Somewhere

I remember Quentin Tarantino speaking about Sofia Coppola's "Somewhere" at the Venice Film Festival awards show (where it won the Golden Lion; in the next year we'll learn what film it got stolen from), saying that he and his fellow jurors "kept coming back to it." I find that pretty hard to believe, since I saw "Somewhere" two days ago and I've already almost completely forgotten it. I don't really get it (except on, you know, that fabled "certain level") any more now then I did then. The prospect of understanding it is not something that entices me, since that would require for me to allot more of my time toward it and, even if I did, I'm almost positive that I'd be unsatisfied with what I'd learned from that experience.

Anyone remotely interested in seeing "Somewhere" will be better off watching "Lost in Translation," since that film sates what most people probably will be seeking in this film. Bill Murray's acting is superior to Stephen Dorff's in just about every way possible, despite the fact that Dorff could more easily pass as an action star than Murray could. Dorff has a small degree of pull as Johnny Marco, who spends all of his days drinking, watching pole dances in his hotel room, sleeping with any woman he can, and getting abrasive text messages from an anonymous source. He's unsatisfied, but, since he's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, he doesn't possess the willpower to really do anything about it.

He's not really in touch with the life of his daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning), since he doesn't have custody over her, but since his wife is on one of those trips that could end tomorrow or never, he (as they say in "Animal Kingdom") "gets to see more of her." Cleo and by way of virtue Fanning is winning, and that (as well as Dorff, to some degree) keeps the audience at least somewhat absorbed. But look: viewing "Somewhere" is basically watching people doing shit that you and I do all the time. Whether or not that's in the service of any sort of profound notion (read: it's not really), it is what it is. I'm not too sure that a normal person would really want to pay money to see that. Nor do I think most will be too enthralled in the film's scrutiny of Johnny, which manifests itself in long takes of strippers, cars circling racetracks, and cars driving down LA freeways (observed in follow-shots behind the car in exactly the same way as every film Harris Savides has ever shot). I had a little nostalgia for the week I spent in LA a few years back, playing ping-pong and swimming like the characters do in the film, but found little pleasure more than that.

I apologize that this review cuts to the quick a bit fast. I just was tired of practicing the same restraint that Coppola did. When she gets out of her own way, I think that she will continue to make films as good as "Translation." C

Note: Many were frustrated with "LiT" in the way I was with "Somewhere." My take is that the former was enjoyable and watchable and worth my time, and the latter wasn't, or at least much less so.

Lebanon

"Lebanon" is admirably inflicting, but as a result it is also repetitive, (as Scott Tobias et al. said) heavy-handed, and poorly paced. Add to that it being so abruptly and disappointingly ended that I cried out in the theater. This is in no way "Waltz With Bashir," although it tells of its subject in what may seem like a better way. Whereas "Bashir" was built on surrealism, this film is grounded (almost entirely) in realism. The film sort of follows Schmulik (Yoav Donat), who represents the director, Samuel Maoz. He gets assigned into the "Rhino" tank on the first day of the First Lebanon War to be a gunman, along with high-strung Assi (Itay Tiran), complaining Hertzel (Oshri Cohen), and nervous driver Yigal (Michael Moshonov). There may be another, but my memory fails me.

The rest of the film involves the tank's moving forward through Lebanon to get to a "hotel" and then beyond that. The film portrays this by (as Jim Emerson said) placing the audience on the same level as the soldiers in the tank. Conceptually, this is brilliant, but it doesn't entirely translate over into the final product. One way that the film strays from making this work is how (as people on IMDb et al. said) stylized things get. A cigarette dropped on the wet floor of the tank is shown from a reflection. Also, a visual passage involving a bazooka is cribbed almost exactly from "Bashir," and however beautiful, this is also highly stylized. As Nick Davis sort of said, there are also dubious breaks in time via the editing, which de-authenticize the film more so. If you want to do a film like this, with realism, I would suggest not deviating too much.

Anyways, there are great moments in this film. The shots involving the vehicles coming down the lane between the flowers are excellent, especially the one that shows the aftermath of a "shell to the engine." I also think the shot where the tank plows through the sunflowers is awesome. I also think the oft-pictured scene with the woman who comes after the soldier is good as well (minus the part, as Jim Emerson said, where she looks into the camera, which was more evidence of the film's heavy-handed nature, although I wonder if this moment actually happened to Maoz). And I very much admire, minus Schmulik's urgent Jack Nicholson/"Cuckoo Nest"-esque shouting, the antepenultimate scene, which was extremely involving, what with the music playing and the engine having a hard time starting and the camera shaking all around.

But the film is sabotaged as if by a "Flaming Smoke" by its pacing (or as Nick Davis said, "dramatic structure"), which lacks enough real downtime (which is perhaps the point) besides an engrossing but ineffective "hard-on" story, as well as by its repetitive shots and actions, which include Schmulik's face, scope zooms, and people incessantly (as Jim Emerson noted) getting in and out of the tank. This repetition I'm sure is also intentional, but it got on my nerves. The film also has a ridiculous ending that makes one reconsider what the hell the film actually about, being preceded by a unnecessarily long shot of a guy urinating. Or, I should make clear, it seems ridiculous as you're watching it, but it could be on some level considered well-chosen, illustrating that: 1) war goes on, and 2) as my friend said, "there's a beautiful world out there" (though not entirely beautiful, due to the symbolism behind it). All into consideration, I think the film (however unintentionally) pulls the rug out from underneath to leave us with a lesser film.

"Lebanon" for me is disappointing, a narrative experiment with some great moments that doesn't go entirely right and doesn't really deserve the Golden Lion it won. Looking at the Lebanon War from this view and (as said before) transcribing Maoz's past could have worked, but Maoz squanders it with too much style and (as Nick Davis said) poor pacing. C+

Note: What was up with those subtitles? "!?" is fine once or twice, but when overused, it's distracting.