Categories
Film/TV Film/TV/Etc. Blog

Fargo: Season 1

Fargo (Season One) (2014; dirs. Randall Einhorn, Adam Bernstein, Colin Bucksey, Matt Shakman, and Scott Winant)—Last year, HBO’s True Detective introduced millions of TV viewers to the pleasures of well-constructed, stand-alone crime serials and Matthew McConaughey’s drawling, freshman-year gibberish about What It All Means. So if you’re looking to kill some time between now and True Detective’s Season Two premiere this Sunday, might I suggest that you binge-watch FX’s ten-episode riff on one of the most overrated Coen brothers movies? Trust me, it will be worth your while.

I’m a film guy first and foremost, but it’s pretty much indisputable that Fargo the series is visually richer and more imaginative than Fargo the movie. For once, the tight, slick, mostly motionless close-ups that caulk most TV dramas conjure menace and mystery instead of underscoring their bland, plot-driven functionality and expediency. The episode directors can do flashy and tricky, too: there’s a two-minute massacre shot from the exterior of a building that simultaneously recalls Robert Bresson’s sound-over-image primacy and an extended joke in a Droopy Dog cartoon.

But executive producer and head writer Noah Hawley’s debt to recent, much better Coen brothers films like No Country For Old Men, True Grit, Burn After Reading and especially A Serious Man is apparent. Like those films, Hawley’s Fargo cultivates an atmosphere of spiritual exhaustion and existential resignation. The good people in his show also struggle mightily with perhaps the key question of human existence: in a world where crime, violence and general human venality are without measure, what’s the point of trying to fight it?

Although stubborn, resourceful Bemidji police deputy Molly Solverson (the miraculous Alison Tolman) is less concerned with this dilemma than bumbling Duluth police officer Gus Grimley (the seldom-better Colin Hanks), both of them bond over their numerous frightening run-ins with the snakes and predators at large in their respective necks of the woods. Solverson’s chief nemesis is the insurance salesman-turned-murderer Lester Nygaard (Martin Freeman, wondrously furtive and unlikeable), while Grimley’s boogeyman is the sadistic, sardonic Anton Chigurgh clone Lorne Malvo (Billy Bob Thornton, wondrously terrifying and unstoppable). Realism is shown the door after the first episode, which makes the series’ fabulist elements go down easier and makes the opening-shot assertion that “THIS IS A TRUE STORY” funnier every time it appears.

Most importantly, Hawley’s storytelling and characterization actually dignifies the aw-shirr folks of the upper Midwest instead of setting them up for cheap, you-talk-funny laughs. His dialogue reveals both the heroic stoicism of the expression “Aw, geez” and the hidden poetry of monosyllabic dialogue. (Some examples: “Here it is. You’re screwed”; “I don’t want to die in this way”; “You know what wolves do. They hunt; “God told you not to park here?” ; “You live in the world. What do you think?”) How good is this show, then? So darn good I watched the whole thing straight through twice.

Grade: A

Categories
Film Features Film/TV

The Hobbit: Battle Of The Five Armies

There’s The Hobbit that is, and The Hobbit that might have been. Let’s talk about the latter first.

Far back in the mists of time (read: the mid-1990s), Peter Jackson and his screenwriter/producer/significant other Fran Walsh wanted to do a film trilogy based on the work of
J. R. R. Tolkien. Their original plan logically started with The Hobbit and condensed the events of the three Lord of the Rings novels into the remaining two films. But getting the fantasy movies financed was an uphill battle, so they cut costs by excising the “short” prequel of The Hobbit and pitching only the two darker and more action-packed Lord of the Rings movies. But when an exec at New Line finally saw the light, he wanted three movies, all based on The Lord of the Rings. Jackson agreed and made history with his now-classic fantasy trilogy, which culminated with 2003’s Return of the King winning 11 Academy Awards.

Naturally, New Line wanted more and set about an epic quest to bring The Hobbit to the screen and thus earn another dragon’s hoard’s worth of gold. They partnered with MGM, who then promptly went bankrupt, to make two movies out of the book that established Middle Earth. Jackson, Walsh, and screenwriter Philippa Boyens were back, and they brought in Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, Pacific Rim) to direct. The actual book Tolkien wrote is much lighter in tone than The Lord of the Rings books and is the shortest of the four volumes. But the chance to make a single, tight adaptation of The Hobbit had passed, and so Boyens and company brought in some material from Tolkien’s notes, short stories, and appendices to flesh out the story. But after years of delay, del Toro reluctantly moved on, and a recaptialized MGM demanded three movies to ensure steady cash flow as it emerged from bankruptcy. Professor Tolkien’s pastoral fantasy about dwarves who loved to sing, dragons who loved gold, and a pathologically honest hobbit burglar was now budgeted just shy of half a billion dollars.

The Battle of the Five Armies

Which brings us to The Hobbit that is. Boyens and Jackson worked from the two-movie plan they had developed with del Toro to expand the material even further and, with 2012’s The Unexpected Journey and 2013’s The Desolation of Smaug, have now crafted three financially successful films. But were they artistically successful?

The short answer is no; the long answer is yes with a but. There are shots, scenes, and whole sequences of The Battle of the Five Armies that are as riveting and beautiful as anything in Jackson’s oeuvre. When the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) tries to cross a bridge made from a fallen, crumbling tower while dwarven king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) fights the orc champion Azog at the top of a frozen waterfall, it is a virtuoso display of action movie choreography worthy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Martin Freeman does an excellent job of holding down the trilogy’s center as Bilbo Baggins, and Armitage brings a stately, tragic air to Thorin, the penniless dwarf who risked it all to reconquer his rightful throne as King under the Mountain from the dragon Smaug, only to lose his soul in the process.

As a work of epic fantasy to be binge-watched on HD flatscreens over a weekend, The Hobbit will hold its own against Game of Thrones, provided you’re not just in it for the HBO series’ extensive nudity. But as a filmgoing experience in its own right, The Battle of the Five Armies is erratic and unsatisfying. The opening sequence, where Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) confronts the dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) as Laketown burns around him should be edge-of-your-seat thrilling. But even a dyed-in-the-wool fanboy like me, who first read The Hobbit when my age was still counted in single digits, had trouble working out who was who and why I should care until the old guard of Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel, Ian McKellan’s Gandalf, and Christopher Lee’s Saruman slip on their Rings of Power and mix it up with Sauron on the top of a mountain. But even that incredible scene isn’t part of Tolkien’s book, and it’s the plague of additional subplots that keeps the entire trilogy from achieving greatness. There’s a great movie buried in the almost eight hours of The Hobbit trilogy, and I’m sure Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens, know it. But as the dwarf Balin (Ken Stott) says, “Don’t underestimate the evil of gold.”

Categories
Film/TV TV Features

Watching The Detective

Cumberbitches rejoice: Your hero has returned. Sherlock, BBC One’s brilliant modern take on the continuing adventures of the world’s greatest detective, begins its third season Sunday night on PBS. Its welcome reappearance during a stretch of the calendar year when many movie studios are busy dumping their least appealing product on an unsuspecting public (see The Legend of Hercules — or, actually, don’t) is great news indeed.

Like the basic-cable dramas Justified and Breaking Bad, Sherlock‘s long story arcs and high level of craftsmanship tend to blur the line between television and cinema. Each 90-minute episode is remarkable not only for its breakneck pace but also for its striking and playful use of film technique. In fact, when compared to Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, Sherlock offers a faster, smarter take on the crimefighter-criminal dynamic. And the TV show is even more perceptive about the psychology of an iconic hero who may be on the side of the angels but definitely isn’t one of them.

The terrifically exciting Series 2 finale, “The Reichenbach Fall,” aired on U.S. television in May 2012, and in the meantime, Sherlock’s two leads have gotten pretty famous. Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Sherlock Holmes, and Martin Freeman, who plays Dr. John Watson, are big-time Hollywood stars now. Last year, Cumberbatch appeared in everything from Star Trek Into Darkness to 12 Years A Slave, while Freeman has starred as young Bilbo Baggins in the first two installments of Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. They’ve worked together once since Sherlock, in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in which Cumberbatch is the voice of the dragon.

I get the sense that Freeman and Cumberbatch returned to the small screen because these current incarnations of Holmes and Watson are too richly imagined to give to anyone else. No previous Sherlock I know of has gloried in his own brilliance more smugly or swung a scarf around his neck more stylishly than Cumberbatch, whose alien handsomeness reinforces his status on the show as a hyper-observant outer space being. And few Watsons have conveyed the complex nature of a friendship with Sherlock Holmes with more low-key humor or well-earned pathos than Freeman, whose grief in the new season’s premiere episode, “The Empty Hearse,” is as serious as his mustache is stupid-looking.

The sly sense of humor that occasionally surfaced throughout Series 1 and 2 is more prominent in the first two episodes of Series 3. Although there are suspenseful moments in both “The Empty Hearse” and “The Sign of Three,” this year’s Sherlock episodes are noticeably lighter in tone. The new emphasis on humor feels logical and necessary after the nerve-jangling suspense of “A Study in Pink,” “The Great Game,” and the rest of the Moriarty arc in Series 2.

Besides, the way Sherlock handles the drudgeries of daily life are as fascinating and pleasurable as the way he solves crimes. The questions posed to him by everyday existence are, if anything, more perplexing than well-dressed skeletons or unsolved murders. How does a high-functioning sociopath like him express vulnerability when every conversation becomes an interrogation and a power struggle? How would such a remorselessly logical individual plan a pub crawl? How might someone with (at best) a theoretical understanding of human emotion deliver a heartfelt best-man speech at his best friend’s wedding?

Sherlock‘s wit and insouciance are also reflected in the series’ playful handling of the Holmes mythology. The title of the premiere, “The Empty Hearse,” refers to “The Adventure of the Empty House,” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original back-from-the-dead Holmes adventure; Sherlock’s own facility with disguise there and elsewhere is frequently rendered both remarkable and ridiculous. Every episode throws in a couple of sly nods to major and minor cases from the Holmes dossier as well.

In addition, Sherlock‘s memorable imagery and flamboyant editing frequently surpass much of what’s playing on bigger screens. Sherlock directors Paul McGuigan, Euros Lyn, Toby Haynes, Jeremy Lovering, and Colm McCarthy are all particularly adept at dramatizing the use of computers and other technologies: text messages float into the air and sometimes swarm into clouds of words and information on screen. One of the most innovative scenes in Sherlock occurs during the McCarthy-helmed “The Sign of Three,” when Holmes arranges a batch of laptops to identify a “ghost man” connected to a handful of seemingly random women. The cuts between Sherlock in cyberspace and Sherlock at 221B Baker Street are, like him, clever enough to elicit headshakes and grins.

But the show’s most impressive technical accomplishment lies in the way it visualizes Holmes’ quick-twitch deductive powers. His observations are often conveyed through lightning-fast montages that zero in on important physical details and label them, so you can (for a moment, anyway) notice the visible tan line and bit of foreign currency jammed in a shady used-car dealer’s wallet or peg a Buckingham palace official as a public-school graduate who rides horses and loves dogs.

Speaking of Buckingham Palace, it’s important to remember that Sherlock Holmes’ fame as a “consulting detective” thrives in part because of the tacit approval of both Scotland Yard and his older brother Mycroft (Sherlock co-creator Mark Gatiss), who works for the British government. In previous episodes, Mycroft has come off as a supercilious meddler. But in “The Empty Hearse,” Mycroft’s formidable deductive skills are highlighted during some bantering one-upmanship with his younger sibling over a knitted cap. This relatively minor scene between Cumberbatch and Gatiss is a Series 3 highlight.

Wit and technical wizardry aside, the new series should draw a large audience because Sherlocked fans everywhere want to know how their hero faked his own death. I wouldn’t dream of spoiling the big reveal in “The Empty Hearse,” although I was delighted by the ways in which Gatiss and co-writers Steven Moffat and Stephen Thompson poke fun at the numerous theories that tried to explain how Sherlock survived his apparent suicide. But, having recently rewatched “The Reichenbach Fall” with fair play in mind, I can confirm that Holmes’ alibi and rationale check out. If they don’t satisfy you, then, as Sherlock himself sneers, “Everybody’s a critic.”

Sherlock, Series 3 (Masterpiece Mystery!)

Beginning Sunday, January 19th, 9 p.m.

PBS (WKNO, Channel 10 in Memphis)