by Philip Price The case of Adam Sandler is a continuing saga of fascination for me. It is hard to pinpoint what exactly his motivations are whether they be in the realm of making movies because he genuinely loves movies or simply in making money. Unfortunately, at this point in his career many wouldn't even consider his movies to be comedies anymore as it's apparent his domination over his little part of the box office has been slightly waning as he's continued to repeat himself as the same guy in “Grown Ups” (10%), “Just Go With It” (19%), “Jack & Jill” (a mere 3%, which only slightly better than the 0% “Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star” scored which Sandler helped write and produce), “That's My Boy” (his only deviation in character and highest ranking tomatometer score at 20%), “Grown Ups 2” (7%) and last year’s “Blended” (14%). That, in his mainstream films, Sandler has had to resort to sequels and a third reunion with Drew Barrymore let us know he's running on fumes to preserve the lifestyle he and his family have grown accustomed to. “Jack & Jill” was the turning point that shifted the atmosphere around his movies from always being dismissed by critics yet typically having a strong enough following of fans who showed up to watch him do his thing to an all-around frustration. It became evident the ever-reliant audience was shrinking and might one day be no more and so Sandler has turned both to the ever-profitable family film market in the form of two “Hotel Transylvania” films and this summer’s “Pixels,” as well as trying to return to more subtle, dramatic work that might not only reaffirm to all of his haters that he can actually do good work, but that he actually cares about the craft and art of making movies. The bad news is that in his effort to subvert public expectations he has delved into two independent, inherently more artistic pictures that have consequently been ravaged by critics. On paper both “Men, Women & Children” and “The Cobbler” should be home runs in terms of critical darlings: credible directors, one relevant to today’s issues and one with a rather interesting premise, both with stellar supporting casts and yet it still seems the Sand Man can do no right. While this was certainly intended to be a review of “The Cobbler,” the latest film from writer/director Thomas McCarthy (“The Station Agent,” “The Visitor,” “Win Win”), but when thinking about the career path of Mr. Sandler and how he has come to star in such a film as “The Cobbler” things not only become more interesting, but more curious as to why, even when he goes the way his critics seemingly ask him to, he can't catch a break. First though, let us talk about “The Cobbler” for what it is and what it is is simply an average film. It has some neat ideas, some missed opportunities and a rather convoluted third act that tries waaaayyy too hard to have Sandler do an unnecessary Danny Ocean impersonation, but overall it's not horrible and not nearly as bad as you've likely heard. Chances are, though, that you haven't heard how bad “The Cobbler” is because you probably haven't even heard of the movie. This is because it was ushered on to VOD last weekend without any pre-release marketing and no intent of opening it in any theaters because of the beating it took at TIFF last fall. In the film, Sandler plays Max Simkin who is a Jewish shoe repairman working in the same, small New York shop that his family has owned for generations. His father (Dustin Hoffman) having walked out on he and his mother (Lynn Cohen) when he was younger, forces Max to make little progress in pursuing any of his own life goals and instead places him in the circumstances of doing what his father didn't in staying behind to take care of his mother. It is after a visit from local gangster Leon Ludlow (Method Man) that Max accidentally stumbles upon a magical heirloom that allows him to step into the lives of his customers through their shoes. The hook here is supposed to be that Max is granted the ability to walk in another man’s shoes to go on his own journey of self-discovery, but this is only enough to justify what could probably be a solid little short film. In order to extend it to feature length McCarthy has pulled in a thousand other plot devices we've seen countless times before that include the likes of Ellen Barkin as a mob boss, Melanie Diaz as an empowered activist/love interest and Steve Buscemi as Max's next door neighbor that clearly has more to do than his role suggests. Much of this is unnecessary, though some of it is handled well, but it's all about gauging what is necessary and much of this is not. This is all something of a shame because obviously this, along with “Men, Women & Children,” had the potential to be something really interesting and possibly even substantial. While “The Cobbler” certainly isn't very good by any stretch of the imagination, it isn't horrible and has likely garnered more hate than it would have had someone else been cast in Sandler's role and delivered a similar performance. If say, Paul Giamatti or even someone playing stronger against type like a Casey Affleck or Michael Stuhlbarg were in the titular role while delivering something along the same lines performance-wise I can't imagine it receiving the same amount of disregard given its creator’s prior credits and the caliber of its supporting cast. Of course, no matter the actor the movie still doesn't really know what to do with itself or its ideas and would be dinged for these faults, but to the same degree? That is the question here. Sandler has now become a victim of nostalgia in that he has thrived for so long his newer output will never match up to the fondness his core audience felt during the days of “Happy Gilmore,” “Billy Madison” and at this point, even “Mr. Deeds.” I think anyone might recognize that much of these movies aren't very good, but there are memories attached to them, from the stage of life when we saw them that make our affection for them greater. In seeing Sandler grow older and still participating in films with much the same tone as those from nearly 20 years ago inherently feels more depressing than anything else. I get it and I get why “The Cobbler” has received unanimously bad reviews, but just when Sandler was trying to accept his criticisms and grow up a little he is knocked right back down. Be careful what you wish for. One might argue that no matter the caliber of the movie or status of whether it was produced independently or by a studio all matters very little when it comes down to the pure quality of the picture, but that wouldn't be completely true. Critics and movie-goers in general give certain films passes if it stars someone they tend to like or was made by someone who made another movie they really enjoyed thus setting certain expectations for their next one. With Sandler though, he has conditioned us to expect the worst. Let it be made clear that I don't think Sandler is in the clear for what has become associated with his name, but instead the point is that he seems forever straddled with that reputation of bringing a project down rather than ever being able to redeem himself. Everyone loves an underdog story though, right? I imagine Sandler might one day get his day in court, but in order to do that he'll have to try and do more than simply picking projects he thinks will be good based on there credentials, but actually take on good projects because he read them and is invested in them. Giving an up-and-coming filmmaker with an interesting vision worked for the weird kind of renaissance Bill Murray had, maybe something similar would work for Sandler were he willing to go out on such a limb. The real question though is if he cares enough about the art of it all to even go to such depths. Would he dare alter his routine and give up some of the freedom he has gained from running his Happy Madison production company? As of right now it doesn't seem as if he has any interest in doing so as he struck a rich deal with Netflix to produce more of what he's known for with his group of friends and I doubt the dead on arrival reactions to his two "serious" attempts last year will aid his decision to keep trying. I'm not saying critics should give Sandler's more dramatic efforts higher scores so as to provoke more eclectic work from the actor, but I am saying that like we do when we give a movie a higher grade than it might deserve because it features someone we like that we do the same on the other end of the spectrum and take some of the pre-determined vitriol out of the equation simply because we believe Adam Sandler is such a stain. Base the critique on the actual product and not the personality influencing the product. Ultimately, Sandler could of course try a little harder from time to time, but up until recently he'd been successfully making hits for 15 years, so why fix what isn't broken? The easy answer is artistic integrity, but I guarantee Sandler's response to that would be there is no such thing left in Hollywood. The bad news for Sandler now is that his formula IS broken. If Sandler is anything, though, he is a smart businessman and has become such his own brand he's separated himself from the remainder of the cinematic landscape. What he does with such power is up to him and what he truly desires his legacy to be. Let's just hope he realizes before it's too late that a string of ‘Jack & Jill’'s is not what he should want to see in his collective filmography when he's 80.
1 Comment
by Philip Price Something rather odd occurred with “Chappie” as I attempted to take it in unphased by the haze of bad press it had swirling around it. For a good portion of the film, the parts before it essentially devolves into something of a mindless action film, I wasn't really gelling with what director Neill Blomkamp was going for. It's not that I didn't necessarily understand where he was coming from or what he was going for, but it just wasn't vibing with this particular audience member the way I feel he intended it to. As “Chappie” morphed into this one, big action sequence though I began to appreciate the way in which Blomkamp integrated all the elements he's been setting up even if some of those elements were rather frustrating. What I appreciated most though was the fact the film didn't go exactly where it could have and where I expected it to easily resort to, but in fact went a completely different direction and touched on a theme I didn't foresee the writer/director including in this script. As far as themes are concerned, Blomkamp is known for crafting large metaphors and for mirroring real-world issues with his science fiction stories, but as with “Elysium” my main problem here is that Blomkamp is touching on issues that are relevant now and not where those issues might push society in the future which is where “Chappie” is set and how science fiction typically works. Granted, it is only a few years, but after touching on South Africa's apartheid era in “District 9” and the satire of “Elysium” commenting on the current state of separation between classes I somewhat expected “Chappie” to push things to a different level for Blomkamp and frequent writing partner Terri Tatchell. The issue with all of the elements Blomkamp introduces and that he and Tatchell expertly integrate with one another is that instead of pushing things further, they just throw more plotlines with more themes at us to crowd our minds so that we might not focus on the fact the film doesn't have much to say about any single one of them, but more acknowledges that they exist and are rather interesting. In the end, what does this accomplish though? If no one line of thinking prevails, if no one idea is clarified, what is the point of the film? Herein lies the problem as I was entertained while watching “Chappie,” but took away my fair share of issues with it as well as not particularly liking large chunks of it. The major downside to “Chappie” is that the initial idea is a rather bad one. We are first introduced to Deon (Dev Patel), a scientist at a company called Tetravaal run by Michelle Bradley (Sigourney Weaver), who has designed a line of police droids that are being utilized by the Johannesburg police force. While Deon might seemingly be on top of the world, his work never stops as he is now developing a program that might allow his droids to develop their own personalities, to become something akin to sentient beings or to acquire what is commonly referred to as artificial intelligence. While this type of software would no doubt be valuable one has to wonder if Deon has ever seen “Robocop” or any other cautionary science fiction tale that deals with the moral implications of implementing artificial intelligence into real world situations? Deon's wish to test his new A.I. software on one of the droids is shot down by Bradley, but as these things go we know any man with a drive and superior intelligence can't help himself and thus Deon grabs one of his robots that is scheduled to be demolished and takes it so that he might do a little experimenting. While all of this is happening we are also introduced to Ninja and Yo-Landi (who form the musical group Die Antwoord which you'll see plastered everywhere in the film) who get themselves into a bit of a pickle by owing a local gangster $20 million. How will they get this money? Rob a bank, of course! But what about the police bots? They can't rob anything with those pesky robots around! Well, let's kidnap the guy who invented them and have him switch them all off, they must have a remote! This is Ninja and Yo-Landi's plan and it doesn't get any more intelligent from there. Ever. They just so happen to kidnap Deon as he's leaving Tetravaal with his stolen droid and so they come to be in possession of the first robot with its own personality. As all of this is taking place Hugh Jackman is also running around with a mullet and a serious vendetta against young Deon as his Vincent Moore has his own robot he'd like to get into the field. Going in, I was pretty excited to see what “Chappie” had to offer. Any time an original science fiction flick can get a budget of nearly $50 million there is something to be excited about, but this time around Blomkamp is over-compensating. Having recently spoke out about his frustration with the shortcomings of “Elysium” and his use of ideas and concepts over story it seems he was determined to give the people what they thought his previous feature was lacking. Again, like “Elysium,” the concept is strong here, but he has yet to find the balance within the ideas he intends to purport and the number of story strands and level of complexity necessary to convey them. It is a tricky line to walk, but at least we can see that the director is trying and if nothing else, “Chappie” is a step in the right direction. So, what exactly is Blomkamp trying to say with his latest, well it's a lot, but if I had to pick out one glaring theme it would be that of the nurturing of a child. From the moment Deon implants his A.I. software into the robot and it becomes Chappie it is like an infant learning at an accelerated rate. That he is born into this environment surrounded by the likes of Ninja, Yo-Landi and their third wheel, Amerika (Jose Pablo Cantillo), with only minimal input from his maker Chappie is brought up to act like the "illest gangsta on the block." The titular robot serves as the most interesting part of the film as we quickly buy into his artificial intelligence because of its inherent cuteness. He is a baby, an innocent in a disturbing world and we fear for him as much as we feel for him. In fact, the only appealing character here is the non-human one and props to Sharlto Copley for that. In the scenarios where Chappie is being brought up, taught to form his own opinions and developing a unique personality the most interesting dynamic is that of Deon's controlling, over-bearing parenting style versus the dead beat and down-right despicable traits that are pushed upon Chappie by Ninja. Through all of this it is again rather unclear if Blomkamp is attempting to make a statement about nature vs. nurture or a rigid dichotomy between acceptance and rebellion of youth, but the idea is there and the result of the film can only suggest the obvious conclusion that a balance is best. The complaints with the film are certainly valid though as I have my own laundry list of issues. Ninja truly is one of the worst kinds of human beings and beyond his moral compass being completely out of whack he is simply stupid. Their stupid plan gets them nowhere except into the thick of making more and more bad decisions while Yo-Landi is somewhat redeemable for the way she becomes a caring mother-figure to Chappie, but we can't help but assume she's as dumb as Ninja for sticking with him. Jackman barely registers as Vincent as he is nothing more than a one-note bully jealous of the wiz kid's success who hatches a plan to spoil his success and is almost an unnecessary part of the entire film. As I said previously, I admire the way in which the number of strands the film puts into play early on come together in the third act and actually compliment each other rather well. And were it not for Vincent's invention playing a critical role in the resolution of the film I would have wished his character been trimmed and the story streamlined, but that again feels like asking Blomkamp to cut what was complained about prior. That said, you can feel Blomkamp attempting to deviate from all of the obvious comparisons “Chappie” will draw as far as movies with robots are concerned with the points of the personality Chappie takes on as well as his stance on guns that allows him to feel cooler as he uses throwing stars, knives and nunchucks instead. Combined with the default location of Johannesburg all of these make for enough quirks to consider it different while the pacing, especially at the beginning, is solid and sets a tone where the audience feels we could dig into what is about to be presented, but goes from interesting to traditional fairly quickly. Even Patel, who is something of a protagonist isn't really endearing as he literally looks at a cat poster to gain the necessary courage to put the actions of the film into motion. It is meant to be a funny, quirky touch that the audience smirks at which might have been how Blomkamp intended his entire film to be, but instead it comes off rather pathetic and a miscalculated opportunity, again much like the film itself. by Philip Price I don’t know much about the early James Bond films. My parents weren’t much for movies and much of my watching of older films has come from my own doing through my high school years with a large chunk of help from film classes in college. Still, neither of these have included going back and catching up on the twenty or so Bond films I’d missed since the beginning of the series. Instead, Daniel Craig became my Bond of choice after only seeing “Die Another Day” followed by “Casino Royale.” For the record, one day I will purchase the complete Bond collection and make my way through each of them, but until that day I will continue to enjoy its current incarnation for what it is. All this to say that though I may not understand the specifics of the kind of movie Matthew Vaughn is attempting to riff from, there have been plenty of other movies in the vein of Bond for me to understand the overall reach Vaughn has envisioned and to know that he grasps it all pretty damn well. With his fifth feature film director Vaughn has created an exhilarating and hugely entertaining take on the spy movie franchise by keeping the structure and all the players intact and messing with the conventions of what each of these expectations play into. In all honesty, there isn’t anything necessarily original or unique about what Vaughn and frequent collaborator/screenwriter Jane Goldman have produced here, but more than anything it is refreshing in its perspective and creative in its execution. These count for a lot in our current cinematic landscape and Vaughn knows precisely how to tap into making something old feel like something new and exciting. He did the same with “Stardust” eight years ago (yeah, that was eight years ago) taking a typical-seeming fantasy film and churning out a completely fulfilling adventure. The same can be said for “Kingsman” though, on many levels, it is even more fun in a raucous sense given one has a similar mentality to that of the characters and the guy who’s brought them to the screen. Based on a comic book from Mark Millar (the same guy who wrote the “Kick-Ass” comics) “Kingsman” tells the story of a super-secret spy organization that essentially regards themselves as modern knights. A veteran and skilled agent of the service is Galahad (Colin Firth) who, after losing one of their members to mysterious circumstances, is tasked with recruiting a possible replacement to go through training to become the next Kingsman. Due to personal connection and a little bit of coincidence with timing Galahad comes across Eggsy (Taron Egerton), who is something of a streetwise misfit, and recommends him for the position. The head of Kingsman, Arthur (Michael Caine, of course), doesn’t necessarily condone the picking of someone not of their stature as first and foremost Kingsman are supposed to be gentleman, but Eggsy is out to prove him wrong from the beginning. Eggsy, along with fellow candidates Charlie (Edward Holcroft) and Roxy (Sophie Cookson) amidst a few others, are put through the ringer by Merlin (Mark Strong). As this goes on Galahad deals with a real-world threat having to do with clearly defined evil genius Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) and his insane sidekick, Gazelle (Sofia Boutella), who sports knives as legs. Composed of these two juxtaposing plot lines we careen back and forth between whether or not Eggsy will make it through training and whether or not Galahad will be able to figure out and put a stop to Valentine’s twisted plan. While there are enough interesting set pieces with plenty of inventiveness and humor to spare that keep us moving along within both scenarios the trick of the film is setting each up as if we know exactly where things are going while Vaughn does this specifically so he can upend those expectations and therefore create the illusion we are getting more than we bargained for. In reality, it may only be that “Kingsman” delivers the only options left for a semi-serious, but mostly comical take on the espionage thriller, but regardless it more than gets by on how much style it has while taking on these conventions. As said earlier, what I’ve always enjoyed about walking into one of Vaughn’s films is the knowledge that regardless of how typical the story seems there is likely something new or inventive to look forward to about what he has done with the material. This and the fact that Vaughn seems to have an inherent knowledge of what he wants before ever getting started. After not only “Stardust” and “Kick-Ass,” but especially “X-Men: First Class” I have come to unconditionally trust that Vaughn knows how to deliver the goods even if the audience isn’t sure what they want from another fantasy, comic book or spy film. What I admire most about “Kingsman” though are the intricacies of the rather straightforward story it is telling. There are a whole roster of characters at play here, there are a number of different goals and objectives trying to be accomplished in individual scenes and yet it comes across clear as day to the audience. Never do we wonder what is going on or feel in the dark despite not really learning of Valentine’s motivations until over halfway through the film. Even in his completely ridiculous plan that may or may not be just convoluted enough to play towards the very on-the-nose commentary the film blatantly sets up, we know exactly what is going on. Within these scenarios we are eased into knowing these characters that otherwise could easily be archetypes of anyone from the number of movies they reference within. What makes Eggsy so appealing though, besides his inherent outcast status, is not only the charming performance of Egerton, but the roots from which his drive is set in. It is key that we see the current status of his life, his surroundings and his limited prospects when we first meet the kid. These, which include an abusive step-father, a self-conscious mother and a disregarded little sister, push Eggsy to a status of not simply being another unrefined street kid looking for his next con, but someone of real despair looking for a way out of the 99%. In large, the film can somewhat serve as a commentary on how much regard those who exist in the 1% have for the rest of us and what angle Valentine has on this specifically makes it all the more interesting. Adding to the exhilaration of the overall pacing and the infectious fun of the tone are both the way in which Vaughn visually tells his story and how much amusement the actors are getting out of going through these motions. The kinetic action scenes are simply glorious while Jackson is a prime example of it all as he struts his stuff with all the charisma and inherent coolness you expect Jackson to have in real life as he wears clothes so stylish they almost have as much swag as his walk while sporting a lisp that makes his dialogue just a little more ridiculous and his cursing more necessary and all the more funny. What Jackson doesn’t do is flesh out who this guy is, we never understand his affinity for the rich and famous and why he believes those of certain classes and of superior credentials are better human beings than those with less, but that feels like such a minor complaint considering the type of movie Vaughn and Co. were clearly trying to create here. While this kind of character development could have certainly only aided in making the film all the more great there is plenty of fine character work and superb execution to make-up for what it lacks in depth. Firth, who is generally seen as having as much class as one man can have is perfect for the role of Galahad and displays just the right amount of a showy personality as he does a nicely reserved man so that the gentleman facade needed for a Kingsman is displayed fully while having a taste for the crass flamboyance it sometimes takes to complete his job successfully. The phrase “Manners maketh man,” is leaned on heavily to describe the kind of code the Kingsman live by and so it is when Firth combines these two tendencies that his character displays everything his secret society intends to uphold. Strong, Caine and Cookson are all solid in this same regard, but Boutella makes an impression all her own with what seems to have been almost nothing on the page. In the end, “Kingsman” is something of a satire on the spy movie that loves it as much as it loves to poke fun at it. In that sense it truly does have the same perspective of fans of such films and in that approach has itself created an amusing and interesting piece of entertainment not to be dissected or analyzed, but simply enjoyed. by Philip Price With something like “McFarland, USA” you know exactly what you’re getting into the moment you purchase a ticket. Still, ‘McFarland’ is full of surprises and the big one here is that despite being an inspirational Disney sports movie based on a true story, director Niki Caro (“Whale Rider”) and screenwriter Grant Thompson have garnered the genuine heart and real sense of community in this story and successfully brought it to the film adaptation. There is immediately a stronger aesthetic to the film than any of the more recent outings in this mini-genre that make the stories feel manufactured and the characters little more than archetypes. Everything from the titular location to the characters we should seemingly already know feel authentic in a way that garners an inherent respect for what is trying to be accomplished. To the point of going in and expecting one thing and getting more than you bargained for it is somewhat surprising, given his résumé, that Kevin Costner hasn’t already starred in one of these Disney sports films and kind of unbelievable this story hasn’t already been tapped for a feature film. I’m glad it hadn’t and that Costner waited patiently for, despite his clear admiration for films around America’s pastime, a film that makes good use of not only his persona, but the influencing factors of that persona. This adoration for baseball we associate with the actor allows him to fit perfectly into the mold needed for Coach Jim White. For as much as White is out of his depth in the city of McFarland we see the unease of Costner in returning to a genre that makes him feel at home. Just as Costner is trying to reinvigorate his career White is trying to figure out his life as a coach maybe not of the sport he knows best, but of the ones his particular pupils have a greater skill for. He is out of his depth, but he is willing to try and find something that reinvigorates his passion, just as the actor playing him is doing. “McFarland, USA” isn’t really about Coach White though, but the community at large and reinforcing Costner’s casting all the more is the fact he’s a perfect surrogate for the majority of Americans into a world we think we understand well enough, but have no honest idea of. Set in the fall of 1987 we meet Jim White after the unfortunate circumstances of his temper leading to what no doubt becomes labels and exaggerated stories being told of his coaching style. Under these circumstances White is forced to move himself, his wife Cheryl (Maria Bello) and their two daughters, Julie (Morgan Saylor) and Jamie (Elsie Fisher), to a predominantly Latino high school in McFarland, Calif. It comes to light that this isn’t the first time White has encountered turmoil in one of his coaching jobs and that it is something of a pattern leading him to what feels like this last resort in McFarland. The family’s first night in town is shrouded in the uneasiness of not only being in a new place, but in feeling like complete outcasts giving way to a sense of worry that is, understandably, imagined because of the pre-conceived notions given to the Latin community. There are questions of safety and if a job is worth the initial stress as even the job itself presents Coach White with a measure of struggling to find common ground with his students. For the most part, he is going through the motions: wearing his different, but equally stylish jumpsuits, making the kids run laps during P.E. and stirring up trouble on the football field in his first game. This is all, of course, until he notices a few select students with what seem to be exceptional running abilities. Specifically that of Thomas Valles (Carlos Pratts) who White clocks as he drives alongside the young man running to the fields where he works before and after school. White recruits Johnny Sameniego (Hector Duran), who was kicked off the football squad around the same time as him, to find six other runners for his team including Thomas as he takes the idea to Principal Camillo (Valente Rodriguez). From here we are introduced to Jose Cardenas (Johnny Ortiz), Victor Puentes (Sergio Avelar) and the Diaz brothers (whose mother played by Diana Maria Riva steals every scene she is in) of Danny (Ramiro Rodriguez), David (Rafael Martinez) and Damacio (Michael Aguero) who form the first McFarland cross-country team allowing the audience into a whole new world of family and communal dynamics that have almost nothing to do with running. The last sentence of the previous paragraph hits on the biggest strength of the film in that one could easily predict where this kind of movie is going and what points and emotional beats it will hit along the way, but despite that knowledge it’s hard to help not being pulled into this world that our surrogate is slowly becoming accustomed to as well. As we learn more about McFarland and the families that live there we see that these kids have little beyond the food and shelter necessary to keep surviving. That’s all they’re really doing – surviving. School is little more than a required distraction. No one ever needed a book to work the fields. The fields are where their future is and if it’s not there then it rests in the prison situated conveniently next door to the school. Upon moving into town White sees all these obvious markers of failure and seemingly finds no spirit or motivation for him to latch onto. This is somewhat aggravated by the constant reminding of fellow teacher Ms. Marisol (Vanessa Martinez) that it is their job to create the hope and motivation in their students, but Costner’s White seems to see little reason to get their hopes up when their future is so clearly painted in front of them. It is coming to the realization that these high school years are likely the best years these kids will ever get to live and the best chance they have for making something of themselves if they so choose and deep-down White knows he has to acknowledge that even if he himself is at the end of his own rope. A funny thing happens when you raise a kid’s hope though in that it also raises their spirit and it is through the progression of getting his teams hopes up that the spirit of both them and the community at large rises to a palpable sense that before had barely been scraping by. It is funny in that the nature of how these kids were raised, without the privilege you and I take for granted, nurtured them to have the work ethic and natural skill necessary to compete in as mentally challenging a sport as a physical one. It is in this sport that the movie and the community find an anchor for which the repercussions bring that spirit and hope to levels that really do make you want to stand up and cheer. Clearly, there is much to appreciate about “McFarland, USA” for as much as you know what to expect it equalizes those expectations with nice surprises and an unexpected balance of focus on the family dynamics of our lead character and those of his teams while allowing the structure of the sports competition to serve as the pacing device that gets the film from one act to the next. Sure, we are excited to see Thomas excel more and more with each meet and even more to see Danny motivate himself to greater levels than he ever thought possible as well as Victor finding an outlet for his attitude and Johnny finding a place to fit in, but even more touching is the journey of these kids in between the meets. These are the moments where they make strides to understand why Coach White is pushing them and what he is trying to help them accomplish while they school their Coach on a few things along the way as well. These scenes are the heart of the film because we come to realize the reason White had such a spotty résumé to that point. He was always pushing the soft kids, trying to toughen them up in a way the kids in McFarland already were. He continued to move, he continued to be shifted out of positions because he never really found a challenge that sparked a real spirit in him or his cushioned and comfortable players. In McFarland though, he was brought the challenge of not only creating a successful team from nothing, but individual kids each with their own stories and obstacles greater than anything White had ever encountered. White was out to make kids tough enough to excel at their chosen elective while the kids in McFarland were tougher than he was. This forced White to look at himself, to put the challenge on himself of rising to their occasion rather than them rising to his. The film never dips into the politics of the sport at hand and no unnecessary drama is elicited from it, but instead the film keeps a very clear throughline of the values this community lives by in yearning to make their children proud and teaching White the difference in where you think you want to be and where you know you should be. |
Archives
April 2024
|