Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Review: THE MASTER (2012, USA)



Originally posted on: Oct. 15, 2012

THE MASTER (USA, 2012)
[Spoiler in the last paragraph]

The gist: Paul Thomas Anderson's critically acclaimed sixth feature boasts his stylistic idiosyncrasies in depicting the mentally distressed WW2 vet and his relationship with the leader of a burgeoning cult in postwar America. 


His chin angled slightly upward, mouth contorted at random into a sneery smile, eyes washed out, and entire face frequently slipping in and out of focus, Freddie Quell may well come across as permanently drunk and hypnotized. When his inebriated face dominates the screen, it’s often followed by a closeup of a stern-faced person opposite Quell giving him orders and/or asking questions, determined to make him one of their subjects or dupes. There’s a sort of dialectical process at work that leads up to a furtive power shift: most scenes exemplifying this process open with a two-shot of Quell and the person sitting next to or across from him, both given equal screen space. Once an interrogation or a “processing” session begins, however, it cuts to alternating closeups, in which Quell ends up revealing his propensity towards sex addiction or his insecurities, whereas the other person—whether a doctor, a V.A. officer, his mentor, or the mentor’s wife—remains distant and poised. This transitional process doles out glimpses into Quell’s backstory and psychological states, but it above all epitomizes his way of relating to the world outside himself, including his master Lancaster Dodd.


Unfortunately, though, one seldom gets to know much about Quell, despite a generous portion of the movie being devoted to probing the Navy vet’s past. Most of the time, morsels of information about him are dispensed here and there, yet the majority of it is concentrated in the first few sequences in the form of discrete chunks of his post-WWII vagabond stints: as a sailor, a portrait photographer, and a cabbage farm worker. Meandering between jobs, places, and the situations of his own making, Quell carries with him a whiff of disorientation and total isolation. His postwar years unfold episodically, without allowing much context with regard to his whereabouts, except in very generic locations such as a ship, store, and farm. If there’s anything constant about Quell, it’s that he’s helplessly intoxicated all the time. Indeed, only so much can viewers learn about him.

Then what part of the story, which centers deceptively on the origin of a belief system devised in 1950s America to cure the war-traumatized, makes it a compelling character study of Freddie Quell, when the events of his past seem unlikely to form a coherent whole? The answer might be a sense of discontinuity or disconnect that prevails throughout, indicative of not just Quell’s apparent mental disorder but his relationships with others, notably Lancaster Dodd, and with society at large, as well as Paul Thomas Anderson’s stylistic approach to presenting them. The first half hour or so is all about Quell’s ephemeral attempts to readapt to civilian life. These episodes of his postwar striving to survive are strung together in roughly chronological order, but spatially almost unrelated. Even after Quell enlists in Dodd’s burgeoning spiritual crusade called The Cause, the narrative sometimes gets disrupted by the prewar flashback fixated on his first love Doris or cutaways of the open seas. This overarching ellipsis mirrors Quell’s crushed, amorphous psyche, his wandering tendencies and inability to relate to other people. He isn’t in the least interested in adjusting himself to blend into society; he stoops to primitive instincts and impulses often at others’ expense.














Such facets of him at once bring out the contrast between him and Dodd. In fact, a straightforward illustration—or rather, schematization—of their antithetical relationship can be found in a symmetrically designed jail cell shot in the second half, where on the left side Quell unleashes his fury and tries to destroy everything around him while on the right Dodd takes it all in his stride and pisses unperturbed. It seems as if not only the toilet gets shattered into shards, but so does Quell’s (forced) faith in The Cause. A bit of context would help here: Before their imprisonment, Dodd’s son tells Quell with nonchalance, but not without condescension, “He’s making it up as he goes along. You don’t see that?” Quell instantly pounces on the son; his overreaction seems rather a failed disguise of his harbored yet barely repressed suspicion that the way of life Dodd preaches is plain sham. Why doesn’t he just turn around and run away, as he’s always done, instead of defending the con artist so vehemently? Now let's go back to Dodd and his protégé’s first encounter.












Quell meets Dodd, a self-professed writer, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and “hopelessly inquisitive” man, after he sneaks aboard a yacht Dodd commands. Sitting in a noir-ishly low-lit room and looking contemplative and self-assured, Dodd regards a lost, worn-out Quell lingering on the threshold with fatherly sympathy. During this sequence, Anderson conveys the two’s instant camaraderie by narrowing the physical distance between them in just a few alternating shots. Thereafter the varied distance between them ostensibly delineates something close to a common push-pull courtship pattern. At the wedding reception for Dodd’s daughter, Quell examines the Master from the back row, who warms up the guests by spinning a tale about dragons with a confident display of glibness and geniality. Then, their second rendezvous advances the relationship to the next defining phase. At first, the pair is seen in one frame facing each other in preparation for a therapy session. But once Dodd starts churning out repetitive, increasingly demanding questions leading to the two's exchange of tight facial closeups, the session quickly establishes their relative positions in this relationship. That way, Dodd soon succeeds in breaking through Quell’s boozed-up armor and simultaneously anointing the subject a precious guinea pig of his.












And thus Dodd is the ultimate master and their one-sided liaison continues unhindered… But of course, there’s more to it than that. True, they manage to find their own places where they feel most secure, the kind of stability that helps them regain their bearings in the chaotic postwar reality and assures them that order can still be restored and things returned to normal, exactly the way they were before, even in the aftermath of total man-made world annihilation. To foster such delusional hope, they are compelled to rely on each other—as much as Quell needs some guiding figure like Dodd, who proclaims during their fight in the jail cell, “I’m the only one who likes you!” Dodd also depends on the fidelity of his followers like Quell to sustain his cult and to survive. And needless to say, this symbiosis developed out of necessity extends to other believers in The Cause as well. Their desire for a decent, normal life without feeling alienated reaches a point where the degree of faith doesn’t even matter. Dodd’s son, for instance, who lives off his father, plays along although he considers him a charlatan. Quell secretly nurses his own doubts about the Master, but he willingly curbs his animal instincts and obeys. The whole enterprise is founded upon lies and deceit, in which all the related parties, the master and his patrons/acolytes alike, are complicit to the extent that the cult subsists. And that seems one of the few viable ways people acclimatized to postwar America.














In the end, Quell frees himself from Dodd’s hands, but his reclaimed independence is not the same as the unfettered freedom he enjoyed before The Cause. He’s still afloat—wandering in search of the affection, comfort, and security that Doris, and possibly Dodd, offered him, yet the imprint Dodd left on him appears indelible when Quell casually reenacts that “thought-processing” on a woman with whom he crosses paths in a pub during sex. The sex scene’s also reminiscent of the beach sequence bookending the movie, where Quell humps a female body sculptured of sand, only to find it frustrating altogether since it’s not a real woman. He finally gets to have intercourse with a real woman, but Anderson’s powerhouse performance-backed elusive character study ends with Quell wistfully eyeing the sandy woman. 



Review: Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011, USA)




originally posted on Nov. 11, 2011



MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE (USA, 2012)

The gist: This is Sean Durkin's debut feature and technical triumph centering on a lost girl suffering from delusions. It particularly excels at editing, cinematography, and sound design. Elizabeth Olsen delivers.





Girls in trouble aren't a rare sight in theatres. They are an enticing subject for filmmakers and offer a multitude of intriguing narrative possibilities, especially in the realm of psychopathology. In those narratives, vulnerable girls are placed into situations beyond their control and forced to fight not only extrinsic misfortunes but inner battles. To delve into their states of mind, most films of this kind seem to prefer a thoroughly point-of-view approach, and handheld shooting has been a typical choice to present the characters’ insecurities up close. While Durkin’s first feature, Martha Marcy May Marlene, is also told almost entirely from the protagonist Martha’s perspective, he doesn’t rely solely on the conventional shaky cam to illustrate her struggles. Instead, he first forms a dingy, murky mood, encloses Martha in nebulous surroundings, and then slowly presses in on her, whether in a cramped, communal cult or in a luxurious, spacious house.



For all their stark contrasts, those two environments wherein Martha entraps herself share a few elements: smothering milieu, patriarchs, and their accomplices both deliberate and involuntary. The film begins with a string of questions such as, “Why is she running away?” and “Why did she leave her family in the first place?” but leaves some of them unsatisfactorily answered or unanswered altogether. Dependent on Martha’s recollections of her past inserted fairly chronologically, the narrative indeed takes an investigative form, but it focuses on conveying her mental states rather than fulfill the audience’s curiosity. She suffers in both the abusive cult and the comfort-inducing home; she finds equally intimidating the cult’s leader Patrick and her soon-to-be brother-in-law Ted; and she fails to find comfort in living with either her cult companions or her sister Lucy. Her anxiety and loneliness are forever ingrained in her; she tries hard to dissipate them, get a hold of herself and become a teacher and a leader in her own life, but to no avail. The camera watches her tread water, try to keep her head above water, only to sink gradually.


Martha Marcy is Durkin’s technical triumph in efficiently depicting a lost soul’s confusion and delusions. Its slow pans and zooms could have rendered the film sluggishly paced, but the director/writer enlivens it by connecting the flashbacks with the present-time scenes so seamlessly that the blurring boundaries between past and present themselves become a metaphor for Martha's paranoia. Also commendable is his use of sounds and images to create motifs and smooth transitions. Martha’s stint in the cult is linked to her present life at Lucy's through tapping, chopping and hammering sounds and glasses of water/kale and ginseng juice. Most viewers will, however, leave the theatres most impressed with Elizabeth Olsen’s subtle delivery of Martha’s troubled mind. Though mostly implicit throughout, the film has one (and probably only) shot where Martha stares daringly into the camera, as if to confront the eye of the observer who’s been complicit in subjugating her, calling her by any name they want. As if to yell at him, “Don’t call me crazy. You don’t know me.”




2011 in Review: My top 10 of the year




originally posted on Jan. 1, 2012



This year’s cinema has left me with so many striking images I can almost combine them into a movie in my head. It’s probably going to be an incoherent hodgepodge, but who knows. Those images might somehow find a way to coalesce into an uneven, but understandable, narrative, with some kind of overriding theme that could resonate with viewers, such as: the hollowing out of the American middle class; loyalty and betrayal; depression; an individual’s victory against all odds; a girl in trouble; or the apocalyptic dread and ripple effects of a pandemic.   

Let’s start with a man huffing and puffing his way toward a wee better life: WIN WIN opens with Paul Giamatti’s Mike Flaherty on a morning jog in a yellow hoodie, soon outrun by a couple of fellow runners. With triumphant performances by Giamatti and Amy Ryan, Tom McCarthy’s third feature is an exemplary execution of the three-act structure most dramatic screenwriters abide by.



Another man hunkier and in better shape than Flaherty and who’s also on the run for a win is Billy Beane, convincingly portrayed by Brad Pitt in MONEYBALL. On one hand, it appears to be about establishment versus revolutionary idea, old generation subsisting on experience and instincts versus game-changing, ambitious new generation; on the other, it digs deep in flashbacks into the underdog baseball team’s general manager, whose last-ditch effort to turn the team’s fortune around on the back of sabermetrics, or “gimmicks,” mirrors an unattainable lifetime goal of his.



And we have a running orphaned hero hailing from 1930s Paris called Hugo Cabret. The world he lives in lies inside the walls of a train station. And it’s also a secret world where he learns to run clocks, sneaks peeks of a bigger, warmer world outside, dreams of finding home out there, and teaches himself an invaluable lesson: every single component of a mechanism exists for a reason. Martin Scorsese, in HUGO, his first venture into 3-D and also family film, creates this mechanical universe with his usual imaginative virtuosity and tender glimpses of all the characters, from cold-hearted station inspector to flower girl to newspaper seller, and connects the orphan’s rags-to-riches story with a loving ode to the early days of cinema, especially to George Méliès who’s rendered sympathetic and unforgettable by Ben Kingsley. It’s about finding home and purpose, and about memories once lost and eventually found, hearts once broken and, after decades of pain, fixed.



Not all men in 2011 cinema are on the run and out of breath, however. Ryan Gosling’s almost mythological protagonist, Driver, is mostly seen behind the wheel in DRIVE, eerily calm and collected, save for the rare unleash of a latent monstrousness. In it, Nicolas Winding Refn offers an existential, exorbitantly romantic and violent road trip redolent of neo-noir urban thrillers decades ago. It tiptoes on the boundaries of pastiche, but intentionally so. As inundated as this year’s cinema has been with love letters to the cinema, this may well be also considered homage to filmmaking, if limited to the aforementioned genre. When the opening credits appear scribbled in hot pink, buckle up, it’s going to be a hell of a ride.



But then again, everyone seems on the run in every direction in Steven Soderbergh’s alarming and efficient pandemic thriller, CONTAGION. Its multi-strand narrative and the constant, effortless intercutting between the multiple arcs evoke the havoc that a pandemic of yet unknown origin is wreaking around the globe. Cliff Martinez’s chillingly menacing score amplifies the immediate urge that the movie causes you to wash your hands upon coming out of the theater.

   
Among those delicious delights, however, unflinching, ass-kicking, multidimensional, and unforgettably idiosyncratic heroines have been such a rare sight in theaters this year. Some would tout as an example a feel-good sleeper juggernaut The Help or Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody’s much-hyped reunion Young Adult, but I think they’re rather acting vehicles for their ensemble casts—I’d personally single out Viola Davis and Charlize Theron, respectively—than all-around cinematic monuments.



Yes, in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, an adaptation of Steig Larsson’s international bestseller masterfully crafted by David Fincher and his usual collaborators, Rooney Mara certainly kicks some ass, both literally and figuratively, but I wish writer Steven Zaillian had delved further into Lisbeth Salander and penned a more focused character study, instead of staying faithful to the book, though Mara left an almost semi-permanent imprint on me as a vulnerable victim armed with an outwardly tough shell. Another solidly written heroine in a good, but not mindblowingly great, film is Saoirse Ronan’s Hanna in Hanna. Speaking of girls in trouble, Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene, a psychological thriller debut by Sean Durkin with a daringly ambient approach, excels in subtle displays of innocence, paranoia and deeply ingrained trauma. (Martha Marcy, by the way, ranks #11 on my 2011 list). Mia Wasikowska also gets my honorable mention for her delicate interpretation of the most famous self-assured Victorian heroine in Jane Eyre.





Ultimately, however, it’s Michelle Williams’ second collaboration with Kelly Reichardt MEEK’S CUTOFF that tops my best films with the most awesome heroines list. Its aspect ratio, color scheme, compositional and framing choices all bolster its thematic resonance. Shot after shot observes a group of settlers trudge across an endless parched desert. Despite the minimal dialog, those shots are, in fact, loaded with information: the horseback riding guide Meek’s red shirt, his followers’ inconspicuously colored clothes that almost blend into their arid surroundings, the clear distance between the husbands and wives while the former interrogate an Indian, the wives’ mounting skepticism over Meek’s credibility and dominance, and contrasting scenes where one of the wives, Emily, tries to talk the Indian into helping them find water, whereas Meek resorts to physical violence. And of course, this revisionist western’s most striking image is the Mexican standoff between Meek, Indian and Emily. It’s not just a blatant feminist argument wherein the female protagonist questions male authority; it also reaches beyond the confines of the biological sex differences. See: a shot in which Paul Dano’s character, just like what Emily does later on, attempts to communicate with the Indian while the other men’s faces are out of frame.



Lars von Trier’s apocalyptic downer with a happy ending, MELANCHOLIA, features two sisters Justine, a depressed bride, and Claire, fidgety and fearful of a collision between the planet Melancholia and Earth. Justine’s Part One takes a nauseatingly wobbly stride into Claire’s house; Claire’s Part Two watches the menace of the impending world’s end creeping up on the sisters, Claire’s scientist husband John and their son. Von Trier mocks the desperate flailing of human reason embodied in John played by Kiefer Sutherland, but at the same time relies on human sensibility for the proper appreciation of the stunning scene where Justine bathes in the light of Melancholia, secretly welcoming the annihilation of life.



The universe and humans find another special way to communicate with each other in NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT, Chilean filmmaker Patricio Guzmán’s crusade to remember the past. Shots of a towering telescope tilting up to stargaze are followed by shots of dust particles. The star dust, then, leads to the Atacama Desert, whose climate allows mummification of human remains and where political prisoners of the Nixon-endorsed 1973 Chilean coup d'état were killed and buried. Guzmán parallels astronomers and archaeologists’ exploration of the past and the bereaved families’ relentless search for traces of their loved ones. As much as it’s easy to be awestruck by the splendor of those beautifully captured celestial bodies, it’s hard to suppress a surge of tears watching the victims sitting helplessly on cruel stretches of sand while latching onto a glimmer of hope.   




A cinematic quest for the relationship between man and nature continues in TAKE SHELTER, Jeff Nichols’s second feature about a working-class family man, Curtis, who suffers from paranoia. For him, nothing is more frightening than the very thought of losing his family because of his mental distress. Up until his climatic breakdown, he takes every rational step to get to the bottom of his symptoms, but the camera gradually presses in on him as his condition gets worse, putting an enormous strain on his relationships with his best friend and then his family. The movie reaches into viewers’ consciousness especially because a bottomless pit of anxiety, its unknowable causes, and the fact that it drains the life out of a nondescript middle-class guy are reminiscent of our own tough times. Nichols’s slow-burn suspense peaks when a deranged Curtis refuses to open the shelter despite his wife’s pleas. With Jessica Chastain’s strong support as the wife, Michael Shannon as Curtis turns in a truly inspirational performance.






So here are my top 10 of 2011:
10. Contagion
9. Win Win
8. Moneyball
7. Melancholia
6. Drive
5. Meek’s Cutoff
4. Hugo
3. Nostalgia for the Light
2. Take Shelter

Welcome.


Hey guys. Welcome to the good moviegoer, a blog dedicated to movie reviews and Oscar predictions.

Here, I will post movie reviews and my thoughts on the state of the Oscar race as regularly as possible. Readers, thanks in advance for reading and commenting on my blog.

Let me quickly outline the blog's features:

1. Movie reviews

Movie reviews I post here each consist of the gist of the review, the body, and my grade on a scale of 0-10. Needless to say, all of them are based on my own opinions and preferences, and some will be expanded in my Further Thoughts.
The following is my grading system:

[0] Bomb. In other words, what did I do to deserve this.
[1] Disaster. A warning to the reader: Avoid at all costs.
[2] Near disaster. Should have walked out after the first reel.
[3] Bad, but with a little fun. Includes most guilty pleasures, especially those terribly crafted.
[4] Not so bad or mediocre, it wasn't a waste of time, but I wouldn't bother revisiting it.
[5] Okay, story told well, but with no outstanding technical merits.
[6] Fine, story told well, with a few outstanding scenes, performances that made me cry
[7] Good, story told well, technically good overall, performances that made me cry, director's signature style
[8] Very good, story told well, technically excellent, unforgettable performances, director's signature style, my top 10 of the year candidate
[9] Great, all of the above plus thematic depth & personal resonance, of course my top 10 of the year candidate
[10] Best of the year

2. Oscar predictions

The kickoff of the annual Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in early September is widely considered the beginning of each Oscar season, and my first Oscar Predictions entry will be also posted around then. I haven't decided on the look of a predictions chart, but until then, I will just put up a list of my current predictions as frequently as once a week.

3. Weekly roundup

If I don't have enough time, or if I have only little to say about movies I've seen, I will include short reviews for them in a weekly roundup.

And... that's pretty much it. Again, thanks for your visit, and my next post will be about my first 85th Oscar Predictions. Feel free to share your thoughts, predictions, etc.