Showing Up

That I guess was the goal here of this minimal-listic drama, not really any comedy here. A light moment here or there does not make it a comedy with me. With no clear hero or enemy in this film and character that are just tolerable but barely likeable. The narrative is not very strong nor is the writing. I understand what was going on in the film but the actors also did not make me feel anything, perhaps the only actor that moved me in any way was Judd Hirsch, who always delivers an amazing performance even though he didn't have much to do here. He always emotes and is a joy to watch. I noticed he was working again with co-star Michelle here which is sweet to see. When you have indie type filmmaking of this nature it is best formatted as a short; say 20- 30 minutes long. Then you really would have a real winner, I noticed in the credits that the director was also the editor. Very interesting and I like the indie style overall, lots of subtext.

This director is known for making arthouse pictures that arent targetted at a mass audience. These are the kind of small pictures filmcritics love to watch, but I cant get excited about.

The bad: this movie is literally going nowhere. We get to see the mondane and boring life of an artist. We get to see her take care of a pigeon. Talk to her landlady etc. It's just one contineous lame uneventful portrait.

More bad: I started watching it for Michelle Williams, who has starred in some excellent pictures in the past. She can act! And although the purpose of her acting performance is to portray an uneventful life of a mundane artist, her performance didnt entice me for one second.

Only suited for fans of this director's work. Others better pass this incredibly tedious movie by...

This line from the movie is what probably describes it the best. Not much is said here. And the things that are said aren't that important even. It's the words left unsaid that makes this film work so well.

Hard to rate a film like this. I cannot explain why I loved this so much; I just know that I did. I am not sure what this movie was about. Loneliness? Commodification of art? Satisfaction? All I understood is that the pigeon was a metaphor for the lead character; a vulnerable and wounded bird unable to fly until it's healed and released.

One of those movies that lingers on your mind after it's finished.

There's a sculptor who has a glass and it's half empty, lives in a world full of despair that's just not carefree, no hot water in her tap, things are generally just crap, she is the epitome of gloom and misery. Then a pigeon pays a call and gets cat mauled, this leaves the artist most annoyed, slightly appalled, but she sends it on its way, it returns boxed up next day, a bird that's clearly been well trained, you'll be enthralled! (it's a talented bird) The mood continues to be more downbeat and muted, as the artist gets her pieces executed, familial issues do not please, as her brother eats the cheese, but that's the price you have to pay, when you're deep-rooted.

Wonderful performances and great dialogue, but not a lot else.

If for no other reason than its ability to do what Steven Spielberg could not, namely elicit a quiet, non hambone performance from Judd Hirsch, Kelly Reichardt's latest film should be commended. But there are other pleasures to be had in this tale of a frustrated artist in boho Portland, Oregon (by the way, Is there a non boho part of that city?), chief among them Michelle Williams' interpretation of the main character. I think we've all known a person like Lizzy, talented in their field but not talented enough to allay self doubt and envy of greater talents.(Think a kinder, gentler Llewyn Davis). It takes awhile for Lizzy's virtues to emerge but under Reichardt's sensitive direction and aided by her and co writer Jon Raymond's perceptive screenplay, Williams effectively peels away Lizzy's layers and lets you see the caring, sensitive person beneath the depressed, resentful person, so that by film's end we feel we know this good if extremely flawed individual. Wonderful character study which, again, leads me to muse on why this enormously gifted actor has yet to win an Oscar. Strongly supporting Williams are a number of actors with whom I was not familiar, especially Hong Chau as Lizzie's rival and bete noir, Maryann Plunkett as her checked out mom and John Magaro as her deranged, paranoid brother. Also worthy of mention is cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt who, like Williams, often works with Reichardt and whose camera beautifully but unobtrusively immerses us in the Rose City.

The film's main drawback is obvious and needn't be dwelt upon unduly. Reichardt's pacing, which will never be confused with that of Hawks or Bigelow, is at its most deliberate (read slow as hell) in this film. I can understand and sympathize with my IMDB colleagues annoyance with it. But if you can somehow adjust yourself to the director's contemplative, subdued rhythm you will be rewarded in the end, especially in the climactic scene at Lizzy's show where the tension, long held back, is palpable. More problematic for me than the slowness, actually, is the director's use of the too symbolic bird which, like most symbols in film and literature, I found both obvious and heavy handed.

Bottom line: Not as good as "Wendy And Lucy" or "Meeks Cutoff" (or even "Old Joy", for that matter) but well worth your time. Give it a B.