Best of 2011

So another year closes, prompting a look at the films that comprised 2011. Aside from the bevy of wonderful pictures that come during the winter months, I enjoy the added delight of crowning the achievements of the films that made up the preceding seasons. My top 10 of 2011, carved out of over 23 films seen theatrically, left a favorable impression of 2011. It was certainly not better than years past, but overall a fun year in cinema.

A few notes on my list first: no Pixar, no Spielberg, and no Clooney. All people or entities I usually rave about, but because of a sequel to a movie that nobody wanted, a film about a horse, and a barely passable directorial effort, my list remains devoid of these fellows/entities. You'll find a solid mix of film from action, reflexive, and even a couple rom-coms, a mix of intellectually challenging material and just some, plainly put, entertaining stuff. Just for kicks, I looked up the average of the box office grosses for the films and was thoroughly surprised that it was above 40 million collectively. Though some newer releases drag the average down, it's fairly telling of the aforementioned mix. So in the words of The Joker from The Dark Knight: "And here we go."

10. Friends with Benefits

A sense of irony girds the structure of this mid-Summer romcom, which is always a entertaining element to a film. Friends with Benefits understands its entry into the well entried lexicon of romantic comedies that choose to show how young, sexually attractive men and women can't be friends, but distracts the viewer long enough for the ride with the well-deserved digs at the films we all love. The result of which can either be infuriating or delightful depending on your sense of humor. A film so brazen in its derisiveness of the very films it resembles deserves a little credit for entertainment. Less interesting talent would make this film unbearable so thank the stars for Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis for their undeniable chemistry for making this film a cool little flick. By the end, it devolves into the kitschy yet sweet emotions it pokes fun at. I suppose the ending proves that we're all suckers for the Hollywood ending even though we will ridicule it anyway.

9. Crazy, Stupid, Love

Crazy, Stupid, Love, in some respects, is a perfec tbalance to Friend With Benefits: a movie so earnest and optimistic that it comes complete with the sage 13-year old's unwavering belief in the power of love and unrelenting allegiance to the idea of a soulmate. At the risk of oozing being saccharine and schmaultzy, CSL owns up to its willingness to believe in the idea of a soulmate, but argues the position with the real and vibrant characters needed to convince the audience. Take for instance Kevin Bacon's character as the mister of Julianne Moore's adulterous wife character. He's not a mustache-twirling idiot with no sense of remorse or heart; instead, he's a genuine guy looking for love like all the other characters in the film. A certain elegance with the characters is crucial to make a film like this play as realistically as it does which can only be attributed to the strength of the direction. One particular scene pushes the limits of suspension of belief, but that misstep aside, Crazy, Stupid, Love is considerably charming, filled with charming people with the naivete that love can do anything.

8. Moneyball

Moneyball is part biopic, part sports movie. The story of Billy Beane, a baseball general manager who concocted a revolutionary way of appraising talent in the old-minded early 2000 MLB league. Brad Pitt's performance is receiving quite a bit of love during the winter months for his confident, yet leery Billy Beane. As most film's tend to be, this performance may garner attention for the simple fact Pitt's on the bill, but his performance digs deep and delivers; his Beane reminds us of the sobering shortcomings that can eat away at you over time. Pitt brings the turmoil and heartache you'd expect, but hides it behind the charisma that made Billy Beane a man that could lead and make tough decisions. Jonah Hill is a delightful surprise, elevating material that could have easily been a one-note bit part. The dream team of Aaron Sorkin, Bennett Miller, and Brad Pitt do what's expected and a little bit more with this slightly depressing, but heartfelt biopic.

7. Young Adult

Reitman continues his obsession with characters who don't desire the change, but realizes the world kinda wants them to. In this film about a young adult writer who returns to her hometown, Theron gets a little trashy and a lot more c-wordy, if you catch my drift. I was lucky enough to see a Q&A with Reitman where he revealed his most common direction suggestions of differeing levels of c-wordiness. Jason Reitman's greatest talent is his ability to sell really dastardly characters as blood and life figures that you root for against your conscience. Theron brings the sense of entitlement often bequeathed to the popular kids and shows how much of a loser one can be for actually putting stock into it. The scenes are uneasy and discomforting, daring the audience to laugh, agree, or be genuinely offended by her actions. And the penultimate scene catapults this film into my countdown providing a steadfast reminder that deep down, no one wants to change.

6. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is one of those perfectly cinematic grand action flicks that glides along and doesn't get bogged down too much with certain things like backstory and exposition. While the truly great action films gives a nice mix of both, a film like Ghost Protocol pushes with such breakneck speed from set-piece to set-piece that you instantly just keep up. It's difficult to quantify entertainment value, but MP:GH has it. There's cool gadgets that defy logic, globetrotting from the Burj Khalifa to Mumbai, and villain's who are smart and ruthless enough to actually do what they plan to without grandstanding. Brad Bird was a perfect choice to continue the franchise, bringing the whimsy and the spy-like intrigue of The Incredibles with the live-action grandeur of a series like Mission Impossible. The world is cartoony and slick where anything is possible, but somehow he sells the blood and the sweat of the characters, showing them that the stakes are high enough. And let us all collectively thank Paula Patton for wearing the hell out of that dress.

5. Contagion

A film filled with so many heavy-weight stars tends to blind the audience, forteitting suspension of disbelief for the recognition of its talent. Contagion does an impressive job of shirking this commonality in a aberrant and defiant way. Directed by  Steven Soderbergh, Contagion is a what-if thriller about a deadly virus that spreads across the globe. Soderbergh's careful interlaying of the stories makes this thriller so engrossing that the audience forgets the stars up there aren't really people. Soderbergh achieves this in a variety of ways, not the least of which through the careful "uglying" up of everyone on the screen. Also, in an early scene (the defiant and aberrant one I spoke of earlier). Somebody famous dies; and they don't just die; they really die. Such is the world that Soderbergh realizes with cold, distant hues and slender focus: anybody can get "got." He turns a lens to our most disturbing human habits, and reveals some ugly observations.

4. Shame

Sex. No drugs or rock and roll. Just sex, treated like a drug. Shame isn't erotic, sexy, or titillating. It's grim, disturbing and pitiable, all qualities that Fassbender and McQueen evoke from the material in a starkly realize and saddening way. This character study about a sex addict whose sister comes to visit and throws his own secrecies about his life utterly out of whack, focuses a majority of the time on the lonesomeness of addiction. No one coddles you for your problem because you don't let them know. And letting them know would be admitting that you have one. Fassbender's Brandon has the composure and even-handedness needed to fool everyone around him into believing his facade of sexual normalcy. And McQueen's direction divorces sex from emotion, but doesn't stop there. His camera never judges. It only emotes the intensity of his addiction and the weight that it casts on him. Combined, they create a film that you feel a little dirty going into, but a really depressed coming out of.

3. Hugo

Scorsese's first forray into the realm of children's pictures approaches carries a reflexive approach to the art of film. The film, adapted from Brian Selznick's The Invention of Hugo Cabaret, follows , at least in part, George Melies who was a revered filmmaker. He and is credited with bringing the imagination and dreamlike qualities to cinema that, until his involvement, weren't thought of. So Scorsese's use of 3-D appropriately fleshes the material, experimenting with the possibilities of film. The true mark of a director lies in his ability to make the personal universal; In Hugo, Scorsese lenses the innocence of youth, the wonder, and the adventure and fits them into a clunky, regimented train station. As any film admirer would imagine, Scorsese's use of 3-D never devolves into kitsch, but engenders a feeling of youth within the audience. In a masterful use of the camera, one scene shows an imposing Sasha Baron Cohen's surly security cop inching closer and closer to your face forcing you to sink further and further in your seat as if chastised by his positioning alone. Hugo stands as a labor of love and a first application to the as yet barely tapped potential of 3-D.

2. Midnight in Paris

Woody Allen gets a bad reputation for making the same story over and over again. I respectfully disagree, preferring that he features similar people with circumstances that change. I believe his oeuvre features characters he knows, especially himself, and simply tries to tinker with them in his playbox of life. Midnight in Paris examines an untapped realm of nostalgia and romanticism in his history and provides the best entry into his filmography since Match Point. To say nothing of the location, the film is gorgeous: cinematographer Darius Khondji captures beautiful hues of amber, showing the warmth of summer and giving an elegaig atmosphere for the characters. The visual style combines with Allen's romantic protagonist to capture a literary paradise that any one would want to bask in. But it's not enough for a beautiful portrait, the painting has to show something not easily noticed by simply looking at it. Allen's work offers a rumination on the foolishness of nostalgia and the humanity in our pursuits of fool's errands.

1. The Tree of Life

Films can't offer answers, but they should offer questions. Meditations on the enormous questions of our existence can never be explained at 2 hours a time, nor should it. But what Tree of life provides is a thoughtful engagement of the questions it poses, simultaneously spanning across millions of years and curtailing it self into minute moments. Why does God take our loved ones? A grieving brother remembers his early life and seeks the answers to one of life's confounding predicaments. How do you make sense of a world where the good endure hardship and the bad are rewarded? Malick's film probes deeply into these matters and engages the medium in a truly arresting work. Glorious steadicam shots and natural light combine with an elliptical editing style to craft a challenging and provoking film that sticks with you long after the first viewing. This penetrating work creates an uncommon experience within the theater, and is a unique drama of epic proportions.

Thinking about Think Like a Man

I tend to have a similar reaction to films featuring large black casts. My eyes and heart well with glee as I see the attached talent. I discover a bit more about the behind-the-camera talent and become even more enthused upon seeing the the dearth of color balancing the often unven distribution of power within in Hollywood. But then comes the moment where I see the trailer. Then comes the "yeeesh." You can guess how I felt about the Think Like a Man trailer.

The self-help book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man debuted a couple years ago to rapturous reception. Women were starving for Steve Harvey's inside trek into the mind of men. (Ladies, we're not that complicated; all we want is a woman to bring us a sandwich. There, you didn't have to pay $15.00 on Amazon for that!). The book slayed on the New York Times bestseller list, and, as these things go, producers snatched up the chance to repackage it and serve to the masses. Rainforest Films, responsible for Stomp the Yard, and the Trois series takes up the task of realizing Steve Harvey's self-help book targeting women who just can't catch a man. The film also utilizes the talents of Tim Story, a fairly bankable comedic director who lensed Barbershop, Taxi, and Fantastic Four. The evidence of their combined efforts to bring this vision to life lies in part below.

Unfortunately, my ambivalence continues. Firstly, let me highlight the concept which is more intriguing in its approach than in itself. A property like a self-help book screams for a paint-by-numbers look at the book's bullet points. To its credit, TLM has an intriguing frame of the source material. These characters exist in a world not unlike the audience, where Steve Harvey releases a Holy Grail for women who are tired of putting up with the "men of this generation." The play with reality could possibly ground the material into a reality closer to the audience's, while using the film's perspective play to preserve the book's inflaming position as a self-help guide to net a man. This frame allows the book to inhabit a position within the universe that the audience and the film's characters can agree or disagree with. It invites a dialogue with the material, an effective tool to draw the audience in. Potentially, the film, rather than indoctrinating Steve Harvey's point of view on relationships, could serve as a jumping-off point for the conversation Jane and Joe have at the dinner after the movie. Or Tyree and Tisha. Or Juan and Daniela. Movies are meant to be talked about and overanalyzed. So the film gets points for that

At face value, Think Like a Man appears like an affirmative action rehash of movies like He's Just Not That Into You, Valentine's Day, and the upcoming New Year's Eve.  It's a battle of the sexes comedy featuring Kevin Hart who jesters his way in and out of the lives of the central characters. Lots of stars who aren't really expected to do much except fall in love, nail a couple of slickly timed  lines, and look sexy while doing it. I'd imagine that's how a script like this was pitched for distribution. In today's distribution scope, having an all black cast doesn't really move the butts into seats. But it does have the New York Times bestselling crest which shows a bit of financial validation ala He's Just Not That Into You. Given how comically stale those  multi-plotted, big casted holiday movies are I can't expect much out of it. But then again, I'm only one butt, and there are plenty of other butts that like those types of intellectually shallow, and wit deficient exercises.

There is only one fair way to gauge a film; one must judge it on what it sets out to do. With that in mind, I believe TLM is genuinely selling what it's advertising, He's Just Not That Into You, just a shade darker. Hopefully, the film can engage some intriguing dialogue on the self-help book's practicality in real life, and not just serve as an empty hour and a half of cheeky battle of the sex antics. I have more faith in it being the latter.

A rant on modern theater-going

Going to the movies is, and forever will be a delight for me. The feeling of immersing oneself in another world — another person’s mind — for an hour and a half hooked me long before I even considered film as a career path. Unfortunately, the pristine days of watching movies at the cinema have given way to the tide of Torrential downloads, Amazonian digital streams, and that red bastard Netflix, who’ve conspired to destroy my precious and delicate experience. While there is value in living in a time where many varied movies are available through DVD, streaming online, and pay cable, they pale in comparison to that feeling of sinking in a seat at the cinema and taking in an enormous projection of a film with appropriately sized scope. These varied options, under the veil of convenience, have culled to transform the theater experience into the abysmal state it inhabits now. Watching a movie just ain’t what it used to be.

I should prompt you with the occasion that inspired this rant. This past weekend, I watched, or rather, tried to watch a film that had been out for awhile entitled Like Crazy. As the lights came down, and trailers began to roll, a moment which never ceases to delight me, I noticed a persistent flicker on the image. I gave it some time, thinking perhaps it was a bug momentarily gumming up the works. Nope, it kept flickering. Looking around, I searched for someone with that look of “This is bullshit. I’m going to get the manager.” Unfortunately, it was just me who sported the look of disdain. 

I politely excused myself and went searching for someone, anyone to preserve my sacred experience with the film. I had to go damn near to the front ticket booth to let someone know, who assured me the problem would be addressed immediately. Returning to my spot, I gave the man in the projection booth a little time to work his magic.

So I waited. And I waited. And I waited some more.

The film began, and I couldn’t surrender myself because I was too distracted by the flickering. I looked around and everyone else seemed unfettered by the poor presentation. What is it? Everyone has $14.25 to blow on a broken projector?  So I gave up, cut my losses and, most importantly, got a refund.
Unfortunately, this typifies a prevalent state within the US theater experience. Most of today’s theaters suffer from a supreme lack of funds, lack of good material, and dip in interest. I saw Like Crazy at the ArcLight which, at one point, was the Cadillac of watching movies. A couple of years ago, I ventured to the ArcLight in Hollywood and was blown away by the atmosphere, the snazzy decorum, of teeny boppers and old families, and the elegant presentation right down to the attendant who introduced the film to the audience. Although having an attendant introduce a film is unnecessary, it shows a real panache and departure from the less enthusiastic theater chains.

Regrettably, the ArcLight has fallen off, giving a remarkable impression of a jogger limping to the finish line.  The busied lobby of yesterday transformed into a moderately populated chasm of teenyboppers, probably less interested in watching a movie than theater hopping. The attendants cycled through the introduction as if we were one in the line of many introductions to be done, breezing apathetically with little regard to diction or comprehension. Standards have dropped, and I fear that the convenience model of digital streaming has given us the state of movie watching we inhabit now.

What happened to my beloved night at the movies, an event I’ve clung to since my early teenage years. Nowadays, people are more interested in returning texts, rudely yelling at the characters on screen, or worse: discussing with their neighbors.

I love a movie that inspires dialogue, but that dialogue should be after the movie and with the appropriate people. That appropriate person is not me ... or anyone else for that matter.

These are the basics people. No talking. No cell phones. Sit your ass down and get lost. I yearn for that lost cinematic paradise.

Admittedly, there is some irony in discouraging communication in such a communal experience as an outing to the movies. Surrendering oneself to the collection of images requires a concentration and a connection with the material. Witnessing the images in a film almost resembles a type of shared dreaming state, where the viewer lies completely apart from the person next to them and within the film. Yet still, the viewer is captivated in this experience of the film while others are so this position is complicated. Yet still more reason to engage with the film, in a manner, engaging further with your neighbor through shared emotion rather than speech.

That’s so cool. Why would anyone want to mess with that? Why wouldn’t anyone want to preserve that?

Some institutions will be around forever, cinema being one of them; I hope we can preserve what we can of this incredible experience, something so complex and delicate and all at the same time shared amongst an auditorium of silent watchers. Now certainly, if streaming and digital exhibition has taught us anything, it’s the experience of watching a film is malleable. But however malleable the experience, some elements cannot be translated like the feeling of letting a film envelope you, your eyes darting from spot to spot during an intense action sequence, or that stunned feeling after watching an intense story where you no one in the packed theater can move an inch. That’s the cinema that I know and love. I hope we can hold onto it a little longer.

Hoop Dreams

Watching Hoop Dreams came at a rather serendipitous time for me. No, I don't harbor dreams of becoming a NBA legend; I gave that up when I realized that I had to get used to 5'6 for the rest of my life. Some of you may know I moved to Los Angeles to realize my dreams of becoming a cinematographer. So Hoop Dreams, a film about two boys with dreams of playing in the NBA struck close to home.

Hoop Dreams follows the story of Arthur Agee and William Gates, two kids from inner city Chicago who dreamed of playing in the NBA. As trite as that sounds, the film tells a compelling and respectful story about the dreams that define us in our youth. In 3 hours, director Steve James takes us through the financial hardships, social difficulties, and family problems of these two young men and shows their transformation in light of these burdens. Although focusing on basketball, resiliency is at the root of this film. Hoop Dreams describes the complications of following one's dreams, inviting the viewer to ponder where his own dreams were waylaid by the obstacles of life. Naturally, some dreams remain intact, while some change with age or circumstance.

Appropriately, the narration of this film evokes a sense of allegiance with the two main character, of wanting to root for the boys as their constantly derailed by financial issues or wrenching defeats. The editing ramps on like a roller coaster, elevating you with their accomplishments, but depressing you after a mistake. Though at the same time, the film never sentimentalizes the characters. A great film doesn't simply make you feel for the characters; pity or compassion shouldn't make a great film out of a good one. The boys tell their stories with dignity; the voice narration remains stark with a core of sympathy. Hoop Dreams succeeds in balancing whatever feelings the story inspires with the respect and genuineness with which it is told.

One can read the story as a tragedy; two boys crushed under the weight of their own shortcomings. Part VI of Aristotle's Poetics defines a tragic story as inspiring pity or terror. Pity and terror derives from the connection the story inspires with the viewer. Those stories that make you see yourself on the screen (or page) make you locate his faults within your own grand tale. Hoop Dreams places your own dashed dreams or damning obstacles in your way right up on the screen. It had that effect on me. I'm sure it will on you. But one should understand that the boys captured on film follow their dreams with conviction; Hoop Dreams greatest accomplishment is by celebrating that conviction and challenging the viewer to proceed with that same verve.

The Ides of March

The Ides of March just sounds like a cool name. Right? And while it certainly tips the viewer to the film's somewhat tragic elements, the film doesn't deliver as much as it aspires to in the tragic realm. Though it recalls some of the Shakespearean themes with the title, the film refuses to truly dig the dagger into the back of the tragic genre. Following the tale of power and politics (Aren't they sort of the same thing?) on the campaign trail, The Ides of March paints a sobering view of the American political climate displaying the back-room deals, the tawdry scandals, and the overall lack of accountability. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Myers, a rising star in the political word as a press secretary working for presidential hopeful Mike Morris, the favored democratic candidate. I use the term "hopeful" because the film was supposed to be made in the midst of the '08 campaign, but the producers decided that they didn't want to be Debby-downer while everyone was keeping hope alive.

Political intrigue is a logical realm for high-stakes drama; I think Clooney as director does a well enough job of capitalizing on it, though the film is not as high-minded as one would hope.

Let's take a look at the lead performance by one Ryan Gosling. I liked his execution more than his actual interpretation. I don't think the role had as much bite, by that I mean he is a little too "lamb to the slaughter" then I think the material deserved. As I hinted earlier, the film has a stated relationship with the tragedy that it doesn't quite deliver on. Myers' transformation from a idealistic staffer to a disillusioned veteran, though convincing doesn't sear the heart in the way that tragedy is meant to. He leaves too many remnants of his former self in the final scenes. I don't want to give too much away, but pay attention to the last shot and you'll know what I mean.

That said I think he holds his own in most of the scenes that he gets into with some truly amazing actors. Paul Giamatti slays as usual; Phillip Seymour Hoffman delivers as well. There aren't any bad performances. Of course, you wouldn't expect anything less from a star studded cast. But there aren't any fireworks between these guys. The script doesn't deliver the whip smart dialogue or brilliant soliloquys you crave for a movie about politics which basically translates into a movie about bullshitters. And if I know one thing about bullshitters, they really know how to talk.

The direction of the film is very solid. There are a couple of scene in which Clooney relies mainly on the camera to tell the story, which is the mark of any great director. Although the tale is somewhat predictable he does a sharp job on some reveals. It's a movie that gets better as time wears on, which oddly is when the film actuates some of its Hollywood thriller beats and turns away from being a political survey. From a visual stand point, a couple shots jump out at you one specifically is a beautifully silhouetted scene between PS Hoffman and Gosling against a backward American flag. The two discuss some of the wheeling and dealing that happens on the political trail with a solid, but not so subtle reminder of the themes of the film.

All and all, I had a positive experience with this one. It takes a second to set up the tension and stakes, but the performances are enough to keep the film afloat. Though tragically, there isn't much more.

Best of the year ...so far

Taking a break from my series on fine performances (I have a female performance coming up), I shall bring some closure to the first half of the year by presenting my Best of the year so far list. The year hasn't totally depressed me. As is common these days, there aren't many good ones, but the good ones are really good--yeah I was an English major. With no further adieu, here's my little list.

5. X-Men: First Class

I certainly didn't expect much out of this one considering it is a prequel and anything with -quel gives me hives. Though the film's main draw is the titanic acting talent it enlists (Fassbender and McAvoy), it has a little more going for it than talent; it found a way to really return to the roots of the franchise: prejudice, fear, and paranoia. Matthew Vaughan molds a more than acceptable tale of two fundamental philosophies butting heads, which is the foundation of the franchise. Unfortunately, there probably will not be a sequel, but in the imagination of my mind, I think it sets the first X-men up wonderfully.This movie holds the spot as the only action/superhero film, which is symptomatic of a fairly depressing demonstration of quality in Hollywood recently. Nonetheless, the film really delivers on the action and intensity of what a superhero/summer movie should be.

4. Friends with Benefits
I don't want to spend too much time espousing the love I have for this movie. There is something very smartalecky about FWB that separates it from most of the films I've seen this year. It is certainly conscious of the genre it inhabits and does a great job of pointing out the issues inherent in the conception of love purported by these mischievous filmmakers. At one point, Mila Kunis's character exclaims her dislike for Katherine Heigl calling her a liar for perpetuating these hopeless stereotypes of the new age woman and love. Now, is it utterly original? Maybe not, but it does a wonderful job of being fresh and inviting. That might seem oxymoronic, but, personally, I believe that if you can do something a million times, you get points if you can do it a million different ways. It's a film with personality and in the words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, personality goes a long way.

3.Crazy Stupid Love

2 rom coms in a row? Who are you and what have you done with Quintin? Crazy, Stupid, Love goes a step further than FWB. Whereas FWB masquerades as something more than a proto-rom com, CSL really surprises the audience with its take on the innocence of love and the craziness it inspires. CSL embraces the kitsch of being in love, but understands that things don't always go as planned. Aside from a few missteps, it's really easy to root for every character on screen. There really is no villain in the film. Even the cheater wife, played by Julianne Moore, isn't the cliche bitch that you'd expect. She has an immense amount of pathos, and I could connect with her. CSL is also finely directed (check out that first scene), which is one of the best compliments I like to give to films. Please go check it out.

2.Midnight in Paris

A gorgeous love letter to Paris? A lovely exercise of nostalgia? A welcome reminder that Woody Allen is still just as enthusiastic and bushy tailed as any young filmmaker out here? All of the above. Allen's MP is his highest grossing film ever most likely do to the number of stars he has in it, but it's no surprise given his deft direction and just plain resonant storyline and themes. You can have a lot of fun with this film, and I don't think the film plays as a hallow exercise and just another excuse for Woody to imagine himself speaking with Fitzgerald and Hemingway.

1. The Tree of Life

What else is there to say about this beautifully challenging film? I missed out on writing on this film because I just couldn't really justify writing on it without seeing it twice. I have since decided that that little proclivity doesn't apply to Best of list. It's very comforting to think that movies like this can be released on such a large-scale. Terrance Malick created quite a gorgeous film with such a beautiful use of natural light. TTL's scenes glower with a mystique of purity and communicate a sense of wonderment and awe at the world we inhabit. I think the most exciting part about this film is the confidence and trust with audience that Malick gives. In a world where things are reduced artistically to be more palatable, Malick gives immense slack with the audience to interpret much of the film. TTL for Oscar '12.

Don Cheadle as Mouse Alexander

Continuing my series on acting, I would like to feature one hell of a breakout role. Last Sunday, I watched Devil in a Blue Dress with my mother, and although I detest watching films on television because they tend to be chopped up beyond recognition of the artist's original intention, I figured I would suffer through my misgivings of the medium. I had been meaning to see it and figured I could get a blog entry out of it. I began the movie thinking that I would write an entry on Denzel Washington (playing Easy Rawlins), but, surprisingly, somewhere around the 50-60 minute mark, it became clear who has the more affecting performance in the film.

Don Cheadle plays Mouse Alexander, a small time crook with a noticeable affinity for shooting, violence, and scene-stealing. Although the film explains little about the past relationship between Easy and Mouse, maybe something about a past murder and other hoodwinks, the relationship plays fine without the burden of the exposition or backstory.

Mouse is the embodiment of a loose cannon. His penchant for violence is a variable that works for and against Easy within the film, requiring Easy to calculate Mouse's possible actions into every decision. Cheadle's Mouse is played with a knowing exuberance of the character's brash and unapologetic style.

A lot of times, when you have a violent character on screen, many actors and directors try to push him more to the crazy or deranged side of the spectrum. They have a calmness about them that distances the audience from their actions because the most logical reaction to shooting a person in the face or whatever other heinous deeds would be outrage. For evidence see Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs, Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, or myriad of other serial killers portrayed on screen. This isn't so with Don Cheadle. Mouse isn't crazy, he's simply wild; he's not out of control, he's simply working with a different set of morals.

Pay attention to Cheadle's demeanor within the above scene. He raises his voice. He gets impatient. Qualities like this tend to forge a connection between the audience and the character. For a character who has a history of shooting with little provocation, it provides an interesting kinship with the audience. His character, in essence, actuates our own desires when the audience is given that connection with the character; he reacts the way that we would. This character is so successful because of his fervor and candor. Whereas most people would be reticent about shooting a person in the arm, Mouse does not share that view. He's a man with little patience and a big gun.

Introducing a wild card into the film, Cheadle's performance is aided by his chemistry with Denzel Washington. It's nice to see two titans of the acting game before they became what they are today. I love both performances, but I give the edge to Cheadle, not only because he does more with less screen time, but his character's frankness and loyalty are fiendishly compelling aspects of his performance.

Best Line:

"I'm tryin' to do right...I mean you know, now"