My take on "Animal Kingdom"

I just finished watching the Oscars, but I feel absolutely now desire to write about who deserved what award or who wore what. Why? Well, because 1. virtually no one outside of my movie group is reading this anyway (so far) 2. We're not trying to be Entertainment Weekly or Access Hollywood or whatever and 3. I still haven't posted on the movie that Craig and Nick showed in February: Animal Kingdom.

Anyone who has read the other posts will already know that we all loved the film, so let me digress and flash back to some 19th century French lit for a moment. After I watched "Animal Kingdom," I couldn't help thinking imagining how much Emile Zola would have liked it. Let me give a quick and unpolished translation of something Zola wrote in the preface of his 1867 novel, Thérèse Raquin:

"...my goal has been above all a scientific one. When my two characters, Thérèse and Laurent were created, it pleased me to ask and answer certain problems: thus, I tried to explain the strange union that can come about between two different temperaments, I showed the profound conflict of a sanguine nature put into contact with a nervous nature. If you read the novel with care, you will see that each chapter is the study of a serious physiological case. In a word, I had but one desire: [...] to look for the beast in them, to see nothing but the beast, to throw them into a violent drama, and scrupulously note the sensations of these beings. I simply did on two living beings the kind of autopsy that surgeons do on a corpse."

 Indulge me with one more quote:

"The loves of my two heroes are the satisfaction of a need; the murder they commit is a consequence of their adultery, a consequence that they accept in the same way that wolves accept the assassination of sheep; finally, what I was obligated to call their regrets, consists of a simply organic disorder, a rebellion of a nervous system on the brink. The soul is perfectly absent, I readily admit, since that was exactly what I intended."

 One of the early shots in David Michôt's "Animal Kingdom" is a clip from "Deal or No Deal" in which a gleeful contestant crosses her arms and shouts "NO DEAL!" while the crowd cheers as if a gladiator had just killed his opponent. "Deal or No Deal" is possibly to most minimalistic game show ever created in that it strips away nearly all intellect. Jeopardy has its trivia, Wheel of Fortune has you solve word puzzles, The Price is Right requires you to test your retail pricing skills, but Deal or No Deal boils it all down to two basic choices.

If "Animal Kingdom" reminds me of naturalism, it is because Michôt strips down human conflict to its core. Watching young Joshua navigate the politics of his corrupt family and the equally corrupt criminal justice system is like watching Ken Jennings trapped in the wrong game show. His choice is literally "deal or no deal" and we keep wanting poor Joshua to say "I'll take "Married with Children" for $800."  We hope there are other choices. If nothing better, then perhaps "Deal and No Deal." But the most disturbing thing is that you don't get the luxury of a deus ex machina ending in a piece of naturalist fiction. It really has to be one or the other, and the crowd cheering "no deal" doesn't necessarily have your best interest at heart. In the end, you realize that the other characters, however powerful, have no more power to change the rules than does Joshua. The only freedom in "Animal Kingdom" is the freedom to choose a side.

Another Year: A Lesson in Compassion

I have to confess a history of prejudice on my part against the work of Mike Leigh. I was in my early twenties when I watched my first Leigh film, Secrets and Lies. Watching that film was like fingernails on a chalkboard – particularly the persistent crying and whining of Brenda Blethyn’s character. I was determined to not let that particular film turn me off to the work of such a respected director. So I watched his previous film, Naked, and I had a similar negative response. But I still didn’t give up and watched his next film, Career Girls, which also left me feeling very underwhelmed. I just simply couldn’t find the value of his cinematic voice. All I could see and hear were loud, miserable and desperate people living rather hopeless lives. I skipped his next couple of films but decided to give Leigh another shot to win me over with Vera Drake – and he kind of succeeded. I liked the film quite a bit but considered it an anomaly. It wasn’t until my partner Nick wanted to discover for himself the films of Mike Leigh, and I got dragged along for the ride, that I started to appreciate Leigh’s work. His unique style of social-realist filmmaking struck a chord with me. I’m not sure why my response to his films changed but it did. Maybe I simply had been too immature and had not experienced enough of the world to be able to empathize with his characters. I see the world through different glasses now.

Another Year is Leigh’s most recent work. The film is character driven and there is an absence of any sort of traditional story. The activity centers on Tom and Gerri, a very happily married middle-aged couple. They are content with their lives and fulfilled by their careers as geologist and counselor. They enjoy working together in their community garden and have a grown son who actual loves them. As a result of the contentment they feel, they have become a magnet for lost and damaged souls. The film has four acts – Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. It ambles pleasurably through the four seasons of their joint life with a natural rhythm. These seasonal acts provide a thematic structure. In the film Tom and Gerri are seen busy planting, tending, and harvesting their garden through the course of a single year. They are also tending and nurturing the broken and lonely souls that are drawn to them. Tom and Gerri are not saints. At times their patience wears understandably thin, but they remain a constant force in the lives of their friends. They are unable to fix problems, but some problems can’t be fixed. However, Tom and Gerri are a sustainable constant for their friends just as they are for their garden. Even though not always completely warm and inviting, their friendship is steadfast. They always provide at least a minimal refuge which means everything for people who are so lonely and in such deep pain.

Leslie Manville plays Mary, a secretary in Gerri’s office, and her character is the gear that keeps the film moving. Manville’s interpretation of Mary is hands-down one of the best performances of the past year. Mary is not an easy character to watch yet I was drawn to her with fascination in every scene. She is a person who is terribly unhappy but is trying any way she can to break free – whether buying a car or looking for love by flirting with a younger man. There is a constant quiver in her voice. Even her nervous laughter seems to be a cry for help. She is filled with self-hatred and self-delusion but rather than feeling scorn for her, I actually felt some recognition. I have known people like Mary, and in fact, I recognized some of her insecurities as my own. There is a scene near the end of the film where Mary finds herself alone in Gerri and Tom’s house with Tom’s non-communicative brother. Within minutes, even within seconds, her face unravels into hope and hopelessness, despair and defeat, humility and gratitude. Manville’s performance is perfection.

Another Year is a film full of keen observations drawn from characters that are all too real. These characters are familiar to me. I could identify with them, love them and be appalled by them all at once. In their lives as in my own, I was reminded that some problems can’t be solved and that some emotional pain can’t be alleviated, but only managed. I felt genuine empathy for these people. This is a quiet, powerful, and compassionate film.

Why are there not more films like Animal Kingdom?

Big Mama "Smurf" of the crime clan about to kiss her son too long....

Right before we started our Movie Group screening of our most recent film, Craig, Nick, Marc and I were imagining what kind of film we would make if we had the chance. After about half an hour of watching Michod's Animal Kingdom, I claimed in despair: "After that last scene, why should I even try to dream of being a filmmaker?" In the face of such virtuosity, I am content to be a consumer of film and not a producer. It is just one of those films that show how complex and intertwined the whole filmmaking process is.

The scene in question was unremarkable in content, just a picture of the twisted family leaving a cheap restaurant together. But it was a little miracle in its form. The depth of field was unbelievably complex, with the focus bringing different characters to attention at different times. The movement, angle and tempo were just off-kilter enough that they capture your eye without drawing attention to themselves. You just can't help yourself, you have to keep looking and you want to see more.

I agree with Craig that Mendelsohn deserves more recognition for his monstrous role as the psychopathic kingpin of the dysfunctional crime family. But it is not only his acting that does it--it is the unbelievably subtle narrative (for such a violent film) that reveals the depth of his depravity bit by bit, with horrifying insights that almost go unnoticed sometimes (the intense way he peers at different members of the family, the loathing for his gone-straight brother that is re-directed immediately into rage and grief at having lost him).

This is not a heavy-handed, twisted story that beats you into submission, but a series of intricately-developed characters that are set into motion and allowed to crash into each other in ways that fascinate, repel and convince you. If you have had to watch Avatar or whatever overdetermined crap that your brother-in-law dragged you to see last week, get your hands on Animal Kingdom and let it wash away the cineplex mediocrity. But watch out--you will end up expecting so much more from other films, and they will come up short.

Thanks Nick and Craig--An excellent Movie Group night. And the food (lemon-garlic pasta with fresh tomatoes and spinach, individual form-cakes with chocolate sauce) was worthy of this film.

Can I have the recipes?

Animal Kingdom: Ben Mendelsohn’s Overlooked Performance

Nick and I hosted February’s movie group and chose to show Animal Kingdom, an Australian film by David Michod in his first effort as both writer and director. He has crafted a dark and moody thriller with a pace that is deliberately slower than most films of its kind. The film really benefits from the slowed down pacing and allows the characters to fully develop and you really appreciate the amazing performances from the entire cast. Jacki Weaver is outstanding as the matriarch of this crime family and her performance has already garnered her a lot of recognition and awards during the 2010-11 award season. However, I’d like to call out an equally strong performance by Ben Mendelsohn as the eldest brother “Pope”.

Mendelsohn delivers an extremely chilling performance. His character is pure evil. He internalizes his hatred. He is quiet, calculating, and demented and his rage is barely concealed below the surface of his frighteningly blank face. He speaks with eerie quietness that is very unnerving. Physically, he is the smallest of his brothers but his appearance is deceiving as you soon realize that it is often the weak looking ones that will do anything to compensate. He is cunning and unpredictable and his actions are almost always lethal.

Mendelsohn has two standout scenes that come to my mind. The first is between Pope and the youngest brother Darren. The scene takes place in the family kitchen after Pope has re-emerged from hiding. He is interested in quickly re-establishing his place as the “king” of the clan. Pope quietly and unrelentingly accuses Darren of being gay. By questioning Darren’s sexuality Pope is making Darren feel less of a man and Pope uses this strategy to let Darren know who is in charge and that this is simply how it’s going to be in the future.

The second scene takes place late at night while Air Supply’s music video “All Out of Love” plays. The song plays long enough to establish a mood for the scene but slowly the camera pans over to Pope sitting quietly on the couch. At that point, upon seeing Pope’s blank face, the mood of the scene shifts into something menacing. Pope’s next actions are very creepy as his eyes turn to his nephew’s unconscious girlfriend.

In a film full of excellent performances, Ben Mendelsohn is as an example of the adage that less is more. His subtle and subdued performance conveys a current of troubled emotions running deep inside. It is his performance that anchors the ominous and frightening tone of the film.

The Magician: Art as Sophistry

So I have a habit of buying Criterion Blu-rays; usually without ever having seen the movie before. I feel this is a good gamble most of the time, but there have been some that I would probably never watch again. "The Magician" was definitely a welcome surprise.

You just never know what you are going to get with Bergman. This film was dark, funny, and creepy all at once. Not slow and plodding like some Bergman films, yet still philosophically compelling. Oh, and be sure to look up the essay by Oliver Assayas which appears in the October 1990 issue of Cashiers du cinema.

A Few Days of Respite

“A Few Days of Respite” follows a gay Iranian couple fleeing persecution in Iran where homosexuality is punishable by death to search for the freedom to live their lives openly. The film aspires to be a love story and also a political story and fails miserably to achieve either one of those goals.

Here’s the plot. Mohsen (the older man) and Hassan (the younger man) have fled Iran where their relationship could ultimately mean a death sentence. They have been dropped in a forested area along the Italian/French border. Their goal is to eventually make their way to Paris. While traveling on a train, Mohsen meets Yolande, a somewhat older French widow. He helps her with her luggage and accompanies her on the train ride. Unaware that he is traveling with Hassan, Yolande offers Mohsen a job painting her apartment. After arriving in the village, the men get a hotel room together and Mohsen decides to take the job to earn some cash before they move on to Paris. The painting job leads to lunch, then to a bed for the night, and then ultimately an offer of marriage.

This film feels false at every level. A very poor script and one dimensional performances by the actors, the film is simply boring and pretentious. This is a film that attempts for importance and instead achieves artificiality. The blame for this failure rests almost solely on the shoulders of Amor Hakkar, the writer, director, and lead actor.

There is nothing to indicate that these men are actually in love which should be the heart and soul of the film. After all, the catalyst for the story is that Mohsen and Hassan are so in love that they feel they can’t hide it anymore and they must flee Iran. There isn’t even a hint that the two men are romantically involved even when they are alone together in the hotel. They barely even speak to each other. Their greatest intimacy is a scene where Mohsen steps out of the shower in front of Hassan and Hassan places his hand on Mohsen’s shoulder. The film doesn’t need to be more explicit, but it does need to provide some sort of evidence that these men are in love. Even at the start of the film Hassan asks Mohsen if he would have waited for him if he had been late only to hear Mohsen’s answer that he would have left without him. Another filmmaker would have celebrated the new freedom the men were experiencing with some sort of physical interaction. Even the title of the film suggests that the men have an opportunity, even if it is brief, to be themselves. Then to confound the viewer and make the plot even more ridiculous, Mohsen actually sleeps with Yolande while Hassan is upstairs in the attic where he can hear what is taking place. I couldn’t help but wonder whether the filmmaker was interested in telling what he believed to be a politically relevant and also politically correct story while himself being unwilling to actually depict a real relationship between two men in love at the risk of appearing to be a homosexual himself. Amor Hakkar never captures what it means to be in a relationship.

The film also introduces story points that are left unresolved and ignores obvious lapses in logic. During the Q&A following the screening, Hakkar made matters worse when he deflected answering questions from the audience asking him about some of these gaps. His responses were patronizing and disclosed that he himself wasn’t quite sure where he was going with the story at times.

The superficiality of the film was underscored at the end of the film when a note tells the viewer what happens to Mohsen and Hassan. Rather than evoking emotion toward the characters, this note made me angry at the filmmaker. I felt that Hakkar was simply exploiting the characters for a political purpose. While that purpose may seem noble, this hollow film does nothing but belittle the cause.

The only compliment I have for this film is that the technical aspects of the film are adequate – though undistinguished.

In a Better World

In a Better World is an intense drama from director Susanne Bier and her co-screenwriter Anders Thomas Jensen. The film is a meditation on the choices between pacifism and violence that are faced in civilized societies as well as in extreme Third World situations.

Here’s the setup: The story follows two Danish families that are brought together as a result of a newly formed friendship between two boys, Christian and Elias. Both boys are coping with their own set of problems. Elias’ parents are teetering on the verge of divorce as a result of his father’s infidelity, and he is the target of relentless bullying at school. Christian's mother recently lost her battle with cancer and he has returned to Denmark with his father whom he blames for "giving up" on his mother. Also, Elias’ father, Anton, is a doctor who spends much of his time working at a refugee camp in Africa. While in the refugee camp much of his work involves treating the victims of a local warlord who cuts open the bellies of pregnant women for fun.

Upon this backdrop, the plot is set into motion. Christian stands up for Elias using a bike pump to pummel the boy bullying Elias and a hunting knife to threaten him. Problem solved. Don’t jump to that conclusion too quickly. The consequence of revenge gone "good" can turn into something altogether bad. Also, Anton is a pacifist and even treats the wounds of the monstrous warlord in Africa. So when he is hit in the face by a belligerent man in Denmark in front of the two boys, he does not strike back and walks away.

The film compares the brutality Anton witnesses in Africa with Christian’s escalating anti-social behavior. In a Better World contemplates this moral dilemma. Is it always best to help someone in need? Is revenge ever the proper course of action? The answers may seem obvious but they aren’t. In some instances there just might not be a "right" answer.

The acting from the entire ensemble is superb. Each actor is very human and complex and brings compelling dignity to their characters. The young actors are particularly excellent. In his film debut, Johnk Nielsen as Christian is an incredibly threatening young man unwilling to settle for anything other than revenge. He is mad at the world and has no tolerance for anyone that crosses him. Alternately is Markus Rygaard who plays Elias with sweetness and innocence. After being bullied most of this life he’s just happy to have a friend and is willing to do anything to make Christian happy.

In a Better World delves into matters of fear, revenge, forgiveness and passiveness and it will have you looking at the world around you and wondering if we're better off now than we were before. Where have our advancements in technology and medicine gotten us? To a place where we are all living in harmony or someplace much scarier? This is an emotionally ravaging film in which the lines become blurred as it explores our human instincts and our interpretation of knowing what is right and what is wrong.