I told myself I'd be more succinct, but then I decided to try and talk about Cloud Atlas. There's just so much to say! Main thing being, this is a film that I actually genuinely admired, I appreciated, I would go as far as saying I really intensely liked it, wouldn't go as far as loved it but perhaps some day I'll recall in a daze these strong feelings and misinterpret them as love... I can't help rambling. Cloud Atlas could have been six individual films all each at about an hour each, instead we have close to three hours of six intersecting wildly different tales merged together. Somehow the vastly different scenarios and events all seem to have a unifying mythology and purpose, and somehow, I have no idea why, they manage to convey a singular message. I don't think I've seen a more ambitious film on screen in forever, what it lacks in coherency at some points it more than makes up for in heart and sheer craziness.
So the first hour or so can be a complete headache, the film jumps from scene to scene, timeline to timeline without so much as a passing explanation, in fact if I remember correctly the film sets up the near end of most of the main characters of each time-line at the end of their tales; just to confuse you further when you drop back in on them later. You are breathlessly dragged kicking and screaming through each story, sections of which are told cutting between two stories at once, just to confuse you further, then things seem to shift down a couple of gears as the second act jolts into play. Each individual story starts off at one place and takes you on a journey to an end you definitely weren't expecting from the start. Some of the tales are bleak, others are hilarious, others a bit a more sombre.
Probably worth mentioning each of the stories. There is a 17th Century chap travelling on a boat being poisoned by his doctor who befriends a stowaway slave. Ben Whishaw plays a 1930s composer seeking to write a masterpiece. Halle Berry, is a female reporter in the 1970s searching for a story and finds herself in danger. 2012 Jim Broadbent finds himself trapped in an old folks home, a light reprieve from the other stories. 2144, a Korean girl in New Seoul genetically engineered as a waitress escapes with the help of a mysterious ninja guy. After the Fall Tom Hanks is living in a tribe in the woods hiding from some cannibals and Halle Berry with her advanced technology is looking for something...
Cloud Atlas is a film that had something for everyone, the cinema would
erupt with laughter at all the sequences involving Jim Broadbent trying
to escape his incarceration, I know I was mesmerised by Ben Whishaw's
letters to his lover in the 1930s, and blown away by the visual effects
of New Seoul in 2144, plus the whole sequence was pretty damn good. Of course others may disagree, I doubt anyone will particularly adore the boat sequence... But hey if Halle Berry running around in turtlenecks does it for you, there's plenty of that!
But here's where it gets interesting, each actor has their own specific story but they also reappear in each of the timelines as reincarnated selves, playing completely different characters. Hence why the first hour becomes so damn confusing, not only are you jumping through time and environs, you're also witnessing people who are vaguely recognisable under the make-up and attire being totally different characters. I nearly choked when I saw Tom Hanks playing an angry gangster/author getting incredibly angry at a publisher party, well... That's where the fun starts.
The film toys with the idea of reincarnation as each of the core characters come with a birthmark shaped like a comet, it's never really fully expressed as a unifying thread apart from when Halle Berry mentions it briefly, but the camera lingers on each of their birthmarks so we know the chosen few. Then the film has fun with the rest of the cast as in each of the six story-lines the actors rotate around the roles. Several are blink and you will literally miss it moments in each time lines, others are more significant, but all are masked with tons of make-up and prosthetics just to make things interesting. Let me get one thing straight, seeing Hugh Grant, yeah Hugh Grant, actually playing roles way beyond Hugh Grant's foppish/arsehole persona, well I nearly died laughing. Then there was the amazing Hugo Weaving in drag as a nurse, that took a few minutes of disbelief. Hugo Weaving also appears as a mirage or fantasy of Tom Hanks in the distant future, the boogie man whispering over his shoulder, that was really odd*... It's not just gender-bending they partake in either, the film has a plethora of different races in within it's cast and there are instances where the cast have prosthetics to make them appear Asian (it looks shocking...) and then the Korean actress and Halle Berry are both made up to appear Caucasian which looks... Well, it looks pretty bad too... But this is all part of the ambition, you have a wide spanning selection of tales, and the whole having the same actors playing the wide variety of roles was a masterstroke in some senses but also in practise a bit crazy. But you literally can't fault the ambition of these people. It's connecting their souls through the ages and that's magical, and although the make-up is hit and miss, it's also an intriguing idea.
I doubt there will ever be a film like Cloud Atlas made again, largely because it was hugely expensive and no one saw it, but also because it was literally too much, too expansive, too ambitious. I can't fault a filmmaker for being too ambitious, and the film doesn't talk down to it's audience which is unique for a big expensive blockbuster. Sure it gets a bit preachy near the end, but I was touched by the overarching message of Cloud Atlas and the way it managed to weave the intersecting stories and give us a feeling that these souls were all connected without taking a pen and spelling it out to us on screen is definitely special. It's challenging and exhausting but to be honest I was entertained.
*It reminded me of the Hitcher, you know except he didn't have the polo thing... or the thumb... I haven't watched Mighty Boosh in a while but that was definitely what I was thinking!
Monday 25 February 2013
Saturday 23 February 2013
Utopia
I've been meaning to write something about this for a while now but I held off until watching the finale, then it was just sheer laziness... So here goes. Utopia is a Channel 4 drama about what can essentially be summed up as 'that scary show about the comic book.'* It's hard to describe, but I'll give it a stab, it's a six part series of episodes about a bunch of disconnected people brought together by a bizarre one off comic book, the comic depicts a dystopian world in which... Fuck knows what is happening, it's never spelt out, but it looks disturbing and haunting. There is a shady government organisation, known as the Network, planning the mass sterilisation of the human race and a complex web of alliances between the characters connecting them to the Utopia comic and the Network, they are all hunting for the manuscript of the second edition of the comic book. A mad man in a mental health hospital drew the comics and was a part of the plan, he was a bit of a mad scientist type and pretty much wrote the whole dastardly plan of mass sterilisation into his scrawling, except it was all disturbingly drawn metaphorical images. The pictures are pretty weird. It sounds pretty weird but Utopia tries to walk the fine line of realistic and all out dystopian fantasy, characters will die, no one is safe, it's gruesome and unsafe in this universe and most importantly, because of all this, it's damn scary.
The show plays on the level of control that a select few have on the majority, the fact that such a plan exists and that the fate of the planet is being decided by a tiny selection of individuals with control over just about everything. It also taps into the paranoia of the modern age and pretty much no one can be trusted, everyone is under suspicion and even established characters through the progress of the episodes have their own secret agendas, beliefs and alliances simmering under the surface. I think what makes Utopia a cut above just about everything else I've watched this year, is how unflinchingly daring it is. It's audacious because it's forcing us to look at our modern society and see that we have next to no control over our destiny, someone somewhere in a darkened office with (some pretty damn creepy) oak carvings on the wall, in leather chairs, are deciding our futures. We can be tracked from any location, any person can be against us, no one can be trusted, they will find you through your phone, through security cameras, they can trace you and find you, there is nowhere to hide. This isn't a unique idea but it is executed here with great skill and although the whole series is pure fantasy there is a very real base to all of it's ridiculousness.
So Utopia manages to create an aura of paranoia throughout, this is scary in itself but the show decides to ramp up the fear factor to the nth degree by including some pretty gratuitous violence. It'll become apparent that Utopia takes a lot inspiration from comic books as you watch it for various reasons but it's inclusion of violence feels particularly comic book styled. When you're finding it hard to figure out if you can trust any of the main characters, there is the added layer that even you're uncertain of their motives any of them could at any moment be maimed or killed, and that's not to say their family members get off lightly.This brings us to the first episode which I feel the need to discuss straight off the bat specifically for the violent world it introduces us to.
As with any television series the first episode/pilot's purpose is to lay groundwork for the rest of the series, it's supposed to hook our attention and give us an idea what we're getting let in for. The first episode of Utopia immediately starts with a confrontation at a comic book shop, with a man dressed as a rabbit hanging about outside, Arby, a character I will talk about a lot more later, with his accomplice Lee dispatch everyone inside with cold unflinching efficiency. Want a taste of Utopia? Well there you have it, triple homicide in the first scene, and no they don't spare the small boy hiding in there. The episode spends a lot of time jumping about laying down some integral threads and it can seem a bit bamboozling at first as you have a bunch of comic book nerds joining up and the little kid running around, then there is the pair of sinister chaps leaving a trail of bodies behind them as they interrogate people with a single chilling question, 'Where is Jessica Hyde?' And also there's a guy working in the government being extorted into getting some Russian Flu vaccines ordered for an unconfirmed epidemic. Lots of weird stuff going on but the only thing, I think, anyone will remember is Wilson Wilson's torture scene.
Nothing surprises me in films/television any more, if someone is going to get murdered/tortured there is always a certain level that it's pushed to, you can watch it because you know it'll be over soon enough. It's just always on the right side of 'Ouch', like they're getting electrocuted or stabbed, and you know anything wouldn't want to push it too far through fear of upsetting someone, there's always a ceiling on these things. It just makes torture scenes completely not scary because you know there are limits that the people making it have to follow. Or so it goes in what I watch. Well in Utopia the torturer describes how most people go for the finger nails, the feet and so on, Lee likes to go for the eyes. He has a selection of dishes, each containing something you really shouldn't put in your eyes, a then a spoon. He starts with some fresh red chillis, he proceeds with some sand, then he continues with the bleach, and as the unrelenting camera shows us, he finishes it off with his spoon, all whilst his partner in crime, Arby, interrogates the hapless victim with the ominous question: 'Where is Jessica Hyde?'. Now don't get me wrong, even writing that down it's ridiculously over the top and grotesque and most importantly stupid, but I literally haven't cringed so much watching anything in forever. I was so close to covering my own eyes or running away when there was a blessed relief of the scene ending. This is the scene that many people from what I've read and heard turned off Utopia, because as I might mention several times, this show is fucked up, and coincidentally a lot of reviewers, myself included, spent a lot of time talking about it. It was a strong opening statement for the show and it didn't lighten up from this point (the torture scenes weren't half as bad, but yes, there were more torture scenes.)
Another reason people felt the need to turn off the television, and also caused some controversy, was the fact that Utopia had no problem killing children in cold blood. No one is safe, if you need to be hammered over the head with it, then nothing is more disturbing than the fact that The Network does not consider any life more significant than their goal, and this ruthlessness is integral to Utopia as a whole. Sure it'll upset some people, even I felt a bit distressed at the sight of a school massacre taking place thanks to Arby and his almost unflinching efficiency at his job. Sure, America is currently having a debate about gun violence and a school massacre taking place, hence why I highly doubt it will ever air there, especially while those wounds are still fresh, but Utopia acknowledges that shit like this happens. The mass public hysteria that accompanies it is also duly touched upon, but this is all in order to tell the story and to stress the danger of The Network; the lives of children are considered collateral damage, this isn't a picnic folks, this is something bigger than you can expect. It sure is ballsy of Channel 4 to air this, to be perfectly honest it makes it even more of an interesting project; because it is a reflect on modern society and shit like this happens. I don't agree with it in the slightest, I even though the school massacre was a bit too on the nose, but doesn't mean I don't acknowledge it takes some serious balls to air that, it's a part of the story, they aren't changing it.
So I've discussed the violence, the torture, onto less touchy subjects. Utopia isn't just disturbing in it's storytelling, the music merges with the disturbing mood. The music is something I can't even describe but oh good god if there is more surreal spine chilling music playing in a tv show anywhere in the world right now I need to know, because this is top notch scary shit. Tv music should enhance the scene, it shouldn't drown it out or take you out of the action, this is why I dislike hearing tv shows using music I have on my iPod, or popular tunes, because it immediately drags my focus from what's going on and makes me think about my own interpretation of the music and 90% of the time just doesn't fit. This is some original music composed by Cristobal Tapia de Veer, nope I have no idea either, and I couldn't tell you how they made it but it's used sparingly so that it doesn't obstruct anything, but it just sounds so good and it fits. Perhaps it's just me but there are some random female voices that make some indistinguishable noises in the music that sound just like Jessica Hyde and then there is something which sounds like heavy mouth breathing which is just like Arby, just me? The episode ends and you're thrown into the theme music and it jolts you back to reality, it was damn good in my opinion.
So if the music sets the mood then it's the cinematography*** that also does a lot of heavy lifting. I've read around a lot and no one has really mentioned that for a TV show about a comic book, the entire thing is shot from a graphic novel-like perspective, every shot could be a frame from a comic book, the angles and the composition. It just felt like, to me anyway, that Utopia was emulating the fact it was about a graphic novel, by literally just being a live-action version of that medium. The way each shot is composed is very specific and the camera is placed in significant positions to replicate the angles and positions of a graphic novel. Another example would probably Scott Pilgrim VS the World but obviously that used to additional noise events, words appearing on the screen and cartoonish additions to emphasise this. Utopia is a more subdued subtle way of showing this and doesn't trumpet this connection it simply works it's magic by immersing you and showing you the dramatic scenes with artistic flair. Then there is the colours, acid yellow is the shade chosen for the title card and it permeates throughout the series punctuating several scenes from time to time worming throughout each episode, it's small details like Lee and Arby's bag, or the colour of a wall or something like that but it feels significant again. But everything is also massively saturated, the grass is literally bright crayon green, the sky is periwinkle blue, every colour is, dare I say cartoonishly vibrant but not to the point where it is ridiculous, a field of heather swaying in the wind saturated bright purple with a clear blue sky over it is an ominous scene setter, Arby tramping over some bright green grass is alarming rather than silly, and the blood of someone being shot in the head being ruby red is just gruesome. Plus they don't overdo it, it's just adding the graphic novel feel of Utopia, it's a fantasy of course but it's steeped in reality. Visually it's just beautiful to watch. Plus the events take place in some pretty interesting places, the characters find themselves squatting in an abandoned manor house for the majority of the last leg of episodes which is run down and archaic as they try to protect the future of humanity, it's quite a nice juxtaposition, plus they have lots of scenes in fields. Not to mention my favourite set, the seeming office/headquarters of The Network chaps, it's a small back room kind of office with mahogany walls carved with (what I can only assume are) disturbing images of wars/heaven/hell-scapes etc, and they sit in their leather bound chairs, the natural light limited, it's dark and it's scary and the sinister men making decisions are suitably creepy. It's a great image.
All this jibber-jabber and I still haven't really discussed the plot or the characters. I'll try and keep this brief as this is ballooning and has taken me days to write and Utopia finished about 5 days ago now and I want to get this up before 4OD starts taking it down.****
Ok, so the characters, there are a whole mess of them to keep track of, but you have the core group of people who are intrigued by the original Utopia graphic novel, they all log into a chat room to discuss the meanings of it and the intricacies of the images. They are all pretty normal people, there's a Scottish girl who's father knew the person who wrote Utopia, there's a tech geek, there is a highly paranoid better tech geek, a kid and another dude who doesn't last long. They hear that a second manuscript has been discovered, a sequel so to speak, and they meet up to look at it as one of them somehow came across it, the guy who doesn't last long. While this is happening you have Arby and his associate trying to track down the manuscript (murderously) and also searching for the mysterious Jessica Hyde. She appears at the end of the first episode, she is a ghost and in hiding, her father was the one who created Utopia and she also wants to get a hold of the second manuscript and stop whatever nefarious plot The Network has planned; this is embedded in her father's drawings as he worked for them as a mad scientist type and was admitted to a mental health institution and died not long after creating the two Utopia manuscripts. Right? Well, then there is a man called Dugdale who works for the government who has done the nasty with a Russian prostitute who is now pregnant and The Network are forcing him to put through an order for a Russian Flu vaccine and he is trying to figure out why, and you know prevent the disintegration of his marriage. I really don't want to go into it any further than that, the core group become embroiled in the tale when it Arby and his mate come along and figure they know where Jessica Hyde is, and the second Utopia and all hell breaks loose. Each of them have their own set of motivations and hidden agendas and worries, you can genuinely can't tell which way any of them will go. Some have launched the complaint that the characters are too thinly drawn to be believable, to them I say bollocks. It's not a character driven story to start with and no knowing their deepest emotions is what keeps us guessing as to which way they will go. The characters are all reactionaries to the mayhem taking place around them, we don't have time to know them as deeply realised people because they are constantly reacting to the plot. I think they serve well through the story, and to be honest there are the ones you like, the ones you can't quite peg, and the ones who are completely unpredictable, but by the end of the six episodes you're ensconced enough that you care what happens to them.
Right so I've ran out steam now. Utopia is something different, lately every TV drama that seems to be churned out are just the same. It's all either period dramas, or crime procedurals, or family drama, or a combo, but this was unique. Utopia presents something gripping, genuinely scary, and it's not afraid to make an indictment on modern society and make guesses at the realistic grim possibilities of our future. This along with Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's tv series about the ever growing effects of technology on people and society) are both a bleak outlook for the future and the results aren't because of war, they are about the advances and expansion of the world around us. Sure the future is bleak, but it's when it's observed in a dramatic realistic and refreshing manner it can provide us with some food for thought. Plus we can throw a splash of audacious colourful insanity in the mix and have something new actually entertaining! Needless to say, there needs to be more television as daring and crazy as Utopia flying around, not stealing the ideas, just the spirit of bleak but crazy entertainment which challenges us as viewers instead of wrapping a comfort blanket around us.
*Quote from mate at work.
** Yeah, his name is stupid, Wilson Wilson, if I remember correctly I think his Dad is Milton Wilson or something to that affect and someone just responds with 'What the fuck is your family on?'
*** I still have an unquenchable hatred for that word...
**** For international readers - if you exist - use tunnelbear to access 4OD on your PC, if you want to watch this.
The show plays on the level of control that a select few have on the majority, the fact that such a plan exists and that the fate of the planet is being decided by a tiny selection of individuals with control over just about everything. It also taps into the paranoia of the modern age and pretty much no one can be trusted, everyone is under suspicion and even established characters through the progress of the episodes have their own secret agendas, beliefs and alliances simmering under the surface. I think what makes Utopia a cut above just about everything else I've watched this year, is how unflinchingly daring it is. It's audacious because it's forcing us to look at our modern society and see that we have next to no control over our destiny, someone somewhere in a darkened office with (some pretty damn creepy) oak carvings on the wall, in leather chairs, are deciding our futures. We can be tracked from any location, any person can be against us, no one can be trusted, they will find you through your phone, through security cameras, they can trace you and find you, there is nowhere to hide. This isn't a unique idea but it is executed here with great skill and although the whole series is pure fantasy there is a very real base to all of it's ridiculousness.
So Utopia manages to create an aura of paranoia throughout, this is scary in itself but the show decides to ramp up the fear factor to the nth degree by including some pretty gratuitous violence. It'll become apparent that Utopia takes a lot inspiration from comic books as you watch it for various reasons but it's inclusion of violence feels particularly comic book styled. When you're finding it hard to figure out if you can trust any of the main characters, there is the added layer that even you're uncertain of their motives any of them could at any moment be maimed or killed, and that's not to say their family members get off lightly.This brings us to the first episode which I feel the need to discuss straight off the bat specifically for the violent world it introduces us to.
As with any television series the first episode/pilot's purpose is to lay groundwork for the rest of the series, it's supposed to hook our attention and give us an idea what we're getting let in for. The first episode of Utopia immediately starts with a confrontation at a comic book shop, with a man dressed as a rabbit hanging about outside, Arby, a character I will talk about a lot more later, with his accomplice Lee dispatch everyone inside with cold unflinching efficiency. Want a taste of Utopia? Well there you have it, triple homicide in the first scene, and no they don't spare the small boy hiding in there. The episode spends a lot of time jumping about laying down some integral threads and it can seem a bit bamboozling at first as you have a bunch of comic book nerds joining up and the little kid running around, then there is the pair of sinister chaps leaving a trail of bodies behind them as they interrogate people with a single chilling question, 'Where is Jessica Hyde?' And also there's a guy working in the government being extorted into getting some Russian Flu vaccines ordered for an unconfirmed epidemic. Lots of weird stuff going on but the only thing, I think, anyone will remember is Wilson Wilson's torture scene.
Nothing surprises me in films/television any more, if someone is going to get murdered/tortured there is always a certain level that it's pushed to, you can watch it because you know it'll be over soon enough. It's just always on the right side of 'Ouch', like they're getting electrocuted or stabbed, and you know anything wouldn't want to push it too far through fear of upsetting someone, there's always a ceiling on these things. It just makes torture scenes completely not scary because you know there are limits that the people making it have to follow. Or so it goes in what I watch. Well in Utopia the torturer describes how most people go for the finger nails, the feet and so on, Lee likes to go for the eyes. He has a selection of dishes, each containing something you really shouldn't put in your eyes, a then a spoon. He starts with some fresh red chillis, he proceeds with some sand, then he continues with the bleach, and as the unrelenting camera shows us, he finishes it off with his spoon, all whilst his partner in crime, Arby, interrogates the hapless victim with the ominous question: 'Where is Jessica Hyde?'. Now don't get me wrong, even writing that down it's ridiculously over the top and grotesque and most importantly stupid, but I literally haven't cringed so much watching anything in forever. I was so close to covering my own eyes or running away when there was a blessed relief of the scene ending. This is the scene that many people from what I've read and heard turned off Utopia, because as I might mention several times, this show is fucked up, and coincidentally a lot of reviewers, myself included, spent a lot of time talking about it. It was a strong opening statement for the show and it didn't lighten up from this point (the torture scenes weren't half as bad, but yes, there were more torture scenes.)
Another reason people felt the need to turn off the television, and also caused some controversy, was the fact that Utopia had no problem killing children in cold blood. No one is safe, if you need to be hammered over the head with it, then nothing is more disturbing than the fact that The Network does not consider any life more significant than their goal, and this ruthlessness is integral to Utopia as a whole. Sure it'll upset some people, even I felt a bit distressed at the sight of a school massacre taking place thanks to Arby and his almost unflinching efficiency at his job. Sure, America is currently having a debate about gun violence and a school massacre taking place, hence why I highly doubt it will ever air there, especially while those wounds are still fresh, but Utopia acknowledges that shit like this happens. The mass public hysteria that accompanies it is also duly touched upon, but this is all in order to tell the story and to stress the danger of The Network; the lives of children are considered collateral damage, this isn't a picnic folks, this is something bigger than you can expect. It sure is ballsy of Channel 4 to air this, to be perfectly honest it makes it even more of an interesting project; because it is a reflect on modern society and shit like this happens. I don't agree with it in the slightest, I even though the school massacre was a bit too on the nose, but doesn't mean I don't acknowledge it takes some serious balls to air that, it's a part of the story, they aren't changing it.
So I've discussed the violence, the torture, onto less touchy subjects. Utopia isn't just disturbing in it's storytelling, the music merges with the disturbing mood. The music is something I can't even describe but oh good god if there is more surreal spine chilling music playing in a tv show anywhere in the world right now I need to know, because this is top notch scary shit. Tv music should enhance the scene, it shouldn't drown it out or take you out of the action, this is why I dislike hearing tv shows using music I have on my iPod, or popular tunes, because it immediately drags my focus from what's going on and makes me think about my own interpretation of the music and 90% of the time just doesn't fit. This is some original music composed by Cristobal Tapia de Veer, nope I have no idea either, and I couldn't tell you how they made it but it's used sparingly so that it doesn't obstruct anything, but it just sounds so good and it fits. Perhaps it's just me but there are some random female voices that make some indistinguishable noises in the music that sound just like Jessica Hyde and then there is something which sounds like heavy mouth breathing which is just like Arby, just me? The episode ends and you're thrown into the theme music and it jolts you back to reality, it was damn good in my opinion.
So if the music sets the mood then it's the cinematography*** that also does a lot of heavy lifting. I've read around a lot and no one has really mentioned that for a TV show about a comic book, the entire thing is shot from a graphic novel-like perspective, every shot could be a frame from a comic book, the angles and the composition. It just felt like, to me anyway, that Utopia was emulating the fact it was about a graphic novel, by literally just being a live-action version of that medium. The way each shot is composed is very specific and the camera is placed in significant positions to replicate the angles and positions of a graphic novel. Another example would probably Scott Pilgrim VS the World but obviously that used to additional noise events, words appearing on the screen and cartoonish additions to emphasise this. Utopia is a more subdued subtle way of showing this and doesn't trumpet this connection it simply works it's magic by immersing you and showing you the dramatic scenes with artistic flair. Then there is the colours, acid yellow is the shade chosen for the title card and it permeates throughout the series punctuating several scenes from time to time worming throughout each episode, it's small details like Lee and Arby's bag, or the colour of a wall or something like that but it feels significant again. But everything is also massively saturated, the grass is literally bright crayon green, the sky is periwinkle blue, every colour is, dare I say cartoonishly vibrant but not to the point where it is ridiculous, a field of heather swaying in the wind saturated bright purple with a clear blue sky over it is an ominous scene setter, Arby tramping over some bright green grass is alarming rather than silly, and the blood of someone being shot in the head being ruby red is just gruesome. Plus they don't overdo it, it's just adding the graphic novel feel of Utopia, it's a fantasy of course but it's steeped in reality. Visually it's just beautiful to watch. Plus the events take place in some pretty interesting places, the characters find themselves squatting in an abandoned manor house for the majority of the last leg of episodes which is run down and archaic as they try to protect the future of humanity, it's quite a nice juxtaposition, plus they have lots of scenes in fields. Not to mention my favourite set, the seeming office/headquarters of The Network chaps, it's a small back room kind of office with mahogany walls carved with (what I can only assume are) disturbing images of wars/heaven/hell-scapes etc, and they sit in their leather bound chairs, the natural light limited, it's dark and it's scary and the sinister men making decisions are suitably creepy. It's a great image.
All this jibber-jabber and I still haven't really discussed the plot or the characters. I'll try and keep this brief as this is ballooning and has taken me days to write and Utopia finished about 5 days ago now and I want to get this up before 4OD starts taking it down.****
Ok, so the characters, there are a whole mess of them to keep track of, but you have the core group of people who are intrigued by the original Utopia graphic novel, they all log into a chat room to discuss the meanings of it and the intricacies of the images. They are all pretty normal people, there's a Scottish girl who's father knew the person who wrote Utopia, there's a tech geek, there is a highly paranoid better tech geek, a kid and another dude who doesn't last long. They hear that a second manuscript has been discovered, a sequel so to speak, and they meet up to look at it as one of them somehow came across it, the guy who doesn't last long. While this is happening you have Arby and his associate trying to track down the manuscript (murderously) and also searching for the mysterious Jessica Hyde. She appears at the end of the first episode, she is a ghost and in hiding, her father was the one who created Utopia and she also wants to get a hold of the second manuscript and stop whatever nefarious plot The Network has planned; this is embedded in her father's drawings as he worked for them as a mad scientist type and was admitted to a mental health institution and died not long after creating the two Utopia manuscripts. Right? Well, then there is a man called Dugdale who works for the government who has done the nasty with a Russian prostitute who is now pregnant and The Network are forcing him to put through an order for a Russian Flu vaccine and he is trying to figure out why, and you know prevent the disintegration of his marriage. I really don't want to go into it any further than that, the core group become embroiled in the tale when it Arby and his mate come along and figure they know where Jessica Hyde is, and the second Utopia and all hell breaks loose. Each of them have their own set of motivations and hidden agendas and worries, you can genuinely can't tell which way any of them will go. Some have launched the complaint that the characters are too thinly drawn to be believable, to them I say bollocks. It's not a character driven story to start with and no knowing their deepest emotions is what keeps us guessing as to which way they will go. The characters are all reactionaries to the mayhem taking place around them, we don't have time to know them as deeply realised people because they are constantly reacting to the plot. I think they serve well through the story, and to be honest there are the ones you like, the ones you can't quite peg, and the ones who are completely unpredictable, but by the end of the six episodes you're ensconced enough that you care what happens to them.
Right so I've ran out steam now. Utopia is something different, lately every TV drama that seems to be churned out are just the same. It's all either period dramas, or crime procedurals, or family drama, or a combo, but this was unique. Utopia presents something gripping, genuinely scary, and it's not afraid to make an indictment on modern society and make guesses at the realistic grim possibilities of our future. This along with Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's tv series about the ever growing effects of technology on people and society) are both a bleak outlook for the future and the results aren't because of war, they are about the advances and expansion of the world around us. Sure the future is bleak, but it's when it's observed in a dramatic realistic and refreshing manner it can provide us with some food for thought. Plus we can throw a splash of audacious colourful insanity in the mix and have something new actually entertaining! Needless to say, there needs to be more television as daring and crazy as Utopia flying around, not stealing the ideas, just the spirit of bleak but crazy entertainment which challenges us as viewers instead of wrapping a comfort blanket around us.
*Quote from mate at work.
** Yeah, his name is stupid, Wilson Wilson, if I remember correctly I think his Dad is Milton Wilson or something to that affect and someone just responds with 'What the fuck is your family on?'
*** I still have an unquenchable hatred for that word...
**** For international readers - if you exist - use tunnelbear to access 4OD on your PC, if you want to watch this.
Thursday 14 February 2013
Insight
Dreamt I was in a dystopian future, very vivid dream. The world was
halved by a giant mechanical wall, gargantuan and impenetrable. Both
halves equally technologically advanced, steampunk stylised, faceless
guards armed to the hilt, hard black cold exteriors, searchlights
piercing the dark skies... I was having sex with a security guard in a
broom cupboard.
Unwarranted insight into my brain.
Unwarranted insight into my brain.
Sunday 10 February 2013
BAFTAs
Life of Pi remains to be the unsung hero of award season for me. Sure it has received some technical awards but everyone is too busy giving Argo a big pat on the back. Don't get me wrong it's an interesting film but for the content I just thought it was too film-like. That probably is the completely wrong thing to say considering the film industry are the ones doling out the awards but that's why Argo didn't capture my heart. Because it played out too much like a film, when it was supposed to be a true story.
Hey that's my opinion, I'm not asking to be disagreed with. I just think Life of Pi was a beautiful film that challenged my brain and made me look inside myself and ask a question that I deem important; because the quest for God is always significant to me. It's a personal thing. Plus the visuals were simply mind blowing. That is all.
Hey that's my opinion, I'm not asking to be disagreed with. I just think Life of Pi was a beautiful film that challenged my brain and made me look inside myself and ask a question that I deem important; because the quest for God is always significant to me. It's a personal thing. Plus the visuals were simply mind blowing. That is all.
Friday 8 February 2013
Reality
CAB was good today, I was the only Gateway Assessor available so I was given some trainees to sit in with me. They were to observe my technique and how I handled interviews. It was terrifying and exciting but I joked and laughed about it, they thought I was confident. The first girl was 19 in her second year of a history degree - cue embarrassing conversations about my wasted potential. It should take six months for an assessor to get signed off, I'm still waiting, but because I've been there so long they are happy for trainees to watch, so there was that awkward explanation, then there was the part where I inadvertently let slip I was effectively doing nothing with my history degree and was an aimless nothing. She was going into law, full of heady ideals and hopes of getting a career, I was equally optimistic but tripped over myself trying to explain why I hadn't actually done anything with my life... That interview went well. She went off to sit with someone else.
Second trainee was an older lady, it was her first ever observation, I was going to colour her perceptions, it went fine. The second was a woman who wanted help filling in a DLA form, it took longer to get her an appointment and she told me how her appendix had been hurting and the doctors had done nothing and one thing led to another and now her whole stomach has somehow exploded and she has a machine with wires hooked up to her. Trainee looked scared. I was scared. She was happy that we could help her though. Another interview before I left. Horrible. Couldn't help the people, and kept them waiting, woman was getting operation, needed the social services to fit a walk-in shower, they kept putting it off. Basically had to explain to them there wasn't much to be done, tried to offer a later appointment, the client then lambasted me and walked out in a barely contained rage. The only thing that stopped me from crying was the trainee sitting in the corner of the room, she came over and I proceeded to explain to her that sometimes we can't help people and they will understandably be very upset, but that's a lesson she should learn before getting to invested in this. She just listened to me prattle on. I gave her a little speech about how we're not magicians and can't wave a wand and fix people's problems, sometimes it has to get worse before it can better and all that. Went into the worker's room with her after filling out report and the Supervisor gave her a very similar speech when she said it had been awful.
Came home and had a cup of tea and a large chocolate bar. Dealing with things much better these days I think... I don't know. I've realised talking to people largely doesn't help, it makes being alone much easier.
Second trainee was an older lady, it was her first ever observation, I was going to colour her perceptions, it went fine. The second was a woman who wanted help filling in a DLA form, it took longer to get her an appointment and she told me how her appendix had been hurting and the doctors had done nothing and one thing led to another and now her whole stomach has somehow exploded and she has a machine with wires hooked up to her. Trainee looked scared. I was scared. She was happy that we could help her though. Another interview before I left. Horrible. Couldn't help the people, and kept them waiting, woman was getting operation, needed the social services to fit a walk-in shower, they kept putting it off. Basically had to explain to them there wasn't much to be done, tried to offer a later appointment, the client then lambasted me and walked out in a barely contained rage. The only thing that stopped me from crying was the trainee sitting in the corner of the room, she came over and I proceeded to explain to her that sometimes we can't help people and they will understandably be very upset, but that's a lesson she should learn before getting to invested in this. She just listened to me prattle on. I gave her a little speech about how we're not magicians and can't wave a wand and fix people's problems, sometimes it has to get worse before it can better and all that. Went into the worker's room with her after filling out report and the Supervisor gave her a very similar speech when she said it had been awful.
Came home and had a cup of tea and a large chocolate bar. Dealing with things much better these days I think... I don't know. I've realised talking to people largely doesn't help, it makes being alone much easier.
Hyde Park on Hudson
Because if you know anything about me, know this, Bill Murray is one of my favourite people in the world. I dislike most people by default, I like most people who are dazzling because I can't see past their shiny amazingness. Bill Murray stands apart from everything in his own bubble of appreciation, I admire him and I just think he's a person who just is, and he is intriguing and brilliant and timeless, everyone should know and admire Bill Murray for being Bill Murray.
So I saw this film for very simplistic reasons, Bill Murray, plus morbid curiosity. I do enjoy going to empty cinemas on my own and taking up the whole back row, kicking off my shoesies, stretching out my legs, I like to make myself comfortable, then there three other people in the cinema know I have marked my territory. I live about three minutes from the cinema so I took my hot water bottle with me, next time a flask of tea! This was about the time I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene last year on my own... It's been a year since I started traversing to the cinema on my own on days off, it's pleasant, plus I wouldn't dare ask anyone to join me to see such odd films I pick out to see on my own. It's been my first lonesome day off in a while, I like my lonesome days off, especially when I can't bare the thought of talking to another human being, the cinema is the perfect place to be.*
Which brings me to this film, I've avoided talking directly about it for a while now, why? Because I really have no clue what to say about it. It's a bit of a weird film! I want to say that it's a bit messy, a bit aimless, a bit stupid, a bit weird... But I say those things alot about films I can't figure out... You're not quite sure what to expect, you're sitting in the cinema going 'Come on then film, blow my mind.' then ten minutes in you see a beautiful field with a car parked in the middle of it and the President getting a handjob of his fifth cousin, and then you get the king of England biting into a hot dog to rapturous applause as the film finishes, you can't help wondering how you got to this point, and you walk away thinking 'What the hell was that?'
So the basic premise is this, Franklin D. Roosevelt is having a tête-à -tête with the King of England about the impending World War II, this all takes place at his mother's home at Hyde Park on Hudson**, this would be the first time the Royal Family were to meet with a President of the USA, it's supposed to be a social visit but of course it's to try and enlist the assistance of America. Whilst all of this is going on we also have the tale of Daisy, the President's fifth cousin or so, drafted in to keep him company, she swiftly becomes his lover and she sees the meeting takes place (most of it) and comes to terms with the reality of being in love with Franklin D Roosevelt. It's the same royals as those in The King's Speech so instantly recognisable, but it's a much lighter film that that, in fact it seems to be free of any concern about being taking seriously, perhaps that's just me though, it just seemed quite a carefree jaunt.
Is this film supposed to be about the significance of the Royals visiting, or is it about Daisy and her entangled love affair with FDR? This is a question I kept asking through the film, it seemed to want to straddle both ideas but didn't really give either enough room to breathe. The film is narrated by Daisy during events, and yet there are scenes in the film Daisy could not have been privy to, such as FDR's conversations with George VI, plus the interactions between the Royals themselves. If the film is narrated by Daisy, if it's based on her journals and such, why put so much emphasis on them and not her? She wasn't really there for a lot of the visit. What is even more confusing is the fact that at the end of it all it's so cheerful, so happy to let us know that Daisy forgave FDR, even though he actually had multiple lovers and had lied and manipulated her into believing she was special and that he genuinely cared for her in any way. Of course she's upset but she gets over that and is best buds with his other mistress and has a fabulous time until he dies, well good for her! Talk about principals! There's no reason why she forgives him or why she would agree to it, just that he seems to have an affable charm about him that made her forget all of the complications. How nice! Get to bunk up with the President and share him with a few other women, good for you!***
It's probably worth talking about the performances. Bill Murray brings his particular brand of charisma to the part of FDR but maintains an air distinctly unlike his familiar persona. He is very much not himself in this film, if that makes sense, he has a presidential air and conveys the likeability of Roosevelt as well as the steely professional air. Plus, it wasn't well known that Roosevelt had Polio as he made sure the press never showed him as such, this affords him the best scene in the film between him and Bertie as he laments his stammer and FDR responds with his own ailment. It's quite a touching scene and gives a neat insight into FDR, because he such a powerful figure people see of him what they want and ignore his fallibility; it's pretty damn good as far as any performance goes. Laura Linney looks beautiful... That is all. Olivia Williams rejoins Bill Murray after appearing with him in Rushmore (before Moonrise Kingdom it was my favourite Wes Anderson film.) She simmers with political rage as Eleanor Roosevelt****. Olivia Colman, who is awesome, managed to play the polite barely concealed irritation of a British monarch that was fun to watch, although her obsession with those damn hot dogs was less funny than the film seemed to be forcing us to believe. And the rest of the cast, blah that's it.
Well, it was a pleasant film, beautiful if anything, but irritating. If you're going to make a film about FDR's affairs, make that film, make sure you actually give us reason to believe why the women are fine to go along with his insatiable lust, give Eleanor more to work with, fully explore that whole thing. Or, if you want, fully explore the extent of the importance of the Royals visit, the implications on both sides, oh and of course mine all the available laughs from the culture difference*****. Don't mix both up into a froth and have it completely ineffectual. That's just me though, perhaps I want more, but in my opinion it should have been one or the other, both together with the jaunty happy mood seemed to be quite idiotic. I'm not saying splitting the film would immediately take away the light feel of the film, I just... I dunno, I thought it was a bit stupid that's all, it didn't really do anything, it's a shame too because Bill Murray as FDR was a good idea, and he played it well, just the rest of it didn't really work. Plus it's a smutty film, perhaps it's just me but it seems like a bunch of old folk making innuendos, ho-ho old people do sex too in the old days, ho-ho how clever is that? Hot dogs! Ok, that's about as constructive as I'm going to get, it was a fun light historical bit of fluff... I don't know what I was expecting, but I wasn't expecting that.
*I also watched Compliance in the same day, I've been tweaking this blog before posting it. You probably couldn't watch two more different films. In fairness they were both based on true events, and were some what seedy and weird, but on completely different levels.
*Queen Elizabeth points out that there is a Hyde Park in London, it's terribly confusing!
** Please note my raging sarcasm.
*** There are some complaints that it is insinuated Eleanor Roosevelt is a lesbian in this film. It's not blatant it just makes out that she lives with a bunch of women, if that makes her lesbian then that would be using my mother's logic (don't ask...).
**** I never knew the political significance of hot dogs until this film. I felt like I was beaten over the damn head with it.
So I saw this film for very simplistic reasons, Bill Murray, plus morbid curiosity. I do enjoy going to empty cinemas on my own and taking up the whole back row, kicking off my shoesies, stretching out my legs, I like to make myself comfortable, then there three other people in the cinema know I have marked my territory. I live about three minutes from the cinema so I took my hot water bottle with me, next time a flask of tea! This was about the time I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene last year on my own... It's been a year since I started traversing to the cinema on my own on days off, it's pleasant, plus I wouldn't dare ask anyone to join me to see such odd films I pick out to see on my own. It's been my first lonesome day off in a while, I like my lonesome days off, especially when I can't bare the thought of talking to another human being, the cinema is the perfect place to be.*
Which brings me to this film, I've avoided talking directly about it for a while now, why? Because I really have no clue what to say about it. It's a bit of a weird film! I want to say that it's a bit messy, a bit aimless, a bit stupid, a bit weird... But I say those things alot about films I can't figure out... You're not quite sure what to expect, you're sitting in the cinema going 'Come on then film, blow my mind.' then ten minutes in you see a beautiful field with a car parked in the middle of it and the President getting a handjob of his fifth cousin, and then you get the king of England biting into a hot dog to rapturous applause as the film finishes, you can't help wondering how you got to this point, and you walk away thinking 'What the hell was that?'
So the basic premise is this, Franklin D. Roosevelt is having a tête-à -tête with the King of England about the impending World War II, this all takes place at his mother's home at Hyde Park on Hudson**, this would be the first time the Royal Family were to meet with a President of the USA, it's supposed to be a social visit but of course it's to try and enlist the assistance of America. Whilst all of this is going on we also have the tale of Daisy, the President's fifth cousin or so, drafted in to keep him company, she swiftly becomes his lover and she sees the meeting takes place (most of it) and comes to terms with the reality of being in love with Franklin D Roosevelt. It's the same royals as those in The King's Speech so instantly recognisable, but it's a much lighter film that that, in fact it seems to be free of any concern about being taking seriously, perhaps that's just me though, it just seemed quite a carefree jaunt.
Is this film supposed to be about the significance of the Royals visiting, or is it about Daisy and her entangled love affair with FDR? This is a question I kept asking through the film, it seemed to want to straddle both ideas but didn't really give either enough room to breathe. The film is narrated by Daisy during events, and yet there are scenes in the film Daisy could not have been privy to, such as FDR's conversations with George VI, plus the interactions between the Royals themselves. If the film is narrated by Daisy, if it's based on her journals and such, why put so much emphasis on them and not her? She wasn't really there for a lot of the visit. What is even more confusing is the fact that at the end of it all it's so cheerful, so happy to let us know that Daisy forgave FDR, even though he actually had multiple lovers and had lied and manipulated her into believing she was special and that he genuinely cared for her in any way. Of course she's upset but she gets over that and is best buds with his other mistress and has a fabulous time until he dies, well good for her! Talk about principals! There's no reason why she forgives him or why she would agree to it, just that he seems to have an affable charm about him that made her forget all of the complications. How nice! Get to bunk up with the President and share him with a few other women, good for you!***
It's probably worth talking about the performances. Bill Murray brings his particular brand of charisma to the part of FDR but maintains an air distinctly unlike his familiar persona. He is very much not himself in this film, if that makes sense, he has a presidential air and conveys the likeability of Roosevelt as well as the steely professional air. Plus, it wasn't well known that Roosevelt had Polio as he made sure the press never showed him as such, this affords him the best scene in the film between him and Bertie as he laments his stammer and FDR responds with his own ailment. It's quite a touching scene and gives a neat insight into FDR, because he such a powerful figure people see of him what they want and ignore his fallibility; it's pretty damn good as far as any performance goes. Laura Linney looks beautiful... That is all. Olivia Williams rejoins Bill Murray after appearing with him in Rushmore (before Moonrise Kingdom it was my favourite Wes Anderson film.) She simmers with political rage as Eleanor Roosevelt****. Olivia Colman, who is awesome, managed to play the polite barely concealed irritation of a British monarch that was fun to watch, although her obsession with those damn hot dogs was less funny than the film seemed to be forcing us to believe. And the rest of the cast, blah that's it.
Well, it was a pleasant film, beautiful if anything, but irritating. If you're going to make a film about FDR's affairs, make that film, make sure you actually give us reason to believe why the women are fine to go along with his insatiable lust, give Eleanor more to work with, fully explore that whole thing. Or, if you want, fully explore the extent of the importance of the Royals visit, the implications on both sides, oh and of course mine all the available laughs from the culture difference*****. Don't mix both up into a froth and have it completely ineffectual. That's just me though, perhaps I want more, but in my opinion it should have been one or the other, both together with the jaunty happy mood seemed to be quite idiotic. I'm not saying splitting the film would immediately take away the light feel of the film, I just... I dunno, I thought it was a bit stupid that's all, it didn't really do anything, it's a shame too because Bill Murray as FDR was a good idea, and he played it well, just the rest of it didn't really work. Plus it's a smutty film, perhaps it's just me but it seems like a bunch of old folk making innuendos, ho-ho old people do sex too in the old days, ho-ho how clever is that? Hot dogs! Ok, that's about as constructive as I'm going to get, it was a fun light historical bit of fluff... I don't know what I was expecting, but I wasn't expecting that.
*I also watched Compliance in the same day, I've been tweaking this blog before posting it. You probably couldn't watch two more different films. In fairness they were both based on true events, and were some what seedy and weird, but on completely different levels.
*Queen Elizabeth points out that there is a Hyde Park in London, it's terribly confusing!
** Please note my raging sarcasm.
*** There are some complaints that it is insinuated Eleanor Roosevelt is a lesbian in this film. It's not blatant it just makes out that she lives with a bunch of women, if that makes her lesbian then that would be using my mother's logic (don't ask...).
**** I never knew the political significance of hot dogs until this film. I felt like I was beaten over the damn head with it.
Thursday 7 February 2013
Compliance
This happened more than once, you gotta be shitting me.
It's not often you see a film which purports to be 'based on true events' and see something taking place which you can't actually believe. Compliance is a surprising film because not only did it actually happen, but because it prompted a reaction from me. I was shocked, I was appalled, I was disgusted and to be completely honest I was scared. Even horror films have a hard task of scaring me, and in this film I was worried what would happen next. As I harp on about how it's based on true events, I have to point out, it didn't just happen once, this isn't a one off event, lots of people were pulled into this deceit. I just kept thinking, what the hell would I do in that position?
A fast food restaurant receives a phonecall from the police reporting a theft at their branch that evening on a busy Friday shift, he asks the Manager in charge to take the accused into custody to search her belongings and person, this results in a very long evening in which the perpetrator is held and various staff members are brought into the situation. No one stands up to the person on the end of the phone, they try but he bats them down and argues them into submission using his authoritative tones and knowledge and no one goes out of their way to do anything about the situation.
So if you don't want to know about the main part of the film you can skip this paragraph I'll say *BEWARE HERE BE SPOILERS* just in case you needed warning. So there's a strip search and the accused, Becky, is kept naked through the majority of the film in the back office and people sit with her whilst the policeman on the end of the phone talks to them both. He asks them to search her in more ways as time progresses. But here's the rub, the policeman, obviously is not what he claims, he's just some schmuck waltzing about his house making a sandwich, writing notes as he goes having a ball it would seem. Thus the main question of the film is presented, would you believe this person on the end of the phone? This is an authority figure, he seems confident and seems to know the important details, he keeps saying it's his investigation and he will take responsibility. When an authority figure tells you to do something when do you have to take responsibility for your own actions? Needless to say this film was a disturbing viewing but it presented something unflinching, honestly, and truthfully, we are aware of the deceit, we are aware of the reality of the situation, and yet it continues, because when an authority figure tells you to do something, you just go along with it because that's what you're supposed to do, right? What would you do?
So now I come to the question, was it worth making this film? Did we need to see this? Did I need to sit through it's pretty swift 85 minute running time? I probably could have turned it off but I was mildly intrigued, call me an idiot but I heard it had Dreama Walker from Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23 which I am currently mourning the loss of, and Ann O'Dowd reportedly gave a powerhouse performance, both true. Ann O'Dowd, as Sandra, gives a fully convincing performance as a run down manageress at a shit hole fast food place, I've worked fast food kiosks and repeating the same things over again, dealing with idiotic lazy staff members, secret diners, all that stuff, it clogs up your brain because it's your life and it's so mundane. The film plays on a slight underlying jealousy Sandra has for Becky, she's young and attractive and has a string of boys after her, it's not a played up aspect but it's there, perhaps it makes it that much easier for Sandra to see the bad in Becky. But O'Dowd never overplays these emotions, they just simmer under the surface, she may have doubts but she's flattered by the voice on the end of the phone, it's clear she's made to feel pretty incompetent at her job and someone telling her how well she's doing makes it even easier for her to go along with the situation. That's just me though, and that's why it makes sense when Becky begs her for help, she snaps at her and leaves her because at that point she believes whole-heartedly she is doing the right thing, she is doing something right here. That's how I felt anyway, as I watched, and it was a performance which deserves plenty of recognition, it wasn't a flashy part but it was honest and complex. Dreama Walker is pretty and wide eyed as Becky, she is straining against the situation but is bullied into this situation by everyone around her.
The film is mostly set in the back room of the fast food place, we get the shots of the busy restaurant with customers unaware of what is going on behind the scenes, the staff have their minute discussions about the situation, but nothing is done to stop it. There is a creative use of the camera to avoid anything too risque but then there are the sounds and the shots you do get, the full knowledge of what is going on and the chilling knowledge of that fact. I did think it was an odd moment to introduce the reality of the situation in the middle of the film when we get a good look at Officer Daniels, it could have been at the beginning or the end but it happens at an odd place within the film. Perhaps we, as observers weren't expected to suspend our disbelief for quite as long as the people in the film, but it just felt a bit sudden to me. It uses the fact well and we get some odd juxtapositions as the 'Officer' talks on the end of the phone and we are presented with the core dilemna of the film but perhaps dramatically it could have been at the beginning so we were aware throughout or at the end... I dunno, perhaps that's just me.
This film is worth seeing, not only because of Ann O'Dowd performance which needs more yelling about, but because it prompts a reaction; a vicious gut reaction as your stomach turns at the events taking place. Of course the fact that it is true to events is even more of a reason to see, if only to see how twisted the world can be. It's intriguing, it's riveting and you literally can't not watch it, you will want to see how it ends. Most importantly it's something which illicits a response, no matter whether it's disgust, horror, disbelief, even if you thought it was laughable it's still something, in that sense it's a movie you have to see. Of course as far as entertainment goes, if you like your entertainment showing a mirror to reality, probably not a good example, but still intriguing and shocking. Something to think about at least.
It's not often you see a film which purports to be 'based on true events' and see something taking place which you can't actually believe. Compliance is a surprising film because not only did it actually happen, but because it prompted a reaction from me. I was shocked, I was appalled, I was disgusted and to be completely honest I was scared. Even horror films have a hard task of scaring me, and in this film I was worried what would happen next. As I harp on about how it's based on true events, I have to point out, it didn't just happen once, this isn't a one off event, lots of people were pulled into this deceit. I just kept thinking, what the hell would I do in that position?
A fast food restaurant receives a phonecall from the police reporting a theft at their branch that evening on a busy Friday shift, he asks the Manager in charge to take the accused into custody to search her belongings and person, this results in a very long evening in which the perpetrator is held and various staff members are brought into the situation. No one stands up to the person on the end of the phone, they try but he bats them down and argues them into submission using his authoritative tones and knowledge and no one goes out of their way to do anything about the situation.
So if you don't want to know about the main part of the film you can skip this paragraph I'll say *BEWARE HERE BE SPOILERS* just in case you needed warning. So there's a strip search and the accused, Becky, is kept naked through the majority of the film in the back office and people sit with her whilst the policeman on the end of the phone talks to them both. He asks them to search her in more ways as time progresses. But here's the rub, the policeman, obviously is not what he claims, he's just some schmuck waltzing about his house making a sandwich, writing notes as he goes having a ball it would seem. Thus the main question of the film is presented, would you believe this person on the end of the phone? This is an authority figure, he seems confident and seems to know the important details, he keeps saying it's his investigation and he will take responsibility. When an authority figure tells you to do something when do you have to take responsibility for your own actions? Needless to say this film was a disturbing viewing but it presented something unflinching, honestly, and truthfully, we are aware of the deceit, we are aware of the reality of the situation, and yet it continues, because when an authority figure tells you to do something, you just go along with it because that's what you're supposed to do, right? What would you do?
So now I come to the question, was it worth making this film? Did we need to see this? Did I need to sit through it's pretty swift 85 minute running time? I probably could have turned it off but I was mildly intrigued, call me an idiot but I heard it had Dreama Walker from Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23 which I am currently mourning the loss of, and Ann O'Dowd reportedly gave a powerhouse performance, both true. Ann O'Dowd, as Sandra, gives a fully convincing performance as a run down manageress at a shit hole fast food place, I've worked fast food kiosks and repeating the same things over again, dealing with idiotic lazy staff members, secret diners, all that stuff, it clogs up your brain because it's your life and it's so mundane. The film plays on a slight underlying jealousy Sandra has for Becky, she's young and attractive and has a string of boys after her, it's not a played up aspect but it's there, perhaps it makes it that much easier for Sandra to see the bad in Becky. But O'Dowd never overplays these emotions, they just simmer under the surface, she may have doubts but she's flattered by the voice on the end of the phone, it's clear she's made to feel pretty incompetent at her job and someone telling her how well she's doing makes it even easier for her to go along with the situation. That's just me though, and that's why it makes sense when Becky begs her for help, she snaps at her and leaves her because at that point she believes whole-heartedly she is doing the right thing, she is doing something right here. That's how I felt anyway, as I watched, and it was a performance which deserves plenty of recognition, it wasn't a flashy part but it was honest and complex. Dreama Walker is pretty and wide eyed as Becky, she is straining against the situation but is bullied into this situation by everyone around her.
The film is mostly set in the back room of the fast food place, we get the shots of the busy restaurant with customers unaware of what is going on behind the scenes, the staff have their minute discussions about the situation, but nothing is done to stop it. There is a creative use of the camera to avoid anything too risque but then there are the sounds and the shots you do get, the full knowledge of what is going on and the chilling knowledge of that fact. I did think it was an odd moment to introduce the reality of the situation in the middle of the film when we get a good look at Officer Daniels, it could have been at the beginning or the end but it happens at an odd place within the film. Perhaps we, as observers weren't expected to suspend our disbelief for quite as long as the people in the film, but it just felt a bit sudden to me. It uses the fact well and we get some odd juxtapositions as the 'Officer' talks on the end of the phone and we are presented with the core dilemna of the film but perhaps dramatically it could have been at the beginning so we were aware throughout or at the end... I dunno, perhaps that's just me.
This film is worth seeing, not only because of Ann O'Dowd performance which needs more yelling about, but because it prompts a reaction; a vicious gut reaction as your stomach turns at the events taking place. Of course the fact that it is true to events is even more of a reason to see, if only to see how twisted the world can be. It's intriguing, it's riveting and you literally can't not watch it, you will want to see how it ends. Most importantly it's something which illicits a response, no matter whether it's disgust, horror, disbelief, even if you thought it was laughable it's still something, in that sense it's a movie you have to see. Of course as far as entertainment goes, if you like your entertainment showing a mirror to reality, probably not a good example, but still intriguing and shocking. Something to think about at least.
Monday 4 February 2013
Nostalgia
Is it odd to find yourself in a different place in a different time, to find yourself hurtling into the past but maintaining your sense of self. I had a weird moment, it's ongoing, I'm sitting with my headphones in, music blaring, and I feel like I'm sitting in my bedroom back in 2006 when I was 16, but I know everything I know now, I'm just there... I know every word, I know every beat, I feel the thick air of my dusty bedroom around me, I just close my eyes and I'm there... There are posters on the ceiling of boys I fancy from bands I adore, there is an old flag for my home town's football team hanging behind me, price stickers from every DVD or CD I had bought with the money I earned at my weekend job adorn the dressing table by my bed, everything is a mess; I still have cuddly toys on my bed, every surface in my room is stacked with things I've either stolen or hoarded or DVDs or books or clothes, even the floor... I'm not wearing make up, I'm not dressed up, my hair is cropped shorter with layers, I'm not trying to be anything, I'm a blank canvas. But I open my eyes and I'm twenty two, I wear make up as a mask, I layer on eye-liner to make myself look different, because different is better than ordinary, I have rent to pay, bills, washing to sort out, a life to plan, a future to hurtle towards, I have battle wounds, I have regrets...
But hearing this music, I am that carefree idiot, I'm that person who was so uncertain of herself she didn't stop to ask who she was, she just kept chugging along happy without answers, happy to be a combination of qualities she figured other people wanted her to be, a blank page, an empty head. My crowning achievement; knowing every word to every song on these albums. See the dirty little secret was that before the shit hit the fan I was so boring, nothing happened to me until after I turned 17, before that I had nothing to define myself.; it was before life got hard, before things took a turn, before I started regretting things. God. Does it hurt that the lyrics now make more sense to me than they did before? Is it weird that this music probably means more now? Yeah it's weird... If you could go back and tell your sixteen yourself anything... Would you? I would tell myself to be more confident, I was always so uncertain, I never asserted myself, I was so clueless, I let people walk all over me. I've changed so much since then, I'm a completely different person, I have so many more flaws, I've made so many mistakes, and some days that puts me into a crippling depression, other days I wear my scars like trophies, because I will never be hurt like that again, I've learnt lessons. Because even through all of that I have come out of it something more if that makes sense, I might be a mess, I might be a disaster, I might be depressed, I might have a terrible reputation, I might be weird, unpredictable, emotional, unstable... but that's because something happened, I've changed, perhaps not for the better, but I'm more than I was. I made concious decisions, good or bad, I followed them through, I decided to go with what felt right consequences be damned, I'd never have done that at 16. I'll always yearn for those carefree days but sometimes I'm happy being the mess I am, even if that means I'm not exactly likeable, that makes me something more than a cipher, it makes me a person, a character, a reality, not a blank page. There is some good parts too, there must be, some people stick around. So odd as it sounds... Listening to music I loved as a teenager is more satisfying because the songs are about dissatisfaction with growing up, with romance, with strange beguiling emotions I'm only still figuring out myself, I'm a teenager at heart, I haven't got it figured it out yet. I could spend a lifetime wishing I was still carefree and hapless but I'm somewhat happy to know I've grown... Into a right old mass of contradictions, strange but true.
A funny thing about me, I'm having an intimate love affair with familiarity. It's ongoing, I've been more intimate and in love with familiarity than anything else I've ever known. Change is that devilish delight on a motorbike who frequently visits, I'm enchanted by it sometimes, other times I've horrified by the prospect. Most of the time I stick to what is familiar, what is safe, because I'm comfortable, and happy, and relaxed when I'm in a familiar environment. I will always circle back to the same music at the end of the day, the same songs, the same books, the same films, the same games, because I know them intimately and I love how they make me feel. At one point they were shiny and new but that time has gone, they have merged into my past and become things that were always there. As a child I always hated change, my parents will tell stories with hilarious regularity about my reactions to the new car, getting rid of the cots, decorating various rooms, new clothes... That's why when I'm listening to music not only am I transported to my past life, I'm also ridiculously at ease and happy...
Nostalgia will be the death of me.
Sunday 3 February 2013
On the Road - Again
This has literally taken me two months to write, I keep walking away from it uncertain exactly of what I want to say, not really being an expert in the Beat generation, literature/cinema, Jack Kerouac et al. The more I read around the subject the more my brain began to hurt, I haven't written any essays as such since university and that was about two years ago now... My history degree is gathering dust along with the rest of my potential. Anyways, I made a concious decision to try and make a comparison between the book and film of On the Road, yeah I finally read the book! Told you I was slow, life kept happening, I swear I'm going to read more from now on.* So this is the first time I've tried to be critical and look at two things at once, my reviews/reactions are descending into laziness, I'm not even commenting very much on the films I see now, I am literally just complaining about them, my thoughts are so mundane lately. My point being, this is going to be side-creasingly bad.
So I did a review of the latest (only) film adaptation of On the Road, the seminal novel by Jack Kerouac; only the film left a bad taste in my mouth which was tempered by a strong desire to read the book. So, it's only gone and taken me about... 3 months to get the book read and now I feel better equipped to comment on the film and on my feelings towards On the Road as a whole. To start, the book is a million times better, everyone who said it was unfilmable was undoubtedly right; go figure it was always going to be this way; I will keep referring to this point throughout this blog because nothing could be more true.
I'm going to get to the nitty gritty of things by just using headings and compartmentalising my thoughts on the film and book, the differences and the difficulties and how I felt about them now having read the book. I am, by no means, an expert on either, trust me, there is no pretension in my brain that I am expert about either source or about anything in particular, these are just my opinions.
They said it couldn't be done
In accordance to Wikipedia, source of all hearsay and unsubstantiated knowledge, apparently Kerouac would have loved to have filmed the book way back in 1957 with Marlon Brando taking the lead of Dean Moriarty and Kerouac himself playing Sal Paradise. This fell through as Brando didn't respond to the request and Kerouac's agent tried to play for too much money with the big studios. It would be Francis Ford Coppola who bought the rights to film in 1979 and attempted to produce the film several times over the preceding decades but the main issue would be the script, it was impossible to get the book condensed and confined to the big screen. So in the end the honour went to Walter Salles who also directed the early life story of Che Guevara and his travels around South America in the Motorcycle Diaries with critical success. It's worth noting that Francis Ford Coppola did actually produce this film, he's been trying to get this on the big screen since 1979, and this is the result of a long journey.**
Salles took his task extremely seriously going as far as taking the road trip Kerouac took himself and having discussions with Beatnik acquaintances of the author, he was trying to get the feel for the book. In doing so what Salles has produced is what he 'felt' the film should feel. It's impossible to acknowledge every person Sal Paradise meets on his travels, it would be extremely difficult to include all of the travels that take place in the film on the screen. Salles has a damn good go of it but by streamlining the book he seems to lose the impact of Sal Paradise and instead puts a magnifying glass on the importance on Dean Moriarty. His creative decisions with regards to where he pared the story down, where he felt to embellish, and how he presented the source material, I just didn't like, it just didn't work. A feeling is a hard thing to grasp, the sense of the beatnik generation is hard to condense into such a medium, and I don't think this film did it justice. It was a failed experiment, one doomed to the annals of history, it won't be remembered very well because it does not have the same impact as the book; it was a failed experiment.
Life of Paradise
My first impression when reading through the book was how little impact Dean has on the first part of the book, this describes Sal's first journey on the road and he spends several months travelling first to Denver then to San Francisco and then spends some time with a Mexican girl (Terry) around Los Angeles and spends some time living with her cotton picking and ingratiating himself with her family and way of life. This is streamlined in the film to Sal's solo adventure merely involving the section of time with Terry in the fields taking a moment to show the moment they have sex in front of her child. Perhaps it's just me but it definitely dulled the strength of Sal as a solo character not pinning too much of the focus on him. In my original blog post I moaned that the film was mostly about Dean and that Sal was merely a cipher, someone taking inspiration from Dean and feeding off his energy with no character or personality of his own, or least that was my sentiment. In the book there is a stronger feeling for who Sal is as a person, it doesn't go too deeply into his psyche but the fact that he travelled alone and spent a long time on the road alone without company is indicative of his independence and strength which is not wholly present in the film; for example his first trip alone is so small it doesn't make much of an impact apart from the fact that we notice Sal can actually get laid, unlike when Dean is around, he's a constant cock-block that boy. Well that's how I felt.
So in streamlining the book, especially in the first sections, Sal loses his strength as a character and as an anchor through the tale. Sam Riley does the best he can with what he's given but in fairness it's difficult to get a strong feel for who and Sal Paradise is when he's standing next to the blinding light that is Dean Moriarty. It's a shame because the story is supposed to be Sal's voice and although he can be heard throughout the film (voice-overs) it's difficult to know exactly what exactly his point is when the film is so intent on plumbing the mystery of his fellow player; this was a pressing concern for me at least. From reading the book it's clear On the Road is more Dean Moriarty's life and story more than anything else, and let's be fair Keroauc is as enamoured with Neal Cassady (Dean Moriarty's actual name) as anyone else and drew his inspiration from him, but it's essential to have an identifiable anchor through the chaos. The main part of the book is that it is written from Sal's perspective and by Jack Kerouac, it's his voice and it's written as such, we hear it throughout, and that's why you never lose your anchor through reading the book. It's funny actually because the book is written in something which Kerouac coined 'Spontaneous prose' which is a non-stop stream of conciousness, this was inspired by the rambling letters he used to receive from Neal Cassady, and thus the book is Kerouac's voice, strong and true throughout, with the occasional interjections from Cassady. What I'm basically getting at is that the film loses this feeling by just being a different medium, this adds fuel to the fact that the book is unfilmable as it loses it's essence by being transferred to the screen, it somewhat loses it's voice.
What to do about Mary Lou
So something which surprised and irritated me throughout the reading of the book and recalling the film was the insistent inclusion of Kristen Stewart, her character Mary Lou is barely in the book! She plays a large part in the film appearing frequently and making much more of an impact than the Mary Lou of the page, there is also the inclusion of her actually having sex with Sal Paradise which does not take place in the book but seems but something the film insists on building up to. Lest we forget that Kirsten Dunst plays Dean Moriarity's second wife Camille, in a significantly smaller part, even though Camille is somewhat more of a constant in Dean's life than his erstwhile wife, and his third wife, Inez, is not even alluded to in the film.*** I suppose it's fair to say that Kristen Stewart is providing a draw for people, and for the film to work we needed a familiar female anchor to keep us entertained, but to be honest, the way they used Kristen Stewart in the film, and briefly poor Kirsten Dunst, just seems unjustified. Plus the film seemed inclined to have both of Dean's wives have an affection for Sal, which is not alluded to in the book.**** It's apparent that because Mary Lou on a couple of occasions travels with the chaps (Camille is stationery), it's useful for her to be used more liberally as she is the female companion for the boys, plus Kristen Stewart can't be in a film without a love triangle it would seem.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate Kristen Stewart, I find her attitude to life somewhat bewildering, she has grown up in the film industry and from what I've seen of her seems to learn by doing in all aspects of her life it would seem. I find her vacant expressions somewhat endearing, she's not a classic beauty, there appears to be more going on under the surface, she can't convey massively complex emotions but you get a vague idea of how she feels, she is a mystery... This doesn't fit with her character as much, Mary Lou is supposed to be wild insane lusty piece of ass, she's explosive, young and impulsive*****, and to Kristen Stewart's credit she gives it her best try to be as much of a fire cracker as the youthful and crazy Mary Lou but that's not where Stewart's talent's lie as an actress; I want to say Stewart is more subtle or withdrawn, but to be honest I'm not sure where her strengths lie, this ain't it. She's simply not the girl that Dean Moriarty would drag along with him on his wild adventures, she has a good go of dancing like a loon, she's happy to get her kit off, but she's not Mary Lou; which begs the question why she is shoe-horned into the film more than anyone would deem necessary. It's not her role, she's sweet, she tried, but she's has neither the charisma, nor the raw energy to play such a character. Let's be perfectly honest, her less than sparkling performance is not the worst bit about this film, in fact in the past year I've seen much worse, but it's a pain.
Drugs, Sex and Alcohol
Let me get one thing straight, in my original review of the film I sighed and rolled my eyes about there being a lot of drug taking/sex etc. After reading the book, there's a fair bit of it in there, but it's mostly alluded to, mentioned in passing, it's never thrown in your face. In the film there is a lot of sex. Sure it was a big part of the culture, everyone does it, it's totally natural, especially when you're getting high, and you know everyone is touching each other with their minds and their hands... Steve Buscemi having sex with Dean was a bit odd all things considered, but in the book it's just briefly alluded to but it's pretty clear nothing of the sort happened, there is already gay sex earlier in the film, it seemed a bit pointless, more it gave Steve Buscemi something to do... There is also the aborted threesome in the book but we get in painful detail on screen; it's also consistently noted that Dean is having lots of sex and poor Sal not getting as much.
I've done a bit of reading around the subject and learnt that the character of Carlo Marx was actually the Beatnik poet Allen Ginsberg who had a strong love and affection for Neal Cassady. This is touched upon in the book but in the film it's expressly shown that Dean and Carlo had an intimate as well as intellectual relationship. This isn't expressed in the book but Carolyn Cassady apparently walked in on a threesome between Neal Cassady, his wife at the time LuAnn and Allen Ginsberg. So the film took liberties with it's outside knowledge by expounding on the fact that Dean and Carlo (Neal Cassady and Allen Ginsberg) had their own love affair on top of all the rest of Dean's shenanigans. So who am I to judge that there is too much sexy time in the film? They were clearly at it all the time, it wasn't something that was uncommon. Actually damnit, I'll put my foot down, I'm all for a bit of sexy time, in fact sometimes it can be quite, dare I say titillating, but I was not titillated! I didn't actually care about all the rampant sex, and this is something the film fails miserably at, getting me to actually care a tiny bit about why they at it so much... (which I will further discuss in my next point - I'll stop ranting soon, promise.)
Feeling a Moment
The book is based around the Beat Generation, the Beat Generation were all striving for something more than the humdrum existence handed down to them by the previous generation. I have no clue to be perfectly honest, but the energy, the excitement, the exuberance and thrill of it all is contagious and this is where On the Road the cinematic experience falls flat. Everything about it is pleasant to observe, the actors are attractive, the scenery is beautiful, the nostalgia of the 50s all has a nice sheen to it; nothing jumps out, nothing is electric, nothing is new, nothing is exciting... It was all a bit deflating in comparison to the book which was new thrilling and unique, even though it's a damn old book... I genuinely liked the book, it makes me want to read more amazing books! The film doesn't do anything new, it is another film adaptation which doesn't live up to the source material, therefore it's about as standard as anything else you can claim is a known disappointment. It all goes back to the fact that the book is unfilmable, in it's scope, in it's larger than life characters, the messiness of reality, the fact that it creates a feeling which can't be translated to the screen, especially when the words work so well at speaking from the page so clearly and succinctly. I know Salles' aim was to create more the feeling of the book from his own research but it just didn't work, and that's why it was a failed experiment.
I stand by my original opinion, Garrett Hedlund was a revelation, sure they didn't chop the end of his thumb off, they didn't bring him quite down to the same desperate level as the Dean Moriarty of the page; he wasn't nearly as worn down and lost, but he was still a sparkling devilishly attractive representation of what Neal Cassady stood for. He was good, in fact my favourite part of the film, from my addled memory, so it's not all bad! This has taken me so long to write I can't remember exactly what my intention was... I think I wanted to make a critical comparison, but as always I've rambled, bit of my own stream of conciousness right here.
I think I'll conclude it with something I've said about seven times now. It's impossible to make a film of On the Road, why? Because you can't capture the essence of the book on film in an arbitrary time limit, it can't be confined by the constraints of Hollywood and it shouldn't be. On the Road is a seminal book, an amazing book, it is unfilmable and should be left as a significant book instead of a sub-par film. I could say that about a lot of books I suppose... Once I've read some more books and watched the films I reckon I'll try some more comparative blogs, we'll see.
Next time: Life of Pi.
* See: Empty Promises.
** Shame.
*** Which is a shame because I thought it sweet that Inez and Camille seemed to be in contact and alked to each other about Dean frequently.
****Although in reality, Carolyn Cassady whom Camille was based on, did have an ongoing affair with Jack Kerouac for several years whilst he lived with Neal and and his wife during the 50s, this was something Neal actually encouraged... It's not mentioned in On the Road though. I find it odd that their attraction is briefly alluded to in the film but it's jettisoned for some Mary Lou love instead. More to the point, Dean sure knows how to pick his women. Carolyn being one of the more interesting, I've procured a copy of her autobiographical Off the Road: Twenty Years with Cassady, Kerouac, and Ginsberg, should be an interesting read to say the least. Y'know, if I get round to it...
*****Alright, apparently if Stewart's reputation is anything to go by, she too is a lusty piece of ass, she's also supposed to be young and impulsive, not that I've seen any evidence of it, even in those scandalous photos, she looked... bored? Call me crazy but I can't imagine her being the massively lusty type. Perhaps it's just her face but she just doesn't seem to scream firecracker.
So I did a review of the latest (only) film adaptation of On the Road, the seminal novel by Jack Kerouac; only the film left a bad taste in my mouth which was tempered by a strong desire to read the book. So, it's only gone and taken me about... 3 months to get the book read and now I feel better equipped to comment on the film and on my feelings towards On the Road as a whole. To start, the book is a million times better, everyone who said it was unfilmable was undoubtedly right; go figure it was always going to be this way; I will keep referring to this point throughout this blog because nothing could be more true.
I'm going to get to the nitty gritty of things by just using headings and compartmentalising my thoughts on the film and book, the differences and the difficulties and how I felt about them now having read the book. I am, by no means, an expert on either, trust me, there is no pretension in my brain that I am expert about either source or about anything in particular, these are just my opinions.
They said it couldn't be done
In accordance to Wikipedia, source of all hearsay and unsubstantiated knowledge, apparently Kerouac would have loved to have filmed the book way back in 1957 with Marlon Brando taking the lead of Dean Moriarty and Kerouac himself playing Sal Paradise. This fell through as Brando didn't respond to the request and Kerouac's agent tried to play for too much money with the big studios. It would be Francis Ford Coppola who bought the rights to film in 1979 and attempted to produce the film several times over the preceding decades but the main issue would be the script, it was impossible to get the book condensed and confined to the big screen. So in the end the honour went to Walter Salles who also directed the early life story of Che Guevara and his travels around South America in the Motorcycle Diaries with critical success. It's worth noting that Francis Ford Coppola did actually produce this film, he's been trying to get this on the big screen since 1979, and this is the result of a long journey.**
Salles took his task extremely seriously going as far as taking the road trip Kerouac took himself and having discussions with Beatnik acquaintances of the author, he was trying to get the feel for the book. In doing so what Salles has produced is what he 'felt' the film should feel. It's impossible to acknowledge every person Sal Paradise meets on his travels, it would be extremely difficult to include all of the travels that take place in the film on the screen. Salles has a damn good go of it but by streamlining the book he seems to lose the impact of Sal Paradise and instead puts a magnifying glass on the importance on Dean Moriarty. His creative decisions with regards to where he pared the story down, where he felt to embellish, and how he presented the source material, I just didn't like, it just didn't work. A feeling is a hard thing to grasp, the sense of the beatnik generation is hard to condense into such a medium, and I don't think this film did it justice. It was a failed experiment, one doomed to the annals of history, it won't be remembered very well because it does not have the same impact as the book; it was a failed experiment.
Life of Paradise
My first impression when reading through the book was how little impact Dean has on the first part of the book, this describes Sal's first journey on the road and he spends several months travelling first to Denver then to San Francisco and then spends some time with a Mexican girl (Terry) around Los Angeles and spends some time living with her cotton picking and ingratiating himself with her family and way of life. This is streamlined in the film to Sal's solo adventure merely involving the section of time with Terry in the fields taking a moment to show the moment they have sex in front of her child. Perhaps it's just me but it definitely dulled the strength of Sal as a solo character not pinning too much of the focus on him. In my original blog post I moaned that the film was mostly about Dean and that Sal was merely a cipher, someone taking inspiration from Dean and feeding off his energy with no character or personality of his own, or least that was my sentiment. In the book there is a stronger feeling for who Sal is as a person, it doesn't go too deeply into his psyche but the fact that he travelled alone and spent a long time on the road alone without company is indicative of his independence and strength which is not wholly present in the film; for example his first trip alone is so small it doesn't make much of an impact apart from the fact that we notice Sal can actually get laid, unlike when Dean is around, he's a constant cock-block that boy. Well that's how I felt.
So in streamlining the book, especially in the first sections, Sal loses his strength as a character and as an anchor through the tale. Sam Riley does the best he can with what he's given but in fairness it's difficult to get a strong feel for who and Sal Paradise is when he's standing next to the blinding light that is Dean Moriarty. It's a shame because the story is supposed to be Sal's voice and although he can be heard throughout the film (voice-overs) it's difficult to know exactly what exactly his point is when the film is so intent on plumbing the mystery of his fellow player; this was a pressing concern for me at least. From reading the book it's clear On the Road is more Dean Moriarty's life and story more than anything else, and let's be fair Keroauc is as enamoured with Neal Cassady (Dean Moriarty's actual name) as anyone else and drew his inspiration from him, but it's essential to have an identifiable anchor through the chaos. The main part of the book is that it is written from Sal's perspective and by Jack Kerouac, it's his voice and it's written as such, we hear it throughout, and that's why you never lose your anchor through reading the book. It's funny actually because the book is written in something which Kerouac coined 'Spontaneous prose' which is a non-stop stream of conciousness, this was inspired by the rambling letters he used to receive from Neal Cassady, and thus the book is Kerouac's voice, strong and true throughout, with the occasional interjections from Cassady. What I'm basically getting at is that the film loses this feeling by just being a different medium, this adds fuel to the fact that the book is unfilmable as it loses it's essence by being transferred to the screen, it somewhat loses it's voice.
What to do about Mary Lou
So something which surprised and irritated me throughout the reading of the book and recalling the film was the insistent inclusion of Kristen Stewart, her character Mary Lou is barely in the book! She plays a large part in the film appearing frequently and making much more of an impact than the Mary Lou of the page, there is also the inclusion of her actually having sex with Sal Paradise which does not take place in the book but seems but something the film insists on building up to. Lest we forget that Kirsten Dunst plays Dean Moriarity's second wife Camille, in a significantly smaller part, even though Camille is somewhat more of a constant in Dean's life than his erstwhile wife, and his third wife, Inez, is not even alluded to in the film.*** I suppose it's fair to say that Kristen Stewart is providing a draw for people, and for the film to work we needed a familiar female anchor to keep us entertained, but to be honest, the way they used Kristen Stewart in the film, and briefly poor Kirsten Dunst, just seems unjustified. Plus the film seemed inclined to have both of Dean's wives have an affection for Sal, which is not alluded to in the book.**** It's apparent that because Mary Lou on a couple of occasions travels with the chaps (Camille is stationery), it's useful for her to be used more liberally as she is the female companion for the boys, plus Kristen Stewart can't be in a film without a love triangle it would seem.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate Kristen Stewart, I find her attitude to life somewhat bewildering, she has grown up in the film industry and from what I've seen of her seems to learn by doing in all aspects of her life it would seem. I find her vacant expressions somewhat endearing, she's not a classic beauty, there appears to be more going on under the surface, she can't convey massively complex emotions but you get a vague idea of how she feels, she is a mystery... This doesn't fit with her character as much, Mary Lou is supposed to be wild insane lusty piece of ass, she's explosive, young and impulsive*****, and to Kristen Stewart's credit she gives it her best try to be as much of a fire cracker as the youthful and crazy Mary Lou but that's not where Stewart's talent's lie as an actress; I want to say Stewart is more subtle or withdrawn, but to be honest I'm not sure where her strengths lie, this ain't it. She's simply not the girl that Dean Moriarty would drag along with him on his wild adventures, she has a good go of dancing like a loon, she's happy to get her kit off, but she's not Mary Lou; which begs the question why she is shoe-horned into the film more than anyone would deem necessary. It's not her role, she's sweet, she tried, but she's has neither the charisma, nor the raw energy to play such a character. Let's be perfectly honest, her less than sparkling performance is not the worst bit about this film, in fact in the past year I've seen much worse, but it's a pain.
Drugs, Sex and Alcohol
Let me get one thing straight, in my original review of the film I sighed and rolled my eyes about there being a lot of drug taking/sex etc. After reading the book, there's a fair bit of it in there, but it's mostly alluded to, mentioned in passing, it's never thrown in your face. In the film there is a lot of sex. Sure it was a big part of the culture, everyone does it, it's totally natural, especially when you're getting high, and you know everyone is touching each other with their minds and their hands... Steve Buscemi having sex with Dean was a bit odd all things considered, but in the book it's just briefly alluded to but it's pretty clear nothing of the sort happened, there is already gay sex earlier in the film, it seemed a bit pointless, more it gave Steve Buscemi something to do... There is also the aborted threesome in the book but we get in painful detail on screen; it's also consistently noted that Dean is having lots of sex and poor Sal not getting as much.
I've done a bit of reading around the subject and learnt that the character of Carlo Marx was actually the Beatnik poet Allen Ginsberg who had a strong love and affection for Neal Cassady. This is touched upon in the book but in the film it's expressly shown that Dean and Carlo had an intimate as well as intellectual relationship. This isn't expressed in the book but Carolyn Cassady apparently walked in on a threesome between Neal Cassady, his wife at the time LuAnn and Allen Ginsberg. So the film took liberties with it's outside knowledge by expounding on the fact that Dean and Carlo (Neal Cassady and Allen Ginsberg) had their own love affair on top of all the rest of Dean's shenanigans. So who am I to judge that there is too much sexy time in the film? They were clearly at it all the time, it wasn't something that was uncommon. Actually damnit, I'll put my foot down, I'm all for a bit of sexy time, in fact sometimes it can be quite, dare I say titillating, but I was not titillated! I didn't actually care about all the rampant sex, and this is something the film fails miserably at, getting me to actually care a tiny bit about why they at it so much... (which I will further discuss in my next point - I'll stop ranting soon, promise.)
Feeling a Moment
The book is based around the Beat Generation, the Beat Generation were all striving for something more than the humdrum existence handed down to them by the previous generation. I have no clue to be perfectly honest, but the energy, the excitement, the exuberance and thrill of it all is contagious and this is where On the Road the cinematic experience falls flat. Everything about it is pleasant to observe, the actors are attractive, the scenery is beautiful, the nostalgia of the 50s all has a nice sheen to it; nothing jumps out, nothing is electric, nothing is new, nothing is exciting... It was all a bit deflating in comparison to the book which was new thrilling and unique, even though it's a damn old book... I genuinely liked the book, it makes me want to read more amazing books! The film doesn't do anything new, it is another film adaptation which doesn't live up to the source material, therefore it's about as standard as anything else you can claim is a known disappointment. It all goes back to the fact that the book is unfilmable, in it's scope, in it's larger than life characters, the messiness of reality, the fact that it creates a feeling which can't be translated to the screen, especially when the words work so well at speaking from the page so clearly and succinctly. I know Salles' aim was to create more the feeling of the book from his own research but it just didn't work, and that's why it was a failed experiment.
I stand by my original opinion, Garrett Hedlund was a revelation, sure they didn't chop the end of his thumb off, they didn't bring him quite down to the same desperate level as the Dean Moriarty of the page; he wasn't nearly as worn down and lost, but he was still a sparkling devilishly attractive representation of what Neal Cassady stood for. He was good, in fact my favourite part of the film, from my addled memory, so it's not all bad! This has taken me so long to write I can't remember exactly what my intention was... I think I wanted to make a critical comparison, but as always I've rambled, bit of my own stream of conciousness right here.
I think I'll conclude it with something I've said about seven times now. It's impossible to make a film of On the Road, why? Because you can't capture the essence of the book on film in an arbitrary time limit, it can't be confined by the constraints of Hollywood and it shouldn't be. On the Road is a seminal book, an amazing book, it is unfilmable and should be left as a significant book instead of a sub-par film. I could say that about a lot of books I suppose... Once I've read some more books and watched the films I reckon I'll try some more comparative blogs, we'll see.
Next time: Life of Pi.
* See: Empty Promises.
** Shame.
*** Which is a shame because I thought it sweet that Inez and Camille seemed to be in contact and alked to each other about Dean frequently.
****Although in reality, Carolyn Cassady whom Camille was based on, did have an ongoing affair with Jack Kerouac for several years whilst he lived with Neal and and his wife during the 50s, this was something Neal actually encouraged... It's not mentioned in On the Road though. I find it odd that their attraction is briefly alluded to in the film but it's jettisoned for some Mary Lou love instead. More to the point, Dean sure knows how to pick his women. Carolyn being one of the more interesting, I've procured a copy of her autobiographical Off the Road: Twenty Years with Cassady, Kerouac, and Ginsberg, should be an interesting read to say the least. Y'know, if I get round to it...
*****Alright, apparently if Stewart's reputation is anything to go by, she too is a lusty piece of ass, she's also supposed to be young and impulsive, not that I've seen any evidence of it, even in those scandalous photos, she looked... bored? Call me crazy but I can't imagine her being the massively lusty type. Perhaps it's just her face but she just doesn't seem to scream firecracker.
Friday 1 February 2013
Lincoln
Insert coherent thought here.
So in my endless endeavour to attempt to see the list of Best Film nominations for the Academy Awards 2013, I felt it would be appropriate to see the film that had garnered the most overall nominations, in what would seem every award ceremony. To be honest I'm not sure it's quite going to live up to the hype just yet, most of the awards it has scooped so far are based around the players within the film, and Spielberg has received some pats on the back, but otherwise, the hype seems highly unjustified. Why? Because this is a film consciously aware of it's purpose, that purpose being to attract critical acclaim. It's not doing anything daring, new, or remotely unique, in fact it is criminally dull, it seems to be specifically designed to be critically admired, it's not a film that inspires love, affection or joy. The joke is, we're all supposed to be thrilled that the 13th amendment is passed, and the war is finished, let's all have a party! But wait! We knew that's what happened, it's history! And we all know Lincoln would later get shot at a trip to the theatre!
What was fun about this film aside from James Spader? Gawd did that guy gain weight or what? Please someone tell me it's fat suit... Apart from the slight comic relief characters trying to bribe and force the weak links of the Democrat party (the opposing party) to vote for the amendment, spotting male actors from all over the shop. The rest of this review might revolve around my listing and pointing out all the guys I recognised!
Daniel Day Lewis - Lincoln!!! He deserves everytthing he gets, he was spectacular, from his posture, to his voice, to his all around demeanour, to his strength and charisma and his vulnerability... He was bloody marvellous. If he walks away with the Oscar I'll be happy, although deep down I would prefer Hugh Jackman took it...
David Strathairn - He's the secretary of state here, instantly recognisable for me and perfect foil for Lincoln to bounce ideas off and do his bidding. He was ineffable in Goodnight and Good Luck playing Edward R Murrow, everything he turns his hand to he throws extra sheen on. He's just great, and I perked up every time I saw him.
Tommy Lee Jones - Nominated for accolades for being an all around curmudgeonly bad ass in this film. Taking himself far too seriously, being an all around conflicted character, yet a force for good! Not much to say other than I would rate other performances in his category as better, that is all. He does get a nice tender moment at the end with his wife and everyone in the cinema kind of smiled at that, which was nice. Otherwise, I would shrug my shoulders at him.
Sally Field - Right here's the honest to god thing. I hate Sally Field, she played Nurse Abby's mum in ER and she was just a MASSIVE pain in the bum. Perhaps it was because I was merely a preteen when obsessively watching that show... Perhaps it was just my Mum complaining every time she was on screen... She irritates me. In this film, she plays upon insanity, fragility, she has her spiky thrilling moments too... I just don't like her...
Joseph Gordon-Levitt - They gave him nothing! He's playing Lincoln's eldest son, he wants to enlist, he's determined, he's going to enlist, don't you try and stop me ma, don't you try and stop me pa! I know it was a bit part but it was just so... Deflating. Sally Field gets to throw herself around having a tantrum, JGL almost gets the same treatment just without the chance to do anything more to prove himself! He gets no closure, he joins the army, the war ends! He's just there, he's just set dressing half the time...
Lee Pace - Is it wrong every time he was on screen my heart melted a little. Even with his ridiculous hair, and the blatant fact he opposed to amendment, I still loved him. It was awesome... I was so happy! I fail to see what else there is to say...
The Troublesome Trio - James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes - Alright so the middle one I had to look up, but I instantly recognised James Spader (who wouldn't?) and John Hawkes (again, who wouldn't? Winter's Bone, Martha Marcy May Marlene) These guys were on a mission to get the opposition to vote for the amendment in order to ascertain the two thirds majority in order for it get passed through the House of Representatives. Simples? No? No. Well out of them all James Spader gets to have the most fun, the other two are merely just reigning him in or making lists or getting drunk. Definitely the most fun to be had in the film, plus I really, sincerely hope, James Spader hadn't put on that weight for real, it was depressing to observe...
David Costabile - Mel's Husband in the Flight of the Conchords - I totally recognised him straight away! He wrote the amendment I think? I dunno... He was there! He was good!
Adam Driver - Adam from Girls, totes keeping up the HBO theme here. He has a tiny bit scene where he has to send a message for the president and Lincoln describes his only knowledge of Euclid's mathematics to him and some other young dude. My main reaction to the scene was, OMG IT'S ADAM and sat gawp mouthed for a little while. It was fun. He doesn't look right without the facial hair, and in a film where there is a searing abundance of it, I was surprised, but I suppose he was young in his scene.
Right so, that's all I recognised, or all I can remember. I tried desperately to write something of note but this is all I got. This film was boring! It was expensive! Every single scene had the smoke machines working at full blast, outside, inside, everywhere was just smoky! The whole film had a filtered feel to it, the production value was through the roof but I was more concerned that it just seemed the air was thick was smoke. I know all the lamps and candles back then had smoke coming off them, I know outside.... Fog, and smoke from the war, but was it just me that thought everything was really smoky? Just me? Is it apparent I've literally got nothing interesting to say about this film.
I know more about American history than I do British sometimes, I have a great affection for it, I know there is a great pride for great men in history. But this was as close to reading a mind-numblingly dull book about the events as I could think, there were parts that piqued my interest but most of it felt like a tough old slog, and even though there was a somewhat happy ending, it just fell flat. It's hard to be patriotic for a country I am not from, I loved the King's Speech because it was a page out of our history, an example of the stiff British upper lip, powering through with dignity and panache at the most tough of times. If this is an American example of powering through adversity and showing us how it's done in a tough page of history, then I applaud them, but I felt nothing. No pride, no joy, no relief, because I know the struggles of African-Americans continued for far too long after, but I digress.
I suppose it doesn't matter, I've seen it now. It can be ticked off my list. I think if you have any inclination to see this film, allow me to dissuade you, watching the trailers literally gives you everything you need to know without the bum sores and cinematic yawning experiences. It's been ages since I've sat through a film and felt my life trickling away...
So in my endless endeavour to attempt to see the list of Best Film nominations for the Academy Awards 2013, I felt it would be appropriate to see the film that had garnered the most overall nominations, in what would seem every award ceremony. To be honest I'm not sure it's quite going to live up to the hype just yet, most of the awards it has scooped so far are based around the players within the film, and Spielberg has received some pats on the back, but otherwise, the hype seems highly unjustified. Why? Because this is a film consciously aware of it's purpose, that purpose being to attract critical acclaim. It's not doing anything daring, new, or remotely unique, in fact it is criminally dull, it seems to be specifically designed to be critically admired, it's not a film that inspires love, affection or joy. The joke is, we're all supposed to be thrilled that the 13th amendment is passed, and the war is finished, let's all have a party! But wait! We knew that's what happened, it's history! And we all know Lincoln would later get shot at a trip to the theatre!
What was fun about this film aside from James Spader? Gawd did that guy gain weight or what? Please someone tell me it's fat suit... Apart from the slight comic relief characters trying to bribe and force the weak links of the Democrat party (the opposing party) to vote for the amendment, spotting male actors from all over the shop. The rest of this review might revolve around my listing and pointing out all the guys I recognised!
Daniel Day Lewis - Lincoln!!! He deserves everytthing he gets, he was spectacular, from his posture, to his voice, to his all around demeanour, to his strength and charisma and his vulnerability... He was bloody marvellous. If he walks away with the Oscar I'll be happy, although deep down I would prefer Hugh Jackman took it...
David Strathairn - He's the secretary of state here, instantly recognisable for me and perfect foil for Lincoln to bounce ideas off and do his bidding. He was ineffable in Goodnight and Good Luck playing Edward R Murrow, everything he turns his hand to he throws extra sheen on. He's just great, and I perked up every time I saw him.
Tommy Lee Jones - Nominated for accolades for being an all around curmudgeonly bad ass in this film. Taking himself far too seriously, being an all around conflicted character, yet a force for good! Not much to say other than I would rate other performances in his category as better, that is all. He does get a nice tender moment at the end with his wife and everyone in the cinema kind of smiled at that, which was nice. Otherwise, I would shrug my shoulders at him.
Sally Field - Right here's the honest to god thing. I hate Sally Field, she played Nurse Abby's mum in ER and she was just a MASSIVE pain in the bum. Perhaps it was because I was merely a preteen when obsessively watching that show... Perhaps it was just my Mum complaining every time she was on screen... She irritates me. In this film, she plays upon insanity, fragility, she has her spiky thrilling moments too... I just don't like her...
Joseph Gordon-Levitt - They gave him nothing! He's playing Lincoln's eldest son, he wants to enlist, he's determined, he's going to enlist, don't you try and stop me ma, don't you try and stop me pa! I know it was a bit part but it was just so... Deflating. Sally Field gets to throw herself around having a tantrum, JGL almost gets the same treatment just without the chance to do anything more to prove himself! He gets no closure, he joins the army, the war ends! He's just there, he's just set dressing half the time...
Lee Pace - Is it wrong every time he was on screen my heart melted a little. Even with his ridiculous hair, and the blatant fact he opposed to amendment, I still loved him. It was awesome... I was so happy! I fail to see what else there is to say...
The Troublesome Trio - James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes - Alright so the middle one I had to look up, but I instantly recognised James Spader (who wouldn't?) and John Hawkes (again, who wouldn't? Winter's Bone, Martha Marcy May Marlene) These guys were on a mission to get the opposition to vote for the amendment in order to ascertain the two thirds majority in order for it get passed through the House of Representatives. Simples? No? No. Well out of them all James Spader gets to have the most fun, the other two are merely just reigning him in or making lists or getting drunk. Definitely the most fun to be had in the film, plus I really, sincerely hope, James Spader hadn't put on that weight for real, it was depressing to observe...
David Costabile - Mel's Husband in the Flight of the Conchords - I totally recognised him straight away! He wrote the amendment I think? I dunno... He was there! He was good!
Adam Driver - Adam from Girls, totes keeping up the HBO theme here. He has a tiny bit scene where he has to send a message for the president and Lincoln describes his only knowledge of Euclid's mathematics to him and some other young dude. My main reaction to the scene was, OMG IT'S ADAM and sat gawp mouthed for a little while. It was fun. He doesn't look right without the facial hair, and in a film where there is a searing abundance of it, I was surprised, but I suppose he was young in his scene.
Right so, that's all I recognised, or all I can remember. I tried desperately to write something of note but this is all I got. This film was boring! It was expensive! Every single scene had the smoke machines working at full blast, outside, inside, everywhere was just smoky! The whole film had a filtered feel to it, the production value was through the roof but I was more concerned that it just seemed the air was thick was smoke. I know all the lamps and candles back then had smoke coming off them, I know outside.... Fog, and smoke from the war, but was it just me that thought everything was really smoky? Just me? Is it apparent I've literally got nothing interesting to say about this film.
I know more about American history than I do British sometimes, I have a great affection for it, I know there is a great pride for great men in history. But this was as close to reading a mind-numblingly dull book about the events as I could think, there were parts that piqued my interest but most of it felt like a tough old slog, and even though there was a somewhat happy ending, it just fell flat. It's hard to be patriotic for a country I am not from, I loved the King's Speech because it was a page out of our history, an example of the stiff British upper lip, powering through with dignity and panache at the most tough of times. If this is an American example of powering through adversity and showing us how it's done in a tough page of history, then I applaud them, but I felt nothing. No pride, no joy, no relief, because I know the struggles of African-Americans continued for far too long after, but I digress.
I suppose it doesn't matter, I've seen it now. It can be ticked off my list. I think if you have any inclination to see this film, allow me to dissuade you, watching the trailers literally gives you everything you need to know without the bum sores and cinematic yawning experiences. It's been ages since I've sat through a film and felt my life trickling away...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)