Remembering the year 2004

I’m a sensitive guy but I don’t cry very often. Usually, the only time I find myself crying is at the movies. For me, crying is a beautiful release and when I’m watching a movie and it comes over me, I always let it out. I figure if the hard parts of my life don’t bring me to tears, then I’d better let them out whenever the opportunity presents itself, even if I’m not completely sure what it is about the image on the screen that is moving me so deeply. When I first saw FINDING NEVERLAND, it was a matinee showing. There weren’t too many people in the theatre and that suited me just fine. This way, I got to sob profusely while still maintaining some sense of privacy. When the film was released to own, I brought it home and, to my surprise, cried just as much as I did the first time I saw it. When I watched it again recently to prepare for this piece, I was concerned, at first, that it wasn’t as good as I remembered it in my mind. But then, before I could get across the room to get my box of tissues, I was weeping once again.

Based on Allan Knee’s play, “The Man Who Was Peter Pan”, FINDING NEVERLAND is something of a tear-jerker that seems deliberately designed for boys. This is Peter Pan after all and what man cannot identify with the age old tale about not wanting to ever grow up? Certainly not this one anyway. That said, I don’t think this is what gets me crying each time; that would be too simple an explanation. No, it is something inherent in the story itself that speaks directly to this boy’s heart. FINDING NEVERLAND is a story about feeling inspiration and fostering your imagination. Without either of these, Neverland could never be found. James Barrie (Johnny Depp) is the author of “Peter Pan” and the film gives us the chance to see the very real components that would become one of the most timeless children’s classics in history. As a writer, especially one who struggles to find the words from time to time, seeing that they can come from everything transpiring right in front of me was truly freeing.


Historically, Barrie met the Llewelyn Davies family in London’s Kensington Gardens in 1897. In the film, it unfolds exactly the same way, only the man of the family, Arthur, has already passed away and, of the family’s five young boys, only four make the film for fear of overcrowding. The mother, Sylvia (Kate Winslet), is simply enjoying her time in the park with her boys when Barrie suddenly becomes a central figure in the boys’ game. From that moment on, he never stops playing with them. It isn’t quite so joyous for all the boys though, what with their father recently passed. No, young Peter (played by Freddie Highmore in the role that turned him into a child star) finds himself facing adult realities that are far too harsh for him to process, let alone preserve his innocence. Barrie steps in as a father figure but the healing does not begin so easily. Barrie must remind the boys that their imaginations can take them anywhere they want to go, any time they want to go there. As he unleashes the power of his imagination in hopes of rekindling theirs, he finds something completely unexpected – Peter Pan.


Director, Marc Forster, whom I have a love/hate relationship with (basically, I love this film and hate most of his other work), does his best to do to his audience that which Barrie is determined to do for his lost boys. FINDING NEVERLAND flows back and forth between scenes of hardship (loveless marriages, financial woes and terminal illness) and magical escapes, from pirate ships in the backyard to children bouncing from their beds and taking flight. “Neverland” is a place where one never has to grow up and it is always just on the other side of our conscious minds waiting for us to visit whenever we need to or just plain feel like it. All any of us has to do to find it is believe that it is there. At no time does it feel like FINDING NEVERLAND is encouraging us to ignore our responsibilities so that we can play whenever we want. It is quite the contrary really. Forster and friends are just trying to help us find it in ourselves so that it can help us get through all the tears.



Black Sheep's 2004 Top 10
(in alphabetical order)

BAD EDUCATION, directed by Pedro Almodovar
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, Michel Gondry
FINDING NEVERLAND, Marc Forster
GARDEN STATE, Zach Braff
THE INCREDIBLES, Brad Bird
KILL BILL VOLUME 2, Quentin Tarantino
MARIA FULL OF GRACE, Joshua Marston
THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, Walter Salles
TARNATION, Jonathan Caouette
VERA DRAKE, Mike Leigh

Black Sheep @ The Oscars: BEST ACTRESS

This was a tough one. The nomination competition was fierce enough on its own without Kate Winslet contending for a spot for two standout performances. Sally Hawkins won the Golden Globe and a number of critics’ accolades for her performance in HAPPY-GO-LUCKY but missed her shot here. Kristen Scott Thomas hoped for a spot for her performance in I’VE LOVED YOU SO LONG but that little seen film left little impression. Michelle Williams had hoped that her stark performance in WENDY AND LUCY would earn her a second nod but it was too bare to register. Even Cate Blanchett, an Oscar regular, couldn’t get swept up in the Benjamin Button bonanza. And so with one slot inevitably going to Winslet, who else managed to squeak past the stiff competition?

Anne Hathaway in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED

When you first meet Kym in Jonathan Demme’s "love it or hate it" family drama, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, she is a lot to take. She talks to fill the silence and she does so very defensively in order to close the doors before they are even opened. She doesn’t want anyone to see what lies behind those doors, not ever herself. Hathaway infuses Kym with a nervous likeability that makes her both compelling and repelling. It is certainly the kind of performance that gave everyone pause and had everyone wondering if there was more to this princess than anyone had ever imagined.


Hathaway was considered to be an early favorite in this category when the film debuted to rave reviews at the Venice and Toronto film fests. Still, the film has proven to be more of a critical darling than anything else and, quite sadly as this critic loved it, this is the film’s only nomination, indicating that overall support may be thin.

Angelina Jolie in CHANGELING

Christine Collins is always a lady. She is always properly made up and appropriately composed. This would prove to be her downfall as all assume that she will just sit quietly and take all that is thrown at her but they did not take into account what a mother would do for her missing son. Jolie delivers another understated performance here and is just as captivating for her fragility and endurance as for her beauty.

CHANGELING is also not a widely regarded film. Jolie missed the nomination in this category last year for her role in A MIGHTY HEART and so some might want to reward her for both as a means of making up for the past but she does already have an Oscar at home for her earlier performance in GIRL, INTERRUPTED. Jolie is not considered a threat in this category and I doubt that will change.

Melissa Leo in FROZEN RIVER

To be fair, I still have not seen this film. It only comes out next week on DVD and I can’t even remember it playing in theatres here in Montreal, which is odd considering the story takes place party in Quebec. I can tell you Leo plays Ray Eddy, a single mother drawn into the world of border smuggling. Aside from that, I got nothing.


Leo is certainly the dark horse in this category. The nomination alone has made people take notice of the film and, along with its nod for original screenplay, it could build some last minute momentum. Leo has been nominated for a number of awards already, including the National Board of Review, the Independent Spirit Awards and the Screen Actors Guild. There is certainly good reason to consider her the underdog contender but keep in mind, the SAG nominated her but she did not ultimately win. No, that honour went to …

Meryl Streep in DOUBT

You may never know a scarier screen nun after Streep’s Sister Aloysius Beauvier. The way that she leers at the children in the playground, just waiting for them to step out of line so that she can assume her duties as disciplinarian and well, discipline them. She almost seems to get some perverse joy out of it. She scours the world for all its evils and when she sets her eyes on her parish priest, you know he’s in big trouble because even God will be too scared to not side with the sister.

How many times does someone need to be nominated in their lifetime? Streep holds the records for most Oscar nods with 15 in total. She does have two wins but her last was for SOPHIE’S CHOICE in 1982. She is definitely due and many are saying that this will be her year. DOUBT did not play well outside of the acting categories, which denotes a certain apathy toward the film but Streep did take home the SAG award for this intense performance. The trouble is, so did …

Kate Winslet in THE READER

Hanna Schmitz is one of Winslet’s most complex characters. We meet her under the same circumstances as the young boy she ends up taking to bed. She seems nice enough, if not perhaps just a bit cold and guarded. Still, you would never imagine that she was personally responsible for countless deaths as an SS officer in the Second World War. Furthermore, it is unfathomable that she is actually able to rationalize her actions as entirely reasonable.


Winslet was expected to earn a nomination here for REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. In fact, after her double win at the Golden Globes opened the possibility of an Oscar repeat. Her role in THE READER was touted as a supporting performance but as she has the most screen time of any character in the film, that was a hard sell that was eventually rejected by the academy. The SAG rewarded Winslet in the supporting category and now both SAG honoured actresses find themselves going head to head at the Oscars. It could get ugly.

I would say though that even though Winslet did not get the nod for REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, no one will forget the force with which she delivered in both films. And so, Black Sheep predicts Kate Winslet for Best Actress in THE READER.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

Written by Justin Haythe
Directed by Sam Mendes
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon and Kathy Bates


John Givings: Now you’ve said it. Plenty of people are onto the emptiness but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness.

The drive from the train station is not that far. Once you get past the first stretch, home to local folk like plumbers, seamstresses and the like, you turn on to a quaint, quiet road. The house that will hopefully soon be the home to you and your children, present and future, sits atop its tiny slope, understated but proud. As you drive past the other homes, you see the people that inhabit them. The children run under sprinklers; the parents sit on their porches and enjoy their afternoon cocktails. They all look so happy, so home. This is what you need. This is what will make you happy too. This is Revolutionary Road. Only, it isn’t really that. What it is really, is Sam Mendes’ REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, and just like the pretty picture it paints, it isn’t as revelatory as it inherently suggests nor does it bring the happiness you thought it might.


Mendes has been down this particular road before. In the Oscar winning, AMERICAN BEAUTY, Mendes explored the trappings of suburban life. It was hardly revelatory when he did it then but screenwriter, Alan Ball’s unique take on the subject made it feel fresh and relevant. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is based on Richard Yates’ 1961 novel of the same name. It tells the story of Frank and April Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet), the lovely, new couple who have bought the aforementioned house at the end of Revolutionary Road and who bring with them the promise of youth and vitality. You see, the Wheeler’s are special. Everyone has always said as much. Then they moved to Revolutionary Road. They made their house into a home and filled that home with two wonderful children. It was at this point that they realized that they may not truly be as special as everyone has always said, that perhaps they are not destined for anything greater than what they already have.


Leo and Kate are perfectly cast as the Wheeler’s. More than ten years after TITANIC, the pair are together again and now everyone gets to see exactly what might have happened if the couple had survived the boat going down. (I trust I gave nothing away there.) And while there is nothing romantic about their reunion, they are REVOTIONARY ROAD’s one true revelation. Winslet is remarkable. She is subtly but always at odds with herself inside. She wants to love her life, her husband, and on some level, she does. But she is also yearning and desperate to feel alive. DiCaprio is a bit shaky but while April’s hand is less than reassuring, Winslet’s hand lifts him and elevates his performance to nearly the same level as hers. To watch the two of them go back and forth between being hopeful for their futures and dismally resigned to a lifetime of unhappiness is a ride well worth taking and one that will certainly leave you dizzy by the time it comes to its harrowing close.


The problem with REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is that Mendes seems more concerned in presenting the Wheeler’s as a symbol for the greater point instead of allowing them to just be the relatable characters that they are. Frank and April are special. When we begin to buy into the idea that we are just like everyone else is when we become just like everyone else. When a film tries to make a point instead of just allowing the point to make itself is when a film takes on an importance it did not earn to start. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD could have been beautiful if it wasn’t trying so hard to be the biggest house on the block.

THE READER

Written by David Hare
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Starring Ralph Fiennes, David Kross and Kate Winslet


Michael Berg: What’s your name?
Hanna Schmitz: What? Why do you want to know?

We don’t know. We think we do but we don’t. We make decisions or sometimes decisions are made for us but we think we’ve made them. Then suddenly, there we are. We can’t be certain how we got there or where we will be when everything settles but we do know that we are alive. Some experiences are life altering and we can run from them or embrace them. Staying to see them through though can bring incredible bliss but also tormented turmoil. We just never know. One such experience was had by a young Michael Berg (David Kross) and is chronicled in Stephen Daldry’s THE READER. How could he know that when he pulled into an alley to be sick that he would meet the woman who would shape his entire life? How could he know that getting close to her would pull him the furthest he’s ever been from himself?


Of course, when you’re a sixteen-year-old boy and a woman who looks like Kate Winslet disrobes in front of you in the privacy of her bathroom, how much thought really goes into the decision that has presented itself? However little it is, it is certainly less than is warranted. This is especially true in West Germany of 1958. This is a Germany that is uncertain how to proceed, how to be its new self in the eyes of the world and the eyes of its very own future generations. Winslet plays Hanna Schmitz, a compassionate woman but also abrasive and stern. Winslet strikes the perfect balance between directness and desire in Schmitz, making her complexities part of her appeal. She is a good fifteen years older than the young Berg and she knows much better than he of her country’s history. What he knows, he has read in books, been taught in school. What she knows, she lived first hand. So when the two come together, naked in each other's arms, the meeting is as redemptive as it is passionate. Berg is just happy to be in love and having sex but Schmitz is washing herself clean with the youthful vigor of Germany’s tomorrow.


The summer ends and so does the affair, as one would expect. Just when it would seem that the two would never meet again, life steps in to ensure that past decisions, perhaps made in haste, can come to see their consequences. Berg has grown some and is a college man, studying to be a lawyer, when he catches sight of Hanna Schmitz again. Their latest chance encounter is far less exciting though as he sees her on a class outing to a courthouse. Schmitz is on trial for crimes against humanity for her time as an officer in the Nazi party during the Second World War. Berg’s memory of his first love would now become a question of his own morality. How could he love someone who was now accused of such atrocities? How could he be so intimate with someone he apparently never truly knew? And yet, now that he knows her past, does he really know how her past came to be? After all, what is the face of evil? Is it Hanna Schmitz or is it something incredibly bigger than her?

Ralph Fiennes is the future of Germany. He plays Berg as an adult. His life is orderly, very clean, crisp and cold. He made decisions that made him the man he is and he can never say whether they were the right ones or not. What he can see is that we all make decisions that either hurt or harm other people and that the atrocities committed by his past generations are not as far outside the realm of understanding as he might have originally thought. More importantly, redemption is not that far either.

LITTLE CHILDREN

Written by Todd Field and Tom Perrotta
Directed by Todd Field

Writer and director, Todd Field has a special talent. He has a knack for making his audience squirm in their seats while their stomachs turn. He is not a master horror filmmaker but rather a minimal dramatist with a keen understanding of the peculiarities of human behaviour. I left his latest film, LITTLE CHILDREN, feeling like I might throw up, just as I had when I left his first and last film, IN THE BEDROOM. Only this time, I left with more than just feeling that I had been emotionally hollowed; this time I left feeling puzzled. At this point, I would ordinarily explain briefly what LITTLE CHILDREN was about but that is a task I cannot do briefly. Put simply, without grasping any of its scope at all, LITTLE CHILDREN is another slice of life picture about the banalities of suburban existence. The mommies meet in the park on a daily basis and ogle the one single dad amongst them as their kids run amuck. Husbands turn to internet pornography or other women to get the fixes they stopped getting from their wives before sitting down to dinner with them. And this particular neighborhood welcomes back a former resident, fresh from his stint in jail for exposing himself to a minor, by plastering every post on the street with signs that ask, “Are your children safe?” Field’s timely reveal of the story elements and skillfully vigorous visuals draw you in to the raw unraveling of his characters, gracefully played by Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson and Jennifer Connelly. LITTLE CHILDREN is fascinating and compelling without having any clear reason why it is either of these things. You may ask yourself where this is all going when you watch but you won’t care to know the answer.

Life gets stale when you aren’t paying attention or even when you’re just trying to master the juggling act. Life is also very good at throwing another ball into the mess when you’ve just gotten the hang of juggling three. On one day, in the park and on a dare, Sarah Pierce (Winslet) introduces herself to Brad Adamson (Wilson). She has wagered five dollars with the other mommies that she can get Brad’s phone number. Both Brad and Sarah are married but that doesn’t factor into this game. At least it doesn’t until the bet somehow goes too far and the two kiss. They catch themselves and each other completely off guard. Sarah is married to a man she doesn’t love and has a three-year-old daughter for whom she has more distaste than love for. Brad has not been able to pass the bar exam since finishing law school and spends his evenings away from his wife (Connelly) watching teenagers skateboard when he’s supposed to be studying. Their kiss is meant to taunt the other mommies but instead it cracks their worlds open to reveal new possibilities. It isn’t long before they meet again and it isn’t long after that until they end up naked in Sarah’s laundry room. Given what an inattentive sap her husband is, it is a joy to watch Sarah send Brad signals, showing off her new bathing suit at the public pool or asking Brad to rub lotion on her back. It is also exciting to watch Brad reluctantly respond to these signals. He has a stunning and brilliant woman in his life and yet he navigates towards Sarah. It isn’t love that is growing between them but an energy that affirms to each that they are in fact alive.


LITTLE CHILDREN’s secondary plot is also brilliantly executed but adds a level of depth to a film that was already dug pretty deep to start with. When Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) moves back in with his mother (Phyllis Somerville), there is outrage amongst the residents of this suburb at the “pervert’s” arrival. Whereas Ronnie’s return defines the period in which Sarah and Brad’s affair takes place, it also makes the film seem as if it were trying to tackle more than it should have. The abuse Ronnie endures from some of the locals encourages sympathy for him but he is not reformed. Tying both plots together seamlessly, Ronnie violates his parole and, with flippers and snorkel in place, crashes the public pool in the middle of a heat wave, while Sarah and Brad flirt carefully in the shade. Ronnie lusts for all the tiny legs treading in the water until he is discovered. Amidst hysteria, all the children exit the pool into the arms of their parents and they all stare horrifically as authorities escort him out. What happens next is the perfect example of the dark humour that runs throughout LITTLE CHILDREN. Panic turns back into play in a split second as all the children jump back into the pool and the parents resume their previous conversations. Is Ronnie’s presence in the neighborhood truly causing anyone to lose sleep or is it just the drama that they all love? Crave? Need?

It was only after I left the theatre that I was able to reel in all my thoughts on LITTLE CHILDREN. A conversation in a yellow cab led me to see that the key lies in the title. As Sarah runs from the responsibility of having a daughter, as Brad plays football with his buddies when he should be studying, as Sarah’s husband surfs for porn while he’s at work, as Brad’s wife purposefully drops her spoon on the floor so she can look under the table to catch her husband playing with Sarah’s feet, it becomes clear that every one of these adults is doing the exact same thing; they are all acting like little children.