Ru: Le bouleversement intérieur

Le cinéaste Charles-Olivier Michaud fait la preuve tant de son ambition que de son talent en signant l’adapation cinématographique du renommé roman Ru de Kim Thuy (2009). Certes, le film comporte ses imperfections. Cependant, puisque plusieurs voire chacune d’entre elles sont attribuables à l’impossibilité de transposer intégralement l’ethos de l’oeuvre au grand écran, il convient de se dire que cette adaptation est presqu’aussi réussie que possible.

Comme le roman éponyme, Ru raconte l’histoire du départ forcé du Vietnam de son auteure (bien qu’elle choisisse de donner le nom de Tinh à son personnage principal) et de son arrivée au Québec à l’âge de dix ans. Ses parents, ses deux jeunes frères et elle, une fois arrivés en sol québécois, seront parrainés à Granby par les Girard, une sympathique famille estrienne. Contrairement à l’oeuvre dont il s’inspire, toutefois, le film limite son histoire aux premiers mois de la famille passés dans les Cantons de l’Est, alors que les réfugiés doit concilier la nécessité de s’adapter à ce nouvel environnement et la peine du déracinement forcé, du traumatique périple en mer et du poids des souvenirs.

Cette décision de circonscrire ainsi l’histoire s’imposait sans doute à des fins de concision, mais elle n’est pas sans conséquences. Dans le roman, la narration et les événements futurs plus heureux ont le don de rendre plus supportable la lourdeur de l’histoire racontée; le film, avec sa trame sonore bondée de contrebasse, vise et produit l’effet contraire.

Même ceux qui auraient apprécié davantage de moments légers sauront toutefois apprécier l’usage judicieux du silence comme vecteur d’intensité. Comme tous les médiums, le cinéma a des qualités qui lui sont propres et la force du silence est une pierre angulaire de ce film d’une manière inaccessible au roman.

En contrepartie, ceux qui ont lu le roman de Kim Thuy seront frappés par la plus importante limite de cette adaptation: l’absence de la narration, si cruciale dans le roman, affecte inévitablement notre expérience. On remarquera d’abord l’impact de cette différence dans la manière dont l’histoire est racontée: le film est plus circonspect que le roman en matière d’allers-retours dans le temps, mais sa première moitié confondra peut-être ceux qui verront le film sans avoir lu le livre.

De plus, les lecteurs du roman seront peut-être surpris de constater que Tinh (l’alter ego de l’auteure) parle remarquablement peu au cours du film. Dans les faits, le film s’arrime au roman sur ce point. Cependant, dans le roman, An Tinh, en tant que narratrice participante qui donne accès à tous ses songes dans une langue aussi riche que précise, crée une connexion entre le lecteur et elle impossible à dupliquer au cinéma. Le film en souffre à quelques reprises, mais jamais autant que lors de la scène, qui rate un peu sa cible, où la famille Girard chante “Le P’tit Bonheur” de Félix Leclerc pour consoler la petite Tinh.

Cela dit, cette dernière, interprétée avec justesse par la jeune Chloé Djandji, demeure un personnage émouvant, elle qui est, à son grand dam, assez vieille pour ressentir toute la douleur du déracinement mais trop jeune pour savoir l’exprimer.

Le reste de la distribution impressionne également. Patrice Robitaille et Karine Vanasse sont des valeurs sûres dans le rôle de Lisette et Normand Girard. Lisette, telle qu’incarnée par Vanasse, fait preuve d’une bonté très sobre, tamisée, informée par la conscience de ce qu’a vécu la famille vietnamienne. Son mari Normand (Robitaille) développe une relation avec Minh (le père de famille vietnmanien) empreinte de bonhomie, de générosité et d’une maladresse attendrissante.

Sans vouloir tenir pour acquise la performance de ces excellents acteurs, il importe toutefois de souligner trois autres prestations. La sublime Chantal Thuy (Nguyen, la mère de Tinh) est impeccable en tant que mère de famille qui ravale tant bien que mal sa douleur et est responsable de l’un des moments les plus forts du film: la conversation avec Tinh, où cette dernière l’interroge sur ce qu’elle voudrait pour elle-même, est à la fois d’une grande beauté et d’une tristesse inouïe. Jean Bui, qui incarne son mari à l’écran, brille par un jeu d’une force intérieure impressionnante. Il ne souffre pas moins que sa femme et, bien que ce soit elle qui prononce la maxime vietnamienne voulant que “la vie est un combat où la tristesse entraîne la défaite”, c’est lui qui l’incarne le plus efficacement. Enfin, la jeune Mali Corbeil-Gauvreau est adorable dans le rôle de la petite Johanne, fille de Lisette et de Normand, qui devient rapidement la meilleure amie de Tinh à Granby. Dans le roman, la narratrice en parle carrément comme d’un “ange”, mais les nombreux moments où le film la met en évidence sont bienvenus. À défaut de pouvoir suivre Tinh d’aussi prêt que ne le fait le roman, le film ajoute adroitement une plus-value à ces personnages.

Au-delà de mes propres réserves par rapport au film, alimentées par le fait que j’ai non seulement lu le roman mais que je l’ai aussi enseigné, force est de constater que, dans l’ensemble, cette adaptation de Michaud, en collaboration avec Kim Thuy elle-même, est réussie à plusieurs égards. Elle raconte une histoire touchante bondée de moments forts. On soulignera le doigté du film quant à la relation des “locaux” avec les immigrants; le film ne tombe ni dans les tapes sur l’épaule quant à la générosité québécoise ni dans les lamentations larmoyantes quant au sentiment d’aliénation des nouveaux arrivants. Ru est aussi intéressant sur le plan visuel et la trame sonore, quoiqu’elle eût pu bénéficier de plus de variété en matière de ton, demeure très belle. Je reste néanmoins sur ma faim en raison de l’impact de l’absence de narration lorsqu’on compare avec l’expérience de la lecture du roman. C’était inévitable, certes, mais l’expérience en est tout de même altérée. Yvon Deschamps avait célèbrement scandé que “on veut pas le savoir; on veut le voir!” Dans le cas de Ru, ce n’est pas si vrai que ça.

Wonder Woman 1984: the origin story is still undefeated

Wonder Woman 1984 leaves me ambivalent. It certainly deserves credit, especially having been produced in these wacky COVID-19 times, for retaining some of the joy and magic of its 2017 predecessor. On the other hand, it attempts to be too many things at once and, in the process, accumulates enough missteps to be something of a missed opportunity.

Photo: cnet.com

The screenwriter-lead actress duo of Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot returns for the highly anticipated sequel to Wonder Woman, which, if you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favour and watch it today because, well, spoilers ahead. We rejoin Gadot’s Diana Prince in Washington D.C. circa 1984. Diana, still very much sullen over the loss of her great love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) at the end of the first film, now works at the Smithsonian Museum. (One wonders if she’s been working there all this time; surely a veteran employee or two who would have noticed that she’s been working there forever yet looks as though she hasn’t aged a day.) In quick succession, she meets a bland, nerdy, clumsy colleague named Barbara (Kristen Wiig) and wannabe oligarch Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal). She connects instantly with Barbara and is instantaneously suspicious of Lord, but her link to both of them changes fundamentally when they come into contact with a mysterious wish-granting stone.

Of course, Diana gets a chance to make a wish of her own and brings Steve back to life, sort of. Re-enter Chris Pine, whose Steve Trevor once again embodies an earnest, best-of-the-regular-Joes kind of heroism. In the rare moments when it interacts meaningfully with the time period in which it takes place, the movie has a lot of fun showing us a playfully bewildered Steve acclimating to his new surroundings. In the meantime, however, Maxwell Lord’s wish has come true, and it is granting him limitless power at the price of global chaos, which would be a problem at any time, but especially during the Cold War.

There is potential here and several bright spots. My thoughts on Gadot from the first film have not changed. She is perfectly cast. Obviously, her spellbinding beauty makes her presence on screen consistently agreeable, but playing the Wonder Woman character the way she does requires threading a number of needles, a feat which not every actress could pull off. As written by Jenkins, she is not only a badass, but a walking utopia. In addition to being powerful, fierce and principled, through Gadot’s performance, she is simply radiant with kindness. It’s that humanity that connects her to the noble Trevor, and helps establish Gadot’s once again delightful chemistry with Chris Pine. At first, I was taken aback by the fact that Diana hasn’t recovered from Steve’s death after all this time but, as soon as he returned, I understood. She can’t see herself being with anyone else, and neither can we.

Whether these unquestionable positives are enough to make the film worth seeing depends on the viewer, as evidenced by the reviews, which have been as ambivalent as mine in the best of cases. As much as I credit Gadot for doing everything she can here, I cannot say the same of Jenkins. Despite the movie being too long, it tries to tackle too many subjects and does nearly all of them a disservice. There are some attempts at political commentary here (a wall that materializes in Egypt and cuts off Cairo’s poorest citizens from their water supply was especially on the nose), but the film is in too much of a hurry to expand on its political points or to develop its characters. I found Jenkins made a tactical error by including both Barbara and Maxwell Lord as villains. Aside from the fact that it humanizes Lord in a way that purists will not appreciate, WW 1984 doesn’t have time for the both of them and renders them somewhat interchangeable. Neither one is bad per se, but both see the power granted to them by the stone as a means of overcoming their inadequacies, even if the entire world crumbles around them. In (probably) an unintended way, the movie’s most effective political point is a Socratic one that has to do with the origins of tyranny: the lack of love and acknowledgement from others. Barbara would like to go from nerdy and unnoticed to sexy and popular, while Maxwell wants to go from failing businessman to all-powerful oil baron (something tells me his business won’t keep its legal corporate status as a coop for too long). In this regard, the movie is quite the waste of Barbara’s potential, and of what she becomes by the end of the film.

Then, there’s the misleading title. I must confess that I’m more drawn to the first World War than to the eighties, but preferences aside, the first film of the series does a much better job at exploiting the epoch in which it is set than this one. The film’s flashy first sequence aside, which takes place in a classic 80s-style mall, WW 1984 does very little to explain why the fact that it is set in 1984 matters. It’s already bad enough that the time period seems less meaningful by comparison: Jenkins and Gadot’s first Wonder Woman inserts Diana at the heart of World War I; this one has her making sense of her existence amid… American consumerist bliss. Only during a global pandemic could a blockbuster hope to fill its viewers with nostalgia at the sight of a shopping mall. I found myself wondering what happened to the 80s’ music, and the question became especially salient given that, the main theme aside, this is not one of the great Hans Zimmer’s best soundtracks. In fact, the film’s most powerful emotional moment relies on John Murphy’s Sunshine Adagio in D Minor, although to be fair, the scene in question packs quite the wallop.

Even Pine’s return, while welcome, seems like a contrivance, and the film struggles to figure out what to do with him. Yes, Pine is a likable screen presence. Steve Trevor is a good man and very much a hero at heart; he is Diana’s rock. His love and admiration for her are touching. The problem? We’ve seen that movie before. And this brings me back to a theory of mine about superhero movies, and what so often damns their sequels: the theory of the origin story supremacy. Here it goes: when you set out to make a superhero series, the origin story, provided you get it right, is the easiest to pull off. Get a likeable lead and a decent script and you’re almost guaranteed success because the point of the story is to get to know the hero. It becomes more problematic, however, when you get to the sequels. We know the hero at that point, and while we can still love who they are and root for them, they are not new anymore. Therefore, the uniqueness and the novelty in the sequels have to come from the villain. While I disagree with most people about The Dark Knight being the best of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy (Batman Begins, the origin story, remains my favourite), it’s undeniable that he hit the ever-elusive bull’s eye with Heath Ledger’s anarchist take on The Joker. I doubt either of the two villains here had even remotely this sort of potential but, by insisting on featuring them both, WW 1984 never gives itself the chance to flesh a single one out.

In the end, there is a lot to like and to dislike here, and I can’t help but think that whether or not I’d recommend the movie boils down to the following question: is the sight of Gal Gadot being Wonder Woman and doing Wonder Woman things enough to invest two-and-a-half hours of your time on what is otherwise a deeply flawed movie? For me, for obvious reasons, the answer is yes… just barely. However, I suspect that, for many, Gadot’s talent and beauty won’t quite do it. Once again, the origin story reigns supreme.

Some parts of this ship work better than others: A Star Wars Episode VIII review

*This review contains no spoilers.

“Star Wars: The Last Jedi” has most of the right ingredients and the right ideas to succeed, but doesn’t always dose these ingredients correctly. Ergo, while it’s not bad, it’s not the film it could have been.

star_wars_the_last_jedi_poster

The movie picks up where “The Force Awakens” left off, with the odds stacked massively against General Leia Organa’s (the late Carrie Fisher) Rebellion in its fight against the First Order a.k.a. the Empire 2.0, led mostly by Domnhall Gleeson’s General Hux. Poor Leia has her hands full not only with the First Order, but with keeping daredevil X-Wing extraordinaire pilot Poe Dameron (Oscaar Isaac) on a leash. Meanwhile, Jedi-in-training (well, not yet, but you know what I mean) Rey, still played by Daisy Ridley, has found Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and plans to ask him for his help on behalf of the Resistance.

Of course, it’s not the only reason why Rey wants to see Luke. She can feel the force inside her, and it frightens her. In addition to her impression that her gift controls her much more than she controls it, there is the impending threat of Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren, backed by his master, the Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis). Then, there is the problem of Luke’s firm intent not to get involved, as he is clearly tortured over losing Kylo – or Ben Solo, as he was previously known – to the dark side.

In “The Force Awakens,” we met Jon Bonyega’s Finn, a storm trooper turned rebel soldier who became very (very) good friends with Rey. In “The Last Jedi,” because Rey is with Luke, Finn is relegated to a glorified subplot. The screenplay teams him up with a maintenance worker named Rose Tico (Kelly Marie Tran), as they are sent to retrieve a master code breaker who is needed for reasons that I don’t wish to spoil, but which feel remarkably minor in the movie’s grand scheme of things. (Although I’m always happy to see the actor who plays the code breaker in question.)

And that’s the setup for the movie, which runs into some problems. I love the idea of diversity in entertainment, but Bonyega isn’t exactly Denzel Washington in terms of his on-screen charisma. While he and Tran have a few fun moments, it’s hard to care about his character when Ridley isn’t there to generate emotional investment, and my indifference was only enhanced by the fact that his and Tran’s subplot is almost completely disposable. Tran’s Rose is a likable character who sometimes seems to belong in another movie.

Also, I’m still not sure about the casting of Adam Driver as Kylo Ren. I understand he’s supposed to be conflicted, and Driver can act, but I need a little more steel from a bad guy with the plans he has. Between him and Gleeson’s General Hux, the old Empire’s leaders scared me more.

Writer/director Rian Johnson clearly set out to make a Star Wars movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously. That’s a noble goal, but I suspect Star Wars afficionados will wish it took itself just a bit more seriously than it does. Indeed, off the top of my head, “The Last Jedi” strikes me as the most gag-loaded installment of the series by some distance, but the larger problem is that too few of them work; those that do are the subtler ones we’re accustomed to in Star Wars movies. However, the very first conversation in the film, between General Hux and Isaac’s Poe Dameron sounds directly out of a Seth MacFarlane screenplay, and we also have to suffer through a scene where Luke “milks” a cow-like creature for a bright turquoise substance. The shot of Luke staring at Rey with lots of the liquid stuck in his beard is not something anyone needs to see.

Several critics of “The Force Awakens” brought up the fact that it felt, at times, like a shameless remake of “A New Hope.” The Honest Trailers gang on Youtube couldn’t help but sarcastically quip, “gear up for a film so desperate to recapture the magic of the first Star Wars, it practically IS the first Star Wars.” Well, I can already hear these same people calling “The Last Jedi” a shameless remake of “Return of the Jedi.”  It’s not a baseless accusation, either. I mean, the scene with Rey, Kylo Ren and Supreme Leader Snoke is just so reminiscent of the final battle between Luke and Darth Vader that it even drew an ‘oh, come on!’ from me.

And I sure wish the movie hadn’t shortchanged the likable Poe Dameron character in the following two ways: 1) He doesn’t get enough screen time. I would have liked to see more of him and less of Finn and Rose, except for the part where… 2) For no discernible reason other than screenplay contrivance, his superiors keep him in the dark about a plan so sensible he clearly would have gone along with it had they kept him in the loop.

So, after all the things I criticized about the film, why am I still saying I liked it? Mostly because it has lots of things going for it. Between Mark Hamill’s proper return to the series and Carrie Fisher’s last hurrah as Leia, in addition to a handful of other details, the nostalgia factor remains through the roof. It has a glorious soundtrack by John Williams, which mixes in the cult Star Wars themes with some new ones to keep the listening experience pleasant. It has its shares of customarily easy-on-the-eye shots and action scenes (a fight scene taking place on a planet where the grounds yields red salt when it gets scratched is absolutely gorgeous).

And I can now say this because, two movies in, my mind is made up about this topic: I think Daisy Ridley is a star. I really do. She has some Lena Headey and some Keira Knightley in her, alongside that oh-so-critical “it” factor. Every time she’s on screen, I care about what’s going on. I’ll be back for Episode IX, of course, but I do hope it features more of her battle against Kylo Ren, and less of the other clutter we see in this one. It’s a shame, because somewhere in there was a better movie than the one we get in the end.

 

Suicide Squad review

Suicide Squad is a letdown but, then again, it could not have been anything else.

The pasting it took from Rotten Tomatoes a few days before its release will undoubtedly help make it an even larger commercial success than it was going to be beforehand. However, despite some interesting individual elements, the film gets sandwiched between its obvious, mostly predictable flaws and the hype machine that made it this year’s most anticipated film.

The very first trailer for Suicide Squad got us excited for the return of the Joker to the big screen, but another thing it told the semi-careful watcher was that the movie would feature too many characters. This overabundance of protagonists creates several problems for the film, the most foreseeable of which is that we therefore know that several of them will barely be given a chance to interest us at all.

Consider a scene in which the characters abruptly decide to pause their quest to save the world from oblivion to have a drink at a bar they’ve stumbled into. (Note: Meanwhile, the world is going to absolute hell outside.) We cannot help but observe the curious timing of this but, shortly after, we come to understand the bar scene is actually a half-hearted attempt to humanize the Diablo character (Jay Hernandez), whose only real use until this (rather late) point had been to serve as a setup for a typical Will Smith joke.

The large cast also creates pacing problems for the film. There are countless examples of this, including the aforementioned bar scene, but my personal favourite is the endless, and I mean endless, exposition scene at the beginning where Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) has to give an exposé about each Squad member, each packed with spottily-edited flashbacks, to a group of high-ranking government officials. I have great respect for their ability not to lose track of all this information. This isn’t a squad, it’s an entire political party.

And then, there is the fact that the movie’s super-duper stars have to get their screen time, which they do. This leads to yet another problem: the movie claims to be about bad guys, but when it comes to the stars, it gets gun-shy and tries to make them more likable than they ought to be. Will Smith plays a version of hitman extraordinaire Deadshot that would have been perfect had the Deadshot character been invented by Smith’s handlers. His charisma and sense of humour are never unpleasant to see, but will somebody please let this man play a proper scumbag for once?!

Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn has the same problem. The character is clearly off her rocker, but because her craziness contributes so little to her “badness,” we get the sense that several of her antics are meant to distract us from just how much of a good “guy” she is in the context of the movie. Also, Robbie’s beauty allows the film to carry on with the sexualization of the character started in the “Arkham” video games, but it’s done in such a heavy-handed manner that it sometimes becomes distracting. And while it was not a bad idea per se for Robbie to dust off her New York accent from The Wolf of Wall Street, she fails to keep it with the same consistency here.

As for Jared Leto, whether he is a worthy successor to the late Heath Ledger and his critically-acclaimed portrayal of the Joker character in 2007’s The Dark Knight remains to be seen. Indeed, the Joker is in this movie for such minimal time that his presence is more of a tease than anything else, to the extent we almost wish he wasn’t there at all. This film loves him, but struggles and fails to properly fit him within the confines of this story. Not since Jessica Simpson in The Dukes of Hazzard (2005) has such a minor character been so instrumental in selling a movie to audiences.

As for the plot, well, Viola Davis is a terrific actress who brings gravitas to a film that would otherwise be completely devoid of it. However, her Amanda Waller character is so smart, and has such an edge to her that we realize screenplay contrivances alone prevent her from figuring out that her plan is so obviously terrible and guaranteed to blow up in her face. Which, of course, it does.

As a result, the world finds itself threatened by Cara Delavigne’s Enchantress, who is meant to be a part of the Suicide Squad, but winds up breaking away from the gang before ever joining them, and then tries to build a weapon that… Never mind. Who cares? Certainly not the film. And this is another crucial problem.

Writer/director David Ayer has proven himself capable of producing quality; he wrote the dramatically-compelling Training Day and the light but functional The Fast and the Furious. Here, however, it’s as though he was very keen to quench the viewers’ excitement at the thought of watching (some of) these characters but only reluctantly accepted the impossibility of stasis in storytelling. You cannot expect the viewer to care about a plot that the film itself so clearly views as an inconvenience. Ergo, among the many reasons for which Suicide Squad fails is the fact that it’s much less interested in telling us a proper story than it is in merely showing us these characters acting the way they do.

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.