Category Archives: Marion Cotillard

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Welcome back, Batman.

“The Dark Knight Rises” will elicit hours worth of conversation. However, it won’t be about the political subtext ripped from today’s headlines as you might have expected. It will consist of a lot more pondering about where Christopher Nolan went wrong, and how the finale of a masterful saga could be such a dissapointment.

When Christopher Nolan first brought “Batman Begins” to the world, he was introducing a brand new Batman to a new generation of fans. Then, when “The Dark Knight” came out, he had made something unlike any action movie made before it. In “The Dark Knight Rises,” he tends to rely on all of the uninspired tropes that he was once so good at ignoring.

The final installment of this Batman trilogy has a muddled plot that shines at certain points. It takes place six years after the death of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and the disappearance of the caped avenger, after Batman takes the fall for Dent’s death. Gotham is now in a time of peace. Deprived of his heroic identity, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) spends his days living in isolation in Wayne Manor. During this time, Wayne has become crippled as his family empire crumbles. He hosts parties that he doesn’t attend. He grows a beard and never comes out of his room. While people think that he has turned into Howard Hughes, Wayne actually manages to keep most of his sanity intact.

It’s sad to say, but “The Dark Knight Rises” manages to share the same plot as “MacGruber”: a hero is shunned by society, goes into hiding, can’t get over the loss of his one true love, and is eventually called back into action because he is the only one who can defeat the latest threat to the world. Wayne has refused to move on with his life, which sends his loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine) packing. What Alfred, as well as Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, neglect is the fact that Batman is Bruce Wayne’s true identity, and not the other way around.

With The Joker and Two-Face out of the picture, the latest threat to Gotham is Bane (Tom Hardy), a psychopath in a mask that makes him look like a prawn from “District 9.” Bane, like a demon emerging from hell, was raised underground where he gained unmatchable strength and a dark view on humanity. Now, Bane raises an army of lower class warriors in the sewers of Gotham, as he prepares to wage war on Gotham’s wealthy, and restore power to the people.

Bane is certainly a frightening looking villain. Too bad he couldn’t actually be one of the most frightening. Bane’s voice had to go through some altering in the editing room to make it more audible. However, his new voice sounds less like Darth Vader and more like Gandalf. A man preaching about the destruction of a city should not sound sagely. In addition to that, some damage is done by providing too much of Bane’s backstory. Besides Ledger’s performance, what made The Joker work so well is that so little was revealed about him. There is not enough mystery surrounding Bane. He should have been elusive, not wimpy. Hardy is a very talented actor (see “Lawless” when it opens in August), but this was not necessarily the best showcase for his talent, especially when all of his facial expressions are masked.

“The Dark Knight Rises” makes a fatal mistake by setting the stakes monumentally high. Among the many new things that it introduces is Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), the newest member of the board of Wayne Enterprises, who helps build a nuclear reactor below Gotham that will give the city clean energy. However, Bane turns it into a bomb, with the intent of blowing Gotham to smithereens. The class warfare powers the film at the beginning, and brings it eerily close to today’s headlines. However, adding in the total destruction of Gotham makes the conflict too big. Recall the two boats in “The Dark Knight.” Every time I watch it, I become deeply invested in which boat could blow up because it is a smaller conflict, and we get to know everybody involved.

On a more positive note, there are a few new characters who add to the story. One of them is John Blake, a young cop played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It may be partly because Gordon-Levitt can do no wrong in my book. Also, he is an engaging new perspective on the battle for law and order in Gotham and in the end, one move he pulls off very much evokes Marshall Will Kane of “High Noon.” Also introduced is Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman (Anne Hathaway). Catwoman is like a Robin Hood for Gotham’s needy. She is a stealthy thief who only meets her match when she first tries to mess with Bruce Wayne. While a failed “Catwoman” movie was made a few years back, Nolan’s Catwoman could merit her own spinoff.

Unfortunately, like many of the great aspects first set up in “The Dark Knight Rises,” it is eventually ruined by the time the film’s nearly three hour run time comes to a close. Her moment of redemption felt contrived and out of place. Catwoman is constantly straddling the line between hero and villain, as she works mainly for herself as opposed to the greater good, so why not just make her a straight up anti-hero?

The contrived fate of Catwoman pretty much sums up most of the other mistakes made by “The Dark Knight Rises.” I do not want to give away too much, so I will just say that there might as well have been Ewoks dancing around.

As everyone expected, “The Dark Knight Rises” is visually striking, even if the action scenes are clunkier than those from its predecessor. It is also the cinematic equivalent of a lingerer: it spends too much time in places where it could have gotten itself out of much quicker. Bruce spends an awful lot of time trying to escape a hole in the ground. Montages were invented for a reason, and could have been put to good use here.

The weaknesses of “The Dark Knight Rises” expose Nolan’s weaknesses as a filmmaker, which were often visible in his other works but always redeemed by his strengths. For example, his characters have a habit of explaining too much when they could just let their actions do all of the talking for them. This was the biggest flaw in “Inception,” yet the striking visuals and action sequences covered up for it. In “The Dark Knight,” it worked because their words were so powerful and were so on point thematically. “The Dark Knight Rises” is at its best when its imagery evokes history. The trials and storming of the houses of Gotham’s rich feels like politics straight out of the Robespierre era. Meanwhile, watching cops trying to dig themselves out of rubble is a heart-wrenching reminder of the events of 9/11. Nolan needs to trust his abilities as a filmmaker, as well as the intelligence of the audience. That way, we will never have to see an exchange like this ever again:

BANE: So, you came back to die with the rest of your city?

BATMAN: No…I came back to stop you.

The real root of all of the problems of “The Dark Knight Rises” lies in the fact that it is a Batman movie that barely has any of Batman in it. The problem with the final installments of many trilogies is that they must struggle to rap up an entire story in a satisfying way. The ending of “The Dark Knight Rises” might have been satisfying in the past. However, because this trilogy redefined the way we look at superheroes, it just feels like it defeated itself.

Side note on the location of Gotham City: In “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight,” Gotham was modeled almost entirely after Chicago. “The Dark Knight Rises” switches to New York. This makes some sense, as to evoke the tragedies of 9/11, as well as Occupy Wall Street, but it is so obviously a different city to the point of distraction. We know it’s not a made up place if the Brooklyn Bridge, Freedom Tower, and Empire State Building are all visible. Also, the Los Angeles skyline graces the backdrop of another shot. These are three very different cities.

How I Rank Christopher Nolan’s Films (excluding “Following” and “Insomnia,” which I have yet to see):
1. The Prestige
2. The Dark Knight
3. Memento
4. Inception
5. Batman Begins
6. The Dark Knight Rises

The Reel Deal Goes to Cannes Update #8: Don’t Go Back in the Water

Leave a reply

Film festivals are a great place to catch films both new and old. Even if you’ve seen a film a million times before, a new setting can make a world of difference.

Last night, in perhaps one of the most perfectly planned events I have ever been to, “Jaws” was screened on the beach. If “Jaws” wasn’t scary enough already, the beach element really helped. It made the horror of the man-eating shark much more intimate, and way too plausible for comfort. Spielberg’s film has not aged a day since its release, and in fact gets better with each passing year. Despite its status as a classic, a film like “Jaws” would have trouble getting made today. Unlike today’s usual horror films, it is filled with long stretches of no action. Yet, the long stretches create more buildup and more suspense, which is why “Jaws” is still one of the scariest films ever made.

The audience also partly made this experience so special. Multiple moments garnered thunderous applause, including the moment when (SPOILER!) Quint (Robert Shaw) is eaten by the shark. Is that because everyone wanted him to go, or because it is such a memorable moment? I think it is much more of the latter. The reason a good theatrical experience can triumph any other way to watch a film is because audience participation means so much. It guides your expectations, and the laughter, cries, or applause act almost as a second soundtrack.

A memorable moment from the “Jaws” screening was meeting Benh Zeitlan, the very young director of the much buzzed about “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” Clearly, he is not fully adjusted to fame and being recognized yet, as he was kind and even a little reserved. He told us that “Jaws” is his muse, and this screening was beyond a special experience for him. Here lies the beauty of a great film festival: it is the intersection of films old, new, and future. It is a film convention, showroom, and marketplace. And Cannes is its king.

After the Jump: Jacques Audiard’s “Rust & Bone,” and Marion Cotillard’s possible next chance of winning an Oscar.

“Rust & Bone,” the latest film from French director Jacques Audiard, is yet another film about nefarious undersea creatures. But this is not a horror film. It is a drama containing a collision of different stories both devastating and uplifting. There is so much I don’t want to give away, but what I will say is that it is about a man named Ali, who forms an unlikely friendship with Stephanie (Marion Cotillard), a whale trainer at a Sea World-type place who’s world is turned upside down after a horrible accident. No, this is not the plot for a Lifetime movie.

“Rust & Bone” inadvertently proves the limits of American movies in its frank portrayals of sex and violent brutality. I can picture an angry studio executive now, bickering about the impossibility of marketing a movie about a disability and blah blah blah distribution rights. But I digress. “Rust & Bone” hits you so intensely in the end with such emotional fervor because it happens so suddenly, and follows two hours of ups and downs both sad and uplifting.

Ultimately, “Rust & Bone” is about two damaged people giving each other a renewed purpose for living, and life it is full of. Marion Cotillard is already my choice for Best Actress at the Oscars. Her reaction after first discovering her new ailment is so devastating and perfectly in line. Yet, she never does seem to give up on her self. She wants to do everything, yet needs the boost. Ali is her physical boost, and Stephanie his emotional one. “Rust & Bone,” from Stephanie’s angle, is all about coping with the world trying to give up on you.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Archive/Search/2012/5/17/1337251427481/Rust-and-Bone-008.jpg

“Rust & Bone” consists of multiple story lines, with Stephanie’s being the film’s lifeblood, until Ali’s story really kicks off towards the middle and third act. Audiard also directed “A Prophet,” which I am told is a masterpiece. I can’t compare the two, but it is obvious that Audiard has a commanding voice in the director’s chair, and the substance would be empty without his style. For example, the use of Katy Perry’s “Firework” would usually come off as trite and pandering. Here, it is shockingly awe inspiring.

Few films I’ve seen in theaters have had such a large emotional impact that stays after I leave the theater. The strangest part is, it was a feeling that I couldn’t pinpoint. Was it happiness, sadness, or something else in between? All I can say is that I will be seeing “Rust & Bone” again when it comes to America, and you should, too.

Yes, I will be reviewing this again in the future.

Inception: On Backlashes, Second Viewings, and Dead Cats

Leave a reply

Warning: Do not read on unless you have actually seen “Inception.” And even if you don’t care about spoilers, I command you to proceed with caution.

So, here we are. “Inception” has officially been in theaters for two weekends. It’s also been a little over a week since I first laid eyes on it and made it out to be a magnum opus unlike any we’ve ever seen (or, unlike any we’ve seen since Kubrick or Scorsese and Coppola in their prime). Since then, the film has made a killing at the box office, and has been called both an epic masterpiece and an overrated piece of crap.

Yes, many have dared to call “Inception” overrated. Others have dared to call it resistant to criticism. This just shows how no one seems to know what “Inception” really is. And let’s hope it stays that way.

I am going to assume that most everyone who has decided to read this article has either already seen “Inception” or just doesn’t care if anything gets spoiled at all. I will be light on the spoilers, but a little more specific than last time. I don’t know if I’m qualified enough to write about “Inception” again. Even after seeing it again, and I feel like I understand a great deal more, I still feel like I know nothing. Yet “Inception” is just one of those movies you have to talk and write about as much as possible after viewing them.

It is safe enough to say that “Inception” has received an overwhelmingly positive response. Some make legitimate arguments. Others are just hating for the sake of being contrarian. Others are exposing everything that is wrong with modern film criticism.

It is not just one group of people who are causing the problems. The haters seemed ready to hate “Inception” since before it was even released. This goes even beyond Armond White, the now notorious critical contrarian. I won’t spend too much time on White, but I will say that it’s one thing to not like a movie because it is flawed, and another to not like it because you feel it has enough love already.

And then there are those people who think that “Inception” should be shielded from all criticism. These people seem to think just because it is so unique that nobody should be allowed to point to its problems. Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, and in a time where the art of film criticism is in danger, telling a critic to shut it seems kind of dangerous. As much as I love Rotten Tomatoes, I might have to blame this on them. There is a sort of feeling these days that if a movie doesn’t receive a perfect 100%, then it is no good. Right now, “Inception” stands at 87%. Most movies would dream to have that much approval.

But enough with the triviality of reality. It’s time to delve into the world of movies. Specifically, the world of “Inception.” And what a world it is. Even on a second viewing, there was still something amazingly unique about it. While some movies that are full of surprises feel less surprising on a second viewing, “Inception” is still filled with new things.

If you’ve only seen “Inception” once, chances are you are really confused. It makes sense why anyone would be confused after just one viewing, but the funny thing is that no one should be. With a close listen to the dialogue, you can see that almost everything is totally spelled out for you. Almost every single line of the film is pure exposition. Yet, it seems even breezier and more fascinating on a second listen. Exposition can be fine if it’s actually interesting.

I found on a second viewing that I was paying less attention the spectacle and more attention to the actual story. Yes, the folding city and zero gravity fighting are still awesome, but there’s nothing quite like seeing scenes like that fresh. But when you look at the scenery, you really can miss the depth. Many have found “Inception” to be weakest in its story. That might be thought of in one viewing. But there really is more than meets the eye.

What really stood out now were the film’s themes. The central question goes well beyond is this reality or a dream. It is more like when does reality start and subconscious set in, and vice versa. The question could even extend to whether or not one or the other doesn’t even exist, or whether they exist in the same place.

This can be seen when paying very close attention to Mal (Marion Cotillard). She’s more than just a projection, she is Cobb’s totem. While Cobb is constantly spinning the top to see if he is dreaming or not, that was Mal’s totem. In that sense, he doesn’t use it so much to see whether or not he is in a dream, but whether or not he will get to see his wife again. Perhaps the reason he didn’t even pay attention to whether or not the top was going to fall in the end was because he had totally let go of his wife. Whether or not she showed up was irrelevant.

In the relationship between Cobb and Mal lies the film’s true heart. And while others didn’t notice, it is beating. In addition, despite the fact that the scene where Fischer (Cillian Murphy) confronts his dying father was imagined, there was something extremely satisfying about the revelation reached at the end of it. Fischer, like Cobb, could not function on his own without getting rid of the weight of his troubled past. Dreams are where we go to escape our troubled pasts, and our even more troubled presents.

Something that is harder to notice is the film’s very keen sense of humor. Most of the jokes are quick enough that only someone who has viewed the movie twice can really catch them. They also manage to work well in part of the actors. Tom Hardy as the forger Eames added a dry sense of playful British humor to every scene he was in.

But the second time around, one laugh I didn’t expect came at the end. After waiting in anticipation to see the fate of the spinning top (even though I knew the ending, I was still at the edge of my seat), the whole audience began to laugh once the screen turned black. They weren’t laughing at the movie, but rather with it. Perhaps Nolan actually intended that ending to be a sick joke. Maybe the moment the screen faded to black the top either fell or kept spinning.

Yes, that final shot is just one tiny shot. But it really needs to be discussed. It is more of a paradox than the infinite staircase. Yet, at that point, it almost didn’t seem to matter whether or not Cobb was dreaming or awake at that point. The last shot was a sort of Schrodinger’s Cat: the ending is both relevant and irrelevant at the same time.

Schrodinger’s Cat

The top is so important because this tiny toy encapsulates the whole point of the movie. Perhaps the most important line in the film is when Mal tells Cobb there are three options in life: what you believe, what you want to believe, and what you know is real. In the case of whether or not the top keeps spinning or collapses, I could say I believe that Cobb is in reality, I want to believe that Cobb is dreaming, and I know that it’s impossible to ever know which one it actually is. Any of these three answers, even the one about what is real, can be altered in some way. Just like dreams have different meanings to different people, the whole of “Inception” can mean so many different things. By opening up the possibility to us that nothing we saw took place in reality, Nolan was in effect performing inception on the audience.

That leads to a theory that’s been widely discussed and is extremely plausible: “Inception” is a metaphor for the act of filmmaking itself. Each person who serves a role could also serve on a film set. Both involve artists meticulously creating worlds from scratch and keeping them from falling apart.

For one more second, back to that ending. There is indeed proof of multiple conclusions. Notice how the light in Cobb’s house shines in the same way it did when him and Mal woke up. Notice also that this time, his children turned around while in his dreams they never did. Then again, maybe that’s because he never bothered looking in his dreams.

So maybe it is too early to call “Inception” one of cinema’s greatest. “Citizen Kane” wasn’t called the best film in 1941. I’m not saying “Inception” has quite the impact on filmmaking as “Citizen Kane” did. But I do know that it will forever effect the way I watch and process film. It truly did push boundaries both visually and narratively. It simultaneously achieved mirror-breaking self-reflexiviness and it also became an allegory for the world we live in. I don’t think I’m over-analyzing when I say that “Inception” reflects a world where people are more interested in creating their own worlds than fixing the one they actually live in.

Now, who here is ready for round three?