True Grit lacks the quirkiness of most of the Coen Brothers’ movies, making it almost unrecognizable as an officially stamped, 100% certified, Coen Brother approved film.  But one only need look a little closer to see all the other elements of this film are what you’d expect from them.

Simply put, Coen Brothers films are more skillfully crafted than anything else you’re likely to see nowadays.  You will not see a Western made in the past 20 years that is better than True Grit.  What makes their films better is the Coens’ uncanny ability to create something authentic, and use those constraints to their advantage.  Authenticity often comes when things aren’t spelled out for the viewer.  Voice overs can come off as hokey and characters explaining a situation within the film often sound staged.  By not laying everything out for the viewer, dialogue is much more natural, adding to the overall tone of the film.  Authenticity can also breeds humor, often dark and dray; capturing those awkward moments in life that one can only truly appreciate through the narrowing scope of a camera lens.

True Grit is no exception.  Opting to draw inspiration from the original novel by Charles Portis instead of the John Wayne movie (one need only watch a few minutes of the movie to understand why), the Coens’ found a more genuine dialect between more authentic characters.  Jeff Bridges’ Rooster Cogburn is a much saltier dog in comparison to the Duke’s watered down version.  Mattie Ross is only likable because we know we will never have to deal with her personally.  In looking for someone with grit, she is really looking for a version of herself who has the physical size to act out her will.  Matt Damon’s Texas Ranger is as creepy and off-putting as any “protagonist” you will ever see ,and Tom Chaney isn’t so much a devious criminal as a homicidal buffoon.

These unique qualities add a weight to the story that would otherwise be lost when trying to mold these very human characters into something a little more traditional, a little easier on the eyes.

I am also grateful for this film because it has made me realize that Jeff Bridges is not only a likable actor, he is an exceptionally talented one as well.  His past roles have come so naturally; his portrayal of his characters always felt as if they were just different versions of himself.  Rooster Cogburn didn’t contain the inherent likability that goes with most of his characters.  That isn’t to say he wasn’t likable, it just didn’t come the same way.  Watching this film has forced me to look back and admit there is more versatility to Bridges than I ever credited him.  He is much more than the dude (though never better).

I said in my review of The Social Network that it was the only film I actually wanted to see.  I forgot about True Grit.  It is hard to choose between these two (thankfully I have a couple of weeks) and it may end up coming down to which genre I prefer, which would go to The Social Network.

I have been trying to acquire a taste for Westerns for a few years now and it is starting to take, but only a very little bit.  It is rare that I come across a Western I like this much and I doubt anyone could pull it off as well as the Coens.  Westerns are still made at a surprising rate and the romance of the Wild, Lawless West will probably capture our interest for years to come.  But like most genres that deal with a certain epoch or theme there seems to be more poorly made crap than good stuff; most likely because there’s an assumption by the film makers that people are going to see the movie for the genre, not the writing or cinematography.

It’s a testament to the Coens’ talent that they so consistently make genre films that are also unique and of exceptional quality.  They are once a once in a lifetime duo and they only seem to get better.  I think No Country For Old Men will be seen as being ahead of its time and will one day be viewed as one of the greatest films ever made.  I can’t loft such praise on True Grit, but it ain’t bad for a Western.  Next up, Leo DiCaprio is dreamy.

Alouishis

So here we go…

I’m going to review the movies in the order in which I’ve seen them, the first being The Social Network. I saw it long before I saw any of the others because it’s the only one I actually wanted to see.  This brings me to a disclaimer (not the last):  I firmly believe everything Aaron Sorkin does is brilliant.  He probably took a shit yesterday, and I bet he did it in a more clever way than anyone could even think to do it.  So I will probably end up voting for this one if only because of who wrote it.  For the purposes of this entry, I’ll just say the writing was exactly what I’d expected (brilliant!) and we can move on from there.  You have been warned.

Starting with The Social Network right after I announced my departure from dealing with reality might send mixed messages.  If there has been a driving social force of the past ten years, it’s been Facebook.  To paraphrase the movie, Facebook takes the experience of college and puts it online.  The attractive part is that one does not need to attend college to benefit (anymore).

But there have been complaints as to the accuracy of the movie, mainly that many of the details of the story, some larger than others, are fabricated. A good example: Mr. Zuckerberg has had the same girlfriend since college, a very inconvenient fact for Sorkin in light of the main theme of his story being Zuckerberg’s alienating all around him including his freshman year girlfriend whom he never got over.  That’s a big one, though there are other facts and instances that were left out of the story or changed, either because it didn’t go with the main theme of the film, or it just wasn’t necessary.

Sorkin’s script was based on a book about Zuckerberg called The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich.  Mezrich fed Sorkin chapters while he was writing it.  In an effort to gain reader interest, Mezrich wrote a glamorized version of this story about a Harvard geek who doesn’t relate well to people (how unique!).  He threw in drugs, drinking and the fucking over of best friends to make it sexier.  He consulted with Zuckerberg’s one time partner and current nemesis Eduardo Saverin (the guy who almost punched Justin Timberlake at the end) in an effort to give the book some credibility – and to their credit – some accuracy.  But Saverin cut ties to Mezrich after settling financially with Zuckerberg and Mezrich was left to write what he wanted, much of which was false.

So has Aaron Sorkin betrayed his fans and integrity?  That is for each person to decide his or herself.  For Sorkin’s part, he has readily admitted his version of the story was based on a book of questionable integrity and he has made no claims to either its, or the film’s accuracy.  But basing a story on a person, fictional or not, is a tricky situation.  Even films creating hypothetical instances around a real public figure are playing with a human life, someone who has to live with the consequences of the movie, book, song of which he or she is a subject.

And more often than not, the artist telling the story forgets how stupid and ignorant people can be.  It is easy for anyone to see a film about a celebrity and take it for fact.  Everyone knows there is no such thing as a 100% factual film (especially in Hollywood) but the viewer can too easily be seduced into the game of fact selectivity.  A conversation on a subject can go from “I know it isn’t 100% real, but…” to “and in the movie, he…and then he…and after all that, he still has the balls to…  What a prick!”

One only needs to view some of Sorkin’s work to realize that he is exactly the kind of person to have too much faith in his viewer’s ability to discern fact from fiction.  His characters are unapologetically intelligent, and the content of his stories demand the reader to think critically about subjects one doesn’t deal with in day-to-day life.  There’s a reason everyone wants President Bartlett to be their president, it’s because he lives in Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average.  If the country’s population really was as intelligent as it is in Sorkin’s world, it would surely be a better place.

So there it is.  Judge Sorkin if you will, but not for the quality of story-telling.  For all its shortcomings when compared to the real world, The Social Network soars above its competitors in most other areas.  A friend mentioned to me that perhaps the success of the story is that it doesn’t over-reach as films about social phenomena often do.  Sorkin and David Fincher (director) were not out to put their finger on the pulse of America’s youth, they were out to tell the story of the person who created this phenomenon.  Limiting the scope of the story to just Zucerkberg and those around him spare us of many clichéd scenes wherin Fincher would be forced to attempt to illustrate the impact of Facebook by rushing us through dorm rooms, living rooms and anywhere else one can update their status.  It would have added 30 useless minutes to the film and instead of weighting the impact of the website on society today, it would have deflated and undermined whatever happens when a billion people are brought together by a single entity.  One need only look around him or her to gauge the impact by Facebook on today’s society.  No film can measure something like that.

I have yet to watch all ten Best Picture nominees and I am going to keep an open mind, but I believe the bar has been set high with this film.  This is not a year of blockbusters (thank God!) and The Social Network sets a good tone for what we have coming.  Don’t think that because I chose to focus on the fact v. fiction aspect of this film that it doesn’t have everything it takes to make a great film.  I do not intend to cover every aspect of the films I review, but rather comment on whatever is interesting to me, and I will try to pick areas that aren’t being covered excessively by other reviewers.  Next up, True Grit!

Alouishis

You!  That’s right, I’m back!  It’s been a while and for those of you who have been missing my insightful, thoughtful and sometimes brave observations detailed in “Helpful Hints for Living a Happy Life,” I apologize for leaving you out in the dark for so long.  It was not what I wanted, but I’ve had to sacrifice a lot over the years to serve out my God-given mission and there was a time when the very people I love so much (you!) are those who’ve suffered most.

What have I been busy doing, you ask?  Only what I’ve always done.  I’ve been fighting the good fight, sticking up for people like you; the little people.  Also, I do have a job and I wouldn’t be setting much of an example as your humanitarian representative by ignoring my duties as a man.  It’s been a busy few years.  We’ve seen the death of the common man in the sad final days of the great G.W. Bush experiment.  When historians look back upon those eight tumultuous years when it seemed like Anything could happen, let them say it was a time when we as a nation truly did push the limits of reason, tested the tides of evolution and stood up to the great faceless voice across the seas and said, “this is America, we do things Our way.”

It was a proud time.  But we’ve moved on, and are not entirely hopeless.  In the past two years, we’ve learned that it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, orange or female, it’s hard to run a country that has so many passionate, drive and diverse people.  When President Obama was elected we knew what he’d inherited and we knew it would take a long time to fix things.  But Jesus Christ, it’s been two years!  How long do you want?  Our patience grows thin, and will only continue to do so as unemployment remains around 9% and President Obama still insists on hanging out with the Chinese.  What a waste of time.  I don’t care what you say, I don’t trust a people who bring me a fully prepared lunch less than five minutes after I’ve ordered it.

Times are tough right now and there are few people other than me who can do anything, but I’m afraid my return to your good graces comes with some hard truths.  I am out of the civics game.  I am but merely a stander-by in this beautiful ballet we call politics.  I’ve cashed in my place at the table for a more scholarly pursuit.  I am not able to offer the inside information that I provided before so easily.  I can only deliver my unique perspective and hope that that alone is enough to get us through the next two years.

Additionally, in my time spent apart from you, my beloved and wholeheartedly devoted fans, I’ve taken up an appreciation for the fictional arts; the great stories of our time that reveal the greater truths.  It is this lens through which I plan to offer you comfort and salvation.  For starters, I’ve recently learned of an annual awards ceremony for the motion picture industry that culminates in the announcement of what it believe to be the best film made the previous year.  Surely it is here where I can once again lay claim to the zeitgeist of America, where all the hopes and dreams of this great nation are lent voice and view for one special night.  I will indeed be so bold as to say this ceremony IS America.  I will view and review each of the nominated films in the next month.  You will learn to see them in a new light and we may just learn a little bit about each other.

So come with me as we embark on another great journey through great American experiment.  We shall have great times together.

Alouishis