simply ignoring each other.  Perhaps what’s most realistic about them is that they aren’t anywhere near the same person.  Sarandon’s Louise is independent and world-wise while Davis’s Thelma is stifled and frustrated.  It’s understandable that Louise would be drawn to Thelma and vice versa.  Thelma needs someone like Louise to bring her out, and Louise likes having someone under her wing.  We’ve all seen this sort of friendship before.

            These distinct characteristics also makes for very different character arcs, with Thelma bursting out of her shell and Louise quieting down.  These inverse reactions to their circumstances is yet another indication of how different yet complimentary these two are.  Louise, with her more realistic outlook, seems to know in her gut where they’re headed, and Sarandon sells her character’s slow acceptance.  Davis gets to take a big, joyful bite out of her role, funneling much of the good-natured energy of film directly through her.  It’s another reminder of just how great Davis was and just how much audiences have lost with her precipitous fall from the spotlight.

            It’s also nice to see Ridley Scott stretch a bit to wrangle this film’s delicate tone.  Granted, there’s still plenty of explosions and action pieces here, but long portions of the film take place in Louise’s Thunderbird convertible, with the duo more interested in downing Wild Turkey than having a conversation.  This leaves lots of room for quiet character moments, something not often seen in Scott’s big action pieces, but he shows here that he has more range than one might expect.  Yeah, there’s some moments that seem a bit off, but I bought the ending, so something was certainly working.

            Khouri didn’t have expectations to worry about since Thelma and Louise was her first screenplay.  It’s an impressive debut, with good characters and nice thematic work, but there’s a few too many detours and coincidences for it to roll along smoothly.  I scoffed a bit when Pitt showed up the second time, a coincidence that would have been forgivable given the payoff, but a series of encounters with a cartoonishly misogynistic truck driver had me shaking my head.  It’s entirely out of character with the rest of the film, sticking out like an unnecessary sore thumb.  There’s a few other moments like this, but if you are able to disregard them the film can amble along rather pleasingly.

            I get why a lot of people latch on to Thelma and Louise.  Given the material, it’s astoundingly fun, full of comradery and jokes that soften the meat of the story.  Its missteps are there but forgivable, and you get to watch something rarely seen on film:  two women really letting their hair down.  Even if you’re not into that, there’s always that sweet Thunderbird to stare at.

            Other Notes:

Ø   Thelma is an epically bad judge of character.

Ø  Boy does that music date it

Ø  *shakes fist* Hans Zimmer again!

Ø  I want to be someone’s stormtrooper of love.

Penguins of Madagascar

Released:  November 26^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Starring:  Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Conrad Vernon, Christopher Knights, Benedict Cumberbatch, John Malkovich

Directed by:  Eric Darnell, Simon J. Smith

Written by:  John Aboud, Michael Colton, Brandon Sawyer

Personal Bias Alert:  Only seen the first Madagascar movie, I hate I Like to Move It too

6.8 of 10

            I wasn’t looking forward to seeing this film.  My options weren’t great this weekend, perhaps because the studios were acquiescing to Mockingjay’s inevitable dominance.  Still, I gave it my best effort.  I tried to get into a lighthearted, goofy mood on the drive to the theater but was mostly feeling sheepish about my impending purchase of one ticket to a kid’s movie.  Then, without warning, I was gifted exactly what I needed.  Walking into the theater in front of me was a family of five, the mother leading the way with her bright pink hair, reassuring the two youngest that they would get plenty of popcorn.  Behind them was the father and the preteen daughter, who was on the cusp of being bored by such family outings.  At one point, the father reached out and gave his daughter’s shoulder a little squeeze.  It was clear that this was the waning portion of the family’s innocent cohesiveness.  Time was slipping away, and the idea of them looking back years later and connecting Penguins of Madagascar with that lovely feeling of togetherness was an excellent way for me to get into the correct headspace.

            You weren’t expecting a lamentation on the fleeting nature of family when you clicked on a review for Penguins of Madagascar, were you?  So let’s move on to the questions at hand.  Was Penguins of Madagascar good?  Did I laugh?  Will it work for the whole family?  Moderately, yes, and yes would be my answers, but please don’t stop reading just yet.

            This is another entry in the long line of sidekicks-getting-their-own-movie trend.  I get it, their big personalities steal scenes and it’s an easy way to extend a franchise, but more often than not these characters don’t have enough going on in their own lives to warrant a movie and twenty minutes in you come to better understand the meaning of ‘less is more.’  Luckily, the penguin’s identity as inept but confident adventurers gives them a decent excuse for their own storyline, especially when a disgruntled octopus comes after them for being so darn cute.

            The plot is pretty light, and it never made me care about what the penguins were up to.  That being said, the plot’s not really the point.  It’s there as a through-line for the madcap escapades and silly jokes this movie really wants to focus on, and those worked pretty well.  The beginning scene, which explains how young Skipper, Kowalski, and Rico simultaneously picked up Private and left Antarctica, is probably Penguins at its best.  The penguins are extra cute, the action sequence is entertaining, and it’s littered with jokes and references aimed at different portions of the audience.  There’s slapstick and dumb characters for the kids, wordplay for the adults, and an extended joke about Werner Herzog following them for a documentary that’s pretty much aimed directly at me.  There’s even a revolutionary war joke that had me chuckling.  The jokes come fast and furious in Penguins, scattering them like birdshot at the audience in such a way that you’re rarely laughing all at once, but you never have to wait long for one that tickles your fancy.

            As much as I was into the film’s humor, I wasn’t as enamored with its too frequent action sequences.  I get that this is a thing for the penguins, but their quality isn’t very consistent.  Some were great fun, like a chase scene through the canals and streets of Venice, but others drag and repeat themselves.  The sequences involving the professional team known as North Wind get particularly repetitive as their overconfidence and inability to complete a mission makes you wonder why they’re involved at all.

            The addition of North Wind and the octopus villain does allow for big name stars like Benedict Cumberbatch and John Malkovich (as the villain, obviously) to join the cast.  They and the returning cast deliver adequate voiceover work, but it’s the animators that really bring their characters to life.  I couldn’t remember the penguins from the previous movies, but it only took me a few minutes before I could distinguish each black and white puffball by sight.

            I think I would have liked Penguins of Madagascar much more if the plot had been more substantial.  As is, it feels like yet another funny but disposable product from DreamWorks Animation.  It’s not great, but at least I laughed.

            Other Notes:

Ø  “I reject nature!”

Ø  This is a rare movie that finished ahead of schedule.  As a result, its release date was pushed up from March 2015.

Ø  None of the kids at my theater ever got restless.  That’s a winning endorsement for a kid’s movie in my book.

Ordinary People

Released:  September 19^th, 1980

Rated:  R

Studio:  Paramount Pictures

Starring:  Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsch, Timothy Hutton

Directed by:  Robert Redford

Written by:  Alvin Sargent

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t read the book, few preconceived notions about those involved

6.5 of 10

            Let’s go back in time a bit.  It’s 1980, and you’re sitting in a movie theater watching the trailer for an intense family drama.  You think, Donald Sutherland makes sense, but what’s Mary Tyler Moore doing being so shrill?  And who is Timothy Hutton?  And does that say Robert Redford is the director!?  A few months later you’ll watch everyone but Sutherland attending the Oscars, with Hutton and Redford taking home trophies and the film being named Best Picture.

              I think it’s important to recognize just how much uncertainty must have hung over Ordinary People prior to its release.  It covers very difficult material with a first time director and a twenty year old actor making his feature film debut.  Moore and Judd Hirsch would have seemed miscast in their serious roles, leaving Sutherland as the only sure thing.  It doesn’t surprise me, then, to know that people reacted so strongly to such a solid movie.  There’s a lot to admire here, but I’m afraid I found it a bit overrated.

            Like I said, this is one intense family drama, detailing the crumbling of a well-to-do family after a devastating loss.  Sutherland and Moore star as the parents, but it’s Hutton as their teenage son, Conrad, who carries the film.  His depression is the most obvious and perhaps the most stereotypical; Conrad begins the film unable to eat or sleep, stumbling through the events of his days.  The part eventually balloons into something much more complex, and Hutton excels at making Conrad’s assorted triumphs and setbacks feel appropriately scaled.  It really is a wonderful performance, and is arguably the strongest aspect of the film.

            The portrait of the parents, in particular Donald Sutherland’s Calvin, is the other big standout.  Neither are the throwaway sort of parents that often appear in movies about teens.  Each have distinct personality traits and flaws, and their relationship with each other is as much a focus in the film as their relationship to Conrad.  What’s even more interesting is that they subvert the traditional gender roles by having the father be the sensitive one and the mother being more aloof and emotionally detached.  Moore does a good job, but she’s noticeably more one-note than Hutton and Sutherland.  Sutherland brings down the house with a couple late scenes that I wouldn’t change for the world.

            This core trio of characters is superbly written by Alvin Sargent, who was adapting from a novel by the same name.  The other characters aren’t as fleshed out, especially a nasty former friend of Conrad’s and the psychologist played by Hirsch.  I actually got annoyed with how stereotypical these two characters were, especially the psychologist, who I half expected at some point to tell Conrad to lie down and talk about his feelings.  I also found Sargent’s sense of pacing to be off, with a prolonged startup that spent several scenes rehashing character beats that we’d already seen.

            Redford’s direction is also a mixed bag.  He’s got solid fundamentals and is clearly comfortable with the style used in many of the late ‘60s and 70’s character-based films.  The problem is that he lacks a sense of personal style.  There’s no interesting framing or camera moves that could add layers to the story.  It’s mostly basic shot setups, and it makes me wonder if Redford was too uneasy to take any chances this early in his directing career.

            Despite the fact that Redford didn’t exactly impress me, I have to hang my lack of enthusiasm at the feet of screenwriter Alvin Sargent.  There were just a few too many missteps with his screenplay for me to totally get behind Ordinary People, even with performances as great as Hutton and Sutherland.

            Other Notes:

Ø  $50 an hour for a psychologist? Sign me up.

Ø  The future Lady Grantham played the girlfriend in her first feature film role.

Ø  That’s one bold ending.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

Released:  November 21^st, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Lionsgate

Starring:  Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Elizabeth Banks, Sam Claflin, Jeffrey Wright

Directed by:  Francis Lawrence

Written by:  Peter Craig, Danny Strong

Personal Bias Alert:  read and liked the book, highly invested in the series’ themes

8 of 10

            I was expecting people to be disappointed by Mockingjay Part 1.  Whereas Catching Fire can be justly criticized for rehashing the same plot formula as the first film, Mockingjay goes off in an entirely different direction, abandoning many of the staples that made people love the series.  Gone are the flamboyances of the capitol, the looming authoritarianism, and, perhaps most importantly, the feeling of Katniss versus the world.

            Mockingjay finds Panem blossoming into outright revolt, with Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) being more-or-less used by the revolution’s leaders as the symbol of their movement.  She had always been a pawn to a certain extent, a young woman playing in a world much larger than she could handle, but there had always been a sense of her making choices within that world that led to the revolution.  Now, with the reveal of Cinna’s pre-made clothing plans and Plutarch’s (Philip Seymour Hoffman) dogged insistence that she is the symbol they need, the vail has been pulled back to show how much Katniss had been manipulated and directed in the previous installments.  She’s revealed as just a girl, a hot-head with some archery skills who ended up in the right place at the right time.

            This breakdown of the character’s badassery is bound to be a letdown, especially in the middle of our current ‘chosen one’ wave where seemingly every hero has some preordained gift that allows them and only them to save the world.  What’s great about this change-up, really what’s great about what novel writer Suzanne Collins did, was that she made a revolution occur as it happens in our own world.  No magic, no cheats, just fed up people, some bombs, and lots of propaganda.

            The way in which media is used to sway the masses has been a continuous theme in the series, and it takes center stage in Mockingjay Part 1.  Being that this film only covers the first half of the book, it’s largely setup for what I imagine will be an action-packed Mockingjay Part 2.  To give this film some semblance of structure and, well, a point, writers Danny Strong and Peter Craig mine the books for their shockingly astute and dark portrait of revolutions and the people that make them happen.  They succeed wonderfully, using the extra time to finally let this film series catch its breath and really feel just how bad the world has gotten.

            Director Francis Lawrence earned the right to finish out the series after bringing great improvements to Catching Fire, and if anything he seems to have gotten more comfortable with the material.  I’ve always said that it’d be easy to make a hard R adaptation of these books, but Lionsgate wants a cash cow, so Lawrence’s great challenge is toning down the violence without losing the horror that goes along with it.  In Catching Fire he was able to lighten the tone with jokes about the capitol and the outrageous fellow tributes (especially Johanna).  He doesn’t have to be as concerned about the rating with Mockingjay Part 1 since there’s much less murder going on, and he embraced the opportunity to show the bleakness that permeates the books but was absent in previous films.  The color pallet is reduced to greys and blacks, the lighting is muted, and Katniss’s new home in District 13 is all military starkness.  Given what the series is heading for, this tonal shift is a necessary step.

            The new environment of District 13 means several new actors joined the lineup.  The respect this series has gained shows not only in the large pickups (I’m looking at you Julianne Moore) but in the swell of character actors that fill in the small parts.  Never underestimate the importance of making the small parts work.  A bad performance can grind a movie to a halt, but these people had the skill to step in and keep the whole thing moving smoothly. 

            The addition of Moore as District 13’s President Coin was bound to be a good thing, but it’s made even better when you realize that most of her screen time is spent with Hoffman.  These two have worked together on three previous films, and that familiarity and the sheer skill those two bring makes all their scenes delightful.  Unfortunately, these performance do highlight how uneven the main trio of Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, and Josh Hutcherson is.  I’ve always felt that Lawrence struggles with her big moments in this series, and that trend continues here.  There’s a rousing speech she’s supposed to deliver that just falls flat, especially in contrast to the evolving but effective speeches Moore delivers throughout the film.  Hemsworth finally gets to do something in this one and pulls it off extremely well, with the exception of one scene where he comes off as unnecessarily petulant.  Hutcherson gets sidelined this time around, and I think his performance would have been fine if it wasn’t hampered by some bad makeup.  Overall, the main trio still holds their own, but the rest of the cast certainly outshines them.

            I think people’s reaction to Mockingjay Part 1 is going to reveal more about what they’ve liked about the series than the actual quality of this film.  The Hunger Games has always been a well-made piece of entertainment, and Mockingjay Part 1 is no exception.  But the splitting of the last book meant that Part 1 was bound to be devoid of the intense action people have come to expect from the series, so if you’re not simultaneously invested in the characters and the series larger themes, then this one might put you to sleep.  I, for one, found these smaller moments enthralling.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The score is still a bit much.

Ø  There’s some well-handled callbacks to the previous films without being obnoxious and some decent foreshadowing of events to come.

Ø  Way to identify the building after the computers highlighted and labeled it.

Ø  I’m with Effie; jumpsuits are awful.

Rachel Getting Married

Released:  October 3^rd, 2008

Rated:  R

Studio:  Sony Pictures Classics

Starring:  Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Debra Winger, Anna Deavere Smith, Tunde Adebimpe

Directed by:  Jonathan Demme

Written by:  Jenny Lumet

Personal Bias Alert:  identifies with Rachel, wouldn’t want to attend this wedding

8 of 10

            This isn’t my family.  I’m not from Connecticut money, my father didn’t hobnob with artists, and no one in my family is a psychologist (my psych minor is the closest we’ve got).  In my family, the weddings tend to be small affairs, and my favorite part is usually guessing how much longer we have before the table of chain smoking, oxygen sucking extended relatives blow up the reception.  And yet, I found myself connecting with this family, recognizing little moments of anguish and joy and relishing in the words they gave me to describe my own family grievances.

            Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) may get the title and the marriage, but the film is about her hurricane of a sister.  The family’s life, it seems, has been engulfed by Kym (Anne Hathaway) for most of her life.  A nasty drug addiction has caused her to bring nothing but drama and disappointment to their clan, and the mistrust that has instilled is apparent as soon as Kym checks out of rehab for her sister’s wedding.  There’s still love there; Rachel embraces her with a joyous smile as soon as Kym appears and her father’s paternal care is embodied by how often he tries to feed her.  Slowly though, as Kym’s behavior proves to be erratic and inappropriate, their guards come up and old wounds are opened.

            Before this film, I never would have described Hathaway as a natural actress.  I liked her in several things, but I could always feel her effort, could always see the actress behind the character.  That’s what makes her performance in Rachel Getting Married so revelatory.  Watching her is like seeing the kid you’ve been rooting for finally hit that home run.  You knew he had it in him, it just took him a while to get there.  Hathaway finally boldly and loudly stepped into her character’s shoes, and it feels just right.

            Rosemarie DeWitt serves as Hathaway’s co-star, counterpoint, and foil.  For all Kym’s loudness, DeWitt’s Rachel is reserved and solid.  Having played a similar role in my own family, I must admit that I connect to Rachel more, and perhaps because of that mildly prefer DeWitt’s performance to Hathaway’s.  Make no mistake, I think both are excellent (along with Bill Irwin as their father), but DeWitt is the one that gets under my skin.  There’s a large, dramatic scene about halfway through the film in which DeWitt lays bare Rachel’s feelings, and she embodies the way I feel towards my family so completely that she actually helped me to better understand my own emotions.

            I give DeWitt a lot of credit for her performance, but of course none of that would have been possible without writer Jenny Lumet.  This is the only screenplay she’s had produced, and its one hell of an effort.  Aside from Rachel, my favorite part is the way she captures the flow of conversations, how they twist and overlap before veering off abruptly into an entirely different direction.  These are the kinds of weighted conversations you have with people you’ve known your whole life, and Lumet captures it in a way not often seen in films.  The screenplay pulls off so many difficult things such as this, that I can’t imagine it’s the only one Lumet has in her.

            Lumet certainly took risks with her screenplay, as did Jonathan Demme with his direction.  I liked many of the choices he made, like shooting handheld to make you feel like you’re jostling through the wedding with everyone else, but some didn’t work out as well.  He indulges a bit too much in the wedding and other extraneous goings-on, and the film loses momentum because of it.  It reminds me of something Christopher Plummer recalled Collin Farrell saying to him while working with the distractible Terrence Malick:  “Aw, we’re just going to be a couple of Ospreys.  He’ll shoot the Ospreys, not us.”  The problem here is that Rachel Getting Married is a character study, so it’s a detriment when the characters become background to the Ospreys.

            Despite this occasional wandering, Rachel Getting Married remains one of my favorite films.  It feels like a very personal film for Lumet and Demme, but it’s open just enough for others to find themselves in.

Other Notes:

Ø  The public’s afraid of me too, Kym.

Ø  The moment with Kym in the kitchen after the dishwasher scene is one of the most heartbreaking things I’ve seen.

Ø  Can I hug this film?  I want to hug this film.

Beyond the Lights

Released:  November 14^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Relativity Media

Starring:  Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Nate Parker, Minnie Driver

Directed by:  Gina Prince-Bythewood         

Written by:  Gina Prince-Bythewood

Personal Bias Alert:  dislikes romances, not familiar with either of the leads

4.5 of 10

            I’ve never been enamored by the music industry.  I’ve had long arguments about how oversexed or just plain weird imagery passes for entertainment, particularly in pop music, and often overshadows those who are writing honest and intelligent pieces.  I consider music the most passionate form of art, the one that most easily forms an emotionally connection to the audience.  The astounding gift of great musicians (some of whom do work in pop) are their ability to combine well-crafted melodies with vague yet emblematic lyrics that a wide swathe of people can personally connect to in a matter of minutes.  That’s why it frustrates me to see so much of the music industry focused on a performer writhing around on stage instead of the smart, sensitive things that can come from their brain.

            Beyond the Lights makes me thing that writer/director Gina Prince-Bythewood shares my point of view.  A major theme of the film is how adversely the hypersexual and inauthentic parts many young female pop artists play affects them personally.  It’s brought to the forefront from the beginning, when an emotionally inert emerging pop star named Noni (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) accepts her first Billboard Music Award in a bondage-esque, barely there outfit and promptly goes back to her hotel room to kill herself.  She is, of course, saved by a strapping and sensitive police officer (Nate Parker), who is rattled by her stoic demeanor immediately following the event.  The pair eventually falls in love, and Parker’s Kaz encourages Noni to make the sort of music she loves.

            At first, I was rather unimpressed by Mbatha-Raw and felt she was being outshined by the likable Parker, only to realize that she was masterfully portraying her character’s arc out of hopeless depression.  Early on, she actually feels like someone without the will to go on, someone stuck in the incessant quagmire of a deep depression that has deprived her of nearly all other emotions.  As Noni’s relationship with Kaz forces her to confront her problems and her long-buried ambitions, Mbatha-Raw gets to come out and play a full part.  A late scene allows her to show off how emotive she and good music can be in a powerful and effective culmination of both the character and the main theme’s arcs.

            The film features a scathing look at the music industry, pegging it as exploitative and insensitive to its young female stars.  Now I already thought that this sort of thing happened, but I was surprised to find that they were able to get across this message without exaggerating the film’s music videos, onstage performances, or photo shoots.  All look remarkable normal compared to their real-life counterparts, and that authenticity is perhaps the most damning pieces of evidence that the film presents.  Feel free to take a look for yourself; the video that was made for the film is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP7gLPRDojg.

            For all these excellent pieces, Beyond the Lights staggers under a poorly constructed script.  While its themes and characters are strong, it tries to present them under the guise of a by-the-numbers romance, and the numbers couldn’t have been triter.  It was always painfully obvious what the next beat was going to be, sucking any suspense and narrative tension straight out of the film.  They try to pull some fast ones on you, but most are so poorly constructed, especially a late ‘who could be at the doorbell?’ moment, that they come across more as annoyances than surprises.

            The only mystery to the film is how it can simultaneously move through its beats so quickly while feeling so painfully long.  The big suicide attempt occurs in the first few scenes, and the romance starts jarringly fast.  After that, the film becomes mired in subplots that keep things moving but don’t always go anywhere.  With their outcomes predetermined, the sidetracking is both unnecessary and uninteresting, overly complicating a story that could have been effective if it had narrowed its scope a bit.

            There’s a lot to admire in Beyond the Lights, but it overstayed its welcome and had me tapping my feet in anticipation of leaving.  That’s disappointing, especially when you look back and realize how well it commented on the darker side of young pop stars’ lives.

Other Notes:

Ø  It’s really depressing that Prince-Bythewood had to fight to have this movie star two people of color.

Ø  The song that got me most excited was the cover of The xx’s Shelter.  That probably says a lot about my musical taste.

Ø  The cover story might have been a lie, but I’m willing to bet that alcohol, a balcony, and 5 inch stilettos really don’t mix well.