Roll one gives us Amazon Prime, which leads to roll two with editor's picks for movies, which leads to Oscar winners, which leads to today's film.
A problem inherent with running a blog like this, I think, is that there's really no way of getting around being a jackanape from time to time. I am, by no means, a film critic (the first of many professions and hobbies I am by no means a practitioner of), nor am I a student of filmmaking (there's a second), so my take and analysis on some of the more prestigious films bound to crop up from time to time are inevitably going to be ill-informed, and perhaps even flat-out wrong. I haven't thought of any means of avoiding the issue yet, and I highly doubt I'll be able to do so 100%, but I'll at least do what I can to talk about the movies in a somewhat mature, analytical manner.
I mention this because the first film I'm set to talk about for this blog is Lasse Hallström's The Cider House Rules, a film about the moral righteousness or lack thereof of abortions, one nominated for Best Picture and several other categories at the Academy Awards - and one that caught my eye when I rolled it primarily because the cast had a lot of actors from superhero movies.
Like an awful lot of folks my age (early 20s, in case you're wondering), I'm an absolute dork for superhero films. I've been a huge fan ever since the first Spider-Man came out, and have followed them quasi-religiously for close on fifteen years now. My early Wikipedia binges were dedicated largely to reading about the characters and the upcoming films, and I scour my current internet lurking spots for any news on them. I've seen almost every single one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in theaters, I'm extremely excited for the upcoming Batman V Superman movie, and Nic Cage's Ghost Rider is one of my favorite films despite the fact that I know it's objectively a bad film. I don't regret any of this, as I don't think there's anything WRONG with liking and getting heavily invested in this stuff, but it makes me feel a little odd here. I open up the cast for a movie, see Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, and think to myself, "Oh neat, Spider-Man, Ant-Man and Furiosa."
(I liked Fury Road, OK?)
((Also, on further reading, I found out Charlize Theron was in Hancock as the wife, but I didn't know that before and thus didn't bring it up.))
The idea of there being levels of film ,with the higher ones possessing an intrinsically higher quality and worth towards the culture, has never appealed to me, but identifying the actors in that manner makes me feel like a plebeian walking into a showing of 8 1/2 and pissing on the projector.
Not helping matters any was turning the movie on and finding its intro somewhat humorous. Not laugh out loud funny, but more in the "what is happening on screen and what is happening in the editing seem a little bit at odds with each other" sort of funny. You get the introductions to Doctor Larch (hi Alfred - I mean, My Cocaine - I mean, Michael Caine) and baby Homer Wells, which is perfectly fine, but when they start talking about how nobody wants him because he's too quiet, and one of his foster parents beating him, and Doctor Larch showing him how to perform an abortion against his objections... and all the while the happy, tinkly piano music just sorta powers on through. I don't really know much about music, but I am around... ninety, ninety-five percent certain "they beat him to stop him crying" is the sort of statement you don't play "isn't everything idyllic and wonderful right now" music over.
If I had to criticize the movie on any one major point, it'd be one related to that music. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff, even for a movie from the late 90s almost two decades after abortion was legalized in America; lots of stuff about how breaking the law may be the right thing to do if the law goes against your personal convictions and ignores the suffering of innocents, the morality of not using talents you have because they don't align with your beliefs, loss of a child figure, so on and so forth. But for some reason, I never really feel any of it. The film tends towards what I'd consider a fairly... i want to say lighthearted, but more laid back air would be the right term. You've got happy music playing over montages of people cheating on their spouse pulled away to war, or the secret funeral of a recently deceased orphan boy. And while the actors definitely show emotions (Toby Maguire's crying scenes make it easy for me to see why he was tapped for Spider-Man), it never seems quite as strong as feels it should be.
Some of this may be me and my preferences. I can appreciate subtle acting, and somewhat prefer larger than life characters. But even the strongest of performances in the film don't click with me. They are fine performances, don't get me wrong - special shout-out to Michael Caine as Doctor Larch and Delroy Lindo as Arthur Rose - but for a movie that seems tailor made to tug at the heartstrings, it really never does for me.
Having outed myself out as a complete know-nothing by criticizing the performances in a movie particularly noted for the strength of its performances, let me go on to say I do still like the story and thematic structure of the movie. For those not in the know and whom I've completely alienated by this point by talking in-depth about the film's characters without establishing any of them - the plot concerns perpetual orphan Homer Wells growing into his own man at the orphanage slash illegal abortion clinic where he lives with proprietor slash father figure Doctor Wilbur Larch. The board wants to replace Doctor Larch with someone younger (and presumedly more compliant with the law on abortions), but Homer is morally opposed to the abortion process, and eventually leaves with young couple Candy and Wally to live his own life and become an apple picker. While away, the situation back home slowly becomes more dire for Doctor Larch as the inevitable closes in, and Homer develops his own problems with his growing feelings for Candy. From there, it's a slow, steady boil to see if Homer will become his own man or return and use his skill as an abortionist to help those around him.
I suppose the tonal problem I mentioned is one inherent to the story and the way it's told. This isn't a huge, epic war between two towering egos who won't budge on their IMPLACABLE AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED VIEWS on THE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT PROBLEM PLAGUING OUR COUNTRY.; it's the story of an adoptive father and son slowly drifting apart, and the potential for prosperity or tragedy for the both of them. The emotions ramping up too high would more than likely ruin the audience's perception of either character, and make it hard to sympathize with them for running away from responsibility or attempting to trick the other into coming back. I don't agree with it for the problems it causes with the tone for me, but I can understand why it's done that way.
They're not incredibly complicated characters (especially due to the need for them to remain simple to retain sympathy), but they are well-drawn. Homer's endearing for the passion he shows for the children, movies, and life beyond the orphanage. Despite his implied addiction to ether and determination to control Homer's life because he knows better, Doctor Larch comes off as a man far too set in his ways, yet still loving and well-meaning. And while I could talk about Candy or Wally, I'm much more interested in saying something about Arthur Rose, whose bits in the final third make a man who has done terrible, terrible things and isn't willing to cut people to get his way surprisingly relatable and pitiable. Really, he's my favorite character in the movie.
(Interesting side-note about Larch before moving on - I looked it up during the movie, and the use of ether for medical purposes was apparently banned in America decades before the movie takes place. Given his age, it makes his willingness to do abortions seem less progressive and more recessive - he probably learned the practice from someone else when he was younger and stuck with it throughout the decades because that's just how he does things. Adds a little extra layer to his character.)
And on the note of the characters being simple, I think it's also somewhat necessary for the themes to play out. They're best exemplified by one quote from late in the film - "Sometimes you gotta break some rules to put things straight." The central conflict is ultimately whether or not Homer will return to the orphanage to look after the children, even though someone else could take over and do just a good a job as him, even aligning with his own personal beliefs. But if he were to stay away, the abortions would stop, and some would suffer for it. The friction caused by his personal desires rubbing up against a legally questionable but morally righteous "destiny" is what makes the film compelling through the lack of engrossing, emotional performances - for me, anyways - and losing that by making someone empathize with Homer too much would take attention away from the purity of the thematic center.
Of course, that thematic strength is undermined somewhat by the lack of engaging performances. I think I understand why the choice was made to make the movie in this way, but it still keeps interesting themes from reaching their full potential. Maybe a little more energy, or less noodling around during the period where Homer's trying to avoid responsibility. But I really don't know.
Again, it's a little weird doing analysis of this film. I like to style myself a writer and teller of stories in general, so I should know a thing or two about it, even if I'm not very good at it. Just look at the writing above - jumping into analyzing things before I even introduce the story. But even for that, I'm just not experienced in analyzing and critiquing movies, and saying I have problems with a Best Picture nominee in a public space, even if I try to justify my reasoning and say I understand why the decisions were made the way they were - makes me feel like I'm committing some kind of cardinal sin. It's a compromising position is what it is.
Either way, I'd say The Cider House Rules is, for someone of my background and tastes, an enjoyable, if not particularly rewarding movie. It has enough charm (especially in the first third) and thematic depth (especially in the last third) to be engaging through performances that are well done but not very attention grabbing. I'm not really going to set up any kind of numbered rating system, but I'd say it's worth a watch if you've got the time and hankering.
(Just some quick assorted thoughts
- I saw that JK Simmons was in the movie, but I must've not been paying close attention in his scene, because I never saw him.
- The kids in the orphanage are really likable, although there wasn't any way Fuzzy was making it through the movie, being an innocent question-asker with bronchitis in a December release drama film.
- The various migrant workers all give good performances, but aren't really what I'd consider memorable by side character standards.
- Wuthering Heights officially confirmed for not as good as King Kong.
- I wasn't really sure where to put this in the review, so I'll say here while the film's central conflict of responsibility rubbing up against personal choice is intriguing, and it pulls off the finale well, I don't necessarily agree with the implication of one HAVING to use skills just because they have them and it's the "right thing to do, trademark." It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, even though the film presents a very good argument that it IS the right thing for Homer to do.
-Amazon Prime's Oscar Winners category quite prominently displays Skyfall, yet they do not actually have Skyfall. Either it's a relic of when all the Bond movies were available on Prime, or they're trying to tempt me to actually spend money on individual films. I suspect the latter.)
So that's how things'll be operating around here. Poorly structured essays on whichever films I wind up rolling, followed by a half-assed rating and some various thoughts I didn't bother weaving into the actual body of the text. With any luck, I've succeeded in writing a piece you find entertaining, if not well put together, and I'm going to stop writing before I wind up unable to use anything but online film critic stock phrases. Have a good day, and see you next review.
No comments:
Post a Comment