DRAWING-BOARD STUFF

DIRECTED BY EDGAR WRIGHT

STARRING: MICHAEL CERA, MARY ELIZABETH WINSTEAD, ELLEN WONG, KIERAN CULKIN, ANNA KENDRICK, ALISON PILL, MARK WEBBER, BRANDON ROUTH AND JASON SCHWARTZMANN

Why does a film like ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the world’ deserve a review? I mean, this is a film that’s somewhere between a video game and a comic book (I prefer to use this term, thank you) – it’s actually a comic book about a video game, and where does that leave it on a level of seriousness that could actually provoke even the remotest need to be analyzed critically? Well, it doesn’t, but that’s not the end of the story. There’s still the originality element and the extravagant mood it creates by being what it is and that unavoidably made me to retrospect on its effectiveness as an entertainer.

Pretty effective, in short. Michael Cera stands there being himself with his awkwardly loose muscles that simply can’t get up in the air unless they’re hoisted, and as hilarious and laugh-worthy as that is, he definitely has to come up with something better in the immediate future to 1) break the cliché and 2) to actually get down to doing something. The dumb-cool guy look might suit him, but it’s still tiring. And the additives are enjoyable, this film discusses a girl who actually could inspire ‘like-at-first-sight’, something one cannot help but relate to the effect that Kate Winslet produced in one ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ – there’s actually infinite number of resemblances, and I do not know if it’s actually a basis. From what I saw, there appeared to be some faith.

The duels with the ‘ex-es’ are enjoyable, the visual effects mind-manipulating, making one think twice about passing this off as yet another slipshod effort at invoking humour, something that makes ‘Scott Pilgrim’ stand midway between a 12 year-old show stealer (like ‘Spy Kids’ or its dubious sequels) and a signature flick that’s solely meant for the eyes. What’s pleasant, moreover, is the fact that it doesn’t defy itself. There’s absolutely no intervention from anyone who shouldn’t be in the movie in the first place (like Anna Kendrick in this wasted role of miss ‘phonecall sister’) and thus when I see Scott Pilgrim, I see a metaphor for one that’s trying to prove his love along with trying to prove himself and all said, the hilarity definitely takes the grit away from the intention, despite the fact that that hilarity serves to entertain by itself. It complicates the critical eye for this is a film that does not reach the mind with the wildest of its efforts, and what can one do if he’s been left eye-dazzled?

Well, then that person has fifteen minutes to wake-up in this ‘nothing’ of a climax that helps one get back to square one. To understand the no-brainer, laugh at Mr. Schwartzmann after a howl at Mr. Routh, have a smile on the face for ‘Monster vs. the Dragons’, a reluctant acceptance of Michael Cera for what could be the very last time considering tolerance levels and last but not the least, hope that no one – NO ONE – ever attempts to bring to the screen such infantile comic strips such as this, no matter how great the effort or the CGI team.

A PRELUDE; A TRIUMPH

DIRECTED BY WOODY ALLEN

STARRING: MICHAEL CAINE, MIA FARROW, BARBARA HERSHEY, CARRIE FISHER, DIANNE WEST, MAX VON SYDOW AND WOODY ALLEN

It is an unavoidable thought that tells me every time I deal with a Woody Allen film that I am up against a man who knows quite a lot of things, which is why the mind decides to probe beyond the film itself, seek for analogies, excerpts from quite a bit of life that he happens to have lived to find the phase that could probably have inspired the same. And the reason, I suspect, why I liked ‘Hannah and her Sisters’ so much is because it somehow completed the puzzle, which, I happened to be attempting to solve in the wrong direction in the first place.

But I’m not saying that this would revive my interests in my (personally) lesser-liked films of his like ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ (1989) or its 2005 replica ‘Match Point’, I had my reasons for the developed distaste that sugar won’t solve but I still managed to piece them into his life and I find that to be reassuring. To me, it is like knowing the man by knowing his phases so I can get myself to understand which phases of his I could (or should) actually like citing congruousness. And it is this congruousness that I found in ‘Hannah and her Sisters’, which easily serves to be the prelude to a disastrous chain of events, possibly a downfall of thought that he happened to revive only after years of stabilizing himself post-1997. ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’ is the gem that I’m talking about, following a couple of retraces he took to find his way.

It’s been 25 years, so I guess I’m alright with spoilers. ‘Hannah and her Sisters’ is essentially (as I saw it) a story of three sisters and three men, two of whom are (or have been) involved with more than one. And the course of things is not exactly an ethical dissection, as was the case with the then-forthcoming ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’, but a basic pursuit of frames of mind and those lines that could possibly lead to the same. The King, as powerless as he stands by himself, is played by Michael Caine, a soft-spoken bureaucrat whose anxious moments are almost entirely correlated with his actions with the contrary being true too. The Queen (Mia Farrow) has princesses one too many associated with both her husbands in what appears to be an underdone amount of screen space and emotional scope, and then there’s Allen himself, the jester who was once a crown prince and gets there again towards the end. With him there’s his wit around, and also a level of tranquility that one associates with his more serious role like ‘Annie Hall’ – I could almost see shades of Alvy Singer or may I be deluded if I didn’t.

For a man who’s been around for almost a half a century, what could make ‘Hannah and her Sisters’ one of the most crucial films of his career? Well, for one, it’s clarity, something that he achieves not just by quoting Tolstoy but also sufficiently through even his lesser characteristic pawns on screen: like Holly (Dianne West) for instance. Maybe it’s that period when the train slows down to make the ride look a little longer, maybe it’s because of the three distinctly monotonous thanksgiving atmospheres that Allen manages to create, maybe it’s the dewy-eyed Elliot who sees what he sees in exactly the way he likes to see it. Or maybe it’s just the best of Bach that’s been extensively utilized to fill the canvases. Either way, I could convincingly say that despite all the references, all thematic elements dealt and all kinds of loud thoughts that Allen promises the viewer, ‘Hannah and her Sisters’ is one film where he’s had his words underplayed by the voice of heart and that, for once, helps appreciate its resilience.

In other words, this is a film about the women, where the men do a ‘come and go’. And that’s oddly strengthening, as a thought.

WELL, IT CONNECTS.

DIRECTED BY DAVID FINCHER

STARRING: JESSE EISENBERG, ANDREW GARFIELD, JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE, MAX MINGHELLA, ARMIE HAMMER, JOSEPH MAZZELLO, ROONEY MARA, BRENDA SONG AND RASHIDA JONES

Why should a film like ‘the Social Network’ be made? I’m not asking that question in a cinematic sense, I’m merely curious about what ethic could possibly motivate a screenwriter to write this case study or for a director (let alone the likes of David Fincher) to get this to life. It characterizes a widely talked-about bunch of events, and knowing that, the question becomes “Why should the world be told more on the founding of Facebook?” Maybe I, as the viewer, have no authority to ask that question, because to stand against the content would mean a contradiction of my decision to watch the film in the first place. And I needed to take my time to get that out of my system.

Past that, I come to the characters and related performances – an assembly of rising stars. The film’s intelligence begins with its casting, where the rawness of the characters is reflected in the actors themselves. Someone like Justin Timberlake is called upon to play an ‘aged’ campaigner; Brenda Song gets to play the clichéd girlfriend, and the rest of them make to prove a point. This is what I saw as perfect – an array of actors trying to make their presence felt incredibly correlates with the characters, who are more or less doing the same thing. Kind of like ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, taking up the roles prescribed and trying to put some weight on them – but in suits (pun intended) and hoodies.

The people, now – with names unchanged, and that’s definitely something, because it means there cannot be room for dramatic fictionalization, which can come but only as a compromise. I would not like to comment on the extents of it (simply because I do not know) but I can surely assert upon existence. This film presents to you a Mark Zuckerberg of itself, of what the writer (Ben Mezrich, ‘The Accidental Billionaires’; Allen Sorkin) had extrapolated him to be. Same goes with those with him, those against him and I’m not saying that anything can be done about it, I’m just stating a fact. It has long been this fact that stands in the way of every ‘real’ story told, but ‘the Social Network’ didn’t seem to worry about it. And that’s because they’ve taken a story and have made it ‘cool’. That, I feel, seals it.

Now, how does this film, David Fincher and all, prove its worth? One, I felt, was through its exceptionally long conversations (two specifically delightful ones – at the very beginning and somewhere halfway through) and the film’s feat of arming them with wit and pace, aspects of fast-working minds. It is merciless in this regard, but while on the one hand where it blatantly says that it’s not one for you if you’re not up for the ordeal, on the other it serves to spoon-feed some major details while still not compromising on the speed of narration. The whole film could be bundled up as a bunch of extremely well-thought and vividly-enacted dialogues, where the latter serves to be its second most important stronghold. There is just so much intensity, so many hectic maneuvers through the plot that makes one feel that the swimming pool dip was entirely worth it. But on a serious note, nowhere is this film about the fun – 90 percent (speculatively) of serious conversation happens in places out of place, and I felt that was commendable, that helps keeps focus and also focus on the same. Uncanny.

Still, all said, the weight of ‘the Social Network’ lies on older (mature) shoulders. Marilyn Delpy (Rashida Jones) slows Mark down for a while where he leaves Facebook behind, Erika Albright (Rooney Mara) wishes him best with his video-game and a lawyer scoffs at him with the bottomline. And yet, this film would be known for the fistfight it is, the pace it’s presented in and not to mention its Jewish angst in hostile sociability and yeah, it’s wicked smartness. 

And that makes all the difference.