| Author |
Message |
|
| mo_flixx |
 Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:54 pm |
 |
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
Too bad Joaquin Phoenix pulled that act on Letterman. Maybe his latest indie, “Two Lovers” (by James Gray) needs the publicity but the movie is actually much better than Joaquin’s cheap stunt would lead us to imagine.
The film opens with Leonard (Phoenix) jumping off a bridge in a supposed attempt to kill himself. He’s rescued but obviously remains very troubled. Wet and disheveled, he returns to his parents’ Brighton Beach apartment, his home since suffering some kind of breakdown.
Although Leonard is a talented photographer, he does menial jobs at his parents’ dry cleaners’ and leads a thoroughly aimless life. Isabella Rossellini, who has now segue'd into character parts, plays his mother. Both parents would like to see Leonard take over the business, but it is obvious that Leonard is too unstable to settle for such a dull existence.
From his bedroom window, Leonard spots a new neighbor Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow). He is fascinated by her beauty and he’s able to easily strike up a friendship with her. At the same time, his parents have found a couple eager to buy the dry cleaning business. Their daughter is the lovely Sandra (Vinessa Shaw) who is smitten by Leonard. Both families are pushing their children together a bit too eagerly.
Michelle lures Leonard into her hopelessly complicated life and holds a power over him that only a very beautiful and neurotic woman can.
“Two Lovers” is remarkable for its sense of place. I’ve never been to Brighton Beach, but the old Jewish neighborhood and Leonard’s parents’ apartment come alive with fastidious attention to detail. In addition, mid-town Manhattan seems truly magical when Leonard accompanies Michelle on her trips into the city at night.
“Two Lovers” captures so much pain. We sense Leonard’s heartbreak as he struggles to find love. We empathize with how he, in his thirties, has become ensnared in a trap from which he’ll probably never escape. And we understand the resignation of his parents who must have had idealized hopes years ago but gave them up to make a living with a dry cleaning store.
This is a thoughtful film about dreams and what it’s like to lose them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
The above review convinces me that Phoenix's wackiness is not a publicity stunt; why go über-weird to promote a tender film? That just doesn't make sense to me. Plus, time is a'tickin' for the man to follow up on that, keep the fires burning in peoples' minds and the "act" alive, and he hasn't done so. Andy Kaufman, in his wrestler persona, saturated the airwaves with his act, and that was the key to the popularity and controversy of it. Phoenix is in meltdown mode, and it is sad, because I think he is a great actor with tremendous potential to explore his talent even more deeply.
Oh well. I'll still see the film. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
lissa-
Do see the film, but don't expect "tender" or even "bittersweet." It's what I'd call a difficult film. I think most of the audience left rather depressed - but it is a sensitive and well-done effort. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Lissa,
The whole goal is to get people talking, it doesn't matter what they are talking about. Joaquim Phoenix is now a much more recognizable name than he has ever been before, and people who didn't connect him with anything are going to recognize his name when they see the trailer. "Oh the guy on Letterman. He was nuts! Wonder what he's like in the movie?"
I think you're right to compare his gimmick with Kaufman's shtick., but I don't think that means he's disturbed in the same way. So many people have talked about how brilliant Kaufman's publicity moves were, it was just a matter of time before some other celebrity co-opted the method. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
mo - sounds even more intriguing.
Joe - Joaquin's legacy will BE how weird he appears, and after his turns as Commodus and Johnny Cash, even Reservation Road and Quills (despite any success in Two Lovers), his sudden turnaround has people mocking him rather than admiring. Does any performer want to be mocked?
If I hadn't known his work beforehand, and went to see this film solely based on his Letterman weirdness, I'd be less admiring of him, and more pitying of his appearing to have gone off the deep end.
But - again - time will tell. If he comes out after the movie's had some time to gel in peoples' minds, his next move will be one to watch. Frankly, the guy couldn't even name his co-star in the movie (when he was on Letterman) - he struggled to supply Gwyneth Paltrow's name when Letterman prompted him. Not a way to endear oneself to the Hollywood crowd. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
Gyneth has been publicizing the movie. I haven't seen the shows...but I wonder what she's saying.
In some ways the movie was reminiscent of "The Royal Tennenbaums" (weird NYC family), but I liked it a lot better. "Two Lovers" is sincere and realistic - there are no forced attempts at humor.
Gwyneth may perhaps be drawn to projects like this?? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Lissa,
I don't know if any performer wants to be mocked, but every performer wants to be noticed. I agree there's a big question of whether this stunt blew up in his face (a la the Garth Brooks/Chris Gaines and Beyonce/Sasha Fierce fiascos) or whether it will come across as a funny skit, aka the way Charles Grodin used to play the angry guest who hated the host...also on Letterman. And Grodin never came out from behind the mask, either. I think it's too soon to know for sure. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:46 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Befade wrote: it means that Michelle Williams, the main character does not represent empowerment for women. Or the film could be called......."I am woman. I am not strong." I am not smart. I am not selfless. I am not surviving. I am drifting and fading and flummoxing and no fun to watch.
Well said, Betsy. And funny too. Though I bet you didn't feel that way after seeing the movie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:22 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: it means that Michelle Williams, the main character does not represent empowerment for women. Or the film could be called......."I am woman. I am not strong." I am not smart. I am not selfless. I am not surviving. I am drifting and fading and flummoxing and no fun to watch.
Betsy,
I haven't seen Wendy and Lucy, but from the reviews I've read the subject of the film isn't about "empowerment for women". Since its not called EMPOWERMENT FOR WOMEN, why should it be called I AM NOT WOMAN. I AM NOT STRONG". From what I've read, its about a woman hitting rock bottom, as you put it "not surviving". Should it be true to its intention or should the director/writer Kelly Reichardt (a woman) have imposed some feminist uplift to the story.
It seems that some women demand that films about women follow some kind of feminist guidebook. Whereas, male film goers don't expect male characters in films to adapt to some concept of idealized manhood. In fact, many well-regarded films deal with men going through identity crisis or being unempowered. For example:
FIVE EASY PIECES
THE FISHER KING
STRAIGHT TIME
MIDNIGHT COWBOY
THE SWIMMER
LAST TANGO IN PARIS
THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE
THE BIG LEBOWSKI
LEAVING LAS VEGAS
RAGING BULL
to name a few.
Do want to see a movie that is true to the story it tells or some kind of feminist screed?
Political correctness is death for art. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:45 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I completely agree about political correctness being the death of art. (It's a big part of what killed Brokeback Mountain, if you want my opinion.)
However, none of the movies you're describing are held up as defining movies about manhood for the mainstream audience. In fact, they are almost all art house movies that appeal to a select audience. And a more open, empathetic audience.
More typical of films about men aimed at men are works like Walking Tall, Serpico, Born on the Fourth of July, The Color of Money, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Odd Couple, The Blues Brothers, 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Top Gun, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, which are as programmatic/didactic as the female empowerment flicks, and follow a very strict rule book about how men should be presented. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: However, none of the movies you're describing are held up as defining movies about manhood for the mainstream audience. In fact, they are almost all art house movies that appeal to a select audience. And a more open, empathetic audience.
and WENDY AND LUCY is not a defining film about womanhood for a mainstream audience. It's not intended to be 9 TO FIVE or G.I. JANE.
Its a super low budget indie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:16 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Good point. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Befade wrote: Do not see Wendy and Lucy.
Total downer with very bad aftertaste. Negative woman empowerment factor.
In an odd way, you can read it in the reverse. In the past a film wouldn't be made about a woman in such circumstances, or if it was, she would wind up a casualty as in Agnes Varda's Vagabond. Even the store and police treat the Wendy as they would a male, not letting her off because of her gender or cuteness or vulnerability. I'm not saying this is good, just that in many ways I thought this film posited a world in which there was a fair degree of sexual equality.
With that said, I was rather disappointed in the film. It was too slight, too narrow in focus, and the stakes a bit too low-level. I also thought a few things were contrived ...
Mildish Spoiling:
It didn't seem necessary to show that the young clerk who insists on turning her in is identified as a Christian (a little heavy-handed without further investigation). And the central problem seemed easily avoided if she just told the police about her dog before she was being driven away by the coppers. Especially in a small town such as that, I think the police almost certainly would have helped or arranged something.
End M. Spoliage
I was frustrated how passive Wendy was. Though in one scene, her total passivity works as a defense mechanism, at the one moment in which being a woman was shown as being more vulnerable. I suppose that part of the point was that she didn't trust people/authority, but if she just spoke up at a few key moments, things could have been arranged and worked out much better. IMO, this was especially true for the ending.
I just didn't care enough for the character or her own small, mostly self-imposed problems.
I would rec either Vagabond or Into the Wild over W&L. More affecting films, where we do get to know and care about the wandering down-and-out main character -- despite the girl in Vagabond being even more frustrating than Wendy, and inflicting greater harm on herself.
Mo, I know that you are a dog lover, so I wonder how you'd react to this film. If that might afford greater involvement in the film than I had. |
Last edited by gromit on Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:44 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Fascinating thread. But back to Joaquin Phoenix for a moment.
Joe--I never heard hide nor hair of Garth Brooks or Beyonce and their alter egos, if that's what those characters are. However, Joaquin Phoenix has gained a lot of publicity. So his "stunt" has been more "successful." That said, I's not sure it was a stunt. I still think he might be slightly or completely bonkers. In fact, I've heard some insider dope that says he's always been a little bit off the reservation.
Btw, I knew Andy Kaufman well enough to know that behind all that publicity-seeking was a deeply troubled person, perhaps the only celebrity I've ever known who was truly certifiable and--if he weren't so brilliant and celebrated--might easily have been institutionalized. I've always felt, perhaps wrongly, that Robin Williams is a few carrots short of a bunch as well, that his supposedly genius rants were more crazy than funny, and with just a slight adjustment could have veered into Joaquin territory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:33 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
gromit -
I haven't seen "Wendy and Lucy." I have seen the Coming Attractions a couple of times.
Your reference to Varda's "Vagabond," makes me think of Robert Bresson and "Mouchette." Mouchette is a younger character, but Bresson's movies tended to chronicle hopeless characters & events.
I can also think of Depression era films with down on their luck female protagonists, but the films I remember are all somewhat romanticized.
I will have to wait for my reaction to Williams' dog until I see the film.
The question of relating a film's quality to political correctness is a complex one. The cinema is filled with decades of politically _incorrect_ female characters. And Joe - you didn't mention John Wayne as an idealized male. Boys of the 1950's grew up with a steady diet of strong male role models - just think of all those WWII movies. Actor/writer/historian Jim Beaver describes growing up with the idealized Wayne persona during his childhood in Texas.
As to billy's comments about Joaquin Phoenix, Andy Kaufman, etc.; I'll just chime in to say that I have heard that Robin Williams is waaay out there. Jonathan Winters is another comedian who has struggled with demons his whole life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
