Smoke

Rating:
Summary: Great Film, Even Though Harvey's Butt Wasn't Shown
Review: "Smoke" is one of those movies that you'd probably be better off buying rather than renting. It deserves --perhaps even requires-- multiple viewings. 'Great,' you may say, 'another movie that I have to watch a dozen times to understand.' No, no. Don't be afraid. The reason I suggest this is not because the film is presented in a haphazard format (like the double helix-like antics of "Pulp Fiction"). It's not because the dialogue is cryptic or scant, the story unfolding with minimal explanation. And, no, don't worry, it's not because it's so damned pretentiously quirky that things seem to be going absolutely nowhere, reminiscent of highly overrated films such as "The Royal Tennenbaums", "Punch Drunk Love", and "Adaptation": those where ultimately, you learn virtually nothing about the plot and characters. So why do I recommend that "Smoke" be watched more than once? There are actually a couple of primary reasons: First, I'll explain why it 'deserves' multiple viewings, and secondly, why it may 'require' them:

Simply put: This is a comforting film. If you need to be loved or wanted, or just want to hang out with some friends who have been in your shoes and will listen and provide solace... then this is the film for you.

Compassion is the essential theme of "Smoke". We have a drugged-out girl (Ashley Judd) who gets pregnant, with an alcoholic mother (Stockard Channing) struggling to reunite with her ex-boyfriend (Harvey Keitel) --who is also the purported father of her daughter-- in order to assist Judd's character with raising her child. Enter next a seventeen year-old boy (Harold Perrineau Jr.) attempting desperately to obtain employment from an amputee owner of a nearly bankrupt gas station (Forrest Whitaker) whom he believes to be his long, lost father. The boy is befriended by a once popular writer (William Hurt) who, as a result of multiple traumas (mainly because of the loss of his wife), has lost his mojo for writing; consequently, he is reclusive and somewhat paranoid of others. These are all seriously confused people, folks. But as the story progresses, their lives intertwine, and they console one another. There really are no antagonists in this film. Of course, none of the characters are even close to perfect, evidenced when they engage in some questionable and objectionable acts (never extending the scope of realism as to make them ridiculously quirky, I must add); but the important thing is that they all learn from their mishaps and paranoias, and bequeath their knowledge to influence positively each others' lives.

The pace of "Smoke" is neither hurried nor lagging behind, echoing the pace of the characters' deep thought and introspection, as well as the hypnotic lucidity of their storytelling, thus allowing the viewer time to synthesize the consequences of their realizations. Indeed, a rapid or slothy pace are often why movies are ineffective; but "Smoke" is a refreshing exception. Additionally, the empathetic vibe of the film can be likened to that of a comforting song. There's a lasting effect that grabs you inside, and will not let go; or, perhaps better put: nicotine is addictive, is it not?

Though the pace of "Smoke" was concurrent with the goings-on in the characters' lives, these people are nonetheless complex. They are intellegent, introspective, and contemplative --and also great storytellers and listeners, to boot. But complex stories and complex characters both demand a high degree of attentiveness, and as a result, there is a greater probability of something being missed. For this reason, additional viewings may be required.

For whatever reason, I highly recommend at least one viewing of "Smoke". The acting is highly realistic --even improvised many times during the film, eliciting an occasional chuckle. Few times have I seen a film where personal highs and lows are so well-balanced. Then why only four stars? Well, the improvisation seems to get a little out-of-character sometimes, and the direction is occasionally shoddy. But overall, this is a great DVD to buy -not rent.

Rating:
Summary: Harvey's Butt Takes Second Stage
Review: "Smoke" is one of those movies that you'd probably be better off buying rather than renting. It deserves --perhaps even requires-- multiple viewings. `Great,' you may say, `another movie that I have to watch a dozen times to understand.' No, no. Don't be afraid. The reason I suggest this is not because the film is presented in a haphazard format (like the double helix-like antics of "Pulp Fiction"). It's not because the dialogue is cryptic or scant, the story unfolding with minimal explanation. And, no, don't worry, it's not because it's so damned pretentiously quirky that things seem to be going absolutely nowhere, reminiscent of highly overrated films such as "The Royal Tennenbaums", "Punch Drunk Love", and "Adaptation": those where ultimately, you learn virtually nothing about the plot and characters. So why do I recommend that "Smoke" be watched more than once? There are actually a couple of primary reasons: First, I'll explain why it 'deserves' multiple viewings, and secondly, why it may 'require' them:

1) Simply put: This is a comforting film. If you need to be loved or wanted, or just want to hang out with some friends who have been in your shoes and will listen and provide solace... then this is the story for you.

Compassion is the essential theme of "Smoke". We have a drugged-out girl (Ashley Judd) who gets pregnant, with an alcoholic mother (Stockard Channing) struggling to reunite with her ex-boyfriend (Harvey Keitel) --who is also the purported father of her daughter-- in order to assist Judd's character with raising her child, and to provide a family atmosphere. Enter next a seventeen year-old boy (Harold Perrineau Jr.) attempting desperately to obtain employment from an amputee owner of a nearly bankrupt gas station (Forrest Whitaker) whom he believes to be his long, lost father. The boy ends up befriending -the last of the six characters-- a once popular writer (William Hurt) who, as a result of multiple traumas (mainly because of the loss of his wife), has lost his literary mojo; consequently, he is reclusive and somewhat paranoid of others. These are all seriously confused people, folks. But as the story progresses --at a pace that is neither hurried nor lagging behind, echoing the pace of the characters' deep thought and introspection, and thus allowing the viewer time to synthesize the consequences of their realizations-- these people become involved with others that share their pain and loss, and they console one another. There really are no antagonists in this film. Of course, none of the characters are even close to perfect, evidenced when they engage in some questionable and objectionable acts (never extending the scope of realism as to make them ridiculously quirky, I must add); but the important thing is that they all learn from their mishaps and paranoias, and bequeath their knowledge to influence positively each others' lives. To conclude why "Smoke" deserve multiple viewings: There's a lasting effect that I liken to listening to a comforting song, over and over and over again.

2) Though the pace of "Smoke" was concurrent with the goings-on in the characters' lives, these people are nonetheless complex. They are intellegent, introspective, and contemplative --and also great storytellers and listeners, to boot. But complex stories and complex characters both demand a high degree of attentiveness, and as a result, there is a greater probability of something being missed. For this reason, additional viewings may be required.

For whatever reason, I highly recommend at least one viewing of "Smoke". The acting is highly realistic --even improvised many times during the film, eliciting an occasional chuckle. Few times have I seen a film where personal highs and lows are so well-balanced. Then why only four stars? Well, the improvisation seems to get a little out-of-character sometimes, and the direction is occasionally shoddy. But overall, this is a great DVD to buy -not rent.

Rating:
Summary: Harvey's Butt Takes Second Stage
Review: "Smoke" is one of those movies that you'd probably be better off buying rather than renting. It deserves --perhaps even requires-- multiple viewings. 'Great,' you may say, 'another movie that I have to watch a dozen times to understand.' No, no. Don't be afraid. The reason I suggest this is not because the film is presented in a haphazard format (like the double helix-like antics of "Pulp Fiction"). It's not because the dialogue is cryptic or scant, the story unfolding with minimal explanation. And, no, don't worry, it's not because it's so damned pretentiously quirky that things seem to be going absolutely nowhere, reminiscent of highly overrated films such as "The Royal Tennenbaums", "Punch Drunk Love", and "Adaptation": those where ultimately, you learn virtually nothing about the plot and characters. So why do I recommend that "Smoke" be watched more than once? There are actually a couple of primary reasons: First, I'll explain why it 'deserves' multiple viewings, and secondly, why it may 'require' them:

1) Simply put: This is a comforting film. If you need to be loved or wanted, or just want to hang out with some friends who have been in your shoes and will listen and provide solace... then this is the story for you.

Compassion is the essential theme of "Smoke". We have a drugged-out girl (Ashley Judd) who gets pregnant, with an alcoholic mother (Stockard Channing) struggling to reunite with her ex-boyfriend (Harvey Keitel) --who is also the purported father of her daughter-- in order to assist Judd's character with raising her child, and to provide a family atmosphere. Enter next a seventeen year-old boy (Harold Perrineau Jr.) attempting desperately to obtain employment from an amputee owner of a nearly bankrupt gas station (Forrest Whitaker) whom he believes to be his long, lost father. The boy ends up befriending -the last of the six characters-- a once popular writer (William Hurt) who, as a result of multiple traumas (mainly because of the loss of his wife), has lost his literary mojo; consequently, he is reclusive and somewhat paranoid of others. These are all seriously confused people, folks. But as the story progresses --at a pace that is neither hurried nor lagging behind, echoing the pace of the characters' deep thought and introspection, and thus allowing the viewer time to synthesize the consequences of their realizations-- these people become involved with others that share their pain and loss, and they console one another. There really are no antagonists in this film. Of course, none of the characters are even close to perfect, evidenced when they engage in some questionable and objectionable acts (never extending the scope of realism as to make them ridiculously quirky, I must add); but the important thing is that they all learn from their mishaps and paranoias, and bequeath their knowledge to influence positively each others' lives. To conclude why "Smoke" deserve multiple viewings: There's a lasting effect that I liken to listening to a comforting song, over and over and over again.

2) Though the pace of "Smoke" was concurrent with the goings-on in the characters' lives, these people are nonetheless complex. They are intellegent, introspective, and contemplative --and also great storytellers and listeners, to boot. But complex stories and complex characters both demand a high degree of attentiveness, and as a result, there is a greater probability of something being missed. For this reason, additional viewings may be required.

For whatever reason, I highly recommend at least one viewing of "Smoke". The acting is highly realistic --even improvised many times during the film, eliciting an occasional chuckle. Few times have I seen a film where personal highs and lows are so well-balanced. Then why only four stars? Well, the improvisation seems to get a little out-of-character sometimes, and the direction is occasionally shoddy. But overall, this is a great DVD to buy -not rent.

Rating:
Summary: excellent acting...
Review: ...and direction; 4 stars.
the final scene; 5 stars. (the xmas "story" and Innocent when you Dream by Tom Waits combine to create one of the most powerful scenes in recent memory.

Rating:
Summary: Compelling look at people's lives
Review: Compelling drama of random people connected by a particular cigar shop, excellent performances, and no histrionics. Our favorite scene: Augie's Christmas Story.

Rating:
Summary: Great writing. Well-developed characters. Flat ending.
Review: For the most part, I agree with the rave reviews of this film, despite its pro-smoking theme. Smoking is what brings about calm, reconciliation, and camaraderie at numerous points in this film. But, of course, smoking is not all this film is about. The characters are well-developed and real. The writing is excellent: The conversations and stories of the characters ring true. I could have watched this film for another hour, and in fact, I wish I could have, because the ending fell flat for me. There was more I needed explained about where the characters' lives were heading.

Rating:
Summary: Robert DeNiro -- Who's Robert DeNiro?
Review: Harvey Keitel, one of the stars of this ensemble movie, was often in her early career compared to Robert DeNiro -- especially in terms of "Mean Streets," a movie in which both Keitel and De Niro were featured and which signaled to the mainstream movie world the beginning of their respective careers.

Keitel's star took a nosedive in the 1980s, with many of his 1980s films so obscure and so poorly received as to be almost impossible to locate nowadays via the Blockbuster route or, say, through your local public library. (Believe me, I've tried.)

In fact, Keitel after "Mean Streets" was so unsure hs future as an actor that he went back to his regular, "steady" job AS A COURT STENOGRAHER -- if you can imagine! (See Mitchell Fine's excellent biographer of Keitel, "The Art of Darkness").

Thus, throughout the 1970s and 80s, the word in Hollywood was that DeNiro was king, hot as a pistol, and Keitel was, well, out of the picture. Excuse the pun.

To resuscitate his career, Keitel, indefatigable, took a route that bypassed Hollywood! He began doing indies, independently produced movies, and slowly but surely emerged in the 1990s as not just a major, "bankable" star but became,in the fullest sense of the word not just a star but **AN ARTIST** -- accent grave over the words RISK-TAKER.

Keitel can proudly look back at "a body of work" -- movies that really matter.

Meanwhile, over in this corner, is Robert DeNiro, who for many people who taking acting and movie-making seriously (as an art and not just a commercial venture) is now seen as selling out, or at least not living up to his 70s and 80s potential. Not by a long shot!

In short, Keitel is making "movies that matter," working with directors like Jane Campion and Quentin Tarantino, often taking 4th or 5th billing **in work he truly cares about** ... While DeNiro is working with Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller.

Regarding "Smoke," I was so impressed by this movie that I immediately went to the search engine of my local public library and put HOLDS on all the Harvey Keitel movies they had.

And not one of them disappointed me!

Even though some of them were not very well made or else lost what no doubt was a greater-vision-than-actually-executed, Keitel never failed to be interesting.

In "Holy Smoke" (not tbe confused with "Smoke") Keitel plays a cult deprogrammer and, you have to see the picture, winds us wearing Kate Winslet's makeup and one of her dresses!!! Now, I realize (and concede, gladly) that DeNiro is a great actor but AT THIS POINT IN HIS CAREER do you honestly think DeNiro would take a part where he's required to wear a dress? (Note Well: "Holy Smoke" is NOT a comedy, far from it.)

Getting back to the movie in question, "Smoke" ... Keitel's work with the rest of the cast, in particular William Hurt, is excellent. Hurt, whose career has been floundering, is like a great basketball player who needs a great team around him to truly shine -- someone there to set up the plays for him. And, here again, this is something Keitel can AND IS WILLING TO DO whereas DeNiro not at all, after "he's the star," it's his name that invariably appears first on the marque. (He gets to take all the good shots.)

There occurs at the end of "Smoke" something I've rarely seen done in a movie, and never quite so well. It's Keitel talking to Hurt telling him "a Christmas story." The thing is, the camera remains on Keitel for at least 6 or 7 minutes, maybe longer -- with no cutaways! The stationary monologue Keitel has to deliver to the camera should be the final exam for anyone wanting to graduate from Actor's Studio. If that were the criteria, few would get their diplomas -- and none would do the scene as brilliantly as Keitel.

Put simply: Keitel's work makes you think. It is in this sense that he epitomizes the artist in modern society -- he is, in short, and nothing less, **a subversive.** DeNiro, on the other hand, judging from his work, I have no idea of his personal feelings on the subject, has fallen too in love with "The Midway, The Midway, where burning Veblen loved and lost." If DeNiro made 3 mainstream movies in a row that bombed, he'd be dead commercially. On the other hand, if Keitel made three mainstream movies in a row that bombed commercially, he'd still be interesting to watch, he'd still be Harvey Keitel, an artist.
... And the chances are he'd rise again from his own ashes.

Put another way: if Keitel were to become DeNiro, he'd cease being Keitel. ...

It's gotta be that way. Or else what's a heaven for?

Rating:
Summary: Exhilarating in its wisdom
Review: I am your average movie buff whose taste in movies runs from the traditional movie fare such as "Ben-Hur", "E.T.", and "Star Wars". However, more and more recently I find myself attracted to the independent cinema. "Smoke" was a film that follows close on the heels of such indie blockbusters as "Short Cuts" and "Pulp Fiction" and, though not to take anything away from the former two films (which in my opinion are both masterpieces), "Smoke" lives up to the hype. Harvey Keitel was embarrasingly shut out of the Academy Awards in '95 (as was the entire film and two other gems from that year, "Heat" and "Casino", whose places in the Oscar slot were replaced by such bizarre choices as the inspirational but still rather childish "Babe" and the Italian Communist propaganda "Il Postino")for what I think is one of the most earthy and brazenly un-movie star-like performances of all time. His Auggie Wren is an enigma; at first sight you see a rugged man worn out by the day-to-day routine. Those who know him better, like widower novelist Paul Benjamin (William Hurt), find a keen philosophical spark behind the skewed demeanor of a cigar shop proprietor. The film has been read by many as too literate for its own good; why employ such insights into celluloid? The answer is not only in Paul Auster's brilliant writing (this film should have won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar), but in the minimalist conceits of Adam Holender's camerawork and the mood invoked by director Wayne Wang's leisurely pacing of scenes. The scene where Keitel and Hurt are sitting inside the cigar shop looking at Keitel's photo album is one of the most moving and provocative scenes I have ever seen on film, ditto the entire last fifteen minute segment, essaying "Auggie Wren's Christmas Story", an idiosyncratic piece that originally appeared in the New York Times in Christmas 1990. The film's closing dialogue is one of the most poignant recent lines ever to end a movie: Wren: If you can't share your secrets with your friends then what kind of friend are you? Benjamin: Exactly...then life just wouldn't be worth living. The brilliance of the entire film is precisely how minimal its plotline is. Those who disagree that the film's meandering style didn't suit them miss the point. The pacing may be lazy, but the film surely is not. It's odd, and never before has the lack of harmony as displayed by Tom Waits' boozy barroom version of "Innocent When You Dream" seemed so poetic when coincided with the images of this film. The film has a message involving race, and I realized what a true filmmaker Wang is in not losing the subtlety of this message. Cross-cultural differences cannot be solved by obsessively preaching and ranting at your audience. They can be solved through generous displays of human emotion and a good evocation of sentiment. Wang does precisely this when, as the end credits unfold, he shows Keitel's hands clenched in between the lonely fingers of an elderly black lady. In perfect contrast, Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" sermonizes when Mookie the pizza delivery boy speaks of Louis Farrakhan and the entire celluloid of the film crawls with a false reverence shown toward the man whose anti-Semitism and reverse racism ring hollow within the tolerance context that film was trying to shoot for. "Smoke" may not be for everybody, and I realize that for those unfamiliar with novelistic style and flourish the film's many shots-which-call-attention-to-themselves (such as the camera moving into Keitel's lips as he tells the Christmas story) may seem needlessly stylistic, but the idea is not to get irritated by such a thing, but to weigh how closely the story's impact becomes so much more personal as the close-up gets tighter. 1995 was a really good year for movies: right off the top of my head I can name "Braveheart", "Apollo 13", "Seven", "Get Shorty", "Casino", "Toy Story", "Heat", "Sense and Sensibility", "Twelve Monkeys", and "Richard III". "Smoke" was the cream of the crop.

Rating:
Summary: Exhilarating in its wisdom
Review: I am your average movie buff whose taste in movies runs from the traditional movie fare such as "Ben-Hur", "E.T.", and "Star Wars". However, more and more recently I find myself attracted to the independent cinema. "Smoke" was a film that follows close on the heels of such indie blockbusters as "Short Cuts" and "Pulp Fiction" and, though not to take anything away from the former two films (which in my opinion are both masterpieces), "Smoke" lives up to the hype. Harvey Keitel was embarrasingly shut out of the Academy Awards in '95 (as was the entire film and two other gems from that year, "Heat" and "Casino", whose places in the Oscar slot were replaced by such bizarre choices as the inspirational but still rather childish "Babe" and the Italian Communist propaganda "Il Postino")for what I think is one of the most earthy and brazenly un-movie star-like performances of all time. His Auggie Wren is an enigma; at first sight you see a rugged man worn out by the day-to-day routine. Those who know him better, like widower novelist Paul Benjamin (William Hurt), find a keen philosophical spark behind the skewed demeanor of a cigar shop proprietor. The film has been read by many as too literate for its own good; why employ such insights into celluloid? The answer is not only in Paul Auster's brilliant writing (this film should have won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar), but in the minimalist conceits of Adam Holender's camerawork and the mood invoked by director Wayne Wang's leisurely pacing of scenes. The scene where Keitel and Hurt are sitting inside the cigar shop looking at Keitel's photo album is one of the most moving and provocative scenes I have ever seen on film, ditto the entire last fifteen minute segment, essaying "Auggie Wren's Christmas Story", an idiosyncratic piece that originally appeared in the New York Times in Christmas 1990. The film's closing dialogue is one of the most poignant recent lines ever to end a movie: Wren: If you can't share your secrets with your friends then what kind of friend are you? Benjamin: Exactly...then life just wouldn't be worth living. The brilliance of the entire film is precisely how minimal its plotline is. Those who disagree that the film's meandering style didn't suit them miss the point. The pacing may be lazy, but the film surely is not. It's odd, and never before has the lack of harmony as displayed by Tom Waits' boozy barroom version of "Innocent When You Dream" seemed so poetic when coincided with the images of this film. The film has a message involving race, and I realized what a true filmmaker Wang is in not losing the subtlety of this message. Cross-cultural differences cannot be solved by obsessively preaching and ranting at your audience. They can be solved through generous displays of human emotion and a good evocation of sentiment. Wang does precisely this when, as the end credits unfold, he shows Keitel's hands clenched in between the lonely fingers of an elderly black lady. In perfect contrast, Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" sermonizes when Mookie the pizza delivery boy speaks of Louis Farrakhan and the entire celluloid of the film crawls with a false reverence shown toward the man whose anti-Semitism and reverse racism ring hollow within the tolerance context that film was trying to shoot for. "Smoke" may not be for everybody, and I realize that for those unfamiliar with novelistic style and flourish the film's many shots-which-call-attention-to-themselves (such as the camera moving into Keitel's lips as he tells the Christmas story) may seem needlessly stylistic, but the idea is not to get irritated by such a thing, but to weigh how closely the story's impact becomes so much more personal as the close-up gets tighter. 1995 was a really good year for movies: right off the top of my head I can name "Braveheart", "Apollo 13", "Seven", "Get Shorty", "Casino", "Toy Story", "Heat", "Sense and Sensibility", "Twelve Monkeys", and "Richard III". "Smoke" was the cream of the crop.

Rating:
Summary: amazing -- I wish I had seen this earlier!!
Review: I finally saw this last night, although I have been meaning to ever since it came out in 1995. What an excellent flick!

The storylines are wonderful, and don't need the big-name stars to portray them to convey how poignant they are: Auggie, the tobacco store owner who is told by a long-lost girlfriend that he has an 18-year-old daughter who is pregnant and on drugs; Rashid Cole, who befriends a writer and seeks out the father who abandoned him 12 years ago by anonymously applying for a job at his gas station; Paul Benjamin, the writer who has to produce a sappy Christmas story for his editor.

The telling of intergenerational connections -- be the participants related or not --- is well-done, with music and montages artfully placed within the "live" scenes. It is a masterpiece!