The film begins with a voice-over. "Cecilia went first". We only know the movie's title at this point. Fill in the blanks. We see a girl being taken to the hospital, where a doctor asks: "What are you doing here, honey? You're not even old enough to know how bad life gets". The tween girl in the bed, wrists covered in bandages, answers in a very down-to-earth way: "Obviously, Doctor, you've never been a 13-year-old girl."
This film will not explain to you how it is to be a 13-year old girl. It is never explained why all 5 Lisbon sisters take their lives. It doesn't come completely out of the blue, but what pushed them over edge is never clarified. It is never explained why the youngest one jumps from a window, only for her sisters to follow a year later. It's never clarified why they hang, poison and gas themselves. But trust me, you will know.
I once asked my mother, who is a psychologist, if she never was appalled by all the horrible things here clients did. How can you feel remorse for someone who hits his children? She then told me that those people tended to have problems with their marriage, have to work way too much to make ends meet, might be or have been alcoholics and have children who are nagging all day long while they are trying to make them survive. What they do is still unacceptable, but at least you understand.
And that is what this movie does: it presents characters who can be understood. The house of the Lisbons is bleak and loveless because of their conservative and rigid parents, yet you see a father who loves his daughters and has a thing for airplanes. You see a guy who is scoring with all the nice chicks and leaves the girl off his dreams after their one night together, but you also see how nervous he is when he it trying to get close to her . Maybe you don't approve, but you will understand.
It should be clear by now that this is not a light-hearted film. Sofia Coppola is not a director who makes friendly movies. But this is a drama in the best sense of the world: a clash between genuine people who are just people. And you will understand both sides. It reminded me of Greek tragedies: everyone has a point, but it all ends in tragedy for all involved.
This is one of the most gripping films I have seen in a while. Not a full-on classic, but pretty damn close.
Alias
P.S. What is it with female directors writing movies that completely understand boys? First Bigalow with The Hurt Locker, now this... They are on us, guys.
For the music today: a song from the soundtrack of the film with a video made from excerpts of the film.
Jason Reitman (who made Thank You for Smoking and Juno before this one) has moviemaking in his blood: his father, Ivan Reitman, directed Ghostbusters. That movie was pretty much the essential children's movie of the eighties, so little Jason had quite something to live up to. He did this beautifully by making what is in my book the essential teenager movie of the 00's: Juno. Now he is back with Up in the Air, a movie about people in the economic crisis. And while it's pretty damn good, it was also pretty confusing.
First the good bits. Reitman has a stunning ability to make his characters, even if they are a little stereotypical, feel alive. It is almost as if you are taking part in their conversations. This is helped by good acting and excellent writing. The dialogues are sharp but at the same time meaningful. A standout moment for me was the conversation where a couple in their fourties tell a just-dumped girl in her twenties about love. This moment really spoke to me on a personal level. It might have even taught me something, and that's kind of rare on itself for a movie.
You might have noticed that Up in the Air shares a lot of it's virtues with Juno. That doesn't mean it's more of the same. The only thing the two films really share are the atmosphere and the themes about recent times. Up in the Air is a lot more mature the Reitman's previous films: the theme of people getting fired creates some rather heavy moments. This is not too strange, of course: the characters are all adults, instead of the teenagers of Juno.
Now for the bad bits. As I said, the movie confused me. Juno refreshingly passed no judgment at all on it's characters. This felt as a relief for a movie about such a touchy subject as teen pregnancy. Up in the Air doesn't do this either. The confusing part is that everything points at the fact that it wants to.
Let me clarify that. Clooney's character holds speeches about being a successful businessman, in which he tells people to be detached. He himself doesn't form any relationships whatsoever, which makes him the best at what he does. But then he meets a woman for whom he has genuine emotions. Happy ending? They get together and Georgie learns a valuable lesson about love and stuff? No. The movie ends without really wrapping this up. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it just didn't seem to make sense in the context.
Don't let this keep you from seeing it anyway. It might not be a masterpiece, but it's still a damn well made movie with a great atmosphere that you won't regret immersing yourself in for 2 hours of your life.
Alias
As for the music, here is a simple but catchy song with some sweet guitar licks.
For way too long this blog has been nothing but a dumping place for my frustrations. Nice for my, shit for people I forced to read this. So, from now on, I will only post reviews here. Hurray!
EASY RIDER
Before I begin this review, let's take a little detour into movie history.
From the 1920's to the 1950's the Hollywood cinema was dominated by the so-called "studio system". This meant that studio bigwigs pretty much decided the content of movies. There were celebrity directors, like Chaplin and Hitchcock, but they were the exceptions. The "star system" was also invented in this period: make an actor play pretty much the same role every time, so that the public knows what to expect (see Johnny Depp for a contemporary example).
This system might sound restraining, but it actually worked pretty well. Some of the greatest classics of all time (think Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life etc) were made in this time.
However, all of this changed during the sixties.
The most important factor in this was that the filmgoing demographic changed drastically. Suddenly, the major part of the viewing population was younger then 30. And they had some completely new views on life, sex, society and politics (even the non-hippies).
The studio people had no idea what to do with this. For decades, youngsters had been content by the same kind of virginally picture-perfect style. But the new public could not relate to these kinds of films at all: they were doing drugs, exploring free love and listening to Rock 'n' Roll. They were looking for a different kind of movies, movies with artistic and intellectual depth. The filmnerds found this win European and Japanese cinema.
By the late sixties, however, the first load of this generation graduated from film school. This group included people like Woody Allen, Brian de Palma, George Lucas and the likes. They knew what was going on in the pop culture of that time and made movies with that in mind.
The studios slowly started to recognize this potential. They noticed that the film this new shift made, often on ridiculously low budgets, were very popular. Easy Rider was an example of this: the studio realized they had to adress more mature themes in their films to appeal to their new audience.
After these kinds of films turned out massively successful, many of these young filmmakers were hired by the studio and were granted a great deal of creative freedom. They proceeded to make the "modern classics": Last Tango in Paris, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather etc. This new school is now known as the "New Hollywood" cinema.
So, this film definitely has played an important role in both movies and popular culture (it introduced the Harley Davidson to the great public). Great. Many thanks. That doesn't keep it from being a very mediocre film.
Let me clarify that statement before the fans set my house on fire: Easy Rider is by no means bad. Alias' Law certainly doesn't apply here. It's just so... boring.
Easy Rider is about two guys, played by Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. They just sold an assload of drugs and decide to take a road trip on their Harleys to New Orleans. On the way they get scolded, pick up some hitchikers, visit a commune and use some LSD.
And that's it.
I think the major problem of this film is that nothing really happens. And
while that's not nescecarilly a bad thing (see Adaptation or The Seventh Seal), this movie really suffers from it. The atmosphere is cool (and definitly helped by a pretty great soundtrack), but it just wasn't enough to keep me interested for an hour and a half. The chemistry between the main characters is also rather dull: one is introvert and intelligent while the other is loud-mouthed and kind of stupid. Some shots simply last waaaaay to long (like the ""famous" round-the-table shot) and the ending is not a logical conclusion to anything. It comes out of nowhere and BOOM, the film is over.
I guess the film thrives more on a thematic level then on a narrative. This is, however, really a film about the times. As my movie mentor Stijn was quick to point out: this film is a critique on the hippie subculture. But a modern moviegoer like myself can't really find that in the film. It's a big case of both "If you say so..." and "Ooooh, so THAT was what it was all about". In it's time, these themes would have been obvious, but now they are kind of weird. I don't expect anybody in 2060 to understand Avatar, either.
Let me once again say: Easy Rider never made me hate it. But secretly, I wish it did. As it is, the film is just so bland it's not really much of anything. Except for a sidenote in film history.
I recommend that you keep it that way.
Alias
P.S. The music will stay!
This song is really in style with the movie, and also friggin' awesome in it's own right.
And that is what this movie does: it presents characters who can be understood. The house of the Lisbons is bleak and loveless because of their conservative and rigid parents, yet you see a father who loves his daughters and has a thing for airplanes. You see a guy who is scoring with all the nice chicks and leaves the girl off his dreams after their one night together, but you also see how nervous he is when he it trying to get close to her . Maybe you don't approve, but you will understand.
