July 12, 2003

• More insomnia.
  
  Watched 'Grand Canyon,' which I'd seen before. It's pretty good.
  
  If they had spent a little more money on the music, 'Grand Canyon' would be hailed as timeless. But it has that music, so it's just a movie with a new-agey subtext from the early 90s, about the intertwining lives of a bunch of people who come to realize the connections between themselves.
  
  The Grand Canyon figures into the movie as a place of great beauty and insight that's only 9 hours away, but that none of the characters can break away from their busy lives to even consider. Simon, (Danny Glover) first brings it up as a place he went to a long time ago, where he could sit on the edge and feel small and insignificant and at peace. Another character talks about the city as having a hole in it, the size of the Grand Canyon, out of which explodes all kinds of horror.
  
  I couldn't help but think about Zen, and how meditation on emptiness is supposed to bring about enlightenment. The irony of the characters in the movie is that their lives are empty of emptiness. They haven't yet made their own mythical 9-hour trip to their own mythical chasm of peaceful nothing. Since they, themselves, carry around the horror and desperation they fear, the stillness of the Grand Canyon is more than a little threatening.
  
  In the end, however, after they find their connections with each other, and reaffirm their desire to live life as if it matters, they all find they have the resources to make the trek.
  
  Thankfully, the movie isn't 9 hours long, but I'm sure the director thought about it. It reminds me a lot of 'Magnolia,' except with characters that are a little more two-dimensional, but not fatally so. 'Magnolia' tried really hard to make the characters quirky, whereas 'Grand Canyon' is about more run-of-the-mill folk. And there's no rain of frogs.
  
  I like that 'Grand Canyon' contains a kind of tenderness not usually seen in movies. The characters that care about each other try and stretch beyond themselves to do everything the caring implies. It's a credit to the screenwriters that this doesn't come off as being about a sense of duty.
  
  I also like that the movie transcends class and race. The rich white folk and the poor black folk all find their way to the Grand Canyon, despite all the hardships their stations provide.
  
  Another thing is the helicopter. Throughout the movie, we see a helicopter circling overhead. Sometimes it's a police copter, sometimes a news traffic copter, and sometimes it's just some helicopter. The characters almost always look up at it, as if just hearing it isn't enough.
  
  The reversal of perspective finally comes when we get to the Grand Canyon; we get to zoom around inside the canyon on a helicopter-mounted camera. This is the kind of thing that might go by a lot of people, since it's not overtly stated that the camera is on a helicopter. But there you go. The perspective the characters needed was right above their heads all along.
  
  And finally, the thing I like most about 'Grand Canyon' is that it made the attempt.
  
  Things I don't like: I mentioned the music. I thought the characters were too philosophical, but I suppose if you're trying to make a philosophical point, you'll need some exposition. I wish we'd seen more change from the Steve Martin character, though he's really a stand-in for the violence we do to our own mind with the stories we tell. As with the landlord in 'Umberto D.,' being saddled by representing a philosophical point which must remain constant for the purposes of the story leaves little room for the character to change.
  
  Oh, and also this..
  
  From Hollywood Jesus: "All of life's riddles are answered in the movies."
  -Steve Martin in Grand Canyon
  

  • 11:15 am
  • 3 Comments