A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

I love reading memoirs. I’m fascinated with reading true stories about real people, and I don’t mean it in a history buff kind of way. Some examples…A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (an ironic title but right on the money), A Million Little Pieces, My Friend Leonard, Private Parts, Jarhead, Goat, Running with Scissors (actually everything by Augusten Burrows, and the same goes for David Sedaris), Superstud and Kick Me…I’m sure you get the point, but if you’re a reader, write these titles down! I may be adding one to this list by next week, except in this case, I saw the movie before I read the book. It’s called A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints and it knocked me for a loop.

The film is based on the memoir of the same title by Dito Montiel, who also wrote the script and directed the film. It is a coming of age story about a young man growing up Queens who desperately wants to get out. While plotting his escape, there are many things going on his life that propel him to want to leave but could also keep him from going anywhere.

The film has a raw intensity and energy that you find in personal works, especially first time filmmakers. There isn’t a whole hell of a lot that is conventional about this film. It’s shot with a handheld documentary style that brings real authenticity to the film and the cutting style is all over the place- and I mean that as a compliment - there are jump cuts, repeat cuts, flash forwards, fragments of scenes are teased and filled out seconds or minutes later. Where most filmmakers would hold a dramatic scene to elevate the drama, here they cut away and everything hasn’t been explained in the scene yet, but it will be. In case I’m not explaining myself well enough, Gene Siskel used to say ‘it isn’t what a film is about that matters, it’s how it’s about it’ and that theory applies here. The way this film is told supports the film exactly the way it should. The film is told in flashback, but it doesn’t feel that way. It starts at, what I assume is, a book reading and the cutting style starts to shine through right away. The next thing you know we’re back in Queens in 1986.

There have been a lot of coming of age stories set in NYC and the surrounding boroughs, especially those where the main character wants out. This film stood out to me because of the material. The script is well written. The dialogue is natural and feels authentic but that only goes as far as the actors take it. Well, the acting couldn’t be better. Shia LaBeouf, who has continually impressed me, delivers a truly great, involving, three dimensional performance as Dito. Like Johnny Depp, he is an actor whose eyes tell you everything and never have I seen him in a film where it benefits him more than here. Chazz Palminteri and Dianne Wiest play Dito’s parents and are, as always, wonderful. Robert Downey Jr plays the adult Dito and again, when has he turned in a bad performance. There’s no exception here. He is such a natural actor that he makes it look easy, which if you’ve ever acted- it’s anything but easy. There was a big surprise here only because I didn’t know too much about him, but Channing Tatum is phenomenal. He reminded me of Mark Wahlberg when I saw The Basketball Diaries. He has an undeniable intensity and when he’s onscreen, it’s tough to take your eyes off him. The only film I had seen him in was Step Up, which I watched with my fiancé on HBO. Not normally my cup of tea, to say the least, and I don’t remember much from the movie, but I do remember thinking he and the female lead had decent chops. He shows what he can do here and apparently some filmmakers have taken notice. Oliver Stone cast him in Pinkville, and Michael Mann just cast him as Pretty Boy Floyd in Public Enemies. He also has a role in Kimberly Pierce’s new movie, Stop/Loss and he’s playing Duke in GI Joe. Keep you eye on this kid because if he keeps at this rate he’s going to be a big, big star.

Okay, so I’m going to Amazon to buy this memoir and you should go rent the movie.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not the film you are probably expecting it to be. Automatically you’d assume that it’s a shoot ‘em up western. It isn’t. It’s a deeply hypnotic, lyrical and poetic, both visually and literally, film which I fell deeply into. It is also a western with some shoot ‘em up and much like There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, this film is a slow boil, brimming with intensity.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert tells story of the last 7 months of Jesse James’ (Brad Pitt) life. Quickly we get the idea that the hangers on in the James Gang are all starfuckers with their gaze set directly on the elusive, charismatic and mysterious Jesse James, but none more than Robert Ford (Casey Affleck). Not yet 20, Robert Ford worships his childhood hero with the same wide-eyed wonder he did 10 years earlier, though he acts like he doesn’t. It’s a crush essentially, and he doesn’t hide it well.

The film follows the members of the James Gang as they chunk off into groups and separate following a train robbery. Most are related to each other in one way or another and never stray too far for too long, usually ending up back at the Ford household. And it is there where Jesse James seals his fate with the socially awkward Ford.

The film doesn’t just focus on James and Ford, we get to know all of the members of the gang, and love them or hate them, they are richly drawn and beautifully brought to life by an incredible cast. There are little performance gems all over this film. Sam Rockwell, Paul Schneider, Garret Dillahunt, Jeremy Renner, Sam Shepard, Gretchen Mol, and Mary-Louise Parker deliver terrific performances which can’t be fully appreciated until they are seen. Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs) and Zooey Deschanel show up for a brief period of time and leave a deep impression. This is a great cast. Before I saw the film and read the cast list I was excited- Bravo to the casting director, the director or whomever came up with the idea of casting these actors. There are people whom you may not recognize but have been doing terrific work on TV and in smaller, meaning less widely seen, films.

Brad Pitt is someone whose work I’ve admired for a long time. I noticed him in Thelma and Louise just like the rest of the world, but I felt the part to be a little showy and frankly, kind of obvious. Kalifornia is what really brought him to my attention and if you haven’t seen the film, seek it out. For those of you who have seen it, you’ll appreciate something Pitt does in the film that is a direct nod to Kalifornia. It would be easy to forget that he’s such a great actor seeing as how his personal life has become tabloid fodder and lame late night talk show jokes about how many kids he has. He has a varied and high reaching line of movies trailing behind him…12 Monkeys, Interview with a Vampire, True Romance (best stoner ever), Legends of the Fall, Fight Club, Snatch, Ocean’s Eleven, Babel…you get the idea- The man is not afraid to take chances. His performance here is beautifully nuanced- at times big and powerful and at others small and equally, if not more, powerful. He won Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival and I can see why.

Casey Affleck had a great year. He was very good in Gone Baby Gone and he is even better in this- not that it’s fair to compare (poet didn’t know it) but from frame one to the end frame he is nothing less than totally convincing. He broke my heart. Sad and awkward, angry and introverted, proud and ashamed- he covers it all and he covers it all very well. I’m starting to reconsider my belief that Javier Bardem gave the best supporting actor performance of the year.

This film is also very well directed by Andrew Dominik, who has only one other credit under his belt, the terrific Chopper starring a then unknown Eric Bana (Hulk, Troy, Munich). The film is deliberately paced and mannered. Shots hold for longer than we’re used to, cutaways are used to show the mood of the characters and set the tone and mood for the film as a whole. Portions of the film are punctuated by voice-over passages done in a very even almost stoic voice as if they were being read directly from the book. These scenes are shot in the same fashion and have the same musical score. It’s an interesting technique that some might not like but that I loved.

Now onto the cinematography; Good God is it amazing. Roger Deakins is my favorite DP and while I was over the moon that Robert Elswit picked the Oscar for his work in There Will Be Blood, I think the award belongs to Deakins. There isn’t a single shot in the film that isn’t beautiful. Most of it is downright breathtaking. For a man who consistently does incredible work, he truly out does himself here. The film is painterly and eye-poppingly majestic. I’d be curious to know how much of the film was shot with natural light. Some of it looks as though it’s lit only with candles. I was mesmerized. This is a wonderful film, but something significant would be missing without Roger Deakin’s photography. Bravo, sir!

I saw this film in the ideal conditions and you should do likewise should you choose to seek it out. Lights completely out, volume cranked. I wish I saw it in the theater but alas I didn’t. This came and went from theaters faster than Daddy Day Camp and that’s fucking sad if you ask me. I’ve read, I believe on Ain’t it Cool but I can’t be sure, that the studio didn’t like or believe in the film and so they “dumped” it. This means they released it in a very small amount of theaters, did no promotion for it and essentially cut their losses and didn’t give a shit about it. What a shame…and keep in mind this film is not for everyone but neither is Daddy Day Camp or the innumerable other total piece of shit, waste of time and money films released every week. There is exceptional work from cast and crew alike in this film and it’s too bad more people haven’t seen it.

Cloverfield

It's pretty tough- check that- it's practically impossible to live up to hype. I had my first run-in with hype when Batman (Tim Burton's version) came out in 1989. Severe disappointment didn't even cover it. My buddy Jon and I anxiously awaited it's arrival and when it came we were there- super long line wait 'n all. When the movie was over and the lights came up everyone was on their feet applauding. We were on our feet too saying "Let's get the fuck out of here!" Thank God for Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins- faaaaaaaaaaar better. Any-who, with the marketing and mystery surrounding Cloverfield the hype was nearing epic proportions and I started to worry because I didn't want Batman-like disappointment again. Due to a busy schedule I wasn't able to see Cloverfield until the other day and I was not disappointed. Quite the opposite in fact.

I was extremely anxious for the first 15 minutes because I knew what was coming and I just wanted it to happen. But the film is getting you to know the characters and their situation a bit before, well...you know. Rob is moving to Japan and his friends are throwing him a going away party. His brother Jason and his girlfriend are the main hosts and Jason passes off "camera testimonials" to Hud. Hud spots Marlena, who isn't really supposed to be there and falls in love or lust or whatever, with her almost immediately. The biggest problem, however is that Rob has recently slept with Beth, a longtime friend, first time lover. She shows up to the party with some fucking tool because Rob didn't know how to talk to her after they had sex. It's alot right? And, really, it happens in a short amount of time, but that's what was great about it. It's also what's realistic about it. I hung with a fairly large group of close friends throughout college and that's how it happens; word travels fast and everyone knows everyone elses business in 2.2 seconds. There is a very real feel brought to this movie, not just from the handheld handicam camera work, but from the writing and acting.

Although I was getting into the story, I was also very anxious through the first scenes of the film because I knew what was in the mail, so to speak. When it happens, I had stopped being anxious and was really getting into the scene at hand and then- WHAM- it hits. From there the fucking wheels come off. This is an intense movie. And tense. I was tense throughout. My fiance almost chewed her fingers off her hand after she took care of the nails. There are moments where the action settles down a bit but the intensity stays.

The idea of first person camera work intrigued me and was largely the reason I was attracted to this film. Execution is another story- things can get screwed up easily, but not here. Here it works. Very well. The action and the reality of the situation are palpable because of the camerawork. The constant movement of the frame- panning, adjusting, twisting and tilting...it feels real. You are never taken out of the moment with a cutaway. And there's no editing to speak of. I mean there is but it's just the camera being turned off and on so sentences and scenes get cut and then WHAM you're back into a new one. There are no cutaways or reaction shots. There also is no music telling you how to feel in each scene and believe me you don't miss it. The reality of it all weighed on me and in large part it was due to the technical work, but the acting was a huge part of it as well.

The cast is made up of, not unknowns, but not well knowns- if you known what I mean. You'll recognize or vaguely recognize most of them, or maybe not at all if you don't watch a lot of TV. Everyone was very natural and in a movie like this where it's shot, essentially, raw documentary style how do you act natural in the middle of a very unnatural situation. Natural in this situation would be an orgy of shock, confusion, shit-your-pants-fear, I mean someone might have a breakdown and someone else might take charge. Even though there is a script, it feels like there isn't by the interactions between the characters. Hud, played by TJ Miller, is the man behind the camera and he is constantly making comments and observations. His performance is paramount to the film coming off and he plays it very well. I also liked, Michael Stahl-David, who played Rob, and Lizzy Caplan, who played Marlena. Jessica Lucas plays Lilly, and she's currently on CSI. She has the potential to be a big star. As an aspiring writer/producer/director I get really excited for people that break into the big time and it was exciting for me to see all these young actors kicking ass in a Major Motion Picture, produced by a Major Hollywood director/writer/producer, which, conveniently brings me to my next point

JJ Abrams is the producer, NOT, the director, which isn't to say that he didn't have alot of input- I'm sure he did, but at the end of the day, he's the producer. I can pretty much guarantee you he wasn't in the edit room, day in and day out, like the director, Matt Reeves probably was. People get this confused alot and as a result sometimes the director or writer doesn't get the credit he or she deserves. This film is a mammoth undertaking and one false move could fuck the whole thing up. Matt Reeves did an amazing job and I applaud him. He's a writer/director who co-created Felicity and directed The Pallbearer, both very credible pieces of work, but an out of control, train off the tracks monster movie they were not. I can't wait to see what this guy has up his sleeve next. By the way, I'm taking nothing away from JJ Abrams. I'm sure he had alot of input and the man is clearly talented- he delivered the best Mission Impossible movie by far- but people think it's his movie and it's isn't. Not entirely at least.

I want to address something I've read in some reviews, not all, but some. People have complained that no one in their right mind would have continued filming through all the chaos. I disagree. Completely. First of all you can't definitely say what any one person would do in this situation because you don't definitely know, but that's beside the point. I know someone who would continue filming as he was trying to run for his life. He would have actually been going out of his way to get cool shots. His name is Pottyboy. Got to his site and you'll see what I mean. But even that doesn't give the slightest idea of how much has shot in his life. This is also besides the point. Making a case for the movie being unbelievable because you don't feel someone would continue filming is a stupid point to make. There wouldn't be a movie in the first place if the person didn't film it, so you shouldn't be in the theater if you don't like the concept. By taking a "realistic" or "documentary" approach the film opens itself up to such criticisms, but I feel they are unfounded and moot. When you go see Transformers you don't say "How did they get a guy in the middle of the highway to film them fighting?" Why? Because it's a movie, entertaining you, hopefully, so you know it's not real. Well Cloverfield is presented as "found footage" therefore we should buy into the fact, even though we know it's not real that someone did continue filming whilst running for their life and enjoy what we see, much like we'll buy into Transformers. This is why we go to the movies, folks, so we can be entertained. Hopefully I've made myself clear on this because it baffles me that someone would use that as an argument.

Either way, Cloverfield is an amazing film and I can't wait to see it again. An extraordinarily effective and groundbreaking approach to a monster movie that lived up it's brilliant marketing plan. Good luck to anyone who tries to top it. They'll need it.