criterionforum.org

Not Fade Away will prove to be one of the more frustrating releases of this year, because, for the same reason that there've been some other frustrating films this year, they just don't make movies like this anymore. The rhythms of a story like this, about the whirlwind of a youth revolution in the 1960s that draws the ire of teenagers' straight-laced and principled parents, might seem familiar - but they're shot here as a very straightforward, very BBS/cinéma vérité tinged flashback to the time that is unapologetically inaccessible to some of those who are too young or versed too little in the rapid shift in culture of the time. Chase never goes for the big moment throughout the entire film, instead assembling a cast of distinctive young faces (like Bella Heathcote and John Magaro, who, in particular, seem supernaturally plucked from the sixties and dropped onto the set of this film) and letting them live out the lives of very familiar young characters going through their late teens, warts-and-all, in a time when young people all felt like they needed to leave their own distinct stamp on one another (even if they just weren't equipped for it the way their heroes were). What makes Not Fade Away so exceptional is the eye of a compassionate filmmaker who chose not to tell this story the way it's always told - with one-dimensional adults who just don't 'get it' - instead he gets a typically strong performance out of James Gandolfini as Magaro's father, a man who worked hard to give his children everything that he didn't have growing up, and who develops a heartbreaking envy of his son's freedom as he reaches the end of his difficult road. When he attempts to confide in his son about a development in his emotional life over what could be the last dinner out that they'll ever share together, the result (or lack thereof) is an emotional gut-punch. Gandolfini's character doesn't want to see everything he's worked for (this is a flawed man, mind you, but one that has meant well) go to waste. When Chase looks back at his youth, he sees what was implicitly harsh about the insulation that young people put up around themselves in the face of the conformity of their elders, and that's an angle on the 60s revolution that I've rarely seen represented. That being said - the film is about the kids - their bumbling attempts to find a place in a world that seemed to ask them to either conform or stand out as artistic deities, and watching them navigate those waters is never anything less than compelling. This is a quiet film, and one that will frustrate many viewers expecting something more... more. But I wouldn't want it any other way.

Rare that mfunk and I disagree on the merits of any given film - much rarer that we disagree two times in one day! - but I didn't care for Not Fade Away. I'm happy to while away a couple of hours in a different time and place with kids who are finding themselves amidst a culture in flux, as long as the kids in question are compelling. Needless to say, I did not find these kids compelling. My larger problem with the film lies with Chase's direction. It's like he had a card deck full of individual scenes, shuffled them, and then just threw out one after another - they're all a part of the same card deck, but they feel thrown together at random, and not at all in an intuitive way that would intimate nostalgic memory.

Plus, I can't even think about the end without cringing in my seat - ugh, to look back on a film filled with languid nothingness and boldly make some grand, sweeping thesis statement about the time period? Gah! I wanted to crawl under my seat and die of shame after watching that ending.

David Chase's NOT FADE AWAY has just given me an epic mind fuck I wasn't expecting, and not just because I watched it a little wired at 10AM after back-to-back shifts at work and no sleep all night (wasn't sleepy though). It left me infuriated and dazzled (sometimes within the span of the same scene) because, while being a semi-autobiographical tale from the creator of "The Sopranos" about a group of teens growing-up in 1960's New Jersey that form a rock band and want to break into the biz, the same Chase that had soured on how popular his HBO show had become and wrote its nihilistic ending is applying the same 'detached' technique to the narrative of this rock flick. It's an odd mixture that's equal parts "That Thing You Do" (Steve Van Zandt composed some catchy tunes), "Almost Famous" (with the desire for stardom taking over the Kate Hudson role) and "The Color of Money," along with a healthy dose of Chase's pet peeves (social criticism, a passive mother, editing that doesn't follow the expected beats, etc.), that will make one reject or respect "Not Fade Away" but not love it. I honestly don't think anyone could ever love this movie even if they tried. The young cast is OK but they tend to become ciphers at the service of the 'time warp through the 60's' mixture of musical interludes, TV clips and news of the day.

None of the actors (particularly John Magaro and Bella Heathcote as the central couple) really registers as audience surrogates but, unlike "Zero Dark Thirty," James Gandolfini actually delivers a grounded performance as a grown-up parent that loves his children but can't relate to them or their dreams (sound familiar?). Gotta hand it to Chase though. On one hand Chase presents characters/themes and makes sure to not sugar-coat the hard road to success while also wallowing (especially during a love-it-or-hate-it ending that literally rubs viewers' face in it) in that magical state of mind within any teen from that era to make music, party with friends and enjoy life with its endless possibilities. Chase captures this lyricism, but then wants to punish us for wishing his young characters said, acted and did the things that he deliberately is side-stepping for the benefit of what he's truly interested in. "Not Fade Away" would make an interesting double-bill with Tom Hanks' "That Thing You Do" since, while they're thematically alike, in execution and filmmaer vision they couldn't exist on more vastly separate planes of cinematic existence.

I'm not a child of the sixties, nor am I a Sopranos watcher, but I really dig this movie. I dunno, I guess sometimes I just really want an aimless little film like this that lets me linger in someone's world for a couple hours. I just found myself riding along with the characters and feeling the ups and downs. It's not high art, but it is a pretty good time. Well acted and directed, less a movie and more a place to be for a while.

I have to say I think this film did not make a great case for David Chase as a writer/director of features. I think it could have made a good tv show though. I'm not confusing one with higher art than the other. The Sopranos was considered to be the show that brought that film level of quality to TV and Not Fade Away doesn't feel like TV but I can't help but feel like Chase is writing a TV pilot at first and isn't very good at wrapping up in his given amount of time. I agree with LQ about the ending making me wanna crawl under my seat although

Spoiler

When the creepy couple pull up and ask the main character to get in I definitely found it heavy with atmosphere and accomplished that David Lynch throwaway thing Chase likes to do so often.

That languid pace that CSM and dad reference is something he's good at and handling that balance of world building and continually holding your interest makes for great TV writing because the goal is to keep this sucker going. He's going to have to think about his end game from the beginning a little more.
That said I loved the relationship between the father and son and I had an expectation of it being a big formulaic situation of two generations coming to understand each other. Chase keeps that relationship tough and divided.