Promised Land

Promised Land

No!!!!  So close, Hollywood, so close!

When I first heard about Promised Land, I thought, "ah, another Hollywood, environmental, anti-corporation" movie.  I get tired of these films because the politics are so one-sided.  And it doesn't matter if I agree with the political stance or not (in fact, I often do).  My problem is that some of these films are telling me what I am supposed to think and then tells me I am a close-minded, foolish simpleton if I disagree.  Personally, I don't think that is a very good way to start a dialogue on a serious topic.  In fact, that kind of myopic view is part of the problem in Washington D.C. today.

So I was surprised when I started watching Promised Land, and it did the unexpected and actually tackled the topic in an intelligent and though-provoking way!   Matt Damon plays Steve Butler, who works for Global Crosspower, an energy company focusing on extracting natural gas through a method called fracking.  Steve's job is to go to these small towns, generally full of farmers, and convince them to lease their farmland to Global by offering profit sharing deals.  The town, hit with hard economic times, is of course enthusiastic until an old farmer/teacher Frank Yates (Hal Holbrook) brings up major environmental concerns at a town hall meeting.  Steve's job gets even more difficult when a bothersome activist Dustin Noble (John Krasinski) rolls into town to start a grassroots campaign against Global.

For a good chunk of the runtime, I was rolling with Promised Land, which is buoyed by a terrific cast, which also includes the great Francis McDormand and Rosemary DeWitt, working with a nice script co-written by Damon and Krasinski, and under the sure hand of director Gus van Sant (who also directed Damon's Good Will Hunting).  And I was impressed with the movie's mature take on the fracking issue.  Steve is presented not as a corporate stooge, but as a real three dimensional character who believes in what he is saying.  He came from a small farm town.  The life blood of the town was a local factory and when that factory closed down, the town just withered away and died.  Steve still seems shell shocked about his childhood, and he honestly believes that fracking is a way out for the dying small town.  Sure, there is a small chance that something horrible could happen, environmentally, but maybe it is worth the risk so that money can be pumped into these small towns.  The other side of that argument comes from Dustin Noble and Frank Yates.  The environmental risk is not small and the invasive measures used by fracking companies will destroy the land, destroy the livestock, destroy the farms, and ultimately destroy the town.  Both sides are committed to their argument and I admired that they seemed to be letting the audience make up their own mind. 

Sort of a spoiler here: then suddenly the movie decides to throw the audience a curveball in a twist so blatantly ridiculous that it ruins the whole movie, taking everything intelligent about the debate and turning into a diatribe about how corporations are manipulating the world and destroying America.  This was infuriating because it undermines the film, which up to this point had really been working.  Look, I am not deluding myself.  I knew the movie was anti-fracking, but by presenting a logical discussion and actually addressing the opposition's perfectly reasonable arguments, the movie was able to prove its point and hopefully convince people on the fence.  But the twist at the end alienates those in the middle and when that happens, you are just preaching to the choir and you're not going to convince anyone of anything.  Maybe if the twist had been handled better, I wouldn't have been so annoyed, but the script and direction just start to flounder here, despite the cast's best efforts.  Very frustrating experience.  What a shame. 


MVP:
Promised Land also one other flaw.  It tries to shoehorn a love triangle into the film, with both Dustin and Steve chasing the same woman, a local school teacher named Alice, played by Rosemary DeWitt.  Beyond the Hollywood contrivance of this rivalry, it also bothered me because it made Alice a weak character - would she just randomly go out with anyone as long as they came from out of town?  But I only noticed this afterwards because Rosemary DeWitt's performance is so good.  She is a strong and confidant woman, full of good humor and grace, and you can see why Steve and Dustin would both be chasing her.  In fact, it is a bit odd that everyone else in the town is not chasing her.  It's a fine performance and she completely charmed me, elevating the love story scenes from their inherent cliché nature.  It doesn't hurt that she has remarkable chemistry with Matt Damon.  So all in all, a win for Rosemary DeWitt!  A decisive MVP win.

BEST LINE:
STEVE: I'm begging you, don't do this.  Because the truth is we will walk away.  We always do. And then after every single town within three states has signed up and with the blows of this economy almost unbearable, we'll come back.  And we'll offer you nothing.  Every lease we've signed, every piece of the pie we've offered.  It all goes away...and we will buy this place for nothing.

TRIVIA:
This film was supposed to be Matt Damon's directorial debut.  But with a very short time to prepare for the film (and because of some rumored creative conflicts), Damon stepped down as director and Gus van Sant came onboard.

Contagion

Contagion

What if a super virus swept across the world, wiping out millions of people?  Hollywood has played with this idea before, but the result is usually a zombie movie or an action flick where Dustin Hoffman darts across the country looking for a diseased monkey, both of which are equally unrealistic to me.

So kudos to Steven Soderbergh's Contagion, which tries to depict what would really happen if the world was struck by a killer virus.  The movie does not necessarily tell a story in a traditional narrative sense - instead it throws in almost a dozen characters dealing with the virus in their own ways, which allows the audience to trace the growth of the MEV-1 virus and the ways it starts to rip society apart at the seams.  And the cast that Soderbergh has gathered for these different perspectives is superb - look at this: Laurence Fishburne, Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Elliot Gould, Jude Law, Jennifer Ehle, Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, John Hawkes, Sanaa Lathan.  It's quite a cast.

In some ways, this scattered narrative is the weakness in the film, preventing us from fully understanding the stories of some of the characters.  For example, Marion Cotillard's storyline starts as perhaps the most interesting - she is sent to Hong Kong to find the origin of the virus - but then her story takes a strange turn.  While I understand it from an intellectual level, I don't buy how it occurs in the movie.  It just feels like she is missing one or two key scenes to make her character work.   The same thing is true with Jude Law, who plays a blogger who rages about conspiracy theories and ends up contributing to the panic sweeping across the globe.  I had trouble understanding the ins and outs of what he was doing; I just knew he was not a good guy (of course, they make sure we know he's not a good buy by giving Jude Law a weird prosthetic tooth.  Only bad guys have weird teeth like that.  Unfortunately, this makeup decision backfires.  I probably missed important plot details because I couldn't pay attention to anything except that damn tooth!).

Then again, in some other ways, this fractured storyline is also a strength because it prevents the movie from falling into a Hollywood formula and keeps the whole crisis realistic and grounded.  Presenting the story this way makes it clear that this could happen to us someday.  The true horror of Contagion is seeing how easily this virus could spread, by shaking hands, by breathing on a casino chip for good luck, by simply holding onto a handrail on the bus.  These small moments are given great importance in Contagion because they are the mundane actions that would kill us if a super virus really did strike.  And that makes Contagion more scary than all the Saw movies combined.

I have to give the movie big props in one other way.  All too often, science is portrayed as either nerdy or dangerous in movies.  Contagion makes science cool.  It's rare to see the government in a positive light in the film, it is even more rare to see the government scientists as the real heroes.  I thought that was awesome and it was nice to see.

So all in all, Contagion is a solid film, not without some serious problems, but still a really good piece of work.  It is well-written, superbly acted, and thought provoking.  I feel with a little more work and a little less fake teeth, it could truly have been great.

BEST LINE:
Dr. Cheever: "We don't need to weaponize the bird flu.  The birds are doing that."

MVP: SPOILER ALERT!  The storyline that hit me the most was that of Dr. Erin Miers, played by Kate Winslet.  Miers is sent to Minnesota, where the virus seems to have entered the United States.  She has a tough job, tracking down the possible carriers, setting a triage for the inevitable deluge of infected, and all while dealing with a narrow-minded city council that doesn't want to stress out the town during the holidays.   But Miers goes through with her work, carefully and efficiently.  So imagine her surprise when she wakes up in the middle of the night, hacking and running a high fever.  Here is an example of what should be most frightening to all of us: someone who did everything right, who should not have gotten sick, and yet she still got hit with the virus.  And out of all of the characters in Contagion, it was Miers' fate that I was most concerned about.  The question of whether Miers would live or die had me hooked for the whole movie.  I give much of the credit to a low key, simple, but superb performance from Winslet.  In a movie full of great actors, she stood out.  So she wins the MVP!

True Grit (2010)

True Grit

The existence of True Grit is a surprise to me. Never in a million years would I have expected filmmakers as creatively fruitful as the Coen Brothers to attempt a remake of a beloved classic. Money-grubbing studios are the ones who focus on sequels and remakes, not auteurs. And yes, I know the Coens insisted that this was an adaptation of the original book and not a remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, but let's be honest here: there is no way to make this movie without comparing the two. So, with that said, how does True Grit hold up?

Following the murder of her father, 14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfield) is determined to set out after the killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She hires a drunk and mean marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) because he is a man "with true grit" and the two set out into Indian territory after the killer. Along the way, they cross paths with the bragging Texas ranger LeBoeuf (Matt Damon) who is also tracking Chaney for the murders of a Senator and his dog.

I've heard some people complain that the film is dull because not much happens. They are right in that there isn't much to the plot itself, which could have been told in about a hour. But they are wrong about the boring part - the Coens understand that the dynamic of the film is not and should not be the manhunt for Chaney. What the film is really about is the interaction between the Rooster, LeBoeuf, and Mattie. The meat of the film is seeing who displays true grit and who doesn't. If the film is a bit slower paced, fine. It just gives us more time to enjoy the great characters onscreen.

The actors all do a fine job - Jeff Bridges is brilliant in a mumbling, bizarre performance that is distant from Wayne's Rooster, but is just as effective. Hailee Steinfield is a true find, delivering her dialogue with an emotional maturity beyond her years. Watching her negotiate with the respective characters is as exciting as most of the gunfights. The rest of the cast is just as good, from Damon's LeBoeuf to Brolin's Tom Chaney to Barry Pepper's maliciously noble take on the bandit leader Lucky Ned Pepper. Along the board, they all do a great job.

Other elements to applaud: The Coens script is odd, but brilliant. They tried to stay true to the dialogue in the book, which tried to stay true to how people spoke in the 19th century. This leads to a lot of strange biblical references in everyday sentences and a complete lack of contractions. To the modern ear, this could sound stilted, but I think it really adds a layer of authenticity. The Coens' script is backed up by the brothers' usual, terrific direction. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is utterly fantastic; Deakins deserves the Oscar for the opening shot of the movie alone.

With all this praise, I do have to admit that the film is not a home run. As the movie barrels to its climax in the final third, certain elements begin to unravel. At one point, LeBoeuf is severely injured, but they are inconsistent with it afterwards. Sometimes he acts hurt, sometimes he doesn't, and this is distracting. And the final gunfight is edited too quickly and is actually kind of confusing, which is a shame because it should have been the best part of the movie. I mean, one of the combatants literally seems to disappear from the scene altogether! And the less said about the bizarre gang member who has no lines, but just walks around making animal noises, the better.

So all in all, how does it compare to the original? The Coen Brothers certainly have no reason to be ashamed as they have created a film that is equal to the original and is even superior in some respects. I liked the original True Grit, but never loved it. John Wayne was good, but I don't think he deserved the Oscar for this role. He should have won for Red River, The Searchers or The Shootist. I think I actually prefer Bridges' take on the character. Kim Darby was fine as Mattie, but Steinfield is a revelation. And there is no comparing Glenn Campbell and Matt Damon. Campbell was the weak link in the original (of course, as my lovestruck mom said, "Who cares? It's Glenn Campbell!"). The way Damon plays the role, LeBoeuf is certainly a braggart, but there is always a sense that he has the toughness to back up his claims. That actually makes him the equal to his partners, whereas you got the sense that John Wayne could beat up Campbell with one arm tied behind his back (actually I even got the sense that Kim Darby could beat up Campbell with one arm tied behind her back). Where the original True Grit wins is that gunfight in the end. When John Wayne yells, "Fill your hands, you son of a bitch," throws the reins in his mouth, and charges with two guns blazing, we feel the rush of a icon storming into immortality. I miss that awesomeness in the new one. I feel they sort of dropped the ball.

But still, this is what a remake is supposed to be. This isn't just a cash grab, preying on our nostalgia for the original. The Coen Brothers thought that they had something new to bring to the table and they did, creating a fine film. It reminds us that we shouldn't dismiss remakes out-of-hand. When made in the proper spirit, you can end up with damn fine cinema. 

MVP: I have to give it to Jeff Bridges. He had the most difficult role, having to lift his Rooster Cogburn out from under John Wayne's formidable shadow. He succeeds by approaching the role in an almost entirely different way, and succeeds immeasurably because of it. It's a terrific performance.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfield), Best Cinematography, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing.  Wow.  That is 11 nominations without a single win.  That is not fair!

TRIVIA: In the book, Rooster Cogburn is said to be in his 40s. However, in both films, the character was played much older. John Wayne was 62 when he played the role and Jeff Bridges was 60.

BEST LINE: For comedy's sake, nothing competes with "I do not know this man."