MovieSet: The Last Station

A lesser film once stated that it was not a love story, but a story about love. That film lied but that sentence surprisingly applies well to The Last Station. This is surprisingly considering the film appears to be about Tolstoy, but it turns out Tolstoy was all about love.

Leo Tolstoy is remembered now as an acclaimed author, but during his day he was a full-blown celebrity. There were literally cameramen perched outside his estate at any given moment. (John Irving and Ian McEwan don’t get that sort of coverage today…) Everyone wanted to know what Tolstoy was saying at every given moment. In the movie, Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) had a best friend under house arrest named Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti.) Chertkov was fearful of Tolstoy’s wife’s influence. So he hires Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) to be Tolstoy’s personal secretary but also to record all of the interactions going on inside the house.

During this time there is a movement brewing. From his work and sayings, people are trying to be Tolstoyan. This is a humanistic movement to attempt to be morally and socially perfect, I believe. Two of the major elements of this philosophy are the principles of not having private property or sexual relations. That’s where the conflict of this tale comes in. Always with love as the motivation, people are wanting to have both of those things. The Countess (Helen Mirren) is worried that her husband is drifting too far away and will give up his copyrights to the public. Valentin is developing an affair with one of the housemaids. Everyone has strong affection towards respected others, but that affection creates contradictions.

The real main character of this tale is Valentin. This world is seen through his fresh and naive eyes. It is always humorous to see him interact with his idol, but I just wish there were more of them. There are many hints about Tolstoy’s opposition to his own movement, but he is still going through with it. This was a really fascinating component, but briefly touched upon. The main focus really is between the Countess and Tolstoy. Mirren plays the role with deliberate strides. There is no such thing as perfection so Mirren highlights the best and the worst in the character. She can convincingly break plates (a pre-requisite for any Oscar nomination) but can also be compelling in just listening to what’s going on around her. Despite her manic and often destructive personality, she is able to show why she is the perfect match for Tolstoy.

The parallel story of young love is just as effective. This sort of story is often misconstrued. There has to be a love there beyond just the first love in order for the audience to be invested. Instead of just focusing on Valentine’s sexual awakening, the film does a good job establishing their connection as people and not just lovers. Their banter as they chop wood (Not an innuendo) is one of the highlights of the film.

The film has a strong focus and that is why it succeeds over other period pieces and biopics. This isn’t the definitive story of Leo Tolstoy or the Duchess, but a new story about love. Love towards lovers; love towards friends; love towards humanity; love towards symbols. It’s a powerful emotion that makes for some good cinema.

http://blog.movieset.com/movie-reviews/ticket-stubs-the-last-station

Film Yap: Writing About Auteurs

Back when Francois Truffaut was a film critic, he and more future French New Wavers developed the theory of auteurs. This was the belief that the director is a true author of a film. Every frame of the movie was hand crafted by the auteur that it is truly their film. Despite stating that films are more collaborative than the theory allows, it is almost universally accepted. There is a debate that arises from the theory, however. Can a film still be from an auteur if he/she did not write the screenplay?

The screenplay really is the backbone of a movie. A lot of people who are writer/directors are considered auteurs like Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino of recent fame. Those are the strongest examples of auteurs because they have created their own visual and writing style. Their movies flow because they know how to adapt their own work when they’re dealing with their unique stances on dialog. Obviously beyond the words said, they can control the themes that drive the story.

Through a director who is an auteur does not pick a script randomly out of a hat. Those who are considered to have a very specific type of film usually aren’t credited as screenwriters. Alfred Hitchcock is the obvious example. His popularity is so strong that certain thrillers are even called Hitchcockian. Even though he is not physically writing the scripts, he knows what he wants to talk about. When an auteur is interested in a script, there is something there that sparks him consciously or unconsciously. Jason Reitman recently spoke in an interview that he didn’t even recognize that all of his films tend to focus on the importance of family. He may not be as noticeable as an auteur as Hitchcock or Martin Scorsese, but he approaches the material in similar fashions. This argument goes beyond the script as well. The director may not have personally painted the set, but he knew who to hire to create the set that he wants.

Often times established auteurs work with the same people. Brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins has worked with The Coen Brothers on majority of their films. Thelma Schoonmaker has edited each one of Scorsese’s films since the 80s. Directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger went forward to create a company called the Archers, which regularly had the same cast and crew in order to create the vision they wanted.

It can also be argued that the roles can be reversed. In some cases the writer can be the auteur and the director is the means to carry that style. There are screenwriters like Charlie Kaufman and Aaron Sorkin who draw audiences on their names alone. A scene can be played and its writer can be instantly recognized. Kevin Smith is a name recently that has dialog and characters that can be recognized with his traits. He often admits his shortcomings as a director because his true vision lies on the written page. Although I am still looking forward to Cop Out, I do not believe it is a “Kevin Smith movie” in the same vein as Clerks II or Zack and Miri Make a Porno since he is only directing, not writing.

Not everyone can be Robert Rodriguez in El Mariachi: a lone man as his entire crew. More people working on a movie don’t mean a vision is compromised. Sometimes it is strengthened. With the right collaborators, the auteur has the potential to create something really special like a Raging Bull, Vertigo or even a Chasing Amy.

http://www.thefilmyap.com/2010/02/28/writing-about-auteurs/

MovieSet: The White Ribbon

Michael Haneke’s films seem to be anti-mysteries and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Instead of focusing on the whodunit, Haneke explores the repercussions from the crimes. This has been seen on a personal level in Cache, but in his latest film the ramifications become on a global scale.

On the eve of the First World War, there is a small German village where mysterious acts are occurring. A carefully placed tripwire hurt the doctor and his horse; people keep dying; buildings are burned. There is an attempt to discover who committed these crimes, but they are not aggressive with their search. Instead there is uneasiness and fear. Through fear comes punishment. The punishment is always from the imperfect adults towards their children.

The audience of this film almost becomes victims themselves. We know what that generation will grow up to become. Despite this being a period piece, it plays off like a more detailed parable that still applies today. The schoolmaster is telling this story through narration and (one can assume) personal bias. While these terrible acts are going on, this is also the story about how he met and fell in love with his fiancée.

The story is told through beautiful black and white cinematography. Few filmmakers have really gone back to this potential. A film without color shouldn’t divide an audience no more than a photograph should. It is simply an artistic decision. Haneke has spoken that he has used this technique to subliminally distance the viewer from the story. I don’t know how much he succeeded since he still inspired emotion from me.

The style of this film also reminded me of Ingmar Bergman’s canon. Both sets deal with morality through occasionally cruel actions. I felt a strong comparison to Bergman in my two favorite scenes in the movie. There is a scene when a young boy is walking atop the railing of a high bridge. The schoolmaster stops him and asks why this happened. The boy replies by saying he was testing God. If he fell, he knew God was angry with him. This was a profound scene to me because through the eyes of the child if there is no punishment then the actions must be just.

The other scene revolves around a girl teaching her younger brother about death. Such a complex topic is being handled very adequately. She never patronizes him and there lies the major point of the movie. The children are our next generation. The way we treat them will become the way they will run things. The White Ribbon is a film that asks us to examine our own responsibility and our own ethical code. It is not an easy film at times, but it is an important one.

http://blog.movieset.com/movie-reviews/ticket-stubs-the-white-ribbon