Viewing Context:
After the opening weekend may have been too busy for us all to get in for free down at Cineworld, we went down the following Saturday (all being me Tasha and Corey). We were also joined by my sister and her kids, so it was a real family viewing. Corey had been seeing it advertised plenty and was really looking forward to it. Unfortunately, he’s also been getting excited about the Yogi Bear advert - curses.
Creators:
Directed by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard, who have both worked in the animation department on a number of Disney films. Written by Dan Fogleman, writer of Bolt and Cars, neither quite as good as this.
What Happened:
The queen is very ill in the later stages of pregnancy, so her empire searches for a legendary flower that can heal any ailment. They find it, but the selfish woman who has hidden it from the world for centuries, using it to maintain her youth, is not right chuffed about it going. The flower heals the queen and its magic goes into princess Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), so the old woman nabs her as a baby and locks her in a tower, raising her as her own. On her 18th birthday, she has finally reached the point where her curiosity cannot be held back anymore; this coincides with the dashing Flynn Rider (Zachary Levy) stumbling across the tower. Rapunzel convinces this charming thief to take her to where the lanterns fly once a year. Unbeknown to her, these are let off intentionally for the princess to be led home.
Theme/Message:
Above anything else a Disney film's message delivers, I always have to consider the state of the Disney princess and how she fits into the Disney princess canon. Rapunzel can stand up as another great example of how Disney has completely left behind the passive, pointless, negative (in my view) figure in the Snow White model. Disney are really striking the right balance between on the one hand having a beautiful relationship build up genuinely, with the male lead earning the princess' love and affection rather than naturally gaining it just by being their knight in shining armour. Balanced though, by the fact that Rapunzel never wishes for him, certainly wasn’t simply waiting for him; it never even figured into her plan until it naturally occurred. Her focus was solely on her own self discovery and self worth rather than missing that magical prince. Similarly, in the inevitable 'princess in distress' section of the narrative, she didn't need her prince to save her, yet he still tried. It was the right balance between showing how committed he was and how great his feelings for Rapunzel were, without ever implying that she ‘needed’ him to save her. The film puts them both in situations of jeopardy, where they can both be saviours of one another.
There alse featured themes of knowledge; the dangers and manipulative nature of knowledge not being fully disclosed. How this can be bent so wickedly to distort the world views of those that are not in the position to control the information. I'm not implying that this is any Dogtooth (The Greek Oscar nominated film), but the same implication (albeit watered down Disney version) is there.
What it did particularly well:
Everything that you would like in a whimsical Disney kids' film. The songs were particularly enjoyable and well placed.
the way it was so bright and pleasant was a joy to watch, without being sickeningly pathetic. This helped a great deal towards building that connection between the two characters, which is something it needed to do more than competently in order for the final act to pay off as well as it did - and it really did, as I had no idea which way they were going to go (signs of my child like naivete more than anything).
I loved a lot about Disney's last offering The Princess and the Frog, but I was never as engaged in the connection between the two leads as I was between Flynn and Rapunzel; the characters separately yes, but not them as a couple.
Finally, it had a great supporting cast, in the horse and the lizard.
What unimpressed or missed potential:
The evil mother was good, but could have been played up a bit more. At least when Rapunzel inevitably found out that she wasn't her real mother, it could have been a little more emotional. It happened a bit quick; she had just found out that her whole life had been a lie and that this wasn’t the mother that she had thought she was. It must be said that the rest of the film convincingly portrayed how conflicted Rapunzel must have been, as the evil mother sinisterly switched between terrifying Rapunzel, then offering her protection. It was a Disney version of the kind of sinister mental torture that Nina in Black Swan seemed to be subjected to.
Scene of the film:
The final payoff was excellent; I really didn't know what was going to happen. I admit that I really am turning into a soft-ass as I get older but the tears were building.
Performance of the film:
I never know what to say about this in an animation. Maximus the horse was really cool, but can't really give it to him so I'd say that Moore did the lead act really well. She seemed naive at times, confident at others; I know that the animation is a lot of it but the voice counts too. Plus, she really topped it off with the singing.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Die Wellen (The Wave - 2008)
Viewing context:
Initially added it to my LoveFilm list after hearing Nemone (the 6Music radio presenter) talking about it to a film cricic they had on through the day.
Creators:
Directed by Dennis Gansel, who directed a film in 2004 called Napola, which looks inteesting. What is more impressive though, is that he also wrote it (although it is based on a book) along with Peter Thorwart. The writing credit is important for Gansel as it was a better written film than it was a directed one.
What Happened:
A teacher, introduced as quite the punk rock loving, self figured anti-hero teacher, Rainer Wenger (Jürgen Vogel) gets stuck teaching autocracy for a week rather than his favoured Anarchy. After ten minutes of the students’ indifference to the subject and their complete disregard for the power of a dictatorship, flatly refusing that it would even be possible that the circumstances in modern day Germany could create a dictatorship, Wenger gets creative and begins to introduce themes and concepts that get the kids’ attention. His ideas begin to gain some traction as it transforms into a movement, aptly called ‘The Wave'.
Theme/Message:
The upperschool setting situates it as an issue for Germany’s youth, who are arguably more settled in the western dogma of consumerism and individualism than their previous generations. Yet the setting can easily be seen as a convenient way to tell this story that could be allegorically projected onto society as a whole, with different students representing different social types.
The film shows just how easy it is to get caught up in a movement; for the seemingly apathetic and aimless to so quickly attach themselves to something, to anything. It was less a comment on whether autocracy or democracy was better, but more on how people will so easily have their will bent for an easier life and to fit in, whether this will is being bent by a dictator like Stalin or by brands like Adidas. It managed to be critical of both sides of the coin, which I always believe helps any argument; it never came across as a preaching statement, it just feltnatural, which was precisely Wenger's intention in the first place. What is left for society? A space between apathetic nihilism and of sheep-like drones following the masses.
What it did particularly well:
The main thing I would like to highlight is how aesthetically youthful the film was. The seemingly petty adolescent problems (I say seemingly because from the hormone fuelled, unwisened mind of the teenager, these things really are life and death - god I wouldn’t be a teenager again) were interjected with the more grand politics in a way that not only made it seem much more plausible, genuine and less preachy, but I would imagine that it also makes the film accessible to that social group; those that think it doesn’t matter, that aren’t already engaged in these sorts of debates or discussions.
I expected the film to be much more mature, much more nuanced and sophisticated, both in the aesthetics and in its handling of the subject matter. When it wasn’t this at first, I was a little jarred, but had it been, it would have missed that connection with the social type it was depicting. If only the typical privileged, middle aged, middle class people were going to watch it in their local art cinema then it would have been a complete waste. (This is clearly a crass exaggeration, but there is truth in the fact that had it been more pretentious seeming, it would have disinterested many in society. An unfortunate fact).
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was one slight gripe, but this could come from my knowledge-gap of the average German teenager. These kids all seemed pretty smart and quite politically engaged already. There was a point when Wenger says ‘at least I am getting through to them’. Well, I was never fully convinced that they were the kind of kids that needed getting through to. Compared to kids at my school (myself included), these lot were pretty much political geniuses to begin with.
Performance of the film:
I would say Frederick Lau as the unhinged Tim gave the best performance. Mostly for the early part of the film when you begin to see the signs that his trajectory is inevitably going to carry this too far; that he is so genuinely dedicated to, and excited about this because he has nothing else. He was enough his own character, but also enough of that type of character, that you could see how this type of individual would be very typical in this kind of movement.
Scene of the film:
Although the end scene was really tense; the whole film had built up to a final payoff and the film, despite the potential pitfall, did not drop the ball at the end, I still think that the scene where the students bomb around town putting stickers up and tagging all the walls, restaurants, buses, police cars, etc was a great way of showing you the sort of youthful energy and sense of change that is at the heart of this type of movement. It was entirely plausible, none of those caught up in it became majorly political, which is what was great. It was a very genuine depiction of how a group of high school kids - and then symbolically by extension the whole of society - could get so wrapped up in something
Final Word:
It seemed genuinely anchored in the perspective of the youth, which is what made it so plausible and allowed me to get caught up in the wave (I have no willpower, that cheesy line was just irresistible).
Initially added it to my LoveFilm list after hearing Nemone (the 6Music radio presenter) talking about it to a film cricic they had on through the day.
Creators:
Directed by Dennis Gansel, who directed a film in 2004 called Napola, which looks inteesting. What is more impressive though, is that he also wrote it (although it is based on a book) along with Peter Thorwart. The writing credit is important for Gansel as it was a better written film than it was a directed one.
What Happened:
A teacher, introduced as quite the punk rock loving, self figured anti-hero teacher, Rainer Wenger (Jürgen Vogel) gets stuck teaching autocracy for a week rather than his favoured Anarchy. After ten minutes of the students’ indifference to the subject and their complete disregard for the power of a dictatorship, flatly refusing that it would even be possible that the circumstances in modern day Germany could create a dictatorship, Wenger gets creative and begins to introduce themes and concepts that get the kids’ attention. His ideas begin to gain some traction as it transforms into a movement, aptly called ‘The Wave'.
Theme/Message:
The upperschool setting situates it as an issue for Germany’s youth, who are arguably more settled in the western dogma of consumerism and individualism than their previous generations. Yet the setting can easily be seen as a convenient way to tell this story that could be allegorically projected onto society as a whole, with different students representing different social types.
The film shows just how easy it is to get caught up in a movement; for the seemingly apathetic and aimless to so quickly attach themselves to something, to anything. It was less a comment on whether autocracy or democracy was better, but more on how people will so easily have their will bent for an easier life and to fit in, whether this will is being bent by a dictator like Stalin or by brands like Adidas. It managed to be critical of both sides of the coin, which I always believe helps any argument; it never came across as a preaching statement, it just feltnatural, which was precisely Wenger's intention in the first place. What is left for society? A space between apathetic nihilism and of sheep-like drones following the masses.
What it did particularly well:
The main thing I would like to highlight is how aesthetically youthful the film was. The seemingly petty adolescent problems (I say seemingly because from the hormone fuelled, unwisened mind of the teenager, these things really are life and death - god I wouldn’t be a teenager again) were interjected with the more grand politics in a way that not only made it seem much more plausible, genuine and less preachy, but I would imagine that it also makes the film accessible to that social group; those that think it doesn’t matter, that aren’t already engaged in these sorts of debates or discussions.
I expected the film to be much more mature, much more nuanced and sophisticated, both in the aesthetics and in its handling of the subject matter. When it wasn’t this at first, I was a little jarred, but had it been, it would have missed that connection with the social type it was depicting. If only the typical privileged, middle aged, middle class people were going to watch it in their local art cinema then it would have been a complete waste. (This is clearly a crass exaggeration, but there is truth in the fact that had it been more pretentious seeming, it would have disinterested many in society. An unfortunate fact).
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was one slight gripe, but this could come from my knowledge-gap of the average German teenager. These kids all seemed pretty smart and quite politically engaged already. There was a point when Wenger says ‘at least I am getting through to them’. Well, I was never fully convinced that they were the kind of kids that needed getting through to. Compared to kids at my school (myself included), these lot were pretty much political geniuses to begin with.
Performance of the film:
I would say Frederick Lau as the unhinged Tim gave the best performance. Mostly for the early part of the film when you begin to see the signs that his trajectory is inevitably going to carry this too far; that he is so genuinely dedicated to, and excited about this because he has nothing else. He was enough his own character, but also enough of that type of character, that you could see how this type of individual would be very typical in this kind of movement.
Scene of the film:
Although the end scene was really tense; the whole film had built up to a final payoff and the film, despite the potential pitfall, did not drop the ball at the end, I still think that the scene where the students bomb around town putting stickers up and tagging all the walls, restaurants, buses, police cars, etc was a great way of showing you the sort of youthful energy and sense of change that is at the heart of this type of movement. It was entirely plausible, none of those caught up in it became majorly political, which is what was great. It was a very genuine depiction of how a group of high school kids - and then symbolically by extension the whole of society - could get so wrapped up in something
Final Word:
It seemed genuinely anchored in the perspective of the youth, which is what made it so plausible and allowed me to get caught up in the wave (I have no willpower, that cheesy line was just irresistible).
Monday, 31 January 2011
The Fighter (2010) Best director nomination - Really?
Viewing context:
Staff screening – got the text about an hour before they were putting it on. Had to get changed back out of my jamas and get down there pretty sharpish.
Creators:
Directed by David O. Russel, director of I Heart Huckabees and Three Kings, both films that I thought were more interesting and had more heart than this film. Interesting that he also has writing credits for those two, which he doesn’t for The Fighter. Screenplay by Scott Silver (8 Mile), with Paul Tamsey (nothing I recognise in his work) and Eric Johnson (writing debut by the looks of it) who also worked on the screenplay as well as the story.
What Happened:
Two brothers with an overbearing (to say the least) mother (Melissa Leo) driving them to succeed, although being far more invested in the older brother Dicky (Christian Bale) than she was in Micky (Mark Wahlberg). Dicky was a boxer, a pretty good boxer, he knocked down Sugar Ray Robinson (a feat he won’t let anyone forget), but he is now a crack-head living in a delusion that he’s going to make his comeback. In the process of this alleged comeback he is training his younger brother Micky, but by training I mean being an iron anchor round Micky’s ankle dragging him down his own self destructive path. Sounds pretty clichéd and corny…. well…. because it is really (enjoyably so though). One of those ‘only in America’ stories, although I do believe it has more than the usual ‘triumph of the individual’ arc and has a stronger society based theme, but see below for this justification.
Theme/Message:
Why was he fighting? Why call it The Fighter? Alright yeah, he was boxing, but even this film - as direct and obvious as it is - isn't quite shallow enough for the word ‘fighter’ to simply mean somebody that fights. The most obvious application is to Dicky's fight against addiction rather than to Micky’s desire to achieve, as Micky, although he hits people a lot, never actually fights for anything. You never know what he actually wants; he constantly reiterates that he isn't bothered about boxing; he doesn't have some kind of insatiable need to be the greatest. If anything, all he wants to do is simply restore some pride in his family's and his neighbourhood’s soiled reputation. I got the sense that he felt an obligation or duty to his community, his family and his cultural origins. The supporting cast of characters is littered with failed or flawed individuals, or those who just didn’t take their opportunities, all of which are desperate to play these out through Micky. I couldn’t figure something out though, was his overly passive attitude in a film called ‘The Fighter’ a deliberately ironic statement; that sometimes fighting is actually doing something for the better of those around you, for society, because you can, rather than because you actually want to. If so, very good, but alternatively, it is possible that the film was supposed to convince me that he did give a shit, that he really did want to succeed for his own reasons, in which case it failed completely on me.
What it did particularly well:
Struggling with this one to be honest. There wasn’t anything 'particularly' bad about it, but I can’t say anything stood out as being ‘particularly’ good. Possibly the film’s ability to convince me that Micky was stuck in the middle; that he was constantly being torn in different directions. Also there were some great supporting performances, but see below for that.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Not so much unimpressed, it will sound as though I didn’t like the film, which isn’t the case, I did, but I think the whole film just didn’t quite reach potential. It suffered from being neither big and extravagant, nor small and personal. So it hit all the boxing film clichés in a pretty corny way, but it never managed to elevate them moments to be really emotive, in a way to sweep you up in the narrative. Like the boxing sequences for instance, were on a couple of occasions so corny I couldn’t take them seriously (the obvious commentary and the montage scene), whereas at other times it was brutal and engaging. This is the same problem I had with the family politics aspect, which at times was easily the best part of the film, yet there were parts where it got really daft and I could hardly believe that the different scenes were in the same film. One part in particular where all the sisters squeeze into a car to go and ‘sort out’ Micky’s girl fiend Charlene (Amy Adams). This should be an incredibly tense scene, but there is this over the top, almost slapstick music playing and they all squabble around into the car like they’re in a Carry On film or something; It was absolutely ridiculous. Similar to this, the crack heads were like cartoon characters; after having seen the likes of The Wire or Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever, there is no way you can take these characters seriously.
Performance of the film:
I know there is a lot of chatter about Christian Bale’s performance, which I thought was pretty goofy, until I saw the video footage of the real life Dicky, at which point it was clear that Bale had done a great job at capturing his eccentricities. Having said that, and considering that I didn’t know how accurate Bale’s depiction was and therefore it just came off looking a little wacky, I thought Amy Adams as Micky’s girlfriend Charlene was the best performance, even though her character slipped a little into insignificance as the film went into the last act.
Scene of the film:
The scene where Charlene first meets Micky’s family. Her standoff with the mother and the sisters in this scene was one of the contributing factors to me thinking that hers was the performance of the film. The acting from all in this scene was great; they all played their part, along with the way that scene was shot in order to create a claustrophobic and tense atmosphere. It was like a volcano about to erupt.
Final Word:
Sort of cannot believe that this has a best picture nomination. I know that my favourite films and academy’s interpretation of best films are not quite the same (don’t think they were ever likely to nominate Four Lions, Son of Babylon or Redline), but I see how the academy works and would have much rather seen Shutter Island or something get a look in. As for best director, controversially over Christopher Nolan... bemused is the word. Having said all that though, I quite liked it.
Staff screening – got the text about an hour before they were putting it on. Had to get changed back out of my jamas and get down there pretty sharpish.
Creators:
Directed by David O. Russel, director of I Heart Huckabees and Three Kings, both films that I thought were more interesting and had more heart than this film. Interesting that he also has writing credits for those two, which he doesn’t for The Fighter. Screenplay by Scott Silver (8 Mile), with Paul Tamsey (nothing I recognise in his work) and Eric Johnson (writing debut by the looks of it) who also worked on the screenplay as well as the story.
What Happened:
Two brothers with an overbearing (to say the least) mother (Melissa Leo) driving them to succeed, although being far more invested in the older brother Dicky (Christian Bale) than she was in Micky (Mark Wahlberg). Dicky was a boxer, a pretty good boxer, he knocked down Sugar Ray Robinson (a feat he won’t let anyone forget), but he is now a crack-head living in a delusion that he’s going to make his comeback. In the process of this alleged comeback he is training his younger brother Micky, but by training I mean being an iron anchor round Micky’s ankle dragging him down his own self destructive path. Sounds pretty clichéd and corny…. well…. because it is really (enjoyably so though). One of those ‘only in America’ stories, although I do believe it has more than the usual ‘triumph of the individual’ arc and has a stronger society based theme, but see below for this justification.
Theme/Message:
Why was he fighting? Why call it The Fighter? Alright yeah, he was boxing, but even this film - as direct and obvious as it is - isn't quite shallow enough for the word ‘fighter’ to simply mean somebody that fights. The most obvious application is to Dicky's fight against addiction rather than to Micky’s desire to achieve, as Micky, although he hits people a lot, never actually fights for anything. You never know what he actually wants; he constantly reiterates that he isn't bothered about boxing; he doesn't have some kind of insatiable need to be the greatest. If anything, all he wants to do is simply restore some pride in his family's and his neighbourhood’s soiled reputation. I got the sense that he felt an obligation or duty to his community, his family and his cultural origins. The supporting cast of characters is littered with failed or flawed individuals, or those who just didn’t take their opportunities, all of which are desperate to play these out through Micky. I couldn’t figure something out though, was his overly passive attitude in a film called ‘The Fighter’ a deliberately ironic statement; that sometimes fighting is actually doing something for the better of those around you, for society, because you can, rather than because you actually want to. If so, very good, but alternatively, it is possible that the film was supposed to convince me that he did give a shit, that he really did want to succeed for his own reasons, in which case it failed completely on me.
What it did particularly well:
Struggling with this one to be honest. There wasn’t anything 'particularly' bad about it, but I can’t say anything stood out as being ‘particularly’ good. Possibly the film’s ability to convince me that Micky was stuck in the middle; that he was constantly being torn in different directions. Also there were some great supporting performances, but see below for that.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Not so much unimpressed, it will sound as though I didn’t like the film, which isn’t the case, I did, but I think the whole film just didn’t quite reach potential. It suffered from being neither big and extravagant, nor small and personal. So it hit all the boxing film clichés in a pretty corny way, but it never managed to elevate them moments to be really emotive, in a way to sweep you up in the narrative. Like the boxing sequences for instance, were on a couple of occasions so corny I couldn’t take them seriously (the obvious commentary and the montage scene), whereas at other times it was brutal and engaging. This is the same problem I had with the family politics aspect, which at times was easily the best part of the film, yet there were parts where it got really daft and I could hardly believe that the different scenes were in the same film. One part in particular where all the sisters squeeze into a car to go and ‘sort out’ Micky’s girl fiend Charlene (Amy Adams). This should be an incredibly tense scene, but there is this over the top, almost slapstick music playing and they all squabble around into the car like they’re in a Carry On film or something; It was absolutely ridiculous. Similar to this, the crack heads were like cartoon characters; after having seen the likes of The Wire or Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever, there is no way you can take these characters seriously.
Performance of the film:
I know there is a lot of chatter about Christian Bale’s performance, which I thought was pretty goofy, until I saw the video footage of the real life Dicky, at which point it was clear that Bale had done a great job at capturing his eccentricities. Having said that, and considering that I didn’t know how accurate Bale’s depiction was and therefore it just came off looking a little wacky, I thought Amy Adams as Micky’s girlfriend Charlene was the best performance, even though her character slipped a little into insignificance as the film went into the last act.
Scene of the film:
The scene where Charlene first meets Micky’s family. Her standoff with the mother and the sisters in this scene was one of the contributing factors to me thinking that hers was the performance of the film. The acting from all in this scene was great; they all played their part, along with the way that scene was shot in order to create a claustrophobic and tense atmosphere. It was like a volcano about to erupt.
Final Word:
Sort of cannot believe that this has a best picture nomination. I know that my favourite films and academy’s interpretation of best films are not quite the same (don’t think they were ever likely to nominate Four Lions, Son of Babylon or Redline), but I see how the academy works and would have much rather seen Shutter Island or something get a look in. As for best director, controversially over Christopher Nolan... bemused is the word. Having said all that though, I quite liked it.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Hereafter (2010)
Viewing Context:
Cineworld on a Saturday afternoon. Tasha and Corey had gone to the Panto and I wasn’t exactly dying to go, so had a rare Saturday afternoon to myself.
Creators:
Directed by Clint Eastwood, surely I needn’t say more. I always have time for this man’s films, despite thinking that Changeling was pretty underwhelming and I was never inspired to see Invictus. But the man that helmed The Outlaw Josey Wales, Mystic River, Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby always deserves attention.
Written by Peter Morgan, who wrote Frost/Nixon, The Damned United and The Last King of Scotland. Frost/Nixon veing the highlight there.
What Happened:
Three stories from three different parts of the world, all dealing with issues of death in their own way. Matt Damon’s George Lonegan struggles to connect with anyone due to his gift/curse of being able to see and speak to the deceased loved ones of anyone he touches. The young Marcus in London is dealing with the loss of a loved one and Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) in Paris comes to terms with - and is increasingly intrigued by - her near death experience, where she caught a glimpse of what may be to come.
Theme/Message:
As well as its obvious themes of death and mortality, which was well served by featuring the three separate plot-lines; a poignant way of showing how these issues have very different manifestations, but are quite a unifying feature between all cultures.
As well as this obvious point, the film had a pretty anti-capitalist sentiment. This never seemed clunkily wedged in, but nor did it directly relate with the issues of mortality. It is possible that it is just one of those things, when a writer and/or director has a particular world view, they cannot help but apply it to their craft.
Marie works for a left wing news company, who highlight and criticise the excesses of capitalism. e.g. the exploitation of developing world labour. That very news company exposes its own double values as it appears to be more bothered about viewing figures and its image than it is for the values it claims to uphold. Marie’s involvement in this life and subsequent separation from it is symbolised through her billboard advertisement. Then there was George’s brother, who was obsessed with monetising and creaming profit out of George’s curse. Most of these features are not rammed down your throat, but are always prominent: Background issues of industrial relations and lay-offs, clips of news reporting on record bonuses and energy companies’ profits. Even a scene at a funeral, where it is clear that the vicar is keen to get this low attended budget funeral out of the way so he can get on with the next much more extravagant, well attended - not to mention higher paying - funeral, which is already waiting at the door as the grieving family are ushered out. Examples like this, where the incentives of ‘the market’ have entered such a personal domain are what sets this film up as firmly anti-capitalist (or at least the excessive state in which it currently exists).
What it did particularly well:
I thought it juggled the three plot-lines really well, but I am already pre-disposed to be in favour of films with more characters; it is just easier to get more points of view and angles in without crow-barring them in through a limited cast of characters. Having said that it, can be done wrong but I think this did it right, as there was a distinct point for each strand and they were all needed to complete the message it was trying to convey.
It also did a good job at highlighting the fragility of mortality by including both a natural disaster and a terrorist attack, both of which taking the characters unaware and reminding the viewer - through contemporary real-life events - how quickly and suddenly life can be taken away.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Having seen so many films recently with great use of music, the music in this film always seemed a little jarring, obtrusive, or like it was forcing me to think in a certain way at times. This manipulation should be much more subtle and go unnoticed in order to be successful.
Also, as good as the boys were at acting... when they weren’t talking, there were a couple of horrifically clunky lines of dialogue.
Performance of the film:
Performance of the film was Cécile De France (I couldn’t quite place her while watching but since learned that she was the girl in Switchblade Romance). She outclassed everyone in this film, including Matt Damon, who effortlessly played his part adequately but never really had the space to excel.
Scene of the film:
The opening scene really got the film off to a good start. I didn't see what was coming straight away and it really put up the stakes early on, introducing the theme of mortality. I was already invested in the character involved at this early stage and having read nothing about the film, I had no idea what was going to happen. Obviously you are already reading something and therefore this may not have as much of an effect on you.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Having three distinct, yet related plotlines, with three sets of characters that each individually engaged me. Plus, the fact that they all dealt with the same issue but from different perspectives was a good piece of storytelling.
Cineworld on a Saturday afternoon. Tasha and Corey had gone to the Panto and I wasn’t exactly dying to go, so had a rare Saturday afternoon to myself.
Creators:
Directed by Clint Eastwood, surely I needn’t say more. I always have time for this man’s films, despite thinking that Changeling was pretty underwhelming and I was never inspired to see Invictus. But the man that helmed The Outlaw Josey Wales, Mystic River, Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby always deserves attention.
Written by Peter Morgan, who wrote Frost/Nixon, The Damned United and The Last King of Scotland. Frost/Nixon veing the highlight there.
What Happened:
Three stories from three different parts of the world, all dealing with issues of death in their own way. Matt Damon’s George Lonegan struggles to connect with anyone due to his gift/curse of being able to see and speak to the deceased loved ones of anyone he touches. The young Marcus in London is dealing with the loss of a loved one and Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) in Paris comes to terms with - and is increasingly intrigued by - her near death experience, where she caught a glimpse of what may be to come.
Theme/Message:
As well as its obvious themes of death and mortality, which was well served by featuring the three separate plot-lines; a poignant way of showing how these issues have very different manifestations, but are quite a unifying feature between all cultures.
As well as this obvious point, the film had a pretty anti-capitalist sentiment. This never seemed clunkily wedged in, but nor did it directly relate with the issues of mortality. It is possible that it is just one of those things, when a writer and/or director has a particular world view, they cannot help but apply it to their craft.
Marie works for a left wing news company, who highlight and criticise the excesses of capitalism. e.g. the exploitation of developing world labour. That very news company exposes its own double values as it appears to be more bothered about viewing figures and its image than it is for the values it claims to uphold. Marie’s involvement in this life and subsequent separation from it is symbolised through her billboard advertisement. Then there was George’s brother, who was obsessed with monetising and creaming profit out of George’s curse. Most of these features are not rammed down your throat, but are always prominent: Background issues of industrial relations and lay-offs, clips of news reporting on record bonuses and energy companies’ profits. Even a scene at a funeral, where it is clear that the vicar is keen to get this low attended budget funeral out of the way so he can get on with the next much more extravagant, well attended - not to mention higher paying - funeral, which is already waiting at the door as the grieving family are ushered out. Examples like this, where the incentives of ‘the market’ have entered such a personal domain are what sets this film up as firmly anti-capitalist (or at least the excessive state in which it currently exists).
What it did particularly well:
I thought it juggled the three plot-lines really well, but I am already pre-disposed to be in favour of films with more characters; it is just easier to get more points of view and angles in without crow-barring them in through a limited cast of characters. Having said that it, can be done wrong but I think this did it right, as there was a distinct point for each strand and they were all needed to complete the message it was trying to convey.
It also did a good job at highlighting the fragility of mortality by including both a natural disaster and a terrorist attack, both of which taking the characters unaware and reminding the viewer - through contemporary real-life events - how quickly and suddenly life can be taken away.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Having seen so many films recently with great use of music, the music in this film always seemed a little jarring, obtrusive, or like it was forcing me to think in a certain way at times. This manipulation should be much more subtle and go unnoticed in order to be successful.
Also, as good as the boys were at acting... when they weren’t talking, there were a couple of horrifically clunky lines of dialogue.
Performance of the film:
Performance of the film was Cécile De France (I couldn’t quite place her while watching but since learned that she was the girl in Switchblade Romance). She outclassed everyone in this film, including Matt Damon, who effortlessly played his part adequately but never really had the space to excel.
Scene of the film:
The opening scene really got the film off to a good start. I didn't see what was coming straight away and it really put up the stakes early on, introducing the theme of mortality. I was already invested in the character involved at this early stage and having read nothing about the film, I had no idea what was going to happen. Obviously you are already reading something and therefore this may not have as much of an effect on you.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Having three distinct, yet related plotlines, with three sets of characters that each individually engaged me. Plus, the fact that they all dealt with the same issue but from different perspectives was a good piece of storytelling.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
The Mechanic (2011) - A crass American equivalent to Corbijn's European The American, if that isn't too ironic
Viewing context:
Cineworld Bradford + Jason Statham action vehicle + opening weekend + 10pm showing = big ‘gangsta’ wannabe rude-boy turnout. Who, it must be said, were all really well behaved; testament to the film’s entertainment value.
Creators:
Directed by Simon West, director of the legendary Con Air (didn’t know this before viewing; no wonder I was so pleasantly surprised)
Story and Screenplay by Lewis John Carlino, writer of the 1972 version (Ignorantly, I had previously no idea of this original’s existance). Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) also contributing to the screenplay
What Happened:
Plain and simple action/hit-man genre film. Jason Statham’s Arthur Bishop takes under his wing Steve McKenna (Ben Foster), the son of his old friend/mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) - who also happens to be his last hit. Bishop tries to bring him up to his regimented standard, but the youthful, unruly McKenna has his own eccentric style. Plenty of over-masculine shenanigans and brutal deaths ensue.
Theme/Message:
As a non-ironic display of machismo it is important to concede that most of the point of this film existing is for the spectacle of things blowing up, brains blowing out and screwdrivers rammed through faces. Reading past this a little, I thought that there was a thinly veiled idea that both ends of a spectrum are not healthy. There seemed to be an effort to promote the balance between the overly formulaic control freak (Bishop) and the chaotic, out of control degenerate (McKenna), but this theory didn’t hold up toward the end.
I don’t know if having one of the most physically intimidating and brutish displays of might come from a gay hit-man was some way of counteracting its unapologetic masculinity or not, but it was something to note.
What it did particularly well:
The brutality really was entertaining. I was expecting Transporter levels of action, but that wasn’t what the film was about. It was a little slower paced than that, but with the violence in the action sequences really ramped up and very graphic. The two leads were really crassly entertaining; never did the uber-machismo bother me, as it sometimes tends to (I’m looking at you Expendables). It was like a really unsophisticated version of Corbijn’s The American (complete with ridiculously attractive prostitute). In fact, considering The American was a very European film - itself an ironic concept - this was like an American version of The American - Irony overdrive.
The film was paced really well too; both the action and the character development (yes it did have a little) were nicely spread throughout so that there were no lulls.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Certain plot holes that were a little unforgivable, e.g. when they explained that McKenna was able to make a connection with their next mark because this is his first job. Really, the son of one of the biggest names in hit-man organisation wouldn’t ring any alarms to a professional doing some background checks?
Performance of the film:
Ben Foster was really something. Still has that slightly psychotic look in his eyes that he had back in Six Feet Under, but he really impresses as a competent and charismatic action star, with his own unique edge. (He was also my best performance of 30 Days of Night)
Scene of the film:
Steve McKenna blasting his way out of a pretty dire situation and thus convincing me of both the character’s elite status in this film and of the young actor’s potential to be a great action star (he can actually even act)
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Brutality of the action.
Cineworld Bradford + Jason Statham action vehicle + opening weekend + 10pm showing = big ‘gangsta’ wannabe rude-boy turnout. Who, it must be said, were all really well behaved; testament to the film’s entertainment value.
Creators:
Directed by Simon West, director of the legendary Con Air (didn’t know this before viewing; no wonder I was so pleasantly surprised)
Story and Screenplay by Lewis John Carlino, writer of the 1972 version (Ignorantly, I had previously no idea of this original’s existance). Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) also contributing to the screenplay
What Happened:
Plain and simple action/hit-man genre film. Jason Statham’s Arthur Bishop takes under his wing Steve McKenna (Ben Foster), the son of his old friend/mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) - who also happens to be his last hit. Bishop tries to bring him up to his regimented standard, but the youthful, unruly McKenna has his own eccentric style. Plenty of over-masculine shenanigans and brutal deaths ensue.
Theme/Message:
As a non-ironic display of machismo it is important to concede that most of the point of this film existing is for the spectacle of things blowing up, brains blowing out and screwdrivers rammed through faces. Reading past this a little, I thought that there was a thinly veiled idea that both ends of a spectrum are not healthy. There seemed to be an effort to promote the balance between the overly formulaic control freak (Bishop) and the chaotic, out of control degenerate (McKenna), but this theory didn’t hold up toward the end.
I don’t know if having one of the most physically intimidating and brutish displays of might come from a gay hit-man was some way of counteracting its unapologetic masculinity or not, but it was something to note.
What it did particularly well:
The brutality really was entertaining. I was expecting Transporter levels of action, but that wasn’t what the film was about. It was a little slower paced than that, but with the violence in the action sequences really ramped up and very graphic. The two leads were really crassly entertaining; never did the uber-machismo bother me, as it sometimes tends to (I’m looking at you Expendables). It was like a really unsophisticated version of Corbijn’s The American (complete with ridiculously attractive prostitute). In fact, considering The American was a very European film - itself an ironic concept - this was like an American version of The American - Irony overdrive.
The film was paced really well too; both the action and the character development (yes it did have a little) were nicely spread throughout so that there were no lulls.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Certain plot holes that were a little unforgivable, e.g. when they explained that McKenna was able to make a connection with their next mark because this is his first job. Really, the son of one of the biggest names in hit-man organisation wouldn’t ring any alarms to a professional doing some background checks?
Performance of the film:
Ben Foster was really something. Still has that slightly psychotic look in his eyes that he had back in Six Feet Under, but he really impresses as a competent and charismatic action star, with his own unique edge. (He was also my best performance of 30 Days of Night)
Scene of the film:
Steve McKenna blasting his way out of a pretty dire situation and thus convincing me of both the character’s elite status in this film and of the young actor’s potential to be a great action star (he can actually even act)
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
Brutality of the action.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
UK Premiere of Chris Morris’ Four Lions at the 16th annual Bradford International Film Festival.
The UK premiere of Four Lions was attended by three of the lead actors, two of the writers, and the writer-director/spiritual father of the project: Chris Morris. When introducing the film he explained that prior to the first screening for friends and family his wife told him: "Even if it's really shit, well done; you’ve made a film". This caused the first eruption of laughter with many to follow throughout the evening.
Morris explained that holding the UK premiere in Bradford felt like a spiritual homecoming for the film; many of the cast are from Bradford and a great majority of the research was compiled here. Except the extremist parts, he explained jokily and not being one to shy away from controversy added “that was in Blackburn”.
The film itself can be approached from two angles; as a comedy and as an important contemporary cultural text. As a comedy it succeeded beyond expectations. Part of the pleasure surely came from the spectacle of the event; a sold out screening with cast and crew present along with regional cultural references that resonated infectiously with many in the audience, but this can take nothing away from the many levels of comedy at work within this film. There were elements of overacted screwball comedy; there were underplayed facial expressions and reactions that added a wealth of character and personality to the comedy; further still, there were elaborately constructed situational set pieces. All these elements along with explosively dynamic dialogue that was well delivered combined to send the audience into tears of laughter.
In a separate issue to the comedy there was the cultural commentary, which is always going to draw attention when it is such a taboo subject as Jihad: a word that is often avoided at all costs. The film unapologetically offers a plethora of questions around motivation, meaning and justification which it never falls into the trap of giving patronizing, melodramatic answers to nor does it preach any solutions.
The many characters were all utilised to give different points of views and different perspectives; the main protagonist Omar (Riz Ahmed) was fully fleshed out, with the other characters used to offer differing ideas and obviously the above mentioned comic relief. Omar’s brother for instance had such a minor part but raises questions around what he considers a true following of Islam, which he promotes as peaceful, but is then exposed as intrinsically sexist due to the way he practically locks his wife in a cupboard. That being said, Islam itself was to a large extent sidelined and the film much more overtly dealt with identification and senses of belonging for a demographic that has partial but not complete grips on the many angles of where its identity is created; this includes Barry (Nigel Lindsay), the Caucasian convert amongst the group.
Four Lions is easily funny enough to reach a very wide audience, where viewers will be left without answers and therefore forced to discuss these issues, which are too often brushed under the proverbial rug.
Post film Q&A
Questions were asked by the Festival’s artistic director: Tony Earnshaw, who stumbled into a little trouble when he got one of the actors’ names wrong, to which Riz Ahmed sarcastically replied “well yeah, we all look the same”.
Morris answered that no subject is taboo in comedy; it is not the subject matter that is important, it is getting the comedy in that subject matter right.
With regards to his inspiration, he explained that it came from almost ten years ago when the massive questions were raised around a so called ‘war on terror’; people soon became tired and underwhelmed with the generic, repetitive and emotionless response by the mainstream media. Morris added that Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad, 2005), which was a dramatic film with terrorist themes had one scene in it that had an element of humour and this was enough to tell Morris that this project would work.
With regard to criticism, both from the Muslim community and victims of terrorism: Morris anticipates that he will get more criticism from people thinking that other people will be offended than he will from people that are actually in a position to be offended under the criteria that the people complaining set out.
The structure of having three writers was championed, having the ability to bounce ideas off of each other and stop each other straying down routes that are not going to work. Further to this there was the ability of the actors to then improvise, adding their experiences as British-Asians. That being said, Arsher Ali who plays Hassan insisted that the script was so well researched that there was little need to apply this freedom.
In reference to the film functioning as a buddy movie, Morris said that from the research he had conducted he understood that within these extremist cells: "the dynamics of the group were more about group love rather than outward hatred".
Regarding an American response, Morris explained that he has learned that you cannot generalise the audience and that both Sundance and South by Southwest received the film openly.
Many in the audience were disappointed that the Q&A session was never opened to the crowd; this was an ironically safe move by the festival considering the controversial nature of the film and its willingness to ask questions. If there were questions open to the public in the later showing, that would be convenient as I was informed that there was no space for press in this screening as we were moved to the earlier one.
Morris explained that holding the UK premiere in Bradford felt like a spiritual homecoming for the film; many of the cast are from Bradford and a great majority of the research was compiled here. Except the extremist parts, he explained jokily and not being one to shy away from controversy added “that was in Blackburn”.
The film itself can be approached from two angles; as a comedy and as an important contemporary cultural text. As a comedy it succeeded beyond expectations. Part of the pleasure surely came from the spectacle of the event; a sold out screening with cast and crew present along with regional cultural references that resonated infectiously with many in the audience, but this can take nothing away from the many levels of comedy at work within this film. There were elements of overacted screwball comedy; there were underplayed facial expressions and reactions that added a wealth of character and personality to the comedy; further still, there were elaborately constructed situational set pieces. All these elements along with explosively dynamic dialogue that was well delivered combined to send the audience into tears of laughter.
In a separate issue to the comedy there was the cultural commentary, which is always going to draw attention when it is such a taboo subject as Jihad: a word that is often avoided at all costs. The film unapologetically offers a plethora of questions around motivation, meaning and justification which it never falls into the trap of giving patronizing, melodramatic answers to nor does it preach any solutions.
The many characters were all utilised to give different points of views and different perspectives; the main protagonist Omar (Riz Ahmed) was fully fleshed out, with the other characters used to offer differing ideas and obviously the above mentioned comic relief. Omar’s brother for instance had such a minor part but raises questions around what he considers a true following of Islam, which he promotes as peaceful, but is then exposed as intrinsically sexist due to the way he practically locks his wife in a cupboard. That being said, Islam itself was to a large extent sidelined and the film much more overtly dealt with identification and senses of belonging for a demographic that has partial but not complete grips on the many angles of where its identity is created; this includes Barry (Nigel Lindsay), the Caucasian convert amongst the group.
Four Lions is easily funny enough to reach a very wide audience, where viewers will be left without answers and therefore forced to discuss these issues, which are too often brushed under the proverbial rug.
Post film Q&A
Questions were asked by the Festival’s artistic director: Tony Earnshaw, who stumbled into a little trouble when he got one of the actors’ names wrong, to which Riz Ahmed sarcastically replied “well yeah, we all look the same”.
Morris answered that no subject is taboo in comedy; it is not the subject matter that is important, it is getting the comedy in that subject matter right.
With regards to his inspiration, he explained that it came from almost ten years ago when the massive questions were raised around a so called ‘war on terror’; people soon became tired and underwhelmed with the generic, repetitive and emotionless response by the mainstream media. Morris added that Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad, 2005), which was a dramatic film with terrorist themes had one scene in it that had an element of humour and this was enough to tell Morris that this project would work.
With regard to criticism, both from the Muslim community and victims of terrorism: Morris anticipates that he will get more criticism from people thinking that other people will be offended than he will from people that are actually in a position to be offended under the criteria that the people complaining set out.
The structure of having three writers was championed, having the ability to bounce ideas off of each other and stop each other straying down routes that are not going to work. Further to this there was the ability of the actors to then improvise, adding their experiences as British-Asians. That being said, Arsher Ali who plays Hassan insisted that the script was so well researched that there was little need to apply this freedom.
In reference to the film functioning as a buddy movie, Morris said that from the research he had conducted he understood that within these extremist cells: "the dynamics of the group were more about group love rather than outward hatred".
Regarding an American response, Morris explained that he has learned that you cannot generalise the audience and that both Sundance and South by Southwest received the film openly.
Many in the audience were disappointed that the Q&A session was never opened to the crowd; this was an ironically safe move by the festival considering the controversial nature of the film and its willingness to ask questions. If there were questions open to the public in the later showing, that would be convenient as I was informed that there was no space for press in this screening as we were moved to the earlier one.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Bradford International Film Festival - The Shine Short Film Award
Below is a list of the films that were entered for this year’s Shine Short Film Award at the Bradford International Film Festival. I must say right from the outset that my expectations were not only exceeded but completely annihilated; I expected that one may blow me away and most to be unimportant or actually offensively bad. I don’t see why I had to have such a negative outlook, but they really exposed me for the idiot I am. I have left a little of my musings on each one along with which one I think should win come this Sunday. I wanted to get this up and give anybody who has seen them chance to comment before the award is announced on Sunday. I have included a link to the synopsis as I neither have the space nor the time to go through them, plus this is really intended for those who have already seen them.
Crescendo Pierre Terade, Didier Woldemard - France
The overall message was one that I very easily ascribe to: fuck the narcissistic alpha male and fuck the system (the colourful language here is necessary to capture the rage within the lead character). By killing her abusive narcissistic boyfriend and taking over his drug trade, it could be read that she will simply become a new version of him, thus creating a cycle, but I think this would be a reductive stereotype that drug dealers = bad. I would also argue that the film takes the same stance as me by showing the individual buying the drugs in the middle of the school to be an upstanding member of society, not the clichéd council estate dwelling drug user. For me it showed that this was the only way of her establishing her own agency and caring for her child, bearing in mind the film showed how the state had already foiled her efforts to make a so called ‘honest’ living.
Death of a Double Act Christine Entwhistle - GB
From the best of the bunch to the worst of the bunch. In a very strong programme this film seemed out of place. Its message was admirable and its reveal toward the end gave it something interesting to say but its delivery was not enjoyable to watch at all. If it was mourning the death of a certain type of performance, what was shown onscreen did nothing to justify its preservation.
La Preda (The Prey) Francesco Apice - Italy
If my gut instinct didn’t tell me that Crescendo was the pick of these films, then La Preda would have been a really strong contender. It is a beautifully shot film that also managed to conjure up a tremendous amount of suspense in such a short amount of time. Not only that, but it portrayed some very complex relationships and asked enough questions to leave you thinking, whilst also offering a whole tale.
The Man With All the Marbles Hans Montelious - Sweden
This film was easily good enough to prove its worth in this collection of shorts, but didn’t quite reach the quality of the best ones. Watching the two brothers face off, both with the marbles but more importantly through their sharp wits and dialogue made for an enjoyable watch.
An Ode to Modern Democracy and the Hairdresser Matt Strachan - GB
A very fun little film that showed an unspoken truth: that it is the semi-skilled, working, everyday person with real character and a real attitude that makes a difference in the country. Not simply the bland, unoriginal world leaders who feel the need to have the same boring and adequate hair cut to fit perfectly into their uninspired existence.
Toshi Jon Gilbert - GB
This film was carried by the underplayed performance by Kentaro Suyama as Toshi. This is not to take anything away from the rest of the film; the script was well written; the directing brought everything together nicely and the tale was well paced, but it was the tremendous central performance that really made it stand out.
Under God Richard Farmer - USA
This film started stronger than it ended; it lost credibility for me when the computer – when asked is there a god? - said ‘there is now’. The rest of the film was stylised but plausible and was asking some interesting questions as to whether a world leader should choose science and knowledge or military might, therefore the implausible answer given by the computer was at odds with this. And undermined everything else it was trying to say.
When the Hurlyburly's Done Alex Eslam, Hanna Maria Heidrich - Germany
This film had a very high production value and maybe it is just my disposition, but along with this production value I fear (though unfoundedly with no evidence) that there was a large budget. I also fear that this may give the film an advantage over some of the other films, yet I thought it was a lot more style than substance. I felt that many of the other films asked more questions and had more interesting things to say. That being said, if it is a talent of the filmmakers to have gone out and secured this many sponsors and this much funding, then maybe they do deserve something for it.
I anticipate that this film will win the prize for its high production value.
Yellow Cake Nick Cross - Canada
It was fantastic to see an animation in here and this was indeed a strong animation; better than most animations in fact, that you would see at an animation festival. The film perfectly portrays the kind of class struggle, oppression and absurdity that dominated the 20th century and through a rampant western consumerism still exists by economically holding developing nations to ransom. The animation style was fitting; a pastiche of the western animation style of early Hollywood, which would have no issue portraying Bugs Bunny shooting Native Americans by the dozen.
I hope that this condensed summary of my thoughts sheds some light on the state of this competition. I cannot stress enough that this was a very solid line-up of short films and my hat comes off to the Festival organisers.
I thought I would make a list of preference just to see where the prize goes to and where that film places on this list.
1. Crescendo
2. La Preda
3. Toshi
4. Yellow Cakes
5. When the Hurlyburly’s Done
6. The Man with all the Marbles
7. An Ode to Modern Democracy and the Hairdresser
8. Under God
9. Death of a Double Act
Crescendo Pierre Terade, Didier Woldemard - France
The overall message was one that I very easily ascribe to: fuck the narcissistic alpha male and fuck the system (the colourful language here is necessary to capture the rage within the lead character). By killing her abusive narcissistic boyfriend and taking over his drug trade, it could be read that she will simply become a new version of him, thus creating a cycle, but I think this would be a reductive stereotype that drug dealers = bad. I would also argue that the film takes the same stance as me by showing the individual buying the drugs in the middle of the school to be an upstanding member of society, not the clichéd council estate dwelling drug user. For me it showed that this was the only way of her establishing her own agency and caring for her child, bearing in mind the film showed how the state had already foiled her efforts to make a so called ‘honest’ living.
Death of a Double Act Christine Entwhistle - GB
From the best of the bunch to the worst of the bunch. In a very strong programme this film seemed out of place. Its message was admirable and its reveal toward the end gave it something interesting to say but its delivery was not enjoyable to watch at all. If it was mourning the death of a certain type of performance, what was shown onscreen did nothing to justify its preservation.
La Preda (The Prey) Francesco Apice - Italy
If my gut instinct didn’t tell me that Crescendo was the pick of these films, then La Preda would have been a really strong contender. It is a beautifully shot film that also managed to conjure up a tremendous amount of suspense in such a short amount of time. Not only that, but it portrayed some very complex relationships and asked enough questions to leave you thinking, whilst also offering a whole tale.
The Man With All the Marbles Hans Montelious - Sweden
This film was easily good enough to prove its worth in this collection of shorts, but didn’t quite reach the quality of the best ones. Watching the two brothers face off, both with the marbles but more importantly through their sharp wits and dialogue made for an enjoyable watch.
An Ode to Modern Democracy and the Hairdresser Matt Strachan - GB
A very fun little film that showed an unspoken truth: that it is the semi-skilled, working, everyday person with real character and a real attitude that makes a difference in the country. Not simply the bland, unoriginal world leaders who feel the need to have the same boring and adequate hair cut to fit perfectly into their uninspired existence.
Toshi Jon Gilbert - GB
This film was carried by the underplayed performance by Kentaro Suyama as Toshi. This is not to take anything away from the rest of the film; the script was well written; the directing brought everything together nicely and the tale was well paced, but it was the tremendous central performance that really made it stand out.
Under God Richard Farmer - USA
This film started stronger than it ended; it lost credibility for me when the computer – when asked is there a god? - said ‘there is now’. The rest of the film was stylised but plausible and was asking some interesting questions as to whether a world leader should choose science and knowledge or military might, therefore the implausible answer given by the computer was at odds with this. And undermined everything else it was trying to say.
When the Hurlyburly's Done Alex Eslam, Hanna Maria Heidrich - Germany
This film had a very high production value and maybe it is just my disposition, but along with this production value I fear (though unfoundedly with no evidence) that there was a large budget. I also fear that this may give the film an advantage over some of the other films, yet I thought it was a lot more style than substance. I felt that many of the other films asked more questions and had more interesting things to say. That being said, if it is a talent of the filmmakers to have gone out and secured this many sponsors and this much funding, then maybe they do deserve something for it.
I anticipate that this film will win the prize for its high production value.
Yellow Cake Nick Cross - Canada
It was fantastic to see an animation in here and this was indeed a strong animation; better than most animations in fact, that you would see at an animation festival. The film perfectly portrays the kind of class struggle, oppression and absurdity that dominated the 20th century and through a rampant western consumerism still exists by economically holding developing nations to ransom. The animation style was fitting; a pastiche of the western animation style of early Hollywood, which would have no issue portraying Bugs Bunny shooting Native Americans by the dozen.
I hope that this condensed summary of my thoughts sheds some light on the state of this competition. I cannot stress enough that this was a very solid line-up of short films and my hat comes off to the Festival organisers.
I thought I would make a list of preference just to see where the prize goes to and where that film places on this list.
1. Crescendo
2. La Preda
3. Toshi
4. Yellow Cakes
5. When the Hurlyburly’s Done
6. The Man with all the Marbles
7. An Ode to Modern Democracy and the Hairdresser
8. Under God
9. Death of a Double Act
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)