I'm confused - but not that confused!

There had to be something life-altering about going to see a Bergman film like Through a Glass Darkly when it was originally released in the early sixties. Films like this only came along once every few years. At a time when the term "art house" had not yet been coined and the major Hollywood studios were pumping out popcorn Elvis films one after the other (King Creole and Flaming Star aside) - it had to be nothing short of a religious experience to happen upon a film that actually made one think about one's own existence. This brings up the age old conflict: does one go to the movies to me moved, or to be entertained? When one looks at the box-office receipts of an Eastwood film like Every Which Way But Loose, I think the answer lies in the entertainment department (although I myself love and respect that film). The rare film that does both is just that: rare. I find it interesting just how little times have changed. This year, not only have we seen the return of the disaster movie (The Day After Tomorrow) and the resurgence of the B-grade Flash Gordonesque serial (Sky Captain) but now you can add a neo-Bergman resurrection to this year's Oscar poll. Don't get me wrong, Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind is not as good as even the worst Bergman I have seen, and I am not a film snob who bows to every piece of dribble a "so-called" Master film-maker makes. I am just as much a fan of the latest Star Trek film debacle as I am of the current Tavernier life-on-film meditation. But Sunshine is something else. Let's call it what it is. It's just good sci/fi.

I must admit, I was completely prepared to compare it to George Roy Hill's forgotten masterpiece Slaughterhouse-five even before I saw Sunshine. Like Slaughterhouse, Sunshine could have been a book first. It plays out on film the way one creates a universe in their mind from reading words on a page. Instead, it was an original script written by the talented genius (or compulsive nut-job) Charlie Kaufman. If it's anything else at all, it's a Kaufman movie first. Not a Carrey movie. Which is a shame, because Carrey is stunning in it. He may be the only reason to see it. I heard that Nic Cage would have made a good "Joel Barish" and that may be true, but the part now forever belongs to Carrey. God bless him. He gave a soulful performance full of truth and grace. I had to sit back at a certain point in the film and just watch this man work. My god, he is good. Everyone was very good. Winslet turned in a very calculated and finely tuned portrait of pure quirkiness - but she only really kicked in to hyper-drive when she came alive inside Joel's memories. It was fun watching them together during these later scenes. It's a real shame these were the only fun parts of the entire film. It can be dreadful at times.

Kaufman may be deeply disturbed. I don't know him personally. He was nominated for two Oscars in the same category for Adaptation (insert joke) and I think therein lies the problem. His jokes usually aren't very funny. He's been lucky enough to have written films driven by some very droll performances led by some amazing actors and gifted directors who have managed to interpret his depressing fantasies into real narratives. I'm not saying he's a bad writer. I couldn't do what he does. I don't think anyone else can. That's why he is who he is. But I am saying, his three major films (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and now Sunshine) are almost indistinguishable from one another. The three of them combine in the memory to make one giant run-on sentence. Human Nature (his first produced screenplay) also directed by Sunshine's helmsman Michel Gondry is a very funny movie, and ironically the most accessible of all Kaufman's films. If it were to be released now, instead of when he was still a nobody, it may have been considered the master-work of the lot. As they all stand, not one is better than the other. If I had to choose which one to showcase, I'd probably go with Malkovich. Just because I hated all of the characters in the movie with such a passion that it evolved into an indescribable fascination. It was also the first Kaufman film I ever saw. Ah, first impressions.

So what would it have been like to wander into that theater way back when, and to have seen a film with such emotional depth and shattering relevance as Through A Glass Darkly for the first time in one's life? I don't know. I wasn't born yet. But I did manage to see Trainspotting at a time when I was impressionable and fed up with the usual repetitive cineplex dribble. The same is true when I first saw Pulp Fiction on the big screen. These films changed something in me. They were the first one's to awaken something inside. The way I think about life to a certain degree. They were a new and different type of film. Something that had never been made before. They were full of life, even when dripping with violence. I'm sure there were some people walking in to see Sunshine for the first time, who were just as impressionable as I was back then, and who were deeply affected by it on some level (just like I had been all those years ago). I've already had my first turn-on to the cinema. I can never go back now. So I'm forever looking for the next contemporary film to shake me up like Pulp Fiction or Trainspotting, or Goodfellas, or City Of God, and unfortunately for me, it ain't Sunshine.

So why is Sunshine on everybody's mind? It's a clever story, deeply rooted in the science fiction genre (although you actually have to forget some distracting things that are going on throughout the film to tap into that) as well as some old Hollywood screwball/romantic comedy formulas. That's where the film flirts with brilliance. Strictly in it's roots. The themes of the picture. The way it plays out, unfortunately, is now typical Kaufman. He needs to try something drastically different now to appear "original." He's riffing off himself - but in a good way - the way John Williams rips off his own film scores. I have to look back now to films like Lawrence Of Arabia, or Charly, or Twelve Angry Men to find that balance between revelation and entertainment. Those are the religious films of the Cinema, and many others like them. Sunshine is firmly a candle at that alter. That is the highest compliment I can pay the film.

I feel like I should say negative things about Gondry. I don't think he's great. Sure, he's good, but so is Billy Zane as an actor ("good" I said, not "great!"). But there's almost always something missing from his work. Okay, he's a video director. His videos are masterpieces. It's what he does well. I know a guy who builds model boats that would take other people an entire lifetime to get even one of his creations almost half right. He couldn't make a real boat if his life depended on it. He's a different type of craftsman. I'm almost willing to bet you money that David Lean couldn't have directed a Bjork video to save his life (although that would have been interesting). See what I mean. Gondry directs alot like Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation). Maybe too much like him. His feature film style has not fully developed and he remains a curiosity rather than a fully-realized craftsman. It has been written that David Cronenberg, who originally tried to bring what eventually became Total Recall to the screen back in the seventies, would have been an inspired choice to play with this material. Yeah maybe so. But personally, I don't think there was any room in the already crowded script for people with holes in their flesh or other topical diseases. Yuk. But, I do know who could have pulled this all together perhaps a little differently. Three words: George Roy Hill.

Hill (who passed away a couple of years ago) excelled in turning films that were in their basic structure character studies, into elaborate culture-defining epics. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, The World of Henry Orient, The World According To Garp and of course Slaughterhouse-five. Even the title: Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind sounds like a George Roy Hill film. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done with Kaufman's words. But alas, the only thing left now is the Slaughterhouse/Sunshine comparison. I'll try to be brief.

Both films feature ordinary guys who are transported to alternate realities along with memories and other various people and ideas from separate parts of their lives at inconvenient and random moments that appear at first to be incomprehensible to the confused character and his audience. The only difference is that the main character of Slaughterhouse, Billy Pilgrim, is in more of an involuntary situation. He does not know how and why he is knocked-around through time. Joel Barish pays a company to remove his memories of his ex-girlfriend, making him somewhat more responsible for his own dilemma. Wait a minute! I should be comparing Vonnegut (Slaughterhouse's author) with Kaufman! Kaufman clearly knows the book Slaughterhouse-five. Who doesn't? Even if people don't know what it's about - the name's become a part of our common vernacular. Does Joel Barish become "unstuck" in his own memory the way that Billy Pilgrim becomes "unstuck" in time? Of course. Duh. Is Sunshine original? Hell no. What is? I'll tell you: Slaughterhouse-five. Watch it. It was the Sunshine of it's time - so misunderstood that it's been utterly forgotten. A real shame.

There, I think I made some type of point. I guess what I want to say is: you can enjoy a movie like Sunshine, but that's just it: it's just a movie. It hurts because you can see it almost breaking out of it's chains to become a real "life-changer." There are some insights into modern relationships that are astute and authentic. Some of the dialogue is very real - and thus off-putting given the fantasy nature of the material. As it is, the chemistry between the two remarkable actors (Carrey and Winslet) is almost non-existent. They're equally phenomenal in their own parts - but they just don't have any natural screen chemistry together. This makes me think of Lost In Translation. Same deal: two towering performances but together: donut. However in Sunshine, Carrey and Winslet almost pull it off - as opposed to Murray and Johansson who never had a chance. And am I the only one who thinks Elijah Wood is a mess? What's wrong with that guy? I get the feeling it's not the part he's playing. It's more like he was intimidated by the other talent in this film. His acting isn't always focused and he sometimes seems all over the place. It teeters on becoming bullshit, and not in a good "bullshit" way like an Al Pacino way. Dunst actually surprised me. I was not offended by her usual high school stage-acting theatrics here as I usually am. Her performance had unexpected depth and was beautifully written. Mark Ruffalo was under-used (yet again) yet still managed to hit a few "perfect" notes. This man should have won an Oscar for his performance in You Can Count On Me. Tom Wilkinson was, well - Tom Wilkinson. He did a very subtle job of coveying his character's inner strife, but something still bothers me about his 'American' accents. Why wont they let him just speak in his beautiful West Yorkshire accent? Oy.

Oh, I just thought of a great compliment I should pay to Charlie Kaufman: he really writes all of his minor characters with a devout conviction to realism and purpose. I love some of the brief dialogue in Sunshine between Carrey's character and the one played by David Cross. It's good stuff. Just not the stuff dreams are made of. There are several moments that give one pause in the film. Moments that could be made up of a certain truth that one charater says to another, or moments of pure, almost child-like imagination. It's just a real downer. How very 'Bergman' of the film-makers. And where the hell was the ELO song from the trailer? It's even on the soundtrack! That could have lightened things up a little. So, here's the skinny: It's a good movie. It's not the best movie you've never seen: that would be Slaughterhouse-five. I digress: you want to know why that movie's so damn good?...because it's still misunderstood!

See Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. More for Carrey. He's on par here with Adam Sandler in the equally difficult and worthy Punch Drunk Love (but only slightly better than Sandler). Is it the best thing he's done to date? I dunno. It's a slight variation on the Truman Show character (and story to a large degree) but again, slightly better. So that brings me back to this idea I've been flirting around with here: is something good just because it's the first of it's kind? Go back in time and use the world's first indoor plumbing now. I bet by today's standards it would not hold up. Perhaps Sunshine will open up a new generation of young and impressionable film-goers to the world of Lean, Bergman and Hill. Or perhaps they just thought they were wandering into the theater to see Bruce Almighty.

Something's Burning?

The very first thing that occurred to me while watching Tony Scott's very competent and almost brilliant action film Man On Fire, was: who should have played the role of Creasy other than Denzel Washington. Not that I originally thought Denzel was the wrong choice, but for some reason I began running through other actors in my head at the beginning of the film. I thought to myself: Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, Ed Harris, Scott Glenn (Oh wait - Glenn already played this same role in the first version of the film from 1987) and a few other possibilities like Nicolas Cage, Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, Robert DeNiro and even Sean Penn crossed my mind. As did Benicio Del Toro. Then, after about the first 45 minutes - I realized that no other actor could have played the part in Scott's film other than Washington. I don't know when it happened - but he took command of the film and never let go. Denzel Washington is more than just an African American action star here - he is a force of nature. And (despite one acceptable reference to his skin color) the film treats him as no less.

I think an interesting comparison must be made here. Of all the actors of this generation who inevitably get compared to their classic-film era counterparts (Tom Hanks to James Stewart, George Clooney to Cary Grant, Kevin Costner to Gary Cooper) I think it is important to note that Denzel Washington is our generation's Humphrey Bogart. I'll admit it: I'm a much bigger Bogart fan than a Denzel fan. To be quite honest - I don't agree with some of the social or political things I've heard Denzel Washington say in interviews at various times. But that's Denzel the man - I'm talking here about Denzel the actor (and screen persona). Hell, Humphrey Bogart was no saint. What man in Hollywood is or ever was? Besides the late Roddy McDowell (may God rest his soul - who knew every one of tinsel town's darkest secrets and took them all to the grave with him - reportedly). So I think that it's more than a physical comparison (both Bogart and Washington have that lip thing and slight speech impediment) going on. To put it simply, Bogart always managed to elevate the material with his performance, even if he was just coasting through it. This is true of Washington.

Not to say that Washington coasts through Man On Fire. On the contrary, he drives the film with an energy and conviction that quite possibly could have been completely absent from the film if it starred one of those other mainstream actors I listed above. If Training Day was Denzel's The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, than Man On Fire is surely his High Sierra. Bogart proved in The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre that a bad guy can be the core of a film, and win you over with his oily charm (as did Washington in Training Day). Watching both characters get their comeuppance at the end of each film is their saving grace. In High Sierra, Bogart achieved an even greater feat. He showed you a character, warts and all, and did not expect you to side with him. You do anyway, even though he is a bad guy, because of the good in his heart. He does not show it with actions. It's there in his eyes. It's called great acting. It's the difference between a performance and the performance of a lifetime. Now, I think that Denzel is equally good here as Bogart was in High Sierra at conveying his character's inner dimension and emotional conflict. I do not however feel that it's the performance of a lifetime. But it's damn close.

The other comparison arises. Was Denzel more deserving of a best actor award for this film than he was for winning one for Training Day? I'm not entirely certain. I like Training Day alot. One must also note the scenes Washington shared in that film with Scott Glenn - who played the role Denzel would adopt for Tony Scott's version of Man On Fire. I think that the characters he played in both films are like a photo negative of one another. One is malicious and nefarious and the other damaged and vulnerable. Both use violence to get what they want. But they couldn't be more different in terms of development and characterization. If this film came out the year Training Day was released, it's quite possible that the Academy would have chosen to nominate him for Man On Fire. I think there were more political motivations going on behind the scenes that year. I also feel that Will Smith deserved the Oscar for his tremendous and under-rated work in Ali over Washington. Now, if you would have paired Ali against Creasy, that would have been a great title bout.

Why is this film nearly a great movie then? The action is stupendous. Once it finally arrives. It all comes at about the one hour mark. Before that - there's an awful lot of exposition. An awful, awful lot. To be honest - there was too much of the wrong thing. Scott chose to concentrate on the little girl's relationship with her protector. That's fine - but he missed the opportunity to explore Washington's character fully. Just telling me that he's an alcoholic isn't quite enough. And showing his character grab a bottle every three minutes is too much. Show me why. This seems to be Tony Scott's curse. He tells a hell of alot more in his film's than he ever shows. He's also prone to making bad storytelling choices. I did not read the book that both versions of Man On Fire were based on - but I am very familiar with (screenwriter) Brian Helgeland's work. He tends to take the long way around the core of the story. Who is this man Creasy? If his past is to remain a mystery - then give me something in his present that justifies his solemn course. Don't just tell me he worked for the CIA and he's a bad dude. I know he's a bad dude. Washington wears that on his face. He's a great actor - not just a good one. But that's Denzel I'm seeing up there. Who the hell is Creasy? Unfortunately, we never really find out - Scott tries to tell us with some flashy editing and montage of him in solitary pain and contemplation - but I could have got that looking at a still from the movie in a magazine. But, what we do get, is to watch him blow the shit out of everything and everyone in Mexico City!

What an anti-tourist message this must be for Mexico. A kidnaping every 24 seconds? And how about that little disclaimer at the end of the film? Did the film-makers think that would make up for all the carnage and for all the authority figures being shown in such a negative light? Don't get me wrong. I like the film. But I like watching Denzel get his revenge more than anything else going on here. There are a few nice supporting performances. Walken is Walken. He's an oddity, but no asset to the film. I'm still trying to figure out why he was nominated for a Supporting Actor Oscar for Catch Me If You Can and not Tom Hanks in the same film. Frankly, Walken's best performance post Pennies From Heaven is still Abe Ferrara's King Of New York. For that they should have invented a new acting award. Mickey Rourke was wasted - and his character even more so. What were his motivations? Simple money? Greed? Of course they were - he plays a lawyer! Come on. You're going to have to do better than that Helgeland. Marc Anthony was good - but I cannot believe him enough to be the biological father of Dakota Fanning's character. And frankly, I do not want to have to suspend my disbelief for Marc Anothy. As an actor - he's not worth it. Radha Mitchell is okay as well. She lets her accent slip a few too many times (she's Australian) and I didn't realize she was supposed to be doing a Southern accent until the last 20 minutes of the film. Rachel Ticotin was actually very good (surprising) as were all of the Mexican actors that Denzel got to torture and destroy. I believed every one of their characters. Not a false note amongst the regional Hispanic cast. Giancarlo Giannini, one of my absolute favorite actors of all time (see Seven Beauties at any cost!) was utterly wasted again. He must have been playing the cousin to his character in Ridley Scott(Tony's celebrated brother)'s Hannibal. Both characters are more of an after-thought than anything really substantial. I found the music to be irritating (it worked much better in brother Ridley's Gladiator and Michael Mann's masterpieces Insider and Heat). Clair de Lune over and over? This even worked better just one time in Soderbergh's abysmal Ocean's 11. Was I supposed to think that film was fun? Just because the actor's are enjoying themselves - does not mean that I'm in on the joke. The opposite is true of Man On Fire. The actors are having a miserable time in the course of the story and it is actually very entertaining (although a bit heavy-going by film's end).

Still, I enjoy watching bad guys get disposed of by the bus-load. I just wish this kind of thing happened every day in 'real life.' Instead of referring to Creasy as "an artist" in the film - perhaps a better description would have been "instant karma" for the real villains in the story. I love stories like this - where black and white are replaced by grey areas. Noir it ain't - but grey it certainly is. If you went back in time, Steve McQueen would have been perhaps the only other actor who could have done Creasy as well as Washington. And that's about the highest form of praise this critic can award an actor in an anti-hero role.

I read some of the reviews comparing this film to Revenge (also directed by Tony Scott starring Kevin Costner) and more accurately Proof Of Life (with Russell Crowe) and Soderbergh's magnificent Traffic and I can tell you that Man On Fire is more like Scott's Enemy Of the State meets Days Of Thunder than anything else. In all three of these films, Scott makes his point as subtly as beating someone's head into a wall. It's Tony Scott being Tony Scott. His heavy-handed editing and visual style prove to be too much for the film (the same goes for True Romance) yet again. If you really want to see an ambiguous Tony Scott style-fest (that actually works) see The Hunger with David Bowie and Catherine Denueve, his slick vampire movie that's about to be released on DVD (finally!). Man On Fire is one of the best action films to be released in a long time. Compare it to Too Fast, Too Furious or XXX and you'll see what I mean. But it could have been alot better with a little less style and a little more story-telling. If you don't expect much more than to be entertained - you wont be let down. If you're looking for the next existential anti-hero action epic - you may have to keep waiting until somebody finally decides to remake the Steve McQueen film Bullitt starring Cole Hauser. I liken Man On Fire to Dirty Harry. Both films proved that violence itself can be used to tell a story. The only difference is, Dirty Harry actually told a story - not hinted at one. Man On Fire flirts with genius, but alas, in Tony Scott terms - genius is as genius does. Washington saves the day yet again. For other amazing (and neglected) Denzel performances, see: Cry Freedom (87), For Queen and Country (88), Ricochet (91), Mississippi Masala (91), Much Ado About Nothing (93), Crimson Tide (95 - also directed by Tony Scott), Devil In a Blue Dress (95), Courage Under Fire (96), He Got Game (98), The Siege (98), Remember the Titans (00), in addition to his celebrated work in Glory, Malcolm X, Philadelphia, The Hurricane and of course, Training Day. In most of these films, he is the dominating core and in some cases he elevates the entire picture. In the case of Man On Fire, he has a little help in lifting it - but the film is not totally in shambles. It's an action lover's fest with one of the lead actors giving almost the performance of his lifetime. If only Sam Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch) were alive today. He may have been the only director that could have completely pulled this off.

See this film. Buy it. Denzel really is that good. But beware some of the twists at the end. Some reviewers thrashed the film for it's startling revelation at the end and it's lead character's inevitable fate. I had no problem with him meeting his fate - he is a bad guy, remember? I do have a problem with Scott's choice of fates. Why miss the opportunity on the bridge? Was that supposed to be a false alarm? I wanted that to be it - not the pat scene that follows. Other than that - Denzel went out much better in Training Day - but his character deserved everything he got there. In Man On Fire, he should have paid a little bit more. the price of being a bad-guy. It would have been more emotional for the viewer. Oh wait - Scott doesn't do emotion - he does action. And never the twain shall meet. You think he would have learned by now - especially after the scene Robert Duvall shares with the shell of a race-car in Days of Thunder that emotion can be just as entertaining as action. Except in something like Steel Magnolias. Now there's a film that could have used a character like Creasy! And I wouldn't have even asked for any character development in that case! Just put him in that scene from Man On Fire with the guy strapped to the hood of the car, and insert Julia Robert's as said 'guy.' Now there's an Oscar clip for ya!