Bruce Greenwood

  • Ararat (2002)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2021) As I’ll never get tired of pointing out, everything I’ve ever heard about the Armenian genocide has been because of Turkish militants’ attempts to pretend it didn’t happen. From the Serdar Argic Usenet spam of the mid-1990s to modern attempts to silence filmmakers tackling the topic, it’s not an exaggeration to say that I got interested in the issues because some people tried really hard to pretend it wasn’t an issue. The Promise thus begat a documentary about its shooting, and one that interviewed Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan about his troubles with Ararat — including a meticulous campaign to discredit his work accompanied by a book-sized dossier on his film’s failings. As a good Canadian cinephile, of course I had heard of Ararat — but not being much of a fan, I hadn’t sought it out. That changed after the documentary, and that’s how I ended up learning even more about the Armenian genocide. In a way, it’s good that I saw Ararat after The Promise, as the two logically flow into each other: The Promise is a historical re-creation, while Ararat plays with the making of a film much like The Promise, as it affects circa-2002 characters. It’s scattered and filled with subplots (many of them metatextual), but there’s a sense that Egoyan, himself of Armenian descent, is not trying to convince viewers as much as he’s taking the genocide as a fact and musing on its reverberations. (At least one 2002 review goes about it the other way and complains that the genocide is not given enough attention.) A good and eclectic ensemble cast includes Charles Aznavour, Christopher Plummer, Eric Bogosian, Bruce Greenwood and the lovely Arsinee Khanjian (Egoyan’s wife, in a Genie-winning performance). I found Ararat scattered but interesting, and an interesting addition to the Armenian genocide filmography in that it presents a world in which the recognition has happened, but not the reckoning. (Canada formally recognized the genocide in 2006, while the United States recognized it in 2021.)

  • And Now a Word from Our Sponsor (2013)

    And Now a Word from Our Sponsor (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, February 2021) The lineage going from Being There to And Now a Word from Our Sponsor is obvious. Both films feature central characters speaking in gnomic utterances that allow the other characters to pick and choose the meaning they want. While Being There’s character was a certifiable simple-minded innocent speaking in the familiar language of gardening, the protagonist of the later film is a brain-damaged ad executive who wakes up from a cerebrovascular incident, only able to speak in ad slogans. No, it’s not meant to make sense: this is a comedy, and I suppose that the larger point being made has something to do with how advertising takes over our brains and shapes our language. (I’m looking, or rather not looking forward to the movie in which the characters only speaking in memes and media quotes, but that could be too asinine to tolerate.)  In execution, the film often feels like a showy exercise in screenwriting and acting. I’m sure that writer Michael Hamilton-Wright must have high-fived himself in the mirror upon coming up with some of that stuff, but at times the film is obviously contrived to lead up to some punchlines. Fortunately, there’s Bruce Greenwood to convincingly deliver the material — and since the words don’t always manage to convey what he thinks, it’s all up to his body language to fill in the rest. Heck, you could even argue that this is close to a silent performance given how the content of the dialogue is so irrelevant. (The film’s end-credit sequence features an alternate take of the film’s single most impressive one-shot in which Greenwood sings his lengthy dialogue.)  Once you learn to accept the conceit, And Now a Word from Our Sponsor works in fits and spurts —the material between mom and daughter works well, even as the corporate takeover shenanigans are less convincing. (Although it does lead to a slogan-to-slogan verbal joust.)  Parker Posey looks wonderful in glasses and long hair, bolstering a role that does give her some good dramatic material to chew on. Still, director Zack Bernbaum’s work is more akin to a performance piece rather than something to authentically enjoy — there’s a feature-length air of “watch what I’m about to do!” that does entertain, but also reinforces the artifice of the story. The conclusion is what reinforces the parallels between this film and its more illustrious 1970s predecessor — like Chance Gardner, the last scene featuring our protagonist hops into magical realism to offer you a variety of possible interpretations. My own take is that in hearing a slogan repeated back to him, he has finally become one with the all-consuming noosphere—but I’ll let you figure out your own meaning.

  • Thirteen Days (2000)

    Thirteen Days (2000)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) As I watched Thirteen Days, I was struck not so much by the familiar story of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, but by how any movie that sets out to explore a presidency’s response to a crisis will be instantly measured against the administration in place. As of mid-2020, with more than 125,000 Americans dead from a global pandemic, an impeached (but not convicted) president, an incompetent administration and a current of urban unrest lingering from protests worsened by the federal response, this is the kind of film to twice underline how important it is to have capable leadership in place when things go wrong. It is very much a heroic presentation of the crisis, as seen by a protagonist close to JFK. Thirteen Days does manage to find creating ways to pump up its action quotient, most notably by going to the forefront of the not-quite-conflict in following reconnaissance jet pilots are they get potshots while surveying the Cuban countryside. There are touches of techno-thriller tropes in the way the film spans the chain of command from the president to the pilots, and slightly fetishizes the technology of the time. Political brinksmanship also comes into play as the president’s people try to figure out how to de-escalate the situation with the Russians. Thanks to the professional work from director Roger Donaldson, the film moves at the briskest pace it can afford while still offering a nicely package summary of the action—within the usual Hollywood indulgences, most notably in what the lead character does or knows. Kevin Costner plays that protagonist well, while Bruce Greenwood succeeds in the tough assignment of playing John F. Kennedy. The portrayal of the events is credible, playing into our preconceived notions of serious men in shirtsleeves, looking at documentation late in the night and bouncing ideas off each other to try to resolve the crisis. Of course, this is far more poignant now in 2020 than it would have been in 2015 or (hopefully) in 2021: the current president has proven more competent in creating crises than dealing with existing ones—he will be a blot on the presidency, and we can only be thankful that he will be replaced with good people in charge.

  • Gerald’s Game (2017)

    Gerald’s Game (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, August 2018) I first read Stephen King’s Gerald’s Game decades ago, but I was able to remember a surprising amount of it while watching its straight-to-Netflix adaptation. Thanks to writer/director Mike Flanagan (following up on a series of increasingly successful horror movies), the adaptation is surprisingly faithful, a feat made even more amazing given that the novel is as interior-driven as anything else in King’s biography. After all, how can you portray a woman being chained to a bed and left alone with her husband’s corpse for days? What Flanagan does, aside from the obvious use of flashbacks, is to literalize the heroine’s fantasies and delirious visions: Suddenly, the deceased husband gets up, talks to her and gets her to express her feelings. And then, later, there are other, more tangible horrors: A dog, then something else… And still, throughout, the terrors of being left to die alone. The thirst, the cold, the isolation. Carla Gugino is near a career-best performance in the lead role, being on-screen for almost the entire duration of Gerald’s Game and being asked to carry a wide range of emotions. Bruce Greenwood does get a mention for his not-so-brief time playing a not-so-good husband. The film is so close to the novel that it does share a few issues later on, namely the collision of a good-enough premise with a serial killer story that doesn’t entirely serve the rest of the plot. I was dubious about it when I read the novel so long ago and I’m still dubious about it now. Still, it’s the kind of thing that doesn’t add much, so what is left of Gerald’s Game is still remarkable. Flanagan has done much with little (the film has only barely a dozen roles in a largely single location), delivering quality chills and thrills in a compelling package. This is probably his best film yet, and it suggests even better things in the future.