The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 29/11/2009

Beaming from Simon's blog, the Richard and Jo Show ...

"Well, this week Simon is missing - but alas, Richard fills in with Jo as they run down the Top 10 Films at the UK box-office while discussing in more detail The Men Who Stare at Goats, The Good, a review of Film Festivals - Brighton Film Festival and The Wales One World Film Festival amongst others. Finally the world of adaptations is discussed ... from stage to screen ... Richard and Jo explore them all!"

I hope you enjoy the show folks!

A Serious Man (Ethan Coen; Joel Coen, 2009)

"Please, accept the mystery"

Introduction

Her name is Rio and she dances on the plane. No she doesn't. I speak of the Rio Cinema in Dalston where I viewed the Coen Brother's latest movie. The Guardian tells me it is 'magnificent' while Dan Jolin in Empire gives it five stars - even Sight and Sound makes it film of the month as Michael Atkinson expands on the Richard Kind's performance by telling us about his 'magnificent' performance. I was quite excited to watch this. I remember a similar hype around Burn After Reading - the star-studded vehicle following the Oscar winning No Country for Old Men. But I never watched it due to the not-as-enthusiastic-reviews of the aforementioned film. I knew it was about Jewish-ness (Woody Allen links maybe?) and, judging from the trailer, a comedy ... it was not like Woody Allen and was not as funny as I anticipated, but thats not to say I thought it was bad because it was a pleasure to be so close to this personal touch of Ethan and Joel Coen.

Opinion

The film begins with a parable: A rational man brings back a man to his house - a man who his wife is positive was killed months prior. The man walks in and is clearly not dead, os the rational mans wife is convinced he is a dybbuk - a possessed spirit - and, out of nowhere, she stabs the potential-dybbuk. The man asks - 'now who is possessed?' and leaves. I assume, this small analogy, shows how peoples actions dictate how evil they are - whether he was evil or not is neither here nor there, he helped the rational man - but the wife on the other hand, for no real, justified reason, sought it neccessary to stab him making her the evil one in the story. Actions dictate your character - not the events that surround you.

Obviously, this is an anology for the rest of the film. Poor old Larry Guptnik (Stuhlbarg) has, what we believe, every conceivable problem happen to him: his wife wants a divorce, his teenagers are selfish (much like any teenager really), he gets involved in a car accident, etc The list goes on. So he wants answers - he knows the question: what do you do if you lose (pretty much) every thing? He asks a range of Rabbi's and the comment on their assistance is 'struggling' at best. I am forced to recall Ricky Gervais' view on comedy - whereby he felt that Andy Millman in extras had to reach rock bottom before he could reign supreme at the end of the Christmas Special of Extras. Larry hits rock bottom. He feels let down. He feels as if God has let him down. Larry Gopnik wants to know how life can get better.

His son plays an interesting parallel as he struggles to find a music-player that was taken by a teacher so he can pay-off a bully. I would assume the link here is that the bully Larry faces is life. The film climaxes at the bar mitzvah of Larry's Son, Danny. Larry has tried in vain to meet with the head Rabbi and fails, while his son is granted the privilege opportunity to meet him - the head Rabbi hands Danny his music player back. Obviously, as Larry never meets the Rabbi, his 'life' is not returned to normal.

The film begins and ends with a bribe - a student of Larry's, a Korean lad called Clive - the whole film, Larry denies this bribe, trying hard to make sure it is dealt with. But alas, the envelope of money sits on his desk.

[Spoiler] Then comes the incredible finale as everything that has happened, ultimately, affects Larry into changing his morals. The whole film, you see Larry brewing and about to blow a gasket. You feel as if the film has ended as Larry is informed that he may just get his tenure, his wife may love him still, his brother - an amazing performance from Richard Kind - tells Larry how lucky he is. You think that we have seen the storm of Larry's life pass ... but alas, he gets a $3000 bill and, he cracks and takes the bribe. At the same moment a storm moves towards his son and his classmates.

Referring back to Gervais' thought on making someone hit rock bottom before raising them up, in this case, Larry hits rock bottom and tries to make sense of it all. He never does but, eventually, the pressure gets too much and he changes his moral. He chooses to end his 'seriousness' of life and decides to, rationally, accept the bribe - when the reality is, he doesn't see the wood through the trees. His brother is right - he has so much going for him, but he doesn't see it.

I throughly enjoyed this movie. It is set in 1967 and therefore sets the stage for a potential deconstruction of the nuclear family, a possibility Dan Jolin mentions in Empire but I would disagree. Merely a parable - the whole 'grass is greener on the other side' story told in Coen-style. No envy on Larry's part - envy seen as sin by Jews (I assume), merely a frustration that - to stretch out the use of the aforementioned proverb - Larry feels why is his grass not as green as others? Reality is, we all feel this frustration when sh*t happens and it is - as the parable at the start tells us - down to our actions in the face of these events that determine who we are.

Animal Farm (John Stephenson, 1999)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Introduction

Now, I made this promise a few years ago to log, on a 3 x 4 inch piece of card, every film I watch. My intention is to be able to access my initial thoughts on a film after I watched it, hopefully, upon reading the card again, I shall tap into those same emotions and remind me better of the film. The idea came from what Peter Biskind noted in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls about Peter Bogdanovich. He done the same thing. Biskind tells us he had thousands and thousands of these cards ... having kept a record from a younger age and, obviously, watched more films. I have a few hundred since 2007, but I haven't counted them i just know I have gone through a few packs of 200 cards. Very few of these cards are used elsewhere. This was by no means the first film to get the fabled card (I had just bought a James Cagney boxset so I think it was The Public Enemy) and, as you can imagine, these reviews all tap into those cards to gage my initial reaction. It does work if you must know - in some cases showing me how naive I was upon the first viewing and, in other cases, showing me how bang-on-target I was... all in all, its a good idea and any film buff I would recommend this form of record taking. (To add to it, its interesting to find that in some cases it is difficult to fill the card while in other cases you feel you could write hundred of cards after the first view). So, Animal Farm, was an inevitable consequence. Sometimes you watch a bum film. Vantage Point is somewhere within the cards. This, though based on a classic story, is bad adaptation. I watched it alongside hundreds of pupils at my school on a day focused on equality and human rights. Rabbit Proof Fence and Watership Down were other options. But this film won out ...

Opinion

So, it is based on George Orwell's book of the same name. It is an allegory of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is when a state dictates its own rules on everything - and in that respect, we mean everything. Totally everything. Inevitably, this control - which is usually a political faction rather than a democratic whole - eventually changes to suit its rulers, abusing the people under its control (when this happens, it is called authoritarianism). So, we have animals, who create rules in good faith to live by but, bit-by-bit, the rules are changed to suit the 'leaders' who, in this case, are pigs - specifically Napoleon the pig. In this film, the pigs - who topple the humans and despise how they live - begin to live like the humans themselves - getting drunk and even wearing clothes.

Enough of the politics - because you will find lots of that stuff in any books on Stalin (the ruler Napoleon the pig represents) and other historical films. You got the words, so if interested, hunt that information down. As a film - ignoring the highly intelligent allegory Orwell is responsible for - it's pretty bad. It's all live-action - akin to Babe - and therefore looks like a joke, negating any serious depth. Even though the themes explored are incredibly deep and emotionally involving. Maybe this is where books cannot be adapted - the allegory dominates your thoughts on reading the book, but when watching the film, some pig speaking Shakespearean English is more comedic than classical. And it is Shakespearean actors hired: Kelsey Grammer (as Snowball), Patrick Stewart (as Napoleon), Peter Ustinov (as Old Major), etc.

It makes the story non-linear by starting after the Animal Farm has fallen apart and then tracks back to its beginning, and how it was set up and how the animals took control of the farm in the first place. When it was Manor Farm, back in the day, the animals were abused, used and taken advantage of - and so they fought back and took over the farm.

Considering the source material, it is surprising to find that inaccuracies abound - in the book (so I see) Old Major dies naturally three days after his speech, while in the film he is shot soon after the speech. This is more 'action-packed' I assume. In the book the animals never want humans back while in the film they wish the humans would come back because the regime is so awful. I'm sure that tells a very different story - is the moral that 'sometimes you have to stick with things because change is wrong - look at these poor saps, they changed things and look what happened to them?'. Not the moral Orwell went for I'm sure.

I won't waste much time on this. Its a poor adaptation that cashes in its political stance for family fun - which is not the source material's intention. When I think of the 'adult' nature to Fantastic Mr. Fox , I only wish the same rule was applied here because it would be more accurate. Stick with the 1954 animated film - a film with enough political focus that the BBFC of 1954 rated it X ... now it's a U ... but clearly its more in line with the intentions of George Orwell. Though I wouldn't know because I watched this sh*t version instead.

John Stephenson, the director, is worked on many movies. He directed two films (at this time of writing) - this one and another kids movie called Five Children and It in 2004. His real experience lies in special effects - working on Lost in Space and The English Patient. Alas, nowadays he is a second unit director, his next gig being Andrei Konchalovsky's Nutcracker: The Untold Story ...

Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

Introduction

I can't remember the first time I watched this. I think it was Uni - between 2002 and 2005. I didn't own it. Having watched the film, I once bought the triple-disc version and then, upon trying it out in the DVD, found the disc was ruined. I brought it back and they had no other ones available so i got a refund. I never bought it in the end and i don't intend to. It is one of those films people tell you,"you must watch it" as if it ranks next to Casablanca and The Godfather. It doesn't rank that highly ... and I doubt it would be in Top 10's of 2000 ... wouldn't get into a Top 20 if it came out in 1999 (what a year that was!) but its worth a watch. One of those films I only wish Hitchcock could have watched and I ponder what he would have thought - a good yarn anyway, but I don't think it is a 'classic'. Like Dial M for Murder is a good Hitchcock but it is by no means his best. But, because I have been praising the back catalogue of Danny Boyle recently i thought I would rip apart a movie that, personally, I think some people like a little too much.

Opinion

So we have this completely non-linear storyline but not in any random sense of the word. The lead character, Lenny (Guy Pearce), has short-term memory-loss so we go back in time via the small segments of memory loss. While we do this, there is a running parrallel story shot in black and white which is in chronological order - opposed to the colour sequences that are, memory-segment-by-memory-segment, going back in time over the course of, say, a day. About twenty four hours ... maybe a little more (he sleeps twice so ... two days?). So, in this reversed-chronological colour strand we additionally see flashbacks to a guy called 'Sammy Jenkins' who is quite important...

That does make sense, but you may find that you need to watch the film to understand how the last paragraph makes sense. This construction of the story is a fascinating presentation - leading to a special-feature on some DVD's to watch the film completely in chronological order or in the combination of non-linear strands - as intended. We know Lenny's wife was murdered and he lost his memory in the process and he is on the hunt for the killer. We meet other characters also. Two characters who look remarkably like characters from Zion. No other than Cypher-Joe-Pantalioni and Trinity-Carrie-Ann-Moss playing Teddy and Natalie respectively.

As a fan of TV-series 24 it is perhaps not-surprising to note that this film was made a year before the TV-series as you begin to realise that in each segment, akin to each episode of 24, there is a little bit of action - in most cases ending with a cliffhanger - before moving on to the next bit. This keeps you constantly asking 'eh? whats going on? woo hoo! action! drama! oh, phew, questions answered ... [end of segement] ... eh? whats going on?' etc. So, poor old Guy Pearce has some really bad-luck getting himself involved in many little scraps. I am sure, anyone who initially had the idea for 24 could have watched this and seen the scope for how much action and drama and cliffhangers that can be put in place throughout a lots of sequences set over a short period of time. Nevertheless, this is a lot more personal and rough - as Lenny is on his own and has no CTU or FBI to assist him. The fact that he is alone means his trust in everyone else is jeopardized. This, I believe, is the crux - the real centrepoint - of the story. (While talking about 24 for the character Jack Bauer, that is his biggest issue: "you have to trust me!")

People create stories, they look back on history to stregthen themselves - learn from paste mistakes to move forward. Lenny can't learn from mistakes because he can't remember them! Bless him. But, then again, some people ignore mistakes and problems of their past and move on - ultimately making the same mistakes. (SPOILER! As we find out that Lenny literally makes the same mistake, murder (a pretty big mistake the ol' murder), again and again.)

Structurally, we have some great use of effects as, more often then not, some loud bang (on the door, phone ringing, car crash) or a little note recently written precedes or ends the reverse-chronological segments ... that way we know where we are at the end of each section. But then, the music, is so slow ... these long drawn out strings by David Julyan seem to want to imtate Bernard Herrman but seem to fall down to sound just boring.

To close, if its not bad enough that I have to accept how Lenny has no personality, I have to add to that the slow music. This could be so much faster but seems to drag on. Lenny's monotone voice recounting the events in his memory "my god, remember Sammy Jenkins". YES! I remember him. For Goodness sake. I have had long discussions with some people ... you know who you are ... about the choice of actor for Lenny. On the one hand he is such a boring protagonist (and you would think a tattoo-clad murderer would be quite interesting) and is the wrong actor to play such a role. On the other hand, he has - pretty-much - no memory so, obviously, thats how he feels. That is his outlook. So it adds to the realism. Its groundbreaking, thats for sure but I always feel when I watch this film that it could have been better -a little tweak here, a snag there would help. Its not either screenwriter Nolan or director Nolan's fault, but it is somebodies ... question is ... whose fault?

[I think it is Guy Pearces fault... all that Neighbours training methinks]

The X-Files Movie: Fight The Future (Rob Bowman, 1998)

"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
Introduction

So, I watched this a few months back prior to the more recent movie release. Sarah used to watch the TV series but stopped watching - as most in the UK did - after this movie release. My sisters were huge fans but I never was - I was quite young myself and it was always on that little bit too late. Nevertheless, only recently, Sarah got the Complete X-Files Collection and, following watching Season 7 of 24 we shall begin watching this series from the start. Something I had always wanted to do but never really had a chance and, as Sarah is more keen then i am, it gives me double the reason to start watching. Mad Men Series 3 won't start in England for a while too so ... we got plenty of time. Either way, I thought I'd use this opportunity to do a review The X Files Movie: Fight The Future as someone who doesn't know the series at all.

Opinion

It is an extension of the TV-series so I begin on the wrong foot. We start the film with a huge action sequence with the FBI agents Mulder and Scully not working on the X-Files - a part of the FBI that is OOA (Out Of Action) - but as a part of the bomb unit. The film still has its opening of cavemen finding aliens thousands and thousands of years ago giving the entire film an epic context that, I assume, is the opportunity that a feature film has over the smaller scale TV-series (even though, nowadays TV series can be a lot more expensive than many feature films!)

It shows some beautiful landscapes - namely snowscapes and crop fields that look like they continue on for an eternity. I wouldn't know which artist they are referencing, but it sure looks like shots you could freeze and put on the wall. There are a few subtle references to other Sci-Fi films - namely Alien whereby humans are kept in pods.

Ultimately, without watching the TV series, there is very little to go on. We have recurring X-Files characters - the 'cigarette man' amongst others which means nothing to the uneducated and, definitively, very little is resolved. Everything is more of a set-up for the following series, I presume, rather than an opportunity to win over new fans. Even the 'plant', though destroyed is simply remade again.

We have an interesting dynamic between Mulder andScully brought to forefront as the start sequence on the bomb-squad goes wrong, the pair are forced to take the blame over the problem. But the two were always seen as outsiders if I recall - they looked into supernatural events, a subject that most people don't even believe! So the fact that we see this potential struggle for the two characters is actually quite weak because, I'd like fans of the show to help me with this, I am sure they have come up against bigger problems.

Now, as I recall, the sexual chemistry between the two is something that is always hinted at and, again, a love-angle to this film is unresolved as the pair nearly kiss but are inadvertently interrupted by a wasp and are therefore forced to follow that problem.

As you can see I am rushing. I am excited to watch the TV-series but I watched this film shortly after its release and then watched it again in the last year and this film didn't sell me on the series. Considering this film came only two years after Independence Day you wish they looked at that for a bit of inspiration - I don't want the huge destruction of the blockbuster but at least some of the ideas could have been used - the government, aliens on the planet, etc. In fact, if this was a smaller-scale Independence Day with Mulder and Scully in the foreground it would have been alot more worthwhile as a stand alone movie. Fact is, 24:Redemption was not in the cinemas (in UK anyway) because it was primarily a set-up for Series 7 ... this should have been the same. Only-on-TV so only the TV-series fans watch it or bigger and better if it was in the cinema so all of us non-regular viewers can enjoy a good Sci-Fi adventure.

So, in reference to the chosen quote. In this case, I know this is a bridge between series 5 and 6 of the TV series and I had 'foreseen' such a predicament. I only have myself to blame.

Post-Script

Very soon after this post was whacked online, I got an email from a media company about a competition with Volkswagen whereby there is a prize to do with X-Files. Seems pretty good to me if this is your bag ...

"To mark the X-Files being voted into the Timeless 50, this Thursday fans can win - a two-night stay in the village of Avebury, Wiltshire, with its world-famous prehistoric stone circle dating back 5,000 years. Prize includes entrance for two people into the Alexander Keiller Museum, and lunch at The Circle Restaurant. You will also receive The X Files - The Complete Collector's Edition – 61 Disc Box Set.

Details are on the link below.

http://www.timeless50.com/tv/x-files"