All Is Lost

Director: J.C. Chandor
Starring: Robert Redford
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It's practically impossible to watch All is Lost without feeling the urge to compare it to Gravity. Both are survival stories that see their protagonist forced to fend for themselves in a battle against the elements and a race against time. But there are also key differences, the least of which being the setting or gender of the main character. While Gravity tells us everything we need to know about Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone and more than a few things we didn't, this film's everyman (known simply in the credits as "our man") is just that. He's never given a name and we know next to nothing of his backstory. At the risk of trouncing one film to prop up another, I couldn't help but wonder why writer/director J.C. Chandor's approach to similar material seems so much more effective. But the reason is abundantly clear the second we see Robert Redford's aging visage on screen. He'll be doing all the work. Any backstory or superflulous details will have to be projected onto the story by imaginative viewers observing his actions. What he doesn't say is where the story's power lies, testing that screenwriting theory that often the best scripts have the most amount of white space on the page.

The picture is as sparse and bare bones as it gets. At least Bullock had some company for a little while. This is Redford vs. The Sea. But don't dare call him the film's "star," as doing so implies we're getting a movie star turn that again exploits the actor's charisma, charm, or personality. This is instead the systematic deconstruction of all that, displacing the boyishly handsome "Sundance Kid" persona he's been most identified with over the years with a broken down old man. In this film Redford looks every last day of his 77 years and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, as this time he answers the call, addressing the most popular career criticism leveled against him. That he doesn't take any risks. His response is a performance that's stripped, not only of all words, but all vanity. 

We join the adventure mid-crisis as Redford's anonymous seaman is lost somewhere in the Indian Ocean and awakens to discover his boat has collided with a shipping container, which has ripped a hole in the hull. And that's just the start of his troubles, as he's lost all navigational and communication systems and has little success patching up the damaged ship. Much of his time is spent putting band-aids on problems, both literally and figuratively, and contending with elements, such as a monster storm that tests his and the ship's capacity for survival. As the days wear on and the possibility of rescue seems less and less likely, the presumably inexperienced protagonist must rely on his own ingenuity to fight the ravages of nature as time takes its toll, physically and emotionally wearing him down.

To say that Redford "holds the screen" or "carries" this would be the cinematic understatement of the year. There's literally no one else in it, and aside from an opening narration and one screamed expletive, there are no spoken lines. What's so impressive is how he manages to do so much with that, both through his facial expressions and the character's exacting calculations in coming up with ideas to prolong survival. We can see and sense the wheels turning inside his head and are capable of determining a great deal about him as a person with no information dispensed to us at all. The best aspect of the performance are all the things he hints that are never revealed. It's not necessary to have a scene showing how he got out there or shoehorn flashbacks because Redford makes you imagine them. You can picture the stubborn man leaving on this trip thinking he has everything under control when in actuality the situation couldn't be further out of his hands. We can assume his boat, the "Virginia Jean" is named after a loved one. Wife? Daughter? Granddaughter? Whatever that relationship is, we're given tiny clues it's been strained before he set sail. We know nothing because Chandor knows whatever we cook up in our heads will be more powerful than simply being told about it. He trusts us, but importantly, trusts Redford to fill in those blanks.

For the most part, "our man" seems unemotional and confident, at least until things get very bad, and even then, he does a rather impressive job keeping it together. Still, it wouldn't take an experienced sailor to notice he doesn't know what he's doing, much like Gravity's Dr. Stone. But the key difference lies in the fact that while Bullock's character is equally incompetent, she's unwisely portrayed as an emotional mess, highlighting the film's weakness for spelling things out in big, bold letters. Redford's character makes some dumb decisions, but he never comes off looking like a fool because it stems from this false pride and ego we can't ever really get a handle on. That's a very subtle choice, and a lot more intriguing than a tacked on backstory involving a deceased child intended to trigger audience sympathy. That decision ultimately cements this as more a story about humanity and survival than visual effects and technical wonder (which Gravity does provide in truckloads). The technical achievements are primarily in sound,  joining Redford in co-piloting a picture with no dialogue, but plenty of noises that make you feel as if you're on the boat with this man fighting for his life. The score (provided by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros' Alex Ebert) does the rest of that work and it's haunting, used in just the right doses.

It's hard not to view the Academy's snub of Redford as disgraceful and potentially one of the rare oversights where they'll actually look back in regret. So much of the film's narrative and central character is intertwined with the actor's personal  history and career that you can't help but draw a comparison to Mickey Rourke's nominated role in The Wrestler. An older actor thought to be past his prime fighting to survive and battling back, reminding us why he was so respected to begin. That this film came Chandor, the director of 2011's Margin Call is particularly ironic when you consider how talky and dialogue-driven that film was. This has an ending that will undoubtedly infuriate some who prefer pat conclusions that fail to ask anything of its audience. Even if he whole survival story card has been admittedly overplayed of late with Life of Pi, Gravity and Captain Phillips all causing audience fatigue with the genre, this is too well executed to ignore. The best survival stories are always about more than just survival. By choosing to say nothing, All is Lost ends up saying much more than most movies with supposedly greater ambitions.
        

Lions For Lambs

Director: Robert Redford
Starring: Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Andrew Garfield, Derek Luke, Michael Pena, Peter Berg
Running Time: 91 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

Of all the politically themed dramas Hollywood has nauseatingly dished out to us in the past year I was dreading Lions For Lambs the most. I figured with big power players like Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep attached there would be no one there to rein them and they'd make fools of themselves juggling this heavy-handed subject matter. With Cruise producing and Redford directing those fears were only magnified. Much to my surprise, they actually restrain themselves a little and parts of it are actually very good. I'm convinced this is only because it does a better job hiding its blatant one-sided agenda than expected. It almost had me.

The film tries to be a call to action and tell us that as citizens we should be involved and alert to what's going on in even the smallest way possible. It does this by telling three different but interrelated stories concerning The United States' war on terror in the Middle East. One of these stories is thought provoking, another boring, while a third is unintentionally hilarious.

This is the first feature to be released under the Cruise led United Artists banner after he was unceremoniously dumped by Paramount following his Oprah couch jumping debacle and other various public displays of embarrassment a couple of years ago. It's an auspicious start and a very rare misstep for Cruise, whose choices in projects are usually flawless. A special feature on the DVD is a video montage highlighting all the great films released under United Artists, and there are many. This isn't likely to ever be listed among them. But of course you could argue Pieces of April had no place in the montage either but I think we know why that was there.

The silly, on-the-nose title of the film obviously refers to clueless political leaders (lambs) sending brave young men and women (lions) to slaughter overseas for no reason. So going in I really had no right to expect a fair and balanced treatment of the issue. And if anything, this film's commercial failure conclusively proved what we already knew: Audiences like to make their own minds up and don't like being preached to, no matter how slickly it's presented.

The first story involves an upcoming hotshot Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise) who has a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan that he's willing to share only with veteran TV reporter Janine Roth (Streep) in an hour-long exclusive interview in his D.C. office. Janine had written a very flattering piece on the Senator 8 years ago that she's now starting to regret because she realizes this guy is full of hot air and just has his sights set on the White House. Now she has to objectively report on this latest piece of propaganda. The charismatic Senator will say and do anything to raise his profile, even if it means putting soldiers lives at risk.

Two of those soldiers fighting in Afghanistan right now and in immediate danger from this new strategy are college students Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena) who were inspired to enlist by a project given by their idealistic professor Dr. Stephen Malley (Redford). Malley is having an hour-long meeting with spoiled, apathetic student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), who's been skipping class and is in danger of failing. Dr. Malley offers him a deal he has to think hard about and that could have a major bearing on his future. He tells him about his two former students, emphasizing that while he may not agree at all with what they did, he respects them for at least doing something.

This is a very talky movie. It clocks in at only 91 minutes but I'm sure if we saw a copy of Matthew Michael Carnahan's script it would be about 180 pages. Peter Berg, who plays a Lieutenant in Afghanistan, has a stretch of dialogue that has to be among the longest I've ever heard. All I could think listening was how it could even be humanly possible for anyone to memorize so many lines. As he just kept going, without even taking a breath, I actually started cracking up. All the war sequences are boring and major reason for that (besides not being filmed particularly well) is the narrative lets us know too late who these two soldiers are and their relationship to the professor. We don't really know why they're there until the last 15 minutes of the film so we don't care. It's a shame too because Luke and Pena give good performances and are terrific later on when we finally get to know who they are and what they stand for. It's a double-edged sword that the war sequences don't take up very much of the film because, while they may not be effective at all, do we really want something so important treated as a throwaway?

The film gives more than enough time to the ludicrous "showdown" between Cruise's Senator and Streep's liberal minded reporter. Cruise slides into the role of the cocky Senator effortlessly and audiences are likely to pick up on the irony of him playing a man who believes everything he says no matter how delusional. It's Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise playing a slimy senator, but he's entertaining nonetheless. His character is essentially just a Bush stand-in though. It's humorous that in Rendition Meryl Streep was playing a conservative stereotype and now here she is playing a liberal one. She isn't very good at either and needs a new agent desperately because these ill-advised film choices are turning one of our most respected actresses into a joke. My (least) favorite moment with these two has to be when he leaves the room to take a phone call and she looks at his pictures on the wall, which includes a grinning Cruise superimposed into photos with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Then there's another photo of Cruise in military garb that looks like it's just a screenshot from the actor's role in Taps. It gets bad laughs, which isn't something you should be going for when handling material like this.

In all fairness, this section of the film does have some interesting ideas about the media and the two actors play off each other very well. If you're like me and believe the media can be blamed for everything you may enjoy this. Unfortunately, the film turns Streep's character into a pulpit preaching political lunatic late in the film when she has it out with her commercially minded boss over the content of her piece. Less would have been more in this scene. And the script actually asks us to accept that her bosses WOULDN'T dare move forward with a smear story on a Republican Senator. Where does she work? Fox News Channel.

Luckily for the film, the story involving Dr. Malley and the student he's trying to inspire is superb. Not only is Redford completely believable as a disillusioned academic, but the debate they have inside his office is spirited and intelligent. Unlike the other two sections of the film, this does really explore both sides of the issue and I loved how the Malley character acknowledged the fallacy of what his former students did, but still supported them. It also brings up an important issue about those Americans who are given the least often end up giving up the most, while those who are actually in a position to give, give nothing. Redford, with just the slightest mannerisms, suggests a whole history for this man that isn't even touched on verbally. The role probably isn't much of a stretch for the liberal actor but he plays it perfectly, proving why he's regarded as one of the best. Carnahan's script actually explores the fact that this guy would spend this much time with one of his students says as much about him and his perceived failings as it does the student.

As this student, Andrew Garfield gives the best performance in the film. He's one of those privileged preppy kids you can't stand who thinks they know everything even though they've experienced nothing. He's right there with Malley and has a wise-ass response for everything. I can't tell you how many people I've encountered just like this kid and Garfield nails it. Why couldn't the entire film been about them? Had the focus of this story been on Malley's relationships with his students and how he, for better or worse, attempted to provoke change in their lives, we really could have had something here. Instead the movie's liberal agenda seeps through in the Cruise/Streep storyline, knocking the wind out of the rest of the film.

As tough as it may be to believe, despite my misgivings of him as a celebrity, I actually like Tom Cruise a lot as an actor and take no delight in any of his projects, as an actor or a producer, failing. Redford is a national treasure as an actor and an accomplished director so it's a shame to see him involved in anything that isn't "A" level. I'd love to ask Cruise why he thought a movie exploring this topic would be a mainstream success when we're depressed enough seeing it on television everyday.

We go to movies to escape real world tragedies like this, not have our noses rubbed in it. I'm not against the topic being explored in a film per se, but if it is, it better inspire deep thought and say something important. Only one of the three stories contained in this came close to doing that. This isn't as shameless and sensationalistic as the awful Rendition but its goal is pretty much the same. In trying to present a meditation on the times we live in, Lions For Lambs succeeds mainly in conveying Hollywood's warped perception of them.