Two Lovers (2008) is a surprisingly good, low-key indie type romantic drama directed by James Gray. Set in contemporary Brooklyn, it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Leonard, the sensitive and somewhat unstable young man who finds himself in the seemingly enviable position of having to choose between two very attractive women, Sandra (Vinessa Shaw) and Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow).

Two Lovers does a good job of portraying a particular ethnic milieu, that of traditional Jewish business owners -immigrants or children of immigrants- in Brooklyn. The way his parents treat the thirty-ish Leonard might seem a bit of a stereotype -the overprotective Jewish parents. It is a little amusing to see him trying to sneak out of the house before his mother (played by Isabella Rosellini) can interrogate him about his plans. But it is made clear early on that Leonard is disturbed -the opening scene shows him in a half-hearted suicide attempt- which makes his parents’ smothering behavior a little more understandable.

The two women represent opposing directions Leonard can take. Sandra is the daughter of his father’s business partner, and a marriage between the two is practically being arranged, Old World style. Michelle, meanwhile, is a Manhattan girl, albeit one with problems of her own, including a tendency to pop pills. Michelle is also manipulative, stringing Leonard along while she maintains an affair with her married boss.

Everything about Two Lovers is nearly perfect, in a way that it’s easy to overlook because of the ordinariness of the circumstances. All of the characters, as well as the setting feel real, and the story, while simple, has a real poignancy. I can’t say I really liked the ending, but I can’t elaborate on that without giving too much away. Besides, even if I would have preferred a different outcome (not so much in Leonard ending up with one woman over the other, but his apparent overall life direction at the end), it was probably realistic and in that sense in keeping with the film’s authentic spirit.

Two Lovers

LOOK takes a not very well known cast and a gimmicky plot and turns it into a surprisingly effective and original drama. The gimmick is the now ubiquitous presence of video cameras that film so much of our existence. Look combines this with the by-now familiar device of interconnected lives in a big city (Los Angeles, where so many of these films are set).

Look maintains a compelling pace and the acting is good, even when the characters seem a little exaggerated for the sake of intensifying the story. A sleazy retail store manager, for example, seems to do nothing all day but seduce the female employees. An equally amoral female high school student plots to entrap one of her married teachers. A pair of crazed gunmen, meanwhile, are committing seemingly random acts of violence.

The somewhat over-hyped nature of the characters is matched by their apparent ignorance of the modern age of video cameras. No one seems to have any idea that they are being filmed. Another strange thing about this film is the lack of any real message. At the beginning, we are told the rather sinister fact that the average American is videotaped 200 times in a day. I have no idea if this is accurate, but either way this intro suggests that the film is going to be a critique of this invasion of privacy. Not so. In fact, by the end, the video cameras are, if anything, made to appear more benevolent than creepy. Yet I don’t think that was the intent. This was, rather, an attempt to simply view the chaos of modern life through the eyes of these cameras. Any moral judgments are left to the audience.

The lack of any blatant moralizing about the video phenomenon is perhaps what gives Look its sly quality of being something deeper and more memorable than the sum of its parts. Like the surveillance cameras themselves, the film itself remains coldly detached and simply lets its often absurd characters make fools (or worse) out of themselves. This is one of those films that makes you think about the very nature of them medium you are watching.

Look is the sort of imperfect independent film that I enjoyed more than many superficially superior -but more predictable- Hollywood movies. At the lower end, most mainstream films are little more than sequences of by-the-numbers action; at the higher end, they tend to be filmed versions of stage plays with actors giving resounding performances as they re-enact the familiar themes that hark back to Shakespeare and Greek tragedies.

Look, by contrast, is a truly contemporary film that could only be a film. Despite its imperfections, it makes us look at the world, and its many hidden cameras, a little differently.

Parker Posey is an actress who, perhaps like no one else, embodies the spirit of contemporary independent films. This, of course, may be debated, depending on your definition of independent films, what kind of films you like and how you feel about Parker Posey and the movie’s she has been in.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of another female star who has been in so many cutting edge and orginal films. For males, I can think of Steve Buscemi, who is another actor whose mere presence in a film practically defines it as “indie.” This brief look at some of my favorite Parker Posey films is by no means comprehensive. Do a search for her name, and you’ll find a surprising number of movies, some not very well known. For someone in her thirties, she already has quite a resume.

Dazed and Confused is one of the more original and indie type teen comedies. Parker Posey does not have a very large role in it, but it’s one of her earlier appearances (her first? I’m not good at movie trivia and am lazy about looking stuff up, sorry). This was directed by one of my favorite indie directors, Richard Linkletter, who I will soon put up a page about. It’s an episodic, comedy-drama about high school students as they party, hang out, attempt to hook up with the opposite sex, get into trouble and so forth. It has some of the same themes as many standard Hollywood teen movies, but it’s way better than that mostly mindless genre.

I have not seen Waiting For Gufmann or the follow-up, Best In Show, both “mockumentaries,” but I am mentioning them in passing because Posey is in them and they have a cult following.

Party Girl is a fun, light movie that does not pretend to be anything beyond what it’s title suggests. I enjoyed it, but this is one that is mainly for her fans.

House of Yes is a weirdly original, very dark comedy that really showcases Posey’s edgy personality. Here she plays a complete nut case, a woman who spends her life playing at being Jacqueline Kennedy. She brings a hapless boyfriend home to her house, which she shares with her equally deranged brother. This is bizarre, funny and completely original.

Clockwatchers may be my favorite movie Posey has ever been in, though its a little obscure. It’s another comedy-drama, this one about the grim lives of temp workers. Clockwatchers, however, has an unexpected depth that you would not guess at by looking at the posters for it or hearing a brief summary of the plot. It is really a modern piece of existentialism, that looks at the basic alienation of the modern workplace and how it makes people feel worthless and anonymous. It accomplishes all this with a superficially slight plot, and really hones in on the meaning (or lack thereof) of everyday life. Another of my favorite indie directors, Jill Sprecher.

Personal Velocity is another very original indie effort, this one telling separate stories about women in a state of transition. Posey only stars in one of them, but all are well done and thought-provoking, especially compared with standard movie fare.

I will mention You’ve Got Mail even though it’s my *least* favorite Parker Posey film. This is almost an anti-indie film, with values that celebrate 1980s yuppie culture. Then, how indie can a movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan be? Even a typically edgy Parker Posey cannot save this from being a basically insipid Hollywood romantic comedy. The title, of course, comes from the annoying (and ungrammatical!) message that is endlessly repeated on America Online to remind subscribers that they have e-mail.

Oh In Ohio is more of a vintage Posey film, one that takes a theme familiar to Hollywood romantic comedies, but treats them in a far more adult and less cliched manner. Posey here is a wife whose frigidity is threatening her marriage to a rather insecure man, a high school biology teacher. Both end up on a quest for fulfillment, sexual and otherwise, that is funny, moving and unapologetically amoral. This is the type of indie film I like for the reason that, at the risk of repeating myself, it doesn’t go off the deep end trying to be arty and original for its own sake, but takes familiar material and puts a new spin on it. I can imagine this very premise being made in a more mainstream way, with a cliched ending that Oh in Ohio has the integrity to avoid.

These are some notable films Parker Posey has been in, with at least a few omissions I’m sure. I look forward to adding to this list as I dig up some more older ones and, hopefully, some new ones as well in the near future.

What the Bleep Do We Know was a surprise cult favorite in 2004. Last year, an expanded edition, called Down the Rabbit Hole was released, containing new footage and a special feature that allows viewers to play the film in different sequences.

What the Bleep is a fascinating quasi-documentary about recent discoveries in quantum physics and some of the philosophical and metaphysical implications of this new science. This makes the movie controversial, and it has attracted almost as much hostility as praise. To hardcore rationalists, What the Bleep is full of pseudo-science and unproven mystical theories. They especially dislike the presence of J.Z. Knight in the film, who is a channel for Ramtha, allegedly a spirit from ancient Atlantis.

Yes, from a traditional scientific or rationalist point of view, What the Bleep is easy to criticize or make fun of. Yet it could also be argued that this “traditional scientific” point of view is quite obsolete, relying as it does mainly on Newtonian physics. I am not even remotely qualified to discuss the validity of the physics experiments or commentary in What the Bleep. However, I can say that the film is a truly interesting and thought provoking exploration of a certain point of view, one that bridges science and mysticism. What the Bleep is really exploring the metaphysical ideas such as “you create your own reality” and attempting to show how modern physics supports this.

I call it a “quasi” documentary not because of the controversial nature of the science (after all, most documentaries contain debatable opinions or points of view), but because there is also a dramatic element to the film interspersed with the interviews. Marlee Matlin stars as a rather unhappy person who is searching for a more meaningful existence. Her travels through an unamed city (Toronto?) lead her to encounter people and ideas that gradually change her perspective. This adds a dramatic and human quality to the purely theoretical content, though some viewers have complained that it’s distracting to go back and forth between drama and documentary styles. I did not have a problem with it.

I would recommend What the Bleep, or Down the Rabbit Hole to anyone interested in scientific or metaphysical topics, no matter what your point of view. It may change your mind about some things, or it may convince you further of your present point of view. Either way, it can be a worthwhile piece of modern (or postmodern) thought to consider.