Change Your Image
NRastro
Reviews
Under One Roof (2002)
Kind of sweet
I liked it a lot. Yes, it's very much indie and low-budget, but the point of the movie was to show things from the Chinese-American character's point of view, to show why the answer to "why don't you just come out to your parents?" can be a lot more complicated than others may imagine. Worthwhile and fun and sweet.
The style and acting was meant to be naturalistic, and the emotions are kept pretty restrained. I kind of liked the way the characters were very much depicted as pretty much ordinary guys, like the ones I knew growing up. The movie avoids extremes that are so common that we don't even think about them. There's no big, high-drama drug problems (at one extreme) nor no guys with jet-setting (perfect but empty) lives, and the funny "best friend" characters aren't so terribly arch. Seems pretty true to life, which forces you to concentrate on the story and message, which is pretty quiet, emotionally brave turf to tread. In that sense, it takes some risks in its simplicity.
Margaret Cho: Notorious C.H.O. (2002)
Can't remember when I laughed so hard
I didn't see her first movie, and I'd always thought Margaret Cho was funny when I saw her on network TV, but nothing prepared me for this. A lot of my laughter came from pure shock value. She'd start on a topic and I'd think, "she's not really going to go THERE, is she?" -- and she goes RIGHT there.
Raunchy is definitely the word that fits, but I think what I felt was the glee that accompanies hearing taboos busted right and left. On top of that, when she chooses to get into more impassioned and serious territory, she is mesmerizing. (But don't worry -- she doesn't stay serious for long!)
Her comedy writing is solid, her delivery and timing are razor sharp, and the structure of the routine is impeccable.
I think I'll probably see this movie again in the theater while I can.
Hanging Up (2000)
Don't Overlook the Darkness
I rented this movie (`Hanging Up') and I found it devastatingly effective.
At the center of the movie is Meg Ryan, whose movies I've not seen a lot. Her character, Eve, is really the fulcrum on which the whole movie balances. Much as her character's car is boxed in by a parking-garage accident early in the movie, I got the feeling that the movie was a meditation on whether her life is of her own choosing and making, or whether it is something she has largely been trapped into.
Part of the art of the movie is, I feel, that the character doesn't really know. This isn't made explicit in dialogue - rather, you can see it in her face as she repeatedly goes through situations in her life. And in her reactions to those situations, you can see the many little waves of emotion sweeping over her, all vying for the upper hand. It's as if she's perpetually trying to find her place and regain her balance.
And this may be what some people who saw the movie and didn't like it don't see: at times, you wonder if she's really going to crack. An example is the brilliantly conceived set of characters represented by Eve's mother (in a brief appearance by Cloris Leachman) and Eve's husband (who has slightly more screen time). Each very clearly rejects Eve's father. But, in doing so, each of them places, perhaps unwittingly, a huge demand on her. For Eve, to live in the world that is dictated by others' expectations and reactions, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is to deny herself. And yet, the paradox is that, while her continued interactions with her father and sisters represent a possibly destructive degree of self-denial, in all the caring she dispenses to others, she is her best self. Her use of the phone is the clear metaphor for that she can't stand to stay on it, and yet she can't stand to stay off of it.
Diane Keaton's direction is very impressive in the movie, in my opinion. The staging and editing are first rate, and really frame the story beautifully. Her acting performance in the film is a little awkward, but her ability as a director to really get the actors to play with a subtlety and spontaneity in their reactions to each other (particularly in scenes between Meg Ryan and Lisa Kudrow) is very skilled.
I think that if a viewer sees the movie as just a light comedy or a succession of gags, they have really missed the point of what Diane Keaton is trying to do. I find that hard to fathom, because Meg Ryan's central performance clearly is meant to showcase the character's essential emotional confusion, and I feel like the direction emphasizes this repeatedly. Maybe some viewers are distracted by Meg Ryan's beauty, which may have had the effect of setting up some distance between themselves and the character. It could be argued that Keaton allowed Ryan to be so well dressed, often in extremely flattering outfits of pastel colors, that it's hard to take seriously that the character could be an emotional mess. Eve may have inadvertently been robbed of some of the character's gravitas as a result.
I see a lot of darkness in Walter Matthau's character as well, but the affection between him and the Meg Ryan character is also very clear. Adam Arkin contributes a fine supporting performance in the movie as Eve's husband. His character could have easily been so blandly cast that it would have sunk right into the background, but he is a confrontational, yet gentle, force in Eve's life, and helps call the question as to whether Eve's life is in the state it's in by her own choice or not.
So, to sum up, I think that to dismiss `Hanging Up' as a heartwarming bauble is to miss a lot. The central character is a woman that is pulled and tugged in so many directions, all in the midst of a life that looks deceptively normal given her stresses, but is really one that remains hers to define. By the end of the movie, you can see in Ryan's expressions (and judge for yourself) the degree to which she has, or has not, come to a level of acceptance about her lot.
Metropolitan (1989)
Disarming
I don't know exactly what I was expecting from "Metropolitan," but it was different from whatever notions I had going in.
I describe it as "disarming" because it very artfully resists issuing an invitation to the audience to take a particular stance toward these ostensibly privileged youth. They manage to be sympathetic and human because they are painted very much life-sized.
The film's visual style is much sparser than I expected: their world doesn't look particularly lavish; it's just a backdrop of traditional settings. Part of the spare feeling may be as simple as the film being set in winter: there's little sense of lushness to these young people's lives.
I think I felt a sense of relief (in terms of my own defensiveness about class) that Stillman makes it so clear that these people are no better than anyone else; they merely have some illusions or (surprisingly tentative) perceptions about who they are and about their importance in the world. In retrospect, it's amusing how often they accuse each other of pretentiousness in the film when they're all fairly drab characters, all dressed up because they, in truth, have little clue about what else to do. So, the film doesn't force you to take a stance on them (as to their decadence or nobility) as a class; rather, it lets you see them as (emotionally) struggling humans, pretty much like the rest of us.
This effect is also heightened by the sense that, in their conversations with each other, they're all using oversized vocabularies they haven't quite yet figured out how to master, much as a child playing dress-up stands lost in his or her parents' adult-sized clothing. So, probably, the pivotal reason the characters are sympathetic is that they're clearly trying so hard to sound knowledgeable about their world when they in fact have no idea what they're talking about, and they have really very little idea about the reality of the larger world around them.
So, why did I like the film so much, once my own defenses were down? As is the case with most film genres that are familiar (and Metropolitan does tread the territory of a "young people coming of age" movie), it is the ambiguities (and contradictions) about the characters' true nature that sustains the film and the viewer's interest. You really don't quite know what most of the characters are going to do next or how they'll react to the others. In this sense, it reminds me a bit of how other independent films that rework familiar genres manage to pull it off well: I think of "The Crying Game" as it reworks the "hunted man who's unraveling a mystery" story; or how "American Beauty" reworks the midlife-crisis genre.
Overall, it is a small movie (indeed, a talkfest), and if I'm objective, I would say that it might be hard to take for people who are in the age group of its characters (early twenties). For me, in my late 30s, I found it a really textured evocation of what the last fifteen years of my life have been, and how they've compared to my vague notions long ago of what they would be. Also, if a person has no familiarity with New York, the movie could feel a bit obscure.
Perhaps the most central theme of the film, and one that could have been handled very clumsily but is handled well here, is that none of our positions in the world is really secure. The threats to them may stem from our world changing around us in ways we don't understand, or they could be the risks of being surrounded by people who call to our worst nature (symbolized in the minor character Von Sloneker), or the threats could just result from the emotional baggage within ourselves.
Definitely worth seeing.
Flirting with Disaster (1996)
Really funny, but may not play well on video
I saw this movie and was amazed by its unrepentant irreverence.
However, as I read some of the other user comments here, I realize that I think the film plays a lot better if you see it in a theater or with other people (I saw it in a theater when it was first released) than if you watched it on video, alone at home. If you watch it alone, I can easily see how it might feel like it keeps you too much off balance and then seems off-putting and unsettling as a result. In my opinion, you need people around you to share the shock of some of the places the plot takes you to. (This is definitely a movie where I said numerous times, "I can't believe they're going to go there!" and, indeed, they go RIGHT there (i.e., over the edge).)
The film has some gay characters that are depicted a bit unconventionally, which can be refreshing if you're gay. But if you're in the right mood, I think the movie can be a hoot for anyone.
Female on the Beach (1955)
Fun and True to Its Genre
This film is a lot like an extended Perry Mason episode, which isn't surprising since it's from exactly the same era. I would add, also, that it's beautifully photographed in a noir style.
I have a friend who pointed out that the first half of the movie consists of Joan Crawford repeatedly throwing people out of her house, which is kind of fun to note; perhaps it's an indication of a bit of clumsiness in the script. One could also perhaps say that Crawford leans a bit too much on toughness in her characterization and not enough on the bewilderment the character would have felt as she unwittingly walks into the situation she finds herself in.
The film does keep the suspense going, though, in that it continues to fan the ambiguity of who the house's previous occupant (recently dead as the movie starts) really was and what her relationship was to the various supporting characters. The film is full of manipulative characters with mixed motives, so you find yourself drawing conclusions about the dead character, but then resisting those conclusions because it seems like you're being led to them by pretty slippery characters.
Overall, the film is definitely worth a look; sums up the type of movie Joan Crawford was best known for. To get a look at her lighter side, try "Love on the Run," one of a handful of comedies she did, in which she co-stars with Clark Gable.
Midnight (1939)
A Gem
This movie is a gem -- one of my favorites.
It shows you everything that the golden age of Hollywood was all about. Good writing, direction, great performances, strong supporting cast, effective production design. A lot of fun; a light comedy classic.
Reminds me a bit of "The Lady Eve," especially in that each has a similar, memorable party scene. A difference, though, is that the Colbert character is more realistically drawn, and the film is a notch less manic (and much more enjoyable for my tastes) than the screwball pace of "The Lady Eve."
Craig's Wife (1936)
Timeless American Theme
A very interesting film! I saw it at a university's film archive; to my knowledge, it is not often screened on cable or broadcast TV.
For Rosalind Russell fans, the film is quite a change of pace from those who may know her best from the screwball comedy "His Girl Friday." She's very good in "Craig's Wife," (as is the supporting cast) and her performance gives you an appreciation for her range as an actress.
I say the film addresses a timeless American theme, which is the tension between American culture's focus on materialism (an issue even way back in the 1930's, clearly) versus a person's more human needs, such as emotional intimacy. The character of Harriet Craig clearly resists any show of vulnerability and, as the film progresses, increasingly reveals a depth of coldness that's also chilling for the audience to witness, and is mirrored in the uneasiness the supporting characters display as they interact with her.
What gives the film its lasting impression is that there are almost certainly many of us today who have met someone like the character. Furthermore, in the present day, we often see similar themes (love vs. money) played out in American films.
The theme was a common one, I think, in the 1930's, partly because the Depression and its aftermath made it hard for anyone (particularly women, for whom few career opportunities were available, let alone accepted) to ignore the economic expediency and comfort that finding a wealthy husband could afford. In that era, the hardships that may have accompanied being a romantic and marrying for love (without regard for money) were not trivial.
For a comic take on this same thematic vein, catch "Midnight" with Claudette Colbert, which is a delightful movie that I think screens fairly often on the AMC (American Movie Classics) cable channel. Less from a money-based viewpoint, but very much from an emotional standpoint, the character Mary Tyler Moore plays in 1980's "Ordinary People," a drama, has some of the same elements as Rosalind Russell's Harriet Craig here.
Another variant, which centers on the ambiguous intentions of a man toward a wealthy young woman, can be found in "The Heiress" with Olivia de Havilland, remade (with the title of the Henry James novel both films were based on) as "Washington Square" in the 1990s, with Jennifer Jason Leigh.
So, I view "Craig's Wife" as a surprisingly unflinching view of how one woman walled herself up within a prison -- both material and emotional -- of her own making. Highly recommended.