Tonight I screened Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, starring Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell.
Mildred (McDormand) seeks justice for the rape and murder of her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) in the small town of (fictional) Ebbing, Missouri, where the police—in her view—spend more time hassling minorities than they do solving crimes.
Because the case has gone dormant, she pays to post three billboards asking the police chief (Woody Harrelson) why. This upsets the tight community and she gets grief from the local priest and other townspeople.
The chief is truly on her side, but after suffering another tragedy, she feels she has nowhere to turn and seeks revenge instead of justice. A series of bloody, scary, hilarious (yes, it's all those things) events follows and McDormand pretty much seals up her Oscar nomination.
But she's not the only great player here. Harrelson is tough, yet sincere as the chief whose hands are tied by circumstance; Sam Rockwell as the dim-witted Officer Dixon keeps his character from becoming a caricature by adding dimension through emotion, and Peter Dinklage is the welcome town oddity as the "midget" who is hot for Mildred.
I'd say the stereotypes are a bit much, but I did live in Missouri for five years, and for better or worse, I encountered people who resembled every last one of these folks.
In addition to addressing the horrific themes of sexual assault, racism and domestic violence—so timely considering our current national conversation—it reminds us that not every good person makes smart choices and not every bad apple is without a conscience.
Writer/director Martin McDonagh was inspired to write the film after driving past similar billboards in real life. I shudder to think what prompted their placement. The movie based on them isn't easy to watch, but you won't be able to take your eyes off of it.
~~~
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Tonight I saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, starring Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig.
It would be impossible not to compare this film to its Swedish predecessor or to the book where the story originated, so I won't pretend I'm trying not to; that said, I'll do my best to focus less on the differences and more on the core quality of the film.
Mikael Blomkvist (Craig) is a Swedish journalist being brought down in the court of public opinion for a story he wrote that turned out to be less than factual. He was most likely set up by the subject of the story, but that is beside the point now that his and his magazine's reputations are ruined. To remove himself from the public eye, he takes a job with a wealthy family to investigate a murder that happened several decades ago.
Lisbeth Salander (Mara) is the damaged, disturbed, unconventional investigator brought in to act as Blomkvist's research assistant. Because of her past mental health issues, she is forced to report to a guardian who is responsible for dispensing her allowances. Unfortunately, her caring guardian becomes hospitalized and she is assigned to a sadistic, horrible guardian who demands sexual favors in return for her own money. She devises a way to prevent this from happening, but in the meantime is brutally raped by the man.
Christopher Plummer plays Henrik Vanger, the wealthy member of a troubled family with a nazi past, desperate to find his niece's killer. As usual, Plummer gives a superb, believable performance in the role, but unfortunately his screen time is too brief.
I think the same of Robin Wright, who makes a fantastic Erika Berger, Mikael's boss and married lover. She's pitch perfect in the scenes she appears in, but they are few and far between.
Overall, the story stays somewhat close to the novel, though a few ridiculous details make me groan with American shame (the McDonald's product placement is blatant; there is a somewhat predictable mention of Ikea). I also agree with other critics who have mentioned that Mara's version of Lisbeth is far too feminine.
Aside from making Lisbeth 'pretty' in certain intimate scenes, she also appears to register emotion with Mikael, which is something the true character never would have done. They aren't a couple, but here, they behave like one.
Daniel Craig is also too good looking and too physically fit to be playing the smoking, eating Mikael. And far to few cups of coffee were consumed to stay true to the native text.
However, Fincher does work his magic in many ways.
The lighting and the shadows and the mood of the film are always spot on. Whether Liseth is blazing down the street on her motorcycle or watching a night vision camera to see who is prowling about the property, the aura of the story is captured in a more spiritual way than that of the original film.
The more linear script by Steven Zaillian also manages to put the sequence of events in layman's terms for the intended American audience, which is probably a good thing for those who became too frustrated and abandoned the book, or are afraid of films with subtitles. The story deserves to be seen, even if digested in a more obvious way.
The violent scenes are no less horrific (especially a post-rape glimpse of Liseth in the shower); the chases no less tense.
All in all, a satisfying, if not yet as accurate retelling of a classic mystery that will certainly be shared for years to come.
~~~
It would be impossible not to compare this film to its Swedish predecessor or to the book where the story originated, so I won't pretend I'm trying not to; that said, I'll do my best to focus less on the differences and more on the core quality of the film.
Mikael Blomkvist (Craig) is a Swedish journalist being brought down in the court of public opinion for a story he wrote that turned out to be less than factual. He was most likely set up by the subject of the story, but that is beside the point now that his and his magazine's reputations are ruined. To remove himself from the public eye, he takes a job with a wealthy family to investigate a murder that happened several decades ago.
Lisbeth Salander (Mara) is the damaged, disturbed, unconventional investigator brought in to act as Blomkvist's research assistant. Because of her past mental health issues, she is forced to report to a guardian who is responsible for dispensing her allowances. Unfortunately, her caring guardian becomes hospitalized and she is assigned to a sadistic, horrible guardian who demands sexual favors in return for her own money. She devises a way to prevent this from happening, but in the meantime is brutally raped by the man.
Christopher Plummer plays Henrik Vanger, the wealthy member of a troubled family with a nazi past, desperate to find his niece's killer. As usual, Plummer gives a superb, believable performance in the role, but unfortunately his screen time is too brief.
I think the same of Robin Wright, who makes a fantastic Erika Berger, Mikael's boss and married lover. She's pitch perfect in the scenes she appears in, but they are few and far between.
Overall, the story stays somewhat close to the novel, though a few ridiculous details make me groan with American shame (the McDonald's product placement is blatant; there is a somewhat predictable mention of Ikea). I also agree with other critics who have mentioned that Mara's version of Lisbeth is far too feminine.
Aside from making Lisbeth 'pretty' in certain intimate scenes, she also appears to register emotion with Mikael, which is something the true character never would have done. They aren't a couple, but here, they behave like one.
Daniel Craig is also too good looking and too physically fit to be playing the smoking, eating Mikael. And far to few cups of coffee were consumed to stay true to the native text.
However, Fincher does work his magic in many ways.
The lighting and the shadows and the mood of the film are always spot on. Whether Liseth is blazing down the street on her motorcycle or watching a night vision camera to see who is prowling about the property, the aura of the story is captured in a more spiritual way than that of the original film.
The more linear script by Steven Zaillian also manages to put the sequence of events in layman's terms for the intended American audience, which is probably a good thing for those who became too frustrated and abandoned the book, or are afraid of films with subtitles. The story deserves to be seen, even if digested in a more obvious way.
The violent scenes are no less horrific (especially a post-rape glimpse of Liseth in the shower); the chases no less tense.
All in all, a satisfying, if not yet as accurate retelling of a classic mystery that will certainly be shared for years to come.
~~~
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Girl Who Played with Fire
Yesterday I saw The Girl Who Played with Fire, starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist.
Anyone who has read the novel this film was based on cannot help but compare the two, so I'll start by saying the filmmakers again did a good job of paring down the author's too-wordy text into simpler dialog, but I wish they hadn't changed certain details for the screen.
To explain them would be to spoil plot points for those who haven't yet seen the film, so I won't go into detail, but I will say that unless they payoff their changes in the third installment, I don't understand why they did it.
I also thought Lisbeth (Rapace) appeared less intelligent in this film, and that's something that could've easily been fixed by letting the camera linger on her smirks or having other characters reference her brilliance (as they do many times in the book).
My final complaint would be that Zala (Georgi Staykov) wasn't menacing enough for the monster that he is supposed to be. I was neither afraid nor repelled by his film version and felt that I should've been. Perhaps the director could've treated us to a few flashbacks with Liseth's mom?
On the good side: the casting again is superb. There isn't one person who doesn't fit the image of their literary likeness and act with conviction.
I also enjoyed the chemistry between Liseth and her girfriend Mimmi (Yasmine Garbi) and the tension between Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and Berger (Lena Andre).
In addition, as someone who is admittedly squeamish, I appreciated that the bloody scenes were not at all gratuitous and the violence true-to-life instead of ridiculous.
All in all, a satisfying middle to this thrilling trilogy.
~~~
Anyone who has read the novel this film was based on cannot help but compare the two, so I'll start by saying the filmmakers again did a good job of paring down the author's too-wordy text into simpler dialog, but I wish they hadn't changed certain details for the screen.
To explain them would be to spoil plot points for those who haven't yet seen the film, so I won't go into detail, but I will say that unless they payoff their changes in the third installment, I don't understand why they did it.
I also thought Lisbeth (Rapace) appeared less intelligent in this film, and that's something that could've easily been fixed by letting the camera linger on her smirks or having other characters reference her brilliance (as they do many times in the book).
My final complaint would be that Zala (Georgi Staykov) wasn't menacing enough for the monster that he is supposed to be. I was neither afraid nor repelled by his film version and felt that I should've been. Perhaps the director could've treated us to a few flashbacks with Liseth's mom?
On the good side: the casting again is superb. There isn't one person who doesn't fit the image of their literary likeness and act with conviction.
I also enjoyed the chemistry between Liseth and her girfriend Mimmi (Yasmine Garbi) and the tension between Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and Berger (Lena Andre).
In addition, as someone who is admittedly squeamish, I appreciated that the bloody scenes were not at all gratuitous and the violence true-to-life instead of ridiculous.
All in all, a satisfying middle to this thrilling trilogy.
~~~
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Today I saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, starring Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace.
I'm always hesitant to see a film created from a book I enjoyed, but in this case it worked out for the best. The parts of the book I found cumbersome and verbose are eliminated, yet the story is undoubtedly fulfilled.
Mikael (Nyqvist) is a journalist who has just been convicted for committing libel against a powerful, wealthy man. Never mind that he was probably framed; he agrees to go quietly into prison once his sentence commences in six months.
Before he can begin serving that sentence, he is contacted by the people of billionaire Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) to research the cold case murder of his niece Harriet who went missing 40 years ago. He is reluctant to take the offer, but the money is good, and coincidentally the missing woman babysat him in youth, so perhaps he feels remotely obligated.
Mikael doesn't get too far solving the mystery until he begins working alongside Lisbeth (Rapace), a twentysomething woman he caught hacking into his computer who has major social issues (and a menacing dragon tattoo).
Together they find the pieces of the never-forgotten puzzle and get close to one another as they discover them. On the side, Liseth overcomes some horrific personal violence (and no, if you can't handle brutal rape scenes, you shouldn't see this film) and fights demons from her own past.
The film succeeds in playing this all out in a realistic way. Nothing is over-stylized and the dialog is completely believable. We care about the characters enough to want to save them and root for any connections they can build with each other. That is both a testament to the strong adapted screenplay and the perfect casting of the two main leads. Really, how will any Americans measure up to them in a remake?
This was a very satisfying screen version of a book that could have been shorter. However, if you're going to devour both the film and the book, be sure to read the book first or you may not make it to the end.
~~~
I'm always hesitant to see a film created from a book I enjoyed, but in this case it worked out for the best. The parts of the book I found cumbersome and verbose are eliminated, yet the story is undoubtedly fulfilled.
Mikael (Nyqvist) is a journalist who has just been convicted for committing libel against a powerful, wealthy man. Never mind that he was probably framed; he agrees to go quietly into prison once his sentence commences in six months.
Before he can begin serving that sentence, he is contacted by the people of billionaire Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) to research the cold case murder of his niece Harriet who went missing 40 years ago. He is reluctant to take the offer, but the money is good, and coincidentally the missing woman babysat him in youth, so perhaps he feels remotely obligated.
Mikael doesn't get too far solving the mystery until he begins working alongside Lisbeth (Rapace), a twentysomething woman he caught hacking into his computer who has major social issues (and a menacing dragon tattoo).
Together they find the pieces of the never-forgotten puzzle and get close to one another as they discover them. On the side, Liseth overcomes some horrific personal violence (and no, if you can't handle brutal rape scenes, you shouldn't see this film) and fights demons from her own past.
The film succeeds in playing this all out in a realistic way. Nothing is over-stylized and the dialog is completely believable. We care about the characters enough to want to save them and root for any connections they can build with each other. That is both a testament to the strong adapted screenplay and the perfect casting of the two main leads. Really, how will any Americans measure up to them in a remake?
This was a very satisfying screen version of a book that could have been shorter. However, if you're going to devour both the film and the book, be sure to read the book first or you may not make it to the end.
~~~
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Secret in Their Eyes
Today I saw The Secret in Their Eyes, starring Ricardo Darin and Soledad Villamil.
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Precious
Tonight I screened Precious, starring Gabourey Sidibe and Mo' Nique.
Clareece (Sidibe) is a 16-year-old student living in Harlem who is known as "Precious" to her family and teachers.
She does well in school though she can't read or write, and comes home every night to cook and take care of her physically and verbally abusive mother Mary (Mo'Nique), who is a welfare recipient that likes to watch game shows.
Clareece's principal expels her when she learns she is pregnant with her second child and arranges for her to enroll at a nearby alternative school. What the school administration doesn't realize is that the child, like Clareece's toddler-age daughter, is the product of rape. By her father.
Precious is overweight, illiterate, poor and ridiculed, but something about her spirit enables her to seek a better future for herself. Despite the protest of her mother (who feels she should also go on welfare), she applies herself at the alternative school, learning to read and write. Her teacher takes a special interest in her and builds the first healthy relationship she's probably ever had.
A counselor (played by a surprisingly good Mariah Carey) is also assigned to her, and the truth about her family life begins to unfold, which serves as a healing force in the progress of Precious.
Soon she's made friends at school, given birth to a baby in a hospital and vows to make a better life for herself and her son.
Then life interferes and throws another enormous trauma her way.
At this point in the film, after watching a slew of amazing performances, I wondered how much more the writer could put on the actors. If Precious were a real human being, there is very little chance she could've survived everything she was forced to endure without losing her mind.
But the sad thing is, there are a lot of Precious teens out there. Probably many who have suffered similar grievances and come out of it bearing only hidden scars.
The film does a good job of getting to the core of each of our main characters and also making them real enough to worry about. Truly, it felt more like a call to action than a means of entertainment.
But sometimes, that's okay.
~~~
Clareece (Sidibe) is a 16-year-old student living in Harlem who is known as "Precious" to her family and teachers.
She does well in school though she can't read or write, and comes home every night to cook and take care of her physically and verbally abusive mother Mary (Mo'Nique), who is a welfare recipient that likes to watch game shows.
Clareece's principal expels her when she learns she is pregnant with her second child and arranges for her to enroll at a nearby alternative school. What the school administration doesn't realize is that the child, like Clareece's toddler-age daughter, is the product of rape. By her father.
Precious is overweight, illiterate, poor and ridiculed, but something about her spirit enables her to seek a better future for herself. Despite the protest of her mother (who feels she should also go on welfare), she applies herself at the alternative school, learning to read and write. Her teacher takes a special interest in her and builds the first healthy relationship she's probably ever had.
A counselor (played by a surprisingly good Mariah Carey) is also assigned to her, and the truth about her family life begins to unfold, which serves as a healing force in the progress of Precious.
Soon she's made friends at school, given birth to a baby in a hospital and vows to make a better life for herself and her son.
Then life interferes and throws another enormous trauma her way.
At this point in the film, after watching a slew of amazing performances, I wondered how much more the writer could put on the actors. If Precious were a real human being, there is very little chance she could've survived everything she was forced to endure without losing her mind.
But the sad thing is, there are a lot of Precious teens out there. Probably many who have suffered similar grievances and come out of it bearing only hidden scars.
The film does a good job of getting to the core of each of our main characters and also making them real enough to worry about. Truly, it felt more like a call to action than a means of entertainment.
But sometimes, that's okay.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)