Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Mother and Child: Touching, Loving, and Daring


There is a time throughout the constant release of summer blockbusters in the months of May through August when a tiny, independent film makes its way (often slowly) into theaters across the nation. I experienced this pleasure earlier in the summer with the film Chloe starring Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore and have once again experienced it - to an even greater extent - with Rodrigo Garcia's film Mother and Child. With an appropriate rating of 82% over at Rotten Tomatoes, critics agree: this film is an honest portrayal of motherhood and adoption and an emotional roller coaster that will have you identifying with each character's struggle, joy, and heartbreak.

The film explores the topic of motherhood and adoption through three storylines that eventually intertwine, a narrative tool used by Garcia in in his previous works such as Nine Lives. Karen (Annette Bening) is a troubled, middle-aged woman who gave up her daughter (Naomi Watts) almost 40 years ago after giving birth at 14. Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) is a powerful, career-obsessed woman who eventually struggles with her own issues of adoption. Finally, Lucy (Kerry Washington) searches for the adoption of a daughter of her own with her husband.

One of the strongest aspects of the film, as many critics observe, are the performances. A.O. Scott with the New York Times says it best: "If you need reasons to see 'Mother and Child,' just read the names between the parentheses of this review (and add Jimmy Smits, as a goodhearted co-worker of Karen’s who gently tries to pierce her armor)." Our three leads supply incredible insights with characters that are complex yet recognizable, however Elizabeth's lines are sometimes stiff to remind us of her power and independence, yet the supporting roles are just as excellent and surprising. Samuel L. Jackson and Jimmy Smits play incredible, caring men who make the extra effort to care for the women they love. Shareeka Epps ()who deserved and received praise for her breakout role in Half Nelson) plays a tough, intelligent pregnant woman giving up her baby for adoption. Each character is full of realism and life, written incredible by Rodrigo Garcia's words. Another comfort with the characters in Mother and Child is the racial diversity: it's always nice to see a collection of color on-screen instead of the Hollywood white-wash effect.

Garcia's writing and direction help carry these characters throughout their three incredible plot lines, eventually intersecting at the film's end. What I try to find, when looking for great writing in a film, is the ability for a film to make comment on a number of issues throughout. This film, essentially, is concerned with motherhood and adoption, however, Garcia takes on many issues such as age, religion, and race. There is one scene where Elizabeth brings Paul (Samuel L. Jackson) to her apartment. She runs into her stereotypical, white, married neighbors and introduces him, comically stating "He's my father." She then remarks to Paul that it's only a matter of time until the couple speculates the hypothetical birth of their child: "Will it be white? Will it be black?" These quick interludes between these taboo topics are executed well within Garcia's intelligent writing.

What can really set a scene for emotional success isn't always dialogue. Very often, a scene is strongest when a character is doing what appears to be nothing: staring off-screen, laughing, or even putting on make-up. Michael Koresky with indieWIRE comments on Garcia's talent with this tool: "And though the film could never be called visually daring, Garcia here and there makes room for expertly crafted little grace notes..." There is one excellent scene where Elizabeth stands in an elevator, holding back a painful cry that she so excruciatingly longs to execute. These instances happen quite often throughout the film and caused this critic to swell up with tears, an action personally not often executed when watching a film. Garcia is at his best with his direction in this film, executing strong, emotional scenes with the smallest touches.

Ann Hornaday with The Washington Post is one of few critics who disliked the film, stating the film is "handled with restraint and insight -- at least until the film's maudlin, too-pat finale." Hornaday doesn't quite delve into the details of her dislike with the finale, but it is difficult to trust a review when Hornaday constantly misspells Garcia's last name. She either needs a spelling lesson or needs to escape her upper-class L.A. home.

But who should see the film? Ideally, everyone: no matter your age, sex, or gender, there is always an aspect of each character and storyline with which to identify. However, this film is meant for mothers and daughters. There is one scene in the film where Lucy struggles to calm her baby's cries. Ultimately defeated, she calls upon her mother who successfully puts the baby to sleep. Lucy herself continues crying, exclaiming "I don't love this baby. I can't do this." Her mother quickly reacts, scolding her: "What the fuck did you think being a mother was?" This is the central message of the film: to divulge the difficulties of motherhood, whether it is through nature or nurture, and identify the various struggles that each woman may face. After viewing the film I encouraged my own mother to buy a ticket, and I encourage all the rest of you as well.

Sex and the City 2: A Party without PC

This was originally posted on May 31, 2010.

Sex and the City 2 begins like every day should: with glamor and gays. The first 20 or so minutes of the film are devoted to a gay wedding, making politically incorrect statements about marriage and homosexuals. But the lack of political correctness only worsens when the girls make it to the Middle East, ignoring one cultural tradition after another. If an anthropologist were to view this film, they would have a heart attack. Lucky for most SATC fans, we're not anthropologists.

In the sequel to the hugely successful film debut of the popular TV series, Sex and the City 2 carries the girls from one side of the world to another. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) flies Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), and Charlotte (Kristin Davis, who hosts some of the best one-liners of the film) to Abu Dhabi to take advantage of an all-expenses-paid PR trip. They're immediately immersed in glamorous, fashionable conquests in the Middle East, all accompanied with drama. Carrie runs into ex-boyfriend Aidan, Miranda struggles with unemployment, Charlotte fusses over motherhood, and Samantha deals with her sex drive at 52.

One critic after another agrees that Sex and the City 2 is a complete and utter dud. Cinematical's Eric Snider reviewed the film, dripping in sarcasm, primarily upset with (besides the entire thing) the running time, 146 minutes: "There's nothing wrong with Sex and the City 2 that couldn't be fixed by shaving 45 minutes off the running time and replacing Carrie Bradshaw with a character who isn't spoiled and unlikable." For many, this running time is of no importance. The first film, Sex and the City, also ran at a whopping two-and-a-half hours, but I feel that both films succeed in creating and engrossing the audience into a great story. Sure, it doesn't follow your standard screenplay development, but it will engross you into the world of New York and Abu Dhabi.

The Hollywood Reporter takes a less sarcastic approach to their review, citing creator/writer/producer/director Michael Patrick King's script as unbalanced: "Carrie's minor marital problems are given way too much attention, whereas the intriguing
dilemmas of Miranda and Charlotte are downplayed."
One of the popular themes of SATC 2 is the idea that marriage isn't always conventional. Not only does the film start out with a gay marriage, but Carrie and Big begin to make their own rules, like Big's proposal of taking a two-day hiatus each week. The struggle between the simple, conventional ideas of marriage are something that make the film so interesting. Taking a scissor to the reel of this storyline would dilute the material to almost nothing. As for Miranda and Charlotte, I do agree that their storylines are downplayed, but this is perhaps due to the random outing to the Middle East, where occupations and children are nowhere to be found. There is one delightful, emotional scene between the two beauties that brings a familiar discussion to mother's ears everywhere.

Roger Ebert scathes the film in his review, spitting out one sarcastic sentence after another. His primary complaint seems to be the sexy fashion of the film: "Carrie and Samantha also display the maximum possible boobage, oblivious to Arab ideas about women's modesty. There's more cleavage in this film than at a pro wrestler's wedding." Indeed, much of the wardrobe in the film promotes "boobage" over modesty, but this isn't the issue. The issue is much to do with the conflicting lines in the script, where Miranda constantly badgers Samantha for showing her cleavage and legs. Yet, when the gang goes on a camel ride in the desert, Carrie seems to have more cleavage than dress.

My biggest complaint for this glamorous, cleavage-obsessed film is the lack of drama. The first film, I believed was successful in its dramatic moments and most rewarding during the times of tears and anger (specifically the Valentine's Day dinner between Carrie and Miranda). Sex and the City 2 has its drama but not to the same degree: we are blinded by the lavish surroundings of the girls in Abu Dhabi (although, little secret, these scenes were film in Morrocco) and flashed with one glittering jewel (or man's package) after another.

There are many statements from the girls that are so overtly politically incorrect one may pause to decide whether to laugh or cringe. But, if anybody has been paying attention to the advertisements, this is about having a ball. This is not the same film as the first Sex and the City or the same content as the HBO television show. This is supposed to be a party, and it is a flamboyant one at that. So enjoy it. This movie is for the gays and gals, not the heterosexual, middle-aged men who review it (note: I am nowhere near that category).