“Mrs. Hyde”– Movie Review

This week at The 55th New York Film Festival, I attended the North American Premiere of the comedy-drama, “Mrs. Hyde”, starring Isabelle Huppert. 

Synopsis

When a high school science teacher suffers an accident which gives her unusual powers, will she be able to control her newfound abilities or will they control her?

Story

Marie Géquil (Huppert) is hated by her students and her colleagues do not seem to hold her in very high esteem either.  As a science teacher at a suburban technical high school, her class treats her with derision.  It seems this woman is far too timid to be taken seriously.  But while teaching is her career, science is her passion; as such, she maintains her own lab on school grounds where she can perform her own experiments in order to better teach her class.  One day in her laboratory, an accident happens where she is apparently electrocuted during a storm.   This permanently transforms her life.

Although neither her husband nor her co-workers notice any change initially, Mrs. Géquil certainly does – and adapting to it is far from easy for her.  As it turns out, she has been imbued with some kind of power – an electrical power, to be precise – which is difficult for her to control, even after she becomes aware that it is now in her possession.  But there is yet another transformation that takes place in Mrs. Géquil and that has to do with her personality.  It seems that she has become more confident, less fearful of her students – and that leads to classes where these young men and women are increasingly engaged and as a result are learning more. 

Mrs. Géquil begins mentoring one of her students – Mallik, a handicapped teenager who just wants to fit in with the other kids, but because of his disability, they are not quite so accepting of him.  Géquil recognizes Mallik is both willing and able to learn, so she conducts extracurricular sessions with him in order to assist the young man with his studies.  But just as Mallik starts to excel in his education, so does  Mrs. Géquil change in her behavior; overnight, her electrical powers transform her into a murderer and when she tries to make Mallik one of her victims, will she succeed or can the police stop her before Mallik loses his life?           

Review

When a director has to explain his movie to a group of people who have just screened it, that does not speak well of the work.  Nevertheless, that is precisely what happened after the showing of “Mrs. Hyde” – but more on that later.   This is something of an oddball film in the sense that it is neither entirely a comedy nor something that fits easily into a horror/science fiction genre.  Also, it is clearly not a strict adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic novel, “The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde” – although that is admittedly what inspired this version of the story. 

In this updated distaff reboot, Mrs. Géquil (Jekyll) is a science teacher in the modern day, who instructs a class of woebegone students who may have some degree of potential.  Here, however, we have more sympathy with her than terror, despite her hideous deeds.  It is obvious that she is not in complete control, despite the actions of the character.  Much like Linda Blair’s portrayal in “The Exorcist”, you root for the defeat of the demon which possesses her rather than rooting against the character herself; that being the case, however, the deaths that occur seem more incidental than intentional. 

Following the screening was a question and answer session with director/writer Serge Bozon and star Isabelle Huppert, as mentioned above.  Since Bozon ate up much of the time clarifying his story for the audience, Huppert, unfortunately, did not get much of an opportunity to answer questions.  She did, however, share that this role was a great challenge for her because it was difficult for her to memorize her lines; since her character is a science teacher and she has precious little knowledge of the subject, much of the technical language was hard to internalize. 

“Last Flag Flying”– Movie Review

On the opening night of The 55th New York Film Festival, I attended the World Premiere of director Richard Linklater’s new comedy-drama, “Last Flag Flying”, starring Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston and Laurence Fishburne. 

Synopsis

When a trio of Vietnam War veterans reunite to help bury one of their sons, will they be able to resolve a dark secret from their shared past?

Story

In 2003, America finds itself in the incipient days of The Iraq War.  It is at this point that Doc (Carell), decides to look up Sal (Cranston), an old buddy of his from decades ago – Doc and Sal both served together in the military during The Vietnam War.  Doc convinces Sal to leave the bar he now owns so they can meet up with the final member of their troika, Mueller (Fishburne), who used to lead them in their long-gone days of raising hell.  Sal is chagrined to learn that the wild man he once knew Mueller to be is now a minister well regarded by his congregation.  

Over a meal at Mueller’s house, Doc reveals the reason for this sudden reunion:  his son, a Marine, just died while serving in Iraq.  As a recent widower, finds he cannot bury his son by himself, so he calls upon the two friends from his youth to provide him with the emotional support he so desperately needs.  While Sal is willing to help, Mueller is extremely reluctant.  Finally, at his wife’s urging, Mueller agrees to join them.  Although Doc’s son will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery with other military heroes, they must first venture to The Dover Air Force Base to receive the body. 

While there, the trio learn the real way in which Doc’s son perished.  Upon hearing this, Doc now feels he should not be interred at Arlington; instead, he wants to take his boy back to his home in New Hampshire and have him laid to rest there.  With this, the men travel with the body via train to Doc’s home.  Along the way, they find compelled to revisit a period from their time in the military which they’d prefer to forget because it resulted in the death of one of their military brothers.  Decades later, can this triumvirate find a way to right an old wrong so they can bury Doc’s son with a clear conscience?   

Review

It is likely that most professional film critics will fall all over themselves gushing over “Last Flag Flying” in their review.  There are many reasons for this:  for one thing, they see this as a serious contender for awards and they don’t want to miss the boat calling this one.  For another thing, it is an anti-war movie, so they will feel obligated to throw their support behind it for fear of not appearing politically correct.  Also, there is the matter of the names associated here:  director Linklater (whose “Boyhood” from a few years ago earned many nominations) and the stars – Carell, Cranston and Fishburne – who are among the finest in this country. 

Keeping all of that in mind, perhaps it is now time to tell The Emperor he’s not wearing any clothes.  “Last Flag Flying” is based on the novel by Darryl Ponicsan, who co-wrote the screenplay with Linklater.  The big screen adaptation is rather lacking in dramatic impact, although reading its original narrative version may have resulted in a more emotional effect.  This is one of those buddy road movies where the buddies don’t always like each other, which is what generates some of the comic moments; it has been unfairly but inevitably compared to the old Jack Nicholson film, “The Last Detail”.  While “The Last Detail” is really something of a coming of age story, “Last Flag Flying” is more of a coming to terms story.     

As far as the performances are concerned, Carell and Fisburne are superb in their understated portrayals whereas Cranston, for all of his talent, really just appears to be chewing the scenery much of the time.  This acting choice was probably based on two factors:  first, his manic character is a stark contrast against the other two, which makes him stand out all the more.  Also, Sal is supposed to have a metal plate in his head, as the result of a war injury; taking this into consideration, it probably seemed acceptable to play the character as broadly as possible.   

“Battle Of The Sexes”– Movie Review

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of “Battle Of The Sexes”, starring Emma Stone and Steve Carell. 

Synopsis

When The Women’s Liberation Movement comes to the forefront in American culture, can a top woman tennis player defeat a retired older male tennis player?

Story

In 1973, The Women’s Liberation Movement was gaining steam throughout The United States.  Main among its causes was equal pay; women were not being compensated fairly in comparison to their male counterparts.  This was prevalent in all walks of life, including and especially in highly visible areas, such as professional sports.  At this time, Billie Jean King (Stone) was considered among the best female tennis players.  She becomes outraged when the older men who control the sport refuse to award prize money to the women that is equivalent to what the male players would win. 

Mrs. King retaliates by starting her own women’s tennis league, recruiting all of the best professional players; when it earns sponsorship from a cigarette targeted for women, they are then able to promise prize money that is commensurate with what the men would get.  As this group is forming, King meets Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough), a hairdresser who awakens King to an aspect of her sexuality that had long since remained dormant.  This proves problematic to King not just because she’s already married, but also because if this information became public, it would ruin her career permanently.

Upon hearing of this women’s league, retired tennis player Bobby Riggs (Carell) is inspired.  Needing money to pay gambling debts – and seeking the limelight he once had during his days as a player – Riggs contacts King to suggest the two play each other to prove once and for all if men are better than women in tennis.  King rejects the notion, but Riggs convinces her main competitor Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) to agree.  Once Riggs beats Court, King quickly reconsiders.  Thanks in large part to Riggs’ skills as a master showman, the media rapidly latch on to this story; once it’s on everyone’s radar, it becomes the world’s most anticipated sporting event.  But will King succumb to the intense pressure or can she find a way to defeat the bloviating Riggs?    

Review

What holds back “Battle Of The Sexes” most is its hackneyed screenplay.  Despite both main characters being humanized with their own personal struggles – Riggs with his gambling addiction and King with her sexuality – there is not enough that’s special about the way this story is told that draws in the viewer on an emotional level.  Once we see Riggs as a devoted father and as a husband whose finances challenges the patience of his wife, it is increasingly difficult to root against him.  True, it could be argued that his chauvinism alone is reason enough, but even that comes across as something of an act for this “show” he’s trying to put on.  It turns out that Riggs is not the villain in this story, it is instead tennis broadcaster and advocate Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman) – and therein may lie another issue.  

King’s character should be easier to root for, but that’s not always the case.  It’s not that she comes across as a villain, it’s that some of the people whom she opposes aren't necessarily all that unlikeable.  For example, Margaret Court doesn’t appear as an unpleasant person, but King nevertheless dislikes her for reasons that seem to go beyond merely due to their professional rivalry.  Then there is the matter of King cheating on her husband Larry; while we feel for King’s inability to be more open about her lesbianism, we also feel for her husband, who (at least based on the movie) was faithful to his wife and crushed when he learned of her affair.

One of the bright spots in “Battle Of The Sexes” is the performance by Steve Carell; if you are old enough to remember the real Bobby Riggs, then it’s easy to see that Carell truly embodies this clownish buffoon.  Emma Stone’s performance as King is not quite so believable; although she’s a terrific actress, she may have been seriously miscast in this role.  While it may be difficult to think of a famous actress in that age range who could portray King more realistically, perhaps it may have been better to go with an unknown in this case.  Although King may have blown Riggs off the court in real life, it is Carell who blows Stone off the screen in this movie. 

“mother!”– Movie Review

This week, I attended the New York Premiere of the new horror picture, “mother!”, directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem. 

Synopsis

When a couple’s idyllic country residence is disrupted by intruders, can their relationship survive?

Story

A young woman (Lawrence) has been furiously working for quite some time now on performing an extensive renovation of the decrepit rustic house that was once probably stately when originally constructed.  She shares the home with her husband (Bardem), a poet who’s been experiencing writer’s block of late.  As she paints and plasters, the couple receive an unlikely visitor:  a sickly stranger (Ed Harris) who claims he was misinformed about their residence being a bed and breakfast.  Since it is late and The Stranger is clearly not well, The Husband invites him to stay the night, much to the chagrin of The Wife. 

The next day, The Stranger is joined by His Wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), a rude woman who commandeers the couple’s house.  The Stranger And His Wife wind up breaking a valuable heirloom belonging to The Husband; following a number of unpleasant encounters with the obnoxious pair, this is the last straw.  The Wife asks them both to leave.  Before they can go, The Stranger And His Wife are surprised by the arrival of their two grown sons; The Sons get into a physical altercation, resulting in one of them being seriously injured.  Following a brief hospitalization, he dies. 

The Husband and Wife now find their home invaded by many odd people – friends and family of The Stranger And His Wife, who have joined them to mourn the couple’s loss.  While there, things become chaotic when The Mourners turn the house topsy turvy, greatly upsetting The Wife, who is already angry at The Husband for allowing them entry.  After they leave and the damage is repaired, The Wife learns she’s pregnant, which causes The Husband to snap out of his writer’s block.  But when The Husband now becomes unbelievably famous and successful, anarchy returns to their household when they are besieged by selfish fans.  With The Fans now totally destroying the house and The Wife realizing The Husband can’t be bothered with stopping them, can she exact a revenge on all of them?  

Review

As relentlessly jarring, infuriatingly disturbing and frequently confusing as “mother!” can be, it is a movie that offers an extremely unique experience.  Whether or not you find it to be a positive or a negative experience will in large part depend on how you feel about Aronofsky’s previous work.  It is stylistically consistent with his earlier films in the sense that it takes you into a dark and scary world from which you desperately want to escape but can’t.  Filmmakers such as Aronofsky and David Lynch have often – and accurately – been characterized as visionaries; in “mother!”, Aronofsky, for all of his unique visions, has never been more comparable to Lynch.

Unfortunately (but understandably), “mother!” will be inaccessible to many.  That doesn’t make it a bad movie, but it does make it a complicated movie – which is Aronofsky’s specialty.  This is an allegory; consider it Aronofsky’s film about environmentalism – his own personal hue and cry about how mankind is ravaging the planet.  That’s precisely where the controversy will come; if you are a climate change denier, then it will be easy to write off this motion picture as sheer drivel.  If it’s possible to put politics aside and simply watch “mother!” for what it is, it can nevertheless be a mesmerizing adventure.

In promoting “mother!”, those connected with it have somewhat tipped off what the story is really about, and Aronofsky confirmed this prior to the screening when he introduced the movie.  He said that “[‘mother!’] is not about your mother or my mother, it’s about our mother”.  In other words, Mother Earth; as a Mother, JLaw’s character is the planet on which we all live and she rebels when we’ve taken advantage by mistreating her.  There is a price to pay for this, Aronofsky seems to be saying, and based on the film’s conclusion, it is a brutal one. 

As far as the screening itself, seeing it in New York City’s Radio City Music Hall made it all the more special.  If you are familiar with the glorious venue, you may know there is an organ downstage right of the proscenium arch; prior to the screening, an organist played for the audience.  As noted above, Aronofsky took the stage to introduce the movie; he was accompanied by its star, Jennifer Lawrence (whom, we are given to understand, is also his current bestie).  Following the screening was a live performance by Patti Smith; she sang the old hit “The End Of The World” (which apparently is heard over the closing credits); she followed this by reading the above prayer (which was distributed to attendees), then sang her own composition, “Pissing In A River” .        

“Heretic”– Book Review

This summer, I read the political analysis, “Heretic:  Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Summary

As a self-described heretic and apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali long ago questioned the religion of Islam, in which she was raised.  Upon fleeing Islamic countries for The Netherlands, she received higher education in the more liberal Western culture and it was this that shaped her views that Islam was not only misogynistic, but also, doctrinaire as well.  In her writings, interviews and speeches opposing Islam, she has been met with many death threats.  Ultimately, she has arrived at the conclusion that the only way Islam can be fixed is by reformation – much in the same way as other major religions have undergone their own reformation over the ages. 

The author is of the belief that within Islam, there exists three types of Muslims:  The Medinas, The Meccas and The Modifiers.  She identifies herself as a Modifier – an apostate who cast doubts upon the religion in order for it to be reformed.  The Meccas – which is how the author was raised – are the peace-loving group that closely follows the rules of the religion.  The Medinas are the most problematic group because these are the ones who are the most violent and see the purpose of their religion as a political movement.  It is this group for which the book was written. 

Hirsi Ali then goes on to outline her own five-point plan of areas where Islam Reformation need to occur: 

1. The Prophet Muhammad’s infallibility and the literal interpretations of The Qur’an
2. The fact that life after death is valued much more than life before death
3. Denunciation of Sharia Law
4. Commanding “right” and forbidding “wrong” in order to enforce the religion  
5. The importance of Jihad (holy war)

Review

It is simply undeniable that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author of “Heretic”, writes about her topic with passion, conviction and absolute sincerity.  Her wisdom borne out of a lifetime full of her own personal experience combined with impeccable research imbues this book with tremendous authenticity which makes this book worth reading.  Traversing from chapter to chapter, it’s nearly impossible to keep from nodding in agreement with just about everything this woman says because it all makes such perfect sense.  All of which makes the ending of the book so maddening.

The main problem with “Heretic” is the fact that it never explains either how or why this religion would ever seriously consider reformation.  Based on what we know and what we have seen from Islamic extremists, this appears to be totally against their nature; there is essentially nothing in the world that would motivate these people to consider reforming the religion, especially when you remember that these very same people want to live as though they are still in the 12th century (and also want everyone else to live that way).  It is this matter that seems a huge flaw in the logic behind this otherwise intrepid work.

If you are familiar with the background of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you know that this woman is far beyond merely courageous; in fact, calling her courageous almost seems like something of an insult.  Therefore, it is painful to say that her optimism – Hirsi Ali’s belief that this reformation has in fact already begun – is naïve and lacks sufficient foundation.  Does she truly believe this herself?  Or was she convinced by her editor that she needed to have some semblance of a “happy ending” in order to sell more copies of her book?  It would be nice to think that Hirsi Ali is far too smart to fall for that.  

Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: 9780062333940: Books ISBN: 0062333941 ISBN-13: 9780062333940