You have to understand that when I say the word 'ordinary', it often has a negative color, because, in my opinion, ordinary people are just like the main characters of this film, and you will see what they are. Of course, ordinary people are diverse in their own way, but they make the same mistakes, they have the same stupid thoughts, goals and desires, the nature of which they are not even able to understand. Here we see two infantils: mommy and daddy.
Their son is just a miracle, loves everyone, respects, helps the family as much as he can, cleans up their shit, and they keep telling him that he is still small and does not understand anything. And he really doesn't understand that you have to run away from such parents. Let's start with Gyllenhaal's father. He has problems at work, gets fired and starts procrastinating and blowing sponges around the world. His family is in financial trouble, and he plays golf in the backyard and watches TV. He gets a call to go back to work, and he's a proud guy. Without a penny for my son, but proud. I don't know what he's so proud of. He makes the first sensible decision - to change the situation and go to work on the fire. Yes, fire, smoke, you can die, but hanging from depression in the house with a "loving" wife is also not safe. You can take a break from family life sometimes, especially when you are a small boy and choose a roadside girl as your wife. He himself is certainly not very adequate, rest should be engaged before problems, not after, but, compared to his wife, Gyllenhaal is a model of adequacy.
At first, I thought that the mother of the main character is just an angel, but as soon as her husband is depressed, she immediately climbs on the kukan to the rich old man and scores on her son. The boy takes her home drunk from someone else's bed, cooks her food, tolerates the stupid sayings of this disliked sub-innectant. It's just a prick. The guy needs to learn lessons, he has a bright future, and she brings him almost to the guardianship authorities. Disgusting squalor. And yes, right, I said above that this is absolutely normal for people. It's a common phenomenon. And in this film it is presented in all its glory. Why isn’t this a negative review when I’m so angry with the two main characters? Were you mad at Joffrey? Or Tony Soprano's mother? I don't think. Only if they were unique, then the characters of Wild Life are simple waiting lists.
Paul Dano is quite a talented actor with an unusual appearance, but as a director he proved himself well. Despite the fact that he did not represent the infantile parents of the protagonist as some monsters, he did not protect them, like: 'Look how poor-unfortunate. It's their life that made them so.' Yes, made a life, but it's the norm, it's an ordinary life. This often happens in families where they have never heard of emotional intelligence, healthy relationships, and other important topics for a growing parent. So I will even put a class for the characters, the boy is pathetic, the mother is in an electric chair, and the father is in kindergarten.
As for the plot, I described the plot above when I was talking about my father. The family drama was pretty good, and most importantly, it was realistic. But because of its realism is a little depressing, but the feeling of indignation will not let you fall asleep while watching.
Same thing about the atmosphere. Just like in real life, even more natural. But pictures are more expensive than photos.
A good family drama with an amazing level of realism from Paul Dano.
7 out of 10
A dramatic story of the breakup of one particular family, presented through the prism of a child. It can be seen that the filmed on the book - the characters are not "cinematic" voluminous, behind each opens the background, which is only indicated, without sounding and disclosure. At the same time, the story - including due to the uniqueness of the characters - looks exactly individual, private, without acquiring universal and universal features (as was, for example, in the Personal Case of Judge Ivanova or Scenes from Married Life). Before us is a specific story of specific people - and except that the boy is "transparent", acting mainly as a witness, but not a participant in the events (it is noteworthy that the main character is a kind of avatar of the director - Paul Dano - and even looks like him).
It is interesting to watch, you worry about the heroes - including because of the stunning acting. That Gyllenhaal, that Mulligan's giving everything - and Jake, maybe two hundred. Here, this is the level of acting skills, when each new film you look forward to exactly as "another" in which your favorite actor will reveal in a new way and, perhaps, will be able to surprise - well, or play the usual first-class, and the viewer will feel at a meeting with an old good friend.
On the way out, we get a deep, emotional, amazingly shot (I did not mention this, yes) movie with first-class actors in the frame, a promising director (for Paul this is a debut) behind the scenes and a serious primary source in the foundation. Cinema as it is - not a revelation, but not plastic (and even more so not a scrap); probably, this should be the mass product - as opposed to a ton of slag, which is now a mass product is simple-minded.
The film is about family life. Rather about the household, which is like water, which sharpens the stone over time, ultimately makes itself felt. It inexorably destroys the breed, as well as family life, sliding into a hopeless routine, dragging the spouses into a swamp from which it will be unrealistic to get out.
Millions of families face this and at different ages, it inexorably pursues most of them, gradually breaking all the feelings that once loved people who had for each other.
And now “Wild Life” tells just about such a couple – Jerry Brinson (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Janet Brynson (Carey Mulligan). He eats himself that he cannot provide for his family, tries to find himself, realizing that life is going on, but nothing changes. And she is tired of the same kind of existence, which consists in her house and family dinners. She lacks emotions to make life brighter, he lacks opportunities to give these emotions to her.
Both Gyllenhaal and Mulligan play very well (of course Jake’s play is more memorable – it is more emotionally expressed, along the course of the film there is a small, but the transformation of his character, he reflects more). Mulligan is like herself in Drive - she speaks little, looks more, exuding hope. And some of it is the same type, one-sided, gray as a mouse, expressionless.
It is clear that this approach required her role, but the actress herself (I think) is. Or maybe I have a rather biased attitude towards her after The Great Gatsby, where her character had a certain resemblance to Janet Brynson in terms of windiness and decisions. In that film, it was Mulligan's character who did not like and maybe that's why such an attitude to the actress developed. Therefore, I cannot say that my opinion regarding the actress’s performance in Wild Life is objective.
Ed Oxenbuld, who played the same son named Joe Brynson, through whose eyes the events unfold, may have been written off from Paul Dano himself. At least the actor himself in the frame often plays slightly (and sometimes not slightly) inhibited, eccentric characters (here and the last “Batman” as an example, and “Prisoners” Dani Villeneuve, and “Knight of the Day”, and in the film “Man-Swiss knife” he is also far from the image of a normal person).
So the hero of Oxenbuld turned out the same: weird, silent, inhibited and timid in the fall. Rohlja in one word.
I won’t say that the film turned out to be acutely social – many people face such family problems. This story tells how the brewing problem manifested itself (escalated), to what it led. But the film does not give an answer how to find a way out of this situation, obviously making it clear that the only right way out is the one that was shown in the film.
Wrote above about the emotional game of Gyllenhaal (comparing him with Mulligan), but if you look at just the emotions of “Wild life” and was not enough – the Brinson family looks too amorphous and lethargic (as if the son mother and father infected his apathy).
Personally, I didn’t get the impression that each of these trio wants to keep their family together. No teenage rebellion and denial (especially considering that a lot was happening in front of Joe), no scenes and scandals. Maybe it's for the best. Let love go quietly? . .
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Things are unfolding too quickly. Their beautiful home falls apart too quickly and abruptly. The mother immediately went on the roof and she began a personal crisis.
Meanwhile, her son Joe's behavior hasn't changed, though what was supposed to happen. He is not just a quiet pye boy, he is disgusted by his passivity. No emotions, no flashes of impulsivity, no, it's wooden. Even in those moments when he could finally show his firm hand and start to hysteria, he was silent in a rag.
Yeah, if his whole life was going on in his family as it is now, that would explain it to some extent, but we're being shown that they were doing well. The wife of a housewife supports her husband while he plays basketball with his son and suffers at a dusty job. They started arguing after 10 minutes of the film, and before that their happy family for the alleged 14 years was fine.
Even the humble and quiet can show character, but Joe is just spineless. There are a lot of complaints about characters...
The picture is modest and quiet, and this does not embellish it in any way.
The film is one of those that does not let go for a second cup of tea into the kitchen, but keeps at the screen until the end, despite the slow narrative, where each frame is verified, as if it came out of the lens of a hard photographer. It is no coincidence that the main character also connects his life with photography. And it is with the help of a photo at the end of the film that he tries to glue together a broken cup & #39; his family.
The film has beautiful landscapes. The atmosphere of retro is subtly conveyed.
This is a rather banal story of the breakdown of a relationship, but it is shown through the eyes of a child, which makes all events take on hypertrophied forms. What is routine for us adults is experienced by a child as something terrible, ugly, wild. But in those moments, we adults, like the characters in this movie, often forget about children and think about ourselves. While they themselves learn to swim (survive) in the most difficult circumstances.
I think the subject is subtle. And when the camera shutter is triggered at the end, it is difficult to hold back tears.
8 out of 10
You know what they call trees in the forest fire? Fuel.
You know what they call the trees left up when the fire goes by? They call them the standing dead.
They say that one move equals three fires. So what does a breakup mean? According to the director, apparently, it is akin to the apocalypse. Joe, a 14-year-old teenager, suddenly finds himself in the midst of such an apocalypse when his father Jerry, Jake Gyllenhall’s hero, loses his job and joins a brigade that extinguishes wildfires, and Janet’s mother, played by Cary Mulligan, perceives this act as a personal insult and decides that no one else can take care of her. Or almost nobody. Except some rich and powerful man, nothing like an old man, a veteran of two wars, and she doesn't really like him very much.
I saw here the story of two completely immature and lost people who somehow lived, somehow made ends meet, somehow raised a son. But they are unprepared and utterly powerless in the face of a midlife crisis. Everyone is trying to deal with it in their own way. Someone thinks he's a hero and rushes to put out fires like Jerry. Except he didn't put out those fires. He was unable or unwilling to prevent catastrophes in his own family and instead ran away, apparently in the hope that things would somehow turn out on their own. And it didn't form. Janet, spitting on all standards of decency, begins to behave like a 20-year-old frivolous girl, periodically forgetting about her son and the fact that she is still married. Joe has to grow up, suddenly, without preparation, in one jerk. And most importantly, he needs to find the strength not to hate his father, mother, this cruel world, or these fires that turned to ashes and his family. And strangely enough, he copes with the test and is the very support that helps everyone around to preserve reason and human dignity.
The film is slow and thoughtful, I think many will not like it because of the lack of action. But it is this slowness that allows you to enjoy the beautiful views of the mountains, close-ups of the characters, especially Joe with his innocent transparent blue eyes, to reflect on what is happening on the screen. Honestly, the second time to review while there is no desire, but, in my opinion, this is just a beautiful debut of Paul Dano as a director.
7 out of 10
The independent family drama 'Wildlife' ('Wildlife') is based on the novel of the same name by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Ford, published in 1990. Interest in the film adaptation of Ford’s novel in 2016 was announced by Paul Dano, for whom ' Wild Life' will become a full-fledged directorial debut, and before that he was better known as a film and theater actor, whom the audience knows from the films ' Little Miss Happiness' (2006), ' Oil' (2007), ' Love and Mercy' (2015), as well as from the fantasy drama 'Ruby Sparks';The Screenplay by Kano’s wife (2012), Kano was written by her wife. She is also involved in the adaptation of the novel by Richard Ford, and Paul Dano himself is developing it for the film adaptation. And in 2016, the year started shooting 'Wild Life' and the producers managed to announce that they hope that the drama will be released at the end of 2017, but still its official release and world premiere took place in 2018, and it happened thanks to the festival of independent cinema 'Sundance', the brainchild of Robert Redford himself.
In pre-production interviews, Paul Dano said that in this novel he saw himself, his family, and other families, which made him think that Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan would play the main characters in the film adaptation - a married couple Jerry and Jeanette Brinson, who are experiencing the most difficult relationship in their life together and inevitably go to ruin. But Paul Dano took on only the functions of the main director, screenwriter and producer, and Zoe Kazan - only a writer and producer, but as the main performers they approved Jake Gyllenhaal (he also became one of the producers) and Carey Mulligan. Also, the role of their screen son Joe was received by a young Australian actor Ed Oxenbuld, who certainly became a discovery and a real victory for casting specialists, but more about this later. Thus, the cast for the filming of a deeply dramatic film about the destruction of relations within an American family, for which Paul Dano received nominations for best directorial debut at the Cannes Film Festival and 'Independent Spirit'.
Jerry and Jeanette Brinson, along with their son Joe, are looking from place to place for a better life, which in itself depends on making more money. This time, Jerry works on the golf course, where he becomes a pleasant companion for wealthy players in this privileged sport. But this is what leads to the fact that Jerry is undesirable to the owner of the field and he sends him home. Getting into another period of apathy, Jerry is looking for ways out of the situation, but his opinion clearly does not coincide with the opinion of his wife, which gradually leads to misunderstandings and mutual reproaches, which is why Joe is very much worried. And after a while, Jerry decides to leave as a hired firefighter and almost disappears, rarely making himself known. But Joe is waiting for his beloved dad home every minute, while Jeanette decides to rebuild her life and even has an affair. But it is Joe who becomes the one who is still able to reunite the family, because he is the only one who fervently believes in it and lives with childish ease and naivety this hope.
Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan never chased a large coin of the mainstream, diligently bypassing cinematic kitsch, they were always interested in creativity, where you can reveal your cinematic fantasies and developments. Therefore, ' Wild Life' is a heavy, sad and deeply dramatic film that will win the hearts of not every viewer, rather, here it will become a serious pastime for an objective sinophile looking for new sensations from watching a movie, even if the picture is packed with the author's thought, not always clear and open. So Paul Dano in ' Wild Life' without banknotes, presents the existence that people from the poor class who believe in the American dream are doomed to. And he focused on actors who can show the depth of the drama. But with all the talents of Gyllenhaal and Mulligan, who showed a decent performance in ' Wild Life', suddenly Ed Oxenbuld came to the fore, who deservedly received a nomination for the award ' Critics' Choice' in the category ' Best Young Actor or Actress'.
Thus, Paul Dano showed himself not only an actor with individual inclinations, but also a competent director, which is eloquently spoken by multiple nominations and awards at various prestigious film forums received by the adaptation of the novel by Richard Ford & #39;Wild Life'. Harsh in its dramaturgy, gloomy in its atmosphere, good-natured and honest thanks to the embodiment of the image of Joe Brinson from the young Ed Oxenbuld - this is what forms the overall look 'Wild Life'. And, rather, this film is better attributed to film aesthetes who are looking for an intellectual and exclusive film.
7 out of 10
And they lived, lived... until they were photographed.
That’s what you’d expect from a movie called 'Wildlife' with the average 60s family as actors? Perhaps you think that the routine is tired of this family and they throw themselves into trouble? Almost, but not that. Or could they really go to the free steppes and start farming in the wilderness like farmers? Not even close...
' Wild Life' in the perception of a rather modest man-director Paul Dan, this is the same modest story with no clear beginning and end, which shows the underside of life of this supposedly middle class. There are so many films like this that you can build a middle-class house and still stay on the shed. Moreover, films in a variety of genres, from thrillers to fiction. But here comes the prodigy Paul Dunn, who perfectly played quite nasty personalities in films with an Oscar application and also played quite strange personalities in films without an Oscar application.
The debut as a director was marked by the support of such rather strong actors as Jake Gillenhaile (this is the actor himself pronounces this way) and Carrie Mulligan. In general, with Jake alone, you can make a chic psychological film. But the problem is that Jake’s character decides to blame for extinguishing fires for a dollar an hour, not wanting to become a seller. This character will not be seen throughout the film.
The main focus is on the boy - the son in this family. And it's pretty hard to say that. The boy is just extremely stingy on emotions and with seemingly native parents keeps as an adoptive... It was strange to see throughout the film. Therefore, nothing is clear about the play of a young actor. The whole film he walks with one stone expression, and even about the scarcity of vocabulary generally silent. Maybe it was in the book, but the viewer will clearly be bored with such a film adaptation.
The actions of the rest of the characters in the film cause some bewilderment, as well as bewilderment PG-13 rating in the film, where close-up shows the ass of the old man after an apparently bed scene with the young mother of the hapless boy. What do you mean??? And also flash in the frame of contraceptives from the 60s. Is this a way of educating? Or is Paul Dunn so modest that he can push many dubious moments even into the children's rankings?
In general, a very strange film with illogical actions of the characters and a slurred central guy. But the views are beautiful. In the film, a very chic shot with a car traveling along the road and modern game racing simulators have not come close to this, despite the allegedly increased power. . .
"Wild Life" is Paul Dano's directorial debut (though it shouldn't have been).
An hour and a half on the screen unfolds the family drama of Jerry, Jeanette and their 14-year-old son. 60-ies, Montana, Brinsons are experiencing difficult times - the breadwinner of the family loses his job, in search of income he goes to extinguish forest fires, unrealized in the life of his spouse at this time leaves home life and starts in all serious, and from the side of all these adult problems is watched by a child and understands that he is unable to prevent a family split. I can at least remember three similar pictures. Well, ' freshman', you get it.
Jake Gyllenhaal played the role of a melancholy head of the family tired of routine, but a special acting game, in truth, was not required there - as always, but the heroine Carey Milligan during the viewing actively caused a feeling of condemnation, disgust and a complete lack of compassion.
What else is worth noting is the beautiful landscape shots of the small town of Great Falls, where the events unfold. It takes your breath away from being in the capital shit.
In general, the film did not catch, something was missing, and during the viewing the idea that in Russia they can even shoot better, and if adapted to domestic reality, a “black man” could come out no worse than Zvyagintsev’s “Dislike” or Cigarev’s “Wolf”.
6 out of 10
A banal story, a terrible directing that ruined good actors. Boredom is unimaginable: all the time he struggled with yawning and the desire to quit watching. Only a great respect for Gyllenhaal retained - still a great actor, but the film is passing.
The film tells the story of the divorce of Jerry and Jeanette through the eyes of their fourteen-year-old son named Joe. The boy becomes an involuntary witness to the mistakes of his parents, who are gradually drawn into a viscous swamp of complexes and fears. Joe is a lifeline for parents, thanks to him, Jerry and Jeanette will not go to the bottom. The film is like a personal and intimate story told in a whisper in the ear.
' Wild Life' this is a calm and sincere film created with a clear understanding of the language of cinema. Aesthetically pleasant picture, which skillfully conveys the spirit of the times, using modern techniques and moves. The deep and multifaceted images of imperfect parents are magnificently played by talented actors, who have enough eyes to convey emotional anguish. What's the final shot worth? ..
Another story from the American heartland. Small town, small people, meaningless affairs. 'Wild Life' I am ready to offer the viewer a permanently sad Gyllenhaal, an honest Mulligan (the actress, like her character, is really only 34) and puzzled by Ed Oxklbund's madhouse happening with his family.
A story about family problems and the loss of life reference points. The father is proud, but stupid, the mother is not proud, but stupid and dissatisfied (in every possible sense), and the only 14-year-old son seems to be a guy smart, but too amorphous for his age. At that time, he would have rebelled and run away from home, and he looks at his grieving parents with an open mouth, without making the slightest effort to bring them to their senses, taking the version of what adults know best.
The film has a wonderful ending. Not only is he beautiful, he is not yet. Well, I mean, this is the case when the credits appear, and you realize that the director failed to bring the idea to the end. Many will object to me that it is planned, that everything is clear, that the finale is open and so on, but personally I had the feeling of watching one series of boring series, and pulled out of its middle. Well, for people like me, movies are simpler and more meaningful.
'Wild Life' - a dull drama about a dull family in which no one wants to empathize. Excellent festival film, which is unlikely to attract a mass audience.
Wildlife is a drama about an American family that was released in 2018 but is set in 1960. The film is the directorial debut of Paul Dano, as an actor he had experience working under Denis Villeneuve and Paul Thomas Anderson (in "Prisoners" and "Oil" respectively). He also had the role of a producer and the task of adapting the script for the novel of the same name that fell into his soul. Paul wanted to make a movie that would look simple, but it would actually be very complicated. I think he did it and I’ll explain why.
The main roles went to Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan, who played a married couple, their 14-year-old son played Ed Oxenbuld. The first two have a rich filmography, which helped Paul Dano successfully start in a new profession for him. The third was a discovery.
The plot of the film is another move of the Brinson family closer to the North of the United States and the subsequent dismissal of a father named Jerry from the post of assistant at the golf club due to “crossing the permissible line in communication with customers.” In fact, despite his golf games for money, he was loved for his lively companionship. Jerry is kind, but he also has pride. It is because of her that he rejects the offer to return to work from the president of the club and the idea to hire a supermarket from Jeannette, his wife, since in the first case “he will not work for such people”, and in the second “this is an occupation for a teenager”. And our hero decides to go to extinguish fires for a dollar an hour, since he no longer has the strength from the fuss in search of money and to be a psychological support in the family. However, the act itself looks heroic from the outside. And of course, Jeannette is not happy with this outcome. She is sure that her husband will find another in the service or die. From that moment, Jerry disappears for a long period of screen time, which can be called a risky move, because the viewer may lose touch with the character, but thanks to further events, his name is kept in thoughts continuously. The fact is that Jeannette is increasingly beginning to strengthen her relationship with the owner of the dealership in front of her son. Because of love for her husband, there is fear for him, and then anger at his decision, which is called the path from love to hate. The confusion is created in the head of Jeannette, at this moment she needs peace of mind, from which the desire for momentary pleasure appears, which becomes the cause at first glance of ethically wrong behavior, which we see later in the film.
The real protagonist of the film, in my opinion, is a son named Joe, despite the fact that his parents have much more lines in the scenes together. Most of the time, he watches the actions of his closest relatives, in turn, the viewer watches him. And with the help of the talented work of Paul Dano and the cameraman Diego Garcia, who after emotional situations for Joe focused on him, the viewer is given time to think about the thoughts of the hero at a certain point, which first contributes to empathy with the hero, and secondly builds a bridge between the messages of the work and their consumer. As a character, he perfectly performs the role of personification with the cinematographer, since together they are engaged in one action - contemplation. By the way, Ed Oxenbuld, who played Joe, proved himself well. I predict his participation in horror, because he knows how to act out his experiences perfectly, especially this emphasizes the scene with his long run.
I especially liked the picture in the film. There are no problems in the choice of locations, not in camera work, not in the style of scenery and the choice of clothes. Time in reality, the film is not chosen by chance. The '60s for the US has the same mood as the atmosphere in the film - at first glance calm, but what people really experience is difficult to understand, just like a family photo giving us food for thought.
It is worth talking about the food that the film gives us. He says that changing the environment only worsens morale if you are not comfortable with people around you. The end of the story probably tells us that it is cyclical, the return to the first stage of the plot manifests itself through an identical renewal of the old relationship, but now with a completely different opinion about each other. The film shows that normal existence in the above situation is impossible. But for me, the main theme of the film is support in the family. About when children need to take their place and that this role should be played by everyone in the family, otherwise everything will collapse like a domino structure, and the stages of this destruction we plausibly filmed. In this context, I especially like the title of all this action 'wild life'.
The last thing I can say is my 10-point score for the film. 10 I can only bet on something truly outstanding and innovative. In general, the plot of the film does not have this, but everyone else in my opinion is at a good level, and accordingly he gets a high 9 out of 10 from me. I recommend it.
I think it is on this principle that the behavior of the main character (Joe) in the film Paul Dano & #39; Wild Life' is based. After all, it is extremely difficult to maintain that calm, according to the results of the actions of his parents (Jerry and Jeanette). But he still succeeds and by the end of the film, this amazing equanimity begins to look suspicious. Can the fragile shoulders of an ordinary boy withstand such difficulties? Should they? But they do, no matter what.
The creators of the film show Joe the only person capable of making informed, reasonable decisions. In other words, he is the only one who behaves like an adult. While adults in 'Wild life', on the contrary, behave absolutely irrationally and sometimes even absurdly.
The same dualism is shown in the relationship of Joe, performed by the magnificent Jake Gyllenhaal, and Jeanette, who played the equally charming Carey Mulligan. At first, it seems that ' bad' in this pair 'cops' Jake's hero is procrastinating, unable to fully understand and accept the role of the head of the family, and Carey's heroine does not transparently hint at the right solution to problems. In the future, the situation changes dramatically, and the boy’s mother begins to freak out so that you want to pull out the hair on both her and her head. While the father of the family was able to make perhaps not the only, but still the right decision. Their actions, logically, lead to the collapse of the once created social cell. And Joe's actions, it's not logical, are trying to undo this collapse.
We can only hope that his efforts will not be in vain, and the psyche will not be traumatized. After all, the creators of the picture leave the viewer a field for reflection and imagination at the end of the film. The audience, by the way, this work will be narrowly focused. There are other minor shortcomings in the picture, which are negated given that the picture is a director's debut. There are no and cannot be any complaints about acting. Heroes want to be trusted, especially the hero of Ed Oxenbuld, in which Paul Dano clearly invested something from himself. At the very least, there is no point in denying the similarity.
In general, people who, unfortunately, faced with similar (or at least remotely reminiscent) situations will be interested in watching what is happening on the screen and project it on their lives. The rest of them, after watching, are happy that they did not touch the same.
Paul Dano is a talented person who is talented in everything. The world already knows Dano the actor. What are his madmen in Oil and Prisoners worth? It is time to get acquainted with Dano-director, whose debut film was undeservedly underestimated by festivals, but he will be able to gain audience success without any doubt.
One-story America, 1960, economic crisis, unemployment, forests burning, a young family of three moves from city to city in search of a better life. The father of the family (Jake Gyllenhaal) - not quite lucky and spineless in general - once again loses his job and goes into himself. The still invigorated mother of the family (Carey Mullegan) not only finds work herself, but also supports her son (Ed Oxenbuld) for the sake of family well-being to find work. After the father of the family finally leaves, but this time not in himself, and put out the fires, the mother goes to extreme measures. Joe is a beautiful teenager with sincere feelings and clear thoughts, who by the time he was 14 years old & #39 has done nothing yet and has not seen anything. But in a short period of time, while the father extinguishes the fires, the boy has to learn and do a lot. These boys are usually sensitive men who will talk about their mothers: she was very beautiful and very unhappy. And until the last day they will be proud of their fathers.
Young Oxenbuld remarkably subtly conveys everything Paul Dano intended. After all, it is through Joe that the director communicates with the audience. Makes us look at what is happening through his eyes: not to understand and not to accept, to love and to the last moment hope for the best with a child caught between two fires, which literally become his mother and father.
By all the rules of drama, the film is replete with spacious landscape shootings, the vast majority of which were naturally made at sunset. Mullegan is convincing in her despair and detachment. Gyllenhaal overplays a bit, but only where the script requires it - in the only scene that actually confirms the title of the picture.
Smart little Joe finds a job in a photo studio. He captures on the fly the lessons of an old photographer, who very succinctly and accurately defines the essence of his work, and with it the most important idea that Paul Dano conveys to his viewer: ' People come here to capture good memories. They want their moment of happiness to last forever. I want you to be with me and #39.
I eagerly follow the filmography of Paul Dano, recognizing him as an outstanding dramatic actor, so the directorial debut of the artist was waiting with ecstasy.
There is a whole category of films about growing up, and the first association that begs for mention - "Submarine", it is appropriate to note, also the first directorial work of the actor Richard Ayoady, and is also based on a popular novel, even the era is chosen not modern, but vintage 60s, although there is nothing brightly screaming about the time of Paul Dano.
But they do not have a common picture among themselves, neither in style nor in genre. In "Submarine" clearly traced ironic mood, which in the film and is the main emphasis, in the spirit of black British humor, in the work "Wild life" the story is diametrically opposite, nothing in addition to the heartbreak tape does not cause.
And, although the positions in both novels have a common thread in the narrative: the teenager observes the fading, in one case, the disintegration of the relationship between the parents in the second, the position and temperament of the main characters are completely different. Oliver Tate (Submarine) with the use of tricks and manipulations tries to refresh the feelings of parents, Joe Brinson (Wild Life) in fear of losing the mother of one or second parent chooses the absent place, the observer, but not cold, judgmental and indifferent, and the child, the reality of which blurs around.
The main advantage of the film is a good work with the actors, as a matter of course, the director's play activity acts in this environment. Despite the fact that the temperament of the film moves in one key, the emotional play of the actors is very sensual. The heroine of Cary Mulligan (mother) causes terrible confusion with her decisions, movements, actions, and the character of Jake Gyllenhaal (father) pierces with cold needles of his temper, covering the facts of betrayal with a protective film.
In my mind, deep sympathy evokes the character of the son, wonderfully selected Ed Oxenbuld, the teenager has an expressively mature look, and his hero is the only one in a truly wild life not succumbed to it, but behaved consciously restrained, alone with his confusion.
The most touching final scene is when a teenager tries to piece together family ties in one shot. This episode pops up and does not merge with the real picture. The domestic conflict in the film is banal, in the foundation of the style of chamberliness, monotony, so freshness from viewing should not be expected, but as a guide to actor interaction may seem interesting. It happens that the effort is unnecessary, and simplicity wins, "Wild Life" just confirms this case.
It must be nice to know that your parents were never.
The directorial debut of Paul Dano can be safely called successful - 'Wild Life' appears to be a rather holistic and verified work. Technically, the picture is perfectly shot and staged: a beautiful picture, idyllic (and not only) landscapes, unobtrusive lyrical music, good acting. Synopsis throws dust in the eyes, promising ' the piercing love story of Jerry and Janet' - this is not at all true. A movie about how their son Joe is forced to watch his parents' crumbling relationship - an impending divorce through the eyes of a child. And here is the substantive part of 'Wild life' causes quite mixed feelings.
Mid-twentieth century. The story of the pursuit of ambition during raging crises - family and age - is predominantly American (it slips into the literary classics - the description of Bukowski's childhood is worth what). Alas, Dano’s work in this regard does not offer anything new, and the existing scenes are also not particularly catchy. The fact is that it is very difficult to empathize with mymle-daddy and a cocky mother. I'll explain. The parents of the protagonist are extremely self-centered personalities, by and large, and not very clinging to marriage. Yes, the father leaves to put out the fires at the risk of life (let’s omit the obvious symbolism of a burning marriage, sung in most reviews), but it looks more like an escape from lack of money and cracked pride, since he was fired from his previous job (although almost immediately called back). Yes, the mother is looking for a job by all means, but after her husband leaves, she is very easily eroded, old ambitions are rolled up, plus the time ticks, and, probably, because she does what she does (a very unpleasant sight). 'He's gone, what's going to happen to me?' - asks Janet hysterically, stressing that she doesn't really care what happens ' with us' as a normal mother would usually say, identifying herself with family, child.
Their infantileness and stupidity are irritating to the middle, as if they were driven not by need, family or economic well-being, but by some kind of boredom. So it turns out that against the background of all this, the only adequate and sane character remains their son - Joe. It is not surprising that with such parents you will quickly grow up: he will put out the file from the fire, and his mother will be besieged from stupidities, and he will fix the toilet, and get a job. In the scene when Joe comes home from the police station, I wanted him to send them to his parents' questions about where he was. But he doesn't, because Joe is the only one of the three who clings to the family, who loves nothing, just like that. It seems that this was the message of Dano. In the finale, when mom and dad throw phrases in the spirit of ' I think I wasted so much time on you' you see in this boy the result of this 'wrong' - of himself. And he is sincerely sorry, because Joe is helpless in his position as a child, although many times smarter than his idiot parents (an excellent acting by Ed Oxenbuld).
Speaking of which, the game. Jake Gyllenhaal appears for twenty minutes, but plays very heartfeltly, and gives a master class on the game with the expression of his eyes. I have hated Carey Mulligan since the days of The Great Gatsby 39 (although Daisy was quite irritable in the book), but now I am ready to take all my bad words back.
Nearest neighbors ' Wild life' in the segment of family dramas can be called the famous ' Road of change' and ' Firefighters in the garden'. However, they look more convincing, and it’s not about directing, and the power of the story, because after watching you do not say ' well, ok' and continue to go about their business. Plus throughout the film did not leave the feeling that we went into the hall in the middle, so quickly after the dismissal of my husband went the action: the first ten minutes of his wife very briskly and optimistically supported him, and when he left, it was like he died, and began in all seriousness. Yes, and the exposition would also not hurt, since the ambitions of parents are born after the fact from the words ' but before I was / was '.
' Wild Life' - a movie about the family, your place in it, about the mistakes of adults and the payment of children for them.
Glad that by the end, all three still remained human, despite all the wildness & #39; their lives. The family is no longer there.
Despite the apparent modesty and cameramanship of the production, the directorial debut of Paul Dano was successful - this can be said with confidence. Choosing a neutral atmosphere - the conditional outback of the 60s - he told a simple story, but honest, almost unadorned. A father, a mother and a fourteen-year-old son live in poverty, but do not complain – until one day the head of the family loses his job. Strangely, this puts him off track, forcing him to rush hotly into voluntary hard labor to extinguish forest fires. Unpredictably, a mother suddenly becomes self-confident, independent and capable of doing stupid things. The reason is trivial: there is no love in their marriage. Recently or from the beginning, it is difficult to say. One way or another, life begins to crumble.
The seemingly small tragedy that occurred in this small family, you sympathize with the whole heart. At least, because none of the spouses turns out to be an outspoken scoundrel, a clichéd egoist, a despot or a drunkard – those on whom you can easily blame. Both make mistakes – and both repent, grieving the breakup, as everything sees their boy. And he is the second reason why it is not possible to look indifferently at what is happening. Kind, naive and sympathetic, with a defenseless look and vulnerable soul, Joe with bewilderment and despair watches parents commit unthinkable acts. He will forgive them and come to terms with the situation - but the way the habitual infidelity looks in the eyes of a child is catchy.
Visual minimalism and dedication of the actors are already completely bribed, so you want to forgive the director for a certain naivety and apparent secondaryness. Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan seem to be created for such roles. Able to be complex and vivid, here they are sympathetic simplicity, touching and understandable imperfection – what makes people human. And one more trump card is an appropriate denouement. The general compressed atmosphere of ordinary, gray and unsettled turns suddenly into hope. Almost unjustified - but tangible. And in purely symbolic unity in the photo, the unity of souls is guessed - an unassuming consolation, at least. So, on halftones, with love for his characters, Dano guides us through the film. Without striking the depth of thought of the plan - but having its clarity and unflinching humanism - qualities for cinema are now rare.
6 out of 10
Director Paul Dano and wife Zoe Kazan are creating the script. It is worth noting that the debut screenplay Kazan Ruby Sparks received numerous awards and became a big event. The big surprise here is Dano. Actor. Hero of the second plan. "Little Miss Happiness," "The Imperial Club." And then "Oil," "Youth." War and Peace. I think that's the best Bezukhov of all screens. Through Dano, the viewer finally saw thanks to those who selected the actors that Pierre Bezukhov is a young man. And all the main characters, too. That they're under 50, like we used to be. Dano is certainly influenced by his favorite directors. He is equal to Paul Thomas Anderson, Paolo Sorrentino. And he admits it himself.
So the radio says, 1960 is eventful. The Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fear of nuclear weapons. But in northern Montana, there is no hint of what is happening. Quiet backwater. A small town surrounded by mountains and forests. Inside Gyllenhaal's hero is a crisis. There are forest fires near the city. The radio says three people are trapped in a fire trap. From that moment on in the film I listened to the radio. And I'm not mistaken.
After Jerry, in my opinion, the main role goes to his wife. We see a woman. And with it - despair and all shades of despair. She tries to remember her youth, her attractiveness. He wants to feel wanted again. She takes her son to look at the fire with the words, "Do you know what they call trees that are burned but still standing?" Standing dead. It's about the relationship with my husband, I'm sure.
And here's our third hero. Teenager. A gray and inconspicuous boy at the beginning of the film. He has little action. He does not annoy his parents, does not make a tantrum. On the contrary. But most of the big plans are behind him. The boy, by the way, looks a lot like the director Dano. It's a hundred percent hit. Joe is recorded as a photographer's assistant. He shoots perfect cards. Portraits of a provincial studio are happy newlyweds; a couple who gave birth to their first child; pensioners who have not lost love. There is no happiness in Joe’s life, no childhood. He's deprived of it. He doesn't think about football, he doesn't think about girls. He's too old for that. Older than your parents. And there is no one “over” who would suggest or support, instruct.
Wild life is about the seedy place where our heroes are located, and about what happens inside their family. The ending is fairer than the beginning of the tape. More honest than the idyllic pictures at the photo studio where Joe works. The finale is not an eternal moment of happiness for which the clients of our teenage hero come. It's a reality.
One of the most talented modern actors Paul Dano from the middle of the zero pleased the audience with impeccable acting and colorful roles. As they say, a talented person is talented in everything and therefore the author’s debut of the actor was only a matter of time. 'Wild Life' - Paul Dano's first directorial work is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Richard Ford, the script for which was co-written with another talented actress and passion Paul Zoe Kazan.
The plot of the picture takes the viewer to the American fifties and offers to follow the heat of passions in an ordinary family against the background of raging forest fires.
The film adaptation of the book by the Pulitzer laureate duo Dano-Kazan approached very thoroughly, for several years thinking about the concept and supplementing the script. The authors take the viewer into the impeccable setting of one-story America of the middle of the twentieth century. In a small town in Montana, a small tragedy of a typical American family begins. Taking as a starting point a rather insignificant at first glance problem associated with the loss of work, the authors with unhurried scrupulousness conduct the viewer an emotionally rich excursion through all the household stages of family breakdown, where each of the family members reveals their essence from a completely unexpected side, destroying the entire idyll of the impeccable American family. The husband, who lost his job, and unsuccessfully trying to find a replacement, gradually loses hope, grabs for pity for himself in the company of a bottle, and then runs to extinguish forest fires, risking his life for pennies. The wife, at first ready to share the heavy burden of her husband, gets a part-time job, and over time her good altruistic intentions are replaced by unscrupulous ambitions, inducing the heroine to take the initiative in managing the family future in order to meet their own needs. Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan played their roles flawlessly, conveying the entire emotional spectrum of their characters and breathing real life into them. So does rising star Ed Oxenbuld as teenager Joe, who is the only link connecting his parents to memories of those times when everything was fine. Young Joe is forced to remain an observer, unable to influence the rapidly developing, as if raging in the forests of California fire, home drama and desperately trying to preserve what is left of his former life - even if it is just a family photo. The whole picture of Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan is permeated with threads of subtle psychological metaphors, mercilessly dissecting the very institution of the family, so skillfully that it becomes obvious that Dano, as a director, had something to borrow from masters of the level of Paul W. Anderson and, definitely, he, as in his acting career, approached extremely thoroughly.
Pros: Production, script, cast.
Happy debut, Paul Dano, who loves quiet, uneventful cinema. 'Wildlife' is a really good start. Yes, the motives repeat, yes, the way the plot unfolds is primitive, but there are at least 3 moments that attract to the screen:
1) metaphorizing the breakdown of marriage (fire);
2) a minimalistic but heartbreaking finale;
3) the presence of an observer, a third person who has the right to assess the whole situation is not one-sided (yes, this is the son of Jerry and Janette).
As a result, we get a quiet drama with loud overtones, which is unlikely to take a place on the shelf next to your favorite films, but will not remain in memory as ' one-time' cinema.
The topic of crisis in relationships is as old as the world. If we talk specifically about cinema, the first to come to mind 'Gone', 'Painted veil', 'The Road of Change' etc. So. 'Wildlife' Other. You can not wait for such a poignancy as in ' Gone'; such aesthetics as in ' Painted Veil' such a tear as in ' Road of Change'. So what's left?
Jerry (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a freedom-loving and proud man in the eternal search for something that remains a mystery to himself. Jeanette is a desperate housewife who hates her own name and tries to find a way out. Against the background of this pair, the son of Joe sometimes looks as if he does not belong to this family, as if he were an alien child, so different from his parents, so different from them that he causes an emotional stupor. This is the hero who evokes the greatest sympathy and impression under the circumstance that most often in this story he is assigned the role of a listener, patiently perceiving all verbal attacks associated with discontent & #39; wild life & #39; from Jerry and Jeannette and carrying on his young shoulders the burden of family problems. No murmur. No charges. No offense.
In one interview, Paul Dano mentioned: "...the main goal for me was to do something truly sincere"'. And he made a simple family photo, which hides a deep drama. His goal is accomplished, isn't it?
"Wild Life" - a calm and at the same time empathetic author's drama will be interesting to all fans of deep stories on the topic of family relations, who at some point face a difficult test.
In the story, a small family (dad, mother and son) after moving lives their quiet and invisible life in a small American town. It's the '60s. Carefree everyday life of a 14-year-old boy is full of love and harmony. He has everything going well, with studies complete order, relations with parents are excellent, and even there is a mutual sympathy with a classmate. In general, the guy enjoys a happy life and does not know the hassle, but once everything changes dramatically. Dad gets fired from his job, and finding a new one is hard. This situation seriously affects family relations. Tensions heat up, conversations turn into quarrels, and discord brews in the family. Father soon finds a way out. He agrees to join the brigade to extinguish forest fires, but for this he has to leave for a long time. It seemed that a small breakup should contribute to improving the relationship of parents, but instead the guy begins to notice that his mother is already being cared for by another man.
The director, screenwriter and producer of the picture was a famous young actor Paul Dano, behind whom there are already about forty roles. Despite his debut in directing, this did not prevent the author from making his picture meaningful, sensual and soulful. The story itself is very simple and understandable, but at the same time, the images of the main characters and the format of the author’s presentation will be especially interesting to fans of festival films. To some extent, Wild Life is reminiscent of another well-known film, Road of Change, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, where the family also faces certain difficulties. But in the 2008 film, the characters and the production itself are focused only on the strong emotional shocks of the spouses. And in this case, almost the whole story is reflected through the eyes of an adolescent. Despite the sharpness and sometimes aggressiveness of parents, the structure of the story narrative is presented in a light atmosphere of children’s perception, for which many things, actions and intentions of adults are not yet very familiar, but very clear. He loves both parents and does not want to increase the conflict within the family. He supports everyone in every way and does it very softly, calmly and without much expression. That is why, taking as a basis the inner state of the young man, the director shot his film in the same style, where even the roughest scene is filled with love and understanding. Parents make mistakes and sometimes make them intentionally, but the boy continues to love them, never rude and does not raise his voice. Every scene, every dialogue is filled with these feelings, and it goes from beginning to end. Sometimes it seems that such manifestations of love are absolutely meaningless, but thanks to them, the authors intend to prove that patience and faith will help overcome absolutely any problems and irregularities in the family. Happiness is possible in spite of everything.
The cast, though modest in number, but impressive in quality and depth of presentation. Actors do everything possible to make every facial expression clearly imprinted in the mind of the viewer. The director pays special attention to the views of the characters, in which the viewer sees an immense drama of inner empathy.
As for the visual series, everything is very simple here. Throughout the film, it becomes clear that for the director, the internal message is much more important than the external picture, although it, of course, is not without professionalism and a certain style, which concerns the era of the 60s.
Summing up, we can say with confidence that the film, although not for the mass audience, because for many it will seem protracted and boring, but for connoisseurs of author cinema, the picture will be a pleasant gift. Don't miss it!
This is a purely narrative story, and specifically American. Without much tension, composed of typical pictures of the middle of the last century, but with the trends of political correctness. However, it is difficult to find a black or Asian in this American movie.
The beginning of the film is extremely common, played thousands of times - the family in a new place. However, the backstory of the family is almost nonexistent, so it feels like we are starting to watch a movie in the middle... or starting to read a book in the middle. In the future, there is a disclosure of certain moments of the past lives of the heroes, but the beginning is devoted to current problems. Problems are also common and recurring from film to film, although usually absorbed without scarring and night sweats.
And then... Then the plot acquires an even more famous canvas: the husband goes on a business trip – the wife starts a hahal. And then the director and screenwriter give their creation a somewhat perverse, but still individual character - a woman turns shura-muras in front of her high school son. And he does not behave like a son at times.
Actually, it took a lot of time for this guy. Probably, the filmmakers were looking for an opportunity to demonstrate the experiences and reflections of the characters, and they used the boy as a receiver of parents' feelings for each other. And in general, when adults wanted to speak about the vile everyday life, they expressed offspring. Many of the lines in the film are absurd. Of course, you can imagine that somewhere in this world lives a family of eccentrics, but still in real life parents... normal parents do not share with children and children all the contents of their skull. There is no shame or self-censorship. They reason with him as in Murzik, and sometimes demand an answer.
Strangeness is the most appropriate word for this film. Battered plot moves, but a fragmented, poorly docked line of episodes, battered and blurred lines, are often just to fill the sound row. A set of cinematic clichés.
The man committed arson, part of the combustible liquid got on his trousers and lights up, he pulls his leg, like a fly is driving it off. I must say that before this man half the movie was engaged behind the scenes extinguishing fires. The son stops an attack of pyroidioticism by putting a jacket on his father's leg. What's next? Next, the father begs his son to help him rise. And laziness? In the next episode, he gets up from his chair and moves on his own. There’s an episode in Hotheads: “I can’t walk, they tied my shoelaces.”
That kind of drama goes through the whole movie. It's so obvious and primitive. If you take the line of the boy’s relationship with classmates (maybe it is more correct to say “with a classmate”), then instantly pops up in memory of “the Visibility of anger” and a couple of episodes with Dane Kristinsen (Gordon Reiner) and Evan Rachel Wood (young Wolfmeyer).
However, I am overly critical and approached this product with a serious yardstick.
Let's just say. You can watch the movie once. It cannot be demanded as high artistic creativity. And this is normal, as usual. 'Wildlife' is an inexpensive commodity that will fill an hour and a half of your life with sound and image. According to the plot, replicas, pictures, it should appeal to those who grew up on American pop culture, on American cinema, and uncomplicated, easy. For the younger generation, for women, to kill time is it.
You have to be honest about family building. Often people come together not because of love, but because of blood (for example, a common child), belief in each other or simply because spouses are comfortable together. The first follows from the second and so on; in any case, faith is more important than love, because once one spouse begins to wither, the second must make an incredible amount of effort to preserve the marriage. It is possible, as they say, only believe. The odd conclusion is probably not always clear to young people, but Wild Life seems to convey it very well. A gentle drama about the family tells about the loss of this very faith.
So, Joe is a 14-year-old who is unlucky enough to grow up at a time when his family wants to take root in another state. Jerry moved his family from town to town in an effort to find work, and like a proud patriarch, the family's father believes his wife should look after the hearth while he's at work. He has a side job at a local golf club, so they live more than modestly. When Jerry loses his job, family tension increases. The father of the family finds a job as a firefighter and leaves relatives for a while. The gentle drama of growing up Joe turns into a depressive crisis amid a disintegrating marriage.
The action of Wild Life takes place mainly during Jerry’s absence from the city and is told from the perspective of his son. This means that the viewer looks at events through Joe’s eyes, at how adults hide their emotions. At the same time, Joe himself is a kind of lyrical hero of the director-actor Paul Dano himself, at least in this film: silent, wary, thoughtful. It has no action; it has only reactions, so it is the perfect choice to tell a story through the eyes of someone who has no power to influence the course of events. Joe doesn’t know what to do, and Wild Life as a film cultivates this insecurity, creating a tight connection with the plot and turning it into an everyday drama.
The stitching of this story of a crumbling family goes through symbols of impending disaster. Dano knows how to predict bad events without slipping into pretentious and unnecessary scenes. It is realized by stunning camera work and design, finding in the details of suburban life a lot of gloomy forebodings.
At the same time, “Wild Life” was filmed with amazing involvement in what is happening. Set in America in the 1960s, the past is not romanticized and the creators avoid phantom nostalgia. On the contrary, the events of the film could take place in any era, so it is not sentimental. This is only frozen time; the segment of life in which this town is stuck does not want to end, and residents need to visit the photographer’s shop to really last forever.
But what really grabs attention in Wild Life is Cary Mulligan as the mother of the Jeanette family. Accepting self-destruction as a survival tactic for her family, she is not doing her best. The script understands this woman's problems, treats them with respect, and Carey Mulligan's performance correctly puts the emphasis: Jeanette may be unhappy, but there's something respectful about how she tries to win over her future.
In general, Wild Life is a very modest film and this invisibility can sometimes conflict with the splendor and scale of the landscapes presented in the film. The drama escalates well, but the last third of the film suggests that it was already somewhere: it seems that Wild Life needs something more, even if it would not necessarily brighten the story. To the credit of the young director, he made his first project restrained, not falling into the category of “blacks” or unnecessary “pink snot”.
Paul Dano's directorial debut can best be described as a household life novel about the doom of the province and the burdens that cannot be influenced. The depressing, honest and touching drama rests on the dedication of the cast and is a kind of existential devastating nightmare in which the characters often sit idle, speak platitudes and hide emotions. It’s understandable: some things are just to be observed, and even today, few people can find a connection between external interactions and their own inner emotions.
The starting positions of “Wild Life” – the directorial debut of the famous American actor Paul Dano – are comparable to the recent Zhyagintsev’s “Dislike” – the same problems in the relationship between parents and the same lost state of their son, who does not understand on whose side the truth is on and what place he directly occupies in their conflict. However, here the development of such a plot will go on a completely different track.
Jerry, Janet, Joe. The most compact set of names, which the director will mention in the text of the film. Father. Mother. Their son. This set is laid down in the novel by the famous American novelist Robert Ford, the same set and Paul Dano. They play a wildly sentimental and self-assured calm drama of a family character, where everyone behaves as wrongly as possible, guided by personal problems.
The family is moving. In the new place of life is difficult to find a job – fired Jerry can not support the family, because he is in an irreconcilable sense of melancholy and injustice. For a lower salary and a less decent job, he is not ready to go, does not want to come back, does not look for anything and simply sits alone in a silent, drooping state. Wanting to support the head of the family and his standard of living, his wife gets a job, and then, as a schoolboy, also his son. An annoyed father decides to regain his status as a hero - goes to extinguish forest fires, which will last until the onset of the snow season, for a minimum fee, leaving his wife and child alone.
In such a state, a woman can not stand now, starting to break down, experiencing psychological difficulties, and cheating on her husband, including in the presence of her son. It is the position of the boy Joe in this situation of family destruction that becomes the key leitmotif of the picture.
Paul Dano, known for his character roles with the masters of modern independent American cinema, could not help but be equally independent in his work. His debut tape, by the way, first shown on Sundance, explores only the psychology of personality in the field of family relations, without having a powerful dynamics and a series of unfolding events. She is calculating and diligent, without forcing emotions, allows you to feel their entire palette in silence. It is based on the character of the boy, and remains as touching as his attitude, entangled in the networks between father and mother. Dano chose the maximum "himself" - the actor playing the role of Joe, Ed Oxenbuld, copies all the roles of young men in which his director became famous. They react in the same way, look, absorb, get lost and thereby remain a bright calm appearance against the background of the fussing world.
In general, in addition to impeccable production and directing work, the film is also awarded with impeccable casting. One of the most characteristic characters of the urban environment is Jake Gyllenhaal, whose hero is lost inside his own self from film to film, but then gritting his teeth, choosing unsightly ways, shows his character as a man. Carey Mulligan, the mother of the filmed family, who plays on all the awards combined, taking the plane between disappointment in their own existence and doubtful love for their loved ones, which for healing needs not that loneliness, nor that fall. Well, the aforementioned Ed Oxenbuld, who clings to two stretched worlds, continuing to sincerely love each of them.
Most importantly, the tape does not even think about morality. Such problems in life will not be avoided, and the teenager really understands this. This is also understood by the viewer sitting at the film show, who looked at the family with an evaluative look. The family who opened up and trusted him, telling about the innermost tortures of their own soul. It was like you were waiting for them to take a picture together so you could join them and come over and sit down for a simple lunch. Each of the characters remains a personal friend of the viewer - no matter how persistently they make mistakes in relation to each other, they could become excellent and faithful companions of life. These people are not wrong.
There are many reasons to praise the family drama 'Wild Life' the directorial debut of actor Paul Dano, based on the novel of the same name by Richard Ford. One of the main reasons is Cary Mulligan, who is showing the best results of her career as Janette, the matriarch of a small, slightly sad little family.
The film tells us about a tense, unadorned subtle look at the family of the 1950s, with a serious relationship crisis. The picture clearly boasts a little emotional manipulation and, as many have already noticed, the film is one of the most notable in 2018.
Wildlife stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan as Jerry and Jeanette Brinson recently moved to the small town of Montana with their teenage son Joe (Ed Oxenbold). But their family life is disrupted, after a seemingly minor workplace disruption. Jerry was fired from his job, leaving his family struggling with poverty. When Jerry is offered to return his former job, he refuses out of principle. He quickly loses his sense of purpose and declines. The American dream proves elusive to a middle-class family. Difficult times destroy the family bond, but the chasm widens when Jerry suddenly announces he will be absent for months because he accepts a low-paying, dangerous job fighting fires.
Joe, forced to inherit too many responsibilities in the shadow of an absent father and dependent mother, while Jeanette recklessly ignores boundaries. The film is mainly told from Joe’s point of view. He's caught between two fires. Obviously, the awkward youngster is uncomfortable watching his mother's emotional collapse while his absent father puts out the flames elsewhere instead of putting out the fire in a family relationship.
Janet Mulligan conveys to her character flawed, messy, complex and many other traits that are both positive and negative. She is both quiet and reserved, as well as angry and passionate. It's rare to see a woman who can be selfish, even as a mother portrayed this way on screen. Depressed, rebellious Janet will never receive any maternal awards. Her motives are often grim, and her behavior ranges from embarrassed and irresponsible to desperate. Joe can only watch Jerry move away from the family, and Janet does her best to find a new man (whom Bill Camp stars).
This is a rare film about coming of age, where parents do not grow up. This is the story of Jeanette, not Joe. The real victim, however, is young Joe, whose exposure to such quiet contempt and indifference is a burning tragedy that must be contained. Joe is the softest but strongest asset of the picture.
Of course, there are a few problems. It's essentially a tale of family fear, where the narrative isn't particularly original - we've seen this story many times before. In addition, the measured direction is also good only in places - everything is so ordered and neat that at times the environment seems not alive, but rather abstract.
Yes, this is another story of the “death of the American Dream” in a long line of such films, but here, mainly, the focus is on the character, not the topic, but it is already small.
The film showed us how pride and forgetful alienation can become a purulent and contagious disease that affects all family members.
It turned out tireless, restrained, but at the same time emotional, not manipulating the audience film.
Well, I want to note the memorable final image, where Mulligan and Gyllenhaal convey everything with one look. The characters are frozen in time and you are with them on the other side of the picture.
8 out of 10
Wildlife is a rather loud name for the uncomplicated family drama played by Paul Dano in the stylized atmosphere of the US suburbs of the last century. A simple movie with a concise narrative and a calm rhythm.
In front of the main character, teenager Joe, the family breaks up. It is noteworthy that the storytelling angle is focused on Joe, but he remains almost until the end of the film only a passive observer of major changes in his life. The camera constantly focuses on the feelings of the protagonist and we can only observe a silent nervous tension in his eyes and modest remarks in family quarrels.
The stories of unhappy families and broken hearts in the world are more than enough, so I think every viewer will be imbued with sympathy for the situation of this boy.
The actors in the picture are selected very well, the picture in the film is perfectly exposed, everything is played out as if to notes. This movie can even be called neat - it is compactly packed into its atmosphere and does not go beyond.
Paul Dano is not bad as a director, but only his next work will show how good he is.
Evaluate the quality of execution, but not the content. It's a beautifully crafted drama, and that's all.
As it turned out, Paul was given not only to be an actor, but also a director. Just sat Paul in the appropriate chair, as his first film “Wild Life” was nominated for the awards at Cannes and Sundance. The next one will win.
For his author's debut (Paul himself wrote the script of his film) from the list of budget genres Dano chose a dramatic mix: 95 percent - family-psychological, 5 - social. 1960. The Brinson family recently moved from Idaho to Montana, following Jerry's career. If, of course, you can call this work in a golf club, which includes watering the lawn and cleaning shoes directly on the feet of visitors.
From the cult animated series Rick and Morty, we learned that Jerry is not very lucky either at work or in the family (and in 1960 America, the “head of the family” is not bullying or a figure of speech). Jerry Brinson is fired from the club for being too lax with guests. No, nothing like that, he just “applys an individual approach,” talks a lot and makes jokey bets. It is the firing that triggers the psychoweapon that Jerry will soon fire into the good old American hygge – hence five percent of the social. He falls into depression, and then goes to extinguish forest fires for a dollar an hour. Mother and son are forced to look for work. Jeanette feels betrayed.
Remember how deftly Paul Dano hammered wooden pegs into the ground with the help of the head of dead Daniel Radcliffe in the movie The Man is the Swiss Knife? You'll love it. But it's time to grow up. Now Dano-director already independently hammers into the foundation of the film American clips, on which the building of American drama will be located. It literally takes three to four minutes. On the screen, a one-story America, a rented house, a father and an excellent son throw a soccer ball, a mother in the apron and with curls serves meatloaf and green peas on the table. Nice, but you can't go to the festival on such thick stakes. And when an uncomplicated idyll gives way to problems, Paul Dano puts down the axe and takes on – no, not a scalpel, but a rather sharp knife. In the building there are cute rooms with shaded corners.
Identification with all the characters in the story is available, there are no villains or heroes. Let's start with the lowest level of sympathy: Warren Miller, a plump man with a plump cigar. With a little effort, you can take the place of an aging provincial businessman who has taken advantage of an erotic limited-liability adventure. Miller is the sole beneficiary of Jerry's firing (the scorched veranda hardly outweighs (a) the moral profit, the rest are the victims.
First (but not least) on the list of victims is Jerry himself, who failed to overstep his pride and chose, albeit temporarily, a belated rethinking of life. The reinvention package includes self-destruction testing in Montana's fire-buzz forests. And in the rusted hangars of the tmutarakani of the sixties, the self-destruction of the head of the family means much more to the family than in the megacities of the two thousandth. Jerry runs all the processes, but does not appear on the screen very often. For an established star like Jake Gyllenhaal, such a modest role could be just a friendly favor to Paul.
Victim number two is Jeanette, abandoned in a pre-feminist time in a poorly emancipated place. At a time like this, and in a place like this, your whole struggle for a new life can ultimately come down to finding a man to take care of you. Jeanette diligently portrays a good mine in a bad situation, exaggeratedly supporting her husband and putting a protective smile on her face. In this abandoned woman helps the performer of her role Carey Mulligan. Usually, the face of the actress is quite sad, but the power of sadness is only 0.5-0.6 gosling, so the variety of emotions is given to Carey quite easily. And how selfless, forgetting about her son, Janet and Jerry yell at each other! Decibel a hundred, no less - any expensive shudder.
But we are not, we will not forget our son. Gradually comes the realization that it is not Janet, forced to scatter forgotten outfits and lipstick – the central figure of the film. The main victim, and absolutely nothing - is 14-year-old Joe (in his role starred Australian Ed Oxenbuld, known to fans of Shyamalan in the film "The Visit"). He is at the age when he understands everything perfectly, but can not influence anything. Joe is left choking with panic, grievingly watching the family break up and timidly displaying fearful, insecure teenage maximalism. Mom, it's so simple - do you love Dad or not?
There are a few oddities that I don't understand, perhaps as a non-American. How can you move to another state to clean someone's shoes - is 1960's Idaho lacking a similar job for 35-year-old white men? On the other hand, the average American moves an average of 30 times in a lifetime, and cleaning golf shoes turns out to provide for a family. The second oddity is that intelligent Joe ("the best in class" sounds in passing) asks his mother how old she is. It seems that by the age of 14 it would be possible to understand this, especially such a smart boy.
The new author behaved quite like an adult, despite his tender 34-year-old age, and did not allow himself excessive sharpness such as murder, suicide, robbery or at least pancreatic cancer. Jerry couldn't even set the house on fire, you slob. But Dano allowed us all to see a beautiful, not tragic or syrup, moderately symbolic ending. And we say, "Thank you, Paul," then, "Good job, Paul," and then, "When's the next movie, Paul?"
The vessel is still clean. He's in no hurry to fill up. There's so much time ahead. How do I fill in? Divide it equally? More warmth from the mother or more care from the father? Listen to one parent with both ears and the other half? If they are a fortress that protects and helps to open up in full, then how can one think of separating everyone? But when there is a split between two adults, is there a strong bridge so that they can approach each other and stand without fear over the abyss?
The bridge is a child. The fruit of love of two once-close hearts, who wither over time and hardly recognize their pair. The result of the synergy of two stars, which after years are not able to give a charge of energy to the extinct light. But it is not good that a child can be a bridge to eliminate stubbornness, anger, resentment. The child will ask questions. But adults are already mired in lies, insecurity and routine, so they will have difficulty finding answers. And how do you find them when one of the spouses is lost in his family?
It is easier to run away from a fire somewhere in the mountains than to take action to extinguish a poisonous flame in a home. It's easier to tell your son to look after his mother, and it's enough to cut off his mother that Dad left because he wanted to. The crisis is constantly emerging. An important part of life. And the crisis in family relations is directly related to the economic crisis. It occurs in every or every decade. A serious test for any couple. Somewhere masks fall, somewhere the essence is exposed.
The vessel is already filling. Fast, nonstop, greedy. The child does not understand why the mother dances, flirts with another uncle, and then goes to bed with him. He wants to figure out why Dad's so out of his way when he finds out who that uncle was. It seems that he left to extinguish forest fires, and in his neighborhood he is ready to burn down a house with people inside. You gotta understand those stupid adults. And they often dismiss it: grow up and understand. Instead of having an adequate dialogue with a son or daughter, it is enough to indicate the age and leave.
The vessel must be filled to the brim. As much as the child has enough intelligence and experience, he will (or will not) come up with something to solve problems. A real bridge. Under the feet of his parents, but does not get confused, but keeps their weight and does not allow them to fail. One day your child will grow up and think about his family. How will he behave? The cornerstone role model is the relationship of parents, the closest people. Most likely a repetition, but there is always a choice. The vessel is full.
Here was the directorial debut of the talented young actor Paul Dano.
The history of cinema knows many small, everyday dramas that will never impress with their scope, epicity or pathetic emotionality, they sit somewhere in the depths of ourselves, together with cockroaches who compose an ode to our rich inner world. The most memorable such drama for me was the tape ' Kramer vs. Kramer' so ' Wild Life' the same field of berry, even if not so juicy, and it will not become a classic, but it still has its own highlight.
Oddly enough, this highlight is the unobtrusive presentation of the story on behalf of his son - Joe. Dano offers the viewer to take the place of the child and feel the same emotions that he feels, and when watching this is especially not noticeable, that is, the details work, allow you to identify the viewer with the child, and for the debut this is oh how great, this is not always the same for venerable authors, especially so skillfully! There are enough metaphors in the film, most of which are associated with a fire, the film begins with a fire, it continues with it, but the finale leaves us with a wide field of choice: did the fire go out? How many victims did you end up with? Did the heroes cope with the fire by making certain decisions?
To be honest, there were parallels with 'Dislike' Zvyagintseva, but, of course, the film Dano is not so radical. As I watched it, I wondered several times what I would take away from this movie. What questions will I have to answer after him? And it seemed that there would be few such questions, but on the contrary, the number of narrow, everyday questions grew after the film. Very remarkable line with photos, reflecting the condition and position of the boy, pay attention to it, in my opinion, this is a good move.
About actors. Gyllenhaal is criminally small, you want to enjoy his game, and not lose half the film, but that’s the plot. Jake is wonderful as usual. Like Cary Mulligan, who will have chances to cling to awards, is a very ambiguous character. Well, Joe, performed by Ed Oxenbuld, unknown to a wide audience, turned out almost Christomatically, a very good game of a young Australian, somewhat resembling Dano himself.
Overall, I really liked the movie. But it is absolutely certain that not everyone will find such a movie interesting and worthwhile. Dano is a good girl.