Essie Speaks - mostly about movies - but also of books, countries, life. Mostly movies though :) (Updated every weekend - sunday night latest ^-^)P.S. ALL THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ITS WRITER - AND THAT WOULD BE ME!
I love Johnny Depp. I have said this last week. I remember films like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Edward Scissorhands, What's Eating Gilbert Grape and I say to myself, where on earth has that glorious actor gone ? It has been a while since he had a film that really, really scenned. Now, there is a trailer doing the rounds and it awakens in me a sneaking suspicion that it may, just may be his comeback. Several critics have said it before. I have only just seen the trailer but I concur. There was a certain amount of clapping and bouncing up and down that happened when I watched this (I admit nothing). Check it out. He may be back you know, he just may be back...
Ok check this out, now this looks interesting. Strangerland is helmed by Kim Farrant, first time feature director but the cast - Nicole Kidman, Joseph Fiennes, Hugo Weaving... That tells you something. Then you watch the trailer. Now, the trailer is, I have to admit, just a tad bit confusing. I actually had to read the synopsis as well just to make sure I had "got it". Despite this however, the trailer grabs you. It gets you right in the feels. It gives you chills. Check it out, this is going to be interesting...
Ok I found this next fella when I was browsing recently added trailers. It's a classic story. Basically it's a "found footage" type movie. I can place like half the lines and about a third of the shots from various different movies of the same kind. This time we're infiltrating the fabled Area 51 where conspiracy theorists would have us believe alien technology is kept. The trailer focuses on our heros breaking in, but the hint is that the real story begins after that. And I don't mean the obligatory unleashed monster. I mean the white stuff... Look you're gonna have to watch the thing for this to make sense to you, but it looks like something you could huddle up with some ice cream to...
]
Ok this last one isn't a trailer. Not really. But it concerns a film I adore - Spirited Away - and a whole new angle on it. Basically some cool cat with waaay too much time on their hands have given the film the 8-bit treatment, They have had to shorten it "a little bit" of course. Check it out, I couldn't stop laughing all the way through...
God, I'm showing my age, aren't I... Much love to y'all folks! Have an awesome week!
I haven’t
seen Ben Affleck around for a while. Last time I saw him it was in Argo. Then
he was in To The Wonder by Terrance Malik (to my utter mortification I haven’t
seen that film yet. And I call myself a Terrance Malik fan.) Then he was in Runner
Runner which I also missed (reviews online tell me I haven’t missed much but
then again, they may just be being mean) and then this happened. Gone Girl
quite literally happened to the cinema scene over here, at one point I remember
being almost physically sick to the back teeth of seeing posters of it
and the bestselling book that inspired it literally everywhere. It was enough
to put you off the film all together. I don’t know what it is – although I do
know I’m not alone in this – the moment a film or a book gets lauded everywhere
as the best thing in recent history I am apt to be rather snobbish and think I probably
would hate it. It lead to me refusing to watch Forest Gump for more years than
I would care to admit (it’s in the double digits – let’s leave it at that). As
you can see though I am doing my best to put that bad habit behind me and focus
on “being in the moment” as far as cinema goes.
When Nick
Dunne (Ben Affleck) calls the police to report his wife missing the police take
it seriously. It looks like a tale told many, many times before. Seemingly perfect
and beautiful couple hit by tragedy, said tragedy throwing open closet doors
and dragging out skeletons, and Nick Dunne looking more and more as if he has
murdered his wife and done away with the body… What they are not taking into
account is the fact that Amy (Rosamund Pike) is by no stretch of the
imagination your average, over the horizon and happily ever after kind of wife
to go and get herself murdered like some cliché...
I am glad I
went ahead and watched Gone Girl. It had a lot going for it, not least the fact
that it had been directed by one of my favourite directors, David Fincher. He
is the mind behind two of my favourite films ever – Fight Club and Se7en – and
his dark and twisted universe comes to the surface once again with
bone-chilling vividness. I love a good psychological murder mystery. But being
into “crime films” has its own ups and downs, there is a lot in the genre but
the really good stuff is few and far between, not least because there are SO
many clichés out there. This fella is a truly extraordinary work of art from
end to end that will, I have no doubt, a long –term place in all those “best”
film lists that crop up here there and everywhere. It definitely has a place in
my heart as a critic.
Gone Girl achieves
something else I truly loved about previous Fincher films. The constant sense
of brooding that spreads all the way through the film, not letting you relax
for one minute. In a film like Fight Club this effect depends on the constantly
dark and “off the wall” feel of the setting, the constant darkness gives us a
sense that there is something lurking in it. With Gone Girl however, the
surroundings are anything but dark. Usually bright airy and pastel colour
schemes and almost picture perfect settings are used to simply feel that this
is all a little too… Right… The darkness is not in the visual realm but in what
is possibly the darkest place they can hide, inside the human mind. This,
children, is where the true terror begins.
That, of
course, is in the story’s universe. In our universe, when we need to create
this effect, the surest place to start is a strong cast. Now this is going to
be a spoiler for those of you who haven’t seen the film yet (and I do apologise
for it but it’s something I simply MUST gush about) Rosamund Pike plays one
heck of a villain. Now the whole police and murder and mystery angle might put
some viewers off if they’re not fans of the genre but in actual fact the film
is nigh on 2.5 hours solid of mind games, unreliable narrators and shifting
sands. Kudos to both Pike and Affleck who do not miss a beat or indeed an opportunity
to confuse and confound us in this story of many twists and turns… There was a potential
for mistake when structuring this story – a too perfect villain is almost as
annoying as a too perfect hero. Especially since (extreme spoiler alert) Amy
ultimately “wins” in the end. Fincher does however make her a bit less than perfect
– bad planning and coincidence get the better of her in the second half of the
film, forcing her to change her plan entirely. I do get annoyed with people who
do eye-rolls at coincidences by the way. I mean sure, you can’t base an entire
film on them. That does not however mean that they shouldn’t exist at all. I
mean good heavens, real life is full of coincidences, how unrealistic would it
be if there were absolutely none ever in any story we ever told… Fincher stays
faithful to this realism by letting Amy win in the end too. I mean let’s face
it kids – the good guys don’t win EVERY fight in the real world…
You will
have spotted by this point that I love a good plot twist. I love a film that
really and truly fucks with your brain. If you, like me, enjoy a good game of
mental chess, look no further than Gone Girl. It’s one of the best examples of
it to come out in years.
Oh it's going to be one heck of a summer season, make no mistakes on that count. The battle at the box office will be bloody. Even the trailers, now raining thick and fast on a weekly basis are putting on a marvelous show. There is much to be excited about this week, but if you know the first thing about me you know what got me slobbering earlier this week...
Oh yes, There was as much controversy in the trailer as was whipped up with the whole deal with the script being leaked. The trailer had been leaked. Oh no it hadn't. Wait, it had been removed - oh hang on, it was back again! Yet, despite the false starts, the teaser trailer is here. I only wish it gave a tiny tad more away. Sadly it doesn't add a lot to what we already know but... You know... It's something...
Straight on its heels of course, a clash of the titans. I have always been slightly dubious about the concept of bringing these two superheroes together. I mean just because two things function well seperately it doesn't necessarily mean they go well together. I mean take chocolate. And ketchup. Would you eat the two together ? I thought not. Still, I may be being cynical. The trailer looks more than half decent. But then again that is only around 2 minutes of the film so I shall be keeping my cynicism close to hand...
Buut of course these were not the trailers everyone was talking about this week. Nor indeed were they the trailers you were looking for. Yes, yes you got it. The new Star Wars trailer also hit the airwaves this week, dragging behind it lots of tears ("Chewie, we're home" and all that) and massive contreversy. Who was talking ? What did he mean? Who was he talking to? Why isn't it December already ? I know, we have a while to wait before we storm the cinemas in full-blown regalia, but in the meanwhile, here's a little something to quench some of that thirst...
Now... The next one up is a trailer that may just have swayed me. I have been doing many, many eye-rolls about Jurassic World. It is - and I stand by this - the nth film about man messing with nature and "it" going horribly wrong. And this time the killer monster is a female to boot, I mean talk about monsterous feminine... Or don't. Don't, because I casually cliked on the trailer I felt... Just the teeniest, insiest twinge of excitement. Ok, fine, I had to admit it does look rather cool. It's going up on my list of blockbusters to see this season along with Mad Max. Yes, I said Mad Max. What can I say, I'm a child of the 80's...
Aaaand then there's this. Now, I do realise that as a story The Little Prince was almost overdue a remake. I understand that, being deeply philosophical and all that, it is a tough one to adapt to the screen. The bits of the book itself that have been animated - slightly more surreal - look wonderful. What I hated was the corny Disney movie about "never losing your inner child" tagged onto the end. You know, your type a odd-couple type comedy where the "crazy" one teaches the "uptight" one the value of letting go and relaxing and all that. Subtly combined with an ode to childhood innocence. Ye gods folks, first Pan then this, stop trying to fix things that ain't broken!!
I used to
be such a big fan of Johnny Depp. No, I really was. I remember the excitement
welling up in me when I saw the second pirates of the Caribbean. Jack Sparrow
was atop a mast of a small dingy, you saw him from behind and... A proper “squeeee”
moment. One has to say, the veteran
actor’s looks have not dimmed at all with age. But as for his output… It’s
definitely a series of “oh dear” moments. The latest film critics love to hate
being Mordecai – no one seemed to have a single good word to say about it. He
seems to have quite a few films coming out this year, let’s hope one of them is
the film to relaunch the Johnny Depp we remember and love from classics like
Edward Scissorhands or – a particular favourite of mine – Fear and Loathing in
Las Vegas. In the meanwhile, this week we peruse the latest booty from my trip
to the DVD store – a little number called Transcendence.
Sporting a
cast absolutely chock-full of stars – Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Rebecca
Hall and Kate Mara – and a first-time, though passionate director who had Dp’d
on many films before, Transcendence looked more than promising. The subject
matter was current and thought-provoking too, as it explores the domain of AI
(one of a long series of films to recently ask questions on the matter) and in particular
– as the name suggests – Transcendence. It’s a weird one. You can see promise
and lots of “good things” bubbling right beneath the surface, but when all is
said and done the film just doesn’t… You
know, it just doesn’t.
Dr Will
Caster (Johhny Depp) and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) are scientists at the
cutting edge of AI, they are working on creating a sentient machine. Will would
much rather tinker about in his laboratory with no contact with the outside
world at all but anti-AI activists has other plans. An attempt on Will’s life pushes the team’s
hand to attempting Transcendence, that is to say, uploading Will’s
consciousness onto a computer. The attempt is successful and what seems to be painfully
similar to Will’s spirit now resides in a computer. And the moment the computer
connects to the internet truly extraordinary things begin to happen. For Will,
the sky is literally the limit… The question is, what does this mean for the
rest of the planet…
There were
several problems with this film as far as I was concerned. First of all, the
characters seemed unfinished. Of course there are a “set” lot of characters in
every story and a little bit of digging reveals them for the tropes they are.
The key in that case is in the digging. A combination of the actor’s performance
and the director’s vision make the characters complex and we don’t just yawn
and go “mentor” or “turncoat”. In this film, the actors performances are good –
but I suspect they were just doing what was being asked of them, which, sadly,
was not enough for my money. I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the
two main female characters (heck the only two actual female characters in the
film) were the worst when it came to being caricaturised. Both Evelyn – Will’s
wife (though credit where it’s due, she is a scientist so at least credited
with intelligence) and the leader of the rebels Bree (Kate Mara – again at
least in a leader’s position) are by and large portrayed as “excitable women”
acting on their emotions, making mistakes and being “guided” by men. Morgan
Freeman is the typical older mentor, Paul Bettany is the “sceptic”, Cillian Murphy
is “the cop”. All the characters are perfectly executed but that is what you
would expect from a veteran cast. Things could definitely have been made
interesting through performance alone – and an opportunity was missed…
The bit
things were “added to” was the storyline. And oh boy, did they add “things” to
that. When you take a gander at the extra features you see a clue as to what
went wrong – “It’s a sci-fi film” say the crew members, “so the film definitely
has a fiction and fantasy element”. Well of course it does. Basically the film has taken the much disputed
concept of transcendence – the uploading of the human consciousness onto a computer
system and – coupled with the developments that would allow us to have –in
theory at least – artificial bodies thus leading to immortality for all intents
and purposes. Some scientific centres claim that all of this could be a mere and
unbelievable 30 years away. Others aren’t quite as optimistic.
What the
film tries to do is to give us a terrifying hint at what could happen if this
Transcendence somehow “got out of control” and “took over the world”. Apart from the fact that the whole concept
stinks of The Terminator, the film simply
does not do enough to instil this fear into us. What it does do is at best hard
to follow and very loosely based in logic (for those who have seen the film, I
credit myself with at least average intelligence and good education but I am
still at a loss as to how Will can actually manipulate the gravel and the
concrete in the town around him). The film should have either leant a bit more
on the plotlines that were actually laid out within the domain of logic, or
gone a bit more spectacular on the “fantastic” elements and made more of a
spectacle of them. I mean I get it, they are trying to go understated and hint
at the horrors to come but with the cast performances already reduced to
clichés and none of the storylines quite followed through the film just…
Doesn’t. By the time you go “Ok fine, I officially suspend disbelief, he can
manipulate nature via wifi or whatever” the film is done. You just don’t have
the opportunity to “settle into” anything.
I have a feeling that our first time director
Wally Pfister just had so much he wanted to do with his first feature that he
just crammed it all into the same film on a superficial level and explored none
of them in depth. I do wish he had picked a few concepts and burrowed down
instead of across. It could have been a fascinating film… It ends up being
just.. Meh…
Well… The
BIG trailers are coming thick and fast. I know it’s only april but you know, brace yourselves,
blockbuster season is coming. One ripple in the tweetosphere this week was the
new trailer for Marvel’s latest output, Antman. Rather unfortunately for
Marvel, nobody seems overly excited about the upcoming film. I must say the
trailer doesn’t seem to have the wow factor of its competitors.
However, I
somehow doubt the fellas in suits at Marvel are going to be crying into their
lattes over this, because they are of course the owners of the other big release across the pond this
week, Avengers The Age Of Ultron. Now
THAT’S a superhero movie that has got tongues wagging – it’s IMDB score is already
a rather impressive 9,4 which says something about the way the sales are going
to go once The Ultron storm hits over on this side of the ocean… Featuring more special effects explosions and
good looking leading ladies and gents than you can shake a stick at, if superhero
movies are your thing this IS your fix…
Ooh, hang
on, I have one more piece of action – superhero related news. Of course with
The Avengers coming out and taking the world by storm paramount dropped the new
trailer for their big name this summer, Terminator Geniysis. I wouldn’t have
mentioned it again only they did something clever (well kinda) to keep
themselves in the discussion. They revealed a MASSIVE plot twist (see trailer
below for what it is). This in turn threw up a massive uproar about should they
/ shouldn’t they have and why did they reveal this. This, I strongly suspect,
was the aim in the first place. I personally don’t think it has done the film
much damage. The franchise is such a classic that the fans are going to be
almost as interested in how it happened if not more than what exactly came to
pass… Anyway, check out the trailer and see what you make of it…
Phew… Ok
Let’s move away from this whole blockbuster scene for two seconds… Let’s move
onto that other things the world and its dog is talking about. Yes. Yes. The
new season of Game Of Thrones. And yes I
am still refusing to watch them – especially since George Martin said they are
officially killing off people that weren’t killed off in the books. I know,
it’s a different work of art, yada yada. I love the books – the series is
ruining it. The end. But you guys seem to love it, so here’s a trailer.
But Sedef,
I hear you cry, what is this constant chatter of mainstream – what happened to
your interest in Indies. I have two things to say for that. Firstly, for a
quick fix, use the links top right and pootle off to my stuff on Critics
Associated where I talk a lot about the smaller, more historical short and
independent fare knocking around the place. Secondly I have just discovered
this trailer for this little indie number called Manglehorn… It stars one of my
absolute favourite stars in the world ever Al pacino. Manglehorn is a guy. A
guy who is kind of fed up with life. He seems to be sort of drifting through unable
to shift his bitterness…. I assume then “something” happens. I have a feeling
it isn’t going to be an easy watch – but definitely a worthwhile one… I couldn't find the trailer I watched for it but I did find a videoclip online - it should do the trick nicely... I mean I liked it... So... Yeah...
Have a great week folks, and see you all next week! Oh and by the way, if you want to chat to me I am surgically attached to Twitter - my Twitter handle is @Essie_Tweetsand you can check my feed out at the bottom of this page - just give me a buzz!
I am SO
glad I caught this one. In an awards season characterised by biopics, Mr Turner
should have been in its (his) element but it was curiously passed by… The one
mention I remember of it was from several different critics tearing out their hair
when the BAFTA nominations came out this year about Timothy Spall’s perceived
snub in the Best Actor category. I say perceived simply because I had not
perceived it myself at the time. It then got nominated for four Oscars, in
fields such as Cinematography, production design, Costume Design and Original
Score. Now these categories are more than worthy – not least because the film
is a visual feast more than worthy of an artist such as Turner. But they are
not the categories that get the massive headlines and the endless discussions
on various film related talk shows that emerge around the time… Anyway, as you
will have noticed, as the DVDs hit the market here in the UK, I have been
scrambling to catch up and keep up with cinematic output. I am rather pleased
my progress so far. So, long story short I got round to perceiving this little
number. Consider this film a belated rant about why this film didn’t get the
attention it deserved – it has the makings of a huge masterpiece.
This is the
life story of British painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall). We specifically
focus on the last 25 years of the great painter’s life. He is now a celebrated painter,
but his celebrity has come at a price. And the price has a lot to do with
Turner’s own rather difficult character. While Turner is personable (if a
little eccentric) in public, in his private life Turner’s relationships are
marked by his cantankerous nature – and more often than not breakdowns and
arguments. Leigh takes a sensitive look at what makes Turner tick as an artist,
but also, what gives him peace…
Leigh’s
Turner is a complex and fascinating character. Clearly a very accomplished
artist, Turner has revolutionary ideas about painting (I know. It’s a little
hard to imagine a household name like Turner as a revolutionary painter whose
works weren’t always well received, but there you go… ). He experiments with
his art, he is in the heart of “the in crowd” in the artistic circles of his
time, he is an active (if not always easy to get on with) member of the academy
and his works are almost a given in the Great Exhibitions over the years. He is
without doubt a businessman and makes his living, in the true sense, with his painting
and with his business sense.
What Turner
cannot seem to take too much of is the personal relationships this kind of life
requires. For most of his life the only people who can truly tolerate him are
his doting father and their long-suffering maid Hannah Danby (admirably portrayed
by Dorothy Atkinson – don’t you be fooled, she is more than just “the help”).
He is estranged from his wife and his grown children, has few friends outside
of business circles and is all in all quite difficult to get on with if you
were to approach him as he seems to have a minimal interest on getting on well
with you if it was not for business reasons. However there is more to Turner
than a cantankerous recluse from the world. What he actually wants is to live a
simple life, by the sea, make sketches and have the love of an honest woman (as
opposed to a “London lady”). Spall handles this duality of Turner’s character
quite beautifully. He is unapologetically terse and sometimes quite difficult
to watch throughout, and yet ably portrays the softer side of Turner’s
character that is harder to come by, barely seen but still very, very much present
– and of course a great part of his art and his work.
Leigh has,
it is quite clear, paid close attention to the fact that this is a film about a
painter. Turner’s muted tones and colour scheme dominate the film, as does a
lack of close-ups or extreme close-ups, thus the film mirrors the style of the painter
it depicts throughout which brings us one
step closer to the inner world of the artist.
The honesty
of the physical depiction also rather beautifully continues through into the way
the entire story is told. You will look in vain for the clear blacks and whites
of normal popular and mainstream films. Every single character is beautifully
developed and come together with extraordinary harmony to tell the story of a
rather extraordinary man.
Of course
when the awards seasons come around we look for something a tad more grandiose.
We need jazz hands and technical gimmicks, a classic true story of extraordinary
people overcoming difficulties or, perhaps, a rather more dramatic insight into
debilitating illness (now I come to think of it there is a little sub-theme of
disease running through this awards season too, no…). The British costume drama
is seen as just the tiniest bit twee as a genre. But if the genre is considered
twee, this does not mean that the combination of a visionary director, talented
cast but perhaps more important than all of them the enigmatic and
extraordinary artist J. M.W. Turner at the centre of it all make for a truly
extraordinary film in this case…
Well,
again, we definitely have quite a lot to chew on this week, don’t we! I want to
start with the one that made my heart surge the most. No, not the new scenes
for the Avengers, it’s a lot more sedate than that… Or not, depending on
which way you look at it. I’m talking about the trailer for Amy, the biopic
for Amy Winehouse. The trailer hit the airwaves (netwaves) last week. The film
is clearly trying to get behind the “party girl” image Amy had and show
the real girl underneath… And yes, those last words she says in the trailer are
both eerie and meant to be a tearjerker. I don’t care. I still love it.
That said,
as the weather gets warmer, we seem to have definitely not lost our love for
things that go “boom”. Or in this case, “vroom”. Fast and Furious 7 (count
them) has hit the screens, smashed records and generally hiked up adrenaline
levels all over the world. So much so that Vin Diesel has actually hinted at a possible
eighth film… In the meanwhile, let’s salute FF7 as we go by shall we…
Aaand next
up we have YET ANOTHER spy film… About a decade ago we had a rush
on zombie films, all of a sudden – possibly the effects of the upcoming
Bond film – we have Survivor, yet another film about secret organizations,
battles between them and agents out to get eachother… I mean don’t get me wrong
Survivor looks fantastic but… There are rather a lot of them now. The one thing
I will say is that it is great to see Milla Jovovich doing something that isn’t
Resident Evil related…
Ok, to
finish off, a gripe. I was in the cinema the other day, and I saw a
trailer. It is not, I would hazard a guess, a film that is going to set
cinematic history on fire. In fact I’m guessing that it was meant to be little
more than a soap bubble to giggle at and forget. But honestly, watch the
trailer for A Royal Night Out and tell me hand on heart, COULD the two princesses
be more annoying!! I mean ok, Sarah Gadon who plays Princess Elisabeth
is Canadian – I can forgive her for overdoing the accent. But what in the name
of seven hells is Bel Powley doing as Princess Margret - and what on earth is that accent meant to be! Ok, so they’re supposed to be comic characters we laugh at their “funny
ways” and naiveté vis normal life. A bit like that episode of Star Trek
when the crew ends up in the ‘80s and “funny things” ensue… I mean the storyline is as old as time itself
as a comic trope, but this is a thing that actually happened
for goodness sake – why bend over backwards like that to make them SO goofy! I
mean maybe it’s just me… Watch the darn thing and judge for yourselves…
Well… Welcome
to the second half of the big dual of 2015! From the moment Birdman hit various
festivals earlier on in the year, it had critics up on their feet, applauding
and stamping their feet. “A masterpiece in the making!” They cried, “An
unforgettable experience!” And most
critics nodded knowingly as they applauded director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
as he took away not only the Oscar for Best Film but also for Best Director. I personally
hadn’t watched either Birdman or its “nemesis” Boyhood during the Oscar season
so had no opinion on the matter. And now the film scene has calmed down a bit
and I have a tiny tad more time on my hands, I decided to take a gander at the
two and see what I thought for myself. You had my opinion on Boyhood last week.
A couple of days ago I finally sat down to watch Birdman…
I am not
saying that Birdman is not a masterpiece. I am not saying that it is truly an
experience to watch. But in case you hadn’t pieced it together, yes I am firmly
in the #Boyhoodwasrobbed camp. In my post today, I will attempt to explain why,
while giving as objective a review as I can of it.
Of course
if you have any connection whatsoever to films and news, you have some idea of
the plot. Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton)is a washed up actor, best known for playing
iconic comic book inspired superhero Birdman (cue endless comparisons made with
Keaton’s own career playing Batman). In the autumn of his years – in any case
in what looks suspiciously like the autumn of his career – he is trying to do
something that truly “matters” artistically. He is putting on a play on
Broadway. He has written an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s story What We Talk
About When We Talk About Love, he is co-producing it with his best friend Jake
(Zach Galifianakis), directing it and playing one of the lead roles in it… If
he pulls it off, it is going to be one heck of a debut on Broadway. However,
with what artistic reputation he has left (and his fans would really prefer him
to just do Birdman 4) and his life savings riding on this, Riggan is in the process
of finding out that there is more to putting on a Broadway play than he might
of thought. It all starts with him having to replace a key actor at the eleventh
hour. Mike (Edward Norton) – the replacement – may well be the talent the team
needs but his ego threatens to destroy the project. Then there is his daughter
Sam (Emma Stone) who is really worrying him… And on top of all that, the shadow
of Birdman, the old character he loves and hates so much just will not leave
him alone in more ways than one… As the previews begin Riggan sure has a lot on
the line – and so far he seems set to lose it all…
This is the
first heads up to me, to be honest. I enjoyed writing that blurb, but anything
that takes that long to explain needs to take a good long look at itself just
to start with. I am a big fan of philosophy being used in film of course
multi-layered stories and metaphors are a delight to watch when well-executed.
But I reckon, the minute you have to explain a film to death as a mere
introduction or if you have to google multiple concepts to understand what the
film was trying to tell you, well… Something has gone awry. Birdman is
absolutely knee-deep in metaphors. It is laugh out loud funny and
heartbreakingly touching when it comes to the storyline itself just on face
value. Sprinkled into this beautiful story are truly extraordinary and deep
considerations on being an artist, growing old, how the two combine and how we
come to terms with our own fading glory – be it as an artist or simply as a
human being past their prime… By and large the metaphors are quite easy to
follow and we can marvel at the way Innaritu has woven them into his story.
Except, of course, there is the obligatory few incredibly obscure ones, you
know, the ones you have to have pages and pages online discussing. I am, principally,
talking about the famously obscure finale. I personally lean towards the “it’s
the afterlife” interpretation of it. I also think it’s the scene what pushes
the film over into having one foot firmly planted in “pretentious” as opposed
to both feet in “intelligent”.
This is not
the only showing off going on of course. A lot has equally been said about the
“extended shot” format of the film. I have to say I was filled with dread when
I first read this – my first encounter with the style was in Magnolia. I found
it nauseating (as in, it made me physically feel sick, I did respect it
cinematically). This one is a lot “tamer”. It’s like the camera has its own
mind and it wanders the halls of the theatre quite playfully. Another famous
sore point was the sound track – I wasn’t that bothered by the drumming to be
honest, but the whole gimmick with the drummer (you know what I mean if you’ve
seen it) is again, in the domain of the pretentious as far as I’m
concerned.
But of
course, between it being a story inherently about art, acting and Hollywood
itself (Birdman – Batman, what’s a couple of letters between friends!) the
technical “showing off” and Innaritu openly trying to make a film that “cannot
be explained”… Well it’s showy. It’s good but in my humble opinion in tries too
hard. It crams in too much. Yes, Inarritu crams the too much in with elegance.
But there is more skill involved in doing less sometimes. I would argue that
Boyhood achieved to make a much deeper philosophical point with less show and a
single “gimmick” that was executed with grace and dedication… Birdman is
definitely a carnival you should pop in to see. Just don’t go putting it on a pedestal…
As you guys
know, I write on a few other websites as well and there we all literally have
our heads on swivels and our eyes out on stalks trying to keep up with all the
new releases, DVDs, trailers and festivals making announcements left right and
centre. Spring, the month of new growth and change and green shoots and leaves
(proverbial and actual) there are a lot of novelties to explore… And one of the
most talked about this week was without a doubt the new trailer for Spectre. I
mean it’s a Bond trailer – it’s always going to make ripples. But in this
trailer… Guess what… Not an explosion in sight! It would appear that in this
film (like in so many others), Bond is needed to uncover an evil secret
organisation. However we have less in the way of gadgets and high-speed chases,
more in the way of dark hallways, tension, burnt photographs and secrets kept
over decades… True, we also have cheesy lines like “You’re a kite dancing in a
hurricane Mr Bond”. But you know… We knew this wasn’t Shakespeare before we
signed up. But this attempt to flesh Mr Bond out, give him a past, secrets and
God help us maybe even a few flaws… Well…
They got MY attention!
And now
back to the familiar world of secret agents WITH added explosions. Spooks. Kit
Harringdon. Oh NOW you’re talking… It’s funny you know, I have had a love-hate
relationship with the Game of Thrones tv series (I’m a purist and I love the
books. And I’m still juddering with anger about George Martin’s announcement
that the new TV series will kill off cast members that don’t die in the books).
But the funny thing is seeing the cast outside of Game of Thrones, in literally
anything else and have to go “Hang on, that’ s not Arya – John Snow – Theon Greyjoy
etc.” But hang on. Let’s not be unfair to Kit. Here I am talking about his NEW
film, Spooks – The Greater Good - and I
have already written a paragraph of Game of Thrones. And as far as I can tell
from the trailer (although we can see precious little of Kit himself) he does
an excellent job of taking his place in what is now a British household name
and “action stars” in it like the best of them.
Ok and
finally a bit of “guilty pleasure”. I mean OK Bond can be put in this category
as well but he has got such a lot of cinematic force and embodies such a slice
of cultural history now that he is actually “serious” fare. This following is a
classic in its own right. But when we go to the film this summer, we will all
be in our seats purely for the explosions, the special effects, the high speed
chases and the adrenaline rush and thrill… Maybe it’s my age or my old
fashioned tendencies, but this is just about the only film of its kind I am
actually looking forward to… Can you guess what I’m on about… Yup… Yup, the new
trailer for Mad Max is out…
Whoop, I
need a drink and a sit-down after that lot! Have an adrenaline-packed week
folks!
OK, I know. I never commented on one of the
biggest debates this Oscar season. Boyhood Vs Birdman. Mainly because I hadn’t
watched either at the time * hangs head in shame* . However! However, this is
about to change. I have watched Boyhood. I have an inkling I “get” what happened.
Of course I have an opinion on it. It really isn’t the kind of debate you have
the luxury of not having an opinion on if you write about film…
And hand on
heart, Boyhood is not the kind of film you have the luxury of not having an opinion
on, once you have watched it. At the very least, at a whopping 3 hours long
(close enough) you will think it’s the biggest wastes of your time since film
began. I personally have it down as one of the best viewing experiences I have
had since I first ever saw pulp fiction. The fact that I quote pulp fiction on
a daily basis should give you some idea as to what that means to me. By that, I
don’t necessarily mean it was better than Birdman. I haven’t seen Birdman
(yet). I wouldn’t know to compare. That said, I think we have a matter of comparing
chalk and cheese here. But hang on, I am getting ahead of myself.
Of course
the central “gimmick” of the film is well known. Linklater brought together an
ensemble cast and filmed the pivotal moments in the life of a family over the
course of 12 years. Our hero is, as the name suggests the son of the family
Mason Jr (Ellar Coltrane), but his parents are also (Ethan Hawke and Patricia
Arquette) are also around as is his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater,
director Richard Linklater’s daughter) and all the other characters who come
and go – but sometimes stay – and all change the lives of the family for ever…
Now, I have
heard quite a lot of the moaning connected to this film. Chief among them was
the fact that the film seemed to “go nowhere”. Truth be told, I can see where
they are coming from, the film is a series of vignettes, some quite short
“moments” some longer periods, all at different (though, mercifully,
chronologically ordered) times in the life of the family. There is no clear
announcement as to whether the timeframe has changed or not, other than
context, and you have to do a quick mental recap, figure out what you have
missed, what bit of the story you are at now as you get into the next “bit” of
the story. The mental effort needed is not great, but it is there all the same.
The ending is open too. It ends at a “kind of” natural end, but it’s only an
end because the film makes it that way, the way the story was going we could
have happily meandered after Mason for another 10 years (though I’m not
entirely clear what this would have done for Ellar Coltrane’s sanity)… But what
is the point! I hear you cry. The point, dear viewer, is that there is no point.
It is
theory of art 101 that the main function and in fact duty (according to some)
of art is to examine the human condition, to hold a mirror up to society, to
humanity and show us who and what we really are. That is precisely and exactly
what Linklater has done, with painstaking accuracy. Try thinking back on your
own life. You don’t remember every single day. They all run into each other,
with only random days, conversations, moments emerging from the blur. If you
were to take them out of your head and edit them together, something pretty
much like Boyhood is exactly what you would get. Linklater hasn’t just stood on
the sidelines and given us a nice, prettified “story” of a character with a
beginning, middle and end. He has taken us right into his memories. He has
written us an essay on what kind of moments it takes to form the character of a
person and put it on screen. The result… Is eerily like life itself…
In this
context, one of my favorite moments in the film is a split second when we see a
picture of Mason and his father from quite a few years ago, quite later on in
the film. Even the viewers with the greatest tendency to skip details will not
fail to remember the timeframe the picture was taken in, as Mason reminisces so
do we, and we can almost see right into his head – because that day is not a
Hollywood style “montage” or dramatic scene, it’s (almost) a memory, in amongst
our own memories…
Except of
course, it is never that simple. The whole way we have to puzzle part of the
story out for ourselves will “throw” some viewers. As will the choice of life
changing moments, to give but one example, although there are several weddings
in the story, we actually see none of them – even though they would almost
certainly have been chosen for any mainstream film.
Apart from
its rather extraordinary story, I have to praise Boyhood for its cinematography.
There were things about Mason and Samantha’s childhoods that brought back
massive pangs of nostalgia, the Tetris video games, Samantha doing Brittney Spears
impressions and so many more little details that all of us of a certain age can
easily recognize. And once you get over the fact that this is not a “show” so
to speak, this is what adds another layer of personal connection to your
interaction with the film, not only are you witnessing emotions of real life,
there is a whole blanket of nostalgia that will envelop you with a whole host
of your own memories flooding back to you. I mean if the cinematography won’t
do it, the soundtrack almost certainly will. Coldplay, Arcade Fire, Bob Dylan
and Lady Gaga all come together on a wonderful road trip through the musical
soundscape of a decade…
What
Boyhood doesn’t have of course is the highly technical direction Innaritu seems
to have applied to Birdman (from the little I have seen of it). It does not
show off, if doesn’t have extraordinary long takes, fast paced editing and the
kind of soundtrack the world and its dog seems to love to hate. Nor is it that
Hollywood darling, a film about filmmaking. I kinda see what happened there…
That said, would I go full-hog and jump onto the #Boyhoodwasrobbed bandwagon…
I’ll have to watch Birdman to be the judge of that… Keep watching this space…
Kayıtlar
