Joy (2015)

There are a lot of good things going on in this movie. David O. Russell has partnered again with his muse Jennifer Lawrence for another stellar performance. Joy is the strongest woman Lawrence has played thus far in her career. She is a divorcee who is constantly putting out fires at home (the opening scene is a showcase for Lawrence), but she wants to do more with her life. She is an inventor by nature and she takes control of her own destiny and pursues her passion. It kind of reminded me of The Good Wife-- a strong female lead who takes hold of her own life. And she is authentic as herself; that is Lawrence's biggest selling point. The characterization of Joy's mother is also well developed. And in the first half of the movie, there is this surreal back and forth between reality and the soap opera world that she lives in.

There is a great scene in which Bradley Cooper is showing Joy around the QVC studio. The studio is a magical place that elicits awe (and joy) from Joy and lets Cooper show off a little too. The scene moves forward at an anticipatory pace. There is a fantastic use of music in this scene that actually reminded me of The Good Wife, which commonly uses instrumentals to build excitement in the lead-in to the titles.  The entire film actually uses music very effectively, including the guitar solo from Alabama Shakes's "Gimme All Your Love" and the piano introduction from Bruce Springsteen's "Racing in the Street." Some of the orchestral bits give it a fairy tale feeling, and the snowfall helps feed that aura.  It is a really good soundtrack ranging from rock to Latin jazz, and when it comes to music I expect nothing less from Russell.

The moral of the story is that business is hard. It's not a glamorous movie. Business (and much less mops) rarely is. I get that. But there is one terrible scene that I felt really detracted from the movie. Robert De Niro and Isabella Rosselini are deriding Joy for not having what it takes to be in business. And she just takes it. Maybe this is how the actual events went, but she accepts that they are right. And they're not. The way I understand it, from a legal standpoint, Joy was in the right. It was the very people chastising her (for simply being herself) that messed up. And Russell makes very clear that Joy's father is not a nice or supportive-type person; but I think this scene was overkill and really contrary to the entrepreneurial spirit that the film seems to endorse.

What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015)

A clever combination of archival footage, journal entries, old photographs and talking head interviews, this documentary presents a complete portrait of Nina Simone.  A classically trained pianist, Simone became known for jazz and blues and for her activism during the Civil Rights movement. The premise of the documentary comes from a quote by Maya Angelou, and the film slowly answers the question "What happened, Miss Simone?" In a very honest way, the film details exactly what happened in her rise to fame and in her suffering from bipolar disorder. My favorite quote from the film is "I'm in Carnegie Hall finally, but I'm not playing Bach." Simone played a famous concert at Carnegie Hall, fulfilling a lifelong dream but not as a classical pianist. Though she did not become a professional classical musician, her technique and discipline showed in all the styles she played. She used her music for good, making music with a purpose to advance the civil rights agenda. This got her into a lot of trouble but it was fulfilling. It was her way of embracing freedom, or her definition of freedom: no fear. Her distinctive voice is found in songs and in archival interviews. This candid documentary unpacks a very complex figure in a rather nice way.

45 Years (2015)

Needless to say, I think I'm a little too young to appreciate this portrait of an elderly couple celebrating their 45th anniversary. I don't know if celebrating is quite the right word. Most of the movie is actually in the run-up to the big party when a bit of new information about an old girlfriend from 50 years ago disrupts their preparations. This movie explores how a relationship that has lasted for so long evolves. What was once a picture of stability is now turned upside down and the actors convey this with subtle movements and small inflections in their voices. But in these smallest of actions and displays of emotion they say so much.

Charlotte Rampling is devastating as the wife who has to find out about her husband's ex-girlfriend 50 years later, whose spirit has returned to lurk in the corner of every room in the house--quite figuratively the elephant in the room. One scene in particular stood out for me. She is going through old slides and for the first time we see the ex-girlfriend's face from the reverse side of the projector screen. We see just enough of the screen on the right side of the shot to make out a face, and Rampling sits in the background. We catch glimpses of her face as the light from the slide projector goes off and on. And her face just says it all. 

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom (2015)

This is another excellent documentary from Netflix depicting the Maidan revolution in Kiev as it happened from behind the lines. It is certainly a movie of our times to be able to capture revolution in the moment up close like we usually only see in news reels, but now everyone has cameras and they shoot high quality. That is the only thing they shoot, for the protesters are largely peaceful. And the viewer is one of these protesters right in the thick of it. We feel the power of the people, strongly aided by a sweeping soundtrack. Fittingly, it includes Chopin's Revolutionary Etude.

The film opens with a rapid fire history lesson that is strangely told in present tense English. There are some pretty cool animations to map out where the protests were occurring. I did have a problem with the subtitles. The white subtitles were difficult to read in day scenes.

Though the material is similar to Netflix's The Square about the Egyptian protests, this movie is not as nuanced. This is very much a one-sided argument, and that is ok. We see the citizens of Kiev protesting for freedom. But the issue is much more complex than that. This is perhaps oversimplified a bit. But this does not detract from the viscerally powerful imagery.

I do wonder if the filmmakers filmed these scenes with the intention of making a documentary or simply to capture archival footage of history. And further if the filmmakers were even behind the cameras or if they obtained the footage from other people after the fact. 

Out of the Past (1947)

This is a very confusing movie and I had a hard time following. There was a flashback that lasted so long I forgot that it was a flashback. But I was at least able to follow the first flashback, what happened in the present though...I'm simply not sure. After reading the Wikipedia synopsis, they definitely left out a bunch of parts from the movie. I was unsure about Jeff's motivations in the movie. He obviously fell for Kathie the first time in Mexico, but once it is revealed how dangerous she is, does he fall for it the second time? And when he knows that he is being set up, why does he just let himself be set up? He literally just goes with it and verbalizes that he knows he is being set up, but he does exactly what they want him to do. Is this the fatalism that has resigned him to his destiny?

Despite the convoluted story, the cinematography is quite something. They play a lot with shadows and spotlights. The movie has a bit of a horror feel because it is so dark. We watch carefully constructed silhouettes for much of the movie, though unlike the other noir films we watched, the film opens on day out in nature without rain. When do things start to take a turn for the dark? When he goes back to her cabin in the jungle at night in the rain. It is not the concrete jungle, but an actual wild, uncouth jungle in Mexico. There's not turning back now because she has him.

And then I definitely missed something at the end. The Wikipedia synopsis is pretty clear about the ending. And maybe I was just being oblivious, but I think the cues were too subtle for me to able to read all of that from the movie.

The Killers (1946)

The seductive Ava Gardner plays the very dangerous femme fatale, Kitty Collins (her name might be a reference to Kitty March in Scarlet Street?). Though she plays such a large part in the film, she is not even introduced until well into the movie. The first female character that we are introduced to is Lily, whom I mistook for the femme fatale at first since she was the original love interest of the Swede, a macho Burt Lancaster. But the boxing scene in which she is introduced as the Swede's girlfriend is told in a flashback. Having seen the present, we know that she ends up with Sam Lubinsky. I immediately assumed that something happened between Sam and the Swede over Lily--but I was wrong. In retrospect, Lily is portrayed as an obedient housewife in her scene with Reardon and Sam. In this submissive position, she would not have had enough power, agency or influence to be the femme fatale.

Then we are introduced to Kitty at a party. She is shrouded in mystery seated at the piano turned away from the camera. She briefly turns to the viewer (and the Swede) and smiles. From behind, we see just her suggestive shoulders coming out of her single-strap gown. Immediately, the Swede and the viewer is stricken. When he approaches, she remains seated in a position of vulnerability while he stands leaning on the piano, and yet she controls the conversation. She subliminally informs him that she is out of reach. She is above his class and looks down on boxing, feigning an aversion to violence as a cover up for her condescension. But she leads him on, and holds his gaze without acknowledging him. That is the extent of her grip on him that she can look away and sing and pretend not to notice the man who can't take his eyes off of her.

Kitty has a couple of other major scenes, but her screen time is actually quite limited. But she does not even have to appear on screen to influence the events occurring in the movie. She looms over every scene. And in the final sequence in the Green Cat, the reflection of the cat statue, surely a symbol of Kitty, looms over Reardon in the mirror. She is in control of the action, or so she believes. And only after she has gotten everybody killed does she helplessly cry, displaying a sign of weakness. For the first time, she does not hold the power and the femme fatale is transformed into a damsel in distress. Except now that we know all of the background, we are not seduced.

The Walk (2015)

This movie is very cleverly narrated by a charming Joseph Gordon Levitt as Philippe Petit in part French, part French-accented English. He sounds really good and he apparently learned to speak fluently for the role. I really liked the narration. It is direct and intimate with the viewer and it allows the viewer special insight into what anyone else would deem suicidal. In fact, the film opens with him staring directly down the lens of the camera. And from the beginning, you are welcomed into a surreal world as the camera zooms out to show Petit in the torch of the Statue of Liberty overlooking the Twin Towers. And then we are transported to France through a bit of globe magic for a sequence in black-and-white. And all of these little intricacies make the first hour interesting in what is an otherwise uninteresting setup before we get to the titular walk. But anticipation and excitement grows.

The walk itself is really well done. The visual effects and dizzying camerawork make you really feel like you're up there with him a hundred stories up. Throughout the film, the visual effects, though sometimes small, are really cool. And we delight in seeing the crazy joy sweep across his face when he is out on his wire despite our fear of falling that is not present in the man that is actually at risk.