Across the Universe

Julie Taymor, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

So, you all know that this is the musical based entirely upon songs by The Beatles, right? Plot-wise, there's not that much to tell. I feel like I saw this movie already in that network minseries from a few years back entitled The 60s, and in any case, the attempt to "tell the story of the 60s" in some impossibly all-encompassing manner seems pretty well-worn by now, so really all the film has going for it is the high concept. The characters are trite, the politics are verging upon the irresponsible, and the film really starts wobbling around the halfway mark when it tries to get serious.

I stand by all these objections, but for the most part, they occurred to me after the film was over. Maybe it's because I grew up watch musicals and MTV, and therefore have a tendency to imagine myself, while walking to or around campus, in some kind of music video, but I really felt captivated from this movie from the beginning. I don't really know how this movie rates against the best musicals, but it represents my idea of what a musical should be in that it does not shy away from including singing in real, lived-in spaces, as did, for instance, Chicago with its lame cut-aways to imaginary stage sets. To me, all the charm of the musical form is summed up right in that scene where people dance and sing in the bowling alley. It wasn't even one of my favorite numbers, but it looks like something I probably have, at least once, imagined myself.

So, I think one of the good aspects of the high concept is that it enabled the filmmakers to make (what I consider) a real musical. Another bonus is that they seem to feel the need to treat the Beatles songs well and give us, across the board, actors with strong vocal chops who deliver often beautiful renditions (I particularly enjoyed the songs by female lead Evan Rachel Wood and soul singer/guitarist Martin Luther McCoy, whom I've seen in concert with The Roots). I'm sure that not including any vocally-impaired stars helped contribute to the dismal box office, but it's probably the only way we can get a movie musical that actually sounds good (dismal reports are already coming in about the quality of the A-list cast's singing in Sweeney Todd). The only real objection I have here is that Jim Sturgess, while also a good singer, delivers vocal performances that, perhaps deliberately so, are too similar to that of originals (albeit with an obvious musical-theater flavoring). Such mimicry defeats the purpose of a reinvention, in my opinion.

Finally we come to the visual styling of Julie Taymor, which I found, here, to be more distracting and less essential than they were in the superior, if certainly less fun to watch, Titus. Taymor seems to know that her love story is, to put it lightly, far from original, but she tries to punch it up with awkwardly abstract set pieces that ultimately don't belong in the film.

If you weigh the pros and cons, the faults probably outnumber the virtues, but anyone who can't stop themselves from humming a tune here and there will probably appreciate this film at least on a visceral level.

Source: Sony 35mm print
16 Oct, 7 PM

3:10 to Yuma

James Mangold, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

As we all know, the Western used to be one of a few dominant genres, until people starting losing their nostalgia for the wild west (actually I don't know why the western declined, or even precisely when) and the western went all but extinct. Then in the 70s, various filmmakers started making occasional "deconstructionist" Western films, and this trend has continued, off and on, to this day. Of course, we can go years without a major western and then end up with two in the same month. I tend to assume that this is a genre I enjoy, but while I enjoyed this film, I'm not sure that it leaves me wanting to spend another three hours with people in cowboy hats within the next few weeks. I am, it seems, a postmodern consumer of westerns, someone who appreciates them because they haven't been dominant in a long time.

That said, I also bring up the "deconstructionist" thing because it's not entirely clear that this is that kind of film. One brings these assumptions to the table, particularly considering the respectable acting talent (Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) and the lack of attempt to convert the thing into a modern action film, but whereas the film has certain unnerving things to say about heroism, order, law, and masculinity, I'm not sure that, ultimately, any of these things really subverts the western genre.

This may well be because it's a remake of a film from exactly 50 years prior, and I wonder if my opinion of it wouldn't be lower if I'd seen the original. While not a long film, the 2007 version is about 30 minutes longer than the original, and you can imagine that almost the entire extra half-hour is plugged in there at the beginning. I say this because the film is very meandering for about that length of time, until the villain (Crowe) is apprehended. You can't even really say that there is any buildup going on during this time, as the plot is not even apparent yet. Instead, the filmmakers seem to be, quite leisurely, setting the scene, but they also don't seem to be saying that much during this time.

Instead, all the meaning and most of the characterization comes when the journey to take Crowe's character to Yuma begins. Whereas up to this point I figured I would just gently tolerate this film, I found myself really enjoying the characters, the portrayal of the characters by the actors, and the conflict of wills and ideas. It is the kind of film where you can correctly speculate about three of the four things that are going to happen, and it's also the kind of film where the teenager is just really annoying even as you understand that you're supposed to be witnessing his journey or some rot. Nonetheless, it is, at least without seeing the film it's based on, a very solid, enjoyable western, with, yes, some good action to boot.

Source: Lionsgate 35mm print
29 Sep, 9:30 PM