Whatever happened to the “[T]hing Redford puts on where you ski all day and watch movies all night”? This is what I signed up for when I convinced Becca that we needed to go see the film she’d worked on, which was premiering at Sundance. But although I spent three days at a film festival, I came away having viewed only three movies, and having done no skiing! More on the sadness of what Sundance has become later. In the meantime, a few words on the films I DID see.
A new take on the complex conundrum of relationships-turned-friendships. I really like Rashida Jones in Parks & Rec, but her character has been pretty flat this season and this film really gives her a chance to prove herself as a quality actress. Her comedy chemistry with Andy Samberg is what seals the deal for this film. The humor is decent and the writing is pretty good. Judging by the constant uproarious laughter around me, the audience loved it, and as of this week it’s already been purchased by Sony.
...was 2 days too many. If you already hate French people, this will completely warrant your opinion. In a twist on the typical French attitude toward Americans, 2 Days in New York grossly exaggerates French stereotypes [promiscuity, free-spirit, art, smoking, crescents, etc.] through the raunchy, hyperbolic bickering of a French family visiting their sister/daughter in New York City. Chris Rock playing Julie Delpy’s boyfriend lends itself to plenty of Obama/drug/[racist] jokes that such a film so obviously requires, and Vincent Gallo (appearing as himself) provides what I suppose is the story’s philosophical depth as the man who buys Delpy’s soul and refuses to give it back after she changes her mind about selling. The problem with the decent writing and jokes were that the script relied too heavily on the typical racism and raunchiness to carry it through. I did thoroughly enjoy a musical montage of still screens as the family toured New York, however. I didn’t hate the movie as much as those with whom I saw it, but I’m still not convinced my bouts of laughter are worth the nine stars this has already received on IMDB.
The 37-year-old star of Warner Brothers’ “How I Met Your Mother” is a versatile guy with hands in almost every creative pot there is: including his TV work, he has recently written a book, “One Big Blissful Thing,” as well as the screenplay for “Liberal Arts,” in which he stars, directs, and produces. He also contributes to the Los Angeles Review. His sophomore directorial project could be described as hippies in ivory towers, and combines his love of LA new age-ism with earnest strivings to be academically relevant.
“Liberal Arts” sends down-and-out thirty-something New Yorker, Jesse, (Radnor) back to his alma mater in Ohio for a professor’s retirement dinner, where he meets sophomore student Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen). She convinces him to listen to classical music and write letters to her. This is revitalizes Jesse and as he begins to fall for Zibby, motivates him to leave the funks of his lackluster, book-riddled life behind him. But in a Mrs. Robinson reversal, Zibby’s age and virginity eventually turn Jesse off and he breaks up with her, sending her off to console herself with drunken frat partying. Jesse himself ends up in one-night stand with his formal British Romantic Lit professor (played brilliantly by Allison Janney). Radnor’s typical discomfited post-coital presence and Janny’s matter-of-fact dismissal might well be one of the most comically awkward bedroom scenes in film.
Elizabeth Olsen is good—she is classic on screen and charmingly redeems the pathetic little character her role becomes. I’m looking forward to see more of her class on future screens. In what Radnor considers a brilliant casting role (I’d say more like bizarre, but it works), Zac Efron plays a random hippie student who befriends Jesse, and Richard Jenkins’ portrayal of an otherwise boring professor character leaves no complaints.
But unfortunately, although the script makes some excellent points about life and academics, most of these are either barely fleshed out (he makes too many to really link or develop them well) or the clever bits are overshadowed by an un-stimulating plot and cheap dialogue. The points about academics vs. real world, the value of life experience, and the beauty of growing old are ultimately weak or boring because they aren’t fully developed or supported by other story elements. I see where he’s trying to go, I think. But it stops short and the main thing I’m left wondering is whether the movie is telling us that a 15-year age difference is an insurmountable object to love.
Another problem is that Radnor’s character constantly seems like he has already anticipated the other actors’ responses. His lines seem unemotional, forced, and his reactions aren’t genuine. But this is somewhat understandable: after incepting, writing, re-writing, planning, and everything else, it’s no wonder that his script is old hat. It needs a fresh perspective that the writer/director/star can’t really bring at this point. It’s the old problem of Jack-of-all trades, master of none.
But in this case, it’s unfortunate that Radnor’s intelligence and the creative premise of the piece fall short in the film’s execution, despite the effort and organization logged in its creation. The editing was great, the cinematography lush, and the cast spectacular. Perhaps with a little experience and some designation, Radnor will one day execute his visions as brilliantly as he dreams them.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment