Patrick Ogle

_ A Separation is a film that could have been made by John Cassavetes if he had been an Iranian and were still alive. It was, in fact, directed by Asghar Farhadi. He also directed the excellent Fireworks Wednesday which is out on video by IR Films.

Whether the film is a real representation of people’s lives is immaterial; it seems like it is real.  It feels real. It smells real. It almost tastes real. The writing is close to flawless and the acting is so natural you feel that the film is almost a documentary—excepting the fact that people are usually not so natural in documentaries.

Often, “Iranian” films that are seen in the West are never actually screened in Iran.  They are made by brave people bucking the system. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes not so much but people in the West are loathe to attack a film that was so difficult to make. This film, apparently, is an exception to this. I heard it was a hit in Iran (I have some questions as to what that means). But there is at least some indication people in the Islamic Republic connected to it. That is what a “hit” is indicative of a film that somehow connects with people on some level.  This fact sometimes makes me unable to fall asleep at night, I wake up shrieking “No…NO…Rob Schneider,”  then I realize he hasn’t had a hit for years and I fall asleep for a bit until some specter resembling Michael Bay pulls off the covers and rolls me onto the floor.

What is most fascinating about A Separation is how those DASTARDLY Iranians are not ranting mullahs or slick politicians but people very much like Americans. They do stupid things. They lose their tempers. They have to deal with bureaucracy. They love their kids. They worry about if they are doing the right thing. Sometimes they lie.

_ Of course, the film is being currently castigated in Iran as somehow representing Iranians in a bad light. I cannot imagine how. It represents them as humans. Of course all fanatics, be they religious or Stalinist, usually create an image of the perfect human and then try to pretend their belief system creates this perfect human and no one in society who isn’t a traitor deviates from that “norm.”  This isn’t a film they are showing in a Basji barracks. I mean they show a woman’s HAIR. That might ignite a sexual frenzy offensive to God.

But I didn’t start writing this with an aim of castigating fanatics—here or there.  This film shows how similar we are, not how different. We face the exact same things—a rocky marriage, dealing with our kids, parents who get old and sick and trying to fit our religious beliefs into the reality of our everyday lives. The film has a great deal in it about differing levels of belief and the conflict between the educated and uneducated, between the middle class and the poor. Change the religion to Christian and the language to English and most of the film could take place in Omaha.

The biggest difference between “us and them,” in the context of the film is that Iranians at least think about emigrating. Americans, traditionally, do not.  That is a small thing.  There may be better foreign films out there this year. But it is to be hoped that this one wins the Oscar in that category.  The world needs to take a deep breath and see that Iranians are people—regardless of how we view their government.

Some Guy Who Kills People is a horror thriller comedy that is making the film fest rounds. It better get a wide release. In part because it is so clever on multiple levels but also because it could make money--which would help other less-than-giant budget films getting out to the people. Insidious should have taught the lesson but perhaps it didn't.

I saw this film at a festival that had a really solid selection of shorts (for the most part). While this was especially true of the shorts even the features were bearable.

This film stood out from this pack even--way out. Produced by John Landis and directed by Jack Perez (Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus) the film manages to be suspenseful, funny, kind of touching and has plenty of splatter--but all of that is pretty tongue in cheek.  Shaun of the Dead (which is a great movie) may spring to mind while watching this but the similarities tend to be more in tone than anything else--the mix of horror and humor. It has nothing to do with Lucy Davis being in the film!

Speaking of cast, the film stars the likes of Kevin Corrigan (The Departed, Pineapple Express etc), Barry Bostwick (in a really funny, movie stealing, somehow channeling Peter Falk-performance), Karen Black as a chain-smoking smart-assed mom, Leo Fitzpatrick (The Wire, Kids, My Name is Earl). It also features a really endearing performance by child actor, Ariel Gade, who appeared on the TV show, Invasion.

All the actors put in memorable performances which are, in part, due to the snappy writing and pace of the film. If you have good writing and a film that moves . It might not be quite on the Shaun of the Dead level but it is, let's say, every bit as good, if not better than Hot Fuzz. You will find yourself laughing more in this film that you will in most films billed as straight up comedies.

The basic plot revolves around a man released from an asylum. He gets a job at an ice cream parlor and lives with his mom. Suddenly a series of rather gruesome murders begin. More alarming for Corrigan's character, he meets his 11 year old daughter from a week-long relationship.

He is an artist, with rather gruesome proclivities, he doesn't talk much but his life changes, for the better, when his daughter enters it. The smart and sometimes surprisingly subtle, writing makes it all work--and the direction and pacing rarely let it lag.

It may be that the film doesn't look like a Hollywood film. But I will point out--neither did Insidious. If anyone got behind this film; if it had distribution and some ads, it might surprise people. It is a humor-horror hybrid that, if it isn't a home run, is at least a solid triple. Come on, this is being written during the World Series, there has to be a baseball analogy.

So The Guard is one of those movies that is well written, well shot, well paced (and I cannot ever emphasize how important this is in a film) everyone in it acquits themselves well but, nonetheless, the entire film could go down in flames based on the performance of one actor.

In this case that actor is Brendan Gleeson. Every other person in this film could be replaced by a long list of actors--and some of them are fine actors--and it wouldn't matter a whit. Gleeson, by the very nature of this film has to load it on his shoulders and carry it. And he does.

Usually when one actor has to carry a film it doesn't bode well for a movie. Think of all the Robin William's vehicles of years past...brr...brrrrr...BRRRRRR. I am going to need a couple of shots now.  Sure, Williams, has done some good work but when a movie was laid on him? What do you wind up with? Good Morning Vietnam or that one where he plays a robot.

There are other examples of this and it usually means, at best, a mediocre movie. In this case all that surrounds Gleeson IS good and the dialog is unrelentingly witty. Often the lead actor is the key to a film but a film can still be good with them being mediocre. Any number of Ben Affleck films bear this out.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that Gleeson's character is shown less via what he says and more by his expression (and how he behaves). What comes out of his mouth in the film is often just "taking the piss out " of people. His character goads people and pokes at them. Don Cheadle's character (and I paraphrase) says "I am not sure if you are an idiot or a genius".

This is a very funny film. That has to be said and should have been said earlier. It is a comedy and rare are the actors who can be funny like this. Few are the actors who can pull of a role like this.

It has hints of films such as Snatch and also other "rural" Irish comedies. But, it never gets "precious." Go to see it, it will likely be out of theaters soon. If you miss it there be sure to put it in your Netflix cue.

Another Earth is proof that not every small film, not every indie film, is a brilliant masterpiece. Some of them are mundane drudgery. It isn't the worst film ever made and that is the best thing you can say about it.  It is professionally shot, it is paced reasonably and it has a basic premise that is interesting.

But, those things alone don't make a watchable film or a film where you won't hear audience members groaning and guffawing at various points (especially the predictable, eye-roller of an ending).

Why do indie films go wrong?

It is often  the same reason better-funded films stink up the screen; someone comes up with an idea but never bother to craft a story beyond that idea. With Blockbusters sometimes they decide to make up for lack of content with explosions. Indies often do it with pretension.

Another Earth has an interesting premise. Another world appears in the sky, apparently inhabitable. As this news is breaking a young woman, Rhoda, played by Brit Marling (who co-wrote this mess with director Mike Cahill), does something terrible throwing her life away and ruining another life in the process. But that is it. There is nothing much else to it. The idea of parallel worlds is given short shrift. The idea of redemption is made to seem as mundane as buying a Big Mac, fries and a Coke.

As the movie moves forward this other world figuratively and literally (it gets bigger in the sky) moves nearer. And the main character, Rhoda enters a contest to fly to this other world. I won't give away more details but, be aware, there are not many more to give away.

The problem here isn't the sci-fi. It is everything else. The most believable thing about the film is that this other, identical earth appears in the sky. Most of the dialog is forced and a great deal of the story is told via voice over "news coverage."  The people just don't do or say what you would expect people to do or say in these situations. The writers, at least, make an effort to explain the most ludicrous part of the plot but it still doesn't fly. How does someone not know who it was that killed his family? A lame explanation is given but it doesn't withstand much scrutiny.

The writing is stilted, the acting so robotic that it is difficult to tell if they are good actors or not (William Mapother was fine on Lost!). Every word out of Rhoda's brother's mouth sounds like it was written for a reality show (until the last words out of his mouth which ring more true).

This is a film that it is difficult to even come up with something to say about it; it is just so mediocre. It is a waste of effort and a waste of time to watch. You will feel nothing watching it and you won't think about it ten seconds after you leave the theater except to say "Damn, maybe I should have gone to see Captain America."

Another irksome thing about the film is that it really thinks it is profound. It oozes self-regard. It is not profound. There is no depth to the concepts approached. It has no charm and I challenge you to give a rat's ass about any character in the film (should you be unfortunate enough to see it).

I think the reason I wrote about this at all, because I take no joy in writing negatively about modest movies, is that I take issue with those who laud every movie that isn't about a super hero. Or any movie that can be labeled as "independent." I have seen a lot of such films in the past five years and their rate of failure is as high as Hollywood. They are not all good, many are mediocre and many will make you want to poke out your eyes (this one isn't quite that bad). The real question is why does this film get the distribution other, much better, films never see? I have seen great films, GREAT ones, that only made it into the dingiest big city art house theaters. How does Another Earth get the exposure they deserve?

Somewhere made me skip over some other movies I had planned to write something about. I was going to write all about True Grit and how I liked it excluding the ending (yeah, yeah it was in the book, so what?). I was also going to chat about the utterly likeable The King’s Speech. I would have been unable to resist noting that, somehow, the idea that the most important thing a modern king has to do is read a speech someone else wrote demeans the notion of divine right or, at least, defines it as something less than ordained from on high.

Anyway, Somewhere, Sophia Coppola’s latest, is a lovely film. It is also, unfortunately, one that is going to perplex some moviegoers. I am not saying these moviegoers are idiots necessarily. Some of them will be but others will just be those who prefer a more sturdy narrative structure. It is not an action thriller. It is paced at a crawl.

Sounds like I didn’t like it from those last couple of sentences.  I did. In fact I loved the film. It is a movie about a character, Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), not about what that character does. One of the fascinating things about the film is how the audience knows who he is, basically, before he says a single thing. He doesn’t say much throughout the entire film and you still know who he is. You even kind of like him and his affable, confused look. The films slow pace is also perfect. It makes you feel like you are in Marco’s life, not just watching it. Big things do not happen. He is on the lookout for the paparazzi but they do not accost him.

Then there is his job. He is an actor. A good one? A bad one? No way to tell that from what is presented but he is a successful one. And there is a wonderful take on being an actor; Coppola portrays it as a job. It isn’t rolling asphalt or working in a steel mill. Nor is it that sort of “oh woe is the poor rich, famous actor” sort of nonsense that pops up now and again in films. He can afford twin strippers and gets treated like a prince. But then you get back to the character and he just doesn’t seem to care about any of it.

He does seem to care about is his daughter, Cleo, played with charm and poise by Elle Fanning. She is allowed to be childlike but, in some small way, shows that odd characteristic kids who have moderately irresponsible parents exhibit; the kids are more together than mom or dad. Keep in mind I am not talking about the children of crackheads, just moderate fuck-ups of the vaguely clueless variety.

There are parts of the film that HAVE to be things that happened to someone in real life. These are little snippets of life that are not part of a larger story, moving the plot onward, but part of the development of a character. You learn by what he does rather than just through words. And I am filling in plot here. Other folks might see this film and be struck by other parts. It is open to much interpretation (especially the ending).

The film should get Oscar attention (Coppola, Dorff and Fanning certainly but also camera and editing). I am not sure it will win many or any of these. It just isn’t flashy. It has the feel of a foreign film, an older foreign film; it has an air of The Passenger.  One Oscar the film should get is for best Original Song, Phoenix’s Love Like a Sunset Part II (I think it is part II). It makes a scene in the movie, to say nothing of the trailer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I took that film studies class where the professor said “you don’t notice a good soundtrack.” That professor was full of shit and Phoenix should win for Best Song and could easily for best score as well. I noticed the sound and how integrated it was with the mood being conveyed as well—stripper poles squeaking un-sexily, for one.

Somewhere is one of those films you may not want to see when you are in the mood for Alien vs. Predator but if you love movies you should see it and maybe see it again. It is a film you will think about after you watch it, and probably like more as those synapses fire.