Cinema de Gym: 'Waiting For Forever'

Editor's Note: In Cinema de Gym, Kurt writes about whichever piece of whichever movie was playing while he cardio'ed. I wish my gym would play movies! 

Kurt here with the second Cinema de Gym column about a film I never even knew was out there (here's the first). The Rachel Bilson quirk romance Waiting for Forever does have a certain sweetness, but it's pretty hugely un-special. It's the kind of film that can make you cry a little inside. We spend so much time dissecting all the product, Hollywood or otherwise, that's funneled into theaters each week that it's easy to lose sight of just how many freaking hours, dollars, brain cells and, by god, people it takes to complete a feature film production. It's one thing to have a little-seen movie slowly amass a cult following or wind up a critics' fave, but what about films like this that don't seem to have any audience at all?

Unless there's some Waiting for Forever fan club I don't know about, this has all the signs of being a speck on the cinema landscape that's really not worth anyone's time. And there are thousands of these, many barely able to pay the crew. All cynicism aside, and with full consideration given to risk-taking and an artist's legitimate need to create, wouldn't it have been better to just bag it altogether? As a colleague of mine points out regularly, weren't there any prescient souls on set who could've spoken up to say, “Guys, this baby is doomed. Why don't we all just go home? I have to put my kid to sleep.” I guess they just didn't have the heart to give their two cents. I feel for those people.

Which is not to say Waiting for Forever is terrible, at least not judging by what I saw. It seemed innocent enough, and largely inoffensive, if irritatingly feigned. It's an overeager boy-chases-girl drama that thinks hollow affectations will give it an instant indie spirit. Will (the gruffly cute Tom Sturridge) is a juggling street performer who always wears pajamas, just in case you couldn't tell he was a little eccentric. For years, apparently, he's been stalking following Emma (Bilson), a girl he knew as a child and has loved ever since. They've only just reconnected, it seems, as she came back to their hometown and he finally felt it was the right time to be more than just a shadow. Naturally, the revelation that Will has long been begging for a restraining order is reserved for the all-is-lost moment, when Emma finally lets him in only to allow her gosh-darned, societally-ingrained good sense to overrule the fact that he's a kind-hearted, well-intended creeper. Before that point, they're seen visiting the soda shop of their youth, every detail of which Will vocally recalls with a kind of Peter Pan nonchalance, uncaring – or unaware – that his boyish ramblings are raising eyebrows. Emma seems mildly charmed and intrigued, but the character isn't developed enough, nor is Bilson good enough, for you to to truly tell. Watching Will, she's more or less shruggingly disengaged, as insubstantial as his jammies. 

There's a cute bit in a park where the old friends reminisce on a jungle gym, followed by a familiar domestic scene in which Emma argues with a volatile militaristic boyfriend (Matthew Davis) who's obligatorily bad for her. But if the film is to go the obvious route and ultimately drop Emma in Will's arms (I didn't get anywhere near that far), it doesn't seem she'd be much better off, as Will, while benevolent, appears genuinely unstable – more unstable, I'd guess, than the film means for him to appear. Despite Sturridge's efforts, this isn't just your average sympathy-for-the-weirdo scenario. From what I gathered, it seemed pretty plausible that Will might truly snap one day and try to use Emma's head for a juggling ball. Now there's a movie worth making!

 

Conclusions?

1. Throwaway films can be depressing for reasons well beyond their content.
2. Rachel Bilson seems to be an actress without an identity. Do I need to have been an O.C. watcher to appreciate her?
3. If you want your audience to love your misunderstood stalker, best to make him more teddy bear and less ticking bomb.

Have you ever heard of this movie?

A Dangerous Method: Frozen Surface, Dangerous Interior

[Editors Note: We have two correspondents from Venice this year. And I feel the need to remind everyone that these opinions do not reflect the opinion of management; Nathaniel is without opinion as he is not in Venice. But he is enjoying reading these reports. Here is Ferdi from Italy, critic for, offering us bite sized opinions again. Enjoy. - Nathaniel]

I love David Cronenberg unconditionally and I know from past experience that his movies are not what they seem at the very first. We have to recognize that they always need more viewings, they are so complex. A Dangerous Method is a beautifully shot period piece. It's wonderfully acted movie especially by Michael Fassbender (heartbreaking) and Viggo Mortensen (Brilliant and should be in the supporting actor race). It's about the relationship between Carl Jung, patient-psychotic Sabina Spielreinand Sigmund Freud. Cronenberg has directed period pieces before (M Butterfly, Spider, Naked Lunch) and he's not new to melodrama either (in many of his movies there's a deep melodramatic soul). The origin of psychoanalysis, which explores what is inside the body and invisible to the eye fits his radical cinematic world perfectly. Still, A Dangerous Method seems the least Cronenberg-esque of his movies. Although the score and the  visuals are stunning -- lighting, sets, costumes, all gorgeous and perfect -- there's something missing here. If this frozen, crystallized surface is marvelous, maybe the inside world must be a dangerous place, crowded with demons: sexual repression, animal instinct, guilt, death, desire. And this is the place where Croneberg wants to go. 

Viggo in Venice © Fabrizio SpinettaFassy as shot by our correspondent Ferdi himself!

The first section is the best, powerful and alarming, with Keira Knightley sadistically used by Cronenberg as a shouting beast; she vomits out all her inner demons in a physical acting style that's sometimes difficult to watch. When the therapy and the love affair take root, everything begins to slow down. The narrative style normalizes and the movie changes into a beautiful restrained drama packed with visual elegance. There are still some moments blessed with the typical, disturbing Cronenberg-touch but my first impression is that the auteur could have gone further and deeper with this material. 

Madonna uses the camera as a little girl who has just received a toy she wants so badly that she forgets to read the instructions. W.E., her second directorial effort, tries to emulate the flourishing visual style of Tom Ford's A Single Man (and even abuses the melodramatic violins of Abel Korzeniowski). It also too closely resembles the narrative structure of Julie & Julia insisting parallelism between two stories: the romance between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson and a never convincing contemporary story about a bored and depressed young woman who becomes obsessed with the American adventuress.

Let's be clear: W.E. is not a truly bad movie. Last night Un Eté Brulent by Philipp Garrell, which screened in the official selection, was much more awful. It's just that W.E. is very easy to attack. Abbie Cornish is beautiful to watch although her character is ridiculous and Andrea Riseborough is really very good as Wallis , but W.E. seems only a long commercial spot from start to finish. It's empty, superficial and naive and maybe also a little dishonest. It's all about Madonna's obsession with fashion, beauty, richness, music, and British Royals. That's it.

Evan Rachel Wood says "Hi"

"My glasses are cooler than yours," she adds dismissively, before strutting off into the paparazzi flashbulbs at the 68th annual Venice Film Festival.

How Vintage! Natalie, Jane, Mike & Julie At Roddy's Place!

Thanks to Matt @ Boy Culture for pointing this abso-wow home movie out. A friend of the late actor Roddy McDowall has uploaded silent movies from the prominent social butterfly's beach house.

This one features Natalie Wood, Mike Nichols, Julie Andrews with toddler... (I hear that's Jane Fonda sticking her tongue out? But I maybe wouldn't have recognized her given the sunglasses and that she's SO young)

I'm not crazy. This is Elaine May with Mike Nichols, right? The timing would be right.

See how many other stars you can spot. (This reminded me of a certain Hollywood socializing passage during the Bonnie & Clyde chapters of "Pictures at a Revolution" and damnit, now I'm going to have to read that all over again.)

This video is rather kind of almost no totally jawdropping.

In this second one Jane Fonda (again sticking her tongue out -- what's that about?) and Julie Andrews (playing with her kids) are more prominent and this time Jane is unmistakably Jane. Plus Ruth Gordon even makes an appearance. Yay, Ruth Gordon. 

There are more of these videos at soapbxprod's youtube channel. These videos are such a scrapbook of who's who in 1960s Hollywood.

Venice, Day 3: Keira's Confession, Kate's Challenge, Madonna's Stumble

Manolis, from the Greek site Cinema News, reporting from Venice for The Film Experience.

Madonna and her W.E. cast © the wonderful photographer Fabrizio Spinetta who is sending us great shots for TFE. 

Before today's report some thoughts about Madonna's W.E. which I had the privilege of seeing; there were so many people outside the cinema trying to find a ticket. It was difficult to turn your back to Madonna and her W.E. cast who were sitting on the Balcony behind the audience, but once the lights in the Sala Grande were off, you could focus on the openings shots of her film. 

ManolisW.E.

The movie reminded me a lot of Julie and Julia. It has a similar structure but the bonding between the two Wallis’ (Cornish and Riseborough) is more vague and unfocused than that of Adams and Streep. And let’s face it, a Streep this film doesn't have. Andrea Riseborough has the showiest role, but the film doen’t help us connect her character or her motives, or help ups sympathize with her or even understand what she sacrificed for her relationship with Edward (which was Madonna’s aim as stated in the press conference). The love story of the modern day couple (Abbie Cornish and Oscar Isaac) proves more interesting than one of the most notorious love stories of all time. 

I think that the biggest mistake that Harvey Weinstein made with W.E. was leaking that it was an Oscar contender. Sure, the film has some chances in Costume Design, Music (a great score by Yann Tiersen and Abel Korzeniowski) and even Make Up (hello, Old Age!) but apart from that not much more. But the script which was co-written by Madonna is unfocused and full of cliches and predictable ‘twists’ . Madonna’s directing style fares slightly better but her visual choices are all over the place. The rich production values help make the viewing pleasant but this is not a serious oscar contender.

A Dangerous Method

This is already the third film of the competition (after The Ides of March and Carnage) that was based on a play. David Cronenberg's new film is drawn from true life events and the relationship of Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). Fassbender and Mortensen are excellent giving restraint utterly believable performances of these famous figures. Vincent Cassell is also good in a very small role (six minutes?). The Art Direction of the movie may have also been impressive but I couldn't see the scenery; Keira Knightley was chewing on it. Knightley's performance has caused disputes between the critics here. Some are impressed other's believe it's the film’s fatal flaw. Sorry Keira fans, but I am with the ones who did not enjoy her overracting. She cycles through every facial expression known to human kind. Needless to say that a Best Actress Oscar nomination is not out of the question. Sabina is obvious Oscar Bait and people often confuse best acting with most acting. Other strong Oscar prospects include Supporting Actor (Viggo), Adapted Screenplay and Costumes. 

Cronenberg, Knightley, Mortensen, Fassy, Sarah Gadon, Cassel are all in Venice!

I am an actress so of course I'm crazy."

Keira Knightley confessed at the press conference for the film. Other highlights from the press conference included Michael Fassbender's research for the role of Jung which he said was reading "Jung for Children: The Idiot’s handbook" and Mortensen thanking a fan for giving him a mascot doll of his favorite team San Lorenzo. When asked what he learned about psychoanalysis while making the film, David Cronenberg replied "I found out that of all my actors that are here need psychoanalysis."

Mildred Pierce

At the Mildred Pierce press conference Winslet suprised most of the audience when she confessed how difficult the role was.

...without question, my most challenging job since Titanic. Working in a TV series is much more difficult than in a film." 

Tomorrow in Venice: the premieres of ALPS (Giorgos Lanthimos Dogtooth follow up), James Franco’s Sal Mineo biopic, Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion and Al Pacino’s Wild Salome.