A rare cinematic achievement

Rating: 10/10 (7 February 2006)

I do not watch many films. Music moves me in a way that film very rarely, if ever, does. Which is why I took a chance on "Walk the Line;" it is about a musician. I could not have made a better choice. I have never seen a film quite as moving, or absorbing. From the opening scene, to the end of the film, "Walk the Line" gets in your blood, and stays there. Nothing is wasted. Every scene, every word, and every gesture, has meaning and contributes not only to the story, but the tension, and drama as well. As Joaquin Phoenix says at the end of the movie, "  you gotta pull the string tight," and the film does exactly that. The acting, directing, sound, screenplay, and costume all mesh together to create a whole that far outweighs the sum of the parts. If this film does not make artistic history, it will certainly make cinematic history.
There are two reasons why this may very well be the case. One reason is the exceptional construction of the film. One could begin with the sound work, as for example the eerie background music, usually a guitar, that accompanies many scenes. Such background music not only enlarges the particular scene, but lends a surreal resonance that elevates the scene not only visually, but mentally, and emotionally as well. Or, the thick popping of old style camera flashbulbs also enhances the drama of several scenes. And the film editing results in a movie that tends to flow like a river. One scene often begins as the prior scene ends. When John asks June to come back on the tour, " I miss the music," the playing of an auto-harp is heard in the background, and grows louder, as the film transitions to a long shot of her in an out door amphitheater, in front of hundreds, singing her rendition of "Wildwood Flower." The scene, and the song is one of the most captivating in the film. This technique is used throughout. Most importantly however is the exceptional, and innovative cinematography. Normally when actors are filmed on-stage the point of view (POV) is from that of the audience, which is bland not only visually, but emotionally as well. Within "Walk the Line" the POV is largely from that of the actors on-stage while they are singing. Just like the actors on-stage, one is gripped in the spotlights. And the second reason is the acting. Both actors complement each other in a manner that I have rarely if ever seen. Like night, and day neither could exist without the other. How they managed to bring to life Johnny Cash, and June Carter in such an absorbing and convincing manner is beyond me. The plot revolves essentially around his obsession with, or desire for her, and is the string that ties the film together and keeps everything tight. She is without a doubt his salvation. He meets her for the first time back in 1956 in Nashville while performing at the Opry. However, they do not finally marry until 1968. The events of these years, most importantly her attraction to him, and at the same time repulsion (because of his addiction to amphetamines, which he eventually overcomes), make up the bulk of the film, ending with his famous Folsom prison concert. But it is the singing, the sounds these two actors make on-stage that is, I believe, in some ways almost historic. In some cases the renditions these actors produce, either alone, or usually together rivals the original, as for example "Get a Rhythm" by Phoenix, or as already mentioned the very moving "Wildwood Flower" by Witherspoon. Together their best effort in the film may be "Times A Wastin." Lastly, this film cannot be seen just once. The psychology of the two main characters is complex, and there are nuances that inhabit nearly every scene. This film is a rare artistic achievement. And yet for some disturbing reason the film has been overlooked by that astute institution known as the "Academy." Witherspoon, and Phoenix were nominated for Best Actress, and Actor, and the film has also received nominations for Costume, and Editing, but was left out of the Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screenplay categories, and most importantly the Best Cinematography category. The ones that really count. It has been argued that Academy voters opted for films that made some contribution to, or discussion of controversial social subjects as for example, "Brokeback Mountain," (homosexuality), or "Transamerica," (about a pre-op transsexual). I am not sure just how important these subjects really are. Having ones genitals surgically removed, or altered is extreme behavior, and I think most of us are familiar with the subject of homosexuality. Just because a film deals with a controversial sexual subject ("Brokeback Mountain,"), or extreme sexual behavior ("Transamerica,"), why does this fact justify a nomination in any category? And why this infatuation with sexuality on the part of Academy voters? Should a film not have to rise to some level of artistic achievement? If one considers the fact that superb acting cannot be separated from superb directing, and the screenplay, then the voting on the part of Academy members becomes a little absurd. Phoenix himself said to director James Mangold during his acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards that half of this (his award), should go to you (Mangold). And if the acting is so good, then why was the film left out of the Best Film category, and again Best Director? Lastly, and considering the innovative cinematography how could Academy voters overlook "Walk the Line" for Best Cenemetogrphy? Leaving this film out of some the more important categories has already generated some criticism, and I hope there is a lot more. The Academy deserves it.