Reviews

MYSTERIOUS SKIN – REVIEW 7/6/05

In his new film Greg Araki uses a prudent ploy to snag and reel you in: having the visuals effusively speak and the screenplay divulge the least amount of information necessary to keep the story evolving. Words can only reveal so much, while Araki's images display an almost unbearable amount of visceral material, exploiting vibrant color, alluring texture, dark and light, the brooding and harrowing eyes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the handsome modesty of Brady Corbet.

The film resonates on a level of rawness unseen and unfelt since Cuesta's "L.I.E." or Solondz's "Storytelling." The film is jarringly penetrative and pervasive: the visuals in your mind play over repeatedly and the disconcerting but intellectually uplifting feeling "Mysterious Skin" infuses lies active long after you leave the theater. The film is not easy to digest. Seeing that there is pervasive sexual exposure between adults, as well as between adults and kids (though discreetly handled), this film will repulse many viewers. This film also had to be made.

Neil (Gordon-Levitt) and Brian's (Corbet) story starts in the early 1980s when they are only eight-years-old. Neil's little league baseball coach initiates a sexual relationship, of which (most likely to the consternation of several audience members) Neil actually recounts a rosy-colored remembrance: he enjoyed it. Brian that same year describes how his perpetual and mysterious string of blackouts and bloody noses began one rainy night after a baseball game.

The story moves forward to when Neil and Brian are at adolescence's conclusion. We discover that Neil has grown up to be both gay and a hustler, while asexual Brian's free time is taken up seeking the source of and resolution to his insoluble physical ailments. Brian soon deduces that aliens abducted him and meets a fellow abductee, Avalyn (Mary Lynn Rajskub), with whom he finds ephemeral solace.

Neil and Brian's story act in parallel, moving forward and backward over time, but never disjointedly. Neil eventually moves to New York, while his pining friend Eric (Jeff Licon) actually befriends Brian and an endearing friendship ensues. Neil's (unappeasable) pursuit of everlasting male love ends in the most unlikely of places: back home. Brian's pursuit of the truth leads him to, predictably, Neil. Araki exquisitely handles the ending (not divulged here) with the appropriate effusion of tendered emotion by the two main actors (warning: though the film's trailer subtlety gives away the finish).

I cannot give enough plaudits to the two male leads. A long way from "3rd Rock", Joe's sensuous flirtations and dynamic eyes mate well with Brady's tranquil, naive, yet profound, disposition. Brady's last scene with his character's father, as well as the climax, demonstrates his aptitude and assured longevity as an actor (beyond "Thunderbirds").

"Mysterious Skin" evidences many matches made-in-heaven: from film and director to material and actor to music and film. The film is entirely amoral, but not immoral. It is also a difficult film to watch. Many will cast it aside as tripe and trash (along with other morally relative films), but those fortunate enough to engage themselves in the movie's discussion will revel in it long after the credits' close.

There were reservations about "Return of the King," the last installment of the `Lord of the Rings' series. The disappointing endings of other renowned trilogies, such as "The Godfather" or "Matrix," factors into our prospects about "King." Could Peter Jackson really triumph over expectation, and over one of the most hyped-up films in history? As one reviewer, I say to lay your concerns aside; I aver that this is the best trilogy to hit screens and one of the best, if not the best, films of the year.

Why best film of the year? `Best pictures' exhibit a collaboration of all mediums, a synthesis of the various components that make a film possible. In this case, the direction, writing, production design, photography, music score, and acting weave a prodigious and exquisite tapestry: a visual and emotional delight. I can't remember a cinematic experience where I was continuously moved expressively scene after scene - and it began with Gandalf's entry into Minas Tirith. As Gandalf rides on Shadowfax, up the many tiers that compose Minas Tirith, Jackon meticulously blends real-time shots, miniature shots, and digital effects to construct a city so genuine and tangible, you'd believe it has to exist somewhere on this earth.

Each scene in `King' showcases the talent wrangled into producing these films, especially the acting. I was foremost disappointed with the lack of character development in `Two Towers,' the second film in the trilogy; the acting was by far average in `Two Towers' with no one really exhibiting that spark like Ian Mckellen, Viggo Mortensen or Sean Bean demonstrated in `Fellowship.' In `King' though, the stars shine.

Merry and Pippen, the two other hobbits in this story, have barely realized their potential for emotional impact in the first two installments. In `King,' the hobbits come full circle, and Jackson bestows upon them maturity and good dialogue, which gives Billy Boyd (Pippen) and Dominic Monaghan (Merry) their chance to truly shimmer. Early in `King' Merry and Pippen are separated, and after experiencing such peril together in the first two installments, they must learn to acclimatize to new circumstances. Alone, the hobbits find a fighting spirit, find courage, and find a new place in our hearts.

The relationships between characters are expertly utilized. Gandalf and Pippen have a rapport almost unmatched in `King.' In one scene, as the army of Mordor is breaking into Minas Tirith, Gandalf and Pippen exchange poignant lines. Pippen remarks how this is not the way he thought things would end. Gandalf, being the wizard and father figure, says that death is not the end, just another path we take. The wizard speaks of an afterlife and the rolling of gray and white shores, which calm Pippen. It is a moment of serenity in despair. Ian Mckellen displays the brilliance he exhibited in `Fellowship' again; his tone, nuances, subtle stares, and authority of the character almost outshines all others. Merry and Eowyn, shield maiden of Rohan, also compose another dynamic pair: two characters who have been written off as unhelpful and burdensome by the men of Rohan: one because of gender, and one because of stature. But there comes a time to show `valor without renown,' and in battle, this pair embodies this Tolkien quote.

But of course, the relationship that everyone has come to know and admire is that of Samwise Gamgee and Frodo Baggins. Their rapport in `King' is of a deeper breadth. Sean Astin (Sam) and Elijah Wood (Frodo) get their opportunity to truly show the quality of their acting. I was somewhat hesitant to give props to Elijah Wood for his portrayal of Frodo in the previous two films: I felt that his acting was moderate and at times, forced. I know Wood is a good actor though, after having seen previous films like `North' and `The War.' I was waiting for that moment in which he could really take Frodo to another level; he does in `King.' Astin and Wood no longer force their characterizations in `King,' but envelop and enhance the traits of Frodo and Sam as if their own. I was surprised by the high quality of acting exhibited in `King.' McKellen or Astin may have Oscar contention; as for Elijah, it is just a `fool's hope' for a nomination. Of course, Andy Serkis's loan of body and voice for the CG character of Gollum (aka Smeagol) is again estimable.

The color palate has been shifted in `King.' Jackson chose brighter hues, more colorful than the last two films. `Fellowship' was bathed in an eerie golden and brown glow, `Two Towers' in gray and stone. `King' is full of rich color. It renders the picture more tangible and touchable, emotionally and mentally. The visual effects are again immense and audacious - but the special effects only augment or enhance the story, not overrun it. This is one of the best qualities demonstrated by Jackson throughout the trilogy. In addition, Howard Shore shows his maturity as a composer in `King.' He invites three new players to the soundtrack: Sir James Galway, renowned flutist; Renée Fleming, whose voice is of a mournful and melancholy tone; and Annie Lennox, who lends the perfect voice to end the trilogy: she exemplifies triumph over adversity, the regret of parting friends, but the sweetness of knowing that the world is at peace - for a little while.

`Return of the King' is a brilliant end to the trilogy. It is amazing how a trilogy of pop films can be embraced by all ages and cultures. It has meaning and message for everyone. Maybe we can learn from the basic themes of Tolkien: finding strength in the face of certain doom, love and protection of the environment and physical world around us, and the meaning of fellowship: all our fates are interconnected. Peace cannot be achieved without the participation of all those who reside on earth.