catching up with ... how do you know

This should have been a good movie, but it's not. It's not bad because the main actors — Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd —lack appeal. They are all fine. The script has some funny moments and even Jack Nicholson is giving it his all. Witherspoon plays a character that is trying to sort out her life, professional and private. For a female character to do that in a movie, and to actually be the focus of the movie, is a rare and good thing. So what exactly is wrong with How Do You Know?

It starts with an original premise — Witherspoon's character is a female jock (softball) who has just been cut from her team and is having a lot of trouble trying to figure out not only what to do next, but who exactly she is. Unfortunately, the film soon introduces the love triangle, and her character seems to completely forget her dilemma. Even though I just watched the movie, I have no idea what her character's name was, or any of the characters. That's not good.

There is a completely uninteresting, unbelievable, and almost unintelligible subplot involving Rudd and his dad, played by Nicholson, involving corporate scandal. Maybe Brooks just wanted to include his old buddy Nicholson in the film? How Do You Know at least is less crass than As Good As it Gets, another James L. Brooks film that starred Nicholson (which I really couldn't stand.)

The either/or proposition that Witherspoon faces is beyond predictable. Before the movie starts we know that Paul Rudd is going to be the one she ends up with. Rudd, who is one of the most charming actors out there, in this movie plays a total shlump. He's a nice guy, but not a nice guy a girl would want to spend too much time with. He is so cringeworthy so much of the time that it is highly unlikely that he and Witherspoon would end up together. I was actually hoping against hope that she would walk off into the sunset by herself, and start dealing with that question of what she was going to do with the rest pf her life post-softball career, which would be far more realistic than ending up with Rudd. I feel like a traitor to my Rudd crush writing this, but he was just icky. Maybe Brooks caved from the original ending, because that's how Rudd played his character throughout the movie.

Owen Wilson, who may have been playing far from the "perfect" guy (as if there is such a guy or girl), was his usual charming self, with a good dose of me-centric professional athlete thrown in. He was perfect in the role. Maybe he wasn't someone Witherspoon would decide to be with forever, but the guy deserved points for trying. Neither Rudd nor the script ever really gave a great reason why she shouldn't at least attempt to give her relationship with Wilson a chance.

The best scene in the movie was when Rudd asked Witherspoon, who he has a crush on but really hardly knows, to tag along with him and visit a female friend who has just given birth. Talk about being clueless about boundaries. But the script says she should go with him, so she does. They witness an exhibition of "true love" in his friend's hospital room and an extreme example of Rudd's character's usual cluelessness (which is actually the movie's funniest moment). Rudd then thinks he's finally broken through, gotten Witherspoon where he wants her, and she, as usual, just doesn't think of him that way at all. It's a real, human moment. But the movie then falls back into cliché rom-com territory and forces the two of them together anyway.

Either Owen Wilson's or Reese Witherspoon's characters got a raw deal, because their dialogue together was far more fun and full of potential than anything she shared with Rudd:

Witherspoon: What am I doing? I caught myself. Don't judge anybody else until you check yourself out, that way you are lucky if it's your fault because then you can correct the situation. I'm nervous over something that is going on with me, and I ended up with an attractive guy who you would have to be an idiot to mistake for anything more than just a fun friendship, and... and, yes amazing sex, and then I give that guy a hard time for just being who he is. Totally my fault, I'm sorry. Please forgive me.

Wilson: Are you apologizing? 

Witherspoon: Yeah. 

Wilson: If you are really apologizing, you may be my dream girl. I heard those footsteps and I'm like, right, somebody nuts is coming back to be more nuts, and now an apology. You might be my dream girl.

As far as I can tell, by movie's end, Witherspoon still doesn't know.

george gently

Article first published as DVD Review: George Gently, Series 3 on Blogcritics.

The newly released DVD, George Gently, Series 3, consists of two movies originally aired in 2010 as part of BBC1's Inspector George Gently series. Featuring Martin Shaw as Gently and Lee Ingleby as his sidekick Sgt. John Bacchus, the series is set in Northumberland in the 1960s.

Far from swinging London, the episodes feature a very different England than most American audiences are used to seeing. Not only is the rolling landscape and industrial background a novelty, but the social tensions of the old guard versus the new ideas of freedom in the '60s are front and center.

Viewers will also enjoy Gently and Bacchus's investigation and interrogation techniques. Apparently in the '60s white gloves were never donned before examining evidence, cigarettes were smoked at every opportunity, even over a corpse while it was being scrutinized, and a detective sergeant's left hook to the gut was an effective and approved method to use in the witness interrogation room.

I haven't seen the previous episodes in the series, or read the Inspector Gently novels by Alan Hunter (he wrote 45) on which they are based, but after watching these two movies I'd like to, as Gently and Bacchus's relationship is quite interesting. They are colleagues at times, at other times combatants, and even sometimes become mentor and student.

The Series 3 DVD comes with two discs, each containing a full-length episode. The running time of both discs is 176 minutes and viewers can opt for subtitles or scene selection as extra features. The first disk's episode, set in 1966, "Gently Evil," is a heartbreaking story of a young woman with a shady past whose death may be connected to a series of child disappearances. The guest stars are all excellent, and include Melanie Pullen Clark as Bacchus's estranged wife, Neve McIntosh as a conflicted female lawyer, and Natalie Garner, as the victim's daughter, who may know more about the case than at first suspected.

The second disk, "Peace and Love," find Gently and Bacchus caught up in peace protests at Durham University when one of the professors (Emun Elliot) has been murdered. As students at the university keeps talking to Bacchus about free love, the local homosexual community must remain in the shadows to avoid persecution and prosecution. Gently must decide whether the murder is political or personal, as evidence of improper relations with students and blackmail comes to light. Featured guest stars include Warren Clarke, James Atherton, and Sarah Lancashire.

George Gently is completely original, but fans of Robbie Coltrane's Cracker mystery series will also like the tone of the show, as the personal and psychological aspects of the crimes and its investigators are as important as the solutions. Martin Shaw is a wonderful actor to watch and Lee Ingleby ranges from comic relief to a '60s Malcolm MacDowell-ish menace. He fits well into his hipper, modder suits, although he seems to have trouble being in his own skin. Simon Hubbard provides a benign presence as the put-upon (by Bacchus) PC Taylor who is Gently's major factotum and front desk guard at the police station.

After just two feature-length episodes I'm already hooked. Happily it appears that not only are there past episodes to check out, but there is the promise of more episodes in the future as well. Looking forward to further investigations with Inspector Gently.

Related articles

• DVD Review: George Gently, Series 3 (blogcritics.org)

summer movie catch-up — water for elephants

I saw Water for Elephants weeks ago and just haven't gotten round to writing about it yet, although I did enjoy watching it in a theater. Watching Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon on a Graham Norton Show rerun recently reminded me how nicely done the movie actually was.

Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon had a nice chemistry. This is actually the best I have ever seen Witherspoon look in a movie. She was perfectly at home in the period costumes and make-up and was extremely comfortable and believable with the animals.

Pattinson seemed perfectly cast as leading man Jacob Jankowski. I haven't seen in him in much else besides the Twilight movies on cable, which don't seem to require acting, just brooding, so it was a pleasant surprise to find him actually able to be convincing as young medical student in the '30s who who has to drop out of college after his parents die and there is no money to continue his education. He ends up working as a vet for the Benzini Brothers Circus, which is run by the violent August (Christoph Waltz). Jacob becomes close to August's wife Marlena, who is the circus's star performer. Romance and drama ensue.

The plot is old-fashioned and melodramatic, but that actually was a plus. It was a period piece, telling a story. It may be a small slice of life, but it was entertaining. The bad guy (Waltz) was so bad I was waiting for him to grow a mustache so he could twirl it. I'm not sure what the wonderful James Frain was doing in such a small role as an elephant trainer, but it was fun to see him. There was also a nice cameo by veteran actor Hal Holbrook.

The look of the film was great. Some scenes seem to have been filmed with a vignette filter, adding to the old-timey atmosphere. The costumes and sets were impeccable, the drab browns and Depression-era grays a perfect contrast to the bright colors of the circus. I haven't read the book, and I'm not sure I'm interested enough in circus life to want to, but I enjoyed going back in time for the duration of the film. There are some upsetting scenes of animal cruelty, which might be a turn-off for some. All in all, Water for Elephants is a nice period romance. If you get a chance, give it a look.

those lips, those eyes ...

Article first published as Book Review: Man Ray | Lee Miller, Partners in Surrealism by Phillip Prodger with contributions by Lynda Roscoe Hartigan and Antony Penrose on Blogcritics.

Those lips, those eyes — Lee Miller and Man Ray were artists, lovers, equals ... Man Ray | Lee Miller, Partners in Surrealism, by Phillip Prodger with contributions by Lynda Roscoe Harigan and Antony Penrose, is a beautiful coffee table book, created to accompany the current exhibition at the Peabody Essex Museum, in Salem, MA through December 4, 2011. But it is also a look into a very interesting, and mostly unknown, artistic collaboration.

Lee Miller was introduced to photography by her father, who frequently would use her as a model. She began getting actual modeling jobs at 19, when Condé Nast, the founder of Vogue, spotted her and jump-started her career. She was a successful model from 1927 to 1929, when she decided to go to Paris and apprentice herself to the famous Surrealist artist Man Ray (born Emmanuel Radnitzky) — even though she had never met him and he didn't take apprentices.

She managed to talk him into becoming his assistant, and soon the young beauty was also his favorite subject and lover. In the catalogue essays by Prodger and Hartigan it becomes clear that Man Ray and Lee Miller had a very complex relationship. The Surrealists believed that people should be free in their love affairs, but it was a very male-centric movement and the "rules" were quite sexist and old-fashioned when it came to women's sexuality. Miller was a modern woman and didn't adhere to their rules of dating. Man Ray would become jealous and possessive of Lee when she had another lover, but she was supposed to be fine with him doing the same.

Not only were Miller and Man Ray evenly matched sexually, but they became frequent artistic collaborators. Miller opened up her own photography studio near to Man Ray's, and even took on some of his overflow clients. They discovered the technique of "solarisation" together.

The book juxtaposes works by Man Ray and Miller to show how closely they worked on similar themes with very different results. Man Ray's photographs of Miller frequently showcase her beauty and sensuality. When Miller photographs herself or another model with the same props she creates a photograph that features a woman's strength or psychological isolation.

Miller left Man Ray in 1932, but he continued to use her image, or parts of her image, in his work for many years. In "L’Heure de l’Observatoire — Les Amoureux (Observatory Time — The Lovers)," 1932-34, a giant pair of Miller's lips hovers over an empty landscape. Man Ray would use her lips as a totem again and again in his work, abstracting them to become two lovers entwined.

In one of his readymade sculptures, "Indestructible Object (or Object to Be Destroyed)," a cut-out of one of Miller's eyes ticks back and forth on a metronome. In a 1932 version of the sculpture, created after Miller had left him, Man Ray included these instructions, "Cut out the eye from a photograph of one who has been loved but is seen no more. Attach the eye to the pendulum of a metronome and regulate the weight to suit the tempo desired. Keep going to the limit of endurance. With a hammer well-aimed, try to destroy the whole at a single blow."

It was definitely a difficult break-up, and Antony Penrose, who was Miller's son with the painter Roland Penrose and who now manages her estate and archives, writes a very personal and moving essay about discovering who his mother really was and the breadth of her talent after her death. But he is as surprised as many must have been that two years after their acrimonious split, Miller and Man Ray were reunited — not as lovers, but as friends, and they remained so for the rest of their lives.

The book also includes portraits of Miller by friends and contemporaries Pablo Picasso and Dora Maar, another tempestuous romantic/artistic couple, as well as Max Ernst, Alexander Calder and Roland Penrose, to name a few.

Man Ray | Lee Miller, Partners in Surrealism is a fascinating glimpse into the lives of two extremely talented artists at the peak of their artistic and romantic partnership. Miller had quite an interesting career after she left Paris and Man Ray, including becoming the war correspondent for Vogue. Her wartime assignments included photographing Nazi concentration camps Buchenwald and Dachau — which, understandably, scarred her for life. Hopefully someday soon there will be another exhibit focusing on this aspect of her career. She was much more than a muse to Man Ray and he was much more than a mentor to her. They were artists and equals.

Related articles

• Lee Miller's Photographs of the Second World War (brighthub.com)