Castle Freeman Jr.'s GO WITH ME

Who names their kid "Castle"? Just had to get that out of the system.

One of the most underappreciated art forms ever, not just in America, is the novella or short novel. For most novels you can cut out a ton of the content and have a cleaner, better story. But, for some reason, people don't take them seriously. Freeman Jr.'s Go With Me should make people think twice.

In a tiny, rugged Vermont town Lillian is being stalked. A local enigma, Blackway, has killed her cat and forced her boyfriend out of the state. She doesn't have proof, so local law enforcement advises her to find other ways to deal with the situation. She seeks out the aging Lester and young Nate to help remedy the situation with Blackway; meanwhile, the town elders sit around contemplating who will win in the impending fight.

This story is cold, stark, and most importantly an analytic dissection of action and consequence in a limited, high-tension environment. This is not a book to give you warm fuzzies. It doesn't even want you to like its characters. Blackway is a frightening, looming presence, Lester is a taciturn old man, Nate barely says a word because he's a simpleton, and Lillian is willful but often a bitch even to the men helping her. And although we can barely empathize with or relate to these characters, the story still draws us in with its calculating precision and magnifying glass structure. This effect is only amplified by the stark and ruthless writing. Another pull is the mystery of Blackway, who appears but briefly in person.

The plot doesn't lumber, it builds and then races to a climax, propelling the story forward. It's a story which has been taunting us by pausing in various places along its path toward the final destination. Arguably the weakest part of the text is the council of town elders; while they do give insight into the provincialism and homespun nature of the town, they often repeat themselves...and as true to real life as that is, that doesn't make the technique interesting.

Verdict: this short but sweet mystery thriller is a dark and treacherous read.

-elln

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Film)

Based on the book by Roahld Dahl, Fantastic Mr. Fox is Wes Anderson's first foray into animation--and what a beatific foray it is. Using painstaking stop motion animation and breathtaking dioramas, Anderson has brought Dahl's quirky and colorful landscape to life.

Mr. Fox is the most successful thief around until he hangs up his criminal hat to get married. But when Mr. and Mrs. Fox move house, Mr. Fox is tempted to a life of crime once again by the proximity of the meanest and richest farmers in the county--Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. Mr. Fox starts stealing again, but once the farmers find out war ensues.

This could easily be simply a children's film, but the beauty is that it isn't just that. While kids are sure to enjoy it, it works on all levels. It's one of those rare, off-beat, delightful films which offers something for everyone. Anderson never loses sight of the fact that he's adapting a children's story which allows latitude for silly and fun elements; nor does he let goofiness override the smart dialogue or direction. Crucial to the success of the film is the humor, which includes slapstick and physical humor, as well as sarcasm and deadpan one-liners. It's never over the top and never amiss.

The visual style is scruffy and endearing, and where would it be without an excellent cast? George Clooney is stellar as Mr. Fox, as is Meryl Streep as Mrs. Fox. The highlight performance, though, is Jason Schwartzman as Mr. and Mrs. Fox's son, a disaffected cape-wearing youth cub. other performances are solid and appropriate for such a charming cast of side characters. The music is a spare country soundtrack which completes the film.

All in all this is a splendid, unconventional treat and showcases Anderson's greatest abilities yet.

-elln

Dr. Dog's FATE

Philadelphia natives (and yes, I have seen them live), Dr. Dog have slowly and steadily been making a reputation with mellow, lo-fi "indie" rock for years. Well, it might be labeled as indie rock but that's just because it's too complicated to say they're psychedelic blues rock meets classic '60's pop. "The Breeze" isn't the most overwhelming album opener, but it sets the mellow tone the album will maintain and uses some interesting flute instrumentation near the end. "Hang On" introduces the bluesy tone and smattering of country which will dominate the album, including some well-placed harmonica work and gospel vocals. It also sports some of the best content lyrically: "and what you thought was a hurricane was just the rustling of the wind/why do you think we need amazing grace just to tell it like it is?/ oh I don't need no doctor to tear me all apart/I just need you to mend my heart."

"Old Days" is another album highlight, with snare drums layered over by far-off vocals, shakers, and other strange percussion, supplemented by a piano hook in a fuzzy psychedlic folk fusion. It's astounding how much they achieve without traditional instrumentation. "Army of Ancients" is for the true blues-lover tinged with some NRBQ-esque jazz. "The Rabbit, the Bat, and the Reindeer" is the catchiest song on the album, a piece of excellent piano-driven druggie pop, while "The Ark" is a close second and the darkest song on the album in tone. It opens with mean, driving guitars which demand your attention, and again that military snare; the lyrics are also some of the best of the album: "God, he called for rain/so I built an ark but no rain came/I was ashamed...Love, she asked for more/but what I gave only made her poor." This is the only real rock on the album, but it shines beautifully and it's much rawer than the other tracks.

"From" is a relaxed, trippy love ballad, appreciable for its slow build and rooted in folklore lyrics. Lyrically the album is superior as it strays from the beaten path to express love and friendship in unconventional ways, works with random images like trains and trees, and delves into folklore, large thematic concepts, and even biblical references. This strength is particularly evident in "100 Years," which explores mortality and slavery in a tall tale manner: "About 100 years from now I'm going to marry you out of common sense/and get out from behind this plow."

"Uncovering the Old" is a solid album contribution, but not particularly remarkable compared to earlier tracks. "The Beach" comes closest to the sharp guitars and attitude of "The [brilliant] Ark," and sports the lyrics from which came the album title. Album closer "My Friend" cleverly weaves together the whole album, starting with a country-tinged opener and using themes from all the songs, or refering lyrics from the other tracks. It ends perfectly with the sound of a train pulling away. This is an album which took a while to grow on me, but it will stay with me the rest of my life. Highly recommended for all ages.

-elln

Duplicity

Famed director Tony Gilroy's latest effort, Duplicity, is a mixed bag. Clive Owen is Ray and Julia Roberts is Clare, and they are MI6 and CIA agents respectively. After two one-night stands they team up to extract themselves from their agencies and go private, intent on swindling both sides out of millions of dollars to set themselves up for the rest of their lives. So they sign on with a private corporate group intent on stealing the formula to a rival's new product--but the question is who is playing who?

The main draw of this film is how paranoid it makes you. Really. When the two leads constantly question each other, nervous that the other will take off with all the funds, the audience is constantly running through the maze wondering who is on whose side. The slick filming and direction may set the tone for this quirky, offbeat spy movie, but the plot gets a bit too convoluted to follow, and lacks a big reveal which should be a payoff for the audience. It's still engaging, however, as is the dialogue between the two leads--or what little there is of it--minus the one embarrassingly mushy love confession. Most of their relationship is sexual, but since it's a spy movie, whatever.

The film does suffer, at times, from info-dumping, which doesn't come off quite as eloquently as it did, in, say, something like Oceans 11. As Dick's team explained all their intricate little spy tricks to him I was rolling my eyes.

The callousness and scheming of corporate america is totally trashed here (I approve!), and Paul Giamatti is brilliant in his portrayal of egotistic, maniacal corporate executive Dick Garsik. In fact most of the cast is stellar. The movie has a notably good soundtrack, with a lot of Spanish-sounding tracks to empahsize the sexiness of it all. The characters themselves might not be particularly complex, the plot might be too complicated at times, but the fun is all in navigating the labyrinth of who is using who, and the heart-pumping action is thrilling. Even if the ending was a bit lackluster, I enjoyed the very last scene immensely, and was glad to have good old Clare and Ray back from their hiatus as fast-talking spies instead of people-who-make-really-trite-and-hackneyed-love-speeches.

-elln

Audrey Niffenegger's THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE

Okay, I'm off hiatus and back to reviewing.

If you'll recall I went to see the movie when it came out a few months ago, so I decided to read the book that's made such a splash. First, the concept is a clever one. Henry DeTamble is afflicted by a genetic disorder which causes him to time travel spontaneously. This isn't some magical gift, but rather a curse which plagues his life, causing him to end up in dangerous situations and to learn things about the future he would never normally know.
His wife, Clare, has known him since she was six years old because an older version of Henry traveled to the past to see her. Meanwhile, Henry meets Clare for the first time in his own timeline when he is twenty-eight. Thus begins their harrowing love story.

And this is a love story, a good one. Told in present tense, first-person narrative, it tries to get as close to the reader as can be. The sentences are direct, simple, and cutting; the characters are complex. Niffenegger's strength seems to be her unrelenting brutal and harsh portrayal of the realities of life. Even though her premise is fantastical, an ability which we would at first glance believe a blessing, she treats with eagle eye precision as an almost life-threatening illness. Clare and Henry are so in love, yet face so many troubles. Of course the title is revealing; this isn't about a woman coming into her own (a woman who is already fiercely independent), but rather about a steadfast love. By making Clare a possession of Henry in the title, Niffenegger has already relegated her to that "waiting" position she maintains throughout the book.

Despite its realistic and complex look at a single relationship, the book does have its faults. Chief among these is its diminished emotional impact. Sure, at the end I did feel that a some great saga had come to an end, but I wasn't exactly teary-eyed. This is mostly because Clare and Henry are unapologetically selfish characters. They mourn their plight, they both injure other lovers unrepentantly, they decide that they need one another despite the consequences. Perhaps these are realistic human traits-but there isn't much to ingratiate you to either character, both of whom seem to run around in circles throughout the book even as their relationship with one another changes.

The book has plenty of strengths. Its length may have been excessive, but Niffeneger pulls off the intersecting, jumping timeline structure quite well. She uses it for shocking revelations late in the book and a few excellent plot twists. And secondary to the romance of Clare and Henry is an exploration of family. Clare's family, with its dysfunctionality swept neatly under the rug and surfacing during high-tension family affairs with the aid of inebriation, rings painfully true. Developments in the Ingrid and Henry storyline, mirrored by the Gomez and Clare storyline, are a treat for the reader and often provide more insight into the two protagonists than many of their own interactions do. This is a mature and cathartic read, and it succeeds in being epic even if it does fail to rake us across the coals in an emotional sense.

-elln

New Moon (movie)

An adaptation of the second installment in Stephanie Meyer's Twilight saga, New Moon is definitely an improvement over the first film. In fact, it's an improvement over the book as well. Why? A couple reasons, including the fact that the plot contrivances are far less obvious in the movies.

The basic idea is that Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are In Love except that Edward is torn between loving Bella and wanting to suck her blood, seeing that he's a vampire and all. Too bad in the first movie Edward had as much character as a piece of cardboard, especially in the scenes when he isn't staring at Bella completely freaked out.

New Moon itself is a faithful adaptation of the novel, so most of its plot and character problems come from the books themselves. The movie is a solid piece of entertainment, blending tortured romance with slice-of-life with action and supernatural elements--throw in some dark and deadpan humor and you've got it made. The soundtrack is good, the direction is excellent (except for the plethora of close-up face shots which made me feel like the characters were breathing on me), and the art direction is luscious. Watching all those wonderfully dark, beautiful characters on screen is a treat. But the strength of New Moon versus Twilight comes in the absence of one of Twilight's leads and the insertion of secondary character Jacob (Taylor Lautner) as the third side of the love triangle.

What Twilight failed to realize is that (especially aimed at a female audience) lack of dialogue between the two mains leads CANNOT be made up with by pans of Edward and Bella lying in fields, holding hands, and climbing trees. There is no replacement for good dialogue, and it was missing in Twilight. As a result, Edward became inaccessible to the viewer. Not so the case with Jacob. New Moon's script is ten times better than Twilight's and allows for light-hearted and more serious banter between Jacob and Bella; Jacob is a lovable hunk of muscle and a stark contrast to Edward. So in terms of character development New Moon is vastly more satisfying than the first installment of the series.

The only notable disappointment between first and second movie is the lack of screen time for the Cullen clan, a cast of characters who are almost as fun to watch as Edward is dull. And there were a couple poor directing decisions, such as the ridiculous scene where Jacob fumbles around with a motor bike instead of rushing to wounded Bella, and then takes off his shirt to wipe her small head wound. Tell me they weren't thinking about the teenage audience. Also look out for Dakota Fanning all grown-up and playing sadistic vampiress Jane, a high-ranking member of the Volturi.

Plot has never been a problem in the saga, although when examined with a critical eye all the contrivances become apparent. Case in point: Bella's one friend, once Edward leaves, just happens to turn into a werewolf. In movie form, however, it's easier to dismiss these contrivances because of the flair and suspense with which the film is directed. On a personal note, I'm starting to wish Stephanie Meyer had just left the whole werewolf subplot out of it. Vampire politics are fascinating, at least in the movies, in and of themselves; and Jacob as a normal human provided a much more interesting dilemma for Bella. It would crystallize her problem--a happy, mortal life with Jacob, or an immortal and happy life with Edward? It seems like the question would have a simple answer, but immortality messes with the natural order of things, the soul, etc. This dilemma is much more substantial and interesting than the whole werewolves vs. vampires subplot.

As a whole the movie is better than both its book counterpart and the first installment of the series, mostly due to an improved script and a lovable third side of the love triangle.

-elln