Wednesday, February 15, 2012

What I Saw: Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close

What I Saw:   Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close

As a nation, the United States has largely treated 9/11 as a cross between Pearl Harbor and The Alamo. We’ve heard politicians use it to bolster their certainty in an axis of good and an axis of evil, while others throw around the phrase “never forget” to prove their patriotism in fields as far removed from that day’s events as taxation and health care.

When I first left the theater, I was suspicious of the multiple gimmicks that this film used. Leaving aside the 9/11 subject matter which is guaranteed to make grown men cry, the film features an autistic boy (Thomas Horn) and a man who doesn’t speak (Max von Sydow), thereby creating a world where secrets can last for two hours through lack of communication. It uses scavenger hunts and flashbacks to cast an air of mystery on both the future and the past. It has a father (Tom Hanks) who appears a bit too perfect, a mother (Sandra Bullock) who appears a bit too distant, and New Yorkers (Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright, among others) who open their doors and pour out their hearts to strangers in a way that doesn’t even happen in small towns. If that wasn’t enough, we also get some surprise twists and turns (which I won’t spoil) that are designed to make you rethink everything you’ve so carefully been lead to believe.



But as I reflected on it, I began to understand why Hollywood storytellers would appreciate a film like this, and I began to think of those “gimmicks” as “narrative devices.” We often laugh at the idea that something will be nominated for an Oscar just because it makes grown men cry, without really asking how much work it takes to achieve that result in our macho society.

Surely a storyteller can’t be blamed for using a little subterfuge to get a country to let down its guard and talk about grief, when their first instinct was to focus on revenge. And when parts of the country are still talking revenge after ten years and several wars, then maybe you need a LOT of subterfuge. For a nation that has been talking about 9/11 for a decade, have we really communicated any better than that autistic boy and his mute friend? Has our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan really amounted to anything other than an elaborate scavenger hunt? Hasn’t our discourse idealized the certainty that we imagine existed back in our fathers’ generations, while assuming that a more “motherly” approach to peace and complexity has nothing to teach us? And if we find that the film had to pile on multiple narrative devices, or even multiple gimmicks, in order to fool us into feeling something, might that say more about our own failure as human beings, and how much harder it is to get through to us?

P.S. In the picture below, does anyone else find it meaningful that Sandra Bullock’s character just happens to be covering up the parts of the map where the United States has chosen to go to war?



Oscar Chances:

While I was surprised that the Academy went with nine nominees, I wasn’t terribly shocked to see this film included in that expanded list. Prior to the nominations, I had listed it as number 10, and had Max von Sydow at number 7 in the supporting actor race. The film and director had previously made the Critics’ Choice list, with Thomas Horn even winning their Young Actor award over two competitors who came from assured Best Picture contenders. In hindsight, perhaps that should have been a sign that the film had more fans than we originally imagined.

I also think that the film benefited from having Scott Rudin as one of its producers. Like Harvey Weinstein, Rudin understands how the Oscars work, and undoubtedly was able to explain the new 5% rule to members, convincing those who liked the film of the importance of placing it first on their ballots. Which is exactly what they should have done, as I discussed when I wrote about Oscar Ballot Strategies.

Best Picture (currently ranked 9)
Supporting Actor: Max von Sydow (currently ranked 4, but will probably be moved up to 2nd place in my final analysis of this category.

As always, check the Tracker Pages in the upper right hand corner of this blog for the most updated predictions in all categories!

My Lamb Score: 3 ½ out of 5 Lambs
What is a lamb score? Click HERE to learn more.
Read recent reviews  HERE, or search the Archives.

14 comments:

  1. I'm trying to see all the Oscar nominees in weeks left to the ceremony, but i know i'm not going to see this one. Why? i fucking HATE Stephen Daldrey. "The Hours" was one of the most boring films I ever saw, and "The Reader" was a blend and cliche melodrama, that came close to be a soft-core porn. He allredy knows how to make a film for the Acedemy to like, by making films that are so desspred to make you cry, that it is kind of annoying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't remember disliking The Hours as much as other people did, but I haven't felt any urge to re-watch it either. I actually do remember liking The Reader in a sort of general way, although since I wasn't doing reviews back then I'm not sure what grade I would have given it.

      You're definitely right about Daldry knowing exactly what makes the Academy jump, but I'm not sure that's necessarily such a bad thing. After all, somebody has to fulfill society's need for melodramas!

      Delete
  2. Interesting review! You pointed out the bad, but also talked about the positive, which is what I appreciate about reviews, though many seem to skip over the positive parts when it comes to this film. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who didn't hate the movie (though I didn't quite love it either).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Heather! In an odd way, I kind of think that middle ground of not loving or hating it actually leads to a bit more reflection, which is perhaps what Daldry was going for, and also why so many audiences bulked at it.

      Delete
  3. More irritating than touching, healing or any of the positive things one would guess such a story and cast would produce. This was just a totally manipulative film that tries so hard to be emotional that it almost strains itself and its leading “actor”, Thomas Horn who is probably one of the most annoying kids I have seen on-screen in awhile. Good review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan. Sounds like I enjoyed it a lot more than you did!

      Delete
  4. Great job! This is the first review I've come across that almost makes me consider giving this film a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Bonjour! I can understand why some people don't like it, but I'm not sure it deserves the piling on that it's been getting. I suspect that part of it is that folks are upset that it made the list over some of their favorites.

      Delete
  5. This looks incredibly schmaltzy, probably too much for my taste. Maybe I will rent it down the road but I'm in no hurry for so much cheese ahah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, if you're not into schmaltz, then I'd say a rental is definitely sufficient.

      Delete
  6. Great review! I didn't like the film very much, but I think it's still more deserving of its nods than War Horse, which was just awful. There were many redemming parts of "Extremely loud..." mainly the gorgeous score.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sati! I just checked back and realized that I actually gave them both the same score, which feels about right, but for different reasons. I think Extremely Loud probably has a better story, while War Horse is simply beautiful to look at.

      Delete
  7. why is oskar obsessed with the color green? Just wondering!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean the picture above, I think it is just the way that the director made sure you could see the map. Or maybe there was something in the film or book that I missed?

      Delete