Each makes you wait on it. None pushes. Each doesn't have a terribly sharp turn of plot, although the acting and cinematography in them are quite remarkable; all with many scenes well-shot in impressively long takes. But the most significant thing I noted was their similar endings. "Take Shelter" tells of a contemporary blue collar family living in small town Ohio. The husband/father slips into what I would call a vague Rapture watch. Not necessarily Biblically proportioned, it could be a man-made cataclysm, a gigantic tornado or maybe a Katrina kind of hurricane. But how often do hurricanes assault the Buckeye state, I ask. The film spends all its time with the man re-tooling his backyard storm shelter, while gazing at an intermittently threatening sky that rains lightweight motor oil (he says). He doesn't tell his wife and little girl that he's expecting something calamitous. He doesn't want to worry them. He's a good egg. People think he going nut-so doing his cellar prep. Is he, or isn't he? His mother went into early assisted-living due to her late-blooming paranoid/schizophrenia. Will he be correct about his premonition, or is he sliding into psychosis? That's for you to wait on---through the whole damned movie. Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain give excellent turns as the husband and wife. Their relationship and family life are the strong points of "Shelter." But "Taking Shelter" is more than merely just deliberate. It comes up short on payoff. For me, films that never stop putting the question to you till the last frame should have a definitive payoff, or a strategy, at least, that allows for a wait that's been worthwhile. (Speaking of waiting: "Waiting for Godot" does have a pay off.) The payoff time in "Marsha Marcy Mary Marlene" goes AWOL, too. It also demands taking its time, but with undue confusion while "4-M" gets caught up in almost clever-cute visual segues from then to now...and back again. Most scenes make a game of what the hell's going on. Each begins cold, minus any setup, then progresses to a sort of internal finale that's not big on communicating anything of significance, although, in one instance, something quite grisly. The young woman with the four names: is she this....or is she that (?), sort of like the guy remodeling his shelter. But Marcy is a lot more screwed-up than the guy with bad dreams and a dreadful premonition. Is Marcy into being battered by a Charles Mason-kind of nazi-guru-dude, or does she want to take up, again, a more conventional way of life with her only living blood relative: the big, married sister who, with her husband, wants get pregnant? Creepy is the word for all of "4-M." But more than creepy is its ending. It "out-ambiguates" (my word) how things wind up back at the shelter in Ohio. Elizabeth Olsen and her lovely face are an obsession of the guy who made this movie. But, I can see why. Ms. Olsen looks like she could be the better-looking little sister of Maggie Gyllenhaal. And that's saying a lot about Ms. Olsen's beauty. It's her motion picture, and should cement a film career for Olsen that, with luck, boasts better scripts. But, don't count on that, moviegoer. Now, the skinny on the third film of this trilogy: "Shame." No, I said "Shame," not "Shane." It's rated (gulp) NC-17, if you get my meaning. Bare female breasts, pubic hair of both genders, fleeting glimpses of Mr. Fassbender's unfettered package and bodacious, but genitalia-out-of-frame sex-play show up just quite a bit for those who "enjoy" loveless, self-absorbed coitus with serial partners; ninety-nine percent of it, hetero. Implied, but not explicit male masturbation is, uh, the specialty of the house. Mr. Fassbender's character is a sex addict, if you haven't guessed already. But putting the, uh, cherry on top of this sex sundae, it's Carey Mulligan as his sister. She's younger than her bro, but with just about as many issues as Marcy in "4-M." Sis's biggest problem, and her brother's as well, is that they have sex---with each other. Yip, but I don't want to type-out the word that says it, even though the late George Carlin could've blurted it on broadcast television without getting his mic cut. Ms. Mulligan is stellar in the part. Her scene slowly singing all of "New York, New York" in the lounge of a small New York City club may well get her nominated for something. It's one of the best in "Shame"...for her and Fassbender. Well worth seeing. She seems to be slipping, though, into a sort of Jody-Foster-victim-track in movies. That, despite Mulligan known for playing much more sanguine than the mighty, kick-ass Ms. Foster. "Shame," is however, as with Elizabeth Olsen, Fassbender's flick. He's just great, even though caring for his character is an impossibility. In spite of its depravity (near that of the first "Crash," a la David Cronenberg), "Shame's" very subtle message, which you also must wait for till the very end, is: how especial love and respect are in a relationship. You'll have to keep your eyes focused very closely on the eyes of the actors doing the final scene to pick up on that, but it's there. It's a payoff, folks. A good one, even for a movie that's filled with uncomfortable moments for those who can get up enough courage to go see it. Funny thing: all these movies, I saw in three days' time---in a row. And all ended with my having to read the eyes of the actor or actors to infer what I longed to know as the narrative wrapped. One out of three is a good batting average.
Gary Chew can be reached
at garychew@comcast.net |
