End of Watch (David Ayer, 2012)

"I am the police, I'm here to arrest you, you've broken the law. I did not write the law, I may disagree with the law but I will enforce it. "

Introduction

 

Daniel Barber’s 2009 thriller Harry Brown begins as we see phone-camera footage held by youths on a London estate. The video speeds round, as the owner is sat on a motorbike, and the gang-members threaten a woman with her child before accidentally (?) shooting her and then speeding off before the motorbike riders are hit by a truck. The footage represents the story which is about to begin but, on a first-watch, it is easy to believe it is actual footage which shocks you to the core. Does this happen? Has it happened already? How can we live in a world whereby this is possible? It is this same shock and horror you feel when watching End of Watch.

At the front of the Action

Unlike Harry Brown, whereby the film begins more conventionally after the introduction, End of Watch remains committed to the found-footage element as street cop Taylor (Gyllenhaal) introduces himself and narrates the story before presenting us with an unspecified, but considerable, length of time in the company of himself and Zavala (Michael Peña), his partner as they patrol X13, a district which is initially new to them. By the end of the film, they know much more about this area. They know about the Mexican drug cartels which operate. They learn about the power of Big Evil (Maurice Compte), a major drug-lord. They realise how much danger lurks behind the street corners and curb-side gangs that infest the area.

It is easy to assume that the found-footage element is merely a fashionable filmmaking technique – akin to Cloverfield, Chronicle and Paranormal Activity. But it is much more – harking back to TV-programmes such as Police, Camera, Action! whereby the camera sits at the front of the car as it speeds between houses and estates. End of Watch surpasses the usual tropes of found-footage as it makes a point about the use of surveillance and use of videos in the modern world. Indeed, though Taylor carries a camera “for a project”, the Mexican gang-members also carry their own cameras and we are even privy to surveillance caught by Immigration Control of conversations which relate to the district the two police officers work within. But we also realise that director David Ayer doesn’t constrain himself to the ‘footage’ caught by these characters as we are often a third person as we witness Taylor and his girlfriend Janet (Anna Kendrick) kiss at the end of a date and pan around the couple as they fall on the bed. We know Ayer wants to highlight the reality of the profession but doesn’t want to cut-out the personal stories that hide behind the badge for the sake of a technique – it is a bold move, but it pays off as the performances of the lead characters Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick and Natalie Martinez is hugely convincing and deeply satisfying. Not for a single second do you think of Gyllenhaal as a Prince of Persia. It is more akin to his skin-head role in Jarhead than of anything he has ever shown us before; Could an Oscar nomination be around the corner? I hope so.

 

Poignant

 

The title, End of Watch, refers to a euphemism used in the force to describe an officer/officers killed in the line of duty so it is timely that this film, with a tragic outcome, comes so soon after the shocking story regarding the murder of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, Police Constables of Manchester. We are shown how challenging and difficult this job truly is – especially in poverty-stricken areas such as South L.A.

Ayer doesn’t shy away from the ambiguous morals Police Officers are expected to have and, akin to Training Day (written by Ayer), we spend a huge amount of time inside the police vehicle with the cops as they discuss the profession. Zavala’s wrestling and fighting with African-American Tre (Cle Shaheed Sloan) – an act which garners him respect and, as Tre tells him “keepin’ it ‘G’” – isn’t the same as Denzel Washington forcing Ethan Hawke to smoke drugs, though it does question what police officers need to do to gain the trust and respect of those in troubled areas. In a world post-The Wire, it is easy to pass this off as another imitation cashing in on David Simon’s successful TV series. This is much more – it is a shining example of the amazing career of the police officer. The hugely important role they play in society and the ignorance others have when even considering the profession to be an easy job. This is a job that is akin to the military – these men are on the front line and deserve every ounce of respect we can offer. Blistering performances and flawless direction leave you shocked and amazed at the end of the film: Is this the reality of law-enforcement?

 

Frankenweenie (Tim Burton, 2012)

"I'd welcome death"

Introduction

Tim Burton is a filmmaker who seems to dip in and out of public acceptance. On the one day he is praised for his iconic films such as Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice and Batman. On the next day he is mocked and ridiculed for his reliance on Johnny Depp and wife Helena Bonham-Carter in films such as Dark Shadows and Alice in Wonderland. I am happy to report that Frankenweenie falls into the former camp - and could be one of my favourite Tim Burton films.

 

Using the voice-talents of Catherine O'Hara, Martin Landau, Martin Short and Winona Ryder, Frankenweenie tells the story of a school-boy named Victor (Charlie Tahan), who aspires to be a filmmaker himself. In true Burton fashion, he is socially awkward and has few friends - instead, relying on his dog Sparky to provide company. Shortly into the film, Sparky dies and Victor - inspired by his strange teacher - manages to bring Sparky back to life, much to the shock of his friends and family. Frankenweenie is a Disney film and, with this in mind, becomes a unique specimen when placing it within the Disney animated canon. A black-and-white film about death is hardly Snow White. Indeed, the film is a remake of a 30-minute film Burton made in 1984 and, viewers of animated TV series Family Dog (a Brad Bird creation, executively produced by Burton in 1993) may notice a suprising similarity with the lead characters. This is a tale which has been close to Burton's heart for decades and, you can see, how his love for cinema too bursts off the screen in 3D.

A Love for Filmmaking

 

From the opening sequence, it feels as if something is referenced. The Toy Story sequence that begins the film appears more as nostalgia rather than imitiation. The joy of cinema and fun of filmmaking is celebrated throughout - live-action Dracula plays on the TV in Victor's household, Bambi (another Disney film very-much about death and moving-on) plays at the local cinema. Godzilla, Jurassic Park and Gremlins all feel as if they are acknowledged in the final act.

This is a story about filmmaking and, as you hear the clicking and winding of a film reel, you realise that the death of the dog represents the death of film itself, in a digital age. In this regard, the film joins Scorseses Hugo, JJ Abrams Super 8 and Hazanavicius' The Artist as it harks, and weeps for what cinema used to be. Victor edits the film by cutting-and-sticking shots together, not using an Apple iMac. The world is a balance between Gothic and Suburban - and Edward Scissorhands himself could easily live in the same area. Burton has made a film in Disney Digital 3D, mourning the loss of traditonal filmmaking. Then again, as a character says: "I'd welcome death", maybe he is celebrating the death of film and praising the future of a new medium.

Belief in Burton

The film is not without it's faults as Danny Elfman's score seems to echo many themes and riffs from his score for Batman and Batman Returns. In addition, buried deep in the film, is an argument regarding the challenge between faith and belief against the cold, mechanical research required of a scientist. Victor is a scientist at heart - but he loves his dog so much that literally brings him back to life. I would like to believe that multiple-viewings may flesh out this potentially-profound element to the film - but it could be the case that there is simply inconsistency in a theme that is weakly explored.

I strongly recommend this film as it truly does show Burton at his best. Filmmakers and film-fans should all be exceptionally satisfied as Burton seems to be in his element combining his artistry and knowledge of cinema to create a film that, I believe, will not be forgotton. As an opener to the London Film festival it is richly deserved - and I can only wait with baited breath, to see whether Burton can continue this success with another fine film in the future. Mr Burton - my faith in you has been restored.
 

Paranormal Activity 2 (Tod Williams, 2010)

"I don't know if the house is haunted, but I hope it is"

Introduction

It is one thing if a film is a success - but if you have a film which is a success and cost next-to-nothing, believe me, the studio is happy. Yeah, sure, they will double the budget. How much will it be now?  $30,000 rather than the previous films $15,000? Instead, the budget rose to $3,000,000. Where did all that go? Did they build the house from scratch? I'll bet Katie and Micah got paid twice-as-much for their cameos than anything recieved for the first film. But, with Saw at this point past the fifth-film, and continuing to take in a profit, the filmmakers didn't want to do a Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows and destroy the series completely. They had to tread carefully and, indeed they did, ensuring that the sequel was faithful to it's predescessor and also upping the stakes with thematic resolutions. Unlike the previous film, it was clear that this film had a defined theme: Greed.

Childhood and the Future

To set the scene, Paranormal Activity 2 is about a child. A new camera to capture the joy and beauty of a child. Katie and Micah did not have a child - and from the analysis of Paranomal Activity it is my assumption that their relationship would not cope well with a child. The baby is called 'Hunter' and we are told that the film is set 60 days before Paranormal Activity. We are led to believe that this is the 'beginning'.

In terms of 'upping' the stakes, this time there are more people and more cameras. The context is plausible as the house is destroyed and they need cameras for security and surveillance - but this is where a theme begins to creep in. The reaction to the issue is excessive - surveillance throughout the entire house? We realise the scale of the building and how successful this family is - something not happening to Micah and Katie. Practically, I can see how the story dictates these themes as only a wealthy family could afford surveillance throughout the house, but I believe that as the film draws to a close, the truth is clear and this wealth was achieved through ill gotten means.

The Cost of Happiness

I remember a sermon I heard at a church many years ago whereby the preacher explained how it is fascinating how we live in a modern world whereby we can buy what we want, but are never satisfied; we have such a wide range of ways to communicate, but we cannot recreate the intimacy of a one-to-one conversation; we can travel anywhere in the world, but don't feel safe at home.

That last point is what I find relevant to this story. A situation whereby a family who clearly have achieved a certain degree of success and wealth are not safe in their own home. Indeed, one of the most satisfying scares in the film is when cupboards that hold the families possessions suddenly open to the horror of Kristi (Sprague Grayden). Is there an assumption that the more you achieve in this world, the more paranoid you become? Too often we hear stories about how wealth has created horrendous situations. Lottery winners who explain how it was the worst thing that could happen to them as they were not accepted into wealthy-circles because they didn't gain the money in a 'fair' manner whilst they were not accepted by their previous company as they could clearly access things they could not, which in turn, would affect their relationships with others.

We are told that, prior to Hunter, a deal was made whereby an exchange for wealth and success was made for the cost of the first-born male in the family. This dictates what lengths people will go for money - and how greed, in and of itself, can corrupt you. The finale of the film is more shocking as, though we can accept that this was the fault of a generation prior to Katie and Kristi, the Father decides that to ensure his families safety is intact - and their lifestyle is intact - he will pass the demon on to Kristi's sister, Katie. It is easy to assume that the sins of the father can give us a certain element of peace as we realise that we are not at fault, but it is clear that the nature of greed and selfishness continues as the pain and trauma, in the Father's case, he is happy to pass onto another family. 

Sins of the Father

 

It is clear that the father's decision (like the decision of the Grandmother in making the deal in the first instance) is not ignored, and the demon-possessed Katie kills him in the last sequence. The fact that she has taken the child Hunter, clarifies further how this attitude towards 'happiness' will continue into the next generation.

 

Connecting the films together, we initially tackle relationships and then it moves onto family - and the values within family life. The values within Katie and Micahs relationship was unbalanced  - he failed to support her effectively, he ignored advice from experts, etc. In Paranormal Activity 2 we see how unbalanced values in a family can destroy the unit - they prioritise the importance of financial security in the family. Indeed, it is revealed that the purchase of the camera by the father is what influnences Micah's decision to purchase a camera himself - the idea of influence and passing-values to others. The themes of greed, envy and excess is what litter this film and, considering the themes explored in Paranormal Activity, it again hints at what is important to people - and if money is rated highly, then be prepared for a shock when you achieve it.

 

Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964)

"Do you expect me to talk?"/"No Mr. Bond - I expect you to die!"

 

Introduction

 

Sandwiched between Joseph Losey's The Servant and Kenneth Anger’s Scorpio Rising sits, awkwardly, Goldfinger. The 1001 Movies To See Before You Die only lists one James Bond adventure: Goldfinger. Kim Newman finishes his brief article on the film by stating that “Ever since, the series has been recycling”. Maybe so, but what a formulae they created! Guy Hamilton, directing his first film in the series, managed to combine the cool of From Russia with Love with new, innovative elements. Gadgets that were more than a briefcase, and an introduction that was simply unforgettable. Is it a duck? No, it’s James Bond. He is wearing a tuxedo underneath his wet-suit. Is this impossible? Not for 007.
 

Iconic

 

This is the most iconic James Bond adventure – and the one film which, even at the time, critics began to realise represented more than simply ‘kiss, kiss, bang bang’. I don't believe any other 007 film has established itself with such status as Goldfinger. Indeed, Dr No started the ball-rolling, From Russia with Love, though superior to both films, is more of an homage to Alfred Hitchcock than a rule-breaker film. If the films followed in the vein of the first two films than it surely wouldn't have lasted 50 years - it would've struggled to reach the 1970's. Goldfinger has attributes that ensured Roger Moore's 8-film canon could rely heavily on comedy to pull it through - combined with stunning locations and quirky villains/henchmen. Though Red Grant (Robert Shaw) in From Russia with Love was the first 'true' henchman in the series, it was Oddjob (Harold Sakata) that paved the way for legends including Jaws, Vargas and Nic-Nac. The exceptional lengths which Goldfinger (Gerte Frobe) plans to go to corrupt the world economy isn't too far from the established SPECTRE game-plan, but in terms of the future, Goldfinger works alongside China, not the infamous Blofeld troupe.

Ian Fleming’s book openly acknowledges the lesbianism of Tilly Masterson and Pussy Galore, but the film only hints at Pussy (Honor Blackman) as homosexual. Like Tilly (Tania Mallet), in the film, she is ultimately swayed by Connery’s charm. Fleming connected Goldfinger with SMERSH (the villains which became SPECTRE in the film series), but the film detaches him and, even ignoring the Cold War element, connects him with China and the atomic bomb. Coincidentally, it was China who detonated their first atomic bomb in October 1964. Writers Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn even corrected Fleming’s impractical end-goal of stealing gold bullion from Fort Knox and openly acknowledged it in the film – as Goldfinger reveals his ‘true’ plan of setting an atomic bomb off inside Fort Knox, contaminating the bullion itself. Talk about capturing the zeitgeist.
 

Cultural Context

 

James Chapman writes in his brilliant book, Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films, how Goldfinger even gained parallels to Godard as Penelope Houston, writing for Sight & Sound stated “… that we know the clichés and can have a little fun with them” akin to the French New Wave. This is the core of the series, as throughout the previous five decades, the James Bond series has managed to create a style and formulae that alters to suit the new generations. Though the first five films – Dr No through to You Only Live Twice, they all feel innovative and unique, until the films become almost a parody of the mood ‘of the times’. Diamonds are forever imitating The French Connection. Live and Let Die cashing in on the success of the Blaxploitation genre. But it is the formulae established here that ensured their continuing success.

The film itself remains incredible as a product of its time, including a huge dollop of sexist bravado. Connery and Leiter (Cec Linder) in the initial Miami scene smacks a girls bum – “man-talk”. But the women are much stronger than the previous films – Tilly is avenging her sister’s death, Pussy initially argues she is ‘immune’ to his charm. It may be a long way off from Barbara Bach’s Agent XXX in The Spy Who Loved Me and Sophie Marceau in The World is not Enough, but it was a start. On the other side of things, when you truly rip apart the narrative, you realise that James Bond himself is incredibly problematic in the film. He doesn’t escape Switzerland, leading to the laser in-between-the-legs. He doesn’t manage to get word to Leiter about his whereabouts – leading to the death of Solo (Martin Benson). And he doesn’t escape the jail cell, despite his efforts. It is Pussy who saves him and switches sides. The final action sequence within the terrific Fort Knox (designed by iconic set-designer Ken Adams) only concludes as a specialist defuses the bomb – not 007. Despite what the numbers on the dial tell us.

A New Market

 

This was a film which was made to draw in the international market – after capturing the European market in From Russia with Love. The budget was more than the previous two films combined and you can tell. The scale of this film is jaw-dropping – the aerial shots alone of Fort Knox, as hundreds of soldiers faint, is bigger than anything we have seen in the series so far.

This is where it truly began and we have the careful refinement by Broccoli and Saltzman to thank. We have the genius of Ken Adams and the screenplay by Richard Maibaum. Even the direction is rougher than before – handheld camerawork that Paul Greengrass must’ve seen before developing his own style that, in turn, influenced the James Bond series in 2006. After Goldfinger, everything was set in stone – but nothing would be the same, ever again. Not recycled – refined and truly outstanding.

Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007/2009)

"You cannot run from this- it will follow you. It may lay dormant for years. Something may trigger it to become more active and it may over time reach out to communicate with you"

Introduction

I remain a keen viewer of the Saw series. When this clearly-inspired-by The Blair Witch Project film came along, I was skeptical. I definately didn't think it would have the longevity of the Saw series in theatres, let alone have any type of credible following. I would like to think that we Saw fans are very-much thinkers - we like the twisted-moral-compass Jigsaw has and hypothesize what we would do in such a situation. It makes us feel intelligent - the attributes of a thinking-mans film. Opposed to jump-scares and moving lights. Paranormal Activity only managed to achieve a viewing from me when I was offered a guest-spot on the LAMBcast discussing Paranormal Activity 2. I was hardly going to ignore the intial film and watch the second alone. Recently, I watched the first film again with Sarah and then, back-to-back, watched the second and third film a second time (the first for her) and I do believe there is a little more depth to the sequels then people let on. Maybe more than just 'jump-scares'...

Micah and Katie

What I am well-aware of from the outset is how this first film set the scene. In many ways, the depth and themes are less of an issue in this film. The 'set-up' was what attracted studios to the film and the 'set-up' is what attracted audiences to the film.

We see one camera in a house in an attempt to "catch" whoever is taunting couple - Katie and Micah (aka. "Meeeka" no "My-cah"). The backstory is limited as Katie explains how she had multiple "experiences" since the age of 8. She claims her hosue was burnt down and she can't remember certain things. What keeps out interest is the approach Micah has to the situation - he clearly doesn't feel threatened or in danger and, crucially, seems to believe Katie is overreacting. As the story progresses, Micah appears to be more foolish as he completely ignores Katie's advice by using a Ouiji board and then ignoring the advice of the 'expert' by becoming exceptionally angry for no clear reason ("What the fa-a-a-a-ck!"). Rather than the subtext, which is clearer in Paranormal Activity 2, it seems the focus here is the relationship between Micah and Katie. How they speak to each other and treat each other - and how 'healthy' the relationship is.

Relationship Issues

The fact that the 'demon' thrives on the anger within the household, it is physically representing the coping mechanisms of their relationship. As the two become more frustrated at each other, the demon becomes worse. The moments of peace seem to give the demon a moment to fester - akin to the moments you reflect on a situation and realise the severity of the issue. Even sleeping, we all believe might be an escape route from moments of stress and conflict, can actually highlight how these minor 'issues' between Micah and Katie have not been resolved. I recall a newspaper article celebrating the marriage of a coupl which continued after 70 years - thier "secret" according to the man was how they always resolved issues before going to bed.

Katie turning to an expert is a wise decision. A paranormal investigator who advises them against anger - advice which Micah fails to follow. Eventually, this leads to the poltergeist/frustration-in-relationship becoming dangerous and, eventually, destroys Micah - and therefore the relationship itself.
 

Technical Scares

Technically, it is clearly influenced by The Blair Witch Project amongst the recent barrage of 'home-footage' films. Nevertheless, it still manages to create 'scares' in its use of doors, noises and the 'throw' finale. Even the use of footage, unto itself, is a device which creates incredible tension. In a similar manner to the footage in Signs, the footage is simply shocking because it is delivered to us in a manner that gives the impression it is 'real' opposed to the glossy reality we normally see on a cinema screen. Add to this the use of text - "Night #5", etc - as if to give a sense of authenticity.

I believe Paranormal Activity is not ground-breaking, and doesn't pretend to be - but it does bring a fear home to us. Jaws was the fear of water, The Blair Witch Project was the unknown in a forrest and while camping. Paranormal Activity portrays a very 'normal' couple who are approached in the night - that feeling when a little air brushes past your leg when you sleep; the bang downstairs because a window has been left open, etc. The biggest fear is the unknown - and we don't see the poltergeist and are left to imagine the 'feeling' in the house. Indeed, it is this feeling which we can all relate to but we cannot put our finger on. The feeling that something just isn't right and we obsess and think about it too much. If you are in a relationship you are not happy within - you can feel it. Something just isn't right and though you can't put your finger on it, you know it's there. Fear that your home, in and of itself, is wrong ... and it is slowly changing who you are completely.