Viewing context:
Took Corey down on a Saturday morning. We hadn't seen the first film to which this is a sequel, nor had I read anything about it, so I was going in pretty blind
Creators:
Directed by one of my favourite people in cinema: Luc Besson, who has a hand in pretty much anything that has action in it and is any good, including Fifth Element, Ronin, Leon, The Transporter films, The Taxi films, and the District 13 films. I didn’t have a clue about him having anything to do with this (as I said, I went in pretty blind) until the credits rolled. Besson also wrote the film along with the writer of the book on which it is based.
What Happened:
Some kid wants to go visit the tiny little pixie-like creatures that live in the garden. This is a sequel and Arthur (Freddie Highmore) has already been acquainted with all these little fellas and is very much looking forward to being reacquainted with the beautiful princess Selinia. The thing is though, if Arthur can get small and go visit the little people world, then the sinister Emperor Maltazard, apparent lord of the underworld reckons on that he can get big and enter the real world.
Theme/Messge:
Pretty basic reinforcement of good vs evil, along with the ‘leave the natural world alone, it is beautiful’ sort of eco-message. But the more subtle touches were the father/son acceptance themes, as Arthur’s parents were so distant from him; not terribly parents or anything, just didn’t get him. In this absence, the boy develops a solid bond with his grandfather, a theme that seems quite prominent in children’s narrative (most notable at the minute being Ben 10). What added a little more depth to this relationship is how there was a mirror version of it going on with the antogonists as the loutish, loveably naive brute Darkos is constantly seeking approval from his maniachal father Maltazard.
What it did particularly well:
Wonderfully adventurous and whimsical family adventure film. Loved the mix of CGI garden world, real life house world and the combination of the two as the film progressed. A nice visual way to emphasise the differnece between the two worlds.
Really interesting, fleshed out and charismatic villains. Not only were they everything that villains should be, but as mentioned above, they really added to the depth of the father figure/acceptance themes running throughout.
Unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There really were elements that made it seem like it had beeen hurridly adapted from a book or that it scratchily referenced the previous film. There were tiny inconstencies, but they were all completely forgiven due to it's ability to capture a really adventurous spirit.
Performance of the film:
Once again, gotta go with the villain, Lou Reed as Maltazar
Scene of the film:
All the monster things wreaking havok in the ‘human world’
Final Word:
Great sense of adventure and whimsical, epic childrens’ storytelling. Corey loved it.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
30 Days of Night (2007)
Viewing context:
FilmFour - Saturday evening with Tasha
Creators:
Directed by David Slade, who directed Hard Candy, which was leagues better than this. He also directed Twilight: Eclipse.
Screenplay by the writer of the comic on which the film is based, Steve Niles. He seems to be making a habit of adapting his comics into films with him writing the screenplays, which I would much rather see than somebody butchering it. He was helped by Stuart Beattie, a genre film writer who has been involved in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as well as Collateral and G.I. Joe
What Happened:
Up in Alaska, the period of 30 days without daylight is coming up, so only essential personel stay to work while the rest of the townspeople migrate south. Wouldn’t this be quite the perfect scenario for a pack of Russian vampires to roam free from the fatal rays of sun for an extended period; enough time to devour all the workers who have stuck around maybe?
Themes/message:
Not a great deal really. In the genre rules of variation and repetition, this was much more repetition than variation, hitting all the correct notes. It tried to hammer home the need to do whatever is necessary to save your loved ones and in doing so, save our own humanity, but it didn’t quite come off as the ending sort of capitulated.
What it did particularly well:
Inventive deaths and other such related spectacle. Plus, it really was a good looking film and captured the atmosphere of the diminishing light and then the town gone dark.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never became anything more than OK. Never challenged anything, had any interesting ideas or characters, yet was never particularly bad either. The ending though, did completely unravel.
Performance of the film:
If anything I would give it to Ben Foster for his little role (was in Six Feet Under, has The Mechanic coming up with Jason Statham and played the villain in Hostage).
Scene of the film:
One of the kills; probably the one where the man, half turning into a vampire, gets all tangled up in the swings, then hacked up by Josh Hartnett’s character
Final Word:
It looked pretty good
FilmFour - Saturday evening with Tasha
Creators:
Directed by David Slade, who directed Hard Candy, which was leagues better than this. He also directed Twilight: Eclipse.
Screenplay by the writer of the comic on which the film is based, Steve Niles. He seems to be making a habit of adapting his comics into films with him writing the screenplays, which I would much rather see than somebody butchering it. He was helped by Stuart Beattie, a genre film writer who has been involved in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as well as Collateral and G.I. Joe
What Happened:
Up in Alaska, the period of 30 days without daylight is coming up, so only essential personel stay to work while the rest of the townspeople migrate south. Wouldn’t this be quite the perfect scenario for a pack of Russian vampires to roam free from the fatal rays of sun for an extended period; enough time to devour all the workers who have stuck around maybe?
Themes/message:
Not a great deal really. In the genre rules of variation and repetition, this was much more repetition than variation, hitting all the correct notes. It tried to hammer home the need to do whatever is necessary to save your loved ones and in doing so, save our own humanity, but it didn’t quite come off as the ending sort of capitulated.
What it did particularly well:
Inventive deaths and other such related spectacle. Plus, it really was a good looking film and captured the atmosphere of the diminishing light and then the town gone dark.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never became anything more than OK. Never challenged anything, had any interesting ideas or characters, yet was never particularly bad either. The ending though, did completely unravel.
Performance of the film:
If anything I would give it to Ben Foster for his little role (was in Six Feet Under, has The Mechanic coming up with Jason Statham and played the villain in Hostage).
Scene of the film:
One of the kills; probably the one where the man, half turning into a vampire, gets all tangled up in the swings, then hacked up by Josh Hartnett’s character
Final Word:
It looked pretty good
Monday, 14 February 2011
Gentlement Prefer Blondes (1953)
Viewing Context:
Tasha's LoveFilm pick. I wasn't even going to watch it, but having caught the first five minutes or so, I got sucked in.
Creators:
Directed by Howard Hawkes; Director - amongst many other films - of The Big Sleep, which I really want to watch, but at the minute I only have the colourised version and would prefer the black and white one. Might even try read the book first for this one. Screnplay by Charles Lederer (His Girl Friday)
What Happened:
Two friends who couldn't be much more different; the blonde, textbook materialist, Lorelei Lee (Marilyn Monroe), only interested in men for their wealth, is contrasted against Dorothy Shaw (Jane Russell), the hard nosed independent woman who is not bothered about wealth and status in the slightest. The two girls are singers and Lee’s fiance pays for them to take the boat to Paris. Shaw, as chaperon for the trip, is instantly distracted by a team of athletes allowing Lee the freedom to seek out even wealthier men, whilst trying to set up Shaw with a real (in her terms, meaning rich) man.
What do I believe it was thematically about:
Commented - though without harsh judgement - on the state of materialism. It made Lorelei out to be a shallow gold digger, but one that wasn’t vindictive; she was in fact quite sweet and charming and though wily and cunning, never particularly manipulative. By contrasting her against Dorothy, who was the yin to her yang, we see two very different, but very assertive and well rounded women. Both have their own issues, but relatively in control of their life, making their own decisions. The fact that they both make very different decisions yet are both treated the same within the narrative just shows how the film does not put forward any kind of ideal vision of womanhood.
What it did particularly well:
Scripting: Not only was the dialogue captivating, as characters knocked about the witty banter effortlessly, but the pacing of the whole film, the placement of any set pieces allowed the film to just seamlessly flow through. The sing-song set pieces were smoothly woven into the rest of the film, whilst still being big and spectacular (Sweeney Todd could learn from this).
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Although I do like the fact that the film was never preachy and that Dorothy weighed up any shortcomings of Lorelei, I still cannot get passed just how much it accepted, condoned and promoted a rampant, hedonistic, materialistic consumerism.
Performance of the film:
Jane Russel did sort of blow me away, but it was Monroe that impressed me the most, with her ability to convincingly play on the beautiful, yet ditsy and helpless blonde routine so convincingly, as if she has no idea what is going on around her, yet she is in fact at least two steps ahead of pretty much every other character.
Scene of the film:
Building on from what I said above about Monroe’s performance and how strong the scripting was, the best scene for me was when she convinced the waiter to ensure that a certain rich individual would be at her table for dinner. In this scene, the audience was shown just how well she could not only play the game, but make the rules up as she goes. She is so wily.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The double act of the two leads; the way they both play off of each other, which is thanks to the script writing, creating these characters and crafting the situations they find themselves in. The performances from the pair of them had to be at this high level to carry the sophisticated script. Finally, the choreographers/musicians were responsible for heightening the spectacle and the grandeur of the couple.
Tasha's LoveFilm pick. I wasn't even going to watch it, but having caught the first five minutes or so, I got sucked in.
Creators:
Directed by Howard Hawkes; Director - amongst many other films - of The Big Sleep, which I really want to watch, but at the minute I only have the colourised version and would prefer the black and white one. Might even try read the book first for this one. Screnplay by Charles Lederer (His Girl Friday)
What Happened:
Two friends who couldn't be much more different; the blonde, textbook materialist, Lorelei Lee (Marilyn Monroe), only interested in men for their wealth, is contrasted against Dorothy Shaw (Jane Russell), the hard nosed independent woman who is not bothered about wealth and status in the slightest. The two girls are singers and Lee’s fiance pays for them to take the boat to Paris. Shaw, as chaperon for the trip, is instantly distracted by a team of athletes allowing Lee the freedom to seek out even wealthier men, whilst trying to set up Shaw with a real (in her terms, meaning rich) man.
What do I believe it was thematically about:
Commented - though without harsh judgement - on the state of materialism. It made Lorelei out to be a shallow gold digger, but one that wasn’t vindictive; she was in fact quite sweet and charming and though wily and cunning, never particularly manipulative. By contrasting her against Dorothy, who was the yin to her yang, we see two very different, but very assertive and well rounded women. Both have their own issues, but relatively in control of their life, making their own decisions. The fact that they both make very different decisions yet are both treated the same within the narrative just shows how the film does not put forward any kind of ideal vision of womanhood.
What it did particularly well:
Scripting: Not only was the dialogue captivating, as characters knocked about the witty banter effortlessly, but the pacing of the whole film, the placement of any set pieces allowed the film to just seamlessly flow through. The sing-song set pieces were smoothly woven into the rest of the film, whilst still being big and spectacular (Sweeney Todd could learn from this).
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Although I do like the fact that the film was never preachy and that Dorothy weighed up any shortcomings of Lorelei, I still cannot get passed just how much it accepted, condoned and promoted a rampant, hedonistic, materialistic consumerism.
Performance of the film:
Jane Russel did sort of blow me away, but it was Monroe that impressed me the most, with her ability to convincingly play on the beautiful, yet ditsy and helpless blonde routine so convincingly, as if she has no idea what is going on around her, yet she is in fact at least two steps ahead of pretty much every other character.
Scene of the film:
Building on from what I said above about Monroe’s performance and how strong the scripting was, the best scene for me was when she convinced the waiter to ensure that a certain rich individual would be at her table for dinner. In this scene, the audience was shown just how well she could not only play the game, but make the rules up as she goes. She is so wily.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The double act of the two leads; the way they both play off of each other, which is thanks to the script writing, creating these characters and crafting the situations they find themselves in. The performances from the pair of them had to be at this high level to carry the sophisticated script. Finally, the choreographers/musicians were responsible for heightening the spectacle and the grandeur of the couple.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Sweeney Todd (2007) - At least it isn't as bad as Alice and Willy Wonka
Viewing context:
Film4. Had it on the +box for a while, but was a little resistant to watch it after feeling so emotionally numb after seeing both the Willy Wonka and the Alice films.
Creators:
Directed by Tim Burton who has me viciously divided internally. I still have a lot of love for Beetlejuice, Mars Attacks and the Batmans. I LOVE Corpse Bride (definitely spurred on by my son’s love for it and incessantly repeated viewings). Yet, I really cannot stand his newer films - Willy Wonka and Alice. Haven’t yet seen, but fully intend to watch Big Fish. Screenplay by John Logan, who has written the upcoming Rango, which I am keen to see with Corey. He also wrote The Aviator and had a hand in the Gladiator screenplay
What Happened:
Johnny Depp’s Benjamin Barker returns to London under the alias of Sweeney Todd after a life in exile. He intends to exact revenge on the crooked judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who raped his wife and was the reason that Barker was sent away. Teaming up with Helena Bonham Carter’s Mrs Lovett, he supplies the fresh meat that she needs to liven up her pie shop.
Themes/Message:
Although it was mostly spectacle, it did have some thematic points. Mrs Lovett and Todd represent the skilled working classes: a baker and a hairdresser; both representing entrepreneurial sensibilities and have to work for a living. In the period in which the film is set, anybody well-off enough to pay for their shave must be part of the middle classes, most clearly embodied by Todd’s original inspiration for this killing spree, judge Turpin. Therefore Todd has no qualms with dispatching these individuals to the meat grinder, whilst biding his time for the judge himself. The song when they hatched the plan was inspired by seeing these social types (Lawyers, Vicars, Bankers, etc) outside on the streets, walking around as if greater than the common man.
What it did particularly well:
Once it got going, the spectacle of some of the scenes was entertaining. Bonham-Carter’s character, I actually really like, which quite surprised me.
Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Couldn’t help going in biased against the Depp-Carter-Burton triangle after severely disliking Alice and Willy Wonka. This prejudice was not helped by the sterile opening and Depp’s first song, which was the most uncinematic of a pretty uncinematic bunch of musical numbers. Although there were a couple of good numbers, most were too static and seemed forced. Considering I had just seen The Princess and the Frog and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, both films where these things came across much more fluid and organic, I was pretty disappointed on the whole.
Performance of the film:
Sacha Baron Cohen as the fraudulently uber-Italian rival barber
Scene of the film:
The introduction of Sacha Baron Cohen as the rival barber was the point that injected life into the film, which it managed to maintain up until the final act where it unravels a little.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The couple of songs that it got right were great (they were just too few)
Film4. Had it on the +box for a while, but was a little resistant to watch it after feeling so emotionally numb after seeing both the Willy Wonka and the Alice films.
Creators:
Directed by Tim Burton who has me viciously divided internally. I still have a lot of love for Beetlejuice, Mars Attacks and the Batmans. I LOVE Corpse Bride (definitely spurred on by my son’s love for it and incessantly repeated viewings). Yet, I really cannot stand his newer films - Willy Wonka and Alice. Haven’t yet seen, but fully intend to watch Big Fish. Screenplay by John Logan, who has written the upcoming Rango, which I am keen to see with Corey. He also wrote The Aviator and had a hand in the Gladiator screenplay
What Happened:
Johnny Depp’s Benjamin Barker returns to London under the alias of Sweeney Todd after a life in exile. He intends to exact revenge on the crooked judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who raped his wife and was the reason that Barker was sent away. Teaming up with Helena Bonham Carter’s Mrs Lovett, he supplies the fresh meat that she needs to liven up her pie shop.
Themes/Message:
Although it was mostly spectacle, it did have some thematic points. Mrs Lovett and Todd represent the skilled working classes: a baker and a hairdresser; both representing entrepreneurial sensibilities and have to work for a living. In the period in which the film is set, anybody well-off enough to pay for their shave must be part of the middle classes, most clearly embodied by Todd’s original inspiration for this killing spree, judge Turpin. Therefore Todd has no qualms with dispatching these individuals to the meat grinder, whilst biding his time for the judge himself. The song when they hatched the plan was inspired by seeing these social types (Lawyers, Vicars, Bankers, etc) outside on the streets, walking around as if greater than the common man.
What it did particularly well:
Once it got going, the spectacle of some of the scenes was entertaining. Bonham-Carter’s character, I actually really like, which quite surprised me.
Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Couldn’t help going in biased against the Depp-Carter-Burton triangle after severely disliking Alice and Willy Wonka. This prejudice was not helped by the sterile opening and Depp’s first song, which was the most uncinematic of a pretty uncinematic bunch of musical numbers. Although there were a couple of good numbers, most were too static and seemed forced. Considering I had just seen The Princess and the Frog and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, both films where these things came across much more fluid and organic, I was pretty disappointed on the whole.
Performance of the film:
Sacha Baron Cohen as the fraudulently uber-Italian rival barber
Scene of the film:
The introduction of Sacha Baron Cohen as the rival barber was the point that injected life into the film, which it managed to maintain up until the final act where it unravels a little.
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The couple of songs that it got right were great (they were just too few)
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) - Clint really does not like governent
Viewing context:
Part of my Clint Eastwood Box Set binge for my last birthday. None have let me down yet. Ones like this, that both star and are directed by Eastwood are just a class above.
Creators:
Directed by the man himself Clint Eastwood. Screenplay by Philip Kaufman (who wrote the story for Raiders of the Lost Ark) and helped by Sonia Chemus. Interesting that it has a female influence, considering how strong the female characters in the film are.
What Happened:
Josey Wales (Clint Eastwood) appears as a humble family man living off the land. Caught up in the civil war, his family is killed in the opening scene by a particularly feral unit fighting for the Union. His journey of vengeance leads him to enlist with the confederate until the war is over, at which point he refuses to turn himself in; he refuses to live in society. The unit that killed his family are sent to hunt him down, but this only works in his favour, as his vengeance has still not been exacted.
Theme/Message:
The film was so clearly about myth and reputation; of the ability to write a future out of half truths. The western, itself a mythic creation of history (In my humble experience, Eastwood both gets this and exploits it better and more consistently than any other filmmaker). On top of this meta-level of mythology, it is supported in the text when everyone tells differing and excessive stories of Wales.
Eastwood used this mythic quality to attack his conception of the intrusive, overbearing and immoral government, favouring what he sees as society that without government, naturally operates in much more a peaceful and harmonious manner. I.e. the culturally diverse social concoction that the film depicts near the end, away from government, greed and profiteering. They weren't the staunch businessmen that he had previously spat on and left. They had ran out of commerce (symbolised as booze) long since and still enjoyed that emblematic social chronotope of the saloon. This society was somewhere between what had developed as established western culture, yet had ethics associated with the native American: self sustaining, take only as much as you need and contribute fairly. An ideal (I would say naive) idea of individual liberalism.
As the film was made just after the Vietnam war, a war that is part of America’s attempt to write history by force, in favour of their values, then the American civil war was an appropriate allagorical setting. It shows how a war is no way to crush opposing ethics and ideologies; these things must come together (or fall apart) organically as Eastwoods rag-tag outlaws do in this film.
What it did particularly well:
There were small details that were so succinct and took up so little film time for what they conveyed; it was masterful direction. Small touches, like when Wales is taking his son to be buried, his arm falls out while he's dragging it; such heartbreak in such little time. There was another example that quickly and simply conveyed how elite Wales was in his field and how in tune with nature he was, he used a little trick to lay their horses down in order to stay hidden.
The film featured some interesting and non-passive women. Though the women did appear to need his saving, they were far from passive and more than willing to defend the home. I understand that this point can be read as reinforcing the need for women to support the home, whilst Wales, the man, can come and go as he chooses. Although having even said that, at least the women seem sure of themselves and confident in what they choose; it is wales who is in any way fractured.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
I’m not even going to answer this.
Performance of the film:
Chief Dan George as the aging, wandering native American who was a real, multi-dimensional person. A human being, not just a native American stock typecast character, nor a direct opposition to this. Just an interesting character.
Scene of the film:
The scene that really embodied what Wales was all about, including the emphasis on myth was his one on one conversation with Ten Bears. It was so honest and genuine, cutting through the sort of bullshit that can be so often be taken for granted in established western culture; the type of bullshit that embodies the idea of government that Wales was trying desparately to escape.
Final Word:
So knowingly steeped in mythology and able to play around with all the motifs that go along with this. On top of this it is beautifully shot to capture all the spectacle involved in the western myth. The characters were varied and interesting and there were some heavyweight performances with both grandeur and depth.
Part of my Clint Eastwood Box Set binge for my last birthday. None have let me down yet. Ones like this, that both star and are directed by Eastwood are just a class above.
Creators:
Directed by the man himself Clint Eastwood. Screenplay by Philip Kaufman (who wrote the story for Raiders of the Lost Ark) and helped by Sonia Chemus. Interesting that it has a female influence, considering how strong the female characters in the film are.
What Happened:
Josey Wales (Clint Eastwood) appears as a humble family man living off the land. Caught up in the civil war, his family is killed in the opening scene by a particularly feral unit fighting for the Union. His journey of vengeance leads him to enlist with the confederate until the war is over, at which point he refuses to turn himself in; he refuses to live in society. The unit that killed his family are sent to hunt him down, but this only works in his favour, as his vengeance has still not been exacted.
Theme/Message:
The film was so clearly about myth and reputation; of the ability to write a future out of half truths. The western, itself a mythic creation of history (In my humble experience, Eastwood both gets this and exploits it better and more consistently than any other filmmaker). On top of this meta-level of mythology, it is supported in the text when everyone tells differing and excessive stories of Wales.
Eastwood used this mythic quality to attack his conception of the intrusive, overbearing and immoral government, favouring what he sees as society that without government, naturally operates in much more a peaceful and harmonious manner. I.e. the culturally diverse social concoction that the film depicts near the end, away from government, greed and profiteering. They weren't the staunch businessmen that he had previously spat on and left. They had ran out of commerce (symbolised as booze) long since and still enjoyed that emblematic social chronotope of the saloon. This society was somewhere between what had developed as established western culture, yet had ethics associated with the native American: self sustaining, take only as much as you need and contribute fairly. An ideal (I would say naive) idea of individual liberalism.
As the film was made just after the Vietnam war, a war that is part of America’s attempt to write history by force, in favour of their values, then the American civil war was an appropriate allagorical setting. It shows how a war is no way to crush opposing ethics and ideologies; these things must come together (or fall apart) organically as Eastwoods rag-tag outlaws do in this film.
What it did particularly well:
There were small details that were so succinct and took up so little film time for what they conveyed; it was masterful direction. Small touches, like when Wales is taking his son to be buried, his arm falls out while he's dragging it; such heartbreak in such little time. There was another example that quickly and simply conveyed how elite Wales was in his field and how in tune with nature he was, he used a little trick to lay their horses down in order to stay hidden.
The film featured some interesting and non-passive women. Though the women did appear to need his saving, they were far from passive and more than willing to defend the home. I understand that this point can be read as reinforcing the need for women to support the home, whilst Wales, the man, can come and go as he chooses. Although having even said that, at least the women seem sure of themselves and confident in what they choose; it is wales who is in any way fractured.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
I’m not even going to answer this.
Performance of the film:
Chief Dan George as the aging, wandering native American who was a real, multi-dimensional person. A human being, not just a native American stock typecast character, nor a direct opposition to this. Just an interesting character.
Scene of the film:
The scene that really embodied what Wales was all about, including the emphasis on myth was his one on one conversation with Ten Bears. It was so honest and genuine, cutting through the sort of bullshit that can be so often be taken for granted in established western culture; the type of bullshit that embodies the idea of government that Wales was trying desparately to escape.
Final Word:
So knowingly steeped in mythology and able to play around with all the motifs that go along with this. On top of this it is beautifully shot to capture all the spectacle involved in the western myth. The characters were varied and interesting and there were some heavyweight performances with both grandeur and depth.
The Princess and the Frog (2009) - the return of real Disney
Viewing context:
Disney Cinemagic on New Year's Day, hungover with kids running about.
Creators
Written and directed by Ron Clements and John Musker - The team behind Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, amongst others
What Happened:
Set in New Orleans, this is an inversion of both the Princess and the Frog tale along with he Disney Princess mythos. The frog-based inversion comes as the Princess is turned into a frog after her reptilian kiss, rather than revealing the frog as her prince. They then commence their journey to try and regain their human forms, foil the vilain's plot to acquire power and wealth, all whilst finding a great deal about themselves, each other, the world, etc, etc. So nothing structurally outside the box, but it doesn't need to be; it does what it needs to do strcturally and creates all the interest thematically
What I read as its theme/message:
As stated above, it was primarily about admitting to some of the wrongs that Disney may have been guilty of in the past - reinforcing dominant ideologies, marginalising difference and the likes (Note that these features of Disney have in no way affected my enjoyment of some of the greats). Therefore not only was the lead the cultural other, the black working class daughter of a maid, the friend of the - to be expected - Disney Princess archetype, but she at no point showed the ‘need’ for her prince, her knight in shining armour to save her. She embodied what would be expected of the empowered, yet still proudly feminine figure. The balance was struck by making her not ‘need’ these things but still to ‘want’ them, ultimately making the ‘right’ choice after believing she didn’t have her prince. This balance ensured that the film charmed in a way that Disney manages to do, was full of passion and whimsy, but the emphasis on want rather than need took her away from being a ‘passive’ female, yet not too far to be wooden and preachy; she was a well rounded individual.
What it did particularly well:
It was as charming and as fun as a Disney romp should be, whilst making the blatant concessions to Disney’s past that I mention above. The songs were mesmerising and the deep south setting was really brought to life.
Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never reached more than just very good. The songs were all enjoyable, but made no lasting impression. Similarly, the supporting characters were a little underwhelming (except the villain who was great). I liked the crocodile but he was no Timone and Pumba.
Performance of the film:
The villain voiced by Keith David, really over the top sinister
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The setting: as a post Katrina film, this does a lot to justly glamorise the deep south vibe through the animation, the music, the characters, the food and the emphasis on passion.
Disney Cinemagic on New Year's Day, hungover with kids running about.
Creators
Written and directed by Ron Clements and John Musker - The team behind Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, amongst others
What Happened:
Set in New Orleans, this is an inversion of both the Princess and the Frog tale along with he Disney Princess mythos. The frog-based inversion comes as the Princess is turned into a frog after her reptilian kiss, rather than revealing the frog as her prince. They then commence their journey to try and regain their human forms, foil the vilain's plot to acquire power and wealth, all whilst finding a great deal about themselves, each other, the world, etc, etc. So nothing structurally outside the box, but it doesn't need to be; it does what it needs to do strcturally and creates all the interest thematically
What I read as its theme/message:
As stated above, it was primarily about admitting to some of the wrongs that Disney may have been guilty of in the past - reinforcing dominant ideologies, marginalising difference and the likes (Note that these features of Disney have in no way affected my enjoyment of some of the greats). Therefore not only was the lead the cultural other, the black working class daughter of a maid, the friend of the - to be expected - Disney Princess archetype, but she at no point showed the ‘need’ for her prince, her knight in shining armour to save her. She embodied what would be expected of the empowered, yet still proudly feminine figure. The balance was struck by making her not ‘need’ these things but still to ‘want’ them, ultimately making the ‘right’ choice after believing she didn’t have her prince. This balance ensured that the film charmed in a way that Disney manages to do, was full of passion and whimsy, but the emphasis on want rather than need took her away from being a ‘passive’ female, yet not too far to be wooden and preachy; she was a well rounded individual.
What it did particularly well:
It was as charming and as fun as a Disney romp should be, whilst making the blatant concessions to Disney’s past that I mention above. The songs were mesmerising and the deep south setting was really brought to life.
Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never reached more than just very good. The songs were all enjoyable, but made no lasting impression. Similarly, the supporting characters were a little underwhelming (except the villain who was great). I liked the crocodile but he was no Timone and Pumba.
Performance of the film:
The villain voiced by Keith David, really over the top sinister
Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The setting: as a post Katrina film, this does a lot to justly glamorise the deep south vibe through the animation, the music, the characters, the food and the emphasis on passion.
Black Swan (2010) - *Definite spoilers*
Viewing context:
Thanks to mother in law Sunday babysitting, me and Tasha went to see it together.
Creators:
Directed by Darren Aronofsky, who has barely put a foot wrong with the only film of his that isn’t breathtakingly brilliant being The Fountain. I aren’t in any way against this film; I loved the ideas behind it and its contemplative nature, but it isn’t the masterpiece that all his others are (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream and Pi). Screenplay by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin
What Happened:
Nina’s (Natalie Portman) life is nothing but ballet. The film opens just prior to the new season, as the theatre’s producer/director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) is choosing a successor to his aged (well aged in ballet standards) former star, Beth (Winona Ryder). Given the opportunity to fill this role, Nina must show that she can be more than her natural state as the White Swan; she must be able to undertake the metamorphosis into the Black Swan.
What it did particularly well:
The entire film was intense. A lot rested on Natalie Portman, and she didn't half pull it off. She was a little irritating/frustrating, but that was the character more than it was the actress; a character trait that was essential for last act to work so well. It wasn't until the final scene that this could be fully appreciated, as Portman shifted up a couple of gears for her metamorphosis. I had wondered throughout, how she would convincingly change, but having seen those eyes looking so fragile and scared throughout, all of a sudden full of confidence and a sense of control really convinced.
From pretty much the opening scene focusing on the battered feet of a ballerina there were numerous points that centred on the physical intensity of this punishing lifestyle and the amount of punishment she herself was willing to go through. This combined to have me on edge, responding to the characters, as well as displaying how an utterly unflattering lifestyle this is. Portman somehow looked simultaneously horrible and physically tortured, yet graceful and beautiful.
Her relationship with Lily (Mila Kunis) is amazing; I was frequently as tricked as Nina was regarding what was happening with her. The fact that she could be winding Nina up in order to get her role, or that it could all be in Nina's head were both as convincing throughout most of the film (whilst most likely being a little bit of both). Nina simply saw whatever she needed to in order to push her into becoming this other person, the Black Swan. She would find any hook, any key, any way to convince her mind to change.
Theme/Message:
It was about as subtle as a brick in its Freudian themes of the ‘other’; of the subconscious; the unquenchable lack, leading to the death drive, and all kinds of other such psychoanalytically related notions. I wish I was versed enough in my Lacan to have the confidence to tuck into all these points, but it is an area I need - and intend - to be brushing up on this year. I may even use this text as my frame of reference when reading up on the main points of psychoanalytic theory.
Framing the film in the feminine world of ballet, a stark contrast to Aranofsky's last film, The Wrestler, set in the uber-masculine world of professional wrestling, could be read as an intentional comment on femininity. Additionally, consider the eternally infntilised feminine world her mother has kept her in; her room looks akin to a child's room, pink everywhere and littered with teddies.
The other major difference between this and The Wrestler is the age. The wrestler was about an aging (fading) star, whereas Nina is yet to even become a star when she begins her descent. Perhaps a comment on just how little a life women can have to enjoy before being crippled by the weight of expectation (of others, but more importantly of them self).
The film also plays with ideas of what is important to different people. Was the end a happy one? What was important to Nina was being perfect, and that performance was perfect; possibly as perfect as she could get. She had reached the pinnacle of what she loved and we saw no signs that she could have any kind of life outside of ballet. In fact, the scene in the bar just showed how she can only even engage in conversation when it is about ballet and cannot grasp that other people don't get it. Further still, we see - and Nina sees - what happens to aging stars by showing us how badly Beth is dealt with by Thomas and the rest of the ballet community.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Nothing really, fine just as it is.
Performance of the film:
No doubts, Natalie Portman.
Scene of the film:
Final act. The whole performance and transformation is an amazing payoff.
Final Word:
Worked on many fronts: Perfect genre film, whilst still getting in real character depth. It was beautiful to look at; the dancing was exhilarating; the spectacle and the thriller/horror tropes worked really well and it had great performances. It is a brilliant allrounder.
Thanks to mother in law Sunday babysitting, me and Tasha went to see it together.
Creators:
Directed by Darren Aronofsky, who has barely put a foot wrong with the only film of his that isn’t breathtakingly brilliant being The Fountain. I aren’t in any way against this film; I loved the ideas behind it and its contemplative nature, but it isn’t the masterpiece that all his others are (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream and Pi). Screenplay by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin
What Happened:
Nina’s (Natalie Portman) life is nothing but ballet. The film opens just prior to the new season, as the theatre’s producer/director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) is choosing a successor to his aged (well aged in ballet standards) former star, Beth (Winona Ryder). Given the opportunity to fill this role, Nina must show that she can be more than her natural state as the White Swan; she must be able to undertake the metamorphosis into the Black Swan.
What it did particularly well:
The entire film was intense. A lot rested on Natalie Portman, and she didn't half pull it off. She was a little irritating/frustrating, but that was the character more than it was the actress; a character trait that was essential for last act to work so well. It wasn't until the final scene that this could be fully appreciated, as Portman shifted up a couple of gears for her metamorphosis. I had wondered throughout, how she would convincingly change, but having seen those eyes looking so fragile and scared throughout, all of a sudden full of confidence and a sense of control really convinced.
From pretty much the opening scene focusing on the battered feet of a ballerina there were numerous points that centred on the physical intensity of this punishing lifestyle and the amount of punishment she herself was willing to go through. This combined to have me on edge, responding to the characters, as well as displaying how an utterly unflattering lifestyle this is. Portman somehow looked simultaneously horrible and physically tortured, yet graceful and beautiful.
Her relationship with Lily (Mila Kunis) is amazing; I was frequently as tricked as Nina was regarding what was happening with her. The fact that she could be winding Nina up in order to get her role, or that it could all be in Nina's head were both as convincing throughout most of the film (whilst most likely being a little bit of both). Nina simply saw whatever she needed to in order to push her into becoming this other person, the Black Swan. She would find any hook, any key, any way to convince her mind to change.
Theme/Message:
It was about as subtle as a brick in its Freudian themes of the ‘other’; of the subconscious; the unquenchable lack, leading to the death drive, and all kinds of other such psychoanalytically related notions. I wish I was versed enough in my Lacan to have the confidence to tuck into all these points, but it is an area I need - and intend - to be brushing up on this year. I may even use this text as my frame of reference when reading up on the main points of psychoanalytic theory.
Framing the film in the feminine world of ballet, a stark contrast to Aranofsky's last film, The Wrestler, set in the uber-masculine world of professional wrestling, could be read as an intentional comment on femininity. Additionally, consider the eternally infntilised feminine world her mother has kept her in; her room looks akin to a child's room, pink everywhere and littered with teddies.
The other major difference between this and The Wrestler is the age. The wrestler was about an aging (fading) star, whereas Nina is yet to even become a star when she begins her descent. Perhaps a comment on just how little a life women can have to enjoy before being crippled by the weight of expectation (of others, but more importantly of them self).
The film also plays with ideas of what is important to different people. Was the end a happy one? What was important to Nina was being perfect, and that performance was perfect; possibly as perfect as she could get. She had reached the pinnacle of what she loved and we saw no signs that she could have any kind of life outside of ballet. In fact, the scene in the bar just showed how she can only even engage in conversation when it is about ballet and cannot grasp that other people don't get it. Further still, we see - and Nina sees - what happens to aging stars by showing us how badly Beth is dealt with by Thomas and the rest of the ballet community.
What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Nothing really, fine just as it is.
Performance of the film:
No doubts, Natalie Portman.
Scene of the film:
Final act. The whole performance and transformation is an amazing payoff.
Final Word:
Worked on many fronts: Perfect genre film, whilst still getting in real character depth. It was beautiful to look at; the dancing was exhilarating; the spectacle and the thriller/horror tropes worked really well and it had great performances. It is a brilliant allrounder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)