Sunday, 29 November 2009

Classic Movie: Amadeus

Amadeus -- 1984, Directed by Milos Forman. Starring F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge, Roy Dotrice, Jeffrey Jones, Simon Callow, Christine Ebersole.

By Jonathan Fisher, November 29th, 2009


Antonio Salieri cuts a pretty tragic figure in Milos Forman's Amadeus. In Amadeus' vision, the Italian composer was a deeply bitter and resentful man, brilliant enough to see just how special and extraordinary Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was, and perceptive enough to understand that he would never be able to compose music as easily and expertly as Mozart did. There is a moment in Amadeus in which Mozart has just composed and presented a new opera, proclaimed by the Emperor as the 'greatest opera yet written'. The opera climaxes, the crowd erupts and Mozart is smothered in adulation. The camera cuts to Salieri, sitting in a box, cowering in the corner and staring at the events unfolding before him. The look on his face is a combination of malice and self-pity, perfectly captured by F. Murray Abraham, who won an Oscar for his performance. The central, burning question at the heart of Salieri's actions in Amadeus is "Why? Why Mozart and not me?"

Salieri's question is directed both inwards and outwards. Half-way through the film, Salieri disavows God, concluding that no benevolent higher being could be so cruel, heartless and callous to allow Salieri the ear of a genius, but the talent of an also-ran. This is compounded by Salieri's personal view of Mozart. One of the best things that Amadeus does is to present Mozart not as a brooding genius, but as an immature, socially stilted goofball with an odd laugh who delights in his own talents, but does not realise how painful his very existence is for Salieri. Every time Salieri witnesses Mozart's genius, the ease with which he pens masterpieces, it is a dagger in his heart. Amadeus is in part a story about the dangers of constantly comparing yourself to others. In the words of the Desiderata, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."

Amadeus, despite its title, is actually about Salieri and his personal demons, the hatred that he harboured for Mozart while simultaneously admiring his work and talent better than anyone else. Since its release 25 years ago, when it emerged as a towering achievement and an Oscar darling, it has become widely regarded as the best 'Great Composer' movie ever made, precisely because it subverts the formula of the genre at every turn. Most movies about great artists focus on their personal struggle to create their art, the personal demons they face, and usually, their battle with whatever substance they choose to abuse. Amadeus takes almost all of that out of the equation by turning the story of Mozart into a story about how us mere mortals view the mega-talented. There is always a sense of self-comparison, however subconscious, when we observe the great achievers around us. In a peculiar and cruel way, their genius is both something to cherish, but also acts as a kind of mirror for our own shortcomings.

Amadeus presents this phenomenon by showing us stretches of both Salieri and Mozart composing. For Mozart, the process seems to be joyous and organic, and the music that came from him was enormous in scope and core-shakingly powerful. Salieri himself suggests that Mozart is taking 'dictation from God'. Salieri struggles away to create inoffensive-sounding jingles, but nothing really revelatory. Salieri recognises this better than anyone, which makes him feel worse. Then comes a heart-breaking moment when, at a masquerade ball, Mozart takes requests from the audience. When no-one can think of anything to suggest to Mozart, Salieri says (behind the anonymity of his mask), "Play Salieri". Mozart, drunk from the alcohol and fan-adulation, proceeds to play a Salieri piece, accompanied by a cruel impersonation of the composer, culminating in Mozart passing wind. The effect of this scene is magnified ten-fold because Salieri never removes his mask. While everyone is laughing at him, all we see are his eyes and mouth, cold and unmoving. Ouch.

Moments like this, reminding Salieri of his inadequacy next to Mozart's brilliance, compound until eventually Salieri decides to pose as Mozart's ally while surreptitiously working to tear the composer down. Via flash-forwards that frame the film, of an elderly Salieri confessing to a young priest, we see what a toll Salieri's relationship with Mozart was to have on his life. The elderly Salieri is a sad, remorse-plagued man. He is convinced that he killed Mozart, despite the evidence that Mozart died of tuberculosis. Even when on death's door, Salieri is torn between his love for Mozart's music, and the resentment he feels towards the man himself.

This remarkable film adaptation of Amadeus, directed by Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), was based on the play by Peter Shaffer and came under the slightest of criticisms for Americanising the story, for making Mozart's character seem like an 'American buffoon'. I don't see it like that -- for me, Tom Hulce's portrayal of Mozart, while oddball, is one of the best lead performances of the last 25 years. In reducing the character to a joking man-child, Hulce and Forman express what so many of us suspect about geniuses. They can afford to be relaxed and casual because often their gift comes so easily to them.

Amadeus is a thrilling movie, set to a soundtrack of some of the most beautiful music ever written by a human being. It is a thriller, a character study, and sometimes even a comedy. Milos Forman, a Czech director who migrated to America to make his films, explored the dangers of being an outsider and running against the grain in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and even manages to express that theme here. Mozart's character, despite his genius, is very much an outsider. That is expressed through Hulce's laugh, body language, and even in the way Forman and costume designer Theodor Pistek dress him. There's something almost anarchical about Hulce as Mozart. The wigs don't seem to wear him as well as they do the Emperor and Salieri. He was like an 18th Century Sid Vicious.

Eventually in the film, Mozart does die. There is a suggestion that Salieri may have played some role in his death (within the context of the film, of course. Amadeus does not try to re-write history, only to interpret it to explore the inner workings of this version of Salieri), but right to the end Salieri was conflicted about his feelings towards Mozart. "Before I leave this earth, I will laugh at you," he secretly promises Mozart. Mozart's premature death must have been, in some way, satisfying for Salieri. But in the final scenes of the film, as Salieri helps an ailing Mozart transcribe his final masterpiece, it is clear that Salieri loves Mozart's music more than nearly anything. Salieri is a man that is unable to control his very human jealousy for the sake of appreciating the 'voice of God'. That is his tragedy, and Amadeus is a warning to the rest of us to be wary of falling into the same trap.

Editor's note: In preparing for this article, I re-watched "Amadeus" a couple of times on Blu-Ray. In 1080p high-definition, Milos Forman's thrilling film is elevated even more by the clear image and sharp sound. I recommend the experience.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Podcast 13


Hi all,

Podcast 13 is available for download, and you can stream it here on The Film Brief. I put quite a bit of effort into the edit on this one, which I hope you'll notice. Enjoy.

Podcast 13 -- Stone-cast -- 26/11/09

In which our heroes’ consciousness is altered, and they discuss the celebrity death-match of Salieri vs. Mozart in Amadeus, and ruminate on the pros and cons of living next to a serial killer.



Editor's note: I tried to make the underlayed songs relate to what we were talking about. I know that the tune playing underneath our discussion of "Amadeus" is actually a Beethoven piece. I didn't have any Mozart songs on my computer and had to work with what I have. Have some pity, for God's sake.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

A Serious Man

A Serious Man

By Jonathan Fisher, November 24th, 2009


A lasting memory for me of the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man is Larry Gopnik's neighborhood. The film's poster uses a still from a scene in which Larry walks around on his roof, fixing the family's TV antenna. He stands almost defiantly, observing the perfectly crafted world he lives in, the rounded edges, the neighbours that seem to be playing roles written for them well in advance. He's kind of like the God he's hoping to find all throughout A Serious Man. But like the rest of us, he hasn't a clue what he's doing here.

A Serious Man opens with a funny little legend set in a medieval Jewish town, in which Larry's ancestors allow a dybbuk (the wandering soul of a dead person) to cross the threshold into their home. Generations later, Larry Gopnik (Michael Stulbarg) seems to be cursed. His marriage to his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) is falling apart as she becomes involved with a pompous intellectual named Sy (Fred Melamed), his son is having trouble at Hebrew school, and his candidacy for tenure as physics professor at the local university is under threat when a Korean student, desperate to pass, bribes Larry, then blackmails him after he refuses.

Thus sets up A Serious Man, a modern re-telling of the book of Job through the eyes of an unlucky Jewish man trying to find meaning in the anarchy of his life. He teaches physics, scrawling seemingly endless miles of equations, but is frustrated when his students just don't get it, almost like the supreme being that Larry can't understand. He searches for meaning, visiting as many religious figures as he can for advice. Sy pulls him aside and tries to reason with him, gently explaining the process with which he is going to take away his life. Interesting thing about Sy. He is the 'serious man' that the title refers to, I believe. Even in Larry's own movie, he's too feeble and insignificant to have it named after him.

Throughout the movie, Larry exclaims, "But... I didn't DO anything!!" That comment is predicated on the presumption that you must do something for bad things to happen to you. Not everyone gets what they deserve. Sometimes, the universe just decides to open its bowels all over you. After all, it has things like supernovas and black matter to deal with -- what does it care if you're a little uncomfortable for the brief period of time you'll be alive to bother it?

I realise that I may be making A Serious Man out to be a sombre existential drama. I don't mean to misrepresent it. This movie is funny in that quintissentially Coen Brothers way, with their odd, surreal sense of humour undercutting just about every philosophical revelation that's up on the screen. Their style may not gel with everyone, but they are one of the few film-makers that express their world outlook with clarity, style and an appropriate glibness. Their catalogue is replete with masterpieces (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, etc etc.), and A Serious Man stands well astride them.

The cast is essentially unknown. The role of Larry Gopnik (another great Coen Brothers name, by the way) could have gone to a Coen regular like George Clooney or John Turturro, but I think we would notice those actors. I don't mean notice them as in "Oh look, it's George Clooney", I mean notice the character of Larry. Michael Stulbarg is made to look very ordinary in this film, and his performance is kind of awesome in the way that it slips under our radar. He doesn't play Larry as a sad sack or a pathetic loser. He's just a normal, unflashy guy, trying to work out why his life is collapsing not with a bang, but with a thousand whimpers. Occasionally, we think he might work it out.

Then the final scene comes, and pulls the rug from underneath us. The ending of A Serious Man has been compared, favourably and unfavourably, to the brilliantly timed final shot of their 2007 Best Picture winner No Country for Old Men. This ending is just as brilliant as that one, expressing the world view that the Coen Brothers have been expressing for years: shit just happens, and all of our best efforts to find meaning in the blink of time that we spend alive come crashing down as easily as a school-yard quivering before an impending tornado. Or that split-second before your doctor tells you what could be tragic or indifferent news. In the end, it doesn't really matter.

Twilight: New Moon


Twilight: New Moon

By Rollie Schott, November 23rd, 2009

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is composed entirely of attractive people making voluptuous expressions, sometimes at one another, usually at the corners of the screen. The film is nothing more than a visual companion, a template of pretty faces that prepubescent teens can gawk at while they recall Stephanie Meyer’s popular novel in their minds. It is a single note held for two hours, littered with thoroughly irrational characters occupying a dimwitted story. But then again, the faces are pretty, the expressions voluptuous.

I guess that’s all that director Chris Weitz really intended. Most of the people who see this movie will already know its secrets, which makes it more of an exhibition for the bare chests of its toned male leads. Kristin Stewart, on the other hand, hardly ever even wears short sleeves. This is a tale of chastity after all.

“New Moon” picks up more or less where last year’s “Twilight” left off. Bella (Stewart) has just turned 18 and displays her innate knack for turning even the most modest of joys into cause for sorrow. With another year under her belt, she is reminded of the simple fact that she is aging, a curse that her pale skinned hubby Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) could fix with a little nip on the neck.

But alas, after an unfortunate incident at the Cullen family mansion, Edward decides, in the film’s only application of legitimate rationality, that Bella’s obsession with becoming a member of the elite undead is call for concern. The Cullens pack up and leave town and Bella is left, well, about as despondent as she seemed before.

Bella finds some arbitrary solace in the suspiciously buff Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), but is haunted by images of her beloved Eddy, usually advising her not to choose the stupidest option available at present (Don’t get on the bike with the potential rapist, Bella). Bella works out all by herself that making stupid decisions will summon this image of Eddy telling her not to make stupid decisions, so she goes into adrenaline-junky mode, fixing up a pair of bikes with Jacob, introducing hers to a rock, and then literally jumping off a cliff.

All of this is a prelude to the film’s primary revelation. I don’t feel as though I’m spoiling it for anybody when I say that Jacob is a werewolf, running with a gang of other werewolves who do a lot of running about topless in the rain until the story demands that they assume more animal like characteristics.

From here there’s some globetrotting, mind reading, and a lot more brooding. Bella and Eddy’s love for one another is exemplified in moments of tender dialog in which they talk about how much they love one another. There’s no real investigation of the couple’s feelings. They love each other, now shut up. Finally, after two hours and in true franchise form, “New Moon” ham-handedly sets up for the sequel. Tune in next year to see if Bella and Edward will continue to be miserably in love together.

Why this story is popular with women I will never know. Surely in an age of liberated, working, and independent women, they’re not sympathizing with Bella? Here is an eighteen year old girl who is more than willing to sacrifice her education, her devoted and loving father, and even her soul so that she can be with her high school sweetheart. Is this what you ladies find romantic? Bella needs a therapist, not a husband.

If “New Moon” sends a damaging message about women’s place in society (and it does), it’s because it is written by a woman who doesn’t seem to understand what that place is. Weitz does what he can with the material, but he’s too subservient to Meyer’s naivety to bring any substance to it. The project is undone by its obsessive loyalty, which is strangely appropriate.

Rollie Schott is my co-writer at Ghost on Screen, and film critic for the Daily Nebraskan. Rollie's review is also available at Ghost on Screen and The Daily Nebraskan.

Rollie's Film Brief


I'm sure some have noticed that my website has kind of turned into Rollie's website recently. Rollie's helped me out by sharing some of his own writing to pad out some space here. I apologise for not posting more reviews recently, but it's been a hectic week or two in my world. Moving house, finishing up a job, and preparing for a month-long trip to the United Kingdom and New York City has left me with hardly a moment to call my own, and unfortunately writing has taken a temporary back seat. With a fellow as talented as my co-writer at Ghost on Screen sitting in for me, though, it could be a lot worse.

Rollie's going to help me out while I'm away in December by giving me the odd review (scraps from his gourmet table, really) of the latest movies. I will definitely be back to full writing come the new year, though, and I have dibs on reviewing my most anticipated movie of the year, James Cameron's "Avatar", as well as other big Christmas releases.

This also unfortunately means that the podcast will be taking a mini-hiatus. Jimmy and I will be recording this week and next week, but after that the 'cast will have a break until I return from my trip.

Stayed tuned for Rollie's review of "New Moon". It's a good 'un.

Monday, 23 November 2009

Titanic... with vampires


By Jonathan Fisher, November 23rd, 2009

Twilight: New Moon has made $258 million around the world in its first three days of release. That is a crazy amount of money in such a short period of time. It's broken the all-time opening day gross record, and the top single-day gross record. To put that in a bit of context, last year's The Dark Knight -- the most popular movie of the decade so far, and a film that wound up grossing a shade over a billion dollars worldwide -- opened $100 million less than New Moon, at $158 million. Still a monster opening, but well short of the New Moon juggernaut.

New Moon was always going to be big, but this big? This thing might (but probably won't) topple Titanic as the highest-grossing film of all time (Titanic wound up making $1.8 billion around the world). And yet, one would imagine that New Moon would have little cross-over appeal to men, or anyone over the age of sixteen. Why such a big opening?

The obvious reason is that the hype leading up to the opening weekend resulted in lots of re-viewings in the film's primary target audience of females from 13 to 18. This demographic tends to bolt out of the gates pretty quickly, watching a movie twice, even three times in the opening weekend. Usually, they go in groups, so their effect is magnified.

Critics have been harsh on New Moon, more than I expected. I'll save my own review for the coming days, but I bring up the critical reaction because that may reflect the word-of-mouth effect that this movie will have on its non-core audience. People who aren't blinded by their hilariously caricatured fangirl love for the male stars probably won't think that this is a good movie. The drop-off for New Moon in the coming weeks could be precipitous, in stark comparison to something like the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, which generated great word-of-mouth and appealed to just about everyone who likes movies.

It is a little disturbing to me that the Twilight meme has taken off as powerfully as it has. I gave the first movie a middling two and a half stars, enjoying the visuals of the film but not the story or its characters. It's partly, but not entirely, the story of Twilight that I object to currently. The amount of male objectification that has painfully been on show over the last eighteen months, the dissemination of the distinctly anti-feminist message that a woman is only as good as the man she's with and that it's fine to be self-absorbed, melodramatic and clingy represents a backwards step in the fight for gender equality and equity. What's sad is that it's the young, malleable generation that is being indoctrinated by the Twilight school of philosophy. Jordan Baker at the Sydney Morning Herald has written a very provocative, nuanced piece here that discusses this trend and society's response to the films and books. Twilight: New Moon may not topple Titanic as the highest-grossing movie of all time, but if it does, do we really want this movie to be the lasting memory of this decade?

Sunday, 22 November 2009

2012

2012

By Rollie Schott, November 17, 2009

Roland Emmerich, it seems, exists as a filmmaker for the sole purpose of destroying the planet more authoritatively than the last time Roland Emmerich destroyed the planet. His list of credits, in order (some titles excluded), include “Independence Day,” “Godzilla,” and “The Day After Tomorrow.” Look at these titles and you can see how he has steadily upped the ante. Emmerich lays pretty thorough waste to the planet in his latest, “2012,” which I suspect will become some sort of opus for end-of-the-world epics.

Some peculiar shift in the sun’s rays is his latest justification for worldwide pandemonium, transforming our sunlight essentially into microwaves that have cooked our planet from the inside out. And now, with the earth’s mantle melted and unstable, the tectonic plates twist, turn and tango into oblivion, and we humans are not strapped in for the ride. With this premise, Emmerich obliges himself to turn cities upside down, flood them, blow them up and scramble them around until China is a puddle jumper’s hop from Hawaii.

These events are primarily witnessed through the eyes of novelist Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who pieces together the pending disaster during an evening long vacation with his estranged son and daughter to Yellowstone National Park, when he stumbles across the U.S. government’s head geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and a hippie conspiracy connoisseur (Woody Harrelson) stumbles into him.

The government has long been aware, we learn, and have been assassinating anyone who threatens to release the information in an effort to avoid widespread panic. Soon rumors are surfacing of spaceships or something of the like being built to save a small, wealthy sliver of the human race. Jackson pieces it together pretty quickly. No one else has a clue.

From here Jackson and his estranged family join a typecast Russian bureaucrat who has tickets for him and his children to enter these survival pods, whatever they may be, and set off around the world to China, so that we might see that disaster has not confined itself this time to the United States alone.

As is usually the case in effects epics, the human story of “2012” is weak, populated only by stereotypes in place to shout expository lines and provide emotional cues. That the human drama is not the focal point of movies like this does not make this entirely forgivable.

Emmerich’s special effects are exciting and ambitious, but suffer from that artificial big budget gleam that prevents them from being particularly realistic and involving.

This brings me to “2012’s” biggest problems. Special effects, no matter how breathtaking, cannot carry a film for 158 minutes. A film that cannot invest its audience in its characters cannot convince them to care. After 2 1/2 hours of earthquakes, volcanoes and tidal waves, none of the previously mentioned phenomena can be particularly engaging if we have no stake in them.

“2012” is inspired by predictions from countless ancient civilizations who predicted that our world would come to an end on or around Dec. 21, 2012. Most notable of these were the Mayans, whose astronomical studies led them to believe that one of the many stars they had tracked would eventually collide with earth. We are close enough now, as NASA informs us, that if this were actually the case, we would be able to see this celestial body with the naked eye.

“2012” takes a different approach, one that deals not with “When Worlds Collide” sensibilities, but with the “When Earth Strikes Back” mentality that M. Night Shyamalan explored a couple years ago in “The Happening” and that Emmerich himself had already explored in “The Day After Tomorrow.”

I’m not sure the earth can be more thoroughly destroyed than it is here, which provides it with a sort of audacious charm that many people will probably enjoy. And for all the casualties and chaos, Emmerich remembers that what is really interesting about this material to us Americans is not how the human race will survive, but rather whether or not Jackson and his estranged wife Kate will get together again.

Rollie Schott is my co-writer at Ghost on Screen, and film critic for the Daily Nebraskan. Rollie's "2012" review is also available at Ghost on Screen, and online at the Daily Nebraskan