In order for a film of this size ($45M) and kind to secure financing requires recognizable, hopefully bankable faces. Out of the three leads, two of the roles ask for two adult and one child actor. Generally, with kids, unless someone in the business is a good fit for the role, the producers don't have a choice and have to rely on a fresh face. In this case, Tom Holland, who spent nearly two years on the London stage as Billy Elliot supplied his talents. But, with the adults, there's a limited pool to choose from, once you take in the age range (which isn't that much of a setback) and commercial appeal. If we were going for authenticity as far as the Spanish origins of the actual Belon family this film is based on, the director would basically have had to cast Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem or Antonio Banderas. Even with the limitations of these casting possibilities, you still have to consider if these actors are available or even interested, let alone right for the part.
The Hollywood pool, unfortunately, is very Euro-Caucasian. That is partly the industry's fault, but audiences are also to blame. Generally, they accept what is given to them, and they're not adventurous enough to seek out stories that are "different" to indicate a change in demand. The viscous cycle feeds itself. The more cynical side of me believes, we generally like to watch stories with actors who "look like us," even though "us" is a changing demographic. But, though I also believe we're maleable, as it stands, audiences are comfortable with "recognizable" faces. Famous actors more relatable, and therefore more in demand and necessary. I really didn't mind the ethnic/national adjustments at all. They family was European when it all came down to it. If the family had been local and SE Asian, and the characters were still played by Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor, THAT would be kind of messed up.
Even if the filmmakers wanted to write a more localized story of this scope, it either would have had to have been an ensemble-piece and/or scaled down considerably (say, the TV-mini-series Tsunami: The Aftermath from six years ago). Was this particular story told, because the characters were affluent, Westernized, and had more to lose? Perhaps it was chosen because movie-going audiences could empathize with these characters more and therefore expanded the return-on-investment potential for the film. Remember, this is a business. And, let's face it, movies like The Impossible have a tougher hill to climb than Twilight or The Hunger Games. People want to see themselves. Whatever the case, director J.A. Bayona had a story he wanted to tell and he told it.
As far as the film itself, it's beset with a bigger set of problems. I came in with no expectations. I didn't know the specific story of the Belon family (which, I'm sure was modified for this narrative form), let alone much about the actual tsunami. Bayona does a marvelous job setting up the film. You know what is coming, but he introduces some quick exposition that is as smart as it is unnerving. While you anticipate the crux of the movie, he swiftly packs in a great amount of nuanced detail. There are some beautiful moments that include a nighttime launch of several paper balloons. The actual footage of the natural disaster and its aftermath is harrowing and emotional. Most of the film is told through the eyes of the main character Maria (Watts), who, along with her eldest son Lucas (Holland, who is quite great at times), are separated from her husband Henry (McGregor), and the two younger boys (Samuel Joslin, Oaklee Pendergast). They embark on a journey of survival, uncertainty, and hope. The mother, a doctor by profession, instills a lesson in her son about selflessness and empathy that is a nice touch. While the movie's focus is squarely on how this family is affected by the tragedy, Bayona tries to extend the effects beyond their little world.
The film clocks in at a slim (for a subject of its nature) 1:47 and may have feared appearing skimpy by nature, as, towards the end, the plot device becomes rather unlikely repetitive (there is an assortment of separations between members which prolongs the finale and almost becomes an inadvertent comedy of errors). I was most struck, however, by two separate moments, each lasting about a minute or two. Intentional or not, the director, whose list of credits include The Orphanage, hits a tone that is very much 1970s/80s slasher horror. As terrifying as this event was, these scenes conjure up references for me that are effective, but perhaps for all the wrong reasons. One scene is even tacked on at the end to bring things unnecessarily full-circle.
As far the Oscar prospects go, Watts should have no problem nabbing a nod. She has secured "the third position" on a lot of pundit's prediction ballots, thanks to being the subject of a lot of good press recently care of some outspoken celebrities. The Golden Globe/SAG-one-two-punch didn't hurt and The Impossible's box-office shouldn't have a problem outgrossing much of the Best Actress competition including those that are struggling/have struggled (Rust and Bone, Hitchcock, Anna Karenina, The Deep Blue Sea), and those that have yet to post figures (Amour). I imagine it will match the numbers for Beasts of the Southern Wild, if not surpass them, perhaps even Silver Linings Playbook. This is an incredibly competitive year with a handful of films (Lincoln, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Les Misérables, possibly Life of Pi) that may corner the market on a lot of the technical categories, among others, so it will be hard for this movie to stake its own claim. Exceeding box-office expectations could change all of that, however, giving it a long-shot at supporting actor (McGregor), screenplay, cinematography, and the sound categories. But, for now, I'll leave it at Best Actress.
0 comments:
Post a Comment