BEFORE: Michael Shannon carries over from "Loving", which brought me to a dilemma - should I include "The Shape of Water" here? I'm not going to rush out to the theater to see it, but I do have access to an Academy screener. BUT I said that I wasn't going to watch anything from the screener pile until the end of March, and then only if I needed to make a connection. BUT from what I heard, there's something of a romantic angle to that creature/fantasy film, and it probably could fit in here. BUT, on the other hand, my February schedule is already set, and in fact I have too many films for the month, I've got to double-up this weekend or next week as it is just to hit the right film on Valentine's Day.
So - do I watch "The Shape of Water" here or not, between two other films with Michael Shannon? I'm going to hold off, because I think I can get back there easily, there are so many character actors in that film that it should be easy to link to later, I can already think of two or three films that will get me there. Plus a romance between a human and a fish-man might be a little far off the mark for a February film, it's more like "The Creature from the Black Lagoon", which is more like an October film, right? Arrgh, this could go either way, I just hope I don't fall one film short for the year, or lose my way to link back to that film later, because then I'll really regret not watching it now. There's no way to tell, but the good thing about that is, there's really no right or wrong to my linking at this point, there are just paths and opportunities I take now and those I hope to take later. So I'm going to proceed as originally planned, and in late March I can start linking to the Academy screeners - it's more important right now to get films off my watchlist and open up slots for new films that I'm recording off premium cable.
Now here's a look at tomorrow's line-up on TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" program - all are nominees or winners for Best Sound:
6:30 am "Flirtation Walk" (1935)
8:15 am "This Land Is Mine" (1943)
10:00 am "The North Star" (1948)
12:00 pm "The Snake Pit" (1948)
2:00 pm "The Big House" (1930)
3:45 pm "The Great Caruso" (1951)
5:45 pm "Strike Up the Band" (1940)
8:00 pm "San Francisco" (1936)
10:15 pm "That Hamilton Woman" (1941)
12:30 am "The Alamo" (1960)
4:15 am "The Sound Barrier" (1952)
I somehow managed a "perfect" score today - I've seen none of these. So another 0 out of 11 keeps me at 31 films seen, out of 89, so I'm back down to 35% overall.
Looks like another dark film tonight - I promise, brighter, more comedic romantic films lie ahead.
THE PLOT: A wealthy art gallery owner receives a draft of her ex-husband's new novel, and once she starts reading it, she just can't put it down.
AFTER: Even after watching this film, I wasn't sure if it belonged here - does this qualify in any way as a romance? Or should I have watched "The Shape of Water" instead, and figured out another way to move forward? Should I have moved this to later in the year, next to other Jake Gyllenhaal films like "Rendition", "Life" and "Proof"?
Upon further review, the judges have determined that the ruling on the field will stand - there's enough relationship-y material to allow this to be considered appropriate for the February chain. Two of the three "sections" (I'll explain in a minute) are about relationships, and even the third one, which is the story-within-the-story, could qualify, even though it's a bit of a stretch.
This film "toggles" between three timelines, or sections - one is the gallery owner receiving the draft of her ex-husband's book, and as she reads the draft, she is captivated by the story. We then see her go about her day, interact with her second husband, work at the gallery, and this acts as the framing device. We assume that she is also continuing to read the story, whenever it's convenient or she has some down-time. (NITPICK POINT: Couldn't she read the draft all at once? How gripping is it, exactly, if she keeps putting it down? Let's put a pin in that thought for a moment and continue.)
The second timeline is the flashbacks we get of her relationship with her ex-husband, the author of the book. And you know I hate this excessive time-jumping, unless it's dramatically justified (a la "Pulp Fiction" or "Cloud Atlas") or unless there's an actual time machine in the plot. But we do learn, eventually, how she and her first husband met, came together, and how they split apart. There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered, but again, let's put another pin there and move on.
The third timeline is the story-within-the-story, the plot of the book her ex-husband wrote. This is played out visually, just like all the other scenes that are "real", and this may be a bit confusing because Jake Gyllenhaal plays two roles, the ex-husband, and the lead male role in the more fictional story. Maybe this could have been less confusing if a different actor was used, but I get the point that all writers sort of ARE their central characters, if an author wants to write something authentic it has to be about him, even if it's not. Makes sense? Now, I'm not going to discuss the details of the story-within-the-story, other than to point out that they are DARK. Proceed at your own risk here.
What we're supposed to take away is that the fictional story is somehow connected to the author's real story, or perhaps he wrote a wish-fulfillment story. Or maybe he's just a sick bastard, like Stephen King, who knows how to craft a gripping yarn. Or maybe he finally figured out how to get his ex-wife's attention, or prove a point to her, years after the fact - I don't know, this is largely open to interpretation, I think. And the ending is left VERY open for each viewer to interpret as they see fit.
But you probably can guess what I'm going to ask about this film, with the toggling between the three timelines. Was this time-jumping done to cover up the fact that this story just never would have worked if everything was presented in order, or if she had read the entire draft in one sitting? Was some screenwriter trying to compensate for the fact that he essentially had three incomplete short stories, and by stitching them together, was there an attempt to make them some kind of "arty" intangible whole?
Because the end result here comes across as proto-Lynchian, an attempt to make the viewer question what is "real". Aren't all three stories fictional, in the end? How can one be more fictional than the others, just because the character in one timeline wrote it? Or are they all somehow equally fictional, equally unlikely?
I have to take issue with the opening credits of the film, which feature three obese women who appear in the nude in some kind of fantasy sequence, though it's never explained whose fantasy this is, or why we're seeing what we're seeing. I know that the PC thing is that we're supposed to celebrate all body types now, including plus-sized models, and champion different forms of beauty other than what the fashion industry has fed us over the last few decades, but still, it's hard not to take this as a form of exploitation. What point, exactly, is being made by showing us three naked fat women holding sparklers? Since this doesn't connect to any part of the main story at all, it's extremely questionable in my book.
And what was that throwaway line about her second husband being gay? We never see this confirmed, it's just alluded to by her friend in the gallery. Sure, he spends a lot of time working and on the road, and he's well-groomed and well-dressed, but that doesn't add up to "gay". And same NITPICK POINT as in "Far From Heaven", if he's married and has a daughter, then why isn't he falling under the "bisexual" heading, rather than "gay"? I think perhaps I misunderstood her friend, who may have only been referring to her OWN husband as gay.
I assume the second husband is the father of her daughter, anyway, thought they never state this outright. When she reads the draft it's been 20 years since her divorce, so it's more likely that that her second husband is the father. If the first husband were the father, then he would be likely to have visitation rights or something, or at least be more in contact with his ex-wife.
I still have unanswered questions, and I'm not completely buying into the way that the three timelines influence each other. I can see how reading the book might spark her flashbacks of the time when she was married, but the fictional story doesn't bear a close enough resemblance to the "reality" to have a direct influence on it, or vice versa.
Also starring Amy Adams (last seen in "Justice League"), Jake Gyllenhaal (last seen in "Demolition"), Armie Hammer (last heard in "Cars 3"), Laura Linney (last seen in "Sully"), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (last seen in "Albert Nobbs"), Isla Fisher (last seen in "Keeping Up With the Joneses"), Ellie Bamber, Michael Sheen (last heard in "Alice Through the Looking Glass"), Andrea Riseborough (last seen in "Birdman"), Jena Malone (last seen in "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2"), India Menuez, Zawe Ashton, Kristin Bauer von Straten, Karl Glusman, Robert Aramayo, Graham Beckel.
RATING: 5 out of 10 packs of cigarettes
No comments:
Post a Comment