« Breakfast On Pluto - Review | Main | It's Very Warm In Toronto »
September 05, 2005
Walk The Line
One of the greatest challenges of any biopic is picking the time of a person’s life to paint. There is the central issue of your lead actor not being 10 years old or 65. But some have overcome that and done a full life. But not too many have done it well.
At the heart of the Ray Charles story, there was blindness, a sense of guilt over a brother whose life he might have saved, a fiercely independent mother, and a remarkable talent. For all of these things, we forgave him his drug abuse, womanizing, and occasional harshness... because he moved our feet to the toe and our hearts to the core.
So what is at the heart of the great Johnny Cash? His voice was an oddity, rough and scratchy like a sharp elbow to your side. But you could feel so much in there. He was Bob Dylan with a fist full of rusty nails.
But what is at the core? James Mangold’s film doesn’t equivocate. He was a relentless man with a restless spirit who needed someone to hold him close and to tell him, in words or deed, that he was loved. Somehow, as this story goes, he knew that he would feel that love on stage, coming from the audience. Somehow, on that stage, his guitar hanging on a shoulder, he spoke to the audience and they spoke back to him and that made him whole. But off the stage, he needed someone, desperately. And that person was June Carter Cash, who from this telling of the tale, was a kind of opposite number to John. She was raised with the love of the audience there for her, but she needed a man who really needed her... and not just for a while.
Calling Walk The Line “John & June: A Love Story” would be terribly uncool. But that is what it is. It is a movie about a princess and a prince, both of whom were also frogs and who could only become King and Queen by kissing one another.
Both Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon do their own singing and it is really pretty astounding. Phoenix offers the range, sometimes bordering on “is that bad?” to absolutely undeniable, that Cash seemed to have himself. And Witherspoon could have a recording career in country tomorrow. She does the country twang and sang expertly. And when this duo is on screen together, it is true movie magic.
The supporting cast doesn’t get a lot to do. Robert Patrick gets a good speech or two as J.R. Cash’s daddy but mostly gets to be sullen. Shelby Lynne has a lovely presence as his mom. Ginnifer Goodwin got the patent pending Jim Mangold hottie makeover, last seen sported by Britany Murphy on Girl, Interrupted... working with good facial basics, but photographing the young actress away from sidekick status, bringing out the most beautiful aspects of her face. Still, she spends a bit too much of her screen time crying and being put upon to make this film the big step forward that her career will surely have one day soon..
There were three standouts in small roles. Dallas Roberts, best known for A Home At The End Of The World and who will be in Toronto with another film in The Notorious Bettie Page, has a great scene as Sam Phillips. Sandra Ellis Lafferty brings an easy warmth to Mama Carter. And Waylon Payne is brilliant in his first film role playing Jerry Lee Lewis better than anyone – except perhaps Mr. Lewis himself – ever has.
But it is when Reese & Joaq share the screen that the pinball machine goes wild. Every scene of them on stage is, really, like watching them have sex. There is an instant intimacy to watching these two people who effortlessly find the perfect rhythm together... for about three minutes. (These are the joke, folks!)
Off stage, you see both of these two fighting to find the ground. June does it out of the limelight, her family unseen until late in the movie, her marriages piling up as little more than headlines in a newspaper insert. When Johnny first sees her, you feel a moment of him seeing her as a famous object, admired in his youth. But quickly, you lose that sense of it, as he seems to, and he knows that somehow, they belong together. He just doesn’t know how to make that happen. And she somehow knows that it isn’t time for this union.
They switch roles between being the immoveable object and the irresistible force throughout the story. The pain of the wait is palpable, even as the twists and the turns make you wonder. When the time finally comes to become intertwined, it is no easier than the wait had been. But what these two lovers share is somehow so right that being together is inevitably the only way either can finally breathe.
Mangold has clearly done his best work here, finally getting a story that is as taut and elegant as the performances he has always been able to help his actors achieve. There are some great directorial moments and ideas that clearly built the pillows on which these two Oscar-nomination-to-be performances by two of our best young actors are supported. Having seen the film three times now – and looking forward to a fourth – some of the great detail work bubbles to the surface. This film is a serious crowd pleaser. But it is more than that.
Joaquin Phoenix’s power in this role grows with every viewing. He is meticulously powerful. There is a scene in which he comes out of a drugged daze and his eyes appear to have literally changed color. It is a very internal role. He is a man of few words. But he holds himself as firmly as a 100-year-old oak and can quickly become as soft as a smored marshmallow. His singing as Cash is like a second performance on its own. He daringly gets better and better at being the Johnny Cash we know. His physicality is often remarkable... watch how he works his shoulders while onstage. But most of all, you can see every joy and pain in those eyes.
Reese Witherspoon restates her hold on the position as America’s top movie actress. She allows herself to serve Phoenix’s performance without any show of ego. Thing about the last time you saw a movie with a $20 million actress who didn’t find a way to get a big showy scene of her own. Witherspoon is great in the film, but she is a reactor, even in action. And oh what a reaction. Witherspoon is a wonder in so many ways. A true superstar who has managed to have a family and a career while staying out of the tabloids and making choices that are sometimes very commercial, but just as often, deeply challenging. Less than a decade from Freeway to this... seventeen movies and the only really bad decision was a sequel to her first big commercial success. (Even her cameo in Little Nicky is one of the few redeeming moments in a terrible film.) This role, supportive though sharing the lead with Phoenix, could be put in the dictionary next to “movie star who can actually act.” And she isn’t even 30 yet.
Walk The Line has some tough, heartbreaking moments. But all things considered, it is a wonderful love story with a rocking soundtrack and a joy of life. On third look, the movie is looking more and more like a Best Picture lock. Even better, it’s a joy.
Posted by poland at September 5, 2005 09:15 AM
Comments
Awesome review! Thanks for sharing and I hope you enjoy the film as much the 4th time.
Posted by: Boo at September 5, 2005 10:50 AM
That's a rave review.
Posted by: joefitz84 ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/festivals/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 5, 2005 06:03 PM
Witherspoon is a star. She needed some good material to show her talent. She was falling into a pit of terrible scripts.
Posted by: Bruce at September 5, 2005 07:03 PM
Bio pics are so hard to get right. Always a good thing when it all comes together.
Posted by: LesterFreed at September 5, 2005 09:42 PM
Can't wait.
This blog is awesome, it makes me want to see every movie, even the ones that get negative reviews!
It sucks that all that's opening right now is crap, while the festivals are sampling all those great flicks...
Posted by: Goulet at September 6, 2005 05:31 AM
Only crap? We've had Cave, Sound of Thunder, and Skeleton Key all within the past three weeks! We're living the dream.
Posted by: Bruce at September 6, 2005 02:57 PM
The Sound of Thunder may go down as one of the worst bombs ever.
Posted by: BluStealer at September 6, 2005 06:34 PM
I'm sure it won't be hard to be better than 'Ray', considering 'Ray' was really bad. Too long, boring, hyperweird and full of itself.
I am just waiting for the day Reese get's nominated to prove the haters wrong.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at September 7, 2005 11:18 AM
Oscar noms don't exactly prove much. It certainly helps and I cant wait to see this picture.
Posted by: Bruce at September 7, 2005 03:31 PM
You lost me at "restates her hold on the position as America's top movie actress."
DP, are you for real? By what rationale?
"Less than a decade from Freeway to this... seventeen movies and the only really bad decision was a sequel to her first big commercial success."
Come on dude, seriously. You don't think Sweet Home Alabama, Vanity Fair, The Importance of Being Earnest were bad decisions?? Just because Sweet Home Alabama and the first Legally Blonde film made money doesn't mean they're not shitty movies.
Since 1999 she's only been in one truly great film, Election (which ironically ended up LOSING money).
From what I've been hearing the early buzz on Just Like Heaven is awful. I hope you're right about Walk The Line, though after reading what you just wrote about her..I dunno.
As far as her range goes, is it me or is she a one note actress?
She's played a variation of her Tracy Flick character in Sweet Home Alabama, and both Legally Blonde films.
In terms of Star power I think Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz are bigger stars, not just here but abroad as well. If you're a Studio exec and you're casting the female lead in your next big tentpole who's on the top of your list? Reese? I don't think so.
In terms of pure acting talent, Natalie Portman, Kate Winslet, and Ana Paquin, can act circles around her.
Posted by: Nick at September 8, 2005 04:07 AM
they can be crappy movies but they did establish her as a top movie actress. look at it this way. she made shitty movies a fortune. she opened bad movies. which is a sure sign of a movie star.
Posted by: bicycle bob at September 8, 2005 02:20 PM
"If you're a Studio exec and you're casting the female lead in your next big tentpole who's on the top of your list?"
Witherspoon. She can actually open a movie. Unlike Cameron Diaz who can't open a movie as a lead.
And the buzz on "Just Like Heaven" is pretty good actually. I'm not sure what your sources are. Poland himself liked the thing.
And as far as her range goes. It's just you. Her roles in "Freeway", "Election" and "Legally Blonde" are vastly different and she nailed all 3.
She's also getting better reviews for "Walk The Line" than Phoenix.
Posted by: walktheline at September 8, 2005 07:27 PM
Who made Cameron Diaz an A list star? She has never opened a movie. She has only been in one hit movie and you can safely chalk that one up to Ben Stiller and the Farrely's.
Posted by: BluStealer at September 8, 2005 09:19 PM
Imo it's impossible to declare she has no range especially when you place her performance in Freeway up against Legally Blonde. It's interesting how she flops in period pieces. There's something too modern about her sensibility to be believable in period pieces. Or maybe she's just too American for these essentially British roles. It feels weird realizing that Gwyneth Paltrow is actually better than Reese in that type of role since I can't stand Paltrow.
Posted by: mariana at September 9, 2005 04:07 AM
It's funny how NONE OF YOU could answer my original question to DP. Let me repeat it. How can you rationalize calling Reese Witherspoon America's top movie actress?? Because she opened 3 really bad movies? That qualifies her as America's top movie actress? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?? Then I guess Adam Sandler is without a doubt America's top movie actor, right?? I mean nobody's opened more shitty movies than him. The Longest Yard anyone??
Don't get me wrong, I like Reese, but she's at best a poor man's Sandra Bullock. The numbers don't lie.
Posted by: Nick at September 9, 2005 06:19 AM
A "poor man's Sandra Bullock???" Both actresses are quoted on IMDB Pro as having $15 million quotes. What numbers are you referring to?
Posted by: Elizabeth at September 9, 2005 06:48 AM
And I really enjoyed SWEET HOME ALABAMA. Just b/c it wasn't an important film doesn't mean it wasn't good. I think you're getting into semantics here. "Top movie actress" simply means she's a movie star, nothing more. Now she has a shot to strut a different side of her acting chops in WALK THE LINE. I, for one, cannot wait to see this movie. The trailer looks electric.
Posted by: Elizabeth at September 9, 2005 06:52 AM
A poor man's Sandra Bullock? What an insult. She's better at opening movies than Bullock. Look at the numbers. In fact, the only person who's above her, is Roberts.
Posted by: walktheline at September 9, 2005 05:45 PM
My own personal taste I prefer Reese to Sandra.
Posted by: BluStealer at September 9, 2005 08:00 PM
The movies they make are nearly identical. Fluff. They make the same type of movies that just so happen to gross about the same amount of money, which is why they're paid the same, but since Sandra's opened more than just TWO movies I'd give her the nod.
Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon are to PG 13 romantic comedies what Ashley Judd is to the woman in jeopardy genre. A sure thing. They're the safe way to go. I equate seeing one of their films to having a meal at Mc Donald's. You go not necessarily because what your paying for is any good, but because it's familiar. It's easy, convenient. You know what you're getting.
I'm not trying to hate on Reese. I actually like her, but I just have a hard time buying that she's "America's top movie actress." That's a pretty bold statement, and nobody here seems capable of backing it up. Again, she opened Legally Blonde and Sweet Home Alabama. Big deal. Is that really all it takes?? On pure talent is she REALLY more skilled than other actresses in her age group (mid 20's to mid 30's) like: Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Rosario Dawson, Ana Paquin, Claire Danes, Cameron Diaz, Julia Roberts, Naomi Watts, Kiersten Dunst, or Drew Barrymore?? If so tell me why. What has she done to deserve such high praise?
In all honesty I don't think ANY actress is worthy of being called that just because there is no clear cut # 1.
I'm really hoping she lives up to the advance hype she's getting from Walk The Line.
Here's what Variey's saying about Just Like Heaven.
It's not exactly a rave.
"Considerably more mushy than madcap, "Just Like Heaven" is as uneven as the topography of its San Francisco locales, but the amiable peaks mostly offset the flat stretches and valleys. A variation on a very old meet-cute theme with a touch of otherworldly romance, pic will need to taptap deeply into the "Ghost" audience, given the dearth of laughs for manly men. Otherwise, prospects of a robust box office life (and more likely, afterlife) rely almost entirely on the warming glow of Reese WitherspoonReese Witherspoon's abundant charms."
I know what you're gonna say.
Before you rub the last line in my face, think about this; does that justify her being called "America's TOP movie actress?"
Posted by: Nick at September 10, 2005 12:40 AM
Give me Kate Winslet over any of them.
Posted by: PandaBear at September 10, 2005 04:16 AM
Being called "America's Top Movie Actress" is Mr Poland's opinion of her. It's not the end all of all comments. Why let that comment bother you?
And that Variety review, while not exactly glowing, is a positive one and it also praises Reese.
And yes, I'd say she's more skilled than all those actresses you've listed. But that's just my personal taste. Anyone who can play roles like those in "Freeway", "Election" and "Legally Blonde" and make them so believable, is a great actress. Maybe that reason is not enough for you, but her work is far more interesting and diverse than those actresses you've listed.
She's also opened 3 movies, not two. Legally Blonde 1 & 2 and Sweet Home Alabama.
Posted by: walktheline at September 11, 2005 02:30 PM
Like I said earlier, the numbers don't lie. Here's how Reese stacks up her competition. Her opening gross average is deceptively high compared to the others on the list, but that's only because she's working from a smaller sample.
In fairness, I'll admit Cameron Diaz's numbers might be a padded by the fact that she starred in the 2 Charlie's Angels movies and Gangs of New York, where you can argue those weren't exactly "Cameron Diaz films".
But check out how she ranks up against Lindsay Lohan (who stars in films made for the same PG13 audience as Reese), Julia Roberts (who's opened a film in just about every genre), Sandra Bullock (who stars in the same kinda chick flicks that Reese does), Ashley Judd, and even Jennifer Lopez.
More importantly check out how much all these other actress's films average compared to Reese (it's the number right underneath the Lifetime Gross Total.)
Plus they've all opened more than 3 films.
Cameron Diaz
Lifetime Gross Total (19): $1,687,611,321
Average: $88,821,648
Opening Gross Average (14): $25,075,954 (Wide Releases Only)
Lindsay Lohan
Lifetime Gross Total (5): $357,213,792
Average: $71,442,758
Opening Gross Average (5): $15,968,698 (Wide Releases Only)
Julia Roberts
Lifetime Gross Total (29): $2,093,889,627
Average: $72,203,091
Opening Gross Average (22): $17,544,860 (Wide Releases Only)
Drew Barrymore
Lifetime Gross Total (26): $1,309,654,104
Average: $50,371,312
Opening Gross Average (19): $12,419,375 (Wide Releases Only)
Sandra Bullock
Lifetime Gross Total (24): $1,097,624,858
Average: $45,734,369
Opening Gross Average (17): $12,224,768 (Wide Releases Only)
Lifetime Gross Total (20): $904,101,415
Angelina Jolie
Lifetime Gross Total (20): $904,101,415
Average: $45,205,071
Opening Gross Average (15): $18,240,310 (Wide Releases Only)
Ashley Judd
Lifetime Gross Total (16): $608,572,648
Average: $38,035,791
Opening Gross Average (10): $12,298,677 (Wide Releases Only)
Jennifer Lopez
Lifetime Gross Total (18): $704,753,914
Average: $39,152,995
Opening Gross Average (15): $12,314,703 (Wide Releases Only)
Reese Witherspoon
Lifetime Gross Total (14): $469,229,229
Average: $33,516,374
Opening Gross Average (8): $14,348,930 (Wide Releases Only)
Posted by: Nick at September 12, 2005 12:21 AM
You can't compare them to Lohan. Lohan has not opened an adult film yet.
Posted by: Angelus21 at September 12, 2005 03:11 AM
Reese tends to switch between mainstream and indies, so that's probably why her average is so low. I'm pretty sure she didn't do The Importance Of Being Earnest and Vanity Fair to up her box office.
And aside from that, the fact is, when she does do a mainstream movie, it's a hit.
Posted by: walktheline at September 12, 2005 03:07 PM
You can't do the numbers like that. It is not accounting for the small indies some of them do. So the #'s are skewed.
Posted by: Bruce at September 12, 2005 04:27 PM