Review: "Life Itself"

In his review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, film critic Roger Ebert wrote:

"James Cameron's film is not perfect. It has some flaws, but I hate the way film critics employ that word "flaw," as if they are jewelers with loupes screwed into their eye sockets, performing a valuation."

This is a line that I not only agree with wholeheartedly, but something I have taken as advice when criticizing
a movie. In college, a good friend of mine would often ask me to define what art is, and if it can be confined to just a few mediums. The answer lies in the mind of the beholder - anything can be considered art, from brick laying to murder (my college friend suggested that last one). To expand further, an art form should not and cannot be confined to a strict standard. Sure, there are basics in storytelling and expression through film, but they can be creatively manipulated and re-imagined in all sorts of ways. Basically, movies are not to be examined as one would a diamond. A movie can be more than one thing.

Roger Ebert spent his career as a film critic observing and picking apart cinema, explaining why and how, from his point of view, what kind of thing or things a particular movie was. His body of work was elegant, evocative and accessible, enlightening many a reader. This I knew. What I didn't know was that Roger was initially assigned to be a film critic. Fate?

In Life Itself, the documentary on Ebert's life and times (which premiered at Sundance just prior to the writing of this review), we learn that the most well known film critic in America is, like the movies he loves and hates, more than just one thing. It's silly thinking such a thing; that it's a surprise to discover a famous person was about more than what we knew them for. That they are people after all. Why keep that wall up between reality and fiction? In between a few hospital stays near the end of his life, the movie unfolds almost from Roger's mind, as if during rehab and doctor visits, he is going over memories painstakingly, to try and make sense of it all. Much like in a film about a biographer visiting their elderly subject. Almost beat for beat, it follows this pattern. To not only have a biopic made ABOUT you, but to also STAR as you, I can only imagine ONE question you might ask yourself; was it a life WORTH TELLING?

We get the fullest scope of the man as possible. From being a barfly to being a grandfather, from losing the ability to speak to strengthening the ability to communicate. Two moments showcased gave, for me, the clearest picture of all.

In the first one, we are witness to an extended reel of footage. It's of Roger and Gene Siskel, recording promos for their groundbreaking television show. In it, they spew more passive aggressiveness and verbally claw into one another more than I thought was possible. Throughout their partnership, Gene would often push Roger's buttons. There indeed was truth to their on screen dual persona of opposites. On TV, they'd argue back and forth on a movie's merits, and would continue debating once the cameras stopped. To order lunch, a coin toss would have to be conducted.

In the second moment, it's another extended reel of footage of the two men recording TV promos. This time, they are joyfully playing with one another, throwing good natured barbs back and forth, and sharing many a smile. At the end, something unexpected happened - it's revealed to be part of the same antagonistic promo shoot. In what was probably considered just mundane b roll to the television crew, Roger's personality and humanity are exposed. I get the strong sense of learning and growth from his relationship with Gene, one that I and many others can relate to. Like Roger, I've treated people both unfairly and friendly, and wished to have done things better. 20/20 perspective never comes during, but after. Damn.

I just read that Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, spoke after the Sundance premiere. She said that he would often say a good movie leaves an audience member as a much truer person. I agree absolutely with that. The advice on using the word "flaw" when reviewing a movie still stands, and really can be applied to, well, life itself. Hopefully, I'll learn exactly how to apply that one day. It's true.

5/5 *s

If you enjoyed this review, as well as my others on this blog and across the internet, please visit patreon.com/criticalno and consider supporting my work.

Review: "To the Wonder"

Within my circle of facebook friends, Trash Humpers is one of the most disliked films. Two local theater programmers, while appreciative of Harmony Korine’s body of work, absolutely despise his found footage flick. Every once in a while, the movie will come up in a comment thread, and I’ll try my best to defend it. Well, I’ll defend my view of it, anyways.

Anti-Cinema is what I like to call it. Something that feels more like a statement against what we currently accept as the moviegoing experience. Basically, a movie that is executed and presented in a manner that challenges the audience to a staring contest; some people are up for it, but many will blink and walk away.

“How come the movie isn’t telling me what’s happening?” It is - you’ve just been used to seeing things one way (or in three dimensions).

Enter the Void has a camera that floats around like a wandering spirit, in and out of buildings and memories. Trash Humpers is the movie equivalent of some juveniles lighting things on fire and recording their own exploits. To the Wonder... is love unfolded in a whisper. That might come off as pretentious, but it’s kind of true. Very little dialogue is actually spoken on screen, and when it is, it’s usually under breath. The majority of the narration is in another language and, again, low in volume. Clearly, Terrence Malick doesn’t really want you to concentrate on what the characters are saying.

“So, what is it about?”

An American man falls in love with a European woman, and brings her to the U.S. Over time, their love changes, and they move apart; he into the arms of a woman from his youth, her back to Europe. She comes back, and the two try to recapture that flame.

The early scenes of affection and flirtation are shown with a fluid playfulness, as if the camera wants to capture every bit of the action without being seen by the characters. Later moments of turmoil and conflict are well framed and composed, with the placement of objects, animals, sound, etc telling us what we need to know without saying anything. And really, why speak when you’re so good at showing?

I wasn’t sure about Malick’s religious beliefs before hand, but I now get the impression that he might subscribe to the writings of Jakob Bohme, who suggested that God created life in an effort to understand and justify its own existence. Basically, we are the result of an existential crisis. Throughout the movie, the woman kneels before her man, seeing him as her rock, her source of strength. He says little to nothing (not even in whisper), and seems exhausted and frustrated, not knowing what he really wants. At the same time, there is a local priest - whom towns people look towards for strength and guidance - going through a conflict with his love of God. He feels as if he has been ignored and left alone; much like the woman. Is there real strength to feed off of, when all sources are full of doubt themselves?

In the end, love is shown as being something that can transform individuals and couples; no matter the outcome of a relationship, you have the opportunity to become a better, wiser, and stronger person. We had the strength all along, it turns out.

To the Wonder makes a big statement without saying much. In the current gimmicky atmosphere of moviegoing, stripping a story down to its barest bones is going against the grain. Does Malick go against his own grain? Here he does. The last time was life itself, and now love. What’s up next for the man? I don’t know, but I can bet it will stare into you. Will you blink or stare back?

5/5 *s