Yes, this is a remarkable film. Is it a prequel, of sorts yes it is, and it may well be followed by another film before long as well. So archaeologists find star maps across the earth and decide that this is an invitation to travel across the galaxy. The ship Prometheus is then sent to these coordinates, and android, David, spends his time learning languages while the crew sleeps until they reach a moon where lots of questions are maybe answered, and posed.
That’s the nub really, questions, the scientists discover the architects of humanity and also discover that these architects may have had other plans for humanity. There are a number of agendas at play here as well. The scientists are attempting to make their discoveries, but someone has paid for all of this and they may well have their own ideas as to what should happen and what the worth of all of the resources in the mission might be. This theme has been developed in the first four Alien films and really coloured Ripley’s judgement on a number of occasions.
This film not only refutes all human religion, but also has a go at Darwinism as well. All theories of humanity are turned on their head. We’re not made in the image of the creator, human life didn’t evolve in the way we thought on earth, we’re not unique and we’re really bottom of the heap in the galaxy.
In comparison to some prequels I’ve seen the pieces fall into place in quite a subtle manner. The film is made by director whose director’s cut of Blade Runner was actually shorter than the original film, he’s therefore not afraid to do things for solely creative reasons. He’s apparently also known for moving furniture round in his house in the middle of the night, just to try out how things look. He obviously knows his film history as well, judging by all the references to 2001 for instance. I wasn’t as disappointed as I thought I might have been. Although there are times when you may find that you say to yourself, ‘don’t look in there’, ‘it’s not a good to stay the night in there’, as I did.
Monday, 25 June 2012
The Avengers Assemble
There’s been a long history of depicting super and comic book heroes in the cinema and TV. This goes back to Batman, Superman, Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Marvel Comics characters were not really given great adaptations in the 70s and 80s, the animated Spiderman series was probably the highpoint as that compared favourably with the live action Incredible Hulk series and films of the day such as the woeful Captain America.
In more recent years there has been a marked improvement in the quality of films featuring Marvel characters. The catalyst for this may have been Tim Burton’s Batman in 1989; this may have challenged Marvel to do better. We’ve seen a number of decent Spiderman and X-Men films, these were followed by Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, The First Avenger, they can tell stories, but they can’t necessarily give them good titles. These films laid the way for this one with its snappy title and its ensemble cast.
I was reminded of Watchmen and how that presented itself at the outset as being set in an alternate universe. This led me to wonder, what is being depicted here? Would this be in an alternate universe, as far as I know there are not superheroes on our earth? Is this a symbolic film, are they talking about different aspects of the human condition? Are there gods depicted that we forgot to worship that are in the background waiting to be worshipped again?
Maybe this film is fulfilling one of the roles of fiction in extrapolating and theorising what would happen in given situations. Albeit saying if Thor’s adopted brother, Loki, decided that he wanted dominion over today’s Earth, and that to achieve this he had stolen a source of unlimited power from the US Government, that had originally come from Asgard. Would the only way to stop him be to assemble a group of people with extraordinary abilities and resources, who would then fight him and the forces he summons?
If this all just fiction then it maybe all we need is to suspend our belief in reality, but then that depends on the credibility of what we’re shown, and how it’s explained. How can we evaluate the possibilities we see here without knowing the properties of the Tessaract, and really how Odin works really, without going into what are the properties of gamma radiation on the emotionally challenged man. I still can’t believe that Tony Stark’s girlfriend is called Pepper Potts.
Despite all of this the reason why this film works is because of the characterisation and the script. Joss Whedon has developed well rounded characters. In which he has honestly portrayed conflict and argument, between characters that on the surface should get along. There were however a few moments that grated, most of what Scarlett Johansson did and I began to tire of Robert Downey Jr, somewhat, by the end of the film.
For me the highlight of the film though is not absolutely necessary to the plot at all, there’s a beautiful scene with Mark Ruffalo and Harry Dean Stanton, it is beautiful and understated, not like the rest of the film. Although it discusses one of the major subplots, how damaging it can be to be a super hero and how it’s necessary to try and retain some reality, sanity and have someone you can trust. There is a lesson for us all, super hero or not.
In more recent years there has been a marked improvement in the quality of films featuring Marvel characters. The catalyst for this may have been Tim Burton’s Batman in 1989; this may have challenged Marvel to do better. We’ve seen a number of decent Spiderman and X-Men films, these were followed by Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, The First Avenger, they can tell stories, but they can’t necessarily give them good titles. These films laid the way for this one with its snappy title and its ensemble cast.
I was reminded of Watchmen and how that presented itself at the outset as being set in an alternate universe. This led me to wonder, what is being depicted here? Would this be in an alternate universe, as far as I know there are not superheroes on our earth? Is this a symbolic film, are they talking about different aspects of the human condition? Are there gods depicted that we forgot to worship that are in the background waiting to be worshipped again?
Maybe this film is fulfilling one of the roles of fiction in extrapolating and theorising what would happen in given situations. Albeit saying if Thor’s adopted brother, Loki, decided that he wanted dominion over today’s Earth, and that to achieve this he had stolen a source of unlimited power from the US Government, that had originally come from Asgard. Would the only way to stop him be to assemble a group of people with extraordinary abilities and resources, who would then fight him and the forces he summons?
If this all just fiction then it maybe all we need is to suspend our belief in reality, but then that depends on the credibility of what we’re shown, and how it’s explained. How can we evaluate the possibilities we see here without knowing the properties of the Tessaract, and really how Odin works really, without going into what are the properties of gamma radiation on the emotionally challenged man. I still can’t believe that Tony Stark’s girlfriend is called Pepper Potts.
Despite all of this the reason why this film works is because of the characterisation and the script. Joss Whedon has developed well rounded characters. In which he has honestly portrayed conflict and argument, between characters that on the surface should get along. There were however a few moments that grated, most of what Scarlett Johansson did and I began to tire of Robert Downey Jr, somewhat, by the end of the film.
For me the highlight of the film though is not absolutely necessary to the plot at all, there’s a beautiful scene with Mark Ruffalo and Harry Dean Stanton, it is beautiful and understated, not like the rest of the film. Although it discusses one of the major subplots, how damaging it can be to be a super hero and how it’s necessary to try and retain some reality, sanity and have someone you can trust. There is a lesson for us all, super hero or not.
Monday, 19 March 2012
The Descendants
On the face of it Matt King, George Clooney, has an enviable life. A beautiful wife with two beautiful daughters and they all live on the paradise island of Hawaii. At the beginning of the film we are disabused of all of the reasons to envy King. He soon tells us that Hawaii is not the paradise we think it is. Further to this his wife has a speed boat accident and goes into a coma and he then finds out from one of his daughters that she’s been having an affair. He discovers as well that his daughters have rather large behaviour issues, possibly caused by him being in his own mind ‘the back-up parent’. One of the themes of the film then is how the family, King’s descendants, deal with this situation.
We also see how King has to deal with his cousins; some of them broke, in formulating a potential billion dollar land development that would enrich all of them. They are descendants of their pioneering ancestors, who somehow gained a large part of one of the Hawaiian Islands.
The title is explored again when we look at how far his family has descended from a noble and honourable past. His children are dysfunctional without proper parental supervision and his cousins value their own financial wealth over the wishes of the rest of the islanders. At times we see King realise this and also how far he’s descended in a way without realising it.
This is a common theme for Alexander Payne. In Election, Sideways and About Schmidt we are given many examples of male selfishness, hubris, the decline (or descent) and what men can do to redeem themselves. Usually the films are immaculately crafted and plotted. To my mind this film is not immaculate. The performances though are excellent George Clooney is marvellous and Shailene Woodley excels as his eldest daughter. Disappointingly this film shows a slight decline in Payne’s career in comparison to his previous highs, maybe he’s the ultimate descendant.
We also see how King has to deal with his cousins; some of them broke, in formulating a potential billion dollar land development that would enrich all of them. They are descendants of their pioneering ancestors, who somehow gained a large part of one of the Hawaiian Islands.
The title is explored again when we look at how far his family has descended from a noble and honourable past. His children are dysfunctional without proper parental supervision and his cousins value their own financial wealth over the wishes of the rest of the islanders. At times we see King realise this and also how far he’s descended in a way without realising it.
This is a common theme for Alexander Payne. In Election, Sideways and About Schmidt we are given many examples of male selfishness, hubris, the decline (or descent) and what men can do to redeem themselves. Usually the films are immaculately crafted and plotted. To my mind this film is not immaculate. The performances though are excellent George Clooney is marvellous and Shailene Woodley excels as his eldest daughter. Disappointingly this film shows a slight decline in Payne’s career in comparison to his previous highs, maybe he’s the ultimate descendant.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
The Artist
At the beginning of the Artist we are shown that George Valentin will not speak. Indeed, this star of the silent age is tortured in his film and still will not speak. We are shown that this is the premiere of his new film and that when the audience enthusiastically applauds, George does not talk to them; he instead dances and performs tricks with his dog. Much to the annoyance of his co-star he hogs much of the limelight. It’s apparent that he doesn’t notice how annoyed she is. As the film progresses we see that it takes a lot for George to notice what goes on around him, save for adulation.
In telling the story of George the film concerns itself with discussing the end of silent films and the beginning of the talkies. George is resistant to this change as he doesn’t see a future in it. He sees that his silent films are very popular and believes that they will always be so. There is though the thought that George is afraid of mockery, he imagines a bevy of girls in clown costumes laughing at him while he can’t speak.
The film is certainly not unique in charting the decline of a star or indeed in charting the history of early Hollywood, or Hollywoodland as it is depicted here. We’ve also seen a number of black and white films since colour became de rigeur; Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese use it to dramatic effect. There’s also been faux forties thrillers, Steven Soderbergh’s the Good German among them.
We’ve also had silent films, Mel Brooks’s Silent Movie being the prime example. The Artist distinguishes itself by being a silent film using the technology of the day to explain what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s. This film though uses real silence as well, there are long sequences without dialogue in Paris, Texas and la Belle Noiseuse for instance, but not many films these days utilise the absence of film except to portray hearing loss.
When it comes down to the bare bones of it the film is a very well executed story that utilises age old ubiquitous themes such as decline and fall and the conflict between the new and the old. Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo perform exceptionally without dialogue, supported ably by such luminaries as James Cromwell and John Goodman, who must be playing Harvey Weinstein.
In telling the story of George the film concerns itself with discussing the end of silent films and the beginning of the talkies. George is resistant to this change as he doesn’t see a future in it. He sees that his silent films are very popular and believes that they will always be so. There is though the thought that George is afraid of mockery, he imagines a bevy of girls in clown costumes laughing at him while he can’t speak.
The film is certainly not unique in charting the decline of a star or indeed in charting the history of early Hollywood, or Hollywoodland as it is depicted here. We’ve also seen a number of black and white films since colour became de rigeur; Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese use it to dramatic effect. There’s also been faux forties thrillers, Steven Soderbergh’s the Good German among them.
We’ve also had silent films, Mel Brooks’s Silent Movie being the prime example. The Artist distinguishes itself by being a silent film using the technology of the day to explain what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s. This film though uses real silence as well, there are long sequences without dialogue in Paris, Texas and la Belle Noiseuse for instance, but not many films these days utilise the absence of film except to portray hearing loss.
When it comes down to the bare bones of it the film is a very well executed story that utilises age old ubiquitous themes such as decline and fall and the conflict between the new and the old. Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo perform exceptionally without dialogue, supported ably by such luminaries as James Cromwell and John Goodman, who must be playing Harvey Weinstein.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
War Horse
Steven Spielberg has been making a number of war films throughout his career. The first was the ill-fated 1941 and this has been followed by such illustrious films as Empire of the Sun, Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan. War Horse is his first film set during the First World War and is an adaptation of Michael Morpurgo’s novel and the National Theatre play. The story is concerned with Joey, the eponymous horse and his exploits in the said war.
Joey’s story quite usefully explores different facets of the war. We see the use of cavalry at the beginning of the war, the experience of child soldiers, the use of horses to pull large guns and the resultant use of those guns. Trench warfare and the Somme is also depicted along with gas and the use of barbed wire. All useful things to take into account if you’re doing an Open University course that involves the study of total war.
There is as well some beautiful photography. There’s a beautiful image of the horses reflected in the water as they’re ridden to their first battle. Cleverly Spielberg uses a reflection in the Joey’s eye when Emilie discovers him in the windmill. The scenes of Joey running through the trenches and no-man’s land are nothing short of breath taking as well.
There is a lot of emotion in the film as well though. At times I did find it over sentimental. Yes I could see that the boy Albert who reared Joey had a special bond with the horse. But, every ounce of emotion was wrung out of their scenes together, I suppose just to make sure you knew that. You could see that there were supposed to be funny lines at the beginning of the film, yet I only remember laughing twice during the film, this was during the scenes between Emilie was talking to her grandfather.
I think though that the film has more plusses than minuses. This is to be expected with a cast that includes Peter Mullan, Emily Watson, David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Liam Cunningham and Eddie Marsan. Some of the visuals are extraordinary some of the writing I don’t think is. It jarred, for instance, when people made announcements about the beginning and the end of the war. I think if it was tighter in places it could have been a great film and not a good film.
Joey’s story quite usefully explores different facets of the war. We see the use of cavalry at the beginning of the war, the experience of child soldiers, the use of horses to pull large guns and the resultant use of those guns. Trench warfare and the Somme is also depicted along with gas and the use of barbed wire. All useful things to take into account if you’re doing an Open University course that involves the study of total war.
There is as well some beautiful photography. There’s a beautiful image of the horses reflected in the water as they’re ridden to their first battle. Cleverly Spielberg uses a reflection in the Joey’s eye when Emilie discovers him in the windmill. The scenes of Joey running through the trenches and no-man’s land are nothing short of breath taking as well.
There is a lot of emotion in the film as well though. At times I did find it over sentimental. Yes I could see that the boy Albert who reared Joey had a special bond with the horse. But, every ounce of emotion was wrung out of their scenes together, I suppose just to make sure you knew that. You could see that there were supposed to be funny lines at the beginning of the film, yet I only remember laughing twice during the film, this was during the scenes between Emilie was talking to her grandfather.
I think though that the film has more plusses than minuses. This is to be expected with a cast that includes Peter Mullan, Emily Watson, David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Liam Cunningham and Eddie Marsan. Some of the visuals are extraordinary some of the writing I don’t think is. It jarred, for instance, when people made announcements about the beginning and the end of the war. I think if it was tighter in places it could have been a great film and not a good film.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Shame
Steve McQueen follows up his first film Hunger, with the story of a man with a different hunger. Brendan, Michael Fassbender, is a successful New Yorker with an ordered and very tidy apartment. He’s an attractive man, we see him flirting with a woman on the subway she seems to respond to his advances, but disappears in the crowd thwarting him. We see him paying a woman for sex and looking at porn on a computer. It soon becomes apparent that Brendan has an addiction to sex.
He seems to have worked out how he can do this and what his priorities are in life. This is all built in an existence built around his addiction. His world is turned upside down with the arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan). She’s an aspiring musician and ends up sleeping on Brendan’s couch and sleeping with his boss.
Throughout the film Brendan is confronted about his addiction, or at least his interaction with the people around him puts his addiction into perspective. The arrival of his sister interrupts his privacy; his married boss spends a lot of time chatting up women in bars. More tellingly maybe is when he goes on a date with a colleague and tells her that he sees no point in having a relationship. With her later on we see the first flickers of regret with his life.
To me it seems that Brendan is a man who wants to isolate himself from other people. It’s as if he doesn’t want to be in a situation where he would have to explain his behaviour to anyone else. In the Basil Dearden film Victim, there’s a scene where Dirk Bogarde confesses to his wife that he’s gay. He does this from the shadows while his wife is in the light. McQueen uses this chiaroscuro throughout the film which is either an indication that Brendan is keeping those around him in the dark, is keeping himself in the dark and therefore deluding himself, or all of the above.
The film is visually arresting, McQueen does so well at designing and creating the images, he did this as well with Hunger. I love the way that he uses images to inform us as to the nature of the character. The first scene of Brendan wandering round his apartment says so much about him. There’s also a beautiful scene of Sissy sings New York, New York and a tear comes to Brandon’s eye. You never know when shame will come and find you, seems to be the message.
He seems to have worked out how he can do this and what his priorities are in life. This is all built in an existence built around his addiction. His world is turned upside down with the arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan). She’s an aspiring musician and ends up sleeping on Brendan’s couch and sleeping with his boss.
Throughout the film Brendan is confronted about his addiction, or at least his interaction with the people around him puts his addiction into perspective. The arrival of his sister interrupts his privacy; his married boss spends a lot of time chatting up women in bars. More tellingly maybe is when he goes on a date with a colleague and tells her that he sees no point in having a relationship. With her later on we see the first flickers of regret with his life.
To me it seems that Brendan is a man who wants to isolate himself from other people. It’s as if he doesn’t want to be in a situation where he would have to explain his behaviour to anyone else. In the Basil Dearden film Victim, there’s a scene where Dirk Bogarde confesses to his wife that he’s gay. He does this from the shadows while his wife is in the light. McQueen uses this chiaroscuro throughout the film which is either an indication that Brendan is keeping those around him in the dark, is keeping himself in the dark and therefore deluding himself, or all of the above.
The film is visually arresting, McQueen does so well at designing and creating the images, he did this as well with Hunger. I love the way that he uses images to inform us as to the nature of the character. The first scene of Brendan wandering round his apartment says so much about him. There’s also a beautiful scene of Sissy sings New York, New York and a tear comes to Brandon’s eye. You never know when shame will come and find you, seems to be the message.
Saturday, 7 January 2012
The Iron Lady
In recent years we’ve had films about George W. Bush and the Queen, TV films about Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Gordon Brown and a couple of TV films about Margaret Thatcher. Now it’s Mrs T’s turn for the cinematic treatment in the Iron Lady.
Here we’re presented initially with Margaret Thatcher’s hinterland as she begins to face life without her husband. Through this she remembers her premiership and the highs and lows of her career. These of course include the Brighton bomb, the Falklands war and admonishing Geoffrey Howe in the Cabinet Room.
Meryl Streep does a decent enough job impersonation of Thatcher in her pomp and as a frail old woman in her dotage. I was slightly irritated by the little noises she kept on making throughout the film, I suppose that’s acting. Olivia Coleman sounded like Carol Thatcher but her prosthetics made her look neither like herself or Ms Thatcher. Jim Broadbent, as ever, gives an honest performance as Denis Thatcher. The interplay between him and Streep was one of the successes of the film; they did well to portray the genuine affection between the couple.
I found the film though to be very gossipy and made with very broad strokes. There could have been a bit more exploration to her political ideology. Was it all based on her father being a shopkeeper and her being a housewife, I think not. All of the flashbacks, as it were, concentrated on personality and nothing deeper at all. In the film Geoffrey Howe resigned because of the aforementioned humiliation, I think there was more to it than that. There was no mention of Westland at all, when Thatcher had her resignation letter in her handbag apparently. The only leader of the Opposition that seemed to be featured in her premiership was Michael Foot, a small foot note I’m sure.
The film is designed to make people feel sorry for this sad old woman who used to be Prime Minister. We’re shown that she misses her husband and misses being Prime Minister. At the beginning of the film she’s shocked to find that a pint of milk is 49p, she prided herself, when PM, on knowing how much a pint of milk, it proving in her mind that she was in touch. The major irony of the film is of course that it’s called The Iron Lady, and we’re quickly apprised of the fact that she’s no longer that.
Here we’re presented initially with Margaret Thatcher’s hinterland as she begins to face life without her husband. Through this she remembers her premiership and the highs and lows of her career. These of course include the Brighton bomb, the Falklands war and admonishing Geoffrey Howe in the Cabinet Room.
Meryl Streep does a decent enough job impersonation of Thatcher in her pomp and as a frail old woman in her dotage. I was slightly irritated by the little noises she kept on making throughout the film, I suppose that’s acting. Olivia Coleman sounded like Carol Thatcher but her prosthetics made her look neither like herself or Ms Thatcher. Jim Broadbent, as ever, gives an honest performance as Denis Thatcher. The interplay between him and Streep was one of the successes of the film; they did well to portray the genuine affection between the couple.
I found the film though to be very gossipy and made with very broad strokes. There could have been a bit more exploration to her political ideology. Was it all based on her father being a shopkeeper and her being a housewife, I think not. All of the flashbacks, as it were, concentrated on personality and nothing deeper at all. In the film Geoffrey Howe resigned because of the aforementioned humiliation, I think there was more to it than that. There was no mention of Westland at all, when Thatcher had her resignation letter in her handbag apparently. The only leader of the Opposition that seemed to be featured in her premiership was Michael Foot, a small foot note I’m sure.
The film is designed to make people feel sorry for this sad old woman who used to be Prime Minister. We’re shown that she misses her husband and misses being Prime Minister. At the beginning of the film she’s shocked to find that a pint of milk is 49p, she prided herself, when PM, on knowing how much a pint of milk, it proving in her mind that she was in touch. The major irony of the film is of course that it’s called The Iron Lady, and we’re quickly apprised of the fact that she’s no longer that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)