Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, 2011
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Nominations Include Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor.

Synopsis: Oskar Schell is special child. Being an amateur inventor, pacifist, tambourine-player, etc, he and his father have a special connection, playing a game called "reconnaissance expedition", which Oskar must find clues and solve mysteries his father sets him on which makes him talk to people, and do more things he's scared of, all while learning. But then tragedy strikes and his father is killed in 9/11. Oskar is shattered, and feels alone, scared, and angry. A year after his death he finds a key in his father's closet, labelled black, inside a vase he breaks by accident. Immediately he assumes it's another clue, something he needs to figure out, and he sets out to find the lock for this key, and to try to find out what his father left him.

I watched the trailer for this film several months ago, when the initial buzz started forming around this film. I remember watching it and thinking "seriously? Best Picture potential?" and I shrugged it off, knowing it was stlil 2 or 3 months until it's release. Then  it got nominated for Best Picture (after poor reviews) and again I thought, really? But knowing it was one of 2 films I still needed to see of the nominees, I'd have to go see it. I opened my mind to give it a blank slate, and expected nothing of it. I gave it a chance.

And, well, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that great either. Hm, where to start this review.

Oskar was an extremely unsympathetic character, which probably would've been a lot better read in the book. You can get away with a lot more things in books than you can on film. And I think this film was a good example. Oskar would frequently ask nosy questions he really had no business asking strangers, he had many quirks about him (like shaking a tambourine to calm himself), counting his lies, listing the things he was afraid of, giving random facts and just having a general inner-monologue that was slightly unnecessary in a film. All would've worked well in the book, but didn't work quite as well on film. Additionally, a lot of the time Oskar would say things about himself, but would act almost hypocritically later. For instance, he has a fear of bridges, but darts right across when the Renter (a mute neighbor of his who offers to help him on his quest) offers to share his story. He's also scared of public transit, but is okay once the Renter, once again, coaxes him on, and they exchange Oxymorons (his father and him used to have "Oxy-moron wars"). This was no fault of Thomas Horn's (the actor of Oskar), or even Jonathan San Froer's (the authors). It was that of the screenwriter, who didn't seem to follow through on things written. Additionally, there seems to be much more to Oskar than is shown in the film. We get a list read to us that he's an Inventor, a Francophile, a Pacifist, and we never get to see any of that. We only get it read to us on a list.

Thomas Horn, who played Oskar, was quite good, but you can tell he has not had too much experience. This is Thomas Horn's very first film, and I must say he did quite well for this being his first. However, many of the voice-overs were very monotone, and he, in fact, spoke monotone a lot of the time, except for when he was angry and yelling (the latter, he did very, very well). He was convincing as the quirky, unique Oskar, even if a little stiff or awkward at times.

One part I was excited for about this film though, was Alexandre Desplat would be scoring it. Desplat, being my favourite film composer, I was delighted, and as always, he didn't disappoint. His music was simple, and so melancholy, but it had a great effect. Mr. Desplat was indeed snubbed this year, missing out on several different opportunities, having scored Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II, Carnage, The Ides of March, and a Better Life.

While the summaries of this story boast about it being about Oskar's quest to find the lock that the key his father had, it isn't really. While it certainly was a part of it, it wasn't too as well as it could've been. Many a times we see little clips of the different people he visited (usually all looking purposefully at the camera, no Oskar involved), or very small clips with no conversation where we see Oskar interacting. We get the idea he's met so many people, since we see him scrap-booking pictures of everyone he's met, but we don't really get to see any of that, besides one or two characters. Instead, what we mostly see if the many tantrums of Oskar, the many times he leaves his apartment in the night, in his pajamas, out doing something or other, or flashbacks to "the worst day". In a way, I felt like, well, not a lot happened. The movie didn't go very far forward, and I felt like we had very little character development. Most of the time Oskar was rude to the Renter, or his mother, or the doorman, or he was in his room either crying, or looking at his maps. It could've been a meaningful story,  had the option of the people he'd met, heard their stories, and realizing we all have stories, and we've all lost someone. It could've been very impactful. Instead that route isn't taken and it's a shame. There was potential.

Overall, the word that floated through my mind while watching this movie was "pretentious". I had never really understood what people meant when they said a film tried too hard. I do now. It tried to hard to be "deep", it tried too hard to have a quirky little boy, and it tried too hard to show Oskar's grief and his thoughts. Several times in the film we get this image of a man falling through the air (presumably out of one of the twin towers), and it just seems so forced. Force for an emotional reaction. Of course, there is one (as I could tell from the sniffling from those around me in the audience), but the times that were the saddest were the conversation, were the "i love you"s that were almost unheard, and those moments that seemed more natural. Those were the moments where the film was at it's best, and really had something going for it. But in the end, I feel like we hardly moved forward. It was countless moments of Oskar being sad, when we could've gotten more in-depth to some of the people Oskar and the Renter met. While it was a sad film with a good message, it look a long time to get there, and with too many 2d characters.

Will it win Best Picture? It hasn't a hope. I still wonder why it was nominated, especially given that it had to get at least 5% of the overall number #1 choice votes. While it was an okay film, it was definitely the bottom of the 9 nominated, though I have seen a lot, a lot worse films this year. And Max von Sydow hasn't a hope either. Christopher Plummer already has it all wrapped up. Not that I thought Von Sydow's performance was particularly noticeable, much less award-worthy, but nevertheless.

Not a terrible movie, but not a great one either. Again, when asked if I liked this film, I simply shrugged, because there wasn't a whole lot to say about it. It was just okay.

6.5/10

008. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

008. (05 Jan) /Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close/ (2011, Stephen Daldry)* 82



On a second viewing, I can truly appreciate what powerful filmmaking this is. The emotional weight Daldry lends to both simple scenes, like Thomas Horn's scenes opposite Jeffrey Wright and Viola Davis, and the powerhouse ones like Horn's with Bullock. It's a rarity when fine acting, focused direction, and technical achievement combine like this. Chris Menges' cinematography and Alexandre Desplat's score are especially wonderful.

The film itself is repeatedly an outright devastating experience. I can scarcely recall being more moved by situational sadness or finely drawn connections between characters. Daldry continues to be the most accomplished of emotion-driven directors working today.

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE
Written by Eric Roth
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Starring Thomas Horn, Sandra Bullock, Max von Sydow and Tom Hanks

Making movies about the September 11 tragedies is unquestionably tricky. You don’t want to gloss over the facts and you definitely don’t want to exploit the pain but you also have to ensure that your movie is not so bleak and depressing that no one ends up seeing it. EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE, the latest film by Oscar nominee, Stephen Daldry (THE READER), does a pretty decent job of oscillating between the morose and the uplifting, without ever succumbing too much to either side, but it also never truly finds its voice as a result.

The story itself, adapted from the well regarded novel of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer, is a poignant one. Young, precocious, Thomas Schell (played by Teen Jeopardy winner, Thomas Horn, in his first film), loses his father (Tom Hanks) in the September 11 attacks. Naturally, this causes his already rampant anxiety to expand greatly. He no longer takes trains, fears tall buildings and carries a tambourine around with him at all times to help ease his mounting tension. All of this makes his quest to find the lock for a key he found amongst his father’s belongings particularly difficult. Before his father passed away, he would orchestrate mysterious puzzles for his son to solve and Thomas sees this key as a way to keep his father alive just a little bit longer. Not surprisingly, he pushes away his mother (a touching Sandra Bullock) in the process and subsequently befriends a stranger (Max von Sydow, in an incredibly telling turn considering the character is mute) in an effort to replace his absent father figure. Across the board, the acting is quite understated and very respectful to the horror that inspired this story. The way the events unfold though is at times too whimsical to be fully believed.

What I found most moving about EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE was how perfectly it captured that newfound sense of danger, apprehension and confusion that didn’t exist in Western society before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. At nine years old, Thomas cannot make sense of what happened on that day. Heck, most adults couldn’t make sense of it. And so, without being able to understand how his father was taken from him when planes flew into buildings, he now fears most everything instead. The beauty in the final journey Thomas finds himself on, is that it not only brings him closer to his father, but it also brings him closer to healing without his even realizing it. Maybe Daldry will have the same effect on you.

486. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

486. (07 Dec) Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011, Stephen Daldry)* 82

Yearly Perspective – 2002 – Best Director Edition

I've been doing an intensive Yearly Perspective of 2002 lately.  And by “intensive,” I mean intensive.  Usually when I try and do these, it takes a few months, since getting together unseen movies is more challenging than not.  But when you run across an easy year like 2002, you don’t have to do much work. 

Scorsese on set of Gangs of New York

In a rare occurrence, only 12 films are represented in the 20 acting categories (Chicago, About Schmidt, The Hours, Adaptation., Road to Perdition, Catch Me If You Can, Unfaithful, Frida, Far From Heaven, The Quiet American, Gangs of New York, and The Pianist).  Two other films with no acting nominations were up for Best Picture (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) and Best Director (Talk to Her).  Add to that three other films nominated for their scripts alone in the Original and Adapted Screenplay categories (About a Boy, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and Y Tu Mama Tambien).  As far as the major categories go, that’s a mere 17 films filling up a total of 40 nomination slots.  Without throwing more statistics in your face, that amount of overlap is very rare.  This even carries over into the tech categories, which repeat the aforementioned titles often, with peppering of Spider-Man, 8 Mile, and Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones thrown in there for good measure.  With such a small pool of films to get a hold of, doing a Yearly Perspective is not out of the question.

Almodóvar winning Original
Screenplay for Talk to Her

Much has been written of 2002’s Best Actor race, which featured an un-nominated nobody besting four previous winners in a shocker which resulted in one of the most memorable Oscar moments this decade.  One would assume that such a category would be the strongest or most stacked race of the year, but in this humble film watcher’s opinion, the Best Director race reigned supreme.  It had a legend, a fugitive, and three openly gay men.  Look at the nominees: winner Roman Polanski for The Pianist, Rob Marshall for Chicago, Martin Scorsese for Gangs of New York, Pedro Almodóvar for Talk to Her, and Stephen Daldry for The Hours.  Add to that highly impressive slate of nominees the un-nominated-yet-still-brilliant work of Peter Jackson on Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Spike Jonze for Adaptation, Adrian Lyne for Unfaithful, Julie Taymor for Frida, and Sam Raimi for Spider-Man and you’ll be hard-pressed to compile a list of just five yourself.  At least I know I am.  Add into the mix directorial achievements I myself am not so fond of, but others enjoy: Todd Haynes on Far From Heaven, Alexander Payne for About Schmidt, Christopher Nolan for Insomnia, Paul Thomas Anderson for Punch-Drunk-Love, Sam Mendes for Road to Perdition, and Steven Spielberg for Catch Me If You Can.  Coming up with five yet that you love most?  I didn’t think so.

Lord of the Rings doesn't "count as one!"

For what it’s worth, it is very, very hard to argue with the Academy’s choices.  What Polanski did with a dried and overwrought genre was miraculous, and with his personal, emotional injection of verisimilitude you felt like a refugee alongside Brody; it was epic in scope, yet small in its careful and calculated vision.  Marshall, quite simply, reinvented the movie musical, setting a standard in the enlivened genre that he himself couldn’t even live up to; his strong, creative point-of-view took the movie musical out of the land of suspended disbelief and made it realistic.  Scorsese, with his legendary attention to detail, aptly adapts his typical gangster style to the brute thuggary of Civil War era New York City.  Daldry masters a trio of women and one standout Ed Harris to tell a story that’s spans decades and beautifully mixes poetry and self-discovery.  Finally, the Lone Director Almodóvar (lone director: a nominated helmer whose film isn’t up for Best Picture, a term now likely dead due to the Best Picture 10).  In no small part thanks to his brilliant screenplay, Almodóvar guides the viewers through a tale of love, obsession, and friendship, with stylized excellence; continuously boarders on creepy, beautiful, haunting, and charming.  Hard to argue with them, huh?

Polanksi even make Chipotle looks exciting

However, I’d only nominate two of them.  It’s that dandy of a year.  Okay, let’s keep Polanski and Marshall, sorry Marty, Steve, and Pedro.  For starters, how Peter Jackson wasn’t recognized for his masterful work on The Two Towers is beyond me.  His direction in the trilogy is never stronger than it is here, where he manages to make trees throwing rocks seems as exciting as Orc decapitation; it’s his balance of backstory, battle, and psychological discovery that makes a three hour epic seem like a breeze.  Spike Jonze made a Charlie Kaufman story work, which by and large is nomination-worthy in general, but with his assemblage of three performances giving some of their career-best work and balancing the irony with the action in Kaufman’s script, it’s hard not to applaud Jonze.  Finally—and in an unconventional choice, truth be told—I have Adrian Lyne for his subtle, yet oftentimes heavy-handed, work on Unfaithful.  Whatever happened in Lyne’s life that made him so apt at tales of infidelity (director of Fatal Attraction) must hold a strong place in his consciousness.  What he does with Unfaithful is nothing short of marvelous; going from steamy stairwell sex to murder to tight family drama with precision and focus is what makes the film work.  Hard to cut it off there.

Stephen Daldry on set

So who’s the best?  Well Roman Polanski won the Oscar.  Deservingly so.  However, not my personal choice.  For a while, it was Jackson if only because The Two Tower is my favorite of the trilogy.  But really, I think Marshall handedly has the finest direction of 2002.  Yes, some of the perspective of the film (it’s all in her mind!) should be credited to screenwriter Bill Condon, Marshall is the man who made it come alive and function as a film.  Each frame is so carefully orchestrated; each performance is just over-the-top enough to fit into a musical and without being campy.  His touch is ever-present all over the film: the sexiness, the style of musicality, and most importantly the overall architecture and look of Chicago.  Not to mention, he choreographed the whole kitten caboodle too, a feat which deserves an Oscar if only for the 10 minutes of “Cell Block Tango.”

So there you have it.  My Yearly Perspective on the 2002 Best Director race with comments on the real nominees and my personal selections.  If all goes according to plan, one of the acting categories should be next.

BEST DIRECTOR

***Rob Marshell, Chicago***

Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Roman Polanski, The Painist

Spike Jonze, Adaptation.

Adrian Lyne, Unfaithful

.