Monday, May 12, 2008

by Scott

Redbelt (Dir. David Mamet)

Ever since he was the lead in a little seen Stephen Frears film called Dirty Pretty Things, I've taken notice of the work of Chiwetel Ejiofor.  Though I have yet to master the pronunciation of his name, I always find myself enjoying his supporting work in films such as Children of Men, Inside Man, and Serenity.  Apparently he is also great alongside Don Cheadle in last year's Talk To Me, which is lining up on my Netflix queue at the moment.  In writer/director David Mamet's latest film, Ejiofor gets a much deserved leading role as Mike Terry, a talented jiu jitsu instructor who thrives on being "noble" and avoiding competition, even if it keeps him and his wife in a perpetual state of poverty.  One of the questions Mamet's film seems to be asking below the surface is whether or not Mike's reluctance to play along (read: compete) with modern day society is really noble, or just selfish.

The plot of the film is somewhat complicated, involving many characters and seemingly unconnected events that start to tie together as various double-crossings begin to add up.  So I won't go into too many details, but all that really needs to be known is that Mike's decision to stay out of mixed martial arts competition gets put to the test and he gets put in a situation where he has no choice but to compete.  This is a film about much more than just martial arts, but it's the core that holds everything together.

Ejiofor is captivating in the role, and continues to prove what a talented actor he is.  There is also solid supporting work from Tim Allen (in an unlikely and effective turn), Emily Mortimer, and magician/Magnolia narrator/Mamet regular Ricky Jay (who has some of the best lines in the film).  And it wouldn't be Mamet without Joe Mantegna, who shows up to do his usual shady Italian guy schtick for a few scenes as well.

Despite liking the majority of this film, some things rubbed me the wrong way, and I've been trying to figure out what they are since viewing the film.  I think I've figured out 2 reasons.  Number 1: The third act.  Though the film's climax earns points for going in a slightly unpredictable direction, it loses points for some clunky staging and poor script choices.  The amount of back-stabbing and double-crossing gets kind of absurd, to the point where I felt like I should have expected everyone to turn on Mike all along.  One twist in particular definitely had motivations behind it that were made clear earlier in the film, but was handled in such a tacked on, out of nowhere manner that it just felt really sloppy.  As if to say, "oh yeah, by the way, this person doesn't like you either - just thought you should know..."  And it's the kind of twist that should have been MUCH bigger.  Obviously, I can't say anything more without spoiling.  

Number 2: Mamet's direction.  Don't get me wrong, Mamet is one of the great playwrights of our era, and the man really does have a gift for dialogue and getting solid performances out of his actors.  But, as I started to allude to earlier, his directorial style feels rather bland and uninspired.  Robert Elswit, one of the best cinematographers working today and a recent Oscar winner, shot this film and though it looks fine, there isn't one shot in the entire film that really stood out to me as being a memorable shot.  Everything just feels so basic, and I find something wrong with that.  I took a directing class in college where we read a short book on directing film by David Mamet (which was really just a transcription of a lecture he gave to some class).  Though there was some good info in that book, Mamet had this little acronym to sum up his theory on filmmaking that always bugged me: K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid.  In a nutshell, he seems to believe that a director should do nothing more than set up the shot in the simplest, easiest to view manner without worrying about any kind of visual flair.  He also riles against Steadicam shots for an entire page.  It's sort of an anti-pretentious attitude that ironically becomes pretentious. 

Not to get too carried away on a rant here, but that's the only thing that ever really bugged me about Mamet and it's apparent in Redbelt, which other than those few nitpicks is an interesting film that's worth checking out.  After the film, I asked a friend what his favorite Mamet film was, and the answer I got was Glengarry Glen Ross.  Five seconds later, we realized, "oh yeah, someone else directed that - he just wrote it."  But I digress, he's still a very talented dude.

Son of Rambow (Dir. Garth Jennings)

Son of Rambow, though not perfect, is certainly one of the most enjoyable films of the year so far.  It might just wind up being my first half of the year favorite and I can anticipate it becoming a big cult success amongst film geeks for a long time.  The film is an all out love letter to the joy of cinema, and effectively captures the moment of a youth becoming entranced by film for the first time.  Though I could probably nitpick and find a few flaws, the film is so full of charm, humor, and overall creative spirit that I find myself willing to completely overlook any of its possible shortcomings (though there would be very few anyway).

The story takes place in England, 1983, and centers on Will Proudfoot, a British lad with a wild imagination and a repressed, overly religious home life.  He's the type of kid who has to leave the room when the class watches a video because he's not allowed to see any television.  During one of these instances, he crosses paths with rich, troublemaking (but misunderstood, of course!) brat Lee Carter, who has been thrown out of his classroom.  Naturally, Lee gets them into further trouble, and the next thing you know the two form an unlikely friendship.  Shortly thereafter, Will catches a glimpse of a bootleg of First Blood that Lee made with his brother's VHS camcorder.  This sets off his imagination, and soon enough the two start making "Son of Rambow", a sort of sequel in which Will plays Rambo's kid, trying to save his dad from captivity.  There are some hilarious set pieces that occur while the two make their home movie opus.  There is also a hilariously bizarre sub plot involving a French exchange student/wannabe actor who gets involved in the production.  Other than that, I won't give anything else away.

The film has a surprising amount of heart as well.  I've already seen a few reviews proclaiming this to be one of the best depictions of childhood friendship since Stand By Me, and it's really kind of hard to disagree with that comparison.  Will and Lee are very well developed characters, portrayed by two surprisingly good child actors, and by the end I really did find myself caring about them.  There is also a highly satisfying conclusion that reminded me slightly of Cinema Paradiso and brought a bit of a tear to my eye.  This is definitely a fun one that shouldn't be missed by film lovers.  Let's hope it gets a proper wide release.