Permission


New York is a magical place for lovers.

(2017) Dramedy (Good Deed) Rebecca Hall, Dan Stevens, Jason Sudeikis, Gina Gershon, Francois Arnaud, Raul Castillo, David Joseph Craig, Axel Crano, Bridget Everett, Michelle Hurst, Marc Iserlis, Morgan Spector, Sarah Steele, Lindsey Elizabeth, Mariola Figueroa. Directed by Brian Crano

 

It’s no secret that part of any romantic relationship is sex. Some relationships require monogamy; others allow a more open sexual relationship. One size really doesn’t fit all when it comes to making a romance work.

Will (Stevens) and Anna (Hall) have been dating for more than a decade, since both were essentially old enough to date. They live in a nice loft in Brooklyn and are getting ready to move in to a house that Will is fixing up for them. Will owns a handmade furniture business along with Reece (Spector) who is the husband of Hale (Craig) who is Anna’s brother.

At Anna’s birthday celebration, Reece points out to the birthday girl and her beau that the two have never been with anyone else sexually other than each other and that there was no way for either one to know if they were actually right for each other until they had. Although Reece was drunk at the time, the idea sticks in their craws until Anna brings it up and forces Will to talk about it with her. They come to a mutual agreement (albeit reluctantly on Will’s part) that the two should see other people for sex while remaining together as a couple.

Anna wastes no time, getting into the bed of a sensitive musician type named Dane (Arnaud) who as time goes by starts to show signs he’s falling in love with Anna. In the meantime, Will becomes involved with an aggressive older lady (Gershon) who introduces him to the joys of psychotropics and bathtub sex. She gives him permission to do anything he wants – so he does.

In the meantime, Hale very much wants to bring a baby into his life although Reece isn’t enthusiastic about the idea. Hale’s baby fever is exacerbated by Glenn (Sudeikis), a new father who hangs out in the park that Hale frequents.

Both couples are on the crux of something. Can Reece and Hale add another life into their family without jeopardizing the relationship they have? And speaking of relationships, will that of Will and Anna be able to withstand the infidelity even as permitted as it might be?

In many ways there is plenty of familiar territory being explored here. There have been several movies about couples that decide to allow their partners to indulge in sexual flings and in general it doesn’t end well for those couples who choose to go through with it. I don’t know if that’s an American perspective or not – European films seem to be much less uptight about sexual fidelity in relationships than American ones are.

I like the way there relationship between Reece and Hale is depicted. Too often the gay couple is either comic relief or too good to be true. Hale and Reece have problems, the type of problems that many straight couples have to deal with. The fact that they are gay is almost incidental and that’s true to life. The thing is, gay couples are just couples. They have their ups and downs, they have to deal with the same issues straight couples deal with and they are not always lovey dovey to one another. The fact that the writer/director is gay probably has a lot to do with it but it is nice to see a gay couple presented as just a normal couple struggling to stay together just as a straight couple would be. We need more of that.

Hall and Stevens, both Brits incidentally, have a nominal chemistry between them but nothing that jumps off the screen at you. In many ways that’s what you might expect for a long-term couple who are at a crossroads; it’s getting to the point where their relationship needs to grow into the next level and neither one appears to be enthusiastic about doing so. While the sex thing is a catalyst, one suspects that Will and Anna would be having a crisis even if they hadn’t introduced this permission to cheat into the mix.

The movie does have an abundance of indie clichés – the hipster Brooklyn environment, the somewhat twee score (which becomes a little overbearing at times) and the apparent living beyond their means of the couple in question. This seems to me to have been better off set in Queens than in Brooklyn which is a little too hipster and cliché for the story Crano wants to tell.

I also didn’t care for the ending which was inevitable and a bit telegraphed. I don’t need a happy ending to be happy about a movie but the emotional fallout of the events of the film doesn’t ring true in all cases. Relationships are messy and the ending is a little bit too pat for my taste and therefore a little less authentic. However the filmmaker did make an effort to create a thoughtful movie on a subject that concerns all couples and he gets points for that. I just wish he could have ended it better.

REASONS TO GO: It’s nice to see a gay couple treated as a couple that happens to be gay.
REASONS TO STAY: The ending felt inauthentic and really took me out of the film in not a good way.
FAMILY VALUES: There is plenty of profanity, sexuality and some brief nudity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Hall and Spector are married to each other and Brian Crano and David Joseph Craig are also married to each other.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play,  Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 2/10/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 72% positive reviews. Metacritic: 61/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Hall Pass
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
The Ritual

Advertisements

American Folk (September 12)


Joe Purdy and Amber Rubarth are fine musicians but they’re not above being corny.

(2017) Drama (Good Deed) Joe Purdy, Amber Rubarth, David Fine, Krisha Fairchild, Bruce Beatty, Elizabeth Dennehy, Miranda LaDawn Hill, Emma Thatcher, Holger Moncada Jr., Julian Gopal, Lawrence Mandley, Noah Craft, Bradford Barnes, Paul White, Shelly West, Maryann Strossner, Andrew Walton (voice), Greg Williams, James Perry, Ricky Aynes, Isabella George Brown. Directed by David Heinz

 

The road movie is an institution as American as, well road trips themselves. Exploring our own country is something we often fail to do in our busy lives but there is something that is truly uplifting about getting in a car and driving down the open road in whatever direction you happen to fancy, particularly when we take the back roads and avoid the Interstates which are, I grant you, soulless and Godless.

Elliott (Purdy) is a folk musician in an L.A. hotel room with maybe the thinnest walls ever – or a neighbor in the adjoining room with the worst temper ever, constantly banging on the wall whenever Elliott softly strums his guitar and sings into the cassette deck, working on a song. He has to get to New York City to begin a gig as a member of a band called the Hairpin Triggers, a gig that he’s not overjoyed about but as his agent intimates, may be his last opportunity to continue to make a living as a musician.

He’s not much of a people person so as the flight takes off he puts on his headphones and zones out. However the bright perky woman sitting next to him, Joni (Rubarth) whips out a splitter and listens in. I’ve never had that happen on a flight before but I suppose in all the annals of transcontinental air travel it must have happened o someone. Anyway, rather than punching her in the face, he strikes up an awkward conversation with her that is cut off when the flight is turned around and forced to land back at LAX. It’s not because of engine trouble or a medical emergency – all flights are being grounded. The date is September 11, 2001.

Elliott desperately has to get to New York and Joni has to return to take care of her ailing mother who is under the auspices of a none-too-reliable sister so Joni invites Elliott back to the house she was staying in with family friend Scottie (Fairchild), an ex-hippie and former touring musician herself. She lends the two a 1972 Chevy Van (and only children who grew up in the 70s will appreciate the Sammy Johns reference) and off they go.

The van has a tendency to overheat so the Interstates are a non-starter. They take back highways instead until the van gives up the ghost in the desert. They are pointed in the direction of Vietnam vet Dale (Fine) who lives out in the sand dunes by himself but can fix just about anything. The two travelers begin to bond over music and a shared love of traditional American folk – the music of Pete Seeger, Odetta, Joan Baez and John Prine among others.

Along the way they run into other people who grab their attention but particularly a lesbian couple from San Francisco named Bianca (Hill) and Emily (Thatcher) who are on their way to Virginia to meet Bianca’s parents…and to come out to her very stiff-necked father (Beatty). Getting to New York the two begin to realize that it was truly  all about the journey and not the destination – and it would be a journey they’d remember forever.

I went into this movie thinking that it would be about folk music but in many ways it really isn’t. Think of the title for a moment – it’s not about American Folk but about American folks. This is a snapshot of a moment in our history when the country was drawing together and unifying in the face of a dreadful, horrible attack. That the unity that we experienced in those days and weeks following 9-11 has been completely lost makes it doubly tragic only 16 years after the fact.

Purdy and Rubarth make strong leads; Purdy is quiet and introspective, Rubarth outgoing and open-hearted. They are an opposites attract sort of couple but then again this is no rom-com; this is definitely a road movie and while they do bond there’s never a sense that they will remain together once they pull up in New York. Some viewers may end up wishing they had.

There is some great music on the soundtrack, much of it played and sung by Rubarth and Purdy (the two are touring together in support of the movie doing folk dates throughout the country). It is well that the filmmakers actually shot on the road rather than in a single state or soundstage; we get the flavor of the couple’s travels and that adds a lot to the enjoyment of the movie overall.

While the film gets a little flat in the middle, it does keep the interest high throughout. It has a gentle heart and a dulcimer’s soul, and the harmonies that Purdy and Rubarth make while singing echo in the very DNA of the film. I can’t say that there is anything particularly revelatory here – the healing power of music is well-known and road movies are nothing new, but still I found myself enjoying the journey. I think you just might, too.

REASONS TO GO: Purdy and Rubarth are surprisingly strong leads. The music the two make is really very good and the classic folk on the soundtrack works as well.
REASONS TO STAY: There are a few indie clichés scattered here and there. The movie loses some momentum in the middle third.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity as well as some sophisticated themes.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Both Purdy and Rubarth are veteran singer/songwriters in folk and other American music forms. This is the first onscreen acting role for the both of them. In addition, this is Heinz’ debut as a feature film director after a long and distinguished career in film editing.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 1/27/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 76% positive reviews. Metacritic: 62/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Easy Rider
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Tikli and Laxmi Bomb

Loving Vincent


But is it art?

(2017) Animated Feature (Good Deed) Featuring the voices of Douglas Booth, Saoirse Ronan, Helen McCrory, Chris O’Dowd, Robert Gulaczyk, Jerome Flynn, Cezary Lukaszewicz, Eleanor Tomlinson, Aidan Turner, James Green, Bill Thomas, Martin Herdman, Robin Hodges, Josh Burdett, John Sessions, Joe Stuckey, Piotr Pamula, Kamila Dyoubari . Directed by Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman

 

As a painter, Vincent Van Gogh was one of the world’s most influential, creating works that remain iconic to this day – most of us have seen at least pictures of some of his work. As a person, Vincent Van Gogh was an enigma; beset by mental and emotional issues throughout his life (there are some experts who believe he was bipolar) that led to him shooting himself fatally at age 30 in 1890. He remains a mystery to many, producing over 800 paintings in the last 10 years of his life and then abruptly choosing suicide.

Armand Roulin (Booth) is a roustabout, a ne’er do well who is the son of Joseph Roulin (O’Dowd), the postmaster of Arles where Van Gogh lived and a friend to the Dutch painter. Joseph has come into possession of a letter that Vincent (Gulaczyk) wrote to his beloved brother Theo (Pamula) near the end of his life. It is 1891 and Van Gogh has been dead for a year. Joseph has tasked his son with the job of delivering the letter from the late master to his brother in Paris, only when Armand gets there he is unable to locate Theo. He goes to Vincent’s art supply dealer Pere Tanguy (Sessions) who informs him that Theo has followed Vincent into the hereafter. Armand then decides that in lieu of delivering the letter to Theo he will deliver it instead to Theo’s wife Johanna. Tanguy doesn’t know where she is living but suggests contacting Dr. Gachet (Flynn) in Auvers who treated Vincent in the last months of his life and was with him when he died.

Roulin travels to Auvers only to find that the good Doctor is out of town. He decides to stay at the same inn and pub where Vincent stayed; the kindly innkeeper’s daughter Adeline Ravoux (Tomlinson) who remembered the painter quite fondly puts him up in the very room where Vincent lived and died. Armand sets out while he waits for the doctor to return with talking with various townspeople about the painter, from the doctor’s daughter Marguerite (Ronan), his housekeeper (McCrory), a boatman (Flynn) and the local policeman (Herdman). The more Armand interviews the people who knew Van Gogh the more murky his death becomes. Was it really suicide, as the painter himself confessed to on his deathbed? Or was it something else?

First off, this movie is a remarkable achievement in animation. The filmmakers started by filming the actors against green screen, then utilized more than 100 artists to create each frame as an oil painting in the style of Van Gogh (inserting actual paintings of the master in various places more than 40 of them – see if you can spot them all) which came out to about approximately 65,000 paintings all told. In a way, we’re getting a view inside Van Gogh’s head and coming about as close as we will ever get to seeing the world through Van Gogh’s eyes.

The voice acting can be stiff and stuffy at times, but unlike a lot of reviewers I found the story compelling. There is a bit of a mystery to the death of Van Gogh, particularly in light of a 2011 biography that questions the official account of his death and hints that he may have been the victim of an accidental shooting and that he insisted it was suicide to protect the person who shot him. There are certainly some compelling reasons to think it, mainly based on the angle of the shot that mortally wounded the painter. Most suicides put the gun to their head; most don’t kill themselves by shooting themselves in the stomach which is an exceedingly painful way to go. The angle of the wound also suggests a trajectory that would have made it physically unlikely that Van Gogh shot himself although it was possible.

That said, most scholars today agree that this new theory is less likely than suicide and while the filmmakers here seem to lean in the direction of homicide, it at least gives us a bit of a gateway into examining the painter’s works, particularly in the last months of his life. While the movie seems preoccupied with Van Gogh’s death more than his life – something in which Adeline Ravoux actually scolds Armand about during the film – there is no doubt that the filmmakers hold his work in great reverence.

And that’s really the beauty of the film. It brings the world of Van Gogh to life, gives it depth and meaning in ways that most of us could never do on our own. It will hopefully give some folks the impetus to take a closer look at his work and his life; it did me for sure. Spending so much time trying to make sense of his death may give the movie a bit of a morbid tinge but that doesn’t detract at all from the overall beauty that Van Gogh created – and the filmmakers re-created with such obvious love. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ended up on the shortlist for the Best Animated Feature Oscar for next year.

REASONS TO GO: The technique is startling and brilliant. The use of Van Gogh’s paintings is clever. The story is compelling. The end credits are extremely well done. The film will likely motivate you to explore Van Gogh, his life and his work.
REASONS TO STAY: The film seems more concerned with Van Gogh’s death than with his life. Some of the voice acting is a little stiff.
FAMILY VALUES: The themes here are fairly mature; there’s also some violence, a bit of sexuality and plenty of smoking.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Each one of the film’s more than 65,000 frames were hand-painted using similar techniques to what Van Gogh actually used. It took a team of more than 125 artists more than seven years to complete the massive task.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 10/11/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 79% positive reviews. Metacritic: 61/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Painting (Le tableau)
FINAL RATING: 8..5/10
NEXT:
Clarity