The Informant!: Unreliably Good

"What are you doing this weekend?"
"Going to see the Informant tonight with my sister and her friend. Feel free to tag along"
"Sounds good."

This, and only this, is what lead me to go see 'The Informant!', the based-on-a-true-story dark comedy directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring Matt Damon. If not for this text message exchange, I probably wouldn't have ponied up the cash for the ticket. Not because it didn't look entertaining in the trailers. It just didn't seem compelling. "Matt Damon as a hapless FBI informer? Meh." I'm not sure what I would have needed to see in advance to turn 'The Informant! from a "might watch" to a "must see." Sexier actresses or funnier clips might have helped, but not likely. The problem is that Matt Damon is becoming a victim of his own success. I've seen him and loved him in too many roles to settle for less exciting parts. Fortunately, he turns in another great performance in a story that is entertaining and intellectually challenging.


The story of 'the Informant!' centers around Mark Whitacre, president of the bioproducts division at agricultural conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland. Whitacre has been witness to rampant price-fixing at ADM and decides to blow the whistle on his colleagues. At the behest of his wife, Whitacre confesses to the FBI what he knows and agrees to become an informant. For the next several years, Whitacre secretly records hours and hours of meetings and conversations with his employers by wearing a wire and helping videotape meetings. His motives are initially unclear, saying only that he "sees himself wearing a white hat, while the other guys are wearing black hats."

Steven Soderbergh makes a lot of smart moves in this film and does a great job of making a dialogue-driven story entertaining to watch. To transition between scenes, Soderbergh has Damon narrate tidbits of Whitacre's insights into the world over mini-montages of travel scenes or setting up covert activities. This stream-of-consciousness narration might have been my favorite part of the movie. Not only are they the hilarious ramblings of someone possibly suffering from OCD, they also do a fantastic job of developing Matt Damon's character and at the same time give the movie a great sense of flow. Flow isn't always easy to accomplish in a film that relies on the dialogue to do the heavy lifting. As the story doesn't exactly take place in a picturesque setting (unless you like corn and hotel rooms), Soderbergh did exactly what he needed to do to give the movie some variety visually and with regard to tempo.

The film also does a tremendous job of introducing the concept of an unreliable narrator and transitioning Whitacre from a clear-cut hero to a far more ambiguous one. It's not just a simple matter of the way the scenes were shot or lit. It's nothing short of the way the entire story is progressed, and it starts with our lead character. Throughout the entire movie, Mark Whitacre does not change as a character. More information about him is constantly being revealed, but at his core he is the same person at the end of the movie as he is at the beginning. That's true of the entire cast. Nobody undergoes any significant change or makes any personal progress as a character. This presents a story-telling challenge.

One of the most common methods of story progression is to have either the protagonist or someone related to him undergo some sort of shift in character. 'The Informant!' solves this challenge not by changing Mark Whitacre or the characters surrounding him, but by changing the characters surrounding Mark Whitacre.

When we begin the film, Whitacre is surrounded by his family and his FBI handlers. At this point, Whitacre is represented as a "White Hat." We move from "White Hat" Mark to "Grey Hat" Mark, surrounded by his FBI handlers and his own lawyers, to finally "Black Hat" Mark Whitacre, surrounded by his own lawyers and FBI prosecutors. The essence of each character never changes, but the characters themselves do, advancing the story in the process. It is an interesting and uncommon story-telling technique, uncommon at least in mainstream American cinema. And even though I enjoyed watching it unfold, it was this technique that ultimately lead to the film's difficulty in achieving resolution of its plot points.

Whitacre's narration drives the entire film, which as previously stated is often hilarious and couldn't have been delivered more perfectly by Matt Damon. But because Whitacre is surrounded by only himself in prison, he has no visibility of the other characters and plot lines. This means he is unable to narrate the story that remains, leaving the resolution of the overarching drama regarding the price-fixers to an epilogue that isn't narrated but rather displayed in text on the screen. The abrupt shift leads to an unsatisfying degree of closure in which the resolution feels rushed and mistreated. It is a poor ending for an otherwise gratifying film.

Overall, 'The Informant!' is a highly entertaining movie and worth your time if you're up for a comedy or something more dramatic. Matt Damon does nothing short of killing his role. Joel McHale should have traded roles with Scott Bakula. Scott Bakula should have traded roles with the grip who makes sure there are donuts on set at all times. I hate to say it, but Bakula is inching dangerously close to Keanu Reeves, "I have only one facial expression and I'm going to hump it for all it's worth" territory. I'd say he should stick to science fiction, but he also single-handedly torpedoed the latest Star Trek iteration. Tough break for a guy who owned at least part of the '80s. Regardless, go see this movie. And if you need someone to watch it with, send me a text.

Inglourious Basterds: Now? Really?

First thing's first. I know that it's technically a little late to be filing a relevant review of "Inglourious Basterds," Quentin Tarantino's latest cinematic orgy of blood and bullets. I had originally intended to write this much closer to the film's release date, but was delayed for no other reason than my own laziness. Interestingly, my procrastination might be appropriate. Tarantino began working on the script for 'Basterds' prior to 2004, but deferred. His reasons were slightly better than mine. Tarantino believed that 'Basterds' would be his masterpiece, and therefore wanted to devote far more time to the script than a 2004 release date would permit. 5 years later, the film debuts to thunderous applause at the Cannes Film Festival and an American audience ravenous for another glimpse into Tarantino's genius.

'Basterds' opens in French farm country at the home of a local farmer and his daughters in the middle of World War II. We meet both our principal antagonist in the film, Colonel Hans Landa played brilliantly by Christoph Waltze, and one of our two principal protagonists, Soshanna Dreyfus played by Melanie Laurent. As Shoshanna witnesses Landa ferret out and slaughter her Jewish family we learn why Landa has earned his nickname "the Jew Hunter" in addition to why Landa is so effective in his post: his Holmes-ian prowess as a detective and his mastery of foreign languages. We also learn why Waltze won Best Actor honors in Cannes this year and why he needs to be in any serious discussion of Best Actor nominees for the Oscar. From the first scene to the last, Waltze's mastery over both his character and the dialogue in all of its languages is simply breathtaking. It's easy to forget Waltze once described the role of Landa as "unplayable."

It is after the introduction of Landa and Dreyfus that we meet Brad Pitt's character Lieutenant Aldo Raine for the first time. It is suggested that Aldo's nickname "the Apache", given to him by the Nazis, is due to his Native American heritage. As Lt. Raine greets his squad, however, "the Apache" seems more likely to have evolved from the Basterds' pattern of behavior, as Raine informs each member of the platoon of their debt to the Lieutenant to be re-paid in Nazi scalps. The stated goal of the Inglourious Basterds is to go behind enemy lines, kill as many Nazis and wreak as much havoc on the Reich possible.

Following the primer on the Lieutenant and the graphic novel-style introduction of the Basterds, we catch up with Shoshanna once more. Shoshanna has matured into an attractive young woman now living in Paris where she has acquired a cinema. Due to the Nazi occupation, she is often forced to show German films for the entertainment of the resident soldiers. After earning the unwanted affection of Nazi hero Frederick Zoller (a rather one dimensional character played by Daniel Bruhl), Shoshanna quickly becomes enveloped in a plot by the Third Reich's higher-ups to debut the latest German propaganda film "Nation's Pride" in her cinema.

It is at this moment that the plot is propelled forward, as Shoshanna hatches a plan along with her boyfriend and assistant Marcel (Jacky Ido) to burn down her cinema on the night of the debut in an effort to avenge her dead family. British secret service in conjunction with the Basterds also hatch a plan to take advantage of the Reich's visiting dignitaries at the cinema, and at long last, the exposition of the plot ends and the insights begin.

As previously stated, Waltze is the stand-out star of this cast. His character exhibits the most depth and complexity, and appears to be the only dynamic character in the film. Though Colonel Landa should be in all ways despicable, I found it impossible to generate enmity for him. Other high points include a cameo role by Mike Myers, and a thoroughly engaging Bridget von Hammersmark, played by Diane Kruger. The greatest tension in the film comes to a head in a wonderfully scripted and perfectly executed standoff inside of a small French tavern. In terms of style, Tarantino does a fantastic job of keeping the gore and viscera in balance with the film overall and the goals of each scene. And, as period pieces go, the costumes are dead on for the age.

But for all the smart moves this film makes, it leaves several others open for debate. Much of the criticism already levied at the film has to do with Tarantino's "trademark" style of shuffling back and forth between two parallel storylines. Some critics complained that based on this, the movie had great difficulty building any sort of momentum. As a result the climax of the movie ended up anti-climactic leaving the viewer confused and disenfranchised. Each individual plot resolves, but they resolve independently of one another leaving the viewer to figure out which was the more critical element in the over-all story.

While this might be true, I don't think that this was the central error in the film. Nor do I feel that Tarantino's revisionist telling of history is a great mistake, as some Jewish and European critics have claimed. Movies and fiction in general exist specifically to provide the opportunity to examine possibilities other than reality, and that holds true regardless of time period or cultural significance of events.

The biggest issue I had in this film was the dialogue from and use of the titular characters in advancing the plot. I'll be the first to admit I went into this film with some expectations, which as an audience-member typically guarantees disappointment. I hate to say it, but Inlgourious Basterds was no different. Going into the film I was looking for two things: crisp, witty dialogue from Aldo Raine, and gleeful Nazi-killing mayhem and general face time for the Basterds. And on both fronts, the movie disappoints.

Let's examine my first point, the dialogue with Aldo Raine. Over the past 10 years, Brad Pitt has proven his ability to execute difficult verbal exchange with style and ease. My issue isn't that he fails to do this in “Inglourious Basterds”, it's that he's never given the chance. Apart from a monologue as his character is introduced, Lt. Raine isn't featured prominently as a speaking role in any of the critical scenes of the movie. This would be acceptable if Tarantino had used an actor other than Brad Pitt to portray Aldo Raine, and here's why. Brad Pitt is completely believable as a leader or authority figure in film. But in every film he's been a part of in that capacity, Pitt has established his character's authority through dialogue rather than simply cutting an imposing figure on screen. If you're looking for an actor to get by on long looks and short words, perhaps Bruce Willis or Billy Bob Thornton might have been a better option. To feature Pitt in a film without giving him the lion's share of the dialogue is a misuse of his talents. Put simply, if you're expecting Aldo Raine to be a reprise of Rusty Ryan only 60 years earlier and in the military, don't.

Secondly, what happens to Aldo Raine in this movie essentially happens to the entire Basterds platoon. After their cartoonish introductions, the members of the Basterds sort of melt into the background, not to become relevant again until the end of the film. The great, unspeakable acts of violence they're described as perpetrating against the Nazi combatants they find (and let's be honest; the stuff most people were hoping to see) is depicted sparingly. In terms of content, I don't necessarily believe the film suffers for this. If the platoon is going to participate in a plot that rivals the one being formulated by Shoshanna in Paris, surely they won't simply be able to bulldoze their way to Paris by way of guns and guts alone. But for a film called "Inglourious Basterds", the Basterds' inglorious methods play an awfully small role.

I have to concede that it was partly due to my own expectations that led to the awkward feeling I had leaving this film. I also have to concede that the decision not to feature Pitt and the Basterds more prominently in the movie could have been a conscious one. Tarantino might have intended us to consider every character an inglorious bastard. After all, they all eventually got their hands dirty somehow. Still, I can't escape the feeling that movie missed its intended mark. If you're a Quentin Tarantino fan you will certainly enjoy "Inglorious Basterds." Just don't be surprised if you're left wanting a little more 'Basterd' for the buck.

I walk up the carpeted stairs to the bathroom of the bar I used to work at years ago, and a wave of calm washes over me. Have I stumbled, unwittingly, into an answer? Life's riddles do pose themselves at odd moments, but stranger still are the moments in which they solve themselves. I pull the handle to the door that guards the restaurant lobby, brass-plated and smudged by foreign fingerprints. I enter as one who has been charged with the responsibility of the place. To the restroom, I go. I approach the urinal with confidence, and uncork my flaccid penis to spray forth its meager offering. The urinal accepts me unconditionally. I am home. These walls who know me so well welcome me back with their familiar words and colors. I know this place. I feel...happy here. Regretfully, my visit ends. I soap my hands and disavow all knowledge of the events which moments ago I had foresworn. My sanctuary mourns not my exit, nor bids me hasten my return. It simply stands, a monument to what was. Outside, in the hallway, I hear the incessant chatter of catty bitches who mock their purported friends and ravage verbally their enemies. I am disturbed, but my condition is not perturbed. It is the nature of this place. I cannot be shocked. After all the days and all the hours, there is nothing shocking here to be seen. I dry my hands, and step gingerly into the mist.