![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The past is always living right on the side of us...
OK. *deep breath* Wow.
One thing I can say here is: We will be seeing more of Liev Schreiber as a director, I think. Because this film is a stunning accomplishment.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. LIKE WAY.
First of all, I have to say that as someone who's read the book, I consider the major achievement of this film to be the adaptation. The book is so intricately layered, the characterization of Alex and his family so richly drawn, and the echoes and interleaving of the historical tale, with its Magic Realist elements, with the modern story of The Rigid Search are so delicately balanced, that I was very intrigued by the challenge that Schreiber faced. Well sir, he has pulled off a coup. This is a brilliant adaptation. Not only does he bring to life the events of the book in their rich texture, but he also works at bringing up echoes of the story of Trachimbrod, so that even though that whole half of the book has been excised, it still influences the characters and events of the Search. Not a lot of stuff, just a few key images and little threads, like wisps of fog appearing in the grass. But they do color the story, and give the whole thing some of that magical sparkle of the older story.
You're going to be hearing a lot about the cinematography and design of the film, and it is a marvel. The use of light is extraordinary. I can't remember the DP's name off the top of my head, but what work. Those solar washouts were very effective, and the light plays beautifully on the actors' faces. This guy has an eye for surfaces and textures. And Liev loves details. The camera is constantly focusing on little things, and it puts us in Jonathan's shoes as observers of the story, since he is an obsessive observer of details, which is an interesting change from the book, where the story of the Search is told from Alex's point of view, after the fact. There's all kinds of interesting collisions and changes happening between the book and film, not least of which is how Liev deals with the delicate house of cards Foer built around the concept of the Unreliable Narrator, both in the historical tale and in the modern Search. As a film, EII necessarily places us outside Alex's head, and so those parts of the structure have to be presented in different ways, and Liev manages the task admirably.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's got some fine talent in this film, either. Everyone is excellent, down to the guys working on the machinery in the middle of a field, who really don't like foreign fuckwads, thank you. There's so much delicacy to the material, and I was very impressed with how well all the actors handled the undercurrents and tensions going on. The casting is first-rate, using mostly local talent, which gave the film real authenticity.
As to undercurrents and tensions, the character of Jonathan is practically made up of them. A reviewer the other day called him an "emphatic little exclamation point of a guy", and I can't tell you how apt that is. He looks like an exclamation point. He's so contained, so tight, and yet he doesn't have that manic vibe that such people usually give off in films. There's a great deal he's containing, but it's impossible to say just what it is. And here is where the choice in casting Elijah comes forth as inspired, because Jonathan is in essence not a character in the story. He's there all through it, but he doesn't really take part in the events around him. He's the catalyst that sets the tale rolling, the observor of every minute detail, the witness to these events which unveil deep secrets coming out into the light. He is essentially a pair of eyes, and so who better for the role than this young actor, so much of whose talent and depth is centered in and illuminated by his eyes? The world in turn becomes illuminated by the turns of the story, but it's impossible to say if Jonathan's life is illuminated, and how or how much. From his first shot, Jonathan is presented as isolated, quiet, alone, perhaps sad. In a subtle use of camera work during our first views of Jonathan, the angle and the lighting catch the thickness and shape of the lenses of his glasses, making us very aware that he is seeing the world from behind them, and a subtle but very strong impression emerges of those glasses as a shield. The most concrete image I can come up with for Jonathan is that of a bottle, a guy encased in the glass of his mannerisms and distance. As such, Jonathan does not change over the course of the story; or rather if he changes, it's in a way that we do not see, because the story isn't about him. It's interesting that the one person in the story who is most apt to be a reliable narrator never narrates anything. We see what he sees, but we never get to know just what Jonathan thinks about any of it.
So our uncertainty about Jonathan has to do with what we are not allowed to see, whereas the uncertainty with Alex has to do with whether we can believe what we do see. Alex is of course the Unreliable Narrator of the book (at least the half that's dealt with in the film; the other half also plays with that dynamic in a very different way), who through an intricate series of tonal shifts as the events unfold becomes more and more reliable. In the book, those shifts come about because Alex is relating the story back to Jonathan some months after it has happened, in a series of letters written at Jonathan's request. The brazen, boastful, yet pathetically eager Premium Guy of the early chapters gives way bit by bit as Alex is forced to examine those events. And in telling the story, he comes to realize that he has to drop the dog and pony show if he's going to talk about all of this; slowly we get to the heart of the matter because Alex slowly finds the strength to bring it up out of the dark and frame it in words.
In the film, those shifts and developments have to come through a different lens, and that lens has to consist of Alex's face. And here, my dear friends, is the real stroke of genius, because Alex is brought to life by Eugene Hutz, and damn. Holy moly. I mean seriously, what a performance. Natural talent. He follows Alex's arc step by step; starts out howlingly funny, and slowly shifts and turns and slips down all of Alex's levels, in perfect sync with the rhythm of the film. He handles the gradations adroitly, with a precision that never feels forced or fake. I felt great compassion for Alex and great fondness, in the exact proportions that I felt reading about him. And his breakthrough moment is played with such silence and given such a luminous quality, it made me feel again the perfection of the title, already explored by that point.
There is great chemistry also between Alex and Jonathan. All the bragging and joking and teasing and conversational bantering that Alex indulges in in the book is gone, of course. In contrast to the Alex on the page, who is emboldened to go on by Jonathan's absence (crystallized in that intriguing moment at the end when he open himself up just enough to hint at the real contents of his heart), in the movie we're watching Alex full of questions and puzzlements, but held back by Jonathan's presence. Alex is clearly not accustomed to speaking his true feelings aloud, and Jonathan simply doesn't. So there's an enormous amount of eloquence in the silences as well as the words. Eugene and Elijah work wonderfully off each other, their puzzlement and lack of understanding slowly transforming into something that, while not really understanding, is nonetheless a bonding between the two young men.
And let's set something straight here. A lot of people reading this review who see this film are gonna want to see slash. Knock yourself out, but I gotta tell you that there is nothing to support that conjecture (unless you're the kind of person who thinks two people can't look into each other's eye for more than three seconds without wanting to boff, that is). There is not one drop of sexual content in this film. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The story isn't about sex or any kind of romantic love in any way. The subject is completely irrelevant. As I said above, there is a moment in the book, but that line is not in the film, so its implication does not exist here. You'll be writing between the lines if you want to see it. And that neither surprises nor bothers me. The film is about discovery of the past, and understanding one's place and purpose in the scheme of things; not about connection with one person, but connection with community and the world. As a work of art it's so delicate, and so richly layered, so carefully constructed, that to put something like that on top of it is not only beside the point, it endangers the structure of the whole thing. It changes the events to the point that the meaning of what's in there is either warped or disappears entirely. I felt it was inspired of Foer to imply such a connection only vaguely and for a second, letting the implication of it wash backward like a shallow little wave over the story behind you. Because it comes at the end of the book, there's no time or room to explore it, and it exists only as a little asterisk, an aside, not as a essential component to what the story is actually about.
It's that delicacy, that balance that is so much the beauty in the film. It's so much about where you're standing, and what you see from that spot. What our lives show us, and the possibilities that lie buried, waiting to be lifted out of the dark into the light, and how that light can change everything in an instant. Uncovering the light of the past, shining it on the present and on all the time in between. Alex's grandfather is also expertly realized by Boris Leskin, and it is his character that undergoes the greatest impact when the past comes to light. Again, this all happens to our eyes through the faces of the actors, and they must convey everything that we absorb through Alex's complicated ruminations in the book, simply with their talent. Leskin's is amazing, and works so well with the camera. His story is just as tragic here, and yet I saw and realized more about him in the film than I did reading the book, probably because Alex is denied any real understanding of his grandfather's fate other than what he can glean on his own, and having grown up with his grandfather, his eyes may not catch what the eyes of an outside observer (such as Jonathan) might pick up. Another wonderfully woven thread in the tapestry.
Man, I could keep going on, but I think I'll stop now. This film is such a work of art, and so lovlingly realized. The enthusiasm and passion that went into making it shine from each frame like - well, like light. Like the illumination of a candle in a darkened room, or a screen in a darkened theater, shining out and giving meaning to the shadows.
P.S. Sammy Davis Jr., Jr.? So perfect. Bitch deserves her own Oscar.
Well, I'm rather exhausted now. So transcribing the Q&A and relating the squee about the meet-and-greet will have to wait til tomorrow. :)
One thing I can say here is: We will be seeing more of Liev Schreiber as a director, I think. Because this film is a stunning accomplishment.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. LIKE WAY.
First of all, I have to say that as someone who's read the book, I consider the major achievement of this film to be the adaptation. The book is so intricately layered, the characterization of Alex and his family so richly drawn, and the echoes and interleaving of the historical tale, with its Magic Realist elements, with the modern story of The Rigid Search are so delicately balanced, that I was very intrigued by the challenge that Schreiber faced. Well sir, he has pulled off a coup. This is a brilliant adaptation. Not only does he bring to life the events of the book in their rich texture, but he also works at bringing up echoes of the story of Trachimbrod, so that even though that whole half of the book has been excised, it still influences the characters and events of the Search. Not a lot of stuff, just a few key images and little threads, like wisps of fog appearing in the grass. But they do color the story, and give the whole thing some of that magical sparkle of the older story.
You're going to be hearing a lot about the cinematography and design of the film, and it is a marvel. The use of light is extraordinary. I can't remember the DP's name off the top of my head, but what work. Those solar washouts were very effective, and the light plays beautifully on the actors' faces. This guy has an eye for surfaces and textures. And Liev loves details. The camera is constantly focusing on little things, and it puts us in Jonathan's shoes as observers of the story, since he is an obsessive observer of details, which is an interesting change from the book, where the story of the Search is told from Alex's point of view, after the fact. There's all kinds of interesting collisions and changes happening between the book and film, not least of which is how Liev deals with the delicate house of cards Foer built around the concept of the Unreliable Narrator, both in the historical tale and in the modern Search. As a film, EII necessarily places us outside Alex's head, and so those parts of the structure have to be presented in different ways, and Liev manages the task admirably.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's got some fine talent in this film, either. Everyone is excellent, down to the guys working on the machinery in the middle of a field, who really don't like foreign fuckwads, thank you. There's so much delicacy to the material, and I was very impressed with how well all the actors handled the undercurrents and tensions going on. The casting is first-rate, using mostly local talent, which gave the film real authenticity.
As to undercurrents and tensions, the character of Jonathan is practically made up of them. A reviewer the other day called him an "emphatic little exclamation point of a guy", and I can't tell you how apt that is. He looks like an exclamation point. He's so contained, so tight, and yet he doesn't have that manic vibe that such people usually give off in films. There's a great deal he's containing, but it's impossible to say just what it is. And here is where the choice in casting Elijah comes forth as inspired, because Jonathan is in essence not a character in the story. He's there all through it, but he doesn't really take part in the events around him. He's the catalyst that sets the tale rolling, the observor of every minute detail, the witness to these events which unveil deep secrets coming out into the light. He is essentially a pair of eyes, and so who better for the role than this young actor, so much of whose talent and depth is centered in and illuminated by his eyes? The world in turn becomes illuminated by the turns of the story, but it's impossible to say if Jonathan's life is illuminated, and how or how much. From his first shot, Jonathan is presented as isolated, quiet, alone, perhaps sad. In a subtle use of camera work during our first views of Jonathan, the angle and the lighting catch the thickness and shape of the lenses of his glasses, making us very aware that he is seeing the world from behind them, and a subtle but very strong impression emerges of those glasses as a shield. The most concrete image I can come up with for Jonathan is that of a bottle, a guy encased in the glass of his mannerisms and distance. As such, Jonathan does not change over the course of the story; or rather if he changes, it's in a way that we do not see, because the story isn't about him. It's interesting that the one person in the story who is most apt to be a reliable narrator never narrates anything. We see what he sees, but we never get to know just what Jonathan thinks about any of it.
So our uncertainty about Jonathan has to do with what we are not allowed to see, whereas the uncertainty with Alex has to do with whether we can believe what we do see. Alex is of course the Unreliable Narrator of the book (at least the half that's dealt with in the film; the other half also plays with that dynamic in a very different way), who through an intricate series of tonal shifts as the events unfold becomes more and more reliable. In the book, those shifts come about because Alex is relating the story back to Jonathan some months after it has happened, in a series of letters written at Jonathan's request. The brazen, boastful, yet pathetically eager Premium Guy of the early chapters gives way bit by bit as Alex is forced to examine those events. And in telling the story, he comes to realize that he has to drop the dog and pony show if he's going to talk about all of this; slowly we get to the heart of the matter because Alex slowly finds the strength to bring it up out of the dark and frame it in words.
In the film, those shifts and developments have to come through a different lens, and that lens has to consist of Alex's face. And here, my dear friends, is the real stroke of genius, because Alex is brought to life by Eugene Hutz, and damn. Holy moly. I mean seriously, what a performance. Natural talent. He follows Alex's arc step by step; starts out howlingly funny, and slowly shifts and turns and slips down all of Alex's levels, in perfect sync with the rhythm of the film. He handles the gradations adroitly, with a precision that never feels forced or fake. I felt great compassion for Alex and great fondness, in the exact proportions that I felt reading about him. And his breakthrough moment is played with such silence and given such a luminous quality, it made me feel again the perfection of the title, already explored by that point.
There is great chemistry also between Alex and Jonathan. All the bragging and joking and teasing and conversational bantering that Alex indulges in in the book is gone, of course. In contrast to the Alex on the page, who is emboldened to go on by Jonathan's absence (crystallized in that intriguing moment at the end when he open himself up just enough to hint at the real contents of his heart), in the movie we're watching Alex full of questions and puzzlements, but held back by Jonathan's presence. Alex is clearly not accustomed to speaking his true feelings aloud, and Jonathan simply doesn't. So there's an enormous amount of eloquence in the silences as well as the words. Eugene and Elijah work wonderfully off each other, their puzzlement and lack of understanding slowly transforming into something that, while not really understanding, is nonetheless a bonding between the two young men.
And let's set something straight here. A lot of people reading this review who see this film are gonna want to see slash. Knock yourself out, but I gotta tell you that there is nothing to support that conjecture (unless you're the kind of person who thinks two people can't look into each other's eye for more than three seconds without wanting to boff, that is). There is not one drop of sexual content in this film. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The story isn't about sex or any kind of romantic love in any way. The subject is completely irrelevant. As I said above, there is a moment in the book, but that line is not in the film, so its implication does not exist here. You'll be writing between the lines if you want to see it. And that neither surprises nor bothers me. The film is about discovery of the past, and understanding one's place and purpose in the scheme of things; not about connection with one person, but connection with community and the world. As a work of art it's so delicate, and so richly layered, so carefully constructed, that to put something like that on top of it is not only beside the point, it endangers the structure of the whole thing. It changes the events to the point that the meaning of what's in there is either warped or disappears entirely. I felt it was inspired of Foer to imply such a connection only vaguely and for a second, letting the implication of it wash backward like a shallow little wave over the story behind you. Because it comes at the end of the book, there's no time or room to explore it, and it exists only as a little asterisk, an aside, not as a essential component to what the story is actually about.
It's that delicacy, that balance that is so much the beauty in the film. It's so much about where you're standing, and what you see from that spot. What our lives show us, and the possibilities that lie buried, waiting to be lifted out of the dark into the light, and how that light can change everything in an instant. Uncovering the light of the past, shining it on the present and on all the time in between. Alex's grandfather is also expertly realized by Boris Leskin, and it is his character that undergoes the greatest impact when the past comes to light. Again, this all happens to our eyes through the faces of the actors, and they must convey everything that we absorb through Alex's complicated ruminations in the book, simply with their talent. Leskin's is amazing, and works so well with the camera. His story is just as tragic here, and yet I saw and realized more about him in the film than I did reading the book, probably because Alex is denied any real understanding of his grandfather's fate other than what he can glean on his own, and having grown up with his grandfather, his eyes may not catch what the eyes of an outside observer (such as Jonathan) might pick up. Another wonderfully woven thread in the tapestry.
Man, I could keep going on, but I think I'll stop now. This film is such a work of art, and so lovlingly realized. The enthusiasm and passion that went into making it shine from each frame like - well, like light. Like the illumination of a candle in a darkened room, or a screen in a darkened theater, shining out and giving meaning to the shadows.
P.S. Sammy Davis Jr., Jr.? So perfect. Bitch deserves her own Oscar.
Well, I'm rather exhausted now. So transcribing the Q&A and relating the squee about the meet-and-greet will have to wait til tomorrow. :)
no subject
I have been so anticipating the film, and wondering how they were going to be able to adapt such a stylized book. I have no worries now. I'm just dying to see it!
Re: the slash - I felt it was inspired of Foer to only imply such a connection vaguely and for a second, letting the implication of it wash backward like a shallow little wave over the story behind you. Because it comes at the end of the book, there's no time or room to explore it, and it exists only as a little asterisk, an aside, not as a essential component to what the story is actually about.
This is exactly what I thought when I read the book. I LOVED it that there was only one line that hinted at deeper feelings, and that line was almost a throwaway. It didn't need to be explored further, and I'm glad it's not included at all in the film.
Thanks again for a great review. Can't wait to read about the other stuff, too!
Thank you!
I remember getting a delighted little shiver when I read that line in the book, and feeling such admiration for Foer's restraint with it. Things like that can be so much more moving and influential when they are only hinted at, when there's just a tiny sparkle rather than a whole unveiling, because the fact that Alex says so little about it (and almost doesn't say anything at all) tells us as much if not more than the very feeling itself. A wonderful balancing act, like the whole book.
I'm very much looking forward to reading his next novel. :)
no subject
I must have looked pretty shallow going on about the 'sexual content' (which was, by the way, mentioned in a NY Times review), but that's just the pervy Elijah fangirl in me, that wants to see him do sex scenes. In that sense, I was hoping for some of the Safran backstory (and especially the juicy details), but I assume it's not there. And now that I've read your review, I realise the film does not need it, and is probably better off without it.
As for the slashiness: when I was reading the book, I picked up on the subtle hint you mention, but I did not really expect it to be in the film. But I'm glad to know that the bond, the connection, between Alex and Jonathan is there. And all those other things...
I really, really can't wait to see the film now. I will have to wait, but I know that it will be more than worth the wait.
Thanks again!
no subject
Oh well. Maybe we'll find out waht that was all about on the DVD.
no subject
As for the film: I guess it would have been too complicated to include the historical part of the book - not to mention that it would have made the film very long. But I'm so glad to know it's there, in a way. I can't wait to see what these 'few key images and little threads, like wisps of fog appearing in the grass' will be like! I'm sure they will be magical, and beautiful.
And
no subject
Love...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Next week it's Thumbsucker and Hoolies!!
no subject
;)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I was so thrilled when I saw the trailer; I had great hopes that this movie would be all that I wanted it to be (and all that I want any movie to be). Thanks for confirming that it is. I can't wait to see it. :)
no subject
Thank you for your review. One thing I thought about while watching it, and that is that I thought you could see that Jonathan changed, but it's so subtle. You see it at the end with the smile to Alex' back, and when he goes immediately to the river after being 'illuminated.' I thought too that it's hard to see the change in him, but I think it's there, only expressed in the slightest of actions. Like, picking up the sand, staring at the river (wasn't that a gorgeous shot?) I thought the scene with Alex and Jonathan, where Jonathan says he had his shirt on backwards was telling. Jonathan seemed to be losing it there, letting go of the things he's hiding behind, his obsessions, and realizing these things just don't matter, given what Jonathan has just asked him. A break in his armour. And Sammy David Jr. Jr., shows us that Jonathon is feeling so much below what we see, by his curl at his front door and the wonderful bed scene. Brilliant.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I loved the idea of Jonathan behind glass - I wish there was a discussion group about this book - the whole concept of what illumination means intrigues me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject