Tag: Jean Dujardin

The Monuments Men

George Clooney stars and directs this World War II drama with a rich cast and a weak execution.

Art has been a part of human culture since the dawn of man. People like me spend their lives writing about it, protecting it and debating it because it tells us about ourselves, defines our history, makes us think, moves us to act, provides escapism and many more things that can fill a term paper. And we should preserve it at all costs because Hitler is bad and go America.

George Clooney’s “The Monuments Men” champions art and the soldiers who helped to salvage it from the Nazis during World War II, but it’s a muddled war film rather than a stirring piece of art full of ideas and meaning itself. It’s about the lofty Idea of art, only important on the motivation of preventing Hitler from making someone else’s culture his own.

“Art is to be held up and admired, just like these men,” Clooney says. And the extent to which Clooney feels art should simply be placed on a pedestal or hung on a wall like the way America treats its military reflects how pretty and patriotic, yet empty “The Monuments Men” feels. It has echoes of being an amusing buddy caper complete with manufactured camaraderie and a role call of movie stars called into action one by one, not unlike Clooney’s “Ocean’s Eleven.” But it also wants to be a grave war drama and paints the melodramatic set pieces and themes of war, justice and serving your country with a broad brush. Continue reading “The Monuments Men”

The Wolf of Wall Street

Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” makes “Spring Breakers” look tame.

Of all the excess bursting from the frame in “The Wolf of Wall Street”, what’s missing is a trip to the normal world. That’s because, who would honestly want to go there? Jordan Belfort certainly doesn’t, but that inability to show the other side of the fence may be part of “Wolf’s” problem.

Martin Scorsese’s film about a real life Wall Street broker who swindled millions from clueless investors in fraudulent stocks and led his firm into a tailspin of sex, drugs and corruption has received a notable amount of criticism; perhaps such a crook doesn’t deserve a wacky, fun biopic based on his life, the critics say.

The question goes, does “The Wolf of Wall Street” glorify the actions of Jordan Belfort? In one way, yes. Jordan’s behavior in the real world is nothing but obscene, and Scorsese gives us three hours to revel in this wild peek behind the curtain.

But in Belfort’s world, this is the norm. The sex romps, the montages and the drug trips all blend together over time, and it provides all the more jolt when in a bizarre twist, something from “fucking Benihana” brings him down.

Scorsese’s film makes “Spring Breakers” look tame in comparison. It languishes on each wild act of depravity and sensationalized moment of mayhem, immersing us in Belfort’s world and his narrative revisionism (“My Ferrari was white, not red,” he barks in narration at the open of the film) without any of the context of the people who aren’t making $49 million a year.

But one wonders what can be gained from a film that shares the same lack of nuances as its perverse characters. Even James Franco’s Alien had some layers to him, but Belfort is all haircut and a sales pitch.

“The Wolf of Wall Street” constantly borders that fine line between exploitation and poignant satire. Like Jordan’s life itself, the movie plays like a mess of outrageous set pieces connected only by their sheer energy. It grasps at the political, psychological and philosophical straws snagged by “Spring Breakers,” “The Bling Ring,” “American Hustle” and even Scorsese’s “Goodfellas,” but lacks the specifically distinct aesthetic style all of those films had that would give it an extra kick. Continue reading “The Wolf of Wall Street”

So you think you can save musicals?

It may come as a surprise to some of you that one of my favorite television shows this summer, and in fact for several seasons now, has been “So You Think You Can Dance.”

Yes, as it turns out I am a sorority girl with a love for dance and musicals.

Perhaps it was an initial love of Gene Kelly and “Singin’ in the Rain,” but I typically admired the show for its enormous dance talent and not for its programming. I once had a colleague ask me if I watched the show, to which I said, “I hate the show, but I love the performances.”

Except that too has changed, as “SYTYCD” as a reality show is leaps and bounds better than its counterparts “American Idol” and “Dancing with the Stars.”

Unlike “Idol,” where the judges flat out lie about how the talent pool has gotten better and better each year, “SYTYCD” really does seem to be a show that consistently celebrates quality and continues to find 20 enormously talented and flawless dancers who are impossible to choose between week to week. Each show, they perform breathtaking works of actual art from visionary choreographers as opposed to karaoke covers of pop numbers from a carefully selected songbook.

Unlike “Dancing with the Stars” and “Idol,” “SYTYCD” is about dance instead of celebrity, and try as the show might to reward personality or quality, bad, unmemorable choreography can often land a dancer in the bottom three, if not headed home.

This is complimented by the fact that the show’s judges, Nigel Lythgoe, Mary Murphy and a score of other choreographers and actors from Broadway and Hollywood, often give genuine criticism to their dancers on technique, chemistry and form. They do more than just give preferences or catch phrases about being able to sing the phone book (although Mary Murphy has her fair share of annoying tendencies too).

But why I really love the show is that “So You Think You Can Dance” is possibly the best looking reality show on television.

Here is a show that devotes time to making its enormous stage production and cinematography look cinematic. For the most part, the camera work accompanying each dance routine is planned and choreographed along with the performers. The show achieves emotional close-ups without forgetting the importance of full-bodied medium shots that allow the audience to take in the full range of motion of the dancers. It achieves perspectives and clarity that would not be possible if the cameras were only positioned at the POV of the live studio audience.

The camerawork is so precise, I recall a routine from Season 8 that incorporated a mirror on stage. Even with swivels, close-ups and shots from all angles, it was near impossible to spot a camera in that mirror.

I point again to “Idol” as an example of how not to shoot a reality show. “Idol” sets up three to four cameras, one or two in the center of the stage for close-ups of the performer and one on each side for sweeping crane shots. The camera is so uninspired that the interchanges between them are almost like clockwork. The stage right camera slowly pulls way back until it can go no further, we get a stationary close-up, and then the stage left camera slowly moves forward in the same arc pattern mirrored. This is adjusted based on the speed of the song, and nothing else. Every song looks the same, and only the ungodly colors on the stage backdrop change.

This season, “SYTYCD” experimented with lighting on their stage and the appropriate way to film it to the point that they’ve won Emmys the last two years in a row. One routine with Lindsay and Cole this season saw the camera using subtle low angle shots to emphasize enormous shadows of the two dancers along the walls as though it were a moment out of Fred Astaire’s “Swing Time.”

One complaint I have about the show is that in every episode the show seems to be patting itself on the back. “It’s so wonderful that there is a program like “SYTYCD” to showcase such phenomenal artists week after week,” the judges say, as though dance and the show were some horrible underdog.

And yet, they may be right.

Dance is thriving on TV right now, but it’s been completely brain dead in the movies for decades.

I’m not the first film critic to point out that movie musicals are not what they once were, but it probably has not been done in the context of “So You Think You Can Dance,” so forgive me for my lengthy TV review and for burying my lede after nearly 800 words. Continue reading “So you think you can save musicals?”

OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies

Like “The Artist,” the spy spoof “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” is as wonderfully made as the movies it is spoofing.

OSS 117 Cairo Nest of Spies

After “The Artist” won five Oscars, it looked almost ridiculous that the goofy looking spy spoof “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” now had so much award bait pedigree. But you watch this charming and silly film and begin to realize what Michel Hazanivicius must have had in mind all along before making a silent film.

Most movies that parody just about anything riff on names, plot points, characters and once interesting ideas that have become clichéd. But “Nest of Spies” is an image-based spoof. It’s very attentive to what these films look like first and runs from there.

“The Pink Panther,” “Charade, “Austin Powers;” these are all movies that know their target well, but none of them are as well made or visually dynamic as their counterparts.

“Nest of Spies” is. The wacky plot and debonair hero are almost secondary to making the film look right first. Continue reading “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies”

Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 2)

See my picks for the remaining categories along with analysis, here.

Movies are an art, not a science. And yet The Academy, save for a few eye rolling hiccups each year, operates like clockwork. Predicting the winners at the Oscars is as simple as playing the horses at the track, so here’s your betting form for the big race on Sunday night.

Best Picture

The Artist: 80%

I was once in the camp that a silent film, no matter how good, could never win Best Picture in 2012. But now my odds hardly reflect how one-sided this race has become. Even though it’s a French film, “The Artist” is universal. It’s a crowd-pleaser, a star-maker, and the only Best Picture nominee filmed in Los Angeles. From the Golden Globe to the Director’s Guild to the surprising BAFTA win, the question is not if “The Artist” will win but how many Oscars it will win.

Hugo: 8%

Actually trumping “The Artist” in nominations and taking its cinematic nostalgia trip one step further, “Hugo” and a sweep of technical awards may propel this film to a Best Picture win.

The Descendants: 7%

Be it “The Social Network” or “Up in the Air,” critics and Academy voters respond to the 21st Century darling of the year, and Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” is that film.

Midnight in Paris: 1.5%

The Help: 1%

The Tree of Life: 1%

Moneyball: .75%

War Horse: .5%

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: .25%

To address the remaining nominees, I don’t want to say they don’t stand a chance, but who am I kidding? If you had five nominees this year, your contenders outside of the top three would be “Midnight in Paris” and “The Help,” maybe “Moneyball.” So that says something for their chances. The other completely outside chance would be “The Tree of Life,” an important film that a number of critics have made a case for to win the Oscar based on how significant such a victory would seem in terms of cinema history. I don’t want to make any sort of case for “Extremely Loud,” but being here was its first big surprise, and winning could be its second. Continue reading “Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 2)”

The Artist

“The Artist” is a whimsical, crowd pleasing film that succeeds on its style and love of the movies, not its story, but for a modern silent film, that’s wonderful.

I should be thrilled “The Artist” is such a winning, fun crowd pleaser of a movie, despite being a silent, foreign film. This movie should be box office poison, and yet it’s whimsical and well made, despite an ultimately flimsy and familiar plot that makes it overrated as a Best Picture frontrunner. Continue reading “The Artist”