Movie potpourri

Sorry I've been incommunicado for a while, the spring semester's drawing to a close and things at school are getting a little busier. I don't have any detailed, structured analyses to post at the moment, so this will mostly just be a mish-mash of thoughts about things you've written recently.

Regarding your comments about The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, I agree that the life of the historical Kaspar Hauser makes an excellent basis for exploring the themes of identity and society in which Herzog was interested. And I think that Herzog's interest in exploring those very themes, instead of just giving an artistically dead itinerary of the events of Kaspar's life, goes a long way toward making the film as great as it is. But when art and fact are mingled, the greatness of the art doesn't erase or blanket over the fact. I know I might seem to be talking out of both sides of my mouth regarding historical accuracy, but sometimes accuracy is a hindrance, while sometimes inaccuracy is a distraction. Long story—and several posts—short, the question of historical accuracy vs. artistic vision is a thorny one, some inaccurate movies can get away with it while others can't, and it really seems to be something that requires a case-by-case look.

As for I'm Not There, I haven't seen it yet, though I've meant to (where's my Portland pride?), but I see what you're saying. While This Is England avoided historical-accuracy problems by taking elements of actual events to make a fictional story, I'm Not There, while implicitly depicting Bob Dylan at various points in his life, changes it so much that no reasonable person could take it as accurate (not least of all by having several different people playing the same (?) role). It sounds interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. And well done mentioning Einstein's Dreams; not only is that a good example, but I'm impressed at your recall of books from Mr. Joy's sophomore English.

Though one last comment (or parting shot, if you want to take it that way) I'd like to make about historical accuracy is that I don't think that depictions of earlier historic events have less of a obligation to factuality (to the extent one exists, not to go back to that discussion) than do those depicting more recent events. I mean, is a movie with Caesar fighting his assassins in an awesome action sequence less troubling than one with Kaspar Hauser as part of a carnival freakshow, or one with Cuba Gooding, Jr., shooting down Japanese planes with a battleship machine gun, because it's depicting earlier events? After all, "the past isn't dead, it isn't even past," and I'd say earlier events are often more significant than later ones, as their implications multiply and magnify over time. Alright, I'm done, consider this nit picked.

And I have indeed seen The Believer, and it's really extraordinary. Ryan Gosling is amazing, and its story is so fascinating and challenging. Not just one of the most interesting depictions I've seen of anti-Semitism, but of Judaism as well. But a view of the skinhead subculture isn't complete without This Is England's broader, more historical perspective; like I said earlier, I didn't previously know that "skinhead" is more than just a synonym for "white supremacist." (The Believer is also an example, like This Is England, of using a kernel of historical fact as the basis for a work of fiction.)

As for your Duplicity-vs.-Bond post, I don't have a whole lot to say. I haven't seen Duplicity—in fact, I had no intention of seeing it before reading your post—and I'm not all that into the Bond franchise. I've seen some of them (Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, GoldenEye, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace), and I've found stuff to enjoy it most of them (though honestly, Dr. No bored me to tears; bad guy pulls a gun on Bond, they talk for 20 minutes, Bond judo-chops him and takes his gun, they talk for 20 minutes longer, repeat till Owen falls asleep), but I just don't care that much about them one way or the other. Seriously, the Bond product that's made the biggest impact on me has been the GoldenEye videogame. But though your comparison of Craig's Bond with Jason Bourne is apt, I don't necessarily see that as a criticism or as a sign of the Bond franchise's irrelevance. It's always been flexible enough to adapt to nearly fifty years of history and popular culture; the early films fed on Cold War anxieties, Moonraker responded to the Star Wars phenomenon, and Licence to Kill is practically a microcosm of the '80s (a Latin American drug lord straight from Miami Vice or Magnum, P.I., a televangelist, the Contras). So to answer your question, I'd say that "what good is James Bond anymore" is those fifty years of history and mythology he's accumulated, his status as a multigenerational icon rather than a time-and-place-specific protagonist. Today's incarnation merely reflects today's movie culture, which includes the Bourne trilogy, but I don't think that necessarily makes him any less relevant than Moonraker necessarily did. I'm not saying they're great movies, I just don't think the Bond concept is fully played out.

Who needs James Bond anyway?

DUPLICITY. QUANTUM OF SOLACE. This is more about the former, but the latter kind of comes into play and just came out on DVD so worth advertising. The point of the title is this: Do we really need James Bond anymore when Clive Owen, once a candidate for 007 before Daniel Craig got the role, could make a career out of playing the Bond of old while the character itself is morphing into Jason Bourne without the pesky memory problems?

Let me make two things clear: first, I will not give away any spoilers related to Duplicity (trailer) and second, it was the most entertaining Hollywood production I have seen in quite a while. There have been a number of big-name movies that I've liked quite a bit, but not one that really puts together all the pieces together to be so entertaining in a way that just shows off what can be achieved with all the tools available. I'm going to risk sounding like a fan boy but the only two regrets I have about the film is the dialogue in one of the final scenes and the fact that the movie will not hold up as well to multiple viewings because I already know what will happen. Otherwise it was just a lot of fun from beginning to the end credits.

I've already alluded to Clive Owen, who really shines in this movie. He is a perfect fit and embodies the swagger, style, and wit of the character in a way that I am skeptical another person could. He is James Bond with all his debonair charisma and "swinging big dick" attitude (a line from Duplicity) unleashed in a corporate setting and with added emotion instead of the brooding anger of the most recent incarnation. He outshines Julia Roberts, which is no easy task as she was at least once known as America's sweetheart. I'm not much of a Julie Roberts fan except to say that she does quite well at creating characters that are charming and likable. Although she is not quite up to Owen's level, the real accomplishment for her here is how well she plays a cold, calculating spy that uses the Julia Roberts charm a a tool -- a fine turn for the actress and an subtle meta reference much better played than the dismal joke in Ocean's 12. Smaller movies frequently have a star who puts in a great performance but a larger movie like this brings both of these actors as well as an entire cast that all contribute -- with special recognition due to Paul Giamatti among many others.

Is great as the actors are, however, it's the overall package that really makes this movie. Tony Gilroy -- who coincidentally enough wrote for the screen the obvious influence on the new Bond -- really nailed it. It probably is the case of this being a movie that happens to be right up my alley (I admit others might not like it as well as me -- It's my kind of movie), but the way he makes the viewer reconsider earlier scenes as more is revealed and weaves together a plotline that goes back and forth in time is matched by editing nearly as suave as Clive Owen in his two-button suits. There was an article in The New Yorker a few weeks ago that is worth reading about Gilroy's filmmaking and focusing on his use of the "reveal," which he describes as anything that's a surprise. This movie is full of them and honestly keeps you interested because you just want to know what they are going to do next both in the plot and in the character development. He tells the author of that article that his first movie as a director, Michael Clayton, could have been a book but Duplicity could only be a movie and that point is where I think the movie shines. It uses all the elements of film -- acting, editing, directing, and screenwriting just to name a few -- to advance the story not just because they are elements of a movie but because they are tools. And the screenwriting! This movie was hilarious and not in a jokey kind of way, which I can appreciate at times but am even more impressed when a movie can be funny without trying so hard. It is funny in the sense of having wit and in putting characters in situations where it is inherently comedic without feeling like the actors are trying to do something just to make me laugh. On top of all of that great filmmaking, Gilroy is also able to infuse more significant issues into his film in a way that is subtle and works as a reveal both in social commentary and in playing with audience expectations (a topic we have discussed a bit here). When a movie does the anti-Crash and subtly puts out ideas for the audience to consider without even telling them the topic has been raised -- in this movie (and this gives nothing away) gender roles when the man is the emotional one and the exalted position of corporations in American are just a couple. Screenwriters and directors who use subtly are a rare breed in Hollywood and in doing so Gilroy is able to combine some of the best elements of grand studio filmmaking and personal, independent projects.

One gets the feeling that Marc Forster would like to infuse a bit more of that combination of high entertainment and serious issues in his Bond movies, but possibly because of the screenwriting of Paul Haggis, it just comes off as heavy-handed. Instead of the other issues being in the background and helping push the plot forward, in Quantum of Solace the environmental issue takes the reins too much and comes across almost as distracting as their incessant need to show off gadgetry (it's 2008 when this movie came out -- quit trying to wow us with tech that looks outdated a week after the movie came out). I am not necessarily against the new James Bond -- Daniel Craig does an admiral job in the role they have given him and Casino Royale was quite good as both a reinterpretation and as an action film in general. Both movies have pretty good action sequences but they aren't really spy thrillers and do not seem to make any attempt to relate to the current idea of international intelligence in the post-Cold War era in a way that Duplicity does, as A.O. Scott points out in his review of the film in The New York Times. If we have Jason Bourne already, what good is James Bond anymore? That might be a good question I rose but perhaps the one I should have brought up is this: Why is Clive Owen from Duplicity not the new James Bond?