Change Your Image
swj1984
Reviews
The Big Short (2015)
Thought-provoking and flawed
Whilst I definitely enjoyed aspect of this film, it did not quite meet the standards I'd hoped. I confess that was a fan of the book and Michael Lewis as an author - and for the most part, The Big Short is a faithful and entertaining adaptation of Lewis' expose on the scandal that was Subprime mortgage loans.
Firstly, I think the film's attempt to explain the crisis in layman's terms was admirable and engaging in some parts - tacky and unimaginative in others. I think invoking the "jenga tower" when explaining the mortgage backed securities or CDO's was a simple and effective analogy for the audience assumed to have no understanding of bank trading or bonds. Even the explanation of the "hot hand fallacy" - propensity to attribute likelihood of future events based on the current using the setting of a blackjack table was interesting. I have to give the film credit in its presentation and various techniques it employed to illuminate a complex subject matter.
However, I must agree with a minority of reviewers in saying I felt some uneasiness about the film's persistent push for comedic affect. I didn't have a problem with the narration or breaking the 4th wall and engaging the audience directly, as no doubt the director felt they might be become disengaged if not. But I found Ryan Gosling's character odious - which is to say he plays the exact same character he did in that horrendous rom-com a few years back with Steve Carell (who I will come to shortly) - a brash, contemptuous know-it-all. I also didn't love the Margot Robbie cameo (or Selena Gomez for that matter). We're talking about the worst global financial crisis since the 1930's and you've got some multi-million dollar pop star very condescendingly explaining the nature of mortgage backed securities from her jacuzzi on a beach-side mansion before telling the audience to "fuck off". Was this just a cynical attempt to appeal the fans of that reprehensible Wolf of Wall Street?
Then quickly Steve Carell, once again I realise I'm in the minority but I can't warm to him at all. With him and Gosling cast as two of the primary characters I knew I would struggle to love this film. However, Christian Bale was a stand-out and his scenes were often much more humorous and poignant than Gosling/Carell's without going for broke. Brad Pitt was scarce in this.
Overall, I did enjoy The Big Short and would recommend to to all. It was well edited, paced and relatively faithful to the Lewis' narrative. However, it debased itself somewhat by appealing to the very pop- obsessed consumer culture it was trying to denounce. Perhaps the intention here was denounce this section of viewers.
The film does (importantly) recognise and place in to some context the actions of the protagonists in betting against the housing market i.e their huge gain would be contrasted with global economic pain. The Big Short isn't judgmental of the characters - more so tempering any adulation a younger audience perhaps might feel towards them. I also enjoyed how McKay addressed the issue of what it is to devote one's life to the creation (or usurpation) of private wealth. What is capitalism? The ability to capitalise on an opportunity and externalise all else. That apt Twain quote at the beginning "Its what we know that just ain't so" - and we continue to "know" that capitalism and free markets in the best economic system despite all its exploitation and continually more adverse side-effects.
An important and watchable film, but not quite the masterpiece it could have been.
Boyhood (2014)
Life's series of moments
Boyhood avoids many of the pitfalls Hollywood cinema such as a neatly- packaged conclusion or contrived plot lines. It was just typical life – in all its pointlessness and ephemeracy.
Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are terrific. One of the most interesting sub-plots of the film is the evolution of the father from chain-smoking, absent deadbeat dad into a strong, reliable family man. Meanwhile, the courageous single mother admirably pursuing the perfect career and family, ends up bitter and unfulfilled despite achieving her career goals.
I also loved Linklater's technique of "holding a moment" a little longer than usual to convey the character's true emotions. A great scene where Arquette and Hawke are having an ostensibly amicable conversation at Mason's graduation, when the father offers to contribute to the cost of the party, only to check that his wallet is empty and he needs to get money from his wife. Arquette smiles softly which turns into a pained expression of almost exhaustion. I think what Linklater is saying is that things are never buried in the past.
Moreover, the film throughout the actions and dialogue of its characters didn't move in the directions Isuspected it might – there were moments of palpable intensity punctuated by mundane vignettes. Spray-painting under a cement bridge (another signpost to Mason's artistic calling), painting a house,bowling with dad, baseball or sporting events, being confronted by bullies (both at home and at school), marijuana in the backseat of a crowded wagon, beers in an abandoned house, graduation, the first break- up, fatherly pep-talks and moments of drug-induced (but real) illumination. There are very rarely goodbyes. You just move from one moment to the next never fully knowing which ones are important, but I think the film as selected some truly important moments of Mason's life and how they have shaped him. I read one review which remarked that it was Mason Jr's integrity throughout the film which made it so endearing, which I think is true.
I even think Linklater's daughter was great as Samantha, very similar to Mason. Strong and resilient, but slightly aloof. The way she baits Mason with a great throwback to the early 2000's (obviously at the time it was contemporary) singing a Britney Spears song, and speaking in a made-up language. She certainly added a level of humour to what was otherwise quite a bleak family situation. I found this a very realistic depiction of how siblings interact, particularly as they reach adulthood in that there is an awkward but understood bond that is largely unspoken.
One of the strengths of Linklater's direction is his ability to capture of cultural essence of the time and granted it was easier to do this in Boyhood because it was filmed in real time. But his debut film, Dazed and Confused, for a high school "stoner" movie is acclaimed for its accurate representation of dreary suburban, middle-class high school American culture. Many of the same themes (on a wider spectrum) are also represented in this film. It's this attempt to capture the cultural trends which have some people labelling this film as "Democrat propaganda" referring to Ethan Hawke having his children campaign for Obama leading into the 2008 election. The scene involves the children visiting two neighbours. One is an elderly, bigoted Republican neighbour (with a visibly displayed Confederate flag in his garage) and a young woman (Democrat supporter) who is polite, attractive and not particularly bright. Some might say the film is perpetuating stereotypes here, but aren't clichés are clichés for a reason? Once again, I'm not from America and have never been to Texas – and yet I know having followed the election campaign on television that the Republican Party fostered bigotry among their constituents by constantly referring to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" (as the Republican neighbour does) and thereby egregiously implying he was an Arab. Meanwhile, Obama was black, attractive and made him a perfect poster boy for (particularly) young voters. If anything is being represented here it's the superficial nature of modern politics. I don't think it was at all controversial to select these two people to represent those demographics of the time. It also briefly touches upon the Iraq War, as the Mother re-marries a former soldier who served – who returns a dissident, eventually drunken and jaded. Again, I think this only highlight a fairly common experience for many soldiers returning from combat in Iraq.
Interestingly (and again, an example of the unpredictable narrative), Mason Sr. marries into a conservative Christian family. They exhibit stereotypes of conservative Americans in the south, such as being devout gun-owners. But the film makes no judgment here. The step-family do not seem to take issue with Mason's politics or his illegitimate, alternative children. The rifle-shooting scene for example – Mason Jr enjoys it. It's an unlikely bonding session between two people who probably have little in common, which makes it a great one. I found this film to apolitical, if anything. It briefly referenced a significant event in America's history and made no judgment (or even reference) to the myriad of social problems in Texas, which it certainly could have if the film's mandate was political.
The scene where the Mother is approached by the Mexican who replaced a drainage pipe on her house, whom she unwittingly inspires to attend community college and become a restaurateur, was the only red flag for me. It was a contrived chance encounter and seemed dissonant with the rest of the film. Perhaps, Linklater was trying to illustrate that we underestimate the effect we have on people, but this was not particularly subtle.
Life's series of moments; the good, the bad and the miscellaneous - that's what Boyhood was about and was executed patiently and with masterful precision.
Best of Enemies (2015)
Fascinating insight into the advent of television punditry
I watched this at the Adelaide Film Festival after the Chomsky doomsday doco was sold-out, and I was more than pleasantly surprised at this brilliant production; its incredible wit, resonance and poignancy.
I must admit I have not had the opportunity to read the works of Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley (though now I intend to) - prior to watching the film I was aware of Vidal by his reputation as the unabashed gladiator of sexual liberation in an otherwise fiercely conservative social landscape.
What surprised me most about the film (as all good films tend to do) is that my preconceptions of the how I would receive Vidal and Buckley during the debates and their personalities were almost turned on their head by the film's end.
In the backdrop to the intellectual combat in ABC's studios was one of America's most tumultuous periods; the height of the civil rights movement, violent protests in response to the unpopular occupation of Vietnam and of police state repression. It's disconcerting to see how political discourse, human rights and public institutions of the US have actually stagnated if not regressed since the 1960's. Consider the incendiary milieu that exists in the United States today and the #blacklivesmatter movement. For example, as were in 1968, race riots in Baltimore and evidence of flagrant police brutality in Chicago.
What I think "Best of Enemies" illuminates is how, no matter the weight of the intellect of both sides of the argument, pride and human nature will general ensure it devolves into the most primal and puerile name- calling. This is actually what most people want to see. Undoubtedly, Vidal and Buckley were both incredibly strong-willed men and while the production is selective is only focusing on the sledging, it signifies that it was exactly this dynamic that caused the ABC to commission these debates – visceral personal conflict.
The major thematic premise of the film illustrates that in the modern world of endless freedom of choice in technology – we have become more disparate. The inception of cable, the internet, social media and hand-held wireless devices have culminated in confined and specific interests and experiences. A world of distracted individuals bound by endless sources of entertainment. Political discourse, for instance, is seemingly ubiquitous but in reality drowned in a sea of radicalism, self-righteousness, triviality and populism. In Buckley and Vidal's era, it seems one at least had to be familiar with the opposing argument to counter it. In contemporary punditry it seems experts are well-versed in their own ideology while seemingly never having been exposed to any context or counter-argument.
On a personal level, the documentary seems to acknowledge that Vidal (in interviewing his biographer) was unable to extricate himself from the rivalry long after it seems Buckley had, even though Buckley remained tormented by his on-air explosion. This was interesting considering it was Buckley who shattered his reputation as the ice-cool velvet sledgehammer while Vidal was generally considered victorious, so to speak, in the debates.
In fact, it was Buckley that struck me as the more moderate of the two polemicists, perhaps out of some humility later in his life where he could see the wreckage that had become of the conservative movement he had founded. Vidal's animosity towards Buckley is portrayed as intensifying in the latter stages of his life, which seems sad and almost irrational. Unexplored in this feature are the rumours that Buckley had threatened to disclose damaging information about Vidal's private life (the spectre of which has surfaced courtesy of Vidal's disenfranchised family members since his death). Vidal could either be construed as somewhat petulant or paranoid.
Nevertheless, the documentary itself is riveting and thought-provoking and charming with a sense of pathos.