Jennifer’s Body - A Eulogy (of sorts)

I wasn’t purposely avoiding it or anything, but I missed Jennifer’s Body when it came out last year. Perhaps it was my general apathy towards Megan Fox and Diablo Cody. Granted, I’ve never seen The United States of Tara, but I’m one of those people who doesn’t care for Juno, or Ellen Page in it.

Fox, you probably know, stars as the eponymous Jennifer who gets sacrificed to the Devil by a rock band (led by Adam Brody) hoping to find fame. The sacrifice goes awry and Jennifer returns to the world – demonised. She must now feed on boys to maintain her beauty. Her best friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried) starts to put the pieces together. Generally, I was pleased by Jennifer’s Body. It harbours the traits of Diablo’s other film – dialogue that’s too quirky to be funny at times, but for the most part I think Diablo’s writing has matured, for the most part Jennifer’s Body is doing something good.

         

FOR THE MOST PART…

She still doesn’t know to wrap up a film to save her life and it’s what buries Jennifer’s Body. Perhaps, I over exaggerate (well, it’s me, so that’s normal) it doesn’t make the movie god-awful, it’s not god-awful. Up until a few moments before a certain spring dance it’s looking good but an ill-fated and all too clichéd fight to the finish throws me for a loop. Sure certain tears shed over a dying person are well handled, Seyfried is quite good here actually, but it’s just all too ridiculous – and it was already ridiculous to begin with. She attempts to salvage herself as the credits roll and a certain fateful seen is shown the background, it helps, but it’s no resurrection. As much I think Jason Reiteman is an unspectacular director, Jennifer’s Body could have done with stronger direction, it could also have done with more work from Cody. But I don’t hate it; I like it very much in some parts. I don’t hate Diablo Cody, just apathetic. Writing wise, for the most part, Jennifer’s Body is a step up from Juno. The woman has talent; she just needs to harvest it. I’m hoping third times the charm for her.

       

What did you think of Jennifer’s Body last year? Or were you one of the assassins that ensured it tanked at the box office?

Letters to Vanessa Redgrave Juliet

I have a strange relationship with Vanessa Redgrave. Though I like her between films I remember her talent with more of a slight detachment than any passionate love (still, Katharine H. did single her out as the greatest of her generation). It is such that every time I see her on screen I fall in love with her again. Case in point: Letters to Juliet.

For some reason, when Letters to Juliet ended, I found myself suppressing all the trite, bland and uninspired bits and focusing only on the lovely bits. This was odd, because there was more of the former than of the latter. The world that Letters To Juliet creates for itself is so maddening (and silly) at times that I can’t help but be annoyed with it. This is odd, because the film is so innocent and even saccharine throughout that such that such thoughts seem almost offensive. The best way to put it: Letters to the Juliet is a ridiculously sweet bonbon bookended (at the beginning and the end) by cinematic conventions that are sadly quite uninspired.

  

Sophie goes to Italy with her boyfriend, played by Gael Garcia Bernal. The two are on odd couple on paper as much as on screen (the role was originally Hugh Dancy's). We know from the instant we see him chattering effusively that this relationship is not meant to be (this is not a spoiler, folks). Of course, his only fault is not being Sophie's destined lover – or maybe it’s loving food more than her, either way he’s not “the one”. In Italy Sophie happens the alleged house of Juliet Capulet. Hundreds of love struck women from across the globe paste letters on the wall that are answered by “Juliet’s Secretary” who offer romantic advice. By happenstance, a letter that is fifty year old arrives in heroines hand and she responds. Here the conceits only grow. Not only is the Claire, woman, alive but she is surprisingly living at the same address for fifty years. She arrives in toe with her grandson (could this be “the one”) and because of Sophie’s letter decides to search for a man she had give up on for fifty years. More contrivances arrive, Claire allows herself to traverse through Italy looking for this man, which is something Vanessa manages to make plausible.

Letters to the Juliet biggest fault is going for the money and not for the heart; as far as I can see really. I can imagine that Amanda Seyfried will sell more tickets than Vanessa Redgrave on a movie poster, but the arc concerning the luminous Ms. Redgrave is more fulfilling even though it’s not exactly fresh. There is no overstatement when I say that Ms. Redgrave is possibly one of the ten most talented thespians alive and her ability to breathe life into even the most contrived of cinematic clichés makes her even more worthy to me. Then there’s the fact that she shares a certain amount of time with Franco Nero the father of one of her three children that makes me a little too emotionally invested in the film.

As the third act looms, though, and Vanessa leaves the story (momentarily) all my feelings of appreciation are gone. Not because Amanda Seyfried is not talented (she is), but she’s not talented enough to carry a film on her shoulders alone. We know she and her boyfriend will part, amicably because he’s not an officious boor (just wrong for her). certain plot machinations will make for a few mistakes then an absolute union with the man of her dreams, yada yada ya.

   

It is a sweet movie in its way, but not good enough; and I find Chris Egan's performance so insufferably boorish (and that accent, oi!). I was seduced by Ms. Redgrave, but Letters to Juliet is not as good as she pretends it is. But, god bless her, the woman is a treasure to the screen, she can sell any thing.

          

Letters to Juliet: C

Ms. Redgrave in Letters to Juliet: B+

Ms. Redgrave’s Talent: Priceless

Chloe

When Chloe opens with those shots of Amanda Seyfried as she ensues in her monologue of sorts, Atom Egoyan gives us the impression that what follows will be an exposé (of sorts) on this woman and her life. Chloe is not such a film, I can’t pretend that any apprehensions I have about the film derive from the opening, but in assessing why Chloe left me somewhat cold I couldn’t help but revert to the beginning which had me anticipating something completely different from what ensues. In fact, at the end the first thing I wondered was – How did the beginning enhance the film?

Despite its name, Chloe is the study of a marriage. Catherine and David, played credibly by Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson are a marriage couple. She’s getting old and worried about her age, he’s getting old and more flirtatious (but still chaste, we can assume). A provocative image on his phone when he misses a party leads Catherine to hire the eponymous Chloe to seduce her husband and report the results. It’s a fairly simple story, a pedestrian one even. This can only end one way for us to have a movie – he sleeps with her and tragedy ensues (I’m well aware of the deception in this statement). In this way Chloe depends on a twist that’s not really a twist, but my issue is not even with the twist. Egoyar crafts a film that’s beautifully shot, the writing is fair even though it’s unexceptional and it’s not so much that the denouement of it falls flat, but the viewer is left with the question – so what? This is, essentially, my issue with Chloe. I’ve never seen the original, and cannot comment on if Chloe is a misrepresentation of it. I remember chuckling to myself when I heard the name of the director, how could I take such a name seriously? It’s the same issue I have with Chloe. At face value it’s the study of a marriage that ultimately is saved, but with cracks in it (that final shot of Julianne). Nothing more, nothing less. But the story is one devoid of any individuality, and the very title (and that telling opening) has me rethinking it.

SPOILERS: Be warned!!!

The film opens as we watch Seyfried in moments of undress as she narrates over the film. It’s a poor opening, I think, in context at least. It’s significant that this is the only narration in the film, opening or otherwise. What’s more, Chloe is obviously not the main character of the film, so why begin with her in a state of pseudo-omniscient. Is the opening even chronologically related to the film? A crazy thought occurs to me, is Chloe even dead? Obviously she is; the maimed body alone is proof. But Chloe being alive is the only way that the film’s beginning makes sense. And since it’s obvious that she is dead Egoyan’s Chloe falls flat. Or if not, I was waiting for a moment of absolution when we’d realise that Liam’s David was just the consummate actor and did have an affair with Chloe. But alas, no such twist. It’s fine to look at and completely diverting but as I gain a little distance I also gain some perspective. It’s been a full week now and Chloe’s significance seems stark. Technically, it’s adequate but Egoyan seems to have no argument to put forward behind the pretty shots…or if he does, it completely eludes me.

        

C+