EIFF

In my attitudes to Edinburgh I guess you could call me stereotypically Glaswegian. Thankfully my love of film considerably outweighs my intolerance of the capital. Thus I found the EIFF to be was a very enjoyable experience indeed.

Shorts:

Wed 24 Jun

International Shorts 3: Teen Spirit

This was a great way to start my festival experience. This was an eclectic programme of shorts all of which dealt with the theme of young people struggling with the coming of adulthood.

Things started off with Taiwanese short 'The Eighteenth Birthday Party' [Chuang Ching-shen] an elegant, disturbing and visually impressive if somewhat pompous and self-satisfied film. Next was sweet yet slight Kiwi comedy 'Betty Banned Sweets' [Michelle Savill] about the strained relationship between a boy who dreams of travelling and his emotionally detached mother. Following this was 'Eiko' [Christoph Kuschnig] from Austria; a brilliant little mysterious thriller, with a suitable nasty twist in its tail. The strongest film featured on this programme came next with the American 'Short Term 12' [Destin Daniel Cretton]; a funny, human and heart-breaking look at the day to day difficulties for social workers and the neglected children in their care. The programme ended with fantastic looking and creepy Irish entry 'Lowland Fell' [Michael Kinirons] in which the discovery of a mummified bog man brings a teenage girl and two brothers together for a night of sexual exploration.

Thur 25 Jun

UK Shorts 1

'Transgress' [Leanne Welham] kicked off the programme of varied British shorts, an intriguing if routine film in which the sexual tension between a woman and the wounded man she’s run over comes to a head. The charming 'Monsters & Rabbits' [Nicky Lianos] followed the friendship between of a lonely boy and girl and the threat this puts to the existence of the formers’ invisible friend. Then came 'Jade' [Daniel Elliot] about the emotional dilemma a teenage girl is faced with upon her discovery that she is pregnant. The creepy and distressing 'The Happiness Salesman' [Krishnendu Majumdar] followed. This was a great, highly effective little horror story featuring a Faustian Christopher Eccelston giving a young mother the opportunity to change her life and fulfil her dreams. My own favourite came next in wicked comedy 'Love Hate' [Blake & Dylan Ritson]; a fantastically sleek film in which a charity worker is reintroduced to his ‘hate’. Five Miles Out [Andrew Haigh] brought things to a close with an ambiguous and highly emotional film, that somewhat suffered from being too ordinary.

Press Screening Films:

I managed to get to two press and industry screenings in my two scheduled days at the festival.

Wed 24 Jun

I don’t want to give the following film any more attention than it deserves, so I’ll keep this review brutally short.

Romeo & Juliet vs The Living Dead (2009) [Dir: Ryan Demark] is utterly unfunny garbage.

*

Thur 25 Jun

Adam (2009) [Dir: Max Mayer] was a warm, funny and intelligent film, a welcome difference from the usual cold-detachment and self-indulgence of most US “indies”. Hugh Dancy gives a fantastic performance in the titular role as the Asperger‘s syndrome suffering lead. His future is uncertain, but romance may be around the corner in the shape of new neighbour Beth (Rose Byrne) and a new job across the country. In truth, the story is very slight (indeed one separate plotline involving Beth’s father’s criminal trail didn’t do anything for me) and the film is rather standard fare. But what elevates this is the strong performances from the two leads and an unexpected ending.

* * *

Talks:

My own personal highlights for the festival where the various talks and workshops I attended.

Wed 24 Jun

Having spent many an hour of my formative years enjoying watching low-grade and trash horror, monster, gangster and sci-fi movies I wasn’t going to miss out on seeing the “king of B’s” himself; Roger Corman (amongst his millions of films are the classics: A Bucket of Blood, The Masque of Red Death, X; the Man With X-Ray Eyes, The Wild Angels, The Trip, Little Shop of Horrors, The Intruder and The St Valentine’s Day Massacre). Corman is a fantastic orator, speaking in great detail with authority and humour about his long career. His talk was filled with fantastic stories and interesting asides. I was very much entertained.

Thur 25 Jun

The first of today’s talks was one for the camera-geeks. Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos (Mamma Mia, The Other Man, Sleuth) spoke about his preferred method of filming, the importance of preparation and his route into the industry. I found him insightful and brimming with useful tips and ideas.

We followed this talk by attending another with Corman protégée Joe Dante (Gremlins, Small Soldiers, The Howling). This was certainly and interesting talk, yet it was catered to the die hard Dante fan-boys and thus only being a casual viewer of his films I felt somewhat lost.

Sat 27 Jun

Another one for the camera-geeks; Seamus McGarvey in Conversation with Anthony Dod Mantle (Oscar winner for Slumdog Millionaire). As Steven so simply put it to me both are indeed ‘leges’ within the cinematography world, and as expected resulted in a simply fantastic talk from two masters of the craft. Mantle spoke of this route into the industry and his collaborations with various directors (Lars von Tier, Danny Boyle etc.). The talk was full of inspiring stuff for tech-heads but was never impenetrable and enjoyably humorous. This was by a long distance the best thing I saw in Edinburgh and on the strength of this I will certainly be coming back next year for more.

“I’m mad about apples me…”

"IT'S GARBAGE DAY!!!"

In the 100+ years that cinema has existed the vast majority of all films ever made have been bad. These films are easily forgotten as they don’t have that quality of being so offensively turgid that they stick in the memory. The difference between Tomb Raider and Jaws: The Revenge is that although the first is mundanely bad, the second is so goddamn awful it is forever lodged in the mind of the viewer after watching it. These types of films inhabit the sub-genre of movies ‘so bad it becomes perversely good’. These are films which range from Z-grade quality with cheapo effects, cardboard backdrops and acting that wouldn’t pass in pornography to mainstream blockbusters so effortlessly brain-dead it’s amazing they were even released. Amongst this select group one would have to include; Attack of the Mushroom People (1963), Rocky 4 (1985), Troll 2 (1990), The Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man, Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), the Santo Vs… movies, Surf Nazis Must Die (1988), the Godzilla films of the 70s and Leprechaun in the Hood (2002). All these utter piles of shit have gone full circle and have become essential, hilarious viewing and install a sense of nostalgia in the viewers who most probably first watched them as children.

The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue(1974 Dir: Jorge Grau) seemed to have all the right ingredients to class it as another of these chosen few films. In the Spanish-Italian production a new experimental agriculture machine is bringing the recently dead back to life and turning babies homicidal through pesticide-killing radiation.
But my hopes for a film were never met. As expected this was a ‘bad’, cheaply-made film. Yet the film never managed to scale the heights of lunacy I of expected of it. Instead of being an epic of bad-filmmaking TLDATMM was slow, tedious and never delivered on the promise of being “so bad, it’s good” like the classics of this sub-genre do. There were a few enjoyably awful moments. I chuckled along at the ketchup-blood, delayed pacing and obligatory nudie dance scene. I particularly liked the bizarre regional dubbing and some of the dialogue will make the skin crawl.
In truth ‘Manchester Morgue’ was slightly too well made to be considered another magnificent disasterpiece. At moments it could be said to be genuinely creepy and nightmarishly surreal. Even the use of the bleak Northern setting was impressive. I can’t put my finger on it but somehow this film remained just a forgettable bad [bad] film instead of a truly ‘bad’ [good] one. This is a film that has the potential to be so much worse than it is. Unfortunately somewhere alone the way someone got it right.

* (or in the bad=hilarious scale * *)

An altogether more gloriously demented and hugely enjoyable film arrived this week in the form of Crank 2: High Voltage (2009 Dir: Neveldine/Taylor). Having survived falling out a soaring helicopter Chev Chelios [Jason Statham] has his heart replaced with a battery powered one by some oddly camp gangsters. Thus our hero must keep up his electric charge as he rampages across Los Angeles to get it back.
For fans of the first film, don’t fret as this sequel somehow manages to out-do the madness of the original. The absolute lunacy of proceedings presented here has to be applauded.
This adrenaline pumping action film is refreshingly filthy-mouthed, un-PC funny and utterly insane. This film and its predecessor can be seen as the filmic equivalents of the Gran Theft Auto video game series in terms of unrestricted energy and the utterly ridiculous levels of city-carnage displayed here. The Crank franchise is big and it’s stupid, the filmmakers know this and except it. This allows them to push the film way beyond the point of sanity.

I predict Crank 2 for Best Picture 2010.

* * * *

For my final two cinema visits of the week we need to travel to the slightly less absurd and implausible settings of politics and journalism.

Armando Ianmucci’s (one of the brains behind The Day Today and I’m Alan Partridge) cinematic spin-off from The Thick of It; In the Loop (2009), is a bleakly funny, satirical swear-a-thon.
As with the series, the film deals with the venomous, political spin-master and government enforcer Malcolm Tucker (a hilariously egotistical Peter Capaldi) in his role as damage limitation for bad press. In this case with the potential run up to war in the Middle East Tucker sends ambitious but effortlessly dim MP Simon Forster (Tom Hollander) to Washington to act as pawn between Downing Street and the White House.
This a very funny film, powered along by good performances from all the cast, specially Capaldi, Hollander and James Gandolfino as a pacifist Pentagon general. Of special note is Paul Higgins as Tucker’s psychotic right-arm man Jamie, who just about manages to steal every scene he’s in. There are some very good one-liners peppered throughout the film, forget Richard Curtis’ soggy ‘The Boat that Rocked’ as this is the must-see British comedy of the year. At last, a film that proves, as I’ve been saying for years, that in certain hands swearing can indeed be an art-form and one that should rightfully be encouraged.

F**K! + C**T! = * * * *

Also based on an acclaimed BBC television series is State of Play (2009 Dir: Kevin Macdonald). This film transplants the action of Paul Abbot’s original series from London to Washington DC.
This is a sleek and intelligent if occasionally routine corporate thriller in which old-school journo Russell Crowe teams up with rookie blogger Rachael McAdams in order to unveil a conspiracy involving the mysterious death of congressman Ben Affleck’s aid. The congressman is currently investigating a sinister private hire company dealing in supplying mercenary agents for armed combat. Could they possibly be behind the death in order to silence Affleck or are there other hidden personal motives at play?
State of Play is a reasonably enjoyable standard Hollywood thriller. The performances are good and there are enough set pieces to keep proceedings moving. But the film suffers in over familiarisation and having no real sense of urgency, or any real danger. The film rushed the conclusion, while earlier padding (especially Crowe’s relationship with Robin Wright Penn as the congressman’s bland wife) could have been trimmed. There is one rather good twist towards the end, but by this time I had already guessed the ending.
Having seen the Hollywood version, I now want to see the original for comparison. Perhaps the problems I had with the film will not be as prominent over a longer time-scale.

* * *

Cruel Britannia

For the following blog we need to jump in our DeLorean and hit 88 mph. Our destination: the past. Speeding backwards through time we arrive in Britain’s recent murky past. This is the Britain of the 1970s-80s; a country seemingly grinding to a halt, this is a land with an unimaginable future. The economy is in ruins (possibly collapse), religious hatred and antisocial behaviour is the norm and the powers within society (government, police, prison, industry) are so flawed and rotten that only corruption holds them in place.

This grubby, crumbling country is the setting for the all the films under discussion within this blog.

First up is ‘Bronson’, the story of Charles Bronson (aka Michael Peterson) the man deemed “Britain’s most dangerous criminal” by the tabloids and who has spent 30 of the past 34 years in jail through his continued attacks on guards and hostage taking by way of keeping himself locked up.
In director Nicolas Winding Refn’s hands what could have been a rather grim and humdrum social- realist portrait of a decaying prison system is turned into one of the weirdest and intriguing films to come out of this recent ‘Brit-Gangster’ sub-genre. The bizarre methods that the film employs is probably the only way into the mindset of this very peculiar and disturbed man. It’s possible to note the influences throughout the film; Sexy Beast, Chopper, David Lynch and Kubrick.
Tom Hardy is simply terrifying plausible as Bronson, a man whose sees his gift for violence as a fame-seeking route to notoriety, a man incapable of dealing with a normal life outside of prison. Of the other cast, Matt King (better known as Super Hans from Peep Show) is of particular note as Bronson’s gay fighting promoter. King manages to steal every scene he features in despite the little screen time his character is given.
Even before this film was released it was being accused of glamorising violence in the manner of ‘geezer-porn’ (see Danny Dyer’s CV). But I didn’t see that problem in this film. The violence is very stylised and often staged in a surreal dream-like quality, yet it is not played for cheap thrills. Like Kubrick’s ‘A Clockwork Orange [1971]’ the disturbing nature of this film comes from the fact that the main protagonist (whose actions are so repellent) is made rather charismatic and understandable through Hardy’s performance. But this slight humanising of Bronson makes his violence all the more shocking and demented, at no time are we cheering along Bronson.
Through the actors’ performances (particularly Hardy’s powerhouse Bronson) and skill of the film-makers this potentially limited material is turned into an unusual and memorable film. I can see this as a film that needs repeat viewing to fully understand the nuances within.

* * * *

This week also saw the end of Channel 4’s mammoth series ‘The Red Riding Trilogy’. Based on crime novelist David Peace’s quartet of the same name, each film is a separate yet interlocking and convoluted tale of corruption, violence and the lasting damaging effects these actions have on society. These semi-fictional accounts all take place within a specific year (1974, 1980 & 1983)^, blurring the lines between fact and reality, using the crimes and politics of the time as its bleak backdrop. Having been a fan of Peace’s writing (something of an English James Ellroy) for some time I eagerly awaited these highly crafted pieces of Yorkshire-noir.
Proceedings kick off in 1974. A journalist for the Yorkshire Post; Eddie (Andrew Garfield), having returned from a failed career down South, begins to investigate the disappearances of local young girls. These investigations lead him to believe that the man who confessed to the killings couldn’t possibly have committed such acts. Eddie’s snooping brings him into direct contact with the corrupt Yorkshire police force and property magnate John Dawson (a predatory Sean Bean). The cast which included Rebecca Hall, Peter Mullan and Eddie Marsan were uniformly excellent and the film was solidly made. As the film continued it become stranger and darker, at times it felt like Yorkshire had warped through a black hole into the mind of a David Lynch.
Of the three film, the first one is perhaps the weakest (interestingly the novel has been somewhat disowned by Peace), it suffers from being too formulaic, predictable and familiar in the realms of crime fiction. At times 1974 felt like an extended and self-important, albeit occasionally brilliant, routine television crime drama. This being the first film, the story lacks the interlocking complexities, fractured narrative and nuanced multi-layers of the following adaptations.

By 1980, things have improved dramatically. Six years have passed since the previous film and decent cop Peter Hunter [Paddy Considine] from neighbouring Manchester has been called in to investigate the inner workings and possible corruption within the Yorkshire force’s handling of the ongoing Yorkshire Ripper killings. As with the previous effort, the direction (from Man on Wire’s James Marsh) and the cast were excellent. Of particular note were Maxine Peake, Warren Clarke and a terrifying turn from Sean Harris.
The second instalment was more forbidding, bleaker and slower yet ultimately more gripping and complex than the previous film. It says something of the film’s strength that it made you want to re-watch 1974 to pick up on the threads that begin with that story and which became so tangled in this one.

With the final instalment, it’s now 1983 and the child killings of 9 years previously have come back to haunt Yorkshire. Another local girl has gone missing and with the striking similarities to the abductions of 1974, guilt ridden detective chief superintendent Maurice Jobson [David Morrissey] begins to realise that perhaps they arrested the wrong man. Meanwhile the innocent man’s [Daniel Mays] family solicitor John Piggit [Mark Addy] is determined to discover who is responsible.
This concluding film was the weirdest of this already strange series. Whereas in 1974 & 1980 the corrupt powers of Yorkshire were plausibly realistic, this film was rather more gothic in its styling, suggesting that these people may in fact be ‘evil’. This took the film into some unexpected areas, at times it played more like a horror film, included were possible nods to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, Straw Dogs and more than a few to Orwell’s seminal novel of the year following this films. Proceedings were even given a supernatural air through Jobson’s romancing of a local medium, and her telling of the future. Although an interesting departure from the previous instalments, at times this shift in tone did occasionally strain the credibility of the story. Nevertheless the film remained gripping and devastating. This was also the most visually striking of the films, helped no doubt as this one was shot using Red.

It’s certainly grim up North; with the forever-stretching grey moors, crumbling slums and looming nuclear coolant towers, this series has proved to be one of the bleakest and peculiar pieces of British television in recent years. With the series delving into this country’s grubby past it also says something of the collapsing of modern post- Thatcherite Britain in trying in pinpoint the moment in our country’s history were everything turned to shit. Its basic theme that the repercussions of violence and corruption continue to damage society has proved Red Riding to be very timely. Although flawed and somewhat self-important, these films were very well crafted intriguing television, the likes of which are so rarely made in Britain.

1974 * * * 1980 * * * * * 1983 * * * *

^ Peace’s Nineteen Seventy Seven was not chosen for adaptation.

Watch-Mania

Watchmen’s end credits are rolling, and suddenly the cinema erupts into cheering. I immediately felt that there must be something wrong with me for not wildly enjoying this film. These feelings were cemented upon my meeting a few friends outside the cinema. They told me of how the film was “flawless”, “a masterpiece” and how I must be so ignorantly stupid for my not fully appreciating this film and that my disappointment was evidence of my “not liking of films that require thinking”. How could a fantastic graphic novel produce a lacklustre film?

This is maybe where the confusion for my fan-boy friends lies. Surely if it’s almost exactly the same then great comic= great movie. I’m afraid that this isn’t the case with Watchmen.

Don’t get me wrong, the film is well made, sporadically brilliant, but I was just bored to tears by most of it. Occasionally the film was fantastic, the opening assassination of The Comedian and the opening titles were brilliant. But after this strong opening, the film’s pace slows and becomes rather plodding. The alternate American timeline and great pop culture moments of the 20th century were all splendidly reconstructed, but there was little in the way of the
characterization or deep psychological nuances of the graphic novel. This film suffers from the 20 years in development hell and the impossible anticipation that such a time scale generates. “Watchmen” was so hyped to the point of lunacy that any mumbles of “it’s not that great” would be drowned out by the enthusiasm of the fans.

The basic problem with the film is that it sticks too closely to the storyline of the original material. I was struck by a strange sense of deja vu watching Zack Snyder’s incredibly faithful adaptation. This is possibly due to the fact that the film is copied almost entirely verbatim from the comic. This is an unusual film in that is requires a fair knowledge of the source material, but in having this knowledge it also robs the film of any tension or audience engagement. What works so well in the comic doesn’t necessarily work on the silver screen. It was a mistake not to slightly rework the comic’s structure into a more film-friendly narrative. The film is meandering, flabby and self-important, getting bogged down in endless exposition and shifts in tone. With the exception of Jeffery Dean Morgan’s ‘The Comedian’ and Jackie Earle Haley’s ‘Rorschach' I felt the other characters were incredibly dull and whiny. Moore & Gibbons’ story was so rooted in the fears of nuclear extinction at the hands of Soviet/American warfare that now in the 21st century it the film seems quaint, out of touch and old-fashioned. Nuclear war was so 1980s. A less strict adaptation would have benefited the film greatly; one that deals with the themes and issues of the original but in a more relevant setting.

I might be wrong, committed Watchmen fans shout me down if you feel the need, but at least this is a mainstream comic-book film that can provoke such debate.

Not a bad film, but a missed opportunity. * * *

Clint, the Ayatollah & Canadian Metal

Howdy folks,

After the rather hectic couple of weeks I’ve just had I decided I needed to relax. And how better to do so then with a good documentary series filled with war, political backstabbing and clashes of religious values and ideology.

For all you political history buffs out there I would strongly recommend the fantastic BBC documentary series ‘Iran and the West’ whilst it’s still available on the I Player. This series charts the problematic relationship between Western powers and Iran following the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in which America lost an allies in the Shah. The history is detailed and complex, yet the programme is clear and focused. It’s incredibly engaging and never confusing.
The contributors are excellent including former presidents Carter [US], Khatami [Iran] and Putin [Russia], intelligence agents from both sides amongst other high ranking officials. The programme shows in a fair unbiased manner the political manoeuvres and dealings of each country in response to each others interests within the region. For those interested in 20th-21st century international history ‘Iran and the West’ would prove essential.

* * * * *

For anyone seeking further reading this volatile regions’ history I recommend ‘Conflicts in the Middle East Since 1945 [3rd Edition]’ by Beverley Milton-Edwards & Peter Hinchcliffe.

A rather more lightweight yet ultimately more human documentary arrived in ‘Anvil: The Story of Anil’ [Dir: Sasha Gervasi]. At some point in the early 80s it seemed that “demi-gods of Canadian metal” Anvil were destined to become titans in heavy metal music. Their admirers include Lemmy [Motorhead] and Slash [Guns & Roses] and their sound acted as an influence on Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer.
Yet Anvil never reached the heights of fame achieved by these other bands. 20 years on this is still a cross to bear for childhood friends Steve ‘Lips’ Kudlow (vocals) and Rob Reiner (drums). The film catches them as they embark on a truly disastrous European tour.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that this may be some elaborative hoax, Spinal Tap’s shadow hangs over this film. Yet we continue to root for these lovably hapless 50 year olds through the pain and suffering that comes with artistic desire. It reminded me of ‘American Movie’ (1999) in that both have us hoping that these artists on the fringes of fame achieve the level of happiness and success they strive for.
This is a very funny, warm and rather touching film. If you’re looking for a true ‘feel-good’ movie forget Slumdog (despite the advertising claim I would hardly call it heart-warming) and catch this instead.

* * * *

Dirty Harry was also aging disgracefully this week in ‘Gran Torino’ [Dir: Clint Eastwood]. Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is a bigoted veteran of the Korean War whose prejudice has shifted to the Asian community he believes is sullying his Detroit neighbourhood.
But the lonely Kowalski is brought out of his shell as he befriends the family next door. His sense of justice surfacing as he goes to their defence in the face of the gang that’s targeting the youngest son.
Eastwood plays Kowalski with aplomb; he’s bitter and racist yet melancholic with a sense of fairness. If all that I’ve said makes ‘Gran Tornio’ sound like a pretentious and heavy handed film, forgive me for it is not. The film is also very funny, most of the humour coming from the mouth of the gloriously un-PC and risqué Kowalski. Nick Schenk’s witty dialogue is given malevolent snarl form Eastwood’s Walt. If this proves to be Eastwood’s acting swansong then he’s going out on one of the most interesting and complicated characters of his career.
Gran Torino is a film that possibly requires repeated viewing in order to gain the subtleties within. As with Unforgiven (1992) it’s a meditation on retaliation and the true nature of violence and the guilt it brings. Like Unforgiven this film also uses Clint’s image as revenging outlaw/ruthless cop to highlight the futility of violence as a means to stopping other violence. Ultimately the film is about redemption and Kowalski does this through his accepting of his past deeds and in befriending the people he once had so much content with.
Unlike his recent Changeling (2008), Eastwood’s direction is not flashy; it’s refreshingly stark and solid. At no times does this become overly melodramatic or feels the need to strive for effect.

* * * *

Below is a link to one of the contributing factors towards my absence in the world of blogging. We need more hits.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaP18iOUtu4

The 70s in Glorious Brown and Orange

This week saw the release of two films each dealing with the American political landscape of the 70s. “Frost/Nixon” and “Milk” are the big contenders in this years Oscar nominations with both films up for Best Picture & Director, with the lead actors and supports also have been given a nod.

The eagerly anticipated film version of Peter Morgan’s successful stage play, “Frost/Nixon”, concerns the former disgraced president’s 4 part television interview with British chat show host David Frost.
Each man has his own agendas for the show. Frost sees the interviews as his path to greatness and respect as a broadcaster. He is also in pursuit of the elusive apology the American public is so desperate to hear. Nixon needs to exonerate himself after resigning the presidency over the Watergate conspiracy scandal.
The film charts Frost’s cheque-book courtship of Nixon, the investigative preparations for the records through to the recordings and the aftermath.
I thought this was a strong, well made film. Essentially it was a boxing film which didn’t feature any physical violence. The interviews are structured like bouts; the politically savvy Nixon runs rings around Frost, before being dealt a knockout in the final round.
Ron Howard’s direction restructures the play for cinema and was subtle and un-showy. But the film doesn’t entirely shake off its ‘stagy’ origins. This is primarily an actors’ film. Both leads were captivating, Michael Sheen hints at the intelligence behind the sometimes self-important Frost; a man whose pride is damaged through his lightweight reputation. Frank Langella was a revelation as Richard Milhous Nixon. His Nixon is a tragic man, a formidable political operator yet unable to connect with ordinary people. Nixon could so easily have become the stereotypical bumbling, sweaty idiot he is often painted as. But here he is shown to be a man of great intelligence, self-hating and deluded.
A good film, but not great * * *

Also out this week is Gus Van Sant’s new film “Milk”, the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to major public office and his ultimate assassination.
Once again the performances were strong. Sean Penn was almost unrecognisable as Harvey Milk. It’s unusual to see him as charismatic as he is here. Milk is far removed from Penn’s usual macho self-hating roles. But perhaps the film is too plain. It’s a rather classical piece of storytelling, charting in flashback Penn’s raise to city supervisor, a vocal exponent of gay rights and increasingly powerful politician. This is fine and the reconstruction of the 70s was good but I got the nagging feeling that perhaps I’d seen this sort of biopic too many times before. Josh Brolin was great as the wounded and embittered rival to Milk, Dan White. But he wasn’t given enough screen time and was introduced too late into proceedings. The film maybe should have focused more on the relationship between these two. I think that the film makers missed an opportunity to tell a rather more unusual and conflicting story.
* * *

--------------------------------------------------
P.S. In relation to Julie’s blog, I’m not sure what would be on my top list of massacres.

Vice City

In a recent interview that was featured in last weeks’ Sunday Herald, Danny Boyle (whose new fantastic film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is at cinemas now) said that:

“…the vast majority of them [films] are all about cities.”

The following list is comprised of films and television series that show off the multi-layered society that exists within a metropolis. These are sprawling cities made of class structures and where different cultures clash. As with all large cities the criminal underside sits along side the police and judicial system with their ties to business and industrial wealth overshadowing a failing education and health system.

Los Angeles [as seen in ‘Falling Down’ (1993)] This ultra-black comedy sees redundant defence worker D-Fens (Michael Douglas, never better) go nuclear in the rigidly divided, multi-ethnic, sprawling Los Angeles. He takes out his repressed rage against Korean store owners, violent Latino gangs, rude drivers, snobby golf-course wrinklies and obstructive fast food workers and a homophobic neo-Nazi.

See also: Devil in a Blue Dress, LA Confidential, Heat, Repo Man, To Live and Die in LA, Chinatown, Point Blank, Assault on Precinct 13, Sunset Boulevard, Biggie & Tupac, Blade Runner

London [as seen in ‘Naked’ (1993)] The capital has never looked quite as slimy, decaying or broken as in Mike Leigh’s disturbing tale of male self-hatred and misogynist attitudes. Mucky Manc; Johnny (David Thewlis) wanders the near Victorian squalor of London’s nights awaiting the coming apocalypse.

See also: Night and the City, Nil by Mouth, Children of Men, Eastern Promises, Frenzy, Performance, The Long Good Friday, Dirty Pretty Things, Bullet Boy, Mona Lisa, 28 Days Later…

Springfield [as seen in ‘The Simpsons (1989-)] The sheer level of ineptitude on all levels of society here is breathtaking. From the corrupt mayoral system, woeful police force, uncaring religious leaders to the shambles of a school system and the lecherous media, everything in this city is crazy and self-deluded. All this is ruled over by the absolute power of evil industrialist Mr Burns. No wonder the city frequently turns riotous at the drop at a hat. Shame about the movie though.

Johannesburg [as seen in ‘Louis Theroux: Law & Disorder’ (2008)] This shocking one-off documentary was perhaps the scariest thing on television last year. Theroux follows some of the corrupt private security firms (whom seemingly exist outside of the law) that effectively police the estates and streets of ‘J-Burg’. At times the programme was almost dystopian in it’s depiction of the city strewn with ethnic and racial violence, gangsters and the vigilante mobs.

See also: The Leader, his Driver and the Driver’s Wife, Tsotsi

Osaka [as seen in High and Low (1963)] This is one of Kurosawa’s leaser known efforts but also one of his best. It’s a film of two halves; the first is set entirely in the luxurious mountain-top house of a wealthy industrialist (Toshiro Mifune) whose son has been kidnapped. The second excitingly follows the police investigation across the sprawling, sweating city. This film gets progressively darker and stranger as they delve the city’s immigrant Chinese community, the dope dens, hospitals, ports and seedy night clubs.

Baltimore [as seen in ‘The Wire' (2002-2007)]
The thing about the arguably “the greatest TV series ever” was that nobody watched it. What was initially a story about the drugs trade fought in the ghettos of West ‘B-More’ between the cops and the corner boys then expanded and was built upon with every subsequent series. The post-industrial city took centre stage and was depicted in near epic Dickensian scale. The series showed corruption and failings on every level from the port unions to city hall, inner city education system and the local press. Yet the show never lost sight of the personal stories at the heart of this modern tragedy. I can’t big up this show enough. Watch it!!!

See also: Most of John Waters films

Other great cities on film: Hong Kong [Police Story], Paris [Breathless], Belfast [Odd Man Out], Las Vegas [Fear and Loathing…], Mumbai [Slumdog Millionaire], Tokyo [Akira], Berlin [Berlin Alexanderplatz], Rome [Rome Open City], New York [Taxi Driver], Gotham City [The Dark Knight], Metropolis [Metropolis], Newcastle [Get Carter] San Francisco [Vertigo], Vienna [The Third Man] Rio de Janeiro [Bus 174] Bruges [In Bruges] Algiers [The Battle for Algiers]

The Return of Mr E

Howdy troops...long time no blog.

I’ve been lost in the realms of technological inadequacy for quite some time now. Ever since my home computer took a massive flaky and decided to commit suicide I’ve had to computer-me time. But with a new one in the house I’m now web-bound again (hooray!!!).

New films I’ve seen this week:

Slumdog Millionaire [Dir: Danny Boyle]

Che: Part One [Dir: Steven Soderbergh]

The Wrestler [Dir: Darren Aronofsky]

All 3 films, each from acclaimed directors, have been widely praised and peppered with awards galore. But do they live up to their hype?

Of these three ‘Che: Part One’ is the weakest. It’s a solidly made film, it looks fantastic (courtesy of the Red Cam) and the direction is assured and without flab. But there are flaws.
‘Che’ is a difficult film to engage with; Benicio Del Toro’s performance reveals little of the man’s motivations and instead plays the role as determined but cold and elusive. There is none of the man’s charisma and little of the man’s little harking at the man’s more sinister personality traits. We learn as much from Del Toro’s Che as we would the iconic t-shirt.
It’s an unusual film in that it requires some amount of prior knowledge concerning Guevara and his role in bringing down Batista as part of the Cuban revolution. But in knowing the history the film is made redundant as it treads all too familiar ground. The main problem is that in Soderbergh’s decision to have the two films reflect two different points in Guevara’s life this has robbed the film of any real engagement or excitement as the ending should be common knowledge to most. The first film is squarely about the successful guerrilla campaign in the hills of Cuba, thus the ending is nothing of a surprise. Part 2 is based upon his demise in Bolivia. (Spoiler alert!) He dies! So once again the film is presumably robbed of any tension or audience engagement. This timeline also omits the rather more nasty aspects of Guevara’s personality. The days where he is in power in Cuba ordering the executions of the innocent people are missed through this selective chronology. The only person he out-and-out kills in this film is a traitor and a rapist [these are expectable killings so that’s okay].
My suggestion would be to make a film about his disastrous campaign in the Congo, an all together more interesting and not as widely known subject.
A solid, but disappointing film. * * *

I found Darren Aronofsky’s new film ‘The Wrester’ all together more enjoyable and human than ‘Che’. Mickey Rourke (in a Travolta of a career resurrection) plays Randy “The Ram” Robinson a formerly successful wrestler in the late 80s he know lives out his dead end existence performing to die hard fans in the community centres of New Jersey.
When Randy suffers a heart attack after a violent bout his doctors advise him to stay off his steroids and quit the wrestling. Seeing that he’s wasting away his life Randy tries to make amends with his long neglected daughter. But the draw of the chanting crowds is too much for Randy to resist, the ring is where his life makes sense.
To call the film ‘the Rocky of wrestling movies’ is to do it a disservice. The film is surprising tender yet not sentimental. It’s bleak yet not humourless. Occasionally it’s very funny, my favourite piece involving Randy waking in a fireman obsessed floozies’ bedroom. It even gave me a better insight into the wrestling world. So what if it’s faked, these men put their bodies through amazing feats of athletics and skill.
The performances are uniformly excellent. Marisa Tomei is brilliant as Randy’s would be soul-mate stripper Pam, damaged and getting old, feeling each day past by. Rourke is best he’s been in years, maybe ever? He brings a note of loneliness, humour and melancholy to what could have been a rather meat-headed stereotype. Both actors play the characters as highly sympathetic as each use their bodies as slabs of meat for the paying public. The film is well written and the pace never drags and unlike so many sports films it isn’t repetitive it doesn’t outstay its welcome. Aronofsky cuts down on his trademark head buzzing visuals (as seen in Requiem for a Dream) and makes his most personal and moving film yet.
The one weak note in the film is the scenes between Randy and his estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood). Some of the rather clichéd lines that Wood is dealt sound far too ‘movie talk’ the breaking the relative realism of the film.
This slight quibble aside, I found this an excellent film, well worth a look.
* * * * *

My favourite film of the three this week has to be Danny Boyle’s simply fantastic ‘Slumdog Millionaire’.
We begin the film with 18 year old Jamal (the excellent Dev Patel of ‘Skins’ fame) from the slums of Mumbai one question away from winning the ultimate prize on India’s version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. He must be cheating. Overnight Jamal is interrogated by police, who believe him to be a cheat. How is it possible for an uneducated orphan ‘slumdog’ to get this far? The film flashes back to various points and incidents in Jamal’s life revealing how he would know the answers. Through these stories we chart the rise of Salim, Jamal’s gangster brother and his attempts to locate the lost love of his life.
Slumdog Millionaire pulses with an infectious energy; the film is a broad mix of comedy, romance, part gangster film and docudrama. Mumbai is given the ‘City of God’ treatment that perhaps stems from Boyle’s outsiders perspective [Brazilian director Fernando Mierelles’ middle class upbringing was far removed from his fellow countrymen’s favelas existence]. I haven’t seen a film quite as vivid and invigorating like this in some time. The film buzzes along at a brisk pace and although it could not be said to be realist, the film reveals something of the multi-layered, racially and economically divided society of modern India.
The adverts for the film like to claim it was; “the most feel good film in a decade”, and although it does leave you with a spring in your step, the film doesn’t shy away from the darker aspects of Indian Society. Mumbai is a city awash with money as India is destined to become an economic powerhouse, but along side this new found wealth is the absolute poverty of gangster-controlled slums. The police force is not shown to be much better than the vicious gangsters who exist outside the law. They’re corrupt and prone to torture. All of this existing in the massive shadow of Bollywood. I believe that this is a film with lasting appeal. With the troubling predictions of a looming international depression; this film with its key themes of poverty, mobility and money will gain in importance with age.
A truly fantastic film, Boyle’s best since Trainspotting. * * * * *


All together a rather good start to 2009.