John-442

It's no secret that this is a very good movie and I'm not sure if I have anything new or interesting to say about it (but I'll try anyway). Some of Ray Charles' songs were part of the soundtrack of my youth, but I didn't really consider myself a fan of his. So this movie was quite a revelation. It's a commercial film and it does have some biopic clichés. But it's well-crafted and to see and listen to it is a riveting experience. From the perspective of the present time, one of its many pleasures is that we get to see the emergence of a new generation of black actors (a term I use to include women also). Jamie Foxx is wonderful but so too are the supporting actors. We will be seeing and hearing a lot more from the talent in this one film. It holds out a clear promise of more filmic excitement to come.

Many years have elapsed since David Lean's 1965 film, but it was one of the last great epics, with every performance a tough act to follow. How could they remake it??? (My comment here is based only on the first half.) The remake works better than one might think. The crowd scenes are a tad cheesy, interspersing old documentary footage with new scenes of no more than 30 people. However, the actors -who are not well known to American audiences- seem to have liberated themselves from the need to 'follow.' Their performances are not at all slavish. The characters in the new version are written with more awareness of self and others. While Lara's mother is still in some denial, the other characters, particularly Lara, know the score. And the viewer knows they know. The David Lean film had some intentional obliviousness, no doubt due to the fact that the sexual revolution was not exactly in full swing then. Anyway, this heightened awareness of the major characters represents a fascinating new take on classic material. Even if you adored the original and can't imagine a remake, you might get caught up.

Basically I think viewers know what this movie is about before we see it. So we don't go to see what it's about, we go more to see how it's done, and the answer here is amazingly well. If you didn't recognize Holly Hunter and Evan Rachel Wood, you'd think it was a documentary. Actually I think you do become sort of less conscious that they are Holly Hunter and Evan Rachel Wood. The direction won an award at Sundance. This movie deserves to rack up a few more prizes.

Amazing the amount of comments this film has provoked. While I have nothing particularly original to say, I want my 15 seconds of fame anyway. I am on the side of those who consider it a masterpiece, though a less 'contained' one than Blue Velvet. However, I think confusion is a very understandable reaction to MD, and people who experience that don't need to feel bad about it. Many commentators here are sure they have 'figured it out,' i.e., what parts are dream, etc. I've seen it a few times (I own it, ok?) but am not completely convinced by anyone's explanations, so far, although some insights have been helpful. I celebrate Lynch's sound and vision. On one (important) level, he is showing how sensual the medium can be. Perhaps one should resist a bit the temptation to over-intellectualize it. In my opinion MD is intended to be felt too. Ideally one enjoys the experience without it being all reductively sorted out.

I'm writing this in an effort to offset some of the negativity this film seems to have elicited. (One critic complained that the movie isn't dark enough.) I honestly think that open-minded people will find a lot to like in it. Frances McDormand conveys the wierdness of having conservative offspring. But maybe 'conservative' isn't fair - the offspring is searching too. Anyway I found the film charmingly addled. A work in progress, it asks the question Who isn't? But if you're looking for typical Hollywood fare, steer clear.

The critics generally were not kind to this film, but I submit that in most cases their middle class roots are showing. Anyone with a serious interest in urban America in the '70s should see it. The visual style is jagged and hyper but that fits the subject matter aptly. The effect on the viewer is you either pay attention or get lost. Also, this is clearly not a movie that's interested in creating a cardboard hero, but do we need another one of those? The filmmakers are keen on showing Puerto Rican influence on NY culture, an influence so deep that it's often ignored.

Benjamin Bratt did receive some kudos for his acting, but he deserved nominations. In the short documentary on the DVD, he mentions that in his teens he saw the film of "Short Eyes" and was frightened by the subject matter. He also mentions fear when offered the Pinero role, because he would be playing a real person. This must be one of the notable cases where an actor overcame some fear to turn in an astonishing portrait.

I hope I've suggested a few of the reasons to see this film. Among other things, it casts doubt on the mainstream as we've come to know it. Pinero would have liked that about it....

Anyone with some interest in Colombia (or the region) would probably find this film worthwhile. Though comical, it does have serious undertones, but it is not political in a partisan sense. The perilous title role is handled deftly by Robinson Diaz and Amparo Grisales is lovely in a supporting role. I think the movie succeeds on its own terms. The filmmakers seem to have been seeking a certain tone, not so easy to do in this case, but I would say they got it right.