Selma (2014)

Selma may be the greatest, most important film of 2014. That’s right, not Boyhood (which is brilliant) or Birdman (which is equally brilliant) as many critics would have you believe. Don’t get me wrong, both of those films are great and deserving of praise, but neither of them is quite as meaningful as Selma. Selma, of course, is the story of Martin Luther King Jr. but make no mistake this isn’t merely a biopic; rather, this film is a very specific snapshot of King’s life, one that focuses mainly on his fight for the African-American’s right to vote and his march from Selma to the capitol of Alabama. The choice to make a Martin Luther King film purely about this one part of his life is nothing short of brilliant and if anything it makes the movie more impactful than a simple overall take on the man himself.

One of the more poignant films made about the civil rights movement (that I’ve seen), Selma honestly couldn’t have come at a more perfect time. The parallels between Selma and Ferguson are almost undeniable and the life and work of Dr. King seems more relevant than ever now. Selma doesn’t dwell on the violence, but it doesn’t shy away from it either. It’s hard to watch the Bloody Sunday scene on the bridge without tearing up, but this movie isn’t about the oppression and violence, or the white man; it’s about Dr. King and his fight for freedom and the dream that he fought so hard to make come true and that’s what makes this film stand out.

As for David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King, it’s damn near perfect and he’s practically indecipherable from the man himself; it’s really a crime that he wasn’t nominated for his role and the Academy should feel ashamed that they missed an opportunity to make a real statement here by giving him a very deserved nomination. Everyone else is incredibly well cast, as well, especially Tom Wilkinson as President Johnson, who absolutely nails the part. Also, shout out to Oprah Winfrey, who blends perfectly into her role as well.

Now, much has been made about the historical accuracy of this film. Some claim that it paints the President in a poor light and dramatizes his opposition to Dr. King, when in actuality he supported King. In my opinion this argument is petty and ridiculous and is akin to those who argue that some slave owners were “really nice” to their slaves and never whipped them, or whatever nonsense racist people say. Bottom line, they owned slaves didn’t they? And the bottom line here is that voting rights for African-Americans wasn’t a priority at all to President Johnson and he definitely dragged his feet the whole way. In fact, the only reason his hand was forced was to prevent more violence. In addition, he was also privy to J. Edgar’s constant wire-tapping and threatening phone calls; perhaps he wasn’t aware of the details, but he had to have known it was happening. To his credit, Johnson does seem to empathize with Dr. King’s cause and he does end up making the right decision, if only not to go down in history as a bigoted racist like the governor of Alabama at the time. Also, so what if the film has made a few historical tweaks to dramatize the film? Other filmmakers do this sort of thing all the time and virtually no one complains; you have to ask yourself why it’s such a big deal when Selma does it.

Finally, if you’ve heard that Selma isn’t getting good reviews (something I’ve heard a few people say) this is false. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes it currently sits at ninety-nine percent with an average score of 8.7, and virtually every legitimate critic has given it a positive review, and with good reason as Selma is a damn good film (also the audience rating is at eighty-eight percent with an average 4.2 out of 5). Ultimately, don’t let the media (or American Sniper) distract you from seeing this one, it may be one of the more important films of our generation and it’s sad that it hasn’t garnered more press and attention, but then I guess it isn’t exactly surprising. Martin Luther King has taken us a long way, but unfortunately, it seems we may still have a long way to go.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020072/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Birdman (2014)

We’ve all seen it happen before. A young, relatively unknown actor makes it big, getting cast as the next big super hero; the franchise is popular and immediately spawns sequels; the actor is suddenly one of the biggest stars in the world and gets casting calls from great directors like Ron Howard, Martin Scorsese, etc. Then one day, the franchise no longer feels fresh; the actor is booted and some other young rising star takes his place in the reboot. The old actor is now a shell of what he once was and desperately attempts to cling to relevancy while the world laughs and forgets. The complete and elaborate exploration of the aftermath of this story is what Birdman is about, but that is not necessarily what makes Birdman such an intriguing art piece and one of the best films of the year.

There’s likely only two movies released in 2014 (that I’ve seen so far) that I can say truly blew my mind (sorry but Interstellar is totally not one of them) the first is Boyhood and the second would be Birdman. Now, if Boyhood is a long overlooking picture dedicated to the journey of childhood, Birdman is almost the opposite; Instead, the film is more of a snapshot taken near the end of a man’s life, and contained within this snapshot is every fear, failure and regret that Riggan (played rather admirably by an intense Michael Keaton) has ever had and still has.

There’s a lot to love about this film, but one aspect that really makes this film unique is the cinematography; throughout the entirety of the film all the way to the last fifteen minutes or so, the movie is filmed as one, single take. The camera seems to be a character itself as it follows people down hallways, jumping from one character to the next without a single cut, panning to show reaction shots and pulling back from the scene at just the right moments. Certainly, the cinematography here is deserving of all the accolades I’m sure it will be receiving in the coming months; the timing alone is mind boggling throughout the film.

To focus too much on the camera would be to ignore the truly unique storytelling in this movie; from the very beginning we’re thrown straight into the situation without any setup and we’re forced to catch on as we go. This method works perfectly and mostly avoids any (terribly, awfully) boring exposition-type dialogue, while also managing to keep the viewer interested and engaged rather than lost and bored. We’re also left to wonder who’s perspective we are seeing in the film as time goes on, I don’t wish to spoil anything so I won’t get into the details here, but suffice to say there is at least some doubt as to whether our “narrator” (being the camera here and not an actual voice-over thankfully) is actually reliable or not, and the end of the film leaves plenty of room interpretation.

Another element of Birdman is the depth of the characters, and for once the characters in this film actually feel real and believable. Not since Boyhood has there been a film where I really appreciated the writing of not just the main characters but the supporting characters as well. Without ever having to necessarily say anything we can feel the history between characters and it definitely feels real. Also, kudos to Edward Norton for completely pulling off the pretentious, douchey actor role (it doesn’t seem to exactly be a difficult role for him to channel) and bringing the very idea to a whole new level.

In essence, Birdman is a parody of Hollywood and a parody of those who hate Hollywood and a parody of us all, and it works beautifully. At one point, Michael Keaton chews out a theater critic who boasts that she will ruin his play; he calls her out as a fraud who merely puts a label on things and never actually puts anything on the line herself. He claims that he’s the real artist because he works his ass off and puts his all into his acting, baring his soul to the world and thus making himself ultimately vulnerable. This definitely got me thinking (being someone who likes to write reviews as a hobby) and I have to say it’s something I’ve always felt about a lot of critics. Too many are simply slamming a film without thinking, wrapping up an entire film with some pretentious, snazzy one-liner that maybe someone will glance at on Rotten Tomatoes and then say “well, I heard the reviews were bad.” On the other hand, many clamor to praise a film simply because it’s hyped and the director is really famous and because all the other critics are praising it, without even evaluating the film on its own merit. However, to say a critic doesn’t put anything on the line I think is false. Anytime one makes their opinion public, it invites its own criticism and putting out a review, while certainly not on the same level as putting out a film or play, is also risky and means opening oneself to the public, something that is scary no matter what. Really, I think that may be one of Birdman’s better points, and it’s definitely something that we should all keep in mind, especially when critiquing someone’s else’s beloved self-creation.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Boyhood (2014)

If you’ve been paying close attention to any of the numerous independent films released this year, chances are you’ve heard a lot about Boyhood, the remarkable 12-year project from Richard Linklater. However, if you’re not one to follow the indie scene, you may not have heard of this generation-defining film, or what makes it so unique.

On its surface, Boyhood sounds like a normal, maybe even boring motion picture about a boy growing up, but if that’s all you know of Boyhood, you’re missing out. The remarkable thing about Boyhood isn’t necessarily the script, or the directing, or the acting (although all of these elements of the film are impressively on point) what sets this film apart is how incredibly long it took just to film this movie. Instead of hiring several different actors to play the main character (Mason, who makes for a uniquely interesting protagonist) Richard Linklater made this film over 12 years, with the same actors as they actually aged over that time period. Thus, even though Boyhood is scripted, watching the film is almost like watching an actual boy progress through his childhood. I can’t stress enough how much of a difference this makes in the movie; the characters feel like real people and we really feel as if we are watching these people grow and not just as actors playing fictional parts, but it feels real. Honestly, I could write a whole essay about just how unique this aspect of the film is alone, but I’ll just leave it at this: it makes for a ground-breaking experience.

As for the story itself, it’s actually very engaging; young Mason goes through a lot of experiences that many of us have shared and some that maybe a lot of us haven’t, but through it all I felt as though Boyhood is the kind of film that all of us can relate to, and not just boys. This is really the story of growing up, and since all of us can appreciate that on one level or another, it’s the perfect film to watch and reminisce on your own life; I know I found myself getting excited when I recognize a few toys in the background that I’d owned myself as a child (anyone remember Gameboys?). In one scene Mason and his father (a virtually perfect performance by Ethan Hawke here) have a conversation over a campfire about whether there’ll be a Star Wars movie, (this of course was filmed long before anyone knew Disney would milk the franchise to the bitter end) it’s a simple scene but it made me laugh and reflect on similar conversations I’d had with my own father. That’s what Boyhood is all about.

Another thing I like about Boyhood is its objectivity; this isn’t a Disney film where the parents are/were perfect (dead) role models, but it isn’t a Steven Spielbierg movie either where the kids rule and the parents are just dumb bumbling idiots. There’s a delicate balance here as there is in real life and the film never offers an opinion on who’s right and who’s wrong. Several times Mason’s mother (his father and mother are separated so he lives with his mother) makes some questionable decisions, but the film never judges her, nor does it shy away from showing her imperfection. The same goes for the father, his relationship with the kids is just as flawed even though it’s drastically different.

When the film finally reaches the end, we the audience feel like we’ve been through a real journey, but it’s not really over; because really, Mason’s life is just beginning as he leaves boyhood and enters manhood. The way the film ends perfectly reflects that (I don’t want to give away any spoilers on this one) it feels like the end of an era, but also the beginning of a new one, and I couldn’t imagine a better way for this film to end.

Boyhood is a long film (almost 3 hours), and I could go on for pages and pages, but I’ll keep it short because this is a film that you should experience for yourself. I urge you if you see one film this year, make it Boyhood (but also go see Guardians of the Galaxy because that one’s just too much fun) I promise you it’s an experience you’ll never forget, just like your own childhood.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1