THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg

Directed by Lisa Cholodenko

Starring Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson and Mark Ruffalo

Joni: Each of my mom’s used your sperm.

Paul: As in two? As in both of them?

Joni: Uh-huh, as in gay.

I don’t know if anyone has told you this already but family can be fairly complicated. Take Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore) for example. They’ve been together for about 20 years and have two teenage children, one of which (Mia Wasikowska) is about to head off to college. The other (Josh Hutcherson) is somewhat aimless in his adolescent life and decides he needs to know more about where he came from. More specifically, he wants to meet the man who supplied the sperm that made both him and his sister possible. Enter Mark Ruffalo and along with him a disaster of familial proportion.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is the fourth film by Lisa Cholodenko, who has regularly explored the nature of complicated relationships and what happens to them when those involved make mistakes they know could crumble their foundations. Deciding to meet sperm donor, Paul (Ruffalo), is not that mistake. His introduction into this family’s life though certainly seems to have given all its members free reign to act out. Naturally, his emergence puts Nic and Jules into a tailspin and how they each approach the situation exposes some of the couple’s deeper issues. Bening and Moore play the couple so perfectly, you can feel a palpable sense of unbalance in the way they treat each other and an urgency to survive. It’s as though years of experiences, both great and harrowing, have been worked into their collective performances.

While Nic and Jules struggle with feelings of inadequacy and replacement, their kids, Joni and Laser (Wasikowska and Hutcherson) try hard to see themselves in Paul. When all three sit to talk for the first time, it is apparent that both nature and nurture played a part in the two kids’ growth. The delicate nature of the introduction is almost lost on the kids because they simply don’t know better. They don’t know that you can go from relating to feeling completely alien in a matter of seconds and that when that happens with the father you never met, the damage can be severe. In their innocence, they thought they wanted something but could never have truly prepared for what they got. And the same can be said for Paul. The potential of family woos him into thinking his life is empty and it isn’t long before he tries any way he can to latch on. Ruffalo is the consummate boy pretending he can be a real man.

Cholodenko has learned to breathe in the six years since her last feature. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is like a breeze with a bit of a bite on the back end. As awkward and troubling as all these interactions are, they pass by smoothly and make for a refreshing film – one where a fantastic cast portray real people with equally real problems that deal with them like a good family should, with sensitivity, solidarity and a little humour to keep the mood light. Yes, the kids are all right but the movie is even better.

A SINGLE MAN

Written and Directed by Tom Ford
Starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Matthew Goode and Nicolas Hoult


George: It takes time in the morning for me to become George.

At one point not so long ago, it was the big joke that what everyone in Hollywood who wasn’t already doing so really wanted to do was direct. While that often led to disastrous results, one can still muster high hopes for directorial debuts from the likes of someone as sophisticated as Tom Ford, most known for his work in fashion as a designer. With A SINGLE MAN, based on the Christopher Isherwood novel, Ford takes everything he knows about style and substance and translates his impeccable attention to detail from the runway to the big screen. In doing so, he has not only made a first feature that stands out with incredible promise for his future endeavors but he has also made one of the best films this year amongst directors both fresh and seasoned.


It is November 1962 and it has been eight months since George (Colin Firth) lost his lover of 16 years, Jim (Matthew Goode), in a car accident. We meet George on a very important day; it is the day in which he has decided will be his last. From the moment he wakes, he looks as though the battle is already lost. Every movement, every task looks laboured and difficult to manage. George has been living too long without the love that gave his life meaning and the manner in which Firth carries George allows his pain to resonate past the screen. I’m not a huge Firth fan; I’ve got nothing against him but I’ve never been thoroughly engaged by anything he’s done prior to this. That said, I can honestly say that his work in A SINGLE MAN is the singular best work of his career. He even eclipses a ravishing Julianne Moore! His eyes are sad, his demeanor is heavy but it is the constant struggle between the restraint he is required to exhibit publicly and the emotional collapse he is hiding beneath the surface of every pore that makes Firth unforgettable.


As one would expect, any film by Tom Ford is going to look good. Lensed by up and coming Spanish cinematographer, Eduard Grau, with a production design by “Mad Men” designer, Dan Bishop, A SINGLE MAN is both sensual and authentic. It also has the point of view of an easily distracted gay man with a roaming eye. Conversations about the Cuban missile crisis can only hold George’s attention for so long before his eyes turn to close-up shots of shirtless men playing tennis or something equally tantalizing. Not only is this perspective one that would have been spit upon in 1962, it is still a rare find today to come across a film that is unapologetically gay. Ford, an openly gay man himself, clearly has no interest in pandering to anyone as a filmmaker and the directness with which he tells this painful story of loss and loneliness is invigorating and commendable.


George likes to think of himself as invisible. After Jim’s death, he did everything he could to be exactly that but he felt that way long before this. For George, and sadly for so many others, being gay means having to swallow any words that might affirm who you are. The goal is to go unnoticed and it isn’t all that difficult. People see what they want to see and can go on living in that ignorant bliss for a long time until they can’t anymore. In George’s world, he lived as open a life as he could, even going so far as to live with his lover in a glass house, but that meant scrutiny. What they refused to see before, they don’t want to see now and with no outlet to validate the love that George lost, his life loses all meaning. Fortunately, Ford frames George’s plight with sympathy and care and subsequently, A SINGLE MAN becomes more than just a film – it becomes an indisputable argument for a generation of gay men and women still fighting for their civil rights today.

Black Sheep @ TIFF 2009!

Last night was one of those perfect evenings at the festival. The night air was fresh and alive; the crowds were out; and the North American premiere of fashion designer/photographer, Tom Ford’s first feature film, A SINGLE MAN, was about to take place about five walking minutes away from my place. I was too far back in line to see the red carpet arrivals but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t surrounded by the industry I so want to be a part of. The two gentlemen behind me in line went on about how many screens their new film was going to open on this fall; Canadian director, Atom Egoyan just waltzed past me; and, when I made my way to my second row seat in the theatre, I turned back to see Patricia Clarkson and CAIRO TIME co-star, Alexander Siddig, sit not more than three rows behind me.


Then it was time to welcome the dapper and gentlemanly Mr. Ford and the stars of his movie, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. They were all a few feet away from me and we were moments away from watching one of TIFF’s most intriguing titles. After winning rave reviews in Venice last week, A SINGLE MAN had the house full of distributors wanting to see what all the fuss was about. The film was certainly worth the hype; naturally, it was gorgeous and definitely stylish. What else would one expect from a Tom Ford film? This story of a man who has lost his lover of sixteen years in a time when his relationship would not even be given any validation was heartbreaking and somehow very steamy. And for the first time, I truly enjoyed watching Firth. He is incredible in the lead role and he will certainly be a contender come awards season.


The only downside to the evening was raising my hand to ask a question during the Q&A after the movie, seeing Tom Ford look directly at me and notice my hand up and then have the moderator call on someone else for what would be the last question of the evening. My arm sunk down but nothing could have sunk the magic that lifted this evening higher than I ever expected. I even held the door open for Miss Clarkson on my way out …

Director Series: FERNANDO MEIRELLES

Brazilian director, Fernando Meirelles has been sharpening his skills for quite some time now, literally. His 2003 international debut, CIDADE DE DEUS (CITY OF GOD) opens with quiet titles against a black backdrop and is suddenly interrupted by quick, bright inserts of a blade being sharpened. In the context of the film, the knife is to be used by a bunch of street punks to kill a chicken. As far as we’re concerned though, that knife is being sharpened to rip us apart because that is exactly what happens when you watch Meirelles work his magic on screen. The chicken, seemingly aware of her fate, escapes to see another day but escape is not so easy for those of us at home. Once Meirelles has you, there is no escape.


CITY OF GOD made people around the world stand up and take notice of this 53-year-old director. It was a stylistic revelation, both gritty and smooth. The blaring sunshine glistening against the soft Brazilian skin tones and bare sandy beaches is mesmerizing while watching street kids make all the wrong choices as though they had no others to make is nauseatingly disturbing. His ability to create a space that was both exquisite and exhilarating while still sparse and hollowing earned him international acclaim but it was his seamless blending of story and reality that earned him an unexpected but well-deserved Oscar nomination for Best Director (and a Mouton d'Or in the same category). The story itself exposes the slum known as the City of God and the difficult struggle against a destiny of drugs and crime for every child that comes from there. Kids acting like gangsters is hard enough to deal with but even harder when some are not even acting. Meirelles cast actual street kids in some of the roles and found a way to use the experiences they survived to infuse performances from inexperienced players. The result is so real at times that you forget you’re watching a narrative film.


CITY OF GOD earned a total of four Academy Award nominations and once that had happened, Meirelles could choose any project he wanted. He chose the John Le Carre adaptation, THE CONSTANT GARDENER. Going from the slums of Brazil to A.I.D.S.-stricken villages in Africa seemed risky but promising. It was not so much Meirelles’ opportunity to solidify his position as a potential master director but rather a necessity that everyone wanted to see successfully met. Within moments, any doubt that he would be able to meet the challenge is washed away. THE CONSTANT GARDENER confirmed Meirelles’ uncanny ability to tell a story in a harsh environment while making it seem as though the action itself was unraveling amidst that environment, even with the inclusion of Hollywood actors like Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz (who went on to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). It is also a brave account of government involvement in drug testing on what they consider to be the disposable population of Africa. As bleak as it sounds though, Meirelles weaves multiple levels of love and humanity into this complicated conspiracy thriller and gives value to lives that have been devalued and ignored for far too long.


His third project, BLINDNESS, seems like a natural enough progression. It is yet another critique on how horribly human beings can disregard the value of another person. The major difference is that Meirelles leaves his signature ability to recreate reality to tell a story that is entirely unreal. Based on Jose Saramago’s Portuguese novel, BLINDNESS imagines what the world would be like if humanity suddenly lost the ability to see. It is unexplained, incurable and downright unnerving. It is also unfortunately lacking compared to his previous efforts. Obvious plot holes lead to gaping questions that never go answered and for the first time, it feels as though Meirelles is making concessions instead of making a masterpiece. BLINDNESS stars Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and Gael Garcia Bernal and follows them as they are all quarantined and cut off from the rest of the world. What happens in the quarantine is ugly and dirty and sadly not so far fetched. The style is still tops and the performances are unfaltering but it’s the loose ends that become BLINDNESS’s ultimate undoing. What is going on outside of the quarantine? Has blindness only affected this particular American city or is this a world wide epidemic? Why is it that if Moore’s character is unaffected that scientists are not studying her? While BLINDNESS is still well worth seeing, its lack of cohesive emotional impact makes you wish Meirelles had stayed with what he knows, how to be real and harsh while still staying true to hope. Instead, he turns a blind eye to what he knows isn’t working and we see right through it.


Despite a minor slip, there is no denying Meirelles’s calculated talent, unique vision and passion for humanity. Given his proximity to genius, if I were that chicken, I would have let him cut me up. No doubt I would have ended up as something infinitely more meaningful and served amidst chaos with the intent of bringing balance and peace to the table.

Black Sheep Previews: BLINDNESS

In 2002, Brazilian director, Fernando Meirelles burst on to the world cinema scene with his international sensation CITY OF GOD. His direction and approach were hailed as brave and striking. The film garnered four unexpected Oscar nominations, including one for the director himself.

In 2005, he returned with his first English language film, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, based on the John le Carre novel. Ralph Fiennes starred as a widower determind to get to the bottom of his wife's murder, no matter how deeply he became involved in the bowels of corporate secrecy. Another four Oscar nominations followed, including a win for supporting actress, Rachel Weisz.

Now that another three years has passed, Meireilles hopes for a third success with his most ambitious project to date, BLINDNESS. The film opened this year's Cannes film festival and is finally making its way into North American theatres this September. The radiant Julianne Moore plays the wife of a doctor who is mysteriously unaffected by a plague of white blindness that has spread across the globe and crippled humanity. From the looks of the trailer, Meirelles has created a frightened and panicked tone that echoes throughout every element of the film, from the performances to the washed out visual aesthetic. The cast is rounded out by Mark Ruffalo, Gael Garcia Bernal and Sandra Oh and the screenplay was written by Tony Award winner, Don McKellar (THE RED VIOLIN), adapted from Nobel prize winner, Jose Saramago's contemporary classic. With all this talent behind the project, BLINDNESS is almost certain to bring Meirelles another handful of Oscar nominations to add to his collection. At the risk of sounding incredibly lame, I would say that BLINDNESS definitely looks worth seeing.

Click on the title anywhere in this article for more on BLINDNESS.

Also, be sure to check back tomorrow for part one of Black Sheep's official fall film preview.

SAVAGE GRACE

Written by Howard A. Rodman
Directed by Tom Kalin
Starring Julianne Moore, Stephen Dillane and Eddie Redmayne


Barbara Baekeland: One of the uses of money is that is allows us not to live with the consequences of our mistakes.

When I was growing up, my mother could be a little over involved in my life but she’s got nothing on Barbara Baekeland (Julianne Moore). SAVAGE GRACE tells Barbara’s story and that of her incalculable influence on the direction of her very tight family. Together, Barbara, Brooks (Stephen Dillane) and Tony (Barney Clark as a boy, Eddie Redmayne as an adult), exist in a tiny bubble where they can be seen by and perform for the rest of the world but ultimately exist solely for each other. Rich beyond their own comprehension, the Baekeland’s exude an air of arrogance and thrive on the act of acting. And even though, as the years pass on, the friends, acquaintances and passersby will have run far away, the Baekeland’s still have us.


The Baekeland’s come from money. Well, at least Brooks does. His father was the inventor of Bakelite, a popular plastic. Barbara, a former model and almost famous actress, married into the fortune and it suited her just fine to do nothing but be seen. With no real drama to occupy their time, the Baekeland’s must create their own and they become experts in the craft. And like the entirely selfish parents they are, they teach their young son, Tony, everything they know. First time feature filmmaker and brave soul, Tom Kalin, tells their revolting yet tragic story in a manner that neither glorifies nor condemns their demented ways. All the while though, he centers his attention on Tony so that we never forget who the real victim is. This makes it all the more deplorable when Tony abandons reason to embrace his family heritage.



SAVAGE GRACE is not for all. Make no mistake, when I say that the Baekeland’s ruin each other and bring about all of their own misfortune, I am not speaking lightly. This is a family that shares baths, beds and lovers. Kalin is mindful of his audience’s likely discomfort but also never afraid to show that audience the dirty details. Besides, when all the debauchery becomes too much to handle, one can always look to Moore and bask in her brilliance. Moore is flippant one moment and affected the next. Her performance is so delicately balanced between calculated control and callous chaos that one never knows which way she’ll turn and one is always shocked to find out. Both Dillane (who is practically unrecognizable) and Redmayne (who could so easily be related to Moore in reality with his pale, freckled skin) do more than simply hold their own. They complete the trio and it is a delight to watch them play off of each other, albeit a disturbing delight.


Kalin has not only crafted an engaging film but also a bizarre experience. If you can stomach this true story, then you will be treated to a frankness that is not common in American cinema. You will also get to spend time in dark places you may not be accustomed to. However, when you inevitably arrive safely on the other side, you will know the drastic differences in what it means to be fortunate.

CHILDREN OF MEN

CHILDREN OF MEN
Written by Alfonso Cuaron and Timothy J. Sexton
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron


The trouble with foretelling the future in film is that you need to make it credible. The viewer must be almost instantly immersed in a world that is unlike their own, be it entirely or just slightly. If successful, the viewer has the potential to form insights regarding the world they currently live in based on where it looks to be headed. If it fails, every intention the director weaves into the film will be lost on untrusting eyes. Alfonso Cuaron’s near apocalyptic CHILDREN OF MEN opens in a coffee shop in London where the patrons stare in a state of numbed shock at the newscast that announces the death of the world’s youngest human being. Baby Diego was all of 18 years old. There is no one younger because the human race has inexplicably stopped reproducing. The film is set only 20 years from now. Unfortunately, by carefully avoiding over-explaining how humanity got to this point, CHILDREN OF MEN misses achieving that level of authenticity necessary to fully engross the viewer, albeit just narrowly. Yet as more time is spent with the characters of this future, it somehow transforms into a compelling testament to the hope that keeps humanity going no matter how dire the state of the world. Given our current sliding slope towards an increased spread of apathy and despair, Cuaron has crafted an important film that serves as both a reminder and a tool to unify the global population … or at least the film-going one.

Part of the reason CHILDREN OF MEN fails to convince from the start is because of another device designed to foretell the future, the movie preview. To draw us into the intensity of the film, the preview shows an explosion that lead character, Theo (Clive Owen), just misses being killed in. This scene takes place early in the film and, given that this particular preview has been running even longer than most as the release was delayed by three months, the knowledge that the bomb is coming detaches the viewer as they brace for the blast. Had it been a genuine surprise, the shock itself would have served to announce the severity of the times, leaving the viewer as frightened and uneasy as the Londoners of 2027. The missing desperation allows for more time to make sense of what defines this future. While Cuaron’s clues to explain humanity’s collapse are clever and creative, the viewer is still left alone to play catch-up, trying to piece everything together on their own. Of course, it becomes clear that understanding how it happened is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that’s where the road leads but the ground is not solid enough to get a good bearing, making it difficult to see past the details.


Surprisingly, the film is still surprising. And thankfully, once it does catch you off guard, it continues to do so until you understand what it means to need to survive at all costs. Theo must deliver Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to The Human Project, a group of the world’s greatest minds dedicated to the rebirth of the human race. At the risk of pointing out the film’s obvious symbolism, Kee is the “key” to this project as she is the first woman to conceive a child since Diego. Her miracle, although unexplained, inspires everyone she encounters to do right by her and protect her unborn child. As those who are accustomed to varying degrees of selfishness shed their ego-serving ways, their true colors shine through. Even those are meant to stop Kee so that they can use her baby to further their own purposes in the world ahead, from underground terrorists to an army that doesn’t care who they blow up as long as something is being destroyed, are powerless in the presence of the potential savior she is carrying. It’s as though everyone has given up and decided that their actions are meaningless and Kee’s baby gives them a hope so pure it is unlike anything they ever knew before all the trouble began, as if they too are reborn along with the child.

What was impossible to imagine at the start becomes so vividly real that the viewer cannot help but be wrapped up in the urgency of Kee’s need for a successful mission. Cuaron gives no reason at any time to think CHILDREN OF MEN will have to end happily out of a necessity to appease its audience. He makes every step of Kee’s journey arduous and exhausting. After all, she is over eight months pregnant; her odyssey would be hard for anyone. Only she is not simply carrying a child. She is carrying the fate of humanity at a moment in history that could mean the difference between a chance to begin again or an otherwise likely extinction. Being only 20 years away, there could already be a “Kee” amongst us. Though hope sometimes feels difficult to muster, CHILDREN OF MEN shows us we will find it again when we least expect to and it will keep us alive when we need it most.