I’m a big admirer of the found-footage gimmick. From “The Blair Witch Project” to “Rec,” from “The Sacrament” to the “Creep” movies, from “Paranormal Activity” to “The Visit,” there’s so much to admire about films and filmmakers that do so much with so little.
Those are horror films. The Dirties may contain the slow-burn horror element, but there’s far more on its mind than that…despite being available on Shudder, the horror-film streaming service (and if you read the reviews on the Shudder page for “The Dirties,” you notice people were expecting something far less than what the movie actually is–and that’s a shame).
This is a movie about an approaching high-school massacre, which is such a morbid topic that you’d think no filmmaker would make something that was other than artistic or (God forbid) exploitative. But the main character is so likable that the fact that he transforms into a killer is very difficult to comprehend.
That’s exactly the point–and what’s even better is that this movie ends where the typical news report would begin.
What drives Matt to kill? There are both obvious answers and not-so-obvious ones that I can’t help but consider the more times I watch the film. All we know is what we see in what is essentially his movie–but even his behavior is in question as he’s often called out for play-acting for the camera so he doesn’t have to deal with reality.
I wrote an essay about what I thought it all meant, but I’ll admit I may have gotten some things wrong. You can read it here.
Very haunting stuff–and not in a morbid film. “The Dirties” is a strange and memorable film that offers a lot more than your typical Shudder subscribers usually want.
And to me, it’s the high-standard that found-footage films need to try and meet.
Three girlfriends go camping on an isolated island and guess what–they’re not alone. That’s the setup for the tense and well-executed thriller “Black Rock,” which mixes both mumblecore and bare-bones genre filmmaking flawlessly. Who cares how limited resources were for making this film when there’s such skill and craftsmanship, not to mention an appealing cast of protagonists to root for, involved?
Directed by and co-starring Katie Aselton and written by her husband Mark Duplass, “Black Rock” features three women (Aselton, Kate Bosworth, and Lake Bell) who decide to rekindle their childhood friendship by escaping to their favorite place from growing up: an island off the coast of Maine. Two of the friends (Aselton’s Abby and Bell’s Lou) aren’t on good terms due to a betrayal from long ago, but the third and ringleader of the trio (Bosworth’s Sarah) manages to keep the peace (for a little while, at least).
Right off the bat, all three actresses are extremely believable in their roles. I buy them as friends, their dialogue rings true, they share unique chemistry, and they’re a cut above your standard thriller movie characters. (Aselton, in particular maybe because she also directed the film, stands out with real charm as a comic actress early in the proceedings–but her emotional moments late in the film are effective too.)
Not long after they’ve set up camp, they find they’re not alone, as three hunters (Will Bouvier, Jay Paulson, and Anslem Richardson) happen upon them. They recognize one of them from way back when, so they figure they’ll spend some time together, catch up, get a little drunk, and have a good time…
It doesn’t turn out that way.
Without giving away specifics as to how this came to be, all three women are now threatened with death by these gunmen (who, by the way, were in the military and have served numerous tours overseas), who plan to hunt them through the woods and kill them. A bit of “Deliverance” mixed with a bit of “The River Wild” mixed with a chilling and tight script from Duplass help make the back half of “Black Rock” effectively thrilling. What also helps is that by then, I’ve come to know the key characters and root for them to take some control of the horrific and grisly situation. Thankfully Sarah, Lou, and Abby aren’t completely helpless nor are they invincible superheroines–they feel like real people thrust into a world they didn’t make.
But when the chips are down, they do prove to be worthy badasses. An interesting theme “Black Rock” keeps is one of the power of friendship, as cheesy as that sounds. Each group, of the heroes and the villains, is loyal to each other and that’s what motivates their actions.
Oh, and while keeping this spoiler-free, there is a scene in which Lou and Abby strip naked in the woods at night–but this scene isn’t gratuitous; there’s a reason for why they’re doing this.
You know how they say don’t go camping in a horror movie? Well, how can you know you’re in a horror movie unless something terrifying happens while you’re camping? That’s essentially the mindset of the movie.
Well, it’s time for another “Tanner Changes His Opinion Of A Movie After Several More Viewings” post. It’s like initial reviews are practically pointless!
When I first saw The Kings of Summer back in 2013, I liked parts of it, but other parts like stylish slo-mo sequences and REALLY annoying side characters that should’ve been funnier always took me out of it.
Much of my original review hasn’t changed. Whenever I see those scenes that clearly establish the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has a style he’s trying to go for, all I see is “NOTICE MY DIRECTING” in big bold letters. But they’re still not nearly as grating as all the scenes involving the idiot cops played by Mary Lynn Rajskub and Thomas Middleditch, a random appearance from Kumail Nanjiani as a Chinese-food delivery man for an argument about wontons, and a subplot involving Alison Brie’s dorky boyfriend played by Eugene Cordero. They don’t feel real–they feel like a screenwriter is trying desperately hard to make his audience laugh when he’s not confident enough in his essential comic relief!
With that said, at least the parents of our teenage protagonists, Joe (Nick Robinson) and Patrick (Gabriel Basso), are meant to be grating, since that’s what causes them to run away from home and live in a makeshift home in a woods clearing. Nick Offerman plays Joe’s a-hole father, and he’s more real than the other adults I mentioned. And as annoying as Megan Mullally and Marc Evan Jackson are as Patrick’s overly clingy parents (Mullally even has a riff on cops that goes on WAY too long), they at least add to the story.
The essential comic relief I mentioned is supplied by Biaggio, a weird, WEIRD kid who tags along with Joe and Patrick. He’s played by Moises Arias, who has appeared in other films like “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” “Five Feet Apart,” and “The King of Staten Island,” and he clearly wants us to forget he was Rico on “Hannah Montana.” (It’s working–I have to remind myself sometimes.) I have absolutely no idea who Biaggio is supposed to be as a person, and it’s amazing how he’s barely a character at all, but I find him freaking hilarious. And Arias is giving it his all throughout the film.
Here are some out-of-context examples of Biaggio’s dialogue: -“I can read…I can’t cry.” -“He has a shadow behind his eyes.” -“I met a dog the other day. It taught me how to die.” -“It took very little time. Very few days.”
It’s easy to pick on the little stuff scattered throughout “The Kings of Summer,” but what about the main story with Joe and Patrick? All of that is handled really well. The two young actors are very good, carry convincing chemistry as friends, and have interesting individual arcs. Even though they have a rivalry that develops when their mutual crush threatens their summer paradise, I don’t mind that it’s predictable because it feels inevitable.
The things that are good about “The Kings of Summer” are so good that the other stuff doesn’t really matter. Better to realize it later than never.
Mark Thiedeman’s “Last Summer” has this in common with 45RPM–both independent films were made in Arkansas and they both premiered at the 2013 Little Rock Film Festival. (They were also probably the most talked-about selections in the festival.)
I wasn’t as active in the festival as I would be a year later, when I was part of the press and would see as many of the festival’s films as I could. So, I didn’t see “Last Summer” because my mind was more focused on “45RPM” and the made-in-Arkansas short films. When Mark Thiedeman won the LRFF2013 Best Arkansas Director award for “Last Summer” was when I regretted missing it. I’d surely see it some day…
Then I saw Thiedeman’s follow-up film, Sacred Hearts, Holy Souls, at the 2014 Little Rock Film Festival–I was as blown away as everyone else who saw it. (“Sacred Hearts,” by the way, is still a masterpiece seven years later–I love coming back to it every now and then. It’s a real treasure of a film.) After practically singing its praises in a review, I wondered when I could see “Last Summer.”
Shortly after, “Last Summer” was released on-demand. So, I checked it out…
I was perplexed. Maybe a little confused. Maybe even a little annoyed. But I was intrigued.
It was very slow. It seemed to rely more on atmosphere than character. It seemed rather void of traditional narrative structure. And by the end, I didn’t feel as emotionally overwhelmed as I think writer-director Mark Thiedeman intended.
I told myself as time went on that it wasn’t for me–but I still thought about it often. I thought about the beautiful cinematography that showed off the summertime nature setting and made me feel like I was there. I thought about that special last summer for most of us before we have to break away from our loved ones. I thought about the film’s small-town setting and how it reminded me so much of my own upbringing in a Northeast Arkansas small town. I thought about that dialogue-heavy opening scene that establishes the mood for the rest of the film. I thought about that ending some more. I thought, hey wait a minute, I should watch this again!
And watch it again, I did. A few more times, actually, on Netflix. And after catching it again recently on Tubi long since that last Netflix streaming (I think it was 3-4 years ago?), I knew I should write about it for “My Favorite Movies”–because it still speaks to me.
“Last Summer” is essentially a 70-minute visual poem about the emotions felt by a teenaged small-town-Arkansan named Luke (Samuel Pettit) who is facing the end of a romance between him and his boyfriend Jonah (Sean Rose), who is leaving for college. Luke is a talented athlete but a mediocre student, whereas Jonah is seemingly great at everything. (According to Luke, Jonah even sold a painting he made when he was 4 years old.) We all had that in common, whether with best friends or with lovers, where the main thing you have in common is each other.
The film begins with an overture, as Beethoven’s “Piano Concerto No. 5” plays over about five minutes of images that will more or less play a part in what we’re about to see. I highly advise you to stick with it because what follows is a key introductory scene establishing character through dialogue.
This scene, which features a conversation between Luke and his summer-school math teacher (Deb Lewis), gives us all the exposition we need, and it’s written carefully and beautifully. It sets us up for the rest of the film, which simply shows us rural working-class homes, small-town life, the boys walking through the woods, and so on. We know what the central dilemma is for Luke and Jonah, which is similar to a theme in one of my personal favorite films, War Eagle, Arkansas–will you stay in your comfortable hometown or will you leave and see what else is out there?
And the best part is that it’s not spelled out for us in this imagery (or even in the voiceovers from the boys that appears at one point or another). Luke and Jonah don’t even exchange a lot of dialogue with each other, but I can still tell how they feel about each other. It takes a talented filmmaker like Thiedeman to pull off something like that.
It also takes talented actors to assist as well. Samuel Pettit is excellent as Luke–he hits every perfect note that he has to portray with this character, and it feels as though he IS this character. Sean Rose is also terrific as Jonah, who arguably has the more complex dilemma of the two leads, seeing as how he knows he has more opportunities than Luke and isn’t sure he wants to fulfill all of them. Also, Deb Lewis does solid work as she sympathizes with Luke’s situation (as seen in the aforementioned expository opener).
Something else I admire about the film is how it was shot. To my understanding, it was shot with Canon DSLR cameras and in natural light, which helps give it that raw passion and style. I don’t see a pretentious indie film project trying to be “edgy”–I see Mark Thiedeman making a labor of love and inviting me to share the experience rather than distract from it.
So, “Last Summer” is not “traditional,” as I mentioned in an above paragraph. So what? Artists have different ways of presenting their art and you either go along with it or you don’t. And as far as the argument of “Last Summer” being “too slow” for some people goes, well…I’ve seen Gus Van Sant’s “Gerry,” so what else you got?
For the “My Favorite Movies” series, I have a lot of films to write about…but some films from the past decade, I already talked about in my Looking Back at 2010s Films series. Because I love these movies so much, I should have more to say about them that I didn’t before–and when I do, I’ll make separate posts for each of them. But for now, here are the 2010s films I already covered before that I consider “new favorites”:
And there are many other films from the 2010s that I will talk about (or talk more about) at some point (such as “The Perks of Being a Wallflower, “Begin Again,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” and others)–and like I said, if I have more to say about each of these treasures, then I’ll say it–but until then, those are some of my personal favorite films of the 2010s.
Yes, it’s the latest (final, perhaps?) chapter of Richard Linklater’s much beloved “Before…” trilogy that is my personal favorite film of the 2010s. The whole trilogy of films is among my absolute all-time favorite movies, so for this decade-end list, there was no question that my #1 choice would be Before Midnight, released in 2013.
But wait. In my post about The Spectacular Now, I mentioned that I had trouble choosing between four films for my #1 pick of the 2013-end list. Why didn’t I choose “Before Midnight” right away? Well, for one thing, time changes minds unpredictably, and so obviously, it’s what I would pick for the best film of 2013 now. Second of all, I didn’t have a very pleasant time when I first saw this movie in a theater (with a very talkative and irritable little girl sitting a few rows behind me–I’m guessing her parents dragged her to see this sequel to two other movies that I assume she would have no interest in whatsoever??)–I still reviewed the film the way it was meant to be (or the way I wanted it to be), but I was “looking” at the film rather than “seeing” it. Now that I’ve “seen” “Before Midnight,” I can’t deny it–it’s an excellent film that made its mark on me (better late than never).
“Before Sunrise” (1995) was a wonderful romance about two young people (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) who meet by chance and spend a wonderful night together before separating…until nine years later, with “Before Sunset” (2004), where they finally meet up again and wonder if this is a second chance. Now it’s another nine years later, and we have “Before Midnight.” Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy) have been together all that time, they have twin daughters, and this is a film about what *is*, rather than what might have or could have been.
By this point in their relationship, the honeymoon phase is over and now they have to think about what the future holds. It begins as Jesse says goodbye to his vacationing son, with whom he attempts to maintain a relationship with after divorcing his ex-wife. (The boy lives in Chicago with his mother–Jesse and Celine live in Paris.) Jesse feels a disconnect between him and his son and feels he’s failing as a father to him. Leaving the airport, he mentions to Celine a potential move to Chicago, which Celine immediately turns down. But that’s not the end of that debate. This scene, which is made up of about 15 minutes of dialogue (none of which is improvised–all of it is as written by Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy), is wonderful. Not only do Hawke and Delpy exhibit the same chemistry as we’ve seen in the previous “Before…” films, but they also show how it’s developed over time–bitter and knowing, but still with charm to themselves that they can’t deny to each other.
For a good chunk of the film, Jesse and Celine are in the company of friends in the Greek Peloponnese peninsula, discussing life and love. The things they talk about in this middle portion of the film are explored as someone as innovative as Linklater would write–and with Hawke and Delpy themselves aiding him, I’ll listen to these people talk anytime.
And then, it’s back to Jesse and Celine, as they’re to have a romantic night alone in a prepaid hotel room. It starts pleasant enough, as they walk around outside and talk about whatever; they still enjoy each other’s company, even if they’re tired of each other’s certain characteristics, and then…they get to the room. A chance at romance is gone as soon as an action is mistaken for another meaning, the wrong thing is said, and the debate about whether or not to move to America is brought back again. This escalates into a fierce argument that goes on…and on…and on…and I don’t know who to side with. They both make strong points…even if those points could have been expressed a little differently.
This is the final act of the film: a heated argument in which a couple’s present and future are brought to question. Is this a rough patch? Will it mend? Is this the end of their relationship? I don’t know, but I’m on edge to find out, especially since I’ve gotten to know these two people for three whole films!
“Before Midnight” is a film that illustrates that love is easy but relationships are very difficult. Once the honeymoon stage is over, there’s still the present and future to consider. That we’ve gotten to know and love these two characters through these movies makes it all the more effective when we see this issue brought to light with them. The passage of time is evident with them, and that makes this third film the most powerful of the “Before…” trilogy because it’s the most eye-opening and thought-provoking.
Will there be a fourth “Before…” film? It’s possible this is the end of a trilogy, as it ends on a beautifully ambiguous (but somewhat hopeful) note that challenges both romantic viewers and cynical ones. But then again, I wouldn’t mind seeing what would become of them nine years after the most important argument of their relationship (if they’re still together by then). Perhaps Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy are ready to leave these characters behind, or maybe they have yet to let them go. All I know is I’m down for another chapter in this story.
As time goes by, I have no doubt that movies like “Life Itself” and “Ruby Sparks” will stay with me. But not quite like “Before Midnight” surely will. For that reason, among many others, “Before Midnight” is my favorite film of the 2010s.
If anyone’s continually checking these decade-end Top-20 updates and thinking “WHAT?!” in regards to this selection, well…I can’t help it; Matt Johnson’s “The Dirties” is one of my favorite movies, period.
And it’s strange, because when I first saw it on TV, I wasn’t all that impressed by it. But then I watched it again…and again…and then I wrote a review for it (which was mildly positive at best)…and then I wrote an in-depth analytical essay for it (much more positive than the first review)…I’ve lost count of how many times I streamed it on Netflix before it was randomly removed from the service…and then after a while, I wanted to own it so badly that I spent $40 on a Blu-Ray for the movie via Amazon!
3 stars? Puh! 4 stars all the way! I LOVE this movie! WHY do I love this movie? Let’s see if I can explain.
For one thing, it’s an example of passionate, resourceful, independent filmmakers using everything to their advantage. “The Dirties” was made for cheap, with the film’s financing coming “out of pocket.” The film is executed in the style of a documentary–but not just any documentary; a documentary made by a bright high-school kid…made by a guy in his 20s playing a bright high-school kid.
The kid is Matt (played by Matt Johnson, who also wrote and directed the film)–he’s a goofy, energetic movie geek who lives for movies to the point where he has cameras on him all the time in order to become the star of his own movie. (I give up wondering who’s constantly filming him within the context of the movie. Another classmate? An older documentary filmmaker? Who is cinematographer Jared Raab supposed to represent here? It doesn’t matter anymore–but it’s fun to think about.) He and his best (and only) friend Owen (Owen Williams) are making a wish-fulfillment fantasy film in which they exact revenge on a gang of bullies called The Dirties, based on bullies they frequently encounter in campus hallways. When the beatings continue, Matt gets the idea to plan his own school shooting–he’ll go into the school with guns and shoot “only the bad guys.” Owen doesn’t think he’s serious about this, but as Matt digs deeper into this crazy idea (practicing with multiple firearms, measuring hallway lockers, marking school-building blueprints, keeping pictures of the bullies marked on his wall, etc.), it gets really disturbing. It also doesn’t help that Matt always seems to be acting for the cameras, which Owen ultimately calls him out on. Where their friendship goes from there and how the film ultimately concludes…if you want spoilers, check out my essay again.
The story of how this film was made is fascinating. Apparently, writer-director-actor Matt Johnson and his co-star Owen Williams, amongst many of the crew and other actors, actually went to a public school and posed as students (“21 Jump Street” much?) in order to make this film.
Now…how they were able to get away with filming the ending, which involves a school shooting, I’m not entirely sure. If I could get my hands on one of those out-of-stock Limited Edition Blu-Rays of the movie, with all sorts of extra content, I would love to get answers to the questions like that which have been on my mind more often than I’ll admit.
The film is very entertaining, but most importantly, it’s more than that. Its subtext is equally disturbing and effective. It raises an interesting social commentary about the issue of youth psychology and how it’s never always how we interpret it. Even when Matt plays up his own craziness on-camera (by reading aloud the very definition of “psychopath” and asking his mother if she thinks he’s “crazy”), you still have to wonder what’s really going on inside his head as he performs his actions. No matter what clues may seem obvious, there will always be questions that we will continue to ask without ever getting clear answers about why something as horrible as this happens.
The genius of “The Dirties” is it ends where the typical news story would begin…and even if we think we know how it all came to be, there are still some things we’re still not sure about. What did Matt write down while reviewing some of the footage? Why did Owen call Matt the night before the shooting? All of these things could have given us a much clearer perspective, but instead, while we know some things for sure, other pieces of the puzzle are still left a mystery. And that’s why I believe the film is so special: it tells an important story but it doesn’t pretend to have all the answers either.
So there you have my reasoning for placing “The Dirties” on this list–it’s every bit as thought-provoking as it is entertaining. And I look forward to seeing what else the mega-talented filmmaker Matt Johnson has in store for us in the future.
NOTE: Oh, and there’s also the end credits…these may be the very best closing credits to a movie I’ve ever seen.
“I hate space.” Yeah, I’m not too fond of it either.
Can you imagine being stranded in SPACE? I try to. Completely lost in empty oblivion with no hope of rescue or resource? It’s terrifying to process. I can’t imagine I’d be as lucky as Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) in Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity”–but it’s a movie, and if you don’t go along on this extremely treacherous journey for her to find her way back down to Earth, you’re not going to like the movie as much as you appreciate the utterly convincing visual effects. And you’re not going to root for her to try something that may be totally improbable in order to get out of her horrible situation.
Well, I did, and I loved “Gravity” as a result.
For about the first hour in this hour-and-a-half long survival flick (in SPACE), “Gravity” works wonderfully as an experience–at one point, Cuaron even puts us in the eyes (and helmet) of Stone as she helplessly wanders through space uncontrollably and we wish for something–ANYTHING–to stop her or slow her down. Bullock’s acting is always convincing, and we really feel her anxiety and terror as it overflows through this horrible ordeal and she tries to figure out what to do next in order to stay alive. And probably the most important factor of it all–it FEELS real. If you had told me this was literally, physically filmed entirely on location in space, I would have believed you. (I would’ve had SO many questions, but I would’ve been gullible enough to consider it.)
I saw this film twice on the biggest screen with the greatest sound system (not IMAX, but close enough)–it’s the best way to see it, to say the least.
The final half-hour or so is more “movie” than “experience,” as Stone ultimately decides to try something outrageous to bring herself back home in order to fulfill a redemptive character arc set up before and continue living a new life if she survives this whole thing. But it’s still a gripping movie with emotional complexity. I wanted her to keep going, not give up, and be able to come back as a brand new person.
People will complain that “Gravity” works less on the small screen. Maybe it does. But I still watch it (on a regular TV screen) every now and again, and the effect isn’t COMPLETELY lost on me. I can still admire the marvelous effects and get into the story/experience at least almost as much as I did on the big screen.
“Gravity” is a unique film experience that can be enjoyed no matter how big or how small the screen it displays upon.
Let’s begin with yet another film that got better and better each time I saw it (and I’m still seeing it again and again to this day):
10) FRANCES HA (2013)
In my Top-13-of-’13 list representing my favorite films of 2013, Noah Baumbach’s Frances Ha tied with Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine for the #13 spot. My description: “Similar films aided by great dialogue and convincing acting.” How many times have I seen “Blue Jasmine” since its original release? About two or three. How many times have I seen “Frances Ha”? If I had to guess, I’d say about 30-40.
Why many critics are ashamed to admit when their feelings change towards a certain film is beyond me, but I have to share my absolute love and appreciation for “Frances Ha,” which is now one of my favorite films of the decade.
“Frances Ha” is about a New York aspiring dancer who sets out to accomplish her dreams and the ups and downs that come with it, such as moving from place to place and taking odd jobs along the way…that’s about it. Simple, yet very effective.
(Oh, and there’s a brief trip to Paris too. Not so simple.)
There was a time when writer-director Noah Baumbach’s films sort of tested me. I’m still not 100% clear as to why his 2007 dysfunctional-family dry comedy Margot at the Wedding worked so well for me and yet why I’m indifferent towards arguably his most infamous film “The Squid and the Whale” or why I’m in no hurry to revisit “Greenberg” anytime soon, for example. Sometimes I love his material, and sometimes I don’t think I hate it and maybe I liked it but I wouldn’t necessarily see myself watching it repeatedly in the future. But there was something to “Frances Ha” that I could even notice from the start, so much so that I didn’t mind that (at the time) the only way I could revisit it a year after I first saw it was by buying the Criterion Blu-Ray at Barnes & Noble (albeit at a cheaper price than usual–it was on sale, thank God).
After this, I was able to guess what to expect from his subsequent works (While We’re Young, Mistress America, The Meyerowitz Stories, “Marriage Story”) and still be flabbergasted and yet fascinated enough to revisit them every now and then.
So, what is it about “Frances Ha” that I admire so much?
Well, one thing I noticed upon first viewing is that it wasn’t as shamelessly frank as a lot of indie films were (or still are, for the most part). It was a nice change of pace to be sensitive. Oh, there are still issues present and life in this film is often a pain, but the film doesn’t go out of its way. That makes it all the more easy to care for the character of Frances Halladay (Greta Gerwig, who also co-wrote the film with Baumbach) and her ways of dealing with hardships such as loneliness, debt, lack of acceptance, and work confusion, because they’re not presented as depressing but rather seen through a careful eye. In that respect, this film reminded me of some of the best Woody Allen films–maybe that’s why I tied it with “Blue Jasmine” on my 2013 list.
Greta Gerwig is now seen as a superstar, not only as one of our most reliable character actors (in films like Mistress America and 20th Century Women) but also a wonderfully impressive writer-director (Lady Bird, “Little Women”), but back then, she was the “mumblecore queen” trying to find her footing in more film opportunities. So, like a lot of actors who struggled to find the right roles for them (Zoe Kazan, Rashida Jones, Lake Bell, Jason Segel, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, among many others), she wrote one for herself–the right role and performance that would show everyone, critics and audiences, what she has to offer as an actor. And she is GREAT as Frances Halliday. She has an odd, offbeat, fun personality that doesn’t hide vulnerability or sweetness. I don’t know if that’s what she’s really like in person, but that usually comes through in her work. She gets to play that persona to further dimensions here–you see a character learning, thinking, reasoning, absorbing, etc. all throughout the film.
And in the end, I just can’t help but hope that Frances finds the happiness she’s pursuing even if it’s not the kind she expected or necessarily “wanted.” (I mean, let’s face it–life always has other plans for us when we think we have our own.) And that’s why the ending, which explains the meaning of the film’s title, affects me so deeply and even brings a little tear to my eye each time I rewatch the film (which is so often–I’m always happy to watch the film, whether on the Criterion Blu-Ray or on Netflix). Frances doesn’t get the very thing she dreamed of, but she does get her life on track by accepting change. And these changes have been ready for her all the time, and it was time she fully realized and accepted them so that she can have something fulfilling in life. And the label that simply reads “Frances Ha” represents this great development in her life, and I can’t help but cry a happy tear for Frances.
She made it.
And so did Greta Gerwig. Everything she does, I’m happy to see. I’ve seen “Frances Ha” over a hundred times now; I’m sure I’ll see it a hundred more times in the future…I’ll even watch it again after publishing this post.
I’m not going to lie–at the time I had to create a year-end list (which was published not on this blog, but for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette–link here), it was tough for me to pick a #1 choice. I had FOUR options…..FOUR!!
I mean, it’s easy to pick my favorite film of 2013 now that 2013 is long past and I’ve had plenty of time to rewatch these films and single one out as “the best” or “my personal favorite.” But back then, it was tough. I think the reason I chose The Spectacular Now because it was the one of the four that I wasn’t able to see again before making my top-13-of-’13 list (and the one I really wanted to see again).
I don’t know why most film critics are ashamed to admit they’ve rewatched movies they’ve reviewed and had their opinions change even slightly–we can like a film a little more or a little less after seeing it again or a few more times after that. This happens to everybody, not just film reviewers, and we need to be proud to admit that!
Blah blah blah, ramble over (or just beginning). Let’s talk about “The Spectacular Now”…now.
Obviously, this isn’t my #1 favorite film of 2013 anymore (like I said, I still have 4 more 2013 films to talk about amongst the other 11 selections for this decade-end top-20–obviously, there’s a film or two that I’ve learned to like better after subsequent viewings). But it is still on this list nonetheless, because it is still a film that means a lot to me.
When a film truly captures what it’s like to be a teenager in high school, or in a high school romance, it’s something special. Generally, most of us come of age in a major way in our high school days and so, a film that captures certain dilemmas or relationships (either platonic or romantic) can make for a great, effective coming-of-age story, given the right amount of detail in writing and characterization. I can think of many such films that are great examples of such, a lot of which even came out this decade (seriously, I think people are going to look at the 1980s and the 2010s for some truly great high-school movies); another to add to the list is “The Spectacular Now,” a truthful, incredible film about forming a high school senior forming a new relationship with someone he’d never met before, and learning to fully prepare for his own future.
High-school senior Sutter Keely (Miles Teller) lives in “the now.” He’s charismatic, full of himself, and constantly buzzed (he keeps a flask in his pocket and pours it into his soda cup much of the time). He gets dumped by his girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson) because she wants more than “now”–she wants “tomorrow,” and she can’t have it with Sutter. After drinking his pain away, Sutter is found lying on a random front yard in the suburbs by wallflower classmate Aimee (Shailene Woodley), who wakes him up, thankful that he’s not dead. From there starts an interesting friendship that blossoms into somewhat of a romance (though Aimee is more into it than Sutter is), which then leads Sutter to confront his own issues, starting with meeting up with his father (Kyle Chandler), whom he hasn’t seen since childhood…
The trip to meet Sutter’s father is what makes the film far more than a high-school romantic comedy. Some very serious undertones are developed with this portion of the story, and it’s all the more deep and complex because of it. It shows the kind of person Sutter could become if he’s not careful, and it also shows glances of his former attitude and how he’s not treating his girlfriend the way he should. And so on.
When I showed this film to a friend, the main character of Sutter Keely was a difficult one for him to understand until the very end when he felt empathy for him. That’s what makes him so interesting, and when he gets his development in the final act, you really feel it and it hits you hard. The final speech he gives about his change is one of the most heartbreaking I’ve ever heard in a movie of this sort.
“The Spectacular Now” was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also made the solid dramedy “Smashed” and The End of the Tour (one of my honorable mentions for this list)–something I notice about his best works is that he’s not afraid to let his actors play with their characters and hold our attention for long single takes on-camera; you can sense he communicates well with his talent. The screenplay was adapted from Tim Tharp’s novel of the same name by screenwriting duo Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, who have become very reliable in adapting both YA novels (such as this, The Fault in Our Stars, and Paper Towns) and biographical works (The Disaster Artist, for which they were nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar).
And I’ll say this–I like this film adaptation a lot better than its original source material. My reason as to why has to do with the film’s ending, different from the book. The book’s ending is tragic, yes, but it also made the rest of the book rather pointless and left me kind of empty. But the film’s ending, while ambiguous, gave me a lot more to think about. Where will Sutter end up? Will he truly change for the better? Will he relapse to his old manners? Will he and Aimee get back together? If so, how long will it last? Will it last?
(Fun fact: both actors Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley have their own different opinions as to what happens with Sutter and Aimee after this story ends.)
I love “The Spectacular Now.” I love the acting. I love the dialogue. I love the way the characters relate with each other. I love the story themes. And I love how it makes me feel by the time it’s over. It may not be my favorite film of 2013 any longer, but it will always be one of my favorites of the 2010s.
Smith's Verdict 