Michael

Super

Michael So, I liked it.  Save me.
by Joe De Matteo

            “John Travolta is Michael!”

            Dialogue in the film portrays Michael as too un-angel like.  He has no manners, in fact, the Michael in this movie is very indulgent: drinking beer, smoking, sloppy, self-centered and demanding; oh and there’s his thing for women.  And I must add, their thing for him. 

While the ads may not have billed it this way, you could make the case that they could have.  Well, maybe you wouldn’t at the beginning of the film, but certainly once you’ve bought into it, and sat back with a cold drink and some munchies to watch things unfold.  Even more so if you know that the Archangel Michael (prince of the angels) is looked at as being, one could say, the guardian and champion of mankind.  Who loved battle, and one could infer that he loved mankind.  So why is it such a stretch that he might go native?  I accept it.

            I just finished my 4^th viewing of the film and it holds up really well.  It’s funny, clever and cute, yes, but it also has a strong, if subtle story.  Character development is strong in the writing and in the actor’s portrayals.  There’s the music: this is one of those movies that uses music expertly.  It’s wonderful when a film maker loves music and incorporates popular music in his film, in this case HER film.

I first saw Michael five years ago, the last time I viewed it, before last night’s viewing, was ten or twelve months ago.  My point is that I wouldn’t be surprised if it would wear thin if you see it back to back, but spaced out over time, I found it very re-watchable; like watching an old Taxi rerun that I hadn’t seen in a couple of years. 

So it’s entertaining, it has a good story, strong characters; it’s a fun movie. But there is also something I noticed, something I’m sure affected my enjoyment level in the past, that I hadn’t recognized for its own value. 

Aside from the Archangel, the characters include a formerly successful journalist who has lost his compass (William Hurt), an attractive young woman who seems never to have owned a compass (Andie MacDowell), a tabloid writer that is enjoying his life (Robert Pastorelli), and the tabloid owner (Bob Hoskins), both of whom seem to be right where he should be, and a widow who has some undisclosed relationship or agreement with the angel.  And, one should not forget Sparky; a perfectly cast canine who doesn’t need a compass, but could have used a hearing aid.

Casting.  Many actors have the ability to believably portray different characters, however, some bring too much baggage with them.  I’ll give you an example.  Matrix’s Agent Smith, Hugo Weaving, played that part so strikingly, that every time I hear someone say the name Anderson, I actually hear him addressing Keanu Reeves as, “Mis..ster Annnderssson.”  It took a while for his great acting ability to over come his voice and speech in Lord of the Rings before I was comfortable with him as Elrond. 

            In Michael, each of the main actors, fine actors all, sold me on their characters the moment I saw them.  Yes, good actors, but equally yes to excellent casting.  The proof is in the extras; aside from playing their parts, so many of them give great ambiance to the film.  The scene in the restaurant for instance, where Travolta goes from the dining table to the bar room that has a dance floor and a pool table and puts Chain of Fools on the juke box, and goes on to dance with a group of women.  Well everyone in that scene looked like they belonged there.  The two main characters especially.  They are the two women whose entrance into the dining room started the wheels turning for the dance sequence.  Two outstanding women. 

They had great presence; they exuded femininity (something lacking in too many woman today), and were great dancers (professional dancers rather than actresses, I’ll bet).  In short, they were spectacular and made the scene work: perfect bookends for the great dance “Michael” danced.  All the women in this scene looked great, danced well, and didn’t take attention away from the star... well maybe just a little.  They all helped to make the scene such one of the most memorable of the film. 

Michael has all the elements of an old musical comedy, not old fashioned at all, just with that feel.  This dance scene is a great example of the same kind of setup used in the old musicals.  You can see all the pieces for the musical number setup and fall into play, each actor and dancer, each prop; then the music comes up and the scene blossoms.  The setup here is just like that. 

Michael has good acting, casting, music, jokes, story, surprises…and something more.

Cinematography.  I noticed it this time, noticed it for its own artistic self.  Whether the farmland, the roads or the cityscapes, the views are beautiful.  Even the scene with the old Chevy station wagon on the interstate going into Chicago paused, is a great looking shot.

There is a scene where Travolta and Sparky are sitting with their backs to you, on a low tractor implement.  To their left are large rolls of hay, harvested and waiting there in a neat row.  It’s just past dawn and they are looking out over this harvested field; it’s a painting. 

It’s like that through out the film.  The picturesque Milk Bottle Motel is a great contrast to the Sears’ Tower which is shown a number of times; as are the country roads to the Chicago city streets.

Get your hands on the DVD and pause that frame.  I’ll bet after you’ve watched the movie a few times, you’ll have a list of scenes you’ll want to see again.  You’ll pause the scene on frame and you will sit there and look at the wonderful picture.  I’ll bet.

Picture Gallery