Three films a day

#2, 1/6 – The Queen (2006) (tofw)

Given my lack of interest in The Royals, I really didn’t think I’d bother seeing The Queen. But when my local movie buddy asked me if I’d like to see it this past weekend I didn’t hesitate to say yes, simply because of the star. I’ve pretty much always liked Helen Mirren (ever the first time I saw her, in 2010) but my like has been full-on love ever since I first saw her as Jane Tennison. And, just as I thought, the ever-regal Mirren (who has now played three British queens) was worth the price of admission. I also thoroughly enjoyed the performances of the great James Crowmell and Stephen Frears’s apparent go-to man for the role of Tony Blair, Michael Sheen.

As usual with docudramas it’s the little things I enjoyed the most: The dogs; Tony Blair seen wearing a Newcastle United shirt in a scene (that’s a first for me: I’ve caught Premier League references in two consecutive films); Cherie Blair’s “curtsey”. And, of course, there’s the line which will be my “I don’t like Nan, I like Cobra” of 2007: “Walkies?!”.

#1, 1/1 – Notes on a Scandal (2006) (tofw)

January 1st 2007 was a great day for spectating. It all started in the early morning when I traveled down to the soccer pub and watched three matches. First, Liverpool beat Bolton Wanderers 3-0. Then (yes, this is ever-so-slightly relevant to the movie) I saw Tottenham Hotspur nick a 1-1 draw at Portsmouth. And finally I saw Newcastle pull off an unlikely 2-2 draw against league leaders Manchester United. All in all, a good soccer day for me, since United’s draw keeps Chelsea in the title hunt (provided the Blues win tomorrow today) and the Liverpool game featured fantastic goals (Peter Crouch’s scissor kick, especially). Oh, and James Milner’s rocket against United was nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway, somewhere along the line I decided to go see this movie. I’d not even heard of it, but in the lull before the Tottenham/Portsmouth game I saw an ad for it while I was flipping through the Arts & Events section of the Chicago Reader. The names called to me insistently. Judi Dench. Cate Blanchett. Bill Nighy. I had to go.

The actors didn’t disappoint. Blanchett is radiant and superb. Dench is compelling and superb. And, Nighy. He’s Nighy.

The story, which touches on issues of class but is mainly about loneliness and desperate attempts to connect, is a thronier matter. It didn’t entirely disappoint, either but I had my misgivings. See, Barb (Dench) becomes rather enamored of Sheba (Blanchett), all while Sheba is having an extra-marital affair (with, um, a precocious fifteen-year-old boy. Think of him as Lolita in Islington). The levels of Barb’s interest and the creepiness of it instantly set off my “predatory gay character” alarm, and that’s trouble. Worse, we find out that Sheba isn’t the first younger woman Barb’s gotten interested in. That has all the makings of a four alarm bad gay stereotype. The cinema’s penchant for making gay, lesbian, and transgender characters mentally unstable is a long-standing tradition I strongly believe needs ending.

But, in this movie’s defense, I believe Barb’s lunacy doesn’t derive from her sexual identity but rather from her soul-crushing loneliness. Consider this bit from Zoe Heller’s book, which is in the film (if not word-for-word, then close because I found it with a Google search). When complaining that Sheba and people like Sheba can’t understand true loneliness, Barb notes: “They don’t know what it is to construct an entire weekend out of a visit to the launderette…. They don’t know what it is to be so chronically untouched that the accidental brush of a bus conductor’s hand on your shoulder sends a jolt of longing straight to your groin.” Barb’s gone, all right, but I think moments like that point to her not being gone because she’s gay. It’s isolation.

And, no, she’s not lonely because she’s gay; she’s lonely because she’s an outcast. And, no, she’s not an outcast because she’s gay; she’s an outcast because her social skills are not the best. (And so on and so on and so on.) She’s not bad because she’s gay. She’s bad. She’s also gay.

If there’s a stereotype I definitely think Barb was well-fitted for, it’s that of a bitter, repressed cat-owning spinster. Her notes (Barb narrates the film) show someone who is very, very tired of being in the position she’s in. To cope with her loneliness she reaches out to the people she feels she can get close to in ways familiar to her. Yes, those people seem to invariably be younger women. But I don’t think the film makes any attempt to say that her interest in younger women is the problem. Nor is it a symptom of the problem. The way she acts is the symptom, not the person she happens to fixate on. In its second season, Grey’s Anatomy had an episode where a guest character played by Rosanna Arquette swallowed razor blades just to get pulled from solitary confinement in prison and taken to a hospital where she could at least be around people. While you will never hear me say a nice thing about the writing on Grey’s Anatomy, the idea that sometimes a person’s desire to escape prolonged isolation leads to despairingly desperate, crazy, and harmful acts, is plenty powerful. And I think this film walks similar territory.

Regardless… I will call out the movie a little here, but only because I think it made too subtle a point of all this. It is far too easy (and admittedly possibly even more sensible) to come away reading Barb as the classic crazy lesbian stereotype. But I really don’t think that’s what’s at work here. Two different characters even confront Barb about her feelings for younger women, and in each case Barb’s reaction is, I think, telling. She seems almost baffled by the notion that she wants these women in a conventional, carnal sense. You could read it as denial. I read it as something more subtle than that; that is, she doesn’t think of it in the terms they do. Am I working too hard for it? Maybe.

Serious stuff aside, how is the soccer junk I mentioned at the start even slightly relevant to the movie? Well, in a key scene, someone visits Barb’s home wearing a Spurs hat and scarf. He even mentioned that he’d just been to White Hart Lane to see Tottenham win 3-nil, thanks, apparently, to Jermain Defoe. (For the record, in real life Defoe wasn’t very good today.) Barb then said her father had supported Charlton, but it had brought him no joy that she could see. (Which made me comment under my breath “no kidding”.) I had to laugh. How often does that particular love of my life intersect with movies? Not often enough, say I.

Oh, and seeing Cate Blanchett dancing happily to “Funky Kingston” and quoting “Fit but You Know It”? Kinda hot. (And I don’t even like “Fit But You Know It”, though I’m OK with the remix which features the Futureheads.)

#101, 12/31 – Scoop (2006) (nqpdd)

So, my 2006 in movie-watching almost fits perfectly in between Woody Allen’s two recent Scarlett J-in-London films. Only 9 Songs and the wonderful Le Trou (I saw that in 2006? Feels like longer ago than that) came before Match Point, and Scoop closed out the year. Since I like neat patterns, or things which are almost neat patterns, I am entertained by this stupid fact.

Likewise, I enjoyed the movie. It’s much lighter than Match Point but no less interesting, and probably just as rewarding. I did find myself annoyed with the Woody persona (which hasn’t changed much since the 60s, but is wearing perhaps a little more thin) at a couple of points early on in the film, but somehow by the end of it I was happy he was involved.

I don’t have anything else to say about it, truth be told, having spent most of my mind this weekend on the two watches of Children of Men, but it was definitely a fun way to end 2006.

#100, 12/31 – The Baxter (2005) (dvd)

Want to know what a can’t miss movie with me is? A classy, charming, smart, totally silly romantic comedy which features a slightly off-beat male lead, Elizabeth Banks (who won me over with Slither), Justin Theroux, and Michelle Williams. Absolutely no chance I wouldn’t like it. None.

Michael Showalter, my hat’s off to you.

I haven’t watched a “recent vintage” (let’s define “recent” as anything made in the last decade) romantic comedy in a long time. Really, I can’t think of one I’ve seen since I caught Kissing Jessica Stein a few years ago (Oh, wait. I think I caught the spiffy Playing Mona Lisa in 2004). Strangely, all of the “recent vintage” romantic comedies I remember watching have been things I’ve rated highly. But I don’t seek them out. Ever. Hell, the only reason I rented this was because of an Edna recommendation (good call, my dear).

Maybe it’s all for the good. I let films like the wonderful Next Stop Wonderland (Hope Davis! Phil! Bossa Nova Soundtrack!) find me instead of running out to find them. And maybe a good romantic comedy really is just a rarity which should be savored.

#99, 12/30 – On the Outs (2004) (dvd)

I definitely didn’t have fun watching On the Outs—“unsettling” is probably the word which most fittingly describes my experience—but I thought it well worth the time all the same. I may be weird when it comes to movies. I really don’t mind feeling like I’ve crawled through three football fields worth of glass after I’ve watched a movie, provided that the characters were interesting and human. And that the whole thing wasn’t an elaborate bit of audience torture.

The girls at the heart of On the Outs are all very human. The situations they’re in are all very sad. And the movie does well not to waste your time with false endings or easy answers. It says what it has to say (quickly, at that) and then it leaves. So, yeah, not an easy film, but one I very much liked.

[I spent the weekend watching movies—five of them—but obviously I didn’t finish writing them up. So, here we are playing catchup. Fun!]

#98, 12/29 – Children of Men (2006) (tofw)

I went out of my way (i.e. downtown) to catch this film on the one screen in this blessed city which has it right now. Out of my way, I tell you. All because I was interested enough to see it before it goes wide in January. Year-end list buzz and my dedication to anything which even pretends to be serious earth-bound science fiction made me too curious to wait. So I went. And then, crazily enough, I decided to catch it a second time, just because I thought it deserved another watch.

As soon as I heard the first words of the movie (which are said while the screen is still black) a second time, I realized I was going to really enjoy it: “Day 1000 of the siege of Seattle.” It’s a statement simply for and about atmosphere. It’s an insignificant detail I forgot during the first watch (mind, the insignificant detail points to a more essential, easier to remember situation), largely because I had so many other details dancing around in my head.

The very next words in the movie, still without an accompanying visual, are just as important: “The Muslim community demands an end to the army’s occupation of mosques.” This statement, like the one before it—neither of which receive anything approaching the kind of elaboration you usually get in a movie—give the temperature of the situation. And the visuals throughout the movie give further confirmation that it’s boiling hot. As we see “foogies” crammed into cages I could only think of some clear and jarring parallels (intentional or not) to Schaffner’s Planet of the Apes.

Children of Men thankfully lacks a nutshell explanation of how things got so fucked up. Or why the mass infertility at the core of the film happened. Instead, bits of information are littered all around the film, broken up in pieces for you pick up on. Occasionally, yes, we get a speech which is there simply to deepen our understanding. But just as often (and perhaps more often, actually) we get an off-hand statement, or better still a shot, which subtly reveals something to us. For example, we know that Theo (Clive Owen) and Julian (Julianne Moore) were a couple who’d had a child even before they have a scene together. Even before we know her name. Or where she is now. And even though her character and their child are not mentioned at all during the revelation. Classily done.

And the payoff for all this work is nothing short of breath-taking. Frankly, even though I saw the movie twice, I didn’t realize til just this second, as I glanced at Dana Stevens’ review, that two of my favorite scenes in the movie were single-shot. Wow.

Without being showy about it, he creates two of the most virtuoso single-shot chase sequences I’ve ever seen. So virtuoso, in fact, that as the scenes are unfolding, all you can think is, sweet Jesus, please let the good guys get away! It’s only later that you realize the technique that went into crafting that sickening suspense. In the first of the two sequences, a car chase, the cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, helped create a special rig that allowed the camera to swivel 360 degrees around the interior of the car. The second sequence, a siege on a building in a war zone, provides the movie’s shattering climax; by the end of the nearly 10-minute shot, the camera lens is spattered with dirt and (fake, I hope) blood.

That second sequence she talks about is just amazing. I was so immersed, so riveted it isn’t even funny.

Although I find an obvious touchpoint with The Handmaid’s Tale, Children of Men most vividly reminds me of V For Vendetta. Perhaps obviously. Who am I kidding? Definitely obviously. Both feature isolated British dystopias complete with stiff-upper-lip propaganda slogans (England “prevails” in one while Britain “soldiers on” in the other). Both draw their inspiration from late 20th Century books. And yet both films are much more works of this century (which, let’s face it, began on the second Tuesday in September of 2001) than of the climates of their source material. Moreover, like V for Vendetta, Children of Men has no fear in cheekily snatching something from the contemporary lexicon (“Homeland Security”, anyone?) and placing it in an ironic context to hammer home a point or six.

But they’re not aiming for the same target, exactly. V feels more political (i.e. “Power to the people”), while Children of Men seems more social/cultural (i.e. “We all know things are bad. Worse than bad. They’re crazy”). That is, Children of Men is more about the complicated issues facing our societies right now. Crazy, messy stuff from environmental issues to social justice issues to health concerns (flu pandemics and possibly even Mad Cow Disease) and let’s not forget the army occupying the mosques. We were watching a culture which had essentially collapsed but didn’t have the good sense to admit it to themselves yet. Thus some Brits ran all about a desolated Europe, trying to save works of art. Even though, as Theo noted , it all seemed a bit odd since in all likelihood there wouldn’t be anyone around to appreciate a Picasso in 100 years.

Although Children of Men doesn’t have any clear answers, it does believe it knows where we can find them. It’s pretty simple, really: We need new eyes to help us out of our situation. Like director Alfonso Cuarón said in an interview with Sara Michelle Fetters at moviefreak.com:

“Now, I’m not talking about the extinction of the species, but a cultural extinction [...], an extinction of ideas. I think this is very prescient. If we keep going on this road that we are going as culture nobody is changing anything. We all know about things like global warming and nothing is happening.”

“I think there is the big possibility of the way we conceive our civilization to be and I think there is a big concern about that. In that way, I think that there is a sense of hope and I think that instinctively everybody understands that this sense of hope is the next generation. I don’t think that my generation or the older generation can come up with transformation or with solutions because we are too paralyzed. We grew up as a generation that [lived] in a world that was pretty much alright, and we saw how it went [down the] drain right in front of our eyes. There is a sense of impotency, of not knowing what to do.”

Maybe he’s right.