ONE ELEGANT FILM TO COMBINE IT ALL - "THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING"

So… I’m finally through all last years’ Oscar films! Go me! As I have said multiple times, I have been very curious about this film. And I have read a lot about it, articles reviews and interviews. It’s funny that really, I usually try and avoid that sort of thing – I don’t like to have my impressions “tainted” by preconceptions. Yet, of course, this was pretty much unavoidable. This may have been the reason I was slightly underwhelmed by the film. Just slightly. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s an awesome film as we will discuss below, but it just, I don’t know, I guess I was expecting a little too much. But at the end of the day the film is yet ANOTHER film about the true story of an extraordinary human being who overcame truly terrible circumstances. I mean, I am not trying to reduce the story of Stephen Hawking in any way shape or form here. But I’m just remarking it’s a specific genre that Hollywood adores. And with a person like Hawking, almost definitely one of the greatest scientific minds humanity has ever produced, at the centre of it all the film was pretty much earmarked for “great things”.

I guess the key here is to focus on the films good sides – and they are many, not least the acting – and recognise the film for the quality piece of work it is. Quality does not always mean original of course, but then again, when mainstream cinema is not exactly a Mecca for invention and complete artistic originality. They don’t call it show “business” for nothing ya know…

In case you have been living under a stone for the last six months, The Theory of Everything is a biographical work, taking a look at the life of Stephen Hawking. We pick up in his early days when he is embarking on his PhD in physics on the one hand and his relationship with his first wife Jane on the other. But along with the clear signs of brilliance he shows and the deepening love between him and Jane, it slowly becomes apparent something is not quite right… ALS (as we know it now) strikes when he is only 21 and the medical institutions of the time give him only 2 years to live. Stephen and Jane however, are not to be defeated that easily. With Jane at his side, Stephen embarks on a quest for “the theory of everything” which will form the basis of his ground-shaking work over the decades.

I will be honest with you, I didn’t recognise the name of director James Marsh straight away. Silly of me really; as you know I am very much a documentary nerd and actually really enjoyed Marsh’s two well-known documentaries Man on a Wire and project Nim. Marsh brings to the documentary a certain sense of… Calmness. Of course Hawking is a larger than life character and his relationship with Jane is characterised by ups and downs of extraordinary proportions. But through camera work and beautiful staging of little moments mean that while the film is indeed the story of a famous couple with an extraordinary life, it is also very clearly a deep and insightful film about living with disability, as the disabled and as the carer. And the cast – the award winning cast one should say – are absolutely essential in this portrayal. I distinctly remember reading several interviews with Eddie Redmayne where he explained that in his on screen physical transformation (due to ALS), no prosthetics were used at all. I mean this makes sense, After all any transformation brought about by the disease after all is a deformation of the body and muscles – the patients are not handed prosthetics they are obliged to wear. But it still takes a whole new level of dedication and study to form and hold this transformation in the time it takes to get the footage to make a 2 hour film. I was especially touched – and impressed -  by “day dream” sequence when Hawking watches a pencil fall during a q and a session and dreams of being able to just get out of his chair and put it back on the table. On the one hand watching Redmayne “unfold”  back into (something a lot closer to) his real self is extraordinary to behold, on the other hand,  the simple yet at this point completely unattainable wish (putting the pencil back on the table) completely puts into perspective what ALS and other conditions like it do to the human body.

And a mention simply MUST go to the extraordinary Felicity Jones who plays Jane. In the beginning of course, her part is relatively simply, she is the adoring wife and partner, the beautiful girl who sweeps Hawking off his feet. But then of course, with the advent of ALS everything changes. Her role as a carer gets harder and more complex every day, everything changes, every day brings new challenges to the relationship and Jones portrays this constant evolution with subtlety, grace and a LOT of talent.

The film combines the careful eye of a documentary filmmaker picking up on details you and eye would miss, with all the elements of a period film (well quite a chunk of the film is set in the ‘60s you know) and an extraordinary biography. The result is not a mish-mash but a glorious combination of the best of all the worlds. I advise you put any cynicism to one side and get stuck straight in. There is a lot to enjoy. A lot. 

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY FIT FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY ARTIST - "MR TURNER"

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… 

THE IMITATION GAME - BECAUSE LIFE IS STRANGER THAN FICTION

Biographies, extraordinary true stories, stories of overcoming adversity… All much beloveds of Hollywood and the awards season – and we did see quite a few extraordinary ones come out this year, that’s for sure… And although it ultimately only got he "little gold man" for Best Writing, the one that actually – in one way or another – had the most tongues wagging all over the world was The Imitation Game…

One of the pieces of headline news was the gay rights campaign Benedict Cumberbatch has started, aiming for the pardon of all the men, alive or deceased who were convicted “of homosexuality” like Alan Turing.  Another was the outburst Cumberbatch made concerning racial equality in the film industry, which in turn created a whole new discussion in its own right… And indeed, what is the point of art if it does not force us to think, to feel and to change… But before we get to all of that, let’s take a look at the man, his life and the film that was made about it – for indeed, the fear at this point is that we may well lose the film itself in the discussion surrounding it!

The story is, as we all know, that of Alan Turing. Nobody was sure what to make of Turing in school. To call him an odd duck was to understate the fact, nor was this simply a faze as his “Alan-ish” behaviour just gets more pronounced as he grows older… However, if he is odd, Alan is no fool as he shows an absolute genius for mathematics and a great personal interest in codes and cyphers. So naturally when, during the Second World War, the Germans come up with the seemingly undefeatable Enigma code, Alan turns up at the door of the Ministry of Defence and explains that he is probably the only person who can decode it. Alan is anti-social, infuriating in fact almost completely impossible to work with as far as his colleagues are concerned, but they quickly realise something else… He may also be right…

The rest, as they say, is history… Turing had, in actual fact, discovered the first “computer”. The very thing I am writing this review on right now. The thing you are very probably reading it on – be it a telephone or a laptop… One does wonder if, when he first “discovered” Christopher (the name of the first computer) Turing realised what a huge chunk of everyday life he had, in fact, shaped… (He had a truly extraordinary technical mind, so in actual fact he may well have done). I think it was quite well timed and quite appropriate in all, we do live in the internet generation and it’s not such a bad thing that we find out how it all began…

The thematics and the discussions it will start aside, you will get annoyed with bits of this film. Oh sure, Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely brilliant from beginning to end, as is Keira Knightly who uses the characters warmth to play an absolutely lovely contrast to Turing who is, for lack of a better description, all odd corners and elbows sticking out… Looking back and reading descriptions of Turing, it is quite clear that he was very probably somewhere on the autistic spectrum. However the film does not fall into the trap of harping on the fact that he was some sort of autistic savant. This kind of diagnosis was quite rare at the time, so we are simply presented with the facts and left to draw our own conclusions. What the film does do however, with annoying Hollywoodiness, (yes it’s a word. I have just decided it’s a word, so it is a word. Henceforth) is repeat ad nauseum  the adage that “Sometimes it’s the people you think the least of who accomplish the most extraordinary things”. Once would have been more than enough. Twice if you guys really wanted to push it. You didn’t need a character saying the phrase every 20 minutes. The audience is not entirely stupid and we are quite capable of seeing that Turing is overcoming some truly spectacular demons and coming in, as the underdog, “winning the day”. Also, I didn’t “get” the cutaways to Turing running. I mean don’t get me wrong, Cumberbatch running and showing off his muscles is always a welcome sight to my sore eyes. I just didn’t get what they were doing in the story. Apart from clearly visualise Turing’s struggling. Only problem being that Benedict Cumberbatch is quite capable as an actor of showing this to us with no need to cutaways to him running but, you know…

Turing may well have won the day and (indirectly) the war, but his life was cut tragically short, when, after being condemned for “indecency” and forced to undergo chemical castration, he took his own life, aged 41. And it is very, very right that the film should be the starting point and a spearhead for the pardon of all the men that were condemned so unjustly and made to suffer in jail or by submitting to chemical castration and who didn’t have the advantage of being Alan Turing to ease their way to a pardon.

It is a sign of the great quality of the film that it overcomes all the “mainstreamisms” and “spoon feeding” in it to be the masterpiece it is. Part of it is the cast and the true show of talent and dedication we see from them. But it’s main saving grace is of course the strength of the story – a film can have whatever else it wants, if it has a weak story, it is doomed from the start. And it doesn’t get stronger or more unbelievable than Turing’s story…It is realism and the humanity of the whole affair, the fact that Joan Clarke (Keira Knightly’s character). Because not everyone will be able to completely sympathise with an a-social maths genius with autistic tendencies. But a man struggling with a society that doesn’t understand and his own personal demons to fulfil what he knows to be his destiny, now that – on some level – we can all relate to.  

THE ROLE OF A DIVA AS PLAYED BY A DIVA... "CALLAS FOREVER"

It’s funny, I always thought Maria Callas was Spanish. I know how this came about too, I was brought up on a rather eclectic diet of nursery rhymes and operas and Carmen, as sung by Maria Callas was one of my favourite things ever. I still love it and the recording has been listened and re-listened to within an inch of its life. I guess at some point Carmen and Callas merged in my head, so she became Spanish. I was a little surprised to find out she was Greek. Surprised, yet proud in a funny way, you know, the Greeks are neighbours after all. But you know, in a way, it doesn’t really matter that much. Callas was, above and beyond anything else, a diva. A gigantic talent. And above such things as nationality. This is why it is so fitting that a grand actress like Fanny Ardent is the one who portrays her. A diva to play a diva. And of course we have Franco Zefirelli at the helm, one of the old masters of cinema and a close friend of Callas herself. The result? Yes. It indeed is the showstopper you expect it to be.

Callas forever joins Maria Callas in the last year of her life, 1977. She is only 53, but her voice is nowhere near what it used to be. Callas, a consummate diva, has shut herself up in her home in Paris, rarely going out and slipping further and further into depression. Her friends are worried about her but are unsure how to go about helping this proud woman until Larry (Jeremy Irons,) her old manager, has a brainwave. Technology means there is a way for Maria to return to the screen, if not the stage, despite her failing voice. The question is, will Maria accept this partial return to the limelight? Or is Larry’s idea too little, too late?

That was another mythic bit about Callas wasn’t it? I am pretty sure I remember the whole “thing” of the reclusive artist, going over and over the recordings of their former glory, finding its place in a lot of films, sometimes as a tragic element, sometimes as a comic one. Personally, I don’t think there is anything really funny about it. Anyone who lives long enough to reach retirement age is going to be plagued by feelings of doubt and depression. The feeling that they are no longer “useful” that they are “ready for the scrap heap”. The way the creative industries function today, the “retirement age” is a lot younger and the “fall” a lot steeper as one goes from absolute adoration to complete anonymity and this can go to the head of even moderately famous and talented artists, much less a musical talent like Callas who has been one of the top performers in her field for decades. It is the realisation that while you were once capable of so much, you are now maybe capable of only half that – or even less. It must be quite frightening to feel that you have decade upon decade of “absolutely nothing” ahead of you. No wonder Callas was trying to hang on to her days of glory.

Of course with subject matter like that, the film cannot go far wrong – a good story is definitely the backbone of any film but I honestly think Fanny Ardent does make all the difference. Much to my delight (spoiler alert, people) a good chunk of the film is taken up by the filming of Carmen and the cast watching back some of the most popular scenes. This gives the film the slightly musical, actually no, operatic quality a biography of Callas simply must have. But it also puts Ardent herself in the rather awkward position of having to pretend to be Callas who is pretending to be Carmen who is pretending to sing – and is actually singing with Callas’ own voice.  Because, of course, Ardent’s own interpretation of Carmen is one thing but Callas’ interpretation of the part is something completely different… Boy it must have been a challenge to work that one out! Another mention simply has to go to Jeremy Irons who is absolutely marvellous as Larry, who is almost as much a diva as Callas herself, a typical industry professional a little too tied up with his career to take care of his private life. Another strong character in the film is that of Joan Plowright as Sarah Keller, the journalist and their common friend who is also trying to get Callas back on her feet. The portrait is a wonderful, unflinching yet very humane portrayal of a very extraordinary woman. Ardent’s performance makes me hanker for the old days, the old fashioned stars. I strongly recommend this film, even if you aren’t a particular fan of Callas or the opera. Because, let’s not forget, the original Callas Forever was meant to open up Callas’ works to a new generation… Who knows… It may work its magic on you too… 

MAKING HISTORY AIN'T EASY! "HITCHCOCK"

I honestly wish this film had been nominated for more awards. And definitely bigger things than hair and makeup. But I mean, I do get it. Anthony Hopkins. Helen Mirren. It would be a surprise if the film didn’t turn out as well as it did. Plus, I don’t know, maybe audiences in general are getting a tad bit jaded about films about filmmaking. But you know, I think these films are important. It’s important for films to talk about their own history. And as far as history goes, it doesn’t get bigger than Alfred Hitchcock.

History in the making he may have been, but that did not mean life with Hitchcock was easy. And his beloved wife Alma Reville could testify to that fact. Temperamental and obsessive while he was working on a project, depressed and dejected when he wasn’t working on one, it falls to Alma to ensure the household (and often the studio) runs to order. It is 1959, and Hitchcock – Hitch as he is more commonly known – may just have struck gold while looking for his new project. An innocuous little horror story called Psycho, based largely on the murders committed by the notorious serial killer Ed Gein.  The thing is, Hitch seems to be the only person who can see it. Even his beloved wife Alma has her doubts as to whether this story of blood and gore can be turned into anything tasteful. Or successful. That the studios would actually agree to distribute.  But Hitch is adamant and filming goes full steam ahead amidst grave economic gambles. However there is more serious trouble afoot. While Alma’s love and dedication to Hitch seems to continue unabated, there is no denying that she is more and more distant these days. And that she is spending more and more time with her friend Mr Whytfield Cook whom she is helping with his latest project. Hitch is worried, distracted even.  Not a good thing when you have mortgaged your home to make a film that the studio still hasn’t given their final word on distributing. Is this Hitch’s finest hour? Or will he loose his marriage and his career in one fell swoop?

Now, I like films like this. I like films about marriages. Hollywood is funny in the sense that actually getting into a relationship is often portrayed as the only really difficult part. Once you get the person of your dreams, we are told, it’s all roses and light until death does you part… Err, no. It takes a lot to make a relationship work and a marriage. And even if, like Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Reville, you have been together for 30 years, well guess what; there can still be hitches (pun intended). There can still be pitfalls. And, strangely, it is these pitfalls one must be afraid of. At the beginning there is the rush. You know that rush of emotion, of “something new”. 30 years later, routine is setting in alongside love. You really, really begin to know what it is like to live with this person. It’s when stuff happens to shake the marriage at this point that you should be concerned. And this is what gives the film its brilliant edge. Because yes it’s absolutely fascinating to watch Psycho come together. Especially if, like me, you’re a film-buff AND Hitchcock fan.  But at the end of the day, we know what happened there. It’s Psycho for God’s sake. It’s one of the most famous films in history. What we may or may not know, however, is how and whether this film ended Mr Hitchcock’s marriage.  And that, gentle viewer, you are going to have to watch and find out for yourself.

Told with great affection and a lot of (albeit rather British) humour, Hitchcock will warm you down to the cockles of your heart. And give you a history lesson in cinematic history to boot. I men come on. It is one of the greatest films in history…

THE PAST OF A NATION - AND A GREAT MAN - EXAMINED : "LINCOLN"

Ok this is another film that is going to get talked about a lot. I mean, it already is. It did quite well at the Golden Globes, it got a slew of nominations for the Oscars® and if the Golden Globes are anything to by (and it is no industry secret that they often are), Lincoln is set to do well there as well. Now, we already know that this is a Spielberg biopic, which, in itself, gives away quite a bit. But let’s get the lowdown on this three-hour long epic shall we? (By the way, what IS it with the length of films these days? Nothing under 2, 5 hours long! I mean, mostly the quality is quite high so the length is not, in itself, an issue but still, I’m curious. Films used to be a lot shorter in the past, even when technical developments allowed for much longer films. Now, when our attention spans are supposed to be getting shorter, films are getting longer and longer. There’s a thesis for a researcher or three in there somewhere…). Ok, I’ve done another one of my mile-long parenthesis. But bear with me; I’m getting to the point. In fact, this was not intentional, but it is kinda fitting that I went down a bit of detour here. Because one of the main “things” about Lincoln is that it is verbose. Very  verbose. But I’ll get to that in just a sec. Let’s briefly hear the story first.

This biography of Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis), takes up the story of the great politician’s life in 1865. Lincoln has two very important matters on his hands. The greatest without any shadow of a doubt is the Civil War. One thing is clear however, the war seems to be inexorably winding to a close. Lincoln is more than happy that the North seems to be winning. And with people dying in their thousands, peace could surely not come soon enough. The only thing is, Lincoln has a second issue on his mind that he is desperately trying to balance with peace with the south. For a while now, Lincoln’s main political aim has been to end slavery. However, he must bring the amendment to the attention of the senate and be sure to pass it before the southern states join if he is to have any hope of success. The economy of the southern states depends largely on slave labour, meaning that they would, almost to a man, block this amendment. Lincoln has a race against time on his hands if he wants to get this historic amendment through. On the one side, there is the hope of an early peace and saving thousands of lives. On the other, there is the chance to end slavery, which brings hope of much greater things in terms of ethics, lives and quality of lives. And then of course, there is the possibility of the amendment being rejected anyway, as the representatives are far from unanimous in their support of it. Lincoln deals with this crisis within his conscience with the aid of such historical figures such as William Seward (David Strathairn) and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) with truly historical consequences…

First up, hats off to Spielberg. This is an epic of quality and grandeur to suit a great man such as Abraham Lincoln and the historical changes he wrought in American history. The cast, full to the brim as we mostly know by now with big name stars (Joseph Gordon Levitt, Sally Field and Hal Holbrook among those who I couldn’t work into the synopsis) , present us with a true feast when it comes to acting. And for those, like me, who have very limited knowledge of American history, especially this period in American history, the film is easy to follow. The explanations given by the characters are clear and easily fitted into the storyline. And to be fair, seeing that the main part of the story takes place in parliament and amongst politicians, there are plenty of opportunities to make the discussion clear, so all levels of knowledge can follow and gain something. But of course this comes at a price. This tendency, coupled with the nature of the story, as detailed just now, means there is a lot of talking. And I mean A LOT of talking. There are, as I said, detailed explanations on what is going on, and even though my levels of concentration are definitely average if not slightly above, even I had to rewind, and/or check out a few facts online from time to time. You might, thus find it a tad hard to get into the pace of the film if you are a fan of less talking and more action, as it were. But once you “get” the storyline and adapt to the pace, this film will prove a wonderful lesson in a historical event in history. And I defy you not to get excited about the whole thing at the end, even though history tells us what happened as clear as day… 

A TRUE STORY OF IMPOSSIBLE ODDS, I GIVE YOU : "CINDERELLA MAN"

On Christmas, especially after copious amounts of food and drink, I am not in the mood for complicated artworks. I am, as you know, a particular fan of films that get the proverbial “little grey cells” whirring, but not today. This is why cheesy Christmas classics came into being. I am not talking about one of those however. I am talking about an emotional story of impossible odds being surmounted by sheer courage, determination and hard work. And I’ll tell you something else, it’s a true story to boot. I give you, James J. Braddock.

James J. Braddock (Russel Crowe) was a boxer in the mid to late ‘20s. He was a rising star, set to do great things. He lived with his wife Me (Rennee Zellwegger) and three children in relative comfort, luxury and happiness until… The Great Depression. Like many people in the States, Braddock loses everything. He has to beg for shifts on the docks for any sort of hope of getting some income to feed his family. They now live in a shack in a shantytown, barely able (and not always that) to pay for their most basic needs. His dreams of fame and fortune seem like a flicker at an incredible distance until his ex-manager and very old friend manages to get him one last fight. Braddock hasn’t fought in years, he is a lot older besides, no one gives him much of a chance… Until he actually wins the fight. This is the beginning of a renaissance, as it were. Although, it seems positively unbelievable. Because this one-time champion, now dock worker, has actually got his sights set on being the world heavyweight champion. Is he out of his mind? Or is there an actual chance he could make it?

Admit it. Realism, storylines etc. aside, we all love it when the good guys get the prize in the end. We all love it when the underdog wins through impossible odds. Especially in a matter like boxing. I mean, yes, it is violent and everything but there is something deeply satisfying about our kind hearted hero beating the evil bad-guy to a bloody pulp with his bare hands (Come on, admit it). And of course there is a delicious bad guy; one Max Baer who was infamous for actually killing people in the boxing ring. To be fair on the man, as he was actually a real person, he was probably just a boxer who was doing his job and getting on with his PR but still. He suits the purposes of this film very, very well. And ironically (or not) he happens to be the person Braddock needs to fight to win the world title… In short, as you can imagine, the whole atmos of the film is very suitable for too much turkey, indigestion and large amounts of wrapping paper.

And, to be fair, even if you know how the story ends (to be honest, a – You can probably guess from my review how it ends and b – You can Google it and find it out in a heartbeat- I did haha) it detracts nothing from the emotion of the film. I watched with baited breath, I bounced up and down, I actually ran round the room yelling instructions at one point. You can’t help but admire the man. And enjoy the film. Despite all of its conventionality, it has undoubtedly made my top 10.

THINKING BACK ON RECENT HISTORY : "W."

When Oliver Stone, one of the directors most associated with political films – be it bios or cautionary tales, made a biography of George W. Bush, I am sure none of us was particularly surprised. I mean, if you think about it, with Stone’s anti-war record behind him and with the war going on in Iraq at the moment, I personally would have been a tad surprised if he hadn’t made one. I watched this film in a period when I was researching war films, specifically about the war in Iraq. And it surprised me – a lot. But before I go into the reasons why, let’s briefly remember the story first. Not that the story needs much in the way of remembering, in its essence. The biography of George W. Bush is now pretty well known around the world. Starting off as a trouble maker and an alcoholic, George W. Bush then found religion and rose to become the president of the United States of America. Stone’s biography takes a very close – fly on the wall, you know, re-enactment style – look at his life “behind the scenes” as it were. Stone shows us a not so public side to Bush. His relationship with his father, also a onetime president, and like any son who follows in the family business George W. Bush struggles to get out from under his father’s shadow. September 11 happens, decisions have to be made and like anyone now ex-President Bush must make tough decisions and maintain his work – life balance. The thing is, a lot more hangs in the balance in this case than with your average folk… Now this film, like I said, surprised me. Because with Oliver Stone’s track-record I would have fully expected him to “rip into” the ex-president, as it were. But no, not at all. No matter what you think of his politics, when you look at the personal side, the George W. Bush we see is not in the least bit a caricature, he is very, very human – a fact we tend to forget with a lot of public figures whether we agree with them or not. Stone has made it quite clear that he doesn’t agree with the war in Iraq – to the best of my knowledge anyway – and the view he takes of the people surrounding ex-President Bush is a tad harsh, be it Colin Powell, Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. But I almost feel that with George W. Bush Stone was trying to say “Hey. I don’t agree with you but it’s nothing personal. It’s your politics.” A mature view, and in a way one should expect nothing less from a director of Stone’s caliber. And a rare thing in our polarized times. Another point you might want to bring up is “well this is technically a bio – are you sure you can call it a war film with a clear conscience?” My answer would have to be yes. One needs to be neither a political analyst nor an expert in film studies to realize that in the case of the ex-president, he personally and his presidency is now inextricably tied to the events of September 11 and the War in Iraq. So yes, I think when talking about a war, both the decision making process that started the war and the life of a man who was the main decision maker – the president at the time of the United States no less – is well worth examining. And very pertinent. A good film in my opinion both technically and in its handling of a historic moment and its personages. Definitely worth watching.