Knight of Cups

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Terrence Malick/Starring: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Wes Bentley, Brian Dennehy, Antonio Banderas, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Cherry Jones

Terrence Malick has certainly earned his place in the American Directorial Pantheon. His visual stylings can be breathtaking, as in Tree of Life and films from his past, like Badlands, Days of Heaven and The New World meld his stunning visual aesthetic to powerful drama. But in his new film; Knight of Cups, as in his last film To the Wonder he seems to have become tethered to a storytelling mode that has become self-parodying. Many of the storytelling elements seen in his last few films are conspicuously present here: whispery voice-overs, protagonists drifting through beautifully surreal urban and desert landscapes, and fantastic images that almost overpower the narrative. Though opinions on the Tree of Life were ferociously polarized, I myself found it to be moving and ambitious but with Malick's follow-up projects, he seems to have become smitten with a style that is no longer new and visionary. His new movie carries all the aforementioned stylistic tics without breaking any new ground. Only the characters have changed.
If the film has a selling point, it's in its striking images, but two hours of incomparable beauty without a solid narrative feel like Koyaanisqatsi. I don't know that I want to see one more Terrence Malick film where a character walks slowly through the desert; contemplating whatever they're supposed to be contemplating while a mumbly voice-over whispers stuff like "find your way through the darkness." That which seemed so poetic in Tree of Life now seems almost satirical. Mr. Malick, thou hast drawn from the same well once too often.

The film, to its credit, doesn't follow conventional plotting, but tries to paint a portrait of a man through a series of images rather than dialogue and action. The man; Rick (Christian Bale), is a Hollywood something or other (forgive me if I missed what may have been obvious to you); actor or writer; I couldn't tell. Having failed in his marriage to a doctor named Nancy (Cate Blanchett), Rick finds himself lost in a world of Hollywood excess. Images of bacchanalian chaos in Los Angeles mansions and nightclubs, where Rick wanders among the beautiful bodies like a ghost, are a common sight.

When Rick isn't a presence at parties, we see him in various locations around Los Angeles, engaged in thoughtful walkabouts. I don't know that I've ever seen a film set in the City of Angels look lovelier. The skyline, streets, and the beaches we've seen in a million other films suddenly seems new and strange. Malick's brilliant cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, who has also done fine work on Alejandro Innaritu's recent films, makes Los Angeles seem otherworldly. My guess is he accomplished this visual feat with a wide-angle lens.

We also see Rick's brief relationships with a series of women; none of whom seem particularly exceptional save for their looks. It is me or does every respective shot of the women consist of frolics on the beach or inside apartments? The only woman of any substance is Nancy; a doctor who we see treating the less beautiful citizens of the city. The only real dialogue we hear Rick share with any woman is also with Nancy, who still suffers emotional wounds from their failed marriage.
And finally we meet Rick's brother Barry (Wes Bentley) and his father Joseph (Brian Dennehy), who can never be in the same room together unless they're bickering. Again, we never really hear them interact, we only see them in various phases of their troubled familial relationship. We can see Barry bears more rancor for his father than Rick and isn't shy about expressing it. Toward the end of the film Rick seems to achieve some sort of reconciliation with his father, while Joseph; atoning for his failures as a father and husband, seeks spiritual absolution.

As Rick drifts from woman to woman, we see one has fallen deeply in love with him though she be married: Elizabeth (Natalie Portman). How do we know she's in love? Because we hear say as much in her own whispery voice-over (yes, everybody in this film has a whispery voice-over; even Rick's goatee--no, not really) and because she too (sarcasm alert) runs along the beach.

So, do all the beautiful images, which encompass city-scapes and southern Californian deserts and Las Vegas and Rick's innumerable women and the film's scant drama cohere into anything resembling a poignant whole? You be the judge. Do we care about Rick, who never seems to work but has plenty of time to chase women and walk around aimlessly? I can't say I did. Can a man be said to have troubles when he can partake of legions of sexy, beautiful women who come and go like the tide? If he was suffering, it wasn't obvious to me.

Malick's film is a lot like the women Rick romances; great to look at but superficial. But an hour and a half into the film, even the beautiful images, like the women, become tedious. Malick certainly has made great films and may again if he takes leave of the style he can't seem to let go of. Knight of Cups isn't an embarrassment but it falls well short of being an achievement.

The Big Short

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Adam McKay/Starring: Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Marisa Tomei and Hamish Linklater

I thought all the horrors of the economic recession of 2008 had been dramatized in film. The Company Men, Margin Call and the more recent 99 Homes have all given movie audiences a taste of what preceded or followed the near collapse of the American economy; a tragedy whose impact is still being felt domestically and abroad. But with director Adam McKay's The Big Short; adapted from Michael Lewis' non-fiction book of the same name, we learn there is still much to say--and learn--about the subject. And what may or may not be surprising to the viewer is that a film about said crisis can still elicit a powerful gag response. McKay's film, which is at times darkly comic, is absorbing from the opening bell while challenging us to fathom the abstruse minutiae of the housing market's rise and fall. Unlike the aforementioned films, The Big Short makes an earnest attempt to educate the viewer about the hows and whys of how the bubble burst.

Though the story is factual, McKays's characters are wont to tell us when the story strays into the fictitious with into-the-camera asides that lend the film an element of stage theatricality.

The story is told from the perspective of several Wall Street outsiders. One of them; a numbers prodigy and former doctor named Michael Burry (Christian Bale), is a hedge fund manager who foresees the imminent collapse of the mortgage lending market; a prediction for which he asserts much confidence. Unable to find anyone who will heed his warnings, Burry buys what are called credit default swaps (CDS). I'm not nearly qualified to explain the nature and functions of CDS', though characters in the film make an earnest attempt to illuminate the audience. In essence, they allow the holder to profit from defaulted housing loans.
Burry is seen as a loon when he visits several investment firms; Goldman Sachs among them, to buy up CDS' in mass quantity. His bulk purchases draw the attention of Wall Street and a major investor under Burry's consultation, who is less than happy with what he sees as investment disaster in the making.

But not everyone believes Burry is out of his mind. An investor named Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) sees that Burry's prognostication is worthy of attention, which prompts his own high volume purchase.

A misdirected phone call brings Vennett's investment to the attention of a trader named Mark Baum (Steve Carell), who, along with his fellow group of traders, becomes intrigued with the sudden interest in CDS traffic. We learn early that Baum is a man of unassailable integrity; his crusade against foul play and fraud on Wall Street is his most salient characteristic. Sometime later, Vennett meets with Baum and his team and in explaining his interest in CDS, he also takes the time to explain the intricate workings of sub-prime loans.

Skeptical of Burry's prophecy, Baum and his team embark on a fact-finding mission to Florida; a hot-spot for housing loans. Among those Baum and his colleagues encounter are a couple of arrogant real estate agents, who divulge their unethical practice of loan disbursement to those who would otherwise be unqualified. Baum's probing questions reveal disquieting facts about said lending practices, which the two men hardly feel the need to hide. Baum's associates confirm the real estate agents' claims when they visit an upscale home in an upscale neighborhood; where they find one occupant living beyond his means. This is followed by an absurdly funny scene where Baum visits a gentleman's club to talk to a stripper who has also benefited from lax housing loan practices to secure not one but several loans. Confident that what they've found confirms Burry's warnings, Baum initiates his own purchase though his superiors balk at what they believe to be a foolish investment.

A couple of young novice investors; Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Charlie Geller (John Magaro) also hope to purchase CDS' but a lack of reputation and standing on Wall Street stands as an impediment. Needing investment capital to achieve their goal, the two men seek a Wall Street player who might vouch for them and serve as their entree into the lofty world of investing. The man they approach is an eccentric retired banker named Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who sees Jamie and Charlie are on to a solid, money-making scheme but also recognizes their success might come at the expense of the American economy.

In time, as the collapse approaches, all the parties invested in the CDS purchases begin to realize the magnitude of fraud involved the housing market decline, which they rightly attribute to the banking system. And when the collapse actually occurs and the economy goes to hell, we see its horrific effects as Wall Street personnel are dismissed from their jobs en masse while many of the unemployed are forced to join long queues of those looking for work in the hourly-wage world.

And as the collapse commences, Burry, Baum and Rickert are all very aware of what is to come while the more amoral Vennett, seen sitting at his desk alone; stares contentedly at a 47 million dollar check; the noxious fruit of his investment.
Given the widespread unscrupulousness of Wall Street, it is astonishing to find anyone felt any of the mess to be sordid and immoral.

McKay's film gives us a valuable and penetrating portrait of the causes and the aftermath of the 2008 economic collapse. This is accomplished with an outstanding script, expertly adapted by McKay and screenwriter Charles Randolph. The jargon and terminology of the Wall Street world is never an impediment to the drama. Without oversimplifying the material, McKay ensures we can follow along without succumbing to the dizzying developments, which never seem to be completely comprehensible (at least to me).

The ensemble cast is one of the best I've seen this year. Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Christian Bale and Brad Pitt are all outstanding, as are the supporting cast. Carell's growth as an actor is proceeding swimmingly; showing us his flair for drama, which began with Foxcatcher.

McKay never adopts a self-righteous tone; the story itself speaks volumes about the evil perpetrated by the American banking system. We see a particularly affective scene near the end, where Shipley and Geller's exuberant celebrations are squelched by Rickert's sober reproach, who remind them that their windfall from their CDS' comes at the price of the lost jobs and homes.

The end subtitles tell us something about the aftermath. Rather than being punished, the bankers behind the disaster were instead bailed out by the American people. To render an already horrid tragedy ludicrous, the unrepentant bankers also received staggering bonuses. Another subtitle tells us about how Burry proposed informing the government how he came to anticipate the collapse, only to become the the subject of an investigation.

The Big Short is easily one of the best films of the year. Its intricate but riveting plot keeps our minds alert while showing us--contrary to what we've been taught--crimes do go unpunished, particularly those on Wall Street. It also demonstrates that accountability has become a whimsical notion in America. If only McKay's brilliant film could bring about some arrests...that would be lovely.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Ridley Scott/Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Ben Mendelsohn, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde and Hiam Abbass

Ridley Scott is a director who never met a big screen spectacle he didn't like and after watching his new Biblical opera Exodus: Gods and Kings, you might come away with the feeling that a 3D version might be redundant (2D is quite adequate, thank you very much). Scott has never kept counsel with subtlety though he's proven he can wring some entertainment from his bloated enterprises. Taking on the Biblical story of Exodus, one can be forgiven for making the story monumental but its grandiosity needs to be tamed and I'm not sure an epic-minded director like Scott is up to the challenge, though I was pleasantly surprised with his interpretation of the character of Moses.

Exodus is occasionally fun to watch but what dazzles are the expertly rendered CGI landscapes and visitations of God's wrath. It also has its intermittently clever flourishes but one will find the film's charms dissolving like Alka Seltzer before one can pull away from the theater. Too bad, because Scott has gathered considerable talent to realize his story but unfortunately, some never have an opportunity to make much of an impact. More on those unfortunates later.

I really like the casting choices for Moses and Ramses (Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, respectively). Rather than play the Hebrew prophet as a majestic, Biblical statue, Bale brings more of an every-man dimension to his portrayal, as does Edgerton.

Scott shows some creative flourish in his characterization of Moses but isn't fussy with the narrative. He establishes Moses and Ramses relationship quickly; creating and maintaining adversarial tension. This Moses isn't the Lord's passive and peaceful shepherd; we see him join Ramses in the Egyptian army's battle against the Hittites early in the film. He and Ramses are not only sons to Pharaoh Seti (a gloriously miscast John Turturro) but his enforcers who keep enemies and the Hebrew slaves who labor to build monuments and temples in check.

I'll assume everyone is familiar with the story of Moses, either from the Biblical source or from Cecil B. DeMille's film so I won't waste time with a synopsis. The issue of Moses' Hebrew heritage seems to arrive quickly in the narrative and when Ramses catches wind of it, we know Moses will be exiled into the desert wilderness.

Scott uses CGI effectively, showing us the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis in all its glory and construction. It all looks more convincing than Sigourney Weaver in Egyptian finery, who is given little to do in the film other than plot Moses' death. The same can be said for Hiam Abbass, the excellent Syrian actress, who plays Moses' surrogate mother Bithia. The Old Testament has little use for women, as does Scott. Moses' found wife Zipporah (the hypnotically lovely Maria Valverde) has the distinction of being the female character we see most (and that isn't much, given the story is two and a half hours).

After Moses marries, we know the Burning Bush awaits, which he encounters on the rocky slopes of Mt. Horeb. Scott's conception of God is one of the more inspired moments in his film. Rather than portray the Almighty as smoldering shrubbery broadcasting a stentorian voice, God appears to Moses as a little boy. I found this unexpected, fascinating and entirely appropriate. God usually acts like a angry child in the Old Testament; stomping his feet when things don't go his way or his humans thumb their noses at him, as Ramses does often. We see God's child-like petulance as he voices his impatience with Ramses and his refusal to free the Hebrew slaves. Through it all, Moses seems a little skeptical of God and his power; he doesn't grovel before Him like a toady as we might expect.

Though Moses' staff plays an integral role in Exodus, Scott strangely denies him that which harnesses God's power. We do see Joshua (played by Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul; another peculiar casting choice) wielding Moses' wood but it never really earns its mythic reputation in the film.

After Moses follows God's mandate to return to Egypt to demand his people's freedom, the naturally recalcitrant Ramses tells Moses to take a hike. Of course we know the plagues will soon follow--and how! Again, Scott uses CGI to great effect; swarms of locusts, toads and the superbly blood-rendered Nile waters are catastrophically convincing and create a hellish nightmare for Pharaoh. All is accomplished matter-of-factly by Moses, who carries out the Almighty's wishes without succumbing to melodramatic displays of power. Ramses and his people aren't spared the uglier plagues, like the disease that disfigures faces and the choking swarms of flies.

Soon after, Pharaoh's heart softens and he agrees to free the slaves. In the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt, God's general leads the ragged masses into the wilderness and in Scott's determination to show us a more human Moses, the Prophet betrays moments of doubt and indecision; unsure where to deliver those he helped free.

Eager to avenge his son's death by the Hebrew God's plagues, and to assuage his wounded ego, Ramses and his army give chase to Moses and the refugees and in doing so, we come to the much-anticipated moment in the film when God's chosen find themselves trapped between Pharaoh and the deep blue sea--the Red Sea, that is. As in the film The Ten Commandments, we expect to see a spectacular parting of the waters but again, to Scott's credit, he shows some restraint. Instead of a massive, watery furrow being ploughed through the Red Sea, we see the waters gradually shallow then trickle away as the Hebrews make their way across the damp seabed. As Ramses and his legions edge ever closer, a towering wall of water approaches, threatening to engulf Hebrew and Egyptian alike. One would think God would ensure Moses' safety but along with Ramses and his chariots, he too suffers the force of the wave. And of course Moses survives (Scott isn't brazen enough to rewrite Biblical history--too bad) while a chastened Ramses also emerges from the sea to exit the story and history.

Finally, on the upper slopes of Mt. Sinai, as the wayward Hebrews frolic and sin and erect golden idols, Moses sits with the boy God taking dictation on stone tablets. God asks the ever-contentious Moses if he agrees with his Commandments, to which he offers his assent. It is a wonderfully mundane exchange that further humanizes the story; making a significant Biblical event seem accessible.

So let it be written--no, wait, that's the other story of Exodus. Let's deal with Scott's.
In spite of his attempt to bring the story down to Earth and to rehabilitate Moses' action figure stature, I couldn't help but ask myself; did this story really need to be told or reinterpreted? Aside from Scott's creative re-tooling of details, it is essentially The Ten Commandments sans Technicolor. Though we see a few other characters share the spotlight--Ben Mendelsohn's Viceroy Hegep and Aaron Paul's Joshua, most of the other characters make appearances as brief as the passing shots of stately Egyptian temples and pyramids.

And what is Scott trying to get at in his re-telling? If one wants to spend $140 million dollars for the express purpose of humanizing a Biblical story, then I question that person's motives. As much as I find Bale and Edgerton to be fascinating actors who do terrific work in Scott's film, they can only help make the film a fun romp, rather than something powerful. For all the hokum in DeMille's telling, I still prefer it to Scott's. All its color and pomp never seem to dull. I can't say the same for Exodus: Gods and Kings. Though I enjoyed it (in spite of itself), I can't imagine it will make me want to revisit it again the way DeMille's film does. Is it unfair to compare two films separated by almost 60 years? Probably. I'm guessing half the audience who sees Scott's film will be under 35 and will have no knowledge of the older interpretation so any comparison would be irrelevant to them but bear in mind that DeMille's film is still playing on television in the 21st century. Will Scott's enjoy the same longevity?

I respect Scott's reinterpretation much in the way I respected Darren Aronofsky for retelling the story of Noah (please let there be a moratorium on religious-themed movies in 2015!) in more humanist terms but I didn't like Noah any better for its earthiness; in spite of that quality.

So where does that leave us? I had fun watching the film; if only for the leads and to see what tricks Scott might have up his sleeve. But now that I have a few days of separation from the screening, it has already begun its own exodus from my memory. Mr. Scott, I liked your Moses but I think I'll stick to Heston and Brynner and DeMille's Barnum and Bailey Biblical imaginings.

And yes...So let it be done.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.