The Big Lebowski

What Jeff said:

You gotta watch this film, The Big Lebowski. It’s about a nobody who got tangled up in some nonsense. Turns out, the nonsense was legitimate, but didn’t include this actual “Dude”. Still, the Dude did a good job navigating the scene that life presented him with. It is genuinely entertaining, and full of oddness. I think you will appreciate it as much as I did.

Mike’s verdict:

Nonsense. That is the right word.

I have to admit upfront that it’s possible my feelings toward this film have been skewed by the fact it was viewed only days after, North by Northwest.  Sometimes two unrelated films can play off each other and it’s to the benefit of both – even when they are very different.  On the other hand, sometimes the virtues of one film will shine blinding light on the shortcomings of the other.  In this case, the two films start with exactly the same premise (a guy minding his own business gets caught up in a fantastic plot after being mistaken for someone else), use similar plot devices (the rich and evil antagonist, the mysteriously attractive woman with an unknown agenda), and even have overlapping character actions (pencil shading the notepad to see the last written note).  But despite these similarities, the two films take character development off in near polar opposite directions and unfortunately for The Dude, I like Roger Thornhill more.

Films work best when the audience can imagine itself in the story’s universe; particularly when one can identify with the main character. Hitchcock‘s hero is thoughtful, articulate and composed under pressure – exactly the kind of person you want to be when suddenly thrust into an unpredictable situation.  The Dude is… not any of those.  In fact, I found him to be a hard character to like at all because the way he communicates (or fails to) is so aggravating. Half of the time (usually when what he needs to say is critical) he spews a series of utterances that impart no information whatsoever. The rest of the time he dead-pans extremely well thought-out phrases but with an aggressive pretentiousness that seems entirely out of place. I can only suppose that the intention is to present The Dude as someone that could be a high-society intellectual if he wanted to, but he’s chosen a simple, relaxing existence of weed and bowling instead because he’s ever so enlightened. Bullshit. The Dude hasn’t chosen anything; he is living exactly the life that he has to live. If nothing else, the plot of the film is evidence that The Dude lacks the ability to consider the consequences of his decisions and, especially, his indecisions.  While he certainly has an innate ability to roll with the literal punches, it’s clear that he has no ability to choose where he rolls.  Anyone can point The Dude in the direction they want him to go and Newton’s laws of motion take over until someone else comes along with a different agenda. That’s not chill, it’s sad.

There a few other issues that stand out too.  For one, I feel like I have to say something about the dog. It was very clearly not a Pomeranian. Was that supposed to be an inside joke?  Did the writers expect their audience would realize the joke and laugh, or were they expecting to laugh at an audience that failed to notice? I don’t get it.  And then they throw in the “marmot” that is very clearly a ferret. Who is the butt of this joke?  It isn’t even properly sustained – you can’t call an animal both a marmot and an amphibious rodent.  Sometimes absurdity works, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes you laugh at a movie, and sometimes the movie laughs at you.

This is not to say that I entirely disliked the film. On the contrary, I actually agree that it is quite entertaining as an odd-ball comedy.  Some of the dialogue is genuinely witty: “Obviously, you’re not a golfer”, caught me right were it was supposed to and I very much appreciated the satirical homage to Kraftwerk.  The whole film has a rambling absurdity (obviously mirroring its protagonist) that doesn’t make any effort to impart a message (again, obviously mirroring its protagonist). It’s just there, filling up two hours in a generally pleasing way.  I can appreciate that.

I also enjoyed the cast and really can’t find fault in the choice of actors.  Even if I can’t see The Dude as a hero, I thought Jeff Bridges did a good job portraying the hapless loser. I can honestly believe that his life would be a string of absurd occurrences.  Of course, John Goodman is never disappointing.  Make no mistake, his character was awful; but supremely well illustrated.  And who knew that’s where the “Am I the only one around here…” meme came from? I guess they’re making memes from movies now. Julianne Moore was a bit of a surprise as the mysterious woman but she added a nice distraction from the idiocy of the rest of the plot.  I had all but forgotten about Philip Seymour Hoffman; but it was nice to see him.

I especially liked the inclusion of the completely unnecessary characters. John Turturro‘s Jesus Quintana has no purpose in the film at all other than to add colour to the universe, and add colour he did.  On the other hand, Jon Polito‘s private eye feels like he was part of some other cross-over story line that I’ve been left out of. I wouldn’t mind seeing a spin-off that focuses on how he ended up driving around in the least inconspicuous vehicle imaginable.

I suppose I should mention Tara Reid, but her character was really more of a caricature than a person. Was she even a known actor in 1998?  Either way there wasn’t much screen time to work with.  And how on earth did Flea end up in this?  I wouldn’t even have noticed him at all except that his name stood out rather awkwardly in the opening credits. I guess he was one of the nihilists, who also had no purpose than to add colour.  Either way, I have no complaints with either of their performances; they filled their rolls as much as was required.

But then there was Steve Buscemi‘s Theodore Donald ‘Donny’ Kerabatsos – without question the only sympathetic character in the entire film.  Certainly not an unflawed character (his timing was conversationally terrible). But as the only one of the group who (for the most part) managed to keep himself distanced from The Dude’s mess, his fate was heartbreaking – especially considering his final frame. Such a shame.  It would be fun to see a re-imagined version of this film made entirely from Donny’s point of view.  It would have The Dude just popping in once in a while at the bowling alley as a colourful side character.

Overall, a generally enjoyable film that I am sure to forget until it pops up as a recommendation on Netflix.

7/10

 

Don Jon

What Jesse said:

The next movie I want you to watch is Don Jon. Should be right up your alley…

Mike’s verdict:

Jesse hasn’t seen this one – his “recommendation” was actually meant as a thinly veiled insult because I implied he was lame for thinking The Conjuring is scary. But Jesse doesn’t understand what this movie is actually about. All he knows is that Scarlett Johansson is in the trailer and the IMDB blurb mentions porn. Well Jesse, you can’t trust everything you find on the internet.

Don Jon is not about sex. It’s not about addiction, or unrealistic expectations. It’s definitely not about Scarlett Johansson.

Don Jon is an unpretentious and insightful portrayal of the love that develops out of total, genuine, unflinching honesty. This is not the Hollywood-fairytale-ride-off-into-the-sunset love; it’s the complete release from anxiety that only happens when nerves are exposed and there’s no reason left to hide.

I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor. He has an unbelievable range (have you seen Hesher?), so I didn’t need the recommendation from Jesse – I would have watched Don Jon even if only to find out what kind of writer / director Gordon-Levitt is. He does not disappoint – especially considering this is a first attempt at writing a feature film.

But Gordon-Levitt doesn’t hold up the film alone. Julianne Moore, for one, is fantastic. You don’t end up feeling like you fully understand her character, but I think that’s intended – and it works. Her role reminded me a lot of what she did in Chloe. Johansson also does a good job – she’s totally believable as a Jersey girl – but she was clearly type-cast for the role.  Tony Danza on the other hand was definitely not type-cast and he was a pleasant surprise. I probably wouldn’t have even recognized him if I hadn’t noticed his name in the opening credits. Finally, one actor I think most people will over look is Brie Larson. She plays Gordon-Levitt’s sister and does an incredible job with very little. She only speaks in one scene but her character’s personality manages to come through as well as any of the leads’.

Obviously, I really liked Don Jon. It’s honest, it’s unashamed, and it ends exactly when it should. It gets 9/10, losing a single point only because a lot of the nudity was unnecessary to the story. Certainly some of it was needed to force a point, and I understand that in some sense the excess was intentional. But I think that it makes the film inaccessible to exactly the audience that most needs to see it. Even so, if you’re not a prude Don Jon is definitely worth seeing.