Review: Captain Fantastic (2016)

* * * 1/2
Director: Matt Ross
Starring: Viggo Mortensen

One of life's great ironies is that it's possible to be wrong even when you're right. The father in Captain Fantastic is right when he argues that he's done right by his children, raising them to be bright, self-sufficient, capable of deep and independent thought, and possessed of practical and artistic skills, and yet those outside the family are right when they argue that, at best, he's left his children unprepared to exist in the world as it is and, at worst, he's behaved in a way that's abusive and has put his children in danger. He's right when he argues that people have become over-medicated to serve the interests of big Pharma, yet he's wrong in his belief that all medications in all circumstances are unnecessary and that a genuine and very serious mental illness can be cured simply by taking that person off the grid and living as close to nature as possible. Written and directed by Matt Ross, Captain Fantastic works as effectively as it does because it refuses to see its situation in black and white, choosing instead to exist in the grays that allow it to see its protagonist as a man of noble ideas and something akin to a militant cult leader.

Review: A History of Violence (2005)

* * * *
Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt

Violence is something at once abhorred and glorified. The taking of a life in an act of crime is the most grievous of offenses, but the taking of a life in self-defense is something often, even if only implicitly, celebrated. David Cronenberg's 2005 masterpiece A History of Violence skillfully mines this contradiction, focusing on a protagonist who is at once a bad man who kills for bad reasons, and a good man who kills for good reasons. The question isn't whether the man can be reconciled to the two parts of himself, but whether society, whose quaint image belies a foundation of and continuing capacity for violence, can reconcile itself to the fact that the two can exist in one.

Canadian Film Review: A Dangerous Method (2012)

* * *
Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen

It was probably inevitable that David Cronenberg would one day make a movie about Sigmund Freud, given his career-long preoccupation with the psychosexual. What wasn't inevitable was how tame that movie would be when he finally made it - well, tame for a movie where one of the central relationships centres on sadomasochism. Elegantly mounted but somewhat lacking in spirit, A Dangerous Method is a fine film, but ultimately minor Cronenberg.

The Best Picture Countdown #76: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Note: this post is modified from a previously published post

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin

Each of the three Lord of the Rings films are distinct and strong enough in their own rights as films, but taken together you get a story that is epic in every sense of the word, a visual and narrative experience that is almost beyond imagining. The films transcend the boundaries of genre, becoming not simply a standard for fantasy films, but a standard for filmmaking period. They aren’t perfect films to be sure, but even their flaws are lovable when considered as part of the overall experience of watching this story unfold.

It is impossible to talk about The Return of the King without also talking, in part, about the two films that precede it: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. The first film sees the formation of the team of heroes determined to destroy the one Ring that could rule all of Middle Earth, and the separation of the four hobbits from the rest at film’s end; the second film charts the parallel journeys of the two halves of the team as the dark forces grow stronger, threatening to become unstoppable. The Return of the King finds everyone coming back together again and ultimately triumphing over evil. The usual tropes of the genre are present here, but they’re also given a twist. For example, instead of one hero who must battle the exterior forces of evil and the interior forces of self-doubt in order to realize his destiny, here we have two such heroes. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is the hobbit who must travel across the darkest spots of Middle Earth in order to save it, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is the man who must accept the destiny he has always tried to avoid and become the ruler who will unite the kingdoms of Middle Earth. Their journeys are equally compelling, each offering a different take of the idea of heroism. The supporting characters are compelling as well, from the hobbit sidekick Sam (Sean Astin) to the Elvin princess Arwin (Liv Tyler), and of course the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan).

Much has been made of the special effects in the films, and rightly so. What is presented here is CGI at its most breathtaking. While I often find CGI distracting and overused, here I find it fully engrossing because it’s done so well and fits so seamlessly into the world where the story takes place. There are many great examples across all three films, but the best use of CGI is in the creation and portrayal of Gollum (Andy Serkis). This is a character so fully realized, so completely fleshed out and three dimensional (both literally and figuratively) that you can watch the films and forget that this is an animated character. Admittedly I’m biased because just about anything involving Gollum qualifies as a favourite moment of mine from the films, and because I’m one of the people who thought Andy Serkis should have been able to get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because what he does here goes so far beyond voice-work and it’s s shame he couldn’t get more recognition for it.

This is a story of amazing scope and action and features some incredibly well crafted battle sequences, but the power of the story isn’t simply and solely in the sword play. There are moments in these films that are incredibly moving and which lie at the heart of the story. Some of my favourites scenes from Return of the King include the scene in which Pip (Billy Boyd) sings a mournful ballad to a king, whose only surviving son has ridden into battle on a suicide mission in order to please him; and the scene in which Sam’s shows his determination to ensure that Frodo realizes his goal, even if he has to carry him on his back. These are films that make you care so much about the characters and each gets to have a moment to shine, to be the centre of scenes of great resonance and power.

Like the vast majority of films, these ones have their flaws. The flaw of Return of the King is that it has about eight different endings that unfold one after the other and sort of lead to a petering out of the film. But, ultimately, this is a very minor thing and the trilogy can be seen as nothing less than a masterpiece of technical and artistic achievement. Few filmmakers have ever dared to aspire to the lofty heights to which director Peter Jackson soars with these films.

Review: The Road (2009)

* * * 1/2
Director: John Hillcoat
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee

Every movie I see (and story I read) set in a post-apocalyptic world really just solidifies for me that when the end comes I need to either be dead already or be amongst those who die instantly at the moment of catastrophe, because I really don’t have the skill set or the mental/emotional fortitude to survive the barren and treacherous landscape. I could barely make it through this movie, as good as it is. In fact, it’s probably the best movie that I never, ever want to see again.

Set sometime in the future when disaster has turned the earth into an ashy wasteland, The Road follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they travel towards the west coast in the hope of finding a warmer climate. They have a shopping cart full of odds and ends that they’ve picked up on the way and a gun with two bullets left. As the earth is no longer able to sustain plant life, nearly all animals are dead, and most food rations have long since been pillaged, the roads are full of roving gangs who have turned to cannibalism. It’s to the film’s credit that the mood is so immediately and effectively established that even though the Man and the Boy come into contact with one of these gangs early in the film and you know objectively as a viewer that nothing too bad can happen at this point, it still elicits a genuine and intense feeling of tension.

The Man and the Boy will encounter many gruesome sights along the way as human beings become more and more divorced from their humanity. Though the Man tells the Boy that they are the good guys, he is not immune to behaving in ways that the Boy thinks wrong. His initial refusal to share food with an old man (Robert Duvall in a brief but beautiful performance) and his retribution against a man who briefly and unsuccessfully robs them prompts the Boy to declare that his father can’t even tell who is good and who is bad anymore. The turning point for the Man seems to be the moment when he discards his wallet with the picture of his wife (Charlize Theron) and his wedding ring – the only two things other than the Boy that he has to remind him of his former life. Interspersed throughout the film are flashbacks involving the wife, who is unable to cope with what has happened and with what she believes will happen in the future. Eventually she leaves them and, in a haunting shot, disappears into the darkness and snow to die alone. The Man is troubled by the fact that he could not give her a reason to live and with the nagging suspicion that perhaps she was right.

The film is obviously very dark and it deals with some very heavy themes. The central question seems to be whether it is morally right of the Man to keep the Boy alive at all under these circumstances. His wife is dead, the earth is dying, and there are constantly moments when he thinks that he will have to use his last bullet to kill the Boy just to prevent him from being tortured, harvested and eventually killed by one gang or another. More importantly still, he is himself dying, coughing up blood and limping forward more slowly with each step. He tells himself that he is preparing the Boy to take care of himself after he’s gone, but does he really think that the Boy, all alone in a world full of blood thirsty marauders, can really survive? The old man refers to death as a luxury that one shouldn’t ask for in times like this, but couldn’t it also be a mercy?

Mortensen carries the film with a grim determination. Gaunt and haggard looking, he is nevertheless able to bring some degree of warmth to the Man, even at the worst of times. After narrowly escaping a gang of cannibals, the Man returns to collect their discarded belongings, particularly the children’s books that he reads to the Boy at night. He is a father first and foremost and strives to make the situation bareable for his son, putting on a brave face and summoning up all of his strength to carry on. For a brief spell they find a comfortable shelter where they’re able to bathe and cut their hair and feel human again. He smokes a cigarette and drinks a glass of whisky and remarks that the Boy (born after the beginning of the catastrophe) probably thinks he’s from another world. The Boy affectionately agrees and for a moment it is almost as if they are living a normal, happy life. The Boy may be more vulnerable to predators, but it is the Man who suffers the most because he remembers how life used to be before everything collapsed around him.

Director John Hillcoat, working with an adaptation by Joe Penhall, has made a remarkably well-crafted film. He’s very good at maintaining and nurturing the tension throughout the story so that it doesn’t peter out before it gets to the end and he wisely shies away from getting too graphic when it comes to the more horrific elements of the story. It is bleak, but it doesn’t glorify the violence, suggesting it with broad strokes rather than letting us have all the gory details. It doesn’t need those details – it conveys the idea of them more effectively than a direct visual ever could.

As I said at the beginning, as much as I admire The Road’s achievements, I can’t see myself ever watching it again. Some would argue that that’s a failing on the part of the film, but I would say that some works of art leave such an indelible impression that they only need to be experienced once. Certainly I would recommend this one, though I don't know that the winter time is the best time to see it.

100 Days, 100 Movies: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003)

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom

Each of the three Lord of the Rings films are distinct and strong enough in their own rights as films, but taken together you get a story that is epic in every sense of the word, a visual and narrative experience that is almost beyond imagining. The films transcend the boundaries of genre, becoming not simply a standard for fantasy films, but a standard for filmmaking period. They aren’t perfect films to be sure, but even their flaws are lovable when considered as part of the overall experience of watching this story unfold.

The story centers on a group of heroes determined to destroy the one Ring that could rule all of Middle Earth. The Fellowship of the Ring sees the group formed and, at the end, separated; The Two Towers charts their parallel journeys as the dark forces grow stronger, threatening to become unstoppable; and The Return of the King finds them back together again and triumphing over evil. The usual tropes of the genre are present here, but they’re also given a twist. For example, instead of one hero who must battle the exterior forces of evil and the interior forces of self-doubt in order to realize his destiny, here we have two such heroes. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is the hobbit who must travel across the darkest spots of Middle Earth in order to save it, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is the man who must accept the destiny he has always tried to avoid, and become the ruler who will unite the kingdoms of Middle Earth. Their journeys are equally compelling, each offering a different take of the idea of heroism. The supporting characters are compelling as well, from the hobbit sidekick Sam (Sean Astin) to the Elvin princess Arwin (Liv Tyler), and of course the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan).

Much has been made of the special effects in the films, and rightly so. What is presented here is CGI at it’s most breathtaking. While I often find CGI distracting and overused, here I find it fully engrossing because it’s done so well and fits so seamlessly into the world where the story takes place. There are many great examples across all three films, but the best use of CGI is in the creation and portrayal of Gollum (Andy Serkis). This is a character so fully realized, so completely fleshed out and three dimensional (both literally and figuratively) that you can watch the films and forget that this is an animated character. Admittedly I’m biased because just about anything involving Gollum qualifies as a favourite moment of mine from the films, and because I’m one of the people who thought Andy Serkis should have been able to get a Best Supporting Actor nomination (what he does here goes so far beyond voice-work and it’s s shame he couldn’t get more recognition for it). One of the most visually and psychologically powerful scenes from the films comes in The Two Towers when Gollum and his other/better side Smeagol confront each other. Smeagol is the side that is still somewhat human, Gollum is the side that has been destroyed by his obsession with the ring, and the interplay of the two – both of whom are separate and distinct characters – is fascinating to watch. And even though Smeagol “wins,” there remains that darker undercurrent, the danger of Gollum (the Gollum in all the characters which represents greed and lust for power, and which we occasionally see peeking out of Frodo) that runs through all three films.

This is a story of amazing scope and action and features some amazing battle sequences, but the power of the films isn’t simply and solely in the sword play. There are moments in these films that are incredibly moving and which lie at the heart of the story. Some of my favourites include the scene in Return of the King where Pip (Billy Boyd) sings a mournful ballad to a king, whose only surviving son has ridden into battle on a suicide mission in order to please him; Sam’s determination in the end to ensure that Frodo realizes his goal, even if he has to carry him on his back; the arrival of Gandalf on the horizon when the battle for Helm’s Deep seems lost; and the scene in The Two Towers where Arwin and her father discuss her future with Aragorn, and he describes to her a life that will only result in heartache for her when Aragorn inevitably dies while her own life will carry on. But she sees the future herself and won’t be swayed. There is death, “but there is also life.”

Like the vast majority of films, these ones have their flaws. To me the most glaring is the off-screen defeat and comeuppance of Saruman (Christopher Lee) which takes place between the end of The Two Towers and the beginning of The Return of the King, but I know other people who think that about the only thing wrong with any of the films is that fact that Return of the King has about eight different endings. However, regardless of these and other minor quibbles, the trilogy can be seen as nothing less than a masterpiece of technical and artistic achievement. Few filmmakers have ever dared to aspire to the lofty heights to which director Peter Jackson soars with these films.

Canadian Film Review: Eastern Promises

David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises is as effective and well-crafted a thriller as you’ll ever see. It’s economically told – there are no superfluous scenes here, every single one only adds tension and dimension to the story. The performance by Viggo Mortensen as a Russian hitman is amazing, and the supporting performances by Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl are excellent.

“Sometimes birth and death go together,” Anna (Watts) informs Nikolai (Mortensen) early in the film. This concept is at the heart of the story, which begins with a 14-year-old Russian girl giving birth and dying on Christmas Eve. Anna is the mid-wife who delivered the baby and has the dead girl’s diary translated in an effort to track down her family so that the baby won’t have to go into foster care. She first asks her uncle to do the translating for her and then, in what proves to be the worst mistake she could make, she takes a copy of the diary to a Russian named Semyon (Mueller-Stahl), who at first appears to be just a restaurateur but is in actuality a mobster and the father of the baby. Nikolai, a new recruit to his organization brought in by Semyon’s son Kirill (Cassel) is sent to take care of the situation, but he has a conflicting agenda of his own. Birth and death come together most obviously in scenes between Anna, a giver of life, and Nikolai, a dealer in death, but it’s a trope that runs throughout the film.

Concepts of “family” drive the film – family as a biological, family in the organized crime sense, and also family in the sense of a community of immigrants in a foreign country. All these different understandings of family connect birth and death in ways both natural and unnatural. There are a number of vicious deaths in this film beginning with a man named Soyka, whom Kirill has paid to have killed for spreading rumours that he’s gay. “Soyka had brothers,” Semyon warns when he finds out and, indeed, the brothers are soon in London, looking to take out everyone who played a part in Soyka’s death. To save Kirill, Semyon arranges to have Nikolai set up which leads to a memorable and bloody knife fight in a bathhouse.

The fight scene is one of many instances where the film displays its fascination with the male body. Prior to this scene there’s a ceremony where Nikolai is given his stars – tattoos that mark his affiliation to Semyon’s organization. He has many other tattoos, each other which tells part of the story of his life. The other mobsters in the film have similar collections of tattoos. The fixation on the body feeds into a fixation on concepts of masculinity within the Russian community. Kirill has someone killed for saying that he’s gay, and he orders Nikolai to have sex with a prostitute in front of him to prove that he’s not gay. Throughout the film there is a consistent concern with Kirill’s sexuality, and whether or not he actually is gay, he is impotent with women and attempts to mask it through overt and aggressive displays of heterosexuality when he’s around other men. Semyon and Nikolai are "real" men as defined by the standards of their community, but Kirill has something to prove both as a man and a member of the crime syndicate. He's born into the crime family, but as a criminal he's also rather impotent and overcompensates for it by ordering Nikolai around.

Vincent Cassel’s performance as Kirill is excellently layered, and Armin Mueller-Stahl is a chillingly effective villain. Naomi Watts is outstanding as always, adding dimensions to a character whose place in the story ultimately doesn’t give her much to do. As for Viggo Mortensen, not enough can be said about how great he is here as he slips completely into this tricky role. Accents can be difficult to pull off for actors who are famous enough that the audience knows the accent is adopted, but here you don’t even think about it as Mortensen opts for a very subtle and subdued accent, aided in no small part by the way he carries himself. He sells this character so completely that you never see Viggo, just Nikolai. It’s a quiet, intense performance that perfectly complements the tone of the film.