Selma

Director: Ava DuVernay
Starring: David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth, Common, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Carmen Ejogo, Lorraine Toussaint, Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding Jr., Giovanni Ribisi, Keith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Wendell Pierce, Jeremy Strong
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

One of the biggest obstacles in bringing any part of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life to the screen is that there's simply no guidepost other than history itself. Despite or maybe because of his monumental importance and cultural significance, we can't point to any contemporary film that's attempted to give us a thorough treatment of the man or what he stood for and few actors have tackled the role on a grand scale, which is probably for the best since it's a no-win situation. With Selma, director Ava DuVernay attempts what probably shouldn't be done, but takes the wisest route possible by zeroing in on a specific point in King's life to tell a larger story. One that's shamefully ingrained into the fabric of this country whether we like it or not.

There's an even bigger challenge in not turning the story into a history lesson or homework assignment that checks the boxes on certain key events with which we're already familiar. DuVernay manages to walk this line very well, taking a magnifying glass to the ins and outs of the civil rights movement while weaving it into a compelling narrative that should hold viewers' interest for the entire running length.  But the strongest reason to see it is David Oyelowo's controversially un-nominated performance as King. The big surprise is watching him bring to life this man in such a way that it feels as if we're being exposed to his life and ideologies for the first time, experiencing the weight of his impact with fresh eyes. That's the real draw here. If there's anything the film will be remembered for years down the line, aside from the silly, fabricated "controversy" surrounding its accuracy, it's his restrained, thoughtful interpretation of King.

It's 1964 and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oyelowo) has just accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, even as discrimination and racism continue to rip the country apart. The previous year four young girls were killed in a white supremacist bombing of an African-American church in Bimingham, Alabama, escalating racial tensions to an all-time high as blacks are continually denied the right to vote. When Southern Christian Leadership Conference President King meets with President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) in an attempt to obtain federal legislation that would allow black citizens such as Annie Lee Cooper (a powerfully subdued Oprah Winfrey) to register without restriction, he discovers the passage of such a bill is at the bottom of Johnson's political priority list.

Upon arriving in Selma with SCLC activists, King's met with even more resistance by Alabama Governor George Wallace (Tim Roth), with local law enforcement and state troopers responding to their nonviolent protests by injuring and in some cases killing protesters.This prompts King's idea for the Selma to Montgomery march, his seemingly last ditch effort to defy segregation and get through to the lawmakers. Drawing thousands of both blacks and whites from around the country, it's a dangerous but necessary move, putting these activists lives at risks, as well as King and his family's safety.

This is a difficult watch for a number of reasons that are completely unrelated to an allegedly controversial depiction of President Johnson. You'd figure that in a film covering a jaw-droppingly repulsive period in the nation's history, we'd be left more shaken by the recreation of those horrific events than preserving LBJ's legacy. It's especially comical when no one was ever previously concerned with doing that, or were even aware he had much of one to preserve. While he does come off terribly in the film, rejecting King's proposals at every turn until it politically benefits him to change course, there's little evidence suggesting those events didn't occur.

Whereas George Wallace is mostly painted a card-carrying racist, LBJ avoids that indignity, with Wilkinson playing him as an out-of-touch schemer who's eventually dragged kicking and screaming into signing the bill only after lives have been lost and he's politically humiliated. It's definitely not his finest hour, but we're kidding ourselves into thinking a President raked over the coals for his handling of Vietnam and even accused of conspiring in Kennedy's assassination was at all beloved prior to this film's release. He has his supporters and his reputation has unquestionably undergone a positive reevaluation of late, but DuVernay shouldn't be criticized for failing to portray him as a saint.

If maybe not King's nemesis, LBJ's clearly positioned as a major obstacle in blacks obtaining voting rights, and a stubborn one at that. Very much behind the curve while King is ahead of it, the movie's at its strongest when tensions reach a fever pitch and violence erupts. His non-violent sit-ins don't initially work and there seems to be much doubt as to whether they eventually will. The violent alternative is presented as Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch), who shares a brief but memorable scene opposite King's wife, Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) that seems to exist solely for the purpose of King venting about it later (hint: he doesn't like him). The more interesting stories involve the individual protesters such as Winfrey's Annie Lee Cooper and Amelia Boynton (Lorraine Toussaint), SCLC members James Bevel (Common) and Hosea Williams (Wendell Pierce), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee founder Diane Nash (Tessa Thompson) and young marcher Jimmie Lee Jackson (Keith Stanfield), and white priest James Reeb (Jeremy Strong), whose eventual murders take this battle to a whole new level.

The picture of King in our minds is often that of a big, booming powerful force of nature so it would seem unlikely that the talented, but mostly unknown David Oyelowo would have the physical presence or charisma to pull that off. But just as we already decided how Daniel Day-Lewis should play Lincoln and what voice he should use before he actually did it, Oyelowo changes the conversation, challenging our preconceived notions of Dr. King. It's a really quiet performance but explosive when it needs to be, which makes all the sense in the world when considering his methods. There is a physical resemblance and he nails the speaking rhythms, but more importantly, he captures the determination, never blinking or wavering once in his plan despite the resistance that comes from even his most loyal supporters. The only time he lets his guard down and we see the fear and sadness is when there's a death or his family's threatened. Most of these displays of emotion occur in the scenes opposite his wife, as we see the toll it's taken on his marriage. Rumors of King's affairs are addressed before being quickly dropped, but they're never presented as anything more than that. If anything, the film even finds a way to at least partially blame Johnson for King's marital problems.

It seems as if we've entered a period where movies based on historical events are judged on their truthfulness and accuracy before anything else. This is a losing proposition since it's not only impossible to nail down every fact and conversation exactly how it happened, but it robs the filmmaker of creative license . And if it's about a touchy subject or contending for Oscar consideration, the nitpicking only intensifies. Taking all that into account, DuVernay does a great job under thankless circumstances, making logical decisions as to when  she starts and stops the story. If she came in any sooner in King's life it could have been too much and if she stretched it out to include the assassination, it would just present an extra load of baggage to deal with. Just ask Spielberg, who couldn't even decide whether he was including Lincoln's assassination or not. At least DuVernay clearly commits to ending this at a concise point. 

Selma is beautifully shot and superbly acted, but as awful as this statement seems, I have little desire to see it again. That's not a complete surprise given the difficult content, but it brings up an interesting question. How miserable is too miserable? While that reaction could easily be written off as the typical "white guilt" response, maybe there's some truth to it. Who of any race, gender or nationality wouldn't feel terrible watching this? And what ending, no matter how uplifting or inspirational, could possibly erase the image of blacks being beaten as gassed in the streets or that King is assassinated only a few short years later. Maybe there is an inherent liability in recreating historical events so closely in that it robs us the ability to "escape" through movies. Here, we're watching history skillfully reenacted on screen, as if it will ever provide some kind of restitution or explanation for what happened. And yes, it's true that films of this type are always released like clockwork around Oscar time. It's easy to respect what Selma does, but more difficult admitting it's something we want to see.
                                  

The Incredible Hulk

Director: Louis Leterrier
Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson
Running Time: 114 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

Spoiler Warning! The following review reveals details about the film's ending

I’m not usually one to say “I told you so” but when the box office receipts started to trickle in for The Incredible Hulk and it was just barely able to top Ang Lee’s returns for 2003’s unfairly maligned Hulk I just couldn’t help myself. While I was one of the few who enjoyed Lee’s film, I’ll acknowledge that it definitely had some issues and wasn’t what fans of the comic or television series had hoped for. But it wasn’t so much of a disaster that I thought there was an immediate need to hit the re-set button. Plus, releasing another Hulk film when the bad taste of Lee’s had yet to wear off for many didn’t seem like the best idea. When I heard the talent involved in the re-boot my interest piqued, but only out of a desire to see it fail.

Lee’s film, though not great, was just about the best I thought we’d get out of that character so the idea revisiting it again reeked of pointlessness. Despite seeing no purpose for its existence I was still prepared to go in with an open mind and at least give it a chance. Good thing, because The Incredible Hulk is a lean, exciting picture that not only corrects some of the mistakes made in Lee’s film but points out other ones I wasn’t even aware existed in it. Comparing the two films side by side is slightly unfair though because I think each work well for what they are: Radically different takes on an iconic comic character. But I did get the impression that this is the version the late, great Bill Bixby would have preferred, which really counts for something in my book. I appreciated that director Louis Leterrier (The Transporter) embraced the classic 1970’s television series rather than run from it.
It’s unfortunate this film is more known for its behind the scenes creative conflicts than what’s up on screen because I think it’s a slightly superior to Iron Man, the other summer super hero movie this year with which it’ll most likely be compared. And I had to wonder what exactly alleged “control freak” Edward Norton hated so much about the picture that he fought with the studio for months and flat-out refused to do any publicity when it was released. Or at least I WAS wondering…until the end of the film, when a really ill conceived creative decision is made that infuriated me. If it’s in any way indicative of how the studio treated the film, maybe Norton had a point. Someone’s head wasn’t screwed on straight. There’s so much I admired about this that I want to give this a higher rating, but just can’t. The ending is the last and often most important thing you remember and this one is just about as insulting as they come.

Leterrier’s approach is clear from the get-go. Take everything Ang Lee did in his film and do the opposite. This is a break-neck paced, Bourne-like action vehicle stripped of all excess fat and padding, clocking in very briskly at just under 2 hours. In a wise move, he condenses a more faithful backstory to the opening credits since those in the know are familiar with it anyway and those who aren’t probably don’t care or would just be bored. After a government experiment involving gamma rays had gone very, very wrong Dr. Bruce Banner (Norton) is on the run in South America, struggling to control his monstrous green alter-ego the Hulk and still searching for a cure. General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt) is alerted of his location at a bottling plant and dispatches a team led by ruthless special-ops expert Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to capture him. Instead Banner escapes to America where he re-connects with former flame Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) while The General injects Blonsky with a serum that transforms into a much more formidable foe for the Hulk.

The film’s greatest strength is also its biggest weakness, but the trade-off was worth it. Zak Penn’s script (co-written by an uncredited Norton) is so tight and focused its almost sickening. The result is an action picture that’s nearly flawlessly put together, but doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for emotion and character development, likely to avoid any parallels with Lee’s film. This was supposedly Norton’s big bone of contention and on one level I can see where he’s coming from, but on another I can’t. By excising scenes to cut down on character and emphasize action it plays as little more than just a chase film at times, but at others the results are downright thrilling. Leterrier frames the film around three main action scenes and stages each expertly, the best of which involves sound wave cannons descending on the Hulk at Culver University.

Unfortunately, they still haven’t found a way to physically render the Hulk on screen in a way that’s entirely believable, although it’s a definite step-up from Lee’s effort in terms of CGI. I’m not saying we should be painting a bodybuilder green instead, but that this was done pretty well and still didn’t look quite right speaks to just how difficult it is to translate this character. Mostly, I think it was fine considering the thankless circumstances and is at least visually closer to comic incarnation. Leterrier also thankfully does away with a particularly annoying aspect of the previous film, where the Hulk would inexplicably grow bigger when shot at.

While there’s a heavy emphasis on action, most of the film’s plot deals with the plight of Banner so Norton’s performance is key and that’s where the movie really clicks. Norton re-establishes Banner as a mild mannered intellectual bewildered by his inability to control the Hulk, something that was absent in Eric Bana’s portrayal. The idea of introducing the watch that tells him his pulse rate was brilliant and gives a real sense of urgency to every scene. You can tell the creative forces behind this movie sat down and really thought the details of this movie out and worked hard to present it in way that was faithful to the essence of the character. They even threw in Joe Harnell’s classic “The Lonely Man” theme music from the TV series and of course cameos from Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee and one more you’d have to watch more closely to catch.

After a relatively sedate turn in Funny Games, Tim Roth is back to his old menacing self again infusing just the right amount of menace into the power-hungry Blonsky whose transformation into the giant reptilian Abomination leads to the film’s thrilling climax. Tim Blake Nelson has a fun, quirky role as “Mr. Blue,” better known as Dr. Samuel Sterns, a cellular biologist who may be able to cure Banner’s condition. William Hurt is as good if not better than Sam Elliot was as General Ross, even if his character is a bit of a bore. The relationship between he and his daughter and the conflict interest that arises because of Banner is well handled. Of everything, I was least looking forward to seeing Liv Tyler attempt to fill the shoes of the lovely and talented Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross, but as much as it pains me to admit it, she does a pretty decent job. She’s especially effective working opposite the Hulk (or rather a blue screen) conveying a quiet, calming, reassuring presence. She also shares surprisingly good chemistry with Norton, which I never would have expected.

After watching this and The Strangers I’m convinced Tyler must have it written into her contract that every movie in which she appears has to have an awful ending. I’ll be careful not to spoil too much, which shouldn’t be difficult considering the final scene of the film is so completely removed from everything else that occurs, and therein lies the problem. I would have given it a pass if the movie ended on the terrible scene that unwisely invokes the closing moment of Ang Lee’s picture, but it turns out Leterrier wasn’t done. There's more. The next and final scene was so incongruous and stupid that when the movie ended I rushed to the computer hoping to discover that maybe what I'd seen had been some kind of crazy, alternate DVD ending. No such luck.

This pointless scene involves a very well-known actor from another superhero franchise making a ridiculous cameo appearance. Now before everyone jumps down my throat I know the scene was put in to set up The Avengers movie in 2011. But all that does is explain its relevance in the “Marvel Universe” not its justification for placement in a movie about The Incredible Hulk. It’s great that Marvel wants to push their franchises but would it kill them to do their advertising and cross-promotion elsewhere… instead of at the climax of THIS FILM!
I don’t consider myself someone with a fragile ego but if I were Edward Norton and found out that the final scene for a film I poured my heart and soul into would be a commercial plugging an upcoming studio project and feature another big-time A-list actor from a more popular superhero franchise, I’d be furious. I know everyone loves this actor and so do I but this is not the way you end a film. If you start a movie off on the wrong foot there’s time to recover but a botched ending is trickier. Would everyone be praising The Dark Knight as much as they have if it ended with Brandon Routh’s Clark Kent sharing a drink and some laughs with Commissioner Gordon in a bar? It’s a valid comparison. The scene may get comic fanboys drooling for The Avengers movie but it doesn’t work and sends this one off on the worst note possible.

If this ending occurred in a film I didn’t like I wouldn’t care. But there’s so much to enjoy and appreciate in The Incredible Hulk that I really wanted it to go out on a high note. As much hell as I’ll catch for saying this I still think it was better than Iron Man, although the fact that I have more familiarity with this character through the old television series could play a role in that. Despite the somewhat disappointing box office take of this there are plans to go ahead with a sequel, ironically after The Avengers is released. I guess we know where Marvel’s priorities lie, as if there were any doubts. Instead of scratching their heads yet again wondering why the Hulk didn’t catch on maybe they’d be better off asking themselves why they’ve been treating the character like a second-class citizen.

Funny Games

Director: Michael Haneke
Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: R

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

No, I have not seen Michael Haneke’s 1997 Austrian film Funny Games, from which this shot-by-shot remake is based. It’s an important point to make because whenever a film is a remade or adapted the temptation is always to draw comparisons to the material from which it was derived. That I don’t have that cloud hanging over my head is a relief considering this version alone is tough enough to think about and analyze on its own terms. Going in all I knew was that this was one of those suburban American nightmare movies (my favorite genre of film) and I figured that if it was a quarter as good as its teaser poster suggested I was interested.

The obvious point of comparison, other than the original film, is Gus Van Sant’s ill-fated 1998 remake of Psycho, but one could reasonably argue Haneke’s idea of adapting his own film is actually worse in conceit. At least Van Sant was tackling material that was fresh…to him. But its clear Haneke isn’t doing this for himself, but rather to expose the film to an American audience for whom he claims it was originally intended. Intended to punish. To reprimand us for our enjoyment of “torture porn” films by rubbing our noses in it and mocking the very conventions we’ve come to expect from them. There’s no point to it all, or more accurately, the point of it all is precisely that there is no point.

When most movies are over I usually have a pretty good idea of what worked and what didn’t and might offer suggestions as to what could have been improved upon. Funny Games is a different story. It isn’t a film. It’s an experience, and a grueling, unpleasant one at that. Actually, it’s more of an ordeal. It forces the viewer to look at their reactions to it and at times implicates them in the action, although that description makes the movie sound much deeper than it is.

It isn’t as timely or thematically important as Haneke thinks (and at times is way too artsy and pretentious for its own good) but as an experiment that gets you thinking it’s perfect. Some of that thinking may consist of wondering how anyone could make this piece of trash. And Haneke’s response would be to ask what piece of trash would enjoy watching it, even though he thinks he knows the answer-- “YOU!” And I can actually picture him screaming that in a scolding, arrogant tone while waving his finger incessantly. But he gets away with it because the experiment is often terrifying, well-acted and cleverly directed.

He’s definitely not changing the face of how we view movies with this but he has offered up one of the more polarizing, ambitious efforts of late and one that’s sure to have everyone split right down the middle. In other words, the only thing I enjoy more than reviewing movies like this is sitting back and watching people’s reactions to them. Does that make me as bad as Haneke? Probably not, since I can’t claim I enjoyed watching it nor would I have a strong desire to see it again. No one could. As a film I still don’t know what to make of it, but as a cinematic case study it’s fascinating.

Right from the bright red opening title sequence introducing us to George Farber (Tim Roth), his wife Ann (Naomi Watts) and their 10-year-old son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) Haneke lets us know who’s in charge here. Interrupting the sedate classical music they have playing through the car stereo is the loud thrashing of heavy metal, as they head to their Long Island vacation home for the weekend. While there Ann gets some unexpected company from two polite young men in white polo shirts and gloves who refer to themselves as Peter (Brady Corbet) and Paul (Michael Pitt). They also refer to themselves as “Beavis” and “Butt-Head” and “Tom” and “Jerry” at various points but that’s neither here nor there. It doesn’t matter who they are, but rather, what they’re going to do.

Peter wants to borrow some eggs and has an awkward (at times flat-out creepy) interaction with Ann before “accidentally” dropping them. There’s something really off about this kid and Haneke cleverly but subtly lets us know that Ann’s on to him right away. This brings in Paul, who’s even creepier and the uncomfortable situation escalates into unbearable suspense by the time they shatter George’s leg with a golf club. He wasn’t as clued in as Ann, but now he is. They take the family hostage and place a bet: That none of them will be alive at 9:00 tomorrow morning. The games begin. Both games. The game these sadists are playing with the Farber family and the one Haneke is playing with us. Sometimes it’s hard to separate the two and often they overlap.

Well-spoken and polite the intruders seem almost offended that this family would question what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. Truthfully, there is no why, as is so often the case in random acts of violence. George, as the man of the house reacts to the situation as best he can but he’s still wrong. Anything he does is wrong because these guys aren’t playing by any rules and neither is Haneke. The couple is smart and resourceful but that’s just not enough. The victims exist only to be mocked and laughed at by the perpetrators, one of which (Paul) is fully aware he’s in a film being put on for our “entertainment” and breaks the fourth wall to talk to us. There’s been a lot of hoopla over Haneke implementing this device but everyone has gotten worked up over nothing. Its inclusion doesn’t do damage to the film, nor does it really help it tremendously. It slides right in without distraction and is strategically placed to get the point across. More importantly, though, it isn’t overused. If I had to pick I’d say the controversial method helps.

Are we REALLY rooting for Ann, George and their son or do we just want them to stay around so we can see them suffer more? That’s the question Paul is asking us the audience. Haneke wants us to root for the victims so when we do he can quickly remind us these two psychopaths hold all the cards and there’s nothing we can do about it. We have certain expectations about what a “torture porn” movie like this is supposed to do and what should happen, but Haneke subverts them all. He’s more interested in how we’re viewing it. There’s a scene where Ann disrobes and Haneke refuses to show us anything. He instead wants us to feel guilty for thinking about seeing Naomi Watts topless in a situation like this and punish us for it. I’m not sure he succeeded there since the thought of Watts naked isn’t likely to have me paralyzed with guilt or running to confession anytime soon.

Haneke wants to have his cake and eat it too. It’s awful that we’re watching such filth…but it’s perfectly fine for him to film it? The movie’s centerpiece, an uninterrupted nearly 10-minute long shot of Watts in her underwear struggling to find the fortitude to survive, will have you wondering if Haneke is guilty of the voyeurism he’s trying to condemn. And he probably wants you to wonder. In his defense no matter how he approached this material he would have faced those accusations so it’s almost beside the point. He drags the shot on forever in a blatant attempt to make us feel as uncomfortable as possible, almost daring us to look away. I couldn’t. With all these long, visually meditative takes everything plays almost like a 70’s era film, Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange being the obvious inspiration.

Haneke also accomplishes, maybe as a side effect of his actual goal, what today’s modern horror entries can’t in creating terror without actually showing anything. His goal is to deprive the viewer of exactly what they came to see and he goes out of his way to do it. When a horrible act of violence is committed it happens off-screen as we’re instead forced to watch a character prepare a sandwich in the kitchen.

The victims may be smart and resourceful, but they’re also ignorant and have their heads in the clouds, prisoners of their own false sense of security. They’re oblivious that any chance they have for survival is minimal in a game like this and they fight an uphill battle. George is portrayed as a wimp who, beyond being unable to defend his own family, can’t even bring himself to punch Paul. The most he can muster is an open hand slap.

More uneasiness comes into play with another never-ending scene involving a cell-phone. All possible methods of escape are not only avoided, they’re mocked cruelly, as if Haneke’s thumbing his nose at all those dumb horror movies where we know exactly what will happen next. There comes a point in the story where we expect the tide to turn in a certain direction because it does all the time in films of this genre. Instead, we’re reminded who’s really pulling the strings here with another bold cinematic device. It’s brazen arrogance on the part of Haneke but doing anything else would almost seem like a betrayal of the story. The outcome was predestined and the only thing we could have done to avoid it was to stop watching, but he knew we’d never do that. He may have inadvertently sent horror movie fans running and crying back into the welcoming arms of Eli Roth, who dishes out safe, comfortable mainstream torture porn compared to this.

I always thought it might be interesting to see A-List actors act in a torture porn film. I wondered what it would be like to maybe see Reese Witherspoon or Tom Hanks fighting for their lives in Saw V as they try to escape Jigsaw’s deadly traps. The closest we’re going to get to that is with Roth and Watts here and now I know why not too many do it: It’s an ordeal. I’m not sure why Naomi would agree to be put through the wringer like this but that she has a producing credit on the film indicates this was a project she was passionate about for whatever reason. Roth plays against type as a passive wimp, conceding the spotlight to his co-star who has the more emotionally draining role. And I worry if young Devon Gearhart will be traumatized for life after acting in this film.

While the film may fall way short of A Clockwork Orange one area where it comes close is in Michael Pitt’s brilliant, terrifying embodiment of Paul that would attract awards consideration is this material wasn’t so problematic and the film wasn’t dumped into limited release in March. Brady Corbet has the quieter, less showy role as the shy, socially inept Peter but we’re never sure how much of that is a put-on. Both actors skirt the line between preppy annoyance and cold-blooded sadism like skilled pros.

Right now anyone reading this knows something I don’t: What my star rating for this film is. Usually I have a good idea what it is before I type a review, but sometimes I don’t until it’s completed. This is one of those times. But whatever it is it can’t be interpreted as a “recommendation” or any kind of admission that I “enjoyed it.” This isn’t a film you can enjoy or recommend.

I’m convinced a zero star review of this film would read exactly the same as one that’s a four-stars. 2 people could take the same things out of this movie with one loving it and the other hating it and they’d both be completely right. It’s just that kind of film. Maybe I’m just happy these days when anything gets me to think or argue. In trying to make a serious statement about the world we live in and turn the camera on us, Haneke has unintentionally turned it on himself. As a deep examination of violence in the media Funny Games may be a joke, but as an experience, it’s impossible to shake.