Review: "The Unspeakable Act"

Earlier this year, I was asked to watch "Mirror Mirror". There was a scene in that movie where Armie Hammer's character is given a puppy love potion, which turns him into a devoted and even obsessive love slave for the queen. When separated from her, all he does is cry and demand to be near her again. Snow White is able to break the spell with a kiss, and all becomes well again.

Jackie Kimball's situation involves no potions, but she is certainly under a spell. In "The Unspeakable Act", we witness a very difficult period of time for her. See, she's in love with her brother Matthew. Now, he doesn't share her feelings, but remains close to her anyways. Most family members would probably be uncomfortable with this knowledge, but Matthew seems to understand that it's all rather harmless.

She meets his girlfriend with a smile and a friendly conversation, but dismisses her as soon as Matthew breaks the relationship off. She sometimes smokes, but when Matthew recommends they quit, she obeys immediately (though she does smoke a little pot later). She accepts answers and advice from him with little to no counter. She even picks his college as her first choice for higher education.

Now, this dependence is a bit unhealthy, but is it really any different than most first love's for teenage girls? The belief that the first love is the only love, that you can't live without the other, etc. She even glows in certain scenes when with her brother. When her therapist asks Jackie is she shares similar feelings for her other brother, she dismisses that idea as disgusting. In her mind, Matthew is more of a lifelong friend than a sibling.

These therapy sessions may provide some answers as to why she acts the way she does, but the movie isn't really concerned with this, and neither am I; WHO is Jackie is more important than WHY is Jackie. She is a very powerful character with a personality that is both naive and wise; always analyzing herself and others, but still stubbornly holding on to her own hangup. She's my favorite teenage girl in a movie since the lead in "Juno".

In the end, this is no fairy tale; a kiss won't break the magic that possesses her. This case of puppy love may never quite be understood (even by her) or even something that she fully gets over - who forgets their first love? - but I have a feeling that she'll be ok. There are lots of fish in the sea, and lots of seas in the world; once she moves out, she'll understand.

4/5 *'s

Why Did Roger Ebert Spoil "Super"?

SPOILER ALERT: I reveal a spoiler originally spoiled elsewhere.

For film buffs, the decision to read a spoiler can be a difficult temptation to overcome. With high ticket prices for movies, and even higher anticipation for popular movies, spoilers can provide certain audience members with the insight they need to decide whether or not they'll be catching a flick. But for most moviegoers, having a film's ending revealed unsolicited can ruin their theatre experience. Knowing this, reviewers do their best to avoid making any startling revelations.
Image by rexb via Flickr

In his review of "Super", Roger Ebert let slip the fate of the character played by Ellen Page. In the first two paragraphs. Filmmaker James Gunn immediately took to twitter, and started hashtag jokes at Ebert's expense. While a spoiler notice has since been attached to the review, I wonder - why did Ebert write the spoiler in the first place?

Personally, I disagree with his take on the movie. At the end of the review, He writes "'Super is a film ending in narrative anarchy, exercising a destructive impulse to no greater purpose than to mess with us." To me, this is a positive and is what makes the film great - it being emotionally intense and challenging (a nice way of saying that it "fucks" with you). Ebert is no stranger to emotionally challenging films, but maybe this one scene went too far in his mind. 

Image via Wikipedia

Ellen Page, as an actress, is easy to fall in love with. I can't say that I've disliked any of her performances, whether they're in low budgets like "Hard Candy" or big budgets like "Inception". And, judging from his reviews, I'd say that Ebert feels the same way. I think that when He witnessed what happened to Libby (Ellen Page) in "Super", He felt offended - how could they do such a thing to such an actress? He practically expresses this with SPOILER "when Ellen Page of 'Juno' stars in a movie, we don't much expect to see her brains dripping." END SPOILER This reminds me of the dust up He had with "Kick Ass" (another "real world" super hero flick) - how could they put that little girl in such extreme action scenes?

I don't want to suggest that He always disregards an entire movie because of one scene, but I have seen this happen before. I once showed "Storytelling" to two young women, and I'm convinced that if they hadn't witnessed a large black man having forceful sex with a little white woman, they would've liked the film more. I wonder if Ebert's thoughts on "Super" might change a little if that scene were excised or re-written. Seriously, that one scene could make all the difference (kind of a compliment to the film, that one scene could make such an impression).  

Of course, Ebert's revelation didn't completely ruin the movie, nor did it ruin my opinion of him. Personally, I usually agree with him maybe 80% of the time (though I'm not sure how to accurately determine that). In this one case of disagreement, I find something to agree with - Ellen Page is wonderful, and seeing her in such a sequence is a shock.

Should critic's be so chivalrous in their reviews? Spoiling a movie in an effort to warn others? I dunno. That's a topic for a blogger more articulate and better disciplined that myself. Certainly, some audiences don't mind knowing a little extra about what they're gonna spend their money on. Just be sure to attach a notice BEFORE posting the review. Might save yourself from a nasty hashtag or two.