Flippant, self-consciously ingenuous, vacantly screwball-y, the caper film credentials are plastered all over The Big Short’s snazzy, flash-in-the-pan cinematography and relatively rudimentary bag of metatextual tricks. It’s a little like Great Recession fast food, although its overweening sense of “cool” calls back to the mid-’90s glut of post-Tarantino provocateurs with a camera. For the vast majority of its run-time, Adam McKay (of the Will Ferrell, internet comedy school of modern filmmaking) and co-writer Charles Randolph are not especially vexed by their total and complete disregard for the casualties and consequences of a crisis that can never fully be contained, or explained, in a single film, so for most of the run-time, they don’t even try.
Which is probably bad morality, but it doesn’t guarantee antiseptic cinema. For better or worse, Hollywood has relied on tragedy as the girders of grandly architectural cinematic entertainment for nearly a century, and if there’s a disingenuous nature to a cotton-candy approach, then a morose, ultra-serious tone doesn’t exactly wash away the failings of cinema or any art to truly capture tragedy as a lived experience either. No film can legitimately treat the tremors of life with the gravity they deserve; even when they inform us of their seriousness, bubble-wrapped films like 12 Years a Slave or Schindler’s List can’t but construct their tales around, for instance, the African-Americans and Jews who lived through unknown tragedy, rather than those who died under its wake. Films cannot raise the dead, even if they wear a necromancer’s cloak.
Although the question will likely remain forever intangible and unsolvable, a case forms for cinema that doesn’t even bother to insist on or imply its ability to truthfully expose the complexity and contradictory complication of history or experience at all; such films instead inhabit a realm of honest dishonesty, necessarily reflecting the ways in which even the most troubled and tormented “serious” films only convince us to believe that they are truly reflecting experience, rather than actually revealing it. Rephrased in the vernacular of the high school post-modernism of The Big Short, “films aren’t reality, so why bother pretending they are?”
Call it facile or amoral, but there’s a tang of truth to a film that legitimately and filmically interrogates the limits of cinema to construct experience. The trouble with The Big Short is that, while it exhibits an ounce (but no more) of this spitfire ingenuity, it is also incessantly culpable in the crime of pedantry. In other terms, a work of pop-economics is necessarily perched at the intersection of cataclysm and carnival, and The Big Short hasn’t the slightest whisp of a clue how to remove itself from the calamity that ensues at that fork in the road. Rather than pursuing one direction, it tries to ride two horses – the glib and the earnest – inconstantly, and the ramshackle, moldy-wooded wheels of its cart fall off before it gets anywhere with its own internal contradictions. The vaguely ironic oxymoron in the title is indicative of the central incertitude of the film itself; it wishes to be both grand and intimate, anthropological and personal, momentarily enthralling and fitfully educational. In the end, it only proves elusive.
Adapted from Michael Lewis’s book of the same name, The Big Short earns a point or two for perspiration, rushing from moment to moment and breaking so much sweat trying to involve its audience in material it never truly trusts we care about. In context, the self-serving swerves into sincerity (mostly near the end) feel profoundly disingenuous in light of the film’s otherwise madcap distrust of its own audience. The drama the film implicates itself in, particularly in sub-plots surrounding a mercurial, never-better Steve Carrell and a sullen Brad Pitt, is a self-aggrandizing , diaphanous layer of stuck-up moralizing ( I won’t go into too much detail about the individual characters or stories; that would be giving the film too much credit). It’s no secret that the filmmakers desperately hope the film’s sidetreks into tragedy will wash away the taste of the screenplay’s frivolousness; instead, the speechifying only reminds how contested the film really is about how to treat its material.
Part of the problem is that the film’s tricks never veer too far from the surface; the trouble with the post-Tarantino irony is that most of the filmmakers who adhere to it are mainstream welterweights whose surface-level idiosyncrasies never settle into the core of their beings. Much like suburban youths reared on Eminem and Jay-Z, these filmmakers pine for rebellion and youthful zest, but the apple never falls too far from the tree; these people are still products of mainstream institutions, and their films never sway too far from Hollywood convention after all. The Big Short is still trite Oscarbait, irony or no, and least most Oscarbait is a little more earnest about the saccharine strings being pulled in the background
One gathers that The Big Short’s most ostentatious, signature gesture – stopping itself dead in its tracks while a celebrity husk is carted out to demonstratively reduce financial jargon to human terms – is a swipe at itself. Yet in criticizing its own investment in chic celebrity couture and its shotgun-fired amelioration of fiery fallout with cool blue, easily-digestible cinematic jazz, the film also condescends vociferously and then has the nerve to sit down for story-time and teach us a message in the process. Seldom has Hollywood felt so palpably self-satisfied in its self-imposed superiority to its audience. You cannot, as the old saying I just made up goes, be a preacher and a stand-up comic at the same time.
Score: 5.5/10

A truly great film may be informed by the background of its construction, but it rejects the complacency of time and space and proposes a view of life both timely and ultimately timeless, if not all-encompassing. For Charles Burnett, life is filtered through the Watts ghetto of LA where rituals of play, self-sacrifice, and destitution conspire to reveal a life both fully lived-in and never truly understood. But the ghetto is a prism for Burnett, not a prison. Although his film was denied a deserved canonical status for decades, his view of life is as textured as a De Sica, a Renoir, a Bresson, or a Cassavetes. Like all of those filmmakers, it defies its existence in the material world for a vision of humankind that transcends boundaries even when it confronts them.
Give a film credit where credit is due: with The Big Short, the film’s interests are not withheld. Flippant, ingenuous, vacantly screwball-y, the caper film credentials are plastered all over The Big Short’s snazzy, flash-in-the-pan cinematography and relatively rudimentary bag of metatextual tricks. It’s a little like Great Recession fast food, although its overweening sense of “cool” calls back to the mid-’90s glut of post-Tarantino provocateurs with a camera. For the vast majority of its run-time, Adam McKay (of the Will Ferrell, internet comedy school of modern filmmaking) and co-writer Charles Randolph are not especially vexed by their total and complete disregard for the casualties and consequences of a crisis that can never fully be contained, or explained, in a single film, so for mot of the run-time, they don’t even try.
With Carol regalvanizing Todd Haynes’ career in a layer of cinematic majesty, let us take a look back upon his initial breakthrough into the mainstream.
The unbecoming style of John Cassevetes’ devoutly rough-hewn social renegade Shadows belies its grandfatherly status as the giant upon which American independent cinema stands to this day. As freewheeling and robust as the film is, and as fringe-worthy as its style might seem, it’s perhaps ironic that the film has established its own tradition of dissonance and reckless anti-cinema in the hearts and minds of American beats and would-be enfant terribles for over fifty years past its initial release. Temptation begs to reduce it to has-been status, as if the film’s meaning was lost in its release and time has deluded its tempestuous critique of social norms and filmic image construction, as though its status as the head of a new order diminishes its rejection of the old order.
Releasing films at a mile-a-minute in the ’70s, Robert Altman was more aged than his New Hollywood contemporaries, but certainly no less rambunctious. If anything, his age only fulfilled a craving desire to destabilize the industry even further, a goal Altman set about predominantly, although not exclusively, by inverting the classical Hollywood genres of his youth. His best film, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, is a lyrical, impressionistic Western stripped of individualism that relies on dream imagery, like many Westerns, but not to reiterate the American Dream, as so many Westerns of the past had done. Instead, Altman interrogates a counter-myth where opium-caked red dreams are necessarily, and often falsely, clouded refuges from the cold blue expanse of an outside realm that humans never really conquered, but simply hid from. His next genre deconstruction was something of a follow-up, but one that met with a much different fate. While people who didn’t fully understand McCabe still fell in love with its poetry, 1973’s The Long Goodbye, a noir grabbed by the neck and set down in a time period antithetical to itself, only produced befuddlement when it didn’t instigate outright hatred.
Over twenty years into Michael Haneke’s career, a film like Goodnight Mommy isn’t going to impress anyone with its originality or its formal invention. At this point, formally chilly works comprised primarily, even exclusively, of bleached-white, modernist domestic spaces as barren of life as a morgue are the de facto Austrian exports to the world, at least cinematically speaking. Although Goodnight Mommy wasn’t directed by Haneke, it sometimes feels like his attempt at Hour of the Wolf, utilizing his giveth-and-taketh (and taketh, and taketh) style much like Bergman did in that venerable motion picture for an outright horror show. Let know one say that directors Veronika Frenz and Severin Fiala do not know their trade well. When they are bounded from perusing their more idiosyncratic gestures, maybe they know the rules of their trade a little too well in the end.
Only Lovers Left Alive, Jim Jarmusch’s wry, dust-caked lament for the ways of the past and withering put-down of the post-modern romantics who would lament with him is probably the quintessential Jarmusch film, which is different from being the best. Part of the film’s revelatory reality is simply a divine meeting of subject and author: Jarmusch’s characters have always occupied a state somewhere between cadaverous moan and death-enclosed howl even in their nominal life, so Jarmusch has made a several-decade career out of opening an unstated portal between the live and the dead anyway. The literal, manifest “death” in Only Lovers Left Alive (yes, it’s a vampire film) falls right into place, you might say, and Jarmusch’s sly, detached wit and fatal-loined aesthetic luxuriance follow like zombies to a fresh brain. Or hipsters to a Robert Johnson record.
Guy Maddin, gone too long? With The Forbidden Room, a mind-boggling witch’s brew of cinematic primeval swill, psychotropic kitsch, mental dicombobulation, the kitchen sink and the bathtub too, Maddin intends to show us where he’s been. The simplest answer is down the rabbit hole of forgotten cinematic, recklessly compiled in research halls, forlorn still images, and in the dankest depths of cinematic archival libraries. Hard at work reconstructing (and most deconstructing) a series of early lost films from scratch, Maddin has released The Forbidden Room, a love letter to the out-of-the-way cinema that haunts modern digital filmmaking sheen like a phantom-like specter. Love is a plaything in Maddin’s world through, and the ostensibly archaic concoction bubbles and burns into cinematic liquid as Maddin’s love of cinema flies far away from mere recreation and into a psychotic opium-laced crosshatch of memory, trauma, and the collapsing back alleys of the human mind. No more pastiche, The Forbidden Room is a living, breathing, fighting, joking performance art piece, rejiggering the past and transforming it from waxworks show into a cinematic scalpel cutting into the human mind.
Edited for Clarity