Yeah you heard me. It's the year of cripples and bums. Wow that was cruel, especially considering that both disabled characters are actually based on real people. One of them has a unique and uplifting story. The other one has the same story as literally millions of Americans throughout history, and yet decided that he needed to write a book about it, which would become a vehicle for Oliver Stone to douche it up some more. Oh and there were good movies in 1989 too...I neglected to mention that.
But first, let's deal with this Oliver Stone nonsense: Born on the Fourth of July. I've seen a lot of Vietnam movies, and I can honestly say this is the first one I haven't liked. And as we'll see when I get to 1986, I even like Oliver Stone's other big Vietnam movie. But this is just overdone, hyperbolized nonsense. And to me, the person on whom it is based is really kind of a jerk. It pains me to say that because I have nothing but respect for our veterans, but this guy went off and got injured and used that injury as a means of exploitative protest. In other words, "how could you not oppose the war? Look what happened to me!" Not only is this faulty logic (although I do agree with his overall point of view, just not why he has it) it also undermines every other disabled veteran because it turns an injury into a soapbox. But enough real-life tangenting, which is oddly not a word, let's talk about the movie. It charts Ron's life from childhood through his years after the war and how his views change, especially pertaining to his views on war and conflict. This could be good if done with some subtlety, but it's not. Everything is SO in your face that it's really quite annoying. The over-the-top stuff at the beginning is all, "well gee Pop I'd sure like to go fight for the country! JFK said I should go kill yellow people so golly shucks darn whiz that's what I'm a gonna do!" And during this they might as well be holding up a sign that says, "this is ironic and sad because he's going to get injured and we're going to lose." Now if there were say, just one line at the beginning of the film in the style of Titanic's "not even God could sink this ship" that would've been effective. But instead Stone throws it in your face every chance he gets. Which is not only poor filmmaking, it's once again kind of rotten because it's basically winking to the audience and causing them to wink back about one of America's greatest failures. I don't personally find Vietnam too wink-able, I don't know about you. And the movie drags on in this fashion for about two-and-a-half hours. Somewhere in there is a twenty-minute stretch where Tom Cruise (neglected to mention he's the star, which makes it even worse) and Willem Dafoe get high in Mexico while picking up prostitutes. Which has nothing to do with anything, but it happened to the real guy so I guess they felt the need to put it in the movie. Those scenes just devolve into the characters arguing about who killed more babies, spitting on each other repeatedly, and then fighting each other on the ground. It reminded me of South Park, honestly. Stupid. It's also kind of a waste of a John Williams score. The music by itself is excellent obviously, but since the film itself doesn't really deliver it just goes to show that as incredible as the music is within movies, it can only enhance what's there. Anyway, I think you've got the point and I've been decidedly unfunny so far and I've probably lost my 3 fans but let's do some more just in case.
Another oddly unfunny movie, but a really good one, is Dead Poets Society. And yes I've checked and there's no "the" at the beginning of the title, which really bugs me...but anyway, it's admittedly been a few years since I've seen this film but it always stuck with me. It was the first time I'd seen Robin Williams in a serious role, although as I've recently discovered he's done a lot more serious roles than I'd ever thought, and he really delivered. The film is kind of about a bunch of hippie stuff, but they don't tell you in a hippie way. It's a tightly and cleverly written film, and it's pretty dark too. Seriously though! You're just watching the movie and enjoying yourself, laughing a good bit, learning some stuff, and then one of the main dudes up and kills himself! What's up with that? But it actually propels the movie into real life, and elevates it from an enjoyable-but-forgettable film to one that I can still recount about five years later and accurately review. Because the movie makes you a part of this society of friends, so that when the guy kills himself you don't go "gee that's sad," you really feel some pain! I once had an idea for a TV show wherein we'd follow a group of friends as they went through college and maybe even high school, and then became like mobsters and cops and stuff and it'd turn all tragic. Because that'd be the only way to feel some true emotion with regards to a story of that nature. But America would accuse me of screwing with them for 10 seasons (or however long it'd go on) and they'd probably be correct to do so. Maybe as a movie? That's a pretty good idea...but let's get back to this movie. If you haven't seen it, I don't want to ruin the ending for you but it's quite moving. It could easily be REALLY cheesy, but it's not. It makes me cry every time, and the tears don't just well up. One actually falls out, sometimes. Real life can be pretty cheesy, and I think that's why we get all upset with cheesy stuff. Because we've seen it every day in real life! And the reason it falls flat in the theater is because we see a bunch of stuff happen that never could, and it all ends in a way that's just so goofy it's almost real. But this movie doesn't do that, it feels real every step of the way. I have no idea how writers achieve that, but I'm super jealous. Because the only kind of "real" dialogue I can ever muster is what I sound like...and the only real person who sounds like me is me. Huge bummer.
And now's the part where I say, "know what else is a huge bummer? (whatever crap movie I'm talking about at the time)." I'm happy to report that instead the next movie is Field of Dreams. I had only seen this movie once, and that was when I was a kid. So when I was nearing the end of 1989, I made a last-minute decision with my Netflix (who should totally pay me royalties for all the exposure I give them) to watch this movie again, so I could have a more matured look at the film. Well, most of it plays like a touching, if not a little hokey, episode of The Twilight Zone. Crazy stuff happens, and no explanation is given. Which is FINE by the way, because the whole point of the story is that people are given a second chance to do what they always wanted to do in their lives. The point is: to do it that way the first time around. Like I said, hokey. But still relevant. I think that as Sweeney Todd said, "the years no doubt have changed me" and movies like this come off as goofy to me. But there's just something about the film...Kevin Costner is more tolerable than usual. I will say that his wife is a little annoying. But JAMES FREAKING EARL JONES is in it! Darth Vader people! Come on now, how could that not be completely awesome? And when he gives his speech about how baseball remains as a remnant of what once made America great, and what it could be again, the chills started to rise up my spine as though I was watching my first movie again. The whole movie, which revolves around a dude who builds a baseball field for a bunch of dead people to play on, would fall flat without that speech. But also without the final scene. And here's where I lost it (in an emotional way, not a quality of film way). I actually don't want to mention the final scene, because it should be viewed by pretty much everyone. But I'll tell you that 2, count them: 2! tears actually fell from my eyes during the scene. That's pretty much a new record. If it can tug on the 1 and 1/2 heartstrings I have left after all these years of cynicism, it'll get yours too. There are no individual pieces of the film (music, directing, etc.) that I'd say are Oscar-worthy, but somehow it all comes together so well that I'm glad it got the nomination.
Not so sure about My Left Foot though. It's one of those films I frequently refer to as an "acting movie." Which is to say, does it have a great performance? Yes. Is there anything else, and I mean anything else, that's notable about the film in any way? Not at all. So give Daniel Day-Lewis the Oscar (and they did) but nominate some other movie that has more than one good thing about it. The movie is the true story of a man in working-class society of Ireland who could only move his left foot. He could barely even speak at the beginning of the film. Also near the beginning he gets some female attention from a girl in the neighborhood. Which means that just within the 1989 nominees, the list of characters with better luck with women than myself are: the crotchety guy confined to a wheelchair and the dude who can only move his left foot. I'm of course being facetious, but all of that was a tweet I wanted to tweet way back but it's too many characters. Anyway, the supporting performances in the film are what I would describe as: there. Are they bad? No. Are they good? No. Are they on the level of acting mediocrity limbo like Kevin Costner? Thankfully no. But it's Mr. Day-Lewis we've come to see, and he delivers. The man actually made me believe he was the real dude. And I don't say that too often. Usually I think they overdo it, especially with this type of role, but this was done exactly the way I like it. The performance doesn't take itself too seriously, or throw things in your face, but it also doesn't make light of the situation. That's a tricky balance, that few master. So on that level I'm glad I watched the film, but it really gets old after a while. He's in love with the girl who taught him how to speak, but she doesn't love him. Well that's tragic and everything and I feel for the real-life dude, but I don't exactly need it to take up as much space in the movie as it does. Overall I have mixed feelings, because I'd say the performance is worth seeing, but not the movie itself...if that makes any sense.
It probably doesn't, but I don't care. I'm lucky if half of what I say makes any sense anyway. The winner for this year is an odd choice...but maybe when I'm writing about it I'll have an epiphany (as I sometimes do). The film is an adorably charming movie, with fairly serious undertones: Driving Miss Daisy. For those who haven't seen it, or any of the 50 million references to it on sitcoms, it's about a "proper" Southern woman who gets driven around town by an older black guy and how they form a strange friendship. And here comes cynical Domenic: basically this tells me that the film got the attention it did because of the issues it addresses. It's about accepting other people, and putting race issues behind us, so on and so forth. That's all well and good. But the movie itself is really not over-the-top great. I completely enjoyed watching it. It was endearing and thoughtful and sweet. There's really nothing wrong with it, but it also doesn't venture into much new territory. There are some solid performances from the likes of Morgan Freeman (who is always good) and Jessica Tandy. Although it's not super hard for a feisty old lady to play a feisty old Southern lady...ordinarily I'd IMDB this junk and see if she actually was from the South, making my point even stronger, but I'm not feeling up to it. Plus I feel like no one knows how to use the internet effectively, so go look it up yourself! Anyway, this is all based on a stage play, and it shows. I sometimes dislike when a playwrite does the adaptation for the movie version. Because writing a play isn't the same as writing a movie (I've obviously done both at length). A movie has to be about more than just the actors, as opposed to a play which is completely fueled by the actors (that last parenthetical quip was a joke, but I realized you might believe I've done those things since my blog is so awesome). Unusually, this format seems to work for the film. Maybe because there's not much you could do with it directorially anyway, or maybe because the writing is of such quality that you don't care. I have no idea, but either way it works. Does it work on the level of Best Picture? No. Is it up against much? No. So there you have it, given the choice between a few movies that are really just enjoyable and not artistically great, I say go with the socially-conscious one every time. It's great PR.
Well that's it for this installment, I'm also done with 1988 but I'm such a bum lately that I haven't written anything. And yes, I realize I said that 1989 was the year of cripples and bums. I feel secure saying that because I'm at least half of that description, and should therefore be able to poke fun at it at least half of the time. Either way, next year is very important because (gasp!) it was the year I was born! And man did the Academy have some crap that year. That actually depresses me. The year should've been the appropriate hailing of the soon-to-be-crowned world's finest film critic! Instead it's drivel after drivel after drivel with two good movies in there. I think that's an all-time low, as far as the escapade goes. By means of a preview of this nonsense, it'll include: Green Goblin and Lex Luthor investigating lynchings, a Graduate and Jerry Maguire on a life-altering field trip, and some other crap that's not nearly as interesting (not even close).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment