Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson 2009)

All posts may contain spoilers

Context: Saw this at a kids showing on a Saturday morning (quid each), with the whole family hoping that Mr Fox crosses the demographics correctly, entertaining my three year old son and four year old nephew as well as me, an established fan of Wes Anderson’s work and my wife who neither loves nor loathes his other films.

The kids: Well by the end of the film the kids were still sat there and hadn’t become bored or restless. My son particularly liked Mr Fox’s whistle clicky thing and attempted to replicate it at every instance. The animation was easily entertaining enough to hold their attention and have them laughing along, commenting and shouting out what was happening on nunerous occasions.

As for me, I was more than happy with the pacing of the film, the characters within and the overall message. Controversial as this may be, I didn’t think too much to Life Aquatic and I still haven’t seen Darjeeling, so after hearing bad things about this one from most commentators at the time of its release, I was apprehensive. The dialogue between characters had Anderson’s stamp all over it and gave all the characters the depth that they required.

I liked the overall theme of the film; the animal characters seemingly representing independent retailers: mere mortals up against the conglomerates realised in this film through the form of the big farmers. All evil in their own right but led by one particular cold blooded, cider brewing machine-farmer. This all sounds very cliché at the minute, which is all fine but things that follow the structure too definitively often bore me a little too much and end up too average. I think this film really drifted from this when approaching its conclusion. Mr Fox wanted out of the life he was in and wanted bigger things; the usual message here would be for this to fail and him to go "oh yeah, everything was fine before and I should go back to that with my tail between my legs". Well this film does neither this nor have his new vision a success, instead a new outcome is reached. The animals live in a new environment: a sewer that can easily be seen to represent a modern urban setting. What this means to me is that individuals/society can rise from a traditional and more recognisably natural level, whilst not succumbing to 'the man'. They can live in a new setting, not growing the way that people envisage they should just because that's how people did in previous generations, being defined by class and the family skill set that you are born into; you can decide who you want to be and create your own little narrative. This does not mean that you have to sell your soul, benefiting only yourself and thus lose your humanity. Nor does it mean that you reject the idea of skilled individuals in a society being masters of their class and contributing together for the benefit of society as a whole, hence the fact that all these tradesmen: the lawyer, the tailor, etc all live in this sewer environment. The part that tops this off, the icing on the cake if you will, is that it does not look down upon the establishment of the farmer (conglomerate) owned supermarket, rather it shows that free individuals can exploit these resources rather than being dictated to by them.

This overall message celebrates the state of contemporary western society rather than being hopelessly and nostalgically conservative. It shows that there are flaws but that this is how we are, we have got to this point by following our hearts, rather than doing what others consider to be the right thing. Just as Mrs Fox condones Mr Fox’s irrational actions that jeopardize the lives of his friends and family; she condones this because she understands that to suppress one's real life is far worse even if it is the safer option.

Hotaru No Haka - Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)– mini review (Not an in depth account, simply my impressions)

All posts may include spoilers – for a plot summary see IMDB

Context

I Went on a bit of a Miyazaki marathon at the beginning of the year. Picking up anything they had in that CEX shop. After seeing (and loving) a fair few of them I saw this film in the same section. It was in a Studio Ghibli box but not directed by Miyazaki; further to this I realised that the 12 certificate was a little higher than the family favourite Miyazakis so I thought it was worth checking out. I knew absolutely nothing about it when I bought it but between buying it and watching it, the film was brought up on the Filmspotting podcast whilst discussing their top five tear jerkers. – Hmmm so it’s gonna be a sad one then?

Depression Session

And a sad one it was. This was one of the most depressing films I have seen... well in a long time and in terms of being uncompromisingly grim, possibly the most depressing ever. Even film’s like Lars Von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark (2000) had a glimmer of hope that things would be ok.

I loved how much an animated feature could make me feel so strongly about something and I understand that the point of this film was how relentless war is, but watching this was just like watching depression-session-misery-torture.

There was no way of it ending up with any form of hope, joy or optimism. I do not mind something not having a happy-ever-after ending, in fact I’d usually complain when things are too happy happy but I think that the best tear-jerker moments and the ones that have the most impact are those where either unfortunate events - to a certain extent - come by surprise, or more specifically that you know there could be something horrible about to happen but you are still not sure and there is still the chance of everything being alright. The shattering of this built up hope leaves you feeling more vulnerable and therefore increases the effectiveness of the narrative.

By showing you at this film’s opening that the main character dies and joins his little sister in the afterlife, once his mother dies in the opening act you know there really is no way out for the doomed little boy. This does succeed at showing the uncompromising relentless nature of war but it really was tortuous and difficult to watch. In a way I admire the film’s approach but at the same time I didn’t really enjoy it.

Appurushido (Appleseed) - 2004 - Shinji Aramaki

all posts may contain spoilers

Context

This DVD was a Christmas present from my brother in law. To my joy, he took my wife’s approach to buying me a present: walking into HMV, going to the world cinema section and just picking one that looks cool. When I opened it - though I appreciated the gift - I thought I had already seen it... until I realised that this was a new 3D CGI version of the film adaptation of this classic comic book. The story may be the same as the original but I can hardly remember as I was about nine and was only interested in the big robots having guns aspect.

Animation / Action / Spectacle

The combination of 3D CGI and 2D hand drawn features was absolutely beautiful. The ability of 3D CGI animation is far superior - in my opinion - than 2D animation at creating epic and immersive worlds for the viewer to be mesmerised by. One of the negatives of CGI is that faces are often nowhere near realistic enough, destroying the illusion as characters become almost impossible to relate to and identify with. This is remedied in Appleseed by using 2D illustrations and animation to cell shade over the characters. They then have a full 3D presence but all the expression that can be generated from hand drawn features, which is seen most prominently in the eyes of the characters. This 2D element also gives the animation more weight; CGI can often look floaty and lose a lot of the impact that a film like this requires. These animation techniques combined brilliantly with the art direction, pacing, editing and all other aesthetic elements. The result is the creation of a beautifully realised world along with breath taking action set pieces. Just a quick side-note about spectacle and action: Many consider that you can either have narrative or spectacle but I think that that’s a big load of bollocks. There are many films that have proven (in my humble opinion of course) that spectacle, contrary to diminishing narrative, adds to a film’s ability to immerse the viewer, bringing them into the world. I really don’t think that the Matrix would have been as impressive, nor would it be held held in such high esteem if it hadn’t have had its fair share of visual spectacle.

Strong Females

My childhood film watching was always a mix of Hong Kong kung fu films (including Cynthia Rothrock), anime and the usual Hollywood suspects, so I didn’t really notice how absolutely useless women are, according to mainstream Hollywood cinema that is. As I got older and watched less anime and Hong Kong kung fu (on accounts of the videovan-man not coming on our street no more - sad days) I began to understand why feminists were always so pissed off with the silver screen. Why do we so rarely see the type of female characters that are presented in this film in any western production. I’m sure there are many exceptions - Ripley from Alien for instance – but on the whole we don’t get to see these women. Smart and tough, not without beauty and sex appeal but that not being their absolute defining feature. Not unable to fall in love but also not acting in the sole interest of the (apparently) much more important male lead. In this film it is not only the lead character (Deunan) but I was myself surprised to find the Dr Gilliam character - who was built up as being the greatest mind to have ever existed - to be a woman. I should be ashamed of myself automatically assuming that it would be a man but I guess that is the Hollywood brainwashing that my generation (and many prior) have suffered at the hands of.

Cyberpunk

This may be disputable but I think the Japanese do cyberpunk themes better than any other national cinema on earth. There is possibly a link there with this interconnectedness of man and machine along with the origins of modern videogames being strongly rooted there. In Appleseed, the cyborg/artificially created humans had slight deviations from the usual “oh but if they can think then don’t they deserve life, just like us, blah, blah blah”. The use of reproduction as a narrative tool literally uses castration theory as the major threat or centre of importance as the final threat was that mankind would be made completely infertile, subjecting it to a slow extinction. The film breaks down the essence of humanity and life to the ability to reproduce and that the other (irrational) elements of humanity – love, hate, revenge, etc derive from this reproductive urge.

The balance between dystopic and utopian visions of the future that is often straddled by the cyberpunk genre edged on the side of utopian in this film's instance. After warning of the dangers of such powerful scientific knowledge, it showed that society will ultimately try to coexist, taking the least easy but more human (irrational) path to the future.

Other slight tweaks involve the ‘man-made creations kill humans to protect mankind (Irobot) plot’ being slightly displaced by the same motive coming from a group of chosen human wise men. Also, the Gaia concept, which is frequently present in the cyberpunk genre is seen here but the deviation was that humans had created it. Gaia was its usual self regulating guardian of the earth but it was manmade rather than mysterious and natural.

Plot holes or loose storytelling

There is obviously always the chance - which I am not ruling out for a second - that I am a little slow, but there were a few points where I wasn’t entirely sure what was happening or more to the point why it was happening, as if some parts of the plot had been squeezed through in too lean a fashion. For instance, why do the gigantic moving fortresses rise up? Did the elders order this or did Gaia? or did the Army? Or were they simply acting on their own/bioroid behalf? I suspect that problems like this arise in the process of adaptation. In the original comic they may have been fully explained and realised but in the process of cutting corners when translating to screen and coming in at a reasonable time (which this film mostly did really well). In this process, the film not only chopped off the fat of the plot set up, but the muscle along with it.

Summary

Action, spectacle and visual ability get a massive tick. Characters were pretty basic but fully engaging, respectable and as I said above the lead going to a female character is something I would die to see more of in Western films. The pacing was brilliant coming in under two hours and having a pretty exciting almost climax before more reveals then an even more exciting final set piece. It played the genre game perfectly with enough familiarity to make it easy to engage with and allow yourself to be immersed at the same time as shedding new light on ideas with variation from the norm.

For some reason I now want to go play some very Japanese games and really cannot wait for the release of final fantasy XIII.

Me and Orson Welles - Richard Linklater - 2009

- All posts may contain spoilers -

Context

I have to start by declaring that I know very little of Orson Welles. Yes I have heard War of the Worlds, seen Citizen Kane and The Third Man, but I know very little about much else he has been involved in his – what I have been told is a – great career. In all honesty, when growing up, I was only aware of him as voicing the character of Unicron in Transformers: The Movie from 1986. Obviously, although I know very little about him this does not mean I do not recognise that his name carries a great deal of weight; just his name seems to demand attention. I feel that this sense of presence and of the importance of charisma is captured perfectly throughout Me and Orson Welles.

Director: Richard Linklater (A Scanner Darkly and School of Rock)
Cast: Zak Efron (High School Musicals), Claire Danes (Romeo and Juliet and My So Called Life). Christian McKay, who I have not seen in anything before. As I explained above I do not know much about Welles, so I cannot say he was portrayed ‘accurately’, but I was certainly convinced that the man on screen was Orson Welles. These along with many other brilliant performances.

Greatness

The film oozes ‘greatness’, not only in its captivating performances, slick direction and high production value, but in its themes and its characterisation of the film’s big personalities. There is no gritty realism here, no awkward silences; everything about this film is fabricated and based on spectacle, but I mean this in the most complimentary and positive way. It is about the importance of showmanship, of passion, of art, of commanding attention and then delivering something excellent – just as Welles does in the radio-drama scene. The film shows how this can only be executed if you believe in yourself and what you are doing; it is a truly artistic gift. This level of ‘greatness’ invariably surrounds Welles and Richard in both characters and the actors that play them. Due to the emphasis on ‘the show’ of the whole film it is easy to see that the actors playing these characters are so important to its meaning. McKay has huge boots to fill due to the mythology that comes along with playing Welles and it really is testament to his acting that he conveyed both his own greatness, along with Welles’ dramatic and imposing aura. Obviously there is credit due here to both the scripting and the direction and therefore I believe that Richard Linklater has (consciously or not) put himself in the category he is showing us onscreen: those who strive to be great at what they do. Or maybe they don’t have to strive for this at all, maybe it is just the way they are. This brings us nicely to Richard, who is very rarely seen to be practising, rehearsing or doing anything to prepare himself. He is, as Welles calls him: “A God created actor”. Although there is an element of doubt around whether Welles really meant this as he was saying it, I believe that he did, and I will come to that a little later. Richard as a character isn’t the only level at work here as it is pivotally important that he is played by the meteoric rising star that is Zak Efron. Again I know very little about this individual - I haven’t seen the High School Musicals et al - but I am conscious of the myth being created around him.

Passing the mantle and a disregard for recognised tradition.

It is this ‘Zak Efron Factor’ that embodies the point that the film was making. It is ironic that a film largely based around an individual with such an epic myth built around him shows absolutely no regard for tradition or conformity. This – as far as I understand – seems to be a lot about the way Welles was: rebelling against the Hollywood system in his own way. Well this message is hammered home in this film through Welles’ absolute disregard for Shakespeare’s original text or the established theatre productions that he is in competition with. In a similar way to how Welles may have carried this view in his life, it is again testament to McKay’s acting that the Welles of this film passes this message to the young Richard (and by extension to the Efron’s of the new century). Welles sees himself in Richard, this much is clear and although it is implied that Richard was dismissed because Welles cannot be questioned, contested or upstaged in any way, I believe that Welles was freeing Richard; he knows that Richard must find his own path in order to truly be great, just as he did. He cannot rise to fame under the wing of the great Orson Welles, as this will then be all he will ever be: Welles’ understudy. The film shows a number of characters that can contest Welles, namely his manager who constantly argues with him (played by Eddie Marsan, who I am mainly familiar with from him playing a brilliant, but tragic driving instructor in Mike Leigh’s Happy Go Lucky). These characters are not dismissed the way Richard is. I guess a talking point must be whether Welles keeps these around because he know their arguments ere rhetoric whereas Richard’s passion was real and did this threaten Welles’ dominance of the centre ground. Or alternatively as I hypothesise did Welles not see the same potential in the others and therefore does not see it fit to set them free. The freedom of Richard and his generation is displayed at the end with the bird flying free; this is accompanied by Greta (his generational peer and fellow artist) declaring that “it is all ours”, when referring to the world. This continues the rhetoric of the importance of youth freeing itself; that you don’t follow the path set out by those before you, you create your own, albeit based loosely on their direction. Take their influence then make something new, i.e. Welles' interpretation of Caesar. Richard almost falls too far into this trap; idolising Welles, dressing like him, or even literally dressing in his robe and staying in his bed. This is until he realises that he has the self belief and presence of mind to make and follow his own path, he subsequently loses the Welles inspired suit attire in favour of his own trainers and colourful-coat look. The film openly displays ‘that to be great you must attain it for yourself’ is Welles’ belief. A key example would be when he tells Richard (and us) that he lost his mother and father at a young age. In balance then by then end of the film, Richard has taken the positive influence from Welles yet found himself as well.

In Summary

Fanboy, elitist knowledge of Welles is not important for the enjoyment of this film. It embodies what I have been led to believe is something that Welles stood for: that you create your own greatness by believing in it and in yourself. You do not blindly follow the dictation from previous generations, you seize the light yourself and in doing so you can make your impact on the world. This message is passed to the future generations through the character of Richard and is further articulated through the inspired casting of Zak Efron who embodies youth in popular culture as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century. You must define your own path but you cannot make that path unless you absolutely demand, with all the self belief you can muster that it be laid out in front of you.

Aliens in the Attic: Gamers aren't the delinquents that Hollywood would often have you believe

Context

This was a Saturday morning trip with my three year old son to the pound-a-film kids screening. I am a massive NO TALKING in the cinema kind of fascist but one of the things I love the most about going to these kids screenings is that the setting is right to jabber away all the way through, answering my son’s plentiful and plenty-amusing questions. I went in with low expectations, thinking that it would be based too strongly at the eightish plus year old demographic for my kid to like it and too annoying American kid-like for me. I was wrong on both accounts.

Director / writer / cast – anything to note

Director has nothing to note. One of the writers on the other hand: Mark Burton, has some interesting credits to his name, including Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Ware-rabbit and Madagascar, two films that my son loves. In addition, he has writing credits on British comedy shows such as Room 101 and Never Mind the Buzzcocks. This may help to explain why there were some moments in the film where I literally laughed out loud and why the film had a quick, concise – family film – flow to it.

Gut instinct / immediate impressions.

As is outlined above, I went into this film with low expectations, but it wasn’t only that the expectations were low, they were specific. I thought that the young characters would be intolerable and incredibly set-in-stone stereotypes. On the surface, this may still appear so, but there are certain things that led me to believe that this was not quite the case; I shall outline the two main reasons I think this. The first is that when the second family arrived, they seemed as though they were certain to be held up against the protagonist’s family as the more flawed and less of an idealised nuclear family. Along with this I expected these children to be portrayed as spoilt, stupid, mean or just pointless. In the first scene they are in the older one is a little arrogant and the two younger twins are shown as soulless creatures completely consumed by their Nintendo DSs. I thought ‘oh here we go, typical Hollywood: broken family equals rubbish dad and therefore horrible children, and obviously they are delinquents as they are playing videogames’. These initial impressions don’t last long as the older boy proves to be just as useful, kind and caring as the protagonist (part of the ‘perfect’ suburban family) and it’s not like he goes through the entire film as a spoilt brat and changes his ways at the end; he is pretty consistently just an ‘ok’ if not a little mischievous kind of kid. Further to this and in complete contradiction to what I thought the film was going to say about videogames rotting the minds of the youth, the two twins’ knowledge and ability with computer games practically saves the world as they are able to use the aliens’ mind control device like a typical videogame console controller, leading to one of the highlights of the film: A fight between the family’s Nan and the older sister’s boyfriend. One controlled by one of the aliens and one controlled by the two boys. The fight captures a Hong-Kong action sequence feel and is much more impressive than the poor attempts at hand to hand combat that often appear in some big budget Hollywood blockbusters. The fight even gave a self-conscious nod to the greatest fighting game franchise of all time, as the Nan replicated the dragon-punch uppercut special move of Street Fighter’s Ryu and Ken. This progressive use of videogame references mirrors what is spells out throughout and is a common trope of children’s films: The adults just won’t get it; “they’re wired differently” says one of the boys.

Viewing this film in the context of a day out with my son probably made me appreciate this approach even more. Though it did contain many of the expected American-family film genre elements, there was enough here that left numerous points/characters for children to identify with and didn’t cast down any of the younger characters as having less importance, nor did it preach about the need for a perfect nuclear family. Finally it had a certain charm as it really seemed to be made with its target market of children/young people in mind and close to heart rather than trying – and failing – to cater to everyone.

In Summary

More going on that I thought there was going to be, it fast and fluent in its children/family film execution but at the end of the day if you don’t have a child or you aren’t a child between 3 and 13 then there really is no good reason to see this.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 game diary of sorts - pre-game expectations

As it is now, not only the highest selling game on record, but the highest selling entertainment product, it is clear that Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare 2 - the sixth game in the Call of Duty Franchise - is of great cultural significance.

I feel then, an obligation to track my experience and impressions of the game as I experience it now in the game’s early existence. Rather than any kind of generic review, of which there will already be hundreds if not thousands; I would like to make a game diary drawing on what I have learnt in the field of film studies. Although this is sure to generate a narrative heavy approach, the importance of the gameplay cannot be understated. My particular focus will be on where the two meet; that is where the gameplay enhances the way the story is told (or the world is experienced would be a more appropriate description).

Having played the original Modern warfare, I am aware of the game’s intentions to stay as close to realism as possible. This does not simply refer to the photorealistic graphics but more importantly to the immersion brought about by the gameplay, the physics that are present and the narrative tools implemented to suspend the viewer/player’s disbelief in a way that has them enchanted by the gameworld. The first Modern Warfare had a very linear story, which to describe as original would be far-fetched to say the least. Where it excelled was its techniques in telling the story. For those who played it think of the way you experienced the Nuke scene. This could have been shown as a beautiful full motion video cut-scene; it would have looked fantastic and exhilarating. But the choice to have you still playing the game, dragging your body to the opening of the helicopter having been blown out the sky, seeing from your first person point of view the devastation caused - being free to look at where you want - then dropping dead. That was new, immersive storytelling that cannot be experienced in other mediums.

I have to say of my pre-game expectations that I already have an impression – generated by media and fan community coverage - of a controversial mission involving the massacre of Russian civilians. The first time you turn on the game there is a disclaimer warning of one mission that players could find very offensive and consequently gives you an option to completely remove this mission from the story. Yeah I’d love to have less content for my money thank you and miss out on the videogame event and media spectacle of the year (apart form maybe GTA’s full frontal male nudity). Clearly I am not convinced that Infinity Ward are concerned for my psychological well being, but I understand that they need to cover their backs from their own (legal) massacre. Not knowing the full details and not having experienced this apparent controversy yet, this is all I will mention for now, I just thought it necessary to point out that the spectacle of this event has already been heightened.

The bad side to having played (and loved) the first instalment of Modern Warfare is the same problem faced by any sequel: when a franchise is so groundbreaking in its first installment it is natural to expect more than ‘more of the same’ from the sequel. Think of how Terminator 2 raised its game after Terminator for instance, in comparison to the disappointment of the Matrix sequels after we experienced its initial genius. In their own right very good (ok satisfactory at best) films, but following something so groundbreaking, they were – frankly speaking – a disappointment.

These are my initial impressions and new posts will go up either per mission or per every few missions.

Das Weiβe Band (The White Ribbon)- Michael Haneke 2009

Here are a few paragraphs on my immediate impressions of the film. By no means do I incorporate everything that can be said as it has great depth and substance. I simply want to highlight the overarching themes that I felt were important. My views are pointless in isolation, I openly welcome anyone who has seen the film to complete the dialogue: fill in any gaps, strengthen some of my flimsily thrown out ideas or to tear it to pieces, completely disagreeing with what I write.

Narration

I always thought I was dead against voice overs; that they are a lazy way of storytelling, spoon feeding you the narrative rather than letting the film speak for itself. Well this film made me realise that I am only dead against anonymous, omnipresent voiceovers. The one in this film is so personal and direct as it comes from one of the only sympathetic characters in the whole film. It is one of the tools used to reinforce the fact that the story is being told from an objective point of view. Another element supporting this is that right from the very beginning – through said voice over narration – it is declared that memories are funny things. A brilliant way of making it explicit early on that this is an objective point of view, a story but one which it declares will “hopefully explain what happened to this country”. This gives you the bigger picture from the start. You are instructed - in a non-forceful way - to see this village as a microcosm representing the whole country; that the young characters represent the youth of the nation. The film takes us to the start of the First World War, but more importantly - as the film critic Mark Kermode rightly points out - it is the children here who will reach adulthood during - and therefore be mostly responsible for - the rise of the third Reich.

Terrifying Kids (especially Klara – who is one eerie but immensely powerful and articulate figure)

The youth are completely fed up with the treatment they receive from the older generations. The film shows a variety of family/community settings and how the children are undervalued, unappreciated, sexually abused or repressed to a point of insanity. And my goodness are they plentiful; there are numerous shots families where the children swamp the screen, vastly outnumbering their elders, which really puts an exclamation mark on the fact that the old generation (along with all their values) are going to be viciously overthrown. The only middle ground / glimmer of hope is the relationship between the teacher and Eva. These are very important characters that differ from almost everyone else in the village, mainly that they both seem to have healthy relationships with their parents. Eva’s dad embarrasses her but at least he speaks plainly, doesn’t repress what he feels and expresses his disdain for ridiculous formality. More importantly is that both their parents do not live with them within this damned village (a representation of the whole nation – see below) and they are not products of the society within. This is possibly most important when he attempts to explain the situation as he sees it to the Pastor, who is so enmeshed with a culture of repression that he casts the teacher out. The teacher was so alien to this culture he could not even grasp why this was, anticipate that this would be the outcome of this conversation or even recognise that this repression existed, therefore he let it go on. This could be a comment on those who were not enthusiastically pro-Nazi but just did not do enough to stop them.

Rebellion

Whether the film justifies this youth-led rebellion is left for the viewer to decide. It shows their reasons for it, i.e. the captivity they were being held in; a captivity that is clearly symbolised by the Pastor’s caged bird. The fact that Klara kills the bird and leaves it as a symbol for her father to find shows the youths intention to fight this incarceration. To further accentuate the injustice of his contradictions, the Pastor keeps in that cage, the healed bird; the bird he told his son he must release back into the wild.

I really could go on, but it really would be... well ‘going on’. I have tried to make this concise and focused and in case I didn’t make the point clearly I think it is a tremendous film.