Pages

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Sessions


The Sessions tells the true story of Mark O’Brien, a middle aged man crippled and deformed by polio, who wants nothing more than to be loved. Soon after we meet him, the love he longs to feel manifests itself in complete physicality. The man is 38 and has never felt the intimate touch of a woman. To speak clearly: Mark wants to get laid. And soon. Can you blame him?

On his journey to venture to the unknown, Mark (John Hawkes) makes a few inquires before coming across a free-spirited sex surrogate, Cheryl (Helen Hunt). Cheryl’s job (in six sessions or less) is to guide Mark to (enter sex-related pun here…). She’s responsible for the physical part, while Mark’s dedicated priest (William H. Macy) acts as guidance to Mark’s self-questioning spirituality. Basically, Father Brendan gives Mark the OK to get laid, and so it is and so it goes.

From the onset of their sessions, Cheryl presents herself as a kind, strong willed woman convincingly dedicated to her job. She believes in what she’s doing – she’s helping Mark achieve something he may never have a chance to experience. The movie rests a lot (if not entirely) on the believability of Mark and Cheryl’s relationship. Lucky for us, Hawkes and Hunt have flawless chemistry together. Their relationship works harmoniously, even when it isn’t working. Through thick and thin, Hawkes and Hunt sell the film as best they can.
Let’s stick with the good (for now). I’ve been a fan of John Hawkes since he shot a hole in Quentin Taratino’s hand in From Dusk Till Dawn. And since earning an Oscar nomination for Winter’s Bone, the man has done no wrong. Mark is a demanding role on a number of levels. There are the obvious physical restraints of the character (which are impressive, but not overly), but moreover, the sardonic humor of Mark is what will surely lead Hawkes to another Oscar nomination. He won’t win, but his seat near the front of the stage will be a fine consolation prize.

In her best role since Cast Away (if not As Good As It Gets) Helen Hunt simply shines as Cheryl. It’s a performance of purpose, fearlessness and feminist strength. I honestly don’t feel that an actor deserves unwavering praise simply for being naked on camera (the same way a performance doesn’t deserve to be hailed as excellent simply because the actor is portraying a handicapped person), but Hunt’s work in The Sessions (much of which is executed without clothes) is courageous for a number of reasons. Again, an Oscar nomination would be fair.
Now the bad and the ugly. While both Hawkes and Hunt are a pleasure to watch here, the movie as a whole did not work for me. Firstly, Cheryl’s story is given several dedicated minutes to flourish outside of her sessions with Mark. All of her scenes add nothing to anything, and take away from the only real essential story at hand. Her home life scenes felt like filler so the film could reach a feature length running time.

Hawkes nails the humor he’s given, but the majority of it (strike that, all of it) is based on punch lines. Cheesy one liners that send the audience into a brief frenzy, before regaining their breath and waiting for the next one. Is that lazy humor? To me, yes. To many, not at all. To put it another way: I saw The Sessions in a large, sold out theater, and it played extremely well to the mostly 50 plus crowd. That said, I bet if you watched it alone at home, without 400 hysterical people around you, damn near every joke would fall flat.

That’s unfair. I should know by now that, as it relates to the world of film criticism, I’m best speaking solely for myself. Maybe you’ll enjoy Mark’s humorous struggle to visit the holiest of holies. Maybe you’ll brush it off as canned humor you’ve seen (and heard) ten times over. Maybe. C-

18 comments:

  1. I hate punch line humor too. 'Flight' was filled with those. I smiled a little; people around me were cracking up. In my opinion, it cheapens the movie a bit. And I always feel awkward, slowly erasing the smile from my face, expecting another random joke at any minute. Or, in 'The Sessions' case, any second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, interesting to hear you say that about Flight. I didn't think there was punch line humor in that at all, or if there was, I loved every line of it. Posting my review of that one later today, but in the meantime, yeah The Sessions (and its humor) never fully worked for me.

      Delete
    2. There was often lines when an actor said something, the audience laughed, and everything went quiet again. Until actor threw another one-liner towards the audience. I can guess my review of 'Flight' is going to be more harsh than yours. :)

      Delete
    3. Ha, yes, indeed. Mine is a glower if there ever was one. Loved it. Let me know when you post yours.

      Delete
  2. I only want to see it because of John Hawkes though I have read mixed reviews about the film itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't too jazzed about the film as a whole, but Hawkes makes it worth it. Definitely.

      Delete
  3. "The holiest of holies?" Pulp Fiction reference? :-)

    This is actually the first (mostly) negative review of the movie I've seen so far. Hmmm ... I'm not big on punch line humor, either. If a movie relies heavily on that, they'd better be damn good punchlines.

    Does really matter -- I'll see this for the cast alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES! You know me all too well.

      I scoped out a few other reviews since posting mine, and people do mostly seem to be liking it more than me. Cast makes it worth it, but all in all, I could've done without it, if that makes sense.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it makes perfect sense. And I do enjoy reading contrasting opinions. If all the reviewers I respect agreed, this would get boring. ;-)

      Delete
  4. Great review, Alex. Good acting, but not my favorite film. The fact that I saw it at the end of the VA Film Festival after seeing SO many more emotionally challenging and creative movies - made The Sessions fall flat for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Yep, totally agree. When you compare to all of the better, more heavy handed stuff at the festival, then this one flatlines. But even considering it as its own film, it still wouldn't work for me. Ya dig?

      Delete
  5. Haven't seen this yet, but the trailer doesn't make it look spectacular. I'll check it out for the performances and the Oscar buzz though. Nice review man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks dude. Hawkes, at the very least, will be nominated, no question. See it for him (and Hunt), but I can't recommend that you expect much out of it (which I don't think you are so... groovy).

      Delete
  6. Great review! I can't wait to see it - while I'm not very fond of Hunt I adore Hawkes - he is such a mesmerizing actor, one of the best working today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Oh I totally agree, Hawkes rocks. He's great here, but the film doesn't do him justice. Hope you like it!

      Delete
  7. This film was an experience for me. Very great. The acting was great, the humor was great, The film worked for me. A well deserved A-, from me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's cool man. I did like the acting, but the movie as a whole just didn't work for me.

      Delete