Laura Linney – Way Too Indie http://waytooindie.com Independent film and music reviews Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:34:42 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Way Too Indiecast is the official podcast of WayTooIndie.com. Our film critics grip and gush about the latest indie movies and sometimes even mainstream ones. Find all of our reviews, podcasts, news, at www.waytooindie.com Laura Linney – Way Too Indie yes Laura Linney – Way Too Indie dustin@waytooindie.com dustin@waytooindie.com (Laura Linney – Way Too Indie) The Official Podcast of Way Too Indie Laura Linney – Way Too Indie http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/waytooindie/podcast-album-art.jpg http://waytooindie.com Genius (Berlin Review) http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/genius/ http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/genius/#respond Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:35:08 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=43771 Michael Grandage’s star-studded 'Genius' goes refreshingly against the grain, but fine-tuning the screenplay would lead to bigger impact.]]>

The subject of white male platonic bonding is as far from today’s film trends as you can possibly get. Even with its shortcomings, then, the heart of the matter in Michael Grandage’s star-studded Genius goes refreshingly against the grain. Add to that the look in the life of American author Thomas Wolfe (whom many, I suspect, readily forget in lieu of the William Faulkner’s and Ernest Hemingway’s of his time), and a shiny spotlight on the behind-closed-doors role of the editor, and there’s plenty to bite into here. Of course, with a cast featuring Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney, and Guy Pearce, you walk in confident that if all else fails, at least the performances will keep you glued. And they do, but even beyond the curious choice of a dreary gray monochrome as the film’s primary palette, there’re a number of things that bog Genius down. The source is, as ever, the screenplay; in this case, John Logan’s adaption of A. Scott Berg’s biography Max Perkins: Editor of Genius. That said, Grandage takes the lion’s share of the blame for leaving the autopilot on his director’s chair and not trying something a little more enticing in way of presentation.

As it bizarrely shifts from black-and-white into colour, Genius opens with the famous editor of Charles Scribner’s Sons, Maxwell Perkins (Firth), receiving the bulbous first draft of what will eventually become “Look Homeward, Angel.” “Is it any good?” he asks, to which the deliveryman responds, “Good? No. But it’s unique.” That hooks him in. Of course, it turns out to be more than just good or unique, as we follow Max’ endearing routine of reading the manuscript until he reaches the end and gets that look—the title of Genius appearing to make sure there’s no confusion on our part either. During this routine, we get a passing glance at Max’s household, his wife Louise (Linney) and five daughters. Being surrounded by women all his life ends up playing a big part in the strong connection he develops with the erratic, enigmatic, and entirely insufferable Thomas Wolfe (Law).

Genius packs most of its meat into scenes featuring Wolfe and Perkins, as they bulldoze through Wolfe’s protracted manuscripts, first ‘Angel,’ and then—in a period of over 2 years!—Of Time and The River. Debating over how to cut down the chapter where his character falls in love with a blue-eyed girl is the film’s pinnacle; infinitely charming and richly insightful in the dynamic between ambitious author and economic editor. Threatening to steal the show from the two men, though, is Nicole Kidman, who pulls off a fiery and embittered turn as Aline Bernstein—a woman who left her husband and two children to be Wolfe’s full-time lover. Her whole life, it seems, revolves around this man who is too busy wrestling with his mountainous ego to return the love, and if the role weren’t so utterly thankless, Kidman surely would have soared even higher.

The two men’s flippant attitudes towards their respective other halves is never fully addressed (and, ironically enough, Max seems to care more about how much Mrs. Bernstein is suffering while completely ignoring his patronizing attitude toward his own wife). Among other issues that arise out of Logan’s screenplay are the peppered stings of obviousness throughout. The most articulate example comes when F. Scott Fitzgerald (Pearce) talks of “genius friendship,” and the double meaning of the title is neatly spoon-fed. There’s also Law’s exuberant performance as Wolfe. Showy, and something that must have been a lot of fun for the actor, but with just a bit too much pep in his step. This ultimately works against the film’s final moments.

It’s the prickly characterization of Thomas Wolfe that undoes Genius in the end. Whether by weighing the importance of the female characters (especially Kidman’s Aline, as Linney’s Louise is, sadly, much too minor to even mention) a bit more significantly, keeping Law’s performance in firmer check, or fine-tuning the screenplay so that the author’s moments of clarity have bigger impact; I feel Logan and Grandage could have handled it better. The fact that he’s not the main star leaves the film all the better for it. Firth’s mighty sensitive performance as the heart of the film keeps the strength of friendship resonating throughout, and is more than enough reason for a solid recommendation.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/genius/feed/ 0
Lust, Actually: How ‘Love Actually’ Sends a Terrible Message at Christmas http://waytooindie.com/features/how-love-actually-sends-a-terrible-message-at-christmas/ http://waytooindie.com/features/how-love-actually-sends-a-terrible-message-at-christmas/#respond Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:01:03 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=42557 Reasons why Love Actually doesn't make a good Christmas movie and portrays women poorly.]]>

Bumbling, overstuffed, and set in the middle-class fantasy world of Richard Curtis, Love Actually is an uneven ensemble romantic comedy that frequently appears on lists of the top Christmas movies. It had me suckered for a long time, even landing on my own list of favorite Christmas movies—but then I stopped to give the film some more thought.

It’s a very easy film not to think about. It slips down so easily, built on the stammering charms of Hugh Grant and Colin Firth, and the jolly-hockey sticks enthusiasm of Emma Thompson. It has a great cast of established actors as well as up-and-coming ones, a twinkly Christmas setting, and an upbeat pop soundtrack. The problem is, the film doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny—it’s a terrible Christmas movie, and has some pretty cynical things to say about relationships. For a film that could also be described as a chick flick, it also has a rather repellent attitude towards women.

Many Christmas films follow a basic template—the protagonist (usually male) needs to overcome either a spiritual or physical challenge, otherwise Christmas is off. Die Hard‘s John McLane (Bruce Willis) overcomes a physical challenge, before reuniting with his wife and kids. Bad Santa‘s Willie T Soke (Billy Bob Thornton) may be an alcoholic, safe-cracking store santa, but even he encounters a Scrooge-like change of heart, and finds redemption in his highly dysfunctional but loving surrogate family.

But if you carefully examine the storylines in Love Actually, you’ll realise that it’s almost a counter-Christmas movie. Christmas is a time for giving and for family, whereas in Love Actually it’s a time for ignoring your family and chasing girls half your age. For most in men in the film, their only challenge is a personal one of self-gratification.

love actually sex

First, there’s dishy Prime Minister David (Grant), who instantly falls in love with Natalie (Martine McCutcheon), the film’s token working class person. They seal the deal with a cheeky snog backstage at David’s niece and nephew’s nativity play. But David isn’t there for the performance—it’s just sheer chance, and he has an awkward moment with his sister Karen (Thompson), who mistakenly thinks her brother’s there for the children. Fat chance, he’s just chasing a girl.

Then there’s Jamie (Firth), who buggers off to France after his wife cheats on him, only to fall for his Portuguese maid Aurélia (Lucia Moniz). He’s a bit sniffy towards her at first, and they don’t speak a word of each other’s language. But as soon as he catches sight of her in bra and panties, he’s head over heels. He ditches his family on Christmas Eve so he can fly back and declare his love to her.

Of all Love Actually‘s stories, the only one that follows a traditional Christmas movie arc is the one with Billy Mack (Bill Nighy). He’s the first character we meet after Hugh Grant’s touchy-feely opening monologue, a washed up rock and roller shamelessly aiming for one last shot at the big time, with a drossy cover of “Love is All Around”. Curtis can’t stop referencing the song in the first few minutes of Love Actually, since it was Wet Wet Wet’s mega-hit from Four Weddings and a Funeral. The twist is, it’s now called “Christmas is All Around”, and there’s fun to be had from the way Nighy shoehorns in those extra couple of syllables on the chorus.

Despite the best efforts of Nighy, Love Actually fails as a Christmas movie. It doesn’t really resemble one in terms of structure, and it has such a selfish message at heart. The film is also very cynical about relationships and women. Although billed as the “ultimate romantic comedy”, Curtis takes a strange stance on relationships in this film. On one hand, he’s all googly eyed and innocent, smitten with the idea of love at first sight; on the other he’s like Buddy Love, lascivious and skirt-chasing.

love actually undress

I have no problem accepting the notion of “love at first sight” in films. I was totally on board when Michael Corleone was hit by the thunderbolt in The Godfather, falling instantly in love with Apollonia. Don’t even get me started on Leo DiCaprio and Claire Daines doing their coochy-coo faces through the fish tank in Romeo and Juliet—loved it.

Love Actually seems to suggest that the moment you turn your back, your partner will be hopping into bed with someone else. This fate befalls Jamie, cuckolded by his wife, and Harry (Alan Rickman) and Karen’s marriage is clearly damaged by Harry’s ill-advised flirtation with Mia (Heike Makatsch). Even hunky, handsome Chiwetel Ejiofor isn’t immune. Having just married the gorgeous Juliet (Keira Knightley), he isn’t aware that his Best Man Mark (Andrew Lincoln) is hopelessly in love with her, and spent their whole wedding obsessively filming close ups of her smiling face. If that wasn’t enough, he shows up on their doorstep on Christmas Eve, posing as carol singers and declaring his love to her with some cue cards, in the manner of Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues”.

Juliet’s actions in this segment are pretty despicable, which brings us to the subject of how women are portrayed in Love Actually. Most barely register as characters. Many are either prizes to be won, floozies, or too over-the-hill to be attractive anymore. Things are way rosier if you’re a bloke in Love Actually. If your wife cheats on you, dies, or gets a bit old and knackered, don’t worry because there’s always some young bit of crumpet waiting around the corner for you. And while there is a long-standing tradition in Hollywood where older men play opposite young, attractive actresses in films, but Love Actually really pushes the envelope. Alan Rickman and Heike Makatsch, Hugh Grant and Martine McCutcheon, Colin Firth and Lucia Moniz, Liam Neeson and Claudia Schiffer—all these match ups felt highly implausible.

love actually scene

The objectification of women is most evident in the film’s most risible storyline, that of Colin (Kris Marshall), a hollow-eyed creep who’s poison with the ladies. He treats himself to a ticket to Milwaukee because he’s heard American birds get turned on by an English accent. Of course, in the world of Love Actually, he’s able to rock up in a dive bar and stumble upon a trio of hotties instantly seduced by the way he speaks. A foursome follows, soon to be a quintet when Denise Richards gets back home.

All this goes against what we normally expect from Christmas movies, which usually reinforce the virtues of self-sacrifice, open-mindedness and the pleasures of family life. While there is nothing wrong with skirting genre expectations, Love Actually is filled with bogus Christmas cheer. In fact it preaches the opposite—screw your family, chase the girl, and look after your own best interests.

If over the holidays the doorbell rings and your significant other tells you that it’s carol singers, maybe go see for yourself. Just in case…

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/features/how-love-actually-sends-a-terrible-message-at-christmas/feed/ 0
Mr. Holmes http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/mr-holmes/ http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/mr-holmes/#respond Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:09:40 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=33959 McKellen's Sherlock Holmes is arguably the best of the modern era.]]>

Ian McKellen and Bill Condon haven’t worked together in 17 years. In 1998, they made the excellent Gods and Monsters; now, they’re weaving a brand new tale about the world’s greatest detective in the wonderful Mr. Holmes. The craziest thing about this reunion is, McKellen plays an elderly crank confronting mortality in both movies. Talk about gas left in the tank. McKellen’s one of the finest actors working, and his performance as Sherlock Holmes is one of the crowning jewels of his late career.

Sherlock Holmes is as trendy and popular now as he’s ever been, and of the handful of actors who’ve embodied Mr. Holmes over the past several years, I’d dare to say McKellen is the best of the lot (not a knock on Cumberbatch; put down your pitchforks). The film, adapted from Mitch Cullin’s 2005 book A Slight Trick of the Mind, finds Holmes face-to-face with his greatest adversary: the merciless ticking hands of time. Holmes is defined by his intellect, after all, and erosion of the mind is one thing, tragically, that old folk like him simply can’t escape. Given this scenario, is there any choice other than the cerebral, soulful Sir McKellen to fill the 93-year-old detective’s shoes? No; his casting is as close to perfection as one could hope for.

The story is no less complex or enthralling than your classic Arthur Conan Doyle yarn, juggling three unique, parallel stories with vigor and precision. Sherlock may be in a self-reflective, somber state, but the film that frames him moves with energy and brisk forward momentum. The primary plot line takes place in 1947: Holmes is retired, fighting off Alzheimer’s in a countryside home in Sussex to live out his final days. He’s watched over by a widowed maid, Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her bright (and nosy) 10-year-old son, Roger (Milo Parker). No longer inundated with deathly mysteries to unravel, Sherlock spends most of his time tending to his beloved bee colony, harvesting their honey and admiring the splendor of their well-oiled hierarchy.

There’s also a more curious connection between Sherlock and the bees, one that leads us to the film’s second narrative thread. They remind him of his final, unsolved case, which rattled him to the bone 30 years prior. In flashbacks to 1919 London, we learn how a troubled woman and a magical music instrument scarred him for life. Of the three tales, this one is vintage Holmes and will feel most familiar to diehards. The third story is the bizarre in the best way, as Holmes travels to Japan (again in flashback) in search of prickly ash, a plant with properties that may be the key to stopping his mind’s degradation. His guide is Mr. Umezaki (the terrific Hiroyuki Sanada), a devout fan of Sherlock’s who’s more than happy to aid him in his quest.

In an interesting deviation from canon, Sherlock is world-famous in very much the same way he is in our reality: his old friend Mr. Watson has written a popular series of mystery books based on their old cases, which have even spurned movie adaptations. A delightful scene sees Holmes watching one said film in a theater, chuckling and cringing at the absurdity of it all.

The central relationship between Sherlock and young Roger is the lifeblood of the film. The three plot lines are well-woven and involving, but these are the real stakes: Sherlock is hanging onto our world by a thread. He’s got no loved ones because he views all around him as pawns in his grand game of chess. With his best days seemingly behind him, a young boy reaches out a hand and offers him a final chance to live life with others, rather than in the presence of them. Sherlock’s always been almost-human, but there may be hope for him yet.

Parker is as key to the film as McKellen. He never panders, he isn’t concerned with being cute, and he’s got such a rage in his eyes that we fully understand why Sherlock is compelled to tame it. Roger’s fascination with the detective and his legacy drives a wedge between he and his mother, who he essentially treats like a peon. His resentment of her, and her consequent resentment of Sherlock creates a tense dynamic between the three leads, who breathe life into every carefully-penned, contemptuous line of dialogue (adapted from Cullin’s book by Jeffrey Hatcher).

Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.’s more charismatic interpretations of Holmes fit their respective properties appropriately, but McKellen’s more pained, desperate version has almost bottomless depth. Much like Roger, you treasure every moment you’re with the old curmudgeon. Condon and Hatcher were just the men to bring this atypically humanistic vision of Sherlock Holmes from book to screen, and Mr. Holmes is a movie I’ll be itching to revisit for years.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/mr-holmes/feed/ 0
Jeffrey Hatcher On ‘Mr. Holmes,’ the Tricks of Modern Mystery http://waytooindie.com/interview/interview-jeffery-hatcher-anne-carey-mr-holmes-716/ http://waytooindie.com/interview/interview-jeffery-hatcher-anne-carey-mr-holmes-716/#respond Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:39:39 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=33961 'Mr. Holmes' screenwriter on what makes Sherlock an enduring character.]]>

Bill Condon’s Mr. Holmes, starring Sir Ian McKellen as an aging iteration of everyone’s favorite detective, is a classic Sherlock page-turner in movie form. And rightfully so: it’s based on Mitch Cullin‘s 2005 novel, A Slight Trick of the Mind, which follows Holmes in his twilight years in a countryside home, his mind deteriorating, as he’s cared for by a housekeeper (played in the film by Laura Linney) and her son, Roger (Milo Parker). In Roger he finds a companion with whom he can share his memories before they fade away. The film also follows two parallel, flashback stories: Holmes’ trip to see the mysterious Mr. Umezaki (Hiroyuki Sanada) in Japan in search for a cure for his mental condition, and a classic Sherlock mystery involving a troubled woman reeling following two failed pregnancies.

I spoke with screenwriter Jefferey Hatcher about his experience working on Mr. Holmes, which comes out tomorrow, July 17th.

Mr. Holmes

Were you on set during filming?
Yeah, for a little bit. For about two weeks at the end.

What’s it like writing the script, not being on set all that much, and then seeing the final product?
The things you focus on are the things you were on-set for. You remember, “They did this 800 times. They kept knocking that thing over.” You tend to have reference points no audience member would have. I’m always amazed with how actors can work with so much focus on them. Dozens and dozens of people watching you do something terribly intimate. I’ve done a little acting myself, but that kind of intimacy with that audience…[pauses] It’s always amazing to think how they can focus and function.

Would it be more nerve-racking for you to do something on camera as opposed to on stage?
Oh yeah, in front of a camera. It’s the same way we feel when we see ourselves in photographs. Onstage, there’s always some distance. There’s a bit of a haze.

The lights…
Yeah, right. I remember reading something Cary Grant said: “Screen acting is very difficult because I’ve got a double chin.” He’d have to keep his head a certain way or they’d see his double chin. It’s like, really? You’re thinking about this? I wouldn’t want to see myself on the screen.

So it’s the proximity.
I think so. I think actors who don’t care about that stuff, or actors who don’t care about how you perceive them and know exactly how to present themselves, do well. To have to think [like a screen actor] is kind of amazing. But the theater allows you a little more distance, even if it’s a small house.

The lights help because you can’t see faces.
No one quite gets that. I get up onstage and deliver a soliloquy to the house, and it’s like, I can’t see any of you. I can see a couple faces in the first couple of rows.

And you can hear them messing with their peanut bags.
Especially in England. The Brits, more so than us, eat during shows.

It’s more of an English thing?
Yeah. You come back from intermission during Shakespeare, and they’re eating ice cream. [In a British accent] This is the theater of the Elizabethans!

I hadn’t read the book going into the film. I was expecting more of a meditative, slower-paced movie. I was surprised to find the momentum of the film so brisk and thrilling.
The book has those parallel stories, though they’re in different sequence. That was always there. The question was, how do you shuffle it? At one point we had him going to Japan later in the script, giving it its own section of the movie. But it felt like we spent too much time just in Japan that way, so we rearranged it and made it a flashback. That was dangerous at first glance, because we had two flashbacks going on. But I think it makes sense because each story is progressing in its own direction.

The classic Holmes tale is the one with the woman in the past. Then you’ve got the domestic, current tale. Then there’s the sort of oddball tale in Japan. Holmes was going to a place where rational thinking and reason had ended up with the atom bomb going off. It comes off much more strongly in the book, but I hope it comes off in the film as well. In a sense, that’s my favorite section because it’s so controlled and tight and neat. His relationship with Mr. Umezaki is so peculiar. I’m glad the movie feels like it’s moving forward all the time and it’s not a bunch of people sitting around, talking about death.

The cast is really good. The kid, Milo Parker—he’s gotten a lot of praise.
McKellen was attached when Bill said he wanted to do it. We talked about various actresses, but very quickly, Bill said, “What about Laura Linney?” Beyond that I don’t think I had any suggestions about other actors. I adore Roger Allam, who plays the doctor. He’s got a great, soupy kind of voice. He should play Christopher Hitchens in a biopic sometime. We knew the kid had to be someone who wasn’t the classic, adorable kid. There had to be a strangeness and a quiet about him.

There’s rage in him as well.
I’d never say this to him, but he’s got, like, thyroid eyes that really pop out at you.

His glare is killer.
Oh yeah. I like the fact that you kind of have to work to get to him, which is very much like Holmes. He’s not like, “Come! Love me!” When there’s distancing like that, it makes it even better when you do embrace. Laura Linney does things I can’t even imagine. She’s so honest, never less than completely truthful. Her rage is real, her tears are real. She makes what could be an unsympathetic character very sympathetic, just by virtue of being herself. She’s a wonderful actor.

I think the three main actors are incredibly generous to each other. No one tries to steal a scene.
Sometimes there are people who say, “I’m giving you this scene,” and then they go away. None of these actors do. Their presence is so key. It’s almost as if they say, “Even if I’m off-screen, the camera’s on me.” It’s good for the film because Holmes sees people as supporting characters in his life. It’s a world of interns and secretaries and drivers, not people you actually live with. What’s cool about the film is, bit by bit, he brings them into his level, whatever that may be.

What is Holmes’ greatest fear?
He famously says to Watson in one of the stories, “I am an intellect; the rest of me is mere appendage, “which is a line we couldn’t use because it’s cut off in that copyright thing. The idea that your intellect goes away means that everything goes away. Because Holmes is suffering some form of dementia, that kind of fear of not being able to remember things or think through a problem…[pauses] It’s not simply, “I’m having some befogged days.” My essence, my soul, is being eradicated. For a man who depends, thrives, finds sustenance in that kind of intellectual pursuit, you’re really left with only two outs: commit suicide or embrace someone. The embrace is the hardest thing, because it’s not based on intellect. He had Watson and Mrs. Hudson, but they never talked about it. Here’s an example where he actually has to say to someone, “Live with me. Stay with me.”

In the post-internet age, it’s becoming harder and harder to surprise modern audiences with mystery stories. Everyone’s savvy and trying to stay five steps ahead of the plot. How do you surprise them?
It’s wildly tricky. I can’t go see a thriller where I’m not trying to out-guess it. Having the experience of having something just flow over you and be surprised [is great]. I’m probably the last person in America who was surprised by the ending of The Sixth Sense. I’m like, “He’s dead?!” It was great to be surprised. When I do out-guess something, there’s a sort of “meh” quality to it. You’re right about that. You want to play fair with the audience. There’s a bit in the movie where Holmes explains to Ann Kelmot how he knows one thing versus the other. There are quick flashes. You want the audience to say, “Yes, we saw that. The filmmakers played fair with us. But we did not expect to see the things that Holmes picked up on.” It is very tricky. The hardest thing these days is knowing the audience can go back and forth simply by moving the cursor. Have you seen The Conversation?

Yeah.
Remember the beginning? “He’d kill us if he had the chance. He’d kill us if he had the chance.” Then, when he listens to it near the end, he hears, “He’d kill us if he had the chance.” If you were watching that in 1971, you’d say, “Oh, he heard it wrong.” But now, with DVDs, you can turn it back and say, “No, she doesn’t say it that way!” They didn’t expect a world where somebody would be able to do that, technically. Now it’s harder to cheat the audience and say that something happened when they can go back and check it. If you cheat like that, the audience gets really pissed off.

You just really hope to god that, when you do the revelation, the audience goes, “Gasp!” It’s okay, actually, if some of them say, “I knew it!” Audiences sometimes like to think they’re ahead a few minutes. That’s okay. To be ahead 30 minutes is bad. But a couple of minutes isn’t such a terrible thing. Sometimes the audience wants their suspicion confirmed. You always want to present options for the audience to consider. It’s the red herring thing. If they have one option to consider, that’s what they’ll pick. So you have to give them at least two options, stated or unstated. A friend of mine says, “If the answer is either A or B, the answer should be C.”

I think being genuinely surprised is one of the rarest joys at the movies these days.
The big one here that I think we’re all so pleased with is the difference between bees and wasps. We say it right at the beginning of the film. We show you close-ups, something getting plucked out of someone’s neck. And yet, at a certain point, I hope the audience forgets that difference in the same way the characters do. To me, that’s playing fair.

In Chinatown, there’s a part where Nicholson looks into this pool, and there’s this stuff glittering. He turns to this guy, who says, “Bad for glass! Bad for glass!” Of course, it sounds like it’s a joke because he can’t pronounce grass. But he is saying glass, and he’s looking at glasses. All through the film, Nicholson is opening drawers, and there are glasses there. When he fishes out the glasses at the end and realizes they’re John Huston’s, they never say, “Oh, of course. That was a pair of glasses.” But there are these clues everywhere. The audience goes, “Aw, geez. I should have picked up on what he did.”

I think the bees/wasps thing is poetic and artistic as well. It’s not just a juke.
Something Bill put in that I hadn’t realized was how many times McKellen passes between glass. You see him in reflections and in windows. It’s all this glass within glass within glass. Some of these things aren’t things you think about, but it’s almost like you’re exercising some poetic muscle, but not intentionally. I think if you’re doing it intentionally, you can tell.

What makes Sherlock Holmes so enduring as a character? Depending on what’s going on in society in culture at any given time, we view him in a new light.
You can always tell what era Holmes stories are from. For example, Basil Rathbone, during World War II, kind of imagined that you’d need a Holmes who’s not doubting himself much, who’s going to win all the time. Nicol Williamson is a coke freak in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. It makes sense that it’s the ’70s. Jeremy Brett is this sort of crazy, near psychopath in the ’80s ones. I tend to think [he endures] because Sherlock is so anchored in the Victorian, Edwardian world. He’s so defined: we know what he looks like, what he sounds like, what he thinks. But there’s also a sadness and emptiness to him. There’s something missing in him. [Arthur] Conan Doyle will refer to it, and sometimes it’s a joke, and sometimes it’s not. But it’s always there. That’s the crack actors, writers and directors get to fill.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/interview/interview-jeffery-hatcher-anne-carey-mr-holmes-716/feed/ 0
SFIFF Capsules: ‘Mr. Holmes,’ ‘Steve Jobs,’ ‘Saint Laurent’ http://waytooindie.com/news/sfiff-capsules-mr-holmes-steve-jobs-saint-laurent/ http://waytooindie.com/news/sfiff-capsules-mr-holmes-steve-jobs-saint-laurent/#respond Wed, 06 May 2015 20:59:48 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=35813 Our impressions of 'Mr. Holmes,' 'Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine,' and 'Saint Laurent' from SFIFF.]]>

Mr. Holmes

Ian McKellen and director Bill Condon collaborate for the first time since 1998’s Gods and Monsters to offer their talents to the long-running Sherlock Holmes franchise with Mr. Holmes. McKellen plays the detective at an advanced age facing his greatest enemy of all: time. Resigned to a countryside cottage where a housekeeper (Laura Linney) and her aspiring sleuth son (Milo Parker), Holmes looks back on his life as his mind—his greatest treasure—begins to fade. He can only remember fragments of an unsolved case involving a mysterious woman, which haunts him every day.

Mr. Holmes

Split into three narrative threads, Mr. Holmes is the cinematic equivalent of a juicy page-turner (it’s based on a 2005 novel by Mitch Cullin). Condon darts from mystery to the another moments before we uncover a tantalizing clue, resulting in a terrific sense of narrative propulsion one wouldn’t expect to find in a movie about such meditative subject matter. It’s hard to imagine anyone else playing an elderly Mr. Holmes once you’ve seen McKellen work, which is no big surprise; what it a surprise is how close Linney and Parker come to stealing the show.

Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine

Coming off the controversial success of Going Clear, Alex Gibney and his research and production machine dissect the career of Steve Jobs, a man whose work people fell in love with, but whose temperament was often notoriously nasty. Delving into the private life of the deceased visionary as he built what would become the great tech empire of the century, the film thoroughly outlines Jobs’ accomplishments and influence, mostly to set the stage for its real goal. Jobs’ unsavory, vaguely monstrous approach to both his personal relationships and business dealings have been well documented before, but Gibney and his team explore the disagreeable side of Jobs’ character more comprehensively than any other piece of media to date.

Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine

The issue with the film is its scope: It simply tries to cover too many topics and dates and pivotal events and facets of Jobs as a man. Information piles up so quickly that by the end of the film I was struggling to remember what happened in the first half. The more incisive final act of the film, which exposes controversies like Apple’s employee-less foreign operations company in Ireland (where income taxes are more manageable than in the states), is the highlight, and a film more focused on these kind of indictments may have been more intriguing.

Saint Laurent

In Saint Laurent, Bertrand Bonello (House of Tolerance) casts Gaspard Ulliel as Yves Saint Laurent to explore the French designer’s peak years, from 1967 to 1976. If it were acceptable to issue difficulty levels to movies, I’d give this one a nine: its plot is about as graspable as a puddle of spilt champagne. What we see is essentially a free-form sequence of moments, whose significance is often more than elusive. Cinematically, though, almost everything looks interesting, if not flat-out brilliant. The colors pop, the costumes are breathtaking, and the staging is off-putting, in a way. A notable moment when Ulliel smiles directly into the camera, for instance, sends chills down your spine.

Saint Laurent

The movie’s length (150 minutes) is, by far, the biggest barrier to entry. Bonello is in super-stylized, artsy mode throughout, and that means some sections are glacial and abstract and only pay dividends after you’ve left the theater; whether or not this is a good thing depends entirely on your taste. As a portrait of a man, Saint Laurent is surprisingly unflattering, and that’s a good thing, an eschewing of the hagiography cliché.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/news/sfiff-capsules-mr-holmes-steve-jobs-saint-laurent/feed/ 0
‘Mr. Holmes’ to Make US Premiere at SFIFF http://waytooindie.com/news/mr-holmes-to-make-us-premiere-at-sfiff/ http://waytooindie.com/news/mr-holmes-to-make-us-premiere-at-sfiff/#respond Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=33415 Bill Condon's 'Mr. Holmes', starring Ian McKellen and Laura Linney, to make its US premiere at SFIFF]]>

It was announced today that the 58th annual San Francisco International Film Festival will play host to the US premiere of Bill Condon‘s Mr. Holmes, a fresh take on Sherlock Holmes that sees Sir Ian McKellen playing the famous detective. The film marks Condon (KinseyThe Fifth Estate) and McKellen’s first collaboration since 1998’s Gods and Monsters and also stars Laura Linney and newcomer Milo Parker. SFIFF takes place from April 23rd to May 7th, with Mr. Holmes screening as a Marquee Presentation on Saturday, April 25th, 12:30 pm at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

From the press release:

“We’re thrilled to have Bill Condon’s smart, elegant and moving take on the legendary detective as a Marquee Presentation at the Festival, “ said SFFS Director of Programming Rachel Rosen. “I know our audiences will appreciate the film’s stylish direction and stellar performances, led by the incomparable Ian McKellen.”

McKellen reunites with Gods and Monsters (1998) director Bill Condon for Mr. Holmes, a new twist on the world’s most famous detective.   1947, an aging Sherlock Holmes returns from a journey to Japan, where, in search of a rare plant with powerful restorative qualities, he has witnessed the devastation of nuclear warfare.  Now, in his remote seaside farmhouse, Holmes faces the end of his days tending to his bees, with only the company of his housekeeper and her young son, Roger.  Grappling with the diminishing powers of his mind, Holmes comes to rely upon the boy as he revisits the circumstances of the unsolved case that forced him into retirement, and searches for answers to the mysteries of life and love – before it’s too late.

Loosely adapted from Mitch Cullin’s novel A Slight Trick of the Mind and featuring precise attention to period detail and the visual splendor of the English countryside, Mr. Holmes stands proudly along the other indelible portraits of the unforgettable man who lived at 221B Baker Street.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/news/mr-holmes-to-make-us-premiere-at-sfiff/feed/ 0
Win: $25 American Express Gift Card for a Night at the Movies http://waytooindie.com/news/win-25-american-express-gift-card-for-a-night-at-the-movies/ http://waytooindie.com/news/win-25-american-express-gift-card-for-a-night-at-the-movies/#comments Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=9792 Any film that has Bill Murray in some capacity has me excited, let alone when it is a lead role. In his new film Hyde Park on Hudson, he plays the historical President FDR. To celebrate the film in theaters, Way Too Indie is giving away a night out at the movies to go see it.]]>

Any film that has Bill Murray in some capacity has me excited, let alone when it is a lead role. In his new film Hyde Park on Hudson, he plays the historical President FDR. To celebrate the film in theaters, Way Too Indie is giving away a night out at the movies to go see it.

Hyde Park on Hudson is a based-in-reality story told from the perspective of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 5th cousin, Margaret “Daisy” Suckly (played by Laura Linney), and takes place for the most part during the weekend that King George VI (Samuel West), along with his wife Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Coleman) became the first British Monarchs to visit America. The royal couple visit President Roosevelt (Bill Murray) at his mother’s home in upstate New York, Hyde Park, with the agenda of asking the President for the help of the United States when the inevitable World War breaks out.

To win a $25 American Express Gift Card for a night at the movies, email us your favorite Bill Murray film.

EMAIL HERE TO ENTER

For an additional entry, tell us your favorite film of his in the comments below (please also include your email).

This giveaway will end on Friday, January 18th at noon EST. The winner will be notified via email.

Official trailer of Hyde Park on Hudson:

Hyde Park on Hudson movie cover:
Hyde Park on Hudson Movie One-Sheet

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/news/win-25-american-express-gift-card-for-a-night-at-the-movies/feed/ 13
Hyde Park on Hudson http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/hyde-park-on-hudson/ http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/hyde-park-on-hudson/#respond Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://waytooindie.com/?p=9285 Many of America's favorite Presidents had what we'd call 'personality'; those distinctions that established them in the hearts of those they served. Lincoln with his storytelling, Washington and his cherry tree antics, Clinton and his saxophone. The American public likes to see the personal sides of our Presidents; at least once they leave office that is. In Hyde Park on Hudson, however, we're exposed to the intersection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal and professional lives, in a way that had me longing to theater hop to that little Spielberg film playing next door.]]>

Many of America’s favorite Presidents had what we’d call ‘personality’; those distinctions that established them in the hearts of those they served. Lincoln with his storytelling, Washington and his cherry tree antics, Clinton and his saxophone. The American public likes to see the personal sides of our Presidents; at least once they leave office that is. In Hyde Park on Hudson, however, we’re exposed to the intersection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s personal and professional lives, in a way that had me longing to theater hop to that little Spielberg film playing next door.

Hyde Park on Hudson is a based-in-reality story told from the perspective of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 5th cousin, Margaret “Daisy” Suckly (played by Laura Linney), and takes place for the most part during the weekend that King George VI (Samuel West), along with his wife Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Coleman) became the first British Monarchs to visit America. The royal couple visit President Roosevelt at his mother’s home in upstate New York, Hyde Park, with the agenda of asking the President for the help of the United States when the inevitable World War breaks out.

Hyde Park on Hudson movie

Playing out as a confused farce, accidentally veering into melodrama, Hyde Park on Hudson introduces us to the many women in FDR’s life. As Daisy spends more time with her shining star of a cousin, she finds herself wrapped up in a world of romance and adventure she’s never experienced. And when their relationship becomes sexual (which happens so quickly we’ve hardly finished watching the opening credits, and which holds little historical evidence), she seems all too glad to have the attention of this, the most influential man in the world. Her naiveté to his ongoing relationships with his secretary, Missy (Elizabeth Marvel), another unseen woman (his much historically documented mistress, Lucy Mercer), and her dismissal of his friendly if not romantic marriage to Eleanor (played with perfection by Olivia Williams), would all make for interesting dramatic elements if it just wasn’t so obviously ill-suited for Laura Linney. I’d write it off as a casting issue except that she’s forced to narrate the entire film in childish tones, trying to heighten the stories elements with hyperbole and managing only to enhance just how un-impressive it all really is.

As the events of the weekend unfold, from dinner with the King and Queen, where everything seems to go wrong and the full moon garners the blame, to the American-style picnic where hot dogs are served to the horror of Her Majesty, Daisy starts to uncover that to be involved in the President’s life means sharing him with more than just the public. In the most off-putting scene of the film her dramatic reaction to the revelation that an unfaithful husband makes for an unfaithful lover takes such a dramatic turn it’s laughable.

Bill Murray is this film’s guiding light. He plays FDR with perfect execution, nailing his stiff New York drawl and subtle wisdom. As President Roosevelt, he’s warm and likable. As Franklin, the script portrays his personal life as that of a man who craved worship so much he took on mistresses flippantly and apparently with little thought to why these women appealed to him. And because of his age and physical situation, there’s no way not to interpret it as slightly pathetic and icky.

The characters most worth watching are the King and Queen, with all their British propriety and concern for their nation. The most brilliant scene of the film involves a candid conversation between FDR and King George. It seems historically unlikely, but is exactly the sort of anecdote we’d like to hear about a favorite President. How he played father-figure to a King.

Hyde Park on Hudson, while showing some of the affability of FDR, his goofy playful side, dwells more on his philandering ways and doesn’t do much to instill pride in the only President to serve more than two terms. Through Daisy’s narrative lens it’s hard to understand the magnetism he had to accrue the devotion of many, including women. And as a film it flip-flops far too suddenly between comedy, historical drama, and melodrama and therefore is disjointed from one scene to the next. Laura Linney, a proven superb actress, seems to have been suckered into believing that a film that involves both a well-loved President and well-loved King (this being the THIRD film in two years to feature King George alongside The King’s Speech and W.E.) could not fail. But alas, having so many grand elements means the film has only farther to fall on its face and her character is given such little importance to the story no amount of great acting could bring life into it.

It’s a shame that such a crown jewel of a performance from Bill Murray would be wasted on such a poor script. Now can someone please write a better historical drama about FDR for him? Had this one been better, he’d easily have been getting the Best Actor award this winter.

]]>
http://waytooindie.com/review/movie/hyde-park-on-hudson/feed/ 0