Margaret

This is the Theatrical Cut...What to say of the film? I definitely enjoyed it at times, and it had some powerful scenes and acting. Paquin in particular has some very impressive moments, and the characters here are all interesting. It's hard to really grasp the characterization at times, and the melodramatic moods that go along with the different plot lines make for a very interesting, very unique, spin. The film is never flat out dull, and there's always a hint of genius behind it all, but ultimately it feels like a structurally messy composition of story lines. It's a very odd, inconsistent film, and even Paquin's portrayal and character is hard to wrap your finger around. Like I said, there are moments of brilliance, but also scenes that I didn't care for at all and scenes that left me feeling nothing other than confusion as to why they were there. I get the impression that the writer/director is really trying something here, and sometimes it felt like he succeeded, but as a film there's one too many flaws. The editing is rather distracting, and while it worked at times there's no reason why it shouldn't have been much better in certain moments. Scenes come and go without any particular flow, and it really hurts the film.

Ultimately, this is a frustrating, uneven, incohesive film with inconsistent characters and a pretty great, but again inconsistent, main performance by Anna Paquin. Don't be fooled, there are great moments sprinkled in here, and Lisa's classroom scenes really resonate, but it's just not enough to recommend. I wish I actually wanted to seek out the Extended Cut, but I really don't. I know many people will read this and say I "didn't get it" and that's fine since it works both ways for all film buffs, but I'm not a fan, and the more I think about it the less I like it. At least it's not boring.

Am I the only one who feels that Anna Paquin's acting is not the best, but probably the worst aspect of this film? For the entirety of the overlong runtime, but most markedly in the several outlandish scenes with Mr. Aaron, a strangely cast Matt Damon, her reading of the lines was overdone and unnatural. The intonation and pitch, among other things, seemed extremely forced and, well, like acting! In one scene, she accuses Emily of being "strident" and when she gets upset, modifies it to "emphatic". Official dictionary definitions would tell us that the key difference between the two words is the negative connotation that accompanies the former. Well, Paquin's acting and delivery of her lines can be described as strident, not emphatic.

The aforementioned scene is actually an example of the cleverness and wit found in Kenneth Lonergan's script, and I am confident that a book version of this film would garner a much higher rating from me. The premise is ingenious and the story engaging. The relevant scenes were insightful and thought provoking, inviting hours of discussion. Unfortunately, the critical word in that sentence is "relevant", because this lost potential of a masterpiece film was full of irrelevant scenes. Even irrelevant characters. A significant amount of time is dedicated to some high school classroom political debates, which would be quite compelling in another context, but distracting and confusing here, given its inapplicability to Lisa Cohen's narrative. Even the film title is irrelevant! I am actually partial to clever or not obvious film titles, but "Margaret" is neither of these. It refers to yet another inconsequential scene that should have been edited out, more specifically to the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem read aloud in her English class. The narrator in the poem speaks to a young girl named Margaret, who is grieving the death of autumn leaves as if they were dying friends explaining to her that although it feels profound, grieving is an inescapable part of the human condition. This scene is not long enough, nor the message prolific enough to warrant the naming of the entire 3 hour film.

From Salon: Rarely has a film with such a great cast and so many moments of terrific writing and such high dramatic goals, overdone but beautiful cinematography, been so messy and disorganized and fundamentally bad... like going to a friend's house for dinner to discover that they've apparently had a breakdown, and bought all sorts of delicious ingredients with no recipe in mind: Ice cream followed by lentil soup followed by sashimi followed by uncooked root vegetables, with half-kneaded bread dough and Pinot Noir poured over your head.

True, I watched the 36 minutes longer extended 3 hours and 6 minutes version, but I suspect I would have actually been even more dissatisfied with the shorter versions, since even more subplots were left hanging. Even in this full extended version, too much was left unresolved. Not surprising, given the labyrinth mess of plots and subplots, arbitrary detours and illogical tangents. "Margaret" is a film that would have dearly benefited from some serious killing of the darlings. And one look into the long process and legal drama surrounding the release of this film will indicate that I'm far from alone in this thinking!

Such loss of potential. Could have been a masterpiece. Alas, the best I can grant is a 6/10, and that's even with the extra points that come with any Mark Ruffalo film (stellar as always, even in his limited character time)!

Margaret is a well written coming of age drama, but the protagonist is not a sympathetic character, which is going to alienate a lot of the audience right off the bat. The girl behind me as I left the theater didn't like it, telling her friend, "I just couldn't stand Anna Paquin's character." The screenplay is deft at shorthanding idiosyncratic, complicated personalities with naturalistic dialogue. It also helps that every role in the film, including almost every minor part, is cast with a top notch actor. But for all the big Hollywood names, my props go to J. Smith-Cameron for a theater-grade performance scaled down to fit the intimacy of a close up shot. The movie explores the milieu of affluent teenagers attending an upscale school in New York City, and one of the other reviewers here is right in saying it resembles a French film in that it takes an mature approach to depicting adolescents, showing them as smart, complicated, sexual, uncertain. Most mainstream reviewers seem puzzled as to what they should think about it. I think it's over their heads, the elliptical, dialogue heavy, character driven narrative style, as well as the lack of an easy, simple take-away moral, seems to have befuddled them. Maybe we should rope in some theater critics' opinions instead.

On the day of its cinema release, Kenneth Lonergan's long-gestating drama was the most successful film in the UK. Problem was, it only opened on one screen. The story of Margaret's production is likely a fascinating story in itself, not least because of Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker's input into the final edit, which was presumably a return favour for Lonergan's work on the screenplay for Gangs of New York. But I'll focus on the fascinating story that Lonergan has told with this film.

Ostensibly the tale centres on a New York schoolgirl named Lisa (Anna Paquin, defining her young adulthood just as she defined herself in childhood with The Piano), who inadvertently causes a fatal road accident. What follows is the emotional aftermath, fought outwardly with her mother, as a moral and ethical war wages within her hormone-ravaged body.

The performances are excellent throughout, particularly Paquin and J. Smith-Cameron as the daughter and mother caught in gravitational flux. Jean Reno gives fine support as the sad-sack Ramon, while Matthew Broderick delivers the poem (by Gerard Manley Hopkins) that provides the film's title, while suggesting the entire life of his character by the way he eats a sandwich. It's that kind of film.

I recently wrote a review of Winter's Bone, which I described as an anti-youth movie. Margaret could be a companion piece in this regard, cautioning against the bright-eyed naivety of youthful independence, and promoting the importance of family. Like Winter's Ree, Lisa is a lost soul; unlike Ree, Lisa is not someone we admire. But she is always in focus; Lonergan expects not for us to like her, only to understand her. In maintaining this focus, Lonergan himself achieves the admirable: weaving a narrative whose minute details and labyrinthine arguments mirror the broader existential vista against which they are dwarfed.

Margaret goes deeper than Winter's Bone, delivering something pleasingly unexpected: a kind of Sartrean modern fable about the isolating nature of subjectivity. Like her actor mother on the stage, and like us all in our semi-waking lives, Lisa is the main player in her great opera. She performs the social functions that enable her to cling to a sense of belongingness, but something gnaws at her soul. And when, after the accident, she seeks some kind of meaning, she is met at once by indifference, before being seduced by those very institutions that make indifference normal. Nothing in the material world satisfies Lisa; nothing can match her aspirations. The suggestion here, I feel, is that our despair emerges from the disparity between that which we hope for and that which reality can deliver.

No wonder it took so long to find its way to a single UK screen: a three-hour existentialist play is a tough sell. Ten years after the towers sank to Ground Zero, Margaret joins There Will Be Blood, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, and (for some) Zodiac in the pantheon of modern classics that map the American psyche in the post-9/11 world.

"Margaret" took years to get to us, seemingly even longer to play out, but tells a story so poetic and heartbreakingly real that you couldn't imagine it any other way. Lisa (Anna Paquin) is a teenager; she's lost in her own world by her own misguided arrogance, but she must come to terms with death and the true nature of a tragic accident.

The film starts with Lisa in high school determinedly getting her way even though she probably doesn't deserve to. Nonchalantly waiting 'til class is over and wearing a skirt too short, she saunters her way to the front where her math teacher, Mr. Aaron (Matt Damon), chastises her for her poor grades. But with a slightly flirtatious tone, Lisa settles the matter with a supposedly shared understanding that it's okay because math won't factor into her future.

Later, Lisa sets out to find a stylish but functional cowboy hat in the middle of New York City. She is unsuccessful until she spies one on the head of a boyishly handsome bus driver (Mark Ruffalo) and jauntily jogs beside it determined to get his attention to both: find out where he got his hat; and also to quench a teenage girl's desire of just getting his attention. She succeeds; he drives through a red light, and kills a pedestrian in the process.

Lisa immediately feels the pain, guilt and remorse and tries to ease the woman's passage into the afterlife. The film then becomes a character study of a teenage girl determined to get past the pain and aftermath of a tragedy caused by a simple accident. The fascinating parts of this film involve how our lead character becomes less sympathetic but more fragile while remaining equally reckless.

Questions about the cause and nature of mortality are raised, and most interestingly what are the moral and immoral ways to respond to it. The film's title comes from the poem "Spring and Fall: (Margaret, Are You Grieving?)" written by Gerard Manley Hopkins in 1880. Margaret is a child who must come to terms with the loss of her innocence. "… And yet you will weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name; Sorrow's springs are the same." Lisa's English teacher (Matthew Broderick) recites this poem to the class. Lisa is, at times, a typical teenager, bent on having things her way, always having her point heard. But now the shaky foundations which her arrogance is based on begin to crumble and we don't know and she doesn't know if she's still innocent or where she lost it.

The shortened released version of "Margaret" clocks in at over two and a half hours; edited down from the three-hour director's cut. But because of the universal tale of life and death that it tells, it needs the length. It doesn't have a simple plot, and Lisa is not a simple character. It can definitely seem errant with its uneven editing, but that's probably going to be an expected outcome of 6 years' worth of legal and creative battles going on behind the scenes.

Broderick and Ruffalo re-team from Lonergan's previous indie success "You Can Count on Me" (2000), but don't expect any actor to show more range or emotion than Anna Paquin. Everything goes through Lisa.