Anomalisa

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Duke Johnson and Charlie Kaufman/Voices: David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Noonan

Charlie Kaufman is one of film's great screenwriting talents. His screenplays for the films Being John Malkovich, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Synecdoche, NY and Adaptation reflect the thoughts and emotions of an intellectually curious mind. His new film; Anomalisa, which is based on his radio play of the same name and for which he shares a directing credit with Duke Johnson, is an affecting drama told in an unconventional way. Rather than film in live action, Kaufman and Johnson employed stop motion animation puppetry and miniaturized sets to tell the story of a man who feels emotionally disconnected from a world populated by people whose voices appear to be all the same.

Though the use of stop motion puppetry wouldn't seem like the most ideal story-telling medium, it proves to be quite an effective on film. And in choosing an offbeat manner in which to tell their story, Kaufman and Johnson manage to create a cinematic experience that is both moving and profound.

Anomalisa tells the story of author Michael Stone (David Thewlis, voice); who has just arrived in Cincinnati to deliver a speech at a conference on customer service. We see Michael walking through the airport terminal; indifferent to the faces and bodies he brushes past.

Michael's encounter with a cabby is disconcerting. The driver refuses to make eye-contact but accepts the fare. Michael's weary patience with the cab driver's incessant chatter is sorely tried by the repetitive comments about the Zoo and Cincinnati's famed chile. Michael's mood hardly improves when the bellhop at the hotel continues the stream of seemingly endless prattle.
A phone call to his wife and child, which is mostly perfunctory, also ends disappointingly. All alone, Michael orders room service but decides to call a woman from his past; a former lover who happens to be living in Cincinnati. The phone conversation is naturally awkward but Michael asks her to the hotel for a drink; an offer she warily accepts.

At this point in the film, one will notice that all the voices not Michael's are the same; male and female. Actor Tom Noonan lends his non-threatening, flat, nasally voice to all the characters, even Michael's former lover. This eccentricity is at first puzzling, as the audience might wonder why the filmmakers would deliberately have everyone sound the same. And when Michael meets his former lover in the hotel bar; a woman he hasn't seen in ten years, her voice also bears the same lifeless tone we hear in everyone else.

Their conversation is naturally awkward at first as she asks what has prompted Michael to reach out to her after ten years. Michael talks about his problems, mainly his doubts about his mental health and his feelings of loneliness. Before long, the conversation turns to their failed relationship. Old wounds are reopened as his former lover asks why he walked away from their relationship. A conversation already fraught with tension escalates into anger when Michael invites her to his room. Her anger prompts a scene-making exit where Michael is left alone at the table, embarrassed and dejected. Michael returns to his room and looks out his window. He sees a man in a building across the street; sitting before a computer, preparing to masturbate; which does little to alleviate his feeling of isolation and loneliness.

Not long after, Michael hears a voice while in the shower. He steps out, dons pants and a shirt and hurries into the hallway to locate the person he believes he's heard. Finding no one, he knocks on several doors, only to come upon one room with two women who happen to recognize him from his book. The women mention they are also in town to attend the customer service conference and are keen to mention his speech, which they are eager to hear. Of the two women, Michael finds one has a distinctive voice unlike the others he's heard. He notices that the voice, which belongs to a woman named Lisa (Jennifer Jason Leigh, voice) is pleasing to his ear. Enchanted by her voice, Michael invites both women for drinks in the hotel bar. While the friend is eager and coquettish, Lisa is shy and tentative.
After drinks, the evening nearly comes to an end until Michael invites Lisa back to his room for a nightcap. Urged on by her friend, whose ego is somewhat bruised, Lisa agrees to his invitation.

Their conversation, fueled by Lisa's nervous volubility, exhilarates Michael, who encourages her to carry on. As they become more intimate, Michael notices a scar over one of Lisa's eyes. She preempts any questions about it with her firm refusal to discuss it further.

While she talks, we see that Lisa is self-deprecating; speaking disparagingly about her lack of smarts and how she needs a dictionary to understand many of the words in his book. In spite of her lack of self-confidence, Michael becomes rapturous as he listens to Lisa verbalize and at one point in their conversation, he asks her to sing a Cindy Lauper song when she mentions how much she likes her music. The scene where Lisa sings Lauper's Girls Just Want to Have Fun is one of the film's most touching moments; as is what follows after during an amorous joining.

The next morning, as the two enjoy breakfast in the hotel room, the euphoria both Michael and Lisa felt the night before is doused by harsh reality as their respective, annoying, behavioral tics begin to emerge. What is worse, the enchanting voice that excited him the night before begins to bear traces of the flat voice he hears everywhere else until it overlaps with Lisa's voice.

Michael's talk at the conference becomes surreal as his angry, agitated outbursts about the lack of human connection mingle with the more mundane aspects of the speech. What is actually said and what does the audience hear? Reality and madness begin to blur.

In returning home to his wife and son, Michael finds a surprise party in his honor but though his wife tells him that everyone present loves him, the idea holds little succor. The final, unsentimental shot of Michael sitting on his stairs; alienated from the people and the party, makes any happy resolution impossible. But in spite of Michael's tragic condition, the final shot in the film belongs to Lisa, whose irrepressible good nature allows her something less gloomy.

I'm not sure the film would have been as powerful had the story employed live action. One may notice that the puppets had deliberate seams in their faces, as if everyone were wearing masks. Earlier in the film, Michael's anxiety about his face becoming detached to reveal a robotic one underneath gives the audience the sense that everyone may be automatons beneath their epidermal veneer.

I don't know what vocal criteria Kaufman and Johnson had in mind for their characters but I must say the casting was exceptional. David Thewlis' voice has a plaintive quality, which is ideal for Michael's anxious disposition. Lisa's voice, which she uses to mask a psychic wound like the facial scar she tries to hide, often sounds like that of a little girl's; vulnerable and uncertain. Jennifer Jason Leigh's vocal performance captures all the nuance in Lisa's personality.

Unfortunately for Michael, no answers or comforting solutions to his existential suffering are forthcoming. One of the film's sad ironies is that a man whose success is predicated on customer relations--human relations--is desperate for meaningful, human connection.

It is interesting to consider that one of the most touching dramas in American film in 2015 relied on puppetry to tell its story. The puppetry might have only been a cute gimmick if the film lacked a poignant story. Though the faces we see on-screen remain artificial, the emotions, anxieties and thoughts communicated are wonderfully and tragically human.

Macbeth

Director: Justin Kurzel/Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine and David Thewlis

Australian director Justin Kurzel, who helmed the visceral and deeply disturbing The Snowtown Murders, returns with his much-anticipated film adaptation of Macbeth. Film versions of Shakespeare's play stretch to infinity and it is likely more will come, so what distinguishes Kurzel's from other interpretations? For one, Kurzel's version features the magnificently intense Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Stunning visuals are yet another attribute. It is certainly something to look at but how do the drama and more importantly; the dialogue, fare?

One problem I've had with Shakespearean film-adaptations in the past is mumbled or inaudible dialogue. It's a problem I have with Kurzel's film too. Aside from the play's characters, who stand as some of the most famous in theater; Shakespeare's words, for me, are what really make him master of all playwrights. Whenever I see any production of Shakespeare, I want to hear the dialogue clearly expressed. In Kurzel's film, much of the dialogue, including soliloquies, is robbed of its power and poetry.
Any character or play should be open to creative interpretation and performed accordingly; an artistic edict both Michael Fassbender (Macbeth) and Marion Cotillard (Lady Macbeth) embrace fully. But famous, key scenes suffer from either said unintelligible muttering or weakly-conveyed meaning. The famous Is this a dagger I see? soliloquy is expertly expressed but one has to strain to hear the words, whose clarity waxes and wanes. The monologue is key to understanding Macbeth's manic ambition but its impact is severely diminished if one has to strain to hear the words. It wouldn't have hurt to provide subtitles.

In another famous scene, Lady Macbeth's Out damned spot fails to capture the madness and guilt gripping her mind. The words are spoken in a curiously reserved manner. The choice to make the dialogue sound more natural rather than stagy is a nice touch but in accomplishing that goal much of Shakespeare's dialogue is unheard, leaving those familiar with the play to fill in what fails to find our ears.

Aside from Fassbender's charismatic fury, another of the film's strong attributes are the film locations. The stark beauty of the British and Scottish landscapes; majestic mountains and vast, grassy plains, make excellent, dramatic settings.

The visual aesthetics: the bleak, gray gloom and the eerie fog from which the witches emerge are stylized touches that nicely serve the story's moody forebodings.

One may notice the costumes in the film for their naturalistic, spare look. We never see regal finery or any garments adorned with vivid colors. Even Macbeth's crown is a drab headdress.

Though I found Michael Fassbender to be an awe-inspiring Macbeth, I thought Marion Cotillard to be a disappointingly mild Lady Macbeth. I think Cotillard is an excellent actress and is one of my contemporary favorites but I never got the sense she was the cunning and conniving force behind her husband's rise to power. Her Lady Macbeth seems passive and though she isn't meek, she comes across as a wife who has little influence on her husband's diabolical designs for the crown. Other characters, such as Paddy Considine's excellent Banquo and David Thewlis' Duncan, are played with distinction.

It is apparent Kurzel's aim was naturalism; an aesthetic I admire. He wanted us to feel the blood and dirt of the tragedy rather than showing us gaudily-costumed characters strutting about, chewing Shakespeare's words to death. His approach succeeds handsomely but the film fails miserably where it should be strong. Shakespeare's words are everything. Without the dialogue's poetic brilliance, we would merely have an interesting story about a man with Machiavellian ambitions. Kurzel understands poetry in all its visual expressions but he hamstrings the words and that, my few and dear readers, is what keeps the film from achieving a level of greatness it nevertheless strives for.

The Theory of Everything

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: James Marsh/Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Emily Watson and Simon McBurney

I intended to skip a post for James Marsh's The Theory of Everything and to be quite frank, I also intended to skip the movie, which is out of character for a cinephile like myself. Given its numerous Golden Globe nominations (which mean as much to me as the Oscars, which isn't much), I figured I had better not let it pass without at least a cursory assessment. And given the quality of so many late-year films, the trailer for Theory left me feeling apathetic; with an I-bet-I-can-plot-out-this-flick-without-spending-a-penny-on-it attitude. I've come with tidings--though not necessarily with great joy--to tell you folks that my reservations were sadly realized. The only bright spot in attending the screening was the free medium popcorn I earned with my frequent visitor theater card. If I had only earned a free ticket.

If anyone is deserving of a biopic, it's Stephen Hawking. The brilliant cosmologist has made significant contributions to the fields of astrophysics and astronomy and his book, A Brief History of Time has been an international best seller.

Marsh's film is based on Hawking's former wife Jane's memoir Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, which chronicles her ill-fated marriage to the scientist.

As the film begins, we see the young Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne)preparing for his doctorate exams at Trinity College at Cambridge University. The bright but undisciplined student finds himself with his brainy chums at a black tie function, where he meets a young woman named Jane (Felicity Jones). The two hit if off, in spite of their divergent academic pursuits. To Hawking's cosmology is Jane's Art, but differences extend to their respective perceptions of the world. Hawking's atheistic view is fed by his scholarly pursuits while Jane makes it clear she is a member of the Church of England. The differing perspectives highlight an interesting, philosophical contrast.

As Hawking prepares for his doctoral defense, he begins to suffer from motor control problems; failing to adequately grasp objects with his hands and stumbling. When the problem becomes acute, he visits a physician, who diagnoses him with Motor Neuron Disease, or as its come to be known, Lou Gehrig's Disease. The prognosis is grim, as Hawking is given two years to live. The devastating news leaves Hawking alienated from his friends. His disease does little to discourage Jane's romantic ardor as she manages to draw him out of his uncommunicative morbidity. In spite of his grave condition, Stephen refuses to abandon his studies. He eventually earns his doctorate as his professors recognize the originality of his theories; one involving a black hole in the creation of the universe.

It becomes clear after some time that the disease isn't fatal, which makes it possible for Jane and Stephen to have children in spite of his severely diminished physical state. And though he survives, his condition demands he occupy a wheelchair and be fed, clothed and assisted in other physical functions.

We begin to see how Stephen's constant care impacts Jane as she divides her attention between her husband and her children. She is able to convince Stephen to take on help and in doing so, she finds it serendipitously. Jane befriends Jonathan (Charlie Cox), her choir master and as he becomes welcomed into the Hawking household, he also assists in caring for Stephen. Over time, it becomes clear Jonathan and Jane are fighting an obvious mutual attraction, which is consummated after Stephen transfers his affections to his next caretaker; a woman named Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake).

Meanwhile, Stephen achieves international fame for his theories and his book A Brief History of Time. Though Stephen and Jane divorce, he invites her to accompany him to his knighthood (an honor he rejects), which involves meeting the Queen. One can imagine the respectful gesture satisfying part of a debt to Jane, whose tireless care ensured Stephen the means to pursue academic and scientific work.

Aside from filling in details for the trailer, the movie does little to make his life as fascinating as his theories. Yes, behind most brilliant and famous men are wives or significant others who toil thanklessly behind the scenes, ensuring greatness isn't troubled with the pesky, mundane details of life but Marsh fails to translate this to compelling cinema. And the theories that made Stephen Hawking a peer of Newton and Einstein are mentioned and explicated in expository dialogue but they seem to be given short shrift. We get a sense of Hawking's fame but not how he achieved it. Or why he was awarded the very prestigious Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge; a position held by England's finest mathematicians; including Isaac Newton. I understand the story is, in a large part, Jane's but aside from her fierce, loyal devotion, why did this story need to be told?

It's tough to make a wheelchair-bound individual a riveting presence on film, even someone with a formidable mind like Hawking's. Try as he might to mimic Hawking's contortive physicality, Eddie Redmayne can't articulate the emotions and thoughts of someone who is bodily inert. And the famous, computerized voice that conveys Hawking's thoughts suffers the same emotive limitations.

But the film in general feels like an assembly-line biopic, in spite of the subject. Where one imagines the story will proceed is where it does, plain and simple. Those two adjectives could effectively characterize the film as a whole.

One effect of a mediocre or bad film is how it makes one eager to see a better film on the same subject. After watching The Theory of Everything, I couldn't help but think of Errol Morris' engaging A Brief History of Time, which not only attempts to make Hawking's theories accessible without dumbing them down, but makes them vital and exciting. Marsh's film seems like a condensed and dramatized, Reader's Digest version of Morris' documentary.

Rather than a Theory of Everything, we get a Theory of Not-Much. Another feat of mediocre film-making is to make a genius like Stephen Hawking seem so prosaic and dull, which this film does exceptionally well. The film also does little to make Jane Hawking appear as anything other than a pretty, put-upon caretaker who once loved Stephen Hawking.

Maybe the story should have been a biopic about Hawking's computerized voice. Hmmmmm....it has possibilities. Maybe I'll cast Nicolas Cage as the Voice. Could be interesting. Or at least more interesting than this film.