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.