Infernal Affairs (Andrew Lau/Alan Mak, 2002)

Everyone knows The Departed is a remake of a foreign film, right? When The Raid and Let the Right One In is green-lit for a US, English-speaking production, film-fans complain. But side-by-side, both Infernal Affairs and The Departed stand on their own, and share the same DNA in more than the story alone. Infernal Affairs is the blueprint for Scorsese – and as a plan, it is easy to see why he was so keen to remake it with the Boston-based themes that transferred so well.

Tony Rayn’s review in Sight and Sound, in 2004, confesses how “very little in the plot is new” within Infernal Affairs. Indeed, it is a cat-and-mouse dynamic whereby the cop is actually a mole (Andy Lau) and the mole is actually a cop (Tony Leung). One superior officer, Superintendent Wong (Anthony Wong) manages both cops, while the mob boss Hon Sam (Eric Tsang) organises both gang members. The stories weave and intertwine, as both cop and mole are unaware what the other looks like, despite a brief exchange in a music shop at the start, whereby they are oblivious to the key role they play in each other’s life.

Infernal Affairs is fast-paced and a rip-roaring achievement as directors Andrew Lau and Alan Mak cut fast, and play with the urban backdrop of the city. Meeting within offices, we feel the claustrophobia of the grey blinds, offices and filing cabinets that surround Inspector Lau. Meeting on rooftops, we see freedom in the shimmering sunlight and bold blue sky. Reflecting on the glass skyscrapers surrounding the criminals and cops, both are controlled and seek freedom. Different actors portray the young cops in training, which can be confusing. But Lau and Mak comfortably move between each story, flashing back in monochrome to clarify moments when they’re unclear.

Top-dog Hon Sam, has been cast expertly. His cherubian baby-face charms the young men who work for him, while his beady eyes, when confronted in the interview by Wong, are fearsome and full of the danger that he inflicts on others. In The Departed, Jack Nicholson plays his American counterpart as a deeply despicable, terrifying villain sucking his teeth to catch the rat. Eric Tsang, on the other hand, conjures up a likeable rebellious father-figure with a brutal, arm-breaking boss captured within the same disguise. Superintendant Wong, in comparison, lacks the ambiguity that the character begs for. Our first meeting between Chan and Wong hints at a corrupted sense of duty. Does he abuse the undercover agent’s position perhaps? This is not truly clarified and only confuses the introduction of the characters.

But it is Andy Lau who steals the show. As the self-loathing, corrupt (but desperate to escape his hypocrisy) Inspector, his journey is expertly handled. Unlike Leung’s undercover agent who wants out, Lau begins the film as a supporter of crime but discovers that an honest life is preferable. At one point, Leung snorts cocaine in undercover, but there is no sense that he is tempted by this lifestyle. Lau’s clean cut, angular features make him out to be a predatory animal seeking his prey out, but the final act reveals how he is actually a deer in headlights, and the mob is bigger than he ever considered.

In this case, Andy Lau would’ve been a welcome ying to Leonardo DiCaprio’s yang, in an alternate universe. Rather than merely a token gesture, Scorsese pays tribute visually and proudly to Infernal Affairs. It was not a steal of the story for an international market, it was selling the cityscape and incredible sequences that were already in place. The fall from the roof; Lau spying on Chan, who sits in his office behind the blinds; the envelope with the adjusted spelling – these were all in Infernal Affairs before 2008’s Oscar winner. A staple of Chinese cinema, Infernal Affairs is the action film that Hollywood hopes to make – so much so, it asked its greatest director to reimagine it. And, he didn’t change much at all.

This post was originally written for Flickering Myth

About Schmidt (Alexander Payne, 2002)

About Schmidt is About America. Jack Nicholson is front and centre in Alexander Payne’s 2002 dramatic comedy about a man coping with retirement and the loss of his wife. As Election became a bigger and bolder statement about democracy, About Schmidt is a reflection on much more than one man’s life. It manages to comment on the very definition of friendship and love. It tackles honesty and openness – attributes that surely define a successful marriage. Or can a 42-year marriage be based on a mutual understanding towards sensitivity and considered conversation? About Schmidt is told from the perspective of an American who has lived the dream and yet remains unsatisfied. Like the poster, a dark cloud hangs over this lone soul.

Warren Schmidt (Nicholson) retires from an executive position in a life insurance firm. His send-off includes a speech from a young “hot shot” that seems to be more interested in introducing himself rather than bidding farewell to a valuable member of “Woodmen” insurance. Leaving the party, Warren speaks to his daughter who was unable to attend. His wife, Helen (June Squibb), waits on him and keeps him “in check” before a sudden death in the home days later. But not before Warren has decided to send money, and a revealing letter, to Tanzania to support the life of 6-year Ndugu. These letters reveal Warrens true feelings; his frustration and anger towards what could be his son-in-law; how he has fallen out of love for his wife; how he fears death. After the death of his wife, he is on his own and has to figure out where he belongs in this crazy world.

The letters to Ndugu is the literary glue that holds the film together. Not only does it offer us an insight into Warren’s world but it reminds us of the gross disconnect and injustice between western affluence and third world poverty. The term “first world problems” is bandied around on the internet as a play on Westerners complete lack of appreciation for the privileged society we live within. Warren’s complete lack of awareness towards Ndugu’s age and understanding is a hint towards our own selfishness in a consumer society.

Warren Schmidt is in a unique, sobering moment in his life. Do we truly know Warren at all? Considering the specific set of circumstances between his retirement, his mourning and his detached relationship from his daughter, it is clear this is not Warren in his prime. Maybe the picture at the University of Kansas is his hey-day. By the same token, Helen is much more than a standard wife. She has clearly had her own frustrations and challenges within their marriage, but kept it hidden. Payne has managed to craft a film that hints at deeper stories and weighty themes a nothing is overt and bold. We relax in an ocean of thoughts and ideas that fester long after the film finishes. He pines after brutal honesty from his deceased wife – he wonders whether she was disappointed in him. On reflection, meeting the brash and bold - but brutally honest - Roberta Hertzel (Kathy Bates stealing every scene she is in), we realise that the considered demeanour of his wife suited Warren better than he realised. 

Framed amongst branded stores and restaurants in Nebraska and Colorado, About Schmidt reminds us of what America is – and what it may have lost in the process. Locations are separated by vast country that Warren road-trip’s through in his top-end camper-van. This beauty is ignored. Warren has enjoyed a successful life with a well-paid job, a loving spouse and an intelligent daughter. Yet he is ashamed of his mundane profession, despises his key-using wife and explicitly tells his daughter how he feels about her husband-to-be. The audience are left to consider who is truly at fault. Is it the old man and his selfish tendencies? Or is it the vast landscapes that separate families? And the tall buildings that look over cities to dominate the meaning of success? A child in Tanzania appreciates the $22 Schmidt sends, so we should appreciate the houses we’ve built for ourselves and the love we receive. The challenges in later life is captured effortlessly by Alexander Payne and About Schmidt becomes the polar opposite of the youthful, ambitious folks in Election, as Nicholson’s Schmidt is past his prime – and knows it. A stunning follow-up and a thought-provoking success, About Schmidt is about so much more.

100W: Signs

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts of a broad range of films...

Signs (Dir. M.Night Shyamalan/2002)

Signs is Independence Day from the perspective of a small family in rural USA. Graeme Hess (Gibson) has a crisis of faith following the death of his wife as aliens invade Planet Earth. Hess and his brother (Phoenix) display the usual awe and wonder that we’ve seen before but the small-town environment draws you into a family that you fall for through a strong young cast (Culkin and Breslin). We run through crunchy, crop fields and look closer at news footage to see purpose in supernatural occurrences as Signs maintains power, but lacks the subtlety of M.Night Shyamalan’s previous films.

Rating: 7/10

100W: Catch Me If You Can

As a writer, it is a regular expectation to keep to a strict word count. Every time you pick up a magazine, articles can be a small 100-word write-up or a 1000-word review. My own notes for the many films seen are always over 100 words - so this is a new feature that will focus on reviewing films in a concise 100 words.

Catch Me If You Can (Dir. Steven Spielberg/2002)

Leonardo DiCaprio is Frank Abagnale Jr. Influenced by his Father, his creedo is image and identity. He plays the part and uses his appearance as a way of life. Tom Hanks is Detective Hanratty - clumsy but unravelling Frank's lies. Spielberg jumps between time to clarify what is true and false - and what is right and wrong. Frank lives an extraordinary life while Hanratty struggles. Like Up in the Air, Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can tackles themes of loneliness but primarily it’s about how your past always catches up with you – and what great fun that can be!

A-Z #39: Catch Me If You Can

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#39 - Catch Me If You Can 

Why did I buy it?

Much like my first foray into the films of Hitchcock ("How can I call myself a fan of film if I haven't seen any Hitchcock?"), having finished watching a huge bunch of his films, I moved onto Spielberg with the same attitude. I tried to get the double discs and, initially, I had the intention to keep every DVD owning all of Spielberg's back-catalogue. But, alas, I bought 1941 and it was a really bad film - and I have no intention of watching it again, so I sold it.

Why do I still own it?

Whereas, having only watched Catch Me If You Can once, I know that it is a great film - and more importantly a film I would like to revisit. Catch Me If You Can and Gangs of New York were both released the same year - 2002 - and became the real breakout films for DiCaprio. Though he still looks quite young in this film, there is something very different about DiCaprio here and the DiCaprio we saw two years before in The Beach. For some reason we have teen-hearthrob DiCaprio beginning with Romeo+Juliet, Titanic and - for all the die-hard fans, What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I think this phase ended with The Beach - don't get me wrong, it's an okay film, but DiCaprio is sold as the hearthrob poster-boy (Yes, I will ignore Don's Plum. I haven't seen it but, lets be honest - who has?). 2002 marked the year he worked with Scorsese and Spielberg - the two giants in the cinema, only for DiCaprio to be constantly involved in exceptionally credible talent - his constant work with Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Body of Lies, the Oscar-nominated Blood Diamond.

This film is a great film with a great performance from Hanks and the awesome Chris Walken.

Do I need such a film? Is it good enough to own?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Waking Life (Richard Linklater, 2002)

"There's only one instant, and it's right now. And it's eternity."

Introduction

Now, "Bangor Rep" has an eclectic taste - from his love of MUSE to his obsession of Spiderman, he sure is a strange creature. One thing which he loves, are films that are deemed so important they reach a special place in your heart. They get you so involved its almost spiritual - akin to an incredible song. For a long time, Bangor Rep - aka, Graham - recommended to me 'Waking Life' and, I won't lie - its a weird one. But I can see his attraction to the film. The focus is lucid dreams - those dreams that when you dream them, you can control them. You walk around in them and you are thinking, in the dream, "wow, I'm in a dream ... I can do whatever I want...". These dreams can often become wet dreams. But thats a different story altogether.

Anyway, I watched this film one morning in the hope of understanding this eclectic taste and some intersting insights came to mind.

Can I invent the word "Jim-Jarmuschian"?

Having watched 'Coffee and Cigarettes' many years ago, this film seemed to have a similar - can I say narrative? - thread to that. Multiple conversations between characters. I am sure this dates back to Greek philosophy whereby metaphorical characters play out roles and situations to make a point or to explore and issue. Off the top of my head, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a fictional world that uses characters to represent a way of thinking - rather than simply explaining "everything is fake", he uses a situation to make his point. In a similar way, I assume Linklater and Jarmusch do the same things. Only recently, Jim Jarmusch released 'Limits of Control' and, again - though in a different context (assassin on the hunt...) - this involved many conversations between characters. Though I haven't seen the film, many critics seemed to make the pint that Jarmusch was losing his touch by using this technique. One thing that is interesting is how Linklater chose to use Julie Deply and Ethan Hawke from his the 'Before Sunrise'/'Before Sunset' diptych. I would assume a practical choice - and something that would assist the marketing of the film - but this self-referential style again mimics a very artistic style. The film is not only a work or art - it is a work of art Linklater feels is very important. To stress the issue moreso - Linklater appears himself alongside Soderbergh and others...

Linklater, in a god-like position (well, he is the director...) states the claim that lucid dreaming could be 'tastes' of the afterlife. A little hint of what is waiting. Is this his personal opinion or is he 'playing the role of God' considering his position in the making of the film? Again, we get wrapped into this dream. The dream is confusing, the film is all over the place - jumping from fiction to what could be fact. But this merely makes the film more involving. You are not watching mainstream cinema - this is film as art. 

Harking back to Strings

The soundtrack raises more parrallels. The use of strings give the film an element of Hitchcock - as Bernard Herrmans strings screech out to make the surrealist film even more relevant. Obviously, 'Vertigo' would be the first port of call - a film that could effectively be a dream within a dream. Dare I say it - a lucid dream. Then, on another level we have Salvador Dali - the popular surrealist artist. Perhaps, linking Hitchcock to Dali, 'Spellbound' is the real inspiration. Suffice to say, I have not seen 'Spellbound' so hesitate to make a parrallel.

Animation for Adults

The artistic style that is used in 'Waking Life' preceeds 'A Scanner Darkly', whereby Linklater shows varying uses and different styles of animation-on-top-of-live-action - apparently called 'rotascoping'. This gives him an opportunity to experiment and find out the scope of such a style. I would personally assume that this entire film was merely taking advantage of the medium and exploring it - the fact that he could release it and make money off of it shows a more business-savvy element to Linklater. Though it does suit the theme - dreams, lucid dreams and an attempt at visually a subject that - as any lucid dreamer knows - is hard to pin down.

How do you show the fluidity of movement between rooms - a fluidity that, in a dream remains normal, but when you think back you can't understand how such a movement could happen.

I shall close this brief overview here. This is an experiment. Using fascinating themes and discussion topics to keep you interested, but ultimately an experiement. The maxim "Sanity is a madness put to good uses; waking life is a dream controlled." is where the title comes from and it is Linklaters masterful direction that makes the viewer stick with it. Its interesting reading synopsis' for the film, as I feel this narrative is merely what binds everything together. It is, as Roger Ebert described the film "a cold shower of bracing, clarifying ideas" - but ideas without a character you root for or a narrative you expect an ending from. That is a unique type of film to enjoy and I am unsure whether I did enjoy it. But maybe that is merely my dreamlike confusion upon finishing the film...

The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman, 2002)

"How could I forget about you? You're the only person I know."

Introduction

I've decided that my reviews, opinions, analysis, etc of a film is only ever appropriate for people who have seen the film. Spoiler-free on the podcasts, everything else is going to be spoilt on the blog. Chances are most people have seen this, so lets get stuck straight in.

Right. Lets do this. These Bourne movies have been haunting me for a while. Seriously, I have watched this at least three times and every time it never gives me a purpose to watch the second one (alas, inevitably I did - but we'll cover that in the future...). Why? I don't know. I think all the Paris stuff bothered me and the whole deconstruction of the Bond-like character - though interesting - wasn't the most neccessary thing in the world. I feel like the whole concept of James Bond is unrealistic so why do we have to make it realistic? The shitty mini - can it really do all those stunts? No. So the films not realistic. But wait, Bourne and girl discuss how frustrated he is at not knowing who he is. Wow - deep.

I haven't read the Robert Ludlum its based upon - maybe thats a problem - and again, Ludlum openly said how it was inspired by James Bond. Again, why watch 'realistic' James Bond when you still have James Bond? Fact is, this film, in turn, inspired the incredible reboot of James Bond with Casino Royale so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it isn't as bad as I am saying. Maybe, deep down, I am well aware of how much Graham, the Bangor Represetative, loves the film whilst I am ultimately denying it any credibility purely on that basis. Same reason Muse are rubbish.

Opinion/Analysis

So, Jason Bourne wakes up. In the sea. We know nothing and, just like him, we begin to realise what is going on. Its not long until we are clued into Chris Coopers character who believes Bourne is after him and his "Treadstone" team - when in fact Bourne is just defending himself against all the killers Cooper is sending to kill him - one of which is none other that considered-at-the-time-to-be-a-potential-007 Clive Owen. Obviously, akin to Jon Voight and the NSA in Enemy of the State, "Treadstone" is government run - and has every resource at its whim to get Bourne. And like Will Smith in Enemy of the State, again, Bourne has no idea why they are after him - but unlike Smith - he also has no memory of what happened when he woke up in the sea.

After this set-up, it changes direction as the love-interest - akin to Bourne himself - is, by chance, found on the street. Turns out, she is greedy and will take Bourne to Paris. If I was her, I would think that if I was to be offered that amount of money for a car ride ... something is up. Will he kill me upon arrival? Why not? Take the trip and then leg-it. Or, maybe the guy has already killed someone or robbed a bank or ... some illegal activity, and he is expecting me to help him? help an armed felon? Personally, I'd leg it. But turns out, straight off Run Lola Run, love-interest Marie (Potente), is greedy and takes the money and - along the journey falls for Bourne. As he does for her. But then again, in his memory, this is the first love interest he has ever had so of course he'll take it. Think of your first crush - you never forget it.

Upon this third viewing I'll admit, its got good points. The soundtrack is interesting with great music from Moby - 'Extreme Ways' becoming a staple of the franchise - whilst the Paul Oakenfold track 'Ready, Steady, Go!' simply reminds me of Collateral - a far superior film. John Powell was the man behind these choices so well done to him. This range of dance and, as itunes says, "electronica" works exceptionally well but then again, Powell is also the man behidn the music choices in Shrek and - believe me, I'm not a fan - but I can vividly recall plonkers singing to that bloody Eels track from the film. So judging songs to mix into a certain type of film is clearly a talent, and he - by choosing 'Extreme Ways' knows how to choose memorable music that is firmly attached to a film. Then again, I watched Collateral after The Bourne Identity and Paul Oakenfolds 'Ready, Steady, Go!' reminds me more of Tom Cruise, with a gun, in a club rather than a mini. In Paris.

So, to finish. The film is, pretty much, completely set in Paris, giving it a very Europeon flavour. Again, I only recently heard that the James Bond films that have often bombed were set in America. Except Live and Let Die. Then again. That film is racist so ... peak and troughs. Nevertheless, this only adds to the fact that, by being set in Paris, the exotic location reeks more of Bond again rather than a cultured-tone which I assume it was going for. The film ends as the "treadstone" project is terminated in Washington D.C. We watched a film that was ultimately pointless - 'Conklin', aka Chris Cooper, was stupid while everyone else was just following orders from him. The fact that Bourne was merely defends himelf I don't think stands - he can do loads of things, he just can't remember anything. I mean, come on! thats a specific memory. Think Memento - he had a serious problem. Bourne should count his lucky stars in terms of memory-loss.

Fact is, there are a lot of good things - and more importantly - these things set-up a great parrallel and support for Supremacy. Its not as 'incredible' as people say - but I appreciate the different angle on a genre already owned by Bond and Bauer and delivering this successfully. But as 'influential' as this is, The Bourne Identity was influenced by more films that preceded it and, if we're honest, these films were better.

And Matt Damon's "I-don't-know-who-I-am" acting grates after a while. Luckily, by The Bourne Supremacy he knows enough about himself to keep me interested.