|
|
|
bars & clubs movie clock restaurants specials best of chicago film and video food and drink music and clubs stage style words sports features |
|
|
![]() Holiday Movie Preview The uses of history: what the past tells us
Movies take a couple of hours to watch, but almost never less than
several years to race from the scratch of a pen to the blank of an eye.
So there's history behind even an unusually rapid-fire production
like Steven Spielberg's "Munich," which was in production from June 29
to September 29 of this year, but in development for much, much longer.
"Munich" is just one year-end movie that's set in the past,
approaching what lies ahead of us through the ironic frame of the period
picture. "Brokeback Mountain," which has emerged as the movie to beat
with Best Picture nods from critics' groups nationwide, moves from the
1960s to the 1970s, and is based on a story by E. Annie Proulx that ran
in the New Yorker in 1997 and was a movie that Ang Lee wanted to make
for at least six years. Lee's standard quiet, observant style in telling
a love story for which the lovers have no words, only feelings, also
makes "Brokeback Mountain" probably one of the most timeless of the
movies being released toward holiday audiences and Oscar consideration,
despite almost every picture of note delving into some period of history
other than our own. Similarly, Kong's admiration of "Beauty" in the
form of wide-eyed Naomi Watts is an impossible love, one that finds its
match, for tears, at least, in the inexplicable stirrings felt by
"Brokeback"'s 19-year-old cowboys in its early passages.
And yet, at a reported $205 million and three hours and eight
minutes, the "Kong" does not remain the same. There are clever
acknowledgements of the antediluvian racism of the 1933 "King Kong" in
Peter Jackson's remake, to the point of dressing the comic, dancing
"natives" of the "Eighth Wonder of the World" stage show when Kong
is taken to New York in laughable costumes that are, in fact, very close
to the "natives" of the original. Jackson's compulsive detailing of
1933 New York is one of those rare occasions when some audiences may
walk out "humming the scenery": the Depression-era streets and Art
Deco sets and a vast, hyper-detailed Manhattan seen from the sky
transcend CGI and animation to become a miracle far more enthralling
than a mere monkey climbing the side of the Empire State Building. (It's
nostalgia for an era none of us have known except through movies and
photographs.) The 1914 settings of James Cameron's "Titanic" had an
etched-on-glass picture-postcard look that held their own charm;
Jackson's "Kong" is filled with lovingly detailed dinosaurs, but it's
lost New York that is his most memorable creation. And what do you know?
9/11 hardly comes to mind, unlike the disastrous 1976 version that found
Kong hopping from one of the Twin Towers to the other while battling
incoming jet fighters.
Several movies specifically about 9/11 are in production, ranging
from Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" to Paul Greengrass' "Flight
93." The generic titles of both projects demonstrate abiding caution,
as do the plotlines, in taking on one of the rawest moments in recent
time. Like "Schindler's List" telling the rare tale of Jews who
survived the tragedy of Holocaust, both the Stone and Greengrass
projects find heroism emerging from the ashes of that bright, clear,
deadly day.
An easier way to tackle contemporary wounds is to use history as
metaphor. Spielberg's "Munich," a lengthy, Costa-Gavras-like,
1970s-style Euro-thriller about a team of assassins sent to exterminate
the killers who slaughtered members of the Israeli team during the 1972
Olympics, is the closest thing to a parable of our times, weighing the
pain of terrorism against the beliefs of either side of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based loosely on a nonfiction book called
"Vengeance," "Munich"'s thoughtful yet shamelessly speechy script,
co-credited to "Angels in America" playwright Tony Kushner, is filled
with moments like Israel's premier, Golda Meir, saying "Every
civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own
values." That has painful parallels in the headlines torn from today's
events in the War in Iraq and the war against dissent in America, but
Spielberg goes a step farther, with a cold, mute final shot that lingers
and lingers and does not go away. It lingers long enough that you have
to wonder how many more movies will strain for epiphany or even
profundity by concluding with a final shot of Manhattan as it looked
between 1974 and September 11, 2001? "Capote" is a far remove from romance. The film is canny about the
powerful attraction between Truman Capote and convicted killer Perry
Smith, presenting it as less a matter of irreconcilable feelings between
a dangerous convict and the openly gay writer than as Capote recognizing
the story of a lifetime, one that would build him up or destroy him.
It's a stirring conflict: to create a new way of fashioning history, of
transforming the very idea of nonfiction, at the cost of another man's
life. The moments of Miller's camera observing Hoffman in the act of
watching, Capote's nose twitching slightly as his eyes remain steady, is
the coolest of images of what reporters do: in the act of observing,
remaining unobserved by the subject, yet watching, as in journalist
Janet Malcolm's notorious observation, "Every journalist who is not too
stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what
he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying
on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and
betraying them without remorse." (One could imagine "Capote" being an
adaptation of those two sentences, rather than Gerald Clarke's
biography.)
But movies are more than language, more than text, and ideally, more
than sociology written in pixels. New Line has two of the more evocative
titles of 2005 with their scrappy marvels, "A History of Violence,"
set in an idealized Indiana small town that is as much 1950s as 2000s,
and the seventeenth-century-set "The New World," both of which
demonstrate a rich mastery of the ironic uses of history.
David Cronenberg's masterpiece, on one hand, is an adept action
movie, filled with fleet explosions of violence that follow the contours
expected of the man-with-a-past-with-a-gun genre. But Cronenberg's
intelligence is brought out in a parallel satire of the form, where his
elegantly composed frames and spare storytelling offer both the
satisfactions and lingering questions about the morality on view. Is
this bit of work-for-hire by a Canadian director about America in Iraq?
Yes, but not only. As the German journalist (and satirist) Karl Kraus
observed in the teens, "Satires which can be understood by the censor
are justly forbidden."
That's the power of metaphor in movies: Terrence Malick's "The New
World" is about the great filmmaker's absorption in the primal, the
primeval, the green and the innocent, but its staggeringly beautiful
images resonate. This "new" world is an old one dying the first time
the natives meet the English in the tall green grasses near shore. We
know that the "naturals" will lose their "old world" so that ours
might come, but that is story and not storytelling. Colin Farrell's
beautiful features have never been put to better use--bearded and his
liquid brown eyes always agleam, he is an explorer, filled with
curiosity and longing for the nameless Indian princess we call
"Pocahontas," yet his eyes are sad, watchful, even hesitant. While the
last shot of "The New World" resembles that of "Munich"--how far do
our actions fall from the tree?--the movie's most narcotic beauty is in
the face of Q'Orianka Kilcher, whose part-Peruvian features are caught
in so many different ways by Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki
that she is innocence, and woman and The New World, a twenty-first
century embodiment of a forgotten seventeenth-century. Her beauty is so
otherworldly, she could be from the moon, and the settlers could as well
be moon explorers. Here are the first small steps, small for a man,
irreversible for mankind. Yet it's the present that's most capricious, and why some
filmmakers, like the Coen brothers, in "Fargo," for instance, are
attracted to the "near-period piece." To draw an example from 2005,
fewer missteps are likely if a movie like "Jarhead" is set during the
first Gulf War rather than the ongoing conflict in Iraq. A notable
exception to the protection of period, the distance of history, is
Steven Gaghan's hyper-intelligent, cynical downer about how oil begets
corruption that coldly suggests the eventual, onrushing demise of the
West. "Syriana" is one of the few movies bold enough to take on the
modern world, and while muted in the telling of its interwoven
narratives, it is as in-your-face as the most caffeinated of blogs.
Also by Ray Pride What does it mean?
Tip of the Week
It's a blunder-filled life
Tip of the Week
Born to Rent
Tip of the Week
The one you're looking for
Tip of the Week
Splash Panel
Catching a Buzz
Tip of the Week
Through the past, darkly
|
|
about Newcitychicago | about Newcity magazine | advertising | privacy policy | FAQ | employment |