October 1, 2003

House of the Babies

casaladies.jpWork is hard to find for good actresses, so say the usual detractors. But directors like John Sayles, who's meditative movies feel more like plays with their emphasis on character development and room for lengthy monologues, defy this convention. Cinecultist caught his newest, Casa de los Babys, over the weekend and then sat down with one of the editors at Filmington.com, Doug French to discuss it over IM. First, we had to look up trenchant ("vigorously effective and articulate; also caustic") because Filmington prides itself on trenchant movie banter but once we had that sorted, CC enjoyed discussing the Sayles style, his excellect cast and how he's the cauliflower of directors with Doug. We've reprinted the conversation below.

DOUG
When you think of the most enviable careers in the independent film community, John Sayles has to leap to mind. He can be called in to script-doctor studio stuff like THE ALAMO yet receive utter autonomy on his writer/director jags. Here to review his latest effort, CASA DE LOS BABYS, is guest reviewer Karen Wilson, the driving force over at Cinecultist.com. Welcome aboard.

KAREN
Thanks so much for having me. It’s nice to be here, thinking of trenchant banter that equals the Filmington standards.

DOUG
You picked a great film for your debut, because BABYS, the story of six infertile American women trapped in an unnamed South American country waiting for the opportunity to adopt a child, begs for a feminine insight that is all too rare around here. So here’s your first question: Can a man write for a woman?

KAREN
I suppose if anyone can, it might be Sayles, who seems to write Characters, with a very decided capital C. He also demand Performances from his actors, and in this case, he’s chosen a pretty able group of women — from old guarders like Lili Taylor, Marcia Gay Harden and Mary Steenburgen to a more up-and-coming actress like Maggie Gyllenhaal. Basically, these actresses could inhabit a paper bag and make it believable.

DOUG
Don’t forget Daryl Hannah, who lends a quiet dignity to her role as the statuesque fitness freak/New Age masseuse. And of all the wattage among Sayles’s stars, the lesser-known Irish actress Susan Lynch — whom Sayles cast in 1994’s THE SECRET OF ROAN INISH — provides what is easily the film’s most breathtaking scene.

KAREN
I agree on Susan Lynch, she’s completely arresting. But I purposely left out Hannah because she’s not the sort of actress from whom I would have automatically expected a superlative performance. But here, Sayles’s sparse dialogue and lingering on facial expressions seem to work for her, allowing her a performance that I didn’t expect.

DOUG
Sayles gives each of the six actresses equal time to flesh out her character, so we can piece together how each woman ended up in the titular hotel, where hopeful mothers bide their time while the corrupt system shuffles its papers. The only cipher is Harden’s Nan, an officious and condescending harridan with what could be a disturbing past.

KAREN
Of all of the characters, save Lili Taylor’s edgy and slightly bitter Manhattan book editor, I liked Nan the best. She freaked me out with her intensity and single-minded drive to have a baby, and I found her American entitlement scary but also extremely topical. She’s pathological — a sociopath, as Taylor’s character points out — but, in a way, you could call her quest for motherhood successful. And she begs you to judge her: Will she be a good mother? Should we trust her with a baby? All questions that “normal biology” doesn’t really allow us to ask. She’s tricky to understand, but very real. I guess that’s what I responded to.

DOUG
It also helps that Sayles puts the neuroses of these women in the context of their temporary adoptive culture by adding insights into the lives of several natives. It clues us into the poverty and despair, as well as the seething resentment toward los yanquis, who buy their babies and vamoose. Another swift allegorical dig at American imperialism, perhaps?

KAREN
True certainly, but a little didactic. In general, the movie lacked the complexity and shades of grey I remember finding fascinating about LONE STAR and SUNSHINE STATE, both movies about community conflicts that don’t have obvious good or bad guys. In BABYS, the plot seemed to languish a bit, even for a Sayles movie, and it didn’t have the drive to solve something or really reveal a twist. Perhaps that had something to do with the subject matter.

DOUG
That lack of complexity may stem from BABYS’s uncharacteristically lean 95 minutes, but Sayles retains that wonderful sense of ambiguity. Can you call someone a “bad guy” just because he looks out for his own interests? The action was sluggish at times, too, but the languishing seemed perfectly appropriate, since the women themselves had been marooned in the hotel, apart from their families and support systems, for months.

KAREN
I guess I would have liked more interconnection between the images of the street children and their desperate lives, or the maids and the American women. It sort of merged parts of LOS OLVIDADOS (Luis Buñuel’s 1950 surreal film about Mexican street children) with parts of 1939’s THE WOMEN (the all-female cast comedy about love and divorce). BABYS didn’t quite gel for me. As much as it provoked me to think about the subject matter, I found it sort of boring. I just don’t think we can expect Sayles to be for the real mainstream moviegoer.

DOUG
As you mentioned, Sayles is an Eat Your Vegetables type of filmmaker who provokes discussion of the most unsavory nature of humanity and does not provide for easy answers. For this reason, the uncharacteristically stilted and contrived dialogue in the opening scenes was particularly unsettling. It was too expository — too overly written — to ring true. Yet BABYS made a sturdy recovery and kept my wife and me talking the whole way home. Always a good sign.

KAREN
Surely. He’s the cauliflower of directors — he looks sort of bland on the plate, but you know he’s good for you, and you’re always happy you tried him. But I think Sayles is a perfect example of the stratification between art house cinema and mainstream movies. He expects more of his viewers, particularly for them not to care if they’re a bit bored for the sake of character or performance, and while we should hope that movies challenge, not everyone wants this experience. Sometimes I find the movies that make me think the most, or provoke the most discussion are not ones that I like, per se. I didn’t find BABYS likeable, but I did think it interesting.

DOUG
I might have echoed that sentiment before I became a parent, but now that I’ve met so many people who have struggled with both fertility and adoption, the pain of these women — especially Hannah and Lynch — was devastating. I cared for them, yet I also pondered their suitability as parents. So if you have even tangential familiarity with the subject matter, you better bring a wad of non-eponymous facial tissues.

KAREN
I also found their longing for children moving, but more from a sociological than a personal point of view.

DOUG
Well, Sayles usually provides something for everyone, whether we want our humanity analyzed or heartstrings plucked.

KAREN
Yup. And he gives hope to those of us who like to see good actresses getting the opportunity to do good work.

filmington.com • Copyright 2003. All rights reserved.

Posted by karen at October 1, 2003 7:51 AM