Posts by author:

Tim Adkins

My brother married a Canadian woman. They exchanged vows in an Ontario border town situated at the most eastern and most southern point of Lake Superior.  For the reception, the bride’s family–who had emigrated from Italy–supplied enough good wine to fill up all five Great Lakes. (All of it was consumed.) The maid of honor made a toast that used the word “fuck” in a tasteful manner.  When the DJ played a Michael Jackson medley, a group of middle-aged men performed an impromptu half strip tease. After the reception, my cousin won two grand at a poker table at the border town’s casino. My other cousin hooked up with the bride’s best friend. Who was a smokin’ hot exotic dancer. (Not as much of a redundancy as you may think.) The morning after the wedding, I woke up in a bath tub. Wearing a tuxedo. With a big pile of gnarled chicken bones on my chest.

My college roommate–who went on to become an attorney–married an Indian woman who worked as a pediatrician. They celebrated their nuptials at a big country club just outside of Washington, DC. He made his entrance riding a massive pale horse. (The grounds of the country club wouldn’t accommodate an elephant.) Both of their families are Indian so the September ceremony stretched for nearly five hours. The club had four different bars, which allowed me to toggle comfortably between college football and the ceremony.  In the course of that wedding day, I ate 40 lbs of food. And, by one conservative estimate, I ingested 11 gallons of curry. Along with seven gallons of bourbon. Also a conservative estimate. At the tail end of the wedding night, I was on the verge of winning $300 in a friendly game of cards. But I had to sell my chips when my other college roommate called me in a panic. He had wandered off very drunkenly from the reception several hours prior and had passed out somewhere on the club’s golf course. He hadn’t sobered up enough to navigate his way out of there and had rang a dozen people from the wedding party before I answered. It took five of us two hours scouring the fairways before we found him. It took all six of us another hour to escape that well-manicured jungle.

There was a different wedding where I “met” a chick at the reception then got “stuck” in a hotel room with her after we both “volunteered” to be bumped from our overbooked return flights. Then there was the wedding that was held at a museum. (I’m pretty sure the Chagall was damaged before we got there.) At another wedding, Fergie–who happened to be the groom’s first cousin–sang a Luther Vandross standard for the newly married couple to dance their first dance to.(*)

I haven’t been to a great many weddings, but a significant number of those I have attended have been…epic. In one way or another. So I feel like I know some shit about how weddings are really supposed to go down. And I feel qualified to declare that weddings–all weddings from this point forward–have been ruined by a movie.

Rachel Getting Married is not new. You may remember it. It came out a couple years back and earned Anne Hathaway her first Oscar nomination. The conceit is surprisingly simple: a recovering addict is released from a rehab center to attend her sister’s wedding which is being held at their father’s Southern Connecticut mini-estate. Rachel, the one getting married, is on the verge of finishing a PhD in psychology. The guy she’s marrying is a musician. We learn that–and a whole lot more–about the two people who are about to make a very happy couple as we watch the sister slash addict–played by Anne Hathaway–awkwardly integrate herself back into the broken family.

Why was it broken? Well…there was a tragic death in the family that ultimately caused the divorce of Mama Rachel and Papa Rachel. The Anne Hathaway character had something to do with the tragedy. And, to the chagrin of some, she was not the one who ended up dead because of it. I won’t say much more about the plot as the flick has been running pretty regularly on pay cable and, since it is very 8-y, you should definitely see it if you haven’t already.

Before the film ruins weddings, it is first an exploration of family. And, as the members of Rachel’s blood and extended families mingle to administer to all the details of the wedding, we get some interesting insight into how a family can function.

On its face, the prospect of being part of a family is good for one’s health and rewarding for the soul. There will be someone to pour hydrogen peroxide over your bloody, gravel-filled knee after you lose control of your bicycle. There will be someone to cheer your name when a diploma is handed to you. And there will be someone who cries joyfully on the happiest day of your life. Between all those big, boldfaced moments on the time line of a family, there are the little moments that, when taken together with the boldfaced moments, raise a larger question: does a family prop each other up or hold each other back?

(There is, of course, such a thing as a dysfunctional family. But that has far less to do with the family and much more to do with the dysfunction. To be frank, that type of conglomeration is a vomitous pile of something that was supposed to taste good, but instead caused a revolt of the taste buds of all involved.)

Rachel Getting Married kinda makes us think “hold each other back” is the answer. As we learn about the addict, her addiction and how her family tried to navigate its way through their own special ring of hell, we see that love is only as valuable as it is intelligent. Blind support or desperate affection is extremely counterproductive–for all parties involved. You probably could pick up any of a dozen semi-crappy romantic comedies to obtain that cliched revelation. What makes Rachel Getting Married a valuable movie experience is the raw way in which each character gets to have their own moment to make the case for “propping up” or “holding back.” As each character does, we find that the truth–as it usually does–lies somewhere in the middle. Families do both. They can’t help it. Smart families recognize when they’re holding each other back and they make the necessary choices to get back to the propping. Those families who aren’t smart enough…well…they struggle together. Or, rather, because of each other. Until the day comes when they figure it out.

But this wasn’t supposed to be a rant about families, now, was it?

In the movie, Rachel Getting Married, the coolest wedding proceedings imaginable unfold casually and carefully. We start with what appears to be the rehearsal dinner. There’s no nervous walk-through followed by slightly tense interactions between families and friends who wil be forced to share at least a part of each other. Instead, there’s a concert. Or, to be more accurate, a series of performances. By a dope electric guitarist. A dope spoken word artist. A dope jazz ensemble. A dope comedian. A dope choir. In short, the whole shit was dope. (The groom was actually played by one of the dudes from TV on the Radio, I think.) And then they sat down for dinner where everyone took turns giving speeches about the bride and groom. Both of the Moms. Both of the Dads. All of the Siblings. Both of the Best Friends. A number of the not-so-best friends. And…I kid you not…Fab 5 Freddy.

Yeah. THAT Fab 5 Freddy.

And that brings us to the ultimate lesson from Rachel Getting Married–the one that ruined weddings forever moving forward.

You and I have both been to some pretty amazing weddings where some outrageous characters have done some exceedingly memorable things. You’ve probably seen some crazy drama from an evilbitch bridesmaid or dumbass dude who can’t hold his liquor. (You may have performed in one or both of these roles.) Since weddings all need to accomplish the same thing–to legally tether two people to each other–they all kinda have to exist within the same framework regardless of the richness associated with any particular tradition.

Since we know the ultimate spoiler to every wedding proceeding–the groom will kiss the bride and they’ll march off happily into the ever after–wouldn’t it be cool if all the players who make up the scenes that comprise the wedding could be cast instead of invited? And wouldn’t it be cool if you could write those scenes yourself rather than conforming to some overused script?

Like, instead of some random cotton-topped dude sitting at Table 7 trying not to stare at the cleavage of the 19-year-old blonde at Table 6, why not have Fab 5 Freddy chomping on a cigar and teaching the assembled children how to properly tag a subway car? Or telling stories about crazy nights spent in some Jamaican shanty town? Or doing whatever Fab 5 Freddy does to be cooler than 100 polar bears’ toenails?

Maybe you wouldn’t cast Fab 5 Freddy–if you wouldn’t then you should probably unfriend me everywhere on and off the internet–but there’s gotta be someone you could dream up to be a guest star at your wedding who would be far more interesting and entertaining than your co-worker from two jobs ago who you haven’t talked to in a year.

Going back to the movie, Fab 5 Freddy was just one of several elements that pushed the proceedings several stages past epic. There was a whole lot more music on the actual wedding day. A samba troupe. A folk singer and his band. A Jamaican dance hall singer. An alt-rock band. A DJ. And maybe a couple others I’m forgetting. The ceremony itself borrowed from Hindu and Judaic traditions and was executed with surprising simplicity. Mr. and Mrs. Rachel exchanged original vows which each ended with a simple phrase, “Thank you for marrying me.” The bride’s vows quoted her father. Most of the groom’s vows consisted of him singing a verse from a Neil Young song. When it came time for the officiant to make things official, he asked both the bride and the groom, “Do you?” When it was time for food to be served, the bridal party–even the dolled-up Rachel–tied on some aprons and delivered plates piled with meats grilled by an unnamed uncle to the hungry attendees. Also, there was an actual Wedding Czar played by the wildly entertaining poet Beau Sia.

So there was much more to the nuptials in Rachel Getting Married than just a bunch of dope artists. There was an aura of mutual compassion, an element of service, a subtext of humility and an eagerness to celebrate the genuine love two souls share for each other.

Your friends and family may love you, but are they truly worthy of being cast to perform in your wedding scene? More importantly, what kind of wedding scene can you dream up? Who cares if your family is Chinese and her family is Irish Catholic? What’s the coolest possible thing you could say to your soul mate in front of a room full of people? Cumbersome white gown or comfortable purple sari? Do you really need cake? Or would you prefer to leap into a pool filled with chocolate pudding? Do you have to have a priest or would you rather have an emcee preside over your loving shenanigans?

Whatever you do, don’t forget to invite Fab 5 Freddy. You can no longer have a proper wedding without him.

* 87% of the three introductory paragraphs is completely true. But I can’t remember exactly which 87%.

{ 0 comments }

Homer Simpson is a simple man. He likes enormous portions of everything that he likes. Donuts. Bacon. Beer. And all of the other things that make life worth living. Homer, as a good many of you know, also has some experience with ex-plo-zhe-uns.

I didn’t learn gluttony from Homer. But I probably learned how to do it better from watching back-to-back episodes of The Simpsons during the early days of its syndication. On the occasion of the US soccer futbol team getting bounced from the 2010 World Cup, I chose to mute my sorrows by engaging in at least one act of gluttony. Fortunately for my liver, that act did not involve quarts of rum. (Only a single quart.) It did involve an incalcuable number of ex-plo-zhe-uns.

This weekend, I bought one ticket to get past the ticket taker at the 48-screen movie theatre near my house. On the other side of that ticket taker, three of the theatre’s auditoriums screened Knight and Day, Jonah Hex and The A-Team, respectively. All of them probably cost a bunch of money to make because each of them overflowed with ridiculous stunts and, you guessed it, ex-plo-zhe-uns.

(Okay. I’m done with that word now. I promise.)

I started my movie marathon with Knight and Day. I’m not sure why that film was titled that way. One character’s real name was alleged to be Knight. As for Day…there wasn’t any plot device I remember that relied on anything having to do with that word. Maybe the title tested well. Maybe some marketing person thought the phrase would be easy to remember. If I were in charge of naming the picture, I would have called it: Two Giant Movie Stars Who Are a Little Bit Out of Their Prime Who Will Do Some Cool Stuff Together for Two Hours. ‘Cause that’s pretty much what that movie was about. Nothing else about the film mattered. Not where the characters come from. Not what their arcs were. Not even whether the story ended happily or not. What you get is a double dose of crazy–Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz–that has almost come to terms with their lack of sanity and still has decent chemistry together. Also, both of ‘em are in really, really good shape. Like, the kind of shape that is a walking advertisement for whomever their trainers are. If I was a kajillionaire with at least four hours of free time every day, I would definitely hire Cruise’s trainer. Although Diaz’s trainer would suffice. Oh yeah…one last thing about the movie…a whole lot of shit got blown to bits.

I wanted to stick around for The A-Team, but it started about an hour after Knight and Day ended so I needed a bridge movie to keep me in the theatre. Jonah Hex wasn’t on my itinerary, but it did span the two flicks I wanted to see. I missed its first 20 minutes or so. And I left before its final reel unspooled in order to see The A-Team. During the hour or so I watched, I saw John Malkovich blow up a Civil War-era train. I also saw Josh Brolin burn down a 19th Century pop-up arena. And I saw not nearly enough of Megan Fox’s body. The short summary of my Jonah Hex experience: some of the dynamite went boom and some of it fizzled.

And that brings me to The A-Team. Did you see the trailer for this one yet? (Hell, maybe you’ve already seen the film itself.) In any case, there’s a scene where a tank is dropped from an airborne airplane. It’s a great, thunderous absurdity. And it was one of several bursting exercises in the ridiculous that made it into the final cut of the movie. Which is the only thing anyone should have expected from that flick. And that’s not a bad thing either. Sometimes, the ridiculous and the absurd is exactly what you need.

I’ve seen plenty of films that moved me. Films that explained life to me when I struggled to figure it out on my own. Films I have come to quote like some kind of Dead Sea Celluloid. Films that have become…my friends. Consequently, I know what qualifies as great fuckin’ art. And I appreciate that shit. Like, a whole, whole lot. But art isn’t always necessary. Sometimes, you need a cheap thrill. A cliche, even. Something that’s really big. And kinda dumb. And, hopefully, a little bit of fun.

‘Cause when it’s a million degrees outside and your favorite team lost the most important game of its season…big screen ex-plo-zhe-uns are one of the few things that can make you feel better.

Well, that and a quart of rum. And, possibly, a meatball sub. ‘Cause there’s never a wrong time for a meatball sub. MMMMMMM…meatball sub.

{ 1 comment }

Early in the second act of Get Him to the Greek, intern Aaron Green (played by Jonah Hill) is hungover and squirming nervously as the limo carrying him and Aldous Snow (played by Russell Brand) inches through the morning rush in London. Green meekly asks the driver to drive faster or take another route. The driver answers smarmily. Green whispers to himself, “We’ve got 30 minutes to make an international flight. That’s enough.”

With that line, Get Him to the Greek seems to define itself as a fantasy. There’s no way in h-e-double-rugby-sticks that you can get to Heathrow, clear security and get to your gate in 30 minutes when you’re still crawling through London traffic. (Full disclosure: I’ve missed a flight facing exactly that scenario.) There’s also nothing at all wrong with this kind of fantasy–as long as the rest of the film gets the memo that it is supposed to take place outside of reality. Unfortunately, that memo didn’t complete its rounds.

If you missed the trailer for Get Him to the Greek, the executive summary goes like this: Green, the intern, is dispatched by manic record label chief Sergio Roma (played by Sean “His Momma Name Him Sean, I’ma Call Him Sean” Combs) to retrieve formerly massive rock star Snow from the UK and escort him to LA for a career-reviving anniversary show at the Greek Theatre. Green must complete the retrieval in 72 hours. Snow kinda knows what is going on, but behaves without enthusiasm and does not appear at all prepared for the gig. Additionally, Snow is estranged from his baby mother. And from his own father. And Snow is known the world over as a world-class debaucher who abuses every known substance. And Snow is Green’s musical hero. And Green is really unfulfilled by his live-in girlfriend (played by Elizabeth Moss) who is a workaholic nurse. And…I think that’s about it. The tangential story lines pile up kinda high in this film. But I’m pretty sure that’s all of them. (Unless you count Sean Combs doing his best Les Grossman impersonation that may actually be an impersonation of…Sean Combs.)

The part about escorting the rock star drives the film. It’s an obvious fantasy that delivers exactly what you’d expect: booze, boobs, belly laughs and some songs you can kinda sing along with. The part about the torture of the rock star is not fantastic at all. Poor relationship with his pops. Betrayal by his special lady friend. His ego sabotaging his art. Those parts feel very real–and very tacked on. Almost as if they belong to a different film. Something darker and more indie. I suppose we need some kind of conflict other than the ticking clock recording the battle versus the ridiculous deadline. But if we’re being asked to overlook all the impracticalities of the travel itinerary–and the insulting implication that music is a job you don’t actually have to work at–then why not commit completely to the zany in the way The Hangover did? I understand the urge to ground a fantasy in something relatable, but the un-fantastic tangents in Get Him to the Greek are distracting. They made me wonder if we were really watching a Russell Brand biopic. (Which would be pretty cool. That guy is sneaky intelligent.) They’re also a bit of a bummer. We really could have used more boobs. And more of whatever Sean Combs was doing.

Get Him to the Greek is not a bad film. It’s entertaining in places. It just feels disconnected from itself. Like it’s a series of YouTube clips that really want to grow up to be a whole movie. They wanted to, but they didn’t.

DYL MAG Rating: A 6 that kinda wants to be a 5.

{ 0 comments }

Somewhere in the comic universe, there is a Mason-Dixon Line (a Stark-Wayne Line?) that separates Marvel from DC. Fierce battles take place across that line. As you may guess, dear reader, this is…not…one of them.

You’ve heard about Iron Man 2, right? It’s, like, the biggest movie in the world. Right now. (But not of ever. Some other movie has that title.)

The Losers? Well…that one is…not so big.

Which is to say that this post has absolutely nothing to do with fair fights.

Iron Man 2 represents the Marvel camp. It is, of course, the sequel to Iron Man, a pretty classic book that has gone in and out of print and gave great inspiration to the Ghostface Killah (never gettin’ iller). The sequel stars Robert Downey, Jr., an Oscar winner, the guy who toplined Angel Heart [SPOILER], and the hottest woman on the planet*. It was released in early May and has earned north of $250 million in North America since its opening. There’s a strong likelihood that you’ve already seen it. 

The Losers represents the DC camp. It’s a really old school comic from WWII that has kinda been rebooted a couple of times and lacks a cool rapper to give it any credibility. It stars Nancy Botwin’s dead husband, Stringer Bell [SPOILER], the guy who is about to play Captain America, Michael from The Lost Boys [RIP] and the hottest woman on another planet*. It was released in late April and has earned south of $25 million in North America since its opening. There’s a strong likelihood that you hated having to watch so many commercials for it during the closing weeks of the NBA regular season.

The tale of the tape is pretty obvious, huh? This match-up was a bit like asking a clementine to battle a Red Delicious apple. If the NBA play-offs hadn’t taken a couple of days off, it may never have happened. But they did. So it did. When I bought one ticket and watched both films a couple of nights ago.

Iron Man 2 is very six-y. That dude Dustin said so. I’m inclined to agree. To a degree. Any time you plop down to watch a movie that has the number 2 in its title, you can only really expect one thing: it’s gonna try to make another boatload of money based on all of the cool things that happened in the movie that preceded it. Hollywood is a business. No one has gone too far to see that. Iron Man 2 is an exercise in cool. And it works. Mostly.

I cannot say the same about The Losers. It’s also an exercise in cool. But it doesn’t work. Whereas Iron Man 2 made a sincere attempt to develop or expand a narrative, The Losers was just a collection of scenes where some kinda cool shit happened that involved some people who were trying to act cool, but the story didn’t tie together at all. It’s a popcorn movie that forgot to bring the butter. And the salt. Which is not necessarily a fail. But is really, really, really far from success.

To be perfectly frank, the best thing I can say about The Losers is that it provided an opportunity to see a trailer for this movie. Which looks like it could be the popcorn-iest movie of all time. Which ought to be a very cool thing. As long as the butter helps it all congeal properly.

WINNER: Iron Man 2.

LOSER: Screenwriter for The Losers.

*Denotes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And you should probably go on ahead and behold that.

{ 0 comments }

Some films are muddy. They give us good guys who are kinda bad or bad guys who are kinda good. They obscure the conflict. They make us guess. They confuse us. They dare us to unravel them.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is not one of those films. Yet, it delivers us a stunning lesson on the slippery graybrownness of evil.

We meet Soraya M. in the past tense when her auntie shares the story of Soraya’s stoning with a French journalist. The journalist is serendipitously waiting for his car to be repaired in a sleepy village somewhere in the bowels of Iran circa the mid-1980s as the country is sorting itself out following the demise of the Shah. Soraya M. was an anonymous wife and mother who lived in the village. Soraya M. was married to a big, nasty jerk who beat the crap out of her, worked at a prison in some not-so-distant city, drove a brand new sportscar, banged a bunch of prostitutes and manipulated the local Mullah to not-so-quietly run the village. The couple had two sons and two daughters. In addition to the husband’s prison gig, Soraya and the kids did some subsistence farming on a small plot of dusty rocks. After the husband grew bored with village life — and with Soraya– he sought a divorce so he could start a new life in the city with a newer, younger wife. The husband proposed terms for their divorce. Soraya said no. As soon as Soraya declines, we know immediately that things are going to get ugly. And we can surmise that ugly in a small Iranian village after the ‘79 Revolution is a far, blood-curdling cry from ugly in a Western divorce court.

Some other stuff happened before the actual stoning of Soraya M. The other stuff is kinda important as it provided a sorry excuse to falsely charge Soraya M. with a form of adultery that didn’t involve actual intercourse–a petty crime she clearly did not commit. The other stuff also drew lines distinguishing just how self-righteous or savage (or both) the people in Soraya’s village turned out to be. As we learn about one supporting character or another, we see exactly how their actions helped drive the series of events that culminated in the stoning. But when we finally arrive at the stoning, it doesn’t really matter who did what or who cast the first stone. Nearly everyone in the village threw a stone. And nearly everyone in the village–save for Soraya, Soraya’s daughters and Soraya’s auntie–is a bad guy. A very, very bad guy. You could even call all of the stone throwers … evil.


Evil is supposed to be a simple thing. And it is. It’s Hitler. It’s Charlie Manson. It’s the San Antonio Spurs. It’s a nefarious force that is instantly recognizable. But why exactly is it recognizable? Could it be that evil is just a touch … familiar?

Human beings are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. We all posess an innate, undeniable capacity to sustain ourselves. That capacity to sustain can manifest in a number of ways. It’s most commonly understood — thanks to Abraham Maslow — that those manifestations form a neat hierarchy. At the base of that hierachy are simple physical needs (air, water, food, etc). The ascent of that hierachy is populated by more noble, less urgent impulses (friendship, respect, morality, etc). As we meet our core needs and begin to climb the hierarchy toward satisfying those righteous urges, our innate capacity to sustain faces different constraints which increase the risk that our capacity will be manipulated by external forces.

Is it evil to throw a stone at a rabbit when there is nothing but the rabbit for you to eat? Not really. No matter what Pamela Anderson tells you, your hungry belly will always yell more loudly than her silicone will jiggle. But what happens when a trusted religious leader commands you to throw a stone at your neighbor who may have taken a nap at her employer’s house thereby drawing God’s wrath on your whole village? If throwing the stone at your neighbor — who could be innocent — is the only way to preserve your personal standing with The Creator, do you throw the stone?

Most of us would probably say no. We’d like to think that we would have better sense than to be enveloped by a mob claiming religious and cultural righteousness as its motivation. We’d like to think that we control every part of our innate capacity–both the better angels and the ghastly devils–but sometimes we don’t. Sometimes the capacity controls us and our quiet desperation momentarly transforms to become a shrill savagery. We may not even recognize ourselves in those moments. Or maybe we do. If we do recognize ourselves … we’re overcome by either dastardly glee or a cinder block of remorse. Depending on whether we’re truly evil or agents of our own capacity.

In The Stoning of Soraya M. an innocent woman did not beg for her life in the moment before it was painfully taken from her. She barely scolded her neighbors for succumbing to their capacities. She merely sighed, “How could you do this to me? You know me. I have no secrets. I am one of you.”

Life — as anyone who has lived it will tell you — is muddy. The good guys always struggle to be good. And the bad guys always see just enough of themselves in the good guys to believe they hold an inherent psychological advantage. Sometimes the bad guys are right. And sometimes, the good guys reserve their stones for that unfortunate rabbit.

{ 0 comments }

“I remember so many beginnings, but I don’t know which one goes with this story.”

– Benjamin Esposito, El secreto de sus ojos

Unlike the lead character in the film the Liberian Girl and I saw on Sunday night, I do know which beginning goes with this story. It occurred last Friday and the scene starred familiar castmates scotch and Mr. Jared Wade (who may be known to some as Lights Out).

I had been dispatched to Newark, NJ to work a conference on behalf of my daytime employer. After the conference’s Friday proceedings concluded, I PATHed it to midtown Manhattan to connect with Lights Out at a bar that had an excellent selection of scotchy scotch scotch. The night ended pretty late. Saturday morning began quite early. About two hours separated that ending from that beginning.

The Saturday proceedings of my conference concluded late that evening. But not late enough to prevent me from sneaking into a Prince versus Michael Jackson party in SOHO where I met a painter who explained his theory on how the vibrations of the Purple’s music differed from the vibrations produced by the Bad’s catalog. The painter caught me studying a young woman’s undulating hips from afar. He was studying them, too. They oscillated slowly to a Prince song anticipating the man who was bringing her another drink. They were hungry hips. The painter claimed we should thank Prince for inciting the scene.

The Purple, he postulated, vibrated in a way that inspired the urge to engage in the intimacies exchanged between adults (and some teenagers). The Bad, he theorized, vibrated in a way that beckoned people to commune en masse in pursuit of the unpolluted joys most often associated with childhood. You could tell both of these things, he said, by the way the blob of bodies contracted and expanded depending on whose music was being played. When “Darling Nikki” oozed out of the club’s speakers, couples pulled each other close and grinded as the subject of the song was reported to have done. When “Wanna Be Startin’ Something” jumped off the DJ’s platter, people parked at the bar suddenly sprinted to the dance floor where everyone — including the people without much rhythm — danced with everyone else and every mouth opened to sing every word of the song. I was a little bit drunk — and a lot bit tired — but mine own eyes witnessed what the painter was talking about. His argument was quite convincing. It also suggested strongly that the ultimate winner of the 20th Century clash between the Purple and the Bad was … the rest of us.

After the last notes of the last Michael Jackson song closed that Saturday night party, I had just enough time to PATH back to Newark to board a Sunday morning AMTRAK train bound for DC. I closed my eyes as soon as I found a seat. The next time I opened them the sign said Union Station — which is a $5 cab ride from the Liberian Girl’s house in Northwest DC.

I had parked my car at her place before I left town for the conference. I had also made a bargain that I’d spend some time with her on Sunday. After a nap and the Lakers first NBA Playoff game versus Kevin Durant’s team, we scanned the listings for the E Street Cinema and designed a simple evening for ourselves.

Over heaping bowls of noodles at the Noodle Bar on U Street, the Liberian Girl shook her head at my drooping eyes. “You’ll never make it through this movie,” she said. “You’ll be asleep before the last trailer is over.”

“What? Nuh-uh. I’m good.”

“Bet me, then.”

“Okay. Bet. What’s the wager?”

The wager we settled on is not the kind of thing you describe on the internet where your family may someday stumble across it. Let’s just say that no matter who lost, both of us were gonna win.

(Yes, I know. Get to the movie already.)

El secreto de sus ojos translates as The Secret in Their Eyes. The secret — in this Argentinian picture that won Best Foreign Language Film at the 2010 Oscars — is twofold. There is, firstly, the mystery of a 25-year-old unsolved rape-murder. And there is the mystery of why two co-workers — who crushed on each other pretty egregiously — never chose to be more than co-workers to each other. One co-worker, the male lead, is a retired investigator. The other, the female lead, is a lawyer. They shared an office for many years before the investigator retired. As the investigator squirms through an itchy retirement, he scratches the urge to write a novel and peels back two scabs that become the twin conceits of our story.

The primary conceit is the rape-murder. A young banker finds his young wife’s body bloody, beaten and very not alive. The investigator promises the banker he will find the perpetrator and he will bring that dirty son-of-a-bitch to justice. Despite his best efforts, the investigator failed to do either of those things — a shortcoming that continued to haunt the investigator into his retirement. It haunted him to the point that it provided a convenient excuse for the investigator emeritus to visit his former colleague slash would-be lover (the lawyer) to inquire about the unsolved tragedy. The investigator wanted to write about the case. He also wanted to finally solve it. He also also wanted to revisit the love that never was — the secondary conceit.

Both conceits unfold deftly via flashback. There’s a lot of jumping back and forth between present-day and back-in-the-day. The same actors are used in both the present-day and the back-in-the-day scenes. Apart from costuming and set design, the key signifier for what point in time you’re seeing is hair and make-up. The make-up, it seems, is intentionally underwhelming to enable us to clearly connect all of the characters to their former selves. You may find the low-fidelity make-up work to be appalling. You may find it to be charming. Either way, there’s no doubting that its … low-fi. There also isn’t much doubt as to where you are in the timeline.

I was glad for that level of certainty as I struggled to stay awake. That is no indictment of the film. It’s a good story and it is well told. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says so. If you don’t believe them, you should take the Liberian Girl’s word for it as she liked it a lot. She also liked that she may have won the bet. I’m not sure I dozed all the way off, but I spent a fair part of act two working hard not to succumb to the fatigue I had accumulated in New Jersey and New York. At one point the English subtitles started to split like two taunting cells and they formed a second line of unintelligible text. If hallucination counts as falling asleep, then I suppose the Liberian Girl was right. (Either way, I paid off the bet. She liked that, too.)

I saw enough of the film to know that it was very worthy of the Oscar it won this Spring. Frankly, it could have been recognized for its cinematography as well. Shots are cleverly composed throughout, and close-ups are used to imbue the film with an intimacy that underscores the weight of the two secrets. In one sequence when the investigator is closing in on the rapist/murderer, the filmmakers take us into a crowded futbol stadium via steadicam to search the fans for the lead suspect. There’s some frantic scanning and a chase that ends on the field of play. During the scene, the motion of the camera laces up the audience’s sneakers and forces us to join the chase. It was one of the more poignant uses of steadicam I can remember. Perhaps the most.

I’d like to say more about the story and the secrets. But I’m leery of spoiling it because El secreto de sus ojos is one of the better films of the year and you  should definitely see it. I can tell you that its journey through the past and deeper into the present is not without rewards — or an eye-opening twist.

DYL MAG Rating: 8

{ 0 comments }