Showing posts with label Daniel Day-Lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Day-Lewis. Show all posts
Monday, May 13, 2013
Lincoln
Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, Dane DeHaan, Joseph Cross, Gloria Reuben
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13
★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)
A talky slog through a very specific point in American history, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln probably would have been better served with the title, The Passing of the 13th Amendment or maybe even Team of Rivals, the Doris Kearns Goodwin biography on which it's partially based. Then again, advertising and marketing still wouldn't fix most of the problems associated with a film that makes the 16th President a supporting player in what feels like the world's longest episode of The West Wing. Where it earns points is in impeccable period accuracy and an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that's every bit as impressive as you'd expect and then some. History buffs will eat this up, even if we're left with the nagging feeling that, barring a few notable exceptions, Spielberg doesn't give us anything that couldn't be gleaned from doing some reading.
As much as many reject standard, by-the-numbers biopics on political figures, I couldn't help but think that approach would have actually been welcome here, as the choice to only depict Lincoln's last four months in office (and of his life) seem to be almost too narrow a focus. And yet, that was easily the most interesting period so Spielberg's caught between a rock and a hard place. He responds with his most un-Spielbergian effort yet, completely abandoning the sentimentality usually associated with his work in favor of a straight, emotionless recitation of history. In that sense, the film is a welcome departure, as he makes the wise decision to get out of his own way. Other than an attempted portrayal of Lincoln as a saintly, Gandhi-like figure (that's mostly transcended by Lewis' riveting turn) there's little that would indicate it's even a Spielberg picture. You'd figure that would be a good thing. Instead, it creates an unusual dichotomy that results in a mild letdown. Albeit a really well-made one.
The film primarily focuses on President Lincoln's attempts in 1865 to obtain passage for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in the House of Representatives. To do this he not only needs the necessary minimum of 20 votes from the Democrats but also, without exception, the full support of the Republicans. It's not as easy as it seems and much of the verbal sparring scripted by Tony Kushner centers around the president's political maneuvering, which is often controversial. Of course, we know he eventually comes out with the win, only to weeks later lose his life to an assassin's bullet, but Spielberg shows the resistance he faced pulling that monumental victory off. Most of those battles involve an unlikely ally in Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets to to deliver some of the film's sharpest insults, proving that politics was just as dirty then as it is now. But for all who are in favor of the amendment's passage, there are just as many who aren't. Namely outspoken Democratic Congressman Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), and even the emotional First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), whom the President has to constantly placate due to her wild mood swings and fears of their returning son Robert Todd's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) desire to join the Union Army.
It's a strange complaint to level against a Spielberg film that it isn't emotionally manipulative enough, but oddly, that's the case here. It's a political procedural devoid of manufactured drama, and even as someone who usually appreciates that approach in other genres, it's dry and talky to the point that I sometimes found myself losing patience and just zoning out. A key factor as to why (aside from the material's sheer denseness) is that it just isn't visually interesting. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has collaborated with Spielberg many times in the past with enormously successful results, but three quarters of the film is shot in dark, dingy corridors and musty rooms. At times it's almost too dark to even see what's happening, which maybe doesn't matter since, most of the time, not a lot is. For example, there's exactly one shot of the White House, which is unusual, because if any historical period presented a golden opportunity for sweeping visual grandeur on screen it was this one. Instead, the whole thing feels kind of claustrophobic with most the film confined to offices and courtrooms.
Luckily, we still have Daniel-Day Lewis, who inhabits every scene, telling stories and providing valuable insight into Lincoln's politics and morals. It almost seems as if every revelation that comes forth about the man is contained entirely in his performance. Everything else, we pretty much knew already. He's the reason to see this. The voice, the look, the tone of speaking. There are so many points where you're taken aback by the way he delivers a line and forced to ask yourself, "Lincoln said THAT? Really?" At some points it's actually funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth because we've grown so accustomed to history dictating to us the mythic terms under which he's supposed to be viewed. But Day-Lewis humanizes him, which might end up being the film's greatest success. One of the most memorable moments comes at the start when he's interacting with a pair of Union soldiers reciting to him the Gettysburg Address. It's a transformative performance in search of a better movie that focuses entirely on Lincoln rather than the nuts and bolts of the political process.
Make no mistake that this is all about the 13th Amendment, with non of the other sub-plots even getting off the ground. Unforgivably, a mustachioed Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wasted as Robert Todd Lincoln, while little is explored regarding the President's marriage aside from a shrieking Sally Field making it perfectly clear that the Mary Todd was a real basketcase and the polar opposite of her calm, serene husband. Of the many supporting players, it's really Jones who chews into his role as stubborn Thaddeus Stevens with grumpy gusto, stealing nearly every scene he's in. Top to bottom, it's a loaded cast, with David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Lukas Haas, Dane DeHaan, Jared Harris, Adam Driver, Walter Goggins and Bruce McGill all contributing in some form or another in wide variety of small and larger parts. More fun than the actual film might be trying to spot and recognize them all. Especially James Spader, who's strangely hilarious as an determined Republican party member lobbying for the amendment's passage.
It's easy to fault Spielberg for continuing a half-hour longer than what would have been the perfect end point or criticize him for a one-sided whitewashing of history, virtually ignoring (with the exception of Gloria Reuben's character) the African-American side of this issue. Both of those are true, but what really bothered me was how he treated, or didn't treat, the assassination. If Spielberg didn't want to show it (supposedly because he thought it would be tasteless, which is a cop-out, but his call), that's fine. But you can't choose not to show it and still fully acknowledge it. If he was going to show it, then he should have. If not, then he shouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Not with something like that. Instead he does this silly bait-and-switch that ends up drawing more attention to the assassination than if he'd actually reenacted it in all its horror. You could actually argue he fulfills his fear of it being tasteless just by pulling this unnecessary stunt.
Spielberg's one of only a few filmmakers today who can reasonably be considered a "brand." The accusation that at this point he's just cashing paychecks and trying to collect Oscars isn't entirely disproven with this effort, but the film is surprisingly restrained and refined, representing at least one of his purest, most honest outings in a while. Unfortunately those very same qualities also make it kind of a chore to sit through. Perhaps it's a little too restrained and in need of some of that magic Ben Affleck was able to create with Argo. While some criticized that for "Hollywoodizing" a historical event, there's no denying his approach worked, giving the material a much-needed emotional spin that captivated audiences. In contrast, Lincoln feels more like a homework assignment. One in which students would actually be more excited to read the book.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Burning Questions from the 2013 Oscars
Boy, that opening monologue sure was long, wasn't it?
And wasn't it kind of a mess?
Didn't Seth MacFarlane initially seem very nervous?
Can you blame him?
Is there a more thankless task than hosting this show?
Will the Mr. Skin website see increased traffic now that MacFarlane has outed all those actresses' nude scenes?
Wasn't Tommy Lee Jones cracking a smile a great start?
Did your enthusiasm dampen when you realized that would be the highlight of the entire night?
Did it truly test the theory that William Shatner makes everything he's in better?
Wouldn't it have been great if HE sang all the nominated original songs?
Were Charlize, Channing Tatum, JGL and Daniel Radcliffe blackmailed into being involved in that?
But didn't they all do a pretty good job?
All other complaints aside, doesn't MacFarlane have a tremendous singing voice?
Wasn't there entirely too much singing (as usual)?
Between that and Kristin Chenoweth on the red carpet, didn't this feel more like The Tonys?
So, MacFarlane or Hathaway/Franco?
Did everyone immediately go 0 for 1 on their Oscar scorecard when Christoph Waltz was announced for Supporting Actor?
Am I the only one still amazed that Beasts of the Southern Wild's score wasn't nominated?
Is Roger Deakins ever going to win an Oscar?
And if he does, by that point, will he even care?
How tasteless was the Jaws music playing the winners off?
But wasn't it still really funny?
Wait, THAT was their "tribute" to 50 Years of Bond?
Looking at that montage, isn't it astonishing just how few truly great Bond movies there have been?
I knew Connnery would be a stretch, but couldn't they at least get a couple of the Bonds to show up?
George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were busy?
Did Shirley Bassey sing the hell out of "Goldfinger" or what?
But shouldn't it have started a medley?
How about Duran Duran?
Paul McCartney?
Chris Cornell?
Carly Simon?
Didn't the pacing of the show feel particularly painful this year?
Wasn't that obvious when we were only an hour in?
How about John Travolta's mispronunciation of "Les Miserables?"
Were you thinking, "Join the club, John?"
Did you notice how little "singing" there was during the musicals tribute?
And out of all the classic Hollywood musicals they pick Chicago and Dreamgirls?
Remember when Dreamgirls was "a lock" to win Best Picture?
And Eddie Murphy for Supporting Actor?
Should I be proud that I still haven't seen Dreamgirls?
Or that I can't remember whether or not I've even seen Chicago?
Can Hugh Jackman host this again?
How funny was Mark Wahlberg trying to convince the audience that there really was a tie?
How bad is it that, despite the tie, I STILL got the Sound Editing category wrong?
Were you wondering how insane it would be if there was a tie in a major category like Best Actress?
Am I the only one who has no recollection of Christopher Plummer winning Best Supporting Actor last year?
Why does the always classy, gracious Anne Hathaway get such a bad wrap?
Is there something wrong with wanting to win an Academy Award and being thankful for it?
Wasn't her husband great in Drive?
Didn't MacFarlane drastically improve when he started mocking the show and his own hosting of it?
Isn't it kind of cool that the Academy gave a lifetime achievement Oscar to Hal Needham, the director of Body Slam?
Any bets on whether that film was included in his highlight reel?
Can we just all agree now that the Jurassic Park theme is John Williams' greatest composition?
While Streisand was fitting, wouldn't it have been nice to have a montage of the late, great Marvin Hamlisch's screen contributions?
Am I saying that partially so I get to see The Swimmer make it onto the Oscar telecast?
Shouldn't we cut Kristen Stewart a break since there's a good chance we would have been bored presenting at this show too?
Did it occur to anyone that it could have just been nerves?
Can you believe I'm defending Kristen Stewart?
Is it wrong that I laughed at MacFarlane's joke about Rex Reed reviewing Adele's performance?
Did it top his other one about John Wilkes Booth being the only actor to really get inside Lincoln's head?
Isn't that song from Chasing Ice great?
Wasn't it a missed opportunity not having Scarlett Johansson there performing it?
Charlize Theron and Quentin Tarantino...neighbors?
Since the Affleck snub, did everyone's chances for correctly guessing Best Director go up in smoke?
Isn't Jennifer Lawrence's maniacal laugh in the diner scene awesome?
Could they have possibly picked a better clip?
After that fall, should she also get an Oscar for stuntwork?
Wasn't her reaction just further proof of how cool and self-depricating she is?
What does it say about how much of a lock Daniel-Day Lewis was that Meryl Streep didn't even need to open the envelope?
Can you believe that massive spoiler clip they showed for Flight?
Isn't it always great to see Jack Nicholson at the Oscars?
Doesn't The First Lady deserve a lot credit for agreeing to do this and doing it well?
Could you actually picture Nancy Reagan announcing Platoon as Best Picture in '87?
Wouldn't this make for a fun project of matching previous First Ladies with coinciding Best Picture winners of their terms?
Given how much the Obamas have publicly been supporting Beasts of the Southern Wild, weren't you a little concerned before Michelle opened that envelope?
How cool was it that Ben Aflleck thanked the director of Gigli, in his speech?
How many people picked up on it?
And who ever thought Affleck would get to the point where that would happen?
With that win (and beard) has he now fully completed his transformation into the new George Clooney?
Was being snubbed for Best Director the best thing that could have ever happened to him?
Will the media have their knives sharpened for MacFarlane?
Was the whole night him trying to find a balance between crude humor and song-and-dance routines?
Sometimes successfully, sometimes not?
Am I wrong in thinking there's way too much Broadway-style theatrics for a show supposedly honoring movies?
Even though it didn't come anywhere close to being the longest show in the Academy's history, didn't it kind of feel that way?
Wasn't that a strange show?
So, who's hosting the Oscars next year?
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Dennis Has a Podcast: 2013 Oscars Preview (with Jeremy The Critic)
After almost a year absence I returned as a guest to my good friend Dennis' fantastic Dennis Has A Podcast (great logo by the way!) and discussed all things Oscar. We previewed the big show tomorrow, offered up our predictions, talked about what we hope to expect, and still found time to cover some other fun stuff too. As always, it was a blast. Plus, you get to listen to me rant about why Silver Linings Playbook deserves to win Best Picture. What's not to like?
Click here to listen
And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.
Friday, April 11, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Ciaran Hinds, Kevin J. O' Connor
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: R
**** (out of ****)
Yes, Paul Thomas Anderson's oil epic There Will Be Blood is as great as everyone says. But it's a fact I wasn't quite so sure of immediately. When it ended I knew I had seen a technical masterpiece but doubted if it was anything more than that or was even something I'd in good conscience recommend to anyone else. It's long, loud and drenched in despair.
In a year of depressing films this stands head and shoulders above them all as the most depressing. Then I woke up the next morning and found I couldn't shake certain scenes and images from my mind. After thinking it over it finally occurred to me that much like a lot of Anderson's output it's one of those slow burners that keeps coming back to you long after its over. It deserves to stand as an important American cinematic achievement of the highest caliber.
So far Anderson has directed five films and three of them (Boogie Nights, Magnolia and now this) could be considered masterpieces. That's not the part that's a big deal though, as plenty of other filmmakers could lay claim to that feat (but probably not at the age of only 37). The part that's so shocking and is an unparalleled accomplishment by any living director is that each of those three films have nothing in common. If they were blindly screened, you'd probably guess they came from three different filmmakers. Throw in the two other excellent ones (Hard Eight and Punch-Drunk Love) and it would just further muddy the waters. Skeptics claim Anderson is just mimicking his favorite filmmakers. Boogie Nights was his Scorsese. Magnolia was his Altman. This is his Kubrick. But that's simplifying things and not giving him enough credit. Others influenced those filmmakers and if Anderson's entire career is built on just merely imitation then how come his films are so great?
The shell of There Will Be Blood is tougher to crack than any of Anderson's other efforts, many of which were also written off as inaccessible at the time of their release. This could never be my "favorite" P.T. Anderson film but because of it his other work may have to be reexamined and will probably now play even better because of it. The Quentin Tarantinos, Wes Andersons and David Finchers of the film world are brilliant but I don't get the impression they're challenging themselves with every outing. You can tell Anderson really went out of his milieu here, pushing himself hard and making what should be a fairly dry story crackle with unique excitement and energy. What sets him apart from his peers is his versatility, something I don't think I ever fully appreciated until this film. As great as I thought he was, I never once considered he could have had a film like this in him.
Loosely based on Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, There Will Be Blood opens in 1898 when prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) accidentally stumbles upon oil deposits in one of his silver mines. We flash forward a few years later where Plainview, now the owner of his own small drilling company, is left to care for the orphaned son of one of his workers who died in an accident. He raises the boy, H.W. (a captivating Dillon Freasier) as his own and names him partner in his fledgling operation.
By 1912, Plainview emerges as one of the most successful oil men in the country competing with powerhouses like Standard Oil and is approached by a young man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) who gives him a lead on land in California belonging to his father Abel (David Willis). Plainview attempts to swindle the old man, but Paul's twin brother Eli (also played by Dano), an evangelistic preacher and faith healer, knows of the land's rich oil deposits and attempts to extract to the best deal possible from Plainview, one that would most benefit his church and the community.
At first, Plainview and Eli, while not exactly on the same page, at least seem to be reading the same book and reluctantly understand where each is coming from. Or so it appears. They begrudgingly tolerate one another until it becomes clear to Eli that Plainview's promises to him and townsfolk are hollow ones. It's all about money for this man. Faith and corporate domination don't exactly go hand in hand and as problems with Plainview's plans and a series of unfortunate accidents just increase the tension between them until it finally explodes…literally and figuratively. The film shifts in dramatically from being about the turn-of-the-century oil boom to the attempted salvation of a man's damned, rotting soul overcome by greed.
The brilliance of this film lies in how it methodically shows its hand as a deep character study. Plainview almost appears to be somewhat of an admirable figure when we first meet him. But his ambition starts to get the best of him as this inexplicable force that seems to infest only the most competitive individuals drives him forward in his cruelty. He uses his own son to further his business interests, but doesn't hesitate in discarding him when he threatens to become a liability.
When a man (Kevin J. O'Connor) shows up out of nowhere claiming to be his half-brother he doesn't think twice about extracting what he needs from him either. For a while at least, he appears to be the only person Plainview comes close to forming any kind of meaningful connection with. Layers of his personality we couldn't have guessed existed start to manifest itself and by the last third of the film he's pretty much the most vicious monster you could lay your eyes on.
What's so scary about Plainview is the reality of his persona. You could easily throw him in any present-day boardroom in corporate America and he wouldn't lose any of his edge. Justifiably, many comparisons have been made between this film and Citizen Kane thematically and there's a lot to that, especially in the film's emotionally brutal last half-hour. Unlike Charles Foster Kane, however, we realize there's even less of a shot of redemption for this man and by the end of the picture he remains as much of an enigma as when it started. His actions become more heinous as the story wears on, reaching its crescendo with one of the most memorable final scenes and lines in recent film history. The last two words of dialogue written by Anderson couldn't have possibly been more appropriate and chilling.
At close of the film I questioned what the purpose of all of this was. To put the audience through pure emotional hell to deliver a message that greed is bad? I thought the film could join some other great films of the year in being technically brilliant, but emotionally empty. It's not though. The more I think about it the more I realize the entire story is almost driven purely by emotion, just not the kind we're used to seeing in a film. It's negative emotional energy and it's represented in Plainview's relationship with his son as well as with his unsettling encounters with Eli, brilliantly played by Dano. He goes toe-to-toe with one of our greatest actors and holds his own every step of the way.
There was no sense in even having a Best Actor race this year. It was over before it began. No acting work this year or maybe any other so far this decade approaches what Daniel Day-Lewis accomplishes here. It transcends acting, and in some strange way, also works as a dark parody. I recently saw a Saturday Night Live skit spoofing the character that wasn't very funny and would probably seem even less funnier to me now after actually seeing the film. This is because there are already elements of parody in the performance. You can't spoof something that's spoofing itself. Not only does Lewis manage to hit all the dark notes of Plainview perfectly, but he finds a way to slide humor in without it being overtly noticeable.
Some have criticized Day-Lewis' performance as being hammy and over-the-top and it sort of is, but what's so remarkable is how he turns those qualities into attributes that deepen the story's psychology. On a first viewing it may not be entirely noticeable, but on repeated ones it comes more clearly into focus. And surprisingly, that only makes Plainview's downfall scarier and that much more desperate. Even while hating him with a passion, we still deeply care about his fate. It can't be undersold how difficult it should be to sit through a film with a main character this despicable, not to mention one that's featured in every single scene of an almost three hour epic. His performance instead makes it an unforgettable experience.
There Will Be Blood bucks the trend of what can be expected from an Academy Award nominated period drama. That starts with a deafeningly loud, bizarre and unnerving musical score provided by Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood that was deemed ineligible for Oscar consideration because it incorporated pieces of previous recorded material. What makes it fascinating is how it breaks the unwritten rule that the music in a film is not supposed to draw attention to itself. All this seems to do is just that and at times I thought that it would be a better fit for a horror movie. Yet, it works. It works because this is essentially a horror movie and also precisely because it doesn't quite fit. It's uncomfortable and weird, keeping you on edge the entire time. Almost unhinged, like the main character and the film itself. It's touches and eccentricities like these that remind us this is very much a P.T. Anderson picture. Like casting Paul Dano as both brothers and writing them as twins, when the story doesn't even necessitate it at all… or does it? Part of me thinks it does.
This film will be compared to many others for years to come. There are traces of Lawrence of Arabia and Giant and that it doesn't seem out of place discussing this film in the same breath as those says a lot. Especially in regards to the breathtaking cinematography of Robert Elswit, who also shot Michael Clayton, and has had one hell of a year, taking home the statue for this. You could draw comparisons to many other films in terms of look and feel but the Kubrick comparison seems most valid.
Besides the dialogue-free opening 10 minutes reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the unnerving music and the presence of a morally depraved central character there's a certain intangible factor. All of Kubrick's films seemed to exist in this indescribable vacuum of time where they never age or feel dated. I liked Boogie Nights and Magnolia a lot upon their initial releases but time has proven them to be more potent than anyone could have anticipated. The same fate likely awaits There Will Be Blood and it won't surprise me at all when the American Film Institute releases their next list of the 100 greatest films and this is on it, and probably in a pretty high position. This is that good.
I have mixed feelings showering so much praise on this film since it really doesn't need it. I've also grown sick of the Academy's new attitude of rewarding "feel bad" films in an attempt to look edgy. I'd like to tell myself they nominated this for all the right reasons but considering the film that beat this out for Best Picture was the equally morose No Country For Old Men, that's doubtful. However, if they are going that route I only ask they nominate something worthy. This definitely is. It wouldn't be a stretch to envision people still watching and talking about this film 50 years from now.
In true Anderson fashion, this will infuriate casual moviegoers while simultaneously sending diehard film buffs into a tailspin. But we know he won't make anything like it again. After this he'll move on to something completely different, which he'll also excel at. It's that quality that separates Anderson from the pack and will eventually land him a spot on the list with the greatest American filmmakers everyone accuses him of copying. There Will Be Blood is devastating and at times difficult to watch, but you'll find it's impossible to look away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



