Okay, here's the deal. Unless you haven't noticed yet, I tend to follow movies pretty well. I watch them, I analyze them, and I read about them. I like to read those magazines and trade papers, too, the ones that'll start talking about a film when the script goes on sale, and follow it through the process of filming until they show up down at the local dodecaplex. It's kinda fun, following a film from the first day of shooting to the day you see it for yourself. It can build up some great expectations that get shot down, I grant you, but it can also get you primed to be thoroughly amazed.
That being said, I have a confession to make. I was wandering through the dodecaplex one night, waiting for Jimmy and Barbara Ann to sweep the popcorn out of Theatre #7 so I could go get my usual seat for something (I can't remember exactly what movie was in #7 that night, but it couldn't have been much of anything because I can't remember it.) It takes forever for Jimmy and Barbara Ann to do the sweep-out, mainly because they are in the throes of dating, and they like to, uh, pause now and then for some extra-curricular activity, wink-wink-nudge-nudge. By the way, if they're doing the sweep out, stay away from the back row, middle seats.... Friendly warning.
Anyway, I'm wandering around, looking at posters for stuff coming up soon, and I find myself staring at this poster for a movie called Finding Forrester. What grabbed me was the fact that, as I stood there, I could not for the life of me remember ever hearing anything about this movie. ME? Not know anything about a Sean Connery movie?! Two words - Im Possible. Needless to say, I burned the midnight oil when I got home, blasting through Web pages until I found out what Forrester was. And, folks, I was hooked quicker than a chicken at the Corn Festival. Gus Van Sant? Sean Connery? I'm there!
And, friends and neighbors, I'm glad I finally got there, because Finding Forrester is one forevermore good film. And, allow me the news flash -- Sean Connery WILL get his first Best Actor Nomination for it. This film is that good. And don't be surprised if Rob Brown sneaks in the back door for some consideration, either.
Jamal (Rob Brown) is a sixteen year-old kid who likes doing the things most sixteen year-olds do. He hangs out with his friends, he shoots hoops, and he goes to school. He's a C student, and he has no desire to be anything else. But, Jamal has a secret. Jamal is a fan of literature. Not the MAD magazine style, either. This kid from the 'hood is reading Kierkegaard, Checkov, Kafka, de Sade, and he learns their styles. He blows his secret, though, when he blows the roof off of an aptitude test and wins a scholarship to an exclusive Manhattan prep school. Of course, the administrators are also very interested in Jamal because he can strip a three-point shot like few others, and a high scorer on their team is always nice, too, huh?
One night, Jamal's friends dare him to break into the apartment of the crazy old guy who lives in his neighborhood. Nobody sees the old guy much, and rumors fly about who he is and why he stays hiding in his apartment so much. Jamal takes the dare, and enters a whole new world. The apartment belongs to a man named Forrester (Connery). Forrester once wrote a book, a book that changed the face of literature for a generation of readers and writers, and it made him famous. He never wrote another book, and disappeared from public. (If this sounds remotely familiar, good. How the family of JD Salinger didn't sue for stealing this story is beyond me.)
Forrester becomes Jamal's mentor, and as the two unlikely friends become closer, Forrester pushes Jamal to write himself. It's a tough-love friendship, to be sure, because Forrester hasn't had a friend in 20 years. He growls like a bear, but he sees in Jamal the same light that once fed his own soul, and, this time, he doesn't want it to burn out.
Now, I can hear you now, out there thinking, "Doc, this whole idea sounds tons like Good Will Hunting." I'm not going to deny that. Hey, Van Sant directed both films; how am I going to argue it? The thing that makes this seem so much different, though, is the chemistry between Connery and Brown. In some other actor's hands, the role of Forrester could've easily tripped the "HAM ALERT!!!!" Somebody that likes to rave onscreen, like Pacino or Steiger or even DeNiro, might've made the character some cute old nut with an attitude. Connery, though, has that voice, that mixture of honeyed whiskey and gravel, that roaring yell of the lion in the jungle, that icy whisper of confidence and strength. He has the mannerisms of a wildman, but he keeps the power controlled, making the character of Forrester all the more compelling. Brown, too, has a strength that rightly compliments his older counterpart. This could have been forced in the hands of another actor, but Brown keeps the stereotypes under control, and it creates a great balance.
Another thing that makes this movie so watchable Gus Van Sant's style. He has a certain way of filmmaking that touches the right way. He has an unusual knack of getting natural performances from his actors, in a time where posturing and pomposity seem to get more screen time. He's one of the few directors out there that has kept Robin Williams under control, and look at the golden harvest that brought for Williams. Van Sant also keeps a film flowing easily, even when he has a surprise or two to throw in. The surprise just eases out like any other detail, and, by sneaking it in, the surprise usually has more impact than the slap-in-the-face technique.
If I had to pick a bone with ol' Gus, it'd be in his casting of the supporting parts. I thought Anna Paquin was a good choice as Jamal's campus tour guide (and possible girlfriend), and I was amazed at the performance of Busta Rhymes as Jamal's brother. Two good choices there, Gus. But why, then, do you throw F. Murray Abraham into the mix as a pompous English teacher when you know the man hasn't had a non-blustery role since Amadeus? Here lately, F. M. makes cartoon characters look calm. And, that little trick of throwing a certain actor (who shall remain nameless, lest I get creamed for spoiling a surprise) there at the last five minutes or so? It really took a lot out of the impact of an otherwise excellent film. It's a flashing reminder that Hollywood made this story, and it pulls the viewer right out of the story and into In-Joke City, a place we didn't need to go with less than five minutes left in the story.
Folks, I'm not a fool, okay? This movie is almost a textbook example of a formula picture. You can see plot points coming, and you can almost say some lines with the actors. But, when Forrester is teaching Jamal how to write, roaring at him to "punch the keys," I found myself longing for the days when a clacking typewriter meant "Writer At Work." Now the muffled snips from a computer keyboard mean the same thing, but like the late, great Lewis Grizzard once said, there's no substitute for the sound of a Royal typewriter. As much as I talk about formula movies, when they are made this good, there's no substitute for formula.
Would it surprise me a bit to see Connery take home a statue or two for this movie? Not a bit. In fact, it'd surprise me more if he didn't. But don't go see this movie because you want to see Oscar® winners. Go see this movie because it is a very good film, with very good performances and a lot of class.
Image copyright Columbia Pictures.
|
in for observation