Fat Dude Digs Flicks
EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE (2011) - A Review (directed by Stephen Daldry; written by Eric Roth; based upon the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer) The world has changed since the events of September 11, 2001. Though this is an obvious sentiment, it is important to think of all the ways we have changed. On the grander scale, we are more cautious and weary of the world around us. We lack trust. Our enemy could be anywhere and a great number of us see that enemy according to skin color or religious beliefs. We have had one president loathed by about half of the country followed up by another president loathed by about half of the country. We are a wounded, split nation. But think back to September 12, 2001. On that day, we weren’t divided. We were one, brought together to mourn and to heal.  There’s a sense of that spirit running through Stephen Daldry’s adaptation of the best selling novel EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE. The film travels back and forth between the events of 9/11 and a year later, and focuses on the impact it had on one family. Oskar Schell’s father, Thomas Schell, had a meeting in one of the towers of the World Trade Center that morning. Thomas was unable to escape in time, leaving behind his son and wife, Linda. Unable to find comfort from his mother, Oskar, played by newcomer Thomas Horn, retreats into his own mind, hung up on solving the mystery of New York’s sixth borough. Hidden in a blue vase, Oskar discovers an old key in an envelope marked “Black.” Believing this to be another mystery left behind by his late father, Oskar embarks on a mission around New York City to find the owner of the lock that fits the key. For the majority of his journey, Oskar is on his own. He travels the through the various neighborhoods of the city, encountering a wealth of people who have also experienced pain and loss. This reveals a sense of Oskar’s character. The question comes up as to if Oskar has some kind of mental handicap, to which Oskar replies that the results of testing were inconclusive. He exhibits signs of Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by problems with social interactions and restrictive and repeated patterns of behavior. This is an excuse for Oskar’s seemingly rude and self-centered behavior when dealing with new people. However, when Oskar finds a man who suffers from a self-imposed social disorder, he is joined on his journey. The mute man, played by legendary actor Max Von Sydow, has questions about Oskar’s quest and scrawls them out by means of a notebook. As the film unfolds, these two have much more in common than they originally let on. The film has a very dubious honor. Movie-goers these days put a lot of faith in Rotten Tomatoes, a movie website that collects reviews to tell whether or not a film has a consensus on feedback. Currently, CLOSE is sitting at a 45% fresh rating. This means that out of all of the critics who have reviewed this film, only 45% of them gave it a positive review. This makes it the worst reviewed film of the year to receive a best picture nomination from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not only that, but it is the worst reviewed film nominated for best picture of the last ten years. While I generally liked the film, it is easy to see why. Thomas Horn’s Oskar is grating. His personality comes off as abrasive. It is a hard thing to truly enjoy a film to a point of singing its praises if you don’t like the protagonist. There are, of course, exceptions to this that I am constantly challenged with. In early episodes of THE SOPRANOS, it is tough to find Tony Soprano likable. In fact, throughout the course of the series, he proves time and time again that he isn’t a likable guy. The difference between Tony Soprano and Oskar Schell is that Tony Soprano is openly honest about what he does and makes no attempt to hide it. Tony Soprano is a bad guy. Is it fair of me to say that I don’t like Oskar Schell and his rude, selfish personality knowing that he could have Asperger’s? Probably not, but it is partially true. Our protagonist spends the entire film talking. Talking. Complaining. Moaning. Whining. Lying. He does not make it very easy for the audience to connect with. In instances, he seems like a charicature of what he is trying to be. This is often the problem when actors attempt to take on someone with a developmental disability: they take it too far. It becomes an unflattering imitation of people striving on a daily basis to be accepted as “normal.” The film does exceptionally well in casting its supporting players. Viola Davis, John Goodman, and Jeffrey Wright all deliver solid performances with the few scenes they have. It is nice to see actors of this caliber pop up in small roles in a film like this. Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock deliver fine work in their short but sweet performances. Hanks is always the consummate professional. His screen presence is natural. He is one of the most likable and charismatic actors who has ever graced the screen. It would be nice to get to see more from him in the future that relies on what he does best instead of forcing him into odd genre films as a means of stunt casting. Bullock plays Linda with aquiet grace. Her Oscar win was for a loving, caring, but over-the-top Southern mother. Here, she shows a sense of subtlety. It’s a nice thing to see from her. The film’s lone acting Oscar nomination, however, is for Von Sydow and he is, with all of the bad press the film received, surprisingly worthy. His performance as a mute is truly captivating. He commands attention in every scene he is in. What weaknesses are in his performance come from the weaknesses of almost every other performance in this film: the writing. This film seems to have been made with one goal in mind: make the audience cry. Whatever it takes, no one is walking out of the theater dry-eyed. Movies that are made simply to make the audience cry without a strong story to back it up come off as manipulative. Cheap tricks in editing, cinematography, and music are used to mask weak writing and make an audience have a strong emotional reaction. The film is set against the backdrop of 9/11, the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil. People are still reeling from the events of that day. To set a story of loss and coming to terms with grief against that historical event, it seems to be our patriotic duty to cry. The music is sad. The characters cry. What they say is so sad. How can we NOT cry? Even I have to confess to tearing up a couple of times. I knew what the film was doing. I knew what it wanted and I bought into it because I allowed myself to care. I have a feeling that people directly affected by the events of September 11th will also shed tears during this film. There will be a mixture of their own lives with the events happening onscreen. This mixture could potentially make this film a difficult sit. However, there is also that idea of the grand, idealistic notion that art can heal. Maybe because of how they can relate to the film, they see what 55% of film critics cannot. Since September 11, 2001, the world has changed. We are harder and more cynical. We are less trusting. We don’t see strangers as friends or even equals anymore. That cynicism affects the interpretation of the film. A young boy is allowed to roam the streets of New York City with minimal supervision. He is befriended and helped by various strangers. It seems so far-fetched these days that there can be so much positive energy in the world. Unfortunately, I am a cynic. The sugary sweet goodness and simplistic nature of the story did not work for me. I didn’t hate it like so many critics did, but in a year where there are several much better films, how this was nominated for best picture seems to be the biggest Thomas Schell mystery of them all. ** 1/2 out of 5

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE (2011) - A Review

(directed by Stephen Daldry; written by Eric Roth; based upon the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer)

The world has changed since the events of September 11, 2001. Though this is an obvious sentiment, it is important to think of all the ways we have changed. On the grander scale, we are more cautious and weary of the world around us. We lack trust. Our enemy could be anywhere and a great number of us see that enemy according to skin color or religious beliefs. We have had one president loathed by about half of the country followed up by another president loathed by about half of the country. We are a wounded, split nation. But think back to September 12, 2001. On that day, we weren’t divided. We were one, brought together to mourn and to heal. 

There’s a sense of that spirit running through Stephen Daldry’s adaptation of the best selling novel EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE. The film travels back and forth between the events of 9/11 and a year later, and focuses on the impact it had on one family. Oskar Schell’s father, Thomas Schell, had a meeting in one of the towers of the World Trade Center that morning. Thomas was unable to escape in time, leaving behind his son and wife, Linda. Unable to find comfort from his mother, Oskar, played by newcomer Thomas Horn, retreats into his own mind, hung up on solving the mystery of New York’s sixth borough. Hidden in a blue vase, Oskar discovers an old key in an envelope marked “Black.” Believing this to be another mystery left behind by his late father, Oskar embarks on a mission around New York City to find the owner of the lock that fits the key.

For the majority of his journey, Oskar is on his own. He travels the through the various neighborhoods of the city, encountering a wealth of people who have also experienced pain and loss. This reveals a sense of Oskar’s character. The question comes up as to if Oskar has some kind of mental handicap, to which Oskar replies that the results of testing were inconclusive. He exhibits signs of Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by problems with social interactions and restrictive and repeated patterns of behavior. This is an excuse for Oskar’s seemingly rude and self-centered behavior when dealing with new people. However, when Oskar finds a man who suffers from a self-imposed social disorder, he is joined on his journey. The mute man, played by legendary actor Max Von Sydow, has questions about Oskar’s quest and scrawls them out by means of a notebook. As the film unfolds, these two have much more in common than they originally let on.

The film has a very dubious honor. Movie-goers these days put a lot of faith in Rotten Tomatoes, a movie website that collects reviews to tell whether or not a film has a consensus on feedback. Currently, CLOSE is sitting at a 45% fresh rating. This means that out of all of the critics who have reviewed this film, only 45% of them gave it a positive review. This makes it the worst reviewed film of the year to receive a best picture nomination from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not only that, but it is the worst reviewed film nominated for best picture of the last ten years. While I generally liked the film, it is easy to see why.

Thomas Horn’s Oskar is grating. His personality comes off as abrasive. It is a hard thing to truly enjoy a film to a point of singing its praises if you don’t like the protagonist. There are, of course, exceptions to this that I am constantly challenged with. In early episodes of THE SOPRANOS, it is tough to find Tony Soprano likable. In fact, throughout the course of the series, he proves time and time again that he isn’t a likable guy. The difference between Tony Soprano and Oskar Schell is that Tony Soprano is openly honest about what he does and makes no attempt to hide it. Tony Soprano is a bad guy. Is it fair of me to say that I don’t like Oskar Schell and his rude, selfish personality knowing that he could have Asperger’s? Probably not, but it is partially true. Our protagonist spends the entire film talking. Talking. Complaining. Moaning. Whining. Lying. He does not make it very easy for the audience to connect with. In instances, he seems like a charicature of what he is trying to be. This is often the problem when actors attempt to take on someone with a developmental disability: they take it too far. It becomes an unflattering imitation of people striving on a daily basis to be accepted as “normal.”

The film does exceptionally well in casting its supporting players. Viola Davis, John Goodman, and Jeffrey Wright all deliver solid performances with the few scenes they have. It is nice to see actors of this caliber pop up in small roles in a film like this. Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock deliver fine work in their short but sweet performances. Hanks is always the consummate professional. His screen presence is natural. He is one of the most likable and charismatic actors who has ever graced the screen. It would be nice to get to see more from him in the future that relies on what he does best instead of forcing him into odd genre films as a means of stunt casting. Bullock plays Linda with aquiet grace. Her Oscar win was for a loving, caring, but over-the-top Southern mother. Here, she shows a sense of subtlety. It’s a nice thing to see from her. The film’s lone acting Oscar nomination, however, is for Von Sydow and he is, with all of the bad press the film received, surprisingly worthy. His performance as a mute is truly captivating. He commands attention in every scene he is in. What weaknesses are in his performance come from the weaknesses of almost every other performance in this film: the writing.

This film seems to have been made with one goal in mind: make the audience cry. Whatever it takes, no one is walking out of the theater dry-eyed. Movies that are made simply to make the audience cry without a strong story to back it up come off as manipulative. Cheap tricks in editing, cinematography, and music are used to mask weak writing and make an audience have a strong emotional reaction. The film is set against the backdrop of 9/11, the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil. People are still reeling from the events of that day. To set a story of loss and coming to terms with grief against that historical event, it seems to be our patriotic duty to cry. The music is sad. The characters cry. What they say is so sad. How can we NOT cry? Even I have to confess to tearing up a couple of times. I knew what the film was doing. I knew what it wanted and I bought into it because I allowed myself to care. I have a feeling that people directly affected by the events of September 11th will also shed tears during this film. There will be a mixture of their own lives with the events happening onscreen. This mixture could potentially make this film a difficult sit. However, there is also that idea of the grand, idealistic notion that art can heal. Maybe because of how they can relate to the film, they see what 55% of film critics cannot.

Since September 11, 2001, the world has changed. We are harder and more cynical. We are less trusting. We don’t see strangers as friends or even equals anymore. That cynicism affects the interpretation of the film. A young boy is allowed to roam the streets of New York City with minimal supervision. He is befriended and helped by various strangers. It seems so far-fetched these days that there can be so much positive energy in the world. Unfortunately, I am a cynic. The sugary sweet goodness and simplistic nature of the story did not work for me. I didn’t hate it like so many critics did, but in a year where there are several much better films, how this was nominated for best picture seems to be the biggest Thomas Schell mystery of them all.

** 1/2 out of 5

5 notes
3 months ago
  1. balitosisx reblogged this from fatdudedigsflicks
  2. fatdudedigsflicks posted this