8.15.2011

A Movie That Needs 'Help'

by Brett Parker

Norman Jewison was the original director slated to take on Malcolm X, but a public outcry from the black community demanded that a black director take on a film regarding one of its biggest cultural heroes. Spike Lee eventually took the helm, stating that black stories should be told by black filmmakers. Indeed, whenever white directors take on stories of minority struggles, it feels as if touches of human experience seem to be somewhat lacking. There’s a certain authenticity that isn’t exactly there. White filmmakers can sympathize, empathize, and preach all they want, but at the end of the day, they’re still going home to a white world. There’s nothing wrong with a filmmaker stepping outside of his ethnic zone, but since there are many talented black filmmakers who would kill for a chance to tell their own stories with a Hollywood budget, why in God’s name would you not let them do so?


I propose these thoughts because they seem to represent the fundamental problem with The Help, a Hollywood-produced peak into racial struggles during the Jim Crow-period of the South. Here’s a movie centered on the hardships of black women thats been directed by a white man. Sure, Spielberg pulled off such a feat with The Color Purple as did Jonathan Demme with Beloved, but director Tate Taylor has only one other feature-length credit to his name (the comic dud Pretty Ugly People) and hardly seems experienced enough to pull of the tricky nuances this material demands. Taylor reportedly got the job because of his close friendship with the source novel’s author, Kathryn Stockett. It’s always great to help out your friends, but thats usually not the ideal way to have your writing translated to the screen. I love my friends, but if Hollywood ever comes knocking for my material, I’ll be begging for Crowe, Coppola, or Scorsese to helm.


The film takes place in 1960s Mississippi during racial segregation. Aibileen (Viola Davis) is a black housekeeper who looks after white families in the town of Jackson. Aibileen notices a pattern in her work: she raises her employers’ children with all the TLC she can give, yet they grow up to become ungrateful and obtuse adults like their parents anyways. Worse off than Aibileen is her best friend Minny (Octavia Spencer), who works for the cruel socialite, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard). Hilly regards Minny as a soulless entity and heartlessly fires her over some racial nonsense.


Most of the white homeowners don’t regard their black staff as human beings with souls, a fact that catches the attention of Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone), a young aspiring journalist from the town of Jackson. In spite of opposition from her white peers, Skeeter decides to write a book about the everyday trials of the black maids, exposing their racial hardships to the world. The maids would love to finally tell their story, but they’re afraid it may anger their white bosses to the point of termination or worse. Can the maids vent their anger and concerns without endangering their well-being?


All the materials for a powerful film are staring us dead in the face, but Taylor has no clue how to make them pop with any cinematic energy. To be fair, the screenplay does bring dimensions to the Maid characters and highlights their amorally corrupt dilemmas rather adequately, but the film has a curious lack of urgency in presenting this story. Taylor claims that he grew up in Mississippi and was “co-raised” by black housekeepers, but the film doesn’t burn with the passion of a man who has seen a lot and has an important story to tell. He treats it as a familiar period story that should play out to its natural course with little fuss, as if Brett Ratner were directing a Henrik Ibsen play. Even a made-for-TV version employing maudlin sloppiness would grab a better reaction from us. Perhaps Taylor is trying to avoid racial awkwardness by being subtle, but it just makes the film more of a bore as it slugs along.


Whats telling is how excellent actresses with ace performances to burn occupy the forefront, yet are left hanging by incompetent direction. At a time when actresses complain about a lack of intelligent roles, here’s a bundle of them delivered with fierce independence yet without significant shape. Emma Stone, the patron saint of down-to-earth beauties, has all the pluck, wit, and irrelevance to pull off Skeeter, but too little a point is made of her rebelliousness and resourcefulness. Bryce Dallas Howard, who’s carved a career out of playing fragile sweethearts, excels impressively as a racist meanie, but she is simply drummed up to be a White Devil. Jessica Christensen shows wonderful comic timing in a very clunky creation of a not-all-white-people-are-bad role. Viola Davis shows grace and dignity as Aibileen, but the film only hints at the wells of her resentment and perceptions. The best performance comes from Octavia Spencer as Minnie, allowing the smarts, humor, and resentment of her soul to come shining through in a graceful manner you wish the film understood more.


Whats frustrating about Taylor’s incompetence is the fact that there’s an over-qualified candidate out there who would’ve made The Help way more entertaining than it turned out to be. Her name is Kasi Lemmons, and not only would her experiences as a black woman better serve the material, but so would her affectionate eye for dramatic material and the lyrically superb ways she presents them. Her work on the wonderful Talk to Me serves as a prime example of all the energy and identification she could’ve brought to this adaptation. Talk to Me was also a period piece revolved around black identity that was hilarious, bold, irreverent, insightful, heartbreaking, and enormously touching. These are traits The Help’s screenplay cries out for and Lemmons surely would’ve turned it into a powerhouse dramedy.


Of course the cinema would be a very boring place if filmmakers stuck only to stories centered around their own races and ethnicities. Since empathizing with other people is what cinema is all about, it can be vastly interesting when people bring their point-of-views to other races, pointing out certain specifics we may never have brought attention to. I’m just mystified that there’s a shortage of working female and black filmmakers at a time when great female and black stories are getting their chance to be told (is anyone else bothered by the fact that the Sex and the City movies were directed by a man?). There appears to be a curious double standard at play in Hollywood. No one made a fuss when Taylor Hackford decided to make Ray, but, as Charles S. Dutton pointed out, “if Spike Lee wanted to direct the story of Jackie Onasis, the idea would never make it out of the office where it was proposed.”


At the outset, The Help proposes healthy ideas about racial tolerance and does, in fact, put the audience in another person’s shoes. It’s how it puts you in those shoes that I have a problem with. If you like seeing live-wire actresses strive for great performances, then perhaps you’ll find some interest here, but a more heartfelt and provoking film could’ve come from this material. The most pleasure I took from this film is knowing that it will probably fuel one of Spike Lee’s kick-ass rants in the future!


8.08.2011

'Rise' of a Fun Prequel

by Brett Parker

One of the more shrewder business tactics of recent studio filmmaking has been the ideal of a franchise reboot. As Batman Begins demonstrated, if a specific franchise stalls out on creative juices to keep sequels going, all you need is a prequel that takes things back to the beginning to start over fresh. That means any franchise, no matter how preposterous, can be jump-started again to see if audiences will follow it into a new dawn.


Since Tim Burton’s lackluster remake of Planet of the Apes, audiences haven’t exactly been crying out for a new installment in the series Hence when early previews of Rise of the Planet of the Apes surfaced, people suspected they were in for a tiresome CGI romp coasting on a brand name’s mileage. Yet the surprise here is that the film is actually rather good: patient, confident, involving, not without thought, fascinating in its special effects, and with present-day relevance to burn.


The film stars James Franco as Will Rodman, an impatient scientist who is racing to find a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease. He is testing an experimental drug on chimpanzees that he one day hopes to use on his father, Charles (John Lithgow), whose been diagnosed with the disease. A scary lab accident causes Will’s experiment to be shut down, but not before rescuing a baby chimp from being disposed of like the others. Naming the small monkey Caesar, Will decides to take the infant home until he can decide what to do with him.


Years go by and Caesar grows into a teenaged ape being raised as a surrogate son by Will and his girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto). Having his genes altered by Will’s serum, Caesar shows remarkable signs of human behavior, including advanced communication skills and a great understanding of human emotions. But pretty soon, Caesar reveals his animalistic nature through violent outbursts and gets himself placed in an unpleasant ape shelter overseen by John Landon (Brian Cox) and his vile son, Dodge (Tom Felton). The cruel treatment of Caesar by this father-son duo reveals to him a horrible side of human nature he never knew existed.


Caesar decides to use his resourceful intelligence to rebel against his human captors. He creates a bond with the other abused primates at the shelter and finds devious methods to allow his fellow inmates to become as smart as he is. Pretty soon, Caesar and his simian army plot not only an escape from the shelter, but a rebellion against all human kind!


Since this is a plot based on Nature’s Way vs. Man’s Ignorance, you can expect the usual fixings of greed damaging science and the bizarre consequences of tampering with nature. Most of the film’s musings suggest a low-rent Project Nim or Project X. What actually keeps us involved every step of the way is the mesmerizing CGI performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar. Serkis is the actor famous for using motion-capture technology to uncover the tortured souls in CGI characters. From Gollum to King Kong and now Caesar, Serkis had made himself a Boris Karloff of our times by bringing human dimensions to other-worldly creatures. His acting efforts bring an enormous amount of sympathy to Caesar’s plights, blasting startling feelings and emotions into a special-effects concoction. The computer-assisted performance has the amazing effect of making Caesar the most human character in the entire film.


Perhaps Caesar’s surprising humanity is assisted by the one-note simplicity of the human characters. The film’s casting strangely traps gifted actors into wooden characters far below their usual potential. James Franco can be such an imaginative actor that he could play one of the apes with no problem. Yet here he is plopped into a straight-faced scientist role that greatly underuses his talents. His presence probably makes the role more compelling than it deserves to be, for we keep expecting his inherent strangeness to peak out from behind his poker face. Pinto radiates with such beauty and can convey such intelligence that its rather jarring to see her character have absolutely nothing of any consequence to do. The best human performance comes from Lithgow as Will’s Alzheimer’s-stricken father, nailing every nuance the role demands. This is the second movie this summer (after Friends With Benefits) that showcases this disease in a silly Hollywood outing, bringing weight to a plot that might not deserve it.


The diminished human characterizations, however, conveniently make the apes the most sympathetic characters in the entire film (which is why PETA is endorsing the prequel). Considering what obvious CGI creations they are, this is a rather remarkable feat. One of the widespread criticisms of CGI animation is that it makes seemingly-real entities appear way too cartoonish. Indeed, the apes at first glance look about as real as Jar-Jar Binks. Yet the special effects department give such rich detail to their behavioral patterns and expressions that the apes take on a heightened fascination, which makes sense for primates evolving towards humanity. The apes’ movements take on a jaunty, visceral quality thats especially exciting in a climactic sequence where the simians take over the San Francisco Bridge. As the primates swing through the air and attack police vehicles, the scene develops a fierce energy that makes this bouncy CGI ballet good fun to relish. Would real stunt men and puppeteering have made these apes appear more realistic? Perhaps. Would they still be as thrilling and ferocious? I have my doubts.


One of the kicks of good science-fiction is the creative ways it can comment on real world issues within a wildly imaginative realm. I suspect if this film ends up becoming a big hit, it won’t be because audiences just want to see packs of apes running amuck. Present day America has seen the lower and middle classes dealt hurtful blows from the greedy and incompetent politicians in power. So perhaps this tale of powerless creatures rebelling against an oppressive power is providing a release anxiety that’ll hit home harder than most people realize. You’d have to be mighty obtuse nowadays not to get a certain wish fulfillment out of a battered group overthrowing greedy businessmen and a system of harsh conformity. This may sound outlandish, but remember that Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the most direct influence on this new Apes flick, got its violent imagery from the Civil Rights movement and other social rebellions. I may sound crazy, but you have to ask yourself why this film ends on such a positive note.


But don’t expect this flick to be the deepest societal statement. If you truly just want to see mad apes stick it to human bozos, then Rise of the Planet of the Apes will give you your money’s worth. Perhaps the highest compliment I can pay it is that it does away with any bad memory you may have of Burton’s misguided remake. Planet of the Apes was a franchise founded on curious ideas regarding nature and society, and this new installment doesn’t betray those ideas.