The Letter

This film is super artistic. So artistic I would go as far as to call it artsy fartsy. It's one of those works of art that just goes too far. In being too artistic, it becomes strange. Very strange. So much so that it is hard to appreciate. Hard to even look at. That is what this films problem is. You see it is not that this is a bad movie. It's not that it is poorly done. It is just hard to watch. And it gets harder and harder to watch as it goes on. Even though it is doing its job of being artistic quite well.

It's just that this film is so abstract that it is hard to follow. It also happens in real time so it slow and boring. And is full of awkward silences and such. As well as uncomfortable situations. So those are all things that make it hard to watch. And it only gets harder because as it goes on, the story only gets more convoluted and harder to follow. Not that there's anything wrong with the story, acting, directing, filming, editing, production, etc.... I think the concept of this style of piece was just not executed in an overall manner that made it engaging and stimulating enough for today's crowd. And also it just went too far with certain things that aren't comfortable to watch, and thus made it difficult to get through. And thats not why people watch film, they watch it to be entertained and to enjoy themselves. And this film isn't really fun to watch. It's like the kind of film that super artsy fartsy people would watch just to talk about.

And thats the thing about films like these, is that you can't appreciate them if you haven't studied film and are just looking for entertainment. These types of films can really only be appreciated by those who have taken a film class or read a book on it or studied it in some capacity and can actually see and understand the finer points, and can intellectualize everything about the art of film.

This is a movie about a woman who's reality and who's writing and imagination become blurred. It does a good job of depicting that. It really does. Does that make it a good movie? No.

However, is it a bad movie? No. Is it enjoyable and entertaining? No. Is it artistic? Yes. Did I like it...not really. I felt like it was kinda neat at times, but honestly I also almost turned it off a couple times. And I can see why it gets bad ratings and why the vast majority of people wouldn't like it. I don't think it deserves such a harsh rating though. I'd give it somewhere between a 4 and a 5, I'd give it a 4.5 if I could, but I can't, so I'm rounding down to a 4. My opinion is pretty much middle of the road, maybe slightly more on the negative. Do I recommend watching it? No. Do I regret watching it? No. I think that with the creativity that went into this film it should have turned out better, but perhaps they just got too involved in their own project and were too close to it to be able to tell that it was actually turning out quite boring. These things can happen with artwork sometimes. Oh well.

The Letter (2012)

Wow, such mixed reviews on this movie. Either all thumbs up or bomb? No, but it is weirdly both terrific and horrible at once. Here's my explanation why.

This is a re-shaped reality movie in the same big (and growing) genre as "Memento" and "Pulp Fiction." As the movie progresses you are made to figure out what's going on in the most basic sense, separating reality from hallucination from moviemaker's trickery. This is a gripping game at its best that draws you into the dilemma from the character's standpoint, and that also messes with the viewer's basic ability to create sense of it for it's own sake.

But what these movies require is a combination of characters you care about and a logic that is purely cemented by the end. The two earlier examples are brilliant at it. Not so "The Letter."

This movie has the bones of an excellent, lower-budget variation on a reality bending plot, but it fails to make the characters significant (or sympathetic in any way) and it never makes the illogic within the movie reasonable.

This might give something away, but near the end a big sweeping explanation is frankly provided by a doctor, and I told myself I've been wasting an hour making sense of what is really a series of fairly jumbled impressions. They don't quite make sense, I think, though you might be able to chart out the various mixed up sections on a piece of paper if you watched it a couple more times. Maybe.

But no one would have the stamina. It's a movie with an exterior of brilliance but it's so stripped down in its other components it's actually, oddly, boring. For one thing, most of the action happens on a theater stage, which allows a kind of reality within a reality (and this ain't new, as lovers of Shakespeare know). Quickly we see that the characters are getting mixed up with the actors—that is, from the point of view of the writer/director of the play in the film, played by Winona Ryder, the expressions and frustrations in the script of the play echo the reality of the real people. When scenes shift (often suddenly) to an apartment or other outside space, the same kinds of personae are at work. The people are the characters.

But they have almost nothing to do, no real baggage to explore, no narrative elements that matter. So there is an implied infidelity (who knows?) and a bit of concern about that, and maybe an infidelity that grows as the film is being assembled, perhaps (who knows?). But so what?

The final insult to all this is that film's low budget feel and its unwillingness to accept that—it tries to look bigger than it is. It's often filmed in a stale way, and then pumped up with tonal effects or with startling (or confusing) edits. You wish it would add up to something, but it doesn't.

Other reviewers have said that it all makes sense by the end. I think not. I think it's explained away at the end, but that's different. And either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

As much as I like both James Franco and Winona Ryder, this may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. A complete snooze-fest from start to finish. The movie's screenplay was as much of a bore as the play within the movie! The cast looks bored most of the time.

Absolutely nothing of consequence happens in this picture...nothing! I kept looking at the timer on the DVD player thinking something should be happening soon...but it never did! Truly a wasted hour and a half of my life! Thankfully, there were no extras to watch on the disk. Had there been any, I wonder if any explanation of the purpose of the film would have been forthcoming? I gave it 2 stars simply for the audacity of putting the story on film!

Well, hard to pile on anything more in the way of making fun of this thing.

So, I'll tack on my two cents regarding the various characters' hair pieces - which, for me were atrociously distracting and took up all my concentration.

For example, Josh Hamilton - as a younger but nonetheless middle aged man, why is it so horrible to just show his naturally receding hairline - why add a "piece" on top and then comb strands of that piece down over his forward such that all you spend your watching time doing is trying to figure what he'd look like without the piece.

And James France - again, understandably - and quite comfortably, naturally - thinning on top - but, oh no, let's first, stick a hair piece on top and - brace yourself - hot curl that sucker into "boyish" twirlicues. And, to add insult to injury, his whole head of hair - real and toupe - is dyed a shiny greasy shoe polish black - every time he leaned back on any of the stage furniture upholstery I pictured a big black stain residue.

And the women -first, I don't know if Katherine Waterson just naturally has a lot of hair, but if they did add extensions then they way overdid it - she often looks like nothing else so much as "Thing" on the Addams family.

And does Winona escape this hair piece Armageddon? Oh no, - there is one chunk of a very strangly strand of wiry hair that is consistently combed from sort of the top of her head down over the middle of her forehead down over her eyes - like more of a forelock of some sort rather than just bangs - it's quite bizarre - not sure what cosmetic effect it was intended to achieve. And, btw, Winona's various dye jobs are also way too dark - more shoe polish.

Well, you get the idea - of course, there's all the other stuff that makes this thing utterly insufferable - the plinking piano notes score, the ever pretentious in-focus/out-of-focus shots of random New York City tree foliage, the claustrophobic "Greenwich Village theatre scene denizens" of it all, the incredibly tedious dreamlife, and incessant articulation of and fixation on, Wynona's character's dreams, etc etc.

In sum, this thing is mainly a joke on itself. I mean with dialogue lines like "And then I heard birds" delivered with absolutely breathless self-awareness, how can you not do a spit-take of your popcorn laughing out loud. Lol.

If you saw the trailer and thought it was interesting then don't bother; you'll hate this film. I mean it. Don't even think about watching.

If, on the other hand, you saw the trailer and thought "oh great, another forgettable thriller about a creepy guy and clueless chick. When will anyone try anything new for chrissake??" then hold your horses because this movie might be just for you.

"The Letter" marks the 2nd pairing of the phenomenal acting/directing team of James Franco and his professor Jay Anania (the first being the excellent film "Vincent" aka "Shadows & Lies"). This time Winona Ryder joins the group and adds her own perfect eccentricity to the mix. Ryder plays the part of "Martine" a playwright who is putting on a production with 5 actors including a shadowy newcomer "Tyrone" (Franco).

As the play progresses, reality begins to wrap itself around imagination and vice versa. Some have compared this to other recent mindbenders like "Black Swan" and "Memento", but I would say this film outshines them all due to Anania's fierce, stylistic approach which really gets into your head. There aren't really any shocks, thrills, chills, gore or other cheapshots to make you spill your popcorn. Instead, it's a very insidious, unsettling visual approach, as well as disjoint audio, that draws you into the mounting tension and confusion of Martine's mentally unbalanced psyche. No monsters or broken mirror shards required. That's one thing to remember about this film: it doesn't stoop to cheap thrills but instead stands by its somber, anti-Hollywood approach.

Something else to know about this film; it moves at the speed of reality, that is "slowly" by movie standards. So if you get bored easily, you might want to look elsewhere. There are scenes of dialogue with actual pauses between people speaking, like in real life, how about that? Sometimes there are periods of silence that might make the audience feel uncomfortable if they're expecting some sort of rapid fire, scripted tit-for-tat. But if you're prepared for a voyeuristic experience of watching other people's lives, this nails it. Don't get me wrong; not a single scene is wasted and there's no fluff or filler. It's just that Anania allows the scenes to breathe a little. The pacing is similar to something you might get in from a European director (Kieslowsky, Tarkovsky, maybe Bela Tarr after a few cups of coffee) and the visual poetry is reminiscent of the Japanese masters Kurosawa & Teshigahara with a distinct, hip, modern look (extreme saturation, contrast and exposure) as you might see in Aronofsky or Paul Thomas Anderson. The overall package is distinctly Anania.

And how can I end this without a word about Franco. Although his role may strike you as being smaller than you'd expect (Winona Ryder is the star), each time he graces the camera it's done with so much poise and confidence you find yourself wondering who would win in a cool-off between Franco & Bogart. Hate to admit it, but I think Franco would win by a hair.