The Pursuit of Happyness (DVD review)

Rated: PG-13 (for some language)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed By: Gabriele Muccino
Written By: Steve Conrad
Starring: Will Smith, Jaden Christopher Syre Smith, Thandie Newton

For the most part I’ve enjoyed anything Will Smith has done to at least some extent. The guy’s come a long way since his days as the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and proven that not only does he have a natural flair for the comedic, but also has emerged as a highly marketable action star as well as an actor capable of carrying strong dramatic performances. Arguably the greatest rapper/musician-turned-actor success story, Smith has earned his place among the Hollywood elite. His latest flick is another welcome notch on his cinematic belt.

The Pursuit of Happyness (intentionally misspelled with a “y”) works as a vehicle to showcase Smith’s dramatic talents, which is nice to see after he’s been enjoying more commercial success with the likes of I, Robot, Bad Boys II and Hitch. Granted, he was good in the aforementioned films, but it’s nice to know he doesn’t opt to suppress his versatility by striving to be typecast as the action/comedy guy.

The tale is based on a true story of Chris Gardner (Smith), a down-on-his-luck, partially educated yet street-and-business-savvy everyman who endures great struggle (including being penniless and homeless) before/while entering an unpaid internship to have a chance as a stock broker at a prestigious firm… all the while with his five-year-old son in tow.

The script, penned by Steve Conrad (The Weather Man), is decently populated with believable characters and honest dialogue. And Gabriele Muccino offers this modest fiction a directing technique that channels something grand through simplicity. A sort of humble underdog tale that almost feels like a strange mix of Wall Street and Life is Beautiful. The story feels multifaceted – simultaneously one of rising above your class and financial status, of achieving the American Dream, and of minority struggle (both in the sense of African-American oppression, but also, in a way Muccino crafts this to where it feels like Italian-immigrant stories of cinematic past).

Smith’s performance, which rightly earned him an Oscar nomination, is genuine and wholly dynamic. You get to watch his character’s layers peeled back rather elegantly to the point where it’s nearly impossible not to sympathize with him. Even though his family suffers as he follows his ambition, it’s somehow inspiring. The real gems are the moments with his son, played by Smith’s real life son, Jaden Christopher Syre Smith (interestingly enough – in reality, Gardner’s son was only 18 months old when this story took place, not five… one of those Hollywood alterations). There’s something magical as Smith takes moments of despair and turns them positive for the sake of his son. There’s a scene where the two have no place to stay for the night and are sitting on a subway bench. He tells his son that a medical device he’s carrying (which he sells door-to-door for cash) is actually a time machine. Suddenly, Smith starts looking about in wonder, asking his son if he can see the dinosaurs. The son excitedly takes part in the fantasy and they work their way to a cave (in actuality a subway bathroom) where they sleep for the night. Reality comes crashing back when, as his son sleeps, Smith braces his foot against the locked bathroom door as someone bangs to be let in. Quietly he cries, hoping his son won’t wake up to find the illusion has vanished and they are spending the night on a dirty bathroom floor. Unapologetically taking the easy way out to tug on the audience’s heartstrings, it’s moments like this that make this flick shine.

My biggest complaint is that despite a grand, intensely focused yet appropriately restrained performance from Smith, the honest charisma of his son, and the minimalist direction, The Pursuit of Happyness never really goes the extra mile and somewhat emerges as a run-of-the-mill, paint-by-numbers tale. It’s like 7/8 of the movie is dismal and depressing with the ever-present glimmer of hope and the predictable happy ending (obvious because of the title, and the fact that if there hadn’t been any success at the end of this true tale the movie probably wouldn’t have been made). I liked it, but couldn’t help finding myself wanting more. Still, it’s definitely something worth checking out.

My Rating: B

Zodiac

Rated: R (for some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images)
Runtime: 158 minutes
Directed by: David Fincher
Written by: James Vanderbilt (screenplay), Robert Graysmith (book)
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox

To say I’ve been anticipating Zodiac would be more than an understatement. Director David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club, The Game, Panic Room) is one of my favorite modern filmmakers (if not my absolute favorite). I’ve been dying to see him throw anything back up on the silver screen for a few years now. And finally he returns in full glory. Despite being something other than what I expected, this flick is excellent.

The film traces the tale of obsession, between police and the press, of a serial killer called Zodiac back in the 1960s and 1970s. The case dwindles, drifts across county and jurisdictional lines and ultimately consumes those staking a claim in it, as Zodiac claims the lives of more than just his victims, in a manner of speaking. It’s adapted from Robert Graysmith’s book, taken from true case files.

The acting channels a greatly welcome purity, with little melodrama and wholly intriguing characters in a brilliant ensemble cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Graysmith, and didn’t quite impress me as much as his efforts in Jarhead or Brokeback Mountain, but commits himself in a way that’s utterly sympathetic – an everyman (if only they’d progressively aged him as they did the other actors – the film spans over 20 years and he looks the same, save for some facial stubble). Mark Ruffalo gives one of his best performances to date as Inspector David Toschi, bringing a unique sense of pragmatism to a very sympathetic detective template – with his corny bowties, massive sideburns and gravitation towards animal crackers in lieu of cigarettes – that is genuinely magnetic. Robert Downey Jr. is in top form as sardonic, loud-mouthed, coke-snorting, boozehound reporter Paul Avery. He doesn’t quite separate himself from his iconic performances of the past, but manages to breathe life into his role that proves he’s capable of making nearly anything charismatic.

The script is deftly written with sharp dialogue and a gripping scene progression. But the real treat is Fincher’s execution of the story. His keen eye for brilliant camerawork and innovative special FX integration is restrained to rather good effect here (there are none of his staple cameras rushing through walls or CGI-fused architectural exploration sequences about this film). But he manages to work in some distinctly appropriate moments of stylistic flair that resonate with a delightful impact. Every camera setup is appropriate to the film’s demands and there are countless little tweaks to the frame (i.e. swift, subtle pans) that keep the visuals engaging. And the small handful of montage sequences are carried out to near perfection. Absolutely gorgeous shot and scene composition.

My hat really goes off though to Fincher’s expert ability to merge time gaps. Scenes fluctuate from languid, thought-provoking narrative progression to swift and succinct vignettes packed with the bare minimum of necessary information to carry the audience on. Between scenes Fincher is boldly unafraid to jump days, weeks, months and even years as we are cued of the specific date and time lapse in the greatly needed scene subtitles. And yet it feels natural to warp time in this tale, realizing that once we rejoin our characters we are somehow still up to speed (thanks to Fincher’s honed ability to plant seeds for thought throughout his cinematic landscape). I loved one particular moment where he has the audacity to show off with little insights of parties analyzing Zodiac’s first letter - cuing as we jump a few hours later to the FBI, and a few hours more over to the CIA, and so on and so forth until we reach the kitchen of an elderly couple the next morning, who decipher a clue in the letter (which has been printed in the newspaper). Then we rejoin our main cast discussing their surprise at the civilians’ discovery. That is part of what makes Fincher’s directorial approach so enthralling – his unabashedly exploratory nature into the details most others overlook and argue as unnecessary.

I probably sound over-complimentary of Zodiac (and admittedly a tad biased). I’ve heard numerous complaints about the flick – it goes nowhere, the ending is loose, it’s too slow and too long. But while I see these points I can’t at all agree with them. For me, at over two-and-a-half hours the film seemed to fly by, remaining consistently gripping and fascinating. It’s not at all action packed and is definitely a detour from Fincher’s celebrated classics Seven and Fight Club. But it works as a sort of honest, elegantly-yet-languidly paced period piece of a thriller that seems to echo a considerate obsession of a tale of murders that seemed to fade into society’s background, while its case file lingered in a very discomforting purgatory. Probably not what audiences expect or are even looking for, Zodiac is a powerhouse piece of cinema that curiously lingers in the mind long after one exits the theater.

My Rating: A