For the last five years leading up to Midnight Special Jeff Nichols has toyed with science fiction (Take Shelter), tall tales & fairytales (Mud) and just all around ambiguity (Take Shelter), so it was just a matter of time before he went all in and made a full-on science fiction drama (southern-based/Terrence Malick-ian Christianity & spirituality has also played the background in every one of Nichols' films so it wasn't a surprise that those elements showed up in Midnight Special as well). What's funny is that Midnight Special kind of picks up where Take Shelter left off in an abstract/slightly reworked way. It's like Michael Shannon's paranoid opinions in Take Shelter came to be true and now he has to act on them in the next film.
Midnight Special is the story of a "gifted" little boy (Alton) with magical powers that has to get to a special/significant place (with the help of his parents, played by Michael Shannon & Kirsten Dunst) before the FBI and/or a religious "organization" get to him first (of course the FBI wants to use him as a weapon, while the religious cult, led by Sam Sheppard, believes he's the messiah reincarnated in the form of a seven year old boy come to take all believers up to heaven).
What's frustrating about Midnight Special is that it gives off this vibe that it's not going to be like all those other science fiction movies where a special alien kid with magical powers has to escape the government that wants to use it/him/her as a weapon and/or test subject. But not only did Jeff Nichols end up making a modern/revamped version of E.T. or Mac & Me or The Boy Who Could Fly or any other movie that generation X & generation Y grew up on, but at times it felt like a feature length back-story for one of the X-Men...
(*SPOILER* the final climactic scene where Alton makes contact with other worldly beings is literally right out of the ending of Close Encounters and/or The Abyss*SPOILER*)
Look...I’m not the biggest Jeff Nichols fan but I do appreciate that a filmmaker of his ilk got the opportunity (and budget) to make Midnight Special rather than someone like Brett Ratner, Zack Snyder or Bryan Singer, but still - this film forces me to use cliché critic terms & keywords like "hack", "retreaded material", "slightly unoriginal", etc (it even forces me to do the cliché critic thing by taking shots at obvious targets like Zack Snyder, Brett Ratner & Bryan Singer).
But perhaps it wasn't Jeff Nichols' goal to make an "original" film. There's only so much you can do with the basic source material that is Midnight Special. What this film does have going for it is that it is a true family film in the sense that it can be enjoyed by most ages. With the exception of two isolated moments of quick gun violence (with minimal bloodshed) there isn't any nudity, harsh language or inappropriate subject matter for little kids. As for the adults, Midnight Special isn't fluffy or made for 5-13 year olds. The dramatic aspect in Midnight Special is enough to keep the attention of any adult. Imagine elements of early David Gordon Green, Goonies, Badlands, live action Disney films, all the other aforementioned movies in this review thus far mixed together in a giant pot. While that may not sound appealing to some of you, to others I imagine the combination of all those things sounds pretty intriguing.
And maybe it was Nichols’ intention to tip his hat to all those classic movies in the same obvious way Refn, Jarmusch & Tarantino pay homage to films & filmmakers in their respective works.
Midnight Special / Starman
Along with the dark-ish/bottom heavy synthesized score (courtesy of David Wingo) Joel Edgerton’s performance as Shannon’s best friend “Lucas” is the only aspect of Midnight Special that I enjoyed without any criticism. Lucas is an interesting supporting character in that we didn't get his entire story, but we’re given enough information about him to know he’s an incredibly loyal person. It’s not so much that Lucas aids Dunst & Shannon on their mission to save their son by putting himself in danger numerous times, but it’s the fact that he puts his life on hold at the drop of a hat to help his best friend (Shannon) without any reservation. There’s no question that once the credits rolled on Midnight Special that Lucas has essentially ruined his life just to help people he has no obligation to (he broke quite a few laws; one of them being the possible murder of a state trooper) but that’s the kind of loyalty & friendship that I appreciate on a personal level as fucked up as that sounds (at no point in the film does Lucas expect anything in return for his services either). Some people might find Lucas’ motivation to be a little weak and I totally understand that. However, in the unlikely situation that my best friend showed up at my door unexpected with his young daughter (my goddaughter) and needed my help in the same way Shannon needed Lucas’ help, I’d probably drop what I was doing to help my friend. So no matter how many negative things I have to say about Midnight Special (and there are plenty), it obviously touched me on a personal level if it got me to think about people like my best friend and my goddaughter, so this isn’t a total “failure”. Edgerton’s role is easy to overlook in a film like Midnight Special with all the grandiose moments of glowing eyeballs & craters falling from the sky, but if you haven’t seen this movie yet I urge you to try and pay attention to the Lucas character.
I guess Midnight Special is the best thing Nichols has done so far but that doesn’t mean much coming from me (I’m not that crazy about his movies). I will say that there is a progression with each of his films. He dips his foot in the water deeper & deeper with each movie, and there are multiple continuous/consistent elements that start with Shotgun Stories all the way through Midnight Special (the presence of Michael Shannon, the exploration of spirituality, sanity, the south, etc). I just have yet to be completely sold on him.
Truth be told - THIS was one of the three films I've always had in mind when I started the misunderstood masterpiece series (Trouble Every Day & Solaris being the other two). After revisiting rule breaking/time-period bending works like Swoon (a film set in the 1920's yet features modern appliances), Walker (an overall awful movie but still strangely relevant) & Jubilee (a film that I'm convinced directly inspired Sofia Coppola's third feature) I gave Marie Antoinette a 2nd chance and came to the conclusion that it’s not the disaster I once thought it was. But for some reason I could never get past a few sentences when writing about it.
So I gave Leanne Kubicz the task of writing about Sofia Coppola's flawed masterpiece here on PINNLAND EMPIRE.
Enjoy...
Sophia Coppola’s 2006 film, Marie Antoinette, about the most famous Queen of France has enchanted and conversely frustrated audiences due to the eponymous character’s portrayal and her misunderstood history. Many viewers perceive this film to be a flimsy trifle, due to the aesthetic opulence and caressing light with which Coppola aims to humanize this oft maligned woman. Yet one should consider that this is Coppola’s second film adapted from text, therefore she is following the thesis which the author laid out. The biography Marie Antoinette: The Journey (2001) by Antonia Fraser is a hefty book which offers one of the most accurate descriptions of the monarch’s life and the political environment that doomed her. Though the audience is not required to read the source text before viewing the film, Coppola assumes that the audience will have a sufficient prior knowledge of the history of Marie Antoinette, and this may be why many are left unimpressed by the airy treatment that follows.
Marie Antoinette is another Coppola film in which place weighs heavily on the narrative. The four feature films which Coppola has directed integrate a location as a main character: the Lisbon house in The Virgin Suicides is a malignant force of suffocation, the Park Hyatt Hotel Tokyo from Lost in Translation serves to shield and mollify the guests from their real desires, the Chateau Marmont from Somewhere offers easy leisure at the expense of a truly lived life. The Palace of Versailles in Marie Antoinette is the ultimate place as character, as it represents French cultural domination and the crushing force of that society upon the young monarch.
The Palace of Versailles: We Live in Public – 18th Century version
Much has been made by critics of the anachronisms present in the film; often times the inclusion of two pairs of modern shoes in the “I Want Candy” montage. Manolo Blahnik and Converse shoes did not exist at that time obviously, but is that an adequate reason to discount the rest of the affair? Strict historical accuracy in a biographical film is not requisite. The cast alone blows the idea of historical accuracy out the window. Marianne Faithful as Empress Maria Theresa alone should have irked the dissenting critics, yet no mention of the fact that the Empress did not have a British accent. The same could be said of the inclusion of a good deal of the cast. British and American accents mingle freely; the only true French accent or French words spoken are by the young girl who portrays Madame Royale. The ages of the actors are also not congruent to their historical counterparts. Kirsten Dunst was 24 years old during filming and plays a role spanning from the ages of 14 to 37. Does she look like a young teenager? Not quite, and neither does Jason Schwartzman playing a teen King while in his mid-twenties. Such is the suspension of reality one has to make while viewing a period piece, as has been done with previous Marie Antoinette bio-pics. Think about Norma Shearer in the 1938 film of the same name; she’s glamorous and regal, but by no means teenage in appearance.
Eek! Sneakers!!
One aspect of the film that is as accurate as can be, yet did not seem to satisfy the majority of critics, is the set. Filming at the Palace of Versailles is about as authentic as a director can get when portraying the life of Marie Antoinette. The magnificent size of the palace and its grounds envelop Marie and the rest of the royals in an alternate reality. The strict rituals that Marie must learn are a reflection of this imposing structure. Living amongst such opulence and curious conventions skews how the inhabitants conduct themselves, yet act as if their lifestyle is entirely normal. For example, near to the end of the film, after Marie and Louis have sent their entourage away forever to safety from the looming mob, a rather peculiar event takes place the next morning. Louis is seen hunting for pleasure that dawn, despite the fact that the majority of his family and friends are in mortal peril. He does not even understand that he is in the same danger, because he cannot. His cloistered life has lead him to feel he is always protected, which illustrates what a fool palace life has made him.
The foolishness of Louis XVI is subtly but glaringly apparent in this film. History has heaped a good deal of blame on Marie Antoinette for her apparent transgressions as Queen, but history is incorrect. The Queen of France never had any political power; her job was to produce children and “look the part” by outfitting herself in rich fabrics and jewels. Louis XVI was the monarch with actual political powers which he entirely neglected due to his disinterest in the position of king. A key scene which illustrates this point occurs when Louis XVI is speaking to his advisors about possibly funding the American patriots. Louis thinks supporting revolutionaries would give the wrong idea to the French people about what he sees as the rightful position of monarchy. His advisors quickly rebuff his protest and explain that funding the Americans will hurt England, which is the ultimate goal. Louis easily acquiesces to their suggestions and then picks up a rolled map, holds it to his eye and pretends it is a telescope; not exactly kingly or adult behavior. The flippancy which Marie displays when Ambassador Mercy (Steve Coogan) tries to have her read and discuss a political matter about Austria is understandable in comparison. She was only semi- literate and due to having no real political influence, why bother with taking the time out? Louis XVI on the other hand, was better educated and had real powers which he did not utilize; hunting and tinkering with locks was much more important to him than the well-being of his country. Unfortunately, history has blamed a woman for grievous ineptitude when in actuality it was her husband who was beyond remiss. In the end both their heads were chopped off, but the symbol of selfishness has been borne by Marie Antoinette throughout history and not Louis XVI, who should be the symbol of obliviousness instead.
The continued celebrity status of Marie Antoinette through centuries can be attributed to her economic waste precipitating a revolution, but also her fashionable attire. Coppola utilizes the clothing of Marie to implicitly reflect her emotions. Though the costumes are not exact replicas (most of the Queen’s clothing was destroyed during the Reign of Terror; only a few tattered pieces remaining) they are accurate enough to the time period to have won a Costume Design Oscar. When we first meet fourteen year old Marie Antoine in Austria she is wearing a light blue dress, which is formal but age-appropriate; her long hair tied with a simple velvet ribbon. She is free of makeup, other than a youthful flush, which will soon change. The ease of Austrian court dress and custom are juxtaposed radically with what she encounters when transported to France for her marriage. Gone is subtlety, replaced with ornate, stiff French clothes that will define the person that young Marie Antoine becomes.
The stages of Marie’s turbulent life are mirrored in her sartorial and hairdressing choices throughout the film. When she is a fledgling to life at Versailles she wears French dress, but in light pastel colors. As her position becomes shaky (due to being both an Austrian foreigner to the French court and her inability to become pregnant) the colors of her clothes become louder. One outfit is of hot pink fabric, accented with small white feathers. This dress suggests that she is blushing wildly from the embarrassment of an unconsummated marriage and the shame of not being able to fulfill her duties. The pressure put upon Marie to both produce an heir and to “be French” cause her to go against her nature and capitulate to the demands of her family and others at court. Though she finds the idea of speaking to her Grandfather-in-law, King Louis XV’s (Rip Torn) gaudy mistress Madame du Barry (Asia Argento) morally abhorrent, she finally cedes to the myriad demands. When she speaks her few required words to Madame du Barry, she is clothed in black. Not mourning black, but rich black velvet with ermine trim, which feels as if she is almost wearing a costume. Her innocence to the scheming nature and rigid rules of the court has been weakened, so she wears black to thrown her inner-anger outward.
“There are a lot of people at Versailles today.” Are you not satisfied?
As Marie’s sexless marriage continues and her sister and brother-in-law have a child before her, her outlandish stylings ramp up considerably. She is a teenager who is pretty and jovial, yet cannot get her husband into bed. From her perspective, if he is not interested and everyone in her family and at court continually disapproves of her behavior, she may as well do as she pleases. Time to shop, eat, drink and gamble to forget the cold bed she returns to every night. Due to the Queenly duty of looking sophisticated and fashionable, she throws her energy into that aspect fully. Her hair becomes higher and higher, her clothes more ornate and her parties and friends more lavish. Louis allows Marie her indulgences because he is weak-willed and in the back of his head he knows her reactions are due to his sexual dysfunction.
Cheers to Léonard, the Gravity-Defying Hairdresser
Marie’s approach to her appearance evolves when her marriage is finally consummated. Awkwardly enough, Marie’s brother, Emperor Joseph II (Danny Huston) visits Versailles and has a conversation with his brother-in-law about marriage and sex. He couches his conversation about sex in terms about locks and keys, which is one of the few things which Louis understands well. Through Joseph’s allusions to oiling locks (wink, wink), Louis finally has the gumption and knowledge to accomplish the “great work”. At last, Marie is pregnant and gives birth to a baby girl, which fulfills her requirement as Queen.
With Marie’s new motherhood and active sexual life, she softens her style. Louis presents Marie with her own home, the Petite Trianon, as a refuge away from strict court rules. The chateau is where she can live her own way and can wear less elaborate garb. She commissions “more natural” clothes, with less restrictive bodices and panniers, made of flowing muslin and silk fabrics. She also takes a lover during this time, the handsome Swede Count Fersen (Jamie Dornan), who awakens her lust and allows her to feel passion and longing. She longed for relations with her husband, but with Fersen, she can play and enjoy the lighter side of sex. For a woman who seemingly had everything a love affair helped her to escape the binds of her station, if only for a short while.
As the Queen ages and the French people start to revolt, her attire becomes subdued and deeper. The death of her mother and the passing of her youngest daughter sends her into mourning taffeta. Her face starts to show the worry of the volatile political climate, from which she has no path to safety. The Queen tires to placate the angry mob, which reach the palace walls by bowing to them from the palace balcony, to no avail. She knows the end of her sheltered life is over and strives to keep a noble manner through the crisis.
The end result of the film is a lush and drowsy portrait which endeavors to extricate a misinterpreted woman from the legends of the past. One may not feel particularly compassionate towards a woman who was a queen and lived in great luxury. The oppression and poverty of the French people due to the unwise decisions of the government is not to be forgotten. The case for empathy for Marie Antoinette is realizing she had no choice in the matters of her life. There was no escape from her duties due to her position and gender; she was born to one of the most famous monarchs of all time and her path was set from that point onwards. She had an arranged marriage as a teen, was transferred into an alien environment for the political gain of Austria and France and had to endure years of humiliation for events which were not of her making. She was ultimately executed, which the film completely excises, for living a life she had no true control over. The exclusion of the trials and guillotines befits the tone of the film. Marie says a bittersweet goodbye to Versailles as the family travels to an uncertain future. We are left with a shot of her bedroom torn to shreds; the image suffices to capture the horrors to follow not only for Marie Antoinette but for all of France.
Starting off this years Toronto International film festival (for me, at least) was Lars Von Trier's latest; 'Melancholia'. After watching the film and then sleeping on it for a night i realized that i actually do like it (something i wasn't sure of on Thursday when the credits rolled). My favorite thing about 'Melancholia' is that this may be the first film Von Trier has directed since 'Dancer In The Dark' (11 years ago) that wasn't made strictly to piss people off or to push buttons. With 'Dogville' (2003) he set out to piss off Americans. In Manderlay (2005) he set out to piss off white Americans (and ended up pissing them off as well as black people). 'The Boss Of It All' (2007) felt like we'd all been "had" and 'Antichrist' (2009) pissed just about EVERYONE off.
In 'Melancholia', the story of 2 sisters (Kirsten Dunst & Charlotte Gainsbourg) trying to mend their relationship with each other and battle depression before the "end of the world" (a planet known as "melancholia" is headed towards earth to destroy it), it seemed like Von Trier simply set out to make a great film. And for the most part he did. Von Trier didn't go too deep in to Dunst & Gainsbourg's history as sisters or why Dunst is so depressed and unstable, but in the opening wedding sequence when we're introduced to their family (specifically their mother played by Charlotte Rampling) we see why they have so many issues. Through out the film the sisters' roles with each other switch. In the first half, Dunst becomes depressed to the point where she can barely move and its her older sister (Gainsbourg) taking care of her. But by the end of the film, fear takes over Gainsbourg (due to planet earth's inevitable destruction) and its Dunst who takes control.
'Melancholia' DID have a few problems (that some of you may not even find as troublesome as i did).
Lars throws his depression all in our faces (mainly through Kirsten Dunst's character) to the point where we almost cant take it anymore. Its SO drab and depressing at times (although Udo Kier's presences is a great comic relief). When you look at it one way, i guess Von Trier succeeded (i mean, the title of the film IS 'Melancholia'). Its a movie about the end of the world. But the problem is that not everyone wants to sit through a film that's SO depressing and draining. So beware. Also, some of you may find parts of the film a bit boring.
But if you hang in their until the end, everything pays off. In my opinion, the ending of 'Melancholia' is one of the top 3 things Lars Von Trier has ever done. Along with the final sequence, the opening of 'Melancholia' (featuring some very memorable images) and Charlotte Rampling's speech during the wedding were some of my favorite scenes.
Von Trier's last 2 films have a lot more visual effects then his other stuff. In 'Antichrist' we had the talking fox and the ghostly faceless women walking up the hill towards Willem Dafoe at the end. In 'Melancholia' there's even more visual effects.
the planet "melancholia"
the planet "melancholia" next to the moon
scene from the opening sequence where tree branches cling to Dunst
another scene from the opening sequence
Normally Von Trier will throw in a reference to Tarkovsky or Bergman. But in 'Melancholia' it looks like he's referencing shots from his OWN work (specifically 'Antichrist'). Some scenes and shots look identical. There's a scene in 'Melancholia' when Dunst looks directly in to the camera as dead birds are falling from the sky. That shot is directly out of a scene in 'Antichrist' when Willem Dafoe looks in to the camera as acorns fall down in front of him in slow motion. Even the title cards in both films look alike...
Antichrist Opening Credits
Melancholia Opening Credits
Dafoe in 'Antichrist'
similar shot Dunst in 'Melancholia'
'Antichrist'
similar shot in 'Melancholia'
Outside of Lars's controversial statement at Cannes this year, there was a lot of hype about Kirsten Dunst's award winning performance. I was sceptical, but i have to give her credit now that I've seen it. I seriously thought she was way too fragile to work with a guy like Lars but she did a great job. Other standout performance came from Charlotte Gainsbourg, Charlotte Rampling and surprisingly...Keefer Sutherland (especially during the first half).
Lars Von Trier continues to be more and more destructive with each film. Blowing up a train full of people in 'Europa' wasn't enough for him, so he moved on to murdering an entire village of people in 'Dogville'. Apparently that wasn't enough either, so now he wants to blow earth up. In a way, 'Antichrist' feels like an unofficial prequel to 'Melancholia'. Its almost like the talking fox in 'Antichrist' was warning us of things to come when he delivered the famous line: "chaos reigns". Both films have a bleak outlook on life with depressed characters struggling to find meaning.
It looks like Terrance Malick started the movie year off with a film about creation and Von Trier is gonna end it with a film about total destruction.
A still from the creation scene in 'The Tree Of Life'
The Planet "Melancholia" headed for planet earth
'Another Earth'
Between 'The Tree Of Life', 'Another Earth' and 'Melancholia', planets seem to be the "in" thing in cinema this year.
OK, its been a long day. In addition to 'Melancholia', I also got a chance to see the new George Clooney political thriller 'The Ides Of March' (which you'll be reading about soon), Aki Kaurismaki's 'Le Havre' and Lynne Ramsay's 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'.
