because you can't have too much entertainment... November 2001

Not Playing at a Theater Near You

Three films that deserve larger runs...
Focus Dir: Neil Slavin Starring: William H Macy, Meatloaf & Laura Dern.
Intimacy Dir: Patrice Chereau Starring: Kerry Fox, Timothy Spall, and Mark Ryl
Our Song Dir: Jim McKay Starring: Kerry Washington

Intimacy
If you have heard any buzz on this English film, directed by Patrice Chéreau (La Reine Margot), chances are it's been referred to as a 2001 repeat of last year's acclaimed French film "An Affair of Love" (also known as Une Liaison Pornographique.) But I'm hear to say that that's something of a misleading notion. While it's true that the two films are identical in premise (both deal with strangers who meet weekly for no-strings-attached sex) the motion pictures are miles apart in temperament and resonant in dissimilar ways. It's startling to say but An Affair of Love, a French film, was like a sunny day compared to its English language counterpart.

Sergi Lopez and Nathalie Baye, the stars of An Affair had a luminous and mature relationship and met for coffee to discuss what they wanted from their time together. Here, in this newer film Mark Rylance as "Jay" and Kerry Fox as "Claire" say next to nothing to each other. The first line of dialogue in the film is "Was this agreed?" The response a cold quick snap of a "no." It's typical of the lovers' exchanges for a good portion of the film and also indicative of the coolness of the whole enterprise.

The sex is naturally and similarly abrupt. Rarely do these two make it more than a minute into a scene before their clothes are scattered about and they're rutting like rabbits. A great deal of this film's notorietry springs from the graphic nature of the sex scenes. Yes, Rylance and Fox are actually having sex onscreen. Full frontal, erect, actual sex. It does carry with it a jolt. But not, perhaps, for the reasons you expect. Often in films, sex scenes, no matter how well they're done or how masterfully they're faked...tend to remove one from the storyline at hand. Here in this intriguing film, the sex is the story.

Consequently, whenever the two brave actors put their clothes back on, the film gets similarly buttoned up. This leads to a stop and go rhythm for a story that would have benefited more from a slow continual build of momentum. This is not to say that the film doesn't pack an emotional wallop. It does. But the question remains how much stronger it could have been as a film with a few minor adjustments in structure, pacing, and editing. The film's intelligent screenplay, adapted from the writings of Hanif Kureshi (My Beautiful Laundrette), and the fine central performances from Fox and Rylance aid immeasurably in overcoming the film's flaws and reaching its desired thematic punch and impact. The last sequence between Fox and Rylance is heartbreaking and expertly performed. It clarifies in a refreshingly non-pedantic way the message, as it were. Emotional intimacy is not something that can be controlled to protect ourselves. It will inevitably surface despite our best efforts to keep it at bay.

Focus
Debuting motion picture director Neil Slavin set quite a task for himself. He's based his ambitious first film on an early novel by famed playwright and provocateur Arthur Miller. This allegorical story, concerns a personnel manager, Lawrence Newman, living in New York City during World War II. His life changes abruptly after buying a pair of glasses which make him appear 'Jewish' to those around him. People at his work and in his neighborhood begin to shun him. In a state of perpetual confusion he loses his job, falls in love, and continues to be plagued by exclusion and threats. At this point in time a film that identifies the dangers of exclusionary patriotism and prejudice should be striking a chord. Instead, the film seems to be meeting with indifference. It could be the source material but I bet it's the mode of delivery. Let me explain...

Arthur Miller's greatest triumphs as a writer took place on the stage. There is in his writing a degree of allegory that is traditionally thought to be easier to pull off onstage than onscreen. For my money Slavin and screenwriter Kendrew Lascelles have done a reasonably good job with a difficult task. There is, unfortunately for the filmmakers, a great deal of resistance to allegory in movies. Film critics and audiences, if reviews and box office are used as measure, seem to prefer traditional storytelling to stylization and symbolism. I think it's our failing as an audience to not allow for a wide array of tools and modes of storytelling. It shows a real lack of imagination to reject an entire film on the basis of something not being realistic or "believable". The most common complaint that I've read about the film is that William H Macy and Laura Dern, for all their actorly skill, don't appear even remotely Jewish -thereby negating the potential effect of the story.

So many people are missing the point.

It matters not a whit that Lawrence Newman and Gertrude Hart don't appear Jewish to us as moviegoers. In fact, the film is more powerful for it. The point is that in their society they do not fit in. They become easy targets for ostracization and since they make their neighbors uncomfortable, they become "the other." The other in an anti-semitic time is Jewish. Twenty years ago it was homophobia that ran rampant. In today's political climate it would be those of Arabic descent that are demonized. The movie is not about the particulars of anti-semitism so much as it is about the ignorance and hatred inherent in prejudice. The film is not realistic in delivery but it is truthful in subject matter and tone, so what's the harm in theatricality? I don't object to that style of storytelling and apparently neither do the filmmakers. One can hardly cast Macy and Dern (two actors who excel at stylization and period dialogue) and expect otherwise.

The rejection of the film is really a pity because it offers more to chew on than your typical excursion to the movies. Though the symbolism can be heavyhanded it has just as many moments of lyrical beauty. It also affords one the rare opportunity to see two underused atypical actors bite into juicy large roles. William H Macy, supporting actor extraordinaire, gets a rare chance at a leading 'everyman' role. As for Laura Dern...Hollywood's never known what to do with her. She was amazing in maverick films like Citizen Ruth and Wild at Heart but lately it's been rough going. Focus lets her bite into a period piece again and immediately returns you to memories of how much fun she was in Rambling Rose. Both actors are fine here and their chemistry is spot on. So, if there are faults to be had in the film, they do not arise from Macy and Dern's non Jewish 'look' but from some overkill in the technical aspects of the production. The period detail, costumes, and cinematography are all lovely as can be... but some sequences (particularly in the middle of the picture) seem to wallow in their own period beauty rather than adding to or moving the story along. They dampen the film's potency just as they should be building the tension towards the film's terrific climax.

The strange critical response to this film is just another sad indication that we are only comfortable with certain types of filmmaking...and prefer slickly produced but shallow films to somewhat heavy-handed but stylistically ambitious ones. It's all a matter of taste I suppose. I liked the meal Focus had to offer just fine.

Our Song
This impressively naturalistic film from director Jim McKay (Girls Town) is a simple 'slice of life' story. The sympathetic insightful film follows three girls who learn that their high school will be closed down the following year. By looking at the smallest details of a few short months, the film relates a great deal about the lives of the friends. You can see in the film's carefully observed details the probable life trajectory of each young woman and the future or lack thereof of their collective friendship.

Our Song will probably strike those weaned on the Hollywood blockbuster as boring...but it felt like fresh air to me. It's completely lacking in Hollywood aesthetic -good for it! In fact, it feels like the antithesis of Hollywood. What's especially refreshing about this film is its clearheadedness in exploring a particular culture that a more traditional film would either ignore entirely, sensationalize, or misunderstand. It isn't pendantic but the message is there in whatever way the viewer is ready to see it. For those of us who obsess about socio-economic structures, it had a lot to say...or at least imply.

And as an added bonus, for an obviously low budget indie, the acting was far above par. Kerry Washington is a standout as Lanisha. She's a total natural. Hollywood will come calling. Let's hope she brings some degree of this film's integrity with her on that trip to La-La Land.

-Nathaniel

Missed some reviews or commentary? Go here