Check out Roger Ebert's essays on Vincent Gallo and his latest film, The Brown Bunny, which was a Cannes Film Festival disaster. What's noteworthy is Ebert's punchline in the second essay.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-nws-ebertside25.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert04.html

Movie Review #41

The Color of Money (1986)
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Written by Richard Price
Based on the novel by Walter Tevis

Rating: 6.50/10.00 or *** (out of 4)

When the word "mainstream" is uttered in the film industry, the first thing to pop up in most critics' minds is certainly not Martin Scorsese. After all, previous to The Color of Money, Scorsese had made Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, et al. None of these movies were mainstream in any regard. Certainly none were formulaic, as most Scorsese movies have an eerily close and disturbing (or odd) look at characters with several flaws and drives that carry them to often undesirable situations and certainly unwanted consequences. Last I checked, Travis Bickle is not a mainstream character. His highly dissociative and disturbingly ferocious personality is not necessarily an easy character to deal with, much less have sympathy (or even empathy) for. However, Scorsese has an unmatched skill at making these characters and their lives accessible and empathizing.

How disappointing it was then to watch The Color of Money, an entirely mainstream and often mundane formula show of teacher versus student in some type of sports drama. The sport is pool, the challenge is pride, and the urge is money. But, unlike some sports films (such as the melodramatic but highly entertaining Hoosiers), this film features little zeal and even less energy. So what's left, basically, is a movie with characters, few of them interesting, in a plot full of formulas and few surprises. Not my type of movie.

I wondered for a great deal of time after watching this movie why Scorsese would do a picture like this. My guess is that Paul Newman chose this director (a worthy choice) because of his insurmountable talent and his eagerness in making movies. My guess is Scorsese had as little power with this movie plot-wise as Kubrick had with Spartacus. Perhaps the relationship between Kirk Douglas and Stanley Kubrick in that film was much the same as Paul Newman and Martin Scorsese had in this one. Not to say in the least that their relationships were torn...just not the typical director/actor working relationship. Kubrick refuses to call Spartacus his own work and for good reason. When watching the film, the Kubrick touch is noticeably absent (Compare this with the Douglas/Kubrick motion picture Paths of Glory, a film with the obvious Kubrick touch.). Although Scorsese certainly had more leisure in making The Color of Money than Kubrick had with Spartacus, Scorsese's most important feature of his films is missing: unique characters with even more unique character traits and drives.

Paul Newman returns as Fast Eddie Felson from The Hustler, made in 1961. I have only seen bits and pieces of The Hustler, and for those of you worrying that you need to see the first film to see the second, let me reassure you that there is no need to do so (although it most certainly wouldn't hurt). I was never lost and certainly was aware of the situations/plot of this film without ever worrying about previous events told in The Hustler. Newman's acting is *the* reason to see this movie. His performance is as strong as his character, and his drives are often seen in his intense facial features/stares often looked upon close-up thanks to Scorsese. Fast Eddie is a character well-developed and little changed throughout the film. Unfortunately, this somewhat makes his character somewhat boring, but at the same time, Newman makes his character the center of the action and often quite awing.

Fast Eddie has retired from pool-for-money due to events in The Hustler, the troublemakers and often dirty players that are in the game. He is now a liquor salesman/bar owner, and he seems quite happy with that. One day, a young kid drops in the bar and starts to play pool. He is undoubtedly good, but Eddie notices his more important feature: his impetuousness. The kid, whose name is Vincent (played by Tom Cruise), can be described as a flake or even as a rebellious but likable young man (Think of Tom Cruise's performances in the late 1980s/early 1990s -- Top Gun, for example.). Eddie believes he can teach Vincent the ropes of high-stakes pool and can earn a boatload of money by throwing his opponents off by this impetuous, unpredictable nature. Eddie uses Vincent's girlfriend Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) to get this accomplished. By noting Carmen's double-sided sense of zeal and boredom around Vincent, Eddie approaches her and says that with each other they can steer Vincent to play pool with the goal of making money.

This makes for the most interesting scene in the movie, when Eddie meets Vincent and Carmen. Eddie quickly tricks Vincent into feeling suspicious of Carmen. Eddie knows how to handle Vincent, and Carmen, along with Eddie, uses this suspicion and their understanding of Vincent to lead Vincent toward high-stakes pool. Vincent's suspicions of Carmen are important throughout the movie, as before long, we quickly become unaware of Carmen's official stance. This is a Scorsese touch, as often he has his female characters portrayed in deep mystery to lure the men and to wear down on the men because of it.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is predictable because of this setup. A classic teacher-student scenario, the movie shows scene after scene of Eddie teaching Vincent, Vincent's rebellious nature taking hold, Vincent then wanting to take down the champion Eddie, and then coming to a final showdown between champion and challenger. Nothing surprising happens, and nothing overly entertaining does either. It's the small things to look for in this film because the big things are overused and tired. Take the subtle and touching relationship Eddie has with longtime girlfriend Janelle (Helen Shaver) or the edgy interaction between Eddie and Julian (John Turturro). The plot is boring, but the character interaction is not. Unfortunately, the focus is too much on the plot to make this a memorable film in regard to characters or character development.

The final showdown ends the film, but an unwise decision is made. The movie ends before the showdown essentially begins. Some may say the ending is ingenious, but I think the ending is downright misleading. It's the same thing as ending a movie about a serial killer without ever finding out who the serial killer is (Say if Seven never shows us the serial killer.). This movie is not set up for us never to find out the final result of the showdown. You can't make one addition (or in this case subtraction) from the film and call it unique, artistic, or nonformulaic...it's neither clever nor appropriate.

Thinking about it, though, I think Scorsese made this film about as good as possible with the script and plot given to it. Unfortunately, that does not make for a great movie in any regard. The Color of Money is standard fare, and coming from someone as talented and unique as Martin Scorsese, this is quite a disappointment.

Movie Review #40

Far from Heaven (2002)
Written and Directed by Todd Haynes

Rating: 9.00/10.00 or **** (out of 4)

Todd Haynes takes us back to 1957, both in story and in presentation, in this masterful film that came out late in 2002. Far from Heaven, easily classified as a melodrama, presents the issues and the questions of the late 1950s in the form of how they would be dealt with in the late 1950s. An example to clarify: Homosexuality is always dealt with by innuendo, inference, and furtiveness. It is never an "out-loud" topic; it is kept in secret and in the dark. The husband of the white (You'll understand why this is important shortly.) Whitaker family, Frank, is secretly homosexual. Only when the wife, Cathy, brings dinner to the supposedly "late-working" husband does she find out Frank is gay. Cathy unknowingly finds Frank kissing another man in his office as she brings Frank his food.

Never would this have been shown in 1957, but Haynes, quite aware of this fact, presents the scene in darkness and mystery. Meanwhile, the soundtrack (an admirable nostalgic performance by Elmer Bernstein) quietly yet earnestly portrays the emotions of the scene: shock, fear, and dread. So, in a sense, Haynes presents the topic as it was dealt with, not presented, in 1957. This is Haynes's motif throughout the movie. Another example: Cathy is being interviewed by Mona Lauder. The interview takes place because of the Whitakers' success in the corporate world. Known as the Magnatechs, the Whitaker family seems to have the perfect life. Mona, interested in the wife's role in the seemingly a-one family, is interrupted by a mysterious stranger appearing in the Whitakers' garden. Cathy goes outside to find Raymond Deagon, an African-American man. Cathy is mesmerized by the man, finding him the most beautiful man she has ever met. However, she never utters this, and she doesn't have to. Her feelings are easily interpreted and somewhat returned by the gentle man. However, their first meeting is nothing more than friendly neighbors talking. At one point, Cathy extends her arm to touch Raymond. Mona, watching intently, then goes on to publish that Cathy is "friendly to Negroes." This starts the whole town in a stir (The setting is Hartford, Connecticut.).

Haynes intelligently portrays the chain of events that follows Mona's statement. Friends come over to Cathy's house, and there is quiet but forceful interrogation. Meanwhile, Cathy listens on as her friends talk about married life. The look on Cathy's face says it all: Cathy is unhappy at home, obviously has no sex life of her own, and is falling for Raymond. Before long, she meets Raymond in an art exhibit and then goes along with him one day on one of his occupational trips. They enter a black diner where they meet the tensions and resentment of the employees and the customers. Haynes, quite aware that both blacks and whites despised the idea of interracial couples, effectively presents this resentment with a bitter waitress and an angry customer. Soon after, rumors of Cathy "seeing" a black man are spread, and friends begin to turn on Cathy. Cathy's best friend Eleanor, Cathy's seemingly one ally, begins to show her darker side by lashing out at Cathy for her behavior.

Haynes deals with racial issues so well that it is difficult to ignore or even to escape them throughout the film. What Haynes presents here is society's common response to racial issues at the time. Civil rights was a hot topic at the time, and everyone had a loud opinion of it. The idea, let alone realization, of an interracial couple led to harsh and violent outbursts, livid resentment, extreme tension, and very often societal rumor-making and hatred. Far from Heaven shows the constant bombardment of this, even in Cathy, as she is scared to show her feelings and is quite aware with what will happen if her attraction is brought into light. When her friends ask her what Mona's comment of "friendly to Negroes" implies, Cathy subtlely pushes the comment aside, saying she does not know what Mona was talking about and how she "could not believe" that was put in the papers.

Meanwhile, Frank has to deal with his homosexuality, an even darker subject at the time, perhaps because it was hardly ever mentioned aloud in the 1950s. Frank, who calls his feelings "despiccable" says he will "lick this problem." Frank sees a psychiatrist, who tells him most often "there is no cure." I wonder if this dialogue is irony or honesty about/from the 1950s. At the same time as Haynes is showing the subject as it would have been dealt with in 1957, there is no doubting that Haynes is trying to make a point about the dialogue. Today, we know that "curing" homosexuality is a ridiculous notion and a condescending attitude. Haynes is evoking emotions in the present by showing us viewpoints, ideas, and actions from the past. Far from Heaven is highly provocative, in manners similar to these, throughout the film because of this double-edged dialogue.

There are two scenes that are especially memorable in this movie. After Frank meets with his psychiatrist, Cathy and Frank have a discussion outside. The discussion becomes heated before long, due to the stresses each of them is facing. Before long, it becomes too much for Frank and he says the f-word. I have never seen a movie where this word has had such power or such charge. Haynes gives this word such power by removing it from our vocabularies before this point. Cathy scoffs her son David when he says words that today would be nearly disregarded (Aw, dang! and Aw, shucks! comes to mind.). Never is an expletive spoken before this point. Of course, the audience doesn't realize this until Frank lashes out at Cathy angrily in this scene. The argument is unnerving. We can sense the anger so well, better than just about any movie that I have seen.

The second scene is a lesson in hypocrisy. When news breaks of Cathy's "seeing" Raymond, Frank comes home in anger. He resents his wife for "breaking down" the family and the company he "worked so hard to build." Of course, never is a word about Frank's homosexuality raised. And there are two reasons for this. For one, it was not the issue of the discussion, although Cathy could have certainly used it in a retort. Secondly, it re-emphasizes the viewpoints in 1957 toward homosexuality. Rarely was it ever talked about, and if it was, it was in a hush-hush, or "pshaw" manner. It would have gone against the tone of the film, something Haynes most certainly realized.

Far from Heaven has superb acting. Julianne Moore is tremendous as Cathy Whitaker, a wife with pain and dread but surged with hope after meeting Raymond. Moore's performance is never over-the-top, as it could have easily been (especially near the beginning of the film). Dennis Quaid plays a hardened and resentful husband full of inner turmoil that makes him appear threatening and mysterious on the outside. Wonderful supporting performances are given by Dennis Haysbert as Raymond, Viola Davis as the maid Sybil, and Patricia Clarkson as Cathy's friend Eleanor.

Alongside the top-notch acting is fittingly nostalgic music and cinematography. From the bright hues of the autumn leaves on the trees to the family home decorations to the long, extended, slowly moving shots evoking all of the drama necessary from each scene, Far from Heaven reminds us of the classic era of cinema. Even the opening and the end credits are presented with the 1950s in mind. Every last touch of this movie makes us think twice whether this film was made in 1962 or 2002.

Todd Haynes has made a great movie. But what makes this a masterpiece is the two final scenes between Cathy and Raymond. The first of the two has Cathy earnestly pleading with Raymond to allow her to visit him, as he and his daughter are moving to Baltimore to leave the resentful community of Hartford. When Cathy asks if she could visit, saying nobody would ever know, Raymond calmly states that he doesn't think that would be a good idea. The last scene has Cathy watching Raymond leave on the train south to Baltimore. The scene is mostly in silence, as the two go their separate ways. What a bitter contradiction this is. Raymond has feelings for Cathy, but he decides that the pain he feels as a man quite possibly in love is less torturous than the societal viewpoints that are constantly inflicted upon him. And as we ponder this rather disturbing contradiction, how fitting that the movie ends with dramatic strings and an ascending scope showing us the sprouting green leaves on the trees.