Looper (Film)

Looper Review

(May Contain Spoilers)

 

I couldn't stop looking at Joseph Gordon-Levitt's upper lip. Was it prosthetic? Did they just pad it from underneath? How much does it resemble Bruce Willis's upper lip? Of course that's the “high concept” trick that shadows everything else happening in Looper - making Gordon-Levitt look like a younger version of Willis - sort of a silly stunt anyway since everyone knows what they both look like. Its so-so execution here calls way too much attention to the stunt itself, since Levitt seems afraid to move his face lest his prosthetic (or whatever) lip not move or fall off or something. I admit that it may be my fault for getting hung up on facial prostheses. I had the same trouble with Nicole Kidman's turn as Virginia Woolf in The Hours. Why put an ugly, fake nose on one of the most beautiful women in films? Did anyone in the audience know or care what Woolf really looked like? And I for one couldn't stop looking at the nose. Like that hangnail or broken tooth that snags your attention even as you try to ignore it.

 

[There was another whole paragraph here about Gordon-Levitt’s eyebrows and Amanda Palmer in the Coin Operated Boy video. Plus an ancient cultural reference to Howdy Doody. But enough already.]

 

Looper is about time travel. As happens to me with most time travel movies, I got distracted trying to decide what would affect what. But the characters seemed to know what they were doing or else they just ignored the fine print. I was obviously supposed to do the same. The premise is: in the more distant future (2070 I think) time travel is invented but used only by gangland types to send people back to the near future (2040, when most of the film takes place) to be assassinated. The assassins are called “Loopers.” Seems like the people to be assassinated should be the Loopers, but they didn’t ask me. Once in a while, an assassin survives into the distant future and is himself sent back to be assassinated. This is called “closing the loop,” and this is what happens to Joe (Bruce Willis). This sets the plot in motion because guess who is supposed to kill him?  - none other than his younger self played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It’s a clever enough idea except that you can see it coming a mile off.

 

The future is bad and the more distant future is worse. And to drive home just how bad the future is the film takes place in Kansas. There seems to be no functioning police force or rule of law, although the real estate developers are doing okay judging by the Oz-like cityscapes we occasionally wander through. In Kansas – you ask? Who knew drug lords and organized crime types would build such nice buildings? (In Kansas.)

 

You’re wondering what Levitt’s upper lip has to do with anything. And I wondered how such a lively, engaging actor could deliver such a passionless, unsympathetic performance. I thought maybe the “stiff upper lip” had a lot to do with it. I know we’re supposed to think he’s dead on the outside, emotionally stunted by the horrible things he has to do as a Looper. But Levitt’s character is dead on the inside too. Maybe Levitt needs more freedom of face and body to express his character’s inner life. In this straightjacket of a role he was totally wooden. His eyes are as blank as a stuffed rabbit’s.

 

Bruce Willis comes off somewhat better. He has returned from the more distant future to the near future on a mission to save the life of his wife in the more distant future by killing the man responsible for her death (in the distant future). Of course at this point that man is only a boy. Willis’s wife and their life together are sketched in with some flashbacks (forwards?) where he shows a more romantic side. But in the present he’s all right-hand-of-God righteousness even if it means gunning down two innocent children and one (future) guilty one. That’s some strange moral calculus where three children’s lives are worth less than one middle aged woman. Alright, he does show a moment of regret about shooting the little girl.

 

The best character in the movie is the child who’s going to grow up to be the Rainmaker, a drug lord/godfather/Voldemort style villain, unless Old Joe can stop him. Played by Pierce Gagnon, he’s by turns vulnerable, funny, and terrifying. He only appears in the last quarter of the film, but his performance suddenly sharpens the plot and almost makes you care about the fate of the other characters.

 

Almost, but not quite. The women in the film are especially poorly conceived. The few scenes of Old Joe’s love interest, played by Qing Xu, are filmed with all the vacuous sweetness of a Viagra commercial. The relationship between Young Joe and his “girlfriend” Susie, played by Piper Perabo, is based on how conveniently he can fit into her schedule as a hooker. The little boy’s mother Sara, played by Emily Blunt, is more interesting until we find out that the reason she’s so uptight is not that she’s wrestling with raising the future destroyer of the civilized world. No, she just needs a good lay, and Young Joe will oblige, of course.

 

The writer and director, Rian Johnson who also directed Brick (2005) and The Brothers Bloom (2008), keeps the plot humming along at a good clip – no dead patches in which we’d have time to question the logic of the story. But there’s also no room for engaging any real sympathy for the characters. I know I was supposed to feel something, but it’s hard to cozy up to cold, amoral assassins.

-Mitch Walters

Night of The Living Dead (Theatre)

Living Dead Tasty Appetizer That Chokes On Details

Zombies are all the rage, and this October the infection spreads to Gaslight Theatre with the stage adaptation of the classic Night of The Living Dead. A small group takes shelter in a farm house as a story of survival against the undead unfolds. This production was co-directed by first-time directors, Khiem Nguyen (stage) and Andy Swanner (video). As before, I attended the final dress rehearsal performance and prepared myself for the zombie invasion.

The production begins with a clever enough idea. A few survivors enter the “basement” and turn on a single hanging light. They are quiet and seem to settle into what will be a long night. Suddenly, a video begins to play on the screen hanging to the side of the stage. In “movie”fashion, it’s credits and titles over a black and white scene of a modern vehicle driving down a country road. Cool. So this is an updated version. I can dig it.

We are introduced to Johnny (Daniel Johnson) and Barbara (Sarah Swanner), brother and sister, who are on their way to the cemetery to honor the memory of a deceased loved one. Both actors are very experienced and talented (and under the age of 18). I have given them some of the highest praise for performances in the past, and they did a fine job in the video. However, the usual shine and polish of these actors did not seem present. Perhaps the lack of experience in front of the camera or not enough rehearsal was the culprit. Still, it is a minorcriticism.

Anyway, we spot the first zombie (who doesn’t don any makeup), lose Johnny (who inexplicably dies from…the zombie slowly pushing his head down to the ground?), and follow Barbara as she runs off the screen and into the theatre. I love that concept as it pulls the audience deeper into the story, I think. The video was longer than it needed to be. Perhaps introducing the actors in the basement during the video would have been a better use of the video’s slow pace. There was a moment when I was ready to be “in the theatre”and the editing could have been cleaner, but otherwise it was effective cinematography.

My opinion of the stage is a bit jaded, as I got to see the set design and hear about the concept from the designers themselves. What ended up on stage was not quite how it was imagined and left me confused. Ben (played wonderfully by Venson Fields) makes his way onstage and struggled with a zombie through an exit center stage. However, there was a window in the wall that he disappeared behind. Did he go into another part of the house or outside? It wasn’t until I saw a zombie in the window and Ben board it up, that I realized the awkward placement of the window and exit. I really liked the use of the apron stairs that lead into the “basement” and the angle of the set, allowing this negative space around the front door where zombies eerily lurked about.

The pacing issues continued on through Ben’s monologue as well as Barbara’s. Then, they turned on the radio. Ryan Morton was the voice on the radio and did a wonderful job (no surprise). However, there was static introduced that was so evenly spaced out that it seemed like he was talking with the assistance of a breathing machine. He also only spoke when there was no static, which only added to the forced feeling of it all. Again, the radio was great, but it also went on while nothing was happening onstage. It may have all been written this way, but I felt that scene dragged on and on in the movie as well. It’s a pretty simple script and several things could have been cut or introduced in a more creative way.

Things finally jump back to life for a bit when the basement dwellers start to emerge. Jeff Day was a refreshing, energetic addition (as Tom) and Monte Hunter (as Harry Cooper) brought a great balance to Venson’s work. Both were strong in their characters and interesting to watch. Catina Sundvall was totally convincing in her role as Helen Cooper and Stephanie Ezzell was suitable as Tom’s girlfriend, Judy. These two female roles were brief, but both actors managed to evoke a bit of sympathy.

Hunter and Fields exchanged dialogue several times in what may have been the strongest scenes, with Day providing some relief from the angst with his youthful and well-meaning character.

Blocking was a bit hit and miss for my taste. Barbara became part of the furniture, which one of the directors informed me was intentional. He wanted the audience to forget about her until she finally popped out of her trauma-induced vegetative state. I learned during my own directing experience, that if you have to explain it to people then you have more work to do. She was constantly upstaged in the blocking. I feel the idea was sensible but it would have worked better if people hadn’t constantly been placed in front of her. It just doesn’t create a good picture. Plus Barbara is sort of the audience anchor (we meet her first and identify with her). So why would we ever cover her up? I was also reminded by an audience member who attended opening night, that the basement deaths were near impossible to see due to lighting, blocking, and position of the basement. Poor Emily Cinnamon portrayed the Cooper’s infected daughter either covered by a sheet or with her back completely to the audience. A platform or moving the action to the stage would have helped.

Sarah Swanner, as I said before, is one of Gaslight’s strongest young actors. However, the part of Barbara is much more difficult than one would think. Barbara must be able to be vulnerable and often emotionally vacant, without being boring or insincere. There are a number of traits that have to be juggled in such a way that you feel sorry for her and perhaps a bit creeped out by her when you realize she is mentally damaged by the events that have taken place. “Crazy” is one of the most difficult roles to play believably. I give her kudos for taking on the challenge. It may have been to her interest, if the directors had her “become one of the zombies”…not literally, but figuratively - shuffling around, speaking in a lower tone with no emotion, stiff and lifeless. This may have signified that she had already been lost to the zombie plague mentally even though she was still very much alive physically. It would have also given her a better level to reach for in her portrayal. Swanner is capable of greatness on stage when given the right tools.

There were two additional videos. Both represented what the survivors were watching on the old fashioned television set; the first news report with Amy Swanner (as the reporter) and Peter Roller (as the scientist). Both of them gave believable performances. No criticisms there. Swanner looked the part of a 60’s female reporter…Wait…there was a modern vehicle in the opening and now we’re back in the 60’s? And is that a laptop behind the reporter? Okay, these were small items that could have easily been omitted or fixed to keep the continuity. People noticed and those kinds of oversights can be distracting and reduce the overall quality of a production. By the time the third video of the reporter interviewing the Sheriff came on, I had lost the special feeling that the first video gave. Again, Evan Chermack (another talented Gaslight Teen) had a perfectly smooth voice and film-friendly face for the reporter, though he could have used some pointers in using a microphone. He held it at a level as if he were interviewing the Sheriff’s nipple. Jeremy Tipton was totally committed to the part of the small town southern Sheriff. It was a great break from the serious tone of the show.

Two final notes. The spotlight on the Sheriff and his deputy (Wyatt Olson) as they popped up from the front row was strange and misplaced. Why did they not just deliver their lines as they walked down the aisle toward the “farmhouse” instead of the random appearance of a spot? Finally, I loved the zombies. They were also very committed and unbelievably lost in their characters. I looked for signs of breaking character and saw absolutely zero. It was menacing, gloomy, and perfect.

Overall, NOTLD was riddled with sluggish moments that did not generate any tension. I think too much effort was placed in trying to mimic the original movie (which you simply cannot do onstage). Videos could have been shortened and cleaned up a bit, while blocking could have created better visuals onstage. More chances could have been taken with lighting and blocking, but the potential was there. Actors (from lead to extras) held the show together at the seams even when other things may not have been working. I recommend it for horror fans and fans of the classic film. It is perfect for Halloween, and the small audience at the final dress ate it up.

Happy Halloween

Argo (Film)

Argo Review

 

“Caper” films are among the most popular of movie genres. From Asphalt Jungle to Ocean’s Eleven, the linear storylines and requisite elements of suspense draw you in and pin you to your seat. Argo, the new film directed by and starring Ben Affleck, falls squarely into the genre, but instead of a jewel heist or a prison escape, this caper includes an automatic “feel good” factor. It’s a daring rescue of the innocent good guys from the evil bad guys. The good guys are a group of American embassy workers in Iran in 1979. The bad guys are the revolutionaries who overthrew the Shah and captured the American embassy along with 52 hostages with whom they taunted America and Jimmy Carter for more than a year before releasing them shortly after the swearing in of Ronald Reagan in 1981.

 

The fascinating historical twist in the story is that in addition to the 52 Americans who were taken as hostages, six Americans actually escaped the embassy unbeknownst to the Iranians and hid out in the Canadian embassy for several weeks until they were rescued and flown out of the country in a top secret CIA mission known as “Argo.”

 

Even though Iran’s ideological war with the West is still front page news today, I suspect most Americans don’t remember how we got on their bad side in the first place. As a reminder, the film is introduced with a succinct and factual history lesson about how the American CIA in 1953 had engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah. He was of course friendly to the United States, but he also declared himself absolute monarch and proceeded to plunder the country, flaunting an unbelievably luxurious lifestyle while ordinary Iranians sometimes starved. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, America was justifiably one of the main targets for the revolutionaries’ anger.

 

The history lesson is important to the film because it prepares us for our plunge into the middle of what can only be called a revolutionary maelstrom. The historical prologue ends in a wonderful interweaving of documentary footage and filmic re-creations with the revolution surging and swirling around us – riots, demonstrations, and propaganda actions colliding and mingling as if we are there on the ground being buffeted and swept along. The revolutionary fury culminates in the overrunning of the American embassy, the capture of the hostages, and the escape of the six.

 

Throughout the film, the scenes in Iran are shot in a more or less documentary style. Here the camera is unsteady, often hand-held and sometimes downright woozy in its movement. The high contrast and grainy texture of the images also contributes to the documentary feel.  When the film moves to Washington and California, where the feel of the late 70s is faithfully maintained, the look of the film is polished and well tooled even when the mood is hypertense. And everyone in Washington gets very tense very quickly because the six rogue Americans, who didn’t get themselves captured with the others, are in great danger of being discovered by the Iranians and executed as spies.

 

Enter CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) with a crazy plan – “just crazy enough that it might work” - to get the six out of the country by having them pose as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a science fiction film. For me, this is always the fun part of caper films, convincing the doubters that the plan might work and then getting the gang members on board. In this case the most important stateside partners are John Chambers (played by John Goodman) a veteran Hollywood makeup artist with good connections in the industry and Lester Siegel (played by Alan Arkin) a semi-retired movie producer. Both are delightfully convincing, providing much needed but always relevant comic relief in the excruciatingly tense atmosphere of the rescue operation. Because Mendez knows that the Iranians will carefully check the background story of the faux Canadians before letting them out of the country, the plan needs real newspaper stories, photographs, and gossip items to back up the story. The job of these Hollywood partners is to convince the movie industry (and most importantly the Hollywood press) that Argo is a real film being readied for production.

 

The section on Chambers’ and Siegel’s sly and silly manipulations of the Hollywood publicity machine lightens the atmosphere and prepares us for the dive back into Iran with Mendez going solo as the “Canadian” foreign service liaison to the film crew. His job is to give the bland and unassuming American embassy workers convincing new identities as Canadian film industry professionals and then take them openly through customs and security checkpoints at the airport to board a plane out of the country under the very noses of the dreaded revolutionary guard.

 

Politics makes strange bedfellows, but Hollywood movies and the Iranian revolution are not just strange, they’re positively weird bedfellows. The wonder is that they work so well together in Argo. Who would have guessed that a political thriller could also encompass the spell that moviemaking casts anywhere in the world? Suspense is the racing heartbeat of any successful caper film, and Argo winds the suspense tighter and tighter as the escape plan encounters, first, resistance from the escapees themselves, and then, a whole series of clever maneuvers by the Iranians to find the Americans, uncover their false identities, and stop them from boarding their plane to Switzerland and freedom.

 

I think Ben Affleck did a marvelous job directing Argo. His camera always shows us what we need to know to further the story and heighten the suspense. The pacing is very quick, and the crowd scenes in particular are frighteningly chaotic.  If the film has any serious shortcoming, it is Affleck’s own performance as Tony Mendez. It’s not a bad performance. He is reasonably convincing as a clever CIA op. But even though the film supplies him with a meager back-story (separated from his wife, misses his kid), we don’t get the feeling that he has a real life outside the frame of the camera. He’s heroic, handsome, and bland. The escapees are similarly nondescript and almost interchangeable, but this works toward making the film seem all the more realistic – that these ordinary people are suddenly caught up in extraordinary circumstances placing them at the center of attention of the entire US Intelligence Service.

 

The threat of horrible violence hangs over the film, but thinking back on it later I believe that in the entire film only one shot is fired and only one person is killed. This single killing seems random at first but plays a key role in the outcome of the escape plan. It’s a tribute to the quality of the screenplay by Chris Terrio that all the details are tied together in an exhilarating climactic encounter at an airport checkpoint where Hollywood science fiction captures the imaginations of young, well-educated Iranian revolutionaries. For a few minutes, these most committed of ideologues are just ordinary young men fascinated by moviemaking.

 

-Mitch Walters