A Trip (Back) To The Movies: Review – “There Will Be Blood” (2007) 8.22.15

This marked my fourth weekend in a row taking a trip out to see yet another in a list of seven films that falls into the complete filmography of American writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson which is being shown as a retrospective at the Portland Art Museum. I love pretty much all of Anderson’s work to date. And as mentioned in a previous review, I would consider both “Boogie Nights” (1997) and “Magnolia” (1999) to both be 2 films that would take a spot in my top 10 favorite films of all time. And Anderson being the only director to have more than one film in my top 10. So with that said, of all of his films this was the one that I was the most interested in revisiting. Mostly because I remember being rather indifferent about it the first time I saw it on the big screen when I first moved to Portland over 8 years ago. Since then, my indifference has only grown. As I have refused to watch it on DVD or anything else other than the theater. And since it’s taken me this long to be able to do so. I have spent many years away from this film thinking of Anderson more in terms of his influence on me from the 2 other films that preceded it mentioned above. It’s almost as if my memory of seeing it that first time, it having been so long ago now, got shrouded and I could only remember certain key images and half scenes. So in walking into it today, with a chance to catch it in 35mm (the original print of how the director intended for you to see it – awfully rare now in the day of digital) I found myself both enthusiastic and also slightly not expecting of what I was going to find, several years later, with a fresh new set of eyes.

I won’t spend time divulging into the film’s plot as like with many of these “trips back to the movies” I’m imagining many people who are going to read this have already seen the film and know what it’s about. But what I will do in the paragraph that follows is give a more fleshed out review. Of what I thought about the film this time around being in that it was my first time seeing it since its 2007 release.

“There Will Be Blood” winds up being an excoriating study of greed, the constructive and destructive powers of competitiveness, and people’s ambition. It’s a vastly cinematic, darkly personal tale of one man seemingly without one single redemptive quality. There’s a vague nuance in the way it’s filmed, which became much more apparent to me when seeing it this time around. Anderson decides to concentrate on long, almost silent-like passages and huge, open panoramic shots (from long time Anderson DP Robert Elswit, who provides some tremendous cinematography (which he got an Oscar win for) ) in both size and scope. It delves to the most painful depths of a man who, by some standards could be looked at as a success or maybe even genius. But Anderson seems to want to probe much deeper and deliver us a story about how this success and genius could lead someone so far down a path, that they wind up being what psychologists would call a sociopath.

But really, all I’ve talked about here so far are merely the great underlying messages and technical achievements that are contained within the film. The true brunt of the film is in Daniel Day Lewis’ methodical performance as an anti-hero oilman Daniel Plainview. A man who is willing to turn all of nature’s vast number of resources and turn them into monetary bounty, regardless of the cost it has on him, or the rest of the world for that matter. Day Lewis’s character becomes the poster boy for what has and still continues to hurt America and the rest of the world: oil. The greed, violence, and aggression that come from it, the religious fervor, the paranoia behind its policies, and the betrayal of our own people because of its Capitalist ideologies. All are brilliantly mirrored through one man, Daniel Plainview, and we as a viewer get to see in first hand account the harsh impact of what all these things can do to a man. Similarly to Al Pacino in Brian DePalma’s “Scarface” (1983) but set around another boom-or-bust era, it looks at things from a different context but exposes the same universal truths. Both of these stories revolve around men who are so hungry, so lusting for wealth and power, that their quest in creating it for themselves makes monsters out of them. Day Lewis here was nothing short of memorizing in an almost “I want to look away but I can’t” scene stealing performance that I can honestly say, even having just seen the film, that it’s a career best one for the undeniably gifted actor. There were several moments throughout while watching it, in taking an intent look at his performance this time around, that allowed me to come to the conclusion that I did above. It’s an incredible feat from a still then young (32 years of age) writer/director in Anderson, who by this point had proven in less than a decade that he is one modern-day America’s true cinematic auteurs, while acting once again as a reminder to the true genius of Daniel Day Lewis, who eschews every frame and marches to the beat of Anderson’s drum in expert fashion. It’s a damn fine film and I can understand why people have and still do consider it to be Anderson’s masterpiece. However, I will take it one step further and call it not only Anderson’s but Daniel Day Lewis’ masterpiece too. Because well, this picture would only be half as great as it turned out being if it didn’t have one without the other.

[A]

Paul Thomas Anderson’s – There Will Be Blood – w/Daniel-Day Lewis and Paul Dano

Saturday, Aug 22, 2015, 4:00 PM

Whitsell Auditorium
1219 SW Park Avenue Portland, OR

2 Portland Film Enthusiasts Went

Another selection as part of The Portland Art Museum’s ongoing career retrospective of one of the greatest American directors in modern day cinema.Synopsis: Anderson’s features, while always sharpening their edges as they go, have never been hard-as-nails as this adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s novel OIL!. Academy Award winner for Best Actor Daniel…

Check out this Meetup →

A Trip (Back) To The Movies: Review – “Boogie Nights” (1997) 8.1.15

The Portland Art Museum is showing a career retrospective of a writer-director whose work was single-handedly responsible in my formative years as a young teenager in my quest of developing my own vocabulary of film. THE Paul Thomas Anderson (who I still call by his original name). To others he goes by PT Anderson, or simply PTA. “Boogie Nights” and Anderson’s follow-up “Magnolia” (1999) I consider to be my generation’s “Godfather Parts 1 and 2”. I vividly remember seeing “Boogie Nights” for the first time after taking my first ever film studies class at the age of 16. While I liked it at the time, I could never imagine that over the years, as I got older and grew to understand it more (that and being infatuated with it from a film lover’s standpoint), the impact it would have on me. Like with maybe a dozen or so other movies that I hold in such a high regard as it it’s almost as if, through time and various re-watchings of it, I’ve developed almost a “relationship” with it. One that I mean in the utmost literal sense of the word. As I continue to grow older and time passes it’s become one of those films that when I revisit it from time to time, I get flashbacks from my childhood along with a constant reminder of why I developed such a deep appreciation for film in the first place. This screening of it was one of the most “special” in that it was playing as a retrospective honoring Anderson and his body of work at one of the most state of the art theaters in Portland at an auditorium that sits inside of the art museum. Not only that, but it was my first time seeing it as an adult with a meetup group I started (click on the link below the review for more details). All of whom are big time movie buffs, some even more so than myself, and I was interested to find out if it had the same kind of impact on them as it does and still has on me. Which became apparent with this viewing, my first viewing of it on the big screen since it came out 18 years ago (can you believe its been that long?). After an introduction by the museum’s curator, seated among a half to two-thirds 375-person capacity theater, the house lights went down and a feeling of euphoria rushed over me as I buckled myself in for the next 2 and a half hours. I’m guessing that most of you have seen the picture, whether it was in the nineties when it first came out, or like me, have continued to revisit it over the years.

So I will keep the synopsis brief. The story revolves around the adult film industry covering from the mid seventies through the mid eighties. Through the film’s incredible opening tracking shot through a nightclub we meet the film’s many colorful cast of characters (still in my opinion the best ensemble cast ever assembled on-screen). There’s the film’s patriarchal porn director Jack Horner (played by Burt Reynolds who won a deserving Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor for his performance), the matriarchal mother figure and porn actress (Oscar nominee for Best Supporting Actress Julianne Moore), porn stars Rollergirl (Heather Graham) and Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly), as well as a number of others involved in Horner’s production company of X-rated films. Buck (Don Cheadle), Scotty (Philip Seymour Hoffman), among a slew of other notable character actor’s who are interwoven into the story like Thomas Jane, Paul Thomas Anderson regular Philip Baker Hall, Melora Walters, Luis Guzman, Macy’s wife – real life porn star Nina Hartley (who scenes produce some of the films more funny moments). But at the epicenter of the film is Eddie Adams (aka “Dirk Diggler”) played by the relatively new at the time (at least in the film industry) Mark Wahlberg (still his best performance to date imo). Reynolds’ Jack Horner “discovers” Eddie one day and realizes he possesses “a gift” that could elevate both of their careers in terms of what he could potentially offer the adult film industry. That’s basically the setup. And the film goes on to explore Eddie’s subsequent rise and fall to fame.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s film is still just as relevant and influential as it was at the time of its release 18 years ago. And I’ll tell you why – first and foremost – it was the film to launch the careers of almost every actor involved in it (with the exception of Burt Reynolds of course). Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, John C. Reilly, Heather Graham, etc. It launched all of their careers and made many of them household names in the years that followed. It’s also the strongest debut from a writer-director (Anderson was only 27 at the time he made it) who would go on to be one of the most revered and beloved filmmakers in the independent film movement (second to maybe Quentin Tarantino). It’s one of the few films that has the PTA’s signature stamp on almost every shot of the film. The second thing I want to point out is that the film’s soundtrack composed of some of the best and most recognizable songs from the eras in which it portrays, really adds a nice component as it makes you literally almost feel like you’re living in the period in which the film depicts. It’s also one of the few films, at least to me, that perfectly represents the “rise and fall” genre of films, even taking into account films that preceded it almost in the decade before it like Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull” (1980) or Brian DePalma’s version of “Scarface” (1983). As well as it being a critique on the nature of celebrity with Eddie Adams’/Dirk Diggler’s rise in the seventies as a young up-and-comer (no pun intended) to his fall in the early eighties when his celebrity leads up to become a narcissistic bigot. A man so in love with himself that he doesn’t see the world crumbling out from underneath him. It’s a great character study with a spectacular performance by Wahlberg that’s only matched by Anderson’s pitch perfect recreation of the time in which he depicts. “Boogie Nights” has been embedded and etched into my memory forever, and from time to time will continue to pop up as it has over the years as a constant reminder of why I fell in love with film as an art form in the first place. In a film considered by many, including myself, to still be Paul Thomas Anderson’s greatest masterpiece.

[A+]

Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights @ Portland Art Museum’s Whitsell Auditorium

Saturday, Aug 1, 2015, 4:00 PM

Whitsell Auditorium
1219 SW Park Avenue Portland, OR

5 Portland Film Enthusiasts Went

The Portland Art Museum is doing a career retrospective of who is arguably one of the greatest directors in contemporary cinema – THE Paul Thomas Anderson. Starting this weekend with “Hard Eight” and ending in September with last year’s “Inherent Vice” along with a number of other different films from some of his biggest influences. Of all of them …

Check out this Meetup →

A Trip To The Movies – Review: “A Most Violent Year” 3.29.15

I can think of at least three people I know, that had seen this film prior to my seeing it, and all three had the same thing to say about it – “I really liked it, but I think it would be something that you would love“. I didn’t quite know what to make of the comments other than mostly everyone I know knows that I have somewhat of a particular eye for film, and that my tastes seem to be a bit more aligned with independent or what some consider to be art-house films. So I interpreted this comment to mean that maybe it fell a bit on the artsy side of the film spectrum. Though people also know that I’m a big Oscar Isaac fan and consider him to be amongst the very best in the crop of young actors currently working in the film industry (the only two actors out there right now within his age bracket who are as good as him are probably Joaquin Phoenix and Jake Gyllenhaal). What I don’t think a lot of people know is how much of a fan I am of writer/director J.C. Chandor. Who’s maybe one of, if not the most promising up and coming young directors, who also happens to be pretty brand new to the film industry but whose two feature films prior to this one I really enjoyed. In 2011 he released “Margin Call”, a mostly overlooked and underappreciated film about one long night revolving around a group of business men and woman the night prior to the economic collapse of 2008. I was almost as equally impressed with his last film – 2013’s “All Is Lost” about a shipwrecked man played by Robert Redford (which deservedly garnered him a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor). Then I saw the trailer for his latest film, this one, and started to think this guy might be one of the next true auteurs, because not only does he write and direct, but I began to start to realize that he may be the next true “genre” director as all of his films seemed to be entirely different then the one previous to it. Which is incredibly rare these days inside the studio system because a lot of directors (and there are several exceptions mind you) seem to make a hit film and then make subsequent films that don’t really deviate or stray away from the formula that originally worked for them. Chandor, like Bennett Miller (“Capote”, “Moneyball, “Foxcatcher”) seems to not really care about anything other than making high quality genre pictures. So when I heard that his newest film was a crime drama taking place in New York City in the early eighties to say my interest was piqued would be an understatement. Especially considering the number of people who said it was a very specific type of film for a very particular audience, that being someone like myself, my anticipation for it grew quite considerably.

“A Most Violent Year” centers around an immigrant, Abel Morales (played by Oscar Isaac), who lives in New York City circa 1981. Which we’re soon told was one of the most violent years for crime in the city’s history. Abel is a hard-working man who owns an oil business and who seemingly is trying to make a name for himself. At the beginning of the film one of Abel’s oil drivers is beaten down after an interstate hijacking. Abel’s wife, Anna (played by the ever so reliable Jessica Chastain), also his bookkeeper/accountant, comes from a Mob-like mentality family, as does the local teamster’s union reps, pressure Abel to fight violence with violence. Which puts him at a sort of inner conflict because he wants to be a business man and not a gangster. To top off his precarious situation with his business, he’s also informed by the local District Attorney (played by “Selma”‘s David Oyelowo) that he is being investigated for a number of different illegal activities that they think he is somehow involved with. Abel seeks council from his lawyer (Albert Brooks – great to see him back in tbe first role I’ve seen him in since “Drive”) in an upcoming deal he has lined up with a Hasidic owner of a local fuel oil terminal, which is the kind of deal that he’s been waiting an entire lifetime for. This deal is the major plot device that drives the story. But can he close it under the pressure of the number of oil competitors, a loving but seemingly untrustworthy wife, unreliable employees, teamsters union, and the District Attorney. Who with the exception of his loving wife, seem to be willing to do just about everything possible to stand in his way to try to make sure the deal doesn’t go through.

This was a brilliantly well made and executed film that defied my preconceived notions and wound up exceeding my expectations and then some. This is writer/director J.C. Chandor paying homage to the classic Hollywood gangster/crime family drama. Incorporating just about every element we’ve come to expect from the genre. The acting is also outstanding. Particularly from its two lead performances, in what felt like it should have been an Academy Award nominated turn by Oscar Isaac who is nothing short of exemplary, as well as Chastain, who wound up receiving a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress for her fine work here. Chandor does a masterful job at recreating the look of early 1980’s New York City, filmed in a brown/yellowish color palette (what I call “cigarette stain”) where everything looks broken down, dilapidated, and decaying. A look that I thought was perfect given the context of the film. In terms of feel it felt like some of the seminal films of the genre like Francis Ford Coppola’s first two “Godfather” films (complete with Isaac putting on his very best Al Pacino/Don Corleone impression), Brian DePalma’s “Scarface” (in terms of its underlying theme of an immigrant trying to become an opportunist in the pursuit of the American Dream), as well as some of the crime films of Martin Scorsese (though much more subtle). At times it felt like it shared more of a direct influence with David Michod’s “Animal Kingdom”, which also took a rather stark and bleak look at the decimation of a crime family. The major difference here is that unlike the Michod film, Abel is not a criminal in the same sense as the characters in that film were but rather becomes one as a mere byproduct of the turbulent times he lives in. I was also thoroughly impressed with its deft storytelling which had me thoroughly engaged from the opening credits through its final frame. Not once did I look down at my watch the entire time (which admittedly I’m sometimes guilty of doing even in other good films just to see how far along we are in the story). There was a tense underlying feeling of unease that permeated as the events that unfold give the film an almost paranoiac feel. Last but not least, don’t believe anything you hear about it being a bit of a slow-moving story with little to no actual violence leading some people I’ve heard go so far as to say they have a hard time even considering it being labeled an actual “crime” film. Well let me be the one to dispel those myths. It is very much a crime film, containing almost all, if not every component contained within the genre. Also, if by “slow” people mean a potboiler/nailbiter that takes its time telling its story than I’m sorry. You just may not have gotten the director’s intentions behind delivering the story in the way that he did. The violence may be sparse yes, but when it comes boy does it pack a wallop. I can’t even count on two hands how many times both my myself and the people around me gasped at some of the film’s more shocking moments (and there were plenty of them). This is writer/director J.C. Chandor’s best work to date, as was the case with its star, Oscar Isaac. It’s an old school, classic, crime drama, that if been given a proper release date of last year like it did almost everywhere else, it would have most likely wound up earning itself a spot on my list of the best films of the year. In a year where we saw a slew of director’s making their masterpieces, here is yet another one that deserved way more attention than it got, marking J.C. Chandor as the new poster boy of genre filmmaking.

[strong B+]

Review – ‘Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Bulger’ 10.18.14

Extra Large Movie Poster Image for Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Bulger

In what was probably my second most anticipated documentary of the year behind “Life Itself”. Joe Berlinger’s (“Paradise Lost” Trilogy) “Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Burgler” tells the story of James “Whitey” Bulger, the notorious South Boston crime boss who Martin Scorcese based Jack Nicholson’s character off of in his film “The Departed”. Brought to us by CNN films, a brand new subsidiary of CNN that focuses primarily on documentary features, and who has released both last year’s excellent and haunting “Blackfish” and this year’s “Life Itself” (currently at my #1 spot for both best documentary and best film of the year). They seem to be at the current forefront of financing specific documentaries so that they can be released to a wider audience. And so far, I can say I am very impressed with the types of documentaries that they’re producing. But even more reason why I was excited because this was by documentarian Joe Berlinger, the director of such acclaimed films as his superb 1992 documentary “Brother’s Keeper”, which focused on a the trial of a semi-illiterate farmer, the 1996, 2000, and 2011 “Paradise Lost” Trilogy, about the unfortunate long and drawn out trial of the West Memphis 3. Which mind you are three of some of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Then 2004’s probing look at the band Metallica in “Metallica: Some Kind of Monster”, and finally 2009’s intense examination of the South American oil trade “Crude”. Berlinger is right up there with the caliber of documentary filmmakers like Werner Herzog (“Grizzly Man”), Alex Gibney (“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”), Steve James (“Hoop Dreams”), Davis Guggenheim (“An Inconvenient Truth”), Errol Morris (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara”), James Marsh (“Man on Wire”), and Ken Burns (“The Central Park 5”). All documentary filmmakers who are at the top of their game and whose documentaries almost never fail to disappoint.

The film starts off by introducing us to several South Boston residents, most of whom were either eye witnesses or victims of families who were terrorized by “Whitey” (aka James Burgler otherwise known as “The Irish Godfather”) who reigned and was king of the organized crime world in the United States for almost 25 years going back to the mid seventies and staying in power until the late nineties, which at that point he went on the lam for 13 years until his capture in 2011. Whitey was the boss of the infamous Walter Hill gang, a band of Boston wiseguys who were completely and utterly ruthless, menacing, and terrorizing in equal respects, and who also were responsible for dozens of murders. Whitey’s ring grew so big that by the late nineties to early aughts he landed a #2 spot on the FBI’s Most Wanted. Second to that of only Osama Bin Laden. But here’s the kicker – he had also been an FBI informant for years. Whitey was let free to run wild and become the head of the most notorious gang the United States has ever seen. All while under the knowing eye of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Only to be informed by the same organization he helped out to essentially flee, then land on their list of Most Wanted, until his capture in 2011. Where at the age of 83 he would go on to be tried for 19 murders. The documentary focuses on Whitey’s rise, his reign of terror, his relationship with the FBI, wiseguys, informants, trial lawyers, eye witnesses, and families of victims; mostly in and around the Boston area. And asks the central question – how could a Mob boss who headed a gang that was so ruthless possibly have also worked for the United States government?

There is a little something for everyone in this documentary. Being in that I have always been fascinated by the Mob. Like most guys I know who were at a young age. I was always interested in people like Al Capone and John Gotti. That and I loved films like Frances Ford Coppola’s exemplary “Godfather” Trilogy (1972, 1974, and 1990), Brian DePalma’s 1987 film “The Untouchables”, and what still might be arguably the best film made about the Mob – Martin Scorcese’s “Goodfellas” (1990). Anybody with even the faintest interest in any of the above people or films will most likely find this documentary worthwhile. It’s filled with informative interviews from members of the Boston community who were in some way involved with Whitey, be it by association with the Mob or by ways of being a victim of them. It also contains some great archival footage, voice recordings, and eye witness testimonies. Furthermore it’s a compelling and thought provoking look at both his rise and fall as well as the deep, multi-layered levels of government corruption. Particularly by that of the FBI. The amount of protection this guy received from one of our supposed to be most trusted government organizations is appalling. Lastly, I thought it did a fairly good comprehensive job at depicting Whitey’s run from his rise to his fall, as well as the court proceedings that took place when he eventually was captured in 2011. The only couple of criticisms I had were at times it felt like an overload of information that I personally had a hard time following. Similar to when I watch Asian films about crime families. Just the sheer amount of people involved from all aspects, while important to depict, can often times be overwhelming and can wind up confusing the viewer. Which at a few points happened to me here. It also felt slightly one-sided, in that most all of the testimony you see or hear from people in the film are from people who are against Whitey and want to see him put in jail. Which is totally understandable. I just thought to myself there had to still be some Whitey supporters that they could have interviewed to go along with it which would have made it seem a bit more balanced. Those two criticisms aside, this is a well thought out, comprehensive, thought provoking depiction of one of the most notorious crime bosses in United States history and his own
government who protected him.

Grade: B