ESSIE ON THE BIG DEBATE PART 2 - " BIRDMAN (OR THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE"

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… 

SOMETIMES IT HITS YOU LIKE A WAVE : "THE IMPOSSIBLE"

Before anyone says anything, the title wasn't meant as a pun or a joke. I, for one, personally know what it feels like to be hit by waves of desperation and despair. I assure you it's nothing to laugh about. 

Well this is a rather historical moment, wouldn’t you say, folks? Because, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first big-budget film about the tsunami in Thailand.  Following the true story of a very real family who was only one of many to be hit by this devastating calamity, the film gives us a very real, very emotional taster of what it feels like to be caught up in something so terrible and of such a magnitude…

This is the story of Henry (Ewan McGregor), Maria (Naomi Watts) and their three children Lucas, Thomas and Simon. They are a normal family, with normal worries and concerns who has come to Thailand for a well-deserved Christmas break. However, daily concerns about setting the burglar alarm and their careers are very quickly swept to one side when the tsumani hits. Henry and the two younger boys, Simon and Thomas are swept in one direction, Lucas, the eldest and their mother in another… What will become of them? Even if they manage to survive this calamity, with the ensuing chaos, how will they ever find each other again?

I have heard mixed reviews of this film oddly enough. The greater part, it seems, found the film deeply emotional. I watched it with a group of friends and some were categorically in floods of tears almost throughout. And I must say, even though I am – sadly perhaps – turning into a bit of a cynic when it comes to these things – the film is emotionally charged to say the least. It did rather feel as if you had a rhinoceros – or something heavy to that effect – sitting on your chest for quite a while after the film ended.

But then again, I have heard people sneering at the film slightly. They point out, for example, that it is, at the end of the day your common or garden disaster movie + tear jerker. Family gets torn apart, is then dramatically brought back together again. There is one token serious injury, the rest don’t have a scratch on them. In fact, like a lot of films of its kind, the film is not about the disaster itself at all, it is about, if anything, the tenacity of the human spirit. Which is admirable. But mayhaps slightly disrespectful of the actual people who suffered and died?

Now, sad to say,  I do agree with a lot of these arguments. I completely agree with one viewer (a review on imdb if I'm not much mistaken) who makes the point that the moment we see that all five have survived it is very clear they get back together again, safe and sound. I personally watched the whole film unable to suspend my disbelief as to not knowing what would happen next. I knew quite well what would happen in the end: The tearful reunion. That is because the film DOES follow the pattern of your common or garden tearjerker. It uses all the usual tropes to play on your emotions and I do see how you would be slightly disillusioned. I mean, apart from anything else, we see a picture of the real family at the end, and I hate to disappoint you, but they are very normal people. Very unlike the dashing Ewan and Naomi. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean this disrespectfully – at five feet tall and a size 11 (ehm), I am about as unlike Naomi Watts as they come. But my point is, yes, on one level this IS Hollywood basically going “Oh good. Another emotional story we can make movies about dashing couples about and rake in the cash.” You’d have to be very naïve to deny it.

However, don’t write this film off completely either. I have read “good” things about the production of this film too. For example, it would appear that almost all the Thai and foreign extras were actual survivors of the Tsunami. And I distinctly remember reading that the film had to change its trailer quite a bit, simply because it focused on the family too much and not on the tsunami and devastation – and hence considered disrespectful. And even though you do “know” what will happen in the end to the main characters, there are enough sub-plots and secondary characters around to remind you very starkly of the devastation and the lives that were utterly destroyed in this tragedy. From the moment the tsunami strikes, the story takes place in settings that are seemingly all more chaotic than the next one, crowded hospitals, devastated streets and it is this visual chaos that gives one the sense of constant fatigue and slowly being strangled in the multiplicity of data and sadness. It seems to me, anyway, that the film has done a good job of providing the emotion of the event too. And if you don’t believe me, do a short search online. There are multiple survivors who confirm that the film is indeed accurate in its portrayal.  Besides, if you just want to watch the film and have a good cry, you know what, that’s ok too. I love a good tearjerker, even though I do moan about them…

A SLICE OF HISTORY WITH "J. EDGAR"

First of all, I am surprised I am putting the review of this film in this particular category. I don’t know about you but I personally had no idea at all he was gay. But then again, the film contains a lot of revelations and new information – especially for someone whose knowledge of modern American History is ever so slightly rusty. This is, in fact one of the films that, for me personally, contains one of the highest levels of intellectual curiosity mixed with emotional involvement that I have witnessed in a film in a long time. Which is why I was even more surprised to find out that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I have made quite a lot of fun of him in the past, especially Million Dollar Baby whose ending I felt contained every emotional tear-jerking trope known to man plus their dogs, but what can I say… The man’s style is growing on me…
J. Edgar is, a lot of you will have gathered if they didn’t know already, the life story of J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo Di Caprio). As is right with such a public figure, the main emphasis is on his public life, his achievements and political machinations, not least among them the founding of the F.B.I and numerous American Federal laws that he helped come to life. But this is not merely a political film. A nice balance is struck with Hoover’s character and private life. Having lived for over half his life with and under the influence of his strict and domineering mother (Judi Dench) Hoover is reserved and has, shall we say difficulties in certain areas. He is also rather fussy and hard to work with if you’re not used to it. But he is also a brilliant tactician, capable of immense forward thinking and was truly built for police work. We examine the man, his life, his achievements and his relationships in an emotional rollercoaster that deserves every accolade it gets…
When he first made his “big break” on the big screens with Titanic, there were two “camps” about Leonardo Di Caprio. You either loved him (if you were in this category you probably had a crush on him too) or you hated him with a passion. I was one of the former (and yes I had a crush on him at the time too). I am glad to say however, think what you will of him on “other” planes (ehm), as far as acting is concerned I can happily confirm that I have backed a winner. He has turned out to be a brilliant, versatile actor capable of pulling off the most challenging roles. And he absolutely stuns as J. Edgar Hoover in this latest big screen hit. The role itself is challenging because the story itself is so fascinating. Hoover was a true blue eccentric (to put it mildly) and that in itself is something to marvel at. His lifelong relationship with Clive Tolworth is touching to the core, not least the struggle Hoover has to go through in his own mind as he tries to accept his own homosexuality. He is not an easy man, not even a pleasant one from time to time, but you cannot help but feel his pain, especially as Di Caprio does such a wonderful job of portraying him. Of course as long as we’re talking about acting a word must be said about Judi Dench as Hoover’s formidable (and slightly creepy) mother. Lastly, it is an excellent overview of modern American history and a behind the scenes look at events that I personally had just about only heard mentioned and new nothing about in detail. Don’t be intimidated by the length of this little monster (2 hours and 16 minutes). You will be so wrapped up in it that you will not notice the time fly by…