Blue Valentine E-Card A Relationship Killer.

Blue Valentine

Yesterday I talked about the silliness behind Blue Valentine getting hit with an NC-17 rating, which at the time this review was written, was under appeal by The Weinstein Company who hold the distribution rights. So it is only fitting that talk about my views on the film itself. Directed by Derek Cianfrance, Blue Valentine is an intimate and honest look at what makes couples fall in love and fall apart.

Dean (Ryan Gosling) works his blue-collar job and takes pleasures in the simple things in life, mainly beer and his family. Although rough around the edges, Dean is a romantic at heart. Dean’s wife Cindy (Michelle Williams) is a nurse who is looking to further her career. Cindy is growing tired of Dean’s childlike ways and the distant between them begins to surface. In a last ditch effort to save their marriage Dean and Cindy decide to have a weekend away for just the two of them. Yet the trip hits a major bump in the road when Cindy runs into an old boyfriend, Bobby (Mike Vogel), at the store.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Blue Valentine was my favourite film at TIFF this year. In many ways it felt like I was watching the fictional version of another great film I saw at TIFF, Allen King’s A Married Couple. Some will liken the film to Revolutionary Road, but I think it is more along the lines of François Ozon’s brilliant 5X2 more than anything else. Still, make no mistake Blue Valentine is a film that charts its own path. The reason I allude to 5X2 is because of the way time is manipulated in the film and the secrets which the manipulation reveals.

Blue Valentine continually jumps back and forth between the present and the past. Cianfrance gives equal weight to both the couple’s happier times in the past and their current turbulent state. As the film progresses, key details from past relationships are revealed as well as the ramifications they have on the present. This not only impacts the characters in the film, but how the viewer reacts to them as well. The film, similar to relationships themselves, is never as clear cut as you think it will be.

The key to Blue Valentine’s success is in the astonishing performances by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. Gosling brings so many layers to the role that you wish the film went on for another two hours just so you can delve into Dean’s mind a bit more. The thing that I loved about Gosling’s portrayal is the fact that Dean never goes to the level you expect him to physically. This is most evident in the “infamous NC-17 inducing” scene. Despite the amount of times Dean is prodded, he always keeps his values in check even when he has reached his breaking point. Michelle Williams is equally mesmerizing as Cindy. It is only in the flashbacks that the cracks in Cindy’s character begin to show. At first it appears that she is just fed up with Dean’s immaturity, yet there are much deeper issues at play. The fact that I could not stop wondering where the characters ended up after the film was over is a testament of the wonderful work of both actors.

Blue Valentine does not hit theatres until December 31st and hopefully the NC-17 rating will be re-evaluated by then. This is a film that needs to be seen for both the story and the performances. It may have taken Derek Cianfrance 11 years to get the financing together for Blue Valentine, but it was worth it in the end. It was my favourite film at TIFF; and is one of my favourite films this year.

Debating the Rating

When it comes to filtering what is deemed acceptable in film, how much responsibility should to be placed on the viewer? Now I am not talking about the film buffs who can argue the merits of Spielberg and Kurosawa, I mean the average filmgoer. The person who helps Jackass 3D make 50 million dollars instead of supporting an independent or foreign film being shown in the same theatre. Currently the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is the governing body that determines what rating a film will get. They are the ones who decide that Toy Story receives a G rating while Inglourious Basterds receives an R rating. When it comes to the MPAA, Alan Moore’s famous line “Who watches the Watchmen?” is often quoted. Yet I think the phrase “Who profits from the Watchmen?” is more appropriate.

This question has been on my mind for a few weeks now since I first heard that the MPAA had given the movie Blue Valentine an NC-17 rating. Giving a film an NC-17 rating is essentially the kiss of death for any film. Besides the fact that it restricts anyone under the age of seventeen from accessing the film, it also gives the stigma that the film is as offensive as pornography. After seening Blue Valentine at this year’s TIFF, I was stunned that the film received such a harsh rating. According to Deadline , the film received the rating for a scene “in which the characters played by Gosling and Williams try to save their crumbling marriage by spending a night away in a hotel. They get drunk and their problems intensify when he wants to have sex and she doesn’t, but will to get him off her back. That hurts his pride and the result is an upsetting scene that makes you squirm”

Having sat through the infamous scene in question, I can say, without spoiling the film, that there is no violence in the scene and things do not unfold they way you initially think it will. The scene is actually one of my favourite moments in the film for reasons which I will elaborate more on when I post my review. Still, the fact that a film can get such a harsh rating for simply making the viewer squirm raises concern over whose interest are the MPAA really serving?

Now this is by no means a rant for the abolishment of the MPAA, unlike most film lovers I actually believe the MPAA can be a useful organization. I just think that they have lost their way in regards to ratings. Instead of taxing big budget studio films that will be seen in 2000 plus theatres, the MPAA seems to more often than not punish the films that the average filmgoer would not be seeing in the first place. With the exception of Showgirls, which is a teenage boy's wet dream of a movie, how many of the following NC-17 rated films were the average underage person really eager to see: Crash (Cronenberg’s version)? Bad Lieutenant? Requiem for a Dream? Mysterious Skin? Lust, Caution;? Chances are good these films would not have played to a wide audience even if they had received an R rating. So why do these films get the NC-17 rating while other films like Inglourious Basterds, Predators, The Expendables, Splice and the Jackass movies are allowed to play in close to 3000 theatres?

Some may argue that it is an issue of escapist fare versus more realistic themes. How then do you explain Oscar nominated films like Precious? The main character in that film is repeatedly raped, has a television thrown at her, etc. While I really enjoyed Precious, it was just as, if not more, unsettling as Blue Valentine, yet no controversy at all. I wonder if Tyler Perry and Oprah had not produced the film if the ratings would be different. It is time for the MPAA to really look at the big budget studio fair with the same fine toothed comb it looks at the smaller independent films. There should be no reason that you can watch people die on screen in gruesome ways, yet intimate character studies, that would play primarily independent, get penalized so savagely.

Again, I am not calling for the disbanding the MPAA, they are an important organization to have around. Their intentions are valid, it just that their systems for ratings films needs to be updated and clarified. The easiest and most effect solution would be to first do market research on the films that the general public are most likely to see. The research should cover everything from age, types of movies the person regularly watches, the theatres they most often go to etc. Then, based on the overall feedback, the MPAA should adjust their overall standards accordingly. There is no reason small films that skew to a more adult audience, such as Blue Valentine, get slapped with NC-17 ratings while you can go into any multiplex and watch films like Machete, or The Town without even a second thought.

Movie Marketing Monday

Blue Valentine

Blue Valentine was my favourite film at this year’s TIFF. Look for my review of the film to be posted within the next week or so.




Drive Angry 3D

Nicolas Cage going over-the-top once again...just the way we like him. Hopefully Drive Angry 3D will be much better than both the awful Gone in Sixty Seconds and the horrendous Ghost Rider.

TIFF10 Review: The Illusionist

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3 is heralded by many, myself included, to be the frontrunner for the Best Animated Film award at next year’s Oscar ceremony. The creators behind Toy Story 3 may not want to get their acceptance speeches ready just yet. If there is one film that could pull off the upset, it will be The Illusionist. A humorous and touching film, The Illusionist could potentially steal some of Pixar's thunder come award season.

Helmed by Sylvain Chomet, the director who brought the world Les Triplettes de Belleville back in 2003, and based on an unproduced script by Jacques Tati; The Illusionist centres around a magician, Tatischeff, who goes to great lengths to keep a poor Gaelic girl believing in magic. Tatischeff seems to be the last vestige of a golden era of performers. The world no longer cares about folks who do magic tricks as rock bands, like The Brittoons, are now the focus for young minds. While performing in a small Scottish pub, Tatischeff comes across a young girl who works as a maid in the establishment. Seeing that the girl is in need of new footwear, Tatischeff uses some of the money he receives from the performance and buys her a nice pair of shoes. The girl believes Tatischeff magically pulled the item out of thin air and, as a result, decides to follow Tatischeff assuming his magic will bring her a better life. Not wanting to dampen the girl’s spirits, Tatischeff is forced to take on extra jobs in order to keep the charade going.

Behind Blue Valentine, The Illusionist ended up being my second favourite film at this year’s TIFF. The film is far more moving than you would expect from an animated feature. It nicely reaffirms how powerful a simple act of human kindness can be without being too sentimental. Although Tatischeff becomes a surrogate father to the young girl, his kindness does seem to influence the girl to do the same for others. In one poignant scene the girl makes stew for a few of the other tenants in their apartment, including a suicidal clown. Despite having several characters, like the aforementioned clown, whose lives are downright miserable, The Illusionist is a wonderfully uplifting work.

The Illusionist is as much a tribute to Jacques Tati as it is a look at the power of the human spirit. Tatischeff is not only a representation of Tati but, in one playful scene, actually ends up in at cinema that happens to be showing Tati’s film Mon Oncle. This scene, as well as numerous others, will evoke a smile from even the grumpiest viewer. Plus if the story does not grab you, which it will, the visuals surely will. The animation is beautiful especially the jaw-dropping details in regards to the Scottish landscape. The fact that the majority of the film was hand-drawn speaks volumes. Sylvain Chomet is able to evoke more genuine emotion out of the film, using very little dialogue, than most of the computer rendered 3D animated features that fill most multiplexes today.

I cannot recommend The Illusionist highly enough. I am confident that it will not only join Toy Story 3 in the animation Oscar race; but it shall also join that film on my list of best films of the year as well.