Since I have not ended up with my dream job of professional film critic, I am resigned to reading A.O Scott’s reviews in The New York Times and catching up on the many films I have missed in the theater with assistance from Netflix, Blockbuster and the local public library. This bit of reality accounts for my having only now just viewed the 2008 release, Two Lovers, starring Joaquin Phoenix (in his self-proclaimed final acting performance), Gwyneth Paltrow and Vinessa Shaw.

Two Lovers, directed and co-written by James Gray and set in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, is essentially the coming of age story not of a boy, but of a thirty-something man-boy who is torn between two women as he tries to rebuild his life after his fiancee leaves him and a subsequent mental breakdown. The main character, Leonard Kraditor (Phoenix) is not pulled so much between the stable, kind and understanding Sandra (Shaw) and the emotionally needy, exotic (ie. Manhattanite) and dangerous Michelle (Paltrow), as he is between the life choices represented by them and facing him as he returns to live with his parents, trying to define his own adult future.

The film is alone worth seeing for the powerful, raw, and very real performances by its cast (including Isabella Rossellini as Leonard’s mother), which are well complimented by Gray’s decision to film in a gritty, immediate style. But the added value for me was the opportunity to see a contemporary, hardworking, middle class Russian-Jewish immigrant family portrayed realistically, rather than as a stereotype or in broad caricature. The style of the film could make one assume that the story takes place a decade or two ago, leaving the viewer somewhat surprised to learn definitively during one scene that it actually takes place the same year the film was made. Aside from this, everything –  from the way Leonard’s family’s apartment is decorated, to the dialogue, to the decaying Brighton Beach setting and way of life –  rings true. Watching Phoenix, known for his outstanding portrayal of the bigger-than-life Johnny Cash so artfully embody the quirky, confused and off-balance everyman Leonard is a highly rewarding experience.

Two Lovers deals – and not too subtly or indirectly – with a specific aspect of Leonard’s choice between the two young women who have entered his life at the same time. Put most simply, Sandra is the daughter of a business associate of Leonard’s father, and a nice Jewish girl, while Michelle is the beautiful, blond shiksa. To the credit of the screenwriters, as well as that of the actors, these two female characters do not come off as complete stereotypes. Still, the tensions they present and the questions they pose for Leonard about the importance of ethnic and religious loyalty, and even just comfort, are front and center throughout.

The pull for Jewish men between these two types of women has a long tradition in American life, as it has in our culture’s film and literature. It is clear in Two Lovers what Leonard’s parents’ preferred choice is for him. However, this preference does not override their love for Leonard and their desire for him to be happy. In one of the most moving scenes in Two Lovers, Rossellini’s Ruth Kraditor conveys this message to her son at a pivotal moment.

The elevated train over the streets of Brighton Beach, Brooklyn

What Leonard’s mother, like so many other Jewish mothers, is hoping is that her child will marry and build a family with another Jew. What so many young Jews do not understand is that their mothers (and fathers) do not want them to do this solely to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. In a recent article called, “Why I’m Marrying a Jewish Girl: An Article for Jewish Mothers to Show Their Sons,” its author, comedian Steve Hofstetter, explains how he came to realize that his mother’s nagging him to sign up for JDate was not only about Jewish continuity. At a certain point, he came to know

“…that marrying a Jewish woman is simply better for me. It’s not about my kids or the future of our entire people.
It’s about chemistry, and finding someone that’s passionate about what I love. And one thing that I love is being Jewish.

I love kibitzing during kiddish, without having to explain either of those words to someone. I love knowing what baseball players are Jewish, and rooting for them a bit more because of it. I love eating buttered matzah the first morning of Passover (though by the eighth, I’m not as big of a fan). I finally realized that I don’t have to be Judah Macabee; I just have to be me. And it’s a lot more rewarding to share your life with someone who truly understands it…

Hofstetter’s advice to Jewish mothers:

“So when you tell your kids that you want them to find a nice Jewish girl, or boy, or who cares what it is as long as it’s Jewish, I suggest you tell them why. They’re not looking for someone Jewish because it’s important to you. They’re looking for someone Jewish because it’s important to them.”

Many have made light of the subject of intermarriage, poking fun at stereotypes and perceived prejudices. You can buy books like, Boy Vey!: The Shikse’s Guide to Dating Jewish Men, described as “the definitive, hilarious guide…a must-have for all Shiksas trying to snag, date, and love a nice Jewish boy.” No doubt we all need to laugh a little in life, including at ourselves. But there comes a point in real life, as we do the real work of making life choices, when it is no longer a laughing matter.

Laughing is not something I did once while viewing Two Lovers. A modest-scale production depicting a story of focused, limited scope, it is a very serious film. It explores the questions central to its plot and themes, including the question of who a Jew should marry, seriously. If you haven’t already seen it, rent, borrow or buy the film and discover for yourself how Leonard’s life and character are shaped by choices that others make, and what choices he ultimately makes for himself.

© 2009 Renee Ghert-Zand. All rights reserved.

Yeah, I know.

I saw Sam Song’s list though (which Blake pointed out to me) and what can I say: I got list envy.

Also I finally clinched seeing Avatar last night, which was (other than The White Ribbon) the last “awards season” movie I needed to see this year.

Which doesn’t mean I saw all of the movies I needed to see this year, far from it. I’m merely trying to play catch-up with end-of-the-year buzzes; a failing, I suppose.

So here, in no particular order are some of the movies other people might be considering which I did not see this year:

Tulpan, Still Walking, The White Ribbon, The Sun, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, Bright Star, An Education, Treeless Mountain, La Danse, The Baader-Meinhoff Complex, The Informant!, The Headless Woman, Police, Adjective, Nine

It should be noted that I saw Afterschool, but now that I’m acquainted with the dude it feels weird to talk about it.

It should also be noted that I very much enjoyed my friend and peer Zach Weintraub’s film Bummer Summer, but that it was not commercially released, thus making it ineligible for this list, which brings me to:

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY NUMBER 1 MOVIE IF IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RELEASED:

(Sorta)1. LIFE DURING WARTIME

Todd Solondz’s opus shows not only the filmmaker’s most concerted effort since Welcome to the Dollhouse, but an intense appreciation of the universe and people he has created. Like the show The Wire, from which Mr. Solondz draws one of his stars, Michael K. Williams, Life During Wartime serves as both a self-contained film with its own pleasures (and plentiful sorrows), but also as the continuation of a world he has established, a sense of anti-abandonment. Which really, is what Solondz’s cinema is all about. Throughout his about 20-year career (give or take), he has presented us with character who are pathetic, risible, disgusting or repugnant, and he has consistently embraced them. His filmmaking is a celebration of the outcast risen to signature level, a show that even as the world rejects these people, like the father in Happiness or Dawn in Dollhouse or Scooby in Storytelling, we stay with them, on their level, living through their travails. In Life During Wartime, Solondz provides no easy solutions and little redemption, only the promise of living in a flawed world with flawed people and seeing the beauty in their struggle. He is a humanist filmmaker in the truest sense, like few others since Tod Browning.

***

Alright, so now that that is out of the way, here’s the real thing:

A FEITELIAN TOP 10 of 2009 or “WHY THE FUCK ARE THE OSCARS EXPANDING THIS YEAR WERE THERE EVEN 10 GOOD MOVIES PERIOD?”

10. AVATAR

This movie was the nail-biter (read: procrastination excuse) for when I was going to write this list this year. My idea of the film began at a groaning “well, I have to see it” to a somewhat-less-groaning “well, when is it even coming out” to me apparently stealing my friend Chadd’s tickets, while holding him to a promise that he would give them to me even after the conflict he had was gone. What did I get for my dastardly act, my IMAX goggles and my 16 dollars owed to Chadd (currently unpaid)? Something that was surprisingly fun and silly, which I hadn’t expected. For those imposing a “white-guilt” or “Dances With Smurfs” narrative on to this movie, let me suggest to you something: you are taking James Cameron to seriously. You counter, “What are you talking about? The guy spent 250 MILLION dollars!” I reply, “Yeah, but yakno, that’s his thing.” Unlike some of the stupid films of last year for which I wondered why indie movies weren’t getting the cash, Avatar delivers a director’s loopy dream, as fully realized as possible. Is it plot-holey and overstuffed? Yes. Is the dialogue often laughable? Yes. Is it possibly racist? Quite possibly. But these things are only apparent if you have so thoroughly squelched the child inside of you that you cannot enjoy the spectacle of the world that James Cameron has created, hopefully if you saw it right, in IMAX 3D. Was it an insane venture? Definitely. But no more insane really than Cameron’s previous production process of submerging his crew for 12 hours a day in making The Abyss. And in a way it heartens me to see an auteur gain such creative control, to really go out and make his visions, no matter how crazy they are. Even though Avatar is ungodly expensive, it serves in someway as a beacon of hope for aspiring filmmakers everywhere, that a dream sometimes, even if it is crazy, can come true. It can happen to you. But much more likely if you are James Cameron.

9. PRECIOUS

For those of you who have not seen the movie, that picture up above is Mariah Carey (yes, formerly of Glitter) and no, she does not look like that in the movie. In the movie she looks so pale and weird that Lee Daniels actually cast her as a Jewish character (take that, Philip Roth), Ms. Weiss, whom the eponymous main character often alludes to, in their social-work sessions as “Ms. White”. I am sure I will get some flack from people for putting this movie on this list, but what can I say, except that I really thought it was a very good movie. Just like Avatar, it was silly and often insane and over-the-top, but like Avatar, that’s what you sign up for when you go to see the film and unlike Avatar, the messages and purpose of this zaniness is clear: to offset a difficult story. As many have heard by now, yes, Precious is the story of a morbidly obese, mostly illiterate, HIV-positive teenager, who, subject to physical, sexual and emotional abuse, completes the film with two children sired by her father, one of whom has Down syndrome. However, to look at the film in this way is like reading statistics and making assumptions: it forgoes the human story. What Precious is really about is Precious, the main character, a woman coming of age with more struggles than most, but with grace and intelligence and most of all, a good and enduring sense of humor. Her circumstances are worse than most, for certain, but in many ways it is a story about growing up and finding one’s self, a journey that itself can be perilous, even taken without those factors. The interviews with the director, Lee Daniels, are abhorrent and he comes off as a self-aggrandizing, self-important asshole, a fact which sadly, as my Pops points him out puts him “comfortably in the world of filmmakers”. Regardless, Daniels the director never looks down at Precious or her journey, he allows her to shape her own story, to make her own world, as she find people to love and have love returned, herself included. Great ancillary performances by Lenny Kravitz (whodathunkit) as a male nurse and Precious’s classmates (a vibrant and talented young group of actors) seal the deal. If it’s racist, I feel I’m not the one to judge. But take for instance this conversation I had with my cousin Lenny, the family rabbi:

I had come for Shabbat dinner, in response to an invitation I had received from another cousin of mine, Lenny’s daughter, and I was excited to use the opportunity to ask a rabbi what he thought of A Serious Man (spoiler alert?) He told me that he enjoyed it as we discussed the messages we took from it and found several agreements we could make, which made me feel less ignorant in my sophomoric comprehension of Judaism. When I told him that the Jewish film critic Richard Corliss had found the movie to be “anti-semitic”, he told me that “A Serious Man shows a full portrait of the Jewish community, with some of its unsavory aspects. Some Jews are insecure and when they see a portrayal of the community like that, they jump on it as anti-semtic.” While the two movies are not analogous (and nor would I suggest that the Black and Jewish experiences are), the comparison might stand that the subject of the movie might be arousing more difficult than the substance, which I feel is at least, meritorious.

8. BIG FAN

What a remarkable debut. Coming off the tremendous funny/sad/insightful script that Robert Siegel wrote for that hack Aronofsky with The Wrestler, Siegel did the true film student thing to do with another script he had sitting on the shelf: he sat around Aronofsky’s set and convinced all of the assistants to come work as full-fledged crewman on this small script he was working on for little to no money. Thus with a half-baked crew and a rented RED camera was the best comedy of the year and this year’s true heir to Taxi Driver (beating out the universally odious Observe and Report) made. Siegel, with little to no knowledge of directing and a pedigree that included editing The Onion and one script, put a lot of trust in his DP, his editor and most of all his actors, who seemed to take the deep and funny script and run with it, as far as they damned pleased. Shouts go out to Kevin Corrigan, who seems to be coming up in the model of a John Tutturro or Steve Buscemi given his presence in indie movies and the oft-underused Michael Rappaport, another great TV actor who rarely gets his due as the film’s ultimate villain, Philadelphia Phil. But really, a lot of the credit here goes to Patton Oswalt, who had alrady proved that he could do a lot with his voice in Ratatouille and here proves that not only can he act, but that he can act! His loser portrayal of a glorified meter-maid who sits in a booth all day and lives with his mother rather than abandon the sports-radio life he loves is as nuanced as it is stubborn and real, a character whose un-desperate madness recalls the passions of real characters like the players from last year’s The King of Kong. The finale does a great job of coalescing your hopes and fears into a victory unimagined, but delightfully true to the world of the film. It is Siegel’s sort of moviemaking that not only draws nostaglia from me for the early films of Scorsese and Forman, but makes me optimistic about what a lot of heart, a little bit of money and not a lot of experience can still accomplish.

7. THE BEACHES OF AGNES

Man, this film was the biggest guilt trip I have ever seen. I hadn’t even watched a goddam Agnes Varda film before this one. Shit, I hadn’t even watched a film by Jacques Demy, her late husband. And even though the films of both are excerpted, often to stunningly beautiful effect in The Beaches of Agnes, one can’t help but feel a profound sense of guilt and loss, that one hasn’t seen the films of what are obviously two masters. Because even looked at without those films, The Beaches of Agnes is clearly a masterpiece, in the sense of its craft, but also, more profoundly, in the sense that is the cap, the finishing touches on the career of a filmmaker. Resembling nothing less than a much more refined and elegant though just as personal Tarnation, Varda’s film takes us seamlessly through her life, her films, her marriages, lovers and friends and, inexplicably, wonderfully, to the beaches she has been near and far away from in her life. She discusses Jim Morrison, her husband’s death from AIDS, the French New Wave from a first-person point of view and her friendship with the filmmaker Chris Marker, here represented by a giant blue animated cat. Somehow nothing is incongrous, this is not the cinema of Errol Morris, a detective story where one roots around for meaning in search of discovery or revelation. Instead, The Beaches of Agnes is the cinematic equivalent of a warm embrace, a taking-into-the-fold of the viewer by a woman who loves cinema and thus you, the audience, as well. It is a beautiful film, the sum of a career, indescribable in its completeness and clarity. I can only hope one day that I might be able to make something so clear-sighted about myself, looking back on my life.

6. 35 SHOTS OF RUM

I admit being mostly unaware of Clare Denis. When I went to go see Medicine for Melancholy, an honorable mention this year, I heard from Barry Jenkins, that film’s director, that he was inspired by Denis’s Friday Night in making his own film, one that if you asks me bears more of a resemblance to Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise than anything else. Still, I hadn’t seen Friday Night, nor had I seen any of Denis’s movies. When I finally did see 35 Shots of Rum upon its release, I was absolutely charmed by the feel of it. Denis certainly had a feel for both the easy and the complicated relationships that we enjoy, the dynamic of the privileged and the underprivileged, the French class dynamic and the particular perspective of one man. Just as Lionel (Alex Descas) sees his life as a train conductor as one that allows him access to his daughter, his neighborhood and his “family”, his fellow train conductor feels trapped and kills himself on the rails. What separated these men is, if not the main subject, the point of the film; the way our societal bonds complete us and coterize our wounds. If the end left me dissatisfied, it is a fitting homage to Ozu’s Late Spring and admirable it’s unconventionality. After all, 35 Rhums ain’t an American film and thus is excused from giving all its characters a “happy ending”. I think Ms. Denis, in my small exposure to her, prefers “complex” to “happy”, as more true to life.

5. A SERIOUS MAN-

I forget who I was talking to the other day, but somehow the conversation came over to Mel Brooks (who Amos Poe recently accused of bad taste, I think) and History of the World, Part I, which famously ended with “JEWS! IN! SPAAAAAACE!”. Looking back, I’m amazed to think what a golden age for Jewish Cinema it must have been with Brooks operating around the same time as Allen and Allen’s Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex… coming out within a fear years of History and even closer to Blazing Saddles. Look at what we’ve got now? Some old Holocaust drudgery, some tired Spielberg crap and Daniel Craig playing some badass Romanian Jew who in reality, unlike Craig, was wider than he was tall. It’s a shame, but at least thank G-d we’ve got the Coens, who have decided to take a break looking at Midwesterners and George Clooney-types to instead focus on the home team. As I mentioned in my blurb on Precious, they may be fairly critical of the home team, but at the same time they pay it the greatest respect: honesty. The Coen’s take on the Book of Job (much like their take on The Odyssey in O Brother, Where Art Thou) doesn’t seem to take itself so seriously, but actually manages to capture the tone of what it was inspired by. In Job, G-d takes everything away from a virtuous successful man bit by bit, until he cries out to G-d, asking him why he’d inflict such terrible things upon him, to which He replies by pointing to the universe and its greatness. Here that pointing comes in the form of a biblical-style Tornado and a modern phone-call in a character-split between virtuous father and mischievous pot-smoking son. The film is littered with good performances by relatively unknown actors (here’s hoping Michael Stuhlbarg gets at least a nomination for his part in the lead) and the “wisdom” of Rabbis as men try to interpret the will of G-d. What we are left with though, from both the film and its folkloric prologue, is the unknowableness of G-d. Just like in the Book of Job, the Coens point to the vastness of G-d’s power and creation in explaining that G-d and his works are a question posed to us all (here, Jews) and that it is up to us to interpret them as we will. There are no answers in G-d, only in ourselves and the world around us, the Book of Job seems to say. It’s a very Jewish-intellectually idea, a very Jewish movie and one of the Coens’ finest.

4. TWO LOVERS

This movie feels like in came out in 2008, when it was made, but really it was just a sneak into the first couple months of 2009, placed their ignominiously so as to be ignored, an example of Indiewood’s estimation of director James Gray after his thriller We Own The Night failed to make inroads at the box office. And even though it felt like a 2008 release and came out so many months ago, its pleasures and its resonance are such that they remind me all the way to so high on this list. Leonard (an Oscar-worthy Joaquin Phoenix) is a late-blooming Jewish kid out of Brighton Beach, but this isn’t the place of Aronofsky’s hyperboles, puffed up with music and drugs, but a dark and colorful prison replete with the expectations of family, society and culture. Like a mental patient just off his meds, Leonard is reeling at his lifestyle and questioning the strange and strangling existence of “love” and “tranquility” that he’s experienced up to this point living in his parents’ apartment. He is like a man lobotomized or an amnesiac, trying to figure out what he’s missing. Enter the namely Two Lovers. Sandra (Vinessa Shaw) is the perfect neighbor next-door. Beautiful, elegant and rooted, she represents one form of manhood, the manhood of responsibility, sacrifice and domesticity that comes with running a business and raising a family. Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), on the other hand is a bottle-blond hot-headed flower, a Wall-Street mistress tucked away in Brooklyn for safe keeping. To Leonard, she represents something exotic and new, a life beyond the one he knows, a voice and a sense of freedom. As Gray guides us through Leonard’s dalliances and flirtations, it’s easy to see that what he’s talking about in his self-penned script is not just the allure of women, but the allures of adulthood and reconciling one’s dreams with one’s reality. In the world of Brighton Beach though, dreaming is ephemeral and the dreams themselves immaterial, existing only long enough to be a platform for Leonard’s tragedy, all the more devastating for its presentation to us as something “happy”.

3. UP!

The only movie I cried at this year, is perhaps Pixar’s finest, and the first animated movie I’ve seen in a while with a serious chance at Best Picture. I remember walking along a hilly road one day in Vermont, during my tenure as an assistant counselor and dormhead at the Putney School Summer Programs. As we scouted locations for our students’ films, the head teacher Jon and I discussed our favorite Pixar movies. As I mentioned the favorite at that time, WALL-E, as well as the other popular ones, Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, Jon asserted that there was one film that was beyond all the others for him and that was Monsters, Inc. A fine movie, I never thought it a contender until Jon explained the basic humanity of it to me, the bond between a child and a father figure and the restorative power of joy in the world. Looking back on that film, I remember it better now and I am all the more certain that Up!, by Monsters, Inc’s Pete Docter, is an even better film. In a story that never gets boring, Docter manages to tackle the hopes and inequities of middle age, remembrance, longing and loss in a way that’s surprisingly head-on. I remember watching films like The Incredibles and Finding Nemo and being impressed that films marketed as children’s movies were even skirting serious adult issues, like adultery and the loss of a child. Here however, Docter makes clear that he believes in us. He believes in the children in adults and the potential for maturity in children. He believes that we have something to teach each other and something to learn. We see that our heroes are not also who we want them to be and just as we may not be able to hold on to childish admiration, we have to let go of our baggage at some point and live in the moment, a point in spectacular visual fashion in the film. At one point, maybe sometime after WALL-E, I hated Pixar because I wanted to hate them, frustrated that they managed to be so commercial and yet so good. But now with Up!, I realize that I’m throwing my emotions the wrong way and should be thankful for something that educates and delights us and causes us to think, just like the animated TV of my youth did to me.

2. THE HURT LOCKER

When I first saw Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, it was not during its buried summer release, but during a FilmComment Selects screening that Chadd convinced me to go to, primarily based on the fact that it would have free booze. I knew nothing about the movie, except that the woman who had made it was apparently married to James Cameron at some point and made a movie that Rob really liked about surfer-crooks. What I got, I was floored away by. Not only was the movie stunningly good, a procedural look at the day-to-day mechanics of war which owed much to films like Escape from Alcatraz, but the director was stunningly hot–at 57. And if that shit was Botoxed, it did not look it. She must have found the fountain of youth. All comments about the director aside (a likely candidate for Best Director this year), the film was a day-by-day depiction of the war in Iraq, the likes of which (and apparently the accuracy of which) we have only seen in the misjudged, almost-forgotten HBO mini-series Generation Kill. As a touchstone, it helps that both that show and this movie were based off the testimony of journalists embedded within the armed forces as they described their circumstances. And while The Hurt Locker may lack Generation Kill’s sublime sense of indifference to society, like the scene in that show where the soldiers “borrow” their journalists picture of his girlfriend to masturbate to–and decline to give it back, The Hurt Locker makes up for its lack of grand scheme, by its moment-to-moment precision of the sights, sounds and thrilling uncertainties of war. Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner, in yet another Oscar-worthy performance) is our hero, the savior of many lives, but he also dangerously unbalanced, an adrenaline addict who lives off the thrill of defusing complex IEDs with their Radio Shack parts; every day he stays alive is another fix. His fellow soldier Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), doesn’t understand his insanity, but is only barely holding off the thrilling madness that grips James, with his only exercise of joy depicted as an expression of violence. However, the most damning and most perfect scene in The Hurt Locker, for all its heat, claustrophobia and evocation of Iraq, happens at the end of the film, where James, having returned home to the normal choices of a married father, looks at different cereals in a big box store, and the an who makes choices to stay alive is left impotent and unable. In the next scene, he’s back in Iraq and we’re back there with him. It’s a tragedy from a distance, but to her credit, Bigelow never gives you that distance by which to judge James. You’re always caught up in the same thrill he’s riding. The best Iraq War film ever made and close to the best movie of this year. That is, except for…

1. ANVIL!: THE STORY OF ANVIL

It says something about these times that my favorite movie of the year, I saw not in theaters, but at home, uncut on VH1. To be fair I had wanted to see Anvil! this past summer when it was out there, but it was one of those movies that I could never get anyone to go see with me, the sort of film that’s good, but as not as sexy as a blockbuster or a new release in the elusive game of trying to get people to go see movies with you. Ultimately there was a collective shrug, as summer turned to fall, my life was wrapped up in a play, new movies came out and Anvil! was mostly forgotten. But when I finally did see it, browsing through the channels with Eva one night, even what I had heard about it turned out to be far more paltry than the glorious truth. I knew the film had made a convert out of that high-society curmudgeon Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who Armond White once described to me aptly as “the sort of film critic you love if you hate movies”. Even he had been floored by the film despite his lack of knowledge of, as he put it, “the Jewish-Canadian Death Metal scene”. And no knowledge is required. We are given two middle-aged Canadian Jewish guys, Robb Reiner and Steve Kudlow, who knew their lives that they wanted to rock and committed to it. This meant playing in shitty bars and working with terrible, undermining managers. This meant dropping out of high school and having only a few die-hard fans. This meant, for Robb at least, taking a job making middle-school meals en masse, carrying trays, all to service their need to rock. Robb and Steve, known as Lips, through it all have become brothers, best friends, occasional enemies and partners in keeping each other from suicide. They may have never been Metallica or even Megadeth or Slayer, but they never compromised their ideals, never sold out, so in the end it is impossble to call them failures. In Anvil!, lovingly made by the band’s former roadie, Sacha Gervasi, we get the best story of the year, the best characters, the most complete world, fiction or otherwise. We are given two men and see them create themselves and live with it. They don’t give up and most of all, they rock. Amen, my Jewish brothers. And Rock On.

HONORABLE MENTIONS (In brief):

MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY- A black mumblecore film might be a strange duck, but this highly personal journey film by Barry Jenkins was one of the most honest and well-felt movies of the year. Here’s to a long career, Mr. Jenkins.

ADVENTURELAND- Greg Motolla’s follow up to his superb Superbad casts him out from Apatow’s grand shadow and shows his pessimism and his remembrance of the time immediately after college, where life is about picking diamonds from the shit you’ve only just realized the world has taken on you.

LORNA’S SILENCE- A metaphysical and intense drama about European affairs, identity and the extent to which one can quell one’s own conscience. A daring lead performance, if an uncertain end.

TONY MANERO- Bizarre and brilliant, barely released/mostly unseen. The best film I saw at NYFF last year and a deeply critical political statement. Intensely worth the watch.

TYSON- The most frightening movie of 2009. In this man, we, society, has created a monster. James Toback shows us how the man who wished to “punch through” his opponents’ skulls came into being, through the violence and indifference of our culture.

WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR THAT I SAW-

TIE!

INVICTUS/ANTICHRIST- When “auteur” directors pull ploys for some sort of “greater meaning”, they tend to fall flat on their face (see: Kundun). Clint Eastwood and Lars Von Trier both made some grab for self-importance and elitism with their films that ended up feeling either hokey or disgusting, but both ultimately pointless. They should go back to taking themselves less seriously and reflect upon the pieces that they did in past years (Gran Torino, Manderlay) that better showcase their talents, as opposed to these trumped-up shitfests that amount in their indifference and idiocy to a waste of a collective 21.50 and several hours of my life that I wish returned.

OVERRATED (briefly)-

FANTASTIC MR. FOX- An Anderson-ian mess, lacking in the real sentiment Anderson used to reach for so easily in his first three films. In turning into a megalomaniacal animator, Anderson has gained little except some hipster-y animation moves (“Real fur, ooh!”) and his same old style. One good brit-kid song, doesn’t erase all the overplayed rock he uses in the film.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS- I liked QT better when he was having chicks kill people with swords as opposed to his current Jew-o-philia. Eli Roth sucked balls in the movie, as did most people who weren’t named “Hans Landa”. A fun and dissonant action movie that stumbles upon its own length as well as its two opposingly-toned stories.

HUNGER- Irritatingly serious and fake “intimate”, the directorial debut of Steve McQueen (no relation) is often monotonous when it isn’t occasionally gripping. An art-house-style disappointment.

UP IN THE AIR- God, should this be my worst movie of the year? This film was awful! The National Board of Review voted this somehow the “Best Movie of the Year”. I reiterate my buddy Dave Broad’s sentiment: “It’s a series of music videos strung together by bad dialogue.” Bad direction too, I would add, with a tack to obtain relevance that borders on seriously offensive.

PONYO: The worst Miyazaki movie. Half-assed toward the end, though parts of it are beautiful. After an only partially satisfying Howl’s Moving Castle, here’s hoping that Hayao can get his groove back somehow.

OTHER MOVIES I LIKED BUT WHICH WEREN’T INCLUDED FOR SOME REASON

Beeswax, Summer Hours, The Box, Bad Lieutenant: POCNO, Where the Wild Things Are, World’s Greatest Dad, Coraline

As Ro-In-Control-Of-His-Beardo would say:

Clom out.

Oscar Season is now upon us and studios are releasing their Oscar-friendly products every week. Because of this some of the movies that have already come out tend to be forgotten for the major categories. No AMPAS member will ever read this, but I’d still like to go over what films that I love that have already come out deserve to be in the running for Oscars in the major categories and some of the technical categories.

Best Picture: Where the Wild Things Are, Star Trek, Up

Best Director: Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are; Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker; Pete Docter, Up

Best Actor: Sam Rockwell, Moon; Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man; John Malkovich, The Great Buck Howard; Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker; Max Records, Where the Wild Things Are

Best Actress: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go; Gwyneth Paltrow, Two Lovers; Amy Adams, Sunshine Cleaning

Best Supporting Actor: Jackie Earl Hayley, Watchmen; Michel Gambon, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Best Supporting Actress: Kristen Stewart, Adeventureland; Emily Blunt, Sunshine Cleaning; Ginnifer Goodwin, He’s Just Not That Into You; Rachel McAdams, State of Play

Best Original Screenplay: Adventureland, Moon, Sin Nombre, Up

Best Adapted Screenplay: Where the Wild Things Are, Coraline, Star Trek

Original Score: Up, Star Trek, Drag Me To Hell, Coraline, Moon, Where the Wild Things Are, A Serious Man

Sound Mixing & Editing: Drag Me To Hell, Star Trek, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Make-Up: Drag Me to Hell, Star Trek, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Watchmen

Costume Design: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Where the Wild Things Are, A Serious Man, Watchmen, Easy Virtue

Art Direction: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, A Serious Man, Coraline, Moon, Watchmen, Easy Virtue

Cinematography: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Sin Nombre, Where the Wild Things Are, The International

Visual Effects: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Moon, Star Trek, Watchmen, Where the Wild Things Are

The PC has been out of pocket lately, working on lesson plans, taking a hubristic stab at a Dostoevsky-meets-McCarthy-meets-O’Connor novel, and just generally neglecting to review films. However, he has been watching movies and so would like offer a quick run-down of what he has seen (complete with ratings). He apologizes in advance for the lack of detail, but figures this is the best way to catch up:

1. Two Lovers (dir. James Gray, 2008): 4.5/5
2. We Own the Night (dir. James Gray, 2007): 3.5/5
3. The Yards (dir. James Gray, 2000): 4.5/5 (In general, Gray seems to borrow a lot from Scorsese, but that’s a good thing)
4. Henry Poole Is Here (dir. Mark Pellington, 2008): 3.5/5
5. Frozen River (dir. Courtney Hunt, 2008): 4.5/5 (Amazing performance here from Melissa Leo)
6. Eastern Promises (dir. David Cronenberg, 2007): 5/5 (Interesting, well-acted, and surprisingly underrated)
7. Adventureland (dir. Greg Mottola, 2009): 4/5
8. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (dir. Sidney Lumet, 2007): 4.5/5
9. In Bruges (dir. Martin McDonagh, 2008): 4/ 5
10. Mongol (dir. Sergei Bodrov, 2008): 4/ 5

Two Lovers è un film del 2008, rifacimento di Luchino Visconti, Le Notti Bianche, che a sua volta si basa sul racconto di Dostoevskij, “Notti Bianche”. Il film è diretto da James Gray e interpretato da Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow e Vinessa Shaw.

Leggi altre notizie su: | James Gray | Joaquin Phoenix | Gwyneth Paltrow | Vinessa Shaw

Amantes es la cinta que marca el regreso de Joaquin Phoenix a la pantalla, y curiosamente lo hace con una historia de drama romántico. Esta película ha tenido excelentes críticas por la crudeza de su tema, pues no nos encontramos con la historia de amor edulcolorada que es tan común en Hollywood, sino que nos presenta la trama con toda la brutalidad que tiene el tema. Si bien pasó desapercibida mucho tiempo, la podremos tener en nuestras salas este 27 de noviembre, así que es mejor estar listos.

The view shared in this next paragraph is not my own:

“I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how it’s unfair that if a guy fucks has sex with a different girl every week, he’s a legend, but if a girl fucks just two guys in a year, she’s a slut. So in response I told her that, if a key opens lots of locks, then it’s a master-key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it’s a shitty lock. That shut her up.”

I think you’re both shit and deserve each other HA!
What ever happened to the good old days of ‘one and only true love’?

It’s so strange; today, I found myself reading the bible. First thing I did when I got out of bed was walk to my sister’s bookshelf and picked it up. Odd… 

I opened the book to a random page that went on to speak of virginity, and about how, if a man suspects his newlywed wife is not a virgin than he must bring this to her father’s attention.

If the man is wrong he must continue to live with her till death do them part. But if the man is right, then the woman is taken into town where all the men from both sides of the family stone her to death… They stone her for disrespecting and committing prostitution while living under her father’s roof… Are you shocked to hear such a thing? Did that actually happen? Maybe it still does.

I might actually start reading the bible. Not from any religious standpoint of course. I tend not to want to make up my mind when it comes to fact or fiction - Ambiguity in story is what I like.

Two Lovers, 2008 – Direção: James Gray – Elenco: Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Vinessa Shaw.

Definir os melhores filmes desta década não é tarefa fácil, porém uma de minhas certezas é que Two Lovers estará posicionado numa das dez primeiras colocações, enquanto James Gray continuará expandindo seu talento e provando o por quê atualmente é um dos melhores diretores americanos.

Two Lovers é algo muito mais aproximado a um atacante do que um mero romance, quando desvia de tudo e todos para chegar aos sentimentos; atingindo-lhes como uma flecha molhada de amor e solidão – aliás, havia tempos que não via algo tão humano e profundo como a relação estabelecida no Cinema entre essas duas coisas. No ínicio fez-se o amor, e no final há a solidão – que por mais bem acompanhada que esteja, sempre será aquela solidão que permanece no fundo de nós; intocável e surpreendente.

Joaquim Phoenix está aqui em seu melhor papel, e transparece uma quimica com Gray excelente. É uma pena que deixará de trabalhar na carreira de ator.. realmente, uma pena! Em Two Lovers sua personagem é tão sincera e singela que fica dificil não transformar-se no próprio Leonard, e sentir a angústia do amor. Este é um dos poucos filmes atuais que você realmente sente como um arrepio cada escolha do personagem de Phoenix. E essa relação conosco é tão magistral quanto a melhor de todas – Alain Delon em 1972, com A Primeira Noite de Tranquilidade.

Muito maior que a própria pretensão, e porém inferior a We Own the Night, Two Lovers acaba sendo um tocante exercicio de Cinema, levado às relações, à angústia e ao sentimento de aprisionamento que ecoa dentro do protagonista. Onde, afinal, tudo é e sempre foi o Amor.

5/5

Two Lovers (2008)
110 minutes
Rated – R
Directed by James Gray
Starring:  Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Vinessa Shaw

Grade:  A-

–

Two Lovers is an example for why I absolutely love well-made dramas.  It’s a wonder why studios don’t push for these more since they’re inexpensive to make and contain layers of power, but I guess I can understand the limited audience who actually enjoy these type of films.

The movie evolves around Leonard (Phoenix), a troubled and sensitive middle-aged man looking for something in his life to change for the better.  His tragic past resulted in suicidal tendencies that he supposedly passed.  But it’s clear that he’s far from being happy.

Enter Sandra (Shaw), a pretty and loving woman who has expressed her interest in Leonard.  She shows a concern to his evident depression and wants to help him get better.  She is exactly the kind of girl that Leonard needs.  On top of that, the idea of the two of them getting together is making both of their Jewish families overwhelmed with joy.  But even though this seems like a good thing, Leonard still doesn’t smile.

Until he meets Michelle (Paltrow).  Leonard is immediately fascinated by her beauty and adventurous personality.  His first encounter with her was inviting her inside his apartment, saving her from one of her father’s fits.  As one of his neighbors, she is easily accessible, which also affects Leonard as well.  But one thing is clear, even before he got to know Michelle well, you knew he wanted everything to do with her.

This desire results in a lot of pain and trouble for Leonard.  Her flirty and friendly personality misleads Leonard on until she spills the beans that she’s currently in a relationship with a married man.  But as the good friend who is hoping for more, he is always there for Michelle no matter how inconvenient the situation.  He’s there for her to talk to, to give advice to, to drive her to the hospital, stay by her side until she sleeps, and more.  There’s something poetic about these two damaged individuals that makes you think they could heal each others’ wounds if they were just given a chance.

Towards the conclusion of the film there are some very touching moments between Leonard and his mother (Isabella Rossellini).  The love Leonard has for his parents just shows how much love he has inside of him, begging to be released on someone he truly cares about.  In this case, this woman is Michelle.  And even with a better life with benefits staring right in his eyes with Sandra, he throws all his chips in and opts for the windy, unknown road.

Writer/director James Gray takes such a delicate love-triangle and allows the well-casted actors to shine in this film.  There isn’t a moment that drags since you’re completely invested in the characters and the continuing plot.  Joaquin Phoenix gives one of his purest performances of his career.  And the two girls are such opposites that it makes for such a compelling argument.  Paltrow’s Michelle is extremely needy and reckless, while Shaw’s Sandra notably soothes Leonard’s pain.

Two Lovers dives into and develops the theme of familiarity versus risk.  Should one be content with the safe choice?  Should one be willing to risk the comfortable choice for a possible better life… with a possible consequence of something worse?  That’s really where the phrase “all or nothing” comes into play.

The plot isn’t thick at all and the pace could be tiring for some, but within every frame is an observation on how the characters act and react to each other.  What they want is simple, but to achieve it is where the road is long.

(SPOILER ALERT!)
I think the ending of the film will give everyone a different feeling.  For me, it was a bittersweet conclusion.  The way Leonard is willing to throw away everything to create a new and fresh life with the woman he loves displays the passion he has for Michelle.  But inevitably, her chaotic lifestyle leaves him in the dust.  I want to believe that Leonard and Michelle would’ve crashed and burned in the end, just to give a positive reinforcement that everything happens for a reason.  The reason here is that Sandra is really the girl who was meant to save Leonard.

- por Guilherme Bakunin

CUIDADO! Spoilers no 5º parágrafo.

CUIDADO! Tudo Pode Dar Certo não é o que parece. Aquela Nova York ensolarada, de parques e praças, que tanto se destaca nas outras manhattans soturnas do Woody Allen não engana: esse é um de seus filmes mais sombrios e pessimistas, principalmente porque o horror da vida parece estar sob esse ambiente alegre e colorido.

Boris Yellnikoff é um velho físico ranziza que se declara como um “gênio” e acredita compreender o mundo de uma maneira que poucas pessoas ou nenhuma compreende. Ele passa seus dias solitário, reclamando da vida e da insignificância dos outros e acaba conhecendo Melodie Saint Ann Celestine, uma garota de 21 (não) anos que saiu de Mississipi ou algo assim para Nova York, fugindo da pressão do lar. Pouco a pouco Boris se encanta, apesar de não declarar, com a ignorância da garota e os dois, por uma incrível “coincidência do universo”, iniciam um impossível relacionamento.

Não acredito que a obra seja autobiográfica. Não mais do que os outros filmes do diretor. Sabemos que Allen está num relacionamento com uma mulher bem mais jovem, mas ele parece ser bem menos absoluto e arrogante que Boris. Ademais, existe aqui um universo completamente diferente ao que estamos acostumados. Boris não anda com a elite intelectual novaiorquina, mas com pessoas simples e gordas, do tipo que acordam e tomam café da manhã num barzinho qualquer próximo de suas casas. Essa volta à gênese (já que Woody Allen É O DIRETOR de Nova York) não parece tão genuína assim.

Agora, falando mesmo sobre o filme, é pessimismo puro. Woody Allen se ajoelha perante às circunstâncias e diz que a chave para a compreensão do mundo e do universo é a ACEITAÇÃO, pois se grande parte da nossa vida é decidida não por nós, mas pela sorte (isso num universo sem Deus, como o de Boris e, porque não, de Allen), tudo o que você pode fazer é abrir os braços e esperar que tenha algo de bom mais pra frente. Isso porque o nome do filme, no Brasil, está ERRADO (e parecem que fazem de propósito, para avacalhar com o diretor). Sim, ERRADO. Não é como se EU ACHASSE que não é legal ou coisa sim, não é como se isso estivesse em debate. O nome do filme está ERRADO. Whatever Works é o espírito de aceitação diante de uma vida vazia, onde o amor não é o ideal, mas o que chega para nós.

SPOILERS: Talvez, Melodie e Boris sejam ideais um para o outro. Talvez Marietta e John sejam um casal perfeito. Talvez John não seja gay. Mas isso é o que veio, e O QUE VIER, ESTÁ DE BOM TAMANHO (esse sim poderia ser um título mais adequado ao filme); FIM DOS SPOILERS.

É um belo filme. Absoluto em suas ideias, frio e pesado. Tem toda a clássica objetividade do Woody Allen, conclusão rápida, quase como se o que importa ali não é como as coisas terminam, mas como a neurose urbana faz com que as circunstâncias levem os personagems àquele ponto. Poderia ser mais ponderado nos diálogos, afinal, Boris é um idiota (só isso; ele é um idiota mesmo), mas é um excelente trabalho do Allen e que serve pra mostrar que ele sempre será o melhor diretor-filósofo da américa.

4/5

Ficha técnica: Tudo Pode Dar Certo (Whatever Works) – EUA, 2009. Dir. Woody Allen. Elenco: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson, Henry Cavill, Ed Begley Jr., Jessica Hecht, Olek Krupa.

“Two Lovers” (2008) is about wants and needs, love and being loved.

It’s human nature to want what we can’t have. The unrequited love is always the sweetest right before its conquest. The stranger on the train always seems so much more alluring than the person sleeping beside you at night. It is human nature to desire of an otherworldly beauty, but the possession of that beauty, even attained, is often fleeting, and seldomly satisfy the basic, tactile needs craved in our soul.

Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix) knows the taste of that craving well. He suffers daily, seemingly trapped in his own body and thoughts. The film begins with him slipping quietly into the bay, only to surface minutes later gasping for help. Passerbys lug him to safety, and he nervously scrambles away. “Aren’t you going to thank the guy who saved your life?” They incredously shouted after him. Stopped abruptedly in his tracks, Leonard spun around and with eyes as empty as the bleak sky, mumbled “thank you”, like obligatory expressions of gratitude after someone reminded you of dropped changes on the sidewalk.

This is a man whose pain is so visible that it wraps around him like a rigid fog, and it’s hard to address him without addressing it. His parents try hard to do so. They are well-intentioned, middle-class, jewish parents. Leonard lives at home. The mother tends to him like a mother would, somewhat overbearing in the sweetest of ways. The father is more composed, but equally eager to help. This is a nest that can heal a wounded mind. Leonard knows that, and he is grateful.

But this film is not about a loving family. We are lucky that director James Gray provides us with such a subtle backdrop, but it is really about the two women who come into Leonard’s life and what they represent to him. Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), daughter of an old family friend, is quiet, pretty, and kind. She brushes past his exterior awkwardness and sees something precious in Leonard. Perhaps she is the caring kind…you know, those ones who rescue every wounded animal that comes their way and nurse them back to health, and find it hard to let them go? Maybe Sandra is one of those people. Maybe she harbors a secret wound as well. We never find out. Leonard lacks social grace and decorum, and his only charm lies in a confused ball of artistic yearnings and raw vulnerability, but somehow that attract Sandra more than any other potential suitors. “I want to take care of you,” she saids.  She buys him leather gloves for winter. He would treasure them at a most unexpected time.

Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the polar opposite of Sandra. Leonard meets her accidentally in the hallway of his building one day, where she is escaping the yellings of her father. He invites her in and discovers that they are neighbours. They can see each other through their windows across the courtyard. It is no coicidence that her apartment is higher from his and tucked away in the diagonal corner, for she, with long flowing blond hair, a beautiful smile and pleading voice, is so easy to love, and so utterly out of reach. She towers over him with her womanly charms, and he falls for it willingly. We all know someone like that, naturally gifted with charm and beauty and uses them unabashedly in the realization of their own desires. They don’t mean to be so charming, you know. They don’t even mean to be mean…after all they were honest with you from the beginning, and they just needed you from time to time, you didn’t have to say yes.

Paltrow wears the role like a glove. She is probably one of those people in real life, naturally gifted with charm and beauty. Her slender frame and delicate features carry an innate vulnerability, and it’s difficult to imagine a man that doesn’t want to protect her from harm. Shaw, with those doe-shaped eyes, oozes safety and kindness. She is the girl next door that you are delighted to find yourself with once you are with her. Phoenix…well, it’s hard to know where the movie begins and ends with him. Given that this was the last film he did before announcing his exit from acting, and right before that bizarre Letterman interview, I can’t help but wonder if the line between fantasy and reality was blurred here. He has played many tortored souls, starting with his breakout role in “Gladiator”, and this may be his finest performance yet.

It’s fascinating to watch Leonard struggle between these two women. On the one hand, the blond goddess not only attracts him, but needs him. It doesn’t matter that she has a boyfriend already – she manages to find room in her current predictment to need Leonard still, and he flutters to her rescue like a moth to flame. Sandra, on the other hand, survives just fine without Leonard. She doesn’t need Leonard, but she wants to take care of him. And she wouldn’t mind if he needed her, she wouldn’t mind at all.

What does Leonard want? He wants Michelle. “I know you,” he saids, “I’m fucked up too.” Perhaps he thought he could save her. Perhaps he saw her in him, and by saving her, it made it seem possible to save himself. Except two damaged parts do not match up to one perfect whole. The fragility can’t just transform into solidarity like alchemy.

What does Leonard need? That is the million dollar question. Everyone wants him to be happy, but he needs to find the desire to be happy within himself first. Michelle may have sparked that fire…but her fickle disposition cannot hold it. She is desperate for that spark too, and she is too confused to tend to another’s fire.  

This is more than a story of the blond beauty versus the brunette girl-next-door. It’s about the bringing together of one’s wants and needs. Michelle lives her life in operas, and Sandra has only been to the Nutcracker. But at the end of the day, where would you rather be? Living in an opera or sitting on the couch with your family? And she looks so good in that living room too.

Is it better to love or to be loved? To need someone or to be needed by someone? So often we have to choose… thankfully many would gladly supply one or the other. In an ideal world, everyone would be perfectly whole and we would match each other in our serene wholeness. In reality, we are all damaged to some extent, and it is comforting to know that, at least sometimes, our damaged selves can come together, and somehow our imperfections can match up, like jigsaw puzzles, into a perfectly clear picture.

Spoiler near end of interview…skip the last 2 minutes if you haven’t seen the film yet.

Halloween has officially arrived.  Whats my Halloween tradition? Watching Hocus Pocus(1993) on repeat until I am too sick to continue eating pumpkin oriented sweets, candy apples and Kit-Kats. Currently I am basking in the bright light that has since gone dim of the Hocus Pocus B-cast. As a result, I have decided to do a very quick where are they now?

1. Vinessa Shaw (Allison)- As the resident Babe, Vinessa was responsible for Max lighting the virgin candle. She has had perhaps the best Pocus after-life, starring in Two Lovers, 3:10 to Yuma, Melinda and Melinda, The Hills Have Eyes and T.V. mini series the ‘70s.

2. Jody Rivera (Emily Binx)- Little Emily Binx had the smallest role in the movie and now the least successful career post Pocus. She has written directed and starred in The Princess Chronicles, but other than that she has found a home in her YouTube fans. IMDB says Rivera is currently the number one most subscribed female of all time on YouTube. But I have tried to watch them and they are way to bad for that to be true.

3. Larry Bagby (ICE), You remember him as the bully with the stolen sneakers and a buzz cut of his name on the back of his head. Ice has been in various series throughout the early millennia in JAG, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and most recently The Young and the Restless. Also, he has a Band.

4. Sean Murray (Zachary Binx)- Currently starring in CBS’ Navy NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service as Timothy McGee, Murray seemed to have used Nepotism to gain his role, his stepfather is the producer.

5. Doug Jones (Billy Butcherson)-Billy looks surprisingly equally creepy in real life as he does with the pounds of decaying skin and long yellow nails, it must be his creepy long neck or baggy skin. Currently he seems to have a bunch of “extra” type status roles as non-humans in movies like Lady in the Water, Hellboy, Stuck on You, Quarantine, Pans Labyrinth, and most recently The Hobbit.

Hocus Pocus has-beens, I miss your face-Shassie

Finally seen it. Needless to say that, apart from Joaquin’s hotness, acting, and  him never being off the screen for the whole movie, also being in two hot scenes, the story/whatever/movie utterly sucks.

There are only two sex scenes (for such a hot wallpaper that’s really fricked up) and the movie starts and ends like crap (or should we call it life lol). Heck, I won’t say more.

Conclusion: This movie follows the crappy life of a really hot guy (who might, just might, be a little retarded in the flick). A 6 and that only for the hot scenes and Joaquin’s hotness.

Still sad he quit acting though, can’t take my mind off Walking the line, Gladiator and Clay Pigeons.

Anywho… Good night and… Good Luck! Keep it hot !

In what is to be Joaquin Phoenixs’ last film.

After his engagement falls through, Leonard Kraditor (Joaquin Phoenix) juggles the affections of Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), his beautiful, self-destructive neighbor, and Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the attractive, sensible daughter of his father’s business associate.

This is one of those films that I didn’t know I felt for it after it was over. The emotions of this film are very dark and not like many other romantic films out there today.

The problem with this film is that it just becomes too clear of who Leonard will pick. In a movie a movie that you would expect to be a nuance story about life and depression becomes a little too straight-forward. You expect a movie that has such complexity you would be expecting an ending that would put all the pieces together, it left me groaning at the end.

I enjoyed how the film is a unromantic look at romance itself. It is very honest and very true about what it’s showing and it’s showing that love is something that hurts and also we can’t always control our emotions sometimes they just come out the way they are inside.

The characters in this film are the strong point of this film. I liked Pheonix’s character and felt he was honest and true to himself. Also I enjoyed how both of the women he was seeing were very different in their own way. Paltrow is sexy and wild, while Shaw is very kind and sensible with her life. I felt very attached to these characters and I felt more sympathy for them as it was ending.

The problem that took these characters down was that there was too much attention put on Paltrow’s character. In the middle of the movie they sort of forget about Shaw, and focus it more on Paltrow. I wanted to know how Shaw felt that her boyfriend wasn’t calling her, or talking to her, but I never got that, instead I just got the other story.

Acting in this film is very smart and true. Phoenix gives a very honest performance in this very slow paced acting job. Also Shaw and Paltrow do great jobs to as I felt that there love with Pheonix was very genuine and I did believe in it.

Consensus: Two Lovers, seems a bit too straight-forward but is very true and shows a slow-paced, but wonderfully honest look at love in real life. See this cause of what I hear this is Phoenix’s last film and should be viewed by all who enjoy his work, such as myself.

7.5/10=Rental!!!

- por Guilherme Bakunin

Acredito que aceitação seja uma das palavras-chave quando o assunto é Amantes. James Gray é um cineasta novo, porém aclamado. Começou a carreira no meio dos anos 90; em 2000, lançou Caminhos Sem Volta, thriller psicológico interessantíssimo, que serve de bom apoio para o que sua filmografia vem se tornando; em 2007 (e a demora de sete anos pra lançar um novo trabalho diz muito sobre como o trabalho desse provável gênio foi recebido), foi a vez de Os Donos da Noite, um trabalho mais externo que o anterior, e apesar de convencional, é notável a habilidade de Gray em manipular emoções. Agora, com um hiato bem menor, em 2008, o diretor mostrou à Cannes sua nova criação: Amantes é um filme sobre um homem depressivo, transtornado com a perda de um amor, que não possui forças nem mesmo para por fim a seu sofrimento. Leonard, depois de se separar da noiva, voltou a morar com os pais e é através deles que conhece Sandra, filha de um companheiro de negócios do pai, fortemente apaixonada por ele. Mas também conhece Michelle, sua vizinha, uma jovem problemática viciada em drogas e de caso com um homem casado.

Gray vai direto ao ponto. Leonard, por razões inexplicáveis, se apaixona por Michelle desde o primeiro instante. A presença de Paltrow é, para o personagem, desconcertante, destacável. Quando ele e Michelle saem para uma boate, ela está de vermelho e todas as luzes apontam para o casal. É o expressionismo básico porém maravilhoso, impetrado pelo cineasta afim de realmente mostrar que para Leonard, é simplesmente ela.

Por outro lado, a família de Leonard força a união com Sandra. Presença estável, segura, mimetizada, Vinessa Shaw poderia (?) levá-lo ao conforto com sua própria vida, além de ajudar no pequeno negócio de sua família, a lavanderia à seco.

É difícil pensar que Leonard, sequer por um instante, leva em consideração a opinião de seus pais. Na verdade, sempre investiu insistentemente em Michelle. Sandra continuava a receber esperanças de Leonard, mas era, para ele, um estepe, algo que pudesse oferecer a ele a certeza de que, não importa o que aconteça, ele terminaria com alguém. Nesse ponto, as locações e a foto do filme diz muito sobre o que Leonard pensa sobre seus dois ‘amores’. Ele encontra Sandra em interiores, lugares claustrofóbicos, nocivos, fechados, enclausurados, escuros, com uma paleta de cores marrom, fria, exatamente como era antes de conhecê-la e conhecer Michella. Esta, por sua vez, encontra Leonard em locações variadas, ambientes magníficos, iluminados, abertos, livres, com cenas permeadas de cores igualmente diversas, mas que trazem certo primor à ambientação, aos olhos e porque não, aos sentimentos. Gray evoca mais uma vez o externo para transparecer os sentimentos de Leonard e fazer com que nos naufraguemos em seu personagem.

Belo em Amantes, além de suas cores, são seus personagens. A construção é sublime: todos os atores do filme agem por conta própria, possuem seus sentimentos, suas aspirações e, embora nem sempre os entregue diretamente, os olhares, as expressões e os gestos denunciam quem aquelas pessoas realmente são. É através da fria primeira conversa entre Leonard e Sandra, por exemplo, onde ambos escondem sua essência, por assim dizer, sabemos que o casal, provavelmente, não tem futuro. Nada que possa ser de fato inferido, mas é apenas a impressão, já que os dois nunca realmente parecem confortáveis com a presença do outro. É também através da imagem que Gray nos diz como o relacionamento entre os dois é forçado pelas famílias; apesar de Ruth dizer, duas vezes, que o que importa é primordialmente a felicidade de seu filho, seus atos contradizem suas falas e para Gray, são eles que contam.

Nesse universo particular, onde os sentimentos explodem na tela através de movimentos, cores e som (o início do filme, com Leonard em contra-plongée e o vento feroz indo contra seu corpo jamais sairá da minha cabeça), a aceitação parece ser a chave do cineasta e roteirista para explicar o amor. A aceitação está na clara opção que Leonard deve tomar para deixar todos contentes: ele mesmo, ao encontrar segurança e estabilidade na vida emocional, seus familiares, tanto por terem essa segurança do filho quanto pelos negócios, Sandra, uma personagem definitivamente traumatizada em relacionamentos e sua família. A aceitação está no olhar de Michelle para a câmera, pedindo misericórdia ao público que julga, e recebendo o amor de Leonard no telhado. A aceitação está novamente em Michelle, ao decidir voltar com seu amante, agora que ele rompeu seu casamento, simplesmente porque ela gosta dele e não de Leonard. E finalmente, está em Leonard, olhando novamente para o público, aceitando o que o destino lhe entregara, recebendo, sem amor e com dor, o amor de Sandra, que não pensa em corresponder, mas pensa apenas em aceitá-lo, se entregar a ele, pela pura falta de opção.

Nesse sentido, é intrigante perceber que Amantes não difere de outros trabalhos de James Gray nessa visão fria da paixão. Caminhos Sem Volta e Os Donos da Noite trabalham com o sacríficio no relacionamento amoroso e aceitação, sim, de que isso fora necessário para atenuar as circunstâncias (família). Em Amantes, esse paralelo novamente está presente, diferindo-se apenas no foco, dado muito mais a um único personagem do que a um grupo deles.

Amantes está entre os cinco melhores filmes dessa década. É magnífico, gigantesco, épico ao mesmo tempo que é íntimo, pessoal, introspectivo. A harmonia do filme é evidente, todos os seus aspectos são grandiosos, belos: o roteiro de Gray é maravilhoso, forte, as atuações são multifacetadas, profundas e a direção, precisa. Três aspectos poderosos, que se destacam nessa que é a maior obra-prima de um diretor muito, muito promissor.

5/5

Ficha Técnica: Amantes (Two Lovers) – 2008, EUA. Dir.: James Gray. Elenco: Joaquim Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Vinessa Shaw, Isabella Rossellini, Moni Moshonov.

Parea interesant la inceput si cam atat. E urat sfarsitul. Nu m-as uita la el inca odata. Are nota mare poate voi o sa intelegeti de ce :\

Trailer:

Info: Cinemarx.ro, IMDB.com

Torrent name: Two.Lovers.LIMITED.BDRip.XviD-NeDiVx

Download subtitrare: Subs.ro

Venerdì 16 ottobre (ore 21,00)

Two Lovers

(2008) di James Gray

con Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Vinessa Shaw

Emergendo all’imbrunire e prendendo forma di notte, i personaggi di James Gray stavolta combattono per amore. Leonard vuole farla finita dal ponte: la vita se lo riprende. Incontra la mite Sandra e la folle Michelle, donne diverse ma entrambe assetate di amore. Il panorama interiore non potrebbe essere più devastato. Entrano in gioco le famiglie di Leonard e Sandra: tradizione ebraica, valori concreti, pianificazioni di vite. Il rifugio tra l’ufficialità con Sandra per Leonard si chiama appunto Michelle: dark lady della porta accanto, fragile come una piuma, trappola per definizione. Triangolo amoroso, classico nello stampo, ma imprevedibile nello svolgimento, Two Lovers immerge i propri personaggi in un’atmosfera rarefatta, ma tagliente, lasciando che a guidarli sia un disperato e a volte cieco bisogno d’amore.

L’ingresso  a questa proiezione sarà consentito ai soli possessori della tessera associativa Cineclub Lumière – ANCCI 2009/2010. La medesima sarà in vendita presso la cassa al prezzo di Euro 20,00.

E se amar significasse tudo? E se as irracionalidades inerentes à beleza desse sentimento pudesse nos sustentar diante de todas as adversidades que a vida nos traz?

Two Lovers se inicia com uma tentativa de suicídio de um rapaz que sofre de transtorno bipolar. Não fora a primeira vez, mas fica evidente que ele deseja mais que tudo VIVER e isso nem sua instabilidade psicológica conseguiu destruir. É como se a vida fosse uma chama incandescente residente em seu peito e perdesse a força vez ou outra, mas é intensa demais para se apagar completamente.

Com o futuro delineado por uma relação familiar complexa (e aqui cabe destacar a magnífica atuação de Isabella Rosselini como mãe, que, apesar de pouco conhecermos de seu histórico – como todos os personagens do filme – transmite sensações, desejos e emoções com suas expressões delicadas e que remetem a um profundo conhecimento das atitudes do filho). Leonard desenvolve métodos de escape da realidade, sem fugir de sua natureza humana – dotado de sexualidade, em busca da felicidade, buscando superar os problemas que fatalmente surgem simplesmente por existirmos. E nessa busca, James Gray nos faz conhecer um homem diferente, que não se comporta de forma coerente com um ser tomado pela doença. Leonard consegue ser divertido, conquistador, malandro e, principalmente é capaz de amar. E amar intensamente. Quando sua trajetória cruza com a de duas mulheres também de natureza inexplicavelmente dúbia (e esse inexplicavelmente tem a função de mostrar o quanto nossos comportamentos são misteriosos e não podemos ser enquadrados em padrões racionais) a estória se complica. A mistura do certo com o errado, do normal versus o anormal, do típico rivalizando com o atípico gera no final um furor absurdo, inexplicável, poderoso e cinematograficamente falando, beirando a perfeição.

Para lembrar de dois primores – e há muitos :

Spoilers

Há uma cena de criação de suspense no final do filme com um caminhar da personagem de Gwyneth Paltrow em sombra empalidecida, até revelar seu rosto, enquanto Joaquin Phoenix espera ansioso até receber a triste notícia de que ela o deixaria, que é uma coisa do outro mundo. Denuncia o contraste do mundo de delírio apaixonado de um homem que ama, mas ama tanto que esqueceu de perceber que a outra parte poderia não sofrer da mesma “doença” do morrer de amor, ou pelo menos não por ele. Assim também se fazem as cenas dos encontros lá em cima, especialmente a da explosão psicológica de Leonard que se esgota em um “não quero mais te ver novamente”, enquanto durante todo o diálogo observamos as tomadas fragmentadas por causa das pilastras, mostrando ora um personagem ora outro, em um surto de nervosismo pálido, estranho e triste.

Fim do Spoiler

Belíssimo filme, dos melhores do ano. Atuação magnífica do excepcional Joaquim Phoenix e de Paltrow (que sempre adorei), sem contar Mama Rossellini, que dispensa comentários.

4/4

Silvio Tavares

ou: Amantes (James Gray, 2008) – Thiago Macêdo Correia – 4/4

Genere: Drammatico

Regia: James Gray

Cast: Gwyneth Paltrow, Joaquin Phoenix, Isabella Rosellini

Distribuzione: BIM

Nazione: U.S.A.

Anno: 2009

Un complesso film d’amore in cui il regista mette a frutto tutta la sua esperienza fatta con le storie di malavita. Si tratta di scelte d’amore sbagliate che portano all’autodistruzione. Il protagonista dopo il fallimento di una relazione amorosa, tenta il suicidio. A salvarlo e a ridargli fiducia sembra essere l’amore della affascinante ma tormentata vicina di casa, tormentata dalla paura dell’abbandono, dell’incomprensione e dal ricordo di vecchie ferite sentimentali, che scatena in lui amore e passione. Ma c’è anche un’altra donna che rappresenta la serenità, sensibile e innamorata di lui, che lo attrae proprio perché rappresenta un porto sicuro.