Posts Tagged ‘Benicio del Toro’

 

Basquiat

The Quiet Colossus

September 11th, 2009

basquiat
Jeffrey Wright is the forgotten titan of American cinema. Few actors with his gravitas have ever been such an afterthought, but if a discussion about the best American thespians unfolds and his name is mentioned, there’s an instant recognition of his talent and the head-nod that you’ve acknowledged an essential figure. (It’s almost as though you earn bonus points for including him in the conversation.) A local theater in Portland recently advertised a “RARE 35mm PRINT!” of “Basquiat,” Julian Schnabel’s outstanding 1996 biopic on the brief but meteoric career of graffiti artist turned 1980s neo-expressionist art world sensation Jean Michel Basquiat, with Wright mesmerizing in the title role. So, the theater’s website hailed the ”Incredible cast including, Bowie, Hopper, Walken, Posey, Del Toro, Oldman, Dafoe and More…” Jeffrey Wright, the film’s fulcrum, the crucial and majestic portrayal, was excised from the list, apparently worthy of reference somewhere in the ether of the ellipsis.

But perhaps Wright’s omission from both the roll call and chats underscore the enigmatic career of a talented actor who during the past 13 years has become a cherished character actor for noted directors in films such as “Ali,” “Syriana,” and “W,” but has yet to break through to filmgoers’ consciousness. At times, he’s graced flawed projects as simply the best thing in them: he was a scene stealer as the ebullient Winston in an underwhelming Jim Jarmusch effort (2005’s “Broken Flowers”); as Jaworski, he’s the only speck of levity in a turgid Sylvester Stallone slasher flick (2002’s “Eye See You”); and he injects a sly insouciance to his turn as Peoples Hernandez, the chief baddie in an unnecessary remake (2000’s “Shaft”). He also represents the only bewildering misstep in the rejuvenated Bond series (the first great actor to play Felix Leiter and, sweet Jack Lord, both “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” have treated him as an afterthought.). Possibly part of Wright’s obscurity also arises from the fact that two of his most prominent and profound performances – as Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Boycott” and Belize in “Angels in America” – were television roles; On HBO, admittedly, but, despite the advertisements, that’s still television.

Wright is a physical chameleon. He possesses a pliable appearance; it’s dexterity so fine that a mustache transforms him dramatically. This way, Wright never appears to look the same in any two movies so, and perhaps this explains part of his relative anonymity, audiences don’t get a fix on him. Emotionally, he’s transmutable, as well. He assumes the identity of his characters, inhabiting their existence while subjugating his own. On screen, you see his characters, not Wright. There’s a natural, genuine quality to his performances. Wright is unquestionably a powerful presence but he foregoes method acting techniques so that he doesn’t unnecessarily overwhelm the part. He seems lead by instincts, not tactics, to find a truth in his portrayals. Because of his respect for the individuality of the characters he chooses to play, he has no signature role and it’s never felt like he’s delivering the same performance twice.

In his breakout movie role following an esteemed stage career, the 30-year-old Wright gives the 20-year-old Basquiat a slinky swagger so, with arms bent at the elbow, his walking faintly resembles tap dancing. Dreads perched on his head, he’s pretty, like Terence Trent D’Arby with a gym membership. Wright also suffuses Jean Michel with a shy yet cocky sweetness. Opening in New York in 1979, the film slowly gets acquainted with Jean Michel when he’s an unknown, purposely sleeping in cardboard boxes in parks, and finding every surface – brick walls, appliances, radial tires, even his girlfriend’s dress, to her chagrin – is a canvass for his spray-painted cryptic quotations and artistic impulses. Tagging along in this early period is Benny Dalmau, (Benicio del Toro – cinema’s most eloquent mumbler), an affable bandmate and buddy. Basquiat insinuates himself, on his own terms, into the SoHo art scene, memorably barging into a restaurant and politely and insistently interrupting the lunch of Andy Warhol (played by a wholly committed David Bowie). Wright gives his laconic character a keen depth, even in unlikely moments, such as when he is lying in bed, stoned, his eyes glassy but reflective; he also provides the artist with a soft but determined voice which was muted at the age of 27.

If “Basquiat” was an exciting introduction to Wright, then with his debut feature Julian Schnabel made the successful transition from artist to auteur. In a review of Schnabel’s latest gallery show last year, John Yau of “The Brooklyn Rail” asked “What aberration allows bad artists to make terrific films?” As a painter who came to prominence as a contemporary of Basquiat’s, Schnabel was a divisive figure, reportedly based on splintered opinions of his work and an abrasively egotistical demeanor. But, in the space of three films – “Basquiat,” 2000’s “Before Night Falls,” and 2007’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly — Schnabel has become an unquestionably formidable, important, and, as Yau suggests, excellent filmmaker. Like Wright, he doesn’t foist himself onto his films; “Basquiat” is restrained, especially for a film by an artist about an artist . A scene where Jean Michel begins work on an empty canvass in his studio is filmed contemplatively at a distance. It is observational and not theatrical as he drapes and smears swaths of paint while the subtle editing brings the piece to completion.

What is remarkable is that Schnabel has earned his status as a great director while making films in one of the more hazardous genres, the biopic. If handled poorly, these movies can be stutteringly episodic and stilted, but Schnabel navigates his stories with fluid, lyrical storytelling. In “Basquiat,” as the young man’s fame escalates in the mid 1980s, and his life speeds up, Schnabel deftly makes sure the buzz doesn’t feel like a swarm. And for a director groomed in the visual, each film is grounded by an enlightening script of a vivid protagonist with a central performance both strong and delicate. “Before Night Falls” catapulted an Oscar nominated Javier Bardem into the international arena in his first non-Spanish language film. The multiple-nominated “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” rested exquisitely on the portrayal by Mathieu Amalric. And in “Basquiat,” you know, what’s his name…?


Che

Guerilla in the Midst

March 31st, 2009

che1
If only every movie had the director delivering his DVD commentary once the house lights come up.

The “Che” roadshow arrived in Portland with Steven Soderbergh in attendance. And after 257 minutes split by just a single quarter-hour intermission, an honest and affable Soderbergh, looking sharp in a black leather jacket, black jeans with Chelsea boots and resembling a Joe Jackson inspiration, offered a glimpse into the filmmaking saga of “Che” and the massive obstacles even an Academy Award winning director with an Oscar winning leading man faces in getting a project greenlighted. At ease, sitting on the edge of the Cinema 21 stage, he was engaging and frank as he recounted a “brutal” shoot which was the most difficult of his career.

The genesis of the project goes as far back as “Traffic.“ Eight years from conception to screen, “Che” was first developed with Soderbergh at the helm, then Terrence Malick, who alighted to the New World after several years work, and finally back to Soderbergh, who shot the two halves consecutively in the summer of 2007. He admitted that once they decided to make the film in the Spanish language, there’d be no money from the U.S. So they relied on European sources. He mused that perhaps they should have made “Che” as a multi-episode miniseries for HBO; the cable network would have provided a bigger budget. Cutting edge digital cameras arrived with just days to spare and still needed tweaking as the production commenced.

Besides the logistical obstacles, it must have been a daunting task deciding how to transfer a biography of Ernesto “Che” Guevara to the screen. Plunked on a pedestal of mythology, the divisive Che was a solider and an academic, a revolutionary with the word and a weapon. But he‘s morphed into the Marxist as marketing tool. He’s a T-shirt icon with a Chris Cornell-like Rock God vibe. Upon the release of “The Motorcycle Diaries,“ Larry Rohter penned a May 2004 New York Times article titled “Che Today? More Easy Rider Than Revolutionary,” which examined Che‘s dichotomous cultural legacy. Jon Lee Anderson, the author of the seminal work, “Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life,” and a chief consultant on Soderbergh‘s film, described Che as “a figure who can constantly be examined and re-examined. To the younger, post-cold-war generation of Latin Americans, Che stands up as the perennial Icarus, a self-immolating figure who represents the romantic tragedy of youth. Their Che is not just a potent figure of protest but the idealistic, questioning kid who exists in every society and every time.” But Mario O’Donnell, a biographer of Guevara as well, noted in the same article that these types of allusions to Greek mythology could reduce Che to a deified stereotype. “The Cubans have excluded everything about Che that is not heroic, including that which is most deliciously human about him. The personal doubts, the sexual escapades, the moments when he and [his traveling motorcycling companion Alberto] Granado are drunk, none of that fits with the immortal warrior they want to project.”

It is this warrior that Soderbergh focuses on. Part One of “Che” is stellar biographical storytelling. It intercuts expeditiously between Guevara‘s first meetings in 1955 with Fidel Castro in Mexico City to the rebel surge across Cuba in the late 1950’s and his defiant appearance in December 1964 before the United Nations. “Che” moves quickly but precisely, steadied by a filmmaker never dawdling but patiently laying out the intertwining elements. It’s methodical and engrossing. The interspersed storylines crafted by screenwriter Peter Buchman make sense and there‘s a keen understanding of Che‘s revolutionary ethos. The story was ably assisted by a quietly clever device at the beginning of the film. Soderbergh opens with a slowly exposed map of Cuba, with regions and cities clearly illuminated in succession as a respectful way to familiarize the audience with the locale and points of interest.

The second part of “Che” centers exclusively on his 1967 quest to foment revolution in Bolivia. Filmed with harsh white sunlight hue and a purposefully muted color palette, Soderbergh said that this part has a purposeful “jagged” feel. The appearance in Part Two of commendable performances from easily recognizable actors — Lou Diamond Phillips, Franka Potente and Matt Damon — doesn’t mean there’s a Hollywood gloss on this portion of the film. It’s a decidedly grittier film than its predecessor. Utilizing the Red One digital camera — a camera that not only afforded Soderbergh more maneuverability but meant that only six shots in the entire film used artificial light — Soderbergh captures a barren landscape of both geographic and political isolation. Where Che was feted as a liberating hero by village after village in Cuba, in Bolivia, he is met by local indifference (and an American presence). His revolution was vaguely organized, with less money and, most crucially, scant indigenous support. So, in Bolivia, where locals seemed hesitant, Che feels like a Marxist imperialist, exporting revolution to folks who aren’t clamoring for it. He comes across as a bit of a policy wonk as well (and this section also highlights that there’s barely an acknowledgement of a personal life in either film).

While imposing, imperious and full blooded, Benicio del Toro doesn’t overwhelm the films in the title role. He is compelling without becoming overpowering. Yet, his Guevara is indefatigable. This unceasing desire mimics the uncompromising arrogance of a demagogue. In his August 1960 speech, “On Revolutionary Medicine,” Che rallied the Cuban Militia with his oft-repeated theme of the Cuban revolution forging a “new man.”

“Then I realized a fundamental thing: For one to be a revolutionary doctor or to be a revolutionary at all, there must first be a revolution. Isolated individual endeavor, for all its purity of ideals, is of no use, and the desire to sacrifice an entire lifetime to the nobles of ideals serves no purpose if one works along, solitarily, in some corner of America, fighting against adverse governments and social conditions which prevent progress. To create a revolution, one must have what there is in Cuba — the mobilization of a whole people, who learn by the use of arms and exercise of militant unity to understand the value of arms and the value of unity.”

He underscores this belief in the subjugation of the individual impulse with a veiled sense that his means to a revolutionary end are something more menacing than a recommendation — indeed, a threat to civil liberties.

“Individualism, in the form of the individual action of a person alone in a social milieu, must disappear in Cuba. In the future individualism ought to be the efficient utilization of the whole individual for the absolute benefit of a collective. It is not enough that this idea is understood today, that you all comprehend the things I am saying and are ready to think a little about the present and the past and what the future out to be. In order to change a way of thinking, it is necessary to undergo profound internal changes and to witness profound external changes, especially in the performance of our duties and obligations to society.”

The Che of this speech is the Che of this epic film; unflinching, charismatic, and persuasive but peremptory; unfailingly dressed in fatigues, draped in ambivalent heroism. Soderbergh described the making of the films as “kind of like a slow motion car accident.” In Che, he’s got one hell of a back seat driver