Loveless (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Loveless (2017) – A. Zvyagintsev

I have found Andrey Zvyagintsev’s previous films (esp. Leviathan, 2014) to be really compelling stylistically, even as they deal with complex human relations in contemporary Russia, highlighting a lot of social ills.  Perhaps they were pessimistic and bleak but often there was a streak of black humour in the darkness.  I expected something similar from Loveless, about a couple going through a bitter divorce whose son goes missing, but there is no humour here to lighten the grimness.  Yes, the cinematography and direction (lots of slow zooms) is stellar and the film is gripping in its way – especially in its second half when the focus is on finding the 12-year-old boy who has disappeared and there are no clues. But the primary protagonists, Zhenya (Maryana Spivak) and Boris (Aleksey Rozin) are anything but likeable (yet not one-dimensional either); Zvyagintsev seems to be using their selfishness to critique the growing Russian middle class, where one’s own happiness matters most and the social fabric is becoming unglued as a result.  Another thread seems to suggest that parents’ selfishness can impact their children’s subsequent behaviour, as Zhenya’s mother, angry, belligerent, paranoid, and alone, has clearly helped to create Zhenya’s own ugliness toward her child (Boris might be starting the cycle again with his new girlfriend).  The events here are truly sad, especially when the parents wish aloud that they never had their child in the first place.  And seemingly their wish comes true… to what effect?  Harrowing, ambiguous, depressing. 

Bulworth (1998)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bulworth (1998) – W. Beatty

Although there are a few cringeworthy moments here (yes, Warren Beatty rapping), they might be deliberate – the point is to show how a sell-out democrat politician returns to his original values once he has contact with common people (in this case, the Black community in South Central L.A).  Of course, he can’t really identify but he can try to understand or empathise.  But let’s back up a moment.  The plot sees Beatty as incumbent California Senator Jay Billington Bulworth in the middle of his primary campaign for re-election but feeling despondent (it isn’t exactly clear why), despondent enough to hire a hitman to take himself out.  This act serves to free him to speak the truth to his constituents – mainly about the fact that big money (from corporate interests such as insurance companies and from wealthy donors) buys influence and that being poor does not.  I’m not sure whether this was shocking in 1998 but unfortunately it is still the norm in U. S. politics even now.  Perhaps people like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or AOC now have enough of a platform to speak these same truths to a broader audience in a way that was more difficult when the media was all controlled by Rupert Murdoch (or other corporate interests) and censored views that they didn’t like (oh wait, that’s still the situation in Australia).  At any rate, Bulworth/Beatty goes a bit crazy from lack of sleep and other influences, speaks the truth in an out-of-role fashion (yes, rapping), garners widespread public support, falls in love with Halle Berry, and the cynical viewer knows what happens next (I won’t spoil the ending).  In reality, though, the “disruptor” role seems to have been adopted, not by the progressive left but instead by the wacko alt-right. Has the appeal of disruption (of a system clearly biased in favour of the rich) blinded people to the fact that the disruptors are not acting to support the poor and disenfranchised? In any event, Bulworth is watchable, mostly comic, surprisingly profane, and set to the sound of rap gold records – also brave and perhaps prescient.  Not perfect but worth a look. 

Three Days of the Condor (1975)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Three Days of the Condor (1975) – S. Pollack

The ‘70s conspiracy theory genre is evergreen! But Sydney Pollack’s film is a bit hollow at its core – sort of like those Hitchcock thrillers where the hero is on the run, in search of the MacGuffin that will prove his innocence, but the running is more important than the plot device that inspires it.  This film has a lot of scenes of Robert Redford running.  He plays Joe Turner, a CIA researcher (not spy), who suddenly finds all of his colleagues shot dead and suspects that the agency itself is responsible.  He kidnaps Faye Dunaway randomly and convinces her to help him.  Then, it is all about getting to the conspirators at the top (including Cliff Robertson and John Houseman).  Throughout it all, cool hitman Max von Sydow is on his trail.  Turner uses his wits and book-knowledge to foil him and the conspirators – but, in the cynical ‘70s, can he ever really win against the powerful?  As I said, the themes here are evergreen!  However, if you really want some classic conspiracy drama, I recommend the Alec Guinness miniseries of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1979) and Smiley’s People (1982).  The long form gives more room for plot mechanics and character development, something that isn’t possible here, where Redford relies on his typical charm and personality to get by instead.  

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) – B. Furman

Looking back, was this film the start of the “McConaissance”?  McConaughey is certainly on his game, playing a charismatic but unscrupulous lawyer (named Mick Haller) who is happy to bend or break the rules for a buck, sometimes at the expense of the criminal clients he defends.  The movie begins as he takes on Louis Roulet’s (Ryan Phillippe) defence against a charge of grievous bodily harm (beating up a prostitute).  Philippe plays the spoiled heir to a real estate magnate (Frances Farmer).  Marisa Tomei is McConaughey’s ex-wife and a public prosecutor (who has to stand aside when he takes the case but still casually helps him) – Tomei is always good value.  We see a bit of their divorced life sharing custody of a young daughter.  But the film is mostly a generic courthouse drama, as Haller and his investigator (William H. Macy) uncover clues that make them question Roulet’s innocence.  Roulet is unsavoury enough that even Haller starts to develop a conscience.  The clues tie back to an older case and a convicted man who may really be innocent.  You know the story.  In the end, there’s not much here save some solid acting that boosts this from being just another Law & Order knock-off into something a bit more.  But it is only passable fare and Netflix Australia still seems like a wasteland (at least for movies).

  

Side Effects (2013)

☆ ☆ ☆

Side Effects (2013) – S. Soderbergh

I haven’t been watching every Soderbergh film; he seems very hit or miss -- or somewhere in between, as with this film.  Of course, this probably isn’t the place to debate auteur theory but the variability in his output is probably due to other people, such as the writer -- in this case, Scott Z. Burns.  Presumably, Burns is responsible for the plot which is very au courant for 2013, positing that side effects of medication might remove someone’s culpability for a crime. Rooney Mara plays Emily, a twenty-something who is depressed (her husband has just served time for insider trading); after a presumed suicide attempt, her psychiatrist (Jude Law) prescribes her a series of anti-depressants, concluding with one that a friend recommended to her (after seeing ads on TV) that has a side effect of sleepwalking.  When she commits a murder while sleepwalking, the legal issues revolve around who is to blame – Emily, her prescribing doctor, or even Big Pharma.  If it sounds as though I’ve provided spoilers here, suffice it to say that the plot does not really resolve this quandary but instead takes its characters (including Emily’s previous psychiatrist played by Catherine Zeta Jones) into much more complicated (some might say ludicrous) territory.  To be honest, I’m not sure I fully buy (or understand) the resolution, but thrillers sell and incisive investigations into serious issues probably don’t.  Entertaining enough, I guess.

No Man of Her Own (1932)

☆ ☆ ½

No Man of Her Own (1932) – W. Ruggles

Despite the star power of Gable and Lombard (in their only film together, years before their marriage), the movie fizzles out after a promising start.  Gable is a card shark with a team of confederates helping him to swindle rich businessmen (who don’t press charges because they want to stay out of the papers).  The vice squad is onto him, however, so he takes a sojourn out of New York in a small town called Glendale where he meets Lombard’s bored librarian.  She’s a feisty match for him and follows him to the big city after a coin toss leads to their marriage (!!!).  She doesn’t know yet that he’s a crook but soon finds out (the movie doesn’t really build too much suspense here).  The second half is about his abrupt decision to go to South America for a long con, leaving her alone (but not abandoning her).  I think the script probably lets the actors down – or the lack of music highlights the way that the drama drags?  There is a little bit of naughtiness here, because this is “pre-code”, primarily in the form of heavy drinking and actresses in underwear (and both Gable & Lombard taking showers, separately).  Other films of this vintage, including with Gable and Lombard, separately, are far more sparkling than this.

The Fortune Cookie (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Fortune Cookie (1966) – B. Wilder

This first pairing of Lemmon and Matthau for writer-director Billy Wilder is as cynical as you would expect – but I didn’t find it particularly funny.  Matthau is “Whiplash Willie” Gingrich, a personal injury lawyer who sees profit in his brother-in-law’s freak accident on the sidelines of an NFL game in Cleveland.  Lemmon is the cameraman (named Harry Hinkle) who gets knocked down by wide receiver “Boom Boom” Jackson (Ron Rich) and is persuaded somewhat begrudgingly to pretend to be seriously hurt in order to facilitate a suit against the Cleveland Browns etc.  Of course, the insurance company investigates and of course Matthau has some tricks up his sleeve to deceive them.  Hinkle’s ex-wife (Judi West) returns (for the money obviously) to sweet-talk him further into playing along – but Jackson, a really nice guy, takes it hard, making Hinkle feel guilty.  That’s the basic set-up.  I suppose the comedy here isn’t as shocking as it was in 1966 because we now live in a world where we take it for granted that people cheat and look after their self-interest only, that insurance companies and others spy on us constantly, and that those who don’t have these motives might turn to drink to escape this sad reality.  Surprisingly, Wilder gives us a happy ending that we probably don’t deserve – or maybe there’s still hope?  Lemmon and Matthau are solid as usual but better elsewhere.