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...
Showing posts with label oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oscars. Show all posts
Friday, 1 February 2013
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Django Unchained
This wasn't something I was fully intending to see but was dragged by my boyfriend, I made him sit through Les Miserables so I suppose it was only fair. When my boyfriend groaned that my musical odyssey of sad people was too long my immediate response was that this film could have ended half an hour earlier than it did. So that was my first response... To be honest that was my only real complaint, it was a decent film. It wasn't a bad film; and by using the word bad in a statement of course that casts a dark shadow on my opinion as I'm not exactly saying it was good. I preferred Michael Fassbender, ahem, Inglorious Basterds, overall there's just a lot less going on, the story is so thin in comparison, but that's my opinion on it. The story was bit too straightforward, predictable almost, but overall flat, in comparison to the sweeping and tightly scripted Inglorious Basterds. It seems like Tarantino is having a bit more fun here, what you have is a decent fun film but it's just on the wrong side of flabby.
We all get a good old laugh at our modern sensibilities being trotted about by Christoph Waltz's character as he engages with the racist southern America, we all have a jolly good laugh at people using the 'N' word, and the culture shock of seeing a free African-American dressed as little boy blue whipping some arsehole white chaps. In fact the film mines most of it's laughs out of the inherent racism of the past*, and how fun it is to watch people getting shot, it's all tomato ketchup you know? It's obvious it's fake but it's so ostentatiously fake that it doesn't even pretend to be anything less, the people can roll around and scream on the floor but it's so obviously fake, it's all just a laugh, or perhaps we really have become desensitised to violence in cinema, or perhaps Tarantino films... Apart from the hilarity mined from that, the film isn't actually all that funny, jokes about chaps with bags on their heads aside. It's humorous but it's not laugh out loud hilarious, although Foxx's little boy blue outfit, will be forever a fun visual gag, that's probably just me...
So the story is about Django (the D is silent - although hearing a white man screaming d-jango whilst in the throes of death was a humorous aside.) and the Colonel, wait... I'm not sure I can remember his name now... Anyways it's Christoph Waltz and he plays the Colonel, the Colonel is a bounty hunter who happens upon DJ-ango, and enlists his help to find his latest quarry, he thus sets him free and assists him in finding his wife Broomhilda who has been bought by Leonardo DiCaprio (that man will never outgrow those baby blues... and thus will never be taken seriously... poor man...) thus they go on a mish to save Broomhilda. The pacing is pretty terrible, we have the set up, we have the bounty hunting, we spend an age at DiCaprio's house and then there is the inevitable bloodbath but then the film doesn't end there, we get the revenge sequence and we see how DJ-Jangles has grown. It just all runs on from itself, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but hey that's just me.
The performances are as always fun to observe, Jamie Foxx plays sullen wary angry Do-jangles, this plays of brilliantly against the delightfully cheerful Colonel played by Christoph Waltz. Jamie Foxx has been given the nod for a Best Actor Oscar and Waltz has walked away with the Golden Globe for his performance, so good times all around. Leonardo is once again left in the cold, he is working extremely hard to be fun and menacing and all that jazz that comes with rich evil white man, but he's about as menacing as a puppy. Samuel Jackson takes a fun turn as DiCaprio's head of house playing the wizened batty bugger by day, sly know-it-all confidante for his master.
So it's all a bit of fun, it's not laugh out loud hilarious, it's a bit long, it's fun but it's a bit over the top, the performances are reliable and excellent, it pokes fun at slavery with a knowing modern nod, it's ridiculous, it's fun, it's a massive budget romp and it's Tarantino enjoying himself. Props to him. With the Weinsteins essentially buying heavy weight attention it means Tarantino can earn more money to make more ridiculous historical rewrites and indulge in his greatest fantasies, I can't deny him that. I'm sure I've repeated myself way too much in this... There's only so much I can say! As I trawl through the Oscar Best Film list, it's becoming more apparent I've ran out fun ones... The rest is silence... Or just achingly dull, we'll have to wait and see.
*The KKK get a hilarious scene, biggest laugh of the film, blood free, whereby their white flour sacks have the eyeholes cut wrong in them, this causes some infighting amongst the angry mob, who can't decide whether to wear their hoods even though they impair their vision. If the whole film had this wit about this, well shocking humour whilst poking fun at the horrors of history, it probably would have been a bit better...
We all get a good old laugh at our modern sensibilities being trotted about by Christoph Waltz's character as he engages with the racist southern America, we all have a jolly good laugh at people using the 'N' word, and the culture shock of seeing a free African-American dressed as little boy blue whipping some arsehole white chaps. In fact the film mines most of it's laughs out of the inherent racism of the past*, and how fun it is to watch people getting shot, it's all tomato ketchup you know? It's obvious it's fake but it's so ostentatiously fake that it doesn't even pretend to be anything less, the people can roll around and scream on the floor but it's so obviously fake, it's all just a laugh, or perhaps we really have become desensitised to violence in cinema, or perhaps Tarantino films... Apart from the hilarity mined from that, the film isn't actually all that funny, jokes about chaps with bags on their heads aside. It's humorous but it's not laugh out loud hilarious, although Foxx's little boy blue outfit, will be forever a fun visual gag, that's probably just me...
So the story is about Django (the D is silent - although hearing a white man screaming d-jango whilst in the throes of death was a humorous aside.) and the Colonel, wait... I'm not sure I can remember his name now... Anyways it's Christoph Waltz and he plays the Colonel, the Colonel is a bounty hunter who happens upon DJ-ango, and enlists his help to find his latest quarry, he thus sets him free and assists him in finding his wife Broomhilda who has been bought by Leonardo DiCaprio (that man will never outgrow those baby blues... and thus will never be taken seriously... poor man...) thus they go on a mish to save Broomhilda. The pacing is pretty terrible, we have the set up, we have the bounty hunting, we spend an age at DiCaprio's house and then there is the inevitable bloodbath but then the film doesn't end there, we get the revenge sequence and we see how DJ-Jangles has grown. It just all runs on from itself, doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but hey that's just me.
The performances are as always fun to observe, Jamie Foxx plays sullen wary angry Do-jangles, this plays of brilliantly against the delightfully cheerful Colonel played by Christoph Waltz. Jamie Foxx has been given the nod for a Best Actor Oscar and Waltz has walked away with the Golden Globe for his performance, so good times all around. Leonardo is once again left in the cold, he is working extremely hard to be fun and menacing and all that jazz that comes with rich evil white man, but he's about as menacing as a puppy. Samuel Jackson takes a fun turn as DiCaprio's head of house playing the wizened batty bugger by day, sly know-it-all confidante for his master.
So it's all a bit of fun, it's not laugh out loud hilarious, it's a bit long, it's fun but it's a bit over the top, the performances are reliable and excellent, it pokes fun at slavery with a knowing modern nod, it's ridiculous, it's fun, it's a massive budget romp and it's Tarantino enjoying himself. Props to him. With the Weinsteins essentially buying heavy weight attention it means Tarantino can earn more money to make more ridiculous historical rewrites and indulge in his greatest fantasies, I can't deny him that. I'm sure I've repeated myself way too much in this... There's only so much I can say! As I trawl through the Oscar Best Film list, it's becoming more apparent I've ran out fun ones... The rest is silence... Or just achingly dull, we'll have to wait and see.
*The KKK get a hilarious scene, biggest laugh of the film, blood free, whereby their white flour sacks have the eyeholes cut wrong in them, this causes some infighting amongst the angry mob, who can't decide whether to wear their hoods even though they impair their vision. If the whole film had this wit about this, well shocking humour whilst poking fun at the horrors of history, it probably would have been a bit better...
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Les Miserables
This is literally just going to be a reaction piece, I have nothing of interest to say about this film/musical adaptation. So it's a standard to screen adaptation of the stage show of the well known and loved musical Les Miserables based on the book by Victor Hugo, it has lots of songs and intertwined characters, it's based around the life of Jean Valjean; he's awesome. I could go into detail about the technical side of things but I won't. All I have to talk about is the performances of the lead actors, otherwise, it was a competent glossy adaptation, as far as I can tell, Hooper used his go to move of focusing on the faces of the characters in order to make sure we know exactly how they are feeling. He also did something unique, he had the actors singing live and then added the orchestra in the editing room, so they more control over how they sang the music and could do it however they wished without any editing. It was an effective move for the most part, apart from Russell Crowe, he could have done with some tweaking unfortunately...
As someone who has a strong affection for musical theatre it's a bit odd that I have never actually seen Les Miserables; my mother told me, in her own words, 'It's shit.' So I had to sit through Jesus Christ Superstar instead which wasn't exactly to my taste but my mum liked it. So much to my surprise I thought Les Miserables was actually a bloody good musical, I really did enjoy it, even if it was extremely long and ... Miserable, but the songs are pretty damn good and the acting talent was on top form. I've had the song stuck in my head for the past few days since leaving the cinema, I've been on Spotify streaming the songs and imagining Hugh Jackman belting them out in my head, so, yeah, a combined affection for catchy overly emotional music and the fact I have quite an obsessive personality has lead me to claim it's the best thing ever! For today, or til the end of the week until the next greatest thing ever comes along... Musical music... Gawd... So good! If I could begin to belt out my emotions as strong and beautifully with a massive orchestra playing along to my straining lung, I would, every day!
Ok so I've written this paragraph about fifteen times, it's about Anne Hathaway, my conflicting emotions with regards to this woman know no bounds. I really intensely dislike her, she has an overinflated ego and tries to be quirky and self-deprecating but everything about her from her appearance to her demeanour scream that she has a very high self-esteem which must constantly be buffered by the adoration of people, the curse of being beautiful and talented and knowing it, oh how I weep for her, must be such a tough life. Bringing me to her performance as Fantine, Anne Hathaway has no idea what it would be like to alone and unloved, she's one of those people who has a network of people looking after her no matter how bad things get. This led me to just feel that her performance as Fantine was somewhat disingenuous, I didn't believe in it, I didn't invest in it and her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream was just... Not good. Don't get me wrong, the way she interpreted the song was honest, it should be song as if you can barely contain your hysteria, not like you're spitting your dummy out though. It's still a song, and thus should be treat with the belief that singing the song beautifully would perhaps bring some colour something good back into your life, there has to be a glimmer of hope in there, see Elaine Paige singing Memories... Maybe that's just me. Perhaps it was the fact that Anne Hathaway thought her performance was 'Eh.' in an interview, that's pretty much how I felt about it; but whereas she was being nonchalant and pretending to not give a shit about something she presumably put her heart and soul into (highly unlikely), I really just wasn't blown away. After her performance surprising for being for the best part of Dark Knight Rises, I was fully prepared to accept Anne Hathaway might once again prove me wrong and be excellent, she wasn't, what a shame.
So now that I've expunged that boiling bile, I can happily say everyone else, apart from Russell Crowe (sorry bud) were brilliant. The best part of the film? Hugh Jackman, obviously! I can't fault his performance; well a little, his accent veered off in several parts but the man carried the film and it was something to behold. It's actually extremely upsetting that Spotify doesn't have his version of Who Am I? As I could literally spend all day belting that one out... He deserves every award he is nominated for, including the Academy Award! Most people get away with just 'acting' and walk away with the award, Jackman sang through the entire film and pretty much carried it, he was astoundingly good. I know he has previous experience, he did star in Oklahoma in a previous life, but bloody hell he was perfection. I won't even mock the pretty lame make up... Or the fact his accent wasn't very consistent...
Another certain someone who not only surprised me but blew all my expectations out of the water was Eddie Redmayne, not sure why but I keep calling him Freddie in my head, that sounds way better... What was I talking about? I think it's a specific British actor talent to convey emotions with such skill that there is a barely concealed longing and grief with a twitch of an eyebrow. It's the Englishman way, the stiff upper lip, the buttoned up collar, never being able to fully express yourself because it's not good and proper, it's why English Literature is so damn popular, not only do they all wear those tight dresses and oppressive suits, they all never say how they truly feel, it's the old way of course, and in a musical it's not a commonplace thing as everyone just sings their feelings. My point is, the particularly good at doing this, you know, keeping it all buttoned up and hidden but managing to convey this with the merest facial expression, specifically Colin Firth, he's just the darn bestest at doing that. Anyways Eddie Redmayne falls into this category of British male actors with a talent of tweaking his facial expression to convey a wealth of barely concealed pain, see the BBC's TV Adaptation of Birdsong, he was so damn good in that. In this film he managed to make a strong impression on me, he's so beautiful and so damn talented and some have mentioned his singing capabilities weren't quite up to par in comparison to the rest of the cast, but I thought his rendition of Empty Chairs and Empty Tables was just heartbreaking, I felt it! This is probably where I reckon he did a much better job than Anne Hathaway because I preferred his performance and this has a lot to do with their contrasting versions of how to convey their misery. Sure his voice wasn't as strong as hers but his tears looked more real to me, his pain more honest, and I know he probably hasn't felt such pain and probably has the same ego problem as any actor does but it felt more real to me; go figure. Plus I could stare at that boy's beautiful face until the cows came home.
A brief shout out has to go to Samantha Barks who played Eponine, her version of On My Own was brilliant, plus I watched her on that stupid Over the Rainbow show on the BBC where they were looking for Dorothy for Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest stage production of The Wizard of Oz, and the loser each week got their red shoes taken off them and had to float away on a glittery moon... It was a bizarre television experience but my it was when I lived with my parents and I was somewhat forced to watch it on Saturday nights rather than... Doing stuff... She's really talented and I wish her all the best of luck in her future endeavours. That's all I've got...
Another thing to mention would probably be Helen Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen, wow similar names... They were funny and Master of the House was a fun song and prompted the cinema full of immature folks who found the entire sequence hilarious, to laugh extremely loudly and obnoxiously, and... I laughed too, loudly. One little thing would be the varying accents in this film clearly take place in France in the 19th Century, and the odd cockney accent the pair adopted, just seemed a bit out of place, fun though. Plus pretty much every time they were on screen they got a laugh, can't argue with that considering how much I felt like sobbing for the most part.
Russell Crowe can't sing. Sorry but Javert was boring and his unimpressive voice meant there was an audible sigh when he was on screen, a better singer would have probably made this part much more intriguing, Crowe had the personality of a lamppost and putting him against the electric Hugh Jackman seemed almost cruel.
I almost forgot about Amanda Seyfried, she was good. Her voice was beautiful, but she didn't have much to work with so... I almost forgot about her, apart from when I remembered Eddie Redmayne survived and had to be married to her forever. Lucky guy. Damn her... She was pretty, the only reason I remembered her was because Anne Hathaway keeps draping herself over her at the award ceremonies for some odd reason...
It was a long film, it was a musical, it wasn't happy, if you don't like that, don't see it. If you like that kind of thing come sing with me!
Who am I?
Who am I?
I'm Jean Valjean!
As someone who has a strong affection for musical theatre it's a bit odd that I have never actually seen Les Miserables; my mother told me, in her own words, 'It's shit.' So I had to sit through Jesus Christ Superstar instead which wasn't exactly to my taste but my mum liked it. So much to my surprise I thought Les Miserables was actually a bloody good musical, I really did enjoy it, even if it was extremely long and ... Miserable, but the songs are pretty damn good and the acting talent was on top form. I've had the song stuck in my head for the past few days since leaving the cinema, I've been on Spotify streaming the songs and imagining Hugh Jackman belting them out in my head, so, yeah, a combined affection for catchy overly emotional music and the fact I have quite an obsessive personality has lead me to claim it's the best thing ever! For today, or til the end of the week until the next greatest thing ever comes along... Musical music... Gawd... So good! If I could begin to belt out my emotions as strong and beautifully with a massive orchestra playing along to my straining lung, I would, every day!
Ok so I've written this paragraph about fifteen times, it's about Anne Hathaway, my conflicting emotions with regards to this woman know no bounds. I really intensely dislike her, she has an overinflated ego and tries to be quirky and self-deprecating but everything about her from her appearance to her demeanour scream that she has a very high self-esteem which must constantly be buffered by the adoration of people, the curse of being beautiful and talented and knowing it, oh how I weep for her, must be such a tough life. Bringing me to her performance as Fantine, Anne Hathaway has no idea what it would be like to alone and unloved, she's one of those people who has a network of people looking after her no matter how bad things get. This led me to just feel that her performance as Fantine was somewhat disingenuous, I didn't believe in it, I didn't invest in it and her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream was just... Not good. Don't get me wrong, the way she interpreted the song was honest, it should be song as if you can barely contain your hysteria, not like you're spitting your dummy out though. It's still a song, and thus should be treat with the belief that singing the song beautifully would perhaps bring some colour something good back into your life, there has to be a glimmer of hope in there, see Elaine Paige singing Memories... Maybe that's just me. Perhaps it was the fact that Anne Hathaway thought her performance was 'Eh.' in an interview, that's pretty much how I felt about it; but whereas she was being nonchalant and pretending to not give a shit about something she presumably put her heart and soul into (highly unlikely), I really just wasn't blown away. After her performance surprising for being for the best part of Dark Knight Rises, I was fully prepared to accept Anne Hathaway might once again prove me wrong and be excellent, she wasn't, what a shame.
So now that I've expunged that boiling bile, I can happily say everyone else, apart from Russell Crowe (sorry bud) were brilliant. The best part of the film? Hugh Jackman, obviously! I can't fault his performance; well a little, his accent veered off in several parts but the man carried the film and it was something to behold. It's actually extremely upsetting that Spotify doesn't have his version of Who Am I? As I could literally spend all day belting that one out... He deserves every award he is nominated for, including the Academy Award! Most people get away with just 'acting' and walk away with the award, Jackman sang through the entire film and pretty much carried it, he was astoundingly good. I know he has previous experience, he did star in Oklahoma in a previous life, but bloody hell he was perfection. I won't even mock the pretty lame make up... Or the fact his accent wasn't very consistent...
Another certain someone who not only surprised me but blew all my expectations out of the water was Eddie Redmayne, not sure why but I keep calling him Freddie in my head, that sounds way better... What was I talking about? I think it's a specific British actor talent to convey emotions with such skill that there is a barely concealed longing and grief with a twitch of an eyebrow. It's the Englishman way, the stiff upper lip, the buttoned up collar, never being able to fully express yourself because it's not good and proper, it's why English Literature is so damn popular, not only do they all wear those tight dresses and oppressive suits, they all never say how they truly feel, it's the old way of course, and in a musical it's not a commonplace thing as everyone just sings their feelings. My point is, the particularly good at doing this, you know, keeping it all buttoned up and hidden but managing to convey this with the merest facial expression, specifically Colin Firth, he's just the darn bestest at doing that. Anyways Eddie Redmayne falls into this category of British male actors with a talent of tweaking his facial expression to convey a wealth of barely concealed pain, see the BBC's TV Adaptation of Birdsong, he was so damn good in that. In this film he managed to make a strong impression on me, he's so beautiful and so damn talented and some have mentioned his singing capabilities weren't quite up to par in comparison to the rest of the cast, but I thought his rendition of Empty Chairs and Empty Tables was just heartbreaking, I felt it! This is probably where I reckon he did a much better job than Anne Hathaway because I preferred his performance and this has a lot to do with their contrasting versions of how to convey their misery. Sure his voice wasn't as strong as hers but his tears looked more real to me, his pain more honest, and I know he probably hasn't felt such pain and probably has the same ego problem as any actor does but it felt more real to me; go figure. Plus I could stare at that boy's beautiful face until the cows came home.
A brief shout out has to go to Samantha Barks who played Eponine, her version of On My Own was brilliant, plus I watched her on that stupid Over the Rainbow show on the BBC where they were looking for Dorothy for Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest stage production of The Wizard of Oz, and the loser each week got their red shoes taken off them and had to float away on a glittery moon... It was a bizarre television experience but my it was when I lived with my parents and I was somewhat forced to watch it on Saturday nights rather than... Doing stuff... She's really talented and I wish her all the best of luck in her future endeavours. That's all I've got...
Another thing to mention would probably be Helen Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen, wow similar names... They were funny and Master of the House was a fun song and prompted the cinema full of immature folks who found the entire sequence hilarious, to laugh extremely loudly and obnoxiously, and... I laughed too, loudly. One little thing would be the varying accents in this film clearly take place in France in the 19th Century, and the odd cockney accent the pair adopted, just seemed a bit out of place, fun though. Plus pretty much every time they were on screen they got a laugh, can't argue with that considering how much I felt like sobbing for the most part.
Russell Crowe can't sing. Sorry but Javert was boring and his unimpressive voice meant there was an audible sigh when he was on screen, a better singer would have probably made this part much more intriguing, Crowe had the personality of a lamppost and putting him against the electric Hugh Jackman seemed almost cruel.
I almost forgot about Amanda Seyfried, she was good. Her voice was beautiful, but she didn't have much to work with so... I almost forgot about her, apart from when I remembered Eddie Redmayne survived and had to be married to her forever. Lucky guy. Damn her... She was pretty, the only reason I remembered her was because Anne Hathaway keeps draping herself over her at the award ceremonies for some odd reason...
It was a long film, it was a musical, it wasn't happy, if you don't like that, don't see it. If you like that kind of thing come sing with me!
Who am I?
Who am I?
I'm Jean Valjean!
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Silver Linings Playbook
'I mean, the world's hard enough as it is, guys. Can't someone say, hey let's be positive? Let's have a good ending to the story.'
So I went to see another film today, once again it's an adaptation of a novel, the distinct difference is the book is called 'The Silver Linings Playbook' written by Matthew Quick. The film jettisons the 'the' in the title and is directed by David O. Russell. Interesting no? Well... Russell unfortunately also directed possibly my least favourite film ever created in the history of existence, 'I heart Huckabees.' When I watched it I had a violent reaction against the entire run of the film and Jason Schwartzman*, in I heart Huckabees he has never been more punchable, as was everything about that film... Gawd. Luckily I wasn't the only one who seemed to dislike the film as Lily Tomlin whilst filming it was involved in several altercations with Russell - just blazing rows essentially which, bizarrely, were caught on tape. The film was just a convoluted mess, I was fifteen when I watched it so perhaps the whole existentialism of the film was way over my head but it irked me. It was a bunch of disillusioned lost adults whining about their pathetic lives and doing bizarre stupid things like hiring existential detectives to spy on them, this would have been funny if the film didn't take itself so damn seriously. It would seem Russell and Tomlin certainly did; what is more ridiculous is the film is supposed to be a freaking comedy. What? Why? There was nothing remotely funny about it. I know I love films that take themselves laughably seriously but this was just... Long-angry-groaning-noise-whilst-clutching-head-and-stamping-feet-with-frustration. And did I mention that Jason Schwartzman has never been more punchable? And Mark Walhberg! Such a beautiful talented funny man... Oh God why? So to surmise, I'll probably never watch I heart Huckabees again, too many fraught recollections of anger, but Russell has gone on to make yet another film about pretty damaged people; only this time they are actually damaged, mentally and emotionally, they have reason to be in the state they are, they tried their best at life and failed and are trying to pick up the pieces. Most importantly the story is a fluid sequence of events with people behaving believably and dealing with their issues in a realistic human way, it's already looking miles better.
So let's get this started. I actually liked this film, once again I'll have to add the source material to my list of books I will never get round to reading. Did I mention I have a bookshelf full of tomes I have yet to touch. All the tomes want is to be touched, oh if only if I could thumb through those tomes... What was I talking about?
The quote at the top is blurted out in a 4am rant from Bradley Cooper's character Pat as he rants to his parents about a book he had just finished reading. Hemingway had, shockingly, decided to give his book a downbeat ending after letting his main characters get together and marry and have children, then he kills off the wife. The book is promptly thrown out of the window** and the rant begins as Cooper's character, Pat, tries to grapple with the possibility that someone could end a book with sadness, it's too close to life, too close to home, too damn depressing! This immediately put my mind at ease when I acknowledged this rant, not only worked as a manic episode for us to observe Pat's state of mind, but it also served to promise at least a happy ending for this film. Or perhaps that's just how my brain works... As the film progressed and Pat worked through his personal demons and interacted with the world, I felt a small inkling of hope that everything would all work out for him, no matter how crappy things got, he would get a happy ending. The film tried it's utmost to emulate a real life sequence of events throughout the story, it worked and I felt convinced, but even with the effort to maintain a realism I still knew it would all work out with happy sparkles at the end. Didn't quite expect the spangly dance costumes and routines, although, as readers of my blog might have noticed, I do love me a bit of Strictly Come Dancing (or Dancing with the Stars) so the ending sequence was a pleasant surprise for me. Plus I agree with Pat, who doesn't want a happy ending? Film and books are a form of escapism from the drudgery of day to day existence, sure sometimes it's interesting and thrilling to read about depressing events occurring, to revel in the blackness of it all, but still, sometimes it's a necessity to see the brighter side of things. So, if I were to immediately summarise how I felt about this film I'd say, it made me happy. To be completely honest I did not expect that out of a Russell film after swearing he was the worst human being ever after watching I Heart Huckabees.***
None of my glowing praise would be possible it weren't for the lead actors playing their characters to perfection. Let me tell you something, Bradley Cooper is a gorgeous specimen of humanity, but I was not prepared to be so wholly impressed by his performance. I was more intrigued to see up-and-coming superstar in the making Jennifer Lawrence flex her impressive acting skills in something which was not a big Hollywood Blockbuster which gave her limited range, and you know, actually get a chance to breathe and do some real 'acting'. I always putting 'acting' in 'quotation marks', accept that I am actually taking my fingers off the keyboard to do those finger movements, because taking on a role where you are playing a 'crazy' person, requires some actual skill. From a lesser actor it would be laughably wide-eyed over the top bullshit, but from Lawrence and (surprisingly) Cooper, it's achingly human watching them grapple with their emotions and bouncing off each other. Oh and not once did I want to shout at the screen 'MY EMOTIONS' or 'ACTING!' Which for a film about damaged emotional people tackling their issues head on, was something I honestly expected to do. Although I did have the impulse to throw my arms in the air and cheer when Robert De Niro appeared on screen. Oh, Robert De Niro is in this film! He plays Bradley Cooper's dad, always a reliable source of class in De Niro, dare I say I thought he was past it, but there he was, in an Eagle's jumper clasping a handkerchief and manoeuvring his tv remotes into the right position, getting a blazing huff and being a questionable father figure, so much fun! If I ever said he was past it I take it back, I take it back so hard. Forgive me De Niro.
So some acting heavy weights are in this film, and Chris Tucker makes an appearance too, man that guy gained weight! It took me a while to recognise him, mainly because he really reeled in his talkativeness, but the small scene in the car at the beginning where he lies about leaving the hospital and chats seamlessly with Cooper about his hair was entertaining. In fact even if the characters are bellowing at each other hysterically, or bickering about medication or the football, this film is just fun to watch the characters bounce of one another.
I think back at some paragraph I was talking about Cooper's acting skills being, actually really good, so we'll continue along that vein just a little bit more. All the scenes where he is sitting in the therapist's office are pure acting gold. Seriously, I was stunned by how well he inhabited the character, this coming from the man who had the joy of yelling at Ed Helms 'Paging Dr Faggot' in The Hangover; he has come a long way in my estimations. He believes wholeheartedly he can fix his marriage as long as he tries to be a better person, you literally see his whole being straining to make this happen as he explains his ideology. Not sure why he spends most of the film running around in a bin bag though... It's not even the fact he can sell those quiet moments when he is trying to express himself, it's the loud brash moments that work just as well, the rage he seemingly has inherited from Travis Bickle, bursts to the surface so effectively. Even when he's acting like a right idiot and can barely string a sentence together without being insulting he still pulls it off by being achingly sincere and having, deep down a good moral centre, even if that gets clouded now and again. Seriously, I can't explain how impressed I was by Bradley Cooper's acting skills, the man needs some serious credit here. Sorry, I meant De Niro before, of course. This film is a good case for inheriting crazy from your family...
Then there is Jennifer Lawrence playing Tiffany, it's sickening that I'm older than this girl by a week, she is also 22, except she is a Hollywood star and is dating the guy I fell in love with watching Skins**** when I was 18... She is essentially living the life that I would die for, except I never went to acting school, I doubt I could act given the chance, I've never tried, I'm far too self concious to inhabit someone else's skin, even on a purely professional level. Plus acting involves so much scrutiny from other people, man, that would kill me, I scrutinise myself far too much. So this was a role initially slated to have Zooey Deschanel or Anne Hathaway playing it, if I close my eyes, Deschanel would have been a dreadful choice and my stifling dislike for Hathaway doesn't make any difference, there's a darkness and complexity to the role that I highly doubt Anne Hathaway could act. Lawrence is 21 when she took this role and it's baffling how well she inhabits it. She has her vulnerable moments but for the most part maintains a spiky hard exterior, it takes a lot of maturity to play a widowed woman with so much baggage but she makes it seem effortless. As much as everyone is raving about her, her weight, her rising star, it's still impressive that all this raving on and on about someone is worth something when she can pull a performance like this out of the bag. Plus watching her and Cooper dance, damn that was awesome.
Now here is the essential premise of the film, it's about a man, Pat, who has been released from a mental health hospital. He was placed there for a 9 month stint after beating a man within an inch of his life; he had his reasons, the man had been having sex with his wife, and he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He has the uninhibited belief that if he sorts himself out, maintains good health and loses weight and becomes a better person then his wife will come back to him; everything will work out in the end, you know apart from the restraining order. He refuses to take his medication, he refuses to acknowledge there is anything drastically wrong with his behaviour as long as he works hard at being a better person things will get better. This earnest belief is quite endearing and helps because the man has no filter when speaking to people; he's pretty socially inept and this is coming from someone who feels the constant need to monitor everything she says. So he has some rude tendencies, he's a bit bullish, a bit pervy, but he's not crazy, he wholly believes this. Then he meets Tiffany who is a widow, she suffered and dealt with the death of her husband by sleeping with the entire staff at her place of work; she also had to see a doctor for her depression. In stark comparison to Pat, Tiffany accepts she's a bit crazy, and in her own words embraces it: 'There will always be a part of me that is dirty and sloppy, but I like that, just like all the other parts of myself.' She does some questionable things but she drags Pat out of his funk and distracts him from himself and it's satisfying to see them bounce of each other. Most importantly there is a level of healing going on, they both gradually learn to let their respective spouses go by coming to rely on and love each other, in their own ways.
What's quite odd is that film is pretty unapologetic about the fact that the main characters, not to mention Pat's Dad, Pat Sr (De Niro) are very damaged people. It's clear Pat has inherited something from his father, who also has issues handling his rage and has some minor OCD tendencies as well a superstitious side. The film isn't asking you to feel sorry for these people, we are merely observers as they are arguing and raging at one another for their own reasons you can understand why they are upset even if they aren't processing it very well or dealing with it very healthily, you don't feel sorry for them, it's almost played for laughs, but there is a very real feeling to it. People just letting rip at one another for ruining things that are seemingly the most important things in the world, for not understanding them, for being wrong! It reminds me of when I was at home with my family and we would find ourselves in blazing rows, we would torture one another with our words and god knows it wasn't healthy but it all came out. Nothing was fixed, we just did it because we couldn't process our emotions very well, we kept it all bubbling under until we exploded at one another, it never reached fisticuffs but it's a recognisable occurrence.
My point is, although it's quite humorous to see the characters being inappropriate, Pat and Tiffany's lack of social skills, Pat Jr and Pat Sr arguing and raging when things don't go their way, it all just comes from a lack of understanding. Pat Jr doesn't understand why he feels this way, he just assumes that's how he's supposed to feel because he's never been given any indication anything was wrong until he was sent to a mental health facility and even then he strained against any changes they could provide instead determining his own way of fixing his problems. It's quite a beautiful ideology, that everything happens for a reasons, that every cloud has a silver lining and you have to find it, and he's going to find it. It's optimistic and the film is stating that even though these people aren't mentally healthy, they are still trying their hardest to be better, to be good, even if they go about it in the most bizarre of ways, like entering a dance competition, or bookmaking and betting all the earnings on one game in order to save up enough money to open a restaurant, or by simply running to stay healthy and reading the books on your ex wife's teaching syllabus. I think it's a really well done just happy film; and trust me, I was surprised by how much I liked it, especially given my scepticism regarding David O Russell...
Definitely go see this film, it's already been nominated for Golden Globes, hopefully this will translate to Oscar buzz, it would be nice for a happy film to get nominated once in a while. As far as I know it's been out for ages which means I suppose I can't demand people should go see it immediately... It was on an early singular showing at the cinema and I figured it would give me a reason to get out of bed. Seriously find a way to watch this film before award season rolls around. The acting is top notch, the cast is stellar, the film moves along at a decent pace, none of it feels wasted, everyone has room to breathe a little; I also truly appreciate a bit of a dance number at the end of any film, plus the reaction to the scores cracked me up immensely. It was just a heart warming honest film and it wasn't being sanctimonious, it was being fun and realistic, it left me with a nice big smile on my face, hey go figure, that's reason enough to love something.
*Now I'll grant Jason Schwartzman is in a slew of decent films, his Wes Anderson work is amazing. I love Rushmore, mainly for Bill Murray but Schwartzman is clearly the lynch-pin; he's also likeable in the Darjeeling Ltd. Then there is his bit part in Scott Pilgrim VS the World in which he plays (from my perspective) a dramatised version of himself, he does it incredibly convincingly. He's born into the Coppola Cabal so of course he has film in his blood and all the famous familial connections that go with it. Not to mention the fact he was the drummer in Phantom Planet and he also has his own solo project in which he enlists the help of his famous chums to appear on some songs, Coconut Records (I have the album on my iTunes...) Not to mention he stars in a TV Show, Bored to Death with Zack Galifianakis and Ted Danson which is, annoyingly, pretty damn good. So he has his finger in loads of pies. Oh yes, I am well versed in Jason Schwartzman, yet I still loathe his smug face. Smug is a disease which should be beaten out of people... and someone should punch that boy. Once the smug is completely purged I will admit to liking him, as I seem to know more about him than any casual passer by should...
** I totally understand how he feels, I have on occasion thrown a book against the wall when I've been angered by events taking place on the page. Never smashed a window though... Plus at some points in time I have read books, shockingly! I'm looking at you One Day by David Nichols and A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin, I know I should expect such things from him but it didn't stop me lobbing A Dance With Dragons across a motel room floor.
***Funny story, I completely forgot David O Russell directeed this film until his name came up on the screen and I let out a loud groan. Luckily there were only 6 other people in the criminally tiny cinema screen and I doubt they heard me. Well... I know they did, but they were muttering throughout the film so my disappointed groan counts for nought. Ha!
****Nicholas Hoult - get off your arse and call me.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
Life of Pi
Here's a film I should be able to get my teeth into, it's film about a question of faith, it's a parable about choice. It's based on the book written by Yann Martell. I have the book on my shelf, I'm more eager than ever to read it but I keep getting distracted. I've seen a few films now where the book is on my shelf gathering dust, I will get round to reading it, honest! Reading is just something I never find the time to sit down and do. When I do have the time I'll read obsessively for a week or so then stop until I find time again, it's cyclical. Another cyclical thing in my life would be attitude to faith, it's probably a good place to start, this will be self-indulgence, skip ahead by all means.
Born and raised a Roman Catholic, went to secondary school built around a convent, taught by a selection of nuns and teachers, had a headmistress in a habit and used to read from the Bible to us, had to start every lesson with the 'Hail Mary' and went to church every Sunday. When you're a child you don't question things like religion as you never realise it's a choice until a drunken uncle points it out to you, being indoctrinated as I was, I never stopped to think that at some point in the past a bunch of bearded men wrote the Bible as a story, in fact a whole massive mess of them wrote a bunch of books decades/centuries apart and at some point certain bits were selected and meshed together to make the Bible. It never occurred to me that it was a story, when I hurtled through my teen years it became something I began to read about and learn about it. It was after my grandmother died I went through a 'crisis of faith', it's something that seemed really significant, I'd lost God, God had abandoned me in my time of need, that feeling of certainty had been rocked*. Anyways, this went on for a few years and I started reading when I went through a period of not having any friends... I really loved the mythology of angels for the longest time. Getting to the point, it became apparent that faith is a decision, it's not something that can be forced, it's not something you are born with, it's just something you have to figure out on your own. I know, I know faith is different to religion, but it's still a choice. Most people don't even do that nowadays, they just disregard it as archaic and ephemeral aspect of life, science has plugged a lot of gaps in our knowledge which religion used to fill and the universe has been explained to us, the human body has been explained to us and the whole of creation has a history now that has nothing to do with the divine. As ever there are things science can't answer, so we still cling to those unsolved riddles of existence by acknowledging religion but at the end of the day most can do without.
I came to my own decision, made my own story. I decided that something close to God did exist, long ago, He gave us that spark of conciousness, that wisp of a soul, the trick of science which lead us to feel alone in this giant universe. That, to me, it the work of God, and God gave us that, he gave us life and the ability to think and feel, but that took the whole of His power and now he's asleep, or he died giving us that, whatever, he's not here, he's not watching over us, he can't be. That's my belief, it's not something I want to debate, it just is what it is. I believe in religion to a degree, Catholicism, for all it's faults still excites some degree of religious fervour in me, but deep down I believe that whatever higher power brought us to this point is no longer watching over us, or hasn't for along time. That's my choice.
Which brings us to Life of Pi, the entire point of the film, or at least the message the film is giving us, is that religion/faith is a choice. The film presents you with a choice at the end and it's up to you to decide what you believe, that in itself is profound. My partner mentioned that I usually walk out of a film blabbering on and on, especially if I liked it, but this time, today, I was quite quiet. The question of religion always brings out a different side to me, I get really quite emotional about it, I get emotional about a lot of things but this is an untapped well. People don't really talk about faith or religion in the day to day. But the film is worth seeing not only because it asks you an intriguing question, not one oft asked in the cinema during this festive period, but because it's a visual masterpiece. It doesn't matter what your reason is behind your answer to the question posed, it just matters that the film made you consider it, and that's significant I think.
If someone asked me whether or not to see Life of Pi, I would demand they immediately went and saw it because nothing will quite take your breath away quite like this film. It's literally stunning, all the adverts keep showing is that damn whale throwing itself through the sky but the quieter less ostentatious moments really shone in this film. It's just visually amazing to see, the whole film gleamed like a big shiny bauble full of colour and excitement. There wasn't a point where I felt bored and uninterested, I was rapt throughout, perhaps my attention span is getting better these days. Did I mention what it was about? Oh damnit... Let's get to that very quickly then so I can ramble more about it.
A man is recounting his past to Rafe Spall (he's been getting a lot of big movie roles lately, I can count off seeing him in the cinema 3 times now!) The story goes he basically, boy named Pi, moves from India on Japanese boat to Canada with zoo animals aboard and family. Boat sinks, boy has to survive on lifeboat with coyote, orang-utan, a zebra with a broken leg and a Bengal tiger, the story goes that it's the boy and tiger stranded in the ocean on a lifeboat, alone together in the end. Obviously he survives to tell the tale, but there are two versions of the tale. The other involves human survivors from the ship sharing the life boat and it ending with the boy and alone. Clearly there are some deaths along the way. Sounds pretty boring but the visuals are stunning and the interactions with the tiger are just perfectly on the margin of believable and heart breaking. Did I mention it was a beautiful film? Reflections play a massive part in the film. Pi's father told him that animals don't feel the same as us, it's our emotions reflected in their eyes, throughout the film there are brief moments where the sea is completely calm and still and it's all endless sea or stars. Pi has a lot of time to reflect as he does battle with the elements and himself and mostly the tiger to survive, that's what the film essentially is, a reflection on life. An exciting beautiful reflection, or at least that's how I'm describing it, I'm being broad and nice about it.
The integral part of the film is, that without Richard Parker** he would not have survived. It's up to you if the boy needed a tiger to survive or his own strength of will? Or if he imagined the tale about the tiger to protect himself from the truth, he was alone with only his strength and mind. In my mind, I can't believe he would have survived alone, what's most important is not losing hope and the tiger being there was hope, at least that's what I thought. Loneliness can kill, and the will to survive was because he had Richard Parker's company to keep him going. So that's my small theory on it.
This is a film which made me relieved, relief that I fervently wanted to believe more than anything that the Tiger had existed, that such things are possible. Go figure, I felt something, faith, it was a warm feeling. That's what I took from it, I would want more people to do the same and take from it something, anything, because I reckon it's a film that'll stay with you, as it will me.
*I always prayed when I need help and this time it didn't help. It just made me feel alone.
**The Tiger's name, a name synonymous with ship wrecks in 19th Century it would seem.
Born and raised a Roman Catholic, went to secondary school built around a convent, taught by a selection of nuns and teachers, had a headmistress in a habit and used to read from the Bible to us, had to start every lesson with the 'Hail Mary' and went to church every Sunday. When you're a child you don't question things like religion as you never realise it's a choice until a drunken uncle points it out to you, being indoctrinated as I was, I never stopped to think that at some point in the past a bunch of bearded men wrote the Bible as a story, in fact a whole massive mess of them wrote a bunch of books decades/centuries apart and at some point certain bits were selected and meshed together to make the Bible. It never occurred to me that it was a story, when I hurtled through my teen years it became something I began to read about and learn about it. It was after my grandmother died I went through a 'crisis of faith', it's something that seemed really significant, I'd lost God, God had abandoned me in my time of need, that feeling of certainty had been rocked*. Anyways, this went on for a few years and I started reading when I went through a period of not having any friends... I really loved the mythology of angels for the longest time. Getting to the point, it became apparent that faith is a decision, it's not something that can be forced, it's not something you are born with, it's just something you have to figure out on your own. I know, I know faith is different to religion, but it's still a choice. Most people don't even do that nowadays, they just disregard it as archaic and ephemeral aspect of life, science has plugged a lot of gaps in our knowledge which religion used to fill and the universe has been explained to us, the human body has been explained to us and the whole of creation has a history now that has nothing to do with the divine. As ever there are things science can't answer, so we still cling to those unsolved riddles of existence by acknowledging religion but at the end of the day most can do without.
I came to my own decision, made my own story. I decided that something close to God did exist, long ago, He gave us that spark of conciousness, that wisp of a soul, the trick of science which lead us to feel alone in this giant universe. That, to me, it the work of God, and God gave us that, he gave us life and the ability to think and feel, but that took the whole of His power and now he's asleep, or he died giving us that, whatever, he's not here, he's not watching over us, he can't be. That's my belief, it's not something I want to debate, it just is what it is. I believe in religion to a degree, Catholicism, for all it's faults still excites some degree of religious fervour in me, but deep down I believe that whatever higher power brought us to this point is no longer watching over us, or hasn't for along time. That's my choice.
Which brings us to Life of Pi, the entire point of the film, or at least the message the film is giving us, is that religion/faith is a choice. The film presents you with a choice at the end and it's up to you to decide what you believe, that in itself is profound. My partner mentioned that I usually walk out of a film blabbering on and on, especially if I liked it, but this time, today, I was quite quiet. The question of religion always brings out a different side to me, I get really quite emotional about it, I get emotional about a lot of things but this is an untapped well. People don't really talk about faith or religion in the day to day. But the film is worth seeing not only because it asks you an intriguing question, not one oft asked in the cinema during this festive period, but because it's a visual masterpiece. It doesn't matter what your reason is behind your answer to the question posed, it just matters that the film made you consider it, and that's significant I think.
If someone asked me whether or not to see Life of Pi, I would demand they immediately went and saw it because nothing will quite take your breath away quite like this film. It's literally stunning, all the adverts keep showing is that damn whale throwing itself through the sky but the quieter less ostentatious moments really shone in this film. It's just visually amazing to see, the whole film gleamed like a big shiny bauble full of colour and excitement. There wasn't a point where I felt bored and uninterested, I was rapt throughout, perhaps my attention span is getting better these days. Did I mention what it was about? Oh damnit... Let's get to that very quickly then so I can ramble more about it.
A man is recounting his past to Rafe Spall (he's been getting a lot of big movie roles lately, I can count off seeing him in the cinema 3 times now!) The story goes he basically, boy named Pi, moves from India on Japanese boat to Canada with zoo animals aboard and family. Boat sinks, boy has to survive on lifeboat with coyote, orang-utan, a zebra with a broken leg and a Bengal tiger, the story goes that it's the boy and tiger stranded in the ocean on a lifeboat, alone together in the end. Obviously he survives to tell the tale, but there are two versions of the tale. The other involves human survivors from the ship sharing the life boat and it ending with the boy and alone. Clearly there are some deaths along the way. Sounds pretty boring but the visuals are stunning and the interactions with the tiger are just perfectly on the margin of believable and heart breaking. Did I mention it was a beautiful film? Reflections play a massive part in the film. Pi's father told him that animals don't feel the same as us, it's our emotions reflected in their eyes, throughout the film there are brief moments where the sea is completely calm and still and it's all endless sea or stars. Pi has a lot of time to reflect as he does battle with the elements and himself and mostly the tiger to survive, that's what the film essentially is, a reflection on life. An exciting beautiful reflection, or at least that's how I'm describing it, I'm being broad and nice about it.
The integral part of the film is, that without Richard Parker** he would not have survived. It's up to you if the boy needed a tiger to survive or his own strength of will? Or if he imagined the tale about the tiger to protect himself from the truth, he was alone with only his strength and mind. In my mind, I can't believe he would have survived alone, what's most important is not losing hope and the tiger being there was hope, at least that's what I thought. Loneliness can kill, and the will to survive was because he had Richard Parker's company to keep him going. So that's my small theory on it.
This is a film which made me relieved, relief that I fervently wanted to believe more than anything that the Tiger had existed, that such things are possible. Go figure, I felt something, faith, it was a warm feeling. That's what I took from it, I would want more people to do the same and take from it something, anything, because I reckon it's a film that'll stay with you, as it will me.
*I always prayed when I need help and this time it didn't help. It just made me feel alone.
**The Tiger's name, a name synonymous with ship wrecks in 19th Century it would seem.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
The Oscars
I have a dreadful amount of films to catch up on. Now I'm at the point where my memories of them are merely imprints of emotions I feel when I hear their titles. That would be 'The Descendants' which brings a feeling of anger and frustration, I suppose because I felt the depressing core of the film was contrived the plotting was incredibly slow and dreary. Then there would be 'The Muppets', I felt uplifted, but as with anything it didn't stick with me and was immediately disregarded by mind's eye and I slept a dreamless sleep the preceding night. 'Haywire' was an arduous task with brief spells of spellbinding martial arts and the entrancing Michael Fassbender, but it was a bore to be honest. So for now it's time to acknowledge that juggernaut of spectacular, The Oscars.
As with any award ceremony it's all about conjecture. I doubt the Academy has seen every film that has been produced in 2011, let alone that they have even any idea of what could be remotely good. This can be evidenced from the ignorance of such cinematic thrills such as 'Drive', or unflinching portrayals of life, 'Shame', or a plain snub of something which is essentially a modern classic, from 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy'. Also the ignorance of frankly intriguing and fearless films such as 'Young Adult' and 'Martha Marcy May Marlene' seems to be completely inexplicable.
So the Oscars have missed what I deem to consist of a good film, that doesn't mean they have ignored what makes a good film, surely? Well, to be fair as far as everyone and their dog is concerned, 'The Artist' is a shoe in to sweep. If the Oscars is well known for anything, it's for a good traditional entertaining cinema, nothing groundbreaking of course, they always pick something that my Dad would probably enjoy, begrudgingly. Everyone refers to the 'King's Speech' beating 'Social Network', the whole 'Crash' versus 'Brokeback Cowboys', 'Shakespeare in Love' the travesty of 'American Beauty' winning anything, and well... 'The Hurt Locker'. In fairness, I personally loved 'The King's Speech', and if the 'The Artist' does win that'll be two years I enjoyed the Best Film Oscar Winners, surprising to say the least.
That aside having a brief glance at the nominations, it's clear that nearly all of the films on the Best Film list are essentially mostly 'Oscar Bait' movies. Martin Scorsese is having a bit of a pat on the back lately so his recent addition to the cinematic macrocosm, has earned him a nom for his children's film 'Hugo'. Not a chance in hell of winning but a worthy note of recognition. Then there is the likes of 'Moneyball', a film about the number crunching behind baseball, excuse me while I take a moment to fall off my chair and snooze on the floor, not even Brad Pitt could save that premise for a film from being incredibly dull. The fact that the great halls of BAFTA nominated such a foreign film is beyond me, it's just not something that remotely interests me, plus Jonah Hill playing a straight role seems absolutely bizarre.
The less I can say about 'Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud' the better, the name itself takes up far too much of my own energy. Anything that combines the acting talents of Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks is clearly a force of pure evil. Or perhaps my deep distaste for the pair of them mars my interest in this film. Oh wait, it's about a child who's father dies in 9/11 and he goes on a journey learning about the human spirit looking for a key. Well, I'm out. Schmaltzy nonsense.
'The Help', 'War Horse' and 'The Tree of Life' I can throw into a simple category, expressions of human strength and belief. I am merely not interested in any of them. I know what they are all about, it's clear why they have been nominated. In particular anything that associates itself with Sean Penn, that Oscar magnate, is something I can't be having (that would be Tree of Life). Wow, I seem to really dislike the Oscars it would seem.
'Midnight in Paris' is a film I would have loved to have seen, Woody Allen films are ones I always go out of my way to see, plus he's been having a bit of a rebirth lately. Good fims dotted around the globe, in particular Europe, he has earned my respect somewhat. Although Owen Wilson's crooked smile and nose, the golden curls and easy going 'forget about' attitude, would usually be a massive turn off, well I'll let him off for now.
If I haven't mentioned it before, I'll say it now. 'The Descendants', unfortunately much like George Clooney's previous Oscar effort which failed to float 'Ides of March', was far more stupid than it seemed to let on. It was a plain manipulation of the emotions and, yup, I've already said this, the plotting is dreadful. Now that I've realised I am going around in circles I will end this post on a positive note.
The Oscars are, although an aged and predicatable institution are also the more important in the fim world. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in them, anyone who wins one knows they have made it. It promotes good cinema, for the most part, and acknowledges some excellent performances, sometimes. Perhaps it's the four ciders, but I may bet on the Oscars again tonight... Perhaps I might bet on a film again like I did that fateful year of 2009 when I placed a £20 bet on 'Inglorious Basterds', I spent all night deliriously thinking I was in with a chance of getting an enormous payout in return. Damn you 'Hurt Locker'! Unfortunately my favourite film on the list is 'The Artist' and as all bets are essentially off that's already won, then, well it's not worth the money... But the strange sense of pleasure I gain from knowing that a film I truly loved is recognised by some fusty old bunch of men is a nice feeling. And that is possibly what awards ceremonies mean to most common schelbs such as myself. Good times.
And the Winners are...
Well, playing the most hated woman in Britain does wonders for one's career. Meryl Streep picked up the gong for playing ole Maggie Thatcher. It beggared belief that she won the BAFTA but then again it makes a slight bit of sense as the British Academy is full of fusty old Tories, but at least they acknowledged Drive and Shame as excellent examples of cinema. I just hate Meryl Streep. I think it was from watching Mamma Mia sixty times over the summer with my Mum and another fifty over Christmas. It's possibly the only DVD she's ever watched. And God, I just can't stand the sight of the woman.
Now for the good stuff.
Hooray for Bret McKenzie winning best Original Song, Man or a Muppet from The Muppets movie. I'm so proud of him since seeing the whole internet explode about the Figwit thing from LOTR to laughing raucously at Flight of the Conchords and singing along. Ah, Bret, it's like you're just one of my friends, and I'm so glad a good chum of mine has won an Oscar, really.
Another special sbhout out goes to Jim Rash winning a joint award for Best Adapted Screenplay for 'The Descendants'. Dean Pelton from Community, is also an Oscar winner, the guy who the cast from How I Met Your Mother thought was Moby in the New Years Eve episode from season 1. Also, his bald head and overly effeminate outfits on the tele, and now he's also an Oscar winning. Brilliant day for me.
Aside from that 'The Artist' achieved all the best awards and 'Hugo' snatched all the technical stuff. The fact that Harry Potter didn't even get a snifter still frustrates me but hey, it's over now. And I'm done.
As with any award ceremony it's all about conjecture. I doubt the Academy has seen every film that has been produced in 2011, let alone that they have even any idea of what could be remotely good. This can be evidenced from the ignorance of such cinematic thrills such as 'Drive', or unflinching portrayals of life, 'Shame', or a plain snub of something which is essentially a modern classic, from 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy'. Also the ignorance of frankly intriguing and fearless films such as 'Young Adult' and 'Martha Marcy May Marlene' seems to be completely inexplicable.
So the Oscars have missed what I deem to consist of a good film, that doesn't mean they have ignored what makes a good film, surely? Well, to be fair as far as everyone and their dog is concerned, 'The Artist' is a shoe in to sweep. If the Oscars is well known for anything, it's for a good traditional entertaining cinema, nothing groundbreaking of course, they always pick something that my Dad would probably enjoy, begrudgingly. Everyone refers to the 'King's Speech' beating 'Social Network', the whole 'Crash' versus 'Brokeback Cowboys', 'Shakespeare in Love' the travesty of 'American Beauty' winning anything, and well... 'The Hurt Locker'. In fairness, I personally loved 'The King's Speech', and if the 'The Artist' does win that'll be two years I enjoyed the Best Film Oscar Winners, surprising to say the least.
That aside having a brief glance at the nominations, it's clear that nearly all of the films on the Best Film list are essentially mostly 'Oscar Bait' movies. Martin Scorsese is having a bit of a pat on the back lately so his recent addition to the cinematic macrocosm, has earned him a nom for his children's film 'Hugo'. Not a chance in hell of winning but a worthy note of recognition. Then there is the likes of 'Moneyball', a film about the number crunching behind baseball, excuse me while I take a moment to fall off my chair and snooze on the floor, not even Brad Pitt could save that premise for a film from being incredibly dull. The fact that the great halls of BAFTA nominated such a foreign film is beyond me, it's just not something that remotely interests me, plus Jonah Hill playing a straight role seems absolutely bizarre.
The less I can say about 'Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud' the better, the name itself takes up far too much of my own energy. Anything that combines the acting talents of Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks is clearly a force of pure evil. Or perhaps my deep distaste for the pair of them mars my interest in this film. Oh wait, it's about a child who's father dies in 9/11 and he goes on a journey learning about the human spirit looking for a key. Well, I'm out. Schmaltzy nonsense.
'The Help', 'War Horse' and 'The Tree of Life' I can throw into a simple category, expressions of human strength and belief. I am merely not interested in any of them. I know what they are all about, it's clear why they have been nominated. In particular anything that associates itself with Sean Penn, that Oscar magnate, is something I can't be having (that would be Tree of Life). Wow, I seem to really dislike the Oscars it would seem.
'Midnight in Paris' is a film I would have loved to have seen, Woody Allen films are ones I always go out of my way to see, plus he's been having a bit of a rebirth lately. Good fims dotted around the globe, in particular Europe, he has earned my respect somewhat. Although Owen Wilson's crooked smile and nose, the golden curls and easy going 'forget about' attitude, would usually be a massive turn off, well I'll let him off for now.
If I haven't mentioned it before, I'll say it now. 'The Descendants', unfortunately much like George Clooney's previous Oscar effort which failed to float 'Ides of March', was far more stupid than it seemed to let on. It was a plain manipulation of the emotions and, yup, I've already said this, the plotting is dreadful. Now that I've realised I am going around in circles I will end this post on a positive note.
The Oscars are, although an aged and predicatable institution are also the more important in the fim world. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in them, anyone who wins one knows they have made it. It promotes good cinema, for the most part, and acknowledges some excellent performances, sometimes. Perhaps it's the four ciders, but I may bet on the Oscars again tonight... Perhaps I might bet on a film again like I did that fateful year of 2009 when I placed a £20 bet on 'Inglorious Basterds', I spent all night deliriously thinking I was in with a chance of getting an enormous payout in return. Damn you 'Hurt Locker'! Unfortunately my favourite film on the list is 'The Artist' and as all bets are essentially off that's already won, then, well it's not worth the money... But the strange sense of pleasure I gain from knowing that a film I truly loved is recognised by some fusty old bunch of men is a nice feeling. And that is possibly what awards ceremonies mean to most common schelbs such as myself. Good times.
And the Winners are...
Well, playing the most hated woman in Britain does wonders for one's career. Meryl Streep picked up the gong for playing ole Maggie Thatcher. It beggared belief that she won the BAFTA but then again it makes a slight bit of sense as the British Academy is full of fusty old Tories, but at least they acknowledged Drive and Shame as excellent examples of cinema. I just hate Meryl Streep. I think it was from watching Mamma Mia sixty times over the summer with my Mum and another fifty over Christmas. It's possibly the only DVD she's ever watched. And God, I just can't stand the sight of the woman.
Now for the good stuff.
Hooray for Bret McKenzie winning best Original Song, Man or a Muppet from The Muppets movie. I'm so proud of him since seeing the whole internet explode about the Figwit thing from LOTR to laughing raucously at Flight of the Conchords and singing along. Ah, Bret, it's like you're just one of my friends, and I'm so glad a good chum of mine has won an Oscar, really.
Another special sbhout out goes to Jim Rash winning a joint award for Best Adapted Screenplay for 'The Descendants'. Dean Pelton from Community, is also an Oscar winner, the guy who the cast from How I Met Your Mother thought was Moby in the New Years Eve episode from season 1. Also, his bald head and overly effeminate outfits on the tele, and now he's also an Oscar winning. Brilliant day for me.
Aside from that 'The Artist' achieved all the best awards and 'Hugo' snatched all the technical stuff. The fact that Harry Potter didn't even get a snifter still frustrates me but hey, it's over now. And I'm done.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
The Artist
I saw this several fridays before the Oscar nominations had been released mainly to sate my own personal curiosity regarding a modern silent movie. I have, over the years seen several silent films on the television when there was nothing else on and have determined they are a largely ignored fantastical form of entertainment in our modern world. Needless to say, as with anything in the cinema, some were good, some were bad, some were atrocious but entertaining nonetheless, and regardless of the story, the music was always jaunty and the facial expressions of the main cast constantly amusing.
My other main experience with silent films was during my university years when I had a job in a fine dining restaurant, it was up North in the expanses of Newcastle. Inside the manager had a projector which spewed images onto the larger walls within the restaurant and it used to play old movies from the days gone by in black and white and completely silent whilst the diners ate in the dimly lit class atmosphere. Oh the amount of times people asked me to put the football on... There used to be a selection of black and white movies from days gone by playing silently in the background but the one I remember most clearly was the silent movie, Douglas Fairbank's Robin Hood made in 1922.
Now I know you're wondering where the hell I'm going with this but it's interesting that Douglas Fairbanks would remind me a hell of a lot of the main character, George Valentin in The Artist, played by French actor, Jean Dujardin, that beautiful man. Perhaps it was the moustache or perhaps it was the fact that his career dwindled after the advent of the talkies but I felt a sudden connection between the fictional and real silent film players. These paralells within the film gave me a strong connection to it's story and my personal interest in it. So to begin with, I suppose it's worth admitting, I did genuinely like this film a great deal.
Now that it has been swamped by Oscar buzz, the media, accusations of musical theft and general all around intrigue, this has somewhat dulled the light on something I felt was a personal find, but I'll give, it deserves the good attention it is recieving.
In a 'Singing in the Rain' reminiscence, the film directly handles the advent of the 'talkies' in Hollywood and the silent movie superstar of the day George Valentin finds himself in a losing battle as his whole world falls apart around him as he finds his silent film superstardom is fading. As his star gradually falls another rises, that of the dazzling Peppy Miller, a Valentin fan who is elevated to stardom from the encouragement of the man himself. She harvests roles in smaller films gradually becoming a major movie star herself in the talkies and Valentin, desperately clinging to his silent film legacy falls into obscurity, bankruptcy and inevitably depression. As we follow their intersecting lives and tenuous romance, I found the performance of Jean Dujardin particularly interesting, he managed to convey a joyful level of hubris and a deep state of loss and depression without ever uttering a word. Surely a remarkable performance for any modern actor, regardless of his character's personal pitfalls, Dujardin maintains a strong level of likeability throughout, a delightful revelation.
But I am of course forgetting the star of the film, that would be Uggie the dog, what a star! The most acting I've seen from animals in silent films were monkies and they were incredibly badly behaved. Nothing is more thrilling than seeing a small cheerful looking canine pretend to die from a bullet to the head it would seem, the dog pulls it off with aplomb and should be applauded. Give that dog an Oscar, somebody!
It has to be said the whole film was brimming with nostalgia and wonderful sense of respect and affection for the past. The knowing nudges about the world this film exists is a silent world in itself was a unique play on the silent film itself. The reveal of sound during George Valentin's nightmare and the end sequence were a clever play on the existence of noise within the movie world and particularly entertaining. The whole film had a sense of humour and although this sank with it's the lead character's spirits during the latter sections, it never quite lost it's charm and the brimming sense of joy within.
But what silent film is without a score? The music completely commands throughout this film, as uplifting as it is heart rending it flows through each scene seamlessly, allowing us to enjoy the story laid out in front of us. I have to say the music was the greatest triumph in this film, and well deserving of any accolades it should almost certainly attract.
The film overall was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and a labour of love from all involved. The actors slip into their parts perfectly embodying the drama and humour the film provides, and we are granted with an uplifting and frankly magical cinematic experience.
My other main experience with silent films was during my university years when I had a job in a fine dining restaurant, it was up North in the expanses of Newcastle. Inside the manager had a projector which spewed images onto the larger walls within the restaurant and it used to play old movies from the days gone by in black and white and completely silent whilst the diners ate in the dimly lit class atmosphere. Oh the amount of times people asked me to put the football on... There used to be a selection of black and white movies from days gone by playing silently in the background but the one I remember most clearly was the silent movie, Douglas Fairbank's Robin Hood made in 1922.
Now I know you're wondering where the hell I'm going with this but it's interesting that Douglas Fairbanks would remind me a hell of a lot of the main character, George Valentin in The Artist, played by French actor, Jean Dujardin, that beautiful man. Perhaps it was the moustache or perhaps it was the fact that his career dwindled after the advent of the talkies but I felt a sudden connection between the fictional and real silent film players. These paralells within the film gave me a strong connection to it's story and my personal interest in it. So to begin with, I suppose it's worth admitting, I did genuinely like this film a great deal.
Now that it has been swamped by Oscar buzz, the media, accusations of musical theft and general all around intrigue, this has somewhat dulled the light on something I felt was a personal find, but I'll give, it deserves the good attention it is recieving.
In a 'Singing in the Rain' reminiscence, the film directly handles the advent of the 'talkies' in Hollywood and the silent movie superstar of the day George Valentin finds himself in a losing battle as his whole world falls apart around him as he finds his silent film superstardom is fading. As his star gradually falls another rises, that of the dazzling Peppy Miller, a Valentin fan who is elevated to stardom from the encouragement of the man himself. She harvests roles in smaller films gradually becoming a major movie star herself in the talkies and Valentin, desperately clinging to his silent film legacy falls into obscurity, bankruptcy and inevitably depression. As we follow their intersecting lives and tenuous romance, I found the performance of Jean Dujardin particularly interesting, he managed to convey a joyful level of hubris and a deep state of loss and depression without ever uttering a word. Surely a remarkable performance for any modern actor, regardless of his character's personal pitfalls, Dujardin maintains a strong level of likeability throughout, a delightful revelation.
But I am of course forgetting the star of the film, that would be Uggie the dog, what a star! The most acting I've seen from animals in silent films were monkies and they were incredibly badly behaved. Nothing is more thrilling than seeing a small cheerful looking canine pretend to die from a bullet to the head it would seem, the dog pulls it off with aplomb and should be applauded. Give that dog an Oscar, somebody!
It has to be said the whole film was brimming with nostalgia and wonderful sense of respect and affection for the past. The knowing nudges about the world this film exists is a silent world in itself was a unique play on the silent film itself. The reveal of sound during George Valentin's nightmare and the end sequence were a clever play on the existence of noise within the movie world and particularly entertaining. The whole film had a sense of humour and although this sank with it's the lead character's spirits during the latter sections, it never quite lost it's charm and the brimming sense of joy within.
But what silent film is without a score? The music completely commands throughout this film, as uplifting as it is heart rending it flows through each scene seamlessly, allowing us to enjoy the story laid out in front of us. I have to say the music was the greatest triumph in this film, and well deserving of any accolades it should almost certainly attract.
The film overall was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and a labour of love from all involved. The actors slip into their parts perfectly embodying the drama and humour the film provides, and we are granted with an uplifting and frankly magical cinematic experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)