The Eyes of Tammy Faye

Director: Michael Showalter
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Cherry Jones, Vincent D'Onofrio, Mark Wystratch, Sam Jaeger, Louis Cancelmi, Gabriel Olds, Fredric Lehne, Jay Huguley, Grant Owens, Randy Havens
Running Time: 126 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

When Jessica Chastain won the Best Actress Oscar for 2021's The Eyes of Tammy Faye, her victory  elicited one of two reactions. Either that she was already owed statues for Zero Dark Thirty and The Tree of Life, or maybe more cynically, it extended the Academy's streak of awarding actors for playing a real life figure in a by-the-numbers biopic. And bonus points if it's an attractive star undergoing some kind of massive physical transformation like Charlize Theron in Monster. Michael Showalter's film (based on Fenton Bailey's 2000 documentary of the same name) proves that all these assumptions can be true at once, as the deservedly honored Chastain triumphs while buried under mountains of face paint and prosthetics as enigmatic televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker. 

For Academy voters known for crowning the most and biggest acting, the thought of Chastain tackling the disgraced Tammy Faye had to be a dream come true, even as audiences resisted. Without digging too deeply, the picture moves through key events at a breakneck pace that makes you wonder why it wasn't green lighted as a limited series in the vein of Hulu's The Dropout (of which Showalter directed episodes). But with more than a few tricks up his sleeve, this is as straight down the middle as a biopic can be in chronologically hitting its marks, with the leads physically and emotionally capturing two controversial figures in all their bluster, flamboyance, and superficiality. The last descriptor is  important in reconciling how one half of this couple comes off substantially more flawed than their partner, flying in the face of most of our preconceived notions about their story.  

It's 1960 when Tammy Faye LaValley (Chastain) meets Jim Bakker (Andrew Garfield) are both attending North Central Bible College in Minneapolis, Minnesota. To her mother Rachel's (Cherry Jones) disapproval, they drop out of college shortly thereafter to get married and begin preaching in Christian communities across the country. This catches the attention of televangelist Pat Robertson (Gabriel Olds) who hires them as hosts of their own children's show, "Jim and Tammy," on his Christian Broadcasting Network. But as Jim ascends to hosting CBN's "The 700 Club," Tammy clashes with conservative pastor Jerry Falwell (Vincent D'Onofrio) over her support of the gay community. 

Following the birth of their first child, the Bakkers go out on their own in 1974, creating the PTL Satellite Network, where they have free reign to control the programming content. As "The PTL Club" emerges as an enormously successful flagship show and ratings juggernaut, questions soon surface in the press about their finances and numerous allegations of abuse and extra marital affairs. With the empire they built from the ground up suddenly crumbling around them, Tammy takes refuge in prescription pills, fighting to save her reputation, career and marriage from the brink of irrelevancy. 

Depending on perspective, the film's either giving us a condensed, cliff's notes version of pivotal events in the trajectory of Tammy Faye and Jim's unraveling, or a tight, linear plot that hits all the important notes in an economical fashion. For much of the time it feels like the latter, as Showalter lets Chastain and Garfield loose, inhabiting young, likable idealistic dreamers who veer wildly off course when they conflate their desire to spread the good word with an insatiable appetite for money and fame. What's interesting about this is how Tammy really doesn't change or grow from when Jim meets her as this sweet, bubbly, Betty Boop-voiced innocent whose strict, overbearing mother would tell her little girl she's headed for hell. Tammy held on to this, but flipped it, vowing instead to spread love, kindness and compassion through her and Jim's ministry. 

National TV exposure is both the best and worst thing that happens to them, but mostly the latter, as Showalter does a strong job showing these two literally falling in love with the idea of themselves as celebrities. This leads to some of the film's best sequences, as the charismatic pair have audiences hanging on their every word, with Laura Fox's production design only further accentuating the garish 70's and 80's circus atmosphere of the programs. That the film's look reinforces the narrative's ideas is one of its many charms, even as we fasten our seat belts and await the big crash. Seamlessly merging actual footage with fictional scenes shot in the same throwback style, it's often difficult to tell where  fiction ends and reality begins for the couple. In studio scenes of their show's production carry almost an SNL spoof quality to them, such as a brief, but delightful recreation of a Colonel Sanders (Grant Owens) interview. 

That Tammy Faye remains who she is and always was makes her a worthier subject for study than the less complicated, more insincere and volatile Jim. She's portrayed as a guiding force who isn't without admirable qualities, which Chastain nicely balances with some of the louder aspects of Tammy's larger-than-life personality. Never the conformist, she stands up to Falwell, loudly rejecting the church's stance on homosexuality, believing that the exclusion of anyone flies in the face of everything they should stand for. This is prominently displayed in a sequence when she publicly supports a Christian pastor suffering from AIDS on the show, to Falwell's disgust. He'll eventually extract his revenge since Jim's immoral and illegal activities make him almost too easy a mark for the Baptist preacher.

Tammy's affair with music producer Gary Paxton (Mark Wystrach) is highlighted as the opening shot that demolishes the Bakker's careers and marriage, but unbeknownst to her, Jim's been behaving far worse and for much longer. It's his hubris that sinks the ship, and if Chastain's physical metamorphosis into Tammy has garnered much of the attention, there are points where it seems Garfield's wearing just as many layers of makeup and prosthetics as she is. But regardless of that, he gets Jim just right, turning on the charm with the warm, welcoming smile that never seems to leave his illuminated face, even when lying through his teeth. 

Though it's an odd comparison, the pacing, tone and style here is what we should have gotten from Marielle Heller's underwhelming 2019 Mr. Rogers biopic, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, which attempted to explore a far different TV personality. But that couldn't quite get inside the show's production the way this does, immersing modern viewers in what the experience of watching it would have been. Wrongly worried that Rogers wouldn't be exciting enough a protagonist for his own story, they put the focus on a depressed journalist instead. There's no such issue with Tammy Faye, whom Chastain dynamically plays with a great capacity for goodness that's misdirected and overridden by greed and poor judgment. That such a scandal would generate far fewer headlines in today's overcrowded news cycle of moral depravity might be the saddest indictment of all. Back then, the media was beginning to perfect their sensationalizing and Tammy's implosion was an early case study, setting the stage for the rest who would follow.

A post script at the film's end serves as a harsh, ironic reminder that Jim not only outlived Tammy, but somehow caused even more trouble in the years following his release from prison. But it's telling that she's the one still talked about well over a decade after her death, saying something for perseverance and survival instinct. She eventually chose more respectable avenues for expressing her love of singing and the church. moving away from controversy. Showalter gives Tammy kinder treatment than she probably deserves, but it isn't inaccurate, with Chastain circumventing the many facets of a woman who, for better or worse, lapped up her time in the spotlight.                          

Tick, Tick...Boom!

Director: Lin-Manuel Miranda
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Alexandra Shipp, Robin de Jesús, Joshua Henry, Vanessa Hudgens, Judith Light, Jonathan Marc Sherman, Mj Rodriguez, Ben Levi Ross, Bradley Whitford, Laura Benanti, Richard Kind
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: PG-13 

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

When Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda was 17 he saw Rent on Broadway and he's credited it for showing him it was entirely possible to write a show that can be both contemporary and important, connecting with audiences on an entirely different level. It was the perfect story that came along at just the right moment, performed by a once-in-a-lifetime cast that seemed to truly grasp how important it was. This was all heightened by the fact that its creator Jonathan Larson never lived to see the impact his work would leave, shockingly passing away before the curtain came up. Chris Columbus' 2005 big screen adaptation of his musical may have reassembled the original cast, but it somehow failed to do anything else, falling considerably short in recapturing any of the elements that made the musical special. It also came too late, hinting that maybe Rent is a story that resides in a very specific time and place in our culture, for which we should probably be grateful.

If Miranda says there would be no In the Heights without Jonathan Larson, it seems only fitting that his feature directorial debut would be an adaptation of Larson's Tick, Tick...Boom, his semi-autobiographical rock musical that preceded Rent and detailed his struggles as a starving artist in early 90's New York City trying to get his Superbia musical off the ground. Screenwriter Steven Levinson (of the infamous Dear Evan Hansen) incorporates real details from Larson's life while alternating between stage monologues, rehearsals of the show, and a more traditional narrative detailing him and his friends trying to make it. If that sounds like a mess, it is. But it's also pretty ambitious and Garfield's frenetic, endlessly energetic performance proves to be an almost fighteningly accurate recreation of what we've seen of the real Larson. 

Those who love this film will really, really love it since it's all very inside and feels made exclusively for those within the New York theater community. But that doesn't mean others won't lose patience with some of the musical numbers or find themselves lost as a number of cameos and references fly over their heads. Miranda's clearly going against the grain by making an artsy, abstract take on biopics in the spirit of Larson's work, looking to appeal to the hardest of hardcore theaterheads. Unfortunately, Tick, Tick...Boom! isn't Rent and there's a reason the latter is so revered while the former was a stepping stone. To Miranda's credit, he doesn't shy away from that, but it does result in some hit-or-miss musical numbers that may have you antsy for Larson to start writing what's next already. This is the journey to get there, and while it's a slog at times, it's meant to be a parable on perserverance and failure, with Miranda depicting Larson's brilliance and obsessive self-destruction with a painful, unflinching honesty.

It's 1992 and Jonathan Larson is performing his Tick,Tick...Boom! monologue at New York Theatre Workshop with friends and Superbia cast members Roger (Joshua Henry) and Karessa (Vanessa Hudgens). Hearing a ticking clock in his head as he approaches his 30th birthday, Jonathan frets that time may be running out in his quest to become a successful musical theater composer like his idol Stephen Sondheim (Bradley Whitford). Preparing to workshop Superbia while working at the Moondance Diner in SoHo, he dismisses former roomate and actor Michael's (Robin de Jesús) suggestions that he follow him into a more secure career in corporate advertising. With rent overdue and the electricity about to be shut off, Jonathan also faces the possibility his dancer-turned-teacher girlfriend, Susan (Alexandra Shipp) could be moving if she accepts a new job opportunity. And now, after 8 years toiling over Superbia, his creative obsession reaches its boiling point, damaging all of his personal relationships in the process.   

What's most surprising about the depiction of Larson is how both emotionally draining and inspiring he can be. Garfield nearly leaps through the screen with his infectious enthusiasm, establishing him early as an artist with a one-track mind that won't let anything or anyone get in the way of his vision. At times it crosses far over the line into selfishness (especially in regard to Susan), but there's rarely a moment where he doesn't seem entirely relatable. The film's at its best when residing completely in Larson's head, fixating on the idea that time's running out. It sadly proves to be true, as in the end he had just barely enough, but not nearly what he should have gotten. The same could be said for many of his friends, with the AIDS epidemic bubbling under the surface for much of the film's narrative before playing a bigger role in the last act.

The time and setting of the early 90's NYC theater scene, like the protagonist himself, has so infrequently been given attention on the big or small screen that Miranda has the advantage of immersing us in a mostly unexplored world. How many who aren't already familar with it will even be interested is the bigger question, especially since the first hour is so shaky. The cutting between the Larson monologue, Superbia musical numbers and dramatic scenes are almost dizzying and an argument could be made that only two of those numbers really work. The first, "Sunday" features a parade of Broadway legends such as André De Shields, Bebe Neuwirth, Joel Grey, Chita Rivera, Phylicia Rashad, Bernadette Peters and Brian Stokes Mitchell filling the Moondance Diner. A later number, "Therapy" sees Garfield and Vanessa Hudgens brilliantly singing and pantomiming the crazy trajectory of Jonathan and Susan's relationship. 

Interestingly enough, Hudgins' character is mostly a background player up until that number, one of the film's very best, where she just lets loose and does more in explaining the Jonathan-Susan relationship than most of the scenes Alexandra Shipp shares with Garfield, as those moments never really rise above the trope of ignored girlfriend of genius artist. The bond between Jonathan and best friend Michael carries more resonance, as does Bradley Whitford's small but memorable turn as Stephen Sondheim, providing the perfect swan song, with the legend's mentorship playing a key role in pushing Jonathan forward. Judith Light is also very good as his agent, Rosa Stevens, who honestly but compassionately gives him the exact advice he needs, regardless of how difficult it may be to hear.     

The fear that everything Jonathan's worked toward for the past eight years may have amounted to nothing, reaches this crescendo in the last act, only to kind of fizzle out, culminating in a musical number that just seems to go on and on and on. By this point, we're ready for the breakthrough. We want him write Rent, but the script's so hyper-focused on failure after failure that when his creative epiphany does come, it's mentioned almost in passing, as a backdrop to his tragic death. 

It never feels like we get a chance to celebrate anything in this picture, which may exactly be the point. Still, it seems so much was put into conveying his struggles and squeezing in as many musical numbers as possible, that things got a little muddled along the way. Despite being a wildly mixed bag of questionable choices, Tick,Tick...Boom! is still entirely watchable and one of the few near-misses I'd actually be willing to give another look at down the road. That's mainly because Garfield is such a revelation as Larson, remaining intensely focused and engaged even while the film drags its feet, frequently feeling far longer and more exhausting than its running time suggests.

The Amazing Spider-Man

  
Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan Martin Sheen, Sally Field 
Running Time: 136 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Forget about the question of whether it was necessary to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so soon after Sam Raimi's trilogy concluded. We already know the answer. It wasn't. We don't really "need" any movie, whether it's a remake, prequel, sequel, adaptation or even an entirely original story. But that doesn't make it feel like any less of a privilege when we get an exceptional one. Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man is easily the best film released thus far by Marvel studios, differing from Thor, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and yes, even the overpraised The Avengers, in that it doesn't feel like it was written by a committee, but by those who simply care about telling a good story. A few of those other movies could at best be considered "dumb fun," and this is fun too, but smart. To say I had no interest at all in seeing it would be a massive understatement, but an even bigger understatement would be claiming I thought it had any chance at success. But a success it is, reaching a level creatively that Raimi's films couldn't go near.

Webb knows the story he wants to tell and takes his time getting there. And when he does get there it means something because we care about the characters and the journey they've made. By nature, Spider-Man faces the same problems coming to the big screen that Superman does. Besides offering little in the way of depth or complexity and being an unfailing do-gooder, you run a high risk of the character coming off silly if not executed just right.  But here, the actual superhero element evolves organically from a richly rendered coming-of-age story and touching romance, leading to genuine thrills when the web-slinging begins. Raimi's films talked about how with "great power comes great responsibility," but that ended up being just a catchphrase to sell tickets. This movie is actually about it.

This story starts at the beginning, but the very beginning, as 4-year-old Peter Parker is mysteriously sent away in by his parents to live with Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). We flash-forward to meet a teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), who's now taken an interest in discovering the truth about his real parents, even while being bullied constantly in school and crushing on pretty, mini-skirt wearing classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who's the daughter of police Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary). Soon Peter discovers a suitcase of old documents, detailing his father's extensive work at Oscorp with scientist Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) in trying to combine human and animal DNA to cure illnesses and regenerate body tissue. It's during a trip to Oscorp to get answers from the one-armed Connors that Peter's bitten by a genetically engineered spider, its toxins arming him with superhuman speed and strength. He also supplies Connors with the missing algorithm needed to complete his research and restore his missing limb, but things get out of control when the is new lizard DNA causes his whole body undergo a reptilian transformation, putting the entire city's citizens at risk. Only Parker, working as the masked vigilante, has the capabilities to stop it, but Captain Stacy has other plans. He wants Spider-Man either killed or locked up, which proves to be a major obstacle in Peter's burgeoning relationship with his daughter.

That description could be construed as making The Amazing Spider-Man seem like any other superhero movie, with the title character coming to terms with his new identity, gaining a love interest and eventually engaging in a climactic battle with the villain. Put in crudely simplistic screenwriting terms, that's true, but this may be one of the few times (and certainly the only instance in a Marvel entry) where I was too engaged in the origin story to even think about it. The first hour is nothing short of spectacular in building a backstory and fleshing out characters both major and minor. Uncle Ben and Aunt May, who couldn't have appeared for more than a total of 5 minutes in Raimi's films, are given the grand treatment this time. As far as family portraits go, it's a riveting one, held together by Martin Sheen radiating a tough but benevolent warmth as Ben that recalls his work as commander-in-chief on The West Wing. It's not a small part, nor should it be, considering his death provides the impetus for Peter's emotional transformation. It feels like we get nearly an entire mini-movie about the Parkers before tragedy strikes, which only makes the actual moment seem that much more powerful when it comes.

Peter's troubles at school are emphasized far more here than in any previous depiction of the character on screen, but never exaggerated simply for effect. As opposed to being portrayed as some geek who can't stand up for himself, he's presented more wisely as a relatively normal outcast who's just overmatched at everything. The most ridiculous element of the story, the actual spider bite and the superhuman powers that spring from it, is presented far more less campy manner than in Raimi's original. The scenes where Peter takes to the streets as a masked vigilante in search of his uncle's murderer, emerging as both a fugitive and celebrity, more closely resembles the very the best of more grounded entries in the genre like Kick-Ass and Chronicle, both of which could have easily provided inspiration for approach the film takes. And there's little doubt this was the right direction to go, as it's literally the exact opposite of what we saw in 2002 and its succeeding sequels. Even if at certain points in the narrative inevitably covers some the same material, it never feels that way .

If the director behind (500) Days of Summer seems like a strange choice to be tackling this do-over, it's only after watching it does the selection make perfect sense. The crux of the story is the relationship between Peter and Gwen, so you'd figure the filmmaker behind one of the few recent intelligent modern romances would be the perfect person to flesh it out. And did he ever find the right two actors to fill these roles with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. I'm always skeptical (and even a little disappointed) whenever really talented actors sign on for a multi-film superhero franchise, as there's always a risk it could be a waste of time and talent better served in more prestigious projects. But any worries of this material dragging these two down were unfounded as both only elevate what's surprisingly an already strong script that makes excellent use of their skills. Disproving early criticisms he was too old for the part, Garfield gives us a totally different Parker than Tobey Maguire, managing to be completely likable without losing any of the character's edge. He just has a presence that makes you want to root for him and has great on screen chemistry with Stone, whose natural spunk and charm makes her a perfect choice for the witty Gwen. Better yet, both takes differ enough that it never feels like they're competing with or in the shadow of Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, who were never the source of that series' issues.

As well developed as Peter's relationship is with Uncle Ben and Aunt May, Gwen's relationship with her father is fleshed out almost equally as well in only just a few scenes, with Denis Leary proving to be a surprisingly inspired casting choice for the tough, sarcastic Captain Stacy. The same can be said for Rhys Ifans who brings a restrained level-headedness to the role of Curt Connors, who's villain I far preferred to Willem Dafoe's campy, Halloween costume wearing nut from the original. There's kind of a Jekyll and Hyde take on this character and his fascination with science that's interesting and not something we usually see in modern superhero movies. Similarly, his transformation into The Lizard (featuring a believable looking mix of CG and practical effects) and the carnage he brings feels like a throwback to something out of King Kong or Godzilla. And because the storytelling is so tight, his culminating clash with Peter is presented as more a case of science steering the two on a collision course than the mandatory showdown we're used to seeing in the third act of previous Marvel movies, too many of which were poorly conceived and executed. All the alterations made to the physical depiction of Spider-Man on screen are also improvements, right down to the sleeker looking costume and the fantastic, vertigo inducing flying scenes across the city's skyscrapers, which this time looks like a person in the air rather than a video game. There's some connection between Parker outside the costume and in it, and Garfield makes you believe there isn't a second when he wasn't under the mask.

Audience apathy toward the idea of re-booting a series this soon is about the best explanation as to why this hasn't received the praise it deserves. If that's the case, it's understandable, but I'm more willing to put the blame on the oversaturation of superhero movies in general. Most of that blame lies with Marvel, so it's not hard to go into this thinking it would be just another cash grab for them. Their insistence on releasing a reboot no one particularly wanted to see in 3D likely didn't help matters either. Anyone who was fully satisfied with Raimi's interpretation probably won't enjoy this but if you disliked his approach as much as I did, then this suddenly becomes the definitive take on Spider-Man. It's a great example of what happens when the right creative choices are made and talented actors are cast who are capable of taking the material even further. In their age bracket, Garfield and Stone are two of the best right now and it's a credit to Webb that this doesn't at all feel beneath them.  It's also nice for a change to see a post credits scene in a Marvel movie and care about the next chapter instead of it feeling like a calculated commercial for another project. The Amazing Spider-Man may not transcend its genre like The Dark Knight Rises did earlier in the year, but it's leagues better than it's gotten credit for, proving that sometimes there's no shame in finishing a distant second.      

Never Let Me Go

Director: Mark Romanek
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe, Ella Purnell, Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)
  
MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

In taking a fantastical sci-fi premise that could be ripped from The Twilight Zone and dropping it in a familiar, everyday reality, Never Let Me Go gives us something we've never seen before without flaunting it or obsessing over pointless details. It's a reminder that when executed to its full potential science fiction is the strongest genre out there simply because it's capable of exploring themes, emotions and situations conventional dramatic storytelling constraints would usually prohibit. The world presented to us here seems so frighteningly normal and similar to our own that the phrase "Based on a True Story" could have flashed before the opening credits and we'd believe it. As emotionally devastating as it is realistic it follows three friends who aren't exactly friends but are thrown together by dire circumstances they can't possibly control or possibly comprehend the full impact of. And that they can't understand it despite their best efforts to try just might be the saddest aspect of a story already loaded with sadness and regret.

Childhood memories, first loves, going away to school and everything else we'd usually associate with growing up seem profoundly different when looked at the through the painful prism of these characters' tragic lives. Mismarketed and misunderstood, the film faced an uphill battle from the start in being aimed at two wildly different types of audiences. Commercials and trailers were intentionally vague, leading to confusion and causing the picture to fall by the wayside amidst award competition from other prestigious releases at the end of last year. I've wrestled with whether I should reveal the key plot point (it's not a "twist" since it's revealed early and casually) in this review, and determined it's nearly impossible to discuss what makes the film so unique without doing so. A thesis paper could probably be written on the film's concepts, but what sets this apart is what's done with them, offering up a great case that the best films are capable of being just as intellectually stimulating as the literature they're based on.

The film is narrated by 28-year-old Kathy H., a young woman reflecting back on a childhood spent with friends Ruth and Tommy at Hailsham, a seemingly idyllic English boarding school that fosters creativity and physical health. But things aren't as rosy as they appear as stories and terrifying rumors circulate about what happens when you try to leave the grounds and daily medical check-ups tip off that these children are being groomed carefully for something important. They're scientific clones, being prepped to donate their vital organs to save terminally ill patients when they reach young adulthood. Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), the one teacher brave enough to let the children know of their purpose and early fates is fired as the kids continue to await the day they reach their teenage years and are shipped off to cottages before they start their donations. From their very early years at Hailsham young Kathy (Isobel Meikle-Small) begins to fall for the highly emotional, quick-tempered Tommy (Charlie Rowe), but Ruth (Ella Purnell) selfishly sets her sights on him, driving a wedge between the three that will last into the better part of the next decade. Teenagers Ruth and Tommy (Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield) are still together while heartbroken Kathy (Carey Mulligan) suffers in silence, knowing the time she could have spent with Tommy is whittling away. Reunited a decade later in young adulthood, the stakes become even higher as the three enter the final leg of their tragic journey, preparing to fulfill their ultimate purpose while still holding out hope there's some way out.

What starts looking like it's going to be one of those stuffy, British Oscar contending dramas like The King's Speech evolves into a dystopian nightmare, but slowly and with such clarity and casual confidence you hardly realize it's happening. Merely the existence of the big question as to why they just don't try to escape confirms the film has more on its mind than just its premise and is entirely unconcerned with consequences or a cheap action payoff you'd find in something like Logan's Run or The Island. What sets Alex Garland's script (adapted from Kazuo Ishiguru's bestselling novel) apart is that they wouldn't try to escape because the possibility doesn't exist in their minds that they can (though it's heavily implied certain safeguards are in place to prevent it should they try). This is just the way it is for them and scarier still is the notion that they seem uncertain that they want to and likely wouldn't have a clue what to do once they did. The most terrifying scene in the film comes when as children they're taught something as simple as how to order in a restaurant and the uncomfortable result later when they eventually have to. What motivation do they have to learn anything knowing their days are numbered? Armed with the knowledge they'll die before reaching their full potential informs the story in ways it couldn't if this were just about showing off its premise. Ruth's decades long attempt to come between Kathy and Tommy takes on an almost sadistic quality when you consider how little time is afforded to them.

Since first bursting on the scene a couple of years ago Carey Mulligan has been slowly building toward a performance like this but I didn't think it would happen this soon. She was strong in 2009's An Education (for which she was Oscar nominated) and in last year's Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, but this a far more challenging role than either, requiring her to tell the entire story of this girl on her face without words and convey the evolution of a character through the stages of her life. Her narration contains a matter-of-fact frankness that subtly adds even more weight to the tragedy. It's also amazing just how well she captures the mannerisms of her childhood counterpart from earlier in the film played by Isobel Meikle-Small (who looks and acts so much like Mulligan it's scary). This is one of those rare instances where the casting and performances are so spot-on that you actually believe the chosen sets of kid and adult actors are the same person.

Andrew Garfield's impact as the shy but sensitive adult Tommy isn't felt in full force until the brutal final hour as he builds on the frightened boy we first met at the start of the picture, now scrambling and seemingly on the verge of a mental meltdown as he attempts to delay the inevitable. Keira Knightley's an ironic choice for the antagonist since she's essentially playing the exact opposite role she did in Atonement where she was the victim in a relationship destroyed by jealous sabotage. This time she's the sabateour, investing Ruth with a detestable arrogance that masks her massive fear and insecurity. While I don't usually count myself as a Knightley fan it's surprising how much she does with what could have been a fairly limiting role, not to mention the physical and emotional transformation she undergoes toward the end of the picture that renders her character unrecognizable from how she began. Giving maybe the most fully realized performance of her career thus far, Knightly can take solace in the fact that she only comes off as the weak link because she's sharing the screen with two actors emerging as the best of their generation.

Thinking of this as Atonement meets Blade Runner in a genre bending mash-up helps in getting a handle on why it had little chance for commercial success. But mentioning Blade Runner in relation to this is slightly unfair in that it implies there's any running going on at all during the film or that the cloning aspect is the driving force in some kind of futuristic narrative. This amounts to much more  than that, using it as only a canvas to tell a deeper story. The film was directed by Mark Romanek who's last outing was 2002's creepy, underrated One Hour Photo and it's easy to see why he waited eight years to direct another movie if he was waiting on a script this strong. What both have in common are premises that could have easily deteriorated into cheap B-level entertainment but instead ended up contemplating actual ideas. Both are also incredibly somber and depressing, this maybe more so, but it's not without a purpose.   

Despite spanning over two decades in telling a story that feels epic in scope, the film's running time still flies by and Romanek creates an intimacy by setting it in a kind of retro alternate reality that closely resembles our own, yet strangely feels like a bygone era as well. We're always aware that the chances of an eleventh hour reprieve for the characters are slim, but not necessarily non-existent, and it's that hope that builds much of the tension, eventually leading to a well earned emotional release. But the most sobering possibility implied in Never Let Me Go is that our lives may differ very little from that of the film's victim donors. If that's not deep enough stuff to think about, I don't know what is.

Five Favorite Scenes: The Social Network

As I keep digging into The Social Network Blu-ray (so how about that weird packaging and the brilliantly bizarre title menu?) I've come to the conclusion that if it wins Best Picture that's great, but if it doesn't, well then, that's fine too. The Academy has impressively avoided rewarding the most deserving film for the past 83 years so why start now? No validation is necessary here because this is far and away, hands down the best film of this past year or any other recent one and nothing even comes remotely close. Oscar or not. It's best just to celebrate the achievement on its own terms and remind oneself that Driving Miss Daisy won Best Picture. See? That feels better already. As we all know, losing might actually be the best thing for it. For all the controversy surrounding the truthfulness of the movie I think it says a lot about Time's "Person of the Year" Mark Zuckerberg for publicly being a good sport and taking this bullet like a man for the sake of his company. Aaron Sorkin's script loosely incorporates real facts into a semi-fictional work so damning it makes Oliver Stone's W. look like a tribute documentary and it wouldn't have taken but a phone call to his lawyers for Zuckerberg to stop this project altogether (or at least prevented the use of his name and Facebook's trademarks). But he didn't. Give him credit for being seemingly one of the few to actually grasp this is meant for entertainment. He had to be slandered and dragged through the mud for the film to work as well as it does.

Back in October, I attempted a somewhat objective assessment of the film knowing my time to rant and rave about its greatness would get here soon enough. So now it's here. Director David Fincher has gone on the record humbly insisting his film isn't as "important" as Zodiac and if we're going strictly by their topics, he's right.  Only movies are rarely about their actual topics. Such is the case with The Social Network, a film no one said could be made, based on a topic no one wanted to see explored on screen. The level of difficulty here was insurmountable. I'd say in terms of actual execution this feels more important than anything he's done so far. So, how did Sorkin and Fincher ever make a movie about Facebook? Well, for starters, they didn't. Ranked in non-chronological order below are my five favorite scenes/moments in the film, along with accompanying thoughts. Obviously, SPOILERS follow.

5. MEET SEAN PARKER 

This brief, but memorable scene toward the middle portion of the picture when the action moves to the West Coast marks the first onscreen appearance of Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker. It also marks the first instance of applause erupting from the theater I saw it in (the second: the reveal of Mark Zuckerberg's "Ardsley Athletics" T-Shirt). Has there ever been a better character introduction? If I could pick one scene that exemplifies the strength of Sorkin's writing it would probably be this brief sequence. Even over the "Did I adequately answer your condescending question?" lawsuit deposition scenes. A strange statement, but I just love the way this whole exchange unfolds and doesn't take the predictable route you'd expect given the situation.

It's reasonable that Parker would know every little detail about Amy (Dakota Johnson) from Stanford because he's Sean Parker and he does his research. So there's a glimpse of actual common sense in a movie script. Yet somehow Sorkin writes the scene in such a way that she still seems right in step with him and doesn't come across as an airhead for not knowing who he is, or worse, just a slutty party girl who woke up as his latest conquest. Of course, he finds out about "Thefacebook" through someone else, which is typical, and sets the stage for his leech-like behavior later as a charismatic opportunist who sees his opening and takes it. It's easy to see how Zuckerberg fell under his spell and bought what he was selling and why the purely idealistic Eduardo would hate his guts. The more times I watch the film the better Timberlake's performance seems, dropping subtle clues that the likable but flawed Parker was destined all along to make that pathetic police station phone call to Zuckerberg at the end of the film because that's what always happens with him. We get our first glimpse of that here.

4. HARVARD CODE OF CONDUCT

One of the film's more exciting, overlooked aspects was being given full access to Harvard University without really being given access to Harvard, a setting we've really never seen fully exploited on screen before (let's not count 2001's Harvard Man). Fincher changes that, miraculously giving us a very specific sense of time and place without ever even filming at the actual location (Fincher was forced to use Wheelock College as a stand-in) and it's a feeling especially present in the opening campus scenes. The two self-professed "gentlemen of Harvard" who best exemplify this world and our preconceived notions of it are Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, twin rowers who find their idea for a campus social networking site hijacked by Mark Zuckerberg. Supposedly the real twins were thrilled at their depiction in the film, which is hilarious on too many levels to list. Then again, everything involving the Winklevi is hilarious as played by Armie Hammer in the best depiction of preppy entitlement ever put to screen.

I like how Sorkin doesn't write them as villains or bullies, but hard-working guys who had an idea that really could have been stolen out from under them. And they've got a strong case, which leads to their meeting with clueless, hysterically patronizing Harvard President Larry Summers (Douglas Urbanski) in which they futilely attempt to convince him that Zuckerberg's in violation of Harvard's student "Code of Conduct." Their allegations sound as ridiculous to him as the idea of making a movie about them seemed to us. You could compile another separate list of the twins' greatest moments ("I'm 6'5, 220 and there's two of me!") but this scene best exemplifies how the actor immerses himself in two very different and distinct personalities. As dark and nasty as the film gets at times, Hammer insures that it's also a comedy.

3. RICH MAN

Leave it up to Fincher to somehow find the one Beatles song that hasn't been played out. In a career packed with memorable musical moments he always seems to pick just the right song and put it in the perfect place for maximum effect, but he outdoes himself here. You could argue that with Reznor and Ross' haunting score the entire picture is a musical moment unto itself (their brilliantly twisted version of "In The Hall of the Mountain King" during the twins' Henley Royal Regatta rowing race is obviously one of many highlights) but what else but the under-appreciated 1967 Beatles B-Side "Baby, You're A Rich Man" could possibly wrap up the conundrum that is Mark Zuckerberg, or at least the fictional version of him presented here.

The "likability" of the character, and his obsessive desire to be popular, is something that's returned to many times as we get the unofficial closer to his conversation with Erica at the bar, except this time in a conference room with attorney Marylin Delpy (Rashida Jones, getting to deliver that unforgettable final line).  He might end up as a billionaire but this Zuckerberg never cared about money at all which might be his only link to the real-life counterpart, making the ending song choice especially ironic. Sitting alone at the computer, pathetically refreshing the page to see if Erica accepts his friend request is also the least pathetic and most understandable choice Zuckerberg makes in the film, confirming the trace of humanity we suspected he had throughout.

2. THE BAR 

Supposedly, Fincher filmed 99 takes of this opening scene in the bar to knock all the acting out the two actors, which kind of makes sense when you consider they're delivering Sorkin's dialogue. Anyone who watched The West Wing or any of his other TV or film projects knows how wordy it is and how fast it needs to come out. If it it doesn't it can really sound like someone's reading from a script, which you obviously never want. The best thing about Eisenberg's performance is how he almost invisibly implies on his face all these emotions that his character seems incapable of even expressing to anyone.

As Erica, Rooney Mara has an even tougher job here, having to sell that she would even like and date this guy to begin with, then by the end of a single 8 minute conversation be believably fed up enough with his arrogant antics to just walk. She knows his game and won't stand for it, making all the misogynistic accusations leveled against the picture seem ridiculous, especially considering the women always seem much smarter than the guys throughout the film (save Eduardo's psycho girlfriend). With minimal screen time Mara makes us believe that letting Erica go is a mistake Zuckerberg won't ever be able to live down. When we get to the final scene the big revelation isn't that he built a billion dollar company to impress her, but that he believes giving it all up for another chance would be worth it. The scariest part: He's right.


1. EDUARDO SAVERIN'S MELTDOWN

Oh, that "Facebook movie." So cold, cynical, detached and unemotional. Such unlikable characters. Speaks to the mind, not the heart. No one has any FEELINGS. And that's only the second biggest misconception about the film. The biggest is one that Fincher's addressed in many interviews and involves the perception of the picture as some kind of cinematic landmark that speaks to a generation (one that ironically refused to support the movie and probably cost it a few Oscars). I expressed my own doubts on that when I reviewed it and see his point since it usually takes decades to make such a determine any film's value as a cultural touchstone. It also burdens the movie with added pressure it doesn't even need because it's important enough just as what it is: A perfectly directed, written and acted coming-of-age drama about the destruction of a friendship. And it all builds to this. 

Eduardo enters Facebook headquarters a boy but walks out a man after realizing he had the screws put to him by his best friend And in a movie packed with endlessly quotable lines, the criminally un-nominated Andrew Garfield gets to deliver its best to Timberlake's befuddled Parker, a verbal blow anyone caught in a volatile confrontation wished they could come up with in the heat of the moment. After being used and stepped on (though it's a credit to Garfield's performance it never exactly seems that way) Eduardo finally learns the hard way how to stand up for himself becoming the emotional center of what's otherwise been described as the most unemotional of films. He's our way in. Even though its characters talk endlessly, the film wisely holds a lot back in terms of what they're actually thinking and feeling until here, why is why this breaking point moment registers as powerfully as it does.

Images: DVD Beaver

The Social Network

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Rooney Mara, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella, Brenda Song, Rashida Jones
Running Time: 121 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

SPOILERS FOLLOW 


“You are going to go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that that’s not true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”  


David Fincher's The Social Network doesn't waste any time. It gets down to business right away and if you thought going in this would just be "The Facebook Movie" it takes only until the end of the verbally explosive opening scene to change your mind. In it, future Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) gets dumped by his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) after she tires of putting up with his obsession with gaining entry into Harvard's "final clubs" because they'll lead to a better life. They talk and talk, firing Emmy-winning writer Aaron Sorkin's dialogue at and over each other at machine gun speed in a crowded, dimly lit bar with the conversation becoming more contentious as he turns sarcastic and condescending. At first, she almost seems interested, almost amused, until it becomes obvious this is someone without a clue how to interact with people, and as shocked as he is at being dumped, we are at how he got a date with her in the first place. Then comes that blistering quote above. That question of whether Zuckerberg really is an asshole never completely goes away. And if he is, does that preclude him from being a genius? Or a visionary? Or maybe he's just lucky. We don't get what resembles an answer until the final scene but it's the aftershock of the opening one that reverberates through the rest of the picture.

That night, the brutal break-up sends Zuckerberg sprinting back to his dorm room to drunkenly blog about Erica and with the help of his best (and only) friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), create a stir with a server-crashing page called "FaceMash," a "Hot or Not" type application where guys get to rate and compare the physical attractiveness of females on campus. With that the idea of Facebook is planted and one of the elements I appreciated most in Sorkin's screenplay is its full acknowledgment that Zuckerberg didn't exactly invent the light bulb here, but expanded on what was already being implemented shoddily by Friendster and MySpace. It's all in the execution, much of which revolves around the added ingredient of "exclusivity," or the notion that people want to feel as if they're in on something cool. That's what the other social networking sites were missing and once it's incorporated into what was then known as "THE Facebook" the possibilities became endless, as did the pitfalls. Ironically, Zuckerberg provides the perceived social acceptance for people online he could never receive himself on campus until meeting the Winklevoss Twins (Armie Hammer), crew team jocks who recruit him as programmer for their new relationship-based "Harvard Connection" web site emerging (coincidentally or not) just as Zuckerberg launches his.

The story is mostly told through flashbacks and interspersed with courtroom depositions from the two lawsuits eventually brought against Zuckerberg by the twins claiming intellectual property theft and from co-founder Saverin, who's cut out of his piece of the pie by his best friend as the company expands. The wedge driving them apart is Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), a hard partying hype machine looking to latch on to the next big thing after lawsuits from the music industry bled him dry. What's so funny is as the company grows bigger and bigger the further removed it becomes from the original conceit of re-creating the social experience of college online. With expansion comes at least some degree of exclusivity lost and you're left wondering whether the whole thing really would have been better off confined to campuses, since Facebook, as we know it now, has inadvertently come closer to re-creating the social experience of high school more than college. More importantly, we're also left wondering whether Zuckerberg would have been better off since the "better life" he wished for himself didn't necessarily include being the CEO of a billion dollar company. Money isn't the primary motivator for someone who shows up to courtroom depositions wearing jeans and Adidas flip-flops.

Jesse Eisenberg wasn't just the best choice for Zuckerberg, but the only actor who could have possibly done justice to the role, giving his most complex performance yet and one that should finally end those annoying and unjustified Michael Cera comparisons. Having already occupied one end of the spectrum with awkward portrayals of sensitive nerds who win the girl at the end, he leaves the nerd part intact, but removes nearly every other emotion. His trademark accessibility as a performer is muted, offering the character up as a damaged, rejected soul so frustrated at his social incompetence (which borders on Asperger's) and obsessed with fitting in that he uses the only weapon he has: His I.Q. Surprisingly, Timberlake's performance as opportunistic party animal Sean Parker isn't the strongest among the major supporting players but it's important to put that in perspective since he still steals every scene he's in. At first glance he appears to be playing an exaggerated version of himself but his work grows on you and the more you think back on it the more you have to love the irony of music's biggest superstar giving inspirational speeches extolling the virtues of internet piracy and file sharing.

British actor (and future Spider-Man) Andrew Garfield, steals the movie out from under everyone as Eduardo Saverin, the company's CFO who's betrayed by his best friend. We anticipate a smooth, cool operator in full control but Garfield conveys a certain vulnerability and wimpiness that suggests he's being taken for a ride and used as Zuckerberg's doormat, yet he still manages to find a way to make him not come off as a fool. He earns the most sympathy and while still not totally blameless emerges as the biggest victim no matter how many different sides of the story seem to be presented. It's his story as much as Zuckerberg's and you should probably get familiar with his laptop smashing meltdown at Facebook headquarters as you'll likely be seeing many clips of it over the next few months.

As twin rowers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (AKA the "Winklevii"), Armie Hammer, aided by Fincher's impressive Benjamin Button-level technology, creates two separate and unique personalities, identical only in never knowing how it feels to not get what they want, as Zuckerberg puts it. Consider how unlikable they could have been and appreciate how Hammer prevents that, to the point that you actually kind of feel bad for these privileged kids and want to take their side, if only because no one else will. With just two and a half scenes and under five minutes of screen time, Rooney Mara is unforgettably devastating as the catalyst of this social earthquake and it'll be a while before I forget that look on Erica's face when she realizes how Zuckerberg humiliated her. Facebook was about a girl, which makes perfect sense since everything always is. Speculation can now start as to whether she's real, fictitious or maybe resides in that gray area in between. 

Watching the deposition scenes and seeing each character's point of view gives us no better understanding of the truth since all that can be said for sure is that each character believes completely what they're saying. Similarly, you're left to watch and wonder how much if any of Sorkin's script (adapted in part from those depositions and Ben Mezrich's non-fiction novel, The Accidental Billionaires) can be considered a reliable interpretation of real-life events. Supposedly, the real Zuckerberg hasn't seen the film but has gone on record stating it's fictional and meant to be fun.  And on that count he's right, especially anything involving the twins and Zuckerberg's hilariously sarcastic "testimony."  Whether he's viewed it or not, or whether he actually means that or not, he may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in terms of the right approach to take with this. And there are definitely worse things than being an important enough American figure to warrant a picture of this quality.

With Fincher and Sorkin involved I knew this wouldn't actually be ABOUT Facebook, but it's still amazing just how little it is about it and how much is accomplished with what looked on paper to be the most laughable of topics for a feature film. We should have known not to doubt them when we first hear Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' unforgettably unnerving and moody score and see just how dark and gloomy everything looks, confirming that the director who made Fight Club and Zodiac most definitely made this. And as challenging as it should have been to maneuveur around a subject that potentially deals with a lot of talking and sitting around at computers and boardrooms, it's surprising the number of scenes that consist of that, and how tension-filled and exciting they are. 

Comparisons are being made to Citizen Kane, but in all fairness those stem mostly from narrative and thematic similarities, which are plentiful. Like Kane, Zuckerberg gets lonelier and more isolated as he rises to the top, except he manages to spread his loneliness to everyone else. We're all now as socially disconnected as he is, while strangely somehow feeling more connected, at least on some superficial level. Yet there's something admirable and anti-heroic about the character because he set out to achieve a goal and did it the only way he knew how.

How you enter The Social Network is a big determining factor as to how you'll feel when you leave, mainly because of that mysterious phenomenon known as "HYPE," a force capable of cutting down any film, regardless of quality. It seems for a change I was actually able to keep my insanely high expectations mostly in check, resulting in them being exceeded. And as difficult as it's been, I've been careful to contain my praise knowing plenty of opportunities should arise for me to gush about it further in the coming months. It'll be interesting to find out how a film so timely and dependent on current technology will age, but I bet if you showed it to an audience ten years ago and told them this is the direction we're headed, their eyes probably would have popped out of their heads.

It's entirely too early to determine whether it "speaks to a generation" but it definitely speaks to the moment and there is a feeling that its story of greed, loneliness and betrayal has a fighting chance at outlasting the social phenomenon that spawned it. Despite not caring much for Facebook, I'd never suggest the story behind it doesn't deserve to be told, especially when it's constructed as brilliantly as this. The Social Network makes the strongest case yet for Facebook's existence, being that we couldn't have gotten this film without it.