06/03/01: Playing Catch-Up

Playing Catch-Up

(06/03/01)

As much as I sometimes wish my life consisted of nothing more than watching whatever movie I wanted, when I wanted, alas, such is not the case. Sometimes real-life and real-world concerns intrude upon my movie-watching time, and I am forced (as are all of us, I think) to put off my viewing of certain movies until a more opportune time (such as their releases on video). Now that my school year is over, I’ve suddenly found myself with a lot more time for film, and I’ve used it to catch up with a few shows I missed the first time around. Here’s what I thought.

First of all, we have the eagerly anticipated (at least for me) “Shadow Of The Vampire.” I’d really wanted to see this in its first run, but it never quite made its way to a theatre near me, so I was forced to wait even longer, until its release on video. It seemed like just my type of movie: Set in 1930s Germany, it’s a fictionalized behind-the-scenes look at noted German silent film director F.W. Murnau’s (John Malkovich) most famous work, the vampire film “Nosferatu.” To hear this movie tell it, Murnau was such a stickler for accuracy that he went so far as to hire a real vampire, Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe in what is easily the performance of his career—he was robbed by Benicio Del Toro at the Oscars, I’m telling you), to portray his Count Orlock. Schreck’s payment? The sweet, sweet blood of Murnau’s morphine-addicted leading lady, Greta (Catherine McCormack), which flows liberally (along with that of a number of other characters) throughout the movie and in a devastating ending. But maybe I had too many expectations built up, because in the end, I was somewhat disappointed.

Don’t get me wrong; the acting, writing, and plot of “Shadow Of The Vampire” couldn’t be better. The real problem is E. Elias Merhige’s directing techniques. Most notably, “Shadow Of The Vampire” has apparently taken a lighting cue from “The X-Files,” because it is quite possibly the worst-lit movie I have ever seen. There’s a fine line between creating mood with shadows and murky lighting and making a movie in which it is just plain impossible to see anything, and Merhige has crossed it and then some. Half the time I could barely tell what was going on, not because the script wasn’t explaining itself well enough but because the screen was basically solid black during essential plot points. For no apparent reason, Merhige also throws in a sexual subtext that goes absolutely nowhere and ends up just feeling gratuitous and stupid. The net result is that, although the movie is barely more than 90 minutes long, a large portion of it feels confusing and unnecessary.

“Shadow Of The Vampire” is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a bizarre, tragic, heavily symbolic, and darkly funny (there are a few utterly hilarious scenes, such as one in which Schreck chows down on a random bat in the middle of a conversation with two producers, who reply with only, “Max, the German theatre needs you”) look behind the scenes on a great classic of the horror genre. But it is flawed, and for that reason I can’t rave about it as much as I once expected I would. I think that before the summer’s over, I’ll go out and rent the original “Nosferatu” and watch it in the company of this film; were I familiar with the source material, I think I would have understood “Shadow Of The Vampire” (particularly the ending) better than I did. As it is, I’m not ashamed to admit that a lot of it went over my head, and more cultured moviegoers will probably enjoy it even more than I did. The Verdict: Possessing a working knowledge of German expressionist silent film of the ‘30s isn’t too much for a director to ask of his audience, is it? 3.5 out of 5.

Another eagerly anticipated film I recently got to see on video was the latest “Hamlet,” which has been edited, modernized, revised, and put through the blender to result in a version of Shakespeare’s most famous play which is probably like nothing you’ve ever seen. Medieval Denmark has been replaced with an ultra-modern, nameless major city dominated by “King” Claudius’ (Kyle MacLachlan) Denmark Corporation. In the title role, Ethan Hawke is a stocking-cap-wearing film student who broods his way through a slick, tangled urban landscape, videotaping everything he comes across, a la “American Beauty”’s Ricky Fitts. Olivia (Julia Stiles in a surprisingly accomplished performance) becomes a grungy teenage photographer chick, her father Polonius (Bill Murray, proving that more serious roles are certainly not out of his grasp) an inept middle-management type. And is it just me, or do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern bear a striking resemblance to Jay and Silent Bob? Anyway, you know the story line (I hope!) and the fact that it all ends in tragedy, and I’m sure you get the picture.

As strange as this may seem, as an English and theatre geek I find it very difficult to evaluate “Hamlet.” Anyone who spends any amount of time with this play will always come up with her own interpretations of particularly troublesome passages and opinions on How It Should All Be Done, and seeing a director make different choices than you yourself would have can be infuriating, no matter how valid his interpretations may be. I could pick nits all day about geek stuff (the biggest of which is that Hamlet and Ophelia should NOT have the healthy relationship this version depicts them having...), but I’ll save that for coffee with my theatre buddies and try to keep it non-biased.

The modern setting of this “Hamlet” is both its greatest strength and weakness. It leads to some truly cool moments (such as the “To be or not to be” soliloquy being delivered in the “Action” section of a Blockbuster Video store...get it?) that another interpretation wouldn’t have allowed. Also, the use of cameras, recorders, and surveillance technology to get across the play’s “spying” theme is absolutely perfect and inspired. But at other times it seems that the gee-whiz factor of the setting gets in the way of the reason the play became so revered in the first place: the plot, the characters, and Shakespeare’s beautiful use of language. Also, perhaps in a misguided attempt to gain box-office bucks, this “Hamlet” has been edited down to less than two hours, to the detriment of almost everything about it. Don’t even get me started on the fact that they cut the “Alas, poor Yorick...” speech, which is a turning point in the plot and absolutely essential to the play’s meaning... (WARNING: The rest of this review contains English major jargon.) In the end, this is a deconstructionist “Hamlet,” with all the pluses and minuses that literary theory entails; it takes the play apart, looks at it from every angle, and tries to put it back together again, with results that are sometimes unsuccessful but always interesting. If you’ve got any interest in Shakespeare or deconstruction, it’s worth a rental. The Verdict: To see or not to see? Aw, this joke is too pathetic. You fill in the rest. 3 out of 5.

Considerably less highbrow is another recent video release, the five-hankie tearjerker “Pay It Forward.” Based on the novel of the same name, it tells the story of a seventh-grader (Haley Joel Osment) whose burn-scarred social studies teacher, Mr. Simonet (Kevin Spacey), gives his class an unusual assignment: come up with an idea that will change the world. The kid comes up with the “pay it forward” movement: he’ll start out by doing something good for three people, who in turn will do something good for three others, and so on, and so forth, until the whole world apparently holds hands and sings “Kum Ba Ya” in perfect four-part harmony. One of his three good deeds is setting up his recovering-alcoholic mother (Helen Hunt) with Mr. Simonet, and the result is a sweet, touching romance which is one of the few good things about this stinker.

In previous columns, I’ve mentioned my general distaste for feel-good movies. If this is true, then “Pay It Forward” stands for everything my movie tastes oppose. The screenwriters and director Mimi Leder (who should really go back to making big, dumb action flicks like “Deep Impact” and “The Peacemaker”) have packed this movie full of every single hot-button, heartstring-tugging Big Issue they could think of: single parenthood, alcoholism, child abuse, domestic abuse, homelessness, drug abuse, suicide, bullying, school violence, you name it, we got it. “Pay It Forward” is the cinematic equivalent of a middle-school health class textbook, an After-School Special dragged kicking and screaming onto the big screen. It hits you over the head with all society’s problems, then make the empty, “Chicken Soup For The Soul”-worthy suggestion that they can all be solved with a seventh-grade social studies project. This has the overall effect of reducing the complexity of real and serious issues to the point where they become empty plot points for the advancement of the most emotionally manipulative movie of the year. This is all-too-hideously epitomized by the astonishingly bad ending, which has the nerve to play the death of a child for its dramatic potential, then suggest that it will all be okay in a moronic, simplistic ending played out to the tune of Jane Siberry’s “Calling All Angels” (okay, so it’s not all bad) and ripped off directly from “Field Of Dreams” which turns the whole movie into even more of a sugary-sweet, tasteless mess. The Verdict: A saccharine, sappy piece of cinematic trash. Avoid at all costs. 0.5 out of 5.

Lest you think this column consists entirely of lukewarm or negative reviews, there is one recent video release out there (other than “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which as you read this will undoubtedly have already been added to my video collection) you really should get around to seeing. The film is Joel and Ethan Coen’s “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” and I promise you, this one is a real treat. Very loosely based around Homer’s “Odyssey” and set in the Depression-era American South, it tells the story of the hair-gel-addicted Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney, very funny in this role) and his two sidekicks (John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson), who have escaped from a chain gang and are now trekking across the country in search of $1.2 million in buried treasure. The trouble is, they only have four days to get to the treasure before it ends up at the bottom of a brand-new reservoir. The result is a madcap dash through the heart of plantation country. Our heroes meet bank robbers, sirens, a conniving Bible salesman (John Goodman), gubernatorial candidates, and a guitarist who may have sold his soul to the devil, try to win back Everett’s wife (Holly Hunter) and eight daughters, and even make a pretty good bluegrass record along the way.

“O Brother, Where Art Thou?” is one of those movies where everything just comes together to make a truly spectacular overall project. All the acting is superb, particularly in the case of the three leads. The soundtrack consists of some perfectly chosen classic American folk songs and may be the best (or at least most appropriate) non-original film scores I’ve ever heard And if there were any justice in the world, this film’s lush, gorgeous cinematography would have won the Oscar instead of “Gladiator.” I can’t gush enough about the way in this movie’s use of color and light manages to involve all your senses, until you can smell the rotting vegetation of the bayou and taste the red road dust drifting in the air. There is quite literally never a dull moment in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (Thanks, Mom, for pointing this out.) But at the same time, it feels not so much like a movie as a collection of vignettes and cool things the directors thought they’d throw together. In other words, don’t try to find anything resembling a plot. Each scene, however, is its own kind of delight. In the end, I walked out feeling like I’d seen all the best parts of thirty movies instead of just one. So will you, if you sit down expecting only to be amused by this always charming, occasionally hilarious film. The Verdict: Perhaps this movie exists to prove that the phrase “Damn! We’re in a tight spot!” just gets funnier the more you say it. (See the movie if you don’t get it...) 4 out of 5.

Email me The Seventh Row Movie Geek Home