(l-r) Lloyd Kaufman, Daniel A. Miller, Jeremy Newberger, Seth Kramer

“Evocateur: The Morton Downey Jr. Movie” is a compelling, no-holds barred documentary portrait of controversial talk show host Morton Downey, Jr.   His incendiary talk show, “The Morton Downey Jr. Show,” went on the air, on WWOR TV, channel 9, broadcasting from Secaucus New Jersey, on October 19, 1987.  It burned itself out in less than two years.  How outrageous was it?  It was the first talk show to put its audience members, collectively called “The Beast,” through metal detectors.  Knives were confiscated and audience members arrived in costume.  Eccentric characters from New Jersey received airtime long before their current exposure via the cast of “The Jersey Shore.”

The documentary explains that, after Watergate, America no longer cared for polite, sedate talk shows and was ready for a show like Downey’s.  Downey played the part of the angry populist, loudly berating any guest whose views differed from his.  Downey, I learned from the  film, was actually a very liberal minded guy (a good friend and supporter of Ted Kennedy) who saw an angle in adopting an angry, right wing persona.  He sold himself as a surrogate of working class folks who had a desire for a conservative point of view.  As former talk show host Sally Jesse Raphael explains in the film, “If you say you’re a tree long enough, you’ll get leaves.”

One of Downey’s producers points out that if you’re not tethered to the facts then it’s about emotion, not intellect.  Emotion was the order of the day.  Fights regularly broke out as Downey screamed in his guests’ faces from about an inch away, while security tried to maintain order.

The screening of “Evocateur” that I attended this past Saturday, at the Quad Cinema, was introduced by a former Downey guest, Lloyd Kaufman.  Kaufman is the founder of Troma Films, a  Long Island City based movie production company specializing in low budget action and comedy films, probably best known for having produced “The Toxic Avenger” (1984).  Kaufman recalled being thrown off the set, literally, of “The Morton Downey Jr. Show.”  He said that, to this day, he has a shoulder injury from the experience. The incident is shown in the documentary.

Kaufman explained he had just come from the funeral of someone he knew who was the nicest person in the world, and now here he was introducing a movie about one of the most horrible people in the world.  Not one to mince words, Kaufman told the audience that “Pretty much everyone in this movie is a scumbag.” Kaufman later added, referring to Downey, “You can see how Hitler got  to where he got.  This guy (Downey), he’s a left winger, then he goes to the right.  He would have done anything.”

Following the screening Kaufman led a Q & A session with “Evocateur’s” three directors, Seth Kramer, Daniel A. Miller and Jeremy Newberger of Ironbound Films.  “We were fans,” Miller explained. “We were very interested in what drew us to Morton Downey and what draws people to similar “Morton Downeys” today.  We were interested in dissecting what motivated him.”

“Evocateur” has been intelligently edited, inter-cutting archival footage of Downey’s show with modern day interviews with those who were there.  The interviewees include a “whose who” of talk show hosts, Downey’s producers, fans, guests and audience regulars.  Talk show hosts Richard Bay, Sally Jesse Raphael, Bill Boggs, comedian Chris Elliott, attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Gloria Allred, among others, all share their experiences and impressions of Downey.

I first came across “Evocateur” at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2012.  I enjoyed it then and so was pleased to see this final, partially re-edited version which, in my opinion, played even better than the version I saw in 2012.

“Evocateur: The Morton Downey Jr. Movie” is playing at the Quad Cinema, 34West 13^th Street.  It is also available on pay per view and on Amazon Prime.

“Evocateur,” directors Seth Kramer, Daniel A. Miller and Jeremy Newberger, 2013,

Magnolia Pictures, Rated R

seth@townvillage.net

The gang in ‘Now You See Me”

I hope my readers appreciate the bullets that I often take for them.   The most recent of these “bullets” (more akin to a rapid machine gun blast) is the new movie “Now You See Me.”  The story is so contrived, and conveyed so confusingly, that it delivers absolutely no level of audience satisfaction whatsoever.

The story has to do with a group of four illusionists/magicians who stage elaborate, Vegas like arena shows in which they steal from the rich and give to the poor, their audiences.  How their supposedly cash strapped audiences can even afford tickets to their shows is another matter.

“Now You See Me” relies on that old magician’s bromide that magic is all about misdirection.  The concept is that magicians get their audiences to look in the wrong directions while they pull off their tricks.  Once we accept this basic premise, along with the idea that a magician always has to be several steps ahead of everyone else, the filmmakers seem to feel that they can throw anything at us and we will just accept it because the characters are, after all, illusionists.  Uh, no, sorry, you still have to make the events believable, otherwise that means you hold all of the cards and have no responsibility to your audience.

The film continuously tries to justify its preposterous storyline by spitting out exposition that is blatant and frantically paced, usually placed over flashbacks to earlier scenes, to explain how a trick was accomplished.  Believe me, for this group to have pulled off what the film claims they did, these illusionists would have needed a gigantic behind the scenes group of dedicated workers.  There is no way four people could have done what the film shows them doing, but it’s all about misdirection and being ahead of everyone…I guess.

When a film that is clever and well made pulls back its curtain, the audience reaction is something along the lines of “Oh, wow!  So that’s how they did it.”  For example, a reaction like this is appropriate for a movie such as “The Prestige” (2006), a much more intriguing story about magicians.  In the case of “Now You See Me” my reaction to its revelations was more along the lines of “Oh give me a break.”  The explanations are so outrageously contrived that the audience never has a fair chance.  As a result, I bought out of the film early on.  Not only that, but director Louis Leterrier (who?) uses so many circular, spinning camera shots that I wished I had brought sea sickness pills to the theatre.

Yes, I can blame the director all I want, but what about the cast?  I have not done this before in a film critique, but I think that the “Now You See Me” cast should be held accountable for having taken advantage of their fans and admirers.  When big names like Morgan Freeman, Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo and Michael Caine agree to be in a movie, they know that their names will sell tickets.  I can only assume that they must have read the script (which, by the way, credits five writers, a sure sign that something is wrong) before agreeing to be in the film.  Yet, despite having seen this script, they proceeded to take advantage of their audience by agreeing to be in the movie.  They received a sizeable payday, their fans be damned.

“Now You See Me” is playing locally at AMC Kips Bay (570 Second Avenue), AMC Loews Village 7 (63 Third Avenue) and AMC Loews 19 Street East 6 (890 Broadway).

Now You See Me, Director Louis Leterrier, 2013, Summit Entertainment, 116 minutes, rated PG-13

Julian Assange is the subject of Alex Gibney’s new documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks”

I could not wait to see Alex Gibney’s new documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks.”  I first became aware of this film when, a while back, one of my students e-mailed  me a link to the “We Steal Secrets” trailer.  I was hooked.  Now, having finally seen the movie, I am happy to report that this is not a case of the trailer looking great (as they often do) and the movie not being up to snuff.  “We Steal Secrets” was everything I hoped it would be and more.

In one of the classes that I teach, at Queens College, “Mass Communication and Popular Culture,” we discuss  Julian Assange and his whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.  Is Assange merely exercising his First Amendment right or has he gone too far by releasing top secret information?  In class we compare Assange’s actions and cause to those of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

Up until now the only documentary on Assange that I have been able to find has been “Julian Assange: A Modern Day Hero?” available on line on Netflix.  The documentary is good, but a bit dry.  So how great it is that Gibney has pulled out all the stops with a well-produced, visually arresting and incredibly comprehensive film about Assange.

As with his previous documentaries which include “Catching Hell” (2011), a favorite of mine, and “Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer” (2010) Gibney delves into his subject matter in incredible detail, somehow managing to interview every conceivable player in the drama.  I usually sit through his documentaries wondering, “How did he find this person and how did he get them to talk so frankly about what happened, and on camera too?”  “We Steal Secrets” is no exception, even though, ironically, the one person that Gibney did not get to interview was Assange himself.   This helps Assange come off as something of an enigma.  His absence does not hurt the documentary.  In fact Gibney has plenty of interview footage of Assange, from other sources, as well as interviews that Gibney has done with Assange’s associates, U.S. government officials and other players in this amazing story.  Through it all we see a portrait of Assange as a strong advocate for transparency in government who then refuses to apply that same level of transparency to his own life and organization.

Assange, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and having received political asylum from Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, is portrayed as a rock star hacker/whistleblower who believes in transparency in government even if this involves putting top secret information on the internet. 

Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden over alleged rapes.  Yes, Gibney actually gets one of the alleged rape victims to speak on camera.  Assange feels that being extradited to Sweden means he would then be extradited to America, where he is wanted for leaking diplomatic cables and top secret information including the infamous “Collateral Damage” video which shows a U.S. drone firing on, and killing, alleged terrorists, in Baghdad, some of whom turn out to be Reuters reporters.  The drone also fired on a van with two children.

Assange claims that he is merely a publisher.   The point is made that “The New York Times” has published some of Assange’s information and yet the U.S. government has not gone after “The New York Times.”

The other character, who actually may be even more of an advocate for transparency than Assange is Private Bradley Manning.   Manning leaked a lot of top secret information, including the “Collateral Damage” video to WikiLeaks.  In fact, many of my students have told me that they think Manning is closer to Daniel Ellsberg than to Assange in terms of his actions.  Although Gibney could not interview Manning, who is in custody, he does interview computer hacker Adrian Lamo who turned in Manning following on line chats with him in which Manning said he had leaked classified information.

“We Still Secrets” is a compelling thriller-like documentary with characters that could not be made up involved in a drama that is continually unfolding.  This is virtuoso documentary filmmaking not to be missed.

“We Still Secrets” is playing locally at Angelika Film Center, 18 West Houston Street.

Zachary Quinto as Spock and Chris Pine as Captain Kirk in “Star Trek Into Darkness”

In discussing the idea of movies in 3-D Alfred Hitchcock said, “It’s a nine day wonder, and I came in on the ninth day.”  The great director was, of course, referring to his own 1954 movie “Dial M for Murder, ” shot in 3-D.  By the way, if you ever have a chance to see “Dial M for Murder” in 3-D, it is quite good.  Now, what does any of this have to do with the new movie “Star Trek Into Darkness”?  Well, although Hitchcock correctly pegged early 1950’s 3-D as the passing fad that it was, today 3-D is a very different story.   For those of you who  have not looked at movie advertisements for the past few years, the film industry, in an attempt to hang onto an audience which now has more entertainment options than ever before, has resurrected the formerly obsolete 3-D format to great success.    

One  morning last week I found myself at the AMC Lincoln Square multiplex on the Upper West Side, looking for something about which to write for this week’s column.  My doctor, of all people, told me that he enjoyed the new Star Trek movie, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” so I thought I would give it a try. 

All AMC theatres have a pre-noon discount.  All shows before noon are eight dollars.  It used to be six dollars.  Then, not too long ago, the “bargain” crept its way up to seven dollars.  Now, I discovered, it has reached the height of eight dollars…that is if I chose to see “Star Trek Into Darkness” in 2-D, the way in which we normally see movies.  However, if I wanted to see “Star Trek Into Darkness ” in 3-D I would have to pay a premium, which would have brought my “discounted” ticket up to 12 dollars, an increase of 50%!  Again, this was at the time of day that was supposed to be less expensive.   To see “Star Trek Into Darkness” in 3-D after the noon hour  (same theatre), when most people go to the movies,  is a whopping 19 dollars for an adult ticket! 

This 3-D thing has gotten out of hand.  I think 3-D movies are fine (and I have seen some that are great), but when movie-goers are charged, and apparently are complacent enough to pay, nearly 20 dollars for a movie, it is really time to boycott this format.  Yes, I know, the obvious answer is that if I do not like the high price of 3-D movies then I do not have to go to 3-D movies.  My response to that lame line of reasoning  is that if the film industry is allowed to drive up ticket prices for 3-D movies, this type of leverage can, and will, be used to drive up the price of 2-D movies as well.  As it is, a post-noon ticket to the 2-D version of “Star Trek Into Darkness” is fourteen dollars and fifty cents!  For that kind of money they should throw in a ride on the Starship Enterprise itself!  Needless to say, I elected to see “Star Trek Into Darkness” in 2-D.

The good news, for all of my griping, is that “Star Trek Into Darkness” is, for the most part, a pretty good movie.  It has an intelligent (if a little overly long) story, all manner of special effects and a good cast.  The story is a bit formulaic and tries to hang onto audience attention, for its north of  two hour running time, with lots of CGI (computer graphics imaging) flooded action sequences. 

The idea here, as with the previous “Star Trek” movie, called simply “Star Trek” (2009), is to re-boot the series for a new, younger, audience.  As a result the “Star Trek” characters here, as in the previous movie, are all younger versions of themselves.  This has been nicely emphasized by allowing young Spock (Zachary Quinto) to communicate with his older self (TV’s original Spock, Leonard Nemoy) through some sort of time warp. 

These two re-booted “Star Treks” are prequels.  To this end, the story of “Star Trek Into Darkness” is essentially a prequel to “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (1982), which was itself a sequel to the TV “Star Trek” episode, “Space Seed,” with a bit of “Star Trek III: the Search for Spock” (1984) thrown in.  If you can follow all that, then you are ready to beam aboard!

Actor James Karen

James Karen is one of those actors who, as soon as you see him, you think something along the lines of, “Oh yeah, I know that guy.  He is in so many things.”  On May 20, at Film Forum, the man himself made an appearance at an event honoring him with a screening of his 1985 horror movie/comedy “The Return of the Living Dead.”

Film Fourm Director of Repertory Programming, Bruce Goldstein, introduced Karen by mentioning that in addition to having been in the original Broadway cast of “A Street Car Named Desire” in 1947, Karen had performed in over 200 films and had done lots of television work.  Karen is probably most recognizable from his numerous TV commercials for Pathmark supermarkets, made between 1969 and 1979.

A quick collection of film clips showed Karen in many diverse roles including his feature film debut in “Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster” (1965).  Karen’s filmography also includes “The China Syndrome” (1979), “Wall Street” (1987), “Mulholland Drive” (2001) and “Poltergeist” (1982) among many others.  Goldstein asked Karen why, with over 200 movies, had he  picked “The Return of the Living Dead” for the evening’s screening?  “Because it was the most fun I had making a movie,” Karen replied.

To be sure, “The Return of the Living Dead” is a low budget, goofy, gory campy send up of  the “Night of the Living Dead” movies.  Karen plays Frank, the manager of a medical warehouse, who accidentally releases a gas that re-animates the dead.  Of course the warehouse is located right across from a cemetery, and hilarity soon ensues. It was a lot of fun seeing this movie with the large and appreciative audience that showed up for the event.

Following the screening Karen explained that, “So many times you’re in a cheap picture and you’re having a great time.”  He said that with a silly picture, where there is nothing to lose, everyone is happy.  He contrasted that with the experience of being on a big budget film where everyone is tense.  Karen added that by doing “tawdry pictures you’ll have a lifetime of joy.”

Karen recalled that “The Return of the Living Dead” was a first time experience for both its director, Dan O’Bannon, and much of the cast.  Tobe Hooper (“Texas Chain Saw Massacre” – 1974, “Poltergeist” – 1982) was the original director but, due to a scheduling conflict, could not direct the film.  Karen went on to explain that since they had a cast that had never acted and a director who had never directed, there was a two week rehearsal period.  Karen said that they rarely did more than one take per shot and, since there was very little coverage (alternate angles), actors were quick to make sure they inserted themselves into any scene being filmed.

Karen said that “The Return of the Living Dead” has an international following.  He said that the cast still makes a living off the film by traveling to conventions and selling photographs.  Karen recalled once getting off a boat on the Island of Capris, and hearing people shout to him, in Italian, “More brains,” one of the most memorable lines in the film.

Film Forum is located at 209 West Houston Street, west of 6^th Avenue.  For information on Film Forum screenings and events visit http://www.filmforum.com.

Hadas Yaron in “Fill the Void”

From Israel, the new film “Fill the Void” opens at Landmark Theatres Sunshine Cinema (143 East Houston Street) and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas (Broadway between 62nd and 63rd Streets) on Friday, May 24.   I attended a press screening of “Fill the Void,” as part of the New York Film Festival, last October.  The preview included a post screening Skype conversation with the film’s director, Rama Burshtein, from her home (her kitchen actually) in Israel.   “Fill the Void” shows the emergence of an interesting new filmmaking talent, showing the point of view of an orthodox Jewish woman filmmaker.

“Fill the Void” is a beautifully made and engrossing story about life in a Hassidic community in Tel Aviv.   To tell more than a just a little of the story of Burshtein’s delicate, nuanced film would be to spoil it.

From a sociological point of view “Fill the Void” deals with the social institutions of family and religion, with the emphasis on family.  In a social institution members must yield self-interest in favor of the needs of the group, in this case a family.   In return the social institution must provide a sense of purpose.

“Fill the Void” is the story of 18-year-old Shira Mendelman (Hadas Yaron) who wrestles with a decision which, on the one hand, will maintain the status quo of her family, but, on the other hand, may not be in her own best interest.  “Fill the Void” is a quiet yet searing look at the joys and sorrows inherent in Hasidic culture.  Burshtein explained that, “The film is about the mixture of sadness and happiness and joy and passion and loss.”

During the Skype conversation questions arose about Burshtein’s role as a woman director making a film in a Hasidic community in Tel Aviv.   Burshtein said that, “In the orthodox world only women do film, which is amazing.   It is a very fast growing industry.”  Burshtein explained that she was not always orthodox.  In her secular life Burshtein attended the Sam Spiegel Film Institute, in Jerusalem, where she learned to become a filmmaker.  Burshtein said she has been orthodox for the past 20 years. As for what she was allowed to photograph and not photograph Burshtein explained, “Everything that was shot was allowed to be shot.  I’m totally orthodox so, for me, everything I’m not allowed to do I don’t want to do.  I work within that area and I love it.  For me these are my wings.  These are not my brakes.”  Burshtein said that she likes American films and listed directors Ang Lee and David Lynch among her inspirations.

As for how “Fill the Void” will be received by secular Jews and non-Jews, Burshtein said that she had experienced positive reactions to the film from its having been shown at the Venice and Toronto film festivals.  “For me it’s surprising,” Burshtein explained.  “I guess there’s something very universal about it.  Everyone looks at it from their own world.  For me it’s a big success doing that.  I didn’t think it would happen, but it did and I’m very glad.”

Fill the Void, Director Rama Burshtein, 2012, Sony Pictures Classics,

90 minutes, rated PG

Director Sarah Polley investigates her family’s past in “Stories We Tell”

There are many levels to director and actress Sarah Polley’s new documentary, “Stories We Tell.”  In fact, now, having seen the film, I think that its trailer, while certainly intriguing, tells more than it should (as do most trailers these days).  I recommend going in cold to see this compelling documentary, playing locally at Angelika Film Center (18 west Houston Street).  Now having said this, my challenge is to convey my thoughts and feelings about “Stories We Tell” without giving away more than I should about the film.

“Every family has a story.  This one thing that happened.”  This quote from early on in “Stories We Tell” sets in motion a story about Polley’s parents.  Her mother, Diane, who died when Polley was 11, was larger than life and full of fun.  She fell in love with Sarah’s father, Michael, not so much with the man himself, but with a character he portrayed in a play in which the two of them performed.  The mother and father were very different people, as Sarah’s father, Michael, frankly recounts.  From there the story is launched and flies off at a trajectory somewhere between melodrama and thriller.

“Stories We Tell” is a story told through interviews with family members and friends, all of whom have stories.  The story, or stories, are nicely augmented with photographs and home movies.  Editor Mike Munn has done a nice job of balancing the present with the past while illustrating that which the modern day story-tellers are saying, with strategic use of home movie footage and stills (some of which are themselves re-creations).  “Stories We Tell” is about siblings, fathers and daughters, writers, husbands, wives, and parents.

It is very interesting that I should see “Stories We Tell” after just having taught “Sociology 101” at Queens College.  The film, from a sociological point of view, is about the social institution of the family.  Any social institution – religion, school, family – has values and norms.  One of the things a social institution does is to preserve order when a norm or value has been violated.  It is fascinating that, in the process of investigating something that happened in her family, Polley brings a sense of disorder to her relatives by the very act of making this film, a film in which she investigates actions that were taken, years before, to actually preserve the order of her family.

Another fascinating element included in “Stories we Tell,” and one with which my students and I struggle in another course that I teach, “Mass Communication and Popular Culture,” is the nature of “truth.”  This is particularly important when discussing documentaries.  In fact, at one point, Polley and her father, Michael, a writer who has written about the same event about which Polley is making the very film we are watching, discuss the nature of truth.  The discussion revolves around what Polley chooses to put in her film and, just as important, what she chooses to leave out and how her decisions effect the story’s verisimilitude.

“Stories We Tell,” is a thoughtful story about the quest for love, memories and a filmmaker trying to sift through it all, seeking to arrive at that that which is genuine.

Stories We Tell, Director Sarah Polley, 2013, Roadside Attractions, 108 minutes, rated PG-13

seth@townvillage.net

Gene Hackman and Al Pacino in “Scarecrow.”

“Scarecrow,” the 1973 road movie directed by Jerry Schatzberg, will be having a run at Film Forum from May 17 – 23.  The film stars Al Pacino (fresh off “The Godfather”) and Gene Hackman, both in their primes.

“Scarecrow” will be shown in a clean, beautiful, anamorphic (really wide screen) print which, for me, was a revelation.  I first saw “Scarecrow” many years ago when I taped it off of channel 5 at 2:00 am using the EP (lowest picture quality, but more time on a VHS tape) setting on my VCR.   The film’s original wide screen dimensions were blown up to fill the space of square shaped TVs.  In other words I was losing 50% of the picture.  Now that home video users are used to the concept of letterboxing this problem has become less and less frequent. Commercial breaks were thrown in for good measure but, despite all of this, I liked the film.  Now, seeing “Scarecrow” in its correct, widescreen aspect ratio, I can properly appreciate Schatzberg’s use of long takes as the characters amble about aimlessly toward objectives that they are probably not going to achieve, dwarfed by the wide open spaces through which they travel.

Hackman and Pacino play two drifters wondering across the country from the west to east who form a friendship on the road.  Hackman’s character wants to get to Pittsburgh where, he claims, he has banked enough money to open a car wash, an idea which seems naïve at best.  Pacino’s character wants to get to Detroit to see his kid.  He does not know if it is a boy or girl so he is bringing the child a lamp, a gift, he reasons, that is appropriate for either gender.

While in Denver friends of Hackman’s character ask him why he doesn’t just open his car wash right there.  After all, they tell him, Denver has cars and dirt, same as Pittsburgh.  The fact that Hackman is determined to go to Pittsburgh, despite his friends’ reasoning, is, I think is the point of the film.  His car wash is a “pie in the sky” idea and, on some level, he knows this.  As a result he needs the idea of going to Pittsburgh to avoid facing himself.

A similar thing happens in Martin Scorsese’s “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” (1974) made just one year later.  Ellen Burstyn’s character, Alice, frequently talks of needing to get to Monterey.  Since she has a car there is really nothing stopping her.  Finally the Chris Kristofferson character, fed up with hearing Alice talk about Monterey, offers to drive her there.  As in the case with Hackman’s character in “Scarecrow” Alice just needs an excuse to keep from getting on with her life and not having to face herself.  I could not help but reflect how often modern day people make excuses like this, something which, for me, makes “Scarecrow” a 40-year-old movie, quite contemporary and relevant.

Film Forum is located at 209 West Houston Street (west of 6^th Avenue).

seth@townvillage.net

Julianne Moore and Onata Aprile in “What Maisie Knew.”

“What Maisie Knew,” is an absorbing, well acted and uniquely told story of a family breakup.  What sets it apart from other dysfunctional family stories (if that could be called a genre) is that it is seen entirely from the point of view of Maisie, an only child, who looks to be about four or five-years-old.

Maisie is played by Onata Aprile.  It is a performance simultaneously rich in depth, childhood naivete and yet one that also displays great strength as Maisie tries to come to grips with, and make sense of, what is happening around her.  How directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel got such a performance from this young actress, without relying on easy sentiment, is a real credit to them.

Since “What Maisie Knew” is told from the child’s perspective.   As a result, we do not get all the details of what is going on, as we might in a more traditionally told story.    For example, there are no anguished court room scenes in which the parents fight for custody, although these certainly do occur off camera.  Interestingly enough, I did not miss these scenes.  We are only shown what Maisie sees and that is all that is needed.  From this perspective we are given enough exposition to follow the story and fill in any blanks.  For example one parent attempts to manipulate Maisie against the other, the parents argue, Maisie’s mother talks to her lawyer via cell phone.  Things just come at Maisie, and us, often unexpectedly.  What this means for the audience is that we get to experience events on two levels.  We see them from a child’s point of view but, at the same time, we can apply our own, adult, perspective.

The cast is quite good.  At first it looked as if the father, nicely played by Steve Coogan, was going to be story’s heavy.  It seems to me that men usually receive a bad rap in these types of movies.  Somehow it is just too easy to blame the father.  However, no sooner was I having this thought then I discovered that the mother, played by Julianne Moore, is no bargain either.  Alexander Skarsgard and Joanna Vanderham round out the cast, playing two people who represent a respite, and maybe even a better life, for Maisie.

“What Maisie Knew” is based on a novel by Henry James.  The story has been updated to modern day New York.  It is a sensitive, insightful drama, uniquely told and played by a fine cast.

“What Maisie Knew” is playing locally at Angelika Film Center, 18 West Houston Street.

What Maisie Knew, Director Scott McGehee and David Siegel, 2013, Millennium Entertainment, 99 minutes, rated R

Seth@townvillage.net

Cooper plays Pat, a man emerging from a mental institution who comes home to live with his parents, but who refuses to take his medication.  Needless to say complications follow.  Pat soon meets Tiffany (Lawrence), a woman dealing with her own emotional traumas.   The push and pull of their relationship forms the core of the story and both Cooper and Lawrence are quite engaging.

The supporting cast is quite good, De Niro in particular.  It is not often, lately, that this great actor chooses to be in good movies.  It is nice to see De Niro get off of his “Meet the Fockers” kick and play an interesting character in a good script.  As Pat Senior, Pat’s football obsessed father, De Niro provides strong clues to his son’s problems.

“Silver Linings Playbook” is an intelligent, observant and funny movie that respects its characters.  Based on the cookie cutter, over the top  comedies, featuring the same actors, with which we are often deluged, this is a refreshing break.

Use the search box, on the right, to look up my full length critique of “Silver Linings Playbook” when it was originally released.