Contagion ***½

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Cast: Marion Cotillard, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law

Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Jennifer Ehle, Elliot Gould

Sanaa Lathan, John Hawkes, Bryan Cranston

Contagion opens inside an airport bar where American businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Paltrow), on her way to the States from Hong Kong, sits having a drink and talking on the phone while she waits for a connecting flight. As she hears her flight number being called out she leaves the bar. The camera then focuses on the small bowl of peanuts that sat in front of her. A title card reading "Day 2" appears. With a seemingly innocuous choice of editing, camera positions and additional information (we don't get title cards in real life), Steven Soderbergh sends us down a spiral of fear, the likes of which we rarely see in contemporary cinema.

Once Beth is back in the States, she suddenly falls ill with a strange disease that sends her into a coma and kills her a mere minutes after the movie begins. With this bold move Soderbergh reassures us that for the next two hours, no one will be safe.
Contagion then deals with the discovery, propagation and consequences of this new lethal virus that is transmitted by contact and has no apparent cure. As the virus grows, we meet different characters who deal with it in their part of the world as society around them begins to crumble. Soderbergh also divides them into different aspects of our current world, without making them a too obvious "group". We see the emotional part with  Beth's husband, Mitch (Damon) for example, who has to deal with his wife's sudden death as he must survive in order to support his daughter.
There's also Dr.Ellis Cheever (Fishburne) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who tries to clear doubts that suggest the new virus might be a bioweapon by sending his colleague Dr. Erin Mears (Winslet) to investigate. Their stories are more related to bureaucracy and the handling of disasters by local governments which provide the film with eerie echoes of the H1N1 epidemic and the way in which the American government has dealt with events like Hurricane Katrina and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Their storylines are also linked to the scientific community represented by Gould, who plays a genius biology professor and Ehle, who plays Dr. Ally Hextall, a CDC scientist commissioned to find a vaccine.
As the story begins to occupy a more global aspect, we meet Dr. Leonora Orantes, a World Health Organization epidemiologist who is sent to Asia in search of "patient zero". Scenes involving her character are filled with an exotic dread in which we are reminded that despite the world's global union feeling, we are still pretty much on our own. Soderbergh makes her scenes scary and mystifying by recurring to the use of multiple languages which instill a very primal fear in audience members. Is he perhaps suggesting that xenophobia is acceptable under special circumstances?
Other characters include slimy conspiracy theorist/blogger Alan Krumwiede (Law), a down on his luck janitor (Hawkes) who finds himself in the midst of a disease which to him remains incurable due to his lack of money and Aubrey (Lathan), Dr. Cheevers partner who gets involved in a political disaster.
Soderbergh has proved in the past that he's a maverick at handling parallel storylines with unifying, often enlightening, clashes. But while in Traffic he did something a bit more orthodox in terms of dramatic structure, Contagion offers him the chance to do his own hybrid of Nashville and Outrbreak. Those expecting an ultimate message of salvation, or even a unifying climax will come out severely disappointed as Soderbergh makes a case of maintaining the pieces of his mosaic separated.
Their detachment might come off as cold-hearted by usual standards but Soderbergh sees himself as a scientist trying to dissect the various pieces of his experiment (an autopsy scene is done with such straightforwardness that you can't help but feel both revolted and mesmerized). He leaves it to his actors to create flashes of humanity within the hyper-realism of his direction. Cotillard for example brings a worldly charisma (and a serious working woman hairdo) to her scenes, while Ehle becomes a joy to watch as she puts all of her Streep-ian attributes to work as she delights herself with her work discoveries.
Paltrow, who the film sometimes uses as a morality clause, is haunting, as she represents the face of an irresponsible (if only by ignorance) branch of American society and Winslet delivers one of the year's most powerful emotional punches in less than ten scenes.
His insistence to keep the stories from coming together has a remarkable symbolism because we realize that he's trying to contain infection from seeping to his other characters. By maintaining them apart, Soderbergh might be making the film's strongest point which is a questioning of the benefits of globalization.
This is confirmed in the finale which might be a bit facile but still shocks us to our very core by reminding us that by trying to make the world a smaller place, we have also made its decay much easier to obtain. With his expert use of editing, cinematography and sound (there are scenes without dialogues that creep under your skin) Soderbergh creates the kind of movie that transcends genre but becomes effective even within them. The film is scary because it feels possible and its use of scientific fact and borrowing from contemporary history only makes it more valid.
Martin Scorsese said that horror is related to physicality but terror is more related to what we feel, with Contagion Soderbergh might've created one of the most terrifying films of the decade.

Midnight in Paris ****

Director: Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Adrien Brody

Alison PillCarla Bruni-Sarkozy, Corey Stoll, Kathy Bates

Kurt Fuller, Léa Seydoux, Marion Cotillard

Mimi Kennedy, Tom Hiddleston

From its opening scene, Midnight in Paris establishes itself as a love song: we see how a series of shots of the city comprise a verse that thrills us because of its familiarity (ooh it's Notre Dame! ooh it's Place Vendome!) and despite its otherworldly beauty.

Paris is one of those cities that becomes universal because of the feelings they inspire even if you have never visited them. Tons of films have been set in Paris, tons of romances have been set there as well and to those less inclined by emotions, the French capital has also been the stage for some of the most revolutionary cultural movements in the world.

It makes absolute sense then, that Woody Allen would fall head over heels for it. Not since Manhattan had he shown such passion for a place as he does in this film. Structured like his iconic ode to New York City, Midnight in Paris is formed by a bookend in which we first develop the crush, a large plot development in which we suffer through the ups and downs of love and a final thought that reminds us, not only of our insignificance but about the immortality of beauty.

Throughout the film, Allen, aided by cinematographer Darius Khondji's breathtaking framing, reminds us that Paris will remain even after we're gone.

Take for example the scene in which we meet Gil Pender (Wilson), our protagonist. We hear him talking to his fiancee Inez (McAdams) about the beauty and romanticism of Paris but we can not see either of them. What we see instead is a huge pond filled with fragile water lilies. For a moment, we're not even sure if we're watching a painting or an actual real life image, Then Gil mentions something about Monet and our mind clicks, but so does the camera and we move to find ourselves in front of the people we're about to meet.

In several other scenes throughout the movie, first we see places and things and only then do the characters enter the scene. The camera is sometimes placed before them, as if suggesting the characters need to catch up with time - and wondering if they ever will be able to do it - and sometimes it seems to wander about trying to take in the riches of a city that's too overwhelming for a films's running time.

The subject of catching up with time might be the plot's biggest preoccupation, as Gil finds himself yearning to live in a different place as his writer's block increases. After working as a Hollywood hired hand- and being quite successful at it- he's trying out a novel for the first time. His trip to Paris is meant to inspire him but all he gets are insults from Inez and her parents (the pitch perfect Kennedy and Fuller).

Things get worse when they run into Paul (Sheen) and Carol (Arianda), two friends of Inez who tag along everywhere they go. He's a pseudo-intellectual who knows it all on the surface, she's the loving companion who nods at his every word.

Allen never has any problem revealing to us that the world that surrounds Gil (who in this film is the "Woody Allen character") is truly atrocious. As he usually does, he has no problem affirming that this is a misunderstood man, perhaps a bit too sensitive to be surrounded by the shrewd beings he knows. Allen has never been good at hiding his disdain for bourgeois apathy and while his characters are never exactly saints of any kind, he has always excelled at making us like them.

Gil for example seems to breathe by inertia, we're meant to dislike Inez (the things she says often make you gasp) but we're not supposed to be rooting for Gil just yet. He needs to earn our liking, he needs to achieve a breakthrough.

Woody provides him this opportunity by relying on a fantastical twist that resembles what he did in his brilliant The Purple Rose of Cairo, as in that occasion, everything happens so fast that we're unable to try and reason. Anyone who cared to deconstruct either movie by ways of physics and probability could probably accuse of them of being truly preposterous. During one scene Inez's mother describes a movie she saw as "infantile" and lacking in any believable qualities, but she doesn't deny it had charm (is she talking about the movie she's in?).

However Allen becomes the ultimate alchemist, turning the dullness of the quotidian into magic that defies the most complicated visual effects. Midnight in Paris gives him an opportunity to bask in his love for the Lost Generation and all things 20s, giving us glimpses of a city where you could run into characters the likes of Hemingway (a phenomenal, scene stealing Stoll), F. Scott Fitzgerald (Hiddleston) and Gertrude Stein (Bates) among others.

Leading us in this tour of a golden era is Marion Cotillard, playing the woman who captures Gil's heart. To reveal the many twists and turns in the movie would be to rob the audience of what can only be called utter pleasure. In the past Allen has expressed his love for classic things, however this might be the first time when he seems to find his voice through others.

While sometimes it might seem like a film meant for culture snobs (and what Allen movie isn't?) Midnight in Paris is also remarkable for its unaware passion for the arts. When Gil says to a character "you take art groupie to a whole new level" he might as well be talking about Allen and the movie.

It's no coincidence that the film seems to be based on the theory that places of great antiquity and history are forever plagued with the ghosts of those who once lived there. At many times during the film there are mentions of the main character in Gil's novel; a young man who owns a nostalgia shop, the places where you can buy old records and Shirley Temple memorabilia.

For some this is an enchanting concept (Cotillard's character is "hooked" by it) while others find it creepy and childish. "Nostalgia is denial" says Paul condescendingly, while Gil looks away finding himself in a place far away from judgment.

The movie toys with the possibility of transporting yourself to a time where everything can be perfect and Allen approaches his everlasting obsession with mortality in a way that makes the heart ache and puts a smile on your face.

We realize eventually that Allen is the shop vendor mentioned so much, he's the one always selling us nostalgia, whether it be his use of music, artistic references or the affected way in which his characters talk (the use of words like "pseudo-intellectual", "lovely" and "erotic" usually give his screenplays away).

Midnight in Paris can be read through countless layers, the magic of its ensemble alone is enough to warrant an essay but like the greatest art what's easiest to discuss, perhaps because it inspires excited, clumsy eloquence, is the feeling that it leaves you with: something that resembles the warmth of a good meal and the exhilarating joy of being in love.

After his last movie which failed to invite us into its dark world, in this one a character reminds Gil that a writer can not succumb to despair, his duty is to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. Woody Allen seems to have taken this advice and Midnight in Paris is the kind of movie that reminds us that heaven might be a plane ride away.

The Giver.

This is one of the greatest screen acting moments of the past ten years.

Even those who hated the movie can't disagree, right?

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

Andrew Niccol doing sci-fi? Count me in! However I'm still unsure of what exactly does Justin Timberlake's "acting" bring to the movies...

Also this poster looks like a CK ad.

The next two posters are for the new Steven Soderbergh movies and ugh, this man is a genius. He hand picked the designers for his marketing campaign and chose some of the best in the business (the ones that make Criterion covers...)

The one for Contagion has a District 9 feel and truly what stands out in this poster, and also in the one for Haywire is that Soderbergh goes beyond the worshiping of the movie star...

...he has some of the greatest living actors in these two movies, also some of the most beautiful people. Yet on the posters he goes for an appraisal of graphic design as an art form. The one for Contagion has a very retro touristy feel. As if disease took over the mentioned cities. It's also important to mention how influenced by industrial design are these posters. The first one loves typography while the one for Haywire pays tribute to the great Saul bass and to iconic movie posters of the 70s without obviously ripping them off.

I have to admit I don't even miss seeing Fassy's gorgeous mug in it...

Excited about the new Soderbergh flicks?

Sick!

I am dying to see this movie, pardon the pun and I discussed the trailer over at The Film Experience, so go check it out!

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

In theory I love the idea behind this poster, yet looking at it I'm not sure I like how it was executed. I think what bugs me is Owen Wilson. When you have Marion, Carla and Rachel in a movie and you still make Owen the center of your poster, you really must like him.

Love that he's in full Woody outfit though.

She is the only reason why I plan on even coming near a theater where they're playing this.

What do you think of these two?

(My) Best of 2010: Supporting Actress.

5. Elle Fanning in Somewhere

Playing Cleo, the young daughter of a movie star (Stephen Dorff), Elle Fanning gives Somewhere its heart. Sure, you might say, children always give movies their heart.

Yet what Fanning does isn't about "aww"s. Her combination of here-too-soon ennui and keen observance (she's like a movie camera!) are what give the movie its center in a much more transcendental way. Cleo rarely says something without meaning it and the movie delights itself watching her go through seemingly trivial moments (the eggs Benedict moment is one of pure intimate joy, see the way she smiles throughout the entire sequence).

What results heartbreaking about her is how much she needs to be loved by the people she loves. Paired with Dorff she has a natural chemistry that never allows you to disbelieve they are related, what's more, you feel a connection.

Cleo's angelical face lights up when she sees her father and we understand that she has learned to compromise with what she desires and what life can actually give her.

4. Lesley Manville in Another Year

Few performances in 2010 were as painful to watch as Lesley Manville's in Another Year. Playing the needy Mary, friend to an older married couple (Ruth Sheen and Jim Broadbent) she creates a portrait of someone whose loneliness has become who they are.

Manville takes us through Mary's deconstruction; from insecure yet hopeful temptress to utter desolate woman in such a delicate way that you feel for her.

Her insecurity makes it impossible for us to stop looking at her. Notice how in one of the scenes Mary arrives at a barbecue and talks nonstop about why she's late. She makes her way saying hello to everyone around the table and eventually realizes one of her friends had been holding a baby all along. Because we were so fixed on Mary, we also had been unaware that the baby was there...

Mike Leigh often fixes the camera on Manville and we see how Mary is, in a way, trying to escape the confinement that shapes her universe.

When she's unable to do this, her eventual surrender is a thing of heartbreaking beauty.

3. Barbara Hershey in Black Swan

How does one make Grand Guignol achieve emotional truth? Countless actresses have attempted to this to no avail (think Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford and to an extent Joan Crawford as Joan Crawford) and their performances are usually more admired for their theatricality than their humanity.

Erica in Black Swan would be an exception. Inarguably obsessive and freakishly psychotic to a point, she makes her daughter Nina's (Natalie Portman) life both paradise and a living hell.

Looking after her child in the only way she knows, Erica is nosy, cruel and overbearing. During the first part of the film we see how she behaves with her daughter, often praising her for getting

a starring role while simultaneously bringing her down and reassuring her that everything she lacks is more important than what she can do.

Yet as the film moves forward we realize that Erica in fact despises Nina. This isn't about "living vicariously" anymore, it's a straight forward competition between a bitter human being and her seemingly schizophrenic daughter.

Hershey gives in to Erica's pain with such ease that we never see her twitching or "acting". She doesn't try to make her character likable or understandable. She surrenders to Erica's lack of love for her daughter and explodes through the possessive actions she replaces it with. The last time we see her, she's crying as her daughter dances the Swan Queen.

We understand that these tears are as much about resentful pride as they are about envy.

2. Marion Cotillard in Inception

During Inception's opening scene, director Christopher Nolan indulges himself with the self aware gimmicks of his editing, his cameras and his "groundbreaking" screenplay.

He introduces us to his characters, sets the basic ideas that he will fail to expand for the rest of the film and wreaks havoc like a lunatic orchestra director who has decided nothing but tubas will do.

In the middle of this chaos we spot Mal (Cotillard) for the first time, as perhaps the only feminine presence in the film (don't even mention Ellen Page...) Nolan tries to confine her by the rules of what defines a femme fatale. She delivers her lines with dramatic aplomb, looks like a true movie star and eventually is revealed to be insane.

Of course Marion Cotillard takes this to another level. During that first sequence she possesses this unsettling calm that nobody else in the movie ever achieves. As you see Mal strut her way out of the scene as a, literal, dream begins to collapse, you can not take your eyes away from her.

In subsequent scenes, the more Nolan tries to make her worse (even her name is meant to diminish her) the better Cotillard gets. She finds the soul of this woman who ironically isn't an actual person. It's her performance alone that delivers the message Nolan tried to express using his technical prowess like an army. Cotillard understands that exercising extreme control would've made her mechanical and dull, it's through delicately violent restraint that she becomes the only thing about Inception that truly haunts your dreams.

1. Amy Adams in The Fighter

The thing about Amy Adams' Charlene in The Fighter is that you never see her coming. Like the best pugilists she seems to come out of nowhere to deliver unexpectedly powerful blows.

The first time we see her she's working at a bar. The actress, who has used us to her naivete and cute eagerness, here blends seamlessly into the seedy bar background.

She gives Charlene an entire history with subtle movements, facial expressions and a lot of attitude. As we learn more about her character she becomes more and more enigmatic. We understand why Micky (Mark Wahlberg) is fascinated by her.

On their first date they go to a movie. Micky chooses to impress her with Belle Epoque, Charlene's confused reaction and straightforward "I had to read the whole fuckin' movie" are priceless.

The best thing about Charlene is that she's so un-selfconscious that you chuckle when you think that she would probably hate a movie like The Fighter.

She's judged by Micky's family as a girl who thinks she's better than the rest (an MTV girl...whatever the fuck that is) and as such she's trapped in a limbo of sorts. In a way she's better than the rest of the characters (even from a human point of view) yet at the same time she's deeply frustrated because she hasn't done all she wanted to do in life.

Adams infuses Charlene with a deep melancholy only overshadowed by her relentless love for Micky. She supports Wahlberg's character in a non-scene-stealing way by merely being herself. She's sassy without becoming a cliché, sweet without becoming a victim, sexual without becoming vulgar and overall she's the one character in the film whose too real humanity punches you right in the gut.

The Other Best Actress Curse.

Natalie Portman's Best Actress Oscar win was inarguably the highlight of the Oscars; but, as I cheered about her triumph something else struck me. With the assurance that Black Swan would definitely not win the Best Picture award, Natalie was perpetuating a Best Actress curse no one talks about: the Best Actress Oscar is the only award their respective movies get.

Think about it, during the last decade (and we could even go all the way to 1999 when Hilary Swank first defeat Annette Bening) only two movies have won another Oscar besides Best Actress and only one of these movies won Best Picture (Million Dollar Baby).

Compared to the fact that movies that win Best Actor have 8/11 in the "more than one Oscar" statistic, we really might be onto something here, right?

Let's take a year by year look:

(I also noticed Best Actresses like this fabric and color...)

2000 - Best Actress - Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich (Wins 1 - Nominations 5)

Best Actor - Russell Crowe for Gladiator (Wins 5 - Nominations 12)

One Best Actress nominee (Ellen Burstyn) was the sole nominee for her film.

2001 - Best Actress - Halle Berry for Monster's Ball (Wins 1 - Nominations 2)

Best Actor - Denzel Washington for Training Day (Wins 1 - Nominations 2)

One Best Actress nominee (Renee Zellweger) was the sole nominee for her film.

2002 - Best Actress - Nicole Kidman for The Hours (Wins 1 - Nominations 9)

Best Actor - Adrien Brody for The Pianist (Wins 3 - Nominations 7)

One Best Actress nominee (Diane Lane) was the sole nomination for her film.

2003 - Best Actress - Charlize Theron for Monster (Wins 1 - Nominations 1)

Best Actor - Sean Penn for Mystic River (Wins 2 - Nominations 6)

Three Best Actress nominees (Keisha Castle Hughes, Diane Keaton and Charlize Theron)

were the sole nominations for their respective movies.

2004 - Best Actress - Hilary Swank for Million Dollar Baby (Wins 4 - Nominations 7)

Best Actor - Jamie Foxx for Ray (Wins 2 - Nominations 6)

Two Best Actress nominees (Annette Bening and Catalina Sandino Moreno) were the

sole nominations for their respective movies.

2005 - Best Actress - Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line (Wins 1 - Nominations 5)

Best Actor - Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Capote (Wins 1 - Nominations 5)

One Best Actress nominee (Felicity Huffman) was the sole nomination for her film.

This is also the only year when all the acting winners were their films' only wins.

2006 - Best Actress - Helen Mirren for The Queen (Wins 1 - Nominations 6)

Best Actor - Forrest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland (Wins 1 - Nominations 1)

One Best Actress nominee (Penélope Cruz) was the sole nomination for her film.

Curiously this year four Best Actor nominees were their film's sole nomination.

2007 - Best Actress - Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose (Wins 2 - Nominations 3)

Best Actor - Daniel Day Lewis for There Will Be Blood (Wins 2 - Nominations 8)

This is the only year when all Best Actress nominees were accompanied by other nominations.

2008 - Best Actress - Kate Winslet for The Reader (Wins 1 - Nominations 5)

Best Actor - Sean Penn for Milk (Wins 2 - Nominations 8)

One Best Actress nominee (Anne Hathaway) was the sole nomination for her film.

2009 - Best Actress - Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (Wins 1 - Nominations 2)

Best Actor - Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (Wins 2 - Nominations 3)

One Best Actress nominee (Meryl Streep) was the sole nomination for her film.

Which brings us to Natalie Portman. Out of her film's five nominations she was the only one who even stood a chance of winning. After the Academy found ways to not love Black Swan as much as other organizations had (denying it Score, Screenplay and Costume nominations) it became clear that if Portman lost the movie would go empty handed.

This strange phenomenon would be less significant if it wasn't because it establishes something everyone keeps saying to no avail: Hollywood doesn't offer women interesting roles.

7/10 Best Actor winners during the past decade where in Best Picture nominees, with women it was just 5 and as obvious as it is that The Blind Side really didn't need another Oscar, what then about the editing in The Hours? Or Black Swan's breathtaking cinematography?

For that matter was Gladiator a better movie than Erin Brockovich?

The fact that Oscar voters just feel the need to reward one category out of this actresses' films might be saying that they think they were the only worthy thing in their films and that their award will be enough for the whole movie. But again, why wasn't Monster nominated for Best Makeup for example (when at least 70% of Charlize's performance is owed to that).

This would seem less conspicuous when measured against the number of Best Actor wins that often seem to provoke "en masse" vote for other categories.

Speaking of this, out of Meryl Streep's 13 Best Actress nominations, she's been the sole nomination for 5 out of these occasions. What is this really saying about Hollywood? Am I seeint too much into this blockade of opportunities for Actresses? When's the last time a Best Actress carried an entire Best Picture as opposed to having a film about men winning the top prize?

If we examined this we would run into even fewer cases where this happened which would include: Gone With the Wind, Mrs. Miniver, Annie Hall, Terms of Endearment, Driving Miss Daisy, The Silence of the Lambs, Shakespeare in Love and Million Dollar Baby.

Eight out of 83...hmm maybe I'm not being paranoid right?

If so what can this mean for filmmakers making movies about women? Let's be honest, in other years films like The Blind Side, Winter's Bone, The Kids Are All Right and to a lesser degree Black Swan would've never factored in the Best Picture race and movies about women competing for the main prize would be out of the question.

So young filmmakers of the world if you want to win a Best Picture Oscar make biopics about disabled men! Stay away from Amelia Earhart! Oh wait, that already happened...

What do you think about this? Do you think actresses will eventually be leading forces behind Oscar winning movies? If Meryl hasn't been able to do it, what are the chances of less beloved actresses ever achieving this?

Inception **

Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy
Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy
Tom Berenger, Pete Postlethwaite, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine

Inception gets wrong everything that film noir got right. Perhaps, because in its attempt to create something groundbreaking and original, while obviously referential, it forgot that complexity and depth are often found within simplicity.
Nolan alludes to some of his idols like Stanley Kubrick and Michael Mann to come up with an ambitious facade that reveals deep inside there wasn't much to be said after all.
To put it in a blunt analogy, the movie is the equivalent of receiving a beautifully wrapped package for your birthday only to realize it contains socks.
Inception takes place in a future where corporate espionage has moved to the next level. Instead of sending spies into the companies; ideas and thoughts are stolen directly from the minds of its creators.
Using a machine and a series of sedatives, these dream thieves are able to navigate the minds of people and access hidden information. They create entire dreams, populate them with characters and other tricks to invade the person's subconscious.
But these dreams are made out of different levels and contain all kinds of rules that make this much harder than one would think.
This process is called "extraction" and Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is the go-to-man for these kind of jobs. Of course he has a dark past that led him to this line of work; in his case it's his tempestuous relationship with his wife Mal (Cotillard) and the fact that he's a fugitive who's been trying to make it back home for a while.
One day Dom receives a unique request from powerful businessman Saito (Watanabe), he doesn't need information, he needs "inception", to implant an idea inside his main competitor's (Murphy) mind.
Inception is some sort of urban myth, few people think it can be done, and Cobb reluctantly takes on the job after Saito promises he will clear his charges and make sure he gets back home safe.
To proceed with the heist, Cobb recruits Arthur (Levitt), his main partner and logistics man, Eames (Hardy) a clever impersonator capable of taking on anyone's personality in dreams, Yusuf (Rao), an experienced chemist who provides the sedatives and Ariadne (Page) an architect meant to design the various levels of the dreams.
The plot then moves like your regular heist movie and just like one, pulls cards out of its sleeves to make every twist and turn feel like the ultimate thrill. The thing about Inception is that it's so in love with its own grandiosity that it forgets to have any fun.
By providing certain rules that regulate the dream world (and are sure to become part of geek boy lexicon like the dialogue in Fight Club) the screenplay tries to conceal the fact that Nolan isn't capable of handling different levels of existence in the way Robert Altman did (without the fantastic sci-fi aid mind you).
One of the major elements about the dream world is that as the characters go down one level, time changes. This gives Nolan the opportunity to push slow motion to the limit and come up with some nice looking photographic tricks that make less obvious the fact that Nolan's eyes were bigger than his creative stomach. He tries to inject complexity into pausing action.
Because honestly nothing really happens during these time swifts which usually require the characters to fall asleep in order to work.
The whole movie actually functions on a paradoxical premise: we get the rules but they don't make much sense.
Sure, one could say that sci-fi allows its creators to bend reality and push the imagination but what are we supposed to think about a movie in which the characters are so faithful to the regulations of the world they inhabit, when the screenplay is constantly telling us to take a "leap of faith". Is this leap meant to make us ignore the plot holes in Nolan's writing?
How then, one might wonder, is it possible for the characters to keep secret from each other when invading someone else's mind?
If they are all in one person's subconscious and get to travel together from mind to mind, wouldn't it make sense that they all knew what the other was thinking? To go into these kinds of questions would make the movie fall like a house made out of playing cards and perhaps it's better to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt.
Yet even if it wasn't for the lackluster writing, Inception is doomed by its exhaustive and exhausting attempt to seem clever.
Nolan draws from film noir to come up with the whole plot. We have the "last job", the "man without a past", the femme fatale and other basic elements that made up the film style.
However noir was effective because it took place in a universe where dreams didn't exist, where people became archetypes trying to rediscover humanity.
In films like The Maltese Falcon ("the stuff which dreams are made of") and Out of the Past we saw human decay being explored in such a unique way that we saw the stories take place in locations that seemed real but we knew were representations of larger themes.
These movies about detectives, prostitutes and disloyal crooks were actually studies of the pathologies found in society and explorations of the implications popular culture was beginning to have on the collective psyche.
Yet talking about them, it's hard at first to see them for more than what they are. Inception on the other side, takes these stories into the location they were actually taking place in (the human mind) and by overexplaining them ironically robs them of their entire oneiric qualities.
Film noir is dream-like, Inception somehow is not.
Added to this, we have to wonder about the reality suggested in the world where Inception takes place. Nolan never bothers in suggesting there are any sort of ethical implications to what the dream thieves are doing.
We have to wonder if more people in this world are aware that this exists. Without this it's almost impossible for this technique to feel menacing. How can someone fear what they can't fathom possible?
The movie lacks a feeling of threat that goes beyond what the characters are going through. As personal as the subconscious they're invading might be, there is still a body that owns it and is presumably regulated by things like the law and societal rules.
Why then does the movie forgo all this and tries to trick us by making it seem as if it's only these characters who exist in the world (even taking into account some plot twists, it would still be rather limited to stick to such a facile theory).
It would be easy to dispute almost any element about the film's structure but the one thing nobody can deny is the lack of coherence in the dichotomy between mind and emotion.
We are constantly reminded by the characters that as logical as dreams may seem, they are ruled and commanded by feelings.
It's even one of the main points in planning the heist.
When it comes to executing this though, the movie falls apart disastrously even if a lot of the characters are constantly talking about emotions.
"What do you feel?" asks Mal, in what should've been the movie's emotional center. Instead of making the audience shed a tear, this scene just proves how disconnected the movie is from its own speech.
As if Nolan too chose to forget a truth he once knew...or maybe just lacks the directorial skills to aim at both mind and heart.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, in fact Kubrick made a career out of the purely cerebral, Nolan perhaps should also stick to what he knows best.
Sadly because the movie doesn't have the emotional core it refers to so much, we are denied the opportunity of watching either an entertaining heist flick or a tragic romance.
But not everything about the movie disappoints. The action sequences are interesting although their reminiscence to the Batman flicks and Insomnia make it seem like all these characters dream of are Christopher Nolan movies. It would've been interesting to see him play with these landscapes in a more surrealistic way, perhaps not pushing it all the way into whimsical territory like Hitchcock and Dalí did but at least toying a bit more with all the fuss about how in dreams you can build whatever you want.
Then there's Marion Cotillard who not only gets the film's most interesting "character" but also makes Mal so rich and complex that an eventual plot twist will leave us scratching our heads in awe. Watching her walk with the elegance of Marlene Dietrich while the world, literally, falls apart around her is watching an actress at the height of her powers. There is nothing she can't do.
The same can not be said about the movie, which proves that the more you talk about ideas doesn't mean you are particularly enlightened.

I Dream of Marion.

She is welcome to kill me in my dreams whenever she wants.

Style Sunday.

The luminous Gwyneth Paltrow steals the show at the Valentino archives' launch in France.
The Oscar winner chose a pale vintage design by Garavani and with a simple hair and makeup looks utterly angelical.


Whatever Marion Cotillard is eating, she definitely should sell to the rest of the world.
How she manages to look, fresh, casual and so elegant all the time is a mystery to me.
At the London premiere of Inception, the gorgeous actress donned a Thakoon, asymmetrical dress with a retro print.
Most women would've made this look like a sad attempt at hippie chic but Marion knows what she's doing.



I miss Jennifer Garner.
She's one of my favorite actresses (so undervalued after Alias was over...) so every time I see her somewhere my heart skips a beat.
This isn't owed to my eternal devotion to her but also by her beauty. For the opening of the Greenwich Casinos, the lovely Mrs. Affleck went for a violet Alberta Ferretti gown with a bare shoulder.
Notice how her simple hair seems to flow with the dress' lovely draping and the color compliments her pale skin. While the clutch looks divine, it's her thin bracelet which really puts a glorious touch to the whole look. She's a Greek goddess.

What do you think?
See anyone else look like a million bucks this week?

When Maggie MET Louis.

I know the Met Costume Gala this year was held more than two weeks ago, but bear with me, I've rarely had time to blog this month and this being my second favorite fashion event of the year and all, I thought you all could indulge me and help me pretend as if the looks from the ball were completely fresh in your eyes.


Maggie Gyllenhaal, bless her soul, isn't the smartest dresser out there.
Sure she's not quite common as an actress and she might want to bring her quirk to her looks but she rarely makes it work.
This Gothic Louis Vuitton gown was probably great in theory but her lack of makeup and lazy hairdo steal the dramatic edge the dress needed to stun.


Kirsten Dunst looks fabulous from the head all the way up to the hideous country boots she's wearing.
The lacey Rodarte dress looks beautiful with her fresh face but ugh the shoes...why does she always try so hard to boycott herself in red carpets?


The lovely Carey Mulligan is straight out of the 60's in a lavender Miu Miu minidress.
The pockets are adorable but notice the delicate work in the embroidery and you'll understand why she pulls off this look like no one else could.


Demi Moore is a vision in all her Jessica Rabbit glory. I loved the dramatic effect the silver gave her femme fatale look.
My surprise was to realize that this wasn't Versace but Lanvin!


Anne Hathaway looks like a 50's princess in a flesh toned Valentino.
She reminded me of Grace Kelly and Judy Garland and to think that she got the simple hair and makeup so damn right by keeping it so simple is a wonder.
Her smile is as usual her best accessory oh yes and that's Kate Bosworth next to her...


Always the icon, Sarah Jessica Parker pulled off a stunner in her Halston Heritage gown.
This year the Costume Institute celebrated the American woman and she's straight out of the disco era (the flower!) in a subdued design by one of the country's most brilliant couturiers.


If Marion Cotillard is suggesting she'll become a legend she couldn't have done better than in this sparkly Dior inspired by Marlene Dietrich.
I'm not sure if I like the altogether look (it's a bit too matronly for the young actress) but the intention is delicious and in such a night reminds us that glamor came from the old continent.


Another who's never afraid to experiment, January Jones pulled all the runway tricks and wears this YSL minidress like a pro. The makeup and opera gloves might be a bit too much and perhaps would've been more appropriate for last year's gala.


I love Charlotte Gainsbourg and I adore Nicolas Ghesquiere and I love that they love each other.
But sometimes I think a little time apart wouldn't harm them as she keeps inspiring the same ideas in him and he keeps providing her with print minis and strange shoes.
They look amazing but seeing other people might not harm them.


Quite the Greek vision Christina Hendricks is straight out of a theater B.C. the L'Wrenn Scott dress is a beauty but her makeup is a bit too kabuki.


J. Lo is gorgeous but a bit safe in this Zuhair Murad gown.
Is it me or did Marchesa make something just like it a few years ago and Beyoncé wore it?


If I had Blake Lively's legs I probably would prance around in short dresses showing them off as well.
But I'd love to see her in something with more fabric for once. Can you imagine the effect of this Marchesa if it had a huge, puffy skirt to go with it?


Melissa George evokes film noir in this simple J Mendel.
The color is magnificent and the draping is to die for but the real beauty is how her hair and makeup go so perfect with the whole thing.
Times like these make me wish she was a huge movie star.


Renee Zellweger is wearing a gorgeous Carolina Herrera, as usual.
But what the hell is going on with her Kathy Geiss hairdo?

Did you pay any attention to the Met gala?
If so, did I miss any of your favorite looks?

(My) Best of 09: Supporting Actress.

5. Mélanie Laurent in "Inglourious Basterds" (read my review)

As Shosanna Dreyfus, French beauty Laurent becomes the vessel of revenge in Quentin Tarantino's historical fantasy.
She's your archetype QT female character: driven, intimidating and so damn cool. Laurent's perfect dramatic timing serves her greatly in scenes with Christoph Waltz and in her most iconic moment she is able to evoke Nastassja Kinski and "The Wizard of Oz", all at the same time.



4. Gwyneth Paltrow in "Two Lovers" (read my review)

As a woman completely unaware of her power over men, Gwyneth Paltrow gives "Two Lovers" its central theme: our ability or inability to escape from who we're becoming.
She plays Michelle, next door neighbor to Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix), an indecisive young man who sees in her the opportunity to start over. She makes it clear that she's in love with someone else and Leonard willingly enters her world of self destruction.
She takes Michelle to femme fatale levels as she becomes an addiction to Leonard. We know she's no good and we know her hysterics and drama are the last thing we need, but we would never refuse an invitation to join her on the dancefloor.


3. Penélope Cruz in "Nine" (read my review)

For someone who first catches our attention by stating she's not wearing any clothes, it's a miracle that Penélope Cruz gives Carla her best moments dressed head to toe and looking as if hell walked over her.
As the mistress of famed director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) she sizzles in the hilarious, if a bit underwhelming "A Call from the Vatican", but Cruz knows better than to give it all to us at once and the number, contrary to our beliefs, is nothing but foreplay.
She's brilliant in latter scenes where she quietly lets Guido put makeup on her, fully aware that she is after all another character he needs to direct in his life and she breaks your heart upon the realization that she will never ascend to a lead role.
She might be wearing gorgeous clothes but it's in these introspective, dark moments where Cruz seems completely naked.


2. Rosamund Pike in "An Education" (read my review)

Helen (Pike) is the kind of woman who would've been played by Marilyn Monroe or Gloria Grahame in the 1950's. Characters around her would've described her as someone "who's dumb and knows it" and as trophy girlfriend to a distinguished bachelor (Dominic Cooper in this case) she would've been used mainly for comedic relief and eye candy.
But what Rosamund Pike does with Helen goes beyond beauty and perfect, almost musical, comedic timing (few actors delivered their lines better in any 2009 film) she finds the truth inside her that characters around her are so desperate to find.
The film's lead (Carey Mulligan) is trying to find a reason; Helen may not have found hers' but she's so self aware of her limitations that she is not willing to compromise inner peace for mere survival.


1. Marion Cotillard in "Nine" (read my review)

Contrary to what she thinks, Luisa Contini (Cotillard) might just be the most special character in "Nine". As wife of Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) she does more than stand his infidelities, deal with his paranoia and give good social face.
She also happens to be his muse and moral center. Of course this isn't enough to keep a person alive, especially when there is nothing in it for you.
Just as Guido must learn to appreciate her more, Luisa needs to learn the difference between obligation and love. She's as guilty as Guido in how they both have turned their marriage into an addiction, yet we can't accuse her of weakness. Cotillard turns Luisa into someone who has made a lifestyle out of submission.
But the actress is so subtle that she gives Luisa a wordless backstory that make us become fascinated by the enigma she represents.
When she sings the heartbreaking "My Husband Makes Movies" she establishes who she is at the moment and when we get to the harrowing, almost brutal "Take it All" she finally takes her own stand.
Cotillard of course doesn't make this an obvious transition from backbone-less being to proud amazon; but a smooth, beautiful realization that to love someone else we must love ourselves first.

Nine ***

Director: Rob Marshall
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penélope Cruz
Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Fergie, Sophia Loren

"Nine" is the third incarnation of a project that was born almost half a century ago at the hands of the brilliant Federico Fellini.
His film "8 ½" chronicled the anguish of a film director upon facing creative block. The movie is considered a masterpiece of world cinema and was transformed into a Broadway musical by Maury Yeston and Arthur Kopit which concentrated on the effect of women in the lives of the director.
Rob Marshall's adaptation then takes the musical back to the silver screen which perhaps it should never have left to begin with.
"8 ½" was always a very personal piece, it's been largely debated whether the main character was or wasn't an alter ego of Fellini himself. Sure the similarities were vast but to imply so would also be to diminish the auteur's ability to separate himself from the characters he write.
If that was the question should we say then that Mozart shouldn't have made music about music or Shakespeare written about writers?
If Fellini put something of his' in the movie it was his distinctive cinematic touch, he creates a surrealist, documentary-like circus out of unraveling minds and Guido is Fellini, not because he's a movie director but because he's his creation.
But out of this mess he comes up with a movie about ideas, a work of art that defies all conventions because it's a perfect ode to imperfection.
Therefore "Nine" always had a rough time ahead in becoming a beast of its own, for how do you adapt something that was already so undecipherable?
"Nine" had to be more chaotic and yet organized, it had to become an oxymoron and be both messy and grounded.
But Rob Marshall, always a visual perfectionist, chose to make a beautiful, almost too polished film that never really gets to the core of the creative crisis Guido Contini (Day-Lewis) is going through.
Instead he comes up with a film that proves another point almost by accident; that some ideas should remain forever where they were born.
When the film begins we meet Guido, perhaps the most famous director in the world who is about to start shooting a film called "Italia" but has yet to write a word for its screenplay.
He starts being haunted by the women who have inspired him throughout his life: his mother (Loren) who now is dead, a prostitute he met in his childhood called Saraghina (Fergie), his leading lady Claudia Jenssen (Kidman), his confidante and costume designer Lilli (Dench), American "Vogue" reporter Stephanie (Hudson), his mistress Carla (Cruz) and his wife-and former leading lady-Luisa (Cotillard).
The movie is structured so that each of these ladies gets a musical number (two in Cotillard's case) that goes along with what Guido is going through at that moment.
Therefore when we see him remember his repressive Catholic childhood Saraghina bursts out of the sand to remind him he was meant to be a lover in "Be Italian", while his mom soothes him with the melancholic lullaby "Guarda La Luna".
Marshall stages the numbers using the same framing device he used in "Chicago" as they unfold in a studio which looks like Cinecittá but is actually inside Guido's mind.
The numbers mostly feel completely disconnected from each other as Dench's "Folies Bergere" seems more at place in a revue than a movie about movies, while Hudson's "Cinema Italiano" (a song so tacky and overdone that you might blush when you actually find yourself humming it) would fit more in an MTV crash course through the 60's.
To some this might seem a misfire but considering the movie is basically us being voyeurs to Guido, they completely make sense.
In this way Carla's "A Call from the Vatican" shows him at his most playful and Cruz is so smoldering that she might even make you break a sweat as she coos throughout an orgasm. The numbers aren't really about these women, when they sing they are not themselves as much as they are projections of Guido.
That he also happens to be a projection of them just makes for a fascinating concept considering that like the film he's making, and to a degree "Nine" itself, he's essentially a work in progress.
Day-Lewis who obviously doesn't have the Italian gene, is unable to evoke charm and sexiness but he's an expert at brooding and inner exploration.
He sings with indifference as if he knows that because he's singing to himself he can give out so-so performances and still be the star of the show.
"I would like to be here/but also there" he sings completely aware that "that's a contradiction in terms" and the same can be said for the film which has trouble adjusting itself from the switch of musical into traditional scenes.
If there is something "Nine" gets really well is the casting; Dench is a sassy scene stealer, Loren really just needs to appear to evoke class glamor (she curiously represents the idea of women Guido attempts to encompass with the film he wants to make).
Fergie is a revelation as the sexual, larger than life Saraghina and Nicole Kidman shines in a role that seems to have been made for her. "People just don't realize she's an actress as well as a star" says Guido and Kidman proves him right in the affecting "Unusual Way" where she deconstructs the image of a movie star with the simple removal of a wig.
The movie perhaps belongs to Cruz and Cotillard. Cruz would've made Fellini proud as she takes on her role in the manner of someone like Magali Noël in "Amarcord", hips and lips everywhere but she's also able to break our heart when we least expect it.
Her undeniable sexiness is nothing compared to the longing in her eyes when she looks at Guido, her performance makes us look at her love as something beyond morality.
Then there's Cotillard who makes Luisa the center of the movie. In "My Husband Makes Movies" she shows us her life without recurring to cheap martyrdom; it's as if her devotion is what keeps her heart pumping. When she sings "he needs me so/and he'll be the last to know it" it doesn't come out as delusional but as self compromise.
But bets are off when Luisa finally unravels in the spine tingling "Take It All", which is cleverly edited between takes of her asking Guido to give her back her life and the musical performance where she strips for a strange crowd.
Watching Cotillard in that scene travel fearlessly from inner to outer nakedness is watching everything we would've wanted "Nine" to be.
But asking for so much would be to become Luisa and demand love and understanding from something that probably doesn't even understand itself.

Question.

I've had "Take It All" stuck in my head for a few days now and after revisiting "Nine" I couldn't help but wonder, why Marion Cotillard wasn't nominated for a gazillion awards.
Sure everyone hates the movie but does anyone actually think the "Up in the Air" girls, for example, were better than Cotillard?

SAG-ged.

How the SAG awards manage to be the dullest awards show year after year will always be a mystery to me, this year they were no different and went along with what's been going on for the whole season awards wise.

Mo'Nique, Jeff Bridges, Christoph Waltz and the cast of "Inglourious Basterds" won as expected (they both deserve all their accolades for a change) but just what the hell is going on in the minds of people who voted for Sandra Bullock?
Sure she's nice and fun and everything, but she gave the fifth best performance in her category. Since people have suddenly become so reluctant to keep on awarding Meryl Streep why not then recognize the best female performances in the category which would be Gabourey Sidibe's and Carey Mulligan's?
The only reason I can explain Bullock's win would be that the actors secretly hate Meryl Streep (considering that Mulligan and Sidibe are somehow non-factors to these dumb voters) and wish she would retire so she wouldn't make them all look so lazy and mediocre.

Moving on...a few thoughts from the ceremony.
I love how retro Simon Baker and Anna Paquin looked together.
He looked straight out of the "A Single Man" collection while she evoked Twiggy and Jane Fonda.

Say what you will of the movie, which wasn't the devil's envoy as most people say, these women were by far the best dressed cast.
Whoever advised Nicole Kidman to do some pot and think Woodstock when dressing for tonight, did her a great service as she's never looked so fresh and free.
Marion Cotillard looked straight out of a runway, that dress is spectacular and a mini! While Kate was breathtaking. Penélope somehow was the most meh of them all.
But she has me used to being all blah during these award shows and then just blowing my mind at the Oscars, so let's hope she does it again.

Sexiest male cast ever? Probably.

Now on to my favorite looks,

I've always had the notion that Lanvin can make magic on anyone.
With Carey Mulligan they gave her by far the best look she's had during this whole season. She's looked pretty before, but this time she actually made me go "wow".
Something about the draping makes Carey look like a classic screen siren, not the underfed waif she's been looking like in the past.

After last week's odd pink thingamajig, Diane Kruger is back to looking like an icon. In this stunning gown, in that risky color, she pulls off what Michelle Williams almost did at the 2006 Oscars. But she takes it to another level.

Alexander McQueen makes a vision out of Anna Paquin.

I don't love Joan Allen's look but I found it interesting that she and Nicole Kidman went for the same free spirited style, complete with free flowing tresses and hip jewelry.

Although it must be said that the huge back cleavage showed me more than I'd ever want to see from Goldie Hawn's offspring, Kate Hudson has never looked so damn good before!
Sure the dress is essentially Hilary Swank circa 2005, but the color gave her an aura of elegance, sexiness and drama no other lady achieved during the awards.

Quick Globe Recap (Part Deux).

Mo'Nique just sealed the Oscar deal with what was a classy, remarkably thought out speech and one of the night's most deserved wins (I loved that Drew Barrymore made a reference to it when she won as well).

Watching how gracious and especially how thankful she is, makes me truly want to smack all those people who have been dissing her approach towards the awards campaigning bullshit.
I might not have liked "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" but every time I remember how good Mo'Nique was I have an altogether better reaction towards the film itself.
May she be just as wonderful at Oscar (oh and someone better nominate Nicole Kidman for another award soon, she looked fantastic last night!).

Now let's move on to fashion.
If someone had told me a few days ago that frills would be all the rage at a red carpet I would've laughed and told them to go back to the 1800s.
But nude color or pale dresses with tons of frills is precisely what we got.
Surprisingly they seemed to work wonders particularly in three ladies:

Fashionista extraordinaire and Golden Globe winner herself last night Chloë Sevigny opted for a lavender greyish hue that made for one of those out of the blue choices only she can pull off.

Despite being extreme opposites in the body shape department Christina Hendricks and Nicole Kidman basically wore the same thing.
The voluptuous Miss Hendricks made her dress shine with the use of simple makeup and her beautiful red hair. This woman honestly evokes the exotic sexuality of people like Jayne Mansfield.
While the monumental Kidman looked sweeter and more accessible than she ever does.

My favorite winner of the night went for something slightly similar but a bit more deconstructive with a simple dress with beautiful structural appliqués that made some people joke she had killed a hedegehog and others, like me, see how it gave her whole style a luscious flow.

Sofía Vergara probably could just wrap some sheets around her spectacular body and she'd make it. But this strapless gown in such an unexpected color gave her a breathtaking simplicity that downsized her natural erotic-ness and brought out a more classic beauty look to her. That burgundy strip on top is a stroke of genius.

John Galliano's muse obviously went for Dior and while the dress had nothing wow to it, that flash of lace undergarments and the dominatrix shoes were yet another of the delicious ways in which Cotillard suggests angelical qualities with devilish instincts.

And boy does Eli Roth clean up good.