Showing posts with label Sally Field. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sally Field. Show all posts

Saturday, August 13, 2022

Lincoln (2012) Review

rating: ***

the story: Lincoln pushes for the 13th Amendment.

the review: Gosh, so I spent a decade fearing I wouldn't like this one.  Sometimes, or perhaps very often, when you think you're going to have a certain reaction, whether good or bad, you end up having it regardless of the material.  In this instance, I ended up with exactly the reaction I always thought I would to Steven Spielberg's Lincoln.

Chalk this up to star Daniel Day-Lewis.  Beloved of Hollywood insiders but rarely outside of it, my first exposure to him was his Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York, which was a wildly entertaining performance.  Then it was There Will Be Blood, a film I thought I would greatly enjoy, and was one of my most anticipated experiences of 2007, which instead became perhaps my greatest disappointment that year, when my impression of Day-Lewis greatly soured.  He's the kind of actor who immerses himself in his work, who reinvents himself with every performance, or so the story goes, and yet the disappointment of Blood was how much obvious connective tissue there was to Gangs, and none of it positive.  It was as if he dialed in on the villainous tones but lost all intonation.  Where his Bill chewed all scenery in delicious fashion, his Daniel Plainview was a lethargic inverse whose total dominance of Blood was unearned, with no chance at being checked.  He was among the antiheroes who came to dominate critical taste in the last few decades not because he deserved to, but because critics had fixated on the idea and wouldn't let go.

Lincoln is certainly no antihero, today.  Although in his time he was.  Which is perhaps one of the reasons Day-Lewis ended up playing him.  Spielberg's take is a riff on the popular history book Team of Rivals, which centers on Lincoln's political acumen, which the subsequent film zeroes in on as he desperately seeks approval for the amendment that will guarantee freedom for slaves.  He stoops to all available levels in the process, which is not to say his cause was not worthy nor his tactics justified, but nowhere is the inherent mythic nobility on display, and yes, that clip shown at the Oscars in which Lincoln exhorts his cabinet in an impassioned demand to fulfill the vision "Now! Now! Now!" really the central lasting impression...

In choosing such a narrow focus, and perhaps in selecting (there was much development of the project along the way, and so it really was a choice) playwright Tony Kushner over, say, Aaron Sorkin, who had made politics a truly operatic affair in The West Wing and would later become as well known a screenwriter in film, there is no chance to discover the man even as the myth is gently exploded, so that man nor myth, as the man lunges in one direction or another, receives proper focus.  At times it seems Day-Lewis is up to the challenge, when Spielberg, Kushner, and the actor are up to the challenge of the folksy charm of the man, but in their efforts to wring drama from him, they lose sight of it, and the wrinkly profiles they find of Day-Lewis, which are so often fixated on, are subsequently lost to clearer gazes, late in the film, in which Day-Lewis instead looks like, well, Day-Lewis.

Surrounding this is a host of incredible talent, from Tommy Lee Jones perhaps for the first time sinking into his aging gravitas, Sally Field asking no quarter as Mary Todd Lincoln, David Strathairn doing all the heavy lifting, James Spader playful in all the right ways for a change, Hal Holbrook, and a trio of young actors on the cusp of greatness, if film would let them: Joseph Gordon Levitt, the acknowledged preferential favorite; Lee Pace, so versatile and yet forever taken for granted; and Adam Driver in a thankless glorified cameo, years before anyone truly recognized his talent.

And there are others, curiously the black actors (Gloria Reuban, David Oyelowo) in roles Spielberg has no earthly idea what to do with among them, worth picking out.

The whole affair comes off as more a companion piece to Spielberg's earlier and far more triumphant Amistad, with far less historic grandeur to its credit and yet so much more power and cinematic achievement...This was the point where Spielberg really started to worry about his continued standing in Hollywood royalty, where he stopped trusting himself and instead just started doing what he thought his peers wanted to see, all the more bizarre from a director who had previously made his name on things audiences seemingly demanded...So much of modern film ignores the American heritage so passionately embraced in the past, it's all the more a shame that the most famous recent example has no idea what it's really trying to accomplish, other than demonstrate saintly Lincoln in his last desperate push for history, above and beyond, y'know, ending the pesky war around it.

And yet Spielberg's peers have been so driven to distraction concerning political maneuvering, I suppose, in the grand scheme, it's only fitting that such are the results of the effort.

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

rating: ****

the story: Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man.

review: This is the fourth Spider-Man movie, first not directed by Sam Raimi or starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.  In other words, it's the first of two directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  I much, much prefer these movies.  I get the goofy appeal of the Raimi films (the first two of which are greatly admired by the public at large, the third not as much).  Ever since Adam West first dressed up as Batman, or even George Reeves as Superman, audiences kind of expect a little smirk in their superhero.  The Avengers movies certainly benefit from that perception.  I don't think it's necessary.  I think you can take superheroes seriously.  And I think along with Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder, no one's done it better than Marc Webb.

The only thing I don't like about Amazing Spider-Man is the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes.  I think giant mutant villains of any kind is exactly what's wrong with a lot of superhero movies.  I like the villains to be identifiable, not cartoons.  The superheroes themselves are enough of a stretch in storytelling logic.  To make any sense they need to inhabit the real world, as close to the real world as possible.  That can't happen with giant mutant villains.

Other than the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes, this is as intimate and realistic a superhero movie as you're ever likely to find.  The classic template of the origin story is there, a lot like you saw it in Raimi's first movie, but it feels more authentic in Webb's telling.  Webb's best film is (500) Days of Summer, a heartbreaking romance where the breakup is fore-ordained and never undone, and the whole point is trying to make peace with it, and why it happened in the first place.  So why does Peter Parker become Spider-Man?  Well, in this version it has a lot to do with his parents. 

Yeah!  In most Spider-Man stories, Peter's parents are dead and forgotten, right from the start.  Their absence is taken for granted.  We see him raised by his aunt and uncle, the one who also has to die in order for Spider-Man to be born.  But in this version, even in their absence Peter's parents means a great deal.  We see that they were involved in the science that eventually results in Spider-Man, and the giant mutant lizard played by Rhys Ifans.  And it's Peter chasing after his absent parents that drives the story.  That's full storytelling.  Never let an absence become an absence. 

I'm not faulting Ifans for the failure of the giant mutant lizard.  Ifans is awesome!  He's never gotten enough credit, or enough work, for the level of integrity he brings to the table.  He's a perfect match for Garfield, and for Stone, who are both credible high school students (I can't say the same for the guy who inherited Garfield's mask).  The whole idea of Peter Parker feels real in this incarnation.  Uncle Ben is played by Martin Sheen, who like Ifans has never quite gotten the credit he deserves, despite at least two exceptional spotlights (Apocalypse Now, The West Wing, plus a supporting role in The Departed).  Sheen feels real, too, and his death is a real tragedy.  Field is Aunt May, and once Sheen is out of the picture, she fills in his void.  This is a movie about voids being filled.  That's what Spider-Man is all about, and that's what his movies ought to be about, and what the characters in them ought to represent.  And Denis Leary plays Stone's dad, the police captain who fills the void the absence of J. Jonah Jameson creates, the cynic who rejects the idea of Spider-Man.  Until he has a change of heart, when he no longer has a choice.  At which point he has Peter make an impossible promise.  But the last line of the movie is what ties it all together.  Peter admits that promises you can't keep are the best kind. 

The traditional logic of Spider-Man is that like all superheroes he eventually makes a vow to do what's right ("with great power comes great responsibility"), but Spider-Man is an act of defiance against all logic, not in a destructive way, but a redemptive one.  That's what his origin is meant to convey.  For the first and perhaps only time, a movie reflects that.  It's worth celebrating.