AGORA

Written by Mateo Gill and Alejandro Amenabar

Directed by Alejandro Amenabar

Starring Rachel Weisz, Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac

In 391 A.D., people still believed that the Earth was not only flat but that it was also the center of the universe and that the sun, along with the other wanderers, known to the Pagan Greeks of the time as the other planets, revolved around the Earth. How could one not have an ego with beliefs like that? It has been over 1600 years since then and it’s strange to see that AGORA director, Alejandro Amenabar, still has a bit of that same ego driving his filmmaking.

Generally considered to be the first female authority of mathematics and astronomy, Greek philosopher, Hypatia (played by a bold but overly confident Rachel Weisz), has always tried to teach her pupils that all humans are brothers; that between three people, if two of them are are of the same mind, then so is the third as this is what bonds them as brothers. Increasing shifts in religious beliefs shatter her faith as she must be subjected to watch the quickly growing Christianity crush her Paganism and move on past that to Judaism in Egypt, one of the last thriving places in the Roman Empire. The story is both huge in scope and vision but it is dragged down by focusing on the the petty problems of the people and the often poor acting performances afforded to these plotlines.




One automatically sees the correlation between religion being a serious driving force in keeping man divided, often violently, both then and now. Amenabar tells his story with such grandiose gusto though that it seems his ego is just too big to see that his point is monumental only to him and not only obvious to the rest of us but wearing thin as well.

THE LOVELY BONES

THE LOVELY BONES
Written by Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Peter Jackson
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci


I would not have thought that Peter Jackson, the director of the infamous Lord of the Rings trilogy (in case you didn’t know), would ever be a horrible choice to adapt a cherished novel to the big screen. Going forward, I will not be so naïve. In it’s original form, The Lovely Bones, as delicately told by author, Alice Sebold, is a shockingly honest account of what one seemingly happy family endures after the death of their eldest daughter. Its scope reaches into the minds of everyone who is affected by her death and even goes so far as heaven itself for answers. On screen, it goes nowhere near any of this insight and just ends up a mangled mess.


The death of Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a fourteen-year-old girl with her whole life ahead of her, was senseless violence in a time when people still thought such things never happened to them. No body is found and therefore no rest is had by those Suzie touched in life. To sit with the book is to sit with the Salmon family in their grief. It is a cathartic experience and one that I may need to go through again after having all my healing robbed from me by Jackson. His focus, if he had any at all, circles around Suzie’s personal transition from the land of the living to that of the dead. This allows Jackson to imagine grand imagery to bridge the gap between both worlds but, like Suzie, he too gets lost in the “in-between”.


The only things that keep The Lovely Bones from falling apart completely are the performances of Stanley Tucci and Ronan as the murderer and his prey. Their incredible grasp of the source material is the only reminder of its chilling emotional charge. As for Jackson, he should have stuck with the gold he had in hand from the start.

Black Sheep TIFF Review: AGORA

In 391 A.D., people still believed that the Earth was not only flat but that it was also the center of the universe and that the sun, along with the other wanderers, known to the Pagan Greeks of the time as the other planets, revolved around the Earth. How could one not have an ego with beliefs like that? It has been over 1600 years since then and it’s strange to see that AGORA director, Alejandro Amenabar, still has a bit of that same ego driving his filmmaking.


Generally considered to be the first female authority of mathematics and astronomy, Greek philosopher, Hypatia (played by a bold but overly confident Rachel Weisz), has always tried to teach her pupils that all humans are brothers; that between three people, if two of them are are of the same mind, then so is the third as this is what bonds them as brothers. Increasing shifts in religious beliefs shatter her faith as she must be subjected to watch the quickly growing Christianity crush her Paganism and move on past that to Judaism in Egypt, one of the last thriving places in the Roman Empire. The story is both huge in scope and vision but it is dragged down by focusing on the the petty problems of the people and the often poor acting performances afforded to these plotlines.


One automatically sees the correlation between religion being a serious driving force in keeping man divided, often violently, both then and now. Amenabar tells his story with such grandiose gusto though that it seems his ego is just too big to see that his point is monumental only to him and not only obvious to the rest of us but wearing thin as well.

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.

MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS

Written by Wong Kar Wai & Lawrence Block
Directed by Wong Kar Wai
Starring Norah Jones, Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, David Strathairn and Natalie Portman


Elizabeth: What’s wrong with the blueberry pie?
Jeremy: There’s nothing wrong with the blueberry pie; just people make other choices. You can’t blame the blueberry pie; it’s just … no one wants it.

It doesn’t get much more American than apple pie. I can’t say why that is exactly but that is what they say. And while blueberry most certainly isn’t apple, the reference to pie does make for an appropriate symbolic foundation for famed Chinese director, Wong Kar Wai’s first foray into American cinema, MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS. And he doesn’t just stop at pie. Kar Wai immerses himself in Americana, taking us on a road trip from New York to Missouri and Las Vegas, with shift work, gambling and heartache along for the ride. Sadly though, Kar Wai crossed the Pacific only to get lost in the Heartland for there is something else distinctly American about this film – it rests comfortably on the surface without much effort to go deeper and dresses itself up in pretty colors to hide it’s lack of profundity.


To solidify his position as a stranger in a strange land, Kar Wai casts singer, Norah Jones in her first acting role. Jones plays Elizabeth and Elizabeth is represented by the blueberry pie. It’s a perfectly good pie but no one seems to ever choose it when there are more traditional slices to be had. Blueberry is apparently the black sheep of pies, if you will. Elizabeth isn’t afraid to try something new though and so she adamantly chooses the neglected pie. Now, she need only learn how to do the same for herself. To learn how, she bolts across the country but while she searches for herself through countless sleepless nights, she finds character after character in worse shape than she. As she gets further and further from New York though, you know there’s only one place that makes sense for her to end up. It wouldn’t be a journey of self-discovery after all if you didn’t finish precisely where you started. Well, it would be if this were earlier Kar Wai but this is America, baby!


As Elizabeth, Jones is in a constant state of bewilderment. It is as though she was just born or just woke up to find the world has stopped making any sense. She looks uncomfortable, agitated, not unlike her stage presence from her earlier touring days. It isn’t clear whether this discomfort is her character or her lack of ability to develop one. It doesn’t help that she is surrounded by a supporting cast all on top of their game. Jude Law smolders as the man who serves her the blueberry pie. He is the guy who once got burned and hasn’t moved since. Rachel Weisz and David Strathairn are a couple on the brink of divorce. She has been hollowed by a disastrous marriage and he spends night after night numbing his pain with drink after drink. She is the nervous wreck to his wasted space. Elizabeth’s final encounter is with Leslie (Natalie Portman), a fast-talking, overly confident poker player. Portman has been better but still has plenty of tricks to teach Jones. Jones knows how to brood but her delivery is too often hollow. She is the mystery at the center of Kar Wai’s America but doesn’t inspire any desire to be solved.


MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS conjures a certain kind of mood. It captures the state of human damage that we all inevitably encounter at some point but only some figure out how to survive. Our initial instinct may be to run and we may do so by driving as far away as possible or staying still exactly where we are and never risking anything ever again. No matter what we do, the nights can get very lonely and if we’re lucky there is still pie to be had and someone to share it with. If we want to survive though, we must be brave enough to go home again. Now that Wong Kar Wai has gotten sufficiently lost, I think it is time for him to heed Elizabeth’s lesson and do the same.

THE FOUNTAIN

Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky


THE FOUNTAIN reinvigorates the meaning of “labour of love.” Writer/Director Darren Aronofsky’s ambitious offering had many eyes on it from the moment of its conception, through its disastrous pre-production period and even more so now as it finally unrolls into theatres. When his last film, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, struck many a chord amongst many a different viewer (it is a compelling plea to not use drugs as many people watch the film high and never want to touch the stuff again), people knew they had a young genius in Aronofsky. Naturally, Hollywood wanted him all to itself. The problem is that Aronofsky is anything but Hollywood. When THE FOUNTAIN got the green light from a major Hollywood studio, conditional to Brad Pitt’s attachment to the project, Aronofsky found himself in a new world. In this world, budgets blow up to $75 million, stars back out, funding disappears and you can spend $20 million without shooting a single frame. When THE FOUNTAIN was shut down, Aronofsky would not let go. This is the film his heart wanted to make and so he scaled the budget down to $35 million and found a new cast and new funding. Somehow though, while everyone scrambled to get THE FOUNTAIN made, no one seemed to notice what a hard sell it was going to be. Aronofsky attempts to show in an hour and a half that we as humans are not of our bodies but that the soul, life and love are eternal; that the death of our physical bodies is both a natural and necessary part of what we know as life; that we should neither fear it nor fight it but accept it as peacefully as possible. He attempts to tell this by stretching his story over a thousand years. Though the vastness of his ideas lose some focus around the edges and struggle to remain congealed, THE FOUNTAIN remains incredibly beautiful with piercing performances by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz that plant the seeds necessary for Aronofsky’s ethereal ideas to grow in the souls of his audience. Despite all the love given, the roots could have still used a little more water.

Jackman and Weisz play Tom and Izzi Creo in the year 2000. Izzi has an inoperable tumor in her brain and not much time left on earth. Tom is a scientist, a rational man who believes that death is no more than another disease that can one day be cured. As Tom tries to play God, Izzi embraces that she will soon meet God. Jackman plays Tom as tortured and desperate and his performance is in direct conflict with Weisz’s embodiment of Izzi as a creative beacon of repose and understanding. Yet they still manage to share a life together, one that is clearly based on a deep and engrossing love that binds them, thanks to a tender, caring chemistry between Jackman and Wiesz. The present day chemistry needs to be solid in order for the bookending to fall into place. 500 years later, Tom finds himself traveling through space towards a dying star in order have that life that is fading be reborn in the tree of life he is traveling with. 500 years earlier, Tom finds himself searching for the tree of life in order to give himself and his queen (an earlier incarnation of Izzi) eternal life. It is in these two extremes that Aronofsky exhibits his strengths and weaknesses. The future scenes are organic and spiritual making his quest seem plausible in an other-worldly fashion but the past sequences, told as a story and not confirmed as an actual past life, seem stagy and forced.


Aronofsky’s ambition opens minds to new possibilities but it also takes on too much. A common thread was obviously necessary to tie three story elements that span a thousand years but he focuses on two threads instead, causing a struggle. Tom and Izzi’s love anchors the center story but though Izzi is present in the past and future, their love is not the central issue. There is an expectation that it would be more prominent that is never fulfilled. Instead, what Tom cannot deal with in the central story becomes the focus in the later and prior. No matter when, Tom is always seeking the key to eternal life. Death brings about rebirth and Tom must spend a thousand years trying to figure that out. It is ultimately Tom’s journey but Izzi is so compelling that she draws attention away from him. Despite this, the timelessness of his quest shows how fighting against death is an unnatural exertion that limits potential when one is fortunate enough to be alive that can also only reach its true potential by crossing through death.

There is no dispute that Aronofsky is a genuine artist and genius in his own right. THE FOUNTAIN shows his insight, his openness and his innovation. How else can one describe the usage of chemical reactions in a Petri dish shot with a microphotography camera as the backdrop for the future scenes? The technique is even intrinsically linked to the themes of the film. Obviously the scientific approach is an extension of Tom’s profession but the approach was also chosen to give the film a timeless feel and avoid the dating that can sometimes happen with CGI. But for all its ingenuity, THE FOUNTAIN never feels like it has fully translated from Aronofsky’s complex mind to the screen. That being said, there are worse places to be trapped than the mind of a genius.