NOT SO MUCH A "LEGEND" AS A CHANCE MISSED...

I approached this film about the infamous Kray twins with a lot of caution. Reviews about it has been mixed at best. Still I entered the film armed with a love of gangster movies and a deep appreciation of Tom Hardy’s acting talent. It cannot be that bad, I thought, probably a bit too violent or something. I love true stories – and it doesn’t come much gorier than the Krays – so all in all it should be a good watch. It very soon turned out that Tom Hardys acting was literally the only thing that was going to get me through to the end of the film. I have been flipping through some reviews of the film and it turns out that I (along with the film as it turns out) suffer a great deal from lack of knowledge of the Kray story. Well it just goes to show doesn’t it, if you don’t have a really good story, all the rest of the talent involved can only get the film so far…

Basically the film tells the story of notorious London gangsters and identical twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Told from the perspective of Frances, the wife of Reggie, the story charts the rise to power of the twins and their ultimate fall from it – the latter due in no small part to Ronnie Krays mental health issues…

Now, like I said I only know bits and pieces about the Kray story. But I do have a sense of why people would say that. Because watching the film, from a completely outside perspective as it were, I could feel bits and pieces missing although I did not know what they were. I mean, to put it in a nutshell, the film does give some small detail of the twins dealings with other gangs, their ownership of various nightclubs and casinos and hints at dealings with the police but in all honesty it shows absolutely and categorically nothing that would warrant them being accuse of having a criminal empire. I mean wheeler dealers yes. Not an empire though. Don’t get me wrong, when the time comes the film doesn’t shirk from showing violence. In fact the violence contains, in my humble opinion, some of the best bits of the film (I am the type of girl who a day later is still smiling at the line – I have a joke for you. Paranoid schizophrenic walks into a pub…- ).  Instead, the film centralizes by and large on (what else) the relationship between Reggie and Frances with Ronnie as something cross between comic relief and the impending doom that will ultimately be the undoing of them all (ultimately he is both). Again, this is a sensible choice in a way – Reggie was the more charismatic twin who was better at… Well better at being alive to be honest. But he wasn’t exactly boy scout of the year either. It enhances his struggle with his increasingly unhinged brother to have a positive light shone on him through the eyes of Frances. It harks back to that age old story of the gangster, trying to be good but ultimately being unable to avoid his past. Which would be all very well and good if we had a clearer, more grim and dire picture of what this evil empire the twins lived in was all about. Cue the complaints about how unfaithful to actual events the film is. I can sense what they left out. A couple of hinted talks with American mafia bosses and a few drunken brawls really don’t cut it.

And if the real Kray twins are left underdeveloped by the script, poor Frances definitely is. She is slightly reduced as your typical Mol. Your typical East End girl. There is clearly more to her than that, which is evident by how her story ends, but the film doesn’t do a very good job into going into detail about her. She mainly seems to exist to cast the positive light of love onto Reggie Kray. Now Reggie Kray is also, to be fair, a bit of an offshoot of a certain type – or at least in this film he is portrayed as such. He is the lovable rogue with street smarts and a flair for business. Every other British gangster film has one of them in it. The difference here of course is that Tom Hardy plays him perfectly, to an absolute T. What every other British gangster film doesn’t have, it needs to be said, is Ronnie Kray. Ronnie Kray is a paranoid schizophrenic who is left at the head of the family business when Reggie has to go into jail to serve out the tail end of a sentence. Already both eccentric and highly suspicious (all this despite medication, which he takes sporadically) I will leave you to discover how Ronnie unravels and how he brings the downfall of most if not all around him. Hardy portrays both twins with fluidity and conviction, so much so that you positively cringe at Ronnie’s antics for Reggie’s sake, completely forgetting that they are in actual fact the same person. Boy is this film a showcase of acting talent!

Violence is a strange one isn’t it… I honestly think at the end of the day it’s about striking a balance. I mean if you check out my review of The Revenant on Film Debate, you will find me complaining there was far too much violence. Now I have sort of ended up saying there is not enough. I think the problem here is that the story is in fact a well-known story of two very violent gangsters. They are almost part of the fabric of London. Turning their story into one they could have been cut out of and replaced with any gangster type from any British gangster film anywhere really, really takes something essential and important away from the films potential. We are left to the talent of Hardy, who uses these two characters a lot better in delivering the lines given to him and giving us a hint of what the film could have been… 

A STUDY OF OBSESSION AND MADNESS... FOXCATCHER...

Oh boy, I have been wanting to catch up with this bad boy for a while. This got chins wagging back in the Oscar season, remember… First it was Steve Carells unbelievable performance as the archetypal (real life ) crazy millionaire John Du Pont. Carell, by and large known for his comic performances shot right to the top of the Oscar nominations list with his performance, and incidentally with his make-up. Or rather his make-up shot to the top of nominations without him, it is after all a different category. Then there was the whole scandal about Channing Tatum getting snubbed in the best supporting actor category. You know shit just got awkward when even Mark Ruffalo who got nominated instead of him openly says Tatum has been snubbed. And then, then there was the whole matter with the real life Mark Schultz who withdrew his support from the film shortly after its release. Having seen the film he was warned that the film could potentially portray him as gay and strongly opposed to any such thing being the case. Though to be honest everyone also noticed that Schultz was rather opportunely pointing towards his own interviews and books he had contributed to as an alternative source… Mmm… Anyway, you will recall it definitely made its own fair share of ripples, not least because it actually is – that old favorite of mine – a true story.  A story of madness and murder – a favorite of the general public too now you mention it! Oh and yeah, there is the odd bit of wrestling thrown in…

David and Mark Schultz are a brother team of great renown in the wrestling world. Both are Olympic gold medal winners but David (Mark Ruffalo) is generally seen as the superior talent and definitely a much better coach and trainer than Mark (Channing Tatum) who is more hot-headed and definitely full of resentment at not being able to escape his brothers shadow. It is for this reason that when, seemingly quite out of the blue, he is approached by eccentric millionaire John du pont (Steve Carell) he sees in his proposition an opportunity to finally strike out on his own and succeed. The stakes are high- du pont wants to be the coach of the American wrestling team that is sent to the 1988 Olympic games. He wants David to be a part of it and to help coach the team. He will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. For David, living alone in a tiny flat and living off the American equivalent of pot noodles, it’s a whole new world… But it is also the beginning of a relationship tinged with drug abuse, obsession and ambition that will prove extremely destructive in more ways than one…

First of all, let us get the most obvious bit out of the way. The wrestling. I cannot stress enough that this is not a sports film. The wrestling is, in fact, almost incidental – although goodness knows du pont himself would be very displeased with that. This is a very insightful and fascinating look at obsession and how it pushes people to react. Carell must have jumped for joy as an actor when he got the part of Du pont – what a character! Basically a real life Norman Bates (only with added millions of dollars and gigantic estate), Du pont – well into middle age – is ruled by his mother Jean (played rather superbly by Vanessa Redgrave) and deep down wants nothing more than to rebel against her. In his quest, he has come up with a sport she would definitely disapprove of, and that would set him apart from her (she breeds prize racehorses) and becomes completely obsessed with becoming the best in the world at it – so he is not only rebelling but in fact overshadowing her as he does it… And he has the resources that enable him to not stop at anything to achieve this goal…

Then of course there is the whole dynamic between Mark and David, the eternal story of sibling rivalry. Both actors do a superb job of their parts. And I really don’t care how much stick you give Tatum about the Magic Mike franchise – the man can act. And boy can he move. I am not just talking about how good looking he is (and let’s face it ladies and gents he is DAMN good looking) he just has a talent of moving fluidly and looking damn good while he does it. The one piece of criticism I will put across however is that the character of David is a little too perfect. He seems to be the archetypal benign older brother, perfect coach and father. I mean, I never knew the guy, maybe he actually was like that. But I have a nasty suspicion that there is some level of whitewashing – so to speak – going on in the light of, not to give out too many spoilers, what happens next…

Foxcatcher sustains a very robust level of tension throughout. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout and the successful way it sustained the psychological tension between this extraordinary and larger than life characters was a large part of it. It is a wonderful study of the human  mind set against one of the most competitive strands of an already competitive industry (professional sport). I personally found it both hair-raising and thought provoking. And I promise you, you will, at the very least, get what all the fuss is about…  

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT "MY WEEK WITH MARILYN"

I have an embarrassing confession to make. Before this whole Oscar malarkey happened with A Theory of Everything, I hadn’t really heard of Eddie Redmayne. I’m trying not to feel too bad about it, judging from the sheer volume of Eddie Redmayne films now emerging on TV, the powers that be are banking on a lot of other people not having seen the films or heard of him either. Still, these films were out there and they weren’t exactly kept on the hush – hush so how I managed to miss him so completely is a bit of a mystery to me…

That said, here is yet another film by Eddie Redmayne that I personally had never heard of. Or I mean I had, but I had no idea that it was such a star-spangled cast, that it starred Eddie Redmayne (and that he was quite so good in short, I had no idea what I had missed out on. Marilyn Monroe is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most iconic women that ever walked the earth. Her mystery and how truly complicated she was, no doubt is now an integral part of her mystique. She is Marilyn because she is so hard to understand. This is the true story of a one-week long look a regular lad got into her world…

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) has just launched himself into the world of film. He has started from the very bottom – and at 3^rd A.D. it doesn’t really get closer to the bottom than that – but he is quick witted and sociable, so set to go far. And as luck would have it the very first film he finds himself on is The prince and the showgirl starring (in case you didn’t know) Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams), Sir Lawrence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and Dame Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench), it doesn’t really get much bigger than this. The trouble is, of course, Marilyn is, well, Marilyn… Notoriously difficult to work with for all kinds of reasons, within mere hours of arriving Marilyn risks throwing the entire production in to jeopardy. Colin’s job is to “manage” things and try as best he can to make sure things are running smoothly. This is how he ends up so close to Marilyn… And like a moth in front of a flame,   he cannot take his eyes off her….

First of all, of course, it was an iconic and wonderful love story. The eternal attraction of a “nobody” (Colin is the son of a very rich and privileged family, true,  but this means nothing on the film set. Well I mean apart from that this is what got his foot through the door, but I’ll let you discover that as you go along), anyway, a nobody,   capturing the heart of an icon dreamt of by millions is present here. Add the attraction of an “insight” into someone like Monroe with the aid of a “personal diary” pulls the crowds right in. And as the film attempts to provide this insight, I have to say, Michelle Williams is simply mind-boggling as Marilyn. Her chemistry with Redmayne’s young and naïve Colin is really extraordinary.  Of course how much of an insight we get we can actually never know. Even if Colin’s diary was followed to the letter (and in these adaptations this is a rare thing, as most of us know by now) how accurately  and objectively does the diary describe the enigma that was Marilyn? Williams captures and channels the energy of the on screen Monroe perfectly and displays a thought-provoking performance for the off stage one. If nothing else, this is definitely a film to build a dream on.

Redmayne’s part is one that could actually have been given to a young Hugh Grant back in  his day. Luckily the canny young actor has gracefully side-stepped being typecast and has taken on bigger and more complicated roles since. It’s by no means an original role for him, the typical ingénue getting to know the magical, cynical world that is acting and cinema. He pulls it off with aplomb, as does Emma Watson (who I haven’t had a moment to mention up to this point) who has a secondary and unenviable role of Colin’s initial love interest and Marilyn Monroe’s “rival”.

The other thing is of course, we come close to the enigma that was Marilyn but the film doesn’t really “explain” anything. Then again, what is the point of a legend that has been explained to death? We strike the balance, take a closer look only for a minute – pretty much like Colin – and then the curtains close. We are left to our own musings and dreams. But this, as we have said, is as it should be. 

AMERICAN SNIPER - YET ANOTHER CLINT EASTWOOD FILM ?

This was another big name last Oscar season, even though it only managed to take away the award for Sound Editing. Well, with names as big as Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper attached it could hardly help being in the limelight. I have infinite respect and admiration for Clint Eastwood. I quote High planes drifter on a regular basis when I write. But I do also have to point out that I – and quite a few other – people have accused him in the past of basically playing himself in films and making the same film over and over again. This time he has a rather extraordinary true story on his hands – so how has he fared? Same film again – or something a little different?

The hero of our story, brought to life by Bradley Cooper is legendary American sniper Chris Kyle. During his four tours in Iraq, Kyle quickly raised to rank of legend through his sheer dedication to service, accuracy when shooting and determination to do what is truly right. The men admire and support him, his superiors admire him and the public read about him with admiration in the papers… But one cannot see the things Kyle has seen without changing. Every time he comes home to his wife and children, Kyle finds it harder and harder to leave the war behind… In fact, even if he does survive the fighting, his memories may well end up consuming him… The question is, will he admit this – even to himself – and start fighting back in time ?

Looking at the list of wins, I can’t help but think that Bradley Cooper deserved a little more than he actually ended up receiving – his performance is pretty much what makes the film not just another Clint Eastwood film. Because given the subject matter, I cannot quite imagine anyone else making this film. And Eastwood makes it exactly the way we imagine he would make it. Kyle was evidently quite an extraordinary man, don’t get me wrong, but the way the story goes, how all American he is throughout, his easy rise to stardom as a sniper… It is all… Just too smooth. Eastwood finishes the film with real footage of Kyles funeral (I reckon his death is not a spoiler as it pretty much counts as common knowledge) which was of course a military, patriotic affair. No wonder his critics accuse Eastwood of tubthumping banality – it is JUST like a  million other films made to show the horrors of war. Smooth, polished but without an original bone in its body.

Take a film like The Hurt Locker. Jeremy Renners character William James is Kyles equivalent in the film and paints a completely different picture. He is a lot harder to like, he is a lot less of a gentleman, he has lost a lot of his positive emotions in all aspects of life and, to be honest, I think he is a much more realistic portrayal of what war can do to a good man. I almost feel the film is in denial about the sheer amount of trauma Kyle would have had to cope with. We do not see the grit and dirt of the matter at all, only the polished surface you present to visitors. 

Which is precisely why I say Bradley Cooper needs a few more accolades for the work he did here. Cooper sticks to the letter of the script, it is true. His character is always polite smiling and courteous, and yet… The nuances, the tiniest gestures, the little moments Cooper manages to insert into his all round good old American cowboy routine give us hair raising insights into what must be going through Kyles mind. It is without a doubt the tonic the films overly varnished surface needed – I just devoutly wish there were more of those hints. If our imaginations were meant to make up the rest of the horrors, well, the film does not give us enough to work with.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that all films pertaining to war should necessarily end badly, be dark and not have any positive emotion in them at all. But the trauma Kyle went through lies at the heart of the story. The characters ark consists of his entering this state of trauma and coming out the other side – at least supposedly. We have to be able to see the trauma so we can rejoice with him and his family when he comes out on the other side. If we do not believe in the trauma in the first place, well, there is a part of the film that becomes completely pointless – the emotional journey has been aborted before it even began. Bradley Coopers extraordinary performance rescues the story to a certain point, but the other failing is, in my opinion, simply too great.

American Sniper is without doubt a good film. It is fascinating to watch, it is a story well worth being told. But it is, sadly, yet ANOTHER war film and something of a missed opportunity. By all means watch, but don’t expect it to change your world…    

A SPINE CHILLER FOR THE DISCERNING FAN - "THE CONJOURING"

This, in a sense, is a specialist movie. Horror is a genre you either love or hate and James Wan is a director who works particularly well within this genre. So the same goes for him, you either love him or hate him. And in this particular film, Wan takes on what is actually quite a “specialist” subject. It is the true story of – for those who follow these circles for whatever reason – two of the greatest and certainly most famous paranormal investigators of our time, Ed and Lorraine Warren.

The story is, purportedly, one of the most frightening cases the couple has been asked to assist on. They are invited into the house of the Perron family who have just moved to an isolated property out in the country with their young family consisting of five young girls. As is usual with these things, the events start small, the family dismisses them as fruits of over-active imaginations or just the difficulties of settling into a new house… But it soon becomes patently obvious that these are a lot more than the creeks of an old house. Ed and Lorraine desperately try to help – but it may well be too little too late…

Now, this does rather seem to go without saying but this film largely relies on fantasy. If you do not actually believe in the supernatural (the events depicted do after all claim they are based on reality) you must be fully able to suspend disbelief and enjoy being scared by the monsters Wan creates on the screen. If you’re going to eye-roll and go “oh that doesn’t make sense”, really, don’t bother. It will continue to not make sense throughout unless you can immerse yourself in the film’s universe and fully believe in it.

That said, Wan makes it incredibly easy for the discerning viewer to leave the comfort of their armchairs and enter into the once home, now hell hole of the Perron family. Every single film I have watched by this director very artfully combines suspense and pace to quickly create an overwhelming sense of dread and then quickly – and almost without us noticing – drag us into the film’s universe. And our sense of overwhelming dread is such that even when staples of the horror genre turn out on our screens, even if you are quite sure what is going to happen, you are still concerned with how it is going to happen. Of course with a director like Wan at the helm there is always a good chance that it is not going to happen at all, but the point is that when / if it does happen, you are not disappointed. And you jump. I mean for example – and for those who have seen it, think of the scenes with the family dog. You know what the little girl is going to encounter as she runs out of the house. You’re still on tender hooks.

I think this has a lot to do with inspiration taken from a more oriental way of filmmaking. In popular Eastern cinema themes and stories are often classics, clichés even, the audience knows full well what is going to happen. They’re there because they already like that particular story. What they are interested is the “how”. This leads to a great attention to detail and imagination used in the endless variations of details that change the whole atmosphere of the story… This attitude combined with just the right amount of imagination, that magic combination of a well-executed classic and just the right amount of innovation means that James Wan’s films are works you simply cannot take your eyes off.

And a couple of words of admiration for the cast – a lot of screen time goes to the five young actresses portraying the perron girls and it has to be said they do not miss a beat. Lili Taylor has always been an actress I have admired through her various television shows and she was an absolute pleasure to watch here too.

This film will not change your world. It is not, say a George Romero film with undertones of political message and a good dose of dark comedy. It is quite an expendable film, to watch for two hours, be scared of and then forget (or have a few nightmares about and then forget depending on how sensitive you are about these things). But if you are a fan of horror or you just feel like checking out a rather superb example of the genre executed by a master go ahead and get stuck right in. I’d leave the lights on though if I were you… You know, just in case… 

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.  

A STORY OF SAVAGE GRACE CUT SHORT...

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed at some point that I do a lot of viewing on BBC Iplayer. I would strongly recommend it to the uninitiated; it is often brimming with interesting if rather under advertised propositions. I only clicked on Savage Grace because I thought I recognized Julianne Moore in the thumbnail and only then realized what a relevant film it was to this Oscar season as it co-stars this seasons other favorite, Eddie Redmayne. Savage Grace is a disturbing true story and a true acting masterclass by the two stars. And with controversial director Tom Kalin (of Swoon fame) at the helm, we would not be wrong to expect big things from this one. Which is why I was profoundly disappointed when it ended up not quite coming together in the end…

This is the story of the American actress and socialite Barbara Daly Bakeland (Julianne Moore) and her murder at the hands of her son Anthony ( Eddie Redmayne). Barbara is the epitome of the histrionic actress, driving her husband away relatively early in the marriage and being left to raise their son Anthony alone, with the help of various family friends and relatives. Barbara being obsessed with getting her old position with society back, Anthony is pretty much left to his own devices to experiment and find his own way in life. And his mother’s reaction to these experiments is, shall we say, not exactly conventional… Thus swimming through a strange, fluid atmosphere quite devoid of boundaries, the pair arrives at the ultimate tragedy that will end Barbara’s life.

The film has one heck of a lot of potential. But what looks like has happened is that Kalin has tried to take a formula that worked incredibly well for him in the early nineties with Swoon – namely a murder with sexual motivations laced with madness and a strange sort of folie a deux and re-adapt it. The problem is, while this works well for Swoon, it falls strangely flat for Savage Grace. The acting was superb and the direction very atmospheric if in places a little old fashioned but throughout, I felt as if there was something missing. The last half-hour or so came together a lot better, with Anthony finally making it quite clear that the – something is not quite right – feeling we had been harboring for a while now was bona fide insanity and having a magnificent breakdown on screen. In fact I finished the film wishing that there had been more of the last half hour and less of the first hour – if that makes sense as a sentence. Then I went online to see what I could find out about the story and promptly discovered what was missing. Basically it was a whole chunk of the real story

.

WARNING.THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS BASICALLY SPOILER CITY. BUT THE MURDER IS IN THE Public DOMAIN SO… EHM. YEAH. Don’t get me wrong I am ALL for artistic license and – within reason – playing around with real life stories a tiny bit to suit a vision. And I also see that cinematically speaking what Kalin was trying to do was have a tense but understated first two thirds with subtle hints at the underlying incest with a dramatic reveal and “descent into madness” type finale. The problem for me was that the hinting was a little too subtle and didn’t quite get one on the same emotional level. In real life, it transpires, Anthony had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before the murder had occurred (in the film there is no mention of it) but his father wouldn’t allow him to be treated by psychiatrists. The incestuous relationship with his mother had also been going on for years (in the film this is hinted at but never elaborated – I got the impression the scene in the final half hour is the culmination, not one in many if you get what I mean). The incest had its roots in the fact that Barbara could never quite accept Anthony being gay and was “trying to fix him”. In this attempt he had also been coerced to have sex with prostitutes. Again, none of this had been mentioned. In fact Anthony and Barbara had had numerous violent quarrels involving knives and a previous attempted murder, all of which is overlooked in the film.

But then again, there is no great dramatic reveal in a young man with previous mental health issues tipping over the edge I suppose, so all of that is abandoned in lieu of a dramatic reveal at the end that leaves us gagging for more. Grand reveals are all very well and good in their place. But especially when it comes to mental illness the slow and steady descent into madness can be just as dramatic, not least because it usually corresponds more to the real experience people have of mental illness. And I mean it is not as if there weren’t plenty of dramatic events for this to lead off from – not least since the concept of “fixing” gay people is sadly still an actual topic today. Between that and the incest – the fact that technically his mother raped him – just sticking to the facts and doing much less in the way of editing and contributing would have made a completely sensational story. Especially with actors as brilliant as Moore and Redmayne.

 I would, in short, class Savage Grace as a missed opportunity more than anything else. It has some wonderfully dramatic glimmers but it never quite opens its wings and soars. Still it is well worth the watch if only for the wonderful performances and one of the most terrifying depictions of madness I have seen on screen for a while.

KISS THE WATER - AND MARCH TO THE BEAT OF YOUR OWN DRUM...

I don’t quıte know how to say this… I just want to come straight out and start off by saying that never in my wildest dreams could I actually have been able to picture myself advising you guys to watch what seems to be for all intents and purposes, a documentary on fly fishing. No, no don’t close the page just yet; I assure you there is more to it than that. Kiss the Water, is a little number that made quite a stir in film festivals this year; be it Tribeca, Hot Springs or Edinburgh… Calling it a merely a documentary on fly fishing would be an immense insult to the extraordinary woman whose story it tells… And in fact, to the film itself – after all it does rise to the challenge of its extraordinary subject matter and tells its story in rather an extraordinary way…

The story is that of Megan Boyd. You probably wouldn’t have heard of her. But she is, in fact, one of the greatest creators of fishing flies to have lived. Miss Boyd was both eccentric and a recluse. But that does not mean she was shut off from the world. Her works of art – for how else can I describe them – have graced the collections of the rich and famous, of royalty and of collectors all over the world…

And I am pretty sure that this is going to be the first of many points in this little gem that will take you by surprise. Her fishing flies were so beautiful that there is an open division of opinion as to whether they were ever intended to be used at all… One expert on the matter even confidently states that they weren’t intended for use – he is, however, contradicted by Miss Boyd’s apprentice which to my mind says the last word on the matter. I must confess, I have had very little to do with fly fishing in my time. I had no idea what to expect when we had the first extreme close-up of a fly. I was mesmerized in an instant, hooked as it were, by one of the many salmons her flies caught… The colours, the ingenuity, the creativity…You should watch the documentary, if for no other reason, so that your impression of fishing flies – whatever they may be – can be corrected once and for all.

But that is by far and away not the only thing that recommends the film. Since it has taken on a rather extraordinary life and person, Kiss the Water goes slightly off the beaten track as far as its cinematography goes. True, there are the requisite talking heads – people who knew her, who worked with her, who studied her work… These are intercut with simply stunning visuals from the Scottish countryside (it really got the travel bug in me going) and with stunning and almost abstract animations, not to reconstruct anything in particular but, to convey the emotions created by fishing, the flies, the nature, Miss Boyd herself and her creative process. For a split second I was concerned that the whole animation thing was going to lapse slightly into the overly artistic and pretentious, but no.  The animation sequences capture a sense of beauty and creativity that quite unexpectedly appear in the midst of the more conventional segments of the documentary – much like the moment Miss Boyd’s flies hit the water and brought a tiny speck of something different into the river…

Another point I rather liked about the documentary is the fact that Miss Boyd’s physical form is strangely absent from her life story… It may seem odd that we do not actually see pictures (moving or otherwise) of her right until the very end. But look at it this way, The documentary does such a good job of conveying everything about Miss Boyd, her character and her work that a mere photograph could not convey –we don’t actually need the obligatory grainy videos of her. We have learnt all that is important. Not that the grainy videos are out of place or ill-used when they do come, mind you…

Quite apart from anything else, this documentary is a wonderful opportunity to marvel at how many different guises artistic talent and creativity can come in… And what a wonderful thing it is to have the courage to walk to the beat of one’s own drum – and that beat alone.  Because you know, it doesn’t make a lot of sense at first glance, living out most of one’s life in a tiny remote cottage with neither electricity nor running water making a living by hand-making fishing flies but you know… Aren’t you glad she did?

For viewers in the UK The Art of Fly Fishing : Kiss the Water is currently available on BBC Iplayer… I say go check it out… Like, now… 

MORE THAN JUST THE PARIS WIFE

We are all familiar with the adage that behind every successful man there is a loving wife (or some such sexist nonsense). I believe I have made my opinion on it clear in the previous sentence. One thing, however, is true. When one half of a couple attains a mixed blessing such as world-wide recognition and fame, the other half of the couple almost always finds his/herself plunged into the darker pages of history. This was very much the case with Hadley Richardson who was the loving wife of Ernest Hemingway just around the time he became as the literary giant he truly was.

Hadley supports Ernest through those years of poverty and uncertainty, assuages his doubt, provides him with a happy home, travels all around the world with him and does her level best to get used to the Paris set, composed of great talents with even greater characters such as Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ezra pound and Gertrude Stein. Hadley truly loves Ernest and is sure that their relationship can weather any storm fame, fortune and literary scandal brings, but as Ernest spreads his wings and begins to soar, whether she can actually keep up becomes more and more dubious…

It’s always an interesting one, isn’t it, the story of a famous person told from behind the scenes, more specifically from the perspective of his long-suffering wife. But if you were hoping for an OK magazine type dish the dirt deal on Ernest Hemingway, well this isn’t quite what you are looking for. I mean, I would be the first to say that Hadley is ill-treated at times by Ernest but the book does not by any means make a martyr of her. I do hate that kind of womans story – painting the woman as an angel that was wronged at every turn by the man is one genre, but it is not realistic. And what art of every form needs is REALISTIC female characters, you know, ones that are actually true to life. And as in every relationship, one cannot lay the blame for all the problems at Ernests door, no, not by a long shot. In fact, as a woman and a writer, there were times in the book I would have liked to physically grab Hadley and try to shake some sense into her. I guess she can be forgiven on the count that it was an electric time, the changes in her day to day life were constant and difficult to follow on an emotional scale and Ernest Hemmingway – though undoubtedly truly in love with Hadley at the time – was not by nature the easiest of men to get on with (much less live with). In fact, Hemmingway’s rise to fame was fraught with scandals and arguments of many kinds. A lot of artists and folks of renown all together on one social scene means that many egos to please. And this is a scene difficult to adapt to for someone like Hadley who does not even see herself as an artist. The Paris wife is, if nothing else, a wonderful study of love pitching itself against a truly extraordinary and relatively modern phenomenon – worldwide fame.

Historically speaking, it is also an important study well-worth reading. From the 1920s onwards, paris was a truly extraordinary town to be in (did anyone watch the Woody Allen film Midnight in paris). All the artistic greats of a single generation were there, together, the atmosphere must have been electric when all these creative geniuses came together. It makes one think of a certain period in history when Vienna was the centre of creation for classical music with Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and many more all gathered in the same city. I was wondering where this city might be today. L.A. London… No its actually more complicated than that. The creative city of the late 20^th and early 21^st century is, without shadow of a doubt, the internet. Competition is all the more fierce because it is all the more democratic, with artistic creation open to everyone but if you get into the thick of it, it is on the internet that the opportunities, the inspiration and the muses all reside. You needn’t, like Ernest and Hadley, have to physically go to a café downtown to see, be seen and meet people. All you need to do is open your browser. For the everyman, the tough bit comes about selection. Of course, the internet is what it is and the wealth of choice means – Im not being snobbish here people but you know what Im saying is definitely true in some cases – a drop in quality. What you need to do is not get side-tracked. What you need to do is do your research. And then, you have to have the strength of will to close that browser and get to the business of creating.  All you really need to do is to step away from the paths that are well-trodden and prescribed and find your own way… There are a lot of people who will say that the internet has ruined everything (whatever everything may mean) but I strongly disagree. I think it is an incredibly exciting time, where you never know when you may discover a budding artist or art form… Or indeed when a budding artist may discover themselves… 

BEHIND THE SCENES OF A FAIRY TALE : "GRACE OF MONACO"

I decided to see this one (again on a plane) because I was rather bemused by the overall “mediocre” reviews of it. It was set as an extravaganza after all, opening the Cannes Film Festival no less, a clearly opulent, highly visual film about a modern fairy tale; the story of Grace Kelly, who left the glamour of Tinsel town to be the Princess of Monaco.

However, the fairy tale, we quickly learn, is not all it seems. Grace misses Hollywood and her old world,  Rainier ( Tim Roth) is distant and increasingly stressed about Monaco’s increasingly tense relationship with De Gaule era France and no matter how hard Grace tries, she can’t seem to get it right, every single thing she says and does seems to be wrong. When Hitchcock offers her the leading part in his latest film, Marnie, Grace reaches crisis point. She has the perfect opportunity to return to the stage – but with a crisis brewing in Monaco and her new family to consider… Which way will Grace turn?

I mean we have the advantage of hindsight here, we all know she stayed with Rainier, never acted again and was her Serene Highness the Princess of Monaco for the rest of her life. And herein lies the problem with this film. There is no real crisis, because most, if not all of us know what Grace decided to do. The interest of the film lies – or would lie – in portraying her psychological process in getting there. It offers an interesting opportunity to look into the mind of a woman forced to choose between her career and her family. What we end up with, between Grace’s wise father figure Father Tucker, the elocution lessons and the French lessons (complete with the now rather stale parody of Americans being unable to pronounce foreign languages) something akin to the Princess Diaries, or, you know, all those tweenage films about regular girls learning to be princesses. And on the other hand, I mean come on. The dilemma is between being a famous actress or an actual princess. It’s not exactly an easy dilemma to sympathize with.

The second point, which I actually read in another review is that the same is valid for the Monaco deal. It is, of course, absolutely tragic for any country to lose its sovereignty but at the end of the day, in real terms, they would simply become French citizens and lose some tax privileges. It’s bad. But it’s not exactly being put to the sword either. And just as it was in the case of Grace’s story, we actually know what happened. Monaco still exists. The end. In fact the whole “danger” is largely economic, the long discussions (and the explanations thereof, as given to Grace who plays the role of the Everyman) are basically a lot of men in tuxedos round a board room table. Again, very hard to sympathize with.

In both crises typical Hollywood tricks are used to heighten emotion, extreme close ups of faces (and eyes and mouths quite a few times), tense music, suitable sequences of both Nicole Kidman and Tim Roth looking tortured….   But in the end, the moment you take a step back, there is no real “crisis” there, not for us. I would have found a much more deeply psychological behind the scenes angle a lot more interesting.

It’s a shame really, because there  is a really good opportunity there, something akin to what we discussed concerning CallasForever – an actress, playing an actress, playing a part. Or rather learning to play a part. I mean we do get hints at that, I rather liked the vignettes of Grace Kelly rehearsing Marnie in front of her bedroom mirror. I do wonder how Kidman approached that; did she do it the way she herself would play Marnie or try and figure out how Grace Kelly would do it? Both maybe? But I mean even that is marred slightly, there comes a moment when Father Tucker holds Grace’s hands earnestly and says – as deep down we knew he would : “Grace, learning to be the Princes is the role of a lifetime”.

I mean yeah, the film is beautiful, opulent… But for all that, it falls short on the way the story is told. I know the whole idea is the “backstory” of a typical fairy tale being exposed, but if the fairy tale is typical, this doesn’t mean the way we tell it has to be as well… So I’m afraid I have to say yes, I totally see why so many people just turned around and said it was just… “Meh”… I feel sadly obliged to join their ranks… 

THE WOMAN WHO ONLY LEFT HER GAZE BEHIND... VIVIAN MAIER : WHO TOOK NANNY’S PICTURES?

It is not exactly a foreign concept to any of us,that of the artist recognized only posthumously. Such was the life of Vivian Maier – she lived as a nanny and a recluse for most of her life and it is  only recently that her life’s work – tens of thousands of photographs are recognized as true works of art. Now they fetch thousands of dollars and she is recognized as one of the true original artists of our time.

The kicker? Maier was not a struggling artist per se. She never tried to get her pictures published. Sometimes she never even looked at them – hundreds of rolls of film she had taken were discovered undeveloped, their contents seen but once, by Maier, as she took the pictures. In her old age she was a hoarder and an eccentric and her lack of funds meant that she had to stop taking pictures around the ‘80s, most of her income being eaten up by storage costs. The tragedy being that the only way she was recognized as an artist was when she could no longer keep up the payment for her storage container and the contents needed to be sold. Even after her “discovery” well into her old age, Maier continued to be a recluse and what we know about her is infuriatingly sketchy and piecemeal. The only clues we do have about who she truly was are in fact, what she chose to capture with her camera.

Well this documentary is an eye-opener. It is, in my mind, the clearest indicator of what separates the true artist from the amateur. Or rather the spirit of the artist from the spirit of the amateur. Because the artist is COMPELLED to create whatever it is his talents lead them to create. I am not about to advocate the whole “art for art’s sake” movement in its entirety mind you. I fully believe that some works can be too pretentious and depending on the medium and genre of course, the interaction with the audience is a very important point to consider especially if you are trying to become more commercial as an artist. But this is another component to the work. It is not about how you hone and present it. It is the moment of its inception, its birth. There is almost a subconscious tug on the artist to create and to create in a certain way and the results come pouring out of one, regardless of whether others get to see it or not. Then of course comes the whole discussion of whether art is indded art with no audience. And there’s the whole parable that you can’t call yourself an artist unless you have been paid for your art. It has to be admitted that the fact that Maier hoarded her life’s work instead of sharing it with the word does constitute an argument against her. Or at least raises questions. The concept of the reclusive artist living in his/her world save for the output of her/his artistic endeavors is not an alien concept in the slightest. Think of directors like Terrance Malik for instance who haven’t given an interview in years and are yet venerated by the industry (although he does tend to divide audiences slightly. I have had long drunken arguments about whether Malik is pretentious or brilliant at parties. I claim he’s brilliant by the way ). The need to hide your works is one I do not get. Well, I do in a sense. Creating anything, be it a film review, an abstract painting, a photograph or a story is a very personal affair. It means taking out a little piece of your soul, your being and laying it bare for all to see. Photography is a strange one when it comes to that. Especially the kind of street photography Maier invested in. It consists of observing life closely and knowing that ephemeral moment that captures the essence of the subject and preserving it, in theory for all eternity. So you would be presenting slices of your own life. Because even if you are the observer, you are there. You are part of it (and from this of course, the importance of the audience). So a person who was almost pathologically private and secretive like Maier would find it difficult to let in an audience. After all, even in life she chose to be the audience, the observer, she is rarely “part” of the photos. We are, as the documentary points out, deprived of that telling clue that would have been provided by the results of her editing, i.e. what she would have CHOSEN to represent her to the world. But instead we are just left with her vision which we must make of what we will.

In the same way that Maier’s unassuming, dusty suitcases gave birth to the thousands of undiscovered works of art, this unassuming little documentary gives birth to thousands of thoughts and potential discussions on the nature of art and the artist. And it is one of the quirks of our universe that Maier could have started such a (potential) argument without having ever said a word… 

AN EXTRAORDINARY DOUBLE FEATURE ABOUT AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN : "MESRINE (PARTS 1 AND 2)"

I have a bit of a confession to make. I have a bit of a thing about French films. And not in a good way. I mean don`t get me wrong, I love French cinema. But I spent my ENTIRE education with the exception of primary school in French establishment. So the prospect of reading something in French or watching a French film… Feels like homework. I mean no, once I get into it I do love it (sometimes). One doesn`t read the entire works of Emile Zola in French merely out of a sense of duty for God`s sake. But so, yeah, if I hear a film is in French, something in my brain cringes and goes ``can`t we do this later?``  And Mesrine especially, I  mean not only is it a French gangster film (and Alain Delon really didn`t make enough of those, right?) there are two of them. The whole story is almost 4 hours long. I am aware I have prejudices and do tend to make an effort to push past them, that said, I didn`t expect to feel compelled to suddenly sit down and do a `Mesrine marathon` either. Then again, maybe I shouldn`t be that surprised. Mesrine was quite a piece of work. One time France`s public enemy number one, he was as charismatic and funny as he was ruthless. And love him or hate him (you rarely did anything in between) you found it hard to take your eyes off him.

Back from special duties in Algiers in the 1960`s, the young Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is at a bit of a loss. He tries a ``good honest job`` in a shop, but after the life in Algiers it doesn`t really suit him, neither in pace nor in economics – if you see what I mean. He starts off by making a few ``bad friends`` and petty crime. But soon his ``talents`` have him rising through the ranks, making connections in the then notorious OAS… Mesrine is well on the way of becoming a truly international name in the world of crime. These two films tell the story of his career spanning 20 years and 2 continents…

First of all let us stop for a second and just praise Vincent Cassell for his magnificent portrayal of Mesrine. Mesrine is a complex character and he is so violent, so cruel and such a ruthless gangster it must have been hard to put the effort in to make him likable. Because likable he was. As the film progresses we get the impression of Mesrine as being a lot more immature than one might initially think. I mean, definitely more immature than you would expect a bank robber and kidnapper to be. The films portrays him at virtually delighting in seeing his face in the papers and bursting with pride at becoming public enemy ``number one``. And while he can often bulldoze his way out of most situations – because it would seem if you have a specific brand of courage bordering on stupidity you can bulldoze your way out of most things in the crime world – his overconfidence in his own talents is what lets him down. And his bigheadedness is what loses him countless business partners. It is this childlike quality that makes him think he can throw a bagful of money across a river, fail and lose millions of franks. It is also this childlike quality that enables him to have the audacity and tenacity to escape from maximum security prisons multiple times. But try as he might to present himself as a charming thief who only steals from the big banks, Mesrine is not above threatening the mother of his children at gun point in front of his son who is barely a toddler. Nor is he above kidnapping and mistreating the elderly and the infirm. In short Mesrine is, maybe not in body but in mind, a rather bright teenager brandishing a gun. AWESOME combo and brilliantly depicted – one swings between thinking him hilarious and promptly feeling guilty about your laughter all through the film.

The film itself is a first class example of its genre. If you were ever even remotely afraid it may prove too ``arty`` or some such, you really do not need to worry.  Car chases, tense stake-outs and bloody gun battles are a-plenty all through the film. In fact at several points the tension mounts so much I almost found it hard to watch -  oh no, this film does not lack anything in adrenaline.

Nor indeed does it lack in testosterone. I mean I do realize this is the thing with the time depicted and the genre. I`d hazard a guess and say that there weren`t that many female main players in the ganglands of 1960`s and `70s France. Any women we see are either prostitutes (and to be fair we see quite a few of those) or Mesrine`s partners (sometimes also prostitutes) who invariable end up getting threatened, chased and knocked around by him but staying with him nevertheless. I mean I don`t blame anyone on this last bit. When he pulled a bank robbery off he used to lavish himself and his ``flavor of the month`` in extraordinarily expensive gifts. Common sense dictates you stick with it. But then again I don`t want to be overly cynical - like he said Mesrine was an incredibly complex man, maybe there was real love there, we`ll never know I guess. The point I want to make is that the only women we see are the `molls` in one sense or another.  I mean you know that has never bothered me. But for some reason I noticed it more than usual. Possibly because I ended up watching the entire 4 hour saga in one sitting.

In short, not only is this a shining example of the gangster film in general it is a fascinating true story of a rather complicated man. Like many films that stick strictly to their genre, you probably may want to give it a miss if you absolutely loath gangster movies. But if you don`t, you`re in for a treat. 

AN AWARD WINNING DISCUSSION OF AN EVER PRESENT QUESTION... "DEAD MAN WALKING"

I love digging up obscure gems. You know, the type people haven’t quite heard of, with very little but instinct to recommend it to you. The subject matter for this one is close to my heart so that alone attracted me – mainly out of curiosity as to how the topic was handled. Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn are also pretty darn close to my heart. It was like slipping on a comfortable pair of tracksuit bottoms really. I knew it was going to be nice and comfy from the start – and oh yes, I was right…

Susan Sarandon stars as Helen Prejan, the nun who wrote the true story of the time she spent as the spiritual advisor, and in time, friend of convicted murderer Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn). Poncelet is on death row. More specifically, he is on death row in Texas, so he stands even less of a chance of knocking his sentence back down to life imprisonment. But he lacks the funds and the expertise so he reaches out to Helen Prejan, almost completely by coincidence and so starts a life altering experience for both of them. Helen’s aim as a Christian and his spiritual advisor should be to get Matthew to take sacrament but Helen is aiming for something a little higher than mere form. Matthew is someone she considers a friend, and she has mere days to get him to truly accept and take responsibility for his actions and their consequences…

I pretty much knew what the film was the moment Helen and Matthew had their first meeting at the prison. I don’t mean this as a bad thing; it’s good that a film has an agenda and sticks to it. It just mean that the film was possibly a little less striking for me because I had seen others, others I had considered better for different reasons. What the film is, is essentially the argument against capital punishment – an argument that I fully support by the way. I say I found the film less striking than others, what I am in essence talking about it Wes Anderson’s Into the Abyss. The only difference with this film is that the arguments are slightly veiled and put to us via the now familiar faces of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. It is not an unbalanced story; Poncelet’s victims get equal airtime. Through Prejan’s painful encounters with the parents of the young couple Poncelet and his accomplice raped and murdered we are painfully reminded that Poncelet is there for a reason. I was especially fond of the portrayal of the male victim’s father. While the girl’s parents are slightly more along the “classic” Texans one may imagine in this case – baying for Poncelet’s blood – Mr Delacroix is more complicated. He does not forgive Poncelet and he definitely wants him to be executed but… I guess this is a good way of showing that even through one of the greatest pains in the world the issue of capital punishment is confusing.

The way Poncelet is portrayed is basically used to underline how he is dehumanised. We never see him in his cell, like Sister Helen we only see him in the visiting area of the prison and in court. Camerawork is used to put Poncelet in the middle of a cold, lonely, dehumanising landscape; especially poignant at the family visit preceding his execution where he is chained to a chair and must converse with his family “from a safe distance”. He is not even allowed to hug his mother farewell. Sister Prejan uses nothing but words to reach out to him but arguably manages to do touch him more than all the dehumanising the prison system does. Some may argue what she does falls largely in the “too little, too late” category but I don’t know really…. I think we are almost definitely on this earth to learn and grow, and if Poncelet was able to do that right down to the last minutes of his life is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Although this is clearly not a documentary, the fact that the film feeds off real events comes through well in this film. In fact Sister Prejan’s “enquiries” to the prison guards about the whole system almost tangs of rather stilted public information films (although this is not to question Sarandon’s acting – fully deserving all the accolades she got for her performance in this film). And its reality renders the film truly heart-wrenching. It goes out of its way to make of Poncelet a very realistic villain; not a “monster” or a inhuman cartoonesque killer but a poor, uneducated young man who went astray. And the parents are real too in their suffering and confusion. But don’t let their pain cloud you into thinking that Poncelet deserves to die. The real question is, is inflicting the same pain on another mother really the solution?

Don’t write Dead Man Walking off as just another soppy movie. It presents a very cleverly constructed argument with some first class acting. It will push you to think. And feel. And if that’s not what you want from a film, I really don’t know how to help you… 

IN WHICH WE REMEMBER THAT MOST SECRETS "COME OUT" EVENTUALLY... "PHILOMENA"

And as if as to purposefully contradict what I have just been going on and on about, we have this little number. A true story, no less, of one woman’s quest to learn the truth about her past and the bitter-sweet revelations that are born from this quest…  Oh how that description would fluster the real Philomena. “It’s nothing as grand as all that” she might say. But you see, it was. Along with Martin Sixsmith, accurately described in one review as a “world weary political journalist” we follow Philomena through her quest and learn, maybe to our surprise, that in the midst of the darkest and saddest tales there may well be something truly beautiful and life-affirming.

Philomena (Judi Dench) is an unassuming little old lady of Irish descent. But she is harbouring a secret. A secret she is so ashamed of, even her adult daughter has only just found out. The daughter approaches Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) with this story. She has met him completely by chance and could not have come at a better time really as Martin has recently been dismissed from the Labour party under a cloud and rather unsure of what to do with himself. A nice human interest story is what he thinks he needs to get his name out there – and this sounds just up his street. Philomena’s secret is that she had had a son when she was only a teenager herself. Her family had forced her into a convent where her son had been removed from her and given up for adoption. All this was nigh on 50 years ago of course. But Philomena still hopes against hope she may find him some day. Martin decides this quest is just what he needs to re-ignite his journalistic career so offers to help her. The quest will take them further than they ever expected to go and reveal more than either ever hoped to discover – not just about the fate of Philomena’s son, but about themselves too…

Now its stories like this that make me realise how hard it is for any fiction of any kind to actually match reality. You know how we (ehm, well, I) sometimes accuse films of being “unrealistic” because the endings are too happy or they are overall “too” optimistic? Well what do we make of stories like this then? Because Philomena’s story is sad, don’t get me wrong, it’s about as sad as they get. I have written a previous article on a similar convent in Ireland  - the Magdalene Laundries, check the review out here if you missed it – and what they did to the girls who were forced to live there, what they did was nothing less than utterly soul-destroying and horrendous. And yet Philomena is a very positive if slightly naïve little old lady who has kept everything that is positive within her soul. She is even quite devout, despite all the odds that seem to push her to lose her faith entirely. Her positivity is such that she ends up at first annoying, but later actually changing the rather hard-hearted Sixsmith.

And then there is the story of Anthony – Philomena’s son. Because as you can probably guess, there wouldn’t be that much of a film if they hadn’t discovered what happened to him. Now, I won’t give anything about “what happened” away, simply because it would ruin so much of the story if you went into the film knowing the answer. But suffice it to say he didn’t quite turn out how one thought he might. The story is a truly wonderful mixture of sadness and real beauty. Not trappings, but the real stuff that matters. One has to remember, I suppose, that life is really almost always a balance and that we need to learn to see the beauty in every single thing no matter how tough it may seem.

You rolled your eyes when you read that, right? I know. It sounds like such a cliché. But I reckon this is one of those things that became a cliché for a reason. I won’t go as far as making a really sweeping statement as to there being good in every evil – sometimes there really isn’t. But a lot of the time, if you’re prepared to give it a real chance, you’ll see something in there. A spark. A tiny light. Something. I think this is why this message comes so well from experienced actors such as Coogan and Dench – both equally spectacular throughout. I can’t seem to shake my impression of Coogan as a comedian above and beyond everything else but it’s complete nonsense of course. Anyway, I think coming from a perspective of greater experience ,I think this message has even greater realism;  it takes a bit of experience – and not all of it good – to know that this “cliché” about beauty in everything is actually true.  

Even if you think I’m getting a bit soppy, you guys go ahead and watch Philomena. Sixsmith didn’t see himself being fundamentally altered by the story of this little old lady either – she was literally just a meal ticket back to journalism. But then what happened? Why, he ended up writing this very book that became the film… So that should tell you something… 

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!

WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY - WELCOME TO THE "DALLAS BUYERS CLUB"

Allrighty. On with the Oscar season. I know for a fact that some people who are slightly more soft-hearted are thinking of possibly steering clear of this one. Death, disease, a long struggle against nothing less than the pharmaceutical companies and a very prejudiced “system… Yeah I totally agree, this is not what one might call uplifting. But then again, and I have said this before, not everything in life is uplifting. And if art imitates life, I reckon it only makes sense it imitates the good things and the bad. Besides, Dallas Buyers Club is definitely not all doom and gloom. Oh no. Not by a long shot.

The year is 1985 and Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey) is a regular, all-American guy getting on with his life. He is an electrician by trade, although he has many, many side lines most of them not entirely legal. He likes drinking and doing various drugs with his buddies and “getting it on” with a lovely lady or two (or three) in his spare time – a proper man’s man if you see what I mean. In short, he has a bit of a good thing going in life until a work related accident lands him in hospital where it is discovered that he is HIV positive. His lifestyle means that it has escalated into full-blown AIDS and Ron is told he has a month left to him to get his affairs in order – if he’s lucky. This is a complete blow out of the blue for Ron, not least because he is a red blooded “man’s man” and cannot see how he could have contracted a “homo disease”. But he is not the kind of man to hide from anything for long so he rolls up his sleeves and gets to it. Because Ron has plans and they don’t include dying in a month. He has a long and rocky road before him not least because his  ignorance on the matter is only rivalled by his prejudices towards “homos” who now cross his path more and more often. But as Ron forges forward, he begins to discover some very unexpected friends and allies… And, potentially, a revolutionary way to prolong his own life and the lives of his new found friends… With new friends, however, come new enemies. In this specific case, a whole barrage of pharmaceutical companies… Ron truly has his work cut out in more ways than one…

Now, if you have read but a handful of the reviews for this film you will know one that a lot of what happened is based on real life, but here’s the thing: In real life Ron was not homophobic. In fact, he wasn’t even heterosexual. I have read multiple articles that state that he was openly bisexual and that a lot of people who associated with him in later life never thought of him as straight. Then again, Craig Borten, the scriptwriter for the film swears up and down that the Ron Woodruff he met was as racist and homophobic as they came. If you’re asking what the heck is going on, as Ron Woodruff himself has been dead for a while now the truth is we will never really know. Maybe he was “posturing” to the press – I mean come on, anyone of average intelligence – and Ron was definitely over the average – knows that the mainstream press is going to lap up the story of a typical “red neck” that grew and developed through disease, getting rid of his prejudices and becoming “one of us”. It may have purely been a matter of getting his name out there. And come on, put your hand on your heart and tell me the storyline didn’t get you too. This tactic is especially effective when you have an actor as brilliant as McCaughnahey who can express the change and development in the character in every single subtle movement on screen. And of course from a technical perspective this storytelling gold; ideally you have to see the character grow change and develop from the beginning of the film to the end , it doesn’t get clearer than this. Plus it gives an uplifting, anti-homophobic message that is much needed in a world where the reverberations of the Sochi Winter Olympics and everything that preceded it are still reverberating in our hearts. (Oh come on, don’t tell me the timing wasn’t suspect at all… Seriously).

Now don’t go thinking I am “disillusioned” by the film or am trying to “disillusion” you or something. I’m actually praising the film. Because, even though from a viewer’s perspective the film seems to appear on the screen as if by magic, there is a lot of thought, planning, tactics and marketing that goes into it – and Dallas Buyers Club does a spectacularly good job.  The question we need to ask ourselves is, to what extent did Ron Woodruff himself “meddle” in this. He made no secret at all of his own activism so my bet is… There is a very good chance he put on an act for the scriptwriter on purpose…

That said, does it make our experience any less “real” ? Heck no. Quite apart from anything else, everything Ron did, both for the good of his own health and to fight against the big pharmaceutical companies for others are very real and make awesome stories in their own turn. And quite apart from that, even though it may be completely “real” one cannot help warming to the on-screen Woodruff and MM does a wonderful job of portraying him. And of course one must not, CAN not forget Rayon, as portrayed superbly by Jared Leto. And I do not just mean it in the sense of “Oh what a good job he did portraying a transsexual person”. No. Because what we tend to perhaps forget in the whole discussion about homophobia and AIDS is that Dallas Buyers Club is also about coming to terms with your own imminent death. Rayon is, above and beyond anything else, full of life and joie de vivre and she does NOT want to die. Leto does an absolutely sterling job at portraying Rayon’s heart breaking confrontation with this fact, especially in the second half of the film.

So, basically, you need to watch this film. There is a lot and I mean A LOT to think about. Well, I mean, this is the story of a hustler at the end of the day. Nothing is quite what it seems.