Little Children

In Todd Field’s Little Children - Kate Winslet plays Sarah, a suburban mom frustrated with her dull life and at odds with other more typical stay-at-home moms. She has an affair with Brad, a hot stay-at-home dad whom she meets at playground - and the result is a competent drama that asks the audience to look deeper into their own lives.

Little Children is based on Tom Perrotta’s same-name novel and at times, especially the beginning, the movie actually feels like a book reading with reenactment involved. In America, it seems too much to ask for someone to read a book. We have to reduce everything into a two-hour entertainment in order for people to absorb any important messages. It is the exact pathetic behavior and close-mindedness that Perrotta made fun of in his book.

Overall the movie is a pretty faithful adaptation of Perrotta’s book (maybe because it is adapted by Perrotta along with Field) and it picks up its pace a bit after the first twenty or so slow minutes. I read the book a few years back. Watching the movie helps me gain a new perspective on the whole story. It doesn’t really condemn American suburbia conformity. There is nothing wrong if one feels happy staying home and taking care of the family. What is disturbing is the intolerance and hypocrisy beneath that conformity.

The role of Sarah’s husband has been reduced dramatically, but the side plot about the pedophile Ronnie stays in the movie. In the book, that plot is really a distraction, forced there to create some high drama conflict. It is a shame when a writer (or maybe publisher) doesn’t trust his central theme about everyday strife will be interesting enough for readers. The book, in my opinion, would have been more powerful if it had left out the whole pedophile angle. In the movie, that side plot, in part, is redeemed by an excellent Oscar nominated performance by former child actor Jackie Earle Haley.

The cast may be the best thing about this movie. Kate Winslet, on her way to prove that she may be the Meryl Streep of her generation, delivers another powerful performance. Her Sarah is a strong-minded and well-educated young woman who feels trapped in her suburban existence. Her intelligence and spirit is far above other suburban moms and beyond her husband’s understanding. She finally feels a little alive when she starts her affair with the neighborhood “Prom King” Brad. Sarah, in the book, is supposed to be quite plain. Winslet does try hard to make her look ordinary, but her beauty still shines through unkempt hair and little made-up face. Meanwhile, Jennifer Connelly is at her loveliest playing Brad’s knockout wife Kathy. Her performance is not that extraordinary, but she certainly looks the part. I was quite impressed with Patrick Wilson who plays Brad in the movie. His dark good look is seductive on screen and one can easily see why all the women are attracted to him, but he is also very convincing as a husband with little ambition and still not quite fully grown up. He holds his own when sharing screen time with Winslet. His quiet demeanor nicely offsets Sarah’s passionate hunger.

Compared with a lot of the junks populating cinemas these days, Little Children is not a bad movie. In some scenes, the music, the lighting and the performance can really touch your heart. However, the movie as a whole is not very memorable.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Clint Eastwood’s new movie, Letters from Iwo Jima, is a noble attempt at interpreting war from the enemy perspective, but the filmmaking itself shows no originality and the story is quite slow at times and frequently veers toward melodrama.

Letters from Iwo Jima is a companion piece to Eastwood’s earlier movie, Flags of Our Fathers. Flags shows the famous Iwo Jima battle from the American perspective and Letters portrays the same battle from Japanese side. I have not seen Flags, but read the book. The book was written by James Bradley, the son of John Bradley, one of the flag raisers in Iwo Jima. James had worked and lived in Japan for quite a few years and in the book he actually shows some affection for the Japanese people. He did point out that his father never really understood his feelings toward Japanese people and always refused to visit him in Japan. Eastwood’s two films are a brand new approach in war movies and should have been done more often. We rarely stand in other’s shoes when we portray wars. In this movie, Eastwood exposes that war is fought on all sides by human beings.

I admire Eastwood’s good intention, but I simply wish that he could have reduced some tear jerking sentimentalities. I get it that, like their American counterparts, Japanese soldiers have their anxiety, fear and doubt about the war; they also have family and loved ones left behind; they have endured a lot of hardship caused by war. Yet it is not believable when a Japanese officer has a medic treat a severely wounded American soldier even though they are low on medicines themselves. It also stretches credibility when the island commander tries to shield a lowly soldier from danger during their last general attack. Eastwood seems to be keen on showing soldiers are human but at the expense of the reality of war. War is cruel and aims to deprive normal people of their humanity. During wars, many good citizens could become animals in order to survive.

I disagree with some critics who think that the Japanese soldiers in Eastwood movie may be too much like us. The mass suicide scenes in the movie are clear examples about our differences. Japanese warriors are historically trained to value little about his or other’s life while western culture puts human life above all else. Unfortunately in wars many lives are lost for little purpose.

The movie also makes one question about nationalism. The Japanese soldiers are fighting to protect their country even though the country is waging an unjust war toward others. Are they patriots defending their country and people, or are they criminals passive toward their government policy and responsible for murdering many innocent people on foreign land? In my eyes, they are tragic villains. Sadly governments today still twist people’s sense of honor in their advantage and march them to battleground to commit murder in the name of their countries.

Volver

Pedro Almodovar writes some most original scripts in world cinema today, and his most recent movie Volver reunites him with Hollywood’s most famous Spanish import Penelope Cruz.

Each of Almodovar’s films has very different stories, yet they all share some similar traits. There are always death, friendship, secrets and humor soaked in bright colors. Usually Almodovar’s plots teeter on the border line of being over-the-top. However, his scripts are so creative and unique that you overlook some craziness in his movies. Volver is no exception.

In Volver, Raimunda struggles in her daily life, but mainly in her relationships with her mother, sister, daughter and friends. Watching Almodovar’s movies, one can guess that he must be a movie aficionado. He is heavily influenced by filmmakers of the past. In Volver alone, one can see the shadows of Hitchcock, Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, and above all, all those Italian neorealist masters. Almodovar’s script flows freely and dabbles in genres from thriller to ghost story to drama to comedy. It is hard to pin this movie in any specific mold; in fact, the only thing I can say for sure about this movie is that it is an unabashedly “chick” movie. The few male characters all quickly disappear minutes after they show up on screen. It is probably for the better. Almodovar is an actress’ writer/director. He has precise insights into female relationships and all actresses shine in his movie.

Cruz got an Oscar nomination for her role of Raimunda, but I think Cannes Film Festival got it right by handing the entire cast a Best Actress Award. Cruz may be the most glamorous one among the cast, but she definitely doesn’t rise above them. Almodovar clearly tries to recreate the earth mother image that has been a symbol of female characters in Italian neorealist movies. All the women in Volver are nurturing, loving, forgiving and loyal. Image wise, Cruz is more closely related to Sophia Loren in Vittorio De Sica’s Two Women than Anna Magnani in Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Open City. However, at the end of the movie, Almodovar openly pays tribute to Magnani and Italian neorealism by having Raimunda’s mother watch Magnani in Bellissima. Like Magnani’s character in Bellissima, Raimunda’s mom also dreamed of making Raimunda a child actress. Cruz seems to be much at ease when she is speaking her native tongue. She should concentrate on making Spanish movies. Actually she gained international fame through Almodovar movies and attracted all the attention from Hollywood. She was mostly wasted in Hollywood movies and now once again Almodovar revived her career and pushed her into international limelight.

I have watched every single Almodovar movie since his Oscar winner All About My Mother. He writes about tragedies in life without any sentimentality and his characters, especially those female ones, always go through life with toughness and a sense of humor. My favorite Almodovar movie is still Talk to Her maybe because in that movie he created equally strong male and female characters. It is an ultimate love story for all romantics. Volver, in my opinion, does not measure up to Talk to Her, but still I would love to hang out with Raimunda and her friends any time. Those ladies remind me of an American oldie:

“Well I’ve never been to Spain
But I kinda like the music
Say the ladies are insane there
And they sure know how to use it
They don’t abuse it
Never gonna lose it
I can’t refuse it”