By the Sea (2015) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / 11 Dec 2015

I can't be the only one who was baffled by this film's trailer: a relationship drama? With Brangelina? Written and directed by Jolie? I just didn't see it working, especially since I've heard conflicting things about her capabilities as a writer/director. By the Sea, while not an outright bad film, suffers from poor story design, rendering the central dramatic twist--and therefore my reason for caring--emotionally inert.

Roland (Brad Pitt) and Vanessa (Jolie) have been married for 14 years and, for an as of yet unknown reason, have decided to travel the countryside in France. They stop and stay at a coastal hotel. They meet some of the locals, including their recently married neighbors. But all's not well: Roland and Vanessa have drifted apart due to some tragic event and will have to find out whether their relationship can endure.

If the film does something right, it's creating a convincing atmosphere. Jolie opts for a slow pace that allows you, like Roland and Vanessa, to wallow in this little town's dreamy quality and the feeling of being divorced from reality.

The film's central problem, however, is that it's predictable. A vocal, synth-pop orchestral version of Chopin's prelude op.28 no. 4 is tracked over the opening credits. The music was used during Chopin's funeral; that and the music's melancholy quality already told me plenty about what's been plaguing this couple for years on end. This feeling was strengthened by all the things that reminded me of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf with Burton and Taylor. If you've seen that film, you've seen this one. 

The problem is that the film treats the dramatic event that shaped Roland and Vanessa's marriage as a mystery. But it's not especially hard to figure out, with all the similarities to Virginia Woolf, so when the big reveal comes, it doesn't feel like the culmination to an emotional journey. Worse, by scripting the film's central issue as a mystery, the script treats Vanessa like a mystery too which undermines our chances to empathize with her troubles, rendering the climactic scene emotionally inert. 

Even stranger is how passive Vanessa is in this regard. Roland practically forces her to face her fears and say what really troubles her (though I don't mean to make Roland look like an abusive husband). He's figured it out already, but needs her to say it too. I can't imagine that basically putting words into someone's mouth is the best way to 'let the healing begin'. I thought that someone has to figure it out 'on their own' with the subtle guidance of the expert. So, not only does the climax lack emotional punch, but it doesn't even feel like she had a say in reaching this enlightenment.

By the Sea isn't the trainwreck I might be making it out to be. The Pitt-Jolie interplay does occasionally yield its own rewards, although I'm not sure whether their playing the leads is simply due to their chemistry or that this is supposed to be their Burton/Taylor-moment. In the end though, it's the film's predictable, Virginia Woolf-esque nature that makes it hard to stay invested in the trials and tribulations of this particular couple. 

Steve Jobs (2015) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / 6 Dec 2015

I missed the previous Steve Jobs film featuring Ashton Kutcher, but somehow I'm getting the feeling I didn't miss much. When another Jobs film was announced with a script by Aaron Sorkin, my interest was piqued. Apparently, Sorkin's going through a phase where he likes innovative assholes; first with Zuckerberg and now with Jobs. But hey, The Social Network turned out pretty great, so of course I looked forward to Steve Jobs. And despite the fact I know very little about Steve Jobs, the resulting film is very impressive, as in the experience alone leaves a lasting impression.

Just like Sorkin said he would early in production, the film's divided into three parts: each one taking place right before one of Jobs's iconic presentations. It's in these half hours where Jobs isn't just trying to get every single detail of his presentations right, but where he finds himself confronted by colleagues, his ex and the girl who's most likely (as in 94.1%) his daughter. His ex--and Jobs's marketing executive Joanna Hoffman--agree that he should take parental responsibility, but Steve won't have any of it, besides agreeing to make some money available to his ex. In terms of colleagues, the most important are CEO John Sculley, engineer and programmer Steve Wozniak and computer scientist Andy Hertzfeld, all crucial to Apple's success. Over the course of these three radically differing time periods, we find them interacting and profoundly influencing each other's lives. 

Sorkin's script is the key to this film's success by far. I know very little about Apple and Steve Jobs, so the learning curve was daunting to me. This made things particularly confusing during an intense argument between Jobs and Sculley which is crosscut with another argument between the two from many years ago. Information overload! Information overload! But even so, it was riveting to see a film made of 100% talking be so exciting from beginning to end. This film goes from argument to argument and never lets up. The fact that there's deadlines just around the corner adds to the constant sense of urgency. Sorkin also adds cute little details, like using computational terms to describe human behavior as seen when Wozniak tells Jobs he can be a genius and decent at the same time; it doesn't have to be binary.

Director Danny Boyle's primary task was to bring Sorkin's script to life. If the director was someone like, say, George Lucas, we'd be getting shot, reverse-shots constantly to 'enhance' the drama. But Boyle's got a grasp, knows how to keep things moving. He gets a few opportunities to inject some exciting visuals into the proceedings, but ultimately his task is to enhance the conversations. The characters might be walking through halls to meet someone while also discussing things amongst themselves. When two characters are talking in a room, Boyle uses changing camera angles and has the actors move around occasionally to make things dynamic. Sometimes this is used to great effect: after Wozniak scolds Jobs for being a nasty person and walks away, the screen behind Jobs says 'Think different'.

And let's not forget Fassbender who brings out multiple facets of Jobs's personality. Again, I have never seen any footage of Jobs, so I couldn't comment on whether he gets all the mannerisms right., but what I do know is that the performance is stellar. The same goes for Jeff Daniels (Sculley) who seems to have become the go-to guy for bosses (see also The Martian). Michael Stuhlbarg as Hertzfeld and Seth Rogen as Wozniak also convey a sense of having known Jobs for years, but never really having shed the uncomfortableness when being around him. Last but not least, there's Kate Winslet as Joanna who seems to be the only one who really knows Jobs and is easily capable of standing up to him.

I can't judge the film's historical accuracy, but I do know it's absolutely thrilling. A sense of disappointment washed over me as I realized things were wrapping up. I wanted to see more, more of these characters talking, discussing technology, arguing amongst each other. It's an experience more than anything and one of those films I wanted to see a second time and I rarely get that feeling after going to the movies.

Dutch version / Nederlands versie

Sinds de dood van Steve Jobs is op film en TV veel aandacht aan hem besteed. Na de mislukking van de Steve Jobs-film met Ashton Kutcher in de hoofdrol werd een nieuwe film met een script van Aaron Sorkin aangekondigd. Sorkin, vooral bekend van zijn bejubelde Tv-serie The West Wing en de film The Social Network, lijkt geïntrigeerd te zijn door innovatieve asociale mannen, eerst door Facebook-ontwerper Mark Zuckberg in The Social Network en nu door Steve Jobs. Ook al weet je weinig over Apple of Jobs, dan nog is Steve Jobs indrukwekkend. Alleen de filmervaring zelf is al overweldigend.

Sorkin zei eerder de film in drieën te willen verdelen en daar heeft hij zich ook aan gehouden: elk deel neemt ongeveer het half uur voor de lancering van een nieuw product in beslag. In deze half uurtjes is Jobs niet alleen constant bezig de presentatie op orde te krijgen, maar krijgt hij het ook aan de stok met z'n ex, met het meisje dat hoogstwaarschijnlijk (94.1%) z'n dochter is, en met allerlei collega's. Zowel z'n ex en zijn collega Joanna Hoffman vinden dat hij zich meer als een vader moet gedragen, maar Jobs heeft daar weinig behoefte aan. Wel geeft hij af en toe geld aan z'n ex. Wat collega's betreft, de belangrijkste zijn CEO John Sculley die vanaf het begin al de aandeelhouders op afstand houdt, programmeurs Steve Wozniak en Andy Hertzfeld, allemaal stuk voor stuk cruciale mensen bij Apple. Naarmate de jaren verstrijken en we van het ene 'baanbrekende' product naar het andere gaan, veranderen de verhoudingen en relaties tussen deze mensen voorgoed.

Sorkin's script is ongetwijfeld het succeselement van de film. Wanneer je zelf vrij weinig weet van Apple en Jobs, kun je best opkijken tegen de onvermijdelijke leercurve. Het was vooral lastig om een ruzie te volgen tussen Jobs en Sculley die afgewisseld wordt met een andere oude ruzie tussen de twee. Ook al is de film dan moeilijk te begrijpen, dan nog is het fantastisch om een film te zien die voor honderd procent uit gesprekken bestaat en nooit saai wordt. De film gaat van discussie naar discussie, van ruzie naar ruzie. Dat elk deel steeds vlak voor een van die legendarische Jobs-presentaties plaatsvindt, versterkt alleen maar de urgentie achter alles wat er gebeurt. Sorkin voegt ook leuke details toe, zoals het omschrijven van menselijk gedrag in computertermen; te zien wanneer Wozniak aan Jobs vertelt dat hij wel degelijk geniaal én tegelijk aardig zou kunnen zijn, dat het niet binair hoeft te zijn. 

Met een script als dat van Sorkin is het de taak van de regisseur om het op allerlei creatieve manieren tot leven te brengen. Zou de regisseur een George Lucas geweest zijn, dan zouden de ‘shot reverse shots’ ons om de oren vliegen. Regisseur Danny Boyle is echter iemand die gelukkig niet bekend staat om dit soort statische beeldvoering. Hij krijgt in Steve Jobs af en toe de kans om wat leuke visuele effecten uit zijn trukendoos te halen, maar het is uiteindelijk vooral zijn taak om de gesprekken op zo'n manier te filmen dat het dynamische script tot z'n recht komt. Personages praten soms terwijl ze door gangpaden lopen en Boyle gebruikt allerlei camerahoeken om de intensiteit van de ruzies en discussies te verhogen. Soms levert dit zelfs humor op, zoals wanneer Wozniak aan Jobs vertelt dat hij niet enkel een asociaal figuur hoeft te zijn en wegloopt, waarna we op het scherm achter Jobs zien staan, ‘denk anders’. 

Fassbender laat opnieuw zien dat hij een van de topacteurs van vandaag is met een prestatie die de meerdere facetten van de persoonlijkheid van Jobs laat zien. Wanneer je nooit beelden hebt gezien van Jobs zelf, kan je niet zien of hij alle maniertjes goed imiteert, maar de acteerprestatie zelf is zeer sterk. Hetzelfde geldt ook voor Jeff Daniels (Apple-CEO Sculley) die zo te zien de standaardacteur is geworden voor bazen. Ook Michael Stuhlbarg als Hertzfeld en Seth Rogen als Wozniak weten het gevoel over te brengen dat ze Jobs al jaren kennen, maar zich altijd toch een beetje ongemakkelijk voelen bij deze perfectionist. En natuurlijk is Kate Winslet zoals altijd geweldig als marketing executive Joanna Hoffman, degene die altijd dicht bij Jobs in de buurt is en een van de weinigen is die tegen hem in opstand durft te komen.

Of de film een correct beeld schetst van Jobs is niet te beoordelen, maar wel dat de film van begin tot eind zo adembenemend is dat je nog meer wil zien van deze personages, ze nog meer wil zien ruziën en discussiëren. Sorkin bewijst met zijn script opnieuw dat woorden spannender zijn dan actie. Inderdaad, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.

Pawn Sacrifice (2014) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / 3 Dec 2015

First Bridge of Spies, now Pawn Sacrifice? Apparently, the East vs West theme is back in full force again. Pawn Sacrifice details the rise and fall of Bobby Fischer, chess player extraordinaire. 

The film chronicles Fischer's childhood all the way to his tragic end, though his later years (aka his life after winning the World Championships in '72) are thankfully left as a credits message. The focus lies on his match(es) with Russian master chess player Boris Spassky. After some early childhood scenes, we see Fischer participating in a tournament in which he ends up quitting, claiming the Russians were cheating so he'd lose on points. Not only does he quit the tournament, he quits chess altogether. Sometime later, he meets a lawyer, Paul Marshall, who considers himself a patriot. Being a patriot, he would very much like to see Fischer pick up chess once again and beat the Russians. Fischer also encounters a priest who once beat Spassky when they were young. Together they start the long climb to that fateful showdown with Spassky which would take place in Iceland. And along the way, Fischer would sink further and further into neurotic and paranoid delusions, from anti-Semitic remarks to believing the Russians might transmit rays to his brain through his dental fillings.

If anything, I thought the casting of Tobey Maguire was pretty inspired. Although I'm still on the fence in terms of his acting chops, he does come across as a bit of an outsider, the odd one out, which befits the film's portrayal of the paranoid, neurotic Fischer. I also can't fail to mention Liev Schreiber who portrays Spassky. Although the film's focus lies primarily with Fischer, Schreiber does manage to inject a subtle gravitas into the character. Bonus points for the fact he had to learn Russian for the part.

Director Zwick also manages to inject a film where people are pretty much standing in rooms talking with excitement and tension. In fact, the film gets better as it goes on. The chess matches in particular need a smart director who's able to turn two guys sitting at a table into a monumental battle of wills. You really get a sense of how high the stakes are, what losing (and winning) would mean for these two. 

The film's not without its flaws however. It falls headfirst into the trap of feeling the need to show Fischer's childhood, since this is, you know, a biopic. While attempting to seek the source of Fischer's anti-Semitism and anti-communism in his childhood is understandable, these scenes feel rushed': let's quickly establish the political proclivities of his mother, his talent for chess, his need for peace and quiet, then quickly show a fight between him and his mom to show how they drifted apart, etc. All this information could've been inserted into the present fairly easily. What's worse, it doesn't have the emotional impact it should. The acting of teenage Fischer doesn't help either...

There's also the matter of the implication of the title. The film makes the case that Fischer's mental problems were ignored so that he could represent America in its 'fight' against the Russians. While the film's convincing insofar as it concerns lawyer Paul Marshall's role in Fischer's life, the film's not as successful in implicating others. With Marshall it makes sense, because he had intimate knowledge of Fischer's mental health, but other people, up to the President? To suggest they all willfully sacrificed this pawn seems a bit of stretch. The metaphor works in a general sense, however, that Fischer was in the wrong place (America) at the wrong time (the Cold War), a time when wars were fought in unconventional locations, like chess boards. In this sense, his participation has a tragic inevitability to it.

I guess that's the tragedy of the film. Despite all the factual correctness, it still has to suggest so much. All these unanswered questions. I guess I can't really blame the filmmakers for not providing some clear answers regarding Fischer when psychologists are still debating these issues. The film's directed and acted well enough though to warrant your interest.