Taking Woodstock

Truthfully, I believe that the thing so many detractors point to concerning Taking Woodstock is my favorite part of the whole endeavor. I thought that the trailers did a very good job of explaining that Ang Lee was telling a story about the behind the scenes construction of the festival, using Elliot Tiber's story of saving his parents motel and putting their sleepy little town on the map. If you want to see the concert and the music and the artists, rent Woodstock the documentary. Even when the show is in full swing, you never get closer than a glimmer of light at the center of a sea of people because it is not about the music. This is peace, love, and disharmony, showing the partiers, the hippies, the moneymen, and the international melting pot mixing together for an event the world had never seen. It is the reawakening of two elderly Jewish immigrants who have been waiting to die and the sexual awakening for Tiber himself, finally able to toss the suit aside and figure out who he truly is. The music is just the catalyst for all the human intricacies to come out.

It begins with Tiber's return home, attempting to save his parents from having the bank foreclose on their livelihood. The motel is in shambles—dirty sheets, an empty pool, and towels are an extra buck to use. By being the new town commerce department president, Tiber works his way towards a permit to have his annual music festival, or evening of record playing outdoors, and a new information booth to be erected and drive traffic in to stay at the motel. Here is the prodigal son returned, getting hellos and welcome backs from everyone in town, glad to have a young person with vision in Bethel. Money is tighter than ever, though, and his friends from the city are moving to San Francisco, so the sober realization that he has locked himself into a season made of a slow death makes him pay extra attention to the fact that the Woodstock Festival just got run out of town close by. With a permit already signed for music, a willing neighbor in Eugene Levy's dairy farmer Max Yasgur to supply land, and a surprising past friendship with the show's organizer Michael Lang, the stars appear to be aligned for Tiber to work some magic. The townsfolk no longer feel too happy to have him back though.

Demetri Martin doe a real good job at showing the shy and reserved Tiber, slowly discovering the man he wants to be. By watching his parents break out of their funk—Imelda Staunton is fantastic as the old woman manufacturing anti-Semitism to guilt her way to what she wants and Henry Goodman shines as the father finally able to express himself to his son, having more than just his wife to spend time with—he starts to envision a future. They now have the money to hire help with the mortgage paid off; he can move along and create a name for himself somewhere knowing they will be okay alone. But, of course, things are not that cut and dry. Secrets are uncovered within the family that cause what should be a joyous time to be sadly unsatisfying, yet their discovery allows for a move towards the future. And through it all we see the concertgoers arriving, organizers getting details ready for the show, and just a plethora of unique individuals passing by and interacting with Tiber as he journeys through the mass of humanity.

All the real moments of clarity come from these people periodically entering and exiting the film. There is Emile Hirsch's Vietnam veteran, ravaged by flashbacks and an unsympathetic brother in Jeffrey Dean Morgan, that allows the harmonious joy to wash over him, bringing back memories from before the horrors overseas; there is Paul Dano and Kelli Garner as tripped out hippies, adding some entertainment despite being involved in the most unnecessary scene of the movie with the prerequisite drug-induced colors and movement of static objects; and there's Liev Schreiber's cross-dressing, ex-Marine, head of security, doubling as the sage-like voice of reason for the Teichberg family, seeing the love they have for son Tiber as well as Elliot's blindness to that expression. I would actually compare the film to something like Bobby, not as good mind you, but a similar film using a historical event to show intertwining stories occurring on its outskirts. Even though everything revolves around this young man, it really is the characters that resonate rather than the story they are taking part in.

Ang Lee appears to really enjoy the split-screen, bringing it back from his Hulk days, but in much better use here. Whereas the gimmick back then was to give a comic book feel, showing the exact same thing three times from different angles, the current utilization displays the numerous activities going on, the comradery, the nudity, and the enjoyment of a weekend away from the constraints of capitalism as collage. This film is a slice of life, a sprawling epic about the people instead of the event itself, and that's exactly why I enjoyed it as much as I did. Everyone is crazy in some respect and watching them act insane is a lot of fun amongst the details of the time. The mudslides are in full use, every piece of metal is electrified come day three, and the chocolate milk is delicious. Taking Woodstock may not be some profound tale that needed to be brought in front of cameras, but it is a piece of history and nostalgic look back to a time when rock and roll could enrage a town and unite it. You don't have to look farther than good ol' Annie played by Bette Henritze, loving the yoga classes and the no longer vacant hotel rooms at her establishment. Sometimes you just have to let loose for once and live.

Milk

How fortuitous a thing is timing. Released only a few weeks after the passage of Proposition 8 - a ballot measure that took away the rights of same-sex couples to marry in California - Gus Van Sant's Oscar-nominated film "Milk" turns back the clock to another, similar struggle in American civil rights history and to the iconic figure who helped to wage it.

Harvey Milk was, of course, the San Francisco supervisor and gay-rights pioneer who, along with Mayor George Moscone, was gunned down in city hall in November 1978. The perpetrator, Dan White, a disgruntled fellow board member who had recently resigned his seat, was found guilty of manslaughter (using the now infamous "Twinkie Defense" to get the lower charge), sent to prison for a mere five years, then released in 1984, only to take his own life two years later.

Dustin Lance Black's Oscar-winning screenplay traces Milk's meteoric rise from an obscure, still largely closeted Republican businessman in the early 1970s to the de facto leader of the gay-rights movement that began to take shape during that decade. He became the first openly gay man in the state to be elected to public office and, in 1978, he was instrumental in helping to defeat Proposition 6, which, if passed, would have made it illegal for homosexuals (and even straight supporters of homosexuals!) to teach in California public schools (was this really only thirty years ago?). Throughout all this, Milk managed to develop a large, highly charged grass roots organization, the purpose of which was not merely to combat bigotry wherever it reared its ugly head but to win over the hearts and minds of the people in their community and the nation as a whole.

There has been some criticism leveled against the movie that it is too reverential in its treatment of Milk, that it paints him too much as a saint and not enough as an ordinary human being with the requisite number of weaknesses and flaws to make him truly viable as a character. Even if one were to accept that charge (which I do not), it still doesn't take into account the very special quality that Sean Penn himself brings to the role. With obviously heightened mannerisms that he is careful never to allow to slide over into caricature or camp, Penn makes Milk both charismatically larger-than-life and recognizably human at one and the same time. Whether he's in front of a crowd rallying the troops with his megaphone or enjoying a tender moment with his longtime boyfriend, Scott Smith, Penn allows us see the many facets of this obviously complex man.

In a movie chock full of outstanding supporting performances, James Franco as Smith, Josh Brolin as Dan White, and Emile Hirsch as Cleve Jones, a rootless young man inspired by Milk to become a lifelong activist, are the obvious standouts.

As a director, Van Sant keeps things moving at an almost whirlwind pace, beautifully balancing the "big" scenes of rallies and marches with the more intimate moments depicting Milk's relationships with those around him. At times Van Sant brings an almost documentary-style immediacy to the film, seamlessly blending actual footage from that era (much of it of Anita Bryant and her anti-gay crusade) with convincingly staged re-enactments of events at that time. Obviously wanting to end on a positive note, the movie mentions but does not dramatize the "White Night Riots" which took place in the city following the assassinations, instead focusing on the enormous candlelight march that wended its way through the shocked and devastated city. Thus, the ending, like the movie itself, is a necessary and deeply moving reminder of how the courage of one individual to stand up for what he knows is right can inspire others to follow in his footsteps - and change the world in the process.

By opening with file footage of men being arrested at a gay bar then carted off in paddy wagons to be booked as "sex offenders," "Milk" makes the viewer realize how very far society has come in the time since the events depicted in this story - and, with the recent passage of Proposition 8, how very far it still has to go.

Into The Wild

I've read a lot of professional and amateur reviews for this film, and about half begin with, "This film is just about some spoiled brat with high hopes and no brains!" And I would say "Yes, it is, BUT...", because by the end the main character completes a 'character arc'.

You have to remember that Chris McCandless was young and motivated by the idea that rejecting the materialistic ideology of the Western society he was raised in, his parents overbearing superficialness and unhappy domestic history would attain freedom. This motivated him to go and find freedom in the wild, specifically, Alaska. However, before he gets to Alaska he hitchhikes for two years and meets a series of influential characters. A lot of the time these characters provide comic relief, but when Chris leaves them after forming an emotional bond, you realise that he isn't a great person and that these characters serve to indicate this selfish aspect of Chris' character. But that's okay - you don't have to like Chris! But that said, Chris is hard not to like; when you strip away all his selfish actions you get a handsome and charming man.

However, you have to accept as a viewer that Chris was real, and all *real* people are flawed. He does selfish things, he hurts people and people hurt him. That is life. But he is not all bad, none of us are! If you look for the good you will find it - sometimes he's quite a decent guy.
Sean Penn has structured the film in several chapters that ascend like this, "Birth", "Manhood" etc. I'm not sure if I liked this aspect of the film. On one hand, it gives Chris' journey another dimension i.e. His journey encapsulates the journey we all go through in our lives. But sometimes I thought it was a little too ambitious to apply that to one man's idealistic and eventually fatal adventure. I also hated how the main title "Into The Wild" morphed from cool yellow handwriting into ugly green block letters - perhaps it was meant to symbolise the rejection of aesthetic comforts? But some aspects of the film I did really like, such as the sensitive and touching voice-over of Chris' sister during the film. In that way, there are three narratives running simultaneously through the film: Chris' family (represented by his sister's voice-over and flashbacks), Chris' hitchhiking adventures (used to show aspects of his character), and Chris in Alaska (the real trial of his adventure, providing many climaxes in the movie, and the final stage of his character arc). This structure is very sophisticated I think (opposed to some reviewers who call the film 'confused' and 'jumbled'), and really draws us deeper into the film.
While some people can't be drawn in by how repulsed they are by this rich kid's selfishness and typical anti-society 'tude, the ending serves to change your mind. Chris goes out there to get freedom, because he thinks:

Freedom = Happiness

However, he realises that happiness must be shared for it to mean anything. He also discards the immature alias he gave himself when he was still an ideologically motivated idiot - Alexander Supertramp - and realises everything must be called by its right name, and accepts himself for who he is - Chris McCandless. In the end, this film evolves into a touching coming-of-age story, having been a riveting adventure story, road movie and family drama.

Now for technical aspects of the film (it deserves at least five stars for this alone!) - beautiful cinematography; the shots of Alaska are incredible. The acting - Emile Hirsh is absolutely perfect. There are no Oscar moments; the performance as a whole is complete, perfect and understated. Some of his improvisations are hilarious. The supporting actors are all brilliant, especially Hal Holbrook as Mr. Franz and Kristen Stewart as the young, horny singer Tracy. Chris' partings with Hal Holbrook and Tracy are the most heart-wrenching. Chris rejects a flourishing romantic relationship for his freedom. This makes his realisation that he needs to share it even sadder.

My final opinion on the film is that it is well-made, and deserves to be respected, just for all the hard work that has gone into it. Hirsch's dedication to the role and Penn's dedication and sensitivity to the story and Chris' memory. There's only three things left that concern me:

1) The representation of Chris as a hero/Jesus. There were moments when I thought Penn was casting Chris as too much of a heroic figure, when we have to remind ourselves that he wasn't - he was young, motivated and ill-prepared. As much as it pains me to say this insensitive-sounding statement, I have to: his death does not make him a hero. If he had come back alive, would there be a film? I worry about these things. What if the river had NOT become so wide and Chris had been able to return? What if Chris had come back and integrated into society? Would there be a film?

2) His family's involvement in the making of the film - how much power did they have? Have they changed representations of themselves? How objective is this film? Objectivity can never be achieved, but I worry if the family made themselves look better for the film. I think the character arc I see concerning Chris' parents is very likely to have really occurred, but how do I know for sure? I don't know.

3) Hypocrisy? Is Chris a hypocrite for living in an abandoned bus in Alaska? No, because it wasn't his goal to abandon modern technology, it was his goal to abandon the restrictions of a superficial society, such as having a definite identity and set future.

P.S. I haven't read the book; I'm judging the film on its own merits.