Movie review: The Sessions

Helen Hunt and John Hawkes

The Sessions (2012)
Written and directed by: Ben Lewin
Starring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt and William H. Macy

Based on a true story. That sentence, so often found flashing across movie trailers and posters, usually signifies an inspiring tearjerker that will tug at your heartstrings as it works its way up the red carpet to the Academy Awards.

However, while The Sessions does have moments that will leave you reaching for the tissues, it's also a gentle comedy that touchingly delves into the most basic of human desires.

Mark O'Brien (John Hawkes) was diagnosed with polio at the age of six and, as a result, must spend the majority of his days enclosed in an iron lung. For those few blissful hours where he is allowed to leave his prison, he's wheeled around town by a string of caretakers. However, Mark, who went on to become a successful essayist and poet, desired a sort of physical contact that many often take for granted.

The film, based on a 1990 article Mark wrote titled "On Seeing a Sex Surrogate", focuses on his quest to lose his virginity at the age of 38. A devout Christian, Mark grapples with his religious conscience and his desire for a physical act that is deemed a mortal sin. In an attempt to come to terms with his inner turmoil, Mark regularly visits a local priest (William H. Macy) to unburden himself. After several meetings, Mark admits his desire for sexual fulfillment and his priest, in one of the standout moments in The Sessions, gives his blessing to Mark with a simple, "In my heart, I feel He will give you a free pass on this one. Go for it."

And go for it he does. He hires Cheryl (Helen Hunt), a sex surrogate who is assigned to six sessions with Mark. Her goal: To not only help him in his quest to lose his virginity but to help him find comfort with his own body and sexuality. Quick to brush off any association with prostitution, Cheryl is a sex therapist who also happens to take off her clothes in order to help heal her clients. The restriction to six sessions is to prevent therapist and client from becoming too involved with one another. It's a quick and effective way to cut the strings.

If nothing else, The Sessions is a film of performances, and great ones at that. Hawkes and Hunt carry the emotional weight on their shoulders, weathering their characters' personal ups and downs with gentle humour and touching maturity. Despite its premise, the film isn't about sex; it's about those basic human desires we all harbour and how we each work to achieve them.

Hawkes is a likely Best Actor nominee shoo-in at the Oscars this year. Speaking in a higher voice and contorting his body, Hawkes is only able to use his face to convey his emotions. A versatile actor who has really come into his own in the last five years, the Oscar nominee gives arguably his finest performance to date. Hawkes doesn't make Mark a character to be pitied -- he's to be admired for his strength of character, minus the cliched trappings of many films that revolve around a person living with a disability.

Hunt returns to the silver screen after a self-imposed hiatus and she's back in full force -- just as likable and charming as ever. One of the flaws of The Sessions is the manner in which it glosses over Cheryl's life. It stands back from her rocky marriage and forces the audience to watch from a distance. How does her career choice affect her marriage? And why does she fall so hard for Mark? What is it that is missing from her life? All of these questions, and more, are left unanswered yet, thanks to Hunt's quietly commanding performance, you're still drawn into Cheryl's story.

The screenplay, written by director Ben Lewin, is a little all over the map -- changing narrative point-of-views that leave the film feeling like detached fragments and vignettes. However, The Sessions is ultimately buoyed by the two standout lead performances. You only wish you had more sessions in which to spend with them.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Movie Review: Lincoln

Daniel Day-Lewis

I reviewed this film for Next Projection.

Long-regarded as one of America's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln was many things: A shrewd politician, a hardworking family man and a vocal proponent of passing an anti-slavery bill.

The gradual build-up to director Steven Spielberg's opus has helped revive public discussions on Lincoln outside of the usual historical circles. Yet, few films have ever ventured to portray the much-revered president on the silver screen and, if anyone were to succeed in the role, it would be celebrated British actor Daniel Day-Lewis. And, while the always-reliable Day-Lewis commands the screen with his award-worthy performance, Lincoln may ultimately leave some viewers scratching their heads.

Spielberg's Lincoln chronicles the last four months of the titular hero's life, from January to April 1865. The action takes place in Washington, as the President struggles to bring an end the Civil War raging throughout the nation. Lincoln puts most of his time and energy into passing an amendment to abolish slavery, a contentious issue that proves divisive within the House of Representatives.

In the moments where the script calls for levity, Lincoln enlists the help of three affable Republican "thugs" (James Spader, John Hawkes and Tim Blake Nelson, all excellent) to convince the remaining Democrats who are still on the fence over the anti-slavery act to come back with a verdict in support of the bill.

However, considering the historic significance of America's 16th President of the United States, it's somewhat perplexing as to why Spielberg gets off to a slow start in the early going. The first hour is filled with awkward exposition as the script calls for too many heavy-handed conversations that quibble over the semantics of passing a bill. Periods of long, drawn-out speeches on constitutional law and negotiating peace slow the momentum to a standstill.

The screenplay, by Tony Kushner, neglects to delve deeper into the man behind the iconic top hat and beard. There are even instances where, despite Day-Lewis' mesmerizing performance, Lincoln recedes into the background. When we do get glimpses of his private family life they are fleeting — especially frustrating considering certain scenes with his wife Mary (Sally Field) hint at a fascinating, albeit unhappy, marriage. Even a subplot involving his eldest son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), is ultimately discarded in favour of the unending parade of secondary characters.

But where Lincoln ultimately falls short is in its hazy narrative. Is this a biopic on the man behind the legend or a docudrama on the abolishment of slavery in the United States?

Daniel Day-Lewis exudes a confidence in his craft rarely seen in actors working today. Although the passage of time prevents us from knowing exactly how Lincoln spoke and acted towards his colleagues and family, Day-Lewis imbues his metaphor-spouting Lincoln with a gentleness that defies his reputation as a commanding leader. Speaking in soft-spoken cadences that rarely rise above a whisper, Day-Lewis' Lincoln walks with shoulders so stooped that they appear to carry the entire weight of the world. He has the uncanny ability to transport you in time and make you believe that the person you are watching on the silver screen is the real person — as opposed to a carefully crafted reconstruction. It's a powerful — and beautifully subdued — performance from an artist who many would argue is a gift to acting.

The supporting cast is a revolving door of familiar faces from Jackie Earle Haley (as Alexander Stephens) to David Strathairn (as Secretary of State William Seward). But it's Tommy Lee Jones as Pennsylvania rep Thaddeus Stevens that is the standout — and potentially one of the early contenders for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Grizzled and peevish, Jones unleashes passionate pleas in defense of Lincoln's anti-slavery bill — much to the chagrin of Democratic pro-slavery speaker Fernando Wood (Lee Pace).

Lincoln is not as epic or sentimental as one would come to expect from Spielberg — it's easily the director's most restrained work to date.

While the film has its powerful moments — many of which take place in the House of Representatives — Lincoln, the man, ultimately gets lost within Lincoln.

FINAL GRADE: C+

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
Written and Directed By: Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes, Sarah Paulson and Hugh Dancy
  
"There's no such thing as dead or alive; we just exist."

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a disturbing examination of a young woman's damaged psyche. Part psychological thriller and part quietly restrained family drama, the film is brimming with crackling tension that lies just under its surface.

When Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) suddenly reappears after a two year absence, her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and brother-in-law, Ted (Hugh Dancy) struggle to reconnect with the strangely subdued young woman. Lucy suspects Martha has just escaped an abusive boyfriend, but doesn't press the matter -- she's just happy to have her sister home again. Little does Lucy know, but Martha has been under the influence of Patrick (John Hawkes), a Charles Manson-like cult leader, who runs a Catskills commune on an abandoned farm. As he surrounds himself with lost, lonely youngsters he randomly picks up (specifically women), Patrick subjects them to rituals of drug abuse and rape, threatening bodily harm to any who dares to leave his absurd "family."

Olsen gives the kind of breakthrough performance that most up-and-comers can only dream about. With her bizarre and inappropriate behaviour around her sister and brother-in-law, Martha experiences a confusion of identity. Life on the commune was rife with drugs and group sex -- therefore, returning to her old reality with her sister is not an easy transition. While on the commune she was given a new name ("You look like a Marcy May", says Patrick) and she was allowed a new lease on life after abandoning her sister after the death of their mother. Olsen gives a powerful performance, never quite allowing the audience inside the head of this strange, sad, lonely young woman. One minute she's sitting quietly, letting her hair fall over her eyes, and the next minute a powerful memory of her time spent on the commune rears its head and she lashes out at those around her. An unreliable narrator, we question the accuracy of Martha's memory. She even asks her sister at one point: "Do you ever have that feeling where you can't tell if something's a memory or if it's something you dreamed?" Olsen perfectly portrays just how difficult reintegration can be after experiencing a personal trauma. It's the stuff Academy Award nominations are made of.

Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes

The supporting cast is just as compelling, especially Hawkes (a Best Supporting Actor nominee last year for Winter's Bone). Mesmerizing and downright creepy, Hawkes' Patrick is an enigma -- both terrifying and possessive.

Writer-director Sean Durkin, in his debut feature, has brilliantly constructed a fascinating commentary on the familial restrictions imposed on us by those we live with, despite our supposed free will. As Toronto Star critic, Peter Howell, wrote in his review of the film: "Durkin draws unmistakable analogies between the demands of two very different family groups, both of which claim to offer liberation of the mind and body yet deliver something far short of that." With a debut feature as excellent as Martha Marcy May Marlene, we should expect to see a lot more projects from Durkin in the near future.

The drained cinematography (beautifully lensed by Jody Lee Lipes) lends an oppressive feel to the film -- even when characters are outdoors you feel as if there is nowhere to run and danger lurks around every corner. It successfully visualizes for the audience the paranoia and altered reality Martha experiences. In Martha's eyes, the world around her is cold and isolating.

Some will likely grumble about the abrupt ending (it's amazing how many people still need films to tie together all the loose strings into a neat bow); however, the ambiguity of the final scene perfectly suits the overall tone of the film. It taps into the paranoia that Martha experiences, leaving the audience to come up with their own interpretation of what exactly happened to Martha (Marcy May Marlene).

FINAL GRADE: A-

Movie Review: Winter's Bone

Winter's Bone (2010)
Directed By: Debra Granik
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes

This Oscar-nominated film has been on the indie circuit for months, touted as a little gem that audiences should make a point of watching. The fact that it was remembered at this years Academy Awards (for Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor) was deemed a testament to its quality. Word-of-mouth and film festival accolades kept up the momentum of Debra Granik's Winter's Bone. 


Set in the Ozark Mountains, 17-year-old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) must track down her drug-addicted father in order to save the family home. Having posted the family house as collateral for his bail, but nowhere to be found, Ree's father is rumoured to have turned snitch, turning in both his fellow drug dealers and customers to the police. As a result, Ree is met with resistance and violence at every turn as she questions the locals about the whereabouts of her father. Her uncle Teardrop (John Hawkes) steps up to help her in her quest, while also fearing for his own life as well.

The plot is simplistic in tone and structure. It plays it completely straight-forward: what you see is what you get. Granik provides a documentary-style raw quality, using both intimate camera angles and wider shots that allow the audience to see the full extent of poverty and hardship one must endure when living in the Ozarks. In terms of visuals, Winter's Bone has that grainy, blue-hued quality often found in films depicting hardship in poor living conditions and it works well. The frame is filled with discarded trash, broken toys, dirty children and abandoned houses. Nothing is held back. Living there is not easy -- for anyone.

I would imagine that few people in the audience would be able to relate to such a rough-around-the-edges lifestyle, yet nothing about the film allows you to try to understand it or see humanity in it. With the exception of Ree, no one is likeable or even remotely relatable. It feels so very strange and foreign.

Going into Winter's Bone, I expected a film along the lines of True Grit: young girl on a family-related quest and accompanied by an older male. However, very little actually happens in Winter's Bone. Instead of travelling great distances and learning about her strength and independence as a young woman forced to raise her siblings alone, Ree simply goes door-to-door in her neighbouring area. She meets violent thugs and resentful women who all proceed to push her around. When her father's fate is finally revealed to her, Ree doesn't deal with the emotional repercussions. The revelation is dealt with swiftly (albeit somewhat disturbingly), before moving on to the next scene. What have we learned, other than that living in the Ozark Mountains is tough and probably not highly recommended?

This isn't like Lost in Translation, a "film about nothing" that was, on the contrary, quite powerful and lead by two compelling characters. Lost in Translation was actually about quite a lot. Winter's Bone, on the other hand, truly felt like it wasn't about anything. In fact, the only scene that I felt touched a raw nerve was the scene where Ree tries to enlist in the army simply so that she can collect the $40,000 entry reward. She just wants to save her house and feed her younger siblings. She innocently thought she'd be allowed to take her brother and sister with her to an army reserve to train. It's a heartbreaking scene that illustrates how the military can prey on the young and poor to fight their nations' battles. But, this was only one scene and I was left feeling like the rest of film was empty.

Lawrence and Hawkes were both strong in their roles as Ree and Teardrop, respectively, but I would argue that neither are worthy of an Oscar nomination. There were far more powerful and memorable performances this year that were neglected and I couldn't help feeling like their nominations were a bit of a waste. Both are great actors, especially Hawkes, but perhaps they will be in a better film one day that is more worthy of their talents.

Overall, I was left confused as to all the hype surrounding Winter's Bone. I found it average and, ultimately, pointless. The minute the end credits appeared, I thought, 'That was it?'  Don't fall for all the accolades, this one is a bit of a dud.

FINAL GRADE: C+