Unfortunately the easy-to-find movies are being weeded out of the herd too quickly leaving me with a lot of films I seriously can't find just to rent. Blackout (1978), My Life Without Me (2003), and Kids (1995) specifically are nearly impossible to find. Others like Yo-Yo Cop Girl (2006), Soul Plane (2004) and Get Carter (1971) need a Netflix snail-mail account for me to view them.For the record, after asking list contributors for a mulligan on the last Twilight movie it seems the majority have decided to let me slide. For those who are unaware, I have asked friends and family for a list of 100 movies I have to watch and can't watch any new movies until they are viewed. Since the last Twitlight movie will be released in November, and banning me until then from watching new movies I want to watch would be torture, I asked if was okay for me to watch all 99 films instead. In exchange, I would not only go to the midnight premiere of the final movie, I would dress up larp-style for the occasion. And yes I will post pictures because life is too short to not have incredibly embarrassing pictures of yourself on the internet.
Now on to the main event; the films I have seen recently Nowhere Boy (2009) and Ned Kelly (2003), both of which coincidentally are based on true events. Or are they? What makes for a good biographical epic anyway? Since watching movies is a visceral experience I'd like to think the best movies based on real events like Gandhi (1982) and Amadeus (1984) keep the spirit of the person or event intact. Small embellishments or endearing character traits can sometimes add to the story so long as they don't go overboard. Anyone remember Patch Adams (1998)? How about Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)? Two stories certainly worth telling that were dragged in the muck because of one two many tall tales.
Well, I didn't think it was possible but it seems it can work the other way around too. You can have too little embellishment, too little false characterizations and too little drama. Thus was the case of the 2009's look at John Lennon's adolescents Nowhere Boy. Now anyone who knows me knows I'm a pretty big admirer of The Beatles. Not big enough to own all their albums on vinyl but big enough to actually know which album is which. You could say in comparison to others in my generation who have never actually seen them live, I'm a fan. I say all this to put my opinion of Nowhere Boy in a context. You may be a bigger fan than I and loved the film in which case bully for you. I however found it dull.
John Lennon's early adolescence consisted of a broken household and a lost identity. Living with close relatives for most of his life, the young John meets his birth mother only after the death of his uncle. His aunt, of course is not a fan of them gallivanting around Liverpool when he should be doing his homework. Nor is she a fan of John starting a band with schoolmates for that matter. Things however reach their climax when John begins to put the puzzle together and confronts his mother with complex questions like "why did you leave me?" "who is my father?" and "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?"Its all pretty heavy shit and if it were anyone else the story and its resolution would have worked, but this is John fucking Lennon! Seeing him
breaking a washboard over a friends head in a drunken rage or wagging his pecker at school girls makes him look like a particularly unadjusted teenager not the symbol of love, peace and awesomeness I've pictured. I'm not saying he wasn't a total asshole in grade school, he likely was, but why is his broken home worth the biographic treatment? If anything it should consist of a very small part of a hero worshiping epic starring Michael Sheen and directed by James Manigold. Not the whole subject of a movie about a poor boy with an Oedipus complex starring the kid from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging (2008).
At least Ned Kelly provided some name actors and and interesting storyline. The famed tale of an Australian outlaw who became a nationalistic symbol of pride for Irish Aussies. As the movie goes, Ned Kelly and his family (Heath Ledger) are abused by the English bobbies until an escalated incident forced him to go on the run with his brother and best friend (Orlando Bloom). As Ned and the boys rob banks to stay alive, their story and fair treatment to Australia's underclass make them virtual folk heroes.It was a fair movie, and a competently made western but it just isn't memorable in the least. All the performances were so-so, the directing was nothing to write home about and besides a climax involving metal suits of armor, the story was once again unbefitting its subject matter.
Its worth noting
that the first full-length movie ever, Ned Kelly and His Gang (1906) was about the exact same outlaw. This little nugget of information, more so than the movie got me thinking about some other supposed outlaws that live on in popular culture. Billy the Kid got the star treatment in a handful of films including Young Guns (1988) and 1973's Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid; Jesse James was portrayed in American Outlaws (2001) and The Assassination of Jesse James... (2007) and of course Butch Cassidy was the lead in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). All were portrayed as larger than life wild west figures who stole, cheated and killed only to be considered folk heroes hundred years later. They were also white men and cowboys so don't expect sympathetic portrayals of Mumia Abu-Jamal or Assata Shakur anytime soon.Overall I was disappointed with this latest batch. Both were heavy on the historic details but light on truly unique and dramatic storytelling. Its a shame because both could have been outstanding pictures had more risks been taken. I guess truth isn't as strange as fiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment