Change Your Image
jlg310
Reviews
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010)
A very complex individual
The problem I usually have with documentaries is that, while I find them enlightening, I rarely connect to them on an emotional level. My intellect is stimulated, but I don't usually feel anything. The last documentary that made me feel anything was "Sicko." "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" succeeds in the same way. Here's a woman who is a bit of a joke and an easy Hollywood punching bag. But she shows herself to be quite a complex individual. She's of course funny and a workaholic. She's also quite vulnerable and doesn't take criticism well at all. At times, she's quite likable and very sympathetic. Other times, she seems twisted and self-absorbed. I suppose the real Rivers is a little of both. She's also a joy to spend 90 minutes in a theater with, should the opportunity present itself to you.
The film opens with a shot that tells you everything you need to know about this film and its intentions. The shot is an extreme close-up of Rivers without any makeup on. For someone so presumably consumed with her looks, this is a surprising image that tells you this film is going to show you the real Rivers. Like her or not (and many won't), this is her.
The rest of the film is loosely broken up into three sections. The first introduces us to the woman and follows Rivers as she develops an autobiographical play and performs it in the UK. The second follows her during her time on "The Celebrity Apprentice." And the final one shows her on the road across America doing comedy shows. Interspersed with these segments are sidebars about Rivers' past—her marriage, her time with Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show," her relationship with her daughter Melissa, and her annual Thanksgiving charity work.
The two biggest things I took away from the film are that Rivers is obsessive (desperate?) about working and that she is incredibly insecure—perhaps the two complement each other. At one point, she is trying to book a commercial. She tells the ad agency's representative that she'll wear diapers, anything, to land a gig. After seeing this film, I believe she would. She's also incredibly self-doubting. When her play opens in London to good, not great, reviews, she immediately decides it won't see the light of day in New York. She says she wouldn't be able to bear the criticism. And when she agrees to do a Comedy Central roast—well, let's just say, it's not pretty.
One of the most enlightening, and in some ways off-putting, scenes in the film is when she gets heckled at a show in rural Wisconsin. Rivers makes a joke about hating kids but thinking Helen Keller would be tolerable, and a man yells that he thinks she isn't funny, but mean-spirited. Rivers lays into him. She doesn't hold back at all, and while I hold the belief that comedians should be able to defend themselves as they see fit against hecklers, her expletive-laden tirade crossed a few lines. What was so telling about this scene, though, was just how insecure Rivers is. When one man, a nobody in her life, criticizes her, she viciously lashes out.
I really did find this film fascinating for just how complicated it made its star seem. In addition to that, it's also quite funny. Rivers hasn't lost much in 75 years. I'd argue that her best bits are the more recent ones. Most documentaries are intellectual exercises, but not this one. It felt refreshing—not at all like sitting through a lecture. I wasn't a fan of Rivers before. I'm not sure I'm a fan of Rivers now. But a can definitely say I'm a fan of "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work," and I would recommend it to just about anyone.
The Art of the Steal (2009)
One-sided but fascinating
The Art of the Steal—another great doc in what's already being dubbed the best documentary year in a long time—does something seemingly impossible. It crafts a compelling and informative story about art galleries. It sounds as dry as the Sahara on paper, but the story is surprisingly engaging. I objected to director Don Argott's almost completely one-sided approach to the material, but as long as you keep that in mind throughout, this can be a truly rewarding experience.
The film centers around Dr. Albert C. Barnes, a wealthy, anti-establishment suburban Philadelphia native who, in the first half of the 20th century, amassed one of the most impressive and expensive private art collections in history. The Barnes Collection consists of 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos, 16 Modiglianis and seven van Goghs, among other pieces of work, and it resided in Merion, PA, just outside of Philadelphia. When he died, an epic struggle for power and control broke out which has yet to be completely settled. If anything, it has escalated since Barnes' death.
Barnes despised the rich, famous, and powerful of Philadelphia. His number one enemy was Walter Annenberg, who operated the Philadelphia Inquirer. And Barnes made his collection incredibly exclusive as a result. As one commenter stated, Barnes denied access to the New York Times art critic, but he'd let the town plumber come in any time of day. After Barnes suddenly died in a car crash, the vultures began to circle, but his will outlined very specific instruction on what should happen to his art. Control over the art passed down to a number of his "disciples," and it was made clear that the art wouldn't be moved.
After the last of the disciples died, control went to Lincoln University, a small black college. Their presidents slowly shifted away from Barnes' wishes over time. One president, Richard H. Glanton, took the art on tour and attempted to expand hours to make the art more accessible. Glanton was despised by those loyal to Barnes (many of whom are the primary interview subjects in the film), but he was small potatoes to what the politicians and non-profit organizations did next.
The story has the capability to frustrate you. Going against a man's will seems like a really despicable thing to do. But when you sit back and think about what's actually happening, some interesting questions are raised. What's really best: to keep this priceless art hidden at the request of a somewhat bitter man who died more than 60 years ago, or to open it up to the public and let everyone learn and appreciate the incredible work on display? This might be an instance in which what's best and what's right are in opposition, but the film raises the questions. Unfortunately, it doesn't take the time to explore them.
The film is incredibly one-sided, more so than any documentary, outside the Michael Moore catalog, that I've seen in a long time. The only person interviewed that isn't a Barnes disciple is Glanton, and it appears he's only on hand because he wants to prove he wasn't as bad as what came after him.
This year is already being talked up as one of the best in a long time for documentaries. Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work was one of my favorite films from the first part of the year. Inside Job and Countdown to Zero received very positive buzz out of Cannes. And Exit Through the Gift Shop and Restrepo, among others, have already opened to rave reviews. And that's not even discussing what's coming later this year. I've never been a huge fan of documentaries. Perhaps that's because I was a student and didn't care to sit through a lecture, no matter how interesting the subject might have been. This year, that has definitely changed.
Get Low (2009)
Duvall shines
In the face of tragedy, people often do strange things. In Get Low, a guilt-ridden man completely shuts himself off from others. He builds himself a prison of isolation in which to punish himself, and nearly 40 years later, he still hasn't quite come to terms with his mistake. The film, from rookie director Aaron Schneider, is a fascinating character study anchored by an absolutely sensational performance from the great Robert Duvall. Its trajectory is familiar and predictable, but it overcomes that with charming characters, some sly humor, and genuine pathos.
The film takes place in the backwoods South around the 1930s. Felix Bush (Duvall) lives alone with his mule and shotgun on a large piece of wooded property. He doesn't venture into town very often and insists that no one trespass on his land. Upon learning about the death of an acquaintance, however, Felix decides to meet with a local funeral parlor director, Frank (Bill Murray), and his assistant Buddy (Lucas Black), to plan Felix's funeral. But in typical Felix fashion, he wants to do things a little differently. He wants to throw himself a "funeral party," and he has every intention of making a live appearance at this party. Frank is very short on cash, so he obliges to this odd request, and the three men start making the arrangements. It soon becomes clear, however, that Felix has some real skeletons in his closet (which may have something to do with Mattie (Sissy Spacek), a local woman whom Felix hasn't seen in years), and this party is going to be his chance to gain the peace that has eluded him for so long.
It's not unreasonable to expect greatness from an actor as good as Robert Duvall every time he steps in front of a camera. But his work in Get Low is simply exquisite—one of the best performances of his long, illustrious career. He fully embraces the crotchety hermit that is Felix Bush, while still making him decent enough that we care about his journey. His relationships with each of the three main supporting characters are well-developed and important to the film, but his finest moment without a doubt is the party scene. Here, Duvall acts his heart out without ever going over-the-top (like he does once or twice in the film's first half-hour or so). It's the scene that could get him an Oscar nomination.
The rest of the cast is quite good, as well. Bill Murray plays a role he's done many times in the past—that of the dry, sarcastic sidekick—but he's good at it. Much of Get Low's humor (and there's a good amount of it) comes from him. Sissy Spacek doesn't have a ton to do (her character is a vessel for Felix to gain the courage he needs to speak), but she makes the most out of her limited screen time. Lucas Black has a more difficult role. It's not a showy part, but he has to keep this trio anchored to planet Earth. There are a few occasions during which Felix or Frank seems to be a little too quirky and strange to seem realistic, but Buddy is always there to crank down the crazy.
For a first time director, Get Low is a very assured piece of work. It helps to have such fine actors in roles tailor-made to their strong suits, but I'd say Aaron Schneider is certainly a talent to watch out for. His sense of time and place is impeccable, and he avoids going to mawkish or overly sentimental with his material. I never thought Get Low was forcing me to feel anything; everything came natural. He shows some surprising and refreshing restraint in that department—something many veteran directors fail to do.
There are a few missteps along the way (a moment or two of exceptionally odd behavior from the characters, a couple awkward shifts in tone), but overall, Get Low is an emotional journey worth taking.
The Social Network (2010)
The Price of Success
Well, I certainly wasn't all that excited about The Social Network when I first heard about it. A movie about a Web site that was founded by an obnoxious twenty-something sounds awful on paper. Even the dynamic duo of director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin didn't generate all that much enthusiasm from yours truly. But three phenomenal trailers later, and I couldn't wait to see this film. It helped that early reviews compared it to Citizen Kane and The Godfather, among other all-time greats. So does it live up to the hype? The short answer is YES! It's a very compelling film about the time in which we live and a man who impacted our time greatly. He's not the most pleasant hero, but his story makes for two incredible hours of cinema, and all those involved should be proud.
While this film certainly is more than just "the Facebook movie," it still is, first and foremost, about the founding of the irritatingly inescapable social networking site. In 2003, Harvard student and computer whiz Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) was dumped by his girlfriend, Erica (Rooney Mara), an event that ended up changing the Internet and turning Zuckerberg into a billionaire. But that certainly didn't happen overnight.
After his breakup with Erica, Mark went home and drowned his sorrows online, writing some demeaning blog posts about his now ex-girlfriend and creating a site called "Facemash," which asked users to choose the hotter of two female Harvard students. The site crashed the Harvard network almost instantly and attracted the attention of the Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler (Armie Hammer), popular and athletic twin brothers who are looking for a programmer to create a site they came up with, The Harvard Connection, which will allow Harvard students to connect with one another on the Internet.
Zuckerberg agrees to work with them, but instead, he goes to his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) with a similar idea—The Facebook. Essentially, it's like MySpace, but exclusive. Only students with a Harvard e-mail address will be able to use it. Once launched, The Facebook becomes a hit. Everyone at Harvard is using about it, and Mark and Eduardo are the most talked-about students on campus. Once The Facebook expands, it attracts the attention of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), party boy extraordinaire and founder of Napster. Sean wants this project to succeed, but his ideas drive a rift between Mark and Eduardo. This rift eventually becomes permanent, and the latter sues the former, who is also facing a lawsuit from the twins he screwed over years ago.
I've always been a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's fast, smart dialogue. The man knows how to grab your attention with his words, and his work here might just be better than anything he has ever done. But even more than the exceptional dialogue, the way he crafts his story is just masterful. The Social Network is so many things that giving it a label is almost impossible. It's a drama, a coming-of-age character study, an examination of entrepreneurship and the things that often get tossed aside in the endless quest for more, and a look at who we are as a society in the digital age. This film succeeds because of a number of things, but in my opinion, number one on that list would be Aaron Sorkin.
Mark Zuckerberg is an absolute fascinating character played brilliantly by Jesse Eisenberg. I really didn't think the young actor capable of a performance like this, but he's great. This is a man who is completely driven, but he's not driven as to make money as one might expect. Instead, the currency he seeks is status. And while he obtains a kind of superficial acceptance (thanks to Parker), he never gets what he desperately wants. In fact, everything he does moves him further and further away from true acceptance. Eisenberg pulls of all the complex layers of Zuckerberg exquisitely. He's a fighter, energized at the prospect of finally being "cool." But by the end of the film, he seems exhausted just being him—almost as if he knows he has defeated himself. I think this will be the defining performance of Eisenberg's career, as he is another big reason the film succeeds. I also think he's a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination.
Eisenberg's costars are uniformly excellent, especially Andrew Garfield. He has a scene near the end of the film in which he confronts his former best friend, and he's just dynamite. It's what gives the film an emotional pull (the proceedings until that point were, for the most part, a little distant). In this scene, things become clearer and we recognize Eduardo as this story's tragic hero and Mark and Sean as its villains (though again, credit Eisenberg for making Mark a somewhat sympathetic villain). This scene just might land Garfield, who's taking the reins from Tobey Maguire in the Spider-Man franchise, an Oscar nomination, and he just might be there on Oscar night with none other than Justin Timberlake, who's got just the right amount of charm to make Sean Parker tolerable to watch. He's a scoundrel, no doubt, but Timberlake makes him a magnetic presence on screen.
There will be those who debate the veracity of events in The Social Network as filmgoers debate the truth behind any film that's based on real events. What can't be debated is this film's expert craftsmanship. Sorkin and Fincher, with the help of a handful of perfectly cast actors, craft a tale that works on a number of different levels. It tells the story of a conflicted and fascinating young man while also outlining the rise of perhaps THE company of the Internet age and showing us what an obsession with social status can drive us to do. It doesn't matter if you use Facebook or not, The Social Network will sweep you up completely from beginning to end.