"The Giver"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

It’s a shame when a movie fails to live up to its source material. Take “The Giver”, for example. It is based on the Newbery Medal winning novel of the same name—a novel that has been remembered and adored for decades now, and one that, if I remember correctly, is indeed pretty great. The movie adaptation, on the other hand, is not going to win any awards. And it will probably be forgotten. And, to be honest, it isn’t great.

But I don’t think it is bad, either. Start with the story, which may be familiar. After some particularly awful period in human history, a community is built where any difference between anyone is pretty much shunned and, if possible, eliminated. Everyone rides the same bikes, wears the same clothes, eats the same food, lives in the same style of house, and so on. Oh, also, everyone’s memories of the past—of the history of everything before the community was started—are completely erased. As far as they all know, their little hill with its little houses and little fake trees just sprung up out of nowhere.

Despite these oddities, this community is pretty appealing. Everyone gets along all right. There is no bloodshed or strife. Everyone is taken care of. No one wants for anything, it seems. It looks like a Utopia—a place where ignorance is truly bliss.

There is one exception: the Receiver (Jeff Bridges). He is the only one who knows the full story of how this community got there—where it came from, why it was formed, what events led to its creation, and how it is alike or different from any other community in history. You see, the elders of the community decided it would be a good idea to have one person who remembers the past. That way he or she can give advice and whatnot. Hence, the Receiver.

By the outset of “The Giver”, the Receiver is growing old, and thus, a replacement is needed. A teenage boy named ‘Jonas’ (Brenton Thwaites) is selected, and so the old Receiver becomes “The Giver”—the passer-down of memories and experiences. At first Jonas is all about being the new Receiver. He experiences color for the first time, feels snowflakes on his skin for the first time and goes sledding for the first time; he hears music, dances and kisses a girl, all for the first time.

But then comes the pain—he sees the agony of war, the horror of starvation, the ugliness of cruelty, and every other ignoble aspect of human history. This opens Jonas’ eyes both to the ways things have been and to the way things are now. And so he wonders: Is the relative tranquility of the community worth it? Are joy and pleasure and dancing and true love worthy sacrifices for the sake of peace and prosperity? These are the questions—the questions no one wants to consider but on which everything hangs—that Jonas must answer.

That “The Giver” falls a little short cannot be blamed on the source material, of course. Nor can it be blamed on the acting. Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, and Odeya Rush, for example, do a nice job. Nor is the cinematography to blame. This movie is beautiful.

No, I blame it on the writing and, to some extent, the directing. The dialogue and voice-over is sometimes cheesy and overwrought. The pacing is often all wrong. And some of the scenes are not handled with the delicacy they deserve.

But you know, I still enjoyed this movie. I enjoyed it because it is beautiful, and because many of the actors are engaging. And I enjoyed it because the source material—with all of its layers, ingenuity, moral insight and everything else—cannot help but shine through.

"Boyhood"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Boyhood” covers 12 years in a boy’s life (ages six to 18). Filmmaker Richard Linklater and his prodigious cast took the same number of years to film it. That’s because, each year, they met somewhere in Texas to shoot a couple of scenes. Then they went home. Then they came back the next year and did it all over again. They did that until the thing was done.

“Boyhood” is no documentary—it is a work of fiction—but the truth of it is inescapable. The characters are there, at those times, in those places, really growing up, really coming together and apart, really learning about life and finding out who they are.

The boy is named ‘Mason’ (Ellar Coltrane). At six, Mason lives with his mom (Patricia Arquette) and sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater; i.e., the director’s daughter). His dad (Ethan Hawke), who has been MIA for years, is trying to break back into the family. But it’s tough. Mason and Samantha get along well with their dad, and he turns out to be pretty darn thoughtful and caring—not your average deadbeat. Mom isn’t having it though. She is done with dad—ready to move on.

Unfortunately mom does not have very good taste in men. Not that it’s her fault—sometimes it is tough to tell. But the men she looks to for love and comfort are anything but loving and comforting. They only introduce further instability in an already unstable situation.

Some of the scenes here feel a tad bit stilted. It takes a little time for Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater to find themselves on screen. But this is forgivable—more than forgivable, in fact. Their growing up on screen mirrors their growing up in the story. Their occasional awkwardness makes sense—it is a seamless part of the whole, intricately woven tapestry.

Linklater celebrates such awkwardness. He celebrates unevenness, insecurity, and incongruity in this film. Although various brilliant and subtle motifs emerge and reemerge throughout, Linklater, to his credit, does not succumb to making this film about any particular idea or theme or concept. It is more about the characters’ grappling with these things, and living, and struggling, and surviving, and learning and growing without ever being certain or comfortable or fully mature.

That is why this film is so compelling. Do not expect melodrama, shocking twists, triumph or devastation, or too many scenes that will make you gasp. These moments are largely ignored. Mason’s graduation from high school, for example, is a huge moment in his life, but we do not see a second of it. Instead what we see is the after party with a hodgepodge of parents, friends, and awkward acquaintances milling about making small talk and navigating their insecurities and the strands of their entangled lives. That is what this film is about. All 165 beautiful thrilling minutes of it.

The concept of “Boyhood” and the methods used to make it are unique and ambitious. But the results are even more so. This film is a landmark. It is fresh and unique, but it also evokes a striking nostalgic feeling—an unmistakable familiarity with one’s growing up, the remembrance of which sparks wonder, perplexity, maybe a touch of longing or sadness, and most importantly, a sense of awe at the indescribable and miraculous growth and development—the cocooning and emergence—of a human being.

In a way that’s unlike any other medium, film can reveal a dynamic, evolving reality that cannot be fully put into words. It can explore truths that cannot be uttered. Linklater and his collaborators have done right by this art. But, even more, they have told a story, which, from the lips of many less able individuals would have either been trite or else horribly boring and mundane, but from Linklater et al. is revealed to be of immeasurable significance and beauty.

"How to Train Your Dragon 2"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In the first “How to Train Your Dragon” a scrawny little kid named ‘Hiccup’ (Jay Baruchel), who lives among the biggest, brawniest people ever, finds a dragon and ends up winning the adoration of his tribe by, you know, saving all their lives.

That first “How to Train Your Dragon” is pretty good. The second is better. It is just as gripping as the first. But it is more mature and complex. It’s not perfect. Indeed, some of the best things about it are seriously flawed. But this movie tries. And it raises some good questions, particularly about leadership, machismo, and gender roles. We tend not to think about these sorts of things when we go to a kid’s movie. But with all those Disney princesses and princes out there winning hearts and minds, it’s high time we did.

There are two main female characters in “How to Train Your Dragon 2”. First, there is Astrid (America Ferrera), who is Hiccup’s young love interest. Astrid is a strong, independent person. She is focused and driven. She cares about her people. She is loyal and trustworthy.

So when Hiccup tells Astrid that his dad, Stoick (Gerard Butler), is going to name him as the next chief of their village, and when Hiccup expresses not only hesitancy but in fact complete lack of interest in the job, and when Astrid points out all the right things about how to do the job, you think to yourself, “Yeah, Astrid should be the chief! Hiccup is a good guy and all, but Astrid is the true leader here.”

This is confirmed when a tribe of vicious dragon hunters, who are capturing dragons in order to make them into a devastating army, threaten Hiccup and Astrid’s village. It is Astrid, not Hiccup, whose first instinct is to stay with and protect the village. Hiccup, on the other hand, runs off. (To be fair, Hiccup runs off to negotiate with the enemy, which is a noble goal. But I take it leaders are not supposed to run off in moments of crisis.)

After Hiccup takes off, he runs into the second main female character. Her name is Valka (Cate Blanchett). SPOILER ALERT: She is Hiccup’s mom. Everyone thought she died when Hiccup was just a baby. But it turns out she ran off with some dragons because her husband would not listen to her when she insisted that dragons are, at heart, peaceful creatures.

Like Astrid, Valka is strong and independent, focused and driven. She cares about her community—which, in this case, happens to be a bunch of dragons—and will do anything to protect them. In fact, what Valka has been doing instead of hanging out with Stoick and Hiccup is fighting for her dragons against those guys with the dragon army.

However, once she is reunited with Hiccup (and eventually Stoick), Valka realizes what she has been missing. She wants back into her family’s lives. She wants to return. And it’s just in time, too. For their common enemy is marching toward them hell bent on death and destruction. This once-defunct family has to bind together with the rest of their tribe to fend off their attackers, or else they will all be reduced to ashes.

It is great to see strong, independent female characters like Astrid and Valka in a kid’s movie. These are complex, compelling characters that shun the princess dresses without divesting themselves of feminine traits either. They don’t have to be men in order to lead men. They are kind and caring. They are protective, but they are also peacemakers. Unlike most of the men in their tribe, war is not their first and only solution to every threat. Now you tell me who the true leaders are here.

Yet, as much potential as Astrid and Valka have, alas, their talents are somewhat wasted by the creators of this movie. Valka plays a pretty big role in the beginning and middle of the movie, but once her husband shows up on the scene, she kind of fades into the background like a dutiful wife. And in a combat scene where Valka gets in trouble and is about to get killed, we get the predictable trope of her savior husband coming along to rescue his poor, little lady. And what about Astrid? Where does she go? Is she going to end up chief of the village? Don’t count on it.

Ugh, it’s too bad. These are missteps. But at least it is clear that “How to Train Your Dragon 2” is trying to address the position of women in kid’s movies. And although they fail in some key respects, they at least introduce us to the right sort of characters. And they certainly get us thinking about things we should think about.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Summer means sunshine, parades, baseball games, trips to the beach, and another “X-Men” movie. Some of us look on these things with delight. Others of us look on them with trepidation, loathing, or at least some hesitance. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is indeed one of those summer blockbusters. Whether or not it delights you, well, that’s your call.

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the way “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is set up is regrettable. Forget the logically inconsistent time travel, which of course is passed off in standard “Whoa, dude, it’s like, a paradox!” fashion. I’m not saying that such inconsistencies are O.K. plot-wise (Are any inconsistencies O.K. plot-wise? Do you not groan when so-and-so, who we know is in Cleveland, pops up in Zimbabwe or something?). Nor am I saying that we should give this depiction of time travel a pass because all time travel just has to be logically inconsistent (It may or may not have to be, but, c’mon, don’t make it so that, at time t, person X would have to both be and not be talking to time-travelling person Y. That’s not deep. That’s just dumb.). I just think that since so many time travel movies simply ignore these glaring problems, it is probably not worth stressing over how this movie is a case in point.

So, aside from all that, this movie’s set up is regrettable because it has too much herky-jerky, talking-at-the-camera explanation of what is going on, and even when there is some showing rather than telling, it is cringe worthy—like when we find out that Professor X once had a thing for Mystique by our being shown a picture of Mystique in a golden frame placed prominently by his bedside. Subtlety just isn’t this movie’s thing.

Now, what we are told is that the post-apocalyptic world the movie opens with is the result of decades of fighting between mutants and “Sentinels”, which are cyborgs developed by humans to kill mutants. What makes the Sentinels so formidable, we are told, is that they can take on the mutant powers of their enemies. Iceman, for example, is no use against a cyborg with the powers of Sunspot (that much, at least, we are shown).

The mutants are getting killed off one by one. And it turns out that all of this came about because, way back when, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) assassinated Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage), the inventor of the Sentinels. Mystique hopes this will halt the Sentinel program. But it only stokes anti-mutant fears. So it actually speeds up the program.

Thus, what Professor X (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), et al. figure they should do is go back in time and stop Mystique. And since Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the only one who can survive the trip to the past, they send him back to enlist young Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender)—which is harder than he might have hoped—to stop Trask’s assassination.

One interesting question—and, despite my earlier complaining, I do think this is an interesting question—is whether changing this or that particular event in history will have the impact that anyone might expect it to have. Will stopping Mystique prevent Sentinels from being created? Will it keep the war from happening? Will it save the X-Men? Turns out it’s pretty tough to tell. Even if impossible time travel is no problem for the X-Men, navigating the if-thens of the past turns out to provide plenty of perils.

I love how “X-Men” in general is conceived. I think the idea of a mutant race that is at odds, both socially and politically, with a non-mutant human population is pretty interesting. I also think that many of the characters in this series are pretty cool. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” does capitalize on some of these good-making features. It has interesting characters and character development, which is aided by the fact that each of its cast of thousands is very good at acting.

Nonetheless, while I do love how “X-Men” in general is conceived, I do not love how “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is conceived. Nor do I love how it was executed. Too much explaining. Too much sentimentality. Too much reliance on actors’ charisma. Too cheesy. Too revisionary.

But does all this keep “X-Men: Days of Future Past” from being fun or entertaining or likeable or a successful summer blockbuster? Hardly.

"Under the Skin"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

With all of the recent chatter about a certain boat movie of Biblical proportions that everyone seems to know and care so much about, some other movies may have slipped under your radar. There is one about bears, several about superheroes, and a couple of others about creepy children who may or may not be demon possessed. Then there is a baseball movie with Kevin Costner and a cartoon sequel. Yes indeed, there are many non-boat movies to be seen and maybe even talked about.

But let me recommend one such movie: “Under the Skin”. Warning: This movie is arty and weird. It is not like the superhero movies, the creepy-kid movies, the cartoon sequels, or indeed, the boat movie. I say thank God for that. But really I’m just letting you know.

In “Under the Skin” an alien who is fixed up to look just like a human (Scarlett Johansson) rides around Scotland in a van picking up men who she seduces and then kills. We have no idea what sort of alien she is, what her motives are, or even what she is up to or how she is doing what she is doing. Everything is as perplexing and foreign to us as our world must be to her.

And the world certainly is perplexing and foreign to her. In one of the first scenes of the movie, the cold and lifeless body of an anonymous dead woman is laid out in front of the alien on the vacant floor of a brightly backlit room. A tear falls from the dead woman’s eye. The alien reaches down as if to wipe the tear away—as if to show compassion—but instead she scoops up an ant that was crawling on the body and carefully examines it as if under a microscope. The ant is what is noteworthy to her. How peculiar it must be to her—how novel and curious.

Thus is how the alien sees the world. She has her mission, and she knows how to carry it out. But, as is made clear through various wonderfully executed cinematic techniques, this entity is indeed alien—she is foreign; this is not her home; she is out of place; nothing makes sense to her. This is also true of us, the audience. Bewilderment is something we share with the alien—that, and the skin that covers our bodies.

As time goes on the alien grows more accustomed to the human exterior that envelops her. She maybe even starts to think human thoughts and feel human feelings. But this is no fable about diversity or the coming together of different peoples. “Under the Skin” is way darker and, really, just way more nuanced and complex than that.

I’m not sure what all is going on in “Under the Skin”. There are other movies where I’m not sure what is going on and I think it’s because not much is really going on—it’s just that the director thinks he or she is really smart and deep so he or she makes a movie that looks really smart and deep but it is just pretentious and lame. “Under the Skin” is not one of those movies. A lot is going on here. But I’m just not sure, at least at this point, what all it is.

What I can tell you is that this movie will seep in—it will get under your skin. You will leave the theater still looking out at a strange and unfamiliar world that you see every day but which is suddenly new, foreign, challenging and confusing.