Three Movies

Recently I saw three movies by well known directors: “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen, “Hugo” by Martin Scorsese and “The Tree of Life” by Terrance Malick.

Two of these directors are superior story tellers. One has his movie on the critics “Best of 2011” lists.

“Midnight in Paris”
Woody Allen has always been hit and miss for me. Much of his work just doesn’t appeal to my suburbanite sensibilities. “Midnight in Paris” hit the mark for me primarily because it could have been written about me. I’ve always dreamed of a Golden Age in the past (or future) and often miss the joys of the present. This is an excellent story told in a masterful way by someone that appears very involved in its plot.

“Hugo”
Much of Martin Scorsese’s work doesn’t appeal to me. I’m just not that into gangster the types of movies he seems to be known for. However, there is one thing that cannot be denied. He loves making movies. That single attribute comes through loud and clear in this amazing story told from the perspective of a boy who lives in the Paris train station. It is a lovely setting filled with outstanding character actors. But, in the end, it’s a simple story, exquisitely told, about the love of film.

“The Tree of Life”
This film appeared on the “Top Five Best Films of 2011” lists of all three critics on a recent TV show. I’d never heard of it, but it happened to be at my local Redbox, so I rushed out and rented it. It may be the first time that I paid $1 for a DVD rental and felt ripped off. This vague story, disjointedly told, of a family is framed in beautiful shots of nature, out of place CGI dinosaurs and Sean Penn kneeling in wet sand wearing a nice suit. If I wanted nature shots I would have watched Planet Earth. As for Sean Penn acting strangely, there’s always TMZ for that.

After the fact, I read several reviews. The critics, it turns out, didn’t get it either. So, why did they like it? Is it because Terrance Malick only comes out of the wilderness every few years to make a movie, so it must be good? Or is it that other, more seasoned, critics liked it, so the newbies just jumped on the bandwagon to avoid looking dumb? Perhaps it’s because it has Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. Anything with two guys like that must be good, right?

I think it’s the same reason people pay $100 million for Jackson Pollack paintings. They’ve been told it’s great art, so by owning it, they’re part of the “IN” crowd. They get it. The problem is there’s nothing to get. The same is true for “The Tree of Life”. It was made for critics to love, not for regular people who enjoy a good story nicely told.