It is never wise to proclaim a director a genius after just one film. Personally I like to see three or four films from a particular director to truly get a gauge on the extent of their talents. Having said that, it does not take long to spot potential for greatness, and that is what director Duncan Jones has an abundance of...potential.
Jones talents first appeared in his debut film, Moon, and it is on display again in his slightly more accessible follow-up film, Source Code. The plot focuses on a decorated army helicopter pilot, Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who takes part in an experimental military program known as the Source Code. Created by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) and conducted with the assistance of Capt. Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), the Source Code is a device that allows Stevens to go into the body of another man during the last minutes of his life to solve the mysterious bombing of a passenger train. Given only eight minutes to solve the crime, Stevens must relieve the same events over and over again until his mission is complete. Unfortunately Steven’s objective becomes blurred when he begins to fall for Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), a passenger on the ill-fated train.
While more commercially accessible than Duncan Jone’s debut film, Source Code is a well crafted film that is far smarter than the trailers lead you to believe. In short, this is how high concept blockbusters should be done. Jones has found a creative way to make familiar themes of duty, morality, and isolation feel fresh and interesting again. Unlike Moon, which falters in the last act, Source Code manages to get better. Is it too accessible? Some may feel so. Though I do not see how Jones could make it any denser and still maintain its commercial appeal.
The performances in the film are very good across the board. After sleepwalking through the Prince of Persia film, Jake Gyllenhaal seems invigorated again. He finally gets a role that really plays to his strengths as an actor. Jeffrey Wright delivers another one of his usually strong performances as the hard-nose scientist though I would have like to see a little more development with his character. The real scene stealer for me in the film was Vera Farmiga. She gives a subtle, but effective performance as Capt. Goodwin. Farmiga perfectly brings out the conflict that Goodwin has between her sense of duty towards the program and her compassion towards Stevens as a person.
Is Source Code better than Moon? To me they are too vastly different beasts altogether. I did not have as many issues with Source Code as I did with the last act of Moon, but I would say that Moon is a far deeper film. Regardless, Source Code is a film that can easily stand on, and should be judged by, its own merits. Duncan Jones has crafted a good film that continues to show his potential to be one of the better directors of this generation.
Mike over at You Talking To Me? recently wrote a great piece on “Where’s The Airship Movies” These are films that really serve no other purpose than to have as many explosions as possible on the screen. The article is a follow up to his commentary on “Chocolate Bar Movies,” films that satisfy for a while but are quickly forgotten.
If you would permit me to piggyback on Mike’s piece for a moment, I would like to throw in my own personal phrase into the ”Filmic Measures” lexicon: “The Itchy & Scratchy Effect.” This when you have a character, by all indications is a normal human being, who refuse to die no matter what you do to them. The characters always lives long enough for the hero, or heroine, to utter some sort of ”Hasta La Vista”-style line, though not as good as Arnold’s catchphrase, before they strike the final blow.
Now this is by no means a new trend these types of scenes play out all the time and could easily qualify under Mike’s “Chocolate Bar Movies” heading. Yet the reason I call it “The Itchy & Scratchy Effect” is because I am always reminded the “Itchy and Scratchy Land” episode of television show The Simpsons. The episode is a spoof of Jurassic Park and action films in general. Though I use the terminology more in relation to thrillers and horror flicks but I digress. In the episode two distinct moments standout, the first being a conversation below that Marge has with a local park guard. The discussion is in regards to the absurdity of the violence and how the characters unrealistically manage to survive:
Guard: Here at Itchy and Scratchy Land, we're just as concerned with violence as you are. That's why we're always careful to show the consequences of deadly mayhem, so that we may educate as well as horrify.
Marge: When do you show the consequences? On TV, that mouse pulled out that cat's lungs and played them like a bagpipe, but in the next scene, the cat was breathing comfortably.
Guard: Just like in real life.
The second point that I always remember, and often quote, comes when Bart destroys the robotic mouse, Itchy. Bart uses the flash on his camera to disrupt the robot’s circuits. Before killing the mouse Bart states “Hey, mouse. Say, ‘Cheese’ ” The line is brilliantly followed up with Bart commenting on the fact that “With a dry, cool with like that, I could be an action hero.” Seconds later Homer is saying the exact same thing. Showing how the final strike always needs to be added by some defining comment.
Having recently watched both The Stepfather and Orphan I was again reminded by how often and, at times, how absurdly “The Itchy & Scratchy Effect” is used. The Stepfather is not a good movie but I had fun watching it. Part of the enjoyment came from the fact that my co-worker and I (the movie was shown at our office…long story) were playing the “is he dead yet game?” during the screening. Basically something would happen, say the evil stepfather getting stabbed in the neck, and I would joke that the movie is over knowing full well that my co-worker would say “not yet, the cut does not look deep enough”. We both knew that it would take at least more things that happen before the evil stepfather meets his doom… but you get the picture.
While I found Orphan to be light years better than The Stepfather it still falls victim to “The Itchy & Scratchy Effect” towards the end. Somehow disturbed little Esther, who is four foot nothing and maybe sixty pounds wet, miraculously survives various things in a way that can only happen in movies. The last twenty minutes of film build up to the moment where Vera Farmiga’s Kate can finally proclaim “I am not your [bleeping] Mother!”, thus completing “The Itchy & Scratchy Effect.”
As I mentioned before this is nothing new, “The Itchy and Scratchy Effect” has been around for ages and it will continue for many more years to come. It is something that I have come to expect from certain genres. I am sure everyone has their own individual phrase for it. Yet every time I see these types of scenes happen in a movie, I am fondly reminded of those two great satirical moments that The Simpson’s offered up.
The thing I like about horror films is the way they test our moral fibre. Not only do they provide bone chilling scares, but horror flicks also remind us of how desensitized we have become as a society. I was reminded of this fact when I watched Jaume Collet-Serra's film Orphan.
Kate (Vera Farmiga) and John Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard) have seen their marriage go through some trying times. After dealing with alcoholism, infidelity, and the death of an unborn child, the Coleman's have come out stronger than ever...or so they think. Unbeknownst to the couple, their relationship is about to be tested again when they decide to adopt a child. After being wooed at the local orphanage by a nine-year-old Estonian girl, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), the Coleman's believe their life is now complete. As time goes on, Kate begins to see a darker side to Esther. A side that may cost the Coleman's, and their two biological children, their lives.
There comes a moment in the last act where I thought to myself "oh no, they better not take it there..." This was mere minutes before a major plot point was revealed. It was like the film heard me speaking through the television set and then offered up a scene to quell my fears. I could not help but breakout into a laughter. My laughter had nothing to do with the major revelation; it was all about my own warped limits.
Up to that point I had no problems with everything else I had witnessed. Bloody nightmare sequence at the beginning? Fine with me. Young girl being pushed off the high playground set? She had it coming. Someone being bludgeoned over the head? Rolled right off my back. Yet one allusion to a improper situation and all of a sudden I am up in arms.
Compared to Collet-Serra's last stab at horror, 2005's House of Wax, Orphan is a quite tame in the gore department. There are a few disgusting moments but nothing as excessive as what Wax had to offer. Though the lack of gore may put off some hardcore horror fans, the restraint that Jaume uses in Orphan actually works to the pictures benefit. It also shows that Jaume Collet-Serra is growing as a director.
At times Orphan plays like the film The Good Son. It spends a lot of time developing the characters, though the payoff is never as satisfying as you would hope. Orphan does have several things going in its favour though. Vera Famiga is good as the mother who uses the adoption as a means to abolish previous sins. Her scenes with Peter Sarsgaard work well in regards to establishing the history of their relationship. They were times when I found Sarsgaard's character to annoying at times. Mainly in the sense that he is a little too blinded by Esther's charm. He never doubts her for a minute, even when all signs say he should. This element, and the longer than needed running time, keep Orphan from being a memorable horror film. While it will entertain for a few hours, the only thing truly lasting about Orphan is the reminder of how lapse our personal limits are at times.
A film that ask us to care not only about those who are being laid off but also the people doing the firing as well? Clearly this is a joke right? These were some of thoughts going through my head during the first twenty minutes of Jason Reitman's latest work, Up in the Air. I will fully admit that my early bias towards this film was due to the fact that it seemed to be making light of a subject matter that hit home personally for me. A mere two weeks prior to seeing Up in the Air, the company I work for had the tough task of cutting a lot of jobs. Not the best way to usher in the Christmas season to say the least. Though I was fortunate enough to survive the round of layoffs many people, including some good friends, were let go. It was a decision that greatly impacted those who were laid off, those who remained, and those that had the extremely tough task of deciding to let go people go. So what does this have to do with Up in the Air? Everything and nothing depending on your own perspective.
George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a corporate downsizer who spends most of his days firing people on behalf of companies too frightened to do it themselves. Ryan's work as a downsizer has him constantly travelling and living out of a suitcase for the majority of the year. While others may find this unbearable, Ryan relishes in it as he views it as the ultimate form of freedom. Yet the emergence of a young hotshot, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), threatens to permanently ground Ryan's highflying lifestyle. Natalie has created a business model that would allow the firm he works for to fire people via video conferencing. After witnessing people's reactions to being laid off first hand, Ryan believes that a face-to-face human element is needed to facilitate things smoothly. Especially if it is in the form of fake compassion, which Ryan has practically made an art-form. Ryan's boss (Jason Bateman) believes that Natalie's idea will save the company millions in travel expenses but decides to have Ryan take her out into the field as an experiment. This does not sit well with Ryan whose freewheeling traveling ways has now become rather cramped. To further complicate things, Ryan meets a fellow frequent flyer, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who might cause him to redefine all the things he considers important in life.
If Up in the Air had come out in another year, where it did not hit so close to home, there is a good chance I may not have loved it as much as I do. This is not to say that it is not a good film in its own right. It is just that, if I was not getting married in a few months myself, I would have probably found the wedding subplot unnecessary. The film really tries to cover a lot of different topics, maybe too many, in a rather short amount of time. Still, I must give credit to director Jason Reitman for keeping all the threads tightly woven. It is tough to make light of job loss in a way that will get the audience both laughing and reflecting. Yet this is exactly what the film achieves.
Ryan is a compelling character because his cutting cynical views on our unrealistic need for things (i.e. home, job, marriage, etc.) at times rings very true. Ryan views not being tied down to people and places as the ultimate freedom. Yet the freedom that Ryan enjoys so much is far more constricting than he knows. Ryan actually embodies everything that he normally preaches against in his "backpack" seminars. Instead of aspiring to have a family or owning material possessions such as a house, Ryan craves becoming one of only seven people in the world to achieve the highest frequent flyer miles status. He may not be able to tell you about what is going on in his siblings lives but he can rattle off all the best eateries and car rental places in every city. He keeps hotel room keys like a badge of honour.
The thing I liked about the way Reitman displays Ryan's many contradictions is how subtle it is at first. It only gradually show itself through several small, but key, moments with both Alex and Natalie. Speaking of Alex and Natalie, it must be noted that Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick give exceptional performances in this film. I would even go as far as saying that they literally steal the movie right out of Clooney's hands. Yes Clooney's work in Up in the Air is on par with his best performances in films such as Michael Clayton and Three Kings. Yet it is Farmiga and Kendrick that really make this picture shine.
On the surface Vera Farmiga's Alex is merely the female that might actually be able crack Ryan's cold exterior. As the film progresses we see that Vera's role is far more interesting, and complicated, than just the typical love interest. Farmiga gives the film such weight without ever having to overplay the role. There are so many subtle nuances in her performance that is really fascinating to watch. The same argument can be made for Kendrick who, despite having the flashier role, keeps her character grounded as she runs the gambit of emotions. Kendrick is required to be the shark, the comic relief, the conscience, and the hope in the picture. Natalie has the book smarts but her ambition blinds her to the fact that she is not the female Ryan. She is the person in your office who knows nothing about your day to day work, yet has all these great ideas to make your work easier. You hate her at first but eventually get to understand her and, dare I say, care about her on a certain level.
As I mentioned above, Up in the Air really connected with me as everything mentioned in this film hit extremely close to home on a personal level. It is a film that not only asks us to question what we want out life? But, more importantly, who do we want in the seat beside us while we are on this ongoing trip that life provides us. I did find that the film really struggled at times to reach the hopefully ending. If it was up to me, I would have ended the picture with the night shot of Ryan sitting on his bed looking aimlessly out of the hotel window after a key scene, which I will not spoil here, is revealed. Also in any other year I probably would have cut some of the stuff with the wedding as well. Who knows? Maybe I will reflect on this film again in a few years and see if I am still fond of the film. Yet as it stands today, Up in the Air connected with me in a way few other films have this year. Definitely one of the better films of this year.
