by Marc Bauer
Note: ‘Leaves of Grass,’ which was a big hit at the Toronto Film Festival, is slated to open nationwide this coming Friday, Apr. 2.
Leaves of Grass, is something unique; an intelligent drug thriller, featuring identical twins, named after a Walt Whitman poetry collection, with a pro-Israel message. Written and directed by Tim Blake Nelson, best known for playing country bumpkins and rednecks in film. Similar to the character Bill (played by Edward Norton), Tim is well-read, and fled Oklahoma to the hallowed halls of Brown University’s Classics department; Bill is there as a teacher, Tim was there as student. The story, without giving it all away, is of twins Bill and Brady Kincaid. Bill is a well respected professor at Brown University; Brady is a hydroponic marijuana farmer in lower Oklahoma. The dichotomy between the two couldn’t be clearer, but as we learn in the film, it isn’t that cut and dry. Brady is actually the smarter of the two brothers, but Bill is trained into academia. In fact, the film opens on him lecturing a class on Socrates and passion. Once we see our lives as we believe to be in balance, we pretend at divinity, and like Icarus, only to see it all fall apart, crashing to the sea. Balance yields into chaos, and so too, does the story. Bill’s life is quickly changed when he is informed that his brother has been killed via crossbow, whereupon he returns home to find his brother very much alive. It is a simple devise that allows the story to unfold naturally.
Early in the film, Susan Sarandon, as Daisy Kincaid, asks of her son Brady, ‘What’s your version of proper grammar?’ He replies that it is all about rhythm; much like Walt Whitman. At one point in the film, Whitman’s style is described as “pure, unashamed passion, with no restrictions.” Ever the academic, Bill asks, ‘How you know what is true?’ In response he is told, ‘in poetry, you make your own rules’. The film has that very philosophy at its core; the shots in the movie aren’t overly concerned with the blocking within them. The camera in this film is an observer, never interfering, even going so far as to spy on characters in black lighting, casting pallor over the faces of Bill and Brady. The black light takes away the artifice, showing us the imperfections. We are made to look at these brothers, who have made very different life decisions this way, and see the differences. By the following morning, the physical differences are all but removed; Brady has cut his hair and shaved his beard. What we saw as divergent just a moment ago is presented again. Now looking similar, we can debate what makes one man any different from another. Edward Norton as Bill and Brady inhabits two bodies in this film. In Bill he is a well-spoken, accent free academic; a superstar of the intelligentsia, many times published, and offered his own department at Harvard. In Brady, he is a drawling, tattooed, country boy; a pot farmer with conscience, a man with a pregnant girlfriend ready to make a change in his life. Nelson doesn’t let a ‘hick’ accent mean you can’t speak intelligently. The words that come from Brady’s mouth are just as witty and ponderous as those espoused by Bill. He reads everything his brother has published, and argues with his use of big words. “I sat there with the dictionary,” he says, “and not the Merriam Webster’s, but the Motherfucking O.E.D.!” Ed Norton, in one interview, claimed it was that line that made him want to make this movie; brilliance and hilarity all at once. That is the formula that makes this movie work so well; the combination of the comedy and the intelligence. It could have been made more low-brow, and tried for a Cheech and Chong level of comedy, or could have attempted to be more intelligent and tried to emulate Wes Anderson. Instead, this film aims for the direction that films like Saving Grace or Homegrown took us before. Marijuana is not just the fodder for Up in Smoke and Half-Baked any longer. With decriminalization occurring across the country, more films are showing up portraying marijuana as more than a giggle weed. As Brady says, it is nature’s very definition of goodness.
But, beyond the drug storyline, there is a deeper meaning in the film. Divinity and religion is discussed repetitively through the film. Judaism is the religion of choice within the film, with Dreyfuss’ appearing as a pro-Zion businessman that funded Brady’s business. He is first seen in a synagogue, where we meet a female rabbi. Bill has a discussion with the Rabbi following a hate crime involving backwards swastikas (a throwaway joke about the criminals being Hindu is even made, showing a nuanced level of wit within the script) where she explains a Jewish belief known as “Tikkun Olam” or “Repairing the World.” “Tikkun Olam” is a belief that through our actions, mankind is fixing the world, not merely because of religious imperative, but also out of social conscience. The concept is an easy way to summate the unconscious actions of our characters that they operate towards a greater good; whether the actions can be seen as locally or globally beneficial is another debate entirely. This film is equal parts comedy, thriller, and philosophy. That recipe is something that doesn’t sound like a good time, but the characters are welcoming, the locations charming, and the pacing deliberate. This film continues Tim Blake Nelson’s string of fine work, and I look forward to seeing more form him as a writer/director, as well as an actor. He is very adept at working both sides of the camera, making him just as much a false set of twins as Edward Norton’s Bill and Brady Kincaid.
I see that Roger Ebert has stated that LEAVES OF GRASS (the title of course, of Walt Whitman’s renowned masterpiece) was the ‘best film’ he viewed at the Toronto Film Festival, and that it’s ‘some kind of wacky masterpiece.’
Beyond the promised showcase of a two-pronged Ed Norton performance, portraying twins, that many are already saying is Oscar-worthy, and the prospect of a nifty thriller, I am especially intrigued by the more important issues at hand, which Marc Bauer eloquently examines in his superlative review:
“But, beyond the drug storyline, there is a deeper meaning in the film. Divinity and religion is discussed repetitively through the film. Judaism is the religion of choice within the film, with Dreyfuss’ appearing as a pro-Zion businessman that funded Brady’s business. He is first seen in a synagogue, where we meet a female rabbi. Bill has a discussion with the Rabbi following a hate crime involving backwards swastikas (a throwaway joke about the criminals being Hindu is even made, showing a nuanced level of wit within the script) where she explains a Jewish belief known as “Tikkun Olam” or “Repairing the World.”
I am thinking here of the Coens’ A SERIOUS MAN to a fair degree, though I wouldn’t pose at this point to establish any concrete similarities. I look forward to Friday’s opening, and am thrilled Marc managed to see this this in advance.
I always thought Ed Norton deserved far more attention than he received for American History X. But it’s rare when he doesn’t deliver. This would seem to be the kind of role(s) that’s tailor-made for him though. Very interesting review. I didn’t really care for Saving Grace, but I understand you were just making a stylistic comparison.
Joe, I thought he did get a lot of attention for American History X. I know he got an Oscar nomination. I liked him best in Fight Club, Primal Fear and that Woody Allen comedy-musical, which I forget the name of.
With Richard Dreyfuss and Susan Sarandon aboard, the film’s chances are enhanced. I honesty am not sure where this one will go, but I’ll give Mr. Bauer the benefit of a doubt, as he does make an impressive case. Maybe I’ll take a look this Easter weekend, though ironically Judaism lies at the center.
Excellent advance look at this weekend opening. I also have a weakness for these thespians. I’ve read both good and bad, but this review is the best quality-wise I’ve seen yet. I’m encouraged by the deeper context.
Aside from the fact that my dear friend Mr. Bauer has delivered a tight, well-written and thorough essay on this film, I’ll have to hold my breath on this one. The plot, at least as described, sounds dizzying and Mr. Nelson has, in the past, delivered nothing of substance (with the exception of his turn in the COEN BROS. OH, BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?) to make me salivate at the bit for this. I’m open minded, but this sounds a bit too much like the fine Spike Jonze film ADAPTATION. As for Norton; he’s hasn’t delivered anything of substance since Spike Lee’s 25th HOUR. His choices, since then, have been poor and reveal the actor as a type now looking for big pay days (remember the horrible ITALIAN JOB or the even worse RED DRAGON?). I’ll wait to see what the East and West coast film critics say before I dip into these waters. Ebert, no offense, is not a source to rely on anymore as, per his interview in ESQUIRE, he admits to being very kind in his ratings, since his illness (trying to score points I guess).
I don’t know about Norton though. While he has, in the past, delivered some fine performances, I just get the feeling he’s getting too haughty for his britches. The wave he rode from PRIMAL FEAR (a solid performance, but not great) to AMERICAN HISTORY X (a tremendous turn, deserving of his nomination even if the film is, ultimately, not the sum of its parts. Repeat viewings have revealed this..) to FIGHT CLUB (tremendous performance in the BEST film he was ever associated with) and ends with THE 25TH HOUR (great turn in a film that gets better the more you see it) seems to come to a hault in the early 2000’s. To me, the accolades from the past seem to have gone to his head and has convinced him he is a master actor whose choices are always important. I’ve seen him interviewed in the past and his persona is that of an eryudite, pretentious snob, like he’s God’s gift to acting. I say follow Jodie Fosters example. Read scripts, bide time and only do what you really think means something to you and film.
DAVID NOACK: The name of the Woody Allen musical was EVERBODY SAYS I LOVE YOU. Sam foamed at the mouth so much when it came out that there was fear he would be shot by public authorities mistaking him for a rabid racoon.
LOL Dennis!
Apologies to anyone confused by the Tropical Malady link on the sidebar. I wrote part of a review this morning, attempted to revise it this afternoon and then WordPress ate my revisions. I tried to delete the post and now we’re stuck with that defunct link. This has not been my week.
Review is delayed until further notice – sorry, Sam and Wonders readers. Proceed with regularly scheduled programming. 😦
Just to clarify: I revised it (and temporarily posted it) in the evening, not the afternoon, i.e. about half an hour ago. That’s presumably why the link is still funky, hopefully it fixes itself soon.
Joel: I fully understand. I’ve been victimized myself in much the same way. It’s not pleasant, but hang in there.
Thanks, Sam. Just shot you an e-mail (the last of my ridiculous flurry over the past few days, I promise) regarding the series and my general leave from blogging. Hopefully it clarifies matters.
I think the tiger from the movie ate my post, incidentally. He didn’t like what I said about the second half of the movie…
JOE-How much more attention do you really think an actor like Edward Norton deserves beyond what he has ALREADY received? He scored an Oscar and a Globe nomination for PRIMAL FEAR. He won raves from film critics as well as the same Globe and Oscar nods for AMERICAN HISTORY X. He was raved over again with FIGHT CLUB and he took applause for THE 25th HOUR. Do we need to check our pulse for racing when he plops a so-so cameo performance in a film like FRIDA? It seems to me that everything he’s done after 25th has been sleep-walking and this film, reviewed above, no offense to Marc’s kind write-up, doesn’t sound too promising. Like that gambling-addiction film he did with Matt Damon (so forgettable I can’t think of its name) to abominations like RED DRAGON, he hasn’t exactly proven, to me anyway, that he’s any kind of good actor I look forward to seeing on the big screen. I’ll wait till the main-line critics get to LEAVES OF GRASS before I shell out hard earned money. I’ll go see LEGEND OF THE KELLS instead.
And… As far as Nortons Oscar nomination for AMERICAN HISTORY X… He had two powerhouses to get by that joined him in the category. The winner, Roberto Begnigni (LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL) was a stunt win. Tom Hanks in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, was solid. Where Norton had his problem was getting into the ring with Ian McKellan in GODS AND MONSTERS (a tremendously touching turn as gay horror film director James Whale) and, most notably, NICK NOLTE in his best performance as the alcoholic mid-western sheriff grappling with his aged father and skeletons in his closet in his cateer defining AFFLICTION. The Academy got it wrong with Benigni, but Norton was only third with the critics. That Oscar should have gone to NOLTE.
Nortons nomination for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR in 1996 was also beseiged by heavy hitters. First off, he had to get by Cuba Gooding Jr. Goodings nomination came for JERRY MAGUIREm that film nominated heavily in the major categories. But because this was the year where small independent films would dominate the Academy felt the block-buster had to grab something. Had Gooding not taken it, thwn Norton had two other problems: ARMIN MUELLER STAHL as the dominating holocaust survivor that drums success at any cost into his sin in the haunting and beautiful SHINE. WILLIAM H MACY as the slippery but inept car dealer whose kidnapping plot goes fatally wrong in the Coen Bros. classic FARGO. Both were tremendous, with MACY being just a hair better than Stahl. Norton, again, had no shot. MACY should have won.