MUNICH

Grace is a quality that is almost indefineable. Whether in art, social etiquette or theology, grace is not an easy thing to explain. But this is the one word that kept coming to mind after processing my viewing experience of Munich, the best Spielberg film since Schindler’s List. And although Munich is not in the same league as that award winning masterpiece, everything about Spielberg’s latest work has a remarkable sense of grace. The pacing of the plot, the movement of the actors, the choreography of the violence, the dialogue, the cinematography, all are imbued with a transcendent sense of grace – an ability that Spielberg seems particularly adept at (and something he perfected in Schindler’s List). Moreover, it’s amazing how all these elements come together in Munich, flowing with a supernatural prosaic rhythm and giving the film a mystical sense of cohesion. For although Munich is a narrative, it flows like a poem, as Spielberg crafts a powerful and disturbing piece of understated work.

Furthermore, Munich is shockingly violent, and yet lyrical. Because even though the violence is graphic, it's handled with such taste and with such grace, that it manages to be explicit and disconcerting without being exploitative. Munich is historical, and yet contemporary; as Spielberg uses the past to comment on realities in the present. Munich is political, and yet unbiased; as the controversial subject matter is handled with a great deal of intelligence, balance and subtlety. Munich is provocative, and yet silent - educing debates with no easy resolutions and raising questions with no easy answers. Munich is moral, but not sanctimonious; as the film simply inspires meditation on matters of violence and conscience rather than telling the audience what to think. Munich is powerful and compelling, but remarkably low key; as Spielberg minimizes the use of Hollywood devices to accentuate the drama. And finally, Munich is aesthetic, and yet disturbing; as Spielberg paints images that are both arresting and unsettling.

The bottomline: Spielberg has proven time and time again his ability to forsake the fantasy genre and tackle subject matter that is dark and difficult. Munich is further proof of this as Spielberg creates a near perfect moral meditation on the nature of terror and retaliation.

On the Rickter-Scale, Munich rates a 8.5 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN - A Tale of Two Lovers

Ang Lee has given us some great films over the years: films such as Eat Drink Man Woman, Sense and Sensibility, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and my personal favourite of his, The Ice Storm. This is a director who clearly knows how to tell a story and his latest effort, Brokeback Mountain, is further proof of his directing prowess as he weaves an emotional powerhouse of a tale about two lovers kept apart by societal forces.

The critical attention this film is getting may be a little over the top, but still well deserved as Brokeback Mountain is clearly one of the best films of 2005. This is mainly because Lee handles the controversial subject matter with great intelligence and care, employing a minimalist approach to the film’s content, allowing the power of the story to speak for itself – with no attempt on his part to embellish or accentuate its dramatic impact with Hollywood tricks and clichés. In essence, Lee simply lets the story unfold, allowing the honesty of the actors’ performances and the proficiency of the writing to be the main vehicles in which the inherent power of the story is communicated to the audience.

Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal also deserve accolades for their superb performances as they rely mainly on subtext to communicate the complicated feelings of their respective characters’, adding a heightened sense of realism to the story’s development. Ledger in particular is a revelation as he becomes the embodiment of the film’s devastating emotional power.

And gay or straight, this is a story for everyone, because all can relate to the experience of frustrated love. Moreover, to the filmmakers’ credit, they avoid the political pitfalls that such a narrative lends itself to, choosing rather to focus more on the story’s universal theme of love denied – a theme that really adds to the film’s dramatic impact and elevates the material from a political arena to a philosophical and spiritual one. The bottom line: Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than a heart wrenching love story that leaves the audience with the haunting impression of how truly tragic it is when soul mates are unjustly kept apart – tragic not only for the lovers themselves, but for all of us.

On the Rickter-Scale Brokeback Moutain rates an 8.0 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform

AMERICAN IDOL RETURNS

I used to be thoroughly annoyed by all the media hype surrounding this show. But for some reason I started watching it last year and lo and behold, I was hooked. What can I say? Call it a guilty pleasure. Because despite the fact that it’s really stupid how everyone pretends to hate Simon when he’s clearly the star of the show. Despite the fact that we see way too much of Seaquest and his lame attempts to feign compassion for disappointed contestants. And despite the fact much of the show is just another vehicle for showcasing American freaks, it’s still a lot of fun - in a completely low brow kind of way. I just don’t know if I can withstand another devastating heartbreak like the one I experienced when Carrie Underwood inexplicably beat out Bo Bice for the top prize. We’ll see.

GEENA DAVIS MAKES GOLDEN GLOBE HISTORY

The Oscars will probably always be the Super Bowl of award ceremonies, but in some ways the Golden Globes are much more fun. The actors are less guarded and more spontaneous because they take advantage of the free booze offered throughout the ceremony. As a result, the speeches tend to be funnier and more interesting. Proof of this is last night’s broadcast (the 63rd Annual Golden Globe Awards) where Geena Davis made one of the most uproarious speeches in award ceremony history. Davis won the award for her work on Commander in Chief. She started her speech by claiming that a little girl approached her just before the ceremony and said to her that because of Davis’ work on Commander in Chief, she wants to be president someday. To this the audience gave a predictable response of cheers and swoons. Then, in the undeniably best moment of last night’s broadcast, Davis confessed that she had made the story up – saying something to the effect that “…it didn’t really happen, but it could’ve happened.” All I can say is, I have yet to see an episode of Commander in Chief, but I can’t imagine anything on the show being as brilliant as that moment.

The next best speeches are as follows:

No.2 Steve Carell’s hilarious speech that he claims was written by his wife.

No.3 Hugh Laurie’s clever gimmick of randomly picking names from his pocket of people to thank.

No.4 George Clooney’s humorous quips that got the evening off to a good start.

P.S. My only disappointment of the evening is that Teri Hatcher did not receive an award - not because I'm a big fan of Desperate Housewives, but because Teri Hatcher deserves an award just for being Teri Hatcher - the sexiest celebrity personality in Hollywood.

CRASH vs CRASH - A Bulletpoint Commentary

I don’t know if this is true, but I heard that David Cronenberg is annoyed with Paul Haggis for naming his 2005 film Crash, the same title as Cronenberg’s 1996 film about people who use car crashes for sexual stimulation. Apparently he’s afraid people will confuse the two titles on DVD shelves. Well let’s clear up the confusion right now…

*Haggis’ Crash is probably the quintessential film about race relations in America. Cronenberg’s Crash is probably the quintessential film about all that’s wrong with Canadian cinema.

*Haggis took a provocative subject matter and made into the best film of 2005. Cronenberg took a provocative subject matter and made into one of the most boring film of the 90’s.

*Haggis’ Crash is provocative, intelligent, and engaging. Cronenberg’s Crash is pretentious, narcissistic and meandering.

*Haggis’ Crash respects its viewers, creating a cinematic experience that’s meaningful for the audience. Cronenberg’s Crash has no respect for its viewers, creating a cinematic experience that’s meaningful only to the director (and maybe a handful of pretentious movie goers).

*Haggis' Crash is haunting and unforgettable. All I remember about Cronenberg's Crash is that a third of the audience left the theatre before the film was over.

So no need to worry Mr. Cronenberg, I don’t think anyone is going to confuse your piece of crap with Haggis’ milestone film.

On the Rickter-Scale Haggis' Crash rates a 9.0 - Cronenberg's Crash rates a 2.5.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform