Showing posts with label ryan gosling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ryan gosling. Show all posts

Saturday, June 1, 2019

THE SCHOOL OF MAYA DEREN PART SEVEN: NICOLAS WINDING REFN

Meshes Of The Afternoon / The Neon Demon

These comparisons could be forced (and I'm sure there's some of you reading this right now ready to prematurely call out how completely different you think my comparisons are), but I see quite a few similarities between the works of Maya Deren & Nicolas Winding Refn...
From the symbolism (Witches Cradle & Neon Demon) & tight spaces (Meshes Of The Afternoon & Fear X) to the exploration of the weirder/surreal side of Los Angeles (Meshes Of The Afternoon & Drive), I think things aren't exactly coincidental.

This all came out from a previous entry where I posted up a series of side-byside's between Deren's Meshes Of The Afternoon & Refn's Fear X...






After that I started to explore their entire filmographies and came out up with the following comparisons.

Enjoy...


Witches Cradle / Only God Forgives

Meshes Of The Afternoon / Fear X

Meshes Of The Afternoon / Fear X

Witches Cradle / The Neon Demon

Meshes Of The Afternoon / The Neon Demon

Meshes Of The Afternoon / The Neon Demon

Meshes Of The Afternoon /
Fear X

Witches Cradle / The Neon Demon

Meshes Of The Afternoon / The Neon Demon

Meshes Of The Afternoon / Only God Forgives

Witches Cradle / Only God Forgives


Studies In Choreography For Film / Too Old To Die Young


Mediation On Violence / Only God Forgives


Divine Horsemen / Too Old To Die Young



Thursday, June 1, 2017

SONG TO SONG


Like any Malick film, I needed to sit with my thoughts for a little while before writing about this. Anyone who follows this site on a semi-regular basis knows that I'm blindly in love with his post-New World cinematic universe (I actually found myself liking his latest movie before I even actually saw it which isn't a good thing). Song To Song is hardly a perfect movie (by this point you should know that no Terrence Malick film is going to be without flaw no matter how beautiful it is).
First of all, it is my personal opinion that Song To Song is kind of a terrible title. I don't mean to sound so harsh & nitpicky but I just can't connect with it. And what's strange is that it does go with the film's vibe & ambiance (a story about musicians & songwriters).
Secondly, I think the film's length (126 minutes) could have been much shorter (around 80 minutes) or much longer (possibly over 180 minutes). To quote my friend Chris Funderburg of the Pink Smoke, movies should be either really short or really really long. I couldn't agree with that sentiment more (especially in the case of this movie). These 2 hour and 10 minute movie lengths are just silly. Seriously what's the point?
I guess you could say that's a positive criticism in the sense that part of me wanted more of this movie (and to be clear I wanted more of and not from it. There's a difference)

My final critique is that Rooney Mara didn't come off like a believable musician. She certainly played her part in any scene that didn't concern music but whenever we see her holding a guitar or plucking at piano keys it really didn't look believable. Some of you may consider that to be a little nitpicky as well but her character was supposed to be a musician. She needed to be believable. She just came off as a "play" or "pretend" musician. But, like I said earlier, she still played her part overall. I can't think of another actress who could play her role in Song To Song. And I would say that Rooney Mara's character is the most depth I've seen Malick give a female character in a very very long time...



While this film is still shot in the same exact style as his three previous films (Tree Of Life, To The Wonder & Knight Of Cups) and uses some of the same actors & actresses (Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett & Michael Fassbinder standing in as sort of a surrogate for Malick-regular Christian Bale), it's not part of the same semi-autobiographical Malick world he's been exploring for the last 5-6 years. He seems to have finally got all his family "stuff" off his chest for the most part (there is a nod to Malick's second wife towards the second half of the movie but you wouldn't know this unless you read a biography on him). Song To Song is the story of romance & relationships between a group of aspiring musicians set within the Austin music scene (a large chunk of the film was shot during the Fun Fun Fun fest).

Plenty of Malick detractors will watch Song To Song (or just watch the trailer) and see no difference between it and his previous work. And that's fair. Just look at these imagery comparisons between Knight Of Cups & Song To Song...



This is Malick's first film to really concentrate on youth & youth culture. I know Badlands, Days Of Heaven & Tree Of Life feature important young characters, but Song To Song is Malick's first film set during a music festival which, although inclusive to all ages, is mostly synonymous with younger people. There’s also a lot more energy & aggression in Song To Song when compared to Knight Of Cups & To The Wonder (especially To The Wonder). The first words spoken in the movie talk about sex being violent. That’s foreign to the world of Terrence Malick.

But at the same time that's not to say older people don't play an important part of this movie. There's a lot of older characters in Song To Song who pass knowledge down to the younger characters.


And as disconnected as Song To Song may be from Malick’s previous films, he’s still building off of what he started exploring (and questioning) with The New World. A lot of people (myself included) associate (romantic) love between two people exclusively. It’s kind of the standard idea/unwritten “rule” of what love is supposed to be. But ever since Malick’s “return” with The New World he’s been questioning the idea of monogamy. Of course that’s possible for some people but you don’t really see that too much in movies under a somewhat positive light. Most times it’s considered simply cheating (which it can be sometimes) but Malick is taking the route that Two Lovers explored a few years ago. In The New World we see Pocahontas genuinely fall in love with two men in a kind of organic way. Same thing in To The Wonder. Ben Affleck has genuine feelings for two women at the same time. Throughout Knight Of Cups we see “Rick” (Christian Bale) fall in & out of love quite a few times (this may be the one example of fake and/or fickle love in Malick’s cinematic universe) and Song To Song is just a web of intense romantic relationships. Malick's latest film is being marketed as a love triangle but that’s not really the case. It’s more like a web or a tree branch. Yes, the three main characters are caught up in a love triangle but it doesn’t stop there. They also branch out and have intense organic relationships with other supporting characters. I don’t even necessarily agree with the idea of loving multiple people at once (I’m an only child and I don’t like sharing certain things like partners), but this is still a subject that should be explored.

Song To Song has quite a few other subconscious connections to films outside of the Malick wheelhouse. Seeing Rooney Mara & Cate Blanchett in the same film again (they don't share any scenes together) might remind some of you of Carol (one of the relationships briefly explored in Song To Song is a lesbian relationship which makes the connection to Carol slightly stronger).
Ryan Gosling's directorial debut Lost River is very Malick-esque possibly due to the fact that while Gosling was acting in Song To Song he also worked on Lost River.


At the end of the day Terrence Malick is going full-on Malick with each film and Song To Song is no exception. If you didn’t like Knight Of Cups or To The Wonder there’s no point in seeking this out because you’re only looking to intentionally frustrate yourself. However if you’re a loyal Malick fan or just curious/open-minded, then this is the movie for you.

Friday, May 5, 2017

ZEBRAS IN AMERICA EPISODE 7: SONG TO SONG



For a Terrence Malick fan I've been pretty quiet about his latest film but I assure that I (and Scott) enjoyed it very very much. Listen below as we discuss the beauty of Song To Song.

Enjoy...

Sunday, May 15, 2016

THE GREAT VILLAIN BLOG-O-THON: FRANK (HALF NELSON)



In this particular blog-o-thon full of Darths, Hannibals & Jokers, I’m sure this character is bound to have some of you scratching your heads and questioning if this character is even a villain (he most certainly is). But just hear me out (I was close to picking Noah Cross form Chinatown but I thought this choice was more interesting). Despite my frustration & anger with some of Anthony Mackie’s semi-recent comments regarding (his own) race, I still have to give it up to him for his supporting role in Half Nelson which remains the best thing he’s done so far in terms of full-on acting (like most of you I enjoy his presence in the Marvel comic universe as Captain America’s sidekick Falcon but his role as Frank is pure acting). And sidenote – this wasn’t Mackie’s first foray in to playing a villain or a “bad guy”. He first gained notoriety as the main antagonist to Eminem’s “B. Rabbit” in 8 mile and he played a bully in Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby. So he had some practice at playing different types of bad guys before Half Nelson.

Half Nelson is the story of an unlikely friendship between high school freshman “Drey” (Shareeka Epps) & her drug addicted teacher/basketball coach “Dan” (Ryan Gosling). One of the many monkeywrenches in their relationship comes in the form of “Frank” (Anthony Mackie) – a shady friend of Drey’s older brother. I still hold this film in high regards because it not only showcased three incredible performances, but a story concerning the friendship between a teenage girl and her older male teacher could have easily veered off to an obvious path (especially within independent film) and director Ryan Fleck chose not to. Gosling would go on to earn an Oscar nomination for his performance in this film while Epps won an independent spirit award for hers. Some might say Half Nelson was the movie/performance that truly put Gosling “over” with audiences (I know The Notebook was a huge for him but this sleeper Oscar-nominated performance got him recognition beyond swooning young women, which, strangely enough, continues to be his primary fanbase).

If you don’t pay close enough attention to Anthony Mackie’s performance in Half Nelson you might forget that the character of “Frank” is kind of a scumbag. I know some of you who are familiar with this movie would argue that it’s not that simple and his intentions are a bit more complex & complicated (he does have a warped sense of care and/or brotherly protection towards Drey), but at the end of the day he’s not only a scumbag but he’s also a predator. Those two characteristics equate “villain” to me. And not only is he a predator & a scumbag, but he’s also spineless. In the film his character is responsible for Andrea’s brother going to prison because he couldn’t own up to the ambiguous/unspoken crime that he committed. Mackie’s performance in the film takes on an additional dimension because he not only tricks Drey in to thinking he’s a good guy, but he also has some of us, the audience, fooled in to thinking that as well. I can’t tell you how many time I’ve expressed my disdain towards Frank to my friends who have seen Half Nelson only for them to go; “huh? He wasn’t that bad.” Then I have to remind them that he’s a drug dealer that tries to recruit Drey to sell drugs (and at one point he puts her life in potential danger). But that’s the beauty of the performance. Frank/Mackie is charming, playful and kind of childlike. We never see him act violent or use a weapon. He doesn’t really raise his voice in anger (with the exception of one scene). The only time we see him use his presence for intimidation is to help Drey get her bike back that was stolen by a bigger kid (a typical/acceptable big brother move). Throughout most of the film he flashes this seemingly genuine smile and up until the final act of the movie you really feel like he’s concerned for Drey’s well-being. I mean, if you put aside the fact that Frank is a piece of shit, anyone would question and even try to intervene in the relationship between a young latchkey kid and her unstable older male teacher. But when Frank finally succeeds in (temporarily) dividing them, we see he really just wanted to use her (in the climax of Half Nelson we see Frank initiate Drey in to the world of drug dealing which immediately turns her off as her first client turns out to be Dan).


Frank isn’t a villain in the traditional sense like the other antagonists mentioned at the start of this piece (and the characters I encourage you to read about in other entries part of this blog-o-thon), but he is a villain – a drug dealer that preys on younger innocent kids to do his bidding because he’s too much of a coward to do it himself. He’s certainly more dangerous than any villain written about in this blog-o-thon (not to take anything away from all the great entries in this blog-o-thon). Frank isn’t based on anyone in particular but he does represent a type of human being that is very very real. That, in my opinion, makes him more frightening than any villain I could think to write about. A kid like Drey might potentially deal with or walk past a hundred Franks in this world and never come across a comic book supervillain or a heartless John Ford gunslinger. Is he a “Great Villain” on par with any of the other entries? Nope. But he’s certainly the most real.

This is one of the more complex/strangely-acted (strangely in a good way) villainous performances since Craig Berko in Long Kiss Goodnight (one of the most smiley/nicely spoken villains in modern film) or Paddy Considine in a Room For Romeo Brass (at the end of the day Considine’s “Morel” is a “bad guy” but given he is a developmentally disabled on some level, it isn’t all his fault which makes his character complicated). Given the hype surrounding the two lead performances (Gosling & Epps), it’s understandable that Mackie would go somewhat unnoticed. But now that it’s the 10th anniversary of Half Nelson maybe it’s time to go back and give his performance a reexamination.


don't forget to check out all the other entries in the Great Villain Blog-O-Thon over at Speakeasy (click on the image below)


Monday, June 1, 2015

LOST RIVER (RYAN GOSLING'S DIRECTORIAL DEBUT)


Lost River. Ryan Gosling's directorial debut. Where do I even begin? First of all, this movie isn't as terrible as some people made it out to be (it was booed at Cannes last year). Personally, I thought it was pretty cool (well...the first hour at least, but we'll get in to that later). Lost River is pretty much the outcome of Terrence Malick & Nicholas Winding Refn rubbing off on Ryan Gosling in a major way (Malick & Refn were the last two filmmakers Gosling worked with). Lost River also deserves some comparison to the work of Stanley Kubrick & David Lynch. I normally hate when recent "weird" movies are compared Kubrick & Lynch because that's such a cliche thing to do, but Gosling mimics some of Lynch's work right down to the color scheme.  There's a night club scene in the first act of Lost River that is heavily inspired by Blue Velvet & Mulholland Drive. There's also a lot of Kubrick-esque hallway shots (like in The Shining) and there's always the threat of the unknown like in Eyes Wide Shut...

Mulholland Drive / Lost River
Mulholland Drive / Lost River

But Malick & Refn are the true inspirations here (for those of you confused at the Malick/Gosling connection, they recently collaborated on a movie that has yet to be released).

The Thin Red Line / Lost River
The New World / Lost River
Five minutes in to Lost River we see a red-headed mother in a sundress (Christina Hendricks) twirling around on her front lawn with her young son which is obviously something right out of Malick's Tree Of Life. A lot of the editing, dialogue & camerawork in Lost River is sprawling & "jazzy" and it's kind of made up of unfinished thoughts & ideas just like a lot of Malick's post-Thin Red Line work (that's not an insult either. I kind of like that sketchbook/unfinished style of filmmaking).
Later on we get scenes of neon-lit night clubs & synth-heavy background music which is right out of the cinema of Nicholas Winding Refn who's been synonymous with Gosling for the last couple of years.
I like Malick & Refn so you can imagine their styles mixed together would intrigue me. But no matter how much I kind of enjoyed this, it's still a train wreck of a movie that I could never defend or try to convince someone else to like. It's a pretty-looking train wreck, but still...a train wreck nonetheless.
Lost River does have a plot but it's really not all that important. This is visual masturbation at it's finest (something Gosling probably picked up from Nicholas Winding Refn). I guarantee if you asked someone what this movie is about they’d have a tough time explaining but they'd have no problem talking about all the cool-looking imagery...




Lost River follows “Bones” - a young man living with his mother (Hendricks) & younger brother in a sort of trippy post-apocalyptic vision of Detroit. Most of Detroit has been buried in a flood and what's left is a ghost town reminiscent of the exterior scenes in Eraserhead. Bones is at odds with the local sadistic Bully while his mother is forced to take odd jobs (...literally) so that she can keep her house.
Gosling has described Lost River as a fairytale when in reality it's kind of a nightmare both in a good way (some of the visuals are very striking & profound) and also a very bad way (in the last 30 minutes the plot kind of goes “bye-bye” and you're forced to sit through a messy neon nightmare of forced weirdness).

I find it problematic that a lot of filmmakers have this recent strange romanticized vision of Detroit as this rotting, ugly, dirty place. I know Detroit is a troubled city and has been for years, but filmmakers like Jim Jarmusch (Only Lovers Left Alive), Jose Padilha (Robocop), Camille Delamarre (Brick Mansions) & Gosling (Lost River) seem to think there's something “cool” about a post-apocalyptic/dystopian Detroit. With all these films set in the motor city, I wonder if anyone is putting back in to the community in order to give it life once again or do people want Detroit to stay fucked so they can have a cool location to shoot in. It's just like with The Beasts Of The Southern Wild in that the filmmaker wants us to think these dumb characters are happy dysfunctional drunks who look forward to the oncoming flood that's about to destroy what's left of their community.


Lost River is the perfect example of why directors are a key ingredient in filmmaking. Sometimes they're needed in order to tell an actor “No. That idea is stupid.” Directors certainly have their problems & insecurities but so do actors. They can be very egotistical & bullheaded. From Werner Herzog & Klaus Kinski to David O. Russell & Lilly Tomlin, we've seen plenty examples of directors clashing with actors over artistic freedom. The cast of Lost River is made up of Gosling's actor friends & former collaborators (Christina Hendricks, Eva Mendes, Ben Mendelssohn, etc). On some level this movie felt like actors trying to cut out the director so they can do whatever they want which is kind of problematic. Actors need guidance and that's definitely the case here. By the one hour mark this movie REALLY starts to drag to a grueling super strange finish (I found myself asking when & how is this going to end). I felt like I was watching a collage of acting reels. Ben Mendelssohn is a unique actor but at certain points Lost River felt like Gosling was just trying to showcase how creepy & menacing he can be. I'd be lying if, at times, I didn’t think Lost River would have made an interesting 20 minute short or a loose long-form narrative music video. With Lost River Ryan Gosling is an actor trying his hand at directing. I don’t know if I consider him an actual director/filmmaker yet.

I was still intrigued by this movie so much that I watched it twice in a 24 hour period (I did rent it off of Google play and I wanted my money's worth). Chromatics/Desire front-man Johnny Jewel really stretched as a film score composer and played an integral part in the film. While synthesizers still remain the backbone in his work, he played with more ambient sounds, didn’t stick to any kind of musical grid and found his “inner Brian Eno” (the music in Lost River is way more mature and less derivative than his music used in Drive & Bronson).

Lost River / Knight Of Cups

Lost River also has me anticipating Malick's Knight Of Cups even more as it looks like a combination of typical Malick (dreamy voice-over narration, off-kiltered cinematography, poetic ambiance, etc) mixed with the neon synthesized filmmaking style of Nicholas Winding Refn.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

A QUICK BREAKDOWN OF RYAN GOSLING'S LOST RIVER TRAILER...

Ryan Gosling has been in the movie news recently as his directorial debut Lost River is finally getting a (limited) theatrical release. For those that don’t know, it’s supposed to be pretty bad (the early reviews were not kind) and it got a really rough reception (…booed) at Cannes earlier this year. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I’m a Ryan Gosling fan (for the most part) but I’m feeling like these early reviews & boo’s are on point.

I think what bugs me the most is that just from the trailer alone, it looks like a collage of typical indie/arthouse imagery, which I’m not sure everyone is aware of.

Check out the trailer first then continue on…


I’m sure cinephiles could immediately spot the influences & borrowed imagery within the trailer, but I don’t know if the average movie goer/Gosling fan can (I could be way off but these are the films that come to mind when I watch the trailer)


George Washington (David Gordon Green)

Gummo (Harmony Korine)

Sacrifice (Tarkovsky)

Wax's California music video (Spike Jonze)

Gummo

I’m obviously going to see this if/when it comes out. Even if it turns out to be as bad as critics have made it out to be, I’d rather see a disastrous failure than a safe/non-threatening movie that I’d forget about five minutes after watching.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

NICHOLAS WINDING REFN'S OBVIOUS INFLUENCE ON MAINSTREAM CINEMA


I know a lot of people out there don’t like Nicholas Winding Refn’s movies (I am NOT one of those people because I think his movies are awesome), but his influence on mainstream cinema (Nightcrawler, Need For Speed, John Wick, etc) is undeniable yet everyone seems to act like that’s not the case.



Sure the plots to the afformentioned films are different than Only God Forgives & Drive, but when it comes to tone, atmosphere, art direction, lighting, the representation of Los Angeles, use of color, etc., it’s more than obvious.


I also know that Refn didn’t just find his style all on his own. He’s clearly a mixture of Mann, Tarantino, Scorsese, the 1980’s and a few others, but filmmakers today are still drawing directly from his style more than anything else. While certain things arent exactly identical (some things are), just take a step back, look at these examples (the positioning of Gosling & Gyllenhall standing in front of their cars, the colors used on the poster art, etc) and just admit that I’m right…


Friday, February 7, 2014

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES: THE BEST DISAPPOINTING FILM OF THE DECADE SO FAR


The Place Beyond The Pines has just as many moments of greatness as it does moments of spottiness. Based on the talent involved (in front of & behind the camera) and the excellent trailer that was cut - this was something I thought would be a masterpiece, yet the final result ended up being a pretty uneven movie. I say uneven because the first 45 minutes are excellent while the next 90 minutes walk the line between intriguing & uninteresting (dare I say boring?). I recognize & appreciate director Derek Cianfrance's ambition but I don’t give his latest effort a complete pass. I liken this film to that of a student taking a really hard exam who doesn't necessarily know all the correct answers, but still shows their work in order to get some credit. Sure they ended up getting a B-, but at the end of the day they could have gotten an A had they studied harder.

But why should such an ambitious film like The Place Beyond The Pines be measured in terms of grades? That's a little insulting for the kind of project it was. Between the film's length, time span of the story and the actual plot; this was a bit of a risk/experimentation in a sense. Some of you might not agree with that statement, but a film can be "experimental" without delving in to the world of Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren or Kenneth Anger. Look at the cinema of Michael Mann. You wouldn't consider his work to be experimental at first, but as pointed out in the recent You Hate Everything Podcast, one could say films like Miami Vice and even Public Enemies are experimental/avant garde studio action movies. Anyone familiar with Mann's work knows how free and sometimes (intentionally) random his camera work can be when compared to other conventional action films. How many studio filmmakers besides him can you name that let the camera linger the way it does in Miami Vice or allow it to suddenly go blurry like in Collateral or Ali? The same loose interpretation of "experimental" applies to The Place Beyond The Pines as well. Besides being a layered story about the relationship between two different sets of fathers & sons that cross paths with one another in various ways over the span of 15 years, I feel like Derek Cianfrance was trying to take a page out of the book of James Gray and take it to another level by combining elements of the family melodrama with elements of realistic action & suspense. He also took a big risk by killing off the film's biggest (and most promoted) star long before we even reach the halfway mark. The length of this film is a little odd too, clocking in at 140 minutes. The Place Beyond The Pines is filled with bank robberies, murder, coming of age, police corruption, romance and more. Derek Cianfrance almost crammed a mini-series worth of content into a feature length film (seriously, if he wanted too, this story could have branched off in to so many different directions like The Wire or Twin Peaks). Part of me wanted this to be 45 minutes longer in order for it to feel more cohesive. But who wants to sit through a three hour long movie these days?


Set in upstate New York, the first part of the story follows "Luke Glanton" - a motorcycle stunt driver that's part of a traveling carnival. After a one night stand with a local townie ("Romina", played by Eva Mendas) Luke leaves town only to return a year later to discover he's the father of Romina's one year old son, although she’s now moved on and married too another man. Faced with the dilemma of wanting to support his illegitimate son with very little income, Luke turns to robbing banks in order to make money. His successful string of bank robberies is eventually put to an end by an ambitious young cop by the name of "Avery Cross" (Bradley Cooper).
How Luke went as long as he did without getting caught is a little perplexing to me. Not only does this story take place in a small town, but he uses the same loud recognizable motorcycle that he rides around town with as his getaway vehicle. Yes, he spray paints the bike a different color every time he does a bank job, but it still makes that same loud revving noise. No one in that small quiet town could make the connection between a bank robber who rides away on a motorcycle and a mysterious guy who recently rolled in to town that also happens to ride around town on a motorcycle? And without giving any more away than I already have, the only reason Luke is eventually caught is because he gets sloppy. It’s not like the police had any leads. I hate to be that guy to get all technical and pull out the rule book, but last time I checked, Derek Cianfrance is a filmmaker who goes for realism in his work. If that's your thing (which it certainly is) you open yourself up to that kind of criticism.


Like Luke, Avery Cross also has a one year old son which makes for a nice transition. Once Avery enters the story and Luke exits (which is putting it lightly), the film shifts and we focus on him and his discovery of police corruption within his department. Will he turn a blind eye to whats going on around him, or will he turn his fellow officers in to internal affairs?
The story then jumps 15 years ahead and we learn that Avery climbed his way up the ranks and is now a politician. By chance, his degenerate teenage son ("AJ") ends up going to the same high school as Luke Glanton's teenage son ("Jason") and they eventually befriend each other until the sins of both of their father's reemerge and cause a major conflict between the two boys (Jason & AJ are completely unaware that their fathers crossed paths with each other 15 years ago). 
The third act primarily focuses on Jason and the void he feels having not known his real father. I was a bit conflicted with Jason’s story. On one hand I get the angst of not knowing who your biological father is but Jason still had a positive male role model in the form his stepfather/Romina’s husband “Kofi” (The Walking Dead’s Mahershala Ali). It was brought to my attention, via my girlfriend, that once Jason eventually discovered who his father was and the things he did, that he should have appreciated his stepfather even more. Sure, there’d be some initial disappointment in learning that your biological father was a violent bank robber with a criminal past, but once those feelings eventually went away, Jason should have realized he had something that many kids in his situation don’t when their biological father isn’t around – a steady positive male figure, like his stepdad, to fill the void. 
Derek Cianfrance shows multiple father archetypes in The Place Beyond The Pines – The dysfunctional/absentee father (Luke), the good father (Kofi), The complicated father (Avery), etc. He tried his best to show multiple shades of fatherhood and didn’t simplify things like so many filmmakers often do with that subject. This is why I appreciate The Place Beyond The Pines no matter how flawed it is. Fathers in cinema are usually one-note or play the background. They deserve a spotlight too. I also appreciate that the one non-dysfunctional father in this whole film is a black male.
Kofi is just another example of someone or something that could have branched off to its own storyline that the film just  didn't have time for (again, maybe this would have been better off as a miniseries?)


Another problem for me with The Place Beyond The Pines was Bradley Cooper's presence (both the character he plays and his performance). And I don’t say "problem" like his acting was bad. To be honest, I can’t even think of another actor who could have played his role or done a better job than him. It's just that his presence is a little forgettable yet he's supposed to be carrying the last two thirds of the film. Going back to Michael Mann for a moment, when I think of Bradley Cooper in The Place Beyond The Pines I sometimes go; "Oh yeah, he was in this." the same way I think about Public Enemies and go "Oh yeah, that movie does exist.” There's something bland and/or redundant about Cooper's character and his performance is a little one-note through the whole second act. From The Prince Of The City to The Glass Shield, we've all seen the story of the young cop faced with the dilemma of having to turn on his corrupt brothers in blue. And when the story makes that 15 year jump he's suddenly a politician. I personally didn’t have an issue with the time lapse but I understand people's frustration with the sudden change in Cooper's character. 
I say all this without any extra Bradley Cooper hate. I know that the combination of the Hangover movies and him becoming an A-list actor in recent years has brought on some detractors but he doesn’t bother me. I thought he was great in both Silver Linings Playbooks & American Hustle and he also co-starred in Wet Hot American Summer so I can never fully hate him for that alone.
The Place Beyond The Pines is a bit of a paradox in that it’s already pretty long yet it still makes a 15 year jump and leaves a huge gap. But I feel like the same people who complained about the sudden 15 year jump would have complained if the film was over three hours long and had filled in all the gaps they complained about in the first place. Did we really need to see a meticulous layout of Avery Cross’ transition for being a police officer to becoming a politician? Did we really need to see both AJ & Luke grow from the babies we saw in the first act to the misguided teens they become in the third act? Personally I think Cianfrence gives enough information as to what’s transpired over the years, but I guess some viewers wanted everything spelled out.


There were also complaints about the lack of prominent female character but, without trying to be sexist, at the end of the day this is a story about men in the same way that everything from Ms. 45 & Variety to The Color Purple & The Hours are stories about women (generally speaking). The Place Beyond The Pines had been marketed as a tale about fathers & sons since 2012. What did people honestly expect? And even though Rose Byrne's role as Bradley Cooper's wife could have been filled by just about anyone, Eva Mendes honestly held her own and did her part in leaving some type of strong female presence in a film dominated by so many men. That’s not the easiest task, so props to her. Come to think of it, this might be the best acting she's ever done.
And let’s be honest here...although Bradley Cooper surprised some of us with his Academy Award nominated performance in Silver Linings Playbook, Ryan Gosling's role as a brooding stunt motorcyclist/bank robber was this film's biggest draw because it reminded some of us of Drive (although if you’ve actually seen both films, you’d know that they’re quite different). Gosling getting killed off in the first act didn’t sit too well with a lot of people. But that was honestly one of my favorite things about The Place Beyond The Pines. This was another risk/experiment Derek Cianfrance took that I really respect. I don’t know what it is, but a lot of American filmmakers seem to be afraid to kill off big stars early on in films these days and I'm sure A-list stars don't want to be eliminated so early on in big films either. This is why I love directors like Mike Leigh, Michael Haneke & Claire Denis. The same actors that star in their films come back to play very minor roles for them later on. A star like Gosling could have easily pulled an Ed Norton power move and demanded more screen time but he played his part along with a few other actors who had small but memorable roles in this like Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelshon & Bruce Greenwood.


2013 was a strange year for Ryan Gosling. You almost forgot that he was in three films last year. Between 2010-2011 it seemed like he could do no wrong. On paper you'd think 2013 was gonna be a repeat of his success from a couple of years ago. He reunited with the same directors that he shared success with in the past (Derek Cianfrance/The Place Beyond The Pines & Nicolas Winding Refn/Only God Forgives), he became a successful Internet meme and was still quite popular even though he wasn't in anything released theatrically in 2012. However in 2013, Only God Forgives' theatrical run came & went faster than the beating his character took in the very same movie and both; Gangster Squad & The Place Beyond The Pines were released in the early part of 2013 which made them pretty forgettable. Releasing Gangster Squad in January made sense. It's just one of those movies you wanna get out of the way early on in the year. But even with all of its flaws, The Place Beyond The Pines deserved the respect of getting a later release in 2013 when movies aren’t so forgettable. Think about it, how many academy award nominated films from any year (this year especially) were released prior to May? Now...I don't know how much of a difference it would have made releasing this later in the year as it would have had to compete with The Wolf Of Wall Street, Her, Inside Llewyn Davis and American Hustle (also co-starring Bradley Cooper).

The Place Beyond The Pines is about more than just the sins of fathers coming back to haunt their sons. It's also about the bad decisions we sometimes make or the lies we tell in the moment because we think they'll make things better when instead they just build up and weigh on us. In the case of the characters in this movie, things continue to build up and weigh on our characters for 15 years.
What very few critics seem to be addressing is that Luke didn't really need to rob banks in order to provide for his son. Romina had a husband & Jason a father (Kofi). Luke just had a skewed perception of what a father/provider was supposed to be because, as he mentions, his own father wasn't around so he had no model to look up to. Plus it's obvious he enjoyed the thrill of being a criminal too.
And Luke isn't the only character to make poor choices. After the fatal showdown between he & Avery at the end of the first act, Avery lies in his police report about who shot who first, and from that moment on his life becomes more & more stressful.
Perhaps if Romina just explained to Jason what his biological father Luke was really like instead of keeping it a secret (which only built up 15 years worth of curiosity) he wouldn't have felt so much angst growing up.

This is the kind of film that'll be reevaluated years down the line by those who were initially put off by certain aspects of it or didn't understand some of the choices that Derek Cianfrance made. Maybe I'll change my stance on the issues I have. I'll probably never consider The Place Beyond The Pines a prefect film, but it's definitely worthy of  some serious analysis and it won't be forgotten as the decade continues on...

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...