...Que?: Thoughts on Pedro Almodovar's THE SKIN I LIVE IN

I have been wanting to see Pedro Almodovar's THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011) for a while now. So, when to my great surprise, I saw that it was on BritFlix I jumped on the chance. For those of you who don't know, THE SKIN I LIVE IN is a Spanish psychological thriller about a doctor (Antonio Banderas) who creates an artificial skin that is immune to burning and insect bites and is much tougher than normal human skin (because apparently pig skin is much more sturdy...makes sense!). 

What proceeds is a series of events, told in the present, six years in the past, and all the time in between, that continue to get weirder and weirder and more and more confusing. There is random, drug-addled rape, torture, forced sex changes, a creepy sexual-deviant dressed as a tiger who ties up and gags his mother, suicide and copy-cat suicide, mental illness, AND at least 5 minutes of just a close up of a gap-toothed singer crooning Spanish easy-listening. 

Don't get me wrong, THE SKIN I LIVE IN is impeccably shot. The use of light and shadow is superb, reflecting the artfulness for which Almodovar has become famous. And, although some performances border on melodramatic/Spanish tele-novella, most of the actors (especially Banderas) are pretty superb. Unfortunately, none of it matters BECAUSE NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE! Not a single character's motivation (barring the leading lady Elena Anaya) has any explanation or justification. Why is Antonio Banderas having sex with this person when all the preceding events would suggest he should just use one of his seemingly three thousand pistols throughout the house and put and end to his troubles and his strange bedfellow? What is the the point of a random tiger-man harassing the people in Antonio Banderas' house when it leads nowhere and adds nothing to the movie? And why on Earth does it matter that what Banderas is doing in his secret but not-so-secret underground hospital is illegal when clearly everyone knows he's doing it but never say anything? 

Basically what I'm saying is that THE SKIN I LIVE IN is a really beautiful and well composed movie that is infuriating because it makes about as much sense as (MAJOR SPOILERS) kidnapping the man who, in a drugged-out stupor, raped your mentally unstable daughter who, for some reason, was allowed to be at a party, taking pills and drinking excessively, when she was clearly still suffering from the effects of seeing her mother kill herself, chloroforming said man and strapping him to an operation table, surgically transforming him into a woman over an undisclosed amount of time, grafting pig-harvested super-skin onto his/her body, AND THEN USING SAID MAN/WOMAN AS YOUR MISTRESS!! 

But hey, maybe I just lost something in translation, right?  

Argo Watch This Movie: Review of Ben Affleck's ARGO

Puns are great. I like puns, you like puns (unless you're a pinko commie), and apparently movie producers, special effects artists and CIA exfil operatives do too! Throughout ARGO there is a running gag that involves the title of the science-fiction film that CIA specialist Tony Mendes (Ben Affleck) has concocted with Hollywood effects artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and movie producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) as a cover story to help Mendes get six US citizens in hiding out of Iran after Iranian extremists storm the US embassy on November 4th, 1979 in retaliation for the US's sheltering of the recently deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 

If the first part of that paragraph didn't seem to match the second part all that well, don't be alarmed (unless you're into that)! One of the best aspects of Ben Affleck's third feature film (after GONE BABY GONE and THE TOWN) is the way it is able to balance tone. Throughout  it's 2 hour runtime, the film balances itself between being being political thriller, Hollywood satire, and near the end (POSSIBLE SPOILER) almost a heist movie. Having that many different elements may seem like it would make for a very inconsistent and tonally confusing piece of work. But to his immense credit, Affleck is able to walk the tightrope beautifully. Comedic scenes are interplayed with various shots of brutality, but both work to their full potential, never feeling either inappropriate or off-putting.

When the film finally makes it to the final 20 minutes or so and moves into what I would argue is a third film genre, it continues to work beautifully, highlighting another one of the film's strongest suits -- the suspense. The final action set piece of this film is amazingly stressful in all the best ways (if you're a chronic nail-biter like me, wear gloves). Not many films can sustain that level of suspense for the amount of time ARGO does, especially seeing as the audience already knows how this is going to end. Granted there are some shockingly contrived moments that are there only to add additional anxiety, but they're not so egregious that you can't move past them. 

However, this suspense does end with a bit of an anticlimax. Which leads me to my major problem with the film. It feels as if the entire work uses the fact that it's based on a true story as an excuse to play things safe. Although it is filled with awesome moments, it just never feels like it does anything risky. On the same point, trying to stick to the "true" elements, the film doesn't spend as much time as I feel like it should have on certain arcs including those of the six US embassy workers and the story involving John Goodman and Alan Arkin. All of these actors, including "The Danger" Bryan Cranston, are incredibly talented and it's a shame that they aren't featured more.

Most of the film is concerned with Tony Mendes. And this would have been fine, had Ben Affleck not cast himself in the role. I have never really been a fan of Ben (more puns!) as an actor, much preferring his directorial work. Likewise, in this film, though he has the most screen time, he is the dullest of the bunch. Throughout the film he feels like a non-entity, always taking a backseat when on screen with any of the actors mentioned above. There is one scene in particular that is just Affleck in brooding contemplation (one of his specialties) that almost grinds the film to a screeching halt. 

While I really enjoyed it, I don't think ARGO amazing. It plays it too safe too often and seems far too concerned with it's "true story" integrity. I just think if you're going to clearly manipulate events to increase suspense, why not bend the rules a little more? That being said, ARGO is a solid film. It tackles both drama and comedy with remarkably adept skill and handles suspense brilliantly. The Alexandre Desplat score is very well done and combines with the incredible editing and cinematography to create a film that will most certainly be eaten up by Oscar voters (which you can take any way you want). Regardless of whether it does, however, you should still Argo see it. Do it for the puns! 

Hushpuppies and Bathtubs: Review of BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

"There was a girl named Hushpuppy and she once lived with her father in the Bathtub." That sentence probably doesn't mean anything to you if you haven't seen Benh Zeitlin's  BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (in fact, it probably sounds really creepy). Unfortunately, that feeling you probably have right now is how I felt when I walked out of the film. It just really didn't mean anything to me. 

Written by Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar (and based on a one-act play by Alibar called JUICY AND DELICIOUS), BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (hereby referred to as BEASTS) is about six-year old Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) who lives with her short-fuse father Wink (Dwight Henry) in a bayou community on an island surrounded by rising water that the locals refer to as the "Bathtub." As the film progresses, the community must deal with raging storms, massive flooding, and a forced evacuation from the (more well off) people on the other side of the levy. Along the way, deeper struggles occur between Hushpuppy and Wink as the latter tries to prepare the former for an adulthood that might be coming faster than she thinks. 

Don't get me wrong, BEASTS is a very well done film. The script is fantastic with some amazing local dialogue that feels incredibly natural. The acting likewise is stellar. All the supporting cast members feel unique and have very distinct personalities; even the child actors, though not having much to say, do a really good job of being what you'd expect kids living in a place like this to be like. Dwight Henry and newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis are really where the film shines, however. Henry delivers an absolutely knock-out performance as the hot-headed father, trying to be the emotional rock that he thinks his daughter needs him to be while clearly struggling just to keep their lives together. Wallis as Hushpuppy similarly holds her own. Charming beyond words but with a scowl that can stop even the largest beast in its tracks, she brings a palpable energy to the entire work that is truly remarkable for an actor of her age and experience.

And the film is also beautiful! The cinematography by Ben Richardson truly runs the gamut in the course of the film's 90 minutes. Whether it's depicting stagnant, diseased filled water and bloated animal carcasses or indescribably beautiful scenes of celebration (including one moment with sparklers that made me incredibly nostalgic and really jealous), Richardson infuses the film with a look that is both natural and unnatural, creating a space between reality and unreality that blends perfectly with the spirit of the picture. 

Now, undoubtedly you are questioning my sanity at this point, maybe you're even calling me names in your head ("I wish you'd hush...puppy! Zing!"). And if the film did all the things I've mentioned and provided a compelling story with relatable drama then it would arguably be one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Every bad thing that happens to the characters in the film is their own fault. The bayou is populated by stubborn and stuck-in-their-ways people who refuse help at every turn, even when it's potentially life-saving (opting instead for the Colonel Sanders method of treatment), they will not leave the Bathtub even when it's clear a major storm is coming and  is going to wash away all their properties, and overall they're just filled with disillusionment. And I might even be able to excuse this if the film made it a point to really touch on why they're actually like this, but it doesn't. 

I really wanted to like this movie; and early on I thought I was going to absolutely love it. But it just wasn't for me. When all the drama in a film is self-inflicted with no real explanation as to why it's this way, I am just left asking for more. The film begins and ends with the same line that I quoted above: "One day, the future scientists will find evidence of a girl named Hushpuppy that once lived with her father in the Bathtub." To which I ask (as I did many, many times throughout the movie), "Why?"