This week's viewing has been dominated by one really rather special film. Despite buying a new bazillion inch wide HD TV the other week we decided to have a change from the usual routine (S watching some rubbish American series and me on the computer, ignoring the TV) and go out and do something together. It had been a while since we'd been to the cinema (the last thing we'd seen was Shutter Island) and there wasn't anything on that had particularly jumped out at me and so S suggested Away We Go.
I have to admit I wasn't totally thrilled at the prospect, on the face of it it looks like a pretty typical indie-thirtysomething film - plus the fact that I'm not a huge fan of either Sam Mendes or Dave Eggars. But with the absence of anything else worth watching (and in that category I do include both Alice in Wonderland and The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus!) I thought we could do a lot worse.
The film starts with two typically disfunctional bohemian thirtysomethings, Veronica (Maya Rudolph) and Burt (John Krasinski) finding out that they are going to have a baby. Having thus far made little of their lives and with Burt's parents moving to Belgium they have no ties and decide to travel to see their family and friends and choose a new home in which to raise their child. Here begins the true strength of the movie: an amazing ensemble cast.
The couple experience a wide range of family situations, from the inattentive (Allison Janney) to the over attentive (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and two very different family tragedies. Through their journey they discover what they really want from a family.
The story of self discovery might not be particularly new or original and nor are the dyfunctional thirtysomethings who still haven't figured out what they want with life but the real beauty of this film for me (and maybe this says more about me than the film) was the fact that I saw so much of my own reactions and fears in the film. One of the common criticisms of the films has been that Veronica and Burt come off as superior people compared to their friends and family but I agree with Roger Ebert when he wrote, "well, maybe they are".
Plus Burt is kinda obsessed with boobs, a trait I can totally sympathise with.
So it is there that I start my all too predictable backlash against Avatar. Unless you have been living under a rock, hate the cinema or are incredibly out of touch with the outside world (in which case why are you reading this?) you will have heard of, if not seen this film, apparently a marvel of modern cinema. The film that has wowed audiences across the world, raked in squillions of dollars for the studios and won tons of awards. It also, perplexingly, took seven (7!!!) years to write.
Now, I think before I really get started on this, a small disclaimer is in order - when it comes to films I am a complete luddite - that is I don't care a jot for all these technological advances. It was a step too far for me when they started to show films in colour. In all seriousness though I would say around 95% of the films I watch for pleasure don't use CGI and I really don't see the point of it. If you're watching a cartoon fair enough but I have never understood the point of mixing live action with computer generated graphics. Both make it equally hard for me to dispel my disbelief but with CGI there's always an element of ridiculousness because you know the actors are prancing around in front of a green screen.
Now in the large majority of films that employ CGI (although I take this as read because I haven't actually seen very many but I know this to be true), and Avatar is as much guilty of this as any in recent memory, the vast amounts spent on CGI has been an excuse not to bother with some fundamentals of film making:
Characterisation
Plot
Good scripts
The plot of Avatar is laughably simplistic, an alien planet is discovered which contains a valuable mineral ('unobtainium'...wow...just wow!). The planet is already inhabited by several alien species, one humanoid and seemingly primitive and so rather than blow them away straight away efforts are made to communicate with them by using some incredibly advanced technology that involved implanting the mind of a human into the body of an alien. (the technology is obviously incredibly advanced but can be run from a shack in the jungle with no obvious power source). Predictably the human mole sent in to move the aliens along falls in love with their culture and when the inevitable battle starts he obviously helps the aliens.
Now you could be jealous and say that the (lack of any decent) plot was to allow the audience to focus on the, admittedly beautiful, visuals. But 3 hours of beautiful (computer generated) visuals does not a good film make. I'm a huge fan of David Attenborough's nature shows because although many of the scenes he shows are amazing, beautiful, and even shocking, you know that everything he shows exists and you're reminded that as inventive as fiction is nothing is quite as extraordinary as reality. Instead we're expected to be wowed for three hours by six legged slimy tigers and blue giants who can plug into nature.
Then there was the predictable battle, led by the evil army colonel (who seemed to be based on Guile from Streetfighter), where the typical modern battle convention of jump cuts every .3 of a second seem to predominate. Whether the audiences like this headache inducing style or whether it's to cover for the deficiencies of the technology I don't know but after the headache of the 3D it didn't seem to matter by then. Again it could be me but the whole 3D thing seems like a bit of a waste of time. In no way do you feel you are there, inside the movie, in about 5 or 6 scenes in the whole film it actually adds something to the video and by the end of 3 hours wearing the glasses your nose is aching.
So then, what's left to say, some people will like this film and to be perfectly honest I don't blame them in the slightest, but in terms of my own personal cinematic tastes you couldn't go much further to find a film to offend all of them.
For the first of 2010's 'This week in film' I have stumbled across one of 2009's best (and most criminally underrated) films.
Adventureland (2009) - Greg Mottola
I am a total sucker for these indie 'rom coms' and usually I have to explain them away as some kind of dirty guilty secret but with Adventureland I have no apologies to make as this is a genuinely sweet and sincere film. OK it's rehashing of the 'boy meets girl, girl leads him on whilst screwing him over with another guy, so boy gets back with second girl before realising he loves the first' is not the most original story in the book but it manages to portray the ridiculousness of young love and 'courting' to such a great extent that anyone in (or who remembers their) youth can't help but give a wry smile.
The story centres on James, a recent Literature graduate who has just had his heart broken and his dreams of a post-graduation trip to Europe dashed. Finding himself with precious little practical experience in the field of work (an experience I can definitely relate to) he is forced to join the ranks of the crummiest local employer, the eccentric and decaying funfair Adventureland.
At the fair he meets many of the local losers (who surprise surprise turn out to be really quite lovable and cool in their own way) including pipe smoking Joel, funfair diehard Bobby and Em, the girl that James is destined to fall for. The action, such as it is takes place largely on the fair in the succession of smalltown dives the characters hang out in, and is concerned with the attempts of James to get a girl who, outwardly it seems, is much more worldly and cool than he is.
One of the great successes of the film is the balance of humour, which consistently succeeds in never becoming crass and overly juvenile whilst still being fun and silly in parts. The lead actor, Jesse Eisenberg, playing James, is something of a revelation of subtly wry self aware misery. He definitely gives Michael Cera a run for his money as a leading indie lead.
The outstanding feature of the film is however the soundtrack. Rarely has a film soundtrack been so much in touch with my own tastes. The film is set in 1987 Pittsburgh and the music largely reflects this with major featured tracks from the likes of The Replacements, Husker Du, Yo La Tengo and The Jesus and Mary Chain, along with some classics from Lou Reed, Big Star and The New York Dolls. This film is definitely one to check out for any punk/indie fan.
I've had a couple of days away from the blog, the weekend was pretty chilled out even though S was enduring her final days of bronchial captivity. Despite this I had a good night out on Saturday which involved going to Incognito and dancing more than I have in a long time...especially to A-ha!
Yesterday was a European holiday which meant that my office was closed but rather than spend the day in my pajamas, eating food from the jars and watching cartoons I spent the day in my pajamas, eating food from the jars and writing my articles for SpottedByLocals. I am now 5 articles down with another 5 on the way by the end of the week. If anyone can guess the subjects, in Lisbon, of my articles before they are published you will win a shiny marshmallow.
Because S couldn't go out of the house we had a bigger opportunity than usual to watch some films, something that we hadn't had time to do for quite a while and the films we picked were pretty eclectic.
Pretty much your typical indie fantasy fare here. How many geeky indie boys like myself haven't hoped that the office hottie will notice the Smiths/Joy Division/Pavement/Obscure Australian Indie Pop (delete where applicable) blaring from your headphones and declare herself a fan before embarking on a wild office romance? Ok...just me then...but Jason Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock From The Sun, Brick, Mysterious Skin) does an excellent job of portraying that paralyzing male self-loathing and overanalysis that I recognise all too well.
The gist of the story is that boy meets girl, he falls in love and she doesn't. Any more than that is completely superfluous to a review.
This film is nothing if not cheesy: marketing itself as an anti-love story when of course it is nothing of the sort, the main guy's friends are your typical bunch of 2D wisecracking losers and the female love interest is as cold as ice )and Zooey Deschanel (Almost Famous, The happening, She & Him) seems only to be able to find the mid-tone in her vocal range). But nevertheless I am a complete sucker for these kinds of films. It's the same with High Fidelity, full of clichés and platitudes with a final 10 minutes that make your toes curl because they're so sweet, but at the end of the day these guys like music a lot and go out with hot girls so what's not to like.
I'd seen this film a couple of times now but S hadn't and so we both curled up for it on Sunday. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention to her that this isn't a children's film.
The film is a dark fantasy of a child, Ofelia, who believes she has met a faun who convinces her she is the spirit of a princess, the daughter of the king of the underworld. The faun gives Ofelia challenges to complete to enable her to return to the underworld and her father. This fantasy is set in the backdrop of the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War with the ruthless Falangist Captain Vidal, Ofilia's step-father, fighting in the hills of rural Spain.
The effects in the film are excellent with the costumes being particularly effective (the monster at the feast is particularly scary) and much of the violence is particularly graphic, a fact that I don't think S was particularly prepared for. I'm not usually a big fan of this kind of costumed fantasy picture but I do really really like this film. Not one for the kids though.
A classic Christie here with Peter Ustinov as the little Belgian Hercule Poirot. Not my favourite Poirot, I think Ustinov hams it up a little for the character. This combined with the fact that he's about a foot too tall means that David Suchet is by far the best modern representation.
Nevertheless this is one of Christie's best novels and this star studded ensemble (Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Maggie Smith and David Niven star, amongst others) keeps pretty accurately to the novel (not always a big problem in adaptations but a bit annoying adaptations of Agatha Christie when the novels are known so well).
Here a Nile cruise is thrown into disarray after the murder of a wealthy heiress and everyone on board seems to have a motive for doing away with her. Typically the explanation is quite ingenious and it's really a fun film to watch and get absorbed in for a few hours.
Last night's film was firmly S's choice. After enduring a week of being called a 'film bully' I finally caved in and sat down determined to thoroughly hate her choice of film. Instead 2006's Once was something of a revelation.
Once (2006) - John Carney
I was expecting something of the cloying, sickly sweet romantic comedy but instead I was thoroughly charmed. The film looks and feels almost homemade, it had a tiny budget (the film was made for $100,000). But rather than looking unprofessional or distracting from the story it creates this intimate link between you and the characters, as if you're intruding on their love story.
The film tells the story of a young Irish busker and a Czech immigrant who meet on the streets of Dublin. Both poor, lost and lonely. In a similar fashion to Before Sunrise, the couple have a limited time together and face an unsure fate but we are shown their love story through the music they write and record together.
Yeah, putting it in words like that does make it sound a bit soppy but it's not. It's funny and heartwarming and bittersweet. The performances are wonderful and the music they make together is truely moving, if not exactly to my taste. In fact the film is probably best remembered for winning the 2008 Academy Award for best song for Falling Slowly.
This week has again been pretty hectic, affording me minimal time of on screen entertainment, I was away through the weekend and I've just gone and started one of the longest novels in the English language which I am thoroughly engrossed in.
I did, however, manage to fit in a film that S has been dying to see since she first hear about it:
Up (2009) - Pete Docter & Bob Peterson
I'm a big fan of Pixar - one of the great things about films like the Incredibles and Ratatouille is that they stand up perfectly well for adults. It's rather an obvious things to say that they're written to appeal on many different levels, many cartoons try to achieve this, but it is very rare for them to succeed to the extent that those two films do in particular, especially for them to stand up to repeated viewings by an adult audience. In fact I think there must be many many parts of the Incredibles that would go straight over a child's head and that is one of the charms and failures of Up.
Up is not a happy film, in fact after about 20 minutes you had all six of who went to see it with tears streaming down our faces. I honestly think that after seeing it I probably wouldn't take a child under 10 to see this film because it approaches life an death in such a brutally honest way that I couldn't stand the questioning that it would undoubtedly inspire. After seeing the film I spoke to a colleague of mine who had taken his children to see the film and he said he wanted to strangle the writers for putting him through that.
After the remarkably grim opening the film gently slides into your typical fantasy fare, travels and discoveries, friends are made, lost and remade and there's a bit with some talking dogs which caused my second round of tears, this time from laughter. Yet throughout this you can't shake the true meaning of the journey that is made and the viewer is constantly reminded of its importance, something which as an adult viewer I felt to be fundamental to the film and which I think would be lost to most children.
It could be that I'm underestimating them, even patronising children, but I actually think that understanding the kind of message that this film carries would actually change a child's outlook. People talk now with something of nostalgia about watching Bambi's mother die but in those scenes you lose a bit of innocence. Not that that is a bad thing but at least parents should go warned.
From this quasi-adult fare I move onto something which is definitely for adults only. S and I caved, we gave up on Mad Men, it is a little bit rubbish, and have moved onto a series that I have been wanting to watch for a long long time:
Shameless (2004-present) - Paul Abbott
It's pretty hard to describe Shameless because you're left with the feeling that 'comedy-drama' doesn't really do the show justice. It comes from a long history of British television (and some people argue that this is the success of it) that derives the comedy from a brutal realism and the drama from the tragi-comic.
Shameless is the story of a council estate in Manchester (a form of socialised housing service whereby the poor are provided with cheap and affordable houses and which often result in areas of deprivation and high crime rates) and those people who live in it. It provides so many familar scenes to those who acquainted with Britain and for me it brought back a lot of memories - even though I didn't live in a council house I spent much of my childhood running around areas like the Chatsworth estate, in fact my dad was from the area where this series is filmed. There's also a special twist as the series shows a particularly Northern view of life which I really relate to.
S and I are both looking forward to continuing this series and thankfully we've got a lot left to see, there are six series already made and I think by the time we've got through it the seventh will be out.
This week's The week in film comes a little late and I have cheated a little bit. I like to watch at least two or three films a week but depending on how busy I am with work, how many nights I go out dancing and whether or not we have friends over this can be more or less. This week the number was on the low side because S and I decided to give an 'American Series' a try. This term has now become official jargon for any of those slickly produced series that your friends and the media will tell you is the best thing since sliced bread/will change your life/really, really reflects real life/has an important message/it's refreshing to see something so different, or other similar rubbish. This week we tried Mad Men, supposedly a refreshingly honest depiction of how life really was in the sexist, chain-smoking, hard drinking world of 60s America.
But first I'll work my way through the films we watching this week, starting with
Lars and the Real Girl (2007) - Craig Gillespie
S won't mind me saying that this was her choice and from the beginning I wasn't completely convinced. The story, you can imagine, is straight from a typical gonzo American comedy - lonely man is embarassed by social contact and so sends off for a 'real life' doll which he tells everyone is his girlfriend. Rather than play this scenario for childish laughs though the director in stead opts for a more bitter-sweet comedy where the small community decided to play a long with (the obviously mentally ill) Lars. I won't spoil the ending for you but suffice to say there's not a twist to be seen.
I am perhaps being a little harsh, despite my own discomfort with cringe comedy, and this definitely has some cringe worthy moments, I did fins myself chuckling. The acting on the part of Ryan Gosling and Emily Mortimer was pretty amazing considering what they had to work with but I felt Paul Schneider, as Lar's brother, was almost as unrealistic as the doll. This isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination but it just feels a little uncomfortable in its own skin, but maybe that's the point and I missed it entirely.
The second film S and snuggled down to watch was:
Unforgiven (1992) - Clint Eastwood
I'm not a huge western fan but this is something a little different. No good guy vs. bad guy or right and wrong, just horses, guns, snarls and whores. Basically one evening, in some small western town, a whore is cut up by a drunken cowboy. The rest of the whores, appalled at the light punishment given by the sheriff, raise a bounty and news of this reaches Clint, a retired gunslinger and apparently the baddest man in the West, who decides to take Morgan Freeman, an old partner, along with him. The meet up with 'the Kid' and then the fun begins.
The common criticisms of the film, it's too long and there are too many superfluous characters did ring partly true to me, I thought the long recovery from illness by Clint's character as well as a brief interlude whilst Gene Hackman's sheriff gives Richard Harris' English Bob a lesson in manners and killing were more than was required from the film. What I think the film was searching for throughout was simplicity, the actions that take place in the film were done because they needed to be done, no analysis needed and so If I'm being picky I think these bits could be sacrificed and the film would lose nothing. That said the film doesn't feel like it drags and the action and dialogue remain crisp and to the point. It is an excellent film, I don't think it would make it into any of my lists (perhaps Westerns but then again the list isn't that long to begin with).
Lastly we come to Mad Men:
Mad Men (2007-Present)
This isn't a bad series, like most of these recent American Series (and here my mind goes blank but I'll add Weeds, True Blood and Six Feet under as a few that my mind refuse to shake) it's well produced and has that shiney gloss that American shows just can't seem to shake (and I include The Wire in this). In my household it's now fair to say we discuss series in terms of The Wire which is perhaps a little unfair - there hasn't been much to compare to the greatness of The Wire, before or since, and even then we like to skip over the rather iffy fifth series which for a lesser series would've been something of a deal breaker (even The Wire couldn't avoid doing the 'where are they now' montage at the end). We're now 3 episodes in with Mad Men and this is more than a fair chance to give any series out there.
It was S who, I think, accurately summed up the problem with Mad Men, the characters are singularly unsympathetic, they're so selfish and wrapped up in their own motives that you just don't care about them. The actress (whose name I can't even be bothered to look up) who plays, the main character, Don's wife is especially awful. If it comes out later in the series that she's on some kind of tranquiliser then it won't come as a surprise but I think it's just the fact that she's a very spaced-out and wooden actress.
Much was made of the characters' incessent smoking, drinking and un-PC attitudes which, apparently, were quite shocking in America. It gets rather tiresome after about 20 minutes of the first episode and the only light relief is during the meeting with the management from Lucky Strike when everyone starts coughing. Other than that occasion it's a cheap and tired tool and I very much hope it desists.
I'm not sure whether we will continue watching this, I doubt very much we'll have the time and there are certainly other shows and films that we'd much rather spend our time discovering.
Tonight I'll try and finish that piece on the albums of the year so far but at the moment I'm at work and without my music collection to reflect on so instead I will just write a few lines about some of the films I've watched in the past week:
Limits of Control (2009) - Jim Jarmusch
Last week S and I made it out to the cinema alone for the first time in months and I'm very glad it was to see this. I'm a big Jim Jarmusch fan and reading some of the reviews of this before I saw it it seemed to be a film that has divided critics. Having seen most of his films (I think I'm just missing Night On Earth and Permanent Vacation now) I kne pretty much what to expect, lots of long, lingering shots of faces and bodies, beautifully photographed cities and knowing and witty dialogue with a touch of self deprecating humour. I wasn't to be disappointed and the experience was heightened for me be watching it completely alone in just about the darkest cinema I have ever been in. This might not be up to the standard of Ghost Dog, which for me is his best film and thematically shares a lot with this film, but it is still a fun film to watch and I actually would've liked it to go a little more, I think a few more cameos could've been squeezed in.
*Edit* Oh yeah, I completely forgot to mention the amazing soundtrack this film has. Jarmusch films usually have pretty amazing soundtracks (Even the disappointing Broken Flowers had some great Ethiopian jazz) and this is no different with music from Boris, sunn 0))) and Earth featuring. */Edit*
Public Enemies (2009) - Michael Mann
I had mixed feelings before going in to this film - I love gangster films as much as the next man (and it true: ALL men love gangster films, any who say they don't are lying to appear 'sensitive') but, and this is somewhat controversial, I am not at all a huge fan of Johnny Depp. I can imagine the howls and eye rolling going on as this thought sinks in to my imaginary readers but I just feel that Depp's charm is primarily based on his ability to play these dark and wacky characters who despite their apparent insanity and dangerousness are still engaging and (for the ladies) attractive. With each film though the charm wares thinner, the grins and grimaces to camera become more tired and the hamminess of the POTC series has really taken some of the youthful exhuberence away from him. And that is, in my opinion, what is missing from this film - Depp presents a world weary, almost nihilistic Dillinger who just does not engage the sympathy of the audience. He is portrayed as a hero of the masses yet aside from a brief moment where he refuses to take a bystander's money during a bank job this seems almost inexplicable. Mann presents the group of outlaws as trigger happy thugs rather than noble 'Robin Hood' like thieves. The one interesting part of the film was the pressure put on the lawmen to chase them. Christian Bale (who was by far the worst thing about the last Batman flick) actually did quite well as the lawman tasked with chasing Dillinger and the gang. Unfortunately though this aspect of the film was underplayed and I think Mann, fearing that he would just have another Untouchables on his hands, underplayed the parts of Hoover and Purvis. Combined with this was that fact that the photography and editing combined to give the effect of someone with Parkinsons Disease and ADHD. All in all quite a disappointing film when you consider what could've been.
Nine Queens (2000) - Fabián Bielinsky
This was Saturday night's film, the first time for S but this is one of my favourite films, definitely top 10 stuff. For those of you who don't know this is a heist film about 2 crooks trying to pull off a job selling rare stamps. There are loads of twists and turn, interesting confidence tricks and smart, funny dialogue. If you haven't seen this film get it now! (Although don't borrow it from me, I lent the DVD to someone and never got it back, a mistake I won't be making again.)
