Rachel Getting Married (2008)
"I am Shiva the destroyer, your harbinger of doom this evening" says Kym Buchman, a recovering drug addict at the rehearsal dinner of her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding. And, as played by Anne Hathaway in a volcanic, unhinged performance, she most certainly is. Don't expect anything light-hearted from Rachel Getting Married, Jonathan Demme's slow-burning, quietly bruising and then finally explosive observation on family dynamics, pain and old wounds. Even the comedic moments leave a bitter aftertaste. But it's not a cruel film that enjoys dwelling into despair: it's a film that talks about that despair and how to grow from there.
The film opens with Kym's release from rehab so that she can attend her sister's wedding. Right from the beginning it's quite clear that the family relationships are strained: her father Paul (Bill Irwin) is warm and caring towards her, but she sees his concern as mistrust; her mother Abby (Debra Winger), who is no longer married with Paul, feels distant and she is hardly involved in the wedding; Rachel is genuinely happy to have her at the wedding, but she is also resentful for the attention Kym keeps receiving on what's supposed to be the greatest event of her life. The greatness of Jenny Lumet's brutal and profound screenplay lies in the fact that it never picks a side, allowing you to sympathize with every character and understand their point of view. Kym is a mess: she is unpredictable, volatile and self-centered. As a teenager, she did something terrible that she herself deems as beyond forgiveness. But she is also a person wrecked by guilt and genuinely determined to be better. Hathaway's performance is not perfect: in her first truly dramatic role, she is not always entirely believable. But if experience is missing, talent and intelligence are not: even in her weakest moments, her understanding for the role is palpable. She is not afraid of making Kym inappropriate, annoying or even unlikeable, but she's also heartbreaking at portraying her awareness of her painful state and the perception other people has of her. Only at the NA meeting she finds the confidence to truly open up: and as Kym bares her soul, Hathaway finds the aching core of the character.
The movie alternates scenes that are shot in a traditional, modest, clean manner with others, namely the most emotionally heated ones, that are shot with a hand-held camera. Those scenes are particularly interesting in the way they are intentionally unpleasant, the camera so close to the actors' face they look distorted. The visuals enhance the unease of the situation represented, but they couldn't work without the effort of the cast who all deliver. Irwin is incredibly touching as a father trying to make an impossible situation work. Winger is great at conveying the repressed rage behind her graceful but chilly façade. Anna Deveare Smith subtly but firmly leaves an impression as Paul's new wife Carol, who acts as the calm centerpiece of the film. Best of all is DeWitt, who gives a vivid, three-dimensional and poignant performance as Rachel, perfectly capturing her character's conflicted feelings towards Kym. From accusing Kym of trying to steal her spotlight to tenderly bathing her the morning of the wedding, Rachel goes through a lot of different emotions in a short span of time and DeWitt does not miss a beat.
The film has some issues with the pacing and structure: the climax comes a bit too early, to the point that the final act feels needlessly prolonged. But it's an extremely powerful film nonetheless, especially in its ability to make you relate to the characters and their own plights. The situation represented is a very specific one but the emotions evoked are universal. It's a film so intimate that it feels like you're living through the wedding too. It's not perfect, but thanks to the Demme's empathetic eye, Lumet's excellent script and a fantastic ensemble it's one to remember.
The movie alternates scenes that are shot in a traditional, modest, clean manner with others, namely the most emotionally heated ones, that are shot with a hand-held camera. Those scenes are particularly interesting in the way they are intentionally unpleasant, the camera so close to the actors' face they look distorted. The visuals enhance the unease of the situation represented, but they couldn't work without the effort of the cast who all deliver. Irwin is incredibly touching as a father trying to make an impossible situation work. Winger is great at conveying the repressed rage behind her graceful but chilly façade. Anna Deveare Smith subtly but firmly leaves an impression as Paul's new wife Carol, who acts as the calm centerpiece of the film. Best of all is DeWitt, who gives a vivid, three-dimensional and poignant performance as Rachel, perfectly capturing her character's conflicted feelings towards Kym. From accusing Kym of trying to steal her spotlight to tenderly bathing her the morning of the wedding, Rachel goes through a lot of different emotions in a short span of time and DeWitt does not miss a beat.
The film has some issues with the pacing and structure: the climax comes a bit too early, to the point that the final act feels needlessly prolonged. But it's an extremely powerful film nonetheless, especially in its ability to make you relate to the characters and their own plights. The situation represented is a very specific one but the emotions evoked are universal. It's a film so intimate that it feels like you're living through the wedding too. It's not perfect, but thanks to the Demme's empathetic eye, Lumet's excellent script and a fantastic ensemble it's one to remember.
85/100
I really liked this when I saw it. Hathaway and de Witt are excellent, and I usually find Demme's lack of cynism refreshing.
RispondiEliminaI completely agree. Demme has such an ability in finding hopefulness even in what appears like the most tragic situation. His empathy and faith in people is precisely what makes the film stand out from other similar ones.
EliminaHaven't seen this one, but I most likely will down the road for the purposes of my blog.
RispondiEliminaI hope you'll like it when you see it. Hathaway's performance is not universally liked but I thought she was really solid.
EliminaAlso, I had some questions regarding your reviews of the 2005 line up Giuseppe. What would be your thoughts and ratings on the casts of "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" and "A History of Violence"? And since you seem to like Scarlett Johansson considerably more than most people here, what are general thoughts of her as an actress?
RispondiEliminaKiss Kiss Bang Bang:
EliminaDowney Jr. - 4.5 (An excellent comedic performance and he carries the film extremely well. He is one of the few actors who can make cockiness somewhat endearing and he brings a playful energy to the character that makes it absolutely irresistible. It's a very entertaining performance but he also manages to add some substance to the character and he realizes his own arc with surprising subtlety)
Kilmer - 4.5 (Very entertaining performance as well and he manages not to overdo the mannerisms that are often associated with gay characters. Kilmer brings a lot of fun to the proceeding while creating a genuine investement in the central mystery reinventing in an interesting way the trope of the hard-boiled detective. He and Downey Jr. play off each other wonderfully on screen and create a truly enjoyable dynamic between their characters)
Monaghan - 4.5 (She brings a lot of allure to the character but I particularly love the fact that she never allows Harmony to be a mere object of desire. She is charming as hell in the role and is just as entertaining as her fellow co-stars even if the writing behind her character is far more limited. She trascends the boundaries of the role giving a truly wonderful performance and her chemistry with Downey Jr. is lovely)
A History of Violence:
Mortensen - 5 (He's great at the beginning portraying Tom as a genuinely kind and decent man. When more about him is revealed, Mortensen is amazing at portraying his character's growing distress over the harassment his family is subjected to but most importantly over the fact he has to confront his own past. Mortensen is fantastic at showing how Tom is not merely a façade and he has genuinely tried to become a good man but also how he will never be able to get rid of his past. Mortensen convey both the decency and the urge for violence of his character delivering a powerfully ambigous and haunting performance)
Bello - 4.5 (She's great at first at being the loving and supportive wife and, then, as the movie progresses, at showing her growing disillusionment and distrust over her husband. She delivers a devastating portrayal of a woman witnessing the crumbling of her marriage and having to come to terms with the fact that she never really got to know her husband. It's a heartbreaking performance and her tearful, silent reaction in the final scene is especially harrowing)
Harris - 4.5 (Perhaps I'm not as crazy about this performance as most people are, but he's most certainly great. His role is not especially rich psychologically, but Harris makes up for it by being such an unnerving, unpredictable and terrifying presence whenever he appears and he leaves a haunting impression even though his role is relatively small)
Hurt - 4.5 (A very short performance but he is great. He brings the needed authority and power with an underlying killer edge to the role but most importantly he shares an amazing chemistry with Mortensen perfectly conveying the painful, troubled history between the two characters. He is in for a single scene but it's an outstandingly acted one and he does not fail to live up to the huge build up his character is given)
As for Johansson, I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan but I think she's definitely talented and when she commits to her role I think she's capable of being actually quite great. My favorite performance from hers is Under the Skin in which I believe she did an absolutely incredible job at portraying almost wordlessly her character's development as she carefully explores the world and progressively gains a sense of humanity. I also really liked her expressive voice work in Her, her hurricane of a performance in Match Point, her delicate turn in Lost in Translation and her quietly intelligent work in Ghost World. I think she also adds nicely to both The Man Who Wasn't There and Hail, Caesar!. My problem is that she sometimes retorts to an incredibly bland, almost sleepwalking acting style whenever the role does not ask much more than being an object of desire. That is the case in The Prestige, The Black Dahlia, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and the MCU films that I've seen. Overall I think she's a very good actress, though she has to be given a solid role to show that.
EliminaWe seem to be in agreement about the two films. As for Johansson, I definitely don't hold to her to the standard you do. In my opinion, she's one of those actresses who's so limited in range, she needs exactly right script or director to create something notable. She did work in "Lost in Translation" for me, but even then I still thought that was Murray's movie for the most part. I wouldn't even say some of the roles she's been given are the problem, because when compared to other actresses of similar sex appeal, she doesn't have the same type of presence or capacity to rival them. Think of the various performances from Charlize Theron, Michelle Pfeiffer, Margot Robbie and to an extent, Blake Lively. All of them began as glamorized starlets, but even then showed a certain skill and potential that was later unleashed at one point or another. Johansson doesn't have that potential - at least from what I've viewed - and I think if she was able to give a showstopping performance we would've seen it by now. In truth, I don't even think her work in "Under the Skin" or "Match Point" was all that, though she was hardly terrible in either. Like I said, she is sometimes on the ball but when a character is out of Johansson's capacity or interest, it's painfully evident.
RispondiEliminaI think she is surprisingly versatile and in my opinion she can thrive in both very subtle roles (Under the Skin, Her) and more explosive, emotionally charged ones (Match Point). I do think that it is painfully evident in her acting whenever the movie is not a passion project and when the role relies more on her looks than her talent, she can be extremely bland.
EliminaI'm glad we (seemingly) agree that DeWitt is more impressive than Hathaway. Always thought it was a shame that she was overshadowed somewhat by critics and awards to Hathaway's 'narrative' of a clean-cut young actress taking on a challenging role, and it doesn't help that I find Hathaway's performance incredibly overwrought at points (though she does have very strong moments). I'd have cast Amanda Seyfried (though probably a bit young) or to link to Mitchell, Scarlett Johansson in the role.
RispondiEliminaI don't see Johansson in this kind of role, I think she is more effective in roles like Under the Skin or Her, where she can use her screen presence in less conventional ways.
EliminaDeWitt is the best part of the film in my opinion. A layered, rich characterization of a complex character. I'd agree Hathaway had a few iffy moments but as a whole I found her performance to be rather affecting. I could see Johansson and Seyfried doing well in the role too, though not necessarily better than Hathaway.
EliminaMay I have your ratings for the cast?
RispondiEliminaHathaway - 4
EliminaDeWitt - 4.5
Winger - 4
Irwin - 4
Smith - 3.5
Zickel - 3.5
Adebimpe - 2.5
George - 3
Very strong film- should have been nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
RispondiElimina