Movie Reaction: At Eternity's Gate

Formula: The Last Temptation of Christ * Loving Vincent

Willem Dafoe just pulled an Oscar nomination for this little movie that no one has heard of even though it's been out for two months. There are a few reasons for this. One is the dreadfully light Lead Actor pool in 2018. There were a lot of fine performances, but it's not like Lead Actress where a half dozen locks were left out because there wasn't enough space. I think there's also some spill over love from The Florida Project. The lack of love that film received last year (only a Supporting Actor nomination for Dafoe - which he should've won) is a blemish that Oscar voters may be looking to make up for. Tied to that is Oscar nomination momentum. It's not a coincidence that actors often have chunks of nominations over a few years before going quiet for a while. Most of the cast of American Hustle benefited from this, for example. Probably (and thankfully) the biggest reason that Willem Dafoe just got an Oscar nomination for At Eternity's Gate is that he's really good in a movie that was all about his character.

At Eternity's Gate is a film about the latter years of Vincent Van Gogh's life, primarily his time spent in the south of France. It's not so much about what happened to Van Gogh in those years - it was mostly a lot of bad stuff. Instead, it's about why he was the way he was. What drove him? What did he hope to accomplish with his work? It's a meditation on why anyone makes art. The answer for Van Gogh shifts during the film. If I'm being reductive, the film begins with Van Gogh believing he paints to show people the truth, and by the end, he realizes he's offering his truth to the world and hoping that the world receives it.

I will say, I didn't care for the style of the movie. I get why it was made that way, but it didn't appeal to me. Director Julian Schnabel wants the audience to experience how Van Gogh experienced things. He does this in a lot of ways. There's a recurring POV shot that's a little blurry in the middle. He loves close ups: awkward ones that aren't always centered. The biggest stylistic flourish is the constantly moving camera. This isn't just "shaky cam". It's "manic cam". I've never minded a shaking camera. I love found footage movie, often for that. This was a bit too much though. Just because it's intentionally done, doesn't mean I have to like it. If someone kicks me in the groin, it's not OK just because someone did it to explain to me that it hurt. Unpleasant is sometimes just unpleasant.

Dafoe is really good in the movie. Occasionally he gets to bounce off people like Oscar Isaac and Mads Mikkelsen (who has a weirdly funny role), but the focus is always on Dafoe's committed portrayal of an artist who is as desperate to understand what's going on in his head as he is to have others understand what's in his mind. I was confused about how old Dafoe was supposed to be in the movie. He and Isaac's Paul Gauguin act like contemporaries despite there being an obvious 20 year age difference between the actors. Dafoe's van Gogh has the uncertainly of someone who felt much younger than Dafoe, who is 63. Afterwards, I looked up that van Gogh was 37 when he died, which makes more sense. So, I've accepted that it's best not to think about anyone's age and just go with it.

I like that the film doesn't hold the audience's hand, although it made me regret not coming into the film with more knowledge of Van Gogh. Context was hard to come by in the movie, and I suspect I missed a lot of detail work just from a lack of familiarity. Despite the hectic camera work, the film occasionally finds some gorgeous shots; often the kind of landscape shots that make you see why Van Gogh was so taken by the beauty of nature. The production and costume design were very good. It all looked like a real place and not a movie set.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Stan & Ollie

Formula: Chaplin / The Artist

At the end of the day, none of us really have much control over who is in our life. Sure, you have some control over who you date or where you work. Most of the time though, it's all about who you happen to be in a room with. I'm shaped by the family I was born into. I have most of my friends because they came along with my other friends initially. The schools I went to and where I was born determine so much. Had any of a million things broken differently, the makeup of the company I keep could be completely different. Regardless of this, I am defined by the people I know. I'm Jo's son or Michael's friend. People I've worked with may think that John and I are best friends even though we rarely see each other outside of work. Some of these connections are more reflective of the truth than others. That must be especially strange for performers. Often, the people an actor is most associated with really aren't their closest friends. I may like to think that George Clooney is always hanging out with the other Ocean's Eleven guys, but it's more likely that he's hanging out with Richard Kind (voice of Bing Bong in Inside Out). Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are dubbed BFFs by the public, but I don't think they are planning on getting adjoining rooms at the retirement home. Even if Jeff Bridges and Jon Goodman aren't drinking White Russians together, they are linked together forever in a way that only they really understand. Yeah, the Beatles broke up acrimoniously, but as far as I'm concerned, they're always like they were in A Hard Day's Night.

Laurel and Hardy were two performers who happened to work together after they were paired by a producer one day. That's their grand origin story. They weren't childhood friends or guys who came up in the same troupe. They were a screen test that worked. But this led to international fame as a duo and a partnership that lasted decades. Stan & Ollie is a splendid study of that relationship in the latter days of their careers that plays on the difference between what the public saw and how it actually was between them.

In 1953, years after their heyday, Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Olliver Hardey (John C. Reilly) don't have a lot to show for their fame. Due to bad luck, poor business decisions, and self-sabotage, they lack the financial security of contemporaries like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, so they go on a theater tour of the United Kingdom, hoping to build enough interest to get their next movie made (a comic take on Robin Hood). This doesn't start off so easily. Most of the public think they retired years ago. Hardy's health is failing him. And Laurel is hiding the fact that he's having trouble getting the financing for their next movie. On paper though, the theater tour becomes a resurgence for their career. After some awful early shows, the pair start selling out shows all around the country, but this only intensifies the poor health, lies, and old jealousies they began with.

Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly are pretty excellent in the film. Coogan plays Stan Laurel without any of the vanity he has in TheTrip movies. Laurel is proud but desperate. He's always working and writing even if the next job isn't there. In his mind, everyone is looking for him to put on a show at all times. He's not obnoxious about it. He just doesn't know what else to do. He's the guy who cracks a joke as soon as there's any kind of lull in the conversation. By the time we catch up with him in the movie, he's accepted that he's never going to have the carrer of Charlie Chaplin, but he knows that he was every bit as good a performer. It bothers him in a quiet way, like a very small pebble stuck in his shoe. Reilly finishes off a hell of a few months that saw him lead four very different movies about partnerships (The Sisters Brothers, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Holmes & Watson, Stan & Ollie). I'll be honest, I thought the fat suit and makeup would be too distracting to appreciate the performance, but by the end, I wasn't even thinking about it (Where the hell is that Oscar nomination?). His Oliver Hardy is a bit less obvious than Coogan's Laurel. Hardy was never as focused on the work as Laurel, but he loves it just the same. My favorite part of the movie was the interplay between Coogan and Reilly. There's a real sense of history between the two men. They have a common shorthand. They bicker, but they don't really fight much. They know it's not worth the effort. There's a lot they don't say which explains even more about their relationship. I love the way they are always planning their next movie, even when one or the other knows it's not going to happen. Something about that really hit me hard. They don't want to let go of the partnership, even if it might be the best thing for them both.

The stealth MVPs of the movie are Laurel and Hardy's wives played by Nina Arianda and Shirley Henderson respectively. While Stan and Ollie have a business friendship, Ida (Arianda) and Lucille (Henderson) do not. There's an annoyance they have with each other than can only come from years of being on press tours and receptions together. Arianda plays Ida big in a very entertaining way. Henderson gets most of her best moments rolling her eyes at something Arianda does. Both women are very protective of their husbands. While Stan and Ollie rarely air their grievances with the each other during the movie, it's clear that the wives have each heard about every slight, betrayal, or deception for years back at home. You get a decent sense of their characters, but their function in the movie is mainly to support their husbands. I should also shout out Rufus Jones, who really embraces his role as Laurel & Hardy's transparently sleazy manager. He's a benign force in the movie, but he sure is easy to hate.

I like my biopics small. I'd rather really focus on a moment in someone's like than try to cover the whole thing. So, I much preferred Stan & Ollie over something like Bohemian Rhapsody for that reason (otherwise, they are very different movies that don't need to be compared). That said, Stan & Ollie is a little thin at times. There's plot only as a way to examine a new facet of that partnership. It's not a very subtle movie. It would rather repeat the same point several times than risk anyone in the audience missing it. I really liked it though. There's a bittersweet joy to the movie that hit me had.

One Last Thought: I wish I knew more about Laurel & Hardy's work. I know the short with the piano falling down the stairs, which gets called out in this movie, and that's about it. I suspect there were more nods to old bits of theirs sprinkled in the movie that I missed. The filmmakers clearly have a love of Laurel & Hardy's work which comes through in the movie.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Rififi

The Pitch: It's a heist movie. We're going to show the whole heist. All the monotonous parts and everything. I'm sure people will love it.

Four men commit a jewelry store heist and try not to get caught afterwards.

I was aware of this movie before they mentioned it in the last season of The Americans. Let's just say, that was the last push I needed to make it a priority. And I get why Rififi of all movies is the one they decided to highlight. After all, The Americans is a series which once devoted 15 straight minutes to a bunch of people digging a hole, picking something up, and refilling the hole. It's a show that enjoys process, and few films exemplify that better than Rififi.

The reason why this French film, made by a blacklisted screenwriter, made in the 1950s is still talked about is because of the infamous robbery scene. It's a 30 minute robbery sequence with no dialogue or music. It moves step-by-step through all the phases of the robbery. And it is so much fun to watch. One of my favorite types of movies is "people doing their damn jobs" movies: movies about people who are good at their job, doing that job well. Rififi is certainly one of those movies. I love watching people who know what they are doing. This robbery in Rififi isn't easy. The four men have to plan for everything. The have to execute every step at a high level, and that's still no guarantee of success. Nearly everything goes according to plan, and it's still nerve-wrecking to watch. This is another one of those movies that's been mimicked so much that I almost felt like I'd watched it before.

The rest of the movie I wasn't as crazy about. I liked when they tested the different security systems so we didn't need anything explained when they finally pull off the heist. Some of the street canvassing to show the amount of prep work was fun. I liked the Rififi dance number. Most of the stuff about the ex-girlfriend and the gangster club owner who goes after the men was way too familiar. When compared to the great robbery sequence, all the other stuff felt very disposable.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend*

*Even if all you do is watch the heist sequence.