Hollywood Got
Stuck In My Chimney
by Nathaniel
of The Film Experience

The common critical take on Spike Lee seems to be something along the lines of: "Bold, inspired, and uneven. Has trouble with follow-through once his grand provocative ideas and themes are set in motion." Since I have seen only about half of his filmography I hesistate to add my own voice to this chorus. But I do feel it necessary to sing the praises of his terrific new film, 25th Hour.

The film is based on the David Benioff novel of the same name, and as you may have ascertained, its time frame is essential to to plot, which charts the course of one 24-hour period in a man's life. This man, Monty Brogan (played with restraint by Edward Norton) is a convicted drug dealer. The 25th hour of the title is his time of reckoning, the unbearable future that he will have to face once this particular day in his life is up. His future won't be rosy. He knows it. His family knows it. His friends know it. His girlfriend knows it. Life will no longer be the same.

Lee handles the difficult formal structure and ensemble players with considerable dynamism and control. The editing, cinematography and music are top notch and add to the power of the film. Though the subject matter is despairing, the movie is most certainly alive. The story is coupled brilliantly with a mournful terrible beauty in its look and milieu, and most especially in its environment. The events take place a short time after 9/11, when New York City itself was irrevocably changed... and rather than being an obvious reflection of the protagonist's life, or a cheapening of a world tragedy by way of fictionalizing, the duality feels overwhelmingly right and inspired.

So back to Spike for a moment. My verdict: Bold, inspired, and provocative - not the least bit uneven. Don't miss it.

Nicholas Nickleby. I don't want to sound like a grumpy critic, but this film, despite its exuberance and appetizing elements, annoyed me. I was a fan of Douglas McGrath's earlier film Emma, and while I was expecting a similar tone of witticism and spunk, I didn't feel it meshed as well with Dickens as it had with Jane Austen. Nicholas Nickleby has two chief disadvantages that the earlier picture didn't have. One, an abundance of plot, and two, a vacant lead performance.

As the plot goes, there's just too much to get through here in such a short period of time. So the movie skips happily around from the tragic brutal boys school to the funny and silly actors troupe to the family turmoil and secret revelations without really every settling anywhere, or picking a cohesive tone. And Charlie Hunnam, in the title role, is - sadly - no Gwyneth Paltrow. Surrounded by an impressive array of performers, thespians as seasoned and inspired as Jim Broadbent, Juliet Stevenson, Alan Cumming, and even Dame Edna... he just can't keep up. He cuts a great dashing romantic figure. It's easy to see why everyone swoons for Nicholas, but Hunman's reliance on two modes of expression - righteous anger and saintly affection - only magnify the lack of depth present in the film overall. It's Dickens lite: fun in spots, but no more satisfying than Cliffs Notes are when you could have had the real thing.

Finally we wrap things up with Miramax's gold-seeking Christmas gifts. The gold in question is of course the Oscars and these two offerings are clearly after that naked man. The first to open was Martin Scorsese's long delayed and fussed-over historical epic Gangs of New York. The second one is Rob Marshall's Chicago, also a long-in-the-making adaptation, in this case of the famous Fosse and Kander & Ebb stage musical about jazz killers. Both films have a lot to offer, but it's sometimes difficult to see the gold in the razzle dazzle busyness onscreen.

Gangs is more of a mess narratively, but with a filmmaker as skilled as Scorsese you can usually count on at least a few classic moments. Most of those revolve around the magnetic Daniel Day-Lewis as the instantly classic villian, Bill the Butcher. Unfortunately, he also unbalances the film, because both Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, as the young lovers who find themselves eventually at war with him, are far less impressive and even a little inadequate in their characterizations. They don't seem like characters so much as plot-moving protagonists. The film has tremendous dynamism in its camera work and in individual set pieces but as a whole it's remarkably unsatisfying.

Chicago, on the other hand, is messier visually, but proves to be a more satisfying narrative and overall film. Its most joyous aspect for certain audience members is that it's a true musical. The songs are its story and raison d'etre. And glorious songs they are. First-time feature director Marshall has an obvious love of the material, and has thankfully restaged and choreographed the numbers so they feel fresh and new rather than petrified in Fosse adoration. But the film is so frenetic and so busy (the "Razzle Dazzle" number is just a little too much) that it's sometimes numbing. People said the same about Moulin Rouge, but that film had the benefit of a singular directorial vision and genius overall design that Chicago lacks. The chaos in Moulin Rouge felt all of one piece, but sometimes the numbers in Chicago seem like they're in different films.

As for the performers - well, like Gangs, Chicago is a mixed bag. Renée Zellweger does her damndest to make for a memorable Roxy, and she's terrific dramatically and comedically, but slightly undone by her limited dance skills. Richard Gere is having a grand old time, but his singing is questionable (though he does a mean, albeit heavily edited, tap dance). The one truly great performance is from Catherine Zeta-Jones. The part of Velma Kelly has been reduced from the stage musical, but she's ferocious as an actress here, and a born singer/dancer, something which musicals clearly need. If all of the performers corraled here had been as truly gifted with the skills demanded by the genre, we might have had a near classic here rather than a highly enjoyable romp. Still, it's all great fun, as musical comedies ought to be. And for sheer entertainment value, for popcorn fun at the cinema, it's a very tough film to beat.

2002's last-minute offerings have started 2003 off with a bang. It's business as usual for award-loving Hollywood.

©2002 Nathaniel Rogers
CineScene