The Hurt Locker might be the best film on the Iraq war, but on the subject matter it has been beaten by TV. And it pains me to say that. Throughout watching this great film, I couldn't help compare it with HBO's Generation Kill. The Hurt Locker comes off looking like a poor imitation. Kathryn Bigelow's camera zooms in and out way to much, desperate it seems to emulate the documentary style of HBO's mini series. Content wise, its not as modern or as realistic in its portrayal of soldiers as Generation Kill. There are a couple of moments in the film that I found hard to believe. In Generation Kill its the familiar story of officers leading the troops to their unnecessary deaths. In The Hurt Locker, its the other way around. What I found revelatory about Generation Kill was that the soldiers had no qualms about killing (as long as it was a legitimate target). They were depressed when they didn't have a chance to kill. The Hurt Locker almost makes a similar point with the main character, but it just doesn't have the same impact. I'll stop with the comparisons now, its becoming unfair.
Despite the documentary style and art house release, Bigelow's film betrays its modern sensibilities with some predictable, cliche, scenes. Such as the obligatory shower scene where the character wears all their clothes to reveal their inner turmoil. (re. Casino Royale). Or leaving a room just to hear someone call on you and ask a character revealing question.
What the film lacks in originality, it makes up for with its energy, quickness, and surprisingly, humour. Its a good film, and a great film if you haven't seen Generation Kill.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Monday, 8 March 2010
Youth in Revolt
Another late entry, I seen this a week ago. I think most teenagers have a film that embodies a mood, tone and humour that they can identify with. That film becomes their bible for a little while. I loved Donnie Darko when I was 16. Youth in Revolt (based on a book that achieved bible status) is aiming for a place in that canon. Michael Cera makes a good everyman. His dialogue, and that of every other teenager, is in the tradition of the implausibly articulate teens that feature in Heathers, Clueless, The Breakfast Club, 10 Things I Hate About You, and so on. Amidst the sophistication, there's a surreal interpretation of the crazy events you expect in Superbad and Porky's. Sailor's turning up at his door, threatening to break his Mum's boyfriends legs. A car being dismantled and re-built perfectly in their living room.
Michael Cera plays Nick Twisp and his vilanious alter ego Francois Dillinger. They take the split personality so far, for most of the film I thought his character was genuinely schizophrenic.
I liked the romance between the two leads. Cera will do anything she says, and she loves to play with him. But, they both unite behind teenage escapist dreams that made me think of An Education. Carey Mulligan's character and Portia Doubleday (who plays Sheeni Saunders) both look upon 60's Paris as a utopia. I like the fact that the intangible ideas of escape in both films take the very definite shape of Paris. In the 60's.
Youth in Revolt has a liberating sense of freedom. It made me want to be more subversive and do something.. mental. Then I watched Field of Dreams, and Kevin Costner's character is a grown up Nick Twisp, and he fully commits to something mental.
The film also reinforced my love for short feature films. Miguel Arteta's film just runs out of steam at 90 mins.
Michael Cera plays Nick Twisp and his vilanious alter ego Francois Dillinger. They take the split personality so far, for most of the film I thought his character was genuinely schizophrenic.
I liked the romance between the two leads. Cera will do anything she says, and she loves to play with him. But, they both unite behind teenage escapist dreams that made me think of An Education. Carey Mulligan's character and Portia Doubleday (who plays Sheeni Saunders) both look upon 60's Paris as a utopia. I like the fact that the intangible ideas of escape in both films take the very definite shape of Paris. In the 60's.
Youth in Revolt has a liberating sense of freedom. It made me want to be more subversive and do something.. mental. Then I watched Field of Dreams, and Kevin Costner's character is a grown up Nick Twisp, and he fully commits to something mental.
The film also reinforced my love for short feature films. Miguel Arteta's film just runs out of steam at 90 mins.
Micmacs
I seen this film when it was the opening gala of the Glasgow Film Festival on the 18th Feb. Jean Pierre Jeunet was there in person, and with all the glamour (and free goodie bag) at every sold out seat, there was a very excitable atmosphere.
We weren't let down, especially with Jean Pierre Jeunet's enthusiasm and warmth, and the exhilarating first 10 minutes of Micmacs a Tire-larigot. It could have made for an immense short film in its own right. I haven't seen Up, but surely this could compete with its infamous opening sequence. The film was aptly summed up by Jeunet as a live action Pixar/Disney film, and I don't think I can do better than that. In an otherwise kid's orientated film, Jeunet injects a sudden burst of adult sexuality in a lap dance scene. He does this in almost all of his films. Just as you think its safe for the family, the film takes a seedy, but strangely innocent, turn into a red light district. It must come from his house in Montmartre, Paris's cultural sector.
In his interview after the film, and in subsequent interviews, Jeunet asks budding filmmakers if they want to 'be a film director' or 'make films'. There is a crucial difference, and it certainly made me question the reasons behind my commitment. I concluded the latter, but cursed my laziness in cultivating my creativity. Enough soul searching. The best thing I took from his talk was his objective to 'have an idea in every scene' in the same way that a Pixar and Disney film has. This really made me think about the effort he puts into his films. He's only made 3 films in the last decade, and this must be because of the detail and effort he puts in every scene. Putting an idea across and telling a story effectively to an audience is enough for most filmmakers. Jeunet wants more. He wants all the mise-en-scene, theme, character and plot functioning. Then he wants an idea on top of that.
I felt inspired at the end of the film and talk, and will try and take his enthusiasm and dedication into the next film.
We weren't let down, especially with Jean Pierre Jeunet's enthusiasm and warmth, and the exhilarating first 10 minutes of Micmacs a Tire-larigot. It could have made for an immense short film in its own right. I haven't seen Up, but surely this could compete with its infamous opening sequence. The film was aptly summed up by Jeunet as a live action Pixar/Disney film, and I don't think I can do better than that. In an otherwise kid's orientated film, Jeunet injects a sudden burst of adult sexuality in a lap dance scene. He does this in almost all of his films. Just as you think its safe for the family, the film takes a seedy, but strangely innocent, turn into a red light district. It must come from his house in Montmartre, Paris's cultural sector.
In his interview after the film, and in subsequent interviews, Jeunet asks budding filmmakers if they want to 'be a film director' or 'make films'. There is a crucial difference, and it certainly made me question the reasons behind my commitment. I concluded the latter, but cursed my laziness in cultivating my creativity. Enough soul searching. The best thing I took from his talk was his objective to 'have an idea in every scene' in the same way that a Pixar and Disney film has. This really made me think about the effort he puts into his films. He's only made 3 films in the last decade, and this must be because of the detail and effort he puts in every scene. Putting an idea across and telling a story effectively to an audience is enough for most filmmakers. Jeunet wants more. He wants all the mise-en-scene, theme, character and plot functioning. Then he wants an idea on top of that.
I felt inspired at the end of the film and talk, and will try and take his enthusiasm and dedication into the next film.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Twilight
Twilight does its best to forget about its fantastical premise of the 'cold one's' living amongst us, and focuses on what it really is: an old fashioned love story. That the two teenage leads can't touch each other (well, at least not to much) makes for an effective allegory of an American High School relationship - where eating your girlfriend takes the place of shagging her. She wants to be a vampire too, but he won't corrupt her. They are always in close proximity to each other, held apart and together with the threat of forbidden love. The first hour or so is a great period of sexual tension between the couple. Its at its strongest and most engrossing best - then the film suddenly (and unconvincingly) remembers its meant to be a fantasy film. This leads to a tiring and familiar second half that feels half hearted compared to the first hour. I suspect the second half was made for the men in the audience, but this is unmistakably a film for girls.
Last week I bought a software plug-in that should allow me to re-create the bleached out look of the film. I thought the look suited the bleakness of the surroundings, especially when they made the vampires paler than the background. Some of the sweeping camera moves conveyed a sense of other-worldliness - these were particularly effective when cut with close-ups of the two standing together. The actors doing little, the camera and editing style conveying the characters exhilaration.
Last week I bought a software plug-in that should allow me to re-create the bleached out look of the film. I thought the look suited the bleakness of the surroundings, especially when they made the vampires paler than the background. Some of the sweeping camera moves conveyed a sense of other-worldliness - these were particularly effective when cut with close-ups of the two standing together. The actors doing little, the camera and editing style conveying the characters exhilaration.
Friday, 26 February 2010
A Prophet
In many ways A Prophet is a classically American film. It a rags to riches tale; a perverted version of the American Dream, or more aptly, a French version of the American Dream.
At the end of The Godfather, the hero of the piece is in a morally terminal decline, and at the end of Scarface the hero's period at the top is ended in brutal fashion. Whereas in A Prophet, you can't help but feel pride in just how far the hero, your boy, has climbed in such adversity. I've never rooted for, and invested in, an anti-hero in the way that I did when i was immersed in this film. In some respects, and without revealing plot, Malik comes away unscathed from his 6 years in prison.
I was recently at a story writing seminar as part of the Glasgow Film Festival, and the best thing I got from it is that character is everything and your film sprouts from strong character. Jacques Audiard's film has an unforgettable character in the soil of his film, and it makes for one of the best films of recent years simply for how it gripped and occupied me for its two and a half hours.
I know it was shot handheld, in social realist mode, like so many other european films, but it completely transcended that, and showed what cinema is really capable of in terms of hitting you intellectually and emotionally. I can't wait to see it again and find out how Audiard achieved that. Its something that I want all my films to aspire to. Then again, I would love to have a similar reaction with a non-violent film. Its a rare thing.
At the end of The Godfather, the hero of the piece is in a morally terminal decline, and at the end of Scarface the hero's period at the top is ended in brutal fashion. Whereas in A Prophet, you can't help but feel pride in just how far the hero, your boy, has climbed in such adversity. I've never rooted for, and invested in, an anti-hero in the way that I did when i was immersed in this film. In some respects, and without revealing plot, Malik comes away unscathed from his 6 years in prison.
I was recently at a story writing seminar as part of the Glasgow Film Festival, and the best thing I got from it is that character is everything and your film sprouts from strong character. Jacques Audiard's film has an unforgettable character in the soil of his film, and it makes for one of the best films of recent years simply for how it gripped and occupied me for its two and a half hours.
I know it was shot handheld, in social realist mode, like so many other european films, but it completely transcended that, and showed what cinema is really capable of in terms of hitting you intellectually and emotionally. I can't wait to see it again and find out how Audiard achieved that. Its something that I want all my films to aspire to. Then again, I would love to have a similar reaction with a non-violent film. Its a rare thing.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Where the Wild Things Are
Where the Wild Things Are resembles the sort of trendy toy that is bought more for the parent than the child. I'm thinking of the beautifully crafted toy boxes with tasteful red soldiers that kids just ignore: its what's inside that counts. This is definitely a kid's film made for adults. Its not fun, there's not many laughs, but it is a great representation of the loneliness of childhood. I remember Maurice Sendak's book as if it was a dream, (it was my mum that reminded me I actually had it), and it had a deep effect on me as an introverted boy. Spike Jonze's film is a sad, nostalgic, piece that had me reflecting on the lonely moments of early youth.
However, when the film focuses on the injustice of childhood (no food for misbehaving) it can't help but reflect Truffuat's The 500 Blows, the definitive cinematic statement on the subject. All that Where the Wild Things Are adds to it is that injustices can happen to advantaged American boys as well as French disadvantaged boys. Whatever else it tries to reveal just comes off like a bad episode of Big Brother; all character flaws and joylessness from the protagonists. The Wild Things come to represent psychological conditions, and all but happiness is included. I think its because of this that I found the film so disappointing. Max's world is full of darkness and the kind of aggression that is unique to young boys, but with Jonze, it also has the seriousness unique to pretentious young men. He steadfastly keeps to his own hand held sun set look, rather than succumb to a more typical kids film style, and for that it has to be congratulated as a brave film. Otherwise, it came up frustratingly lacking the substance which would have made it a classic.
However, when the film focuses on the injustice of childhood (no food for misbehaving) it can't help but reflect Truffuat's The 500 Blows, the definitive cinematic statement on the subject. All that Where the Wild Things Are adds to it is that injustices can happen to advantaged American boys as well as French disadvantaged boys. Whatever else it tries to reveal just comes off like a bad episode of Big Brother; all character flaws and joylessness from the protagonists. The Wild Things come to represent psychological conditions, and all but happiness is included. I think its because of this that I found the film so disappointing. Max's world is full of darkness and the kind of aggression that is unique to young boys, but with Jonze, it also has the seriousness unique to pretentious young men. He steadfastly keeps to his own hand held sun set look, rather than succumb to a more typical kids film style, and for that it has to be congratulated as a brave film. Otherwise, it came up frustratingly lacking the substance which would have made it a classic.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
3:10 to Yuma
My aspirations of reviewing every film i've seen this year are starting to crumble. Before the pressure takes its toll, this is a catch up of the month of January.
First up is 3:10 to Yuma, the perfect antidote to the excesses of giggly girliness seen in Sex and the City. The Western genre can be split into two types of films. There is the Western: a psychological drama where the desolate landscape reveals character as much as the characters do, and the Cowboy: which is entertaining and relentlessly violent. James Mangold divides his film between the two, and to great effect. The beginning is definitely of the former, and the last half is firmly rooted in the latter. Its very much a buddy movie, a mix of Pat Garret and Billy the Kid and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Before the modern trend of Bromance, there was the buddy movie.
Before I go on, I read a review by Nick Hornby of Blockbuster, written by Tom Shone, which has the thesis that Spielberg, Lucas et al elevated cinema with their invention of the cinematic 'blockbuster'. He's not thinking of Transformers though, and believes that the likes of Jaws combined art house character studies with the mainstream. 3:10 to Yuma is in this mould. It may become slightly silly towards the end, but it still maintains a huge level of characterisation that makes this acceptable. (Worth noting, however, that my sister watched this film and just did not get the change in dynamic between Crowe and Bale. Maybe its just cause she's a girl.)
I firmly believe that these are the types of films that audiences want to be engaged with, and while they may not take the medium forward, they are undeniably well crafted, intelligent, pictures that i'd like to make.
First up is 3:10 to Yuma, the perfect antidote to the excesses of giggly girliness seen in Sex and the City. The Western genre can be split into two types of films. There is the Western: a psychological drama where the desolate landscape reveals character as much as the characters do, and the Cowboy: which is entertaining and relentlessly violent. James Mangold divides his film between the two, and to great effect. The beginning is definitely of the former, and the last half is firmly rooted in the latter. Its very much a buddy movie, a mix of Pat Garret and Billy the Kid and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Before the modern trend of Bromance, there was the buddy movie.
Before I go on, I read a review by Nick Hornby of Blockbuster, written by Tom Shone, which has the thesis that Spielberg, Lucas et al elevated cinema with their invention of the cinematic 'blockbuster'. He's not thinking of Transformers though, and believes that the likes of Jaws combined art house character studies with the mainstream. 3:10 to Yuma is in this mould. It may become slightly silly towards the end, but it still maintains a huge level of characterisation that makes this acceptable. (Worth noting, however, that my sister watched this film and just did not get the change in dynamic between Crowe and Bale. Maybe its just cause she's a girl.)
I firmly believe that these are the types of films that audiences want to be engaged with, and while they may not take the medium forward, they are undeniably well crafted, intelligent, pictures that i'd like to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)