BEFORE: Well, that's life for you, one day you're touring Italy or Spain on a gourmet-cation (my term) or having a really fancy dinner in an expensive restaurant, and the next day, you could be eating out of the trash. OK, maybe not, but I feel I have to justify this sharp turn from three films about eating very elegant food. Richard Gere carries over from "The Dinner", and this film also comes from the same director, Oren Moverman, though it was released three years earlier. I guess whatever experiences Mr. Gere had playing a homeless man, he still signed on for another film from the same director.
THE PLOT: George seeks refuge at a Manhattan intake center for homeless men, where his friendship with a fellow client helps him try to repair his relationship with his estranged daughter.
AFTER: I nearly expected a similar overload on flashbacks as this film examined the life of a man living on the NYC streets - thankfully they were minimal, or perhaps even non-existent, which helped preserve the mystery surrounding how this man got into his current situation. If they had explained the heck out of that, I don't think it would have served much purpose. Also they don't really definitively answer whether this man is mentally ill, or just an alcoholic, or if something else caused his predicament, because the audience needs to feel that this could potentially happen to anyone, even themselves.
I remember hearing about this film, how Gere went a bit method and was genuinely mistaken for a homeless man while filming took place. But he couldn't break character and tell people he was not just a guy who looked a little like Richard Gere but Gere himself - so he had to just accept any food or change that people offered him. I wonder if anyone tried to help out the homeless man they passed by noting the resemblance, then trying to get him a job as a celebrity impersonator.
But usually most people try NOT to look at the panhandlers they pass by, I know I try not to. Because once you help one person, there's another one on the next block, so it feels like an unsolvable problem. Anyway my Dad always told me to not give money to homeless people, because they're probably going to blow it on alcohol or drugs, and then they won't have it, plus then I've accidentally enabled their addiction further. Oh, they all SAY the money is going to food or to get a room for the night, or bus fare "back home", but how can anyone know that for sure? They move on to the next subway car, or you pass them and move on to the next block, and there's no accountability.
I see one guy fairly regularly on the NYC subway, he asks for very specific amounts of money, like 59 cents. Somehow I'm supposed to think his whole life's going to turn around if he can only get 59 cents together, and really, that seems like a bargain. Only how do I know that he hasn't received 59 cents already today, 10 or 12 times over? And then when I see him again the following week, I wonder if he ever got that 59 cents the week before, and if he put it to good use, but I'm not really in the position to inquire about that.
I saw another guy a few weeks ago, he came on the subway with a whole story about some fire that burned down the building he was staying in, and his stuff was in storage somewhere - the more details, the better the story - and he needed only another $3 to get all of his stuff back. But he was wearing rainbow leg warmers and had a bunch of face tattoos, so no way would I consider giving him any money, because he just didn't look like someone capable of exercising good judgment. Maybe don't spend so much money on face tattoos, that's my advice. I think it would be very forward-thinking not to get a lot of face tats, just in case you ever need to beg for money, but what do I know?
I was joking before about the radical turn in going from three films about fancy meals to this one, but I sort of feel there is something of a genuine connection. I used to go to these great fixed-price beer dinners in Manhattan, where the chef would design a three- or five-course menu to accompany special beer selections from a particular brewer. I probably went to several dozens of these between the years of 2002 and 2015, when the trend seemed to have run its course. I knew of at least three venues that hosted these dinners semi-regularly, but there was a fire in the restaurant at the last one I went to, and they've become scarce ever since. But after a REALLY great dinner, one that really blew me away, I would find myself with the urge to write a check to City Harvest, out of some form of guilt after such a pleasurable experience. Now sometimes I did write the check, and sometimes I didn't, but a really great meal (like at a fancy steakhouse) still gives me the urge. Maybe I should make a donation right now, since I haven't done that in a while. I did go and enjoy a BBQ crawl across the South, and am planning a second, and I haven't given anything back yet after that.
I used to volunteer my time with that organization, every so often, but what they asked me to do was to hang out at a Farmers Market and ask the vendors in the stands if there was anything left over at the end of the day that they cared to donate. After a while, it just felt like I was pestering hard-working farmers, and I lost my taste for it - I kind of thought I'd be helping to collect excess food from restaurants, or something like that, because I know restaurants usually throw away a ton of food every day. Then it just became less of a hassle to send money to this organization I support, rather than give them my time - and by sending money, at least my conscience could still be a little more clear, right?
According to one estimate, there are 60,000 homeless people in New York City alone, and having been to other cities like San Diego, who deal with this problem differently, I'm left wondering what the best solutions are. San Diego, "The City That Means Well" decided a few years back to help the homeless by not rounding them up and taking them to shelters, but allowing them to live in tents, and then opening up public bathrooms around the city for their use. Although this was well-intentioned, it only led to semi-permanent shantytowns being erected in several locations around the city (one right next to a monorail station that I needed to use, and that was a very scary experience, being harassed by several homeless people who accused me of being an "uppity" Comic-Con attendee. I really thought I would end up robbed or stabbed, or both...) and when these little communities of homeless are formed, I hate to sound all Republican here, but it tends to breed crime.
Anyway, the film follows an average man through the shelter system, where he encounters red tape, government paperwork with all its circular conundrums, and a few people who genuinely want to give him assistance but are required to ask him questions about his condition that he either can't or won't answer. Plus losing his residence and having his wallet stolen means that he no longer has an I.D., a fixed address, or his Social Security card, and he can't remember the number either. So this means that there's only so much the system can do for him - they can schedule appointments with addiction or career counselors, but he still has to show up for them.
There are rules of conduct in the system, too - no fighting, no bringing food in to the shelter, no sexual contact with the other residents, and so on. In many ways it resembles prison, only the food might be slightly better and he technically can leave whenever he wants, although the weather may not make that a preferable choice. And he manages to form a friendship with another shelter resident, who claims to have a musical background, though we don't ever see proof of that. In fact, after a certain point we don't even see that character any more, and there's no explanation - which is just how things work out sometimes on the streets, and that in itself is a powerful message.
I was really worried they were going to pull a "Fight Club" move and make Dixon an imaginary character, someone who existed only inside George's head - because during the whole medical check-up / ID snafu, he's just hanging out in the background, talking to George, and I wasn't sure if anybody else could see him. This would have said something about George's state of mind, I'm sure - but I don't think the film chose to go this route, since there was one point in the film when a guard at the shelter said something directly to him. Also the man in the Vegan restaurant offers food to "you guys", meaning that there are two real people in the shop, not one. It's worth noting that at one point, George essentially accuses Dixon of not being real, but I think that this is not meant to be taken literally, it's more of a symptom of George's condition, or at the very least, a narrative dodge.
The ending of the film is, in its own way, just as enigmatic as the ones in the two previous films, but at least it carries a hopeful air to it, unlike the others. We want George to re-connect with his daughter, and to have someone to look after him, and to not just end up another person in a bed, another file in the system. Maybe there is some hope for him, even if too many others tend to fall through the cracks over and over.
The IMDB trivia section says that the title of this film comes from a Warren Zevon song called "Accidentally Like a Martyr", but I'm not so sure about that, since it was also the title of a very popular Bob Dylan album, from 1997, which won a Grammy for Album of the Year. Who knows, maybe the Bob Dylan album was named after the line from the Zevon song, I can't seem to get any more information about it.
The plight of the homeless man is very similar to the plight of the immigrant refugee - everywhere they go, they're told "You can't be here, go somewhere else." Well, what happens when there is no other place for them to go? As we approach our national holiday that celebrates freedom, the irony is not lost on me that currently many people are being denied the freedoms that were once part of the fabric of our society. The famous poem on the Statue of Liberty ("The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus) reads "Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" and then the last line of the poem is NOT "So I can put them in a cage and return them to where they were before." I await the day when our country once again is able to lift that lamp beside the golden door.
Also starring Ben Vereen (last seen in "Idlewild"), Jena Malone (last seen in "Nocturnal Animals"), Kyra Sedgwick (last seen in "Something to Talk About"), Steve Buscemi (last seen in "On the Road"), Michael Buscemi, Danielle Brooks (last heard in "The Angry Birds Movie"), Jeremy Strong (last seen in "Black Mass"), Thom Bishops (last heard in "The Emoji Movie"), Yul Vazquez (last seen in "Kill the Messenger"), Michael K. Williams (ditto), Brian d'Arcy James (last seen in "Spotlight"), Geraldine Hughes (last seen in "The Book of Henry"), Lisa Datz, Tonye Patano, Colman Domingo (last seen in "True Crime").
RATING: 5 out of 10 winter coats
No comments:
Post a Comment