Contrast in motivation

We had a bit of a hiatus over the holidays, so I actually wrote the review for Uncut Gems before I did one for Dark Waters, which we saw before Christmas. The problem I ran into was that I didn't feel like there was much to say about Dark Waters. It's a good film. It will make you angry, since it's the same sordid tale of corporate greed and the suffering of everyone around them (employees, local residents, investigators trying to uncover their crimes to the detriment of their lives and relationships) when it's finally uncovered and admitted to. In fact, part of my low motivation to write about it is that it's quite similar to another film about the same, damn thing: A Civil Action.

In the latter film, it's the story of a successful personal injury lawyer who gets sucked into a massive case of multiple companies poisoning the drinking water of a small Massachusetts town. It's kind of a lesson in what really matters in life, as the lawyer in question, Jan Schlichtmann, went on to become something of an environmental activist, pursuing that type of case around the country. In Dark Waters, the lawyer in question, Robert Bilott, is actually part of a firm that defends chemical companies from precisely the type of lawsuit that he ends up bringing against DuPont. So, it's a different "man comes into the light" type of tale, but not really that different. It's a good film. It's an entertaining film. But there was nothing in it that left me thinking about the story or the way it was shot or Mark Ruffalo's performance or basically any aspect of it. Maybe it's because I've been too close to those stories in my life or read about too many of them, but I didn't find myself with much that was compelling, in the end. Thus, the limp recounting here.

Strangely enough, I had the same trouble with the film we saw this week, which was 1917. I'm not particularly motivated by war films these days. I know too much about why they're started and why they're stupid to derive much entertainment from tales of heroism based in or around them. World War I is perhaps the stupidest of modern wars, based almost solely on two things: 1) Europe having gone a few decades without a large combat and 2) as Jack Reed (Warren Beatty) notes in Reds: Profits. (Aren't they all?) Now, there are differences from Dark Waters, in that I think some of the technical aspects of the film were fascinating. They attempted to show it as one continuous take; a technique that showed up most prominently in recent times in the fourth episode of True Detective (there is only one season, trust me) when an action sequence was shot in one almost seven minute take. They actually shot the sequence three or four times, but when it was finally "printed", it was done all at once. Sam Mendes, the director of 1917, tried a similar approach with this entire film, in an effort to try to include the audience in the immediacy of the action, the urgency of the plot, and the desperation and emotion of its main characters. If you pay attention, you can see the transitions where they smoothed over separate takes with CGI, but unless you're a technical nerd like I am, you likely won't notice them because the action, in truth, is compelling.

While the framework is simple (average trooper must save others in the midst of pointless violence), the delivery is excellent. You can feel the despair at the nature of the zero sum game that they're all engaged in; where men give their lives for yards of territory, only to lose it back to the enemy days later. In a way, bringing the audience past that despair with the constant nature of the production and action is probably the best way to deliver a story about World War I, without falling back to the naiveté of 1914, when everyone's heroes marched off to win a little squabble that would last six weeks. You can combine the dolor of the people involved, fully aware that their lives were irrelevant to the high command and knowing that virtually nothing would be improved for them if they emerged victorious, with the compulsion to perhaps make it so a few hundred more lives weren't senselessly wasted, at least for today. George MacKay was excellent as the lead, adding thoughtfulness to a role that required a lot of desperate panic and emotion. It was also nice to see Mark Strong show up in a small role, as well as Richard Madden for the first time that I've seen him since his performance as Robb Stark in Game of Thrones.

I also enjoyed the detail that Mendes indulged in for the trench scenes and the realities of warfare over a century in the past. While I thought, at one point, that the trenches might be a little too clean and/or dry than the reality, the truth is that region of France doesn't particularly have a "rainy season", so it was as likely to be dry as not. There was enough dirt present to make the audience aware of what a struggle it was to live in the ground, without having to deal with mud. In at least one respect, both films were about determination in the face of daunting odds; one told rapidly and the other slowly, but both with the intent of showing some degree of hope at the end, even if challenges remained. What that says about my lack of motivation to write about either of them is beyond me, at the moment.

Rough stones

I have never been an Adam Sandler fan. His kind of loud, screeching, sophomoric humor is just not my thing; even in a "It's funny to see someone else make a fool of themselves" kinda way. So, now that's he's doing dramas in the same kind of loud, screeching, sophomoric manner... Yeah, it's still not my thing. I was about 30 minutes into Uncut Gems and was thinking: "This is really tedious."; mostly because they were doing the New York Brofus culture, non-stop, where everyone is constantly loud and constantly shouting over each other in an attempt to win an argument by making the other person realize that no one is communicating and shutting up first. This was basically the entire film. It was like a New York version of La La Land, where the latter was an insipid presentation of acting culture in LA and this was an Iphone recording of the right field seats in Yankee Stadium with better production values.

The divide on Rotten Tomatoes over this one is significant, with 92% of critics favoring it and only 53% of moviegoers. The normal thought process is that regular audiences aren't cinema freaks who can't really understand the deeper meanings or hidden subtexts of the critics' favorites or choose to ignore those things in favor of being entertained. But I suspect that this is more like the difference between an insider's world and the actual world, where critics are tossing Sandler a bone because he's "paid his dues" on the comedy circuit and is now trying serious drama, and the audience is objecting to being shouted at for two hours. And, of course, drama still needs to be entertaining in some fashion and this film simply wasn't. I'm all about the main character being an asshole. I'm totally down with the "anti-hero" concept and stories about people that are generally difficult to live with. What I'm less enthused about is when every, single person on the screen is an asshole, which is what we had here. You couldn't feel sympathetic toward any of these people. Not even the kids. Even Kevin Garnett was presented as a callous prick and I've read enough interviews with the guy to know that he's actually a pretty decent human being.

And perhaps that was the point? If you show all of these people at their worst, it makes it into kind of a freakshow, where the audience just laughs and shakes their heads in wonder at the idiotic situations that all of these characters end up in. That's a fairly good summation of the bulk of Sandler's comedy, so I guess it can't be a surprise that that's how he ends up doing dramatic roles. What's surprising is that so many critics seem to find that acceptable or in any way original or worthwhile. Again, if that was the point and I'm simply missing it... OK. Again, it's just not my style. Sandler has many fans and many people loved him on SNL and in his various films. I'm clearly not his target audience.

To Sandler's credit, he does well with the role. If he weren't so loud and stupid, he'd be a genuinely sympathetic character, as he constantly thinks that he's found the next big thing that will send him on his way, whether it be because he's the only one who thought about obtaining opals from Beta Israel or because he's the one who "feels" that the Celtics will win tonight ("And no one else feels what we feel!") The problem is that we never see Howard actually fail. We see his schemes get interrupted or delayed or him run into various mishaps of his own devising. But the usual sad sack story of the born loser who finally thinks he's hit it big? That's not this story. Howard runs a jewelry business in the diamond district and can drop five figures on a sports bet. That's not a 'born loser' story. That's a gambling addict story, but it's one with very little heart because, again, everyone is loud and conceited and stupid. If you want to see a good, introspective film about a gambling addict, go see Mississippi Grind. I have to say that I was also impressed by Eric Bogosian, as Arnold, Howard's brother-in-law and the world's most reluctant loan shark. He did really excellent work conveying just how troubling it was to be dealing with his business inside the family.

So, the film doesn't entirely lack high points. They were just largely drowned out by the unending torrent of screeching low points. And, of course, a lot of Sandler's pals were dropped in, like Mike Francesa as his bookie, The Weekend, John Amos, Trinidad James, and so on. Again, La La Land, but in New York, talking about how wonderful it is to be an incredibly wealthy, loud, obnoxious New Yorker. If that's what you're into, then this is the film for you. Myself, I'll stick to things that don't make me want to lower the volume.