Lincoln (***)

Despite the title, this is not a biography, but a film about the legislative process, though with the 16th U.S. president (Daniel Day-Lewis) in the featured role. Though it veritably canonizes the man, it’s still a film for political and historical junkies more than those who simply like films about important personages. Certainly Lincoln did not have the voice of an important personage, if we can believe the historical accounts and Day-Lewis’s attempt at re-creating his thin voice. Instead, he carries the day by always seeming thoughtful and only seeming forceful when the occasion suits.

Partly basing his account on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, utilizing a script by Tony Kushner, director Steven Spielberg focuses on the last four months of Lincoln’s life, in particular the push to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in January 1865. With not enough representatives of Lincoln’s own Republican party to guarantee passage, logrolling, arm-twisting, and the occasion appeal to principal are the order of the day to secure the 20 or so Democratic votes needed. Besides placating his own cabinet, who question the timing of the vote, Lincoln and his designated representatives face two dangers: first, that word of a possible negotiated end to the war will cost the votes of those who only favor the amendment because it might hasten that end, and second, that radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) will frighten potential yes votes by speaking of voting rights and the equality of the races.

By not really challenging any of Lincoln’s actions, the film does not quite place us in the moment in the way a film like Primary Colors, centered around a more obviously flawed politician (based on Bill Clinton), does. That is, one watches the film with the present-day certitude that the president’s course was correct, as we know that it did result in the abolition of slavery. When Lincoln speaks of violating the Constitution to accomplish his larger goal of protecting the union, no character makes a strong argument against his having done so. Will the controversial security policies of the last decade seem as uncontroversial in 150 years? In any case, the film makes the best possible case for pragmatism and for politics in service of principle being a worthy calling.

What does place us in the moment is Day-Lewis’s performance, which would be uncanny even if Lincoln were not a famous figure. His speech sounds decidely pre-modern, in contrast to most of the other actors. His dialogue, filled with Lincoln’s actual recorded words (“flub-dubs” being one insult in the script), contrast also with a few more modern phrasings elsewhere (e.g., “I’ll be fucked,” a figurative phrase that seems out of time). Additionally, the dingy rooms and sets seem appropriate. The amendment and the vote-gathering process account for most of the drama, but the 2.5-hour film also takes time to account for the president’s family life, including a nuanced portrait of his relationships with the First Lady (Sally Field) and older son Robert. (A younger son, Tad, lived at the White House.) The film does move forward to the assassination, and a coda doubles back to Lincoln reading the Second Inaugural Address, famous for speaking of “malice toward none; with charity for all.” As does the clunky opening, the scene looks forward and makes one wish that attitude prevailed everywhere and in every person.

IMDb link

viewed 12/2/12 4:45 pm at Ritz 16 and reviewed 12/2/12

Incendies (***3/4)

Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, which I saw the night before this, includes William Faulkner’s famous quote, “The past is never dead; it isn’t even past.” Probably that’s why it came to mind while watching this harrowing mystery, which proves the point. It also proves that it’s not only science-fiction films and action-thrillers that deliver mind-blowing conclusions. (Yes, the one here involves a big coincidence, but it’s a coincidence that mostly explains subsequent events rather than too-conveniently wrapping up a messy plot.) What starts out as a slow-paced drama about French Canadian twins asked to carry out their late mother’s last wish—find their lost father and brother—becomes increasingly compelling. For me the point at which I started becoming involved was when, in flashback, the mother (the very fine Lubna Azabal) finds herself facing a Christian death squad in Lebanon’s civil war of the 1970s. Thinking quickly, she not only shows them her cross to prove she’s not a Muslim, but also tells them that a young Muslim girl is her daughter, hoping to save the child.

Alternating with the mother’s story, her daughter (but not her twin brother, less inclined to carry out the will of a mother he somewhat resents) travels from Montréal to Lebanon and slowly uncovers her mother’s unfortunate past. Director Denis Villeneuve, who’s adapted the play by Lebanese Canadian Wajdi Mouawad, keeps the actual violence off-screen while showing its effects. The flashbacks and the modern scenes move toward the same conclusion, but the contrast couldn’t be greater. It’s not only that the twins live in a world of cell phones and air-conditioned vehicles, but that they live in a world where they have the luxury of being able to forget the past.

This was nominated for the foreign-language Oscar. It’s nearly a toss-up whether this or the winner, In a Better World, is better. But the twist at the end of this one, and Villeneuve’s natural-seeming presentation of a tricky structure, gives this the edge.

IMDB link

viewed at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 6/23/11

The Princess of Montpensier (***1/2)

It took just under 350 years to make a film out of this tale by Marie de La Fayette, perhaps the first French novelist. De La Fayette wrote of a time still earlier, beginning her story in the midst of the religious wars that began in the late 1500s. Two prominent battle scenes, with swords and only the occasional gun, typify the attention to historical detail employed by director Bertrand Tavernier (A Sunday in the Country, Daddy Nostalgia). Perhaps even more noteworthy in that regard is the depiction of the wedding-night rituals apparently employed by the nobility. These are even less romantic than would befit the marriage of the princess, who has been pried away from her beloved in an arrangement economically suitable to her father.

The earliest part of the drama is slightly confusing—it took me a bit of time to figure to ascertain the allegiance (in the war) of the (more or less) male lead (Lambert Wilson), who is neither the princess’s beloved nor her husband, but the count who mentored her husband in the art of war and has now, disgusted by battle, laid down his sword. The princess (Mélanie Thierry) is a comely young woman with a keen mind, and the attention she draws, and her own thwarted desire, propel the action of the latter half of the film. This is more straightforward, but elegantly plotted. (Notwithstanding the setting, the course of action could easily be transplanted into a modern drama, or even a farce, though it’s not told that way here.) Of necessity, the philosophical elements of the novella are only present in small amounts, but the narrative and location filming make this adaptation a case of much better late than never.

IMDB link

viewed 4/28/11 at Ritz 5 and reviewed 4/29/11

The Conspirator (***)

It may be the JFK assassination that has captured the public imagination of the generations since. But of the four presidential assassins (or seven, counting those who shot at but did not kill a president), only John Wilkes Booth is known beyond doubt to have been part of a conspiracy. And of the eight alleged conspirators tried via military tribunal in the immediate aftermath of President Lincoln’s killing, only one, Mary Surratt, was a woman. As the mother of another suspected conspirator and the owner of a boardinghouse where the Booth and other plotters had held meetings, she was either an abetter of the assassins or merely the victim of unfortunate associations. Robert Redford’s film allows for both possibilities, which makes it a fairer, if less exciting, film than, say, JFK.

This account of Surrat’s trial starts off slightly shakily. It’s a minor point, but how strange to begin a Civil War movie with soldiers telling a joke whose punch line involves a freezer. The first soldier (James McAvoy) never gets to the punch line, but still, between that and his friend being played by Apple Computer pitchman Justin Long, I was taken out of the (1863) moment. The young actors, including McAvoy, who turns out to play the main character, make no attempt at period accents. The assassination itself is staged in unexciting fashion, and the plot advanced via the newspaper clipping techniques so we can get to where the movie really begins. McAvoy is the lawyer asked to defend Surratt.

IMDB link

viewed at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 6/1/11

White Material (***)

Stubborn and determined are two words for the same thing, the difference being only whether one considers the person being so described as foolish. French national treasure Isabelle Huppert plays the perhaps fool in Claire Denis’s understated drama. The story takes place in an unnamed African country—Denis was raised in a number of former French colonies—that is undergoing an increasingly violent civil war. Urged to leave by French officials and others, she nonetheless insists on remaining on the family’s coffee plantation and completing the harvest. Even the sudden departure of her employees does not deter her.

This is the kind of movie where the drama builds slowly. It’s a very quiet movie, with stretches with no dialogue. The violence that takes place is mostly off screen, though that makes the ending more of a shock. Politics is not part of the story. Race is, of course, as the title suggests, but it is as subtext. The movie is about a white character who has raised her son in Africa, and though she is not noticeably racist, or even elitist, her outlook is inevitably one of privilege, which comes both from her race and her background. It’s even more apparent in her lazy son, who seems even less aware of the foreshadowed danger. And of course, the black people are the most aware of this status difference. The drama might have been a little richer had the story allowed more of their point of view into the story.

IMDB link

viewed at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 12/22/10

Jonah Hex (**)

Not only is this not the season’s best action movie, but it’s not even the best one to draw on war-on-terror analogies for its tired plot. At least Prince of Persia had an exotic setting and some swordplay. It even had more of a story, despite not having this effort’s nearly 30-year-old DC Comics pedigree on which to draw. (Hex creator John Albano died before production on the movie began.) The particulars of the title character (Josh Brolin) are that the right side of face is horribly scarred and that he can communicate with the dead. The scars come from an encounter with the film’s villain, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich); the power to talk to the dead—not in the comics version—presumably comes from Neveldine & Taylor, the screenwriting duo (Crank) credited here. Without this fantasy element, the movie would simply be a bad western. With it, it has some creepy sequences in which Hex raises the dead, only to abuse them some more.

There’s more creepiness, but aside from atmospherics and the crisp direction provided by Jimmy Hayward, there’s little else to recommend. The plot is more than a little reminiscent of Wild Wild West, the Will Smith-starring turkey that similarly featured a Confederate-sympathizing villain, a superweapon, and President Grant. Neither villain nor hero are memorable, though Brolin tries, conveying the literal and figurative wounds of a man forced to watch his family burn to death. In a scene meant as dark comedy, Hex shoots a man for asking about his scar. The government comes calling with an opportunity at revenge, and he becomes a good guy.

I guess, it being 1876, Turnbull and his henchmen haven’t seen enough action-thrillers to know that you shouldn’t stop and say things like “you're not going anywhere” rather than quickly finish off the guy you’ve just wounded. However, the more sophisticated 21st-century moviegoer may feel justified at groaning at such clichés. Though Megan Fox has a supporting role as a tough prostitute (and love interest), there aren’t enough tricks to make Jonah Hex anything more than yet another action movie sporting an anti-terrorism patina while reveling in the spectacle of mindless violence.

IMDB link

viewed 6/16/10 at Ritz 5 [PFS screening] and reviewed 6/17–19/10