PDA

View Full Version : A Universe Not Worth Crossing



mouton
09-16-2007, 11:45 AM
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
Written by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais
Directed by Julie Taymor

“Because the sky is blue, it makes me cry. Because the sky is blue.”

Staring at a blue sky for two hours is almost required viewing to settle your mind from the visually lost schizophrenia that is Julie Taymor’s ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. How else can you undo the damage from being subjected to an exhaustingly lengthy collage of overblown imagery at the hands of an over inflated ego? I can only imagine the horror that must have swept over the executives’ faces after screening this film for the first time. It has been widely publicized that Taymor entered a creative war over the final cut of this film with her producers who wanted to release their own cut of the film. They said the film needed more focus, less experimenting as she hid behind the shield of artistic integrity. Ordinarily, I would never side with any form of censorship but perhaps she should have left her bias in the car and taken a few of the tips that were perhaps being given to her in the best interest of her film. Maybe then, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE could have told a functional story that would have captured some attention, given it some ultimate meaning and made this all-Beatles musical the magical journey it so desperately wanted to be and could have been. Or maybe it would have been worse but I can’t see how.

ACROSS THE UNIVERSE tells the story, and I say that lightly, of a young lad named Jude (Jim Sturgess), who travels across the ocean to find his father. Find him he does in absolutely no time and then he just bounces around from here to there in pursuit of nothing at all. He meets a girl (Evan Rachel Wood) and falls in love; he gets a room in New York City and paints when everybody else is either going to war in Vietnam or protesting it. A bevy of other characters are randomly introduced, bring nothing to the whole (which is paper thin as it is) and then disappear after accomplishing just as much nothing. It is all so aimless; I’m surprised my neck doesn’t hurt more from all the shaking my head did in bewilderment. The style, which can only be described as a refusal to commit to any one style, only makes it more difficult to get taken in. As a viewer, the suspended disbelief necessary to enjoy a musical as one should still requires a firm foundation. Taymor tries to establish a gritty reality with Jude working the docks in Liverpool but the leap to where the music happens, and the magic is supposed to, is always different and seldom seems appropriate. I never thought I would be begging for plausibility in a musical but this was just ridiculous

While I commend Taymor for incorporating 90% on-location singing into this musical in an attempt to pump a more real quality into the practice, I want to sit her down to talk about some other basic concepts like character, meaning and purpose (concepts she so easily incorporated into her far superior FRIDA). Surely she has seen Baz Luhrmann’s MOULIN ROUGE. Luhrmann’s film employed the same musical technique to appropriate existing lyrical content (including some by the Beatles) and contextualize it within his story of forbidden lovers,. The reason his film worked is because there was a solid story driving it forward and characters that were developed through that story and their songs. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE seems more interested in its high concept usage of the Beatles repertoire that characters seem to be included so that certain songs can be included. It is certainly lovely to see a young high school cheerleader sing a slowed down version of “I Wanna Hold your Hand” to herself about a fellow cheerleader, just as it is heartbreaking to watch a young boy caught in the streets of the Detroit riots singing “Let It Be” amidst the violence but both of these potentially powerful moments and strong performances are hollowed out by their complete lack of context. How can you be expected to care when you have no idea why this story is suddenly being told? And then to find out, there was really no significant point to begin with? Without purpose, all you have are a bunch of people singing old songs on screen.

At one point, more specifically when multiple Selma Hayek’s in nurse uniforms seductively administered drugs to war patients spinning around a medical ward to “Happiness Is a Warm Gun,” I found myself wondering just how many Beatles songs were still left to be sung. When a film has no distinct purpose, it also has no clear ending in sight. I was beginning to fear that Taymor might actually turn me off the Beatles with this disaster but fortunately, the Beatles are timeless and genius and something so laughable as ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is not going to diminish their beauty. It’s like bearing witness to a bad karaoke performance of your favorite song; you cringe while it’s happening but once you hear it again for yourself, the mastery that was temporarily taken from it comes back in waves of vibrant colour and splashes of insight that touch your soul. The painful experience is easily forgotten and you ask yourself, across what universe?

www.blacksheepreviews.com

tabuno
10-13-2007, 03:48 AM
The lyrics and music of Beatlemania was given a new infusion of compelling sights and dialogue into which to present an artistic delightful movie that brings back YELLOW SUBMARINE (1968) memories. Better than the Beatles' movies themselves for this new generation, the emotional connection between the lyrics, music, and the storyline is almost seamless and brings ever more vibrant meaning of the Beatles words from decades past. Operating at both individual perspective of new romance that inevitably morphs into mature relational realities and the ever present backdrop of the Vietnam War, the presentation of both elements makes this movie all the more remarkable. Better than CHICAGO (2002), ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (2007) rivals MOULIN ROUGE (2001) in its musical technique and contemporary as well as flashback to the seventies acid tripping visual effects along with the musical videos of the nineties.

mouton
10-13-2007, 08:30 AM
Hey Tabuno ... your review intrigues me. I find that this movie is polarizing. People are either in my camp on this one or yours. And I can't understand how you managed to feel the film had anything going for it all while people have actually told me I have no business being a film critic given the fact that I didn't see how incredible this film was. And this is the major difference I've found ... When you write: "the emotional connection between the lyrics, music, and the storyline is almost seamless and brings ever more vibrant meaning of the Beatles words from decades past" - I had the complete opposite experience. I felt there was no depth or storyline to recontextualize any new meaning of the Beatles' wonderful lyrics ... in fact, at time I felt it cheapened them. And storyline? What storyline? The love story? That was barely fleshed out and was constantly being interrupted by the useless subplots that existed only to make it possible to include certain songs. It's the story and the visuals that people have mentioned ... And while I felt the film was occasionally beautiful ("Because" in the field comes to mind), I felt some of the larger staged numbers were such drastic departures from the overall aesthetic of the film that they felt out of place.

And while this is contender for your 2007 Best Of list, it is actually a contended for my worst. It's interesting because I was able to see why some would have hated Moulin Rouge while I loved it, I cannot see how people are enjoying this film. I thought it was a mess from about ten minutes in and it never managed to pull me in for more than five minutes at a time. I basically waited for it to end.

Chris Knipp
10-13-2007, 09:16 AM
It's interesting because I was able to see why some would have hated Moulin Rouge while I loved it, I cannot see how people are enjoying this film. Moulin Rouge indeed left me cold, while parts of Across the Universe moved me to tears, even though at the same time I could see why the critics couldn't be enthusiastic, in general, and a Sony boss could have feuded with Taymore for a sharper edit.

I don't think their real objection is that there is no "story" (it has as much story as many a musical does, and if you include the "stories" referenced via allusions to pop icons, a lot more), nor only that the productions are overindulgent extravaganzas, but more for the "the bland central romance" and "the paper-thin treatment of '60s social issues". I'm quoting from Tasha Robinson of The Onion's A.V. Club review (The Onion being one of my favorite current sources on movies of the moment in the US): Ms. Robinson, who gave the movie a B-, concludes:
The film wavers between exhilarating and gimmicky, and the cast's interpretations of the Beatles catalog vary between passionate and rote, but Across The Universe is consistent in one aspect: Its crazed ambition. When it falls, it falls far, but at least that means it's reaching high. You, monton, say you'd not normally side with a producer's desire to cut, but you do here. In fact I think whatevber the absured extravagance of Taymor's production numbers, it's they in their psychedelic overreaching incredibleness that make this a movie that is destined to be watched for a long time to come, and will be a Guilty Pleasure for many.

It may partly be a generational thing. I'm more a Stones than a Beatles man, but one of my best friends who was a Beatles maniac was the one who urged me to see this, and I wasn't sorry, much as I hesitated after seeing the metacritic rating of 56.

I think one ought to avoid "loving" or "hating" a movie, if possible. I wouldn't say I "hated" Luhrman's Moulin Rouge. I just didn't like it as well as several of his other movies. I recognize that Across the Universe is a critical failure. But it is also a treat to watch and fun, if you let it be.

Let it be, let it be. . . . .

oscar jubis
10-13-2007, 10:51 AM
I plan to post a (relatively) brief review but I hesitate posting it here. I don't like this idea of making editorial comments in the thread title. It's cheesy. Why not call the thread "Julie Taymor's Across the Universe" then use "A Universe Not Worth Crossing" as the heading of your post? If I post, I'll do it on a new thread.

I tried to talk Chelsea into writing a review (she's going back for a fifth viewing tonight) but she's buried under a ton of homework.

Chris Knipp
10-13-2007, 12:10 PM
I agree with you on that--film title thread names should be neutral, mouton. But you are not in a minority in condemning it. It's just something lots of people are going to enjoy, despite critical disapproval.

oscar jubis
10-13-2007, 07:32 PM
Roger Ebert, Variety and The New York Times gave it enthusiastic reviews. Those are among the most influential critics/publications. The film just expanded by hundreds of screens because the per-screen average has been quite good. Johann would love it.

Chris Knipp
10-13-2007, 07:46 PM
I think it's going to have "legs." It's going to make plenty of money. The audiences don't care what the critics think. And it's full of Beatles music. That Jude guy James Sturgess, who's worked his way up from TV, is very charismatic.

tabuno
10-14-2007, 12:33 AM
I went into this movie feeling that I would really like it. One fascinating movie idea that I believe in with regards to this movie is the likely differences of opinion deriving from that starting point that one begins to experience this movie. As a late comer to Beatlemania, I wasn't really ever deeply involved in the Beatles until later...in the beginning I didn't even know what Beatles were. I've enjoyed the music and songs over the years, but I've never gone out and purchased any of their music, never really song along with the music, and made it a point to really get into their music in-depth. So when ACROSS THE UNIVERSE came out, I didn't particularly anticipate a movie in which the movie would inspire the Beatles, but rather I was looking forward to the Beatles' music to inspire the movie - each scene in the movie and the Beatles' lyrics and music blended and resonated on an one to one correspondence that allowed me to experience the music (not in a Beatles way) but allowing the words to express what was happening in the movie as if they were part of the movie.

Chris Knipp
10-14-2007, 08:23 AM
I'm sure there are young Beatles fans. The audience at the theater where I watched this wasn't old. In fact I'd say it was on the young side.

tabuno
10-14-2007, 08:15 PM
When I went to see ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, the audience was composed of almost exclusively young people, I felt I was at a school assemble before the movie started, but by the end, it was dead silence (I'm assuming in rapt awe). I would be curious whether or not the young audience that is experiencing this movie are Beatle fans or just regular young audience members out looking for a girl movie. Since I didn't stick around to ask, I don't know.

Johann
10-15-2007, 07:39 PM
Yes I sure did love this movie Oscar, and it is one I'll be seeing again before it leaves theatres. Roger Ebert's right, it's like a record you can put on over and over again.

My personal favorite sequence was the Salma Hayek scorcher for "Happiness is a Warm Gun". Yes it is, Mama... Holy Cow is Salma Hayek a sexy woman. Cinema history, that film is. The end credits, the psychedelic insanity (Eddie Izzard as ringmaster doing "Mr. Kite") Wowza martha.
What eyeball candy! just beyond belief.
Genius?
Blue Meanies!!

Unreal film, which is tremendously better when you've had some herbal tea or psychotropics of fine quality. Lysergic wouldn't be out of place, but stand back- it favors the prepared, intelligent mind. It's intense man- just ask Tommy Chong, he knows. Or ask Roman Polanski, he said
IT DRAWS YOU INTO A STATE THAT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED. IT IS LIKE A MADNESS.

So you've been warned, all you potential flower children and hip-hip-hippies. Think fast, beacuse "Across The Universe" is one wild, beautiful, Hair-like orgy of freedom. I loved the Holy hell out of it, marvelled at every frame. It dances close to pretention sometimes, but I was rewarded for following Julie's lead into an artistic unknown. I responded powerfully to a lot of themes and images in it. The Statue of Liberty sequence. Fuckin' gauntlet.

It was just... the right movie now.

Chris Knipp
10-16-2007, 07:59 AM
I don't do that stuff with the herbal content any more, but I've said the psychedelic sequences are impossible to bet. You can get high just on the images.

johann, you missed one famous old white blues singer--Joe Cocker. I didn't notice Selma or Eddie or the others, only him, but I was sure there were lots more cleverly slipped in.

I also have said, this is one that will be fun to re-watch.

Johann
10-16-2007, 05:23 PM
I didn't miss Joe. I knew it was him right off the bat.
Homeless no less!

I'll write more about the film when I have some time. My sister arrives in Ottawa tonight from Calgary- gotta tidy up the apartment. Bongs & grinders in the closet, porn stashed under the couch...

Chris Knipp
10-18-2007, 11:59 AM
You hide nothing from us, lots from your sister. What's a grinder? In New Enlgand it's a big hot meat sandwich.

Johann
10-18-2007, 03:30 PM
My sister knows I smoke and read Playboy for the articles, she just doesn't like it in her face, so I make sure it's outta sight, outta mind.
A grinder is a metal contraption that grinds the reefer bud into a fine, smokable powder. Mine cost me a hundred bucks because it also sieves kif.

Chris Knipp
10-20-2007, 06:15 AM
Oh. Never heard of such a thing.