I would like to think I am a bit of an expert when it comes to Jane Eyre, as would my sister, one of the things we have in common is that one of our favourite books is Charlotte Brontë's classic tale of the young governess who falls for her stoic employer.
Now there have been a total of ten (yes ten) adaptations of this novel since 1934, most famous of which is probably the 1944 version starring Orson Welles who put in a powerful and erratic performance as Rochester. This is going to be a review of the latest film version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, using the TV serial from 2006 starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens as the comparative piece.
This years film begins unusually for Jane Eyre in the middle of the story, we see Jane distraught, wandering the moors, eventually being picked up by Jamie Bell and taken into his home. In previous versions the early story of Jane has been left out completely, focusing on the Rochester part, but this film like the mini series of 2006 goes back to Jane's childhood, how she came to be so even tempered and to have the demeanour and feeling that unimportant is just her place in the world. For Mia's Jane her story is told through a series of flashbacks as she sits in St John's (Bell) kitchen with his sisters. For those who know the tale of Miss Eyre this is not too much of a problem, it does not affect the main plot its just told in a slightly different order. You can understand why the film is beginning in the midst of Jane's spiral of depression, its exciting for the newcomer to find out what has brought her to this point. In the mini series we began at the beginning so to speak, and for a four hour serial this is possible because you can be detailed in the retelling, and in fact the series is highly successful in this regard as it leaves hardly any detail out.
What I missed in the film was a few crucial details, part of the novel and the series I loved was the revelation that Jane has family after all, she belongs to another group of people. They leave this out of the film, substituting it for Jane creating the same family with money, which is sad, but perhaps done so to avoid the 'ick' factor when it comes to St John asking Jane to accompany him to foreign parts as his wife, when in actual fact from the novel we know them to be related by blood.
However the film does get the most crucial part right, and that is the casting of Jane and Rochester. If ever a novel was dependant on characterisation it is in Jane Eyre, you have to become absorbed in the protagonist and the object of their affection otherwise the plot is pointless. Many books, and a great deal more movies, suffer from all action no character, I believe the power behind Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga is not the fact it concerns a Vampire romance but because you are seeing through the eyes of the girl falling in love with the dangerous man, remarkably similar to Jane Eyre's tale, though of course Rochester is no bloodsucker.
Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is physically the ideal Jane, she is tiny in proportions and has quite a plain sort of face, obviously they made her look washed out but she does not have striking features to distract the viewer or to make Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) stop in his tracks because of her beauty. For an Australian Mia does an impressive job with the accent, she slips slightly from being Northern to standard BBC English but with her mix of locations in her lifetime its something the audience can accept. She also embodies the innocence and the frail nature of Jane, who ahs struggled her entire life but thinks nothing of it, has happiness snatched from her but remains true to her own standards. I call Jane frail but she is not, physically yes but mentally she has had strength since childhood, strength to forgive those who have wronged her, but also the power to leave a situation she does not agree with when she could quite easily stay and be happy.
Fassbender too embodies Rochester's power, he has strength in physical terms but comparatively with regards to Jane he is incredibly weak. There is a point in the story where the audience realises it is not Rochester who has the power in this relationship but Jane. Unlike Toby Stephens' portrayal of the tortured Master there is no humour to him, and it is a failing due to time constraint that we cannot empathise more with his own past mistakes and understand why such a creature as Jane could possibly tempt him while beauty and wealth seek his attention. The bond between Rochester and his ward Adele is also neglected, whereas in the series time is devoted to showing the three of them spending time together, the film concentrates on Adele as a nuisance and to only concentrating on the conversations between Jane and Edward.
Fassbender is frightening when angry and convincing when announcing his feelings for Jane, he does very well, and it is a shame he could not be a more teasing version of Rochester as Toby Stephens was able to be in the series.
Another character who is portrayed well is the deeply religious and inscrutable St John Rivers, the clergyman who takes Jane in from the cold after she escapes Thornfield and her beloved Edward. Jamie Bell is a fine actor who seems to pick the wrong films, hats off to anybody who liked Jumper, but here his abilities are not overcast by a poor plot or fellow cast members and so we see a man finally where for so many years we have only seen Billy Elliot. Brontë describes St John as being like a Greek statue, godlike in appearance but cold and aloof like stone. Meyers in the Twilight Saga describes her own Edward as looking like a Greek god, so you wonder whether Brontë is responsible for a little more than just Edward Rochester fans, the twentieth century Vampire does appear to resemble both clergyman and rich gentleman, with a little of the supernatural thrown in.
Bell is a very good St John, his purpose and religious nature are presented well and no audience member could fail in their realisation that although Jane is unwilling he wants to be more than a brother to her.
This is a good film, and fans of the novel will not be disappointed, however neither will they be overwhelmed with love for it. In 2006 the partnership of Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was magical, she was strong and he was slightly scary, but both passionate and perfect as Jane and Rochester. The story was well thought out and they had four hours to clearly build and explain the story of Jane Eyre. Cary Fukunaga had just under two hours and luckily the sacrifices are not dramatic enough to affect the nature of the story, the morals are intact and the cast are ideal.
Though not perfect, I hope this film brings Charlotte Brontë a new legion of readers, and a new generation of women will see what it is to be lowly but strong in this world.
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Saturday 27 August 2011
POTC On Stranger Tides: Yup definitely strange
You have to wonder what possessed Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush to agree to make yet another Pirates of the Caribbean movie, I am one of the few who genuinely enjoyed the last two movies and that was because I have a love for mythology and the weird. They say in interviews its because the plots are still fun, but honestly I believe that fat paycheck and the opportunity to wear lots of eye make up probably makes up eighty percent of the decision making process.
As to my own opinion of the supposed fun plot line? It is not that much fun. If this had been the only Pirates movie made, then yes, tons of fun, you have Blackbeard, the Spanish Navy, and the British Navy all on the hunt for the Fountain of Youth using Jack Sparrow in one form or another in their efforts. There is magic and mermaids, swashbuckling and sword fighting aplenty, a romance, and even a monkey.
However this is the fourth in the series, a standalone in that it does not encompass the stories or characters of the trilogy, excepting Sparrow, Gibbs, and Barbossa, but nevertheless using the music and plot features of the previous three movies. This is very annoying.
To explain, the film might as well have been the very first in the series, there is Jack looking for his ship, an astounding and theatrical escape from many of the Kings finest, a sword fight across wooden beams, and eventually a chase across the Caribbean with the pirates in the lead and the British Navy not far behind. Very formulaic by this point, and unfortunately set to exactly the same musical score as Curse of the Black Pearl, supremely irritating.
There is a redeeming feature that made it almost worth sitting through over two hours of pirate action, and that is the involvement of the Mermaids. The action scenes with the attack and the subsequent romance between the mermaid and missionary are both benefited by the improvements in special effects and my own soft side, can't resist a love story. The young Brit playing Phillip the Missionary is a fine actor by the name of Sam Claflin who has starred in both Any Human Heart and Pillars of the Earth with Captain America's Hayley Atwell. He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but the story of the man and the mermaid is secondary to the plot, whereas Bloom and Knightley's love affair fueled the progress of the story of the Trilogy.
They attempt in this film to have another love story, and that is between Depp and Cruz. It is mildly amusing the idea that he seduced her years ago in a Convent where she was about to take her orders, but the idea Jack Sparrow is in love? No thank-you. Cruz is a good actress but knowing a lot of her screen time is actually performed by body doubles due to pregnancy makes for distracted viewing as I attempted to discern between actress and doppelganger. The ending was typical Jack, and back to the spirit of the series rather than just copying previous scripts, and I am pleased to say I enjoyed it.
Regrettably I also was happy at the end because it was the end, my 140 minutes endurance test over, and a feeling of relief that I did not spend any money only time on this film.
I can't criticise the acting in this film, in fact there are a couple of well placed cameos from acting royalty, but this film is not a triumph of the Disney franchise. Curse of the Black Pearl was such a hit with young and old alike because it embodied the old pirate movies of the days of Errol Flynn, the spirit of adventure and old fashioned comedy and romance so lacking in films of recent times. Now, as companies do when they have a success, the Pirates franchise has been sucked dry, the spirit has waned and audiences lacklustre in their opinions. Yes it attracts stars but I have to say even my beloved Johnny Depp was beginning to grate on me.
You can have too much of a good thing, and many fans would say the first film is enough. I disagree and say the trilogy was worth it, but a fourth and even a rumoured fifth pirate movie? Too much.
If you feel like watching a re-hashed Curse of the Black Pearl with Blackbeard the most notorious of pirates and some murderous mermaids watch this film. If you aren't fussed either way, stay clear, it will only annoy you.
As to my own opinion of the supposed fun plot line? It is not that much fun. If this had been the only Pirates movie made, then yes, tons of fun, you have Blackbeard, the Spanish Navy, and the British Navy all on the hunt for the Fountain of Youth using Jack Sparrow in one form or another in their efforts. There is magic and mermaids, swashbuckling and sword fighting aplenty, a romance, and even a monkey.
However this is the fourth in the series, a standalone in that it does not encompass the stories or characters of the trilogy, excepting Sparrow, Gibbs, and Barbossa, but nevertheless using the music and plot features of the previous three movies. This is very annoying.
To explain, the film might as well have been the very first in the series, there is Jack looking for his ship, an astounding and theatrical escape from many of the Kings finest, a sword fight across wooden beams, and eventually a chase across the Caribbean with the pirates in the lead and the British Navy not far behind. Very formulaic by this point, and unfortunately set to exactly the same musical score as Curse of the Black Pearl, supremely irritating.
There is a redeeming feature that made it almost worth sitting through over two hours of pirate action, and that is the involvement of the Mermaids. The action scenes with the attack and the subsequent romance between the mermaid and missionary are both benefited by the improvements in special effects and my own soft side, can't resist a love story. The young Brit playing Phillip the Missionary is a fine actor by the name of Sam Claflin who has starred in both Any Human Heart and Pillars of the Earth with Captain America's Hayley Atwell. He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but the story of the man and the mermaid is secondary to the plot, whereas Bloom and Knightley's love affair fueled the progress of the story of the Trilogy.
They attempt in this film to have another love story, and that is between Depp and Cruz. It is mildly amusing the idea that he seduced her years ago in a Convent where she was about to take her orders, but the idea Jack Sparrow is in love? No thank-you. Cruz is a good actress but knowing a lot of her screen time is actually performed by body doubles due to pregnancy makes for distracted viewing as I attempted to discern between actress and doppelganger. The ending was typical Jack, and back to the spirit of the series rather than just copying previous scripts, and I am pleased to say I enjoyed it.
Regrettably I also was happy at the end because it was the end, my 140 minutes endurance test over, and a feeling of relief that I did not spend any money only time on this film.
I can't criticise the acting in this film, in fact there are a couple of well placed cameos from acting royalty, but this film is not a triumph of the Disney franchise. Curse of the Black Pearl was such a hit with young and old alike because it embodied the old pirate movies of the days of Errol Flynn, the spirit of adventure and old fashioned comedy and romance so lacking in films of recent times. Now, as companies do when they have a success, the Pirates franchise has been sucked dry, the spirit has waned and audiences lacklustre in their opinions. Yes it attracts stars but I have to say even my beloved Johnny Depp was beginning to grate on me.
You can have too much of a good thing, and many fans would say the first film is enough. I disagree and say the trilogy was worth it, but a fourth and even a rumoured fifth pirate movie? Too much.
If you feel like watching a re-hashed Curse of the Black Pearl with Blackbeard the most notorious of pirates and some murderous mermaids watch this film. If you aren't fussed either way, stay clear, it will only annoy you.
Monday 22 August 2011
Black Swan: It's Ballet with a rather violent twist
I am finally getting around to seeing all the films I wanted to when they came out at the cinema, but not being a proper bona fide film reviewer I have to wait till there are several I want to see and go on a Blockbuster binge.
Now comes the turn of Black Swan to go under my rather rose tinted microscope, I was itching to see this and then it won a whole bunch of awards, many friends saw it and had mixed reviews (one friend is a prude though so her negativity was to be expected), so last night when I put the DVD in the player I had lowered my expectations.
The film is centred around ballerina Nina Sayers who has been with her present company for many years but relegated to the sidelines as the prima-ballerina Beth (played with acidity by Winona Ryder) took centre stage in all productions. Now with the 'retirement' of Beth the director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) has decided to strip down the most famous of all ballets Swan Lake and cast a new lead, eventually casting innocent Nina who is perfect for the fragile white swan but in her efforts to encapsulate the black swan and achieve perfection begins to lose her mind. Nina is faced with an overprotective mother, competitive fellow dancers, an egotistical director, and a new dancer who appears to embody the black swan played by Mila Kunis. As she struggles to achieve perfection Nina begins self-harming, seeing her image in the people around her, and to have wild hallucinations, culminating in a violent ending where you the audience are not sure what is truth or delusion any longer.
As with The King's Speech I believe the Oscars and BAFTA's got it spot on with their awards, Natalie Portman thoroughly deserves her Best Actress credit as it was a performance that involved not only being sweet innocent and fragile, but also violent, passionate, strung out on drugs, and of course a convincing a ballerina. I have heard ballerina's saying how they could tell which was Natalie and which was a real ballerina but I honestly could not, and any thoughts I had of trying to distinguish were lost in my captivation of the plot and with her acting. Natalie became Nina, and it is hard to not wonder if any true ballerina's have witnessed or suffered their own breakdown from the pressures of the business.
Mila Kunis did incredibly well as Lily, Nina's rival but also an attempted friend, she is an outsider coming in from the West Coast and enchanting Thomas the director with her natural way of dancing as opposed to Nina's precise and correct form. Kunis is of course known for That 70's Show and being the voice of Meg Griffin, this is the first time I have seen her in a serious and dramatic role where she can show her own abilities alongside Portman in the dancing arena. Both ladies have been heard to say it was so great to finish Black Swan purely so they could eat again, physically I winced as the rib cages showed through the skin, especially during one scene of physiotherapy for Nina.
Their director Thomas is played with aplomb by Cassel (Eastern Promises) as he struggles with turning Nina into his idea of a perfect dancer, but also displaying the arrogance and artistic temperament shown in many documentaries of any dance company. You cannot hate Thomas, and he isn't designed to be hated, in fact nobody is the 'enemy', but he isn't a likeable man as he uses sex to improve Nina's performance of the black swan. Thomas does provide the wisest advice to Nina though, saying that the only person in her way is herself.
And this is what the film is truly all about, that nothing is actually in Nina's way except her own boundaries she has imposed. Slowly, through the breaking down of her mentality, she removes some of these boundaries as when she throws out the soft toys that cover every inch of her too pink room, forcing maturity upon herself and removing her reliance on her overbearing mother who has kept Nina in cotton wool.
Darren Aronofsky is not a man who takes the easy route in film-making, his previous works include the horrific but beautiful Requiem For a Dream, 2008's critically acclaimed The Wrestler, and the utterly bizarre and confusing The Fountain which nevertheless made me weep like a child.
Black Swan is a more violent film than I was expecting, the graphic visuals are convincing, the scenes where Nina becomes the black swan made me grab a cushion, but it fits with Aronofsky's previous works. He is a director that does not deviate from his message to bring a happy Hollywood ending, and although the film may seem to be a crazy ride it is held together with firm hands guiding it through the tumultuous moods and spiralling of Nina's mind being unwound.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and though my face was probably a mask of horror at many points with the cushion close by just in case the visuals became a little too convincing, it is a beautifully made film with a convincing cast. The plot itself is convincing as there cannot be any profession out there, especially in the business of show, that a person has not become so overwhelmed that they have broken down in their efforts to achieve perfection. I can understand why the ballet world were, and still are, unconvinced by this film as to them it probably shows a negative side to their beautiful façade, however knowing the hard work it takes to become a ballerina would I hope make audiences want to see a real production of Swan Lake.
The film has only one negative for me and that is it does take for granted the audience's prior knowledge of the ballet world, the plot of swan lake is revealed almost halfway through and this has such a bearing on the unravelling of Nina that you feel a short synopsis of the ballet would have been helpful to those going in blind so to speak. Luckily I have seen the ballet, and I love going to see any production because ballerina's are the most beautiful kinds of athletes, who wants to see an overpaid fop nudge a football on a patch of grass when you can see a woman perform thirty two pirouettes without stopping and then carry on dancing with her partner?
I recommend this film to those open to seeing a girl come apart at the seams, a world of competition and beauty, and Portman in one of her greatest performances to date.
Sunday 21 August 2011
Source Code: Spoilers cos I can't review this without them
Please Please PLEASE do not read this review unless you have already seen Source Code, do not plan on ever seeing it, or are quite happy to have the end completely ruined before watching.
I'm serious.
OK I think I can get on with the review now.
Source Code is proving a dilemma, just minutes after watching it I'm writing this review because I know if I leave it until the morning the feelings it has provoked won't be so acute. In explanation those feelings are annoyance, exasperation, and not a little disappointment. And it was all going so well...
As you should know having seen the film Source Code is a computer/intelligence system that enables access to a persons last eight minutes of memories, however to use these effectively the person taking over these memories have to be a human computer, and to be that they need to be dead or dying themselves. So here we introduce Jake Gyllenhaal's character Captain Colter Stevens, a helicopter pilot whose last memories are of serving in Afghanistan, service that is later revealed to have killed him in body but not in mind...if that makes a lick of sense. His brain has been hooked up to the Source Code system and is being used to take the place of a History Teacher called Sean Fentress whose companion on a doomed train heading to Chicago is Michelle Monaghan, a fellow teacher called Christina.
The film begins well, Jake is just as confused as the rest of us as to what Source Code is, how he can be on a train that is exploding one minute and back to eight minutes previously as though somebody keeps hitting the reset button. Michelle is charming as she tries to cope with her companions erratic behaviour as he punches strangers, searches their bags, and effectively becomes a racial profiler at one point chasing an Arabic looking man convinced he is the perpetrator of the soon to be exploding bomb. Michelle Monaghan is a very good actress, always sidelined she never fails to shine, see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for perhaps her best performance to date. In fact just watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as it's a great movie.
What I loved was that the action did not overwhelm the plot, yes the train exploded several times but this was almost skipped over as though it was inconsequential to the bigger picture, and to the people in charge of the Source Code experiment it was. These hundreds of people did not matter, it was the later bomb they were trying to prevent. I have to be honest I did see the guy coming off the train who 'accidentally' leaves his wallet behind and think 'bet its him', but this did not matter as it was Jake you focused on, feeling so bad when he messed up and looked like a thug or a racist to Christina.
I also enjoyed the relationship that slowly developed between Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga (Up In The Air), who you see on a computer monitor talking to Jake but never see what she sees until almost the very end when it is revealed she is reading what his thoughts are projecting like a paraplegic who cannot communicate except through specialised computer programmes.
Jake realising he is dead after researching himself while in the Source Code program is a turning point for the character and for the movie, there is no longer any hope that he and Christina could be together or that she can be saved, and so Jake just wants to work to find the bomber and create the best ending he can for the train. The idea of the terrorist being a local who is disenchanted with life and wanting to incite revolution is horribly close to reality at this present time; Norway now faces the prosecution of their own home grown terrorist who tried to achieve exactly the same ideas as this character had through a bomb and mass murder. Unfortunately real life has made this film that much more poignant and relevant despite its fantastical premise.
Now the fantastical element is intriguing, already we have seen programmes play with the idea that our final thoughts are not severed simply by the stopping of our hearts. Doctor Who was quite effective in its fourth series of the tenth doctor (David Tennant) in the use of a computer chip that records the brain waves in a space suit and so even after death the memory persists for a short time. I was told when I was young when stating that decapitation would be the best way to depart this mortal coil that our bodies are not dissimilar to chickens and even after severance the synapses keep sparking. So as you can tell I was not immediately poo-pooing the idea that a persons memory could linger, thus this film made some sort of sense despite its blown up proportions. This is probably thanks to the direction of Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie and director of Moon), it is understated and concentrates heavily on the relationships forming between our hero and the two women on opposite sides of reality.
I came to the point where Jake had saved the day; the authorities had caught the terrorist about to blow up Chicago in real time and our hero is back in the Source Code courtesy of Goodwin, feeling content and happily surprised that this Hollywood blockbuster was going to end on a relatively realistic note, no cheesy Happy Endings thank god! And then disaster, Goodwin does not turn Jake's life support off from his mangled body (well, torso and head), he continues on after creating such a happy end for the train passengers in the body of this History teacher. It is so sad that they did not have the guts to end this film like it should have, you cannot put through the entire film the message that this is NOT time-travel, we are not saving these hundred people we are preventing disaster for thousands. It was a gutsy non Hollywood message, but then Jake survives confusingly in the body of this teacher, who is now going to have his own fairytale ending with Monaghan? It begs many questions, one of which is what happened to the original occupier of this body? another is does this new reality run parallel to the original we have just spent eighty minutes watching, or has it taken over?
Lets just say I'm frustrated by the ending, as I am with many American creations, because they don't have the balls to create tragedy. Yes it would have been so sad that this train of people died, that Jake and Michelle never got the chance to know each other in reality, but it also would have been an exceptional showcase of human nature. Goodwin showed she would not let another human being suffer and not be allowed the basic right to die when our bodies have failed us, Christina showed compassion and understanding in the most extreme circumstances toward a friend, and Sean/Colter showed determination in the face of adversity, for even though he believed they were all dead anyway he wanted this train of disgruntled passengers to be allowed a happy end.
That's how Source Code should have ended.
I hope you did enjoy the film, and of course if you have a different take or understanding of the ending feel free to post your comments, but I am so disappointed by the end that the four stars that were glittering in my minds eye through ninety percent of this film have dropped by a star, because despite the ending the rest of the film is well cast, directed with assurance, and really rather good.
I'm serious.
OK I think I can get on with the review now.
Source Code is proving a dilemma, just minutes after watching it I'm writing this review because I know if I leave it until the morning the feelings it has provoked won't be so acute. In explanation those feelings are annoyance, exasperation, and not a little disappointment. And it was all going so well...
As you should know having seen the film Source Code is a computer/intelligence system that enables access to a persons last eight minutes of memories, however to use these effectively the person taking over these memories have to be a human computer, and to be that they need to be dead or dying themselves. So here we introduce Jake Gyllenhaal's character Captain Colter Stevens, a helicopter pilot whose last memories are of serving in Afghanistan, service that is later revealed to have killed him in body but not in mind...if that makes a lick of sense. His brain has been hooked up to the Source Code system and is being used to take the place of a History Teacher called Sean Fentress whose companion on a doomed train heading to Chicago is Michelle Monaghan, a fellow teacher called Christina.
The film begins well, Jake is just as confused as the rest of us as to what Source Code is, how he can be on a train that is exploding one minute and back to eight minutes previously as though somebody keeps hitting the reset button. Michelle is charming as she tries to cope with her companions erratic behaviour as he punches strangers, searches their bags, and effectively becomes a racial profiler at one point chasing an Arabic looking man convinced he is the perpetrator of the soon to be exploding bomb. Michelle Monaghan is a very good actress, always sidelined she never fails to shine, see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for perhaps her best performance to date. In fact just watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as it's a great movie.
What I loved was that the action did not overwhelm the plot, yes the train exploded several times but this was almost skipped over as though it was inconsequential to the bigger picture, and to the people in charge of the Source Code experiment it was. These hundreds of people did not matter, it was the later bomb they were trying to prevent. I have to be honest I did see the guy coming off the train who 'accidentally' leaves his wallet behind and think 'bet its him', but this did not matter as it was Jake you focused on, feeling so bad when he messed up and looked like a thug or a racist to Christina.
I also enjoyed the relationship that slowly developed between Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga (Up In The Air), who you see on a computer monitor talking to Jake but never see what she sees until almost the very end when it is revealed she is reading what his thoughts are projecting like a paraplegic who cannot communicate except through specialised computer programmes.
Jake realising he is dead after researching himself while in the Source Code program is a turning point for the character and for the movie, there is no longer any hope that he and Christina could be together or that she can be saved, and so Jake just wants to work to find the bomber and create the best ending he can for the train. The idea of the terrorist being a local who is disenchanted with life and wanting to incite revolution is horribly close to reality at this present time; Norway now faces the prosecution of their own home grown terrorist who tried to achieve exactly the same ideas as this character had through a bomb and mass murder. Unfortunately real life has made this film that much more poignant and relevant despite its fantastical premise.
Now the fantastical element is intriguing, already we have seen programmes play with the idea that our final thoughts are not severed simply by the stopping of our hearts. Doctor Who was quite effective in its fourth series of the tenth doctor (David Tennant) in the use of a computer chip that records the brain waves in a space suit and so even after death the memory persists for a short time. I was told when I was young when stating that decapitation would be the best way to depart this mortal coil that our bodies are not dissimilar to chickens and even after severance the synapses keep sparking. So as you can tell I was not immediately poo-pooing the idea that a persons memory could linger, thus this film made some sort of sense despite its blown up proportions. This is probably thanks to the direction of Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie and director of Moon), it is understated and concentrates heavily on the relationships forming between our hero and the two women on opposite sides of reality.
I came to the point where Jake had saved the day; the authorities had caught the terrorist about to blow up Chicago in real time and our hero is back in the Source Code courtesy of Goodwin, feeling content and happily surprised that this Hollywood blockbuster was going to end on a relatively realistic note, no cheesy Happy Endings thank god! And then disaster, Goodwin does not turn Jake's life support off from his mangled body (well, torso and head), he continues on after creating such a happy end for the train passengers in the body of this History teacher. It is so sad that they did not have the guts to end this film like it should have, you cannot put through the entire film the message that this is NOT time-travel, we are not saving these hundred people we are preventing disaster for thousands. It was a gutsy non Hollywood message, but then Jake survives confusingly in the body of this teacher, who is now going to have his own fairytale ending with Monaghan? It begs many questions, one of which is what happened to the original occupier of this body? another is does this new reality run parallel to the original we have just spent eighty minutes watching, or has it taken over?
Lets just say I'm frustrated by the ending, as I am with many American creations, because they don't have the balls to create tragedy. Yes it would have been so sad that this train of people died, that Jake and Michelle never got the chance to know each other in reality, but it also would have been an exceptional showcase of human nature. Goodwin showed she would not let another human being suffer and not be allowed the basic right to die when our bodies have failed us, Christina showed compassion and understanding in the most extreme circumstances toward a friend, and Sean/Colter showed determination in the face of adversity, for even though he believed they were all dead anyway he wanted this train of disgruntled passengers to be allowed a happy end.
That's how Source Code should have ended.
I hope you did enjoy the film, and of course if you have a different take or understanding of the ending feel free to post your comments, but I am so disappointed by the end that the four stars that were glittering in my minds eye through ninety percent of this film have dropped by a star, because despite the ending the rest of the film is well cast, directed with assurance, and really rather good.
Monday 15 August 2011
Captain America: Oh Captain My Captain!
I have been in Marvel Heaven this year, first Thor, then X-Men: First Class, now Captain America.
All three have been, in my opinion, rather marvellous (excuse the pun) and ideally cast and directed. At the helm of Captain America is the steady hand of Joe Johnston, the man responsible for the classics Honey I Shrunk The Kids and Jumanji, and more recently Benicio Del Toro's Wolfman (I have not seen it but Empire gives it 2* which isn't encouraging). With his last film getting such a poor reception it is good to see Johnston back on form, perhaps the more family friendly movie is really his genre, Jumanji remains one of my favourite all time movies and Captain America will definitely be sitting on my shelf at some point.
Intriguingly for the Marvel world Steve Rogers (our intrepid Captain) is played by the gorgeous Chris Evans, who fans of the genre would recognise as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four double released a few years ago. Now Fantastic Four were okay movies, not the greatest but then Marvel had less control back then, and in fact the best piece of casting and performance came from Mr Evans himself who was a cocky good looking action man. There is a marked difference between Johnny Storm and Captain America and it is a testament to Chris that you won't ever get the two mixed up, he has grown into a fine actor, personally I have had belief in his acting abilities (and maybe a minor crush too) since I saw Cellular about six years ago, then he proved his worth in 2007 in Danny Boyle's space odditiy Sunshine.
Captain America follows the tale of Steve Rogers, a skinny but eager young man who hates bullies but has not physique or health to stand up to them for long. It is 1942 and he has tried five times to join the army and the fight against Hitler, on his last attempt he catches the eye of a German scientist called Erskine 9Stanely Tucci) who has a top secret 'super soldier' mission that Rogers is perfect for, and Erskine takes him under his wing. However once he becomes Captain America tragedy strikes and the plan is abandoned in favour for Rogers to sell bonds to aid the war effort, staying safe way behind the front line, a propaganda machine. This all changes when he is informed his best friend Bucky has been taken by the Nazis, prompting Captain America to take his true form at last and become the man he always wanted to be.
For the casting of Captain America I heartily approve of Chris Evans, from the skinny (wonders of technology folks) lad desperate to join up and stop the bullies in Europe, to the beefcake storming Hugo Weaving's Nazi stronghold single handedly and saving hundreds of men. Steve Rogers embodied the all American spirit, the arrogance of the States that any individual could go in and beat up Hitler, but also the can-do spirit of a nation.
This film, as all the latest Marvels, have attracted a high calibre of actor, and here we have Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving. Jones and Tucci are the good guys, an army Colonel and a scientist, Weaving is a Nazi super-villain by the name of Johann Schmidt, aka Red Skull.
Jones is of course a believable and funny Colonel, he can do funny and also be taken dead seriously so he is the perfect choice. Tucci has wit and charm as always, he is one of my favourite actors because of his versatility, and you really believe in the relationship between this German scientist and his skinny good hearted protégé.
Weaving is on fine form as an obsessed power hungry Nazi who was Erskine's first attempt with his super-hero serum, and the results show that Schmidt was not the ideal candidate because as Erskine puts it "good becomes great, bad becomes worse". Obviously the side effects affected Schmidt on a cellular level as his face it transpires is not his true appearance.
It will not be surprising to those who read this blog that I loved this film, it is well cast (with a minor glitch in Cooper's American accent) with a plot to really get behind, defeating the Nazi psycho bent on destroying the world world and bringing it under his dominion with weaponry from another realm. The relationships are well represented with the bonds of friendship, paternal love, and fledgling romance amidst the guns and fire power.
I do not know if this beats Thor, because I adored that film, but both this year have competed in beefcake lead, talented and high class casting, and a focus on either the historical or mythological to pique my interest. This will only be decided once the DVD's come through I fear, but rest assured both are going on my shelf, along with X-Men: First Class, and I will remain giddy and excited until the release of the Avengers next year.
Keep it up Marvel, you beat DC hands down.
All three have been, in my opinion, rather marvellous (excuse the pun) and ideally cast and directed. At the helm of Captain America is the steady hand of Joe Johnston, the man responsible for the classics Honey I Shrunk The Kids and Jumanji, and more recently Benicio Del Toro's Wolfman (I have not seen it but Empire gives it 2* which isn't encouraging). With his last film getting such a poor reception it is good to see Johnston back on form, perhaps the more family friendly movie is really his genre, Jumanji remains one of my favourite all time movies and Captain America will definitely be sitting on my shelf at some point.
Intriguingly for the Marvel world Steve Rogers (our intrepid Captain) is played by the gorgeous Chris Evans, who fans of the genre would recognise as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four double released a few years ago. Now Fantastic Four were okay movies, not the greatest but then Marvel had less control back then, and in fact the best piece of casting and performance came from Mr Evans himself who was a cocky good looking action man. There is a marked difference between Johnny Storm and Captain America and it is a testament to Chris that you won't ever get the two mixed up, he has grown into a fine actor, personally I have had belief in his acting abilities (and maybe a minor crush too) since I saw Cellular about six years ago, then he proved his worth in 2007 in Danny Boyle's space odditiy Sunshine.
Captain America follows the tale of Steve Rogers, a skinny but eager young man who hates bullies but has not physique or health to stand up to them for long. It is 1942 and he has tried five times to join the army and the fight against Hitler, on his last attempt he catches the eye of a German scientist called Erskine 9Stanely Tucci) who has a top secret 'super soldier' mission that Rogers is perfect for, and Erskine takes him under his wing. However once he becomes Captain America tragedy strikes and the plan is abandoned in favour for Rogers to sell bonds to aid the war effort, staying safe way behind the front line, a propaganda machine. This all changes when he is informed his best friend Bucky has been taken by the Nazis, prompting Captain America to take his true form at last and become the man he always wanted to be.
For the casting of Captain America I heartily approve of Chris Evans, from the skinny (wonders of technology folks) lad desperate to join up and stop the bullies in Europe, to the beefcake storming Hugo Weaving's Nazi stronghold single handedly and saving hundreds of men. Steve Rogers embodied the all American spirit, the arrogance of the States that any individual could go in and beat up Hitler, but also the can-do spirit of a nation.
This film, as all the latest Marvels, have attracted a high calibre of actor, and here we have Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving. Jones and Tucci are the good guys, an army Colonel and a scientist, Weaving is a Nazi super-villain by the name of Johann Schmidt, aka Red Skull.
Jones is of course a believable and funny Colonel, he can do funny and also be taken dead seriously so he is the perfect choice. Tucci has wit and charm as always, he is one of my favourite actors because of his versatility, and you really believe in the relationship between this German scientist and his skinny good hearted protégé.
Weaving is on fine form as an obsessed power hungry Nazi who was Erskine's first attempt with his super-hero serum, and the results show that Schmidt was not the ideal candidate because as Erskine puts it "good becomes great, bad becomes worse". Obviously the side effects affected Schmidt on a cellular level as his face it transpires is not his true appearance.
The supporting cast are rather good too, Weaving has a side kick in the form of snivelling scientist Zola played by Toby Jones (the voice of Dobby the Elf!), and the Captain has a band of tough nuts played by Band of Brothers survivor Neal McDonough (with a bowler hat), Gossip Girl actor Sebastian Stan, and Britain's own JJ Field (Shadow in the North/Ruby in the Smoke) to name but a few. There is also the pre-requisite love interest in the form of another British actor Hayley Atwell who plays Peggy, a British Agent working with the American army.
In the majority of cases, women in Marvel outputs are some form of damsel in distress, with one or two exceptions it is only in the X-Men they given any power or abilities, and that is because genetic mutation cannot be gender specific.
What I do like about the love interests are that they, although lowly non-super humans, do possess something the hero does not. Jane's intellect surpasses Thor's and she teaches him humility and the importance of family, The Hulk's Betty is a fellow scientist who was the only one who could bring out his humanity even while huge and green, and now Steve Rogers has Peggy who will teach him how to dance. Makes me smile. Each hero learns something from their gal and this shows the difference in our expectations of these movies. Fifty years ago there would have been less teaching more swooning, but today we know women can be just as tough as the men.
What I do like about the love interests are that they, although lowly non-super humans, do possess something the hero does not. Jane's intellect surpasses Thor's and she teaches him humility and the importance of family, The Hulk's Betty is a fellow scientist who was the only one who could bring out his humanity even while huge and green, and now Steve Rogers has Peggy who will teach him how to dance. Makes me smile. Each hero learns something from their gal and this shows the difference in our expectations of these movies. Fifty years ago there would have been less teaching more swooning, but today we know women can be just as tough as the men.
Atwell proves this, and she is a terrific actress (see Channel 4's Any Human Heart or Pillars of the Earth mini-series) getting to kick some butt whilst falling for our hero, refreshingly even before he becomes Mr Beefcake. Atwell handles the soppy stuff without bawling into the camera and is always impeccably made up even while using machine guns or flying in the middle of an air raid, this is done I think to show the British stiff upper lip and professionalism a woman had to show if they were to be anything other than a secretary or nurse in the military. I do not know if the original comics had a Peggy for Steve, but it works well in this movie. I think the love interests are also important to the film studios who firmly believe girls and women would not want to see a comic book film if there were no romance, however Peggy's presence allows the whole audience to see another side to Steve Rogers and how his previous stunted stature held him back not only in going to war but also in everyday life.
A man who has had no trouble with the ladies, the looks or the professional career is Howard Stark, played here with a dubious accent by the charming Dominic Cooper (History Boys, Mamma Mia!). He is the genius behind Captain America's iconic shield and also, Marvel fans will know, father of Tony Stark (aka Iron Man). This film provides a little insight into the Stark showmanship, but while Cooper comes into New York to dazzle the crowds with his floating car surrounded by gorgeous women, when it comes to real work he is a consummate professional rather like his son. Cooper plays Stark well, he has a natural charisma that exudes in his performance, the only criticism I have is the accent, but after all the terrible American to English accents there have been over the years Cooper's does not seem so bad.
From sources I have gathered that the story in this film is not dissimilar to the original outings of Captain America, which is reassuring in itself as there is nothing worse than somebody completely re-writing history to suit a budget or executive. I very much enjoyed the plot, the history of the war is very important and I hope that the younger audiences will be taught a little about propaganda and the ways they convinced young men to fight for their country. There is an equal balance between talking and action, it has been the most successful of all the Marvel beginner tales so far in this respect. The special effects are on top form, the Red Skull uses a mysterious blue light energy, supposedly a source straight from Odin and the gods, to fuel super weapons that obliterate the recipient. These weapons also have a familiar sound to those who have seen Iron Man too many times like myself. The references to the gods and Asgard are intriguing, the energy source answers questions in Iron Man but also raises new ones of how it came to Earth, which will hopefully be answered in either the upcoming Avengers movie or the next Thor.
The movie ends in typical fashion, with SHIELD and Nick Fury, how or when I will not reveal but it is both moving and exciting.
I do not know if this beats Thor, because I adored that film, but both this year have competed in beefcake lead, talented and high class casting, and a focus on either the historical or mythological to pique my interest. This will only be decided once the DVD's come through I fear, but rest assured both are going on my shelf, along with X-Men: First Class, and I will remain giddy and excited until the release of the Avengers next year.
Keep it up Marvel, you beat DC hands down.
Saturday 13 August 2011
World Cinema: a World not to be ignored
Too often do I hear among friends "Subtitles? Nah can't be bothered with reading when I'm trying to watch a film" which I find completely disheartening, especially as it normally comes just as I try to recommend the latest foreign film I've got my hands on.
So here is my attempt to show why I love World Cinema. Admittedly the films I have seen in other languages are the ones that have garnered praise in the English Speaking award system, however this is always the way as I am positive the smaller UK films will not reach many French, German or Spanish movie enthusiasts.
To begin, we have the French language movies. Paris Je t'aime is most likely responsible for my love of foreign language films, and it is an ideal introduction to the world if you have no experience of reading subtitles as you watch a screen. This is because it is not entirely in French, it is a film of many films written, directed, and starring a plethora of French, English, American (and many other countries) talent. One of my favourite segments is of a French couple where the husband is about to leave his wife for a younger woman, when she reveals she has terminal cancer. It is the most romantic five minutes I have ever witnessed, and makes me cry each and every time I watch it.
Next is a film that is sheer brilliance, Amelie. Audrey Tautou, along with Marion Cotillard and Juliette Binoche, is acting royalty in my opinion, all three ladies can branch across English speaking blockbusters and French sophistication. To Amelie itself, it is a quirky cute movie, quite bizarre but you utterly fall in love with Amelie and her crazy little adventure. Tautou stars in another of my personal favourite foreign films, Coco Avant Chanel which charts the rise of designer Coco Chanel from poverty to international powerhouse. I learnt a lot from this film, and I'm not so into fashion or designers but I gained a new respect for Chanel, it also stars Alessandro Nivola - a rare actor who can speak many languages fluently and in the appropriate accent, who also happens to be gorgeous.
Onto Marion Cotillard's contribution to French speaking film; you would recognise her in English language films from Inception and Public Enemies to name but two, however her Oscar winning performance was of course in La Vie En Rose. Based upon the life of singer Edith Piaf it is a wonderful portrayal of the rise and personal fall of a legend, the fact its in French should not put you off watching.
Juliette Binoche is a powerhouse in both English and French movies, and if you see a film advertised that stars Juliette you should most definitely give it a shot. I actually have never seen her most famous French film Three Colours Blue, but it is an award winner on both sides of the pond so I'm sure it will come across my radar at some point.
Onto Germany now, and though it may be a cliché I am going to discuss how a film about Hitler and one concerning the Stasi of East Germany make German language films worth the effort.
So chronologically we begin with Downfall, the last few days of Hitler in his Berlin bunker. This film is magnificent, it portrays the lives surrounding Hitler, how people believed in him until the end, how defiant and egotistical Hitler was, but also scarily how caring and involved with even the lowliest secretary. Critics made special note that Bruno Ganz's portrayal of the 'fearless leader' was one that 'almost made him human', rather a bizarre statement because no matter how monstrous the actions are we are all human beings with real emotion. After seeing this film I have noted that it made me almost feel sorry for the man, but mostly I think this is because the confined nature of the film means you concentrate solely on the bodies in the bunker frightened to death about the future and all discussing their Fuhrers rapid decline. You see a man so twisted up in his own illusions that when they unravel he himself begins to come apart, eventually as we all know taking his own, his lover's, and even his dogs life. I cannot recommend this film highly enough to anyone remotely interested in the Second World War, and especially to those not because there are parts of history everybody should know about.
Next I want to discuss The Lives Of Others, a film set in 1985 in East Berlin while Germany was divided into West and the German Democratic Republic. It is a film of idealism, focusing on Stasi (Secret Police) Captain Wiesler and his surveillance of a supposed loyal playwright Georg Dreyman and his girlfriend Christa-Maria Sieland. This film made me make many faces, from smiling, to horror, to sadness I think my forehead and mouth had quite the workout. It rightfully won the best foreign language Oscar in 2006 because it is such a thought provoking film, but ultimately it is a film about human nature and what certain situations will provoke in us. For Captain Wiesler it is a profound change in his principles, he goes from showing us the very worst of human nature to the very best. I do not want to spoil the plot for people as this film was such an eye opening experience for me, and it made me smile through tears, that I believe if I revealed the story no-one would be inclined to see it.
Lastly I want to show the diversity of the Spanish language films. For this I will focus on Volver, starring the stunning Penelope Cruz, and then Motorcycle Diaries showcasing the talents of a very underused Gael Garcia Bernal.
Volver shows the less serious side of film making, much in the same vein as Little Miss Sunshine for its sparky humour and dysfunctional family, but also has notes of the serious as an abusive partner gets his just desserts. The film is about a mother coming back from the dead to help her daughters, the elder of whom played by Cruz who disposes, with her daughter, the body of said abusive partner in a friends empty cafe freezer. Whilst doing so she accidentally becomes a caterer for a local film crew and manages to make money from the unfortunate death, all the while her Mother's ghost is staying with her sister and trying to repair relationships. Cruz's daughter is the only one not caught up in the religious significance of a mothers return, and it is refreshing to see the deeply ritualistic Catholic faith being gently poked fun of through ghosts and murder. I always prefer to hear an actor in their own language if they have a strong accent, and Penelope Cruz excels in this film as she can be relaxed and fluid with her speech, so her acting improves tenfold.
The Motorcycle Diaries is quite a different kettle of fish, it is a film set in 1952 about a 23 year old Ernesto Guevara (later to be known as Che) taking time out before completing his medical degree to travel across South America with a friend on their motorbikes, eventually stopping in Peru to work at a Leper Colony. Through their journey they encounter the unbelievable poverty of their neighbours, and Guevara goes from happy as a clam frivolous student to a more serious young man determined to make a difference. The early life of Che Guevara was not something I had heard much about, I knew he was a revolutionary Cuban Marxist who is revered across the world and splashed on T-Shirts of those trying too hard to be Socialists, but I had no idea he was a doctor or that his politics were massively influenced by seeing and working with the unjustified poor.
To round off my Spanish language appraisal I cannot forget to mention Guillermo del Toro's masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth. It is a visual spectacular with an undercurrent of a serious and tragic story of a young girl in the middle of the Spanish Civil War creating a fantasy world to escape from her own, and yet her own fantasies are just as frightening as real life. Anybody who enjoys fantasy will love this film, they may not want to watch it more than once but it is a true gem in the archives of Spanish Language film-making.
One day I will review one of my own set of personal favourite foreign language films, the Studio Ghibli collection from Japan, but that would be too comparative of Disney to be fully justified in a World Cinema review.
For now I hope that I have persuaded some that just because a film has subtitles doesn't mean it is any more work than a film without, and in fact can be so much more worthy because of its language. You trust a German film about Hitler more so than a U.S made one, the slums of Brasil come so much more alive in the fluidity of the Portuguese (City of God), and you learn about the different cultures and histories of other countries, and to me this is what is truly important about World Cinema.
So here is my attempt to show why I love World Cinema. Admittedly the films I have seen in other languages are the ones that have garnered praise in the English Speaking award system, however this is always the way as I am positive the smaller UK films will not reach many French, German or Spanish movie enthusiasts.
To begin, we have the French language movies. Paris Je t'aime is most likely responsible for my love of foreign language films, and it is an ideal introduction to the world if you have no experience of reading subtitles as you watch a screen. This is because it is not entirely in French, it is a film of many films written, directed, and starring a plethora of French, English, American (and many other countries) talent. One of my favourite segments is of a French couple where the husband is about to leave his wife for a younger woman, when she reveals she has terminal cancer. It is the most romantic five minutes I have ever witnessed, and makes me cry each and every time I watch it.
Next is a film that is sheer brilliance, Amelie. Audrey Tautou, along with Marion Cotillard and Juliette Binoche, is acting royalty in my opinion, all three ladies can branch across English speaking blockbusters and French sophistication. To Amelie itself, it is a quirky cute movie, quite bizarre but you utterly fall in love with Amelie and her crazy little adventure. Tautou stars in another of my personal favourite foreign films, Coco Avant Chanel which charts the rise of designer Coco Chanel from poverty to international powerhouse. I learnt a lot from this film, and I'm not so into fashion or designers but I gained a new respect for Chanel, it also stars Alessandro Nivola - a rare actor who can speak many languages fluently and in the appropriate accent, who also happens to be gorgeous.
Onto Marion Cotillard's contribution to French speaking film; you would recognise her in English language films from Inception and Public Enemies to name but two, however her Oscar winning performance was of course in La Vie En Rose. Based upon the life of singer Edith Piaf it is a wonderful portrayal of the rise and personal fall of a legend, the fact its in French should not put you off watching.
Juliette Binoche is a powerhouse in both English and French movies, and if you see a film advertised that stars Juliette you should most definitely give it a shot. I actually have never seen her most famous French film Three Colours Blue, but it is an award winner on both sides of the pond so I'm sure it will come across my radar at some point.
Onto Germany now, and though it may be a cliché I am going to discuss how a film about Hitler and one concerning the Stasi of East Germany make German language films worth the effort.
So chronologically we begin with Downfall, the last few days of Hitler in his Berlin bunker. This film is magnificent, it portrays the lives surrounding Hitler, how people believed in him until the end, how defiant and egotistical Hitler was, but also scarily how caring and involved with even the lowliest secretary. Critics made special note that Bruno Ganz's portrayal of the 'fearless leader' was one that 'almost made him human', rather a bizarre statement because no matter how monstrous the actions are we are all human beings with real emotion. After seeing this film I have noted that it made me almost feel sorry for the man, but mostly I think this is because the confined nature of the film means you concentrate solely on the bodies in the bunker frightened to death about the future and all discussing their Fuhrers rapid decline. You see a man so twisted up in his own illusions that when they unravel he himself begins to come apart, eventually as we all know taking his own, his lover's, and even his dogs life. I cannot recommend this film highly enough to anyone remotely interested in the Second World War, and especially to those not because there are parts of history everybody should know about.
Next I want to discuss The Lives Of Others, a film set in 1985 in East Berlin while Germany was divided into West and the German Democratic Republic. It is a film of idealism, focusing on Stasi (Secret Police) Captain Wiesler and his surveillance of a supposed loyal playwright Georg Dreyman and his girlfriend Christa-Maria Sieland. This film made me make many faces, from smiling, to horror, to sadness I think my forehead and mouth had quite the workout. It rightfully won the best foreign language Oscar in 2006 because it is such a thought provoking film, but ultimately it is a film about human nature and what certain situations will provoke in us. For Captain Wiesler it is a profound change in his principles, he goes from showing us the very worst of human nature to the very best. I do not want to spoil the plot for people as this film was such an eye opening experience for me, and it made me smile through tears, that I believe if I revealed the story no-one would be inclined to see it.
Lastly I want to show the diversity of the Spanish language films. For this I will focus on Volver, starring the stunning Penelope Cruz, and then Motorcycle Diaries showcasing the talents of a very underused Gael Garcia Bernal.
Volver shows the less serious side of film making, much in the same vein as Little Miss Sunshine for its sparky humour and dysfunctional family, but also has notes of the serious as an abusive partner gets his just desserts. The film is about a mother coming back from the dead to help her daughters, the elder of whom played by Cruz who disposes, with her daughter, the body of said abusive partner in a friends empty cafe freezer. Whilst doing so she accidentally becomes a caterer for a local film crew and manages to make money from the unfortunate death, all the while her Mother's ghost is staying with her sister and trying to repair relationships. Cruz's daughter is the only one not caught up in the religious significance of a mothers return, and it is refreshing to see the deeply ritualistic Catholic faith being gently poked fun of through ghosts and murder. I always prefer to hear an actor in their own language if they have a strong accent, and Penelope Cruz excels in this film as she can be relaxed and fluid with her speech, so her acting improves tenfold.
The Motorcycle Diaries is quite a different kettle of fish, it is a film set in 1952 about a 23 year old Ernesto Guevara (later to be known as Che) taking time out before completing his medical degree to travel across South America with a friend on their motorbikes, eventually stopping in Peru to work at a Leper Colony. Through their journey they encounter the unbelievable poverty of their neighbours, and Guevara goes from happy as a clam frivolous student to a more serious young man determined to make a difference. The early life of Che Guevara was not something I had heard much about, I knew he was a revolutionary Cuban Marxist who is revered across the world and splashed on T-Shirts of those trying too hard to be Socialists, but I had no idea he was a doctor or that his politics were massively influenced by seeing and working with the unjustified poor.
To round off my Spanish language appraisal I cannot forget to mention Guillermo del Toro's masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth. It is a visual spectacular with an undercurrent of a serious and tragic story of a young girl in the middle of the Spanish Civil War creating a fantasy world to escape from her own, and yet her own fantasies are just as frightening as real life. Anybody who enjoys fantasy will love this film, they may not want to watch it more than once but it is a true gem in the archives of Spanish Language film-making.
One day I will review one of my own set of personal favourite foreign language films, the Studio Ghibli collection from Japan, but that would be too comparative of Disney to be fully justified in a World Cinema review.
For now I hope that I have persuaded some that just because a film has subtitles doesn't mean it is any more work than a film without, and in fact can be so much more worthy because of its language. You trust a German film about Hitler more so than a U.S made one, the slums of Brasil come so much more alive in the fluidity of the Portuguese (City of God), and you learn about the different cultures and histories of other countries, and to me this is what is truly important about World Cinema.
Thursday 11 August 2011
Lymelife - The Caulkins' Ice Storm
Not sure Lymelife is a film many would have heard of, I certainly hadn't until I decided to scout BBC iPlayer's film collection as they often have hidden gems. This is definitely a gem to me, and if any people who read this blog have seen it then be aware this is right up my street. My own personal film taste ranges from comic book fantasy to mediocre chick flick, I can pretty much stomach them all (except vicious sick horror). Friends at University would class some of my films under the heading "not a lot happens in an American suburb", I own a few of these types including Junebug, The Station Agent, Cookies Fortune, and Fireflies in the Garden. Lymelife I would also put in that same category, but what all my friends failed to realise was that stuff is always bubbling away in these movies, just because nobody blows up doesn't mean there aren't explosions. Of course its all a matter of taste and just to be clear if you have seen The Ice Storm and disliked it, you will not enjoy Lymelife.
So to explain the comparison, both Lymelife and The Ice Storm are set in the Seventies, the latter in 1973 and the former in the non specified later years, we know it is a few years after Lyme disease became prevalent in 1975 and the cause by tick was discovered in 1978. Both are involved with neighbouring families, with the prerequisite adolescents bubbling with hormones on either side, and finally the adulterous parents.
While The Ice Storm was overflowing with sex, scandal, and a wide cast, Lymelife is less so. Rory Caulkin provides our main character, a fifteen year old in love with the girl next door unaware how screwed up his parents marriage is. The Caulkins are a talented family, the middle brother Kieran also stars as believe it or not Scott's (Rory) older brother Jimmy returning from the Army and awaiting orders. The girl next door is the beautiful Emma Roberts, herself dealing with a rather screwed up set of parents, the highly strung Cynthia Nixon and a Lyme disease ridden Timothy Hutton.
And really this is it, its their lives intertwining, Alec Baldwin screwing his sons lives up with his philandering and almost ruining young Scott's chances at romance. Of course like The Ice Storm there is a climactic and violent end, but as with all these films in my lovingly named 'films where not a lot happen' the violence is not of a slasher movie calibre, but it is all the more shocking.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is well acted, I think when you bring siblings in together you get a realism to their interaction, look at the Gyllenhaals in Donnie Darko or Joan and John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank. The idea of having Lyme disease as a potential threat to your health casts a horrific shadow across these families, and its one I have never seen examined in film and didn't realise was such a debilitating condition.
Between The Ice Storm and Lymelife I think the former is the superior film because it examines so many aspects of life in the Seventies, however it lacks the focus of having one truly central character as Scott is to Lymelife. What I would recommend to potential viewers is to watch The Ice Storm as although it was made in 1997 it cannot age, as Lymelife (2008) will not age either, because of its retrospective setting. But also to watch it as the cast are amazing, you have everybody from Sigourney Weaver to Elijah Wood showcasing their talents. Then once you have seen it and if you enjoyed it to give Lymelife a try, the cast are also fabulous and its a very very good 'film where not a lot happens in an American suburb'.
So to explain the comparison, both Lymelife and The Ice Storm are set in the Seventies, the latter in 1973 and the former in the non specified later years, we know it is a few years after Lyme disease became prevalent in 1975 and the cause by tick was discovered in 1978. Both are involved with neighbouring families, with the prerequisite adolescents bubbling with hormones on either side, and finally the adulterous parents.
While The Ice Storm was overflowing with sex, scandal, and a wide cast, Lymelife is less so. Rory Caulkin provides our main character, a fifteen year old in love with the girl next door unaware how screwed up his parents marriage is. The Caulkins are a talented family, the middle brother Kieran also stars as believe it or not Scott's (Rory) older brother Jimmy returning from the Army and awaiting orders. The girl next door is the beautiful Emma Roberts, herself dealing with a rather screwed up set of parents, the highly strung Cynthia Nixon and a Lyme disease ridden Timothy Hutton.
And really this is it, its their lives intertwining, Alec Baldwin screwing his sons lives up with his philandering and almost ruining young Scott's chances at romance. Of course like The Ice Storm there is a climactic and violent end, but as with all these films in my lovingly named 'films where not a lot happen' the violence is not of a slasher movie calibre, but it is all the more shocking.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is well acted, I think when you bring siblings in together you get a realism to their interaction, look at the Gyllenhaals in Donnie Darko or Joan and John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank. The idea of having Lyme disease as a potential threat to your health casts a horrific shadow across these families, and its one I have never seen examined in film and didn't realise was such a debilitating condition.
Between The Ice Storm and Lymelife I think the former is the superior film because it examines so many aspects of life in the Seventies, however it lacks the focus of having one truly central character as Scott is to Lymelife. What I would recommend to potential viewers is to watch The Ice Storm as although it was made in 1997 it cannot age, as Lymelife (2008) will not age either, because of its retrospective setting. But also to watch it as the cast are amazing, you have everybody from Sigourney Weaver to Elijah Wood showcasing their talents. Then once you have seen it and if you enjoyed it to give Lymelife a try, the cast are also fabulous and its a very very good 'film where not a lot happens in an American suburb'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)