(originally published in The Outreach Connection in July 2007)
I think I might have enjoyed Brad Bird’s Ratatouille more than any other movie so
far this year. And even though it’s a G-rated animated feature from the
Disney/Pixar label, I don’t think it’s that it appealed to the “child in me.”
Well, I guess we could attribute all capacity for spontaneous delight to some
inner juvenile, but my pleasure in the film felt completely mature. People
often say that movies like Shrek are
“really for adults,” and my reaction is always to wonder then who, say, Ingmar
Bergman can possibly be for. Extra-terrestrials I guess. But it shows you how
lame the notion of mature entertainment has become, that people are so turned
on by glib references to popular culture, as if this served to illuminate (much
less to critique) anything at all.
Ratatouille
I don’t think Ratatouille has a single glib reference to popular culture, and the
film’s miracle is in creating an entertainment that seems to me (although I
can’t analyze the pre-teen perspective on this) massively, torrentially
accessible, while radiating constant artistic integrity. It’s the story of a
French rat, Remy, who while the rest of the pack scrounges in the garbage,
develops a passion for gourmet cooking. Circumstances take him to the kitchen
of a premiere French restaurant, where he teams up with a kitchen boy to
prepare unprecedented meals – the rat supplies the know-how, the boy supplies
the hands. But human prejudice against rats (especially in kitchens) prevents
Remy from getting the acclaim he deserves, and the malign forces of
commercialization, and lousy packaged food, loom large as well.
I don’t know how persuasive such a plot
summary will be. Let me just say that Ratatouille
is a staggering visual achievement, sending its unconstrained camera on journeys
of impossibly intricate choreography – from the depths of sewers out to the
glories of Paris in one mesmerizing journey, or through the frantic perils of a
busy kitchen from a rat’s eye view. The animation of the human characters is
sophisticatedly stylized, whereas Remy is simply one of the all-time triumphs
of anthropomorphism – immensely sympathetic, but always very plainly a rat. The
movie orchestrates familiar, comforting cycles of highs and lows, but it avoids
cheap gags, and it’s always as much of a pleasure to listen to as to watch (by
the way, there are no goofy songs either).
And most of all, apart from doing a stellar
job of promoting the merits of good, natural food, it’s transcendent in its
insistence that artistic achievement can spring from the least likely of
sources – a validation provided through a sour food critic voiced by Peter
O’Toole (giving, for my money, a more Oscar-worthy performance than he did in Venus). In this regard, Ratatouille is a perfect marriage of
form and content – for doubters like me, it’s not quite as miraculous as a
dreamy meal cooked up by a rodent, but it’s in the ballpark.
Joshua
George Ratliff’s Joshua works on the opposite premise, to convince us that malign
intent, or outright evil, can also exist where we least expect it. Unless that
is we’ve seen The Omen series or Birth or the other movies that tune us
into the perils of soft-spoken dark-haired boys. Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga
play well-to-do Manhattan parents of such a boy, and a new baby girl, whose
arrival triggers all kinds of escalating trauma
There’s nothing overtly supernatural about
the premise, which of course makes it even more unsettling – it’s a cautionary
tale in the perils of a slight maladjustment in a mostly exemplary nurturing process.
I don’t have kids and I still found it pretty unsettling – parents of anything
less than fortress-like self-confidence might not sleep afterwards. The movie’s
especially wicked in fingering females – from old to very very young – as the
key sources of imbalance. The movie doesn’t try to move much beyond its genre,
but certainly suggests that Ratliff (formerly known as a documentarian) could
pull off some pretty subtle work.
A
Mighty Heart is Michael Winterbottom’s telling of
the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, the Wall
Street Journal reporter who disappeared in Pakistan in 2002, on the way to
a perilous interview with a Taliban activist: he was ultimately beheaded.
Mariane, his strong, sympathetic wife (who was pregnant at the time) is played
here by Angelina Jolie, which has inevitably dominated the coverage of the
film; her performance is noble and astute and need be neither raved over nor
condescended to.
The film is primarily interesting for
Winterbottom’s customary facility in conveying the guts of a complex situation
– it seems convincing on the chaos of Pakistan, both socially and politically,
and it feels like it’s giving us a reasonable approximation of the complexity
of the search for Pearl, with all sorts of interests and leads and concerns tumbling
over each other. It’s a pretty neutral work of reconstruction, staying away
from the big politics, and ends up feeling satisfying but minor. As such it’s
typical of Winterbottom, whose energy and resourcefulness are consistently more
academically interesting than actually exciting and engaging. His film leaves
you feeling sad and well informed, but somehow yields virtually nothing to talk
over afterwards.
You Kill Me
John Dahl’s You Kill Me is a trivial concoction about an alcoholic New Jersey
hitman who is sent to San Francisco to get his act together. The star Ben
Kingsley bragged in an interview about how the cast and director took pride in
finding a unique approach to every scene, but the mild resulting quirkiness
can’t overcome the broader familiarity. If we believe Hollywood, hitman is
second only to cop as a flourishing career choice, and the associated well of
studied incongruity is plain dry. Despite some good performances (including Tea
Leoni as a highly attractive and capable-seeming woman who, for no good reason
whatsoever, falls for the taciturn killer), there’s zero reason for this movie
to exist.
Lars von Trier’s The Boss of it All is a comedy about a corporate owner who’s long hidden his identity, posing as just another manager – when he wants to sell the company, he must hire an actor to play the part of big boss. Von Trier provides an occasional voice-over to insist on the dispensable nature of what we’re watching, and the movie is certainly lightweight – it’s shot in a technique called “Automavision” which apparently limited the director’s control over the camera. As always, he’s a smoother artist than he likes to pretend, so the movie is a pretty good satire of corporate attitudes (not that another one was really necessary) and, more lumberingly, of the pretensions of art. I also note it’s the kind of movie in which a senior female employee has sex with the “boss” within a day of meeting him, just to prove a point. Maybe that’s satire, or maybe certain aspects of von Trier’s worldview run on Auto too.
No comments:
Post a Comment