Catfish

What is Catfish?

That is how they're selling this documentary: a big mystery that you can't have spoiled for you. The film starts with photographer Nev receiving a painted recreation of one of his photos in the mail, sent by a young girl named Abbey. Nev contacts the girl and her family on Facebook, and they become online buddies. Nev befriends many of Abbey's family and friends online, including her older sister Megan, and the two eventually become romantically involved. But after 8 months, something happens that makes Nev question how honest Megan, Abbey, and their family have been with him. What's astonishing is that this has all been documented by Nev's brother and his friend. Where the film goes from there, I can't say. Suffice to say, it is emotional, surprising, frightening, uncomfortable, funny, and utterly engrossing.

Few - if any - films have been as much of the moment as this one is. Much of the film is made up of clips of Facebook, Youtube, Google Earth, GPS maps, and other Internet tools we take advantage of every day. The film is just as often shot on camera phones and flip cams as it is on actual cameras. It's an investigation into the way we meet and interact with people, and how it has completely changed in the last decade. Even without the secret final 40 minutes, it is a great piece of film making. But when the ending comes, it really brings to light just how much of a brave new world we live in, how the Internet can bring together people that never otherwise would have connected with each other. That often, we simply want to believe what we're told, because the truth would probably hurt too much.

Our guide through it all, Nev, is a great figure. Funny, charming, quick to let his guard down. Perhaps it is because he didn't think the footage being filmed would become a movie, but Nev is always open and exposed to the audience. The film probably wouldn't have worked with a different person at its center, and the ending might not have been handled with the care it was had he been even a little more cynical or angry. There is a humanity to Nev that you don't normally see in documentarians (be it Michael Moore pushing an agenda, or Werner Herzog going on about the contrast between man and nature), and it makes for a refreshing and vibrant experience.

If I've convinced you to see this movie (and you absolutely should, it is one of the year's best), stop reading here. I need to get something off my chest that, while not a spoiler, would almost certainly change how you experience it.

I am not entirely sure this documentary is real, or at least wasn't staged to a large degree. I never once thought this during the film itself (maybe I am as naive as Nev was), but reading about the film afterward, there are simply too many things to ignore about it. My first reaction to that idea was anger and disgust. If this film was fake, there are certainly some ethical questions to be raised about the treatment of the subject at hand. But the more I though t about it, the more interesting the film became. There seem to be two camps when it comes to the reality of this film. One camp thinks the entire film is not real. What they find when they go in search for Megan isn't a person, but more actors in on the joke. If this is true, there is a central performance in the film that is among the best I have ever seen. Ultimately, I find this angle too hard to believe, and what we learn about Megan's brothers would shed a despicable light on the whole film if this was true.

The other camp is one I find more and more likely. Nev and his friends knew right away that Megan and her family weren't who they seemed to be (the clues were a bit too obvious to ignore, honestly). They decided to frame a documentary around this discovery, stringing along Megan and her family for months in order to get good material before going to find them. Nev and co had no idea what they would find at the end, only that it would be interesting. What they found certainly was interesting, and I think they quickly realized upon this discovery that a careful, tactful approach would be needed. If this is the case, it doesn't necessarily diminish the movie, but does bring into question just how much we can trust the film as a whole. But in a way, isn't that the point of the film anyway? How do we know what someone is telling us is the truth? How do we know they aren't just telling us what we want to hear? In this 21st century digital age, where anything seems possible, is there anything we won't believe? Which brings me back to my original question:

What is Catfish?

Never Let Me Go

Through all of cinema, one cliche has stood the test of time to aid the lazy storyteller. If you have a bad movie, you simply start the movie at least halfway through the story with some shocking or intriguing snippet, then jump back and show us how the film got to that point. It shows that the filmmaker either knows they have a dud, or simply do not trust the audience to appreciate their film without a carrot at the end of a stick. You could probably count on your two hands the number of films that have pulled this gimmick off with any shred of dignity. Never Let Me Go is not one of those films. We start with Kathy (Carey Mulligan) standing wistfully in a meadow, as her voice over recounts the mysterious and tragic events that just maybe could have been avoided. If only they'd known back then what they know now. Etc, etc. Why does the film do this? Because the film then spends the next chunk of the film with a bunch of child actors no one knows and doesn't come out and say what is going on right away. We're simply too dumb to appreciate the film unless we know Carey Mulligan will show up and lend us her star power as she faces tragic circumstances. But Never Let Me Go would not be a bad movie if this cliche was the only thing wrong with it. No, there is plenty more wrong with this film than that.

Never Let Me Go revolves around a central concept that is conveyed to the audience fairly quickly if you pay attention, and it is given away in the trailers, so I will delve into it here as well. It's almost impossible to dissect what went wrong with this film without doing so, so you are warned. Kathy, as well as Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are attending a school for clones. These children are raised to know nothing of the outside world, so that they can easily be harvested for parts later in life. It's actually a really interesting concept, and the film invites questions about a society that would allow this to happen. Unfortunately, it also makes for some of the least interesting characters in recent memory. See, because they've been raised to not understand basic concepts or emotions, these characters are all hollow, empty vessels. There is simply nothing engaging about any of them, only their situation. Often they do things only because they are aware it's what people do. For example, Kathy finds and reads a porno magazine at one point, but she simply stares at it and flips through it. She is neither excited by it or repulsed. There is no emotion at all. These moments (and they come often) are creepy and not engaging.

It's frustrating because we should care deeply that these human beings are going to be killed for their body parts, but I started to feel like they really will be more useful as parts than as human beings. It also makes for three boring central performances (and in Andrew Garfield's case, notably awful acting). All three turn in impenetrable performances that make it hard to care or be engaged. Ruth and Kathy have a bit of a feud over who will get to be with Tommy throughout the film, but with only a few exceptions it feels like neither character really cares about Tommy. Nor do we really understand why anyone would care about him. He hardly talks, and seems to be mildly retarded. And yet both women love him simply because he is there. That isn't enough. There is a moment near the end of the film where Tommy finally gets a moment to emote, but instead of having any sort of gravitas, it elicited laughter from my theater. Garfield's low monotone line readings and inability to engage with his costars makes Tommy into a pitiful fool of a character, and it sinks the core character relationships throughout.

In spite of all this, visually the film stands out. The writing and acting may not have gotten to the heart of what emotions this story should convey, but the alternately sparse and dreamy cinematography certainly did. The film looks like it takes place long ago, only to slowly reveal itself to be more futuristic than we expected. One shot in particular actually stands out as one of the more memorable of the year: a lone boat stranded on an empty beach, mirroring the isolation and displacement these characters must be feeling in the world outside of their school walls. But smart visuals don't make a movie good, they just draw attention to how much everything else seems to be lacking.

I've not read the book upon which this is based, but it seems like the kind of story that works so much better on the page. It's certainly a great concept, but those very basic emotional flaws make it nearly impossible to do with any justice. The core idea of the film is we're supposed to care about these people, to be outraged by the things our society would do to improve life for the wealthy at the expense of others. But at no point did the film engage me with its characters, ideas, or story. And that opening is just the insulting cherry on top of it all.

The Town

Is Ben Affleck the most underrated man in Hollywood? With every passing film he makes, it seems more and more true. The man won an Oscar for writing, has reinvented his acting career the last half decade, and has now become a serious director. Affleck made a string of bad decisions in the early years of the last decade, and it has haunted his career ever since. While his latest directing/acting job won't wash away that ill will for most, it is still another solid step in the right direction. The Town may not be the most original movie (or title), but it is such a solid example of the genre that it's worth watching.

Affleck stars as career criminal Doug MacRay. Doug, along with a collection of lowlife childhood friends, robs banks. After their latest job they kidnap the manager of the bank (Rebecca Hall) in order to make a getaway. They let her go soon after, but she is very shaken by the experience. When they realize that she lives a few blocks away from their usual haunts, Doug decides to approach her to see if she can ID any of them. While she doesn't recognize him, he sees how affected she is by what they put her through. He begins to regret his actions, and she starts to fall in love with the man he pretends to be. The film follows Doug as he tries to balance his old life as a criminal, and the new life he wishes he could live.

Like I said, this is a film you've probably seen before. What makes it pop in spite of that familiarity is the acting and the visual storytelling on display. Affleck is very good as a man split between loyalty to his lifelong friends and his desire for a greater life. He allows a bitter anger to boil under the surface for so long, that whenever it bursts out, it is both shocking yet not really unexpected. The real standout, though, is Jeremy Renner as Affleck's increasingly disturbed best friend. Locked away for nine years for murder, he feels the world owes him something in return for the life he lost. With his grip on reality fading as the film progresses, you both hate him and sympathize with him. And then there is Jon Hamm as the man trying to take these boys down. It is a thankless role, but he makes it his own. He delivers exposition and banters with his partner like a champ, but we never really care about him. When will Jon Hamm get the vehicle he deserves? The man has the charisma and charm of George Clooney, and seems destined to be the next big movie star. The Town doesn't solidify that fact for him, but it seems to be only a matter of time.

Visually, Affleck seems to have grown since Gone Baby Gone. Where as that film had an often flat visual style, he takes some risks in The Town that pay off. One great little touch is the way in which he matches an early shot of a flashback of Renner murdering his best friend with another shot later of him arguing with Affleck. It creates a sudden sense of dread that hits you unexpectedly, making the stakes seem higher than they otherwise would. And the heist scenes, especially the climactic one, are electric. While they often seem to take a page from Point Break (the masks, most notably), they are still thrilling. You get the sense that anything could go wrong at a moment's notice, and the film could take a sudden turn into dark, unexpected territory.

I really just wish that all the pieces had been in support of a stronger story. After Gone Baby Gone, which had an air of importance and originality, this just doesn't feel like a step forward for Affleck as a director. And yet Affleck's visual sense is arguably stronger here than it was there. Ultimately it's a good deal of fun, which can never be argued with, and all the performances are as strong as one could hope for. The Town may feel like a place you've been before, but you won't mind going there again.