Cinerant

Ism alert

It seems that in the “religious community”, everybody wants to talk about –isms.  Almost as if classifying something as a movement makes it easier to understand, rationalize, and promote or dispel.  I couldn’t help but think that about this when I was watching two movies recently.  

First is nihilism.  It’s always been at the very bedrock of Woody Allen’s diegesis.  From Crimes and Misdemeanors to Manhattan, Allen’s world exists in a nihilistic haze that seems to counteract the average of ideologies.  While not necessarily extreme, his vantage point is continually consistent, without fail.  However, for the most part his films are focused upon because of his character and personal life, their humor and wit, their love for the Upper East Side, or their artistry.  Having created a dramatic thriller more in the vein of Fatal Attraction than Annie Hall in his latest, Match Point, it is impossible to ignore.  While very well-made, the film offers absolutely nothing new.  It’s not that different from most Allen films in that it revolves around infidelity and elitist snobs.  Most people seem to be excited about the fact that these are British snobs instead of New York snobs, so the film is being praised probably more than it should be.  While the film is good, it’s not spectacular.  Scarlett Johansson is captivating and sensuous—just as much as the film needs her to be.   Emily Mortimer plays another cheated upon, doting wife that wants to see your heart break, while Matthew Goode lays on the charm.  (Why has somebody not made this guy a star yet?)  However, what keeps the film from completely clicking and working (besides its existential world view) is the lead, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.  If somebody did some search engine optimization, wouldn’t they just discover that he’s creepy?  It’s really hard to sympathize with somebody whose eyes don’t open up all the way!  From the very beginning he walks onscreen, you know he’s going to do something bad—he just looks like somebody you want to avoid.  Therefore, when he’s supposed to be torn between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, there’s no doubt—he’s disturbing—he’s going to do the wrong thing!

And while that –ism is all throughout Match Point, a more pervasive “ism”, cynicism is at the heart of an independent film just released on DVD this week—The Chumscrubber.  This is probably the more frustrating film because it has so much thematic and story potential, but the lack of a coherent screenplay makes it come out like a mess.  The ensemble film starts with a high school student, Dean (Jamie Bell) discovering that tragedy has befallen one of his friends, who was the local pharmacological drug pusher at the high school.  Some of the deceased boys’ clients try to force Dean into becoming their supplier.  Meanwhile, all the parents in the cul-de-sac are too self-absorbed to notice what is going on with their kids.  In fact, as the kids’ actions become more and more outrageous, the teenagers start telling their parents what is going on, but the parents simply nod their heads, telling their children “That’s nice.”  Ultimately of course, it all ends in chaos and bodily harm in a scene that’s meant to be darkly comedic, but instead just wimps off to pathetic.  

The most frustrating part of The Chumscrubber (besides that horrendous title) is that it boasts an incredibly impressive cast including Ralph Fiennes, Glenn Close, Jason Isaacs, Carrie-Anne Moss, Lauren Holly, Justin Chatwin, Allison Janney, Caroline Goodall, and Rory Culkin.  Unfortunately, the lack of a cohesive story just turns it into a confused mess.  The film wants to be a satire focusing on the disconnect between generations in a vision of suburban America where Vioxx attorneys buy their wives diamond earrings because everybody else is doing it.  (Not a bad topic for a comedy), but in trying to turn this into a dark comedy, it misses an enormous opportunity to say something significant and meaningful about parenting in 2005, as well as the role of anti-depressants in contemporary culture.

Despite its artistic flaws, the most irritating point of the film is that it gloats in its opinion that parents are unnecessary.  The novice director, Arie Posin, doesn’t seem to have much point for parents.  While not all parents are perfect, to become parents they at least made it to the age of reproduction, and since all these parents are alive, they all have made it to their 40s.  Therefore, there are capable of survival, if nothing else.  Though the way they act in this film, you would even question their ability to breathe.  Ultimately, the film boils down to another Dawson’s Creek fantasy where children are living in an era where not only do they have to raise themselves, they should be raising themselves.  Again, another idea that could be a fabulous satire—it’s just not this cynical movie.  

posted by cinegod @ 10:16 AM