“Without a Paddle.” “Paparazzi.” “Wicker Park.” “Anaconda 2.” Pick your poison. These four titles take up half the screens at Hollywood Premier Cinemas as this article goes to print. That’s what I call a waste of celluloid. And screens.
Though American megaplexes are currently dominated by crummy slasher flicks, brain-dead comedies and half-baked sequels the number one movie in North America is … a subtitled art film?
OK, so “Hero” is a martial arts bonanza with an established action star above the title, but Jet Li is a mere footnote to the jaw-dropping visuals. Not that “Hero” is one of those dunderheaded, effects-heavy popcorn affairs.
No, it’s got far more on it’s mind than your usual number one movie. It’s a quiet, often melancholic examination of, well, heroism in all its forms and how courage and loyalty can sometimes be at deadly odds. It’s a great movie (3 1/2 stars) in its own right, and its two-week reign atop the film chart suggests that mainstream audiences may be hungry for something few Hollywood films deliver these days-quality.
Quality counts. And timeliness. Just ask Michael Moore, whose Bush-skewering “Fahrenheit 9/11” made the leap from arthouse hit to national sensation in early July when it became the highest grossing documentary of all time. For once at the American box office, demand for a film seemed to outweigh supply.
It certainly didn’t hurt when the critics jumped onboard, too. Arthouse movies rely largely on critical praise to help build audiences. Two of this summer’s most successful art films-“De-Lovely” and “The Door in the Floor”-have benefitted from good reviews and awards buzz. “De-Lovely” (3 stars) won critics over with its song-and-dance tribute to the legendary Cole Porter, and Kevin Kline got his best notices in years for his wry, heartbreaking work in the lead role.
“Door” (3 1/2 stars) won raves for writer/director Tod Williams , but the majority of ink spilled on the film has been devoted to Jeff Bridges and his chances at a Best Actor Oscar. And the excessive praise isn’t hyperbole; Bridges wows as a grieving novelist gaily walking the line between heightened self-awareness and wanton self-destruction.
Even independents that don’t hit with critics can have a long life if they connect with audiences. Most critics didn’t shine up to this summer’s “Napoleon Dynamite,” but that hasn’t stopped the eccentric low-budget laugher from becoming a long-running arthouse hit. After several months of release, its box office is still strong, propelling the film to a take of over thirty million dollars (high for arthouse fare).
And, to this critic, the film’s success is deserved. The plot makes all the usual high school pit stops (prom, student elections) but with subversive twists-dorky Napoleon’s big date is a disaster, the fate of the student body presidency is decided by a dance number-and well-observed character humor. Napoleon is a misunderstood young man, but he’s also something of a creep. He’s short-tempered, rude and selfish, and it’s refreshing to see an ugly ducking story where the geek doesn’t experience a triumph of the human spirit, because, well … he’s not a very nice guy.
True, it’s featherweight entertainment, and the loopy script is too smart-alecky by half. But it’s infinitely funnier than most mainstream comedies, reason enough for this critic to recommend it (3 stars) and celebrate its financial longevity.
Not every independent film is a winner. Often, indies don’t sell many tickets and divide critics. Hitting and missing (missing, in this critic’s opinion-2 stars for both) are the adultery drama “We Don’t Live Here Anymore” and the Colin Farrell vehicle “A Home at the End of the World.” “Home” had a great performance from relative unknown Dallas Roberts, and “Live” had some strong turns from disgruntled couple Mark Ruffalo and Laura Dern, but both had messy scripts and problematic direction.
When an indie really connects, however, it can be a beautiful thing. Independent filmmaking is often deeply personal, so much risks alienating many audience members. If you don’t like or don’t “get” an indie, you’re never alone. But if you do “get” it, if you can connect to the world onscreen and its characters and situations, it sometimes makes you feel like you’re the only person watching the film, like the film was made just for you.
“Garden State” was a film I connected to in ways the average joe might not. I can step back and evaluate the movie strictly on its aesthetic merits-fine acting, smart script, strong direction from first-timer (also writer and star) Zach Braff-but only so much. The story, centered on an over-medicated struggling actor who returns home to New Jersey for his mother’s funeral, struck personal chords with me. I hinged on the lead character’s every small action and reaction, finding myself and falling in love right along with him.
With “Garden State” Braff is a triple threat who never comes on too strong; his writing wises up when it threatens to get cute, his direction is intelligent without being haughty and his acting is muted enough to allow his co-stars to take center stage.
It’s a vibrant, beautifully crafted and shot film, full of warmth, whimsy and cinematic ingenuity. It’s not the best film of the year, but it’s one of this critic’s favorites (3 1/2 stars).
Even better is “Before Sunset,” the sequel to 1994’s talky romantic gem “Before Sunrise.” “Sunset” reunites stars Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as star-crossed lovers meeting for the first time since a fateful one-night rendezvous a decade earlier. They meet, they walk, they talk, they fall in love … again.
Sounds boring? Far from it. Writer-director Richard Linklater’s script is brainy but accessible; his characters are smart, passionate people who talk, think and love like real people. Their conversation is multi-leveled and their motivations change from one topic to the next. It’s a tightrope for the film’s leads, and they walk it with ease.
Hawke has never been this relaxed, and Delpy achieves a marriage of irony, frailty and gravitas that grounds a movie centering on notions of destiny and high romance. It has a sort of idealistic cynicism acknowledging that life is hard and full of consequences but still embraces the idea that happy endings aren’t just in storybooks. Good for the heart and for the head, “Before Sunset” is the best that independent film has to offer (4 stars).
It’s always good news when independent film gets the media coverage and popular attention it deserves. But the movies will always be a business, and independents usually don’t have the advertising or mass appeal to make money in rural markets like Starkville. Despite the college set and a small but vital arts community, Starkville probably doesn’t have the audiences to support an arthouse. Even though Cinema 12 sits rotting and unused, once a year the under-publicized Magnolia Film Festival takes it over for a weekend.
I digress. But would it be out of the question for Hollywood Premier Cinemas to get a smaller release film every now and then to break the monotony of all the Hilary Duff-Vin Diesel fiascos? If artsier fare ever does arrive, it’s belated.
“Mystic River” opened in wide release last October but didn’t make it to Starkville until several months later. And why does Hollywood Premier seem to have a ban on wide releases from Focus Features? “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” was a great movie, “Vanity Fair” was a bad movie, both were wide releases and neither played in Starkville. What gives?
It’s unlikely that Starkville cinemas will ever fully sate my appetite for independent films. But wouldn’t it be nice? No more waiting until DVD release. No more road trips to Memphis and Birmingham. No more weekends where the best big screen options are “Cellular” and “Resident Evil: Apocalypse.” At the very least, a magical time when one art film per semester makes it to Starkville and a single Focus film manages to sneak onto a screen at Hollywood Premier Cinemas. Until that better day, dear readers, this your friendly neighborhood movie critic signing off. See you in the ticket lines, come what may.