ARGO

There was a time back around the release of the disaster “Gigli” that the name Ben Affleck seemed to be the punch-line of every Hollywood joke.  No one took the guy seriously as he continually made poor decisions in the kind of films he chose to make and he seemed to be forever miscast.  Two examples of this are John Woo’s “Paycheck”, and the superhero movie “Daredevil”.  Affleck was always considered the weaker of the two, when he and his best friend Matt Damon hit the Hollywood scene and as Damon’s star continued to rise, it seemed that Affleck was destined to become a has-been fairly early in his life.  That said, personally I have always liked Ben Affleck on screen, particularly his collaborations with Kevin Smith.  He has a likable personality and is quite charismatic too, but there was no denying that a lot of his films were trash.  His career took an incredible upturn back in 2007 though when he made his directorial debut “Gone Baby Gone”.  What initially seemed like another actor getting a chance to direct just because of their celebrity rather than their talent, “Gone Baby Gone” proved to be anything but that, as Ben Affleck showed just how talented he was behind the camera.  Three years later he followed it up with “The Town” proving that his debut was not a fluke, this time taking a starring role in the film too.  It turns out that he understands his own needs as an actor better than most directors because he gives a great performance in “The Town” combined with his stellar work behind the camera.  “Argo” is Affleck’s third film as director; can he keep his winning streak going?

“Argo” is set in 1979 during a period of revolution in Iran where the American Embassy has been seized and hostages taken.  During the rampage, six American officials were able to escape the Embassy and hide out in the basement of the Canadian Ambassador’s Tehran home.  After staying hidden for over two months with the dangers of getting caught increasing every day, the CIA and the Canadian Government come up with a plan to try and get the diplomats out of Iran.  The CIA call in Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck) who is an expert in extraction.  After some initial brainstorming that comes up for naught, Mendez comes across the idea that he could fly in to Tehran and leave with the six under the guise that they are all working on a Canadian movie who are in Iran location scouting.  Knowing that for the plan to work, they need everything to be as real as possible which includes having a shooting script ready that would suit locations in Iran.  Mendez decides on a low budget “Star Wars” rip-off titled “Argo” to be the perfect candidate and then sets about first fooling Hollywood about the legitimacy of the project by holding casting calls, as well as inviting the media to the production announcement of “Argo”, sowing the seeds and creating a back story which ultimately would help convince the Iranians that “Argo” is the real deal.  Mendez then creates roles for the diplomats to play from producers, director, cinematographer and location scout for the fake movie, that will have to be memorized back to front before they attempt to leave the country.  There is no denying that the mission is full of immense risk which becomes even riskier as Iranian security forces start to work out who exactly the missing six diplomats are.

It is so good to be able to sit down and watch a film that is not only entertaining for its entire running time but for it to be intelligently made and not dumbed down, rather it respects its audience.  It is safe to say that Ben Affleck’s “Argo” is an absolute triumph and he is indeed now three from three.  There is just so much to like about this film that I do not know where to start.  Personally I think the strongest aspect of “Argo” is its very intelligent script.  Plot construction and dialogue are both exemplary, and in all honesty it was a breath of fresh air.  I am so sick of terrible scripts where characters say the most inane things.  There were a number of times I was just blown away by the fast paced and natural dialogue that was sprouted onscreen.  What is also great about the script is that it creates a world full of grays as no-one is demonized in the film and although you could say that the Iranians are the “villain” of the film, the reasons for what they are doing are presented and explained within also (without being judged).  Another aspect I liked in the writing was the subtle (and not so subtle) in-jokes in regards to Hollywood and movie making in general.  There was a lightness to these scenes that I really responded to, but at the same time everything just felt so real.  It is obvious that Ben Affleck understands the importance of a great script as it is common in all of his directorial outings, no doubt due to him being a screenwriter himself.

Another thing that Affleck obviously understands is how to cast a film because he has filled “Argo” with a phenomenal cast with veteran actors the likes of John Goodman, Bryan Cranston and Alan Arkin.  While you could say that Affleck is the lead of the film, “Argo” is really an ensemble piece and as good as each individual performance is, what is really impressive is just how well they work within the group.  No one is trying to steal the spotlight from anyone else.  Personally I thought Alan Arkin was truly amazing in his role of the producer of “Argo”, it is probably the showiest role in the film and he makes the most of every moment he is on screen.  He understands that while he may have been something once, he is now past it, but still is smart enough to know how the industry works which helps in getting “Argo” to move forward in development.  The scenes between John Goodman and Arkin are just brilliant with the two bouncing off each other; it is obvious that they are both having a hell of a fun time here.  Bryan Cranston, who seems to be having a late career resurgence of late, was also extraordinary in his brief but very important role as Jack O’Donnell, one of Mendez’s CIA co-workers.  Ben Affleck himself provides another fantastic performance in one of his own films filled with nuance and emotion, as we witness the stress of having to get these people to safety is having on his family life.

Another thing that makes “Argo” so compelling is Affleck’s attention to period detail.  From the costumes to the locations, everything just feels of the period, it all looks so right.  Amazingly, Affleck has done such a good job with the opening of the film in regards to detail that he was able to combine production footage with real footage (did I mention this film is based on a true story?) of the times.  In fact, newsreel footage of the crisis is sprinkled throughout the film combined with dramatic reenactments of certain moments.  One of the most impressive things when it comes to detail is the look of the diplomats.  When the end credits of “Argo” begin we are witness to photos of the real people that the film is based on, and all of them almost look identical to the actors playing them in “Argo”.  It is no doubt that these actors were chosen due to their likeness of the original counterparts.  One of my gripes with “Argo” though has to do with the fact that we are never really given access to the diplomats throughout the film.  We do not understand where the group is psychologically before the attempted rescue begins therefore it is hard to gauge whether or not members of the group could be a liability to the success of the mission.  In fact, for the majority of “Argo” we really know very little of these six people.  Getting back to the authenticity of the film, Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography is beautifully gritty harkening back to the great political thrillers of the 1970s.  Thankfully Affleck and Prieto decided to shoot the film on celluloid to create that heavily grainy look that was so noticeable to films of that era.  During the opening of the film the camera work is very shaky representing the urgency of the moment but it settles down after this and is shot in a more classical style.  Although the camera work is never flashy, there is quite a number of really impressive camera moves throughout.  One in particular is when Mendez enters the CIA building and it weaves amongst the offices and Mendez himself until it ends in O’Donnell’s office.

Something that I very rarely talk about is the editing of films but William Goldenberg’s work here is just stellar throughout “Argo” that it just has to be mentioned.  There are a number of times he cross-cuts between two events that are so beautifully done that it just feels so organic and is never once confusing.  Goldenberg also creates a rhythm within the film that increases as the film’s suspense increases until it is unbearable in the white knuckle finale.  Speaking of the ending, although it starts to feel more like a movie here rather than a document of a time, Affleck has created some of the most high-tension suspense I have felt in a film for ages.

When it comes to negatives for “Argo” they are few and far between.  I have mentioned that I felt that the diplomat characters were not explored as deep as I would have liked, but other than a few historical inaccuracies made to streamline the film, there is little to dislike about “Argo”.  In regards to those inaccuracies I should point out that because I knew nothing about this story prior to the film, they did not affect me, but apparently the fact that Ben Affleck totally downplayed both the British and New Zealand Embassy’s part in the protection and extraction of the six has rubbed some people the wrong way.  The only other thing that I would have liked was to have the story of the actual American hostages at the Embassy be brought to the forefront a little more.  While I understand this is not their story and that they are always in the background, I still wanted a little more explanation about what was going on with the hostages.

Overall, Ben Affleck’s “Argo” is an absolute success and one of the best films of the year so far.  Directorially, Affleck is going from strength to strength with each picture he makes.  I love his portrait of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80, it is layered (I loved the little moments where American culture is seen taking over Tehran), full of drama and incredibly suspenseful.  The film is packed with brilliant performances throughout and the attention to detail shown in regards to the period is outstanding.  I expect we will hear a lot about “Argo” around awards time and so we should, because it deserves all the praise it is getting, and if you don’t agree with me “Argo….fuck yourself”.

4.5 Stars.

 

LOVELY MOLLY

Back in 1999, Eduardo Sanchez (along with co-director Daniel Myrick) terrified audiences with the worldwide phenomenon “The Blair Witch Project”.  At its time of release it was such a unique film, shot on a shoestring budget and filmed on video, it took on the big guys and not only won the battle, it totally destroyed its opponent.  “The Blair Witch Project” was such a success that it seemed to indicate that if you had the means at your disposal, anyone could make a movie.  As was soon proven by the huge glut of inept features made on a dime, that wasn’t necessarily the case; you also needed a good story and some talent behind the camera too.  Since his amazing debut though, Sanchez has barely been heard from in the horror scene.  It is not that he hasn’t been making movies, it is just that none have come close to matching the quality of “The Blair Witch Project” (it is tough starting at the top, just ask Orson Welles).  However, with his latest film “Lovely Molly” Sanchez has finally hit gold again creating a supernatural (?)  film  about mental illness that is as good as his first feature (story-wise, I mean, there is no way he will ever recapture the financial success of “The Blair Witch Project”).

“Lovely Molly” is about a newly married couple, Molly and Tim, who move back into Molly’s deceased parent’s house, only to have Molly haunted by a trauma from her past.  Throughout the film, it is obvious that something happened to Molly in this house, but we also learn that she is a recovering drug addict, no doubt brought on from her initial trauma.  As Molly slowly and continually withdraws within herself, Tim struggles to understand if his wife is back on drugs again or if something sinister is happening to her.  Even more disturbingly is whether or not she is a threat to injuring anyone including herself.

Eduardo Sanchez has created quite an intense experience with “Lovely Molly” which interestingly has the same opening as his most famous film; his leading lady talking and crying into a camcorder.  This is where the comparisons with “The Blair Witch Project” end though because “Lovely Molly” is its own thing, mainly concerned with how much a trauma can affect a person throughout the entirety of their life.  Similar to “The Exorcist”, the success of this film has to do with the opening scenes we see of Molly and Tim together, so happy on their wedding day.  These scenes are crucial so we can witness just how far Molly falls.  Sanchez creates the film with a sense of ambiguity where it can be seen in two different lights.  The first is that there is a supernatural presence within the story that causes Molly to do the things that she does, or the other, that everything that happens plays out in Molly’s damaged and fractured mind as she relapses on drugs and begins to remember the terrible things that happened to her when she was younger.  Personally I think the film is much stronger dramatically if it is indeed happening all in Molly’s head, and this is how I saw it.  If the supernatural presence were to be real, I think it would make the film far cheesier, where as I think it is actually trying to say something about how damaged a person truly becomes after they are abused by someone they trust.

The film belongs to lead actress Gretchen Lodge who plays the difficult role of Molly and is simply outstanding.  She fully commits to the role both physically and more importantly mentally.  It is heartbreaking to watch this girl slowly deteriorate before our eyes as she heads down the path of self destruction.  You truly believe that Molly is seeing what she says she is seeing because the terror is all in her eyes.  Lodge is naked at length throughout the film, not just in the flesh but also emotionally, and she does not flinch at all.  She goes to some very dark places during this story and presents them to us so honestly and heartbreakingly.  It is seriously one of the best performances of the year.  If Lodge was unable to make us believe of the reality that what her character was going through was real to her, than the film would just not work but she excels here and it is because of her performance that “Lovely Molly” is as successful as it is.

The other fine performance that I loved in the film was from Alexandra Holden as Molly’s older sister Hannah.  Holden plays Hannah as a damaged soul too but one who is coping better with the past.  There is no doubt that she has gone through some pain in her life as well as there is an evident sadness in her eyes but you can also sense some guilt too, no doubt due to the fact that she feels partly responsible to what Molly is going through.  The character of Hannah helps in the creation of the ambiguity of the film because while Molly really believes everything that is happening to her, you can sense that Hannah has seen this all before back when Molly was struggling with substance abuse.  The only problem with Hannah is that her character does some really stupid things in the film, not least openly smoking and offering a joint to a recovering addict.

Sadly, the performance from Johnny Lewis as Molly’s husband Tim just doesn’t hold any weight and he is regularly outclassed acting wise by the women he shares the screen with.  This ultimately causes Tim to be a very forgettable character which is a shame.

For the majority of “Lovely Molly” it is shot in a normal fashion but sporadically throughout it, video footage shot by Molly is shown to us.  For me this part of “Lovely Molly” just did not work at all and its excision ultimately would have made for a better film.  Within the footage we see Molly basically stalking another family, a mother and her two kids, from the neighbourhood.  It isn’t until late in the film that we understand why she is observing them and it does lead to two very dark moments towards the finale but this subplot ultimately feels extraneous and does a disservice to the balk of the main plot.  It creates a jarring effect as we are watching this girl descend into madness and then suddenly we are outside with a camcorder looking at a supposedly happy family.  You lose that intensity which has been building so well and it makes it very hard for the audience to get back into.

Despite this flaw (and a few idiotic character moments) I think Eduardo Sanchez has done a great job at creating an uncomfortable environment.  The (non-video) camera work is all handled very nicely and I was particularly impressed by the soundtrack that keeps audiences on edge.  He doesn’t use loud noises to accentuate a horror moment in cheap fashion rather he uses strange sounds to create a tension filled atmosphere.  The use of the folk-song  “Lovely Molly”, which is sung by Molly’s father almost calling out to her, is so damn effective and creepy at the same time.  Also the sound of horse’s hooves at regular intervals is brilliantly done and is just so chilling.  The film isn’t a gory one, although there are scenes of gore within it, and it isn’t filled with scenes designed to give you a quick jolt, however Sanchez has created a film with an atmosphere of dread that continues to get darker as the film goes on.

While the film is not perfect, I was still impressed with Eduardo Sanchez’s latest film “Lovely Molly”.  It is well known that I am a huge fan of films about the fractured mind and Molly’s descent into madness is an interesting and intense experience.  It has a standout lead performance from Gretchen Lodge that anchors the film within reality while at the same time Sanchez has created an ambiguity that leaves the door open to suggest that everything that is happening may in fact be supernatural.  Thankfully Sanchez is smart enough not to over explain things, particularly with the ending, which ultimately adds to the experience of “Lovely Molly”.

3.5 Stars.

THE CAT VANISHES

Before my recent viewing of “The Cat Vanishes”, I was unaware of its Argentinean director, Carlos Sorin.  Apparently this film is a departure from the usual types of realistic and simple dramas that Sorin is known for and in a recent interview with him, he has stated that this one off experiment would be just that.  The reason for this is because he found the stylized world of his Hitchcock homage to be an incredibly hard film to make.  Watching the film you would not know it because Sorin has created such a great little film, he always seems in total control of it, and it is a shame that he will not make another suspense thriller like this again.  When it comes to the homage of the work of master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, many have tried, but amazingly a lot fail, however Sorin has done a brilliant job of creating the wonderful suspense of a Hitchcock film without totally aping his style.

The film is about a middle aged couple, Luis and Beatriz, who are both trying to readapt to one another after Luis’ forced stay at a mental institution after a serious and violent breakdown.  Luis, before the breakdown, was a mild mannered and kind man who appeared not to have a violent bone in his body.  He was happily married to Beatriz for many, many years and worked as a teacher at the local university.  However that all changed one day when he suspected that his friend and assistant at the university, Fourcade, was trying to steal his lifelong work; his magnum opus he was wanting to be published.  The paranoia in his mind caused him to snap and he violently lashed out at both Fourcade and his own wife with whom he accused of being a traitor and helping Fourcade in the deception.  After his stay in the institution and being put under specific medication, Luis’ doctors concluded that he was cured and that the likelihood of him recommitting his crimes was nil, thus he is released into the care of his wife.  While Luis is now well and medicated and Beatriz has forgiven him understanding he was not himself during his attack, the memory of what happened isn’t easily forgotten by both, making it hard to adjust to each other once more.  Beatriz is still terrified that it may all happen again, while Luis is just trying to get on with his life, all knowing what he did to the person he loves most.  It isn’t until the family cat goes missing though that Beatriz starts to seriously think that Luis may not be cured after all.  Just prior to the cat disappearing, Luis had an altercation with it, and Beatriz starts thinking the worst.  Not only that but Luis’ weird behavior like hearing noises that no one else can hear, or manically reorganizing his bookcases at three in the morning, give Beatriz more cause to concern.  Is Luis really cured or is his weird behavior just his way of readapting to life outside of the institution?  Does Beatriz have a right to worry or is her imagination getting the better of her?

This is such a great film.  Admittedly it is very low key but it is so well made.  The opening half an hour of the film travels at a deliberate pace as we meet our main characters and see them dealing with their situation.  We witness Luis as he looks at the world with new eyes, almost as though this is the first time he has truly seen everything around him.  Meanwhile, Beatriz does her best to act like everything is normal but it is obvious she is concerned.  Everybody who comes in contact with her husband she confronts and asks them of their opinion of him, and they are unanimous in thinking he is just like he was before the breakdown.  Even with all of this reassurance, Beatriz is still worried, and it really is Beatriz’s film as we predominantly follow her.  It is through her eyes that we witness the story of “The Cat Vanishes” as her nerves and imagination make everything Luis does seem sinister and dark.  As she gets more and more sure that Luis is still in fact insane, the suspense of the film continues to build and visually it becomes more stylized and dark.

When trying to create an homage to Alfred Hitchcock, one must be aware of his great visual storytelling abilities.  Sorin definitely understands this and fills the film with beautifully composed and impeccably staged shots.  His camerawork is smooth and expressive but never too flashy that it draws attention to itself.  As I mentioned when Beatriz’s paranoia gets the better of her, the film becomes more stylized and Julian Apezteguia gorgeous lighting comes to the forefront.  Suddenly shadows play a huge part in the look of the film, as well as the staple of the suspense film: the horizontal blind.  Both are used brilliantly causing maximum suspense as the colour of the opening half of the film slowly gives way to darkness towards the end.  Some of my favourite shots in “The Cat Vanishes” are when Sorin separates husband and wife in the same shot to create either suspense, drama or suspicion.  My favourite example is when Luis is seen on the left hand side of the shot lying on his bed laughing at the television, while on the right hand side we see Beatriz clothed sitting on the toilet crying because she is terrified of her husband.  It is a great visual moment and is dramatically palpable.  Deliberately Luis’ side of the shot is brightly lit and full of colour, while in the bathroom it is dark and the red walls of the room stand out dramatically.  Another shot I loved and that was very Hitchcockian is a close up of Luis holding a knife in the foreground, as Beatriz enters through a door in the background, instantly shocked by the knife.  It is so well done, because the way the shot has been framed, we feel exactly what Beatriz feels even though Luis may be doing something innocent with the knife; it is a very dramatic shot.  Something that Hitchcock relied on heavily in his films was the subjective shot.  What this means is that we first see a shot of a character looking at something, which is then followed up with a shot of what that character is actually seeing.  Sorin employs this technique brilliantly as the majority of the second half of “The Cat Vanishes” is told via this subjective method.

From an acting point of view, Beatriz Spelzini (who plays Beatriz) is just magnificent.  She is the heart of the film and she carries it brilliantly.  Her portrayal of difficult emotions of happiness while still feeling fear, and guilt for not trusting the man she loves all come across powerfully.  You really feel for this poor woman.  If you think about it, it really is a tough position she is in.  She was a victim of her husband’s violent outrage, but it all happened when he was under the influence of a breakdown, and although he is now cured that memory is still with her, so it is only human nature that it would be hard to trust the man she loves so readily again.  Through Spelzini’s performance you understand all of this and just how hard it is for her.  Luis Luque’s performance (as Luis) is quite a playful one because he has the job of not letting the audience know if he is in fact cured or not, therefore he always has a shifty look in his eye.  The scene when he is organizing his bookcase is a good example because that is all he is doing (or is he?) but he looks so guilty when Beatriz catches him.  It certainly looks as though Luque had fun with the role.

One thing that I appreciated with “The Cat Vanishes” is the plotting of the film and the fact that when I thought I was ahead of the film, it proved me wrong every time.  Carlos Sorin penned the script himself and I loved the fact that it existed within itself from beginning to end.  What I mean by this is that its tone was consistent all the way up to the finale.  To be honest, “The Cat Vanishes” is a very slight tale, there is no violence, little blood, no obscenities and yet it is packed full of suspense.  When it comes to the end of the film, it stays true to what has come before it; it is a simple ending but a brilliant one.  It doesn’t suddenly become an action or a chase film, it stays true to itself.  Although the world presented in “The Cat Vanishes” is a stylized one, Sorin also grounds the film in a reality with the characters that fill the world doing things that are quite normal in the situation faced.  Like I said above, Sorin fills the story with moments that appear to be twists but turn out to be something all together different, but like everything else in this film, they fit perfectly with the story being told and never feel out of place.

Another thing that I must make mention of is Nicolas Sorin’s (yes, he is the director’s son; talk about nepotism) fantastic score.  It actually has an old fashioned quality to it and early on it is quite playful, however by the end of the film it turns into a full on suspense score while at the same time never being derivative of anything from the past.

Overall, I thought Carlos Sorin’s Hitchcock homage was a delightful film.  He added the Hitchcock elements perfectly to the film from the title (which is obviously a take-off of “Vertigo”, I joke, it is “The Lady Vanishes”), to scenes of characters eating, the psychological mumbo jumbo of doctors and best of all, the visual side of Hitchcock’s genius.  While “The Cat Vanishes” is a slight film, it is a perfectly executed tale that keeps you guessing until the end.  It is endlessly suspenseful and has a great kick in its tail.  It also has a fantastic dream sequence that is beautifully disguised as reality.  I recommend it whole heartedly and think it is a film that will be re-watched significantly in my own home.

4 Stars.