Review
Review Date: 30-October-11
Spoiler Rating: Medium
Juju Judgment: Juicy
Anonymous (2011), Puss in Boots (2011), In Time (2011)
An animated adventure about a fairy tale feline, a science fiction thriller about the quantity and quality of life, and a speculative period piece about the true identity of The Bard — what could these three movies possibly have in common? This week The Jujube steps out of the trees to look at the forest, studying three new releases and finding a shared theme. Each of these movies is a decent example of its type, enjoyable to watch without being unique or stunning. Beyond that, they are all built around the idea that there is more to life than money.
The swashbuckling orange tabby who made his debut in Shrek 2 (2004) has long been slated for his own big-screen outing, and so we have Puss in Boots, which is both an origin story and a return to the twisted land of fable. The kid-friendly caper finds Puss (voiced by Antonio Banderas) as a down-on-his-luck outlaw who reluctantly teams with Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and a feisty she-cat (Salma Hayek) for a heist. While the top-billed tom is a charmer, the mildly disturbing and deeply funny Humpty is the highlight of the show. (His wobbly body is a killer sight gag in itself!) He and Puss were once bosom buddies, having grown up together in an orphanage where they dreamed of finding magic beans and scaling a beanstalk to glory. Alas, greed and an outsider's bitterness drove Humpty to a despicable deed which tore them apart and ruined their lives. Now, years later, their childhood dream is within reach. All they have to do is steal the magic beans from the ogrish Jack and Jill, scale the beanstalk, steal the golden eggs and/or the goose that lays them, and return to their hometown as heroes, while finally facing their unfinished personal business (and any other unexpected menace that flies their way). When it comes right down to it (or when the litter hits the fan, the yolk hits the skillet, whatever), what Puss and Humpty want most is to regain their honor. That, along with their friendship, is worth more than gold.
Gold has also been supplanted as a value standard in the world of In Time, although in a much less warm-and-fuzzy way. In writer/director Andrew Niccol's envisioned future, humans grow to age 25 and then receive an allotment of time, one year, as the currency with which to buy food and shelter, goods and services. If they can earn, steal, or otherwise acquire more time, they can theoretically live forever with their bodies in a 25-year-old state. But as soon as their cache of time runs out, they die. Naturally, society is split into Haves and Have Nots, with the former possessing centuries and luxuries and the latter surviving from hour to hour in the ghetto. The hero (Justin Timberlake, inoffensive but nondescript) is a Have Not who is given a huge amount of time by a wealthy stranger who wants to die. While sampling how the other half (or two percent) lives, he meets a poor little rich girl (Amanda Seyfried) who is starting to realize that eternal life under the cold, watchful eye of her father (Vincent Kartheiser) would be hell. The unlikely couple falls in love and goes on the lam à la Bonnie and Clyde with a dash of Robin Hood. They steal time and give it to the needy while a by-the-book lawman (Cillian Murphy) tries to haul them in. Niccol's story is one for the "Occupy" era, a nod to the righteousness of economic and social protest. It also argues that what you do with your time (or money) is more important than having a lot of it, perhaps even that life in itself is not precious, only the actions and experiences that make it worthwhile. I always enjoy these sci-fi considerations and just wish that In Time didn't leave so many other questions unanswered. Such as, Who devised and manages the time allotment system? If it's so easy to steal time, why haven't others done it? And could Seyfried really run that far, that fast in those heels?
The first thing to know about Anonymous, before we get to the uniting theme, is that you can't get hung up on its authenticity. People have long wondered whether William Shakespeare actually wrote Romeo and Juliet, etc., and this movie isn't going to solve the mystery or shake any scholarly institutions. If audiences embraced Shakespeare in Love as an imaginative tale featuring real-life persons, so too should they approach this movie, whatever its marketing says.
Indeed, we might hope that Anonymous is more imaginative than factual since it dishes enough scandal to shock today's tabloids. The story opens through the eyes of Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto), the famous late-Renaissance author who, at the time of this telling, is a struggling up-and-comer. Among his theater set is William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), an actor who is not only obnoxious, but also half-illiterate and a stone-cold killer. (Hey, if you're going to tear down a legend, you might as well go all the way.) Through perverse destiny, these two men become accomplices of Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans), bankrupt nobleman and one-time favorite of Queen Elizabeth I. While men of his rank are expected to spend their time hunting, serving God and crown (which are, of course, fully enmeshed), or managing their estates, de Vere has always loved composing plays and sonnets, his reverence for words superseding his other manly accomplishments. Unable to publish his works in his own name, he hires Jonson to stage them anonymously, after which Shakespeare worms his way into the arrangement. While this is going on, de Vere's past haunts him in flashbacks, and the question of who will succeed Elizabeth becomes bloody. The court intrigue that comprises most of the plot offers that sumptuous, slightly ridiculous fascination of all films about historical monarchs. If Shakespeare's debauched and fraudulent nature is titillating, so too are the bawdy, incestuous revelations about the "virgin" queen, who is played at different ages by Vanessa Redgrave and her daughter, Joely Richardson. Sex, schemes, secrets, murder: apparently everyone in London circa 1600 was involved in such things, or at least everyone worth remembering now. The tragedy of the tale, which elevates Anonymous above most of its characters, is the thought of de Vere's soul being devoted to poetry while his life was mired in muck. How sad that a man might recognize there's more to life than money (or power) and yet fail to shape even his own world to this understanding.
Copyright © 2011 The Jujube (M. I. Kim). All rights reserved.
