'Little Men' is sweet with powerfully understated acting

( PG ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Little' stars Theo Taplitz as a young boy living in Brooklyn who befriends a neighbor. A rift between their parents eventually creates a chasm between the two boys as well.

Eric McNatt/Magnolia Pictures
'Little Men' stars Michael Barbieri and Theo Taplitz.

“Little Men” is a sweet, deceptively slight movie about boyhood friendship and parental conflict set against the backdrop of a gentrified New York. Director Ira Sachs, who co-wrote with Mauricio Zacharias, has a plangent feeling for the small-scale travails of “ordinary” people – who, of course, are only ordinary on the surface.

Jake (Theo Taplitz), who is somewhat shy and intellectual, has moved with his parents, Brian (Greg Kinnear), a struggling actor, and Kathy (Jennifer Ehle), a psychotherapist, from Manhattan to the Brooklyn apartment Brian inherited from his grandfather, Max. Leonor (Paulina Garcia), the mother of Jake’s new, extroverted best friend, Tony (Michael Barbieri), runs a dress shop in a unit that Max had rented out to her at way below market rate. The rift between Leonor and Jake’s parents, who want to triple the rent, eventually creates a chasm between the two boys as well.

Sachs is the filmic equivalent of a good short story writer; he sketches in the basics and then lets the moments play out minus a lot of bombast. There were times in “Little Men” when I wish he had filled things in a bit more – too often what is intended as spare seemed sparse instead. But he has a genuine feeling for his people’s humanity – no one here is a villain – and the acting is uniformly powerful (and powerfully understated). The film grows in retrospect, as I find is often true for me with Sachs’ work, especially his last film, “Love Is Strange.” A director who cares more about people than camera moves is a rarity these days. Grade: B+ (Rated PG for thematic elements, smoking and some language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.