ESSIE RANTS ABOUT AND ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT "CLOUD ATLAS"

The moment I found out that Cloud Atlas was a story involving reincarnation, souls meeting in different lifetimes etc. I felt a worry beginning to brew in the pit of my stomach. I know this kind of film only too well. Full of grandiose messages about life, “the truth” and the universe. So packed full of metaphors and similes you need a dictionary of filmography to work your way through it all. Coming out way too pleased with itself at the end. This kind of film often annoys me because, well, firstly I don’t believe there is a single, easy “unifying theory of everything” so I get annoyed with films that claim they’re it. Secondly, while I do appreciate double meanings and depth in a film I certainly don’t think I should need to actually have to do research to figure out what exactly is being said.

Now I will not say Cloud Atlas is easy to follow. I mean there are six stories, separate yet interwoven, with the same characters (or rather the same souls) changing bodies, sex and race in practically each one and the stories are of course in true Buddhist style, repetitions, variations or rather, on the same theme, each one evolving with time, adding something, taking something out, some mistakes being repeated through the ages, other ones being changed, and changing history. I have gained infinite respect for the Wachowskis, not least because it must have been a complete mind-f.ck to write, never mind to film. But shall I tell you something? Unlike Donnie Darko (who I watched once and then discarded on the basis of having entire websites dedicated solely to deciphering the story) I will watch Cloud Atlas again. The Wachowskis have tried something rather daring and, would you believe it, they have pulled it off. It comes together beautifully, just like a symphony.

The film is, of course, full of grandiose emotions – but we all expected that, right? Concepts like eternity, everlasting love that survives death, immortal souls that death cannot separate… But never fear. It never reaches the point where it begins to get sickly, and we do go to this kind of film precisely for a dose or two of this kind of emotion, after all. In short yes, there is a certain amount of the preaching mentioned in the introduction, but not too much. Just enough. The same actors are often used, especially in the minor roles, as the same “type” of character, or rather the character that has the same role from one story to the next. Our heroes however, seem to almost change with every story, which doesn’t seem to make sense, but then again don’t try and read too  much cold logic into it. The whole point of the story is to give us a feeling of transcendent love, and this, the film manages very well.

I need to re-watch the film to clarify this point, but one thing I am not entirely sure of. As the same actors are not always used to represent the same souls, I did not quite get the pattern in how the bodies changed around. I am pretty sure the Wachowskis didn’t simply pull names out of a hat. There is, for example, the curious case of Tom Hanks. Now I know he’s meant to be the bad guy who evolves into a hero in the last story – or at least I think that’s what he was meant to be – but then there are discrepancies. I mean Ok, up until the very last story but one (chronologically that is) (and here it starts raining spoilers so look away now if you’re sensitive) – i.e. the one with Sumi, the clones and the Purebloods etc – I have to presume he is the third party who is trying to thwart our couple, the one who is trying to ultimately harm or use the protagonist (whichever character who was born with the shooting star mark in that particular story). If we follow that pattern, we have to assume he is the government official that Sumi “turns” just before her execution at the end of her sequence. Well ok, then it makes sense that he would be reborn as a good person in the next chronological sequence – you know the post-apocalyptic, cannibalistic humanity bit starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. I mean ok, sure, he evolves, he becomes a hero, he gets the girl in the end and that’s all very nice but here’s the problem  - what happens to the other protagonist? You know, the love interest. And if you tell me that was Halle Berry, well what happens to the original hero then? Ok another thing, let’s assume he has been evolving through the story, in the sequence in the ‘70s, he is the scientist who actually decides to help Halle Berry (as Lisa Ray the journalist) so I mean, ok, he’s becoming a better person etc, right? Wrong. Fast forward to the ‘90s, he murders a book critic in cold blood and then, albeit as a different character in a comedy sequence clearly inserted for comic relief more than anything else, he is also the brother who locks our protagonist (Jim Broadbent) up in the first place. There has to be something I’m missing here. Because we KNOW Tom Hanks is the protagonist of the (chronologically) last story as he has the birthmark. But then, THEN, the whole premise of love everlasting falls apart as he was the bad guy in like, 4 of the other 5 stories (in the ‘30s story the main big baddie is Jim Broadbent, Tom Hanks is the inn keeper, not a nice guy but not a major player either). So ok, then it was completely random, in fact he doesn’t evolve at all, the bad guy Tom Hanks was playing somehow just vanishes and they put Tom Hanks as the last hero to make it a nice, Hollywood-style beautiful couple for the closing scene with the shooting star in the sky and all that… Because, I would like to point out, that the 6^th story does not actually have a proper, focal “bad guy”. You might argue the cannibalistic tribe, but no, their actual equivalents in the other stories are the “muscle” baddies, you know the racist captain in the first story, the hit man in the ‘70s sequence, the CEO in the Sunmi sequence, Nurse Noakes in the comedy sequence…

So yeah. I mean maybe we’re not meant to puzzle over it too much. But worst case scenario, the 6^th story only kinda fits in with the other five. A good job as been done with hammering it in, but it is still a square peg in a round hole. One thing we can stop and admire is the commentary made on the universality of love, as the souls seem to change body indiscriminately, Forbischer comes back as a young black woman, Lisa Ray and actually sees  her/ his true love again. I found the sequences where she puzzles over the letters she herself wrote in her previous lifetime particularly touching. She is then reborn as a clone waitress – making a rather neat comment about artificial intelligence and the future of machines.

Like I said, I’ve got every suspicion that I am missing something here and it will all come clear if I watch the film a few more times. Either that, or I am really loosing myself in details. But in any case, rest assured the film is an incredibly enjoyable and emotionally charged way of spending a couple of hours. 

UNEXPECTED ADVENTURES COME IN MANY FORMS... THE INCREDIBLE STORY OF "CAPTAIN PHILLIPS"

This was another expected Oscar® that sort of never happened right? A lot of people were rooting for Tom Hanks and then he didn’t even get nominated. And by the way, as I write this I can’t help wondering why we didn’t have such a hoo-haa about the Best Actress awards. I think everyone sort of assumed Cate Blanchette was going to get it, then she did. The end. But then again, I think that’s possibly the topic for a different post all together. Let’s return to the tale of Captain Phillips and the story of the real live pirates.

For Captain Richard Phillips, it’s simply a job like any other. There is a ship that needs to be taken from A to B on the African coast. Ok, the route the ship needs to take goes through potentially dangerous waters – pirate territory to be precise – but it’s nothing the captain or the crew cannot handle as long as they keep their wits about them. Besides, not a single American captain has been hijacked in the last two hundred years, so the odds are definitely in their favour.  And so, they set off. Captain Phillips is made of slightly sterner stuff than what the crew are used to but there they are, in the middle of the ocean so they might as well find a way of getting on with each other. Until, that is, the unthinkable happens… A crew of Somalian pirates driven by desperation board the vessel and take Captain Phillips hostage. Thus starts a very dangerous game of cat and mouse with actual lives at stake.

First of all, did you notice the “human interest” angle in Barkhad Abdi, the actor playing the pirate captain being nominated for an Oscar® ?  And seriously, how awesome would it be if he had actually won? I know we are light-years away from the way things should be as far as gender diversification goes, but at least now the “underdog” also is given an equal seat as it were, which is good. Now all that needs to happen is to actually give said underdog the award – but I digress.

I found this film interesting in a way, because it brings the whole concept of pirates into perspective.  I mean hand on heart, when we think of pirates, we tend to think of a rather romanticised version of the concept loosely based on Captain Jack Sparrow. There may (may) have been some truth to that concept once but of course that was quite literally centuries ago. Pirates still very much exist today and their lives are a far cry from that of the Disney pirate captain. They are hungry, desperate and forever being pushed to do more and get more ships by the “big bosses” who would not hesitate to kill them if they so much as opened their mouth to murmur. So in fact, this not just the case of a “swashbuckling life” – it is a simple case of desperation and survival. Not quite a Disney movie then.

The film wonderfully balances psychology and tension – not least in the second half of the film when Captain Phillips is actually taken hostage on the pirate’s own small boat and driven off. When the action took place on the ship, at least there was room to manoeuver, you know? Gun fights, the crew trying to hide from the pirates, the possibility of an intervention, a lot more to “play” with – and play with it director Paul Greengrass does with gusto. You will remember Grenngrass’ work from the Bourne trilogy. He does tension and action very well albeit in a rather testosterone loaded way, but hey, it’s an action movie right? The second half of the film was particularly good because now the lion’s share of the action is contained in the small boat the pirates are using to try and escape from the approaching authorities. We see the way the pirates interact, with each other and with Philips, moving smoothly from the action to the psychological. It was great to see such a smooth transition between the two. Of course the main focus remains very clearly on Phillips’ abduction and his being either returned to safety or taken back as a hostage. But instead of brief and slightly stilted insights, in this film we get a proper, legitimate look at the psychologies of the pirates.  It gives that film that bit of an edge, making our characters that bit more real. Which is interesting really, because this film is not really about the ship – it is about the pirates. This is clear, because the crew, with the notable exception of Philips and the few people who work close to him get very little air time beyond what a crew on a ship would be expected to do. Stock roles, nothing more. The insight we get into personalities we get from Philips and the pirates. It is a subtle difference, but a difference none the less. A different focus would mean yet another film about white “Caucasian heroes” being attacked by “baddies”.  This film asks the question “well who are the baddies?” – because we pretty much know what the “crew” on the good side is like. We have seen enough action movies. The hero usually changes from film to film, so fair enough we get to know Philips. But then, we turn our attention to piracy. Not “attacks”. It’s pleasant to see a film in a genre rather set in stone (like any genre, the action film has its own conventions that fans are partial to) merge so smoothly with the psychological thriller and provide a refreshing change of perspective all at once.

Now don’t let all this talk of how the story is structured make you think I am mentally detracting from the fact that this was a true life ordeal. The story is wonderful – and a good story is the backbone of every good film out there. But the art of cinema truly lies in the way you structure the story and chose to portray it.  I find true enjoyment in mulling this aspect over as well as getting immersed in the film I am watching. I mean, the way the story went presented a brilliant opportunity of course – having actually been on the boat with the pirates, Phillips was able to actually observe them and provide the insight Greengrass so aptly uses to bring the film to life. And as I always say, real life is nearly always much stranger than fiction.

So if you want a film that will grip you, excite you and make the 2.5 hours fly by, you’re looking at the right one. So let the adventure on the high seas begin!

FACE YOURSELF IN "OBLIVION"

You know what I said to myself as I watched this film? If I had half the sense I have now back in the day, I would have plunged headfirst into special effects. I’d be a special effects artist. It’s where the money is. And let’s face it, technology today allows you to do pretty amazing things. You can do these amazing things “already” as it were. Just imagine what will be possible in a few years. A few decades. But ah, do I think they should be chucked into every plotline willy-nilly? No. A resounding NO. Take Oblivion. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s a great film in a wonderful, Hollywoody way, but let’s face it. We’ve seen the same story done before. Low-tech and better.

Jack (Tom Cruise) is a veteran serving his planet. The entire population of the earth has moved to Titan after a devastating war; Jack and his partner (in more senses than one) Victoria are a key part of the taskforce left on Earth to syphon off vital supplies like fresh water and protect the hardware from what remain of the “scavengers” who destroyed the planet in the first place. It’s a pretty lonely job – mostly it’s just the two of them – but Jack and Victoria don’t really complain. That being said, it is almost the end of their mission, two weeks later and they will be sent back home for a hero’s welcome and much more low-risk jobs. But as time goes on, something is nagging at Jack, even though he is not quite sure what it is himself… He is plagued by constant, strange dreams and a nagging feeling something is not quite right… Not that he can see what could possibly be wrong… It’s just another day in paradise… No?

Ok, I’m going to do something I rarely do. My review is going to contain a bit of a spoiler so be warned. The thing is this film is just TOO similar to a film I really, really like and admire for me to ignore in this review. The thing is, and my point is, that the storyline itself is just so powerful that there was absolutely NO need to Hollywood it up.

I’m talking about Moon, directed by Duncan Jones. I mean, think about the story of Moon for a second. Why oh why oh why did they have to jazz it up? Insert not just a love interest but a full-blown love triangle if you please, all the “typical” trope characters, a wise, older man to give advice (although Morgan Freeman can really do no wrong in my eyes) and a young rebel who “doesn’t trust” Jack, to whom Jack must prove himself (a very wise attempt by Nicolaj Coster-Waldau to prove he can do things apart from Game of Thrones. Though judging by the fact my friend asked “Isn’t that the Kingslayer?” (not even Jamie Lanister mind you, Kingslayer)  when he came on, it may be too little too late. Much in the same way that Daniel Ratcliffe is called “Harry Potter” now and probably for the next 5 – 10 years at least.). There are more special effects than you can shake a stick at. Beautifully done – hence it prompted me to wish I could do that – but still, too much. We even have (here comes the real spoiler) a perfect  “family unit re-united” type ending.  How many actual characters did Duncan Jones have in his movie? One. Well, one man and a robot. How awesome was the film? Pretty f.ckin awesome. The topic is one that, I feel, might well become one that deserves exploration in the future. It is being explored today, slowly and surely in popular culture but there is still a lot of scope for originality. Moon does a wonderful job of looking at the psychology of Sam (the equivalent to Jack) and the entire process of his “awakening” from the first inkling that something is wrong to the sickening confrontation with his own reality. I left that film seriously questioning my own sense of reality for a second there. Oblivion takes a beautiful topic with true philosophical potential and reduces it to big guns, open references to the Matrix (well that or a seriously atheist message : remember the dialogue? “I am your god” - “F.ck you”) and beautiful people making out. I mean, it makes for a fun night out and all but it’s a real waste. It takes something that could be truly original and makes into something we’ve seen a thousand times before. I have to say, that takes some doing.

Now, I know I sound a bit venomous as I talk about it, but really, I don’t necessarily mean to dissuade you from watching it. Like I said, it is a fun night out. I was ranting to my friend about the ending especially (I’m not averse to happy endings. I just hate forced happy endings. Unrealistic ones. The friend I watched it with protested loudly when I called the ending  “naff”. “No, I like happy endings! If they’re missing I feel as if the film is missing a whole bit!” she exclaimed. Well, it depends on what you watch the movie for of course. You watch this one purely for entertainment, despite the potential… 

RECAPTURE THE MAGIC ON "THE POLAR EXPRESS"

I know. We’re in august. It is in no way, shape or form near to Christmas. But what can I tell you, it was a tiring day. I know I ranted and raved about realism and happy endings in the last post but it really wasn’t a “realism” and “minimalism” kinda evening. I had had a little too much of that in my day already. What I needed was to settle down and be transported to a world where I knew everything would turn out alright in the end. Preferably a magical world – I needed it to be as far from “reality” as possible. This may be the main reason I gravitated towards a Christmas film, I’m not exactly sure. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if you have had that kind of day, or alternately if it's actually Christmas and you want a seasonal film that you don’t watch every day, this is the fella for you.

Now, this is quite a modern little number. Not only is it made, in its entirety, in computer animation but it adopts the rather cool “anonymous hero” stance. Our hero is a little boy. He is just approaching that age when the magic is about to leave his world. And the exodus of magic has begun with father Christmas. The little boy wants to believe, but everything around him seems to be telling him loud and clear that there is no such thing as Santa. So that Christmas eve, when he closes his eyes and pretends to sleep, trying to catch Santa out as he does every year, deep down inside he doesn’t have much hope of it happening. Until he hears something quite extraordinary going up his street. A train. The magical Polar Express has come to take him on a journey… After all, anything is possible on Christmas Eve…

I think Christmas and New Year bring out the “mushiest” in us because they are much like the ends of long, tiring days. Just like a particularly rough day at the office, a whole year has gone by. You are tired. You want to see your loved ones and rest your brains – and bones. You have had reality by the bucket-load. You want good feelings, a hearty meal a drink or three and a few days off… Surely you see the parallels? That’s why films like this go so well with Christmas.

Of course one has to remember that this film was made in 2004 – which is “way back when” by technological terms. I feel that the storyline would benefit a lot from a big special effects overhaul. Heck, it could even be a combination of CGI and real actors as opposed to a “cartoon” from beginning to end. I’m not completely nuts about big explosions and fight scenes with magical weapons but magical lands… You’ll always get my heartstrings with that one. Especially at the end of tiring day.

But the thing is,  will it ever be a classic? I’m not that sure. I think the problem is, the story is sweet but the message is slightly outdated. In complete opposition to the previous film, we are encouraged to “believe” in this one. And we all know kids today. They are just as likely as us to smile at that message understandingly and with an air of superiority. It’s sad really, but I wonder how many kids today really believe in Father Christmas? We live in an era where mothers quiet their crying toddlers by giving them their smartphones and tablets to play with. The tiny tots can browse better than we can and I find that scary seeing that hooking up the printer ended up becoming a major challenge for me. I am yet to purchase a smartphone – or a tablet. And of course it’s great that children have so much knowledge at their fingertips so quickly. It is also great that we live in an era of science where we know more about the world around us than ever before. Still, must this mean that all sense of “magic” must be knocked out of children at as early an age as possible? The jury is out in my opinion. I mean, I’m an adult, and I physically need magic and fantasy in my world. It’s computer generated magic, that I grant you, but given the realities of this world… I reckon it will do… 

NO INTRODUCTION NEEDED REALLY: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

This is yet another one that most of us have seen by now. And yet another one I actually caught for the first time this week. Now, I do understand if you say it’s a little too Hollywood, you know, a little too “been there, done that”. I get it. Some people don’t fancy Hollywood that much, honestly I don’t blame them. But you really cannot just go tarring the entirety of Hollywood with the same brush as it were. In the context of Hollywood films, some directors come up with really spectacular works. True, you may feel you know the story already, but maybe there is something in the film itself that will make you go for it anyway, eh? A bit like The New World written above; we do know the story of this one. It is a pleasure to watch anyway. 1944 – D Day. While the American forces are faced with the undiluted horrors of the war, the results are creating their own tragedies back home. When the armed forces realize that three of the Ryan have been killed in the war, leaving their only surviving sibling among the parachuters who were accidentally dropped behind enemy lines, there seems to be only one thing to do. Send out a search party. Find Private Ryan. Send him home. For this, Captain John Miller (the legendary Tom Hanks) Is selected and told to assemble a team. The task in hand is dangerous, in their own words they are basically looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. They are not entirely sure why they are doing this and resentment for this Private Ryan is growing without even having met the man. It will take all of Miller’s skills as a leader if he is to see this mission to completion. Like I said, this is one of those films that remind us of the sacrifices of previous generations, the price of peace as it were. The criticism this kind of film usually receives is that it glorifies war and paints the whole situation in a far more rose tinted – if you will – light than it actually is. Spielberg isn’t having any of that. The landing sequence in D Day, depicting what happened on Omaha beach back in the day is now a thing of movie legend. And Spielberg was, I am reliably informed by the many books strewn around my desk, quite aware that the sequence was hard to watch. It was, however, a matter of principal. The other good thing about the film is that the team looking for Private Ryan is very, very human. By the middle of the mission they have ceased to care about the Private at all, in fact they are pretty sure he is insufferable. Captain Miller has to keep them in line the whole time, but the thing is he is just doing his duty too; he is just as sick of the mission but also wants to get the job done. It is true there are a few romantic “bits” in it, a few classic characters thrown in for good measure but hey, it’s a sweeping epic, I think we can give it that much… In general, the depictions are quite real and down to earth. And with the subject matter to hand of course, this makes the film a hard one to watch from time to time… But hey… totally worth it. Just bring tissues.