'Changeling' is a drama based on the true story of a woman's struggle to discover the fate of her missing son. This film has Oscar woven very deeply into its being. It is directed by Clint Eastwood. The Christine Collins story is one everyone can empathise with. The film is set in Depression era Los Angeles. The 30s has a special appeal for audiences. The cities all teem with promise and exuberance, but the seedy underbelly is pulling the well meaning, well to do folk into the mire. Oh, it's got so much to offer,that thirties city. The visual elegance of the world is captivating in its understated beauty. Oh, it may have been reserved, but wasn't it so classy? And of course, life was real in the thrities.In the 30s there's a special place called the post office, and the bank, and the store, where actual life, not virtual life, happens. It's so wonderful. It's a wonderful life you might say. Wonderful indeed. Wondeful enough so that the winner for 'Best Picture' is.... 30s film!
Not yet convinced of the film's Oscar credentials? Well how about this then? The film is based on a true story. Heh? Tissues are the order of the day, as we witness the main character being broken again and again and again. Her abusers are evil policemen and Nazis in the mental hospital. Jolie tears up the whole time. Yes, it's a genuine tearjerker. Now will you give us the golden statue? Please?
This story took place seventy years ago. So we are left with the question of whether or not it is relevant to today. The story of the parent's struggle to find their child is undoubtedly still relevant. The media coverage of the Madeleine McCann story illustrates this. But whereas the McCann's standard of parenting was scrutinised for leaving their child alone, Collins' was not. Is this because children are more visible these days? Who knows. But this film dosen't scrutinise the crucial initial mistake that Collins made, that is, leaving her child alone for a day.
As for the issue of institutional attrocities, one can think of many contemporary examples where a western government has perpetrated injustices. It's always going on.
This story is tragic on several levels. It's quite touching and disturbing. Jolie is consistent as a study in trauma. John Malkovivh delivers a characteristically turbo charged portrayal of an evangelical. His ability to deliver a ferocious and withering critique of something or other is an impressive feat. We have become used to it, but it should not be taken for granted. His somewhat effete portayal of everyday interaction remains oddly charming, but still odd. The themes of the Christine Collins story remain pertinent to our lives.But it's not the beggining and end of the story by a long way. And this picture stinks of Oscars.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
A Film With Me In It.
'A Film With Me In It' is an intriguing title for a film. It begs the question : a film with who, or what exactly, in it? The characters are a group of Dubliners who are subsisting in a death trap of a flat. This group consits of a toally unimpressive 'artistic' duo, one of whose brother is paralysed and mute, an unfullfilled young woman, and a dog. They are are at odds with the world around them in general,and their unsubtle landlord in particular. The inertia of the first act is punctured by a sequence of events that is plausible, but still farcical. At its heart the film is a black comedy.It knowingly employs age old visual techniques and an assertive score to provide a faux horror aesthetic. The odd couple of Pierce [Moran] and Mark [Doherty] are there for the comedy. The film knowingly copies cinema signatures from old film noirs. The old visual references are used in a repetetive way, and eventually become an ironic motif. The score acts as a reminder of the disastrous nature of the action. Everyone was on the same page as regards the feel of the film ,and the minimalism is well expressed. Success for director Ian Fitzgibbon there. The comedic range of the film is quite broad, but is delivered in a minimalist way. The earnestness of Mark is passable as comedy of understating emotions. The impetuosity of Pierce is reasonably amusing as the comedy of neurotic folly. The dynamic between them is consistent enough. Moran's one liners are well delivered. Take your pick, 'that's not love', as Mark and Pierce catch a glimpse of weird sexual practices. 'I'm like a ghost in a void' is nicely weird.In the support cast, Keith Allen fulfills the role of a 'Bollocksface' satisfactorally. David O' Doherty does not flinch as 'David'. Amy Hubberman is Amy Hubermann.
Mark Doherty's film is modest. It is an Irish product, so this is par for the course. It is modest in its conception, and therefore modest in its execution. A film that is made for any Irish filmmaker, or aspiring writer, who finds Dylan Moran funny. And a few students.And some people in their early twenties who heard that it was funny in places from their friend whose younger brother works in The IMC. It is decent, low key fare.It knows its place in the world.
Mark Doherty's film is modest. It is an Irish product, so this is par for the course. It is modest in its conception, and therefore modest in its execution. A film that is made for any Irish filmmaker, or aspiring writer, who finds Dylan Moran funny. And a few students.And some people in their early twenties who heard that it was funny in places from their friend whose younger brother works in The IMC. It is decent, low key fare.It knows its place in the world.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
W
Oliver Stone has given us his account of the life of the outgoing president, George Bush. Stone's past biopics have met with great criticism for their lack of historical accuracy. Ray Manzerak and Morrisson's wife have complained bitterly about the innacuracies of Stone's Doors film. In the case of 'W', Jeb Bush has remarked that Stone's depiction of the family scenes are 'high grade, unadulterated hooey'. He complains that no member of the Bush family was contacted. Is Jeb Bush right to be angry? Strangely, in the case of 'W' I don't think it actually matters. In depicting the Bush adminsitration as a farce, Stone has taken those famous lines from W and Rumsfeld, in particular, out of the media, and put them in policy meetings. This choice leads us to conclude that this film is purely an impression of events. Fair enough. However, this approach is not followed consistently through the film. When Bush is speaking to congress about the need to got to war in Iraq, Stone presents us with actual archive footage of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John McCain applauding him. But, isn't this supposed to be Stone's impression of events? More damaging for Stone's vision is the depiction of Bush as public speaker. Given that Stone, and screenwriter Stanley Weiser, have chosen to place those infamous 'Bushisms' into dialogue at policy confrences, why did they go to the effort of recreating almost exactly Bush's speech aboard the aircraft carrier. The resemblance to the broadcast footage is impressive. But it seems out of step with the rest of the film, where Bush's ridiculous public addresses are either repackaged and relocated to the conference room, except until the end.
So, what was the artistic point in relocating the confusing soundbites of the Bush adminsitration's public appearances? It seems that Stone wanted to depict the policy decision making process as a total farce. The aim was for laughs,the inclusion of the 'Robin Hood' theme song probably had Stone and editor Julie Monroe giggling in the editing suite. The scene where Rumsfeld is drawing a sketch of Rice as an ass kisser is probably funny to American audiences. The meetings are farcical, and so the relocating of those verbal clangers is a success, but the results are not so much funny as they are disturbing.
The choice of Josh Brolin casts doubt over the production. Brolin sounded like a strange choice from the start. He doesn't remind you of Bush. That trademark vacancy in the facial expression is painfully absent. He doesn't have the stature of Bush either. He is dwarfed by James Cromwell, but this is not the case when the two Bush presidents stand side by side.The casting is generally poor. Scott Glenn is not at all Rumsfeld. Jeffrey Wright really struggles in his attempt to be Colin Powell. James Cromwell is very off form as George senior. He doesn't at all capture the self assurance of the man who ran a secret government in the eighties. Thandie Newton stands out as a success for the casting director. But it doesn't make up for the other failures. The production team came up short on this one.
W is a strange film. Nothing feels real about it.The end sequecce takes place in the abstract world of W in the baseball field, which is a recurring motif in the film. We are witnessing the the final 'play' of the story. He is a fielder, looking for the flight of the ball. He is befuddled and bemused, as the ball disappears from view. We can share the character's confusion.
So, what was the artistic point in relocating the confusing soundbites of the Bush adminsitration's public appearances? It seems that Stone wanted to depict the policy decision making process as a total farce. The aim was for laughs,the inclusion of the 'Robin Hood' theme song probably had Stone and editor Julie Monroe giggling in the editing suite. The scene where Rumsfeld is drawing a sketch of Rice as an ass kisser is probably funny to American audiences. The meetings are farcical, and so the relocating of those verbal clangers is a success, but the results are not so much funny as they are disturbing.
The choice of Josh Brolin casts doubt over the production. Brolin sounded like a strange choice from the start. He doesn't remind you of Bush. That trademark vacancy in the facial expression is painfully absent. He doesn't have the stature of Bush either. He is dwarfed by James Cromwell, but this is not the case when the two Bush presidents stand side by side.The casting is generally poor. Scott Glenn is not at all Rumsfeld. Jeffrey Wright really struggles in his attempt to be Colin Powell. James Cromwell is very off form as George senior. He doesn't at all capture the self assurance of the man who ran a secret government in the eighties. Thandie Newton stands out as a success for the casting director. But it doesn't make up for the other failures. The production team came up short on this one.
W is a strange film. Nothing feels real about it.The end sequecce takes place in the abstract world of W in the baseball field, which is a recurring motif in the film. We are witnessing the the final 'play' of the story. He is a fielder, looking for the flight of the ball. He is befuddled and bemused, as the ball disappears from view. We can share the character's confusion.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Burn After Reading
This film is a light hearted take on the excercise of intelligence gathering. The Coens have turned the solemn idea of 'knowledge is power' into the ironic comment that 'intelligence is relative'.
This film wants to be intriguing and funny first, but it also wants to be appreciated as a piece of filmmaking.
So, how does it set out to be intriguing and funny? The script is the key. The success of 'Burn After Reading' in this regard depends on the mutually supporting elements of the intrigue, in the shape of a dangerous game, played out by a closely related group , and the amusement, provided by the ham fisted attempts by the idiosynchratic characters to play it. But it also wants to succeed as a piece of cinema. This will be accomplished by good craftsmanship. Of course the two are really one and the same. So, is the plot intriguing ? It is intruiging to watch a bunch of lives cross as they do in this tale. The object of the game that the Coens depict is to gather intelligence on people, and use this intelligence to your advantage. This game is the one played because, as Linda Litski [McDormad] believes, 'knowledge is power'. However, what really matters in this yarn is that 'intelligence is relative'.
So those who play will be befuddled,bascially. The game being played out is as random as the characters who play it. Every action is either ill infomed or duplicitous or both. No one, especially not the C.I.A.,knows what's going on. 'Report back to me when it makes sense', orders the C.I.A. head, played by J.K. Simmons. The script is strong enough that you are satisfied by its attempts to interweave the characters lives, and that their interactions are as random as their poor judgedment and ungainly attempts at espionage would entail. Success for the Coens there.
Is the film amusing? The attempts at extortion by the team of Litsky and Feldheimer [Pitt] are reminiscent of lame teenage antics. Think nervous attempts at fooling a parent or coy attempts at finding out if your crush likes you. This juvenile approach is a good idea, it is not too wide of the mark to imagine that there are many people who act this way. However, the air headed Feldheimer is too much. His grooving is slightly overdone. His vocabulary is probably too limited.
The searing misanthropy of Osbourne Cox [Malkovich] serves the plot well. His growing fury at the 'idiots' who are invading his pius world of espionage, and his personal life, acts to anchor the folly of the characters around him. But his outbursts are probably too intense to be funny. His delivery is too psychotic. He is the straight man here, but the Coens were probably trying to recreat the humour of Walter's outbursts in 'The Big Lebowski'.
The ebullient Harry sees Clooney in screwball mode. He does the screwball role well, his physical humour is not overdone, and is actually quite courageous, as he flings himself down stairs in one scene. But his monotone voice is still out of place. It doesn't help his comedy turns.
Is the film well made? Well, the script ticks the box of being intruiging , while the comedy is hit and miss. J.K. Simons is miscast as the rather perfunctory C.I.A. head. Someone like Tim Robbins would have been better. We wait for him to be his usual brash self, and he ends up as rather forgetable. He doesn't fit the role. The familiar Coens type score builds the sense of menace reminiscent of that in Fargo. Here, as in Fargo, it acts more as a plot device, given that the film is basically light hearted. The sequence where Clooney and Pitt meet on screen is very well choregraphed, and well shot. It is the most accomplished thing about the film, it combines all the best elements of filmmaking , with good choreography, camera work, performances, music, and good editing.
So ,'Burn After Reading' is a fairly engaging yarn. It is not consistently funny. It is well made, but not outstandingly so. It is ok.
This film wants to be intriguing and funny first, but it also wants to be appreciated as a piece of filmmaking.
So, how does it set out to be intriguing and funny? The script is the key. The success of 'Burn After Reading' in this regard depends on the mutually supporting elements of the intrigue, in the shape of a dangerous game, played out by a closely related group , and the amusement, provided by the ham fisted attempts by the idiosynchratic characters to play it. But it also wants to succeed as a piece of cinema. This will be accomplished by good craftsmanship. Of course the two are really one and the same. So, is the plot intriguing ? It is intruiging to watch a bunch of lives cross as they do in this tale. The object of the game that the Coens depict is to gather intelligence on people, and use this intelligence to your advantage. This game is the one played because, as Linda Litski [McDormad] believes, 'knowledge is power'. However, what really matters in this yarn is that 'intelligence is relative'.
So those who play will be befuddled,bascially. The game being played out is as random as the characters who play it. Every action is either ill infomed or duplicitous or both. No one, especially not the C.I.A.,knows what's going on. 'Report back to me when it makes sense', orders the C.I.A. head, played by J.K. Simmons. The script is strong enough that you are satisfied by its attempts to interweave the characters lives, and that their interactions are as random as their poor judgedment and ungainly attempts at espionage would entail. Success for the Coens there.
Is the film amusing? The attempts at extortion by the team of Litsky and Feldheimer [Pitt] are reminiscent of lame teenage antics. Think nervous attempts at fooling a parent or coy attempts at finding out if your crush likes you. This juvenile approach is a good idea, it is not too wide of the mark to imagine that there are many people who act this way. However, the air headed Feldheimer is too much. His grooving is slightly overdone. His vocabulary is probably too limited.
The searing misanthropy of Osbourne Cox [Malkovich] serves the plot well. His growing fury at the 'idiots' who are invading his pius world of espionage, and his personal life, acts to anchor the folly of the characters around him. But his outbursts are probably too intense to be funny. His delivery is too psychotic. He is the straight man here, but the Coens were probably trying to recreat the humour of Walter's outbursts in 'The Big Lebowski'.
The ebullient Harry sees Clooney in screwball mode. He does the screwball role well, his physical humour is not overdone, and is actually quite courageous, as he flings himself down stairs in one scene. But his monotone voice is still out of place. It doesn't help his comedy turns.
Is the film well made? Well, the script ticks the box of being intruiging , while the comedy is hit and miss. J.K. Simons is miscast as the rather perfunctory C.I.A. head. Someone like Tim Robbins would have been better. We wait for him to be his usual brash self, and he ends up as rather forgetable. He doesn't fit the role. The familiar Coens type score builds the sense of menace reminiscent of that in Fargo. Here, as in Fargo, it acts more as a plot device, given that the film is basically light hearted. The sequence where Clooney and Pitt meet on screen is very well choregraphed, and well shot. It is the most accomplished thing about the film, it combines all the best elements of filmmaking , with good choreography, camera work, performances, music, and good editing.
So ,'Burn After Reading' is a fairly engaging yarn. It is not consistently funny. It is well made, but not outstandingly so. It is ok.
Friday, October 10, 2008
How To Lose Friends etc.
The title of this film is ironic in a way. Given that the filmmakers have chosen one of the most popular genres when making it, surely they must have been thinking,' how best to make this film popular and have a broad appeal'.
Why is rom com the chosen genre for this film? It's a questionable choice. The rom com should always be questioned, given its status as a perrenial candidate for our viewing pleasure. The viewer should ask themselves, ' is this what we really want?' Another term of the same old party lines? The same 'love is all we need' world view. The same foes trotted out to be conquered- initial emnity, a rival for the affections that is an asshole, the mistimed show of affection providing the tension. And of course the all encompassing 'love conquers all' ideology is provided as the answer to all the uncertainities. 'Love is all we need' ,'love conquers all', vote rom com! Who will stand up as the challenger to topple rom com from its perch?
Simon Pegg described 'Shaun Of The Dead' as the first 'zom rom com'. If only he had held onto that casual disregard for the business of rom com. He knew that rom com was lame, didn't he? Well he made this one, I'm sure he had his reasons. But maybe we shouldn't forget what Pegg said. Maybe there will be a 'zom rom com' some day.Perhaps there is a script waiting to be written, one where throngs of thirty somethings descend upon New York, infecting all that they attack with their funny yet romantic behaviour....everywhere crowds of people are gathered around a couple kissing, causing all normal city life to come to a halt. Escape by airplane is impossible, as the airports are crammed full of people chasing after their intended. New York is brought to its knees by the romantic comedy throngs. A state of emergency would have been declared by the president, only he uses the transmission to declare his love for the first lady. Watch out, the rom com zombies are coming for you.
Why is rom com the chosen genre for this film? It's a questionable choice. The rom com should always be questioned, given its status as a perrenial candidate for our viewing pleasure. The viewer should ask themselves, ' is this what we really want?' Another term of the same old party lines? The same 'love is all we need' world view. The same foes trotted out to be conquered- initial emnity, a rival for the affections that is an asshole, the mistimed show of affection providing the tension. And of course the all encompassing 'love conquers all' ideology is provided as the answer to all the uncertainities. 'Love is all we need' ,'love conquers all', vote rom com! Who will stand up as the challenger to topple rom com from its perch?
Simon Pegg described 'Shaun Of The Dead' as the first 'zom rom com'. If only he had held onto that casual disregard for the business of rom com. He knew that rom com was lame, didn't he? Well he made this one, I'm sure he had his reasons. But maybe we shouldn't forget what Pegg said. Maybe there will be a 'zom rom com' some day.Perhaps there is a script waiting to be written, one where throngs of thirty somethings descend upon New York, infecting all that they attack with their funny yet romantic behaviour....everywhere crowds of people are gathered around a couple kissing, causing all normal city life to come to a halt. Escape by airplane is impossible, as the airports are crammed full of people chasing after their intended. New York is brought to its knees by the romantic comedy throngs. A state of emergency would have been declared by the president, only he uses the transmission to declare his love for the first lady. Watch out, the rom com zombies are coming for you.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Possible answers to star wars disliking
[i] Plot not compelling enough. The point being made here is that the story of the 'chosen one' having to decide between the dark path and the light path, while trying to save the universe, is not challenging enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)