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.