First, a rant. I’m not sure I could give a coherent definition of a “chick flick” or even identify one if asked. Sure, there is Sex and the City (will women really buy shoes that cost more than a month’s rent?), and anything starring Hugh Grant, but the term is too nebulous for me. Just because a movie is about a bunch of girlfriends and their man troubles, does that make it a chick flick? Does it have to have Abba music?
What I do know when I see it is a tearjerker, a soap opera, a story calculated to make the viewer cry buckets with calculated sad events. Some of these, Terms of Endearment or Ordinary People, are so vile and tasteless that I cannot account for the people who love them. I hated both of them, and was offended by their blatant manipulation of emotions. This usually involves someone dying, often of “movie disease,” where the victim looks great until the deathbed scene. One recent movie contrived to put the victim in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Crass and vulgar.
Wondering why people like these films is pointless. I love horror films that scare the living snot out of me (so few these days, alas). Some people like films starring Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler, I guess because laughing at someone they perceive as stupider than them is somehow enriching. So, I guess “having a good cry” at a movie, wallowing in emotions with no real consequences, can be cathartic, or something. Crime films and horror films exploit death for plot purposes, so using death to evoke tears is no better or worse morally.
Another type of movie I dislike is what I call the coincidence film, one where a group of disparate people is brought together by events, who may interact even without knowing it. There is nothing wrong with the concept, per se, but every time I see one I am struck by the contrived events and desperate pseudo-profundity. Wow, so meaningful, that car crash or the purchase of that rifle, Crash and Babel, respectively. Such forced irony. Such second-rate writing.
What, may I ask, is the point? I don’t see one. And that leads me to the movie reviewed below.
Mother and Child
Director: Rodrigo Garcia
With: Annette Bening, Naomi Watts, Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Kerry Washington, S. Epatha Merkerson, David Ramsey, Cherry Jones
There is a lot to admire in this movie, mostly the acting. Despite the problems I had with the writing and the concept, I was able to hang in because of the performances.
Karen (Bening) is a bossy and guarded woman who gave up a baby for adoption when she was a girl of 14. That baby, Elizabeth (Watts), is now a full-grown neurotic with commitment issues and an inability to stay put anywhere for very long.
She seduces her boss Paul (Jackson) and becomes pregnant by him, so she naturally takes off for another place. I can’t say any more about this without giving too much away.
Lucy (Washington) and Joseph (Ramsey) are a childless couple looking to adopt. They are thwarted until Elizabeth’s baby becomes available.
Karen, meanwhile, undergoes a change of heart which is not only surprising, but unbelievable. So, she decides to try to find the baby she gave away years before.
And, so, all these people are brought together in that Lego building way that we see in all movies like this. What’s different here is the men, all of whom are decent and support and love their women, only to be left out of any major decisions. Paco (Smits) tries hard to soften Karen with uncritical love. Paul loves Elizabeth and wants to do right by her. Joseph is bewildered by Lucy and Lucy’s mother Ada (Merkerson), and withdraws into himself.
I sure wish these actors had something beyond trite soap opera and coincidence to work with. But, they don’t. This is at least a three-hanky weeper, and a waste of time if you are after a coherent story with characters who act like humans.
A half-grade up for the acting.
C-
Shrek Forever After (Animated, 3D)
Director: Mike Mitchell
Voices of: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Walt Dohrn, etc.
They promise this will be the last of the series, and not a bad way to go out. Shrek (Myers), once a fearsome ogre, is now a domesticated family man whose days are marked by dreary sameness. He acts up at a birthday party for his triplets, and takes off in a snit.
He runs into Rumpelstiltskin (Dohrn), a discredited flim-flam artist, who tricks him into a contract that causes him to have never been born. The kingdom of Far Far Away becomes Rumpelstiltskin’s personal fiefdom, which he runs like a demented tyrant with the help of a flock of witches as his enforcers. Shrek has until sunrise to get Fiona (Diaz) to kiss him with true love, or he ceases to exist. Fiona, of course, does not know him because he’s never been born, you see.
The usual creatures are there. Donkey (Murphy) who is an abused pack animal, and Puss in Boots (Banderas), who has become a pampered and grossly fat lap cat. Shrek must enlist their help to accomplish his goal.
Oh, yes. The ogres are in rebellion and living underground under the leadership of Fiona, their warrior-queen. Got it?
What makes this fun is that the formula has been shaken up and Shrek is back to being a creature of action and courage. Murphy hams it up, yes, the shtick is still funny, and Puss in Boots can still work the cute like crazy. Plus, there is the clever use of pop music in the soundtrack.
Maybe not as great as the first one, but fun nonetheless. The 3D is effective, but not essential. If you can save a few bucks by seeing it in 2D, go for it.
B
The Exploding Girl
Director: Bradley Rust Gray
With: Zoe Kazan, Mark Rendall
If, as Hitchcock said, movies are life with the dull parts removed, this movie must be an out-take reel. Ponderous, slow-moving and dull, with a ho-hum story dreary even by mumblecore standards.
Al’s (Rendall) parents have rented out his room, so he asks if he can stay with Ivy (Kazan) and her mom. They are old friends, not romantically involved, but you can see this one coming from jump street.
Ivy has a boy friend, who appears only on cell phone (talk about phoning in your performance), and seems hinky right away. So, we see her sleeping, moping, doing something with kids, thrown in to give her a life, I guess, and hanging out with friends. Then she mopes some more, hangs out with Al at parties, and we learn that she has epilepsy. This revelation adds nothing to the story, but nothing is what the story is all about.
Then, Al starts asking her advice about other women, and her boyfriend breaks up with her by phone. So, finally, she and Al get together to no one’s surprise except the characters. And, even this is accomplished as though everyone is on heavy medication.
By this time, I was looking for some escape myself. If you like mumblecore, you probably think I am insensitive and lacking taste. If you are less impressed with the genre, save your money.
D
It Came From Kuchar (Doc, 2009)
Director: Jennifer M. Kroot
The Kuchar brothers practically invented the campy underground film, and this is a good introduction to their work. Starting around 1960, first as a team and then separately, twins George and Mike Kuchar injected a sense of fun and weirdness in their films, and have been both favorites and inspirations of filmmakers like John Waters, Atom Egoyan, Wayne Wang and Guy Maddin, all of whom speak in this documentary. In fact, Waters admits that his work might have been impossible without them.
We get to hear some of the actors, and friends like cartoonist Bill Griffith, discuss the movies and the somewhat unhinged lives of the twins. All this is delightful and informative, including scenes from some of the classics, like Hold Me While I’m Naked, Sins of the Fleshapoids, and The Devil’s Cleavage. All of these set the tone for what became the camp humor of the 60s, and were much more fun than the grim “serious” underground films.
Good stuff for those who know their work or want to find out.
B+
One more thing. The Red Shoes is playing at Cinema 21. Go see this movie. Bring a child.