Three movies competing for Oscar gold were released so late they didn’t make it to town in time for last month’s column. Academy Awards have already been announced, but here are my takes on some of the late arrivals.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Imagine if you lost almost every possible connection with the outside world. Julian Schnabel’s amazing film helps us do more than imagine.
“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” took us inside the real-life story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of Elle France magazine who, in 1995, suffered a catastrophic stroke that left him paralyzed except for one eyelid.
His doctor tells Bauby the condition is called “locked-in syndrome.” His thoughts, his entire personality are locked inside the prison of his frozen body. But through the help of the world’s most patient speech therapist, blinking that eyelid is how he communicates with the world.
Bauby’s first message is “I want death.” But as the days pass, and friends and family come to visit, he comes to grips with a condition that he compares to floating underwater inside a cumbersome diving bell, totally cut off from the world, alone with his inner self.
Bauby realizes that he has not lost his memories and his imagination, and he becomes determined that, instead of being trapped in the diving bell, he will fly like a butterfly over the landscape of his life.
That inner journey takes the form of a book dictated to his therapist, letter by agonizing letter.
Schnabel’s direction and Ronald Harwood’s script make us a part of that inner life. We experience the profound limitations, but through blurred and distorted images, flights of dreamlike fancy, and scenes of aching poignancy, we experience an emotional journey and an uplifting testament to human resilience.
In a movie about paralysis, I found myself paralyzed by the power of this movie. Some of the films of 2007 were noteworthy for outstanding acting or storytelling. “Diving Bell” shines because of the brave and uncompromising direction of Julian Schnabel. This film is his vision, and he created the most unique motion picture of 2007.
There Will Be Blood
“There Will Be Blood.” Not a word is spoken, but we are introduced to the cruel realities of the business, and the cruel and complex character of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis).
It’s a moment of inspired filmmaking in a picture that is uneven, occasionally frustrating, but never boring. The wildcatting oil industry is portrayed with great attention to detail. But this is not a movie about oil so much as it is about two driven men—Plainview and a mysterious young preacher (Paul Dano) who apparently possesses the gift of healing.
One exploits the promises of riches that flow from oil, the other the promise of healing and salvation that flow from the blood of Christ. But the ruthless ambition that fuels their success ultimately leads to their mutual downfall.
Director and screenwriter Paul Thomas Anderson envisions an America at the dawn of a century of great progress driven by greed and populated by charismatic con men and gullible followers. Not exactly a kinder gentler view of forefathers.
After a string of films with similar themes of human depravity this year, I wasn’t so much depressed as mildly amused by one more entry into the litany of woe. Clearly this was not the reaction Anderson was seeking. And so many elements of this movie, from the intrusive musical soundtrack, to Daniel Day-Lewis’ questionable decision to mimic the distinctive voice of John Huston, were puzzling distractions for me.
Despite the choices he makes, Daniel Day-Lewis is a ridiculously talented actor. He continues to be a force of nature in every role he takes on. But for me, this performance was intense but not necessarily illuminating. By the end, Plainview is not plainly or clearly viewed. The prospect of peeling back the layers of this complex character, promised in the film’s opening moments, was never realized.
The Kite Runner
Two boys, one rich and one poor, are best friends in Afghanistan in 1978. But a tragedy and a war separate them. Years later, one of the two boys, now grown and a successful author in the U.S., must make a treacherous journey back to his home country to try to set things right.
It’s a story that captivated readers of the best-selling novel and was brought to the screen by director Marc Forster. There are no recognizable actors and most of the film is in subtitles. Still, he created a touching and engrossing picture that transcended culture and language.
But then an unfortunate thing happened. One scene in the movie depicts the rape of one of the boys. When word of the scene got out, a storm of protest arose. The families of both the boy actors said their lives were in danger, and they argued with the studio over how much the actors were told about the story line.
The studio offered to relocate the boys and their families for their safety. But by that point, the controversy had overshadowed the movie itself. It was a major public relations disaster. The studio decided to release the movie with little or no promotion, and it disappeared off the radar of Oscar nominators.
The irony is that the scene at the center of all the controversy was actually handled with taste and restraint. But, amid all the controversy, its message about overcoming hate and violence was lost. And the children who played the scene themselves were demonized. Talk about your twisted logic.
You could argue the producers should have known better, and prepared audiences for this film in advance. But the damage has been done. And a film that puts a human face on a region of the world we’re struggling to understand will not get the audience it deserves.
One World Film Festival
The One World Film Festival wraps up this month. Four documentaries and a French film remain on the schedule. All screenings are free.
For complete listings, visit www.smileypete.com.