Performance of the Month: Ewan McGregor in “Beginners” (2011)

Ewan McGregor (and Cosmo) in a scene from "Beginners" (2011)

From everything I’ve heard and read about the Mike Mills film “Beginners”, I was only familiar with the portion of the film that deals with Christopher Plummer’s character, Hal, an elderly gentleman who comes out of the close after the death of his wife of 40-something years.  As Hal, Christopher Plummer has been picking up awards hand over fist (no pun intended) and is a front runner to win the Oscar as well.  I mean to take nothing away from Plummer, a veteran actor who’s been appearing in films for about half a century (you might remember him as the stiff-backed Baron Von Trapp in “The Sound of Music”), or his performance here, which I consider more an interesting one  than a great one.  Having said that, I feel that the exceptional work by Ewan McGregor in the lead role of Hal’s son Oliver has been grossly overlooked by the entities and groups that award film excellence.

In as much as the film is about Hal finding and embracing his true nature late in life, the meat of the story (again, no pun intended) concerns Oliver and his beginnings to form a loving relationship of his own.  We are introduced to Oliver as he is dealing with Hal’s recent death, and the fact that he does not have a significant other in his life, except for his late father’s dog Arthur (played charmingly by a dog named Cosmo, who actually has subtitled dialogue representing his thoughts in the film).  Yes, I know it sounds weird, but it works here.

Oliver is clearly depressed; it shows in his dialogue, his actions, his work, everywhere.  Some friends make an effort to take him to a party, but his attachment to Arthur is so strong he must take the dog with him.  Here, he meets a pretty young actress named Anna (Melanie Laurent, who was so memorable in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” a few years back) who has laryngitis and can only communicate at the party by writing on a notepad.  In a romantic comedy, this would be a wonderful ‘meet-cute’ device, but in this drama, it is an intriguing introduction for a character that we meet in stages.  Like Oliver, we can appreciate Anna’s beauty (Laurent is indeed a beautiful actress), her smarts and quick wit.  Only later, when she is in full voice, can the audience (and Oliver) truly come to appreciate the whole picture of the character.

McGregor, who positively glowed with energy and life in 2002’s “Moulin Rouge” sinks down inside the clothes and skin of his character here, holding on to the frayed connection with his deceased parents as evidenced by the boxes of their belongings still in his house, and his bonding with Arthur.  Flashing back to the period when Hal came out, Oliver is not really surprised by his father’s announcement, but is taken aback with the excitement and abandon that the older man relishes his newfound freedom as a gay man.  Oliver stands in the background much of the time, watching as Hal makes a new circle of friends, becomes politically and socially active, and gets a significantly younger boyfriend (Goran Visnjic as Andy; the case of a good, usually intense actor playing what is essentially a throwaway role).

So, see “Beginners” and admire the work of Plummer, but be really impressed by the work of McGregor.  And Cosmo, the dog.

The Trouble with Meryl: "The Iron Lady" (2011)

I think that perhaps critics (and audiences as well) hold Meryl Streep to a higher standard than we do other actresses.  When a performer has consistently been at the top of their game for as long as she has (well over 30 years now), we seem to demand more and at the same time be more prone to nit-picking about flaws in a performance that we might rave over if it were offered by a lesser talent.  And there's no denying Streep's talent, as she's just earned her 17th career Oscar nomination for her performance in this film, more than any other actor has ever done.  Even the divine Katharine Hepburn stalled at 12, but unlike double winner Streep, Hepburn managed to win 4 golden Oscar statues during the course of her career.  Some people on message boards harp that Streep is "overdue" for her 3rd Oscar.  To them, I'd ask "Why?".

As Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", Streep delivers the kind of technically perfect performance that by now she can probably do in her sleep.  It is a brilliant piece of work, yes, but is there something in it human, of flesh and blood, that an audience can really connect with?  Why do some of her more praised performances seem as if they were presented by an 'acting machine' as opposed to a person?  Can it be that we've overdosed on her supreme mastery of accents and dialects?  Are we so used to brilliance in Streep's work that we look for fault?  And why, oh why, can't she get a great role in a film that matches her talent?

I should point out that, as a fan of acting, I am in awe of Meryl Streep's gifts.  However, a great number of her film roles have left me cold and untouched.  Her most universally honored portrayal, in 1982's "Sophie's Choice" is one that I've always found too studied and careful, and yet "A Cry in the Dark" from 1988 is just as meticulously crafted and I consider it the greatest thing she's ever done on film.  Rarer still is the "loose" performance as in 1983's "Silkwood", which I think is underrated in the way it flows and seems organic as opposed to the textbook 'capital-A' acting that she does in 'Sophie' and 'Dark'.  Her brittle comic performance in "The Devil Wears Prada" from 2006 is another example of a great bit of work that doesn't seem overdone, but totally appropriate to the film.  Compare that with her work in 2008's "Doubt", where she was all rigid, controlled righteous anger spilled out in a Boston-ish accent, that threatened to overpower the basic simplicity of the story.

The woman can do anything on film, but the success of her performance ultimately has a lot to do with the film she's in.  Unfortunately, "The Iron Lady" does not hold up to the caliber of Streep's work in it.  As the elderly, failling into dementia Margaret Thatcher, she is amazing.  The paralyzing loss of clarity and yo-yo'ing between the past and present is a great challenge for an actor, and she more than meets it.  There's a real human performance there, and it is as impressive as anything I've seen her do.  But- and this is a big but, in the flashback sections of the film, her work seems mechanical; more of an impersonation than a creation of acting.    In fact, these large sections of the film take away some of the wonder that she portrays in the present day sequences.  Showering her with nominations and awards for this performance seems like honoring her career and her talent rather than for the particular role she's playing.  And perhaps that's always a danger when portraying a public figure such as Thatcher, that possibility that it's going to seem more of an imitation or impression than an actual performance.

The movie is ok, Streep is better, but she's been much, much better in other things.  And that's no reason to believe that anyone is overdue for a 3rd anything, especially an Oscar.

 

Laughing at Cancer: “50/50” (2011)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been impressive before, in films such as “Mysterious Skin” and “500 Days of Summer”, and yet I felt he was very bland as the cancer-stricken young man at the center of “50/50”.  Perhaps that blandness made him easier for the audience to identify with, but I wanted there to be more of a core to the character than just the wide brushstrokes laid out by the screenwriter.

He plays 27 year old Adam, an earnest well-meaning young man who works for Public Radio in northern California.  Adam exercise, recycles, doesn’t smoke or drink, puts up with insufferable girlfriend Rachael, exasperating best friend Kyle, his controlling mother, and if all that isn’t enough, ends up diagnosed with a malignancy on his spine.

The film follows Adam’s life as the disease progresses, and how it affects all the relationships in his life.  Rachael , played by Bryce Dallas Howard (giving her second bad performance of last year, following her work as the nadir of the ensemble of “The Help”), pledges her support to Adam, even as she is cheating on him behind his back.  

Kyle, played with gleeful raunchiness by Seth Rogen, is Adam’s co-worker and best friend, whose idea of support seems to be using Adam’s diagnosis as a way for the pair to hook up with girls.  Kyle has his own issues, and watching him grow as a truly supportive friend, helping his buddy through the roughest bouts of the illness is a pleasure, and gives Rogen an opportunity to do more than just spout off-color jokes or dirty dialogue.  The film takes the time to develop how a terminal illness affects the people around the patient as well as the patient himself, and it is this branching out of the screenplay that adds much to the piece as a whole.

 Anjelica Huston plays Diane, Adam’s mother, in only a few scenes, but makes a good impression as the controlling mother who must deal with something in her son’s life that she cannot control.  In addition to Adam’s illness, she is also caring for her husband who’s battling Alzheimer’s Disease, and Diane’s stressed, brittle nature suits the situation that particular character is dealing with.  Not so with the performance of Gordon-Levitt; although he portrays the shocked, numbing aspect of dealing with illness well, his later on explosion of anger and fear doesn’t come off well.  It just looks like bad acting, something that I don’t usually associate with this performer.  Veteran character actor Phillip Baker Hall also provides some weight and texture to the film as a fellow chemo patient who introduces Adam to the pleasure of medicinal marijuana.

The strongest performance in the film for me was that of Anna Kendrick as Katherine, the in-training therapist who is still feeling her way into uncomfortable territory (Adam is only her third patient), and the friendship that develops between the two seems completely natural and unforced.  Kendrick is a gifted actress, who truly deserved her 2009 Oscar nomination for “Up in the Air”, and I would probably have nominated her again for her performance here.

There are some strengths to “50/50”, among them the several of the performances and especially the screenplay, which doesn’t drift off into familiar “sickness” movie clichés, but rather explores the situation with a mixture of sensitivity and bawdy humor that strikes a pretty successful tone.  And the truth is that despite the serious subject matter, there is a lot of humor in this film.  For whatever reason though, that central performance just felt “off” to me, and left the film feeling overall a bit emptier than it should’ve been.

Some thoughts on “The Tree of Life” (2011)

I can appreciate a piece of art, even if it’s not to my particular taste.  And sometimes, it’s clear when an artist’s aims or goals were simply beyond his ability.  Do we fault the artist for having a reach that far exceeds their grasp?  For having the desire to express some great universal truth, and yet not having the capability of bringing his vision to bear?  Where is the line drawn where we can acknowledge something as a work of art, and yet at the same time admit that it is a pure mess?  All of these questions are relevant in a discussion of Terrence Malick’s film “The Tree of Life”.

On the credit side of the column, the film has some stunningly beautiful images of nature, and when I say stunningly beautiful, I mean that sincerely.  These scenes showcase Malick’s talent as a visual filmmaker, a sort of director/poet, who takes the camera into places that other directors might not have the audacity or the nerve to go into.  There is the scent of Kubrick in his visuals.  It’s hard not to be moved by the beauty of the direction and camerawork here, and I applaud his efforts at creating a beautiful visual palette for the film.  

Secondly, there are pieces of the domestic drama of the young sons growing up in a family led by strict father Brad Pitt and loving mother Jessica Chastain that are so true in their realism as to be almost painful, for myself at least.  These scenes showcase the talent of Pitt and Chastain, and especially the cast of young actors, and Malick’s talent as a writer and director of intimate scenes between people.  Chastain is especially impressive, as hers is a largely silent role, and yet the camera lingers so lovingly on her that she becomes the epitome of “mother”.    

If you could extract the finely drawn scenes involving the family, separating them from Malick’s grand vision of God, nature, and the universe (which seems to be his theme), you might have a very well-crafted movie.  Yet, it is the intrusion of the mystical, the fantastic, and the overwhelming that left me feeling exhausted.  Much of the dialogue is whispered, as if in prayer, and you must strain to hear what is being said.  I did strain to hear, because I wanted to hear what Malick had to say about all the great questions of life; something I needed to hear about faith, and love, and loss.

And then there were dinosaurs.  Perhaps they were meant to be metaphoric, but there they were on the screen, actual dinosaurs like from “Jurassic Park”.  This is the point where I felt that Malick took a huge misstep.  I had stretched my mind around the grandiosity of his earlier images, and the silent passages, and the family narrative, but finally grew exhausted by Malick’s schizophrenic filmmaking style; it was simply too much for me, and whatever statement he was trying to make about the meaning of life (if that was indeed his thought) was lost somewhere between the majesty and the quiet.

I’ve struggled for the past two days over what I wanted to say about this film, and I’m still not sure about my feelings.  Perhaps that in itself is a mark of what an artistic dilemma “The Tree of Life” inspired within me.  I’m not convinced that it’s a great film.  While I do admire certain things within the film, very highly, overall I don’t feel that the blend was a success.  I give the man props for attempting something like this, but in the end, I feel it was just a lot of bluster and pomp that weighed down what should’ve been a simple story about growing up, fathers and sons, brothers, and faith.  As it stands, “The Tree of Life” is one hell of a glorious failure.

The Circle Goes On: "The Ides of March" (2011)

As far as political films go, "The Ides of March" doesn't really trod any new ground.  If anything, it reinforces our belief that all politics is dirty, and that even the most idealistic young person with good values will turn to the 'dark side' to further his or her own interests.  Smoothly directed by co-star George Clooney, it does provide some good work by a gallery of interesting actors playing the various politicians and background players during the course of a presidential campaign.

Ryan Gosling is adequate in the central role of political advisor Stephen Meyers, and though Gosling is a capable actor, here he's overshadowed by more seasoned players, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Clooney himself (who displays more of a dark side than we usually see in this genial leading man).

Hoffman and Giamatti are rival campaign managers and they have the look of lifelong political players, Hoffman, indeed gives his second great supporting performance of last year (the other being in "Moneyball"), as a 'seen it all, done it all' guy, who finds himself upended by his own apprentice.  Wright has a couple of good scenes as a charasmatic senator who finds himself in a position of power by holding needed delegates, and even Marisa Tomei makes a good impression as an experienced political reporter.

Clooney is the acting revelation here, though, as the straight shooting man aiming for the White House.  Of course, when we see the beautiful young intern (played by Evan Rachel Wood) early on in the film, it doesn't take much for the imagination to stretch into a scenario that we've been familiar with ever since the Clinton years.  But dodging damaging material that could dislodge his campaign, Clooney shows a hard steeliness behind the familiar smile and pleasant nature, particularly in a late scene in the film between himself and Gosling in a deserted kitchen.  And as the film ends, we can see the beginnings of the same situation that played out earlier in the film  perhaps starting again, proving that nothing ever really changes.  The circle always goes on.

As I said, there's nothing really new here, but it's smart and we can relate to some of the workings of the political machines, especially appropriate during this election year, and with the valuable cast, it's a not-altogether bad way to spend a couple of hours.  If that doesn't exactly sound like praise, well, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

I Wanna Go To France!: "Midnight in Paris" (2011)

There can't be many more prolific American filmmakers than Woody Allen.  According to my roommate (by way of IMDb), he's released a film every year since 1982, and his most recent, "Midnight in Paris" is one of his best and most enjoyable.  The premise of the film is an American screenwriter visiting modern-day Paris, who mysteriously finds himself transported back into the city circa the 1920's while walking the city's streets alone at midnight.  Allen's concept, though, is that each generation sees through a golden haze of nostalgia, that which came before, and that even in the earlier time period, there are people who revere an even earlier time.

Allen's trod this ground before, the golden glow of nostalgia, but here it seems fresh and not nearly so cliche as it may sound on paper.  This is partly due to his writing, his casting, and perhaps most importantly, his brevity as a director.  The entire film comes off in just over ninety minutes, and that's all the time Allen needs to tell his story; there's not a gratuitous note in the picture.

And, to be fair, who wouldn't fall in love with the idea of Paris at midnight?  Gil (Owen Wilson, standing in for Allen) certainly does, although his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams, just a bit too shrewish in what is basically a thankless role) and her ugly-American-tourist parents fail to fall under the spell of the city the way Gil does, which makes sense, since he's a writer, or, someone who gets paid to dream.

In his nightly reveries, Gil encounters American expatriates Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, and a host of other notable names, and Allen mixes a blend of familiar faces (Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody) with relative unknowns (Allison Pill, impressive as hell as Zelda Fitzgerald), and especially Corey Stoll, whom I've never heard of but will be watching with interest in the future, embodying Hemingway.  The most fully-formed of the characters Gil encounters in 1920's Paris is Adriana, the mistress of Picasso, whom he falls in love with.  As played by Marion Cotillard, Adriana is enchanting, and easily shows how she would become the object of affection of a number of potential lovers.  There's something about Cotillard that fits the time period of the film; she seems to belong there, whereas sometimes actors in period films stick out like the proverbial sore thumb, Cotillard is a perfect match.

It's a charming piece of fluff, a bit of a fairy tale, and a love letter to both Paris and the 'idealized' Paris of the past, and a jewel in Woody Allen's filmography.  And it totally makes me want to walk through Paris, at midnight, in the rain, with someone's hand to hold...(sigh).

Pitt's Home Run: "Moneyball" (2011)

It says a lot about director Bennett Miller, screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and Stephen Zaillian, and lead actor Brad Pitt, that, despite a very limited knowledge of and interest in professional sports, I found that my concentration and interest was held completely by their recent effort "Moneyball".

Miller's debut feature film was 2005's "Capote", and he earned an Oscar nomination for his intriguing direction of that picture, and here he goes in a completely different direction, materially speaking, and still manages to maintain control over the story and keep it moving in a fresh and exciting manner.  The credit does not solely belong to Miller though, as the script by Oscar winners Zaillian (Schindler's List) and Sorkin (The Social Network) was intelligent and yet entry level enough for a non-sports fan to get into the picture without feeling lost.

The picture follows the real-life experiences of Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) as he develops a new style of teambuilding following the advice of Yale economics graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), to the chagrin of team manager Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and nearly all of his scouts, advisors, and basically everyone else who thought he was crazy to approach the game from a purely statistical point of view.

Pitt gives a great performance, probably the best I've ever seen by the actor, never relying on his still impressive looks, but in fact playing off them as he allows all the stress and tension to show in his face and his body language.  His determination shows in the firm jaw, and the stance of a man who has made up his mind and anyone who disagrees with him may be damned.  We are treated to flashbacks of Beane's own experiences as a player, and those scenes help add weight to the work Pitt is doing.

Hill, whom I've only seen do comedy, brings humor to his role, but ultimately it is a serious role.  He is as much an outsider to the world of baseball as I was watching the film, but that objectivity allowed him to provide a way of building a team that didn't rely on experience, the history of the game, or even the love of the game; he stuck strictly to factual information and Beane took a chance that the gamble would work.

Hoffman, who is never anything less than an asset to whatever film he's in doesn't have a lot to do here, but his presence adds some toughness to the film.  Howe is an interesting character, but the screenplay does Hoffman a disservice by not offering to build the character a bit more.  He's someone I wanted to know more about, but that didn't fit the plan to tell what is essentially Beane's story.

Again, as a relative sports novice, I knew nothing of the way that the Oakland A's rebuilt their team in 2002, or just what Billy Beane and Peter Brand wrought upon the sport of baseball with their unconventional methods, but essentially the story is broader than the sports world.  It is, what film often is, the story of a man facing off against the odds to succeed, and Miller, Zaillian and Sorkin, and Pitt have all succeeded very well.

An American Tragedy: “Nixon” (1995)

Oscar nominees Anthony Hopkins and Joan Allen in a scene from the 1995 film "Nixon"

Oliver Stone has rarely (if ever) made a picture that didn’t embroil him into one type of controversy or another.  His screenplay for “Midnight Express” in 1978 made significant changes to a same-sex relationship that his main character entered into while in prison, and his later films like “Platoon” (1986) and “Born on the Fourth of July” (1989) also brought up questions about the accuracy of what he wrote compared to the reality of the situations of both.  But nothing came close to the brouhaha that enveloped his 1991 release “JFK”, and his 1995 film “Nixon”.  It seems that taking on icons of American politics proved to be too much for the press to bear, as they refused to accept the possibility that Stone was making a dramatic film, not a fact-by-fact documentary of his subject matter.

For as much of “Nixon” that might have been fabricated by Stone, I think it remains a fascinatingly interesting examination of one of the most vilified presidents of all time.  Stone’s style is dynamic, and keeps the picture from dragging even after it passes the two hour mark.  He intends for portions of the film to resemble old newsreels, and early 70’s era television camerawork, and it is this blend of filmmaking styles that creates a level of visual excitement within the film that matches the intrigue of its subject matter.

Moving in a free-form style, integrating flashbacks and asides into the narrative helps Stone to get a grasp on the slippery fish that was Nixon.  And if we never entirely get a clear picture of the man, it is no fault of the actor who gives a grand performance as the anti-hero of his own life story.  Anthony Hopkins didn’t earn the rewards for this role that he did for his earlier work in “The Silence of the Lambs”, but it is no less a memorable and impressive performance.  Not actually resembling Nixon, he must rely more on body language and dialogue than on any mere resemblance to his character.  And he does capture those essences of the man, so familiar to anyone who remembers the images of Nixon broadcast on television screens back in the early 1970’s; the slightly hunched posture, the stubborn scowl, the strident yet sometimes halting speech.

Hopkins is matched note-for-note by Joan Allen, who gives a commanding performance as Pat Nixon, which must’ve been a tougher accomplishment than Hopkins’, as the first lady did not have such a large role in the public imagination as did her husband.  Allen conveys the hopeful optimism, the questioning suspicions, and always the love of a spouse for their partner, even when questioning their actions and deeds.

The supporting cast is made up of a group of powerhouse actors, who use their talents in smaller roles, but with intensity that adds so much texture to the picture.  People like Ed Harris, James Woods, Mary Steenburgen, Powers Booth, J.T. Walsh, Bob Hoskins, David Hyde Pierce, E.G. Marshall, and Paul Sorvino build real people out of the characters that came to be embroiled in the drama of Watergate, and Stone uses them all to his advantage, filling the screen with these characters, each working their own agendas and playing their own roles in the Shakesperian tragedy that was to befall their leader.

And, like in Shakespeare, Nixon’s tragic flaw is ultimately the failing of his character.  His suspicions, obsessions, and whether he did or did not commit illegal acts could not keep him in his position of power for long.  As Stone sees it, he himself was entirely responsible for his downfall.

A Quarter Century of Raunchy Comedies: “Blazing Saddles” (1974) and “There’s Something About Mary” (1998)

I'm a self-admitted movie snob, but not so much that I can't enjoy the good raunchy thrill of a vulgar comedy, when one comes along that seems to celebrate bad taste and intentionally push buttons that need pushing.  And yet, I wonder, if in today’s overly politically correct climate, Mel Brooks would be able to bring his seminal raunchy western comedy “Blazing Saddles” to theater screens as he did in 1974.  Now, it’s true that the raunchy comedy has always enjoyed success of a degree at the box office, and from “American Pie” to “The Hangover”, there have occasionally been films that predicted a return to the success of very explicit comedies, but “Blazing Saddles” seems to be a horse of a different color, as it were.  The film’s reliance on racial stereotypes in comedy is still something that we as a nation don’t seem entirely comfortable with.  The audience laughs, yes, but is it truly the laughter invoked by humor, or is it the nervous “this is the part we’re supposed to laugh at, isn’t it?” with one eye looking over our shoulder to see if our neighbor is laughing too.

Besides the racial component of the comedy (which was partially scripted by Richard Pryor), there is also a reliance on the humor of bodily functions that was not seen in a major studio film up to that point in time.  Yes, I refer to the film’s infamous campfire scene.  Can we as an audience imagine a world in which this scene did not exist?  If so, would Jim Carrey had ever had a movie career to speak of?

Then there is the sexual component, most pointedly delivered in the persona of Lili Von Shtupp (a blistering parody of Marlene Dietrich that earned Madeline Kahn an Oscar nomination for the role).  The name itself is a vulgarism, and her scenes with Cleavon Little as the Sheriff mine the racial and sexual territories of the script for comic genius.  Gene Wilder, who would soon appear brilliantly in Brooks’ next film “Young Frankenstein” is somewhat wasted in the tame role of the gunfighter who helps save the town of Rock Ridge.  Harvey Korman, as the unctuous politician Hedley Lamarr is gleeful in his litany of bad deeds, and his good-hearted evilness adds a lot to the picture.  Brooks himself, as the goofball governor (as well as a suspiciously Yiddish Indian chief) pushes too hard in his scenes, taking the comedy off track and putting his own personality through too much rather than creating a comic character; it’s just Mel Brooks being Mel Brooks.

But here’s the thing about “Blazing Saddles”, unfortunately, when it isn’t pushing buttons on how far into bad taste we as an audience will accept in the name of comedy, it isn’t very interesting.  There are plenty of missteps in the film, to my mind the entire finale fails to work as it has destroyed the illusion of the movie that we’ve invested our time in for the past hour and a half.  The juxtaposition of the cowboys and a roomful of sashaying chorus boys is funny, as is their fight, but to me it seems that Brooks ran out of ideas, or energy, and just chose to end the film this way rather than finding a suitable conclusion for the whole mess.

If I prefer “There’s Something about Mary” to “Blazing Saddles”, it may be because I don’t share the tender affection for the old west in quite the way that Brooks’ film depends on to truly appreciate some of the humor.  Or perhaps I find the Farrelly Brothers efforts at gross-out humor to be, ultimately, more successful.

The jokes this time still include humor based on bodily functions, but I find the Ben Stiller- Cameron Diaz hair gel scene a delight of comic vulgarity, but as gross as it is, it still retains a bit of sweetness, and gives one of the best sight gags in the film.  ‘Mary’ celebrates adult humor, but it’s not dumbed down for it’s audience; there’s an intelligence to it.

Ben Stiller plays the perfect sort of everyman character, one who it totally believable catching his business in his zipper on prom night.  Stiller’s grounding of his character in reality helps the wacky work done by costars Matt Dillon, Chris Elliot, and Lee Evans so believable.  He’s the center of this comic vortex, and his everyday quality is what we identify with moreso than the deranged stalker boys played by Dillon, Elliot, and Evans.  Dillon especially gets away with some very anti PC statements regarding the mentally handicapped, that probably no other character in the film could get away with.

Cameron Diaz as well brings such a clean-scrubbed girl next door vibe to her portrayal of the sometimes foul-mouthed Mary that we completely accept her as the ideal of a modern woman, or at least one who would unleash such devotion among so many different men.  Diaz actually won the New York Film Critics Award for Best Actress in 1998 for this film, which I don’t entirely understand.  It’s not that she isn’t good in the role, because she is, but the film itself is so lightweight and so gleefully vulgar at times that I’d never believe such an august group of critics would find anything about the movie to honor.

And finally, how in the world can I resist any film that ends with a credits scene cast sing-a-long to “Build Me Up Buttercup”?

The True Nature of Friendship: "The Hasty Heart" (1949)

Future President Ronald Reagan and Oscar nominee  Richard Todd  in a scene from the 1949 film "The Hasty Heart".

From Warner Brothers in 1949 came this wartime melodrama concerning a group of soldiers recuperating at a military hospital unit in Burma.  There is the usual mixed-bag of characters, representing the different Allied countries: England, Australia, New Zealand, The United States, etc. with future President Ronald Reagan playing "Yank", the token American soldier in the unit.  Head nurse is stoic Sister Parker, played adequately by future Oscar winner Patricia Neal, with little of the emotion that colored her later work in films like "A Face in the Crowd" and "Hud".  But despite Reagan and Neal getting top billing in the picture, the dynamic performance in the film is delivered by third named Richard Todd, whose fresh screen presence earned him a well-deserved Academy Award Nomination for Best Actor, and helped win him a Golden Globe as the Best New Actor of the Year.

The ruggedly handsome Todd plays 'Lachie' McLaughlin, a brash, proud Scotsman who is a new arrival at the unit, and is very much a loner, unconcerned with things like friendship and polite civility to his fellow man.  Early on, Sister Parker and the other patients (as well as the audience) are told that Lachie is terminally ill, and has in essence been sent to this unit to die, which he himself is totally unaware of.  Despite the efforts of this mini UN of bunkmates to be friendly to the Scotsman, Lachie is aggresive and standoffish towards all the other patients and Sister Parker.  He refuses to allow anyone to do any favors for him, and claims he never wants to be indebted to another person.

Sister Parker's efforts at kindness towards Lachie are read by him as romantic interest, which he also has no time for; all he has in mind is returning to Scotland to finish paying for the farm that he longs to own.  Eventually though, he does come to accept the friendship of the other soldiers, after they present him with a uniform kilt for his birthday.  His initially suspicious, distrusting nature begins to melt away, and he suddenly becomes a chatty, gregarious fellow, inviting each of them to come and stay with him on his Scottish farm when they are released from the unit.  His personality towards Sister Parker also does a 180 turn, and he becomes so charmed by her that he proposes marriage to her.  She hesitantly accepts, but is torn because she knows the true nature of his health.

Later on, Lachie is informed of his condition by the head of the hospital, and reverts to his bitter, jaded outlook, spurning the friendship of the others, and telling them that he doesn't want their friendship which he assumes was based only on pity for him.  It is only through the efforts of Blossom, an apparently shell-shocked black patient of undetermined nationality, that he realizes that the other men's intentions were real and not based on his illness.  As he is preparing to leave the unit to return to Scotland to die, Lachie has a true change of heart and decides that he wants to stay at the unit and die among his friends, the only ones he's ever really had in his life.

Reagan and Neal are fairly pedestrian in their roles here, and are all but blown off the screen by Richard Todd.  He inhabits every bit of Lachie's starchy standoffishness perfectly, hiding his insecurities and lonliness inside a huge mixture of pride and self-respect.  Likewise, when Lachie initially accepts the men's friendship, Todd conveys the change in Lachie not merely through his words, which become lighter and more open, but also through his body language: he allows himself to be casual, even comfortable around his fellow soldiers and drops the stiff, defensive posture he's held since the picture's beginning.  Like the soldiers, the audience may have pity for Lachie and the unfairness of his fate, but ultimately our appreciation for him comes from the change that he makes within himself, allowing himself to enjoy and even need the companionship of other people.  It is a lesson in the true meaning of friendship that is delivered most of all by the grand work of Richard Todd in "The Hasty Heart", a not altogether bad way to spend a couple of hours, if you get the chance to see it.