What a Good Fuckin' Movie

In Bruges
(2008)
Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh

What an unexpected movie. In essence, Colin Farrel and Mad-Eye Moody play two hitmen, sent to Bruges by their boss (the hilarious Ralph Fiennes), for reasons I won't divulge here. It was marketed as a comedy, but it's not a comedy in the typical modern sense. The humour is found in the events that happen. Some of the "jokes" take the entire movie to play out. Most of the humour is inherent in how these characters talk. I'd always suspected "fuck" to be a flexible word, but I had no idea as to the dizzying heights it could truly reach.

This movie will not be for everyone, if only for the language, and a few moments of extreme-ish violence towards the end. But to focus on those things is to miss the point. This is as magnificently written movie as you'll see. McDonagh is a playwrite, and it shows. Like the best plays, nothing here happens that isn't addressed later. It not only holds up on subsequent viewings, it demands them, and it certainly rewards them. The third time I watched In Bruges, I decided to try and spot something that didn't get addressed in one way or another, and I ended up stumped. The characters are seemless, their relationships are explained in perfect, subtle ways, the events all relate, and the humour, though sparse, is very real. A great movie.

Grade: A

And Now for Something Completely Different

White House Ghosts
(2008)
Written by Robert Schlesinger

While my interest in politics is mild at best, my interest in politically-themed entertainment is intense. The West Wing, Frost/Nixon, Charlie Wilson's War... the list goes on. I love fictional politics, and I love the stories around real politics. Combine with that my love for the English language, and it's fairly natural that I would pick up White House Ghosts, a history of presidential speechwriters, from FDR to GWB.

Its appeal is probably limited, but if you find it interesting, Schlesinger has done a great job. The research was undoubtedly exhaustive, with interviews conducted for over two years prior to release. History tends to be boring when it is delivered without a sense of story. There has to be some element of narrative to keep the audience engaged, lest it become a laundry list of dates and facts. What Schlesinger does so well, is he presents the history of the speechwriters while imbuing it with a story, one that keeps you interested without seeming forced. He clearly hasn't had to wrestle the facts into a story, they fit there well on their own, but you begin to see the ways administrations handled and mishandled their speechwriting staffs, how one presidency learned the lessons of the previous one, or discarded them altogether. It's a fascinating read, and by the end of this book, you will be amazed presidents ever manage to give speeches at all. I don't believe a book on this subject could have been written any better, or any deeper, without becoming droll.

Grade: A-

In Treatment

In Treatment: Season 1
HBO

I'm just now finishing the last two episodes of the first season of HBO's In Treatment. In short, it is a show about therapy. Gabriel Byrne plays Paul, a therapist with a private practice based in his house. For the first season, we are privy to four different sets of patients: Laura (Melissa George), a doctor who's been seeing Paul for a year before the show starts; Alex (Blair Underwood), a Navy pilot who comes to Paul after discovering that a target he hit was mistakenly identified as a terrorist stronghold when it was a school building; Sophie (Mia Wasikowska), a sixteen-year-old gymnast who needs a professional opinion from Paul after an accident; and, Jake (Josh Charles) and Amy (Embeth Davidtz), a couple trying to decide if they want another child. These episodes are delivered in week-long groups of five episodes. In the fifth episode of each week, Paul goes to see Gina (Dianne West), a retired therapist, becoming a patient himself.

You have to watch the whole season. You really do. Laura is irritating at first. Alex is arrogant and unlikable. Sophie's a brat, albeit an engaging one. Jake & Amy are the worst; their life seems like a soap opera, and they contain within themselves almost no personality whatsoever. Paul seems like a cool guy, until we learn he's a self-absorbed narcissist in the fifth episode. Consider that we start the show with all of these people in such a state, and, yet, by the end of the season, I'm sad to see everyone go. You spend 43 episodes getting to know all these individuals, getting to know everything about them. I know these people better than I know any of my friends. That's the idea, of course, and it's brilliant. I could never be a therapist. Getting to know people on such a level, and then having them just walk away, it would destroy me.

The information is given out in bits and pieces. You work for it. There are very few major revelations; only small ones. But there are many of them, and they are all staggering, and that is because they are all real. These are fictional characters, yes, but they are so thoroughly constructed, and so brilliant portrayed (It is easily the best across-the-board acting I have ever seen in any filmed medium), that you feel them as real. Week Nine is shorter, with only three episodes; two of them "wrap up" (I put it in quotes because this show is too wise to wrap everything up neatly, it only does so just enough to allow you to move on) Sophie's sessions and Jake & Amy's, and the third is a final session (for this season) with Gina. Throughout all three of those episodes, I was glued to the screen. I could not look away.

Television has rapidly reached a level of sophistication, to the point where I don't think anyone with an informed opinion can call it a lesser medium; it is capable of doing things a feature-length film could never (and should never) do. With shows like The Wire, intricate stories of incredible breadth and depth, with massive scope and huge, detailed casts, can be told without concern for overwhelming the audience. With shows like In Treatment, we can come to know and even care about people in ways that are impossible with only two hours of exposure. We are truly in the golden age, people. Soak it up.

Grade: A

Sita Sings the Blues

This stunning screenshot, which I'm leaving as large as I can in this format so you can soak it in, is from Nina Paley's new (to me, it came out in February of 2008) film, Sita Sings the Blues. I have never heard of Paley before, nor have I heard of the Indian story this is based on, Ramalaya. However, I heard some nice things, and once I found out it was available for legal free download, I decided to watch it. I am so glad I did. What we have here is a creation of stunning originality, vision, and, most importantly, it's damned entertaining. Honestly, I haven't enjoyed a movie so much in years, and I include recent favourite Tootsie in that statement.

There are a lot of different things going on. First, there's the story of Ramalaya. Then there are Shadow Puppets which, in charming, funny, and unscripted dialogue, explain the story. Voiced by three people who grew up in India, these were the funniest parts of the movie. Since every region of India has its own interpretation and variation of the story, all three had different ideas. The third part is the parallels from Paley's own life, which is what inspired her to make this 80-minute movie. She made it entirely by herself, which is amazing. The best parts were the musical numbers, using old recordings of jazz standards sung by Annette Hanshaw. The recordings have been in the public domain since the 1950's, and are put to very clever use.

You should watch this movie. It's clever, it's funny, it's humble, it's colourful, and it's simply a joy. Here's a link to all the places you can download it or stream it. You can even get a 200GB, 35 mm reel quality download, if you have the space. I wish I did, to be honest. It would be worth it.

http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/wiki/index.php?title=SitaSites

Grade: A