Don't Blame Us For Visions Of Princess Cuts On Our Fingers

Moneyball (Miller, 2011)

October, or more specifically September if we are going by calendar release dates, are the days of baseball. Sure the NFL usually comes back around this time, but America's game is beginning to wind down from an exhausting summer marathon. It makes sense then to release a movie that revolves around the sport around this time of the year. It makes even more sense, with Oscar nominations looming in the not too distant future, to release a film that stars Brad Pitt. All the chances for Moneyball, the story of Billy Beane's attempt to reinvent the dynamics of Major League Baseball, to thrive in a major market are certainly in place. This is when champions are made. This is when A's fan actually have a chance to watch their team (or well, a lovingly designed simulation of their team of years past) in the post season! But is the simulation enough?

Taking on 2010 - Supporting Performances

With the year officially over, and my inclusion of 2010 winding down as well, I need to start wrapping up my end of the year awards. Naturally I have not seen all the films I hoped to get to over the year, but life happens. I am going to try and continue to catch up with films that need to be seen, but for the most part I think I have had a chance to see most of the films that boast the buzzed about performances. It should probably be noted that I am only drawing from a sample size of 80 films for these lists.

When You Punish A Child For Dreaming His Dream Don't Expect Him To Thank Or Forgive You

Cyrus (Duplass and Duplass, 2010)

In the past couple of years there seems to be one runaway indie comedy that is usually distributed by Fox Searchlight that reaches an unexpected amount of people and is met with surprise financial success. The most notable of these films are Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, both comedies that attempt to combine dramatic elements and complex characters to create genre hybrids offering more meat than the average romantic comedies that inundate theaters on a near weekly basis. In many ways Cyrus follows in the footsteps of these films, but unlike the other Searchlight features the new film from the Duplass Brothers seeks to bring an entirely new genre, mumblecore, to the masses. As a result the two have crafted one of the most interesting cinematic experiments in recent memory, creating a blend the likes of which your local coffee shop can only dream of concocting.

Cyrus takes so many conventions and places them directly at odds with the audience's expectations throughout the film, and from this aspect a portion of the film's genius is found. While I am no expert of mumblecore as a genre, of the films I have seen it appears that certain conventions of that genre are a heavily improvised script, generally lower key actors, and minimal camerawork to create a more 'realistic' film. So how do you do this when you have the queens of the indie scene, Catherine Keener and Marisa Tomei, Seth Rogen 2.0, Jonah Hill, and dramatist turned Tim and Eric vet, John C. Reily, headlining your film? Well you coax a magical performance from each and every one of these actors. In each performance is a brutally honest depiction of humanity, the complexities of love and the need for security. Stripped down to their basic elements we have a man seeking a major change clashing with an individual attempting to hold on not only to a life of security, but hoping to avoid being completely alone in the world around him. What Hill does with the Cyrus character is absolutely breathtaking, but not only is his turn completely stunning, the Duplass brothers have crafted such a wonderful character that he really deserves much more inspection.

The name Cyrus is, in many ways, completely fitting in regard to the film's themes and the character. While the source is questionable, the entomology section of the Wikipedia article states that the name means either "to bestow care" or "humiliator of the enemy in verbal contest," two traits completely attributed to the titular character. He has a need for nurture, and the film establishes his relationship with his mother as being the only fulfilling one in his life, so Cyrus's decision to act out against John is understandable. The stakes are so intense, but because Reily serves as the film's main character we are asked to also sympathize with him, and the character is incredibly easy to sympathize with throughout the film. At the very start of the film a party occurs, and the energy captured during this scene is so intense and well constructed that it absolutely gravitates throughout the rest of the film. This energy, paired with the sympathy that Cyrus does generate for himself, provides a beautifully engaging central conflict.

The construction of the film is also incredibly important when looking at Cyrus as well because the camerawork also plays against so many conventions. The most distinguishing trait of the film is the abundant use of zooms, giving the viewer a more intimate look at these characters, but even above that the zooms act as a way to work with the tension created between all the different aspects of convention playing against one another. The movie is a comedy as much as it is a drama, and because of the type of comedy, a much quieter and serious style, an underlying melancholy is found in the words, which generates an uneasiness throughout the film. The zooms don't allow the viewer much time to breathe or gain a sense of security, not only giving a layer of direct sympathy to our connection with Cyrus's grasp to hold on to what is comfortable at any cost, but also to heighten the uneasiness in each individual scene.

Cyrus is a film that finds complexity in its simplicity, but also does not allow the narrative to carry all the weight. The construction of the film, each zoom, each shot, each quietly creepy look from Hill, they all work simultaneously to enhance both the tone and themes. The film constantly builds to an ultimate clash of enormous forces until it crescendos beautifully as we see ideologies lashing out against each other. And I was left staggering back to my car after the credits started to flash by, and then I broke down in tears, and while I had a feeling during the film, after having a chance to mull it over more and see how perfectly all the elements work together, I knew Cyrus was not only a great film, but one of the year's best.

Comments are encouraged and, for anyone with a literary mind, I encourage checking out my poetry blog filled with all original works for your reading pleasure.

Also I am on the old Twitter thing so I guess you can follow me at twitter.com/FLYmeatwad.

Companionship Is Where You Find It, So I Take What I Can Get

Funny People (Apatow, 2009)

After two major successes where he spent time at the helm, and what seems like a million 'Produced By' attachments to the end of trailers, Judd Apatow returns with the Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen vehicle Funny People. After seeing the trailer it seemed to be another formulaic Apatow film that was going to present the audience with a standard situation, heighten it up a bit, throw in some laughs, make things a little depressing, get a romance going on most of the time, and then wrap up nicely. Well, taking a page out of the Adventureland book to non-success, the trailer does not do the film much justice. The romance aspect of the film is but a footnote to the story of Ira and George, Rogen and Sandler respectively, and how these two men bond during the course of the film. Think I Love You, Man except better. The movie is about characters and comedy, not love and loss.

Clearly the film's greatest strength comes in the form of the lead actors. Both Rogen and Sandler are fantastically funny yet emotionally sound. Sandler has already shown his ability as an actor in Punch Drunk Love, but seeing Rogen be a bit more than what he was in Knocked Up was a nice change of pace. Sandler is the obvious stand out in the film, but Rogen mostly matches him blow for blow, as the comedian mindset the film explores makes necessary. As for the supporting cast, things are a little lack luster. Mann plays her same type of role, which is nice, Bana is pretty damn funny, Hill is mostly good is limited time, but Jason Schwartzman is clearly the best of the supporters. He plays his role of the gloating and arrogant friend realistically and perfectly, capturing what is so disgustingly human about, well, humans. As for Apatow's kids, they have worn out their welcome and really slow the film down when it has already lost steam. The two are not really funny, they are not really cute, and they do not do anything to enhance the film.

Speaking of losing steam, the film is phenomenally strong for the majority of the first hour and a half. Then the narrative decides it wants to take a prolonged stop in romantic comedy territory. For something that is so focused on how Seth and Sandler interact with each other, which is clearly the point of the film as the ending so clearly implies, the amount of time that Sandler spends needlessly wooing Mann is both sloppily integrated and pretty dull. Sure it adds in some laughs, but at the expense of a more complete narrative. The film is dark and comedic early on, it even seems to have the perfect opportunity to end when a line is delivered from an unexpected face, "Then what are you celebrating?" The film would have been a masterpiece if it just stopped. The script could have been altered slightly to tie up the Rogen/Sandler plot line and the film's tone would not have been undercut, but for some reason Apatow cannot do that. The 40 Year Old Virgin has similar problems, and Knocked Up has similar problems. Apatow just cannot write endings.

Thankfully he can work a camera. While the direction is not mind blowing, it does range from solid to really good on numerous occasions. Early on the opening scenes following Sandler are really great, the one wide shot where there are a few pineapple shaped trees on the lawn is pretty great, and the dinner scene is cool as well. Still, Apatow does not prove himself to be one of the best men working with a camera, but at the same time he also never does anything really bad with the camera, so I suppose that means this is mostly a wash. Probably not though because he has some really great parts, right? Sure, let's go with that. Okay, the direction is pretty good, I guess Judd can work a camera. Still, it's not his strong point, but the film still works fine without all that technical flair, mostly because of the first hour and a half. Mostly everything before the rom-com bits.

Damn romantic comedies. Damn advertising. Damn mismarketing. Damn it all. You want to laugh? Well then you're probably better off watching Judd's previous two films, of which The 40 Year Old Virgin is the funniest, but if you want to see Apatow's best film then you should probably see Funny People and just pretend that the bit after the celebration scene doesn't exist. Despite the film's failures, it proves to be the most complex of Apatow's films because it departs most radically from the common Apatow formula that the trailer implies. Funny People examines comedy, it examines humanity, and it tosses in enough penis jokes to appeal to the people who could care less about these two previous explorations. Is the film a transcendental comedy? No. But any film that presses the fourth wall like this while showing the potential to be a masterpiece is good in my book. Plus the bits where Adam Sandler just about openly mocks his career and almost admits that the majority of the films he acts in are shit is pretty great. Keep up the good work Judd, and just learn to write a little less generic.

B+/A- or 4.18213907214746123784691

Comments are welcome and, for anyone with a literary mind, I encourage checking out my poetry blog filled with all original works for your reading pleasure.

Also I am on the old Twitter thing so I guess you can follow me at twitter.com/FLYmeatwad.