April Releases: The Cat In The Hat | Capturing The Friedmans

April Releases: The Cat In The Hat | Capturing The Friedmans | Monster

The Cat In The Hat

Directed by: Bo Welch
Cast: Mike Myers, Alec Baldwin, Kelly Preston, Dakota Fanning, Spencer Breslin, Amy Hill

If rhyme is a crime, then forgive us this verse, while we welcome the end of the Dr. Seuss curse. "The Grinch" made gazillions, I realise that, but not as much fun as "The Cat in the Hat."

Fun is the secret word. No one will mistake this mercenary contraption for high art, and fussy gets might argue that it lacks the magic of the beloved book on which it is based. But the book was only 220 words, variously rhymed and rearranged, so the story needed an injection to grow film-sized. That injection was Mike Myers, whose DNA has to be spelled as l-a-u-g-h-s.

As the felonious feline who invades the space of brother and sister Sally and Conrad (Dakota Fanning and Spencer Breslin), Myers is given free rein to shamelessly mug. The Cat is libido gone mad, and for the benefit of the grown-ups in the audience, he occasionally flirts with curse words and mocks the movie's own marketing apparatus, but in the kid-movie universe, rule-breaking means daft shenanigans and funny voices.

Myers assembles his fur coat from a grab bag of familiar characters, from the Cowardly Lion to Jerry Lewis and Dr. Evil. Unlike Jim Carrey in "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas," Myers' facial expressions aren't completely neutered by the makeup, and his borderline-annoying wisecracks are more satirical than self-impressed. It's Myers' sheer talent that steers the movie from the potential dead end of design overkill.

First-time director Bo Welch was the production designer who created the distinctive look of the "Men in Black" movies and "Edward Scissorhands." Given his background and the hand-drawn source material, it's no surprise that "The Cat in the Hat" is first-rate eye candy. The opening credits borrow the scarlet and teal of the original book cover, the kids live in a neighbourhood of top-heavy houses and undulating lawns, and the downtown where "Mom" Kelly Preston works is a multi-coloured paradise.

Welch is less adept at photographing things that move - impish sidekicks Thing One and Thing Two are literally a blur - so Myers has to shoulder extra weight to keep this shiny boat from sinking. He's ably counterbalanced by Fanning (playing the kind of control freak whose to-do list includes "Create lasting childhood memories") and Breslin - also just on the right side of precocious as her tubby brother. A fabulous stint by Alec Baldwin (with distinct shades of self-deprecation of his incendiary 'Glengarry Glen Ross' role) he chews up the screen in the newly created role of Larry, the shifty neighbour who wants to marry Mom and ship Conrad to military school. Amy Hill plays the thankless role of the roly-poly baby sitter who snoozes through the pandemonium.

But giving the credit where it has to go, it's Mike Myers who carries the show. If Christmas is merry and coffers get fat, "Just toss me a bone," cries the Cat in the Hat.

This film died a critical death in the USA, but what do they know? This is fantastic, the yanks are sad gits - I loved this, I loved this, I loved it to bits!!

In 1987, police charged Arnold and Jesse Friedman with an unbelievable array of child sexual abuse and molestation charges revolving around computer classes that Arnold taught in the Friedman household basement. The Friedmans lived in Great Neck, New York, a small enclave of upper class citizens off a small peninsula. The charges were even more shocking given that Arnold was married, the father of three, and an award winning and popular teacher. A media circus erupted around the charges and were eerily prescient of the direction that some of the tabloid media here in the UK would head towards in the next decade. What sets "Capturing the Friedmans" apart from other documentaries is the wealth of first-hand source material documenting the slow collapse of the Friedman family.

The Friedmans, and Arnold in particular, were huge fans of technology. They meticulously recorded various aspects of their lives with video, including events transpiring after the allegations surfaced. Director Andrew Jarecki had permission to use much of this footage, which gives a unique, otherwise unavailable viewpoint of the accused as events unfold. He has a lot of historical footage, so the viewer can get a sense of the Friedman family unit in better days, and later footage where, to put it mildly, things are a bit tense.

Jarecki even got David to donate a powerful private video diary, recorded amidst the chaos, where he vents his frustrations and fears directly into the camera. Capturing the Friedmans came about by chance, when Jarecki was interviewing eldest son David about his job as a birthday clown for children. He had no idea about David's background.

Throughout the film, David serves as the most ardent supporter of his father and brother's innocence. Second child Seth chose not to participate in the documentary, and his voice is sorely missed.

What is immediately clear is that the case surrounding the Friedmans is extremely complicated. If one was to believe the allegations of the prosecution, then children would be seriously molested and be ready to leave when their parents arrived, for each and every class in their computer group over a period of ten weeks. No children complained in any way at all until police approached and questioned them, and there was no evidence whatsoever of blood or abuse. Even more amazingly, other (now grown-up) children look back fondly on Arnold's computer classes, saying nothing of the sort happened.

On the other hand, the investigation began when postal inspectors discovered that Arnold was sending and receiving child pornography through the mail. He admitted doing this, but was adamant in his innocence for the molestation charges. There was a mountain of child pornography in his house, but did he actually take the next step and molest children? There is a huge amount of conflicting information on both sides to further muddy the waters.

Child molesters are the lowest of the low (with good reason). The head detective investigating the case correctly states that a false accusation is enough to ruin someone's life. In jail, child molesters are treated with contempt, regularly on the receiving end of violent assaults and showered with death threats by all the other inmates. So when the allegations are as numerous as they are here, it becomes a big deal.

Jarecki tries to avoid taking sides, but it's clear that he is more sympathetic to the Friedman cause, at least on Jessie's behalf. He does make it a point to tell both sides of the story, which is good. However, Capturing the Friedmans is less about the trial itself and more about how the allegations ripped the Friedman family apart. David and Jessie filmed tense family arguments, with the family split by gender. Arnold's wife Elaine feels like she is battling uphill, while David feels that Elaine is betraying the family. There are also scenes of the Friedmans calm, serene, and almost happy, despite the trouble swirling around them. It's like they believe if they impose a false sense of normality, then things may become normal. Events unfold quickly like a soap opera, with a surprising amount of twists and turns.

Ultimately though, I found the whole project thoroughly disagreeable, most of the participants obnoxious in so many ways - blatantly and grossly hamming it up for the benefit of the camera/s - and frankly the whole thing misses the mark by a mile.

"Monster" is something of a rarity - an up close and personal portrait of a haunted and haunting serial killer. That the killer is a woman is relatively novel in this genre, but "Monster" is not a one-dimensional portrait of a killer hooker with a heart of gold. This is actually a portrait of human pain that manifests itself into human rage.

Based on a true story, recent Academy Award winner (Best Actress in a leading role) Charlize Theron plays Aileen "Lee" Wuornos, an emotional wreck of a woman with deep emotional scars. She is a prostitute, and has been since the age of 13. The first shot shows us a rain-drenched Lee sitting under a bridge, contemplating her next client or possibly suicide. She enters a bar where she meets the teenage Selby (Christina Ricci), and as they talk, they begin to realise there is genuine love and understanding between them. Lee has had a sexually abusive past, and anyone that meets her treats her like trash. The innocence of Selby indicates otherwise - she wants to be close to Lee. They fall in love at a skating rink. Selby sneaks Lee into her house where she is staying with relatives - and the last thing she needs is for her relatives to throw them out. Eventually, in true road movie fashion, they flee and stay in various dingy motels. Lee promises Selby that she will find a job and take care of her. But Selby has no skills, and naively believes she could be a lawyer or a lawyer's secretary (at least she is ambitious). Meanwhile, Selby is starving when she should have gone back to home. So what can Lee do besides hooking? Nothing, which is why she sticks to prostitution, despite trying to go straight).

In that moment of realisation, a moment unlike anything I have seen in a while (a critical cliche, to be sure), Lee Wournos becomes aware that her past has come to haunt her - it has now fuelled a rage she has long kept suppressed. After getting viciously raped by one customer whom she kills, Lee starts becoming trigger happy. Some men she kills, others she doesn't (impotence will save your life, in one case). Lee takes their car, sometimes she will ditch the stolen vehicle before washing it clean. Selby is at first stunned by Lee's murderous habit but gradually she gets used to it, as if this is one way of making a future for them.

In one of the most remarkable achievements in film acting, Charlize Theron (usually a blond or brunette bombshell) gives a towering performance of amazing intensity and sheer velocity. Theron portrays Lee as an unbridled dynamo who can make you quiver with the shakes - she is chilling to watch and dominates each and every scene of this film. What is more amazing is that Theron is allowed to show the humanity of Lee Wournos, and that is what makes "Monster" tower above any other film about one-dimensional serial killers. She is emotional, but not frigidly emotional or cold-blooded (though some may see her actions as the latter). Theron brings the heart and soul of Lee to the screen, even if she has batty eyes that scream out terror. You may not want to run into Lee in an abandoned alley, but she still conveys some warmth and some sense of love. But how can a raging killer keep her love and rage separate?

Christina Ricci has the more difficult task, playing second fiddle to Theron's cry of pain. Ricci's Selby has the naivety intact, unable to see the futility of their relationship, especially when learning about Lee's serial murders. What is Selby supposed to do? There is one great scene where Selby complains that she needs a life and needs to have friends. She does, and at the local lesbian bar, she mimics Lee's own mannerisms and stories of being turned down for so many jobs. Selby clearly needs a role model, and Lee may not be the best one.

"Monster" has been criticised for painting a portrait of a serial killer, making us identify with the murderous appetite of a soulless person rather than examining the victims. I still wonder if anyone would ever make a film about the victims who suffered under the murderous hands of Charles Manson and his Family. The truth is that audiences are more intrinsically fascinated by murderers than by their victims. Somewhat sadly, murderers and their motives fascinate and vividly draw us in - the victims are always on the sidelines.

"Monster" does something rather rare - it looks at a human monster and shows both the humanity and the monster. Every moment we see Lee on screen, she is either in pain or is coming close to it. This is a tortured creature of society (though I wouldn't claim society made her this way) - a deviant who never had a chance to be accepted as a human being. That such a film can examine her fear and pain, and make us see her murderous rage explode, and then further still make us feel something for her, is a worthy achievement. First-time director (and writer) Patty Jenkins has made a stunning debut, using close-ups to her advantage. "Monster" is difficult, complex, emotional and fraught - with a raw, unnerving energy that is truly compelling.