For this week's selection, Emma and I chose Dandelion:
Emma Garman: Dandelion: whaddya reckon?
Lauren Cerand: If I placed a personal ad inspired by the film, it might say:
Emma: I'm on the edge of my seat...
Lauren: LIKES: sharp cinematography, good staging, character studies with depth, unflinching assessment of 'americana', risk taking generally. DISLIKES: unerring bleakness, predictable arcs, Taryn Manning! It was a very mixed bag, but I thought in a mostly good way.
Emma: Well, this is fascinating. I think this may be the first film on which we diverge dramatically!
Lauren: Ooooh....
Emma: It left me TOTALLY COLD. The characters were cardboard, the situations were cliched, and despite a few dramatic events thrown in gratuitously, nothing shocked me or moved me AT ALL.
Lauren: You know, I'd have to ultimately agree with you on pretty much every point - I think the aim was to make a powerful, almost mythic story but it came up short in several key respects. But I liked the soundtrack, and many of the shots of empty landscapes. On the other hand, I absolutely loathed Taryn Manning (as female lead Danny Voss). It's not personal; I just don't like what she brings to the screen.
Emma: I liked the landscape shots too, very much, but they just made me feel that the film had aspirations to be a Gus Van Sant film and failed monumentally. Those dramatic pictures of the road were so reminiscent of My Own Private Idaho.
Lauren: You know, I didn't care for Last Days much, if at all, so I didn't bristle as much when I thought of that as a vague comparison. Dandelion was not an original movie, per se. But I think that some aspects of the film were done well, although I agree that overall, it was not hot. I think the director of photography was probably the best thing about this film. Although the editing was clumsy.
Emma: Definitely! I have to say, though: I thought Manning was the one compelling element. I find her trashy slut-with-a-heart act - recently seen in Hustle and Flow - strangely convincing! Don't know why.
Lauren: Ohhhhhhhhhh - I am really starting to recoil from her skank energy. And that nasal hick twang is murder on my ears.
Emma: I can completely understand! She has a strong screen presence, though.
Lauren: She is definitely working that one note she's got in her repertoire, although I think it was used to better effect in Hustle & Flow....
Emma: Which was a hugely better film.
Lauren: What did you think of the main character, Mason Mullich (Vincent Kartheiser)?
Emma: The main character I found a little empty. I didn't really get his motivation, as they say. When he took the fall for his father's (Arliss Howard) crime, and went to juvie for two years; why?
Lauren: Also - that two-year incarceration was played out in a surprisingly superfluous manner. It went by in five seconds.
Emma: Exactly. And the father was such a dick to him. I get that we were supposed to see him as deep and profound and the bigger person, but I didn't really buy it. I actually think the actor was good. He was easy on the eye, and did a decent job. It was just meagre material.
Lauren: The father was so strangely drawn. As was the mother (Mare Winningham). Although I think the tension around their admittedly small lives cut straight through to the essence of the story. Mason's Vietnam veteran uncle was intriguing but, like juvie, he was gone in a flash.
Emma: I suppose. To me it came across as a group of underdeveloped characters studies, people who we were being asked to feel for, but didn't ever sufficiently come to life in order that we would empathize or sympathize. For example: the father and son grow close, eventually, despite horrific events and general dysfunction. And I was just, Oh, that's nice, but I wasn't ever touched emotionally.
Lauren: Absolutely. I also couldn't stand the way that certain things were fetishized, or treated in a fetishistic way.
Emma: Who was the character that came to life for you the most? And tell me more about what was fetishized! I'm intrigued by that.
Lauren: It's hard to think about specific characters because they were so flimsy. I liked Danny's mother (Michelle Forbes) quite a bit. But she was barely sketched out. She never even left the house.
Emma: She was a cardboard villainess! How many movies have you seen with embittered, tarty single moms, who keep moving from place to place, uprooting their kids lives perpetually?
Lauren: Yeah, I suppose she was just as one-dimensional as the others.
Emma: She just applied make-up and undermined her daughter!
Lauren: I liked how evil she was! And controlling. Her daughter hated her for good reason. Whereas the main character never explained the passivity he often equated with love.
Emma: She was evil, that was entertaining. She had some good lines, like when she suggested inviting Mason over for dinner, she said "We'd better do it soon. Before he loses interest in you."
Lauren: Exactly! At least I could imagine her saying it. Whereas, none of the interactions between Mason and his parents rang true AT ALL.
Emma: This was why I think I liked Taryn's character (Danny). Because I felt a genuine emotion towards her - compassion - which is more than I felt for anyone else.
Lauren: My compassion towards her has only to do with the fact that I think her agent is royally fucking her over. I just feel sorry for her, always playing the same stupid whore.
Emma: She is being mightily typecast. She's such a funny-looking little creature too.
Lauren: 8 Mile...Hustle & Flow, now this, with the cowboy boots and the short shorts and the nasty meth habit, etc. Even Paris Hilton gets juicier dramatic roles.
Emma: It's so true. (You're admitting to having viewed a Paris Hilton vehicle?!)
Lauren: No, no. I just don't understand her choices as an actor. And I can't imagine why anyone would cast her. She is like Brittany Murphy 2005.
Emma: That is an incredibly apt comparison.
Lauren: Back to the film -- I loved how much decay there was everywhere. Trash on the steps of the brothers' house, burned out cars. Garbage everywhere, abandoned buildings, empty space.It was appropriately bleak.
Emma: Yes - that was powerful. So you would say it was a Midwestern setting? I couldn't judge.
Lauren: It reminded me of a criticism I read of Napoleon Dynamite, where the person questioned why anyone who ever lived in a small town would enjoy that film; that his experience in them had been depressing and awful. Well, they never specify it - but that idea, of agriculture and really flat fields is very Midwestern writ large.
Emma: Wow. I see.
Lauren: I thought the film - even if it mostly fell flat in significant ways - did a nice job of reversing the rural nostalgia/charm that people ascribe to a world that doesn't exist in many marginal, largely forgotten communities. And exposing how hopeless things can be, when options are limited to the point of nonexistence. Like, you just assume everyone will live there forever. When Mason comes back from juvie, his friends says everything has changed, but I was like, yeah right. It looked exactly the same. Everyone was exactly the same.
Emma: That's definitely a worthwhile analysis. And I can see how that's the case. It's just all been done so much better before.
Lauren: Oh yes, it definitely has. And very cliched. I agree. And just not really stretching the boundaries of what can be achieved with storytelling in a visual medium.
Emma: That's exactly how I'd put it. So many filmmakers are doing new and interesting things, why would you want to conform to such run of the mill treatments of life...
Lauren: It started from a really honest place, but I am afraid that isn't enough. I might buy the soundtrack though.
Emma: Oh, I agree - I think the intentions were noble. Just didn't amount to anything much.
Lauren: Well, what would you take away, if anything that was distinctive about this film? I bet I know what you'll say -- nothing!
Emma: Very good question. No, I want to say something. Let me think...
Lauren: The sex scene was sweet, and authentically teenaged. And I loved the dandelion metaphor. The way that various flora appeared as a frequent visual motif impressed me.
Emma: The sex scene was really sweet. It was very well done. And now that I think about it, there was good chemistry between the actors. I guess what was most distinctive to me was the portrayal of the lead character, Mason. A sensitive, stoic yet rather optimistic boy. It was unusual. If only they had developed him better.
Lauren: That contrasted nicely with the rusty detritus of the surroundings. Oh, definitely. He played so-so material well in a very subtle way.
Emma: The outdoor scenes definitely induced a longing to be out in the empty natural environment. The depiction of nature, as you say, was moving.
Lauren: I liked how its boundless beauty was used for contrast with human misery, and emotional stasis that felt almost artificial in its grip on their lives.
Emma: You're right. It absolutely was. And certainly, the emotional stasis was nearly convincing in its power.
Lauren: What did you think of Mason's friend, Eddie's (Blake Heron) brother, Arlee (Shawn Reaves)? I think we both thought he would play a larger role, especially given his ominous recurrent presence, which ends with what else - an intense gun scene!
Emma: Of course, the gun-wielding brat. He certainly provided tension, and it did seem as if he would ultimately play a pivotal role.
Lauren: I would have liked him to be part of a homosexual sub-plot. Just to liven things up a bit!
Emma: That really would have livened things up! Alas, it was not to be.
Lauren: No, and neither was our love for this film. How many peonies shall we give to the damaged darlings of Dandelion?
Emma: Well, I suppose it should get one. What do you think? Is one maybe too harsh?
Lauren: I have a really hard time giving it fewer flowers than Going Shopping. And I do think that the very good score and cinematography perhaps should count for something, even if the plot and narrative are lacking. I would be more comfortable giving it two, but I can be convinced of the case for one if you have your reasons.
Emma: I don't know - it just seemed such a predictable, shallow script. I would reluctantly give it two, however.
Lauren: So two with reservations - duly noted?
Emma: Totally!
Lauren: Because I want to save 'one peony' for something that really, really sucks. And with this film, I didn't necessarily want my money back. Although I probably wouldn't spend it again.
Emma: I concur. One of these days, though, something will get the ultimate Cineclub condemnation: no peonies!
Lauren: Yes, but not today.
Emma: No, not today. I think two is fair.
Le Cineclub Rating:
(two out of a possible five peonies)
Previously: Going Shopping, Green Street Hooligans.
Comments