BEFORE: Max von Sydow carries over from "Judge Dredd", and if you're wondering why my chain has taken a turn in THIS direction, as opposed to any other (instead of, for example, following up with Stallone's film "Grudge Match"), it's because at some point I started to take a more holistic approach to the watch list. About a month ago I tore the list apart for the 17th time (but who's counting?) and tried to develop a chain of linked actors that would thread through ALL of the films left on the list, after setting aside the Halloween films and the Christmas films. And as far as I can tell, I've mostly succeeded, if I can just stick to the plan and resist the temptation to tear the list apart once again. But, of course, there are complications:
1) After tonight's film, there will be 164 films left on the watchlist. On one hand, this is positive news, because I started the year with 194 films left, so in 4 1/2 months, there's a net gain (loss?) of 30 films. Not great progress, but it is progress. On the other hand, this is negative news, because I'm still not down to the level matching where I left off at the end of 2014's viewing year. In early November when I closed up shop, the watchlist was down to 150. Maybe I can still get there by the end of May, we'll have to see.
2) Even though I devised a chain a month ago that would connect all of the remaining films, I've added about two dozen films since then. Some got worked into the chain very easily, but there are about 7 or 8 new films stuck at the bottom of the list that (so far) have resisted efforts to connect to anything. Again, I will try to resist the temptation to tear things apart just to work those few films into the mix. It's like a maze right now, a series of turns, and if I change just one, it changes every turn that needs to be made after that.
3) Those 164 films left on the list have to fit into 172 viewing slots remaining in 2015. Sure, the math's still on my side - but that means I can only add 8 more films before the project rolls into 2016. That won't be easy, as I could probably add 8 more films next week if I were so inclined. And then once I've got more films on the list than there are slots left in the year, which films get pushed back into Year 8? Right now I've got a solid list that will get me to the end of May, and a rougher, more tentative list that will get me through my Comic-Con break and to the end of July. Linking runs out on July 31, at which time I've scheduled a week's worth of documentaries, then another chain could start after that.
4) I would like very much for the last film of 2015 to be "Star Wars: Episode 7", because Film #1 was "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", and this symmetry would give me the option of ending the project in a way that satisfies me. As I mentioned yesterday, I could link there from several different films, but can I link there from a Christmas film in just a few steps? And why does the new Star Wars film need to be released in December, anyway, when every previous film in the series was released in May? So, this will require a fair amount of planning.
So there's a fixed destination for film #2,200, but it's the path to get there that's always shifting. I'm imagining that it's like trying to land a cargo plane on a very small island, but I'm not sure which islands I need to make drops at first, which is the most efficient order to visit them all in, or how much I need to refuel to get to the end, and to make matters worse, every time I add fuel or jettison some cargo it changes the weight of the plane, thereby changing the physics of bringing the plane down on the runway safely. Each film I add is like taking on fuel so I can go farther, but each film I watch is like making a cargo drop that makes the plane lighter. What combination of adding and deleting films is going to bring me in right on target? It's maddening to not have the definitive answer, just a rough plan.
And what happens if I can end this year the way I want, but I still have 10 or 30 or 100 films left on the list? That's not really an ending, now, is it?
THE PLOT: The true story of Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby who suffers a stroke and has to live with an almost totally paralyzed body.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "The Sessions" (Movie #1,369)
AFTER: Well, this just sort of puts my petty problems into perspective, now doesn't it? But like Spinal Tap said while standing in front of Elvis' grave, "It's too much. Too much fucking perspective." Maybe that's the goal here, to realize that whatever problems you're having, whatever sort of crappy day you might have had, or whatever's making you feel like you're life's not moving forward, it could always be worse. If you're alive, healthy, moving around and able to enjoy life, you should be counting your blessings - because somewhere there are people unable to do all of those things.
Or, to put a finer point on it, you've got a limited amount of time to go, see, do, eat and drink all the things you want to experience, so you'd better get working on all that. Every day above ground is a good one, so try and make the most of it. As long as you've got your health, you've got no excuses.
I feel relatively lucky that I've never had to spend the night in a hospital, never had a major bone broken or had an illness that took me out of the game for more than a few days. Oh, I've had injuries, but nothing that couldn't be handled in the E.R. or on an outpatient basis. Kidney stones, a head wound, ingrown toenails - things that were quite painful but nothing that required an overnight stay. Maybe someday something big will strike, you never know. All the more reason to try and enjoy life and all my faculties while I have them.
The main character here is seen while recovering from a stroke, and the first 40-45 minutes of the film are seen from his perspective as his doctors, nurses and therapists communicate with him, and he soon realizes that he can't communicate back. But we're in his head-space, which is both convenient for the purposes of filmmaking, and also presents some unique storytelling challenges. For starters, when you're paralyzed, the view never changes, unless someone moves into your view or brings you outside for some sun. And watching yourself get bathed and exercised without feeling it no doubt creates the sensation of being trapped inside your own body.
Eventually a system is developed for two-way communication, starting with one blink for "Yes" and two for "No", then evolving into a system where someone says the most frequent letters (in the French alphabet) and he blinks once when they've landed on the right letter. This method takes several minutes to produce a sentence (and forget about playing Scrabble) and for anyone listening to it, including the film's audience, it sounds very repetitive and non-fruitful. Yet still this man was able to dictate an entire book based on his experience, so really, what excuse do I have for not finishing my screenplay again?
He also feels strong enough to see old friends, and spend some time with his kids, although spending a day at the beach with them can't really work the way it used to. Hey, the beach sucks anyway - what's so great about getting too much sun and sand in your shoes, sand in your shorts, sand in your food, etc.? Phone conversations with his father (who, due to his age and ailing health, is sort of a prisoner of another kind) prove to be more problematic - what with that 5-minute delay after a question while a therapist spells out each response via eyeblinks.
In addition to presenting a unique acting challenge - how much expression can an actor give by only using one eyeball - it's also very easy to take this as a depressing story, but I think that kind of misses the point. Even though his paralysis gave him a feeling of isolation, symbolized by the diving bell in the title, we see through his fantasies of food and women that he's still very much alive inside. Though it's little compensation for his condition, through his imagination he can eat anything, go anywhere and romance anyone.
(ASIDE: The main character here says "Only a fool laughs when nothing's funny." But the power of humor is an amazing thing - I managed to joke around with a couple of ambulance drivers after an attack of kidney stones forced me to leave the NY Comic-Con, only to have one of them return to the E.R. after seeing my sweat outline on the gurney. "Hey," he said, "you really were in pain!" Umm, yeah, that's what I was trying to tell you, in my own way. Don't let the jokes fool you, pain and I are old friends. But I figure if I can laugh through the worst situations, things are still going to be relatively OK.)
This is the rare film where flashbacks are not only justified, they're also essential to both keeping the audience entertained, and giving insight to the mind of the main character - not just messing with the timeline to keep people guessing about things. Without the flashbacks, this would all be an egregious violation of the "Show, don't tell" rule.
Also starring Mathieu Amalric (last seen in "The Grand Budapest Hotel"), Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josée Croze, Marina Hands, Anne Consigny, Niels Arestrup, Isaach de Bankolé, Patrick Chesnais, with a cameo from Lenny Kravitz.
RATING: 4 out of 10 wheelchairs
No comments:
Post a Comment