levybob

Noah Birnbach's 'Jay Kelly' is an homage to film-making, the film 'borrowing' (or paying homage to) certain film-makers who might well have influenced the making of this particular film. There is a good deal of Woody Allen here, some Federico Fellini, and others I likely have missed. And I have to say that I don't know what to make of this 'borrowing'. Is it theft? Could Birnbach not have found another set of situations by which he could make his points? In my opinion, Yes. He could.

Like 'Harry Block' in Woody Allen's 'Deconstructing Harry', George Clooney's Jay Kelly is traveling to a tribute of his past works. And like Allen, he comes with a retinue of friends and employees, each with a story of their own. As with Allen's 'Sandy Bates' in 'Stardust Memories', actor Jay Kelly's life is filled with conflict, and like Allen's hero, Kelly frequently confuses what in his past was real, what was simply on screen. And as in Stardust Memories there are numerous close-ups (very close-ups, too close-up) of characters' faces; close-ups which had no real reason beyond paying tribute to Allen.

And again, as in Allen's 'Celebrity' which had Kenneth Branaugh as the narcissistic Lee Simon who can not see beyond the the next article he is going to write, Clooney's Jay Kelly is oblivious to the lives of others, even those with whom he is surrounded. Like Simon, Kelly leaves us in disbelief over his caring not-one-wit about his negative impact on others. And finally, adding to our borrowed scenes, when a group of party-goers make there way through an Italian field, we cannot help but think of Fellini's Italian revelers in '8 1/2'.

Where there is a difference between this film and Allens' is that Clooney's portrayal of Jay Kelly presents him as someone we might well like. Someone with whom we'd like to have a drink, talk about the world, play a round of golf. This despite his many shortcomings. Certainly Adam Sandler's role as Kelly's right-hand-man (read that as 'lackey') is more than a little too loyal to this self-centered artist. Even when other employees depart even before reaching the tribute, and even as his own family falters, Sandler's Ron Suckenick stays true-blue. And I could not help but think that Suckenick is a stand-in for us. How despite what we know, or suspect, about the lives of the rich and famous, if given a opportunity to cozy up close, we would all take that chance.

What we have here is a good night's entertainment. It's got its ups and downs. Its borrowings or thefts. Some scenes are too long by far. Others offer nothing. Certain decisions (the sort of train that the film presents as running between Paris and Italy) are ridiculous. But, for the most part, I forgave it.

How do you say anything negative about a film like 'Hamnet'; a well made, beautifully intended piece of work? Not easy. But, for me, the film was not .... entertaining; that's how difficult was the story and, accordingly, how difficult to sit through. It is Sixteenth Century England and life in all its aspects is difficult. A plague is rampaging through the country. Childbirth is dangerous. A kind of caste system exists where it is difficult to break free of the constraints of one's birthright; even for someone as exceptional as William Shakespeare. To succeed at his passion he must choose between his work and his family and it is this choice, and its ramifications, that drives the central story.

Paul Mescal and Jesse Buckley are believable as the Shakespeares; no one can fault their performances. But I, for one, would have been grateful for the shortening of certain scenes (though I fully understand why they are as long as they are). So what we have here is my own personal discomfort versus Director Zhao's art, the need to fully immerse us in the family's tragic events.

Of course you, like most critics, may actually find the film close to perfect. And frankly, I can understand how you would.

'Train Dreams' works. A story of a simple man who works with his hands, it takes us through the entirety of his life, slowing significantly on those years spent with his wife and daughter in an idyllic setting in Idaho. The film's narration by actor Will Patton, is 'everyman' in language but poetic in its illuminating the lives of our characters. Joel Edgerton will be Oscar-considered for the lead role as the quiet logger who longs only for a quiet family life. Felicity Jones as his wife will win your heart as easily and quickly as she does her husband's. For me, the acting surprise was William H. Macy as an aging logger/philosopher our hero works with on more than one occasion. It took me a while to recognize the man behind the squeal of a voice that Macy affects.

By the film's ending I was a minute from tears. Ask me why and I would answer, I dunno. I just was. But if I dug deeper I would say that the film casts light on the randomness of life; that without turning a certain corner along the way, we might not have had as good a life as we've had, or suffered the fate that lay ahead. That the trick is to be present for life's joys as long as they are present.

See this film.