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.
Monday, 31 January 2011
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
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Un prophète (A Prophet) Jaques Aidiard (2009) – The definitive gangster film for a post credit crunch world
All posts may contain spoilers - accept this post as my views that are open for discussion, it is not a review and should only be read if you have seen the film. For synopsis or ratings see Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. One person's opinion or rating is pointless; these sites take their ratings from a collective and will give a better and more fair view of the general acceptance of this film.
I know it’s not the first film I have seen in 2010 but Un prophète really does set the precedence for the year. I very much doubt there will be a better film than this released any time soon. The film straddled the genre line perfectly and included enough elements for it to be unmistakably part of the relatively niche prison film genre or the much more commonly recognised gangster film genre, yet at the same time it flaunted certain elements in order to really make a point. This is the whole point of genre being formed and the reason that genre in cinema is so important. Not so that lazy writers and directors can churn out ‘sure fire’ predictable hits but so that geniuses and directorial wizards like Jaques Aidiard can subvert certain mythologies in a recognisable and engaging format. It was from Steve Neale that I learned the importance of this repetition and variation. This film could well have been used to prove his point as to why the variation from certain expectations can be so impactful and carry so much weight and significance.
Postmodern Identity (not attached to grand narratives)
Malik (Tahar Rahim) has never – despite society’s efforts - assigned himself a specific identity; he doesn’t consider himself Arab, he definitely isn’t Corsican and he didn’t consider himself particularly French. He repeatedly and unashamedly insists that he works for himself whenever his allegiances are questioned. He is the capitalist dream! But not the overbloated capitalist dream that created characters like Scarface’s Tony Montana. This Montana-esque capitalism is that of overindulgence and greed, which is the same capitalism that has recently brought the global economy to its knees. Both Montana and the greedy capitalism he embodies survived on an ever-expanding need for power and status which ultimately and inevitably leads to a dramatic crash, which is realised in this film through Cesar’s Corsicans. This is why Malik is so timely, arriving after last years implosion of this bloated capitalism but still championing capitalism’s individualistic qualities and a postmodern identity unassigned to any grand narratives. He does not have that essential character trait of the genre: the greed for power and status. An important illustration of this is when one of the muslim inmates asks Malik what he wanted (in return for a favour). The inmate asked if it was reputation he was after, to which Malik replied “do I look Corsican?” This was the film showing clearly that this old way of thinking is outdated and would only result in his demise. Just as it did with Cesar, the Corsicans and by symbolic extension the old systems so prevalent throughout modernity, concluding in the current financial turmoil. This character has respect for other people (who deserve it), for friends, for family and he lacks the greed for power and pig-headed pride usually assigned to the protagonist of the gangster genre. He knows who he needs to please or appease to get to where he needs without this pride getting in his way; hence he is polite to the guards and has no qualms with authority. Cesar (being the epitome of the outdated and soon to crumble system) does not understand why Malik still makes coffee for the Corsicans even though he has access to much higher places in the criminal, hierarchical food chain. It is this unrelenting emphasis on pride that is going to leave the old gangster behind and simultaneously it is this refusal to conform to these hierarchical systems that allow Malik to adapt to the changing multicultural world of postmodernity and therefore this is why he is the future.
Not only is this character at odds with the usual Gangster protagonist but so too is the overall theme of the film. An almost essential part of the gangster genre - the punishment of the lead character for working outside the system - is completely absent and a common element of the prison drama genre - the portrayal of authority and the system as relentlessly grim and unfair – is also not an emphasis. Yes it shows that the guards are a little crooked but it doesn’t show them as the caricatured tyrannical fascists usually seen in the genre. The film shows that the system is not going to get you everything but it doesn’t show it to leave you with nothing. When his friend Ryad (Abel Bencherif) was out in the real world he got a job and rehabilitated fine, or at least could have. This would be ok for some and he admitted in his letter to Malik that the outside isn’t fantastic but it is better than life inside. The main problem was that he couldn’t use his real identity: he could not use his Arab name when working at the call centre. Again this may be fine for some but the world that this film is promoting is one where individuals are completely free to have their own identity, not in any way feeling obliged to use one ascribed to them by others (this oversimplifies where people generate their identity but there is not the capacity to open this Pandora's box at the minute). So this isn’t good enough for him and he turns to crime. The usual gangster film message here would be ‘right if you cannot conform you will die’ and although this character does die, it was not due to his illegal activity but due to testicular cancer, which he would have suffered from no matter what. (I understand that some may read this as a biblical or supernatural punishment)
Genre deviation
All the way through this film - due to genre expectations - I was expecting the fall that always comes after the rise. I was very empathetic towards and attached to the character of Malik, so much so I was getting upset in anticipation for his demise along with being annoyed, thinking that he did not deserve it and that it would undermine everything else the film was trying to achieve. It shows that he never chose this life, that he ended up there as a product of society; he had no parents, grew up in juvenile centres, we never know why he was imprisoned but it really doesn’t matter, he was always going to end up there. The usual conventions - seen in many prison dramas - see the protagonist going to jail for something petty then ending up having his time extended, getting hooked on crack and ultimately probably dying, miserable and alone. The message being that the slightest deviation from the system’s laid out (legal) path will result in your horrific demise. I cannot help but think that there were certain scenes and plot points that played on these expectations, like when he took some heroin; I thought ‘oh here comes the fall’ but no, he never became a hopeless addict, just tried it out then got on with his life. These scenes were put in purposefully to flaunt how it was subverting certain genre elements, as rather than this predictable plot Malik did the opposite: he went in as nothing, with no family, he could not even read or write. He came out with friends, a family, fully literate, could speak additional languages and had a firm grasp of economics; he had a full life and he got all the way through his sentence without extension even getting time back in the form of early parole for good behaviour. He never got sucked in by any of the grand narratives that his identity could have latched onto; none of the racial/social identities nor the religious ones. He didn’t find Alah, which I was worried about as this would have destroyed the idea of staying unattached to grand narratives that I saw as being so important during this film.
Choosing family
The very important thing that rounds off the points made above (of Malik being a new breed of gangster protagonist and therefore avoiding the rise and fall) was at the end of the film when he left the prison. He chose to go to his family, the family that he had inherited from his friend (in effect the film here even destroys established notions of how important the biological part of family is). Yes it showed the support that he had from the criminal underground in the form of the cars full of his outside contacts but he barely acknowledged them and when he found out that his friend’s wife came on the bus, he could have easily arranged them a lift home, but chose to get the bus with her. This to me really rounded off the fact that everything Malik had done during the course of these six years was a sort of self-defence and necessity for seeing him through his sentence, but now, rather than chasing an insatiable need for power and status he still realises what was important to him, which he identified in a discussion at some point during the film as being happy and making his friends happy.
Negatives
Usually at the end of one of my posts, I try to briefly go over any gaps, flaws or disappointments no matter how vague they may have been. I’m afraid that with this film - at least at the minute - I cannot, I guess that means I think it was flawless.
In Summary
This is a landmark film in terms of the gangster genre but also contemporary filmmaking in general; that an international film can make such an impact on a genre dominated by Hollywood in the past. It is more current and progressive than any gangster film of my generation. I cannot really comment on something like The Godfather’s statements on society at the time as I was not around at its release and although I can read around it I can never fully feel a part of that time. This film, due to the reasons outlined above, mainly surrounding the state of capitalism is a true sign of our time. It does not disavow the need for a free market but it greatly criticises the way that these systems - and the whole of society along with it - has been twisted by certain controlling powers. This film champions the importance of the individual and the importance of respecting people on your own terms. Malik was a prophet but not one assigned to any religion (though I’m sure religions could claim him) but to the world in general. He came and cleansed an already decaying system, leaving it open for whatever is to come. The way he left with his family at the end shows that this cleansing was his job, his purpose, he completed it and now he is leaving it to others to sort out, pick up the pieces and maintain. Despite the constant tension, threat of peril and scenes such as the razorblade extraction practice, this really is a feel good, uplifting film.
I know it’s not the first film I have seen in 2010 but Un prophète really does set the precedence for the year. I very much doubt there will be a better film than this released any time soon. The film straddled the genre line perfectly and included enough elements for it to be unmistakably part of the relatively niche prison film genre or the much more commonly recognised gangster film genre, yet at the same time it flaunted certain elements in order to really make a point. This is the whole point of genre being formed and the reason that genre in cinema is so important. Not so that lazy writers and directors can churn out ‘sure fire’ predictable hits but so that geniuses and directorial wizards like Jaques Aidiard can subvert certain mythologies in a recognisable and engaging format. It was from Steve Neale that I learned the importance of this repetition and variation. This film could well have been used to prove his point as to why the variation from certain expectations can be so impactful and carry so much weight and significance.
Postmodern Identity (not attached to grand narratives)
Malik (Tahar Rahim) has never – despite society’s efforts - assigned himself a specific identity; he doesn’t consider himself Arab, he definitely isn’t Corsican and he didn’t consider himself particularly French. He repeatedly and unashamedly insists that he works for himself whenever his allegiances are questioned. He is the capitalist dream! But not the overbloated capitalist dream that created characters like Scarface’s Tony Montana. This Montana-esque capitalism is that of overindulgence and greed, which is the same capitalism that has recently brought the global economy to its knees. Both Montana and the greedy capitalism he embodies survived on an ever-expanding need for power and status which ultimately and inevitably leads to a dramatic crash, which is realised in this film through Cesar’s Corsicans. This is why Malik is so timely, arriving after last years implosion of this bloated capitalism but still championing capitalism’s individualistic qualities and a postmodern identity unassigned to any grand narratives. He does not have that essential character trait of the genre: the greed for power and status. An important illustration of this is when one of the muslim inmates asks Malik what he wanted (in return for a favour). The inmate asked if it was reputation he was after, to which Malik replied “do I look Corsican?” This was the film showing clearly that this old way of thinking is outdated and would only result in his demise. Just as it did with Cesar, the Corsicans and by symbolic extension the old systems so prevalent throughout modernity, concluding in the current financial turmoil. This character has respect for other people (who deserve it), for friends, for family and he lacks the greed for power and pig-headed pride usually assigned to the protagonist of the gangster genre. He knows who he needs to please or appease to get to where he needs without this pride getting in his way; hence he is polite to the guards and has no qualms with authority. Cesar (being the epitome of the outdated and soon to crumble system) does not understand why Malik still makes coffee for the Corsicans even though he has access to much higher places in the criminal, hierarchical food chain. It is this unrelenting emphasis on pride that is going to leave the old gangster behind and simultaneously it is this refusal to conform to these hierarchical systems that allow Malik to adapt to the changing multicultural world of postmodernity and therefore this is why he is the future.
Not only is this character at odds with the usual Gangster protagonist but so too is the overall theme of the film. An almost essential part of the gangster genre - the punishment of the lead character for working outside the system - is completely absent and a common element of the prison drama genre - the portrayal of authority and the system as relentlessly grim and unfair – is also not an emphasis. Yes it shows that the guards are a little crooked but it doesn’t show them as the caricatured tyrannical fascists usually seen in the genre. The film shows that the system is not going to get you everything but it doesn’t show it to leave you with nothing. When his friend Ryad (Abel Bencherif) was out in the real world he got a job and rehabilitated fine, or at least could have. This would be ok for some and he admitted in his letter to Malik that the outside isn’t fantastic but it is better than life inside. The main problem was that he couldn’t use his real identity: he could not use his Arab name when working at the call centre. Again this may be fine for some but the world that this film is promoting is one where individuals are completely free to have their own identity, not in any way feeling obliged to use one ascribed to them by others (this oversimplifies where people generate their identity but there is not the capacity to open this Pandora's box at the minute). So this isn’t good enough for him and he turns to crime. The usual gangster film message here would be ‘right if you cannot conform you will die’ and although this character does die, it was not due to his illegal activity but due to testicular cancer, which he would have suffered from no matter what. (I understand that some may read this as a biblical or supernatural punishment)
Genre deviation
All the way through this film - due to genre expectations - I was expecting the fall that always comes after the rise. I was very empathetic towards and attached to the character of Malik, so much so I was getting upset in anticipation for his demise along with being annoyed, thinking that he did not deserve it and that it would undermine everything else the film was trying to achieve. It shows that he never chose this life, that he ended up there as a product of society; he had no parents, grew up in juvenile centres, we never know why he was imprisoned but it really doesn’t matter, he was always going to end up there. The usual conventions - seen in many prison dramas - see the protagonist going to jail for something petty then ending up having his time extended, getting hooked on crack and ultimately probably dying, miserable and alone. The message being that the slightest deviation from the system’s laid out (legal) path will result in your horrific demise. I cannot help but think that there were certain scenes and plot points that played on these expectations, like when he took some heroin; I thought ‘oh here comes the fall’ but no, he never became a hopeless addict, just tried it out then got on with his life. These scenes were put in purposefully to flaunt how it was subverting certain genre elements, as rather than this predictable plot Malik did the opposite: he went in as nothing, with no family, he could not even read or write. He came out with friends, a family, fully literate, could speak additional languages and had a firm grasp of economics; he had a full life and he got all the way through his sentence without extension even getting time back in the form of early parole for good behaviour. He never got sucked in by any of the grand narratives that his identity could have latched onto; none of the racial/social identities nor the religious ones. He didn’t find Alah, which I was worried about as this would have destroyed the idea of staying unattached to grand narratives that I saw as being so important during this film.
Choosing family
The very important thing that rounds off the points made above (of Malik being a new breed of gangster protagonist and therefore avoiding the rise and fall) was at the end of the film when he left the prison. He chose to go to his family, the family that he had inherited from his friend (in effect the film here even destroys established notions of how important the biological part of family is). Yes it showed the support that he had from the criminal underground in the form of the cars full of his outside contacts but he barely acknowledged them and when he found out that his friend’s wife came on the bus, he could have easily arranged them a lift home, but chose to get the bus with her. This to me really rounded off the fact that everything Malik had done during the course of these six years was a sort of self-defence and necessity for seeing him through his sentence, but now, rather than chasing an insatiable need for power and status he still realises what was important to him, which he identified in a discussion at some point during the film as being happy and making his friends happy.
Negatives
Usually at the end of one of my posts, I try to briefly go over any gaps, flaws or disappointments no matter how vague they may have been. I’m afraid that with this film - at least at the minute - I cannot, I guess that means I think it was flawless.
In Summary
This is a landmark film in terms of the gangster genre but also contemporary filmmaking in general; that an international film can make such an impact on a genre dominated by Hollywood in the past. It is more current and progressive than any gangster film of my generation. I cannot really comment on something like The Godfather’s statements on society at the time as I was not around at its release and although I can read around it I can never fully feel a part of that time. This film, due to the reasons outlined above, mainly surrounding the state of capitalism is a true sign of our time. It does not disavow the need for a free market but it greatly criticises the way that these systems - and the whole of society along with it - has been twisted by certain controlling powers. This film champions the importance of the individual and the importance of respecting people on your own terms. Malik was a prophet but not one assigned to any religion (though I’m sure religions could claim him) but to the world in general. He came and cleansed an already decaying system, leaving it open for whatever is to come. The way he left with his family at the end shows that this cleansing was his job, his purpose, he completed it and now he is leaving it to others to sort out, pick up the pieces and maintain. Despite the constant tension, threat of peril and scenes such as the razorblade extraction practice, this really is a feel good, uplifting film.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Star Trek - J.J. Abrams (2009)
All posts may contain spoilers. For a full synopsys see Rotten Tomatoes
Best (by far) of a (very) bad bunch
Best Blockbuster of the Summer (2009) without a doubt. This may well have been the case if it came out any summer, but the feeble competition that it was up against this year really helped. Terminator Salvation was ruined for me by Christian Bale’s ridiculous Batman voice and one dimensional John Conner. GI Joe was actually quite enjoyable for what it was, it’s just that what it was, was a corny action film offering nothing new in terms of character, concept, effects, humour or anything else; it was completely average. Don’t get me wrong, average is better than being dreadful but it didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy. This brings me to one of the biggest Blockbuster let downs I can recall: Transformers 2: Rise of the Fallen. It has no soul at all and it is not a good enough excuse saying, “oh it’s only a film, just enjoy it”. Well I can’t! because it is boring, not very funny, the race and gender roles are far beyond forgivable, actually reaching blatantly offensive. This particularly came in the form of the squabbling pair of overtly black stereotyped idiots, a shocking attempt at some kind of streetwise comedy duo. This along with a female lead being completely unimportant and uninteresting; her sole purpose was to look hot (which to be fair she does succeed at) and reaffirm the male lead’s masculinity and central agency. I have no problem with physical beauty (either male or female) but for that to be the only defining feature of an individual is very demeaning. The character of Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in Star Trek smashes both of these simple 'black people = stupid' and 'women = useless' reductions immediately and lacks none of the beauty; she manages to be intelligent, important, absolutely stunning and all this while being black, how does she manage it in Hollywood. (I sincerely hope that the tongue in cheek sarcasm can be read in that last sentence).
Innovative way of rebooting a series
I have mixed feelings towards rebooting franchises like this. Batman was done incredibly well as the previous canon had gone way off the mark and Christopher Nolan brought it back, even surpassing the attempts of one Tim Burton. Although in another similar instance I cannot help but think that there is very little to gain in rebooting the Spider-Man series. The main advantages of rebooting these kinds of series’ are to re-imagine their myth in light of more recent socio-political and cultural settings. Hence the two sets of Batman film series were distinctly pre and post 9/11. The existing Spider-Man’s are blurred, having been created just before but growing through the early stages of a post 9/11 world. This Star Trek film sits alongside Batman in the ‘ready for a reboot’ section of contemporary mythology. This is particularly prominent in this series due to the changing face of masculinity in this era compared to that of the initial Kirk's time. The subtle difference that is held up here is the ‘guy gets the girl myth’. Kirk, despite his efforts and the viewer’s expectations fails to get the girl that he wants. This girl as discussed earlier already flaunts most qualities that would be assigned to women in the Hollywood circles of previous eras. In this scenario it is the one which shows the least sign of classically masculine features that gets the girl, in the character of Spok. Though she does end up with one of the male characters, she still retains her own agency, she is not there merely to prop up anybody’s masculinity a la Megan Fox in Transformers.
The thing that sets this reboot apart from other series reboots is what gives it that touch of class, elevating it to more than a trashy summer blockbuster. This is that it isn’t really a reboot at all; it merely takes the existing canon then uses a time travel narrative device to start again from a certain point. Contrary to usual reboots where the characters are completely revised, this simply takes a point in the existing history and changes it from there giving a real tangible reason for this change to have taken place.
Problem with fate
The only problem was when (original) Spok and Kirk conveniently ran into each other. This probably came from Abram’s fate/destiny pre-occupation but this was not made clear enough and should really have been eluded to a little more in order to not leave the viewer thinking “well that was a bit of an outrageous coincidence”, because then they are out of the narrative and the questioning begins. The film is certainly good enough on the whole to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the character interaction, all apart from this chance meeting.
Best (by far) of a (very) bad bunch
Best Blockbuster of the Summer (2009) without a doubt. This may well have been the case if it came out any summer, but the feeble competition that it was up against this year really helped. Terminator Salvation was ruined for me by Christian Bale’s ridiculous Batman voice and one dimensional John Conner. GI Joe was actually quite enjoyable for what it was, it’s just that what it was, was a corny action film offering nothing new in terms of character, concept, effects, humour or anything else; it was completely average. Don’t get me wrong, average is better than being dreadful but it didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy. This brings me to one of the biggest Blockbuster let downs I can recall: Transformers 2: Rise of the Fallen. It has no soul at all and it is not a good enough excuse saying, “oh it’s only a film, just enjoy it”. Well I can’t! because it is boring, not very funny, the race and gender roles are far beyond forgivable, actually reaching blatantly offensive. This particularly came in the form of the squabbling pair of overtly black stereotyped idiots, a shocking attempt at some kind of streetwise comedy duo. This along with a female lead being completely unimportant and uninteresting; her sole purpose was to look hot (which to be fair she does succeed at) and reaffirm the male lead’s masculinity and central agency. I have no problem with physical beauty (either male or female) but for that to be the only defining feature of an individual is very demeaning. The character of Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in Star Trek smashes both of these simple 'black people = stupid' and 'women = useless' reductions immediately and lacks none of the beauty; she manages to be intelligent, important, absolutely stunning and all this while being black, how does she manage it in Hollywood. (I sincerely hope that the tongue in cheek sarcasm can be read in that last sentence).
Innovative way of rebooting a series
I have mixed feelings towards rebooting franchises like this. Batman was done incredibly well as the previous canon had gone way off the mark and Christopher Nolan brought it back, even surpassing the attempts of one Tim Burton. Although in another similar instance I cannot help but think that there is very little to gain in rebooting the Spider-Man series. The main advantages of rebooting these kinds of series’ are to re-imagine their myth in light of more recent socio-political and cultural settings. Hence the two sets of Batman film series were distinctly pre and post 9/11. The existing Spider-Man’s are blurred, having been created just before but growing through the early stages of a post 9/11 world. This Star Trek film sits alongside Batman in the ‘ready for a reboot’ section of contemporary mythology. This is particularly prominent in this series due to the changing face of masculinity in this era compared to that of the initial Kirk's time. The subtle difference that is held up here is the ‘guy gets the girl myth’. Kirk, despite his efforts and the viewer’s expectations fails to get the girl that he wants. This girl as discussed earlier already flaunts most qualities that would be assigned to women in the Hollywood circles of previous eras. In this scenario it is the one which shows the least sign of classically masculine features that gets the girl, in the character of Spok. Though she does end up with one of the male characters, she still retains her own agency, she is not there merely to prop up anybody’s masculinity a la Megan Fox in Transformers.
The thing that sets this reboot apart from other series reboots is what gives it that touch of class, elevating it to more than a trashy summer blockbuster. This is that it isn’t really a reboot at all; it merely takes the existing canon then uses a time travel narrative device to start again from a certain point. Contrary to usual reboots where the characters are completely revised, this simply takes a point in the existing history and changes it from there giving a real tangible reason for this change to have taken place.
Problem with fate
The only problem was when (original) Spok and Kirk conveniently ran into each other. This probably came from Abram’s fate/destiny pre-occupation but this was not made clear enough and should really have been eluded to a little more in order to not leave the viewer thinking “well that was a bit of an outrageous coincidence”, because then they are out of the narrative and the questioning begins. The film is certainly good enough on the whole to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the character interaction, all apart from this chance meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)