Reviews

Despite the pedigree of being made by the latest Coppola clan member to enter the feature film directorial ranks, CQ came and went from theaters when it was released a few years go. Seeing it for the first time on Reel 13 on Saturday, I'm a little stunned as to why. Roman Coppola proves to be a promising, thoughtful filmmaker and as adept a student of cinema history as his Uncle Francis. CQ is an engaging, if loosely structured movie, managing to be simultaneously inventive and derivative, borrowing from and paying homage to everything from La Dolce Vita to the Marx Brothers.

Its primary source of influence is, of course, 1968's Barbarella, here thinly veiled as the fictional "Dragonfly", as the film within the film. CQ is about how Paul, a young editor (Jeremy Davies), working on said "Dragonfly" deals with balancing his career and his relationship as he works on both the big-budget sci-fi epic and directing his own personal documentary film. This set-up provides Coppola with three different planes of action going on – real life, the black and white documentary and the colorful, sexy, futuristic world of "Dragonfly". The fun really begins when Coppola deftly uses these formats to blur the lines of fantasy and reality when Paul, in his search for himself, begins to lose sight of where the boundaries for each of these worlds lie – or if they even exist.

In addition to Coppola's stellar usage of mixed media, the other key to CQ's success is Jeremy Davies, an extremely talented and severely underused young actor who quite possibly should have won an Oscar for his work in Saving Private Ryan and at least should have been nominated for last year's Rescue Dawn. I think there are less roles for him because he seems to insist on making quirky, out-of-the-box choices. However, when a director with vision is willing to roll the dice on him, he almost always delivers an inspired performance. CQ is no exception as Davies brings a believable, uncomfortable edge to Paul. He is a character who is lost and confused, but most actors would play him with a modicum of swagger. Davies makes him neurotic without being nebbish – as if still a boy in the body a man who isn't quite sure that he wants to grow up. At the heart of Davies' performance, however, still is that extra element of quirkiness that is all his own. It's that extra layer of thought he puts in to his performance and those unusual choices he makes that allows the character to feel fresh – different than what we're used to while at the same time, wholly plausible.

After all is said and done, with all its layers of meaning and different milieus represented within it, CQ ultimately becomes a dissertation on film and the nature of filmmaking as an artform. It depicts the tendency of the artist to lose himself in his work and how said artist can learn to manipulate the art to find his way again (it's no wonder I liked it so much). In that sense, it's a beautifully realized film and another highly auspicious debut from an almost unfairly talented family.

Oddly enough, I had only seen the John McTiernan remake of THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR and while I realize it wasn't a masterpiece, I found it an entertaining and enjoyable caper. I just assumed that the original would be superior in every way and was excited about its airing on Reel 13 last night. After all, Norman Jewison, Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway seem like a late sixties dream team (Jewison was coming off of directing the Best Picture Oscar-winner the year before – IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT). Instead, the film had absolutely no emotional impact on me at all and left me surprised, bewildered and severely disappointed.

At first, I couldn't figure out where it went awry. I kept wanting to like it, expecting it to turn a corner and pique my interest, but then, before I knew what hit me, it was over. It starts promisingly enough with a clever bank heist, but Crown isn't physically involved in the robbery and we never really see him planning it in any way, so he's sort of passive, as heroes go, especially given it's essentially the only heist in the film (the second one at the end is a quickly cut carbon copy of the first). Then, Faye Dunaway, as insurance investigator Vicki Anderson, solves the mystery of the robbery WAY too easily. She walks in, looking young and stunning in several ridiculous overly fashionable outfits, bats her eyes and more or less decides that Crown is the guilty party. So, the two major elements of any crime - the crime and the investigation – are rushed through and devoid of any suspense whatsoever.

It's almost as if Jewison was in a rush to get to the longest scene in the film – the sexy chess match, which Norman clearly was setting up as the not-so-subtle metaphor of the movie (Did Dunaway really need to suggestively stroke one of the phallic-looking chess pieces? Cheeee-sy). It was around this time that it occurred to me that it's not supposed to be a cops and robbers movie as much as it was supposed to be a love story. That's fine, in theory, but even their relationship scenes are rushed. He gives her a dune buggy ride on the beach and suddenly, they're soulmates? Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm most disappointed in Jewison, who normally is such a stickler for detail and is so careful in his storytelling. Here, he seems more interested in the natural beauty of both his lead actors than in the plot. Even the device he employs early in the film of dividing the screen into boxes falls flat or rather, he doesn't use it to advance the story (like the current television show "24" does a great job of). While he does have several things going on at once – the robbery comes at the bank from five different angles – he would instead chooses to use his four of his blocks to show Steve McQueen and the rest are out of focus. Then, when all of Crown's pawns are at different places in the bank, Jewison returns to full frame shooting at a time where the blocks might have really been useful/effective. Stylistic choices like that need to serve the story, not to show off the director's ability to do tricks.

I can almost see why McTiernan felt like it was a necessary film to remake. The plot has a lot of potential – extremely wealthy man plots bank robberies (or in the case of the remake – art heists) and then meets his match when an attractive, intelligent insurance investigator becomes the first to suspect him. Sounds great, doesn't it? But this original version barely scratches the surface of that juicy plot and invests more time in Michel Legrand's bizarre rhythmless song "Windmills in My Mind" (connecting Crown to Don Quixote). If you want a fun caper movie (I never thought I would say this), rent the remake. Norman Jewison has made a lot of great films, but he really bungled this one.

(For more information on this film or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website on www.reel13.com)

first saw CAMP at the Film Society of Lincoln Center's annual New Directors/New Films series in the spring of 2003. The audience responded to the film with such gleeful laughter and riotous applause throughout the film that one couldn't help walk away from the experience entertained. Even watching it alone in the comfort of my own home this past Saturday on Reel 13, the movie managed to illicit consistent smiles. In spite of its contrivances and amateurishness, CAMP remains an extremely pleasant experience.

CAMP is less a story about teens coming-of-age and coming to terms with their extreme talent and how that can make them outcasts in the world of high school than it is a paean to musical theater, though not so much in the general sense. The film eschews more classical musical theater in favor of the genre's more recent history – 60's and 70's fare like "Company", "Promises, Promises", et al. The film actually seems to prioritize the musical numbers over the character development, especially given that the cast of kids are more singers than they are actors. Only Anna Kendrick in a supporting role is able to accomplish both deftly, creating an extremely memorable character and also belting out one of the highlight songs (Fittingly, she is the only one of the cast members to have had any sort of movie career post-CAMP, earning a Spirit Award nomination last year for her work in the high-school debating comedy ROCKET SCIENCE). In CAMP, one seems to look forward to the musical numbers, more so than in most musicals, as the scenes and story don't have nearly as much to offer.

This is not really a criticism because the film really doesn't make you wait long in between numbers. It moves crisply from song to song, usually with only a brief character scene or two in between. Somewhere along the line, actor-turned-director Todd Graff wisely recognized what the strength of the film was and shifted gears towards it. CAMP may not be deep, but it is a helluva lot of fun, offering magic for anyone who's ever been an artist and possibly even for everyone else too.

For more on this film or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org.

It's interesting to me that, for a movie that is essentially silly and contrived at heart, SOME LIKE IT HOT works so well and holds up even today. I mean, as I'm sure you've heard if you've watched Thirteen at all this week, AFI recently named SOME LIKE IT HOT as the greatest American comedy of all-time. If the same movie were made today, I'm not sure it would fly. In today's more liberated society, men dressing up as women isn't that much of a novelty and it is my opinion that modern audiences would reject the coincidences that the plot hinges on (Lemmon and Curtis actually witness the St. Valentine's Day Massacre AND the mob chasing them just happens to show up at the same hotel in Florida!). However, because it is from the fifties and in black and white, today's audiences tend to be a little more accepting, as if to assume that's they way things were done back then.

While I don't agree that plot contrivance was a staple of 1950's cinema (though it is pre- eminent in a lot of Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond screenplays), I do agree that SOME LIKE IT HOT is a fabulous comedy. The key question is what makes it overcome those more absurd moments. It's not the performances. In spite of her iconic stature, Marilyn Monroe was never a very good actor and that remains true here. Tony Curtis is better imitating Cary Grant than he is at playing the Joe/Josephine character. Jack Lemmon doesn't disappoint and has many strong moments, even though when he is his Daphne make-up, his uncanny resemblance to The Joker from the BATMAN movies is very disconcerting.

No, I think what makes SOME LIKE IT HOT work is outstanding, precise direction. Billy Wilder writes some great dialogue, but I think his most underrated contribution to cinema comedy is his sense of pace and comic timing. The way some of his stronger films move and seem to breathe give them an energy that keeps the audience involved in the story, but also, to some degree, hides the less plausible elements of the plot. Even some of his lesser work like ONE, TWO, THREE (the Reel 13 Classic from March 29th) relies heavily on alternating between freneticism and stoicism and knowing just when to employ each (Soderbergh calls it "rhythm and release"). The staging of scenes borrow equally from Ernst Lubitsch (dialogue-driven) and Mack Sennett (physical comedy) to create this hybrid style that became all Wilder – a sort of modern farce that, in the case of SOME LIKE IT HOT, had particular resonance because of how it innocuously played with sexual conventions at a time when attitudes toward sex and sexuality were starting to shift.

Most importantly, however, is that SOME LIKE IT HOT is just great fun. Smart dialogue, sharp direction, disguises, mistaken identity – the works, all executed with great deftness and care. While I disagree that SOME LIKE IT HOT is the greatest comedy of all time (haven't they seen AIRPLANE?) or that it is Billy Wilder's best film (see last week's blog for THE APARTMENT), it's still a fabulous, memorable movie that in spite of its penchant for silliness, will probably live forever.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY shares some qualities with some of its north of the border Reel 13 Canadian Indie counterparts. It is a slice of life multi-protagonist piece akin to the awful, but highly-rated WILBY WONDERFUL with the misguided mystical elements that were woven throughout A PROBLEM WITH FEAR. LLHP does a much better job in developing its characters than WILBY did and the mysticism in question is based on ancient Chinese culture and therefore, somehow seems less contrived and more elegant than the inexplicable technology-based type from FEAR.

So, the script, on the whole, is decent. While there are several comedic moments that fall flat, there are many others that are genuinely funny in almost a Shakespearean way (one character's rendition of "Sometimes When We Touch" remains my fave). There are some structural deficiencies (neighbors' gossip as a form of exposition is never a good move), screenwriters Mina Shum and Dennis Foon paint their characters honestly and not a one of the three story lines seems to be favored over the others. Unfortunately, the performances in the film don't help to elevate the script in any way.

In the blog for WILBY WONDERFUL, I alluded to my general distaste for Sandra Oh's work. In LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY, however, she towers over the other actors in the film, but that's not saying much. Almost every other actor (the main kid Mindy is okay – appropriately precocious) in the piece seems new to film acting. They all seem extremely uncomfortable, delivering their lines as if they didn't really believe them. While Oh is significantly stronger than the rest of the cast, she's not fabulous either. She has several good comic moments and a few good serious ones, but she really pushes during the very emotional moments and that's never fun to watch.

There is plenty of charm in LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY, enough that I found myself wanting to like it more than I ultimately did. Overall, the premise of the film – that a little girl playing with ancient Chinese charms changes the fortunes of all the people around her – is a little hard to buy, but it's not dissimilar to the kind of farce you might find in more classical fare like Moliere or even ancient Greek comedies. At the end of the day, however, the performances sunk this ship. If you can't believe the characters whose story you're watching, it makes for a pretty rough journey. All the charm(s) in the world can't save you there.

(Find out more about this film or other Reel 13 films on www.reel13.org)

What can I say about THE APARTMENT that hasn't already been said? In my opinion, it is Billy Wilder's masterpiece and one of the top 50, maybe even top 40 movies of all time. It's in a whole different league amongst the majority of the films, classics or indies, that they show on Reel 13 (BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK is the only one that comes close). It is an almost amazingly perfect blend of comedy and drama, equally hilarious and heart-wrenching. This is a film that contains a suicide attempt, discusses another, features depression, significant infidelity and suggested promiscuity and yet manages to be perennially charming.

Cameron Crowe suggested that THE APARTMENT was a major inspiration for his film Jerry Maguire. At one point, he went to visit Billy Wilder to ask him to play a cameo in the film (the old-time agent in the opening). Though Wilder would eventually turn him down, Crowe did get to ask him about THE APARTMENT and all Wilder had to say was "Good actors. It worked". A simple analysis, granted, but it wisely gets at the heart of what elevates The Apartment to a whole different level. I mean, all the elements are strong – the production design of the titular apartment and also the interior of the office are wonderfully detailed and the screenplay, of course, is brilliantly tight and well-crafted, but that's true of a great many Billy Wilder films. For THE APARTMENT, it is the inspired pairing of Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine and their abilities to be charismatic while exuding pathos that puts THE APARTMENT over the top.

I think of the scene in which Lemmon's Bud Baxter is trying to cheer up the broken-hearted Fran (MacLaine) who is embarrassed by her attempted suicide. Baxter reveals to her that he had tried it once himself years ago and relates to her the circumstances behind it in a monologue that in spite of its seriousness is delivered to be a lark of a story, almost as if a joke. In many other actor's hands, the monologue would have been morose and would have felt awkward tonally. However, Baxter's ability to laugh at his pain is not only charming, it's uplifting and due to Lemmon's conviction in his performance, it still feels honest.

MacLaine also has a great deal of strong moments and in a way, her character is the more challenging one. Her pain and heartbreak over her affair with Baxter's boss (an awesomely sleazy Fred MacMurray) is palpable and she still manages to throw in a quip or two from rock bottom. Instead of this feeling off-tone, MacLaine makes it work and it only adds dimensions to her character and rounds her out more. MacLaine craftfully navigates her character's journey from in confused love with a married man to suicidal and broken-hearted to a suddenly adult woman who comes to terms with both herself and the important things in life.

I could go on for days praising the individual qualities of THE APARTMENT – the pitch- perfect framing, the uber-clever dialogue ("That's the way it crumbles, cookie-wise".), the surprisingly effective bluesy score, the precise blocking of scenes, but I don't have time for all that. Instead, I'll let the maestro himself, Billy Wilder, sum things up the way he does best: simply and to the point – "Good actors. It worked".

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

The latest Reel 13 "Indie" is another film, like last month's A PROBLEM WITH FEAR that doesn't feel very much like an indie. It stars Matt Dillon, James Caan and Stellan Skaarsgard and is shot almost entirely in Cambodia. IMDb reports the budget to be $17.5 million. How does any film that cost over $10 million qualify as an independent film? While I question its status as an independent film, CITY OF GHOSTS is hardly as mind numbing as A PROBLEM WITH FEAR. As a matter of fact, it has a lot of great qualities, but somehow still doesn't capture the viewer in the way you would want it to.

Aside from a sadly two-dimensional and useless Natasha McElhone love-interest character, the rest of the characters in the film are well-developed and well-played. Matt Dillon, who also directs, is extremely subtle and nuanced in a role that wisely seems to play well to his strengths. James Caan plays an underworld kingpin type role that he's played a million times, but adds terrific layers of pathos and regret that help shape the character. Not surprisingly, Skaarsgard is great at depicting the way fear, guilt and greed can eat away at a soul.

The plot, which is kind of like a modern-day, Southeast Asian version of THE THIRD MAN is well laid-out and full of plausible, interesting twists. The cinematography by Jim Denault is rich in texture and palette. The design is believable and detailed. So, with all these strong elements, it's initially hard to figure out why they don't all add up to a great film.

In thinking about it further, I've decided that the fatal flaw of the film comes in the first act. In Dillon's haste to get the plot rolling, he and his screen writing partner, Barry Gifford neglected to get us to care about or like the main character of Jimmy. They are good about giving us information and backstory in regards to the character and all of his actions make sense and are understandable. As I said, Dillon portrays him believably as a complex, haunted man, but it occurred to me that at no point did I root for him. I understand that Dillon wanted to create a character that doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve and whose essence was deeper than he would ever reveal to people he meets. Still, I think the audience has to see it. An example of a similar character done very well is Matt Damon in THE GOOD SHEPHERD. Damon plays one of the most quiet, understated and seemingly emotionless characters of the decade, but he, in collaboration with his director Robert DeNiro, portray occasional moments of weakness throughout the film – moments where his guard is let down. No character within the film is privy to these moments – only the audience and it's just enough to connect you with the character and hence to get you emotionally involved in the character's journey. That's the missing link in CITY OF GHOSTS. It may seem like a small thing, but in the house of cards that is film-making, it would be one of the cards that you need on the very bottom. Without it, the whole thing comes toppling down.

(For more more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

I had last seen VON RYAN'S EXPRESS (Mark Robson, 1965) a long time ago as a kid as one of many WWII movies that my father loved and wanted to introduce me to. Watching it again as an adult on Reel 13 last night, I realized that the film is not as strong or fun as I remembered. As a matter of fact, it is probably among the weaker films of its genre. Its superior contemporaries are films like THE GREAT ESCAPE (John Sturges, 1963), THE GUNS OF NAVARONE (J. Lee Thompson, 1961) and THE TRAIN (John Frankenheimer, 1964). The difference, I believe, is personality. All three of the films feature characters, both leading and supporting, that are significantly more fleshed out, three-dimensional and therefore, interesting.

While VRE contains some impressive and well-choreographed action sequences, it isn't worth a damn without stronger character detail. The titular Colonel Ryan lacks any distinguishing characteristics or traits. He's a two-dimensional cookie-cutter war hero and its no wonder Frank Sinatra looks so bored playing him. The usually reliable Trevor Howard is frustratingly annoying as the head of the British forces in the film – Major Fincham. His only character feature is that he is a wet blanket for two hours, constantly whining, complaining and naysaying at every turn. It might have been a much better film if Sinatra had just shot him in the early going.

Another positive aspect of VON RYAN'S EXPRESS is the level of detail put into the WWII accuracy. While I'm no history expert and they could have made dozens of mistakes that I didn't catch, everything seemed to be precise, from the style of trains and plains to the uniforms to the military procedures. Even if they missed something, Robson and screenwriters Wendell Mayes and Joseph Landon take great pains to explain how things work so that we understand how our heroes overcome each obstacle that falls in their path. It is always clear and sensible how each approaching problem is solved. The tradeoff, however, as is common amongst plot-heavy films, is that you run the risk sacrificing character development. Great films are a balance of plot and character. The three films I mention above managed to achieve that. VON RYAN'S EXPRESS did not.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

I had the opportunity to see Peter Sollett's celebrated short film, FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING, at the First Run Festival (NYU's student showcase) in April of 2000 and it truly was a remarkable achievement in the short format. Sollett cast appealing and charismatic young non-actors from around the Brooklyn neighborhood where he was shooting. The result was something out of the French New Wave – a raw, unflinching look at youth and growing up while remaining optimistic, romantic and charming. He even ended the film with a freeze frame, akin to THE 400 BLOWS.

I bring up the short because it is this short on which RAISING VICTOR VARGAS, which aired on Saturday on Reel 13, was based. Sollett actually uses the same kids that he used in the short, only now they are several years older and suddenly very aware that they are acting. The improvisational moments that Sollett allows for in both films are more contrived in the feature now that the kids are older and more experienced. That lightning-in-a-bottle honesty that he captured in FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING was missing in RAISING VICTOR VARGAS. The lead kid, Victor Rasuk, was much taller than five feet this time around, but he was still trying to play the puny upstart vying for the attention of a much taller and potentially older woman. Only he's not so puny and they are now the same height. The dynamics of the original were lost.

This is not to say that RAISING VICTOR VARGAS is a bad film – not by any stretch. It is very clear that Sollett is a very intelligent and talented filmmaker. The family dynamic he created in the film is very effective and the addition of the grandmother character was a great idea. I particularly like that she was flawed instead of the perfect, learned and loving matriarch that you so often see. There are even some moments that approach the immediacy and sincerity of the short, but not enough to justify returning to the same story. RAISING VICTOR VARGAS got extraordinary reviews when it first came out a few years ago, but I wonder if all those critics had the opportunity to see the short as I had. If they had, I wonder if they wouldn't feel as let down as I did.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 Indie, check out www.reel13.org).

This was certainly a surprise choice for the folks at Reel 13 Classics. It's not so much a classic as it is a retrospective of classics, which I guess qualifies if you look at it from a certain vantage point. Still, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed when I saw this film on the May schedule. Generally speaking, as a film buff, I enjoy retrospectives. More often than not, they offer unique perspectives on their subjects and insight into film history.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is different, however, for three reasons. One is the series was made by MGM/UA and so they primarily feature MGM musicals/scenes. While MGM had a lot of great stuff, narrowing your retrospective to one distributor over a two-decade period is a limitation. Second, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is an afterthought of a sequel – they already used their best clips in the first film, so we get the leftovers here. Finally, the intros to clips by Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly are inane and offer absolutely no valuable information or tidbits (Where was Neal Gabler when we needed him?). They are great performers, but Kelly, who also directs, insights on these pseudo-clever song introductions to each sequence of clips, which is a waste of time. As I mentioned, part of the joy of retrospectives such as these is that they give us insider information, production stories or something of that ilk – a kind of structure that tap dancing will not replace.

I have to admit – I wasn't looking forward to watching this indie. There have been a string of average to poor Reel 13 Indies for the past several weeks (nothing has been close to good since GEORGE WASHINGTON) and the trailer for CRY FUNNY HAPPY didn't look very appealing. I was braced for another clunker and wound up getting the most pleasant surprise Reel 13 Indies has offered me yet. In short, CRY FUNNY HAPPY blew me away.

It follows a group of college friends over a twenty-four period centered around the birthday party of their most outlandish (and somewhat self-destructive) friend, Wes (Michael Traynor). It has the preparation, the party and the heartbreaking aftermath. As contrived as that might seem on the page, writer/director Sam Naeve seems to know that when old friends, pent-up emotions and lots of alcohol are involved, emotional explosions like the one that this movie seems to count down to are not only plausible, but somewhat inevitable. Furthermore, the extreme rage that is necessary to make moments like that work can seem to fall flat in many indies, but here it is very well done – raw and impactful without ever once seeming to hit a false note.

Of course, another prerequisite to achieving that kind of impact is strong performances. Stylistically, the film resembles the mumblecore movement in terms of its low res video, verite camera-work and potential allowance for improv. However, Sam Naeve avoids the mumblecore label by ignoring the weakest element of the movement – using non-actors. It is clear that CRY FUNNY HAPPY boasts very talented, trained actors and it shows in every frame. If I were nitpicky (and I guess I am), I might suggest that the two other lead males (other than Wes) created characters that were almost too put-together, too well-adjusted for the world that Naeve has set up. However, that is counter-balanced by one particular performance that left me dumbstruck throughout the film. I kept thinking this is a young Frances McDormand at work and was looking forward to the closing credits to determine who this no name talent was, only to discover that she is a child of Hollywood royalty. Amy Redford, daughter of Robert, in the role of Ally, gives the kind of powerfully vulnerable performance that her father never even came close to in his illustrious leading man career. She is a wonder to behold.

It is not my intention to suggest that CRY FUNNY HAPPY is flawless. As I alluded to earlier, there are some moments that are contrived in an awkward way (Naima's storyline, for example) the out-of-focus opening is a little artsy for its own good and the sound quality is problematic at times. However, due to its style and attempts at emotional honesty, its flaws are as lovable as its strengths. I think this is so because the connection between the main characters is palpable – you feel as if you are among them at this party and are involved in their little dramas that seem trivial in the grand scheme of things, but still very real and reflective of our every day lives. CRY FUNNY HAPPY is one the happiest and strongest discoveries of Reel 13 Indies so far. It represents the kind of presentation that defines what I think the program should be all about.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

It stands to reason, I suppose, that a movie about depression is one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. JUMPING OFF BRIDGES, which aired last night on Reel 13, adds insult to injury, however, by not even being a good movie about depression. It is slow, boring, quiet, sparse, ill-conceived and with one exception, poorly acted. I was counting the minutes until it was over (I suppose I could have turned it off, but something in my DNA insists that I watch movies all the way through).

Overall, the downfall of JUMPING OFF BRIDGES is that it isn't very natural in any way. The unnaturally sparse production design can be forgiven in most indies – it's a byproduct of low budget cinema, but unnatural writing/performances are less justifiable. Chiefly, it is the quietness of the film that doesn't ring true. I've always suggested less is more, but director Kat Candler took that concept to an extreme and divorced the film from any energy or any sense of life surrounding the primary characters and hence left the film devoid of the verisimilitude that I believe she was aiming for.

The film deals with four teenagers who cope with a series of tragic events, but the kids don't seem to have any acting training, which can work out fine (see THE 400 BLOWS or May 17th's RAISING VICTOR VARGAS). However, given the emotional territory that these kids were asked to explore, I wonder that it wouldn't have benefited the film to cast young actors with more experience. The film is anchored by the fine performance of Michael Emerson as the father of the main boy. He seems to be the only real actor in the film. While he is best known for his work on LOST, I personally still can't get his performance as Oscar Wilde in the 1997 off-Broadway play GROSS INDECENCY out of my head. As good as I know he is, I still see his Wilde in everything he does, which can be distracting.

Of course, none of the actors are helped by the awfully simplistic writing – there's very little complexity or depth to the scenes. It seems to me that Ms. Candler, who also served as the screenwriter, had a mission or a point to make before she had a story to tell. In other words, I suspect that her life or family has been touched with issues of depression and suicide and she had something to say about it; something to tell the world and she shaped her story around that concept. One has to be careful when approaching a project that way because one can get so wrapped up in what they want to preach that they neglect the basics of strong storytelling. The result is what you get with JUMPING OFF BRIDGES – a glorified after-school special.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

I had the dubious honor of being a part of my high school's production of HELLO DOLLY a zillion years ago, so there was a time when I was intimately familiar with both the play and the film. It's been a long time and truthfully, I had my reservations about the show even then. Watching the film again this past Saturday on Reel 13, I was reminded how lame the show really is and the film version, as directed by Gene Kelly, is even worse.

I suspect the popularity of Jerry Herman's original production during the 60's had more to do with the Carol Channing persona than the story. If that's true, then the film was handicapped before it even began by bypassing Channing in favor of a very young Barbra Streisand, playing a character fifteen or twenty years older than she actually was. This is not to say that Streisand is bad in the role. Her strongest assets – her voice and her comic timing – are on prime display here and she imbues the character with an engaging energy and vitality. She puts forth extraordinary effort, but one has a hard time believing that a) she is a widowed matchmaker and has been out of the public scene for a decade and b) she would be a good match for Walter Matthau's Horace Vandergelder character. This is the primary plot of the film and the film suffers because it never once seems plausible. Gosh – Streisand seems even younger than the ingénue Irene Malloy character (Marianne McAndrew).

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast, who were at least age-appropriate, were horribly off-the-mark in their performances. On the whole, I blame Kelly, who seems to have directed all of them (except maybe Streisand and Matthau) to be ridiculously over-the-top. This includes a baby-faced Michael Crawford as Cornelius Hackl and a I-don't-believe-he's-straight-for-a-second Tommy Tune, both of which went on to have wonderful stage careers. On film, they come off as silly and cartoonish. What's interesting to me is that as an actor, Kelly was always so smooth, sincere and understated. I'm bewildered as to why he wasn't able to bring that style to the table when he's behind the camera. It could have done wonders for the plot. It's hard enough to believe that all these people fall in love (there are four couples in the film) within a twenty-four hour period. The wide-eyed, loud and juvenile performance styles make it impossible, but I wonder what it would have been like if the characters had the opportunity to establish real connections with each other – make us care and root for them to get together. It could have made for an entirely different experience.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

While STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, which aired on Reel 13 this past Saturday, generally isn't considered amongst Hitchcock's upper echelon of films (VERTIGO, PSYCHO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, THE BIRDS), it's still an effective and entertaining work of cinema with several sequences that remind us why Hitch is such a master of his craft.

One only needs to watch the opening sequence, which we used to study in film school ad nauseum, to get a sense of what I mean. Hitchcock opens the movie by following the shoes of the two main characters as they arrive at the train station and make their way toward their inevitable meeting on the train. It's brilliant because of its simplicity and also how it affects multiple things at once. It offers mystery by not showing us faces, but through the design of the shoes and the nature of each character's stride, we immediately get a general sense of who each of them are without a word of dialogue spoken. It's truly visual storytelling at its best.

Another example of Hitchcock at his best is the first carnival sequence in which Bruno stalks Miriam from ride to ride. In his interview with Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock explained that suspense happens when the audience knows something the character's don't. It seems so simple when you think about it, but his vocalization of it has stuck with me for a decade. This carnival scene is a prime example that he practiced what he preached and understood the concept thoroughly. The sequence is intense because you know that at some point, Bruno is going to pounce, but you don't know when, where or how. Hitchcock takes advantage of this and tortures you on ride after ride, carnival booth after carnival booth, until you have bitten your nails down to the nub. Also, the gaiety of the carnival of the background is a great counterpoint for the menace in the air. Hitchcock was always great at combining elements like this.

Another staple of Hitchcock, however, even in his best work, is some moments of unfortunate implausibility that are usually forgiven given the high quality of the rest of the film. In STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, the weakest link is the casting, marked mostly by the casting of his own daughter in a major supporting role. The leads, who are least professionals, don't fare much better, though. Farley Granger is stiff and uninteresting as the two-dimensional Guy Haines while Robert Walker has the opposite issue as Bruno. He overplays his hand severely time and time again and never manages to scare anybody when he speaks. It's only when Hitchcock shuts him up does he ever seem threatening.

Additionally, there are major contrivances within the plot that Hitchcock doesn't bother to try and soften. Even the very premise is a hard pill to swallow – given Bruno's behavior on the train, it's hard to believe that straight-laced Guy would have put up with him as much as he does. Also, the way that character that wear eyeglasses factor into the mystery is a bit of a reach. And the moment when Bruno becomes Elastic-Man to rescue a key piece of evidence is eyeroll-inducing.

Despite all these hiccups, there's no question that STRANGERS ON A TRAIN delivers the goods. As a matter of fact, Hitchcock is a perfect match with Patricia Highsmith who penned the novel on which the film is based – the same way fellow countryman David Lean was a great match with Dickens in last week's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And in both films, you see each master playing with ideas and techniques that they will utilize to much greater effect in subsequent films.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Right off the bat, SWIMMING, the latest indie to air on Reel 13, earns points with some of its casting. Lauren Ambrose is one of our finest young actors and even though she was particularly young when she made this film, she provides the film with the grounded anchor it so desperately needs. Her large, deep eyes convey layers upon layers of emotion and character detail. If not for Ambrose and, to some degree, talented nebbish actor Josh Pais in a strong supporting role, SWIMMING wouldn't come close to saying afloat.

To be simplistic about it, SWIMMING is mostly dull and meandering. Ambrose plays Franky, a plain, shy young woman, who is stuck in a rut and is dying to escape the resort town of Myrtle Beach, SC where she grew up. The film follows one particular summer when two different wanderers enter her life – the knockout blonde waitress Josee (Joelle Carter) and a stoner, tie-dye shirt salesman Heath (Jamie Harrold). She is drawn to both of them, both spiritually and sexually, as they appeal to her sense of adventure – the kind of excitement she lacks in her life. The problem, however, is that both characters are written two-dimensionally and despite being pleasing to the eye, aren't appealing enough to the audience for us to support Ambrose pursuing either relationship. One can't help but hope for her to escape into a different movie.

From a stylistic point of view, SWIMMING isn't without merit. It's a very quiet, deliberate film, which is often nice, but it could have used the occasional injection of energy. Overall, I thought the editing was strong. Director Robert Siegel made the bold choice of cutting out of many scenes a beat or two early than you'd expect. This was never jarring, but instead, was effective and efficient. More often than not, directors linger in scenes past where they need to. Siegel shows you what he needs to and then moves on. I also thought that he handled Franky's sexual confusion with tact and restraint. Frequently, relationships between attractive lesbians in films can feel exploitive – formulated for shock value or titillation instead for truth of plot and character. SWIMMING thankfully avoided that pitfall.

I want to be clear and point out that I didn't hate SWIMMING. However, it failed to capture my imagination in any way that left a lingering impact on me. In spite of Ambrose's presence, the film truthfully just wasn't very interesting. I found myself indifferent to the conflicts within the film and to the plights of the various characters. While I see that the director's intentions were to provide a slice-of-life, coming-of-age type tale that avoided melodrama and high concept storytelling, that doesn't relieve him of his duty to make us care.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Certainly, you can't go too wrong (as was the case on Reel 13 this past Saturday) when you've got two British masters in play – the ever-amazing David Lean (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO) adapting Charles Dickens. This is early Lean, but you can already get a sense of his manipulation of powerful imagery (even in black and white) to achieve maximum impact. You can even see him start to experiment with scope and depth, though budget and technical limitations seem to prevent him from accomplishing the kind of iconic shots he would later become known for.

Fortunately, GREAT EXPECTATIONS lacks the kind of stuffiness one might expect from a British literary adaptation. It is briskly paced, clever and well-crafted. I don't remember all that it cut from the very long novel (the film is only two hours long – short for a Dickensian adaptation), but it didn't seem to be missing anything, which is a testament to the outstanding screenplay, co-written by Lean. Oddly enough, some of the coincidences within the world of Dickens don't hold up like they used to. I suppose the contrivances didn't bother me as much as a student, but now I found myself thinking 'Really? All these strangers are actually connected?' The more I thought about it, the more I realized how much Dickens relied on the random and rather implausible interconnections between people across countries and counties. His novels were initially published in a serialized format and if you think about it, that aspect of it, combined with the style of the plot seems more connected to the modern soap opera than anything else.

Before I seem like too much of a blasphemer, let me add that there are several elements that raise Dickens above mere melodrama. The oft-copied Miss Havisham character, for example, is a great and wonderful creation and Martita Hunt's trippy performance does the unique and iconic character due justice. It was also good to see one of my favorites - Jean Simmons - again, making her third appearance this year on Reel 13. She is as wonderfully appealing as the young version of the famous beauty Estella as she was as an adult in THE ROBE (1/19/08) and GUYS AND DOLLS (2/16/08). Unfortunately, Valerie Hobson, as the adult Estella, isn't half as attractive or engaging as her precocious counterpart, which is one of the few disappointments in the film. The rest of the supporting cast (including an unrecognizable, baby Alec Guinness) are all capable thespians who deliver nuanced, detailed character portraits. That leaves us with John Mills as the main character, Pip. I was actually impressed with Mills – he manages to infuse Pip with edge and spunk that was missing on the pages of the novel and he does so without losing the character's earnestness. Unfortunately (despite winning an Oscar in 1970), today John Mills is better known as the father of Disney's girl next door from the 60's, Hayley Mills (POLLYANNA, THE PARENT TRAP).

I have to say that in a way, the mistakes/flaws of GREAT EXPECTATIONS were as exciting as the triumphs. There were a few times that Lean chose to employ long fades to black in between "chapters" that only accomplished interrupting the strong rhythm that they established. The film also could have used more cutaway reaction shots, instead of, for the most part, using primarily the master or cutting strictly to the person speaking. The other little nitpicky note I made was in regards to Lean and the cinematographer's artistic license with candlelight as a light source. If somebody lights a candle in GREAT EXPECTATIONS, someone turns on a huge 500K light or something, simulating the brightest candle EVER. It's the kind of sloppiness that is still an attribute amongst young filmmakers and Lean would go on to correct all these types of mistakes in his future masterpieces. But that's perhaps the most exciting/interesting thing about seeing GREAT EXPECTATIONS again. We got to see a young genius cutting his teeth and learning his craft, the results of which are amongst cinema's greatest achievements.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Shane Meadows is an emerging filmmaker on the global stage. He has a much-ballyhooed film at this year's Tribeca Film Festival (SOMERS TOWN) that I tried to get tickets to, but found that it was quickly sold out. After seeing one of his earlier films – ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE MIDLANDS – last Saturday on Reel 13, I'm almost relieved.

Meadows has a familiar and talented cast to work with here - faces you've seen and admired including Robert Carlyle (TRAINSPOTTING), Rhys Ifans (NOTTING HILL) and Shirley Henderson (HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS). However, even they can't help the film overcome its rather tired and recycled plot – small-time gangster on the lam returns home to woo back his old flame who has become involved with a third party. It's the kind of love triangle that Howard Hawks did to perfection in HIS GIRL Friday, but ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE MIDLANDS never even approaches that level of cleverness or intelligence. Instead, it has the feel of an absurd Mike Leigh film – the same lower class British subjects and vernacular, but with a comic, slapstick-type sensibility that feels more like a bad American sitcom.

The accents were often hard to decipher, which has always been a problem for Carlyle, but even for the other actors, the pseudo-cockney slang of the Midlands (a somewhat suburban, albeit lower class area literally in the middle of England) made many scenes difficult to follow. There seemed to be a lot of inside jokes and references that were Greek to me and that I assume would only be amusing to a Brit or those more familiar with the Midlands area. Overall, I think the "Britishness" of the film left myself and, I suspect, many other New York viewers feeling detached and indifferent toward a tone and sense of humor that is foreign to us. Generally speaking, when one watches a film, one wants to get wrapped up in its story and its characters. One wants to be emotionally involved, but unfortunately, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE MIDLANDS left me feeling cold.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Believe it or not, I had never seen BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK before discovering it this past Saturday on Reel 13. I had seen several other John Sturges films and even suggested in the blog for THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1/26/08) that he was primarily an action director, but seemed to struggle when it came to character development (this is a label that followed Spielberg around for many years as well, until he made the likes of SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN). BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, however, can be called nothing short of a masterpiece. It is nearly perfect on every level – from cinematography to direction to performance to editing to story. I absolutely loved experiencing this film.

Sturges and co. don't waste any time – there is a sense of urgency right away, driven by Andre Previn's score that follows a speeding train toward a completely desolate area in the middle of Arizona. One of the first comments uttered in the film is Spencer Tracy telling the train conductor that he will only be in Black Rock for 24 hours. From that point on, the clock is ticking and the tension doesn't let up for the entire 100 minutes that the film rolls. I can't remember a film that was so consistently interesting GONE BABY GONE came pretty close.

The question then becomes what is different about BLACK ROCK in comparison to Sturges' other work that makes it so compelling. Well, for starters, he is working with great source material. The script, written by Millard Kaufman as based on a story by Howard Breslin, is air-tight. Its mystery isn't overly complex. The magic is all in how it is unraveled – suspensefully without ever seeming contrived or forced. Secondly, Spencer Tracy – not known for doing action movies or westerns – is outstanding as the stoic John Macreedy. His able and proved screen presence is powerful enough to give Sturges the kind of anchor he needs to rest his narrative upon. The story doesn't provide much back story for his character, but it isn't necessary because Tracy manages to make you feel the character's history, all without the use of his left arm (the character had a war injury).

As far as Sturges himself goes, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK is the most beautiful of his films. Each frame is carefully composed and lit – so many stills within the film could be paintings hanging in the Met. The production design is detailed and is in complete concert with both the story and the lighting scheme. Additionally, Sturges wisely avoids too many close-ups, not that I wholly advocate letting all the action play out in masters, but the atmosphere of the town and the characters' surroundings play such a pivotal role in creating the sense of desolation, desperation and tension. Close-ups would have interrupted and interfered with those goals.

In short, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK is one of the smartest, most complete films I've seen in a long time. It is one of two real "discoveries" I've made (RAGE IN PLACID LAKE is the other) during this Reel 13 process and stands as an example of what this series should be putting forth and representing.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

I had high hopes for A PROBLEM WITH FEAR as it began started to roll last week on Reel 13 (I know, I know, I'm getting behind on the blogs – I have more of a life now…). The film, yet another Canadian entry, looks really strong with an evocative, crisp color palette. It seemed like it was going to be a suspenseful, Hitchcockian thriller. It didn't take long, however, for me to realize that my expectations were not going to be filled. A Problem with Fear turned out to be mocking Hitchcock films (as opposed to lampooning them the way Mel Brooks did in HIGH ANXIETY) and was instead a twisted comedy that unfortunately, wasn't even very funny.

The film should really be called "A Problem with Tone". Bizarre choices are made throughout the piece, all of which seem to adversely affect the tonality issue. I have no doubt, at this point, that the film wanted to be a comedy, but it certainly took itself awfully seriously at times. In a way, the richness of the imagery and the strength of the production design belied the ostensibly intentional silliness of the narrative. Additionally, director Gary Burns overused a fog filter-type device that he placed over each side of the frame to give a feeling of disorientation. Instead, it detracts from the comedy element and it's not interesting enough to be effective from a dramatic point of view. It's more of a nuisance than anything else.

Speaking of nuisances, another weird aspect to the film was the characterization of the girlfriend, Dot. I'll admit that Emily Hampshire impressed me with her ability to create a complete, believable, three-dimensional character, but somewhere along the line, someone might have realized that the character's annoying qualities would get to be, well, annoying. She made the interesting choices of giving the character – the leading lady – a lisp, braces, an oddball sense of fashion and a bad, selfish attitude. Unusual, out-of-the-box thinking? For sure. Serving the betterment of the film? Not so much. Meanwhile, the gorgeous female of the film (Camille Sullivan, who's also quite good) actually turns out to be the older sister of the hunky leading man (Paolo Costanzo) and it seems that she, apparently in her late 20's, runs a huge corporation that is responsible for everyone's fears coming true. If that sounds ridiculous, that's because it is.

The film's supporters would probably suggest that I missed the point of the film, but the social commentary about the commercialization of fear was not lost on me. I just don't think that justifies the consistently poor choices made throughout the film. Just because a film has a message, in whatever style it chooses to deliver that message, doesn't mean the film is any good. And A PROBLEM WITH FEAR just isn't.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

FIDDLER ON THE ROOF has been a beloved musical for decades and the movie, which aired this past Saturday on Reel 13, was enormously successful when it first came out in 1971. I, however, have never been interested in the show. Though I do like some of the more famous songs ("Matchmaker" is catchy, "If I Were a Rich Man" is universally appealing and "Sunrise, Sunset" is beautifully written), I have always found the overall show to be pretty dull and very frustrating in terms of its repetitive nature.

Director Norman Jewison (who also directed last week's THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING) did manage to do some interesting things in his adaptation, however. I liked how, on several occasions, he opted out of having characters sing out on screen. Instead, he used their voices non-diegetically, as if they were thinking the song in their heads. Even though the song itself is incredibly annoying, he turned the "Tradition" number into an effective montage introducing us to life in Anatevka. I also liked how Jewison handled the iconography of the fiddler itself. In the show, it's a bit heavy handed, but Jewison shoots it just right, keeping the fiddler mostly in background or shadow and cutting to him infrequently enough that he is an effective symbol for their way of life – subtle enough while maintaining its accessibility. To be honest, I wasn't a big fan of the talking to the camera device (has any film been able to pull this off except for FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF?). Additionally, Jewison employed the zoom lens several times throughout the film, a common tactic in the late 60's/early 70's, but it felt out of place in a period piece such as this.

I was surprised at how weak many of the performances were – much of the cast had an air of theatricality about them, as if they were plucked right off the stage and never got accustomed to screen acting. The mother and the eldest daughter (a dead ringer for Barbra Streisand) are two exceptions. The primary exception, of course, is Topol as Tevye. Tevye is one of the most iconic characters is musical history – the male equivalent of Mama Rose – and Topol knocks it out of the park. He is funny, charmingly foolish, boisterous without being obnoxious, extremely caring and tender with a booming, powerful (singing and speaking) voice that perfectly fits this larger-than-life character. It ranks as one of the all-time best movie musical performances.

In spite of all these positive qualities, FIDDLER the film still doesn't seem to overcome the flaws of FIDDLER the play. The second act is mostly strong with many emotionally impactful moments, but the build-up to get there is way too long and too slow. Several scenes in the film drag on mercilessly and some seem superfluous altogether (I don't think we needed the "Wonder of Wonders" number, for example). I imagine that Jewison and his team felt some pressure to include everything so the stage fans wouldn't be disappointed, but their priority in adapting the musical has to be to the film itself. When it's transferred to celluloid, it's a new animal and there are a different set of rules. More than anything, what FIDDLER really needed before relocating from Broadway was a good diet – to trim all the fat.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Russia and Communism seems to be of particular interest to the Reel 13 programmers what with this film, ONE, TWO, THREE last week and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF next week. Perhaps they'll want to replace BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK on April 19th with DOCTOR ZHIVAGO or WAR AND PEACE – just to keep the streak going.

Not that I'm complaining really. This film, in particular, which I was seeing for the first time, was quite good and much more effective at political satire than ONE, TWO, THREE. It is frequently funny, led by the Oscar-nominated performance by Alan Arkin as a Russian sailor stranded with eight comrades on an island in the Cape Cod area. As a matter of fact, it's almost disturbingly funny, given that the hysteria of the townspeople in the film feels all too real and possible (though heightened here for comic effect). Even if the Russian-as-bad-guy theme is old news, it can easily be substituted with some sort of terrorist threat, which makes the film just as relevant today as it was in 1966.

The film isn't without its hiccups, however. It's a little slow-paced for a comedy, though I realize it's a very different kind of comedy. There are a good number of clunky scenes to balance out the ones that hit all the right notes. The love story, for example, between the young, blonde Russian and the blonde babysitter is EXTREMELY lame and should have either been paid attention to more (the babysitter has something like four lines total) or abandoned completely. Additionally, I think Carl Reiner was miscast. He may be a comic genius, but more as a writer and sometimes a straight man on the variety show circuit. He never has been that strong of an actor and that is proved once again with his uninspired performance in THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING.

Still and all, the film was really strong and you have to really give a lot of credit to director Norman Jewison, who, in spite of a very impressive track record, isn't much talked about among the elite film-making talents of the last forty years. Given that April is, to some degree, Norman Jewison month on Reel 13 (He also directed next week's FIDDLER), I got to thinking about his canon. I've decided that what's most impressive about his body of work is how eclectic it is in terms of style (he is very good at altering his style to fit the story he's crafting) and genre (he can do comedy, satire, drama, fairy tale and musicals). There is a connection in his work in terms of theme – he seems to be particularly interested in social injustice, whether it be racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism or what have you. Another consistency I noticed in the Norman Jewison oeuvre is a series of outstanding performances, too numerous to list here. So what we have here is a filmmaker that adapts his style to the story instead of vice versa with a particular focus on performance and character development. He may not be as celebrated as Hitchcock, Ford, Scorsese or Spielberg, but it seems to me if we had a few more young filmmakers emulating Jewison instead of Tarantino, we'd be a lot better off.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Even though GEORGE WASHINGTON lacks the star power of the Reel 13 Indies of late (IMAGINARY HEROES, SUNSHINE STATE), it's still a high profile independent film. It's legendary in the industry as the first film from indie auteur David Gordon Green. It also already has its own Criterion Collection Edition on DVD, so Channel 13 can hardly claim to have made a discovery here.

As disappointing as it is that Reel 13 has gone away from bringing us films that are new to us (though not that many of them were very good), you have to acknowledge that at the very least, we get an independent film that is wonderfully cinematic and well-crafted. David Gordon Green has a pretty simple formula – not a great deal of extraneous camera movement, realistic characters and scenes that are lyrically cut together with beautifully photographed landscapes. There is a certain poetry to his work that is all his own – a style that he worked to even greater impact with his follow-up film ALL THE REAL GIRLS.

As similar as the feel of GEORGE WASHINGTON is to that film, it's narrative is quite different and deals with a handful of young kids in a small, poor town somewhere in the South (Arkansas? NC?) as they deal with tragedy and the unstoppable nature of growing up. The kids, whom I suspect are all untrained actors, are all quite good, albeit playing characters that are perhaps more mature than their respective ages suggest. That aspect, along with the verisimilitude and honesty of the scenes, reminds me a lot of Peter Sollett's work. Not as much RAISING VICTOR VARGAS (which airs on Reel 13 in May) than the short it was based on – FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING – only Green accomplishes a similar effect without a hand-held camera.

There a couple of nitpicky things that keeps GEORGE WASHINGTON from being as effective as the previously mentioned ALL THE REAL GIRLS. For starters, it's a little slow and hard to hear at times. Paul Schneider, who is outstanding in a much more significant role in REAL GIRLS, is more of a distraction here than an asset. His character, ostensibly intended for comic relief, is like a sixth toe on one foot – it doesn't stop you from walking normally, but it's really unnecessary. I also felt the voice-over was also extraneous – as if Green didn't trust us to comprehend his themes. The biggest issue I had with the film, though, is the surreal turn it takes in its last twenty minutes or so. Without giving too much away, it relates to changes in the main kid character, which are personified by a radical shift in wardrobe. While I see the overarching purpose of the choice – to explicate how the character deals with some of his misfortunes – it is a major shift in tone for the piece and stands out like a sore thumb against the quiet beauty of the rest of the film.

Still and all, beggars can't be choosers and having sat through some very questionable indie films over the last few months, GEORGE WASHINGTON is a very welcome change.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Mockumentary as a viable comedic genre was first hinted at by Woody Allen in ZELIG in 1983, more concretely defined the following year by Rob Reiner in THIS IS SPINAL TAP and then made into an art form by SPINAL TAP star Christopher Guest in his recent films, most notably WAITING FOR GUFFMAN (1997). THE DELICATE ART OF PARKING is Reel 13's Canadian effort along those same lines and while it doesn't measure to the standards of those other films, it does boast a moderate amount of cleverness and manages to be mildly entertaining for 90 minutes.

At the midpoint of the film, they introduce a "plot" to the film within the film in which a meter maid guru is viciously attacked by an irate ticketed citizen. This is a little distracting and probably unnecessary, but it goes on to dominate the rest of the film. They were doing fine by just doing portraits of these inane characters and the apparent futility of their occupations. Also, it feels a little contrived that such a dramatic thing would conveniently happen in the middle of a documentary about these characters. It seems to belie the mockumentary structure that was chosen. If you wanted to incorporate a complicated plot, just do a plain old-fashioned comedy and spare us the gimmicks.

With that said, the actors in the film are all very talented and do a great job fleshing out their respective characters. Of particular note is Nancy Robertson as the acid-tongued Harriet Sharpe and Fred Ewanuick as the die-hard parking attendant Grant, who revolves his whole life around his seemingly meaningless job. The level of detail these actors present about their characters is reminiscent of the work done by some of the Christopher Guest ensemble, like Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy. Their characters have an element of silliness to them, but they feel so real and full that they work perfectly within the parameters of the mockumentary genre.

You're probably sensing my ambivalence about the film, which is pretty much true. I often find it difficult to fall in love with comedies in general because most of them are throwing jokes at you non-stop, but most are only truly funny for a part of the time. So, like the other film this week – ONE, TWO, THREE - even if a film makes you laugh a few times, that means it is probably failing to make you laugh the rest of the time, which lessens the overall impact of the film. THE DELICATE ART OF PARKING is a perfect example. While it is never riotous, it has a great deal of charm and good intentions. The very idea of a mockumentary about meter maids is funny by itself, even if it has very few moments of hilarity.

(For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

To be honest, I hadn't even heard of ONE, TWO, THREE before I saw the trailer on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOiDKpNqOE4&feature=user) for its airing on Reel 13 this past Saturday. It's easy to see, though, how the film got lost in the shuffle of time in spite of its big names (James Cagney and Billy Wilder). Its broad comedy style feels very dated and probably foreign to most modern audiences. Similarly, its political references to Cold War issues and sentiments (How many do you think got the reference when one of the Russian characters started to bang his shoe on a table?), which feature prominently in the plot, don't have the resonance they would have had back then.

The film takes place in 1961, the year of its release, and features James Cagney as the head of the Germany branch of Coca-Cola. The plot starts to unfold when his boss – the CEO of Coke – asks Cagney to look after his daughter during her trip to Berlin. The daughter (Pamela Tiffin) is an unruly (and dim) Southern belle who gets herself into trouble when she gets involved with a Communist from the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. And it's up to the resourceful Cagney to bail her out (in order to save his own job).

The deft hand of Wilder counterbalances the potential corniness of the plot. In the world he creates, most of the events that transpire seem plausible, in spite of some of the conveniences. It all fits within the style. I only wish some of the supporting characters were a little more drawn out. Tiffin doesn't have much to work with at all, which is problematic, because the daughter character is the catalyst. Her Communist lover is a little more three-dimensional on the page, but is unfortunately played by Horst Buchholz, who is as equally bad here as he was in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. It's Cagney, though, that is the real engine of the film. His machine gun delivery is in perfect alignment with the verbose and fast-paced screenplay. His energy and presence are the foundation for all the things that make the film work.

At times, the film feels like a sitcom. Some of the wacky plot coincidences are something you might see on THREE'S COMPANY or SEINFELD. It also reminded me of some other Wilder films like THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH and THE FORTUNE COOKIE in the sense that they never seem to be able to escape their theatricality - One, Two, Three was based on a play and I imagine it would be riotous on stage. On screen, though, about a quarter of the jokes fall flat because successful comedy films move at a different rhythm that they do in theater. Another quarter of the jokes are dead air because they are references to things that are lost on modern audiences.

The remaining half, however, work anywhere anytime and most of the belly laughs in the film, in true keeping with the tradition of farce, come in the zany final act. For most of the film, I felt detached, bored and a little put off by the silliness of the style and the borderline offensive xenophobia (the film is plays up on archaic stereotypes of both Russians and Germans). In the last thirty minutes, however, Comedy General Cagney leads his troops in a race against the clock where all kinds of mayhem ensues. Several story lines intersect with each other and work toward satisfying resolution with breakneck speed. It takes ONE, TWO, THREE about an hour to really get moving, which is probably way too long, but given there are moments of the film that still make me laugh days later, I almost wonder if it wasn't worth the wait.

(For more information on this film or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

On one hand, I am relieved that the Canadian Invasion has ended on Reel 13. On the other hand, I miss the truly independent films. For the past two weeks, Reel 13 has aired films that, while they do classify as independent (both were distributed by Sony Pictures Classics), boast some major star power: Edie Falco, Angela Bassett, Sigourney Weaver, Emile Hirsch, Mary Steenburgen, Timothy Hutton, Jeff Daniels and more have graced the Reel 13 screen recently. It's almost a different tier of film-making – these films probably had budgets north of $5 million and had a significant theatrical release. Whatever happened to the really small American films like American WAKE and TWO HARBORS, which while certainly problematic, felt like they were coming from new and original voices. As someone who sees a lot of films, there's nothing very fresh about Sigourney Weaver in a family melodrama. What's more, I know those smaller films are out there, looking for a venue like Reel 13. Did IMAGINARY HEROES really need the additional exposure? Is it really a discovery? Is it even worth it? Surprisingly, in this case, the answer is probably no. Generally, when you put together a cast of this caliber, the script is extremely strong. Otherwise, why would the actors work for less? But, IMAGINARY HEROES is nothing more than a glorified soap opera. Granted, it has a bit of quirkiness and some wit, but more often than not, those moments are forced. For example, why does Vern the grocery store clerk, toss the groceries mindlessly onto the floor like a weirdo? And what's more, why isn't Sigourney Weaver appalled? Also, why does the old man hate Emile Hirsch's joke so much that he has to punch him in the face? And I love Kiki and Herb, but why they hell are they preening in this otherwise intense, emotional film. I mean, seriously. I get it that writer/director Dan Harris is trying to be quirky, but at what price? These moments are in the middle of very serious moments in the film and are in direct contrast with the tone of the majority of the film. These scenes might be funny in a Farrelly Brothers film. In this film, they're just bizarre choices.

Not that the serious moments are that much better. They are so severely dramatic that it gets tiring after a while. The film punches you in the gut early and then before you have time to recover, knocks you down with a cross. And it doesn't let up either. It continues to kick you while you're down with depressing storyline after depressing storyline. By the time the final revelation occurs in the last two minutes, you're half-conscious and begging for mercy (Note: this is not a good thing). I expect that Mr. Harris expected that his random comic scenes would balance out the heavy-duty drama, but film-making is not a chemistry experiment. It's not as mathematical as that.

The only thing that keeps this boat afloat (though barely) is Jeff Daniels, whom I've often felt is one of our most underrated, undervalued and under-appreciated actors. In his limited screen time, he imbues the father character with a tangible sense of pathos, confusion, anger, deep regret and also pragmatism. His denouement scene at the end with Emile Hirsch actually managed to get even these cynical tear ducts to water up a bit. I'm amazed to report that the normally reliable Weaver is significantly less successful in a much showier role. She has delivered enough powerhouse performances in her career for her not to lose much credibility (GORILLAS IN THE MIST, DEATH AND THE MAIDEN, THE ICE STORM), but she's really pushing here in both the emotional scenes (including a breakdown) and also the ones intended to be comedic (she has a subplot in which she regresses to heavy marijuana usage). It's as if she never really fully committed to the character – or maybe she just wasn't able to figure her out.

IMAGINARY HEROES is actually pretty good match with EAST OF EDEN (finally, Reel 13 stumbles upon a compatible pairing) in terms of its representation of the trials and tribulations of familial relations, but it doesn't have the confident film-making or layered performances (Come to think of it – maybe we can send Jeff Daniels back in a time machine and have him replace Raymond Massey as the father in EDEN. He'd be awesome!). However, it's more directly a descendant of Robert Redford's 1980 masterpiece ORDINARY PEOPLE. HEROES failed to capture the frankness and subtlety of that film – it's missing those moments between the moments that make cinematic representation of human behavior so compelling. So, if you're interested in the themes dealt with in IMAGINARY HEROES, do yourself a favor and rent ORDINARY PEOPLE (or maybe they'll show it as a Reel 13 Classic someday). That film will show you how it's done.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)