The Last Station (2009)

James McAvoy is in The Last Station and that is reason enough for me to recommend it. I find him one of the most enchanting actors to watch and it is a hard and fast rule of mine to see whatever he does. That being said, I was somewhat dissapointed with The Last Station.

I'll start by admitting that I know next to nothing about Tolstoy. My grandma bought me Anna Karenina a few years ago and I've been toting it around ever since, never quite brave enough to actually begin reading it. After seeing The Last Station, I know a bit more, but what of the film was true and what was fiction I cannot be sure (nor do I care to do any research to find out).

That's what The Last Station missed. Most biopics, especially those of artists, writers, poets, or other such people that I feel I ought to know about, inspire me to investigate further. Bright Star sent me flying to my Norton Anthology to reexamine the poems of Keats. Even lackluster biopics tend to have this effect on me - Little Ashes reminded me how much I loved Lorca in college and had me looking up the closest museum with any Dali work.

The Last Station didn't make me want to know more. I don't care about Tolstoy anyore than I ever have (and truthfully, that's not much). Christopher Plummer played him like Santa Clause, all smiles and good natured old guy charm. And while Helen Mirren was very good (and man is she pretty), she contriubted to the overall sense of Britishness that this cast exudes. If you said to me, "Name five things you know about Tolstoy" I might have been tapped out after saying, "He wrote War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and was Russian."

Finally, James McAvoy. His role in this reminded me slightly of his role in The Last King of Scotland. In both films, he is clearly the protagonist, although I would wager that if you asked someone what either film was about, they would neglect his characters entirely in their response.

There's a tendency, and it's one I don't much care for, to examine larger than life figures through the eyes of a bland bystandar. I'd be willing to bet people who did not see The Last King of Scotland haven't the faintest notion that James McAvoy was the lead (or even in it). Why? Why must he take these roles where he he's just a sounding board for men to claim their oscar nominations. I'm indignant on his part. He does a fine job of brining something to these characters - making them more than just the young naeive guy who is in awe of the oscar nominee - but why does his role even exist? The stories aren't about him even though they're about him. It's irritating. It's not a story of a young kid learning his hero isn't all he thought. Or learning his friendly dictator friend isn't so friendly. They're films about the hero and the dictator. I assume the idea is to make these figures accessable through an every man but that's dumb. It's a movie. These figures are accessable through Christopher Plummer and Forest Whitaker. I'd rather follow the people with the interesting lives than be forced to hang around the edges.

All that asside, James McAvoy really is brilliant. He does that thing where his eyes are full of tears but he doesn't actually cry in almost every role he plays. Seriously - look for it. One of these days he'll play the "figure" rather than the bystandar and then maybe he'll get more of the recognition he deserves. Until that day, I will remain his vocal champion.

Atonement (2007)

Atonement is beautiful and so is James McAvoy. When I learned - way back in the day - that one of my absolute favorite actors would be starring in an adaptation of one of my favorite novels, I was pleased to say the least. I love this film but I often find myself in the minority. The divide seems to occur between people who read the book and people who did not. For those who did not, the feeling of having the rug pulled out from underneath them at the end seems to overwhelm any other opinion they may have had about the film. I hear over and over again "I loved the first half..."

I love it all. I look at it like the novel - three threads of a complicated story. I find it to be one of the most faithfully adapted films I've ever seen. And just as he did with Pride & Prejudice, director Joe Wright fills the screen with lush imagery that can be both breathtaking and heartbreaking. He also has a great ability to depict romance, something that many current romance films lack entirely. Small moments - one hand set on top of another, a palm resting against a cheek - he uses these details to speak volumes and with great success (he for sure has a thing for hands and the power of touch). It's lovely and subtle.

And his long takes. Oh, his long takes. They get a lot of press. When Atonement came out, nearly every piece of writing I read on it centered on the monumental complexity of that shot on the beach. This long take outdoes, by a mile, the few in Pride and Prejudice. It truly is something to behold (and a constant reminder to me why I could not handle working in production). Clearly, I love Joe Wright. I only wish he would stay in this pseudo-genre of sweeping storybook romance. I'm hoping his upcoming film, Hanna, starring Atonement lead Saoirse Ronan, will allow for some of the grandiosity I love from him.

The one thing - and I can't fault any one in particular, it's simply the nature of the story - is in fact the ending. In the novel, it makes sense. Briony, in essence, says, "you've been reading the version of Atonement that I wrote. Not the truth of what really was." On screen, this concept is somewhat jumbled. Almost, "You've been watching an adaptation of the book I wrote, and now you're watching reality" except we're still watching that adaptation. It's a difficult sell and I can understand why having read the novel is almost necessary to warrant that ending for a first time viewer.

That aside, Atonement is a marvelous film. It's downer ending prevents me from watching it again and again as I am so prone to do with movies I love, but nonetheless, it was definitely one of the best films of 2007.