Showing posts with label Jim Broadbent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Broadbent. Show all posts

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Movie Review: "Brooklyn"

Brooklyn (2015)

PG-13

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                John Crowley
Writer                                   Nick Hornby (screenplay); Colm Tóibín's (book)
Cinematography                  Yves Belanger

Saoirse Ronan                      Eilis Lacey
Emory Cohen                      Tony Fiorello
Maeve McGrath                  Mary (friend)
Fiona Glascott                     Rose Lacey
Jane Brennan                       Mary Lacey (mother)
Jessica Pare                          Miss Fortini
Jim Broadbent                      Father Flood
Domhnall Gleeson              Jim Farrell
Julie Walters                        Mrs. Kehoe
Brid Brennan                       Miss Kelly

There is a kind of European movie that stands in stark contrast to almost every American movie. This European genre includes good writing, good acting, and themes focused on the human experience. To be sure, there are many American movies with these elements, too. The difference is the manner in which this “genre”, this European film type tells its story (at least in my mind), and this is with kindness. To simplify this special quality into a single word is far too inadequate a way of looking at the point I am trying to make. Perhaps an analogy would work better. Let’s use that staple from Hollywood, the road trip. In most well-made American movies (and we can certainly use Ridley Scott’s “Thelma and Louise”, 1991 to illustrate what I am trying to say) there is the three part sequence to the story: describe the back-story, build some dramatic tension/conflict, and then resolve the tension via some climatic scene. It is the path the American film will inevitably take, that aspect that makes it stand apart from the European film, the American will almost certainly introduce violence. Consider for example, Thelma and Louise’s final wave good-bye as they sail over the cliff, not to mention the gun-play that led them there. Now consider the 2015 Irish-Canadian film “Brooklyn”: a young woman comes to America from Ireland to find her way in life. It is a simple, sensitively told tale. It too has tension, a villain, conflict, and a climax. What it utterly lacks is violence. The story can be related to and enjoyed by anyone, even Americans - even though, not one bullet was fired.

“Brooklyn” begins in 1950’s Ireland with the introduction of a young woman working in a store, Eilis Lacey (Saoirse Ronan). She works with several other young women for an older woman, Miss Kelly (Brid Brennan). We quickly learn Miss Kelly is a very mean-spirited creature and all of her young workers live in fear of her. If there is any lingering doubt in the viewer’s mind as to who is this film’s villain (if it truly has one), Miss Kelly will work hard to help you identify her. Eilis lives with her older sister Rose (Fiona Glascott) and widowed mother, Mary Lacey (Jane Brennan). Rose loves Eilis deeply and wants more for Eilis than their little town of Enniscorthy can provide. Rose will arrange with the help of an Irish priest in America, Father Flood (Jim Broadbent) to get Eilis out of the boy-friendless/Miss Kelly rut, fate has placed her in. Rose’s generosity will be for the films’ first third, a good example of “good deeds reaping a kind of punishment” (to paraphrase the saying somewhat).

Eilis will wave good–bye to her mother and sister from aboard a steamship bound for America and her future. She will gain a new friend and useful advice on the ship, but her seasickness on-board will foreshadow another type of sickness that she will soon experience in America. She will have her physical needs all prepared for her via the thoughtful intervention of Father Flood. Eilis will live with an understanding if somewhat demanding landlady (Mrs. Kehoe; Julie Waters) and with several other young women of Eilis’ age in a boarding house in Brooklyn. She will get a job at an up-scale department store and work for an experienced woman who also will care for Eilis’ emotional and physical needs (Mrs. Fortini – Jessica Pare). But Eilis is not happy. It is not immediately clear if Eilis is having troubles dealing with the culture shock of New York City vis-à-vis Enniscorthy, or if her rambunctious fellow boarders are intimidating her, or if she simply misses and fears she will never see again her sister Rose (tellingly, her sense of loss relative to her mother is somewhat more subdued).

Again with some helpful intervention from those around Eilis, people that care for her and worry about her worsening emotions, she is put into a situation where she meets a young Italian-American, Tony Fiorello (Emory Cohen), Like almost all of her American experiences, Eilis has little to fall back on in terms of understanding Tony; fortunately for Eilis, she doesn’t need any more understanding than simple human kindness. The match is made, it matures, it crosses a threshold, and then the movie’s conflict is brought in: there has been a tragedy back home in Ireland. Eilis feels strong pressures to return home, at least temporarily. The conflict is that now Eilis has a new home, new friends, a boyfriend, the new life for which she left Ireland for America; and back home, she remembers all too well the reasons why she left in the first place. Even though Ireland was her home, there were too many “Miss Kelly’s” and too few “Tony’s”.

Eilis will eventually return to Ireland and to the aftermath of the sad event that drew her back. This time, though, the town will seemingly rise up as one (barring one individual) to apparently try to convince her to remain this time. She will get a new, professional level job that she is particularly good at, she will get a new boyfriend, Jim Farrell (Domhnall Gleeson) who is clearly a good man, she will be reunited with her former best friend, Mary (Maeve McGrath), and she will feel unrelenting pressure from her mother to stay in Ireland. Everything will move into alignment to keep her in Enniscorthy; everything but Eilis’ conscience. Ironically, it will be through the self-righteous involvement of the movie’s villain, Miss Kelly, and her new attempts to hurt someone, that will finally show Eilis the path she must take in life.

I have written the above summary in a pretty obtuse manner by not detailing the tragedy that draws Eilis back to Ireland or the details of Eilis’ mother’s motivations. The details are emotional, compelling and key plot points. Besides these undisclosed aspects of the plot, it is sufficient to say that Eilis makes several decisions in her young life that are largely understandable (even if not all of them are honorable or sensible). Her actions have created the dramatic tension in this movie. She freely made some choices that were hers to make: move to America, fall in love with Tony, return to Ireland, become involved with Jim. These were her choices. Her mother’s attempts to draw Eilis back and to keep her were her choices; they too were understandable, if not all honorable. The meanness and bitterness of Miss Kelly were her choices in life, though in one case, there was something decent that actually came out of her spite – it helped Eilis open her eyes to her situation.

With respect to the movie arc as a whole, the conflict in the movie is real and compelling, it is understandable by anyone. The pain of departure at the Irish port as Eilis bids her sister farewell is there for all in the audience to feel and think about. We all watch the little steps in Eilis’ maturation, we might wonder what each of us would do, and likely we all want the best for her as she moves through life; a simple story, beautifully told. “Brooklyn” is most notably told by Saorise Ronan’s remarkable skill of portraying Eilis.  Director John Crowley brings the camera close in on Ronan’s face, often framed by some significant scene in the background. The background will help to convey the time or mood at some point in the movie, but in fact, it will be Ronan’s lovely, expressive eyes and mouth that will be the true conveyors of mood. The direction, camera work and writing are all significantly good in “Brooklyn”, but it is on Ronan’s vulnerable shoulders that this movie truly rests.

Writer Nick Hornby has decided to use a kind of symmetry in his story telling. Such symmetry creates a point of view about life in general. On Eilis’s trip across the Atlantic, she is befriended by a travel-experienced Irishwoman. Eilis will have her own opportunity to help someone in a similar manner. Tony will pick up Eilis from night-school each evening, even though he must leave work to do so – it is sweet, and it helps illustrate his love and devotion to Eilis. But there will come a time in the movie when Eilis picks him up from work (the camera view of her waiting is framed by the Brooklyn Bridge) – both the framing and her actions work together to support the idea of her devotion to Tony and to Brooklyn. These examples of life repeating itself for Eilis all have her as the one taking the action previously done by others on her behalf. It will help establish her growth, but it also helps to make the bigger point that life, simple and beautiful can come around in each person’s life and can do so in a manner that is at the very least dramatic to the individual. And quite frankly, can be thought to be dramatic to any one as an example of how life is truly lived: people love and care for one another or maybe (as with the Miss Kelly’s of the world) don’t; but all of this goes on without car chases, shoot-outs or false examples of human drama.


This movie is a treat for your heart and your mind. There was one flaw: I found the character of Tony’s little brother way too Hollywood stereotypical of the precocious (but sweet) young brother. This character seems to me to be a rare example of poor writing in this movie (the actor was fine and largely stole each of his scenes). However, that poor character choice aside, this movie is a gem and easily earned its various Oscar nominations (Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay) – it is the unusual example of where I am in complete agreement with the academy on all choices.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Cloud Atlas


Cloud Atlas

2012

Drama/Science Fiction

5 Stars out of 5

I watched this movie, read the book, viewed the movie a second time (with close captioning this time) and still have several points that remain unclear to me. To say that either the book or the movie is complicated is quite an understatement. Yet, I find both to be as compelling and artistic an endeavor as I have experienced in the past decade.

The book (2004, David Mitchell) and movie are both structured in six parts just like the symphony that plays a central role in the second part of the six part story. However, the book tells the first half of each of the six parts moving forward in time from the Chatham Islands in the mid-19th century to the early part of the 20th century in England and Belgium for part two, to the Bay Area during the 1970’s, on to the early 21st century England for part four, to mid-22nd century neo-Seoul, and finally to the mid-23rd century Hawaiian Islands. The book then turns around and finishes the second half of each story working back in time to mid-19th century San Francisco.

The movie in stark contrast takes each of the six parts and very cleverly uses editing to correlate the various key points in each story arc with the other six arcs. This is a brilliant editing decision by writer/directors Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski, but it certainly requires the viewer to pay close attention to each story. The Wachowskis and Tykwer have two central themes to their version of the Mitchell story: the oppression by the strong of the weak, and the multi-century, enduring linkage of love between two souls. The writer/directors amplify this last point by using a comet-like (i.e. a shooting star) tattoo on the lovers even as they change race, sexual orientation and gender over the centuries in their various incarnations. In short, the movie really boils down to a love story between two star-crossed souls. It is beautifully told and acted.

The manner in which it is acted is another tool the writers/directors use to reinforce the multi-generational link between the two principle characters: Tom Hanks sometimes as the villain, but by the 70’s only as one of the two lovers; Halle Berry in minor roles in the first two stories, but again by the 70’s, only in the role of hero; Hugo Weaving is always a villain, but most effectively as Ole Georgie on the Big Island. There are very notable appearances by Doona Bae as Sonmi-451 in neo-Seoul, as well as Jim Sturgess as her lover Hae-Joo Chang. Several other actors play various forms of good, bad (Hugh Grant is notable), or minor. In general, you witness Hanks, Berry, Sturgess and Bae as one of the two lovers, and in these roles, always fighting the good fight for the weak and oppressed. Conversely, you see Weaving and Grant only in the role of the oppressor.

Thus, the editing, the use of the comet and star metaphors (consider also a Cloud Atlas is a map of the stars - once thought to be unchanging), and the casting meld brilliantly to evoke the image of constants through human history: the good and often weak vs. the always strong, bullying type of bad character. Others have tried to find some character growth across the story lines (e.g. Hanks’ evil Dr. Henry Goose next appearing as the noble Isaac Sachs), but I think this an artificial outcome of the casting decision, and not only not the point, actually contrary to the point. I think rather, the authors believe good is good, and most definitely, bad is bad.

A final note with respect to the book vs. movie: not only are the two structured differently, but also their main themes are quite different. The movie goes for the everlasting love theme coupled with the bully problem, but the book delves far more deeply and with a much more pessimistic view into the destruction of the Earth by Man. The movie has Meronym (Berry) refer to the fact that her group of people known as the Prescients are doomed if they do not receive rescue from the Stars (that is to say off-world colonies), but it is hardly more than a plot point in the movie. In the book, there are no off-world colonies, no rescue for Meronym, no salvation for Man or the Earth. It is a far more dark view of the consequences of climate change and “bully”- originated war and corporate rapacity.

This movie stands with very few others for me as 5 Star movie. It is indeed complicated and requires very careful attention (and cc), but it is one of very few worth the effort.