Posts Tagged ‘ Film ’

#cinefile: 2011 in reflection

although it is fairly

clichéd, i still feel that there is value in using the start of a new year to reflect on the experience of the year that has passed.

i’ll understand if you have an aversion to reading yet another person’s rundown of the year; but for those gracious enough to humour me, here are my reflections on 2011 in film.

——————

2011 in film was, very much like Libya, a land of contrast. on one hand it saw the unceremonious dismantling of the UK Film Council, whereas on the other lots of critics thought it made sense to juxtapose that with the success of The King’s Peach, which made Harvey Weinstein pots of cash.

of course as anyone who stops to think about it will learn, we won’t realise the implications of the end of the Film Council era for some time, but it made a neat story to pretend otherwise.

i saw some wonderful films this year, at least two of which have already floated to near the top of my all-time favourites, and a couple more that would fare well in a list of my favourite films of this century. alas, as ever, looking at the list of the top ten grossing films of the year leaves my heart cold and full of dread.

here are the films that we in the UK patronised the most:

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt II ..................... ($117m)
2. The King's Speech ......................................................... ($75m)
3. The Inbetweeners Movie ............................................... ($71m)
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides .................. ($54m)
5. The Hangover Part II ..................................................... ($53m)
6. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt I ........................... ($46m)
7. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon .................................. ($45m)
8. Bridesmaids .................................................................. ($37m)
9. Tangled ........................................................................ ($33m)
10. Rise of the Planet of the Apes ..................................... ($32m)

i don’t know about you, but i have to run my eye down to number eight before i find a film i even half enjoyed. these are not the sort of films that i want to be made, and yet that is precisely what the number$ indicate will happen.

i had the spirit-crushing experience of being at a New Year’s Eve party with a well-educated ‘chap’ in his late twenties who told me that The Inbetweeners Movie was his favourite film of the year, and that was at about 8 o’clock. #face as the kids say #palm.

beneath, i have listed, in reverse order, the ten films released last year that moved, challenged, amused, touched and/or entertained me most, with a short description of how or why. please feel free to take me to task in the comments section.

11. Source Code: not as captivating as Moon, but a solid and engaging, if more mainstream, follow-up from Duncan Jones. i like Jake Gyllenhaal.

10. Hanna: beautifully shot, intensely paced, impressively acted (esp. Eric Bana) and raising some interesting issues. ultimately a little overblown in places. warning: some girls will kill you dead.

9. The Adjustment Bureau: suffered from comparisons to Inception and its links with Mad Men, but still stands for me as a crisp, smart pulp-sci-fi-thriller. nice wardrobe. nice Anthony Mackie.

8. Rango: smart, funny and enjoyable across the age spectrum without being overly stratified and relying on the tired slapstick-for-the-kids-innuendo-for-the-adults formula. a cartoon film for film lovers. my family film of the year.

7. Super 8: an excellent movie slightly spoiled by something of a blown-out ending. when it’s good it’s sweet, full of the hopefulness of youth, superbly acted and soaked in the love of the film camera and what it makes possible. a movie made by the Spielberg that Dawson from Dawson’s Creek loved.

6. Friends With Benefits: a smart, well made, genuinely touching and fairly believable Hollywood rom-com is a very rare thing. this felt loose and self-deprecating enough to be amusing and uplifting when it wanted, but also packed a subtle emotional depth. it won’t change the world, but i left surprised and charmed.

5. The Skin I Live In: something of an homage to Eyes Without A Face, this is an intense and emotionally thick drama about repression, pride, revenge and damaged people. Almodovar if not at his very best then certainly close to it, in what stands as a successful and long-overdue reunification with Banderas.

4. Blue Valentine: simple in the best ways. aesthetically beautiful, technically near-flawless, emotionally devastating and fleshed out by brilliant performances from two wonderful actors. warning: some films cut deep.

3. Snowtown: based on the infamous ‘bodies in the barrels’ murders, committed in South Australia in the 90s, this is a hefty, hard-htting, gritty crime-pic (in the true sense of the word, like grit in your eye – and i don’t know if they grade grit, but if they do, coarse). dark and brutal, it shines harsh light on some uncomfortable truths about the shadow-side of community and the nature of the human condition. warning: intensely Australian throughout.

2. The Artist: while it’s not yet on general release in the UK, Michel Hazanavicius’ silent masterpiece was officially released last year, and besides, i saw a preview screening and this is my list, not yours. just a wonderful movie – uplifting cinema at its best. technically daring, crisply and intelligently shot and edited, superbly acted and joyful through and through. a real old-school treat with a dark, powerful truth at its heart.

1. Drive: masterfully shot and edited and thus shockingly contrasting in its tone, it’s both languidly ponderous and deliciously terse in just the right mix. the edgy, über-cool tone of the first 3/4s gives way to a brutal final section. the destructive internal logic of violence and vanity is laid absolutely bare and apparent passivity is re-cast as moral agency. the combination of an achingly good use of light and lens, a wonderfully taut script, pitch-perfect performances from golden Gosling and the utterly lovely Mulligan (with great support from Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks and Ron Perlman among others) and genuinely profound insight make this a neon-noir treat. the film Quentin Tarantino has been trying to make his whole career.

honourable mentions:
– Melancholia
– Biutiful
– Another Earth
– Senna
– Bridesmaids

*edit films i thought of too late
– Norwegian Wood (which i saw in 2010, but, as i was reminded today, actually came out in 2011 and is superb.)

some films that might have impacted this list if i’d got round to seeing them yet:
– Tree of Life
– Cave of Forgotten Dreams
– Neds

thanks for reading in 2011, please stay for a chat below and be assured that you are warmly invited to engage with all entries in the #cinefile that 2012 offers up.

#cinefile: moneyballs

my intentions have been noble, but the reality is that i’m getting behind with the film reviews that i’d like to be offering you.

therefore, here are some very brief thoughts on some films i’ve seen recently that offer little else than you would find in any film column or blog anywhere, followed by some more developed ones about one film that few others seem to have had.

o Snowtown is not that similar to Animal Kingdom, but almost as brilliant.
o the intriguing if odd mix of common dystopian themes in In Time comes out a little too po-faced to be properly engaging. however, i still have mad love for JT and Cillian Murphy.
o Ides of March is both less like Julius Caesar and more dull than i’d expected.
o while Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is painfully cliché ridden and predictable, at least this time no-one wears a prosthetic face that makes them look like Philip French. or do they?!

and so, to the matter at hand: Moneyball *SPOLIERS ahoy*

i’ve always liked Brad Pitt (often despite his films) and nowadays he’s the new Robert Redford. his performance here is strong (if a little face-touchy) as are those turned in by Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman, although, in truth, none of the roles is exactly demanding with the latter’s barely requiring that he break, as it were, a metaphorical ‘trot’.

so, the acting is solid and engaging and, what is more, things are shot very nicely too – a fact that will not surprise those that noticed the name Wally Pfister in small letters on the poster.

some advice for those who don’t take notice of cinematographers: a) you should b) Wally Pfister is the guy that made pretty much all of Chris Nolan’s films look nice c) yes, it is an amusing name.

so far then my assessment is in agreement with most critics, a facet that i will complete by emphasising that Moneyball is not, repeat not, a baseball film. should i want to remain in the same groove as all the critics i’ve read/listened to, however, i’d say that what it is really a film about is statistics.

the trouble is, it’s not. it’s really a film about why, despite everything, late-capitalism is good.

the subtitle of the largely biographical book on which the film is based is The Art of Winning An Unfair Game. as the film explains right from the off, the ‘unfair’ bit refers to the fact that the Oakland As (the baseball team managed by Brad Pitt’s failed-baseball-prodigy character, Billy Beane) are a small franchise in comparison to the big-boys of Major League Baseball, the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and so on.

“There are the rich teams”, Beane explains to his apparently overly-optismistic staff, “there are the poor teams, then there is fifty feet of crap, and then there is us. It’s an unfair game.”

what, it turns out, this essentially means is that as GM of the As Beane has around $50m a year to pay his players, where as the Yankees have more like $125m. this discrepancy is the source of the apparent ‘unfairness’ of Major League Baseball.

now it’s not that i’m unsympathetic to the idea that its unfair that some people have more money than others – on the contrary – but it’s just that that’s not the kind of thing i’d expect to be widely recognised within either the Baseball or Hollywood fraternities.

i mean Baseball is the great American pastime and Hollywood the great American mirror, but Capitalism is the great American way of life. surely when it comes to one company being more wealthy than another, fairness doesn’t come into it?

perhaps, then, this was going to be a shockingly counter-cultural, anti-Capitalist tale?

well. the ‘solution’ to this injustice that the real Beane got from his boss, but the fictional Beane gets from a plucky, young, Yale-educated stat-hound called Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill), who in-turn borrow it from a renegade sports author called Bill James, lies not in feeble flesh and blood, but simple, noble numbers.

if we ignore the conventional wisdom of scouts and sports analysts, Brand insists, we can put together a championship winning baseball team for relatively little money (NB: it is VITAL to remind yourself during the film that ‘no money’ still means millions of dollars).

the key to this ‘thrift’ is to cut through the layers of standard, misguided romance/hubris/superstition by ignoring the vagaries of the game, the players, etc. and simply utilising the purity of statistical data.

the chronic weaknesses of the normal approach are illustrated by virtue of parallel reflections on drafting and trading – the main two ways MLB teams get their players.

‘drafting’ refers to ‘the draft’, which, for those unfamiliar, is a system used in many American sports whereby the top, young amateur players are offered contracts by the pro franchises, who receive picks in a certain order. in Major League Baseball, the order is the reverse of the standings from the previous year, with the team with the worst record having the first pick, and so on. when each team has picked one player, that ’round’ ends and the process begins again until the talent pool is exhausted. this year, for example, this process lasted for fifty rounds and decided the fates of 1530 amateur players.

Beane, flashbacks show us, once ‘had it all’ and as such was hailed, even out of high-school, as baseball’s next big thing and drafted in the first round by the New York Mets. regrettably, it turned out that he couldn’t handle the pressure of the ‘big-leagues’ and his career floundered.

as such, Billy is himself a walking, talking, brooding example of the fact that the scouts and ‘experts’ don’t always get it right: cue “you don’t know for sure, man, I mean not for sure, for sure, you know, man” etc.

in a key scene, Beane – who turned down a Stanford scholarship to accept a large cheque from the Mets – asks Brand how he would have rated him as a rookie. Brand coyly admits that he would have recommended him for the ninth round, not the first, which would have made Stanford the more attractive option.

then we watch Beane and his team of coaches and scouts rank the currently available talent. it’s a charming but clunky round-table scene in which wizened old American men say “I like Cortez – pure swing”. “Robinson has great feet and a strong arm”, and such.

at the rhetorical and didactic peak of the scene, one man speaks out against a proposed player because he has an ugly girlfriend, which, it is suggested, is a sure sign of a lack of confidence. “I just don’t like the girlfriend. When the girl is a six-at-best like this, it’s never a good sign”. an anecdotal nail in the coffin of the romance of the game ‘as is’.

sweeping aside all this prejudice, pseudo-art and quackery, Beane takes Brand’s advice and picks his team using only statistics. they seek out cheap players who have a high .OBP (‘on base percentage’). Brand produces some complicated looking equations that boil down to one number – the average frequency with which each batter is required to get ‘on base’ in order for the team to exceed the average number of wins necessary to be the champions in an average season.

using this number, Brand and Beane set about identifying players who achieve the required score, but are underrated because of other issues – ugly girlfriends, being too old, too fat, too ill-disciplined, etc – which make them cheap.

Brand describes their dream-team as “an island of misfit toys” – cue the soaring, jangly music and we see that romance has not been banished, but its perception is simply being reversed. in order to prevent us from seeing this as a tale about the replacement of human interests with the cold, harsh, impersonal efficiency of mathematics, the protagonists are portrayed as heroic for recognising the true talent (beauty) of those the system has overlooked or rejected. this, however, is a convenient fiction.

once the venture is set in motion, and the team built, pathos is added as the patchwork, collection of Raggy Dolls and rejects lose. and lose. and lose. cue commentator’s voice over the top of choppy losing-montage “They had an idea and they tried it, but it has failed. You cannot pick a baseball team on the basis of numbers.”

from our insider perspective, however, we know what the commentators don’t. the failures are the result of the team manager’s lack of belief in the system. Art Howe, played by Hoffman, refuses to bow to the numbers, and rearranges the roster of available players in line with his own, traditional perspective.

failing to convince him to do his bidding, Beane simply trades Howe’s preferred players to other teams, forcing him to fall in line.

as the film/season progresses and the new philosophy proves takes hold, there is a dramatic change in the team’s fortunes and they go from bottom of their division to its top, breaking a 100-year record by completing twenty consecutive victories.

so the definitely-not-a-sports-film does have a quintessentially sports-film-esque cliché. and with that, the romance returns, right? well not for me.

whichever way you square it – and Moneyball tires all kinds of ways – there is no getting away from the fact that at its core, the story is about the potential benefits to a company that result from treating its employees like numbers instead of like people. in the course of the film, players are traded and cut without the slightest concern for their interests. by the end i was thinking that at least the chauvinistic scout had noticed that the player had a girlfriend; at least he’d thought of him as human.

essentially what the Beane of the film does is ruthlessly remove all processes or working norms that treat his employees as anything other than numbers on a page. he invests everything the company has and takes every risk possible to establish himself as an impassive calculator with the power to add, subtract and dividing his staff at will.

he makes himself blind to any other aspect of the game and is guided only by the desire for the best statistical edge the money he has can offer. this sort of behaviour ringing any bells? what is more, it’s made fairly clear that he does all of this primarily as a result of the mental trauma caused by his own failure as a player (hmmmm, Dr Freud).

of course, in the film (and apparently in real life) the gamble pays off. despite the fact that the statistics concerned describe a slight, average advantage over a long period (i.e. long enough for natural variance to oven out) and the system treats all negative effects from other factors: form, health, happiness, etc. as ‘externalities’, the team performs massively beyond expectation over a very short period of time. oh, and the system gets the credit.

in truth, the change is so rapid and profound, that i would have thought any statisticians would want to look for another explanation other than the small, average edge the team had when it came to ‘getting on base’. however: first, when the team is losing everyone hates the system, then when the team is winning, everyone loves it. as a poker player the first lesson i learned was not to be results orientated – if you play well, your edge is profitable over time. the rest is just luck.

anywho, despite a dramatically successful season, the team loses in the first round of the post-season playoffs, failing to realise Beane’s dreams of a championship win. but, Beane and Brand (who then completely disappears into the background), have successfully proven their point. their approach, some captions tell us before the credits, has gone on to revolutionise baseball.

at the story’s conclusion Beane rejects a $12.5m offer from the Red Sox that, if accepted, would have made him the best paid sports GM in history. he does it partly because of his family, partly because of his desire to stay with the As and win a championship there, but mainly because he once made a decision based on money, and will never make the same error again.

perhaps, therefore, this undoes my theory that Moneyball is an apology for finance capitalism? well perhaps. however, if we learned anything from Wall Street in the 80s (the movie), Nick Leeson in the 90s and Wall Street in the 00s (the place), it should be that derivatives traders, hedge-fund managers and other late-capitalist apparatus, are not primarily motivated by money.

as Leeson and many others that followed in his footsteps more recently have admitted, what they were doing became nothing to do with money – instead it became a numbers game; a game that it became worth risking everything to win. now, i’m not saying traders would do it for the love – they are handsomely paid – but then it’s not their own money that they gamble with.

Beane might turn down the 12.5m, but he remains the GM of an MLB team, a job that commands a six figure salary. for me, the most telling line in the film is delivered by Arliss Howard who plays Red Sox owner John Henry. prior to Beane turning down Henry’s offer, they are chatting and Beane raises the fact that he had hear that Henry had hired Bill James, the guy who wrote the book from which Brand had originally derived the idea. Henry responds that he has no idea why it took someone so long to hire James. “Well”, Beane retorts, “baseball hates him.” Here is Henry replies:

“Yeah, well baseball can hate him. One of the great things about money is that it buys a lot of things; one of which is the luxury to disregard what baseball likes and doesn’t like, what baseball thinks and doesn’t think.”

ladies and gentlemen, i give you Moneyball or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Finance Capitalism.

#cinefile: two months in movies

¡hola amigo!

please read on if you’re interested in a brief summary of my thoughts concerning the new films that i’ve seen and heard in the last two months or so. spoilers will be minimal yet possible. said films are:

o Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
o Friends With Benefits
o Melancholia
o Contagion
o Drive

i ended up being quite late to Tinker, Tailor… eventually catching it nearly a fortnight after release. by that time, my expectations were perhaps too high. i am a huge fan of Tomas Alfredson’s previous film, Let The Right One In, and although i have never read the source novel, i knew and admired the story from the 1979 TV adaptation. furthermore, the cast was difficult to look beyond: the words Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Toby Jones and Mark Strong on the same poster send a powerful message.

perhaps almost inevitably, however, i came away slightly disappointed. there was plenty of good stuff – Oldman, Hurt and Strong were stand-out excellent against a backdrop of really solid performances. the intelligent use of colour and unusual camera angles that added so much to Let The Right One In found its way in to TTSS, but i very much got the sense that Alfredson felt he was working with a revered text, and as a result chose to be (perhaps too) restrained.

my main gripe, aside from Kathy Burke’s seeming inability to do more than one voice, was with the pacing. while i enjoyed the slow, smoke-drenched scenes of John Hurt’s ‘Control’ musing at his desk early on, and later Oldman nudging around chess pieces in the same office, i felt that things were generally just a little too ponderous for the first three quarters, making the unfolding of events in the last quarter too rapid.

there are plenty of nice moments – not least Toby Jones’ ongoing impression of Brain from Pinky and the Brain – but for me something just wasn’t quite ‘clicked in’. to use a fabric-based analogy to express my initial feelings, if Let The Right One In is a clean square of thick, matt mid-grey, Highland-woven worsted wool (beautiful, but simple and utterly unfussy) and something like The Adjustment Bureau is a crisp strip of navy and white striped satin silk (thin, but bright and sleek), then TTSS is a long rectangle of high quality, well cut, dark brown Gabardine (smart, functional, but a bit dull).

it’s always difficult to judge the effect of prior expectations on how you read a film, but, reflecting a few weeks on, i’m not yet convinced that my first impression was a significant distortion.

…………………

the day after i saw TTSS, i watched Friends With Benefits, which despite playing out in the context of an equal but opposite set of expectations confounded them to the same degree.

although FWB is in some ways a standard, mainstream RomCom which is unable not to give in to several clichés, i also found it to be witty, warm and genuine in a way that so few such films are.

although clearly floated as an inverse, contemporised When Harry Met Sally, FWB manages to tip its hat in that direction without falling prey to “I’ll have what he’s having” wink & gun ploys. in fact it generally avoids all the usual pitfalls. the characters are well drawn and at ease with each other, the sex comedy is well observed and believable and the heart-felt moments are not choked by schmaltz.

in his acting career so far, Justin Timberlake has made a habit of being the best thing in mostly terrible movies – Alpha Dog and The Love Guru being my key witnesses here, but i would be willing to put The Social Network on the stand if you forced me. here, in the best film i’ve seen him in yet, his performance is genuinely strong – likeable and well-rounded yet understated; graceful even.

as one of three JT releases in the second half of this year – along with Bad Teacher and (the intriguing looking if Logan’s Run-esque) In Time – i’d say things look very good for his acting career right now.

likewise, Mila Kunis (who was the best, least hysterical, thing in Black Swan by some distance) chips in an equally strong and enjoyable performance in the context of that rarest of RomCom offerings, a charming, strong-minded, non-neurotic lead female character who is more understated than underwired.

furthermore, Woody Harrelson and Richard Jenkins round off a cast that is far more talented than it would need to be to sit comfortably alongside its peers. while, admittedly, this film isn’t going to change the world, it’s definitely a recent high-water mark on the harbour wall of a genre that often seems to satisfy itself with grounded ships.

basically, it’s like Friends, but with benefits: 1. it won’t be on TV every hour of every day for 15 years. 2. it’s pretty good.

…………………

perhaps more so than anyone else in contemporary cinema, Lars von Trier sharply divides opinion. although i am a fan of his films, i am in no doubt that he is a man who delights in appalling his friends let alone his enemies. perhaps he is a misogynist, perhaps a Catholic, perhaps a Nazi-sympathiser, or perhaps just a self-created, curdled mix of those two French phrases so beloved of film critics and writers, agent provocateur and enfant terrible.

his films, which are what interest and exercise me, are usually combinations of brutality and beauty, although this pattern is perhaps less obviously true of Melancholia than any other (excluding perhaps The Boss of It All).

here, von Trier tackles depression – a subject close to his head and mine. the film revolves around possibly the least subtle metaphor ever, an eponymous planet, on a collision-course with the earth, but in true von Trier style, the norms of suspense sci-fi are frustrated from the outset, when we see the impact occur and know that what we have witnessed will not turn out to be a false memory or an avoidable, possible outcome, but a simple flash-forward.

the film is not about whether the world will be destroyed, but about how various characters respond to the reality of its impending destruction. Jack Bauer, as you can imagine, is not up for dying, but this time he loses.

depression – which the film implicitly interprets as a palpable sense of the pointlessness and fragility of existence – is therefore not affliction, but liberation from a shared delusion, which, whether or not von Trier knows it, is actually a version of rather well-worn trope (if we substitute ‘depression’ for ‘madness’).

the performances and the visual style are strong and i found the film poignant, even if the message is predictably bleak. now that her stint as Mrs. Spiderman has passed, Kirsten Dunst is finally making good on the sophisticated potential of her performances in Interview with the Vampire and The Virgin Suicides. like Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves), but unlike Nicole Kidman (Dogville), Bryce Dallas Howard (Manderlay) or Charlotte Gainsbourg (Antichrist), Dunst has a natural air of fragility which, in the hands of someone like von Trier, evoked (probably deliberately) a paternalistic dread in me. as it is, she receives far less rough treatment than Watson.

as a fellow MDD sufferer, i disagree with von Trier on the nature of depression, but i admired this film and would recommend it – however, if you haven’t and can, see Antichrist first.

…………………

Contagion, as you will probably have already figured, is part limp, closet-racist disaster movie, part menacing public information film. yes, germs are coming to get us all, and a bit like the collapse of the global economy (ah, i get it), they will highlight and make fools of impotent politics and hamstrung bureaucracy in the process.

if you’re imagining a whirlwind of microscopes, hazmat suits and large-screen maps in command centres gradually going red as the spread of a virus is modelled over time, then prepare to be utterly unsurprised. if you also assumed that, with the so called Arab Spring muddying the waters of American popular discourse on the Middle East, the threat would likely originate from carelessnesses in China (the new economic superpower), then you, madamsir, are flying high. what’s more, if you’d also wager that Jude Law would probably be able to do a passable Australian accent, then, damn, you fell at the final hurdle.

why Steven Soderburgh (who i still think of as a solid director) got involved in this mess, i have no idea. although, if he’s trying to steer his career in a more Tony Scott direction, then perhaps that covers it.

if it’s true that some films, however pedestrian the concept or ropey the screenplay, are lifted to a higher plane simply by virtue of the quality of cast, then this film would seem a decent candidate for that phenomenon. however, despite the valiant efforts of Damon, Winslet, Cotillard, Fishburne, Paltrow and Bryan ‘in-everything-right-now’ Cranston (Jude Law failed to meet the requirement in the previous sentence), Contagion remains barely passable.

setting Jude Law’s abomination of a performance to one side, the biggest problem for Contagion is not that it’s clichéd, or that it’s heavy-handed (big, lead-lined hazmat gloves heavy-handed), but that it’s boring. what’s more, there are repeated attempts to raise ethical issues concerning entitlement to information/treatment/immunisation, but the characters concerned are so thin and the emotional bonds between them so weak that i couldn’t have cared less who lived or died.

although as a Soderbergh fan this film disappointed me, its many failings are largely unimportant. there are two things however, that struck me as genuinely problematic: 1. the way in which it will, regardless of Soderbergh’s intention, play into (as much as confront) the widespread culture of fear-mongering that plagues the US (and increasingly UK) media. and 2. the fact that at one point Lawrence Fishburne’s character, when challenged, during a TV news item, about the effectiveness of a widely available but unrecommended, natural medicine (Forsythia), reluctantly admits the potential benefits of homeopathy.

this might sound insignificant, but the role of Forsythia – whose effectiveness is downplayed by the government in order to encourage a larger up-take of a vaccine that in the opinion of the hero, sceptical journalist, played by Jude Law, is the result of a lucrative deal with a big pharmaceutical company – is rhetorically significant.

there is no really clear-cut message in the film, but a general theme about political incompetence is reinforced by the way the potential remedy is used. in a sense, Forsythia is the closest thing the film has to a hero. and that is why it’s so annoying that Lawrence Fishburne, the script writer, editor and Soderbergh himself clearly don’t know the difference between natural medicine (which is very likely a powerful and important skill that Western cultures have lost) and homeopathy (which is a load of old bollocks).

…………………

talking of people with a lot of films out at the moment – which we were. in relation to Justin Timberlake. earlier – smoulderingly uncertain, Canadian boy-man and recently crowned king of the feminists, Ryan Gosling has been busy, with three films out this year (equalling last) and more projects slated for next.

given that i ‘missed’ (and have no plans to catch up with) Crazy, Stupid, Love, and i’ve missed both the preview screening of The Ides of March last week and each screening since it opened, Drive is currently the only of this year’s ‘Gosling triple’ to hit my eyes.

Drive is a sleek, slow, stylish and brilliant pulp drama about a man whose mad drivin’ skillz, experience using them for getaways and simple desire to (quietly and respectfully) please pretty women are destined to carry him into a messy world of crime and violence. the “icecool guy who’s involved with the criminal underworld but somehow floats above its vagaries because of an autistic-like obsession with efficiency” conceit (as i like to call it) is pretty old hat, but it’s revived in the first three quarters of Drive to great effect *loudly clenches leather-glove-clad fist*.

in part, it reminded me of early Tarantino (True Romance, Reservoir Dogs), Mexico-trilogy-era Rodrigues, Stone’s Natural Born Killers and Lynch’s Wild At Heart – but in truth it’s less messy or darkly humorous than those films and is both more ponderous and more shiny. perhaps things like Rian Johnson’s Brick, or early Michael Mann (Thief?) offer up better comparisons?

certainly those hoping for fast-paced action sequences are in for a disappointment. despite flirting with certain classic male fantasies like the ‘regular’ looking car with hidden, super-charged abilities, Drive ends up quite far from an overtly machismo-fuelled joy-ride. while it has been superbly edited with expert restraint, the pace is generally slow – and while there are some chase sequences, the camera is relatively uninterested when it comes to all-out-thrill-seeking.

feminista favourite Gosling does a masterful job of silently staring out of windows while a neo-romantic synth score plays and caring about children. however, i was particularly struck by Carey Mulligan’s performance.

while it’s perfectly cromulent to read Mulligan’s character as a standard, passive female character, trapped in wake of the destructive actions of the men around her and stripped of all agency (she literally does next to nothing in the whole film), perhaps against the grain of the film (or perhaps not) i read her differently.

i’m not exactly what it was – small details in the character and performance; a look here, an expression there, the absence of a line – but something convinced me that Mulligan’s ‘Irene’ was (as her name suggests) meant not to be passive but actively peaceful (peace-like) in a counter-testimonial way.

in this sense, for me, Irene subverted not only the standard, background hum of violence surrounding her ex-con husband and various other nefarious types, but also the clinical, faux-impassivity of The Driver, which eventually gives way to his true ‘nature’ in the face of his desire to save her. *hint: the fable of the scorpion and the frog is not-so-subtley referenced throughout.

read one way, Driver is an aesthetically beautiful but morally dubious pulp fluff. taken another, it is something far more interesting, stimulating and impressive. either way, with the two leads joined by Bryan ‘Breaking Malcolm in the Bad Middle’ Cranston, Ron ‘Ever-Ugly’ Pearlman and Christina ‘Joany’ Hendricks, it’s definitely one to watch and ponder on.

given the way it struck me, it will be tricky for Driver not to top my list of favourite films of the year, and to be honest, the ‘decade’s best’ list is in its sights too.

…………………

fin. ished.

#cinefile: oscar rundown

so, friends, tonight is the night on which the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announce the winners of their annual awards for the 83rd time.

it wouldn’t be right to let the opportunity pass without joining the near-infinite throng of people who always offer their insignificant and largely uneducated opinion on which films should win, and (more importantly if real kudos is important to you) which films and people have been unbelievable overlooked by the boorish, lazy and out-of-touch Academy.

so here we go – what follows is my take on the films that 2010 built.

—————————

Best Picture:

from the nominees, i would be fairly happy to see any of Inception, True Grit or Winter’s Bone win – with Inception being the choice that would probably leave me the most contented. of course, it will likely go to The Social Network or The King’s Speech, which i thought were both dullness warmed up. if Black Swan wins i will weep.

films that, in my opinion, were overlooked in this category include: Another Year, Made in Dagenham, Monsters, Perrier’s Bounty, Des Hommes et des Dieux and the brilliant Animal Kingdom (which qualifies by virtue of having opened in the States in August last year, even though it has already been released on DVD in Australia and has only just made it into UK cinemas this week).

Best Director:

i imagine this will have come down to a tight slug-fest between Fincherites and O. Russelaphiles on the panel, but, if you forced me, i’d have to bet on Fincher. while i wouldn’t be too displeased if the Coens won for what is a solid film (if some way off their best), i think it is little short of a scandal that Chris Nolan is absent from the list. i would give it to Nolan (for Inception), but would also have made mention of Mike Leigh (Another Year), Gareth Edwards (Monsters) and Debra Granik (Winter’s Bone).

if Darren Aronofsky wins it will be overdue reward in absolutely the wrong year.

Actor In A Leading Role:

there is really no point in even talking about this one. Colin Firth very clearly has it all wrapped up with a bow and a label saying ‘For Colin Firth’. it was, however, nice to see Javier Bardem nominated for Biutiful – which (for the Academy) should probably go down as something of a left-field move.

although, as we’ve established, it would only ever have been a token gesture, it would have been nice to have seen nods for Tahar Rahim for Un Prophète and George Clooney for The American.

Actor In A Supporting Role:

while the smart money is on Christian you’re ruining the fucking shot you prick Bale, I’d love to see John Hawkes win for Winter’s Bone.

as for those who were overlooked, recognition for Brendan Gleeson’s turn in Perrier’s Bounty and Guy Pearce’s performance in Animal Kingdom would both have pleased me.

Actress In A Leading Role:

here, again, the gamblers are seeing little-to-no value with Natalie Portman standing as odds-on to grab the gold, after early favourite Annette Bening apparently refused to follow through with her campaign (known as ‘pulling a Finney’). having not yet seen Rabbit Hole, i can’t comment on Nicole Kidman’s nomination, but i what i can say is that i will dance and sing loudly if, by the intervention of Thor, Freyja or Loci the god of mischief himself, either Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine) or Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) were to pip her to the post.

the former is a long-standing favourite of mine and a performer that has profoundly matured in the last six or seven years and is now a character actor of real polish. Lawrence, by contrast, wasn’t really on my radar until i was really struck by what is an astonishing contribution to an excellent thriller – strangely reminiscent of a toned-down Juliette Lewis in Natural Born Killers or Dusk Till Dawn.

if there were any justice in the world, Hailee Steinfeld would be nominated in this category rather than the next, for a brilliant performance in a role that stands as a lead by any measure. however, in truth, the fact she has been bumped down is probably testimony to the quality of her performance – assuming that the decision was essentially pragmatic. if, however, she does not win for best supporting female, then she will have been robbed of the significant and justified accolade of a Best Actress nomination at such a early stage.

Actress In A Supporting Role:

given that HBC’s performance in The King’s Speech is so inert that it is out-shone by at least two other females whose characters enjoy significantly less screen time when added together – Jennifer Ehle (as Myrtle Logue) and Ramona Marquez (as Princess Margaret) – it will be a travesty if she gets swept to victory by the film’s momentum, a la BAFTAs.

Amy Adams received a fairly worthy nod, but for me it really comes down to the wunderkind (Steinfeld) versus to two cold, hard, working-class mothers – Melissa Leo for The Fighter and Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom. I’d love it to be Steinfeld, it would be good if it were Weaver, but it will probably be Leo.

Animated Feature:

it’s difficult to oppose Toy Story 3’s nailed on win in this category too vehemently, especially considering that many critics have advocated for it winning the biggie (which just ain’t going to happen).

given that it’s a sparsely inhabited category this time round, it’s very sad that the Academy did not have the insight to nominate Chico y Rita, which is a really joyful and joy-making film, and was by far my favourite animation of the last year.

Documentary:

i haven’t seen many documentaries in the last year, but from what i have seen, Inside Job deserves to (and i think probably will) win. i’m so glad I’m Still Here was snubbed.

Foreign Language:

in line with the ignorance that allows this category to continue to carry such a colonialist title, the cohort this year is seriously lacking. Biutiful will no-doubt win, because it is the least foreign of all of them, but the real tragedy is not the transparency of the empty gesture that this category represents, but the absence of Un Prophète, Chico y Rita and Des Hommes et des Dieux.

i’m not going to waste time commenting on categories that no-one but the massivist nerds care about, but let’s just spare two good thoughts for Roger Deakins – a Brit, a gentleman and one of, if not the, greatest cinematographers of all time. if he wins for True Grit, it will ice yet another great year and yet another great collaboration with the Coens.

————————–

right, well, with very little time left before the show tips off, i’m off to find a duvet and a pillow and to start creating a warm, comfy nest on the sofa.

happy oscaring.

#inspiringquotations: number eleven

.

“Listen, I don’t calculate the renewal cost for insurance policies personally – I just own the company.”

> Tilda Swinton

#blogjammin: magic of movies

[from Monday]

yesterday’s exodus of cloud-cover made for both an extremely chilly experience last night and a bright and warm day today – sunburn and ground frost are not two things that often share the same 24hrs, but in many ways greenbelt_ is very much about the sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes truly inspiring things that issue from the marriage of queer bed fellows (a metaphor to cheer the hearts of Anglican Mainstream if ever there was one.)

it’s also a metaphor that speaks rather well to the realm of cinema and in particular the discussion and criticism of films, a phenomenon that was well represented at the races today with Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode interviewing (hello to) David Morrissey and Emma Wee about their work with creative arts charity CAST, a screening of Jeremy Hardy Vs The Israeli Army followed by a discussion of the film led by Jeremy and the co-founder of Open Jerusalem, Maxim Sansour, and then Gareth Higgins, Nev Pierce and Luke Walton debating the best films of the last greenbelt_ year.

Jeremy Hardy is an extremely funny man. Jeremy Hardy Vs The Israeli Army is not a very funny film. it is a film that you should see, however. it shines eye-opening light on the remarkable work being done by international volunteers who choose to go to the occupied territories to put themselves in the line (quite literally) of Israeli tanks and bullets in order to protect and help the lives of Palestinians who just want to eat and sleep and go to school safely, but cannot. if you care about the abuse of humans by humans and haven’t seen it, then try to.

after lunch i shuffled gingerly towards where the Mayo/Kermode wittertainment machine would be doing their thing, expecting to be confronted by a large queue and the minor pang of guilt that comes from using a media pass to cut to the front, but was surprised that the turn-out was on the modest side.

those that had come along were treated to the premier of the short film that David Morrissey has put together to promote the work of the Creative Arts Schools Trust, a charity that seeks to use creative arts as a teaching tool in places where they are considered a luxury, and luxuries are extremely scarce. The film beautifully documents a project based around a week of workshops with school children from the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. it shows, in a sensitive, but striking way the power of the arts to connect with and change the lives of marginalised children who are rapidly learning that unless they are conventionally smart then there is even less of a chance of them escaping the frighteningly limited confines within which their community exists.

Morrissey (David that is, not the grumpy, ageing singer) spoke from personal experience about the abilities of drama to give a voice and bring inspiration to struggling children, and CAST’s chief executive Emma Wee spoke passionately about the impact of the work in Beirut and the scope of their future plans.

there was also some time for the more familiar banter that we expect from the two Drs and even an impromptu song from The Dodge Brothers who joined Dr K on stage at Dr M’s request and gave us a sample of the skiffle goodness that awaits us this evening. once more first and third beat clapping broken out that was nothing short of awful – this really must be addressed at GB, seriously, by John Bell or someone that everybody here listens to.

a quick march over to the Film venue saw me in plenty of time for the much anticipated greenbelt_ film revue. Gareth Higgins (whose work i have already waxed lyrical about) worked his way through his favs, worsties and nearlys of the year (to occasional spates of half-hearted cheering a booing) and then discussed the nominations and winners of the Second Annual Greenbelt Oscars.

while the critics singled out and spoke in depth about all sorts of interesting movies from Inception to The Philosopher Kings for praise, mirroring the fundamental weakness of democracy, when it came to the awards it was the opinion of the people that counted.

the list of winners looked something like this:

Best Baddie: Lotso from Toy Story 3
Best Children’s Film that adults enjoy: Up
Best Actress: Carey Mulligan
Best Uplifting Moment: The house lifts off in Up
Best Actor: Leonardo Di Caprio
Best Film: Toy Story 3

——————

right i’m off to sharpen my quiff and get my jive on to The Dodge Brothers


#blogjammin: why i’m excited – prof dr gareth higgins

this post in summary:

some people take films seriously. most people don’t …

Gareth Higgins does.

Gareth is a man who is from Belfast – the home of Queen’s University, George Best and modern British terrorism. he now lives in North Carolina – the home of the Charlotte Bobcats, Duke & UNC, the Outer Banks and several of the money type ones, including Bank of America.

he was a student at the aformentioned Queen’s where he read for a BA and a PhD, both in Sociology (no i’ve not heard of it either, but apparently it’s a combination of dodgy maths and things said by Weber). in spite of that, he has a sharp mind and a keen theological sensibility, both of which he directs towards cinema, as well as a myriad of issues from postmodern philosophy to violence.

in addition to hearing him speak at greenbelt_ on several occasions about various aspects of cinema and culture, and give his regular rundown of the top ten (or occasionally fourteen) films released in the intervening year, i have for a long time enjoyed listening to the The Film Talk podcasts that he makes in collaboration with producer/director Jett Loe.

TFT is a great podcast not just because both presenters are witty, knowledgeable and interesting human beings, but because he and Jett have one of those relationships where both party is of the requisite intelligence, good humour, confidence and humility that they can happily and entertainingly argue with and shout at each other, in detail and for a sustained period, without it being either overly corrosive or tedious.

another thing i really like is their commitment to the idea that rather than being a series of distinct episodes, TFT is, as they describe it, one long conversation which never ends. they bring pleasingly different perspectives and concerns to and away from the films that they discuss, and rarely do they see eye to exact eye. a good recent example being their disagreement about the new Phillip Noyce film Salt, which Gareth interpreted as violent, misogynistic and nationalist propaganda that comes close to the point of neo-fascism, while Jett thought it not only one of the most anti-nationalistic commercial films of recent years, but also a flawed, yet worthwhile, popular feminist thesis about the social transition away from male violence. they both argued instructively and passionately from content, style and (Jett’s favourite) photographic technique, and were happy to remain of opposite persuasions regarding the meaning. i’ve not seen it yet, but their conversation made me far keener to do so than i would have otherwise been.

Gareth is speaking three times over the weekend:

first on Saturday at 5:00pm in the Film venue (above the skate park), when he will be interviewing Pip Piper and Rob Taylor about their work co-producing the new adaptation of Mike Riddell‘s The Insatiable Moon.

later that night, at 9:30pm, he will be talking in the Bethlehem tent (right by the camping) about his forthcoming book Cinematic States which chronicles his journey through 50 films, one from each US state, and his resulting reflections on the role of movies in American life and discourse.

then on Monday at 5:00pm he will be joined in the Film venue by Chris Curtis and Luke Walton to review the films of the last year and hand out the awards at the Second Annual Greenbelt Academy Awards.

———————————

find out more about Gareth’s various contributions to the world by:

visiting his blog: godisnotelsewhere.wordpress.com/

following him on Twitter: @garethhigginsbe

and checking out The Film Talk blog and podcast

and reading his book How Movies Helped Save My Soul