rachel getting married

so i’m out of school again and back to seeing movies. and that means writing about them. it’s the little way i make sure that i’m still thinking when i don’t have to write an essay every 2 weeks or so. since this is the first blog back since my hiatus, i’m open to suggestions…what i’m mostly thinking is whether or not i make these little reviews spoiler-free or not. currently, i’m leaning towards spoiler-free since i think more people will be likely to read them. but, either way, i welcome feedback and discussion – please weigh in! down to business…

i saw rachel getting married last night. this film premiered (i think) at the toronto international film festival, but i didn’t get a chance to see it there. it’s the newest film from jonathan demme (yeah…silence of the lambs. wtf?) everything i keep hearing is about how diverse a director he is, basically because people can’t find a constant theme or even style across his work. you might say he defies the auteur theory. and i think i agree…i couldn’t even fake some connection between anthony hopkins’ hannibal lector and anne hathaway’s kim. but i’d love to hear any attempts!

so, first off – i liked this movie quite a bit. mostly because it was a relatively original story, and the acting was great. anne hathaway was especially delightful. she plays kim (rachel’s sister), a recovering drug addict who is returning home from rehab for her sister’s wedding. kim is a self-obsessed person – always expecting people to focus on her, given that she’s received a lot of attention in the past due to her various addictions (which she alludes to comedically in passing). many important plot points and histories of the characters are elucidated this way – through brief references that are not difficult to piece together. i much prefer this to being told explicitly the details of the past – it seems more realistic this way – as often we don’t explain in detail our histories to people we know well. there is one scene i can recall where this does happen, but it occurs when kim is divulging a piece of personal information to her narcotics anonymous (NA) group, and that felt pretty natural to me. (no spoilers!)

the film is focused entirely around rachel and kim’s family, as well as rachel’s fiancé, sidney, and his family. rachel and kim’s parents are divorced and both remarried – the father’s side of the family is much more involved in the wedding and the lives of the two women than their mother and her husband. sidney is a black man and rachel is white – this fact is never verbalized, though obviously…obvious. i’m not sure whether its omission is due to its irrelevance plot-wise or to simply avoid any potentially offensive pitfalls, OR to avoid getting into issues of race that the film simply doesn’t have time for. i bring this up because i was honestly surprised that it wasn’t mentioned in the film. i half-expected there to be a crotchety grandparent character that objected or something along those lines…but nothing. i haven’t made up my mind about this. but I think it needs to be addressed. i mean, it’s great if the film is suggesting that race is a completely irrelevant issue, but i think this is somewhat unrealistic, even still, for many people and families. i think perhaps it serves to further the theme of blending families that can be seen in the film. divorce and race both serve to alter the family structures from the typical homogenous nuclear family to one with step-parents and different races. both of these things can be said to expand (or break down, however you choose to see it) the family.

and this brings me to kim herself, who has been a source of stress, drama, and difficulty for her family. before kim’s return from rehab, it seems as though things in their home had been moving smoothly, but that every other character expected problems when she did come back. her father is overly protective, though well-meaning, while her mother barely acknowledges that she has been absent – she pays most attention to kim when scolding her for poor behavior (ie smoking indoors). kim seems to desire something between these poles – she demands a great amount of attention, but doesn’t want to be coddled by her parents.

this contradiction in kim’s character is what i find most interesting about this film, and more specifically, the way anne hathaway walks this line – making kim sympathetic in one instant, yet painfully annoying and childlike in others. at the outset, we know this film is about kim – it begins with her parents picking her up from rehab; we are aligned with her and instantly sympathize with her as she has a somewhat painful conversation with her father and step-mother in the car ride home. she is instantly relatable as someone who has difficulty communicating with her parents. even as she arrives home, excited to see her sister, we sympathize that her plight is being overshadowed by the wedding planning happening all around her. kim must go to an n.a. meeting and her father will not even let her borrow a car to go – she must ride her bike. however, in many other instances, we see kim turn into a narcissistic brat. most notably, during her speech at the rehearsal dinner to her sister – kim decides to take this opportunity to make amends with her sister as part of her 12-step recovery. this causes a major argument between the sisters afterwards, as rachel suggests that kim did this not to actually apologize, but to bring all the attention back on herself. it is a painful scene to watch because we as the audience wish kim to stop speaking, and merely wish her sister well; we can recognize that she is indeed attempting to command the attention of the room. one subtle aspect that i thought conveyed this tension in kim was the way she constantly smoked in front of people, indoors, and seemingly anywhere she wished, without consideration for those around her. this seemed to me to point to kim’s self-indulgence. when kim is asked to stop smoking a couple of times in the film, once by her mother and once by her sister’s best friend, we see kim resenting the request, yet still complying. she has gained attention again, but in a negative way – and this allows kim to complain about her family and friends for not being supportive or offering her the attention she needs. even the title of the film fits into kim’s dichotomous personality – the title ‘rachel getting married’ is superficially about the wedding, and rachel’s character. yet kim is the character to utter this line and it is in reference to her return home from rehab, for “rachel getting married”. even when the day or the event is not about kim, she remains present and holding much attention.

and……….one last thing i noticed, the music of the film. we learn that sidney (rachel’s fiancé) has a career in music and that amongst his family and friends, music is a passion. consequently, there is a wide variety of music throughout the film, showcased at the pre-wedding festivities as well as during the wedding day and night. the music really aids in conveying the tone of each scene; similarly balancing the good and bad, and refreshingly, does not give away where the scene is headed, nor does it guide our emotions to a particular conclusion. i would just say pay attention to the different styles while you watch.

that’s it. let me know what you think.

here's the trailer.

knocked up

judd apatow’s (40 year old virgin, freaks and geeks) newest comedy again brings together his favourite actors (seth rogen, paul rudd, jason segel, etc) for knocked up. seth rogen plays the lead, ben, alongside katherine heigl (grey’s anatomy) as alison. the two meet at a bar one night, have a one night stand, and alison ends up pregnant. the word abortion is never quite mentioned in this film and is clearly not considered by alison, even after her mother subtly suggests it. once the film hits this point, it is essentially about struggling to keep an unlikely relationship between ben, a stoner, and alison, a successful woman working in television, together. i think the film is so accessible for so many people because the humour comes from very relatable situations that occur in relationships and during pregnancy. ben knows he must take responsibility but finds it initially difficult to leave behind his immature lifestyle, living with roommates and working on a porn website. the two also deal with more specific issues, like feeling unattractive during sex while alison is pregnant. ben and alison’s relationship is held up against alison’s sister, debbie (leslie mann, apatow’s wife) and her husband, pete’s (paul rudd) marriage. they deal with similar problems with communication and the men and women each confide in each other, all realizing that they are imperfect. i think apatow’s films are successful because he writes realistically; the interactions between friends are so believable, and potentially involve a lot of improvisation amongst real friends. while seth rogen and katherine heigl are charismatic together and well cast in this film, i think the supporting cast is just as crucial in making knocked up one of the funniest films i’ve seen so far this year.

watch the trailer

away from her

away from her is the directorial debut of sarah polley, who has been an actor from a young age, starring in the long-running road to avonlea and more recently in films such as exotica, the sweet hereafter, and my life without me. for her first film as a director, she has adapted a short story by alice munro, called the bear came over the mountain. the story follows fiona (julie christie) as the onset of her alzheimer's necessitates that she leave her husband, grant (gordon pinsent), of forty-some years to live in a nursing home.

in the opening scene between grant and fiona, they are washing dishes after dinner and after drying a pot, fiona puts it in the freezer. i found this to be quite effective at establishing their relationship with the current state of fiona’s alzheimer’s. from grant’s reaction we get the full effect of what their life has become in a simple expression. much of the emotion conveyed in this films is done through the facial expressions of the two stars, which in my opinion makes their casting very important and deliberate on polley’s part. the decision for fiona to enter the nursing home is ultimately her choice; grant in fact tries to convince her not to go when he discovers that he can’t see her for the first thirty days. we learn through discussions between the two that grant cheated on fiona several years before when he was a professor, but fiona says she has forgiven him. however, what becomes clear as fiona enters the nursing home and forgets who grant is, is that she has essentially chosen to leave him at this point in their marriage. she does not see grant for thirty days and begins spending time with another man in the home, aubrey (michael murphy). i think it is viable to interpret this as her punishment to grant for his adultery years ago; he is forced to watch her be in love with another man. this perspective is reinforced through grant’s conversations with one of the workers in the nursing home. the nursing home is shot with over-exposed lighting and soft focus, making it appear very idyllic, but this element of grant’s punishment gives the setting a darker component to consider along with the typical difficulties of an alzheimer’s story.

watch the trailer

year of the dog

year of the dog is the directorial debut of mike white (writer of the good girl, chuck&buck) and stars molly shannon as peggy, a woman whose closest companion, her dog pencil, dies and subsequently, her life as she knew it falls apart. peggy is a secretary whose only friends are her coworker layla (regina king) and her brother and his wife (thomas mccarthy and laura dern) but we see that these relationships are more or less superficial and that peggy truly feels closest to pencil. when peggy adopts a new dog, she meets newt (peter sarsgaard) who feels the same as her about animal rights and she begins to like him and it seems as though they may have a relationship. however, he like peggy, has better relationships with animals than humans and is incapable of being anything more than a friend to her. after this realization, peggy adopts a strictly vegan lifestyle which alienates her from her friends and family. molly shannon effectively portrays the balancing act that peggy attempts to perform between living a normal life and adhering to her beliefs. in the scenes when we see her using her company’s money to support animal rights foundations, and when she takes her brother’s children to a farm and then a slaughterhouse, we know she is attempting to do good things, but they end up backfiring because her gestures are too extreme. shannon conveys this through her performance by shifting between humour and drama, even within particular shots. it is often difficult to know whether we’re supposed to be laughing or feeling deeply sympathetic towards peggy. i think this technique is effective especially when peggy ultimately abandons the traditional life she had been living to support her cause entirely at the end of the film. even after she has been rehabilitated and her boss has welcomed her back, she cannot rejoin the life she lived before. i saw this film soon after zoo (a film dealing with real-life zoophiles) and it got me thinking about the spectrums of animal love. year of the dog seemed to me to be the safe side of the spectrum, portraying a woman with a deep emotional connection to her pet, so intense that when he dies, it upsets her entire world, and zoo being the dangerous territory of beastiality. i do not think the relationship portrayed in year of the dog is meant to suggest that peggy is a zoophile; just to perhaps bring to light the idea that the connections some people feel to animals are often more fulfilling than their human interactions. and that the way the men in zoo had to negotiate their regular lives with their love of animals was similar to the way in which peggy negotiates her animal rights beliefs with her existence in a more traditional setting.

watch the trailer

disturbia

director d.j. caruso’s (taking lives) disturbia begins with a car accident that kills kale (shia labeouf)’s father and causes kale to become reclusive and act out in school. an argument with his spanish teacher ends with kale punching him and receiving a punishment of three months under house arrest. he has an ankle monitor attached that allows kale to reach the boundaries of the yard and if he is to go beyond that, the police are immediately dispatched. initially, kale wastes his days playing video games, watching trash tv and eating junk food. his mother (carrie-anne moss) gets frustrated with this behaviour and cuts off all of his entertainment. out of boredom, kale begins spying on his neighbours, including Ashley, a hot teenage girl who spends most of her time lounging poolside, and mr.turner (david morse), a man he suspects to be a serial killer who is all over the news. kale employs the help of ashley and his best friend, ronnie, to do the investigating that he cannot. the parallels to hitchcock’s rear window are unmistakable with shia labeouf’s house-bound kale mirroring jimmy stewart’s wheelchair-bound l.b. jefferies, both of whom become obsessed with an unsolved murder mystery in their own neighbourhoods. however, disturbia does not extend the mystery of the killer’s identity in the way that rear window does. the clues in disturbia are laid out blankly through the television reports and kale realizes that mr.turner is in fact the killer, almost immediately. beyond this point, the tone of disturbia changes and it becomes a fairly standard teen thriller, albeit a suspenseful one.

watch the trailer

hot docs: girls rock!

the world premiere of arne johnson and shane king’s girls rock! was the best screening i attended at hot docs. the film is about a rock n’ roll camp for girls aged eight to eighteen. while at this week-long camp, the girls must choose an instrument (that they may never have played) and form a band with other campers. at the end of the week, all of the bands perform for a large crowd. the film focuses on several campers and follows their progression through learning to play instruments to resolving conflicts with other band members. along with learning to play music, the girls take lessons in self-defense and discuss body image issues as well as pressures they face at school and home. a lot of emphasis is placed on the idea of girls not being afraid to be loud and to express themselves. we witness many of the girls undergo transformations when they lose their initial inhibitions and allow themselves to play loudly, make mistakes, and get sweaty. one of the camp leaders mentions the ways in which girls are taught to be small and quiet in this culture while boys are allowed to be loud, take up space, and get dirty. part of the focus of the camp is working to undo these behaviours in the girls, by providing a space that they feel comfortable and encouraged in. one of the most profound realizations that some of the campers reach is discovering that they are happy with themselves; a quality lacking from many of them when they begin the week. i felt that this documentary worked really well because the girls they interviewed and followed for the week were all very endearing in their own ways and the film approached the difficult subject of teenage girls’ self-confidence through the guise of a music camp, while still addressing a full spectrum of individuals and struggles.

hot docs: zoo

director robinson devor’s zoo depicts through interviews and re-enactments the story of a seattle man’s death in 2005. the man died of a perforated colon due to engaging in intercourse with a horse at a gathering of zoophiles on a washington farm. devor constructs the story out of order, cutting between establishing the psychology of the zoophiles involved and the lead up to the actual event of the man’s death. it was obvious that devor was extremely careful to not pass judgment on this group of people, and to treat the situation delicately. the film portrays these men as misunderstood and somewhat alienated from healthy human connections. we never see the actual people involved, only re-enactments (for privacy reasons i assume), but we do hear their voices in the voice-over. it is nearly impossible to distinguish the voices from one another, giving the sense that they are all speaking as a unified group. much of the film is dark and sets an eerie mood when the events leading up to the death are recounted for us. conversely, when we are hearing some of these men discuss the emotional connections they have with animals (sexual relations are barely mentioned), the cinematography is quite beautiful; a lot of nighttime outdoor shots with vibrantly coloured flowers, trees, etc. i think devor used this technique of two distinct filming styles to visually reinforce the idea of a spectrum of animal love. because much of what the men discuss is emotional connections, it helps us to move beyond the initial shock of the sex to see that it’s not such a simple distinction between zoophiles and everyone else. i thought devor’s cautious treatment of this subject was effective because i left the theatre not focused on the man’s death, but more on the psyches of zoophiles and where exactly i stand on my beliefs about them.