The Visitor
I’ve begun the annual Sprint To The Oscars movie-watching turbo-download; I considered not doing it this year, especially when Entertainment Weekly‘s list of movies I should see before the ceremony made it clear that 1) of the 25 essential films, I’d seen only a fraction, and 2) I’d have to endure both The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Australia, neither of which I have even the faintest interest in.
But I’ve decided to go for it, which is why I watched The Visitor on On Demand last night, and that movie is probably going to make the entire enterprise worthwhile.
It’s not something I’d expected to say, or feel, about The Visitor, either. The “widowed professor finds an axe to break the frozen sea within” trope is not my favorite; it’s become a trope, for starters, and it often feels like a crutch storytellers use to go around icy patches of writing instead of through them, because a character who has shut down emotionally is easier to propel without sticky clichés than one who’s angry, or even out loud at all, about his loneliness and despair.
I certainly didn’t expect to enjoy watching a second trope, the “fish out of water”/”white dude gets (sometimes figurative) rhythm thanks to Magical Minority” plot, used as a lever on the first one — but the script stays on the right side of formula, beginning with the fact that Walter is not a professor of English, and thank God. I just can’t watch one more crusty old turtle rediscover the poetry in poetry; that doesn’t happen here. The happy ending the audience wants is one we also know is sugary and unrealistic, and the story wisely withholds it.
Richard Jenkins’s performance is huge, too, because he also stays on the right side of formula. I think the usual choice is to play that character as almost insensate in the first act, but Jenkins renders Walter as though he knows he’s closed off, but has accepted that as his life until an opportunity happens along for him to open up. He doesn’t know why, or whether it’s the smart thing; he just feels it’s something he has to do. It’s hard to explain how that nuance comes from Jenkins’s acting, but the payoff comes in the speech he has to give in the restaurant about how he’s been phoning it in for years now; it shouldn’t sell, but because we believe Walter as Jenkins has played him up to that point, we believe that Walter would come out with something that literal at that time.
The movie does stumble into the safe choice a couple of times — Walter’s blow-up at the detention center, echoing Tarek’s bitter words from before, felt like a false echo the scene didn’t need — but it gets so many things right. The way Walter and Mouna lie in bed together. The way a friendship’s cells divide and multiply at the beginning. The way New York City is so friendly and full of possibility, and at the same time so closed and cold. The movie doesn’t over-explain, and it creates a little corner of the world that either you already know, or want to. Not a big movie, but almost a great one…one which, despite its inclusion on EW‘s list, probably isn’t even going to get nominated for anything, much less win (if Penn and Rourke cancel each other out, it’ll be Pitt who benefits, I’d bet).
…Oh my God, the guy who played weaselly Scott Templeton on The Wire wrote and directed The Visitor. And he did The Station Agent. That’s amazing. Well done, sir.
Tags: movies
Tom McCarthy is something of an oddity. He somehow managed to become a pretty prolific character actor and a darling indie filmmaker without most people those two careers were the same person. I read this interview with him where he mentioned that while he was out promoting this movie (it was released only about a month after The Wire finale aired) where he mentioned that frequently he would sit down for interviews and the interviewer would do a double take upon recognizing him as Scott Templeton.
As for its award chances, I think it stands a better chance than you’re giving it credit for. There’s always one or two indie darlings that sneak into the screenplay category, and the fact that people are even still talking about Jenkins eight months after the film’s release makes me think he has a decent shot at a nomination. Currently, I see Penn, Rourke, Langella, Jenkins, and Eastwood making the final cut. Pitt’s performance is more respected than loved.
I’m so glad you liked this movie – I’ve been dying to see it, missed it in the theater, and now it’s at the top of the Netflix queue. I’m also dying to see “Waltz with Bashir.”
You’re right to avoid Australia and Benjamin Button, I think. Australia especially. It’s got the Magical Minority trope in spades, Nicole Kidman acts like she’s never seen a movie before, and it’s… just lame. There’s no reason to believe the bad guy would be that bad, and the whole plot caves in on itself a few times. I like Baz Lurmann, but I didn’t like this movie. As for Benjamin Button, it’s not bad, exactly, but it’s boring. If he aged properly it would be called “Pretty People Living Their Lives.” The movie asks you to accept a lot of premises beyond aging backward, and most of them don’t withstand a moment of scrutiny. Plus, who makes a movie set in Louisiana from 1918-2005 and says not one thing about race? If you want to see Brad Pitt in a recent movie, it’s “Burn After Reading” all the way.
JaJe and I just saw “Slumdog Millionaire” this weekend and words from me cannot do this film any justice. I so thoroughly enjoyed this film, and was ecstatic that it won the Golden Globe last night. If you haven’t seen it yet, Sars, I’d put it at the top of the list to see next.
I also loved this movie for its quietness in character reveal. It has, in that regard, a bit in common with The Station Agent. Both flicks let the characters open like flowers, unhurried. I agree with you that the frame of the movie is trite, but it is redeemed in the detail.
I loved the cameraderie at the market, with whole lifetimes underneath the script. I shuddered at the coldly ordinary detention center. Jenkins did such nice job with the gradual shouldering of a burden not ordinarily his.
And a good soundtrack to boot.
Loved Jenkins as the senior Fisher in in SFU
Australia clocks in at 166 minutes. `Nuff said.
I second the lack of interest in “Benjamin Button.” I saw “Seven Years in Tibet” – twice – and it felt like 14 years in my theater seat. I’ve already done my time, Brad.
@FMcGee – I really like that – “Pretty People Living Their Lives.” Great!
I’m also not sitting through “Australia.” I knew from the posters and the previews that it wouldn’t be a necessity in my life. Without even having seen “Slumdog Millionaire,” I’m thrilled that it’s kicking the crap out of “Button,” “Changeling,” etc. at the awards ceremonies and hope to see it to do at the Oscars. No Brangelina wins – please!
Yeah, I really liked The Visitor. I saw it in the theaters a few months ago and agree with just about all of your comments here. It was really well played by everyone in it.
I haven’t seen this OR “Slumdog Millionaire,” but I just want to add my voice to any voice taking the position that all movies keeping “Changeling” from winning anything are doing God’s work, because that movie? Is some bullshit.
Saw Benjamin Button. It was ok. Cate Blanchett was underused, which is usually a shame. My husband is from New Orleans, and said that some of the details in the movie were either just plain wrong, or they were futzed for dramatic effect (very minor spoiler: at the end of the movie, you overhear a TV announcement from the room next door to where two characters are that the levee on the Industrial Canal broke. In fact at that point in time all buildings in downtown New Orleans, where said characters are, had lost power, and were on backup generators. They would definitely not had any TV reception, or it would have been deemed a waste of resources. The emergency broadcasts also had failed at that point. The only news outfit operating through the storm was WNNO radio, which would have been operating from a bunker underground, and would not actually have been able to know what was happening to the levees, at least not immediately. The fakey CNN-like TV announcement really pissed my husband off. He is kind of a stickler for details, but there you go).
I am on the same Benjamin Button train, but just caught Wall-E and thought it was fantastically wonderful (Lisa Schwarzbaum’s #1 ranking is coolio); Milk was better than I hoped it would be given that I don’t usually think much of Sean Penn.
I was very disappointed that Australia got such crappy reviews; I won’t see it after reading them, and I’m a big Moulin Rouge fan. Boo!
I keep wondering how many people are prodded into seeing Benjamin Button by a nagging sense that they don’t really believe Wrinkly Van Oldenbald is really truly Brad Pitt, and they want to see the moment when the fakeout happens. I want to see Cate be her usual awesome self, but I’ll see your “usually a shame,” meltina, and raise you an “always a bonehead move.” As it is, the trailers for both Benjamin Button and Changeling leave me all “… Really? That’s a movie?”
I’m so glad to hear you review this one positively. I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR a few weeks ago and Terri Gross interviewed Jenkins and I was from that moment on enthralled with seeing this movie. I liked the station agent and I like the premise of quiet types slowly coming out of their shells. Go Jenkins!
The only Oscary movies I’ve seen so far are Milk and Revolutionary Road. I really enjoyed Milk, which seems weird to say about a movie where the protagonist is assassinated, but since you know that going in (and it’s stated in the first few minutes of the movie for those who might not know), you can just focus on the story about a regular joe who changed the world. Inspiring, but not in a hokey, “Freedom Writers” sort of way. Not only was Sean Penn great, but so were James Franco, Josh Brolin, and Emile Hirsch.
Revolutionary Road was pretty good–the film itself could use a more judicious editing, IMO, but the performances by Kate and Leo are pretty great.
But Oscar noms or not, I have no interest whatsoever in Benjamin Button, Australia (despite usually liking Baz Luhrmann), or The Changeling. Speaking of which, is Angelina Jolie being nominated just because she’s Angelina Jolie? Because that movie got crap reviews, and I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who saw it.
How sad is it that the trailers for Benjamin Button were what made me not want to see the movie? I mean the concept (dude ages backwards) sounds really interesting, and in the right hands could be done really well, but when the trailers are hyping the romance aspect instead of the, you know, dude-ages-backwards-holy-crap! aspect, it is not a promising sign in my mind.
Isn’t “Benjamin Button” simply Pitt’s attempt at “Monster”, in that he’s going for the “Look, I’m a beautiful creature who’s willing to get ugly if it makes me look deep” vote? I don’t know if that was Theron’s motivation–for all I know, it certainly wasn’t, but it sure LOOKED that way.
I wouldn’t mind seeing “Australia”, just because I think Hugh Jackman is awesome, despite “Van Helsing”. (The fact that anyone associated with “Van Helsing” is allowed to walk among us, rather than being sent to some plague island, is evidence of the greatness of humanity, I guess.)
Can’t stand DiCaprio OR Winslet, so “Revolutionary Road” is getting a miss at our house. Winslet seems to have confused “acting” with “not wearing eyeliner”.
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, which explains much of the character of the movie and the stance it takes on Benjamin’s aging backwards. Just putting that out there. Also, I saw it and liked it. It kind of took way too long to tell its story, but it was still quite enjoyable. But then, I also have a soft spot for Brad Pitt, mainly due to “Ocean’s 11” and “Snatch,” two of my all-time favorite movies.
I think the make yourself ugly to win an Oscar thing only works for women.
Okay, so is it me, or is the “Benjamin Button” concept at reminiscent of the plot of “Mork and Mindy”? I mean, I only watched the occasional repeat as a child, and I didn’t like the show then, but I remember my mother telling me that the whole idea was that Mork was actually aging backwards and he was really a child in a grown man’s body or something, and that when he finally married Mindy she – ugh – gave birth to a little old man. Or something like that. So that’s kind of screwed up any interest I might have had in “Button.”
Sorry, I haven’t finished my morning Diet Coke w/Lime yet.
I agree with ya, RJ. Mr. Button-nose aging backward? Meh. But what an awesome comparison you made!
Mork n Mindy had ***Jonathan Winters.*** It SOUNDS fun, but those episodes were painfully out of control and hard to watch. Poor director – both Robin Williams AND Jonathan Winters? CRAZY!
(Oh, I’m sad. I haven’t seen ANY of those essential new movies, but I have brain cells wasting energy on Jonathan Winters, in short pants, talking babytalk. Just kill me, kill me now.)
I just watched The Visitor over the weekend. I thought it was beautiful, and am bummed with the knowledge that it will get overlooked for awards.
Oh, and yeah, skip Benjamin Button. It’s okay, but the story has been told before, and better. It reminded me of a combination between Forrest Gump and Big Fish.
@ferretrick: “I think the make yourself ugly to win an Oscar thing only works for women.”
Is there a “Get fat, score Oscar” corollary for men? Two random-ish examples: Clooney won for Syriana; it’s probably a gross oversimplification of why De Niro won for Jake LaMotta, but I’m thinking it didn’t hurt. In the case of Brando, of course, it’s not so much “get fat, score Oscar” as “Win Oscar, eat everything else in Hollywood.” I thought Pitt’s attempt at “Get me, I’m ugly, so I must be a Serious Actor” was Babel; 12 Monkeys wasn’t a glam part, either, but I think it was probably the eyeball-twirling crazy that attracted Pitt to that one.
I’m probably going to see Milk despite my aversion to Sean Penn, about which I’m already on the record here.
Every time I read “Benjamin Button” I think Beatrix Potter.
I just want to chime in, in the defense of Australia. If you loved “Moulin Rouge” (which I did) you will love “Australia”. It has a lot of heart and everyone that I have told “You must see this!” loved it. It doesn’t feel at all like it lasts 166 minutes. It’s not your everyday drivel, it’s Baz Luhrmann! Enough said!
Slumdog Millionaire… I think you’ll like it. It’s amazing. I just saw it last night.
It’ll make the hurt of Australia and Button go away, I promise.
And stay for the credits. :D
Dr. E and RJ have perfectly summarized the sum total of my thoughts about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Bunny? Jonathan Winters’ “storyline” on Mork & Mindy? What the hell?
I saw Benjamin Button today, and I really thought it was dramatically weak, but it took several hours for me to figure out why.
He doesn’t, as a person, age backwards. DOES NOT. Only his body ages backwards. Only his appearance ages backwards. His mind does not age backwards at all. In every character-significant way, he begins as a child, and he progresses to old age. If he actually aged backwards — if he began his life jaded and experienced and knowing things about the world, and he gradually became more naive as the people he loved became more experienced and wise, that would be a story. But all Benjamin Button really has is an unusual physical disability, and an unusual physical disability is not an entire movie — especially one that’s three damn hours long.
This gets a little, but not all that, spoilery, I warn you. But the movie contains no surprises that are really surprising, so.
Benjamin’s reaction to his predicament is pretty much “Oh, well.” His mother’s reaction? “Oh, well.” The love of his life’s reaction? “Oh, well.” So there’s kind of nothing there — he’s a very inert character who really just sits there and observes, and neither he nor anyone else seems to have any notable attitude toward his life. That can work, but here, I don’t think it does.
In fact, the movie, at times, seems completely confused by its own conceit. There’s a moment where Benjamin discusses with someone the matter of getting younger while everyone else grows older and dies, and they make a big hoo-hah about how he loses all the people he loves because they get old while he gets younger, which…WHAT? That makes no sense! He lives the same stretch of years, and experiences the same births and deaths, that he would otherwise. Only his body is off sync. He’s not a time traveler, he’s not immortal…he doesn’t outlive or fail to outlive anyone different from what would have happened if he were totally normal. There are a couple of other times when this happens, when the movie seems to forget that he’s simply living a normal lifespan with a normal progression of time from birth to death, just with a body aging in reverse. It’s strictly, entirely, totally a physical disability; it has nothing to do with aging backwards as a person.
Happily, I was wrong — Jenkins did get a nod. Outstanding.