NEBRASKA (2013) Just another instant classic from Alexander Payne

And so far amounting to three. Previously he had already delivered About Schmidt (2002) and Sideways (2004). I will talk about these at some point. This is what happens to classics. You wish to revisit them again and again and you wonder why you find out new things every time you get back to them. Furthermore, I bet that a lot of people of the movie industry would give away one of his arms to have half of this man's talent.

 

 

Alexander Payne, both script writer and director, has priced us with a most personal and evocative story that has to do with the circle of life and second chances, but not in the sense we are used to, certainly not what you could expect from an American way of life perspective.

 

In my view this is what renders this film exceptional. Payne is playing with our perceptions because he knows that we, people, primarily choose to be fooled instead of seeing things as they are played out in front of our eyes. At the end of film, like a wizard who is disclosing his techniques to the audience, you could very well listen: I told you from the beginning, my intentions were crystal clear, if you thought there was going to be a moral to the story, a renaissance, a successful come back or a final reconciliation, you simple misled yourself. You made it all up in your mind!

Well, this may sound a bit out of context for the time being. Let’s focus on the story. An old man, at the very first stages of a senile condition, wish to travel from his home (in Billings, Montana) to Lincoln, Nebraska, a city a thousand miles away to pick up personally a reward he has received by post. The problem is that there is no such reward (of 1 MM $, a mythical figure in the public imagination, by the way). This is just an old and obvious commercial hook to capture the reader’s attention. But the old man takes this message literally and all attempts to talk him out by his two sons and wife are unsuccessful. As a result, he will sneak out several times and start walking to his destination with two fixed ideas: to buy a truck and a compressor with the proceeds of the reward.

His younger son finally decides to take a few days off at work and drive him to the city in question. But during the journey the father has an accident and they must stop somewhere in between, precisely at his hometown in Hawthorne, Nebraska. This is the place where he was born and grew up in a farm in a large family. The place where a brother still lives and wherefrom he and his wife left when his younger son was a baby. A place inhabited by old people where nothing ever seems to happen, shaken by the news so willingly disseminated by the newcomer: he is a rich man!

The younger son is the other main character of the story. Played by Will Forte he is the perfect partner for Bruce Dern (playing the father). He is not so young any more, probably somewhere in his late thirties. We know that he was cute and adorable as a baby and child, but this gifts have abandoned him as an adult. He is indeed a handsome man, but nothing to do with what he once was. This appears to have caused him a state of permanent confusion, as if these gifts were the only resources for him available to tackle life. As a result we learn that his skills as a salesman in a big electronic store are not working. Also, his fiancé broke up with him a few months ago. Not that she doesn’t love him, she simply doesn’t know where their common lives are heading to.

So, what is the film about? At first it is difficult to figure out. Certainly what it is left at the end of life and the passing of time, but also the father and son relationship as well as family ties in general, not to mention the trace you leave behind when you die. On top of it the whole story is underpinned by a way of life (based on traditional farming) that has gone forever, leaving behind but deserted towns wherefrom young people run away never to return.

Actually all of this is touched in the film, but the main theme underneath, quoting one of the characters, and old pal and partner from the father, is about “to even scores”. This accounts for almost everything that is displayed in the film: the father (or what remains of his awareness) wishes to recover something linked to his farming life as a child –the truck and the compressor- to bequeath to his sons; the younger son wishes desperately to feel the love of his father, which he never felt as a child; the mother quarrels and yells at him now that he cannot defend himself, pretending she doesn’t love him any more, not being but a burden to her, while in fact her anger stems from the fact she was able to pull him away from another girl but didn’t receive his love throughout their married life over 40 years; and last but not least family and acquaintances wish to cash old debts –imagined or real- now that he has become a wealthy man (or so they wish to believe by all means).

 

This is told in such a plain and fine way that the film works just as perfect machinery. There is this first and superb choice of using black and white photography. It is bold but couldn’t be other way. Black and white just renders this incredible touch of bitterness and outmost reality that the film transpires. On the contrary to what you would be prone to think this is not a matter of extremes, precisely black and white shows us multiples nuances of grey. And grey is not definitive, it could be one colour or another, it depends on the viewer’s perspective, exactly what happens to the events told in the film.

 An exceptional praise is to be made to the music chosen for the film. It comprises several pieces previously composed by Mark Orton and his band (Tin Hat), rearranged to match with the film scenes. Instruments such as violin, harmonica, accordion and trumpet play together to form a sound both evocative and haunting, sort of a blend of jazz and folk that enhances the film atmosphere to its outmost peaks. Two main themes “Their pie” and “Magna Carta”, alternatively played by different instruments, are just superb. Follow my advice, if you like this music just buy the CD and you will not stop to wonder what a fine piece of music this is (don’t be satisfied with mp3, this is far below the optimal sound quality).

 So, according to the film, is there any hope to recover lost time, lost opportunities with the family and friends or catch up with life in general? No, of course not. But what about what is next to come? Can we make up for the mistakes of the past? I mean, the essential mistakes of the past, the ones you realize when you look back into your life from the mountain of the years. In the film, these mistakes are embodied in the missing father-son relationship, the wrong choice of the life lasting love partner and the stranger’s relationship with those who once were the significant others (i.e. the brothers). No, that’s not possible either.

 

However, there is a tiny and momentary sparkle of hope. The father, just about to fade away in oblivion (as the promoting picture above shows, only his profile remains visible), finds his youngest son at the other end. The father and son exchange roles: the son becomes the father and the father becomes the child. The son-father makes his father-son happy and fulfils his wishes, without minding how absurd they are, just as any father would do with his child. Most significant is letting the father-son drive the new bought and useless truck, on his own, through the village main street, showing off in front of his old neighbours and friends. And now we see the son-father smiling, truly satisfied for the first time at the end of the story while observing his father-son so pleased.

 

And this is it. Maybe things now will work out for the son. After all he is still young and has sufficient time ahead to make something out of himself. Or maybe not. Who knows? But who cares! This was not the point of the story. Now I finally understand what a fool I was all along.

 

 

 

 

ARGO (2012) What I liked and what I didn’t like

During the foggy days of the Hostages Crisis in Iran, as a result of the Ayatollah's revolution in 1979, a brink of hope arises that stirs up USA’s depressed emotional public opinion. At least a good new! Something to grab on and fall back to, and recover Americans’ self-esteem, after the long and unending occupation of the embassy in Teheran.

 

At first short but necessary historical introduction. Nowadays most of the people don’t know who the Shah of Persia was and what role he played in the Middle East, as close ally to the USA. There is a scene in the film portraying a discussion between the CIA people involved that reflects this very well. It’s another version of a citing by a Secretary of State about a bloody South American dictator: “He is a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”.

 

 

Then, the atmosphere. Perfect. The resemblance with reality is practically seamless. It is a true reproduction of the photographs of the events taking place in and around the embassy. The titles at the end of the film match both photographs and reality. Just judge yourself!

And this first event, the assault of the embassy, really defines and remains throughout the film, as an echo that is never unheard. Shot from the embassy’s people perspective you come to feel their rush, hustle, fear as well as panic during the tense and nerves killing minutes the embassy is taken over by the Revolutionary Guards. And what is most important, you take your side on this story, the all mighty and powerful United States is no longer present, we only see ordinary people being captured, insulted, yelled at, vexed and beaten down by an ugly, brown tanned, bearded, black dressed crowd.

 

Of course you wish these people to be not treated like that. You get angry at the sight of this injustice. Bravo! You are now part of the team. The team that will rescue the six Americans that remained cold under pressure and took advantage of their situation in the embassy’s buildings, making his way through a secondary deserted street and finding refuge in the Canadian embassy, where they long their days and the group unity and moral is starting to become dangerous for its survival. This part is also excellent.

So, as part of the team you will now suffer with CIA special agent Tony Mendez the events leading to the escape from Teheran. He is the good guy. He knows very well what to do and will take the right decisions at all times. Starting by convincing his superiors to meddle into the Hollywood alternative. Well I can’t but admire the guts of a person who is willing to risk his life like this, but here is where you start to think that reality and fiction deviate...

 

My suspicions were confirmed with a quick search in the Internet. You learn that all the “last minute” events leading to the escape of the six Americans, in particular the scenes in the airport that fill the last part of the film, did not happen in reality. Though, surely, there was a tense and unbearable feeling by the Americans freed all the way through the sequence of events from entering the airport and leading to the plane (control after control by different clerks and security). Risk of death. This is what you feel. You know how I know? Because I would have felt the same.

 

In the meantime, I like the scenes where it is shown how the decision to rescue the six Americans is made among the circles of the CIA and department of State and up to the White House. I must confess that I am a fanatic of political plots that tells us what happens behind the scenes. Power is shown naked and reaffirms us that is one of the strengths for human behaviour (love and sex are the other ones; money is just a variation of power).

 

But coming back to the previous point, inevitably this is the part where I feel tricked. Everything was very exciting up to this point: contemporary history, political drama and human factor involved and mixed together. How this will unfold? What we receive from this point is a conventional but most effective thriller that plays by the book all resources needed to keep attention and attachment from viewers. Resources that we have watched and experienced a thousand times, starting from the movies of the great master of all –Mr Alfred Hitchcock- (and that was 50 or 60 years ago!). How in the world can we be so stupid and still being caught? Well, it probably has to do with the fact that human beings need stories and never get enough of them. Once you master the basics of the story telling captivating the listener attention is not that difficult.

 

You could say, well, what are you complaining about? You had your fun and entertainment for two hours. Now move on. This is how the show business works and what Hollywood is all about.

Yes and No.

 

I certainly give credit to Ben Affleck as Director, but not so much as actor (certainly a very flat performance for a role that required a stronger personality, which I am sure in this case matched with special agent Tony Mendez). As Director he is very good a his job. He is able to make us feel so bad during the rescue mission. Further credit I give to him because of his previous work to create an atmosphere and forcing us to take side. Empathy for the six American people and their point of view are assumed by us at the beginning of the film. Consequently, from that point on we are also “hostages” of the Director and the movie plot. He has definitely set the grounds for what is to come, though this is rather conventional but effective (thriller), caricaturist but not misleading (the portrayal of the Iranian people from the revolution days) and manipulative but not enough (in relation to what really happened back in those days).

Thus, my great objection is the potential of the film. During the first 20 minutes, I was thrilled. As I said, all the elements were on the table -human, political and historical- to deal with main issue that underpins the film: how the USA manages its super power for perpetuating its prosperity and influence (at least, what all empires have done in history) without being cruel and feel bad about it (and this is only contemporary issue). Isn’t this actual enough?