Showing posts with label London Film Festival. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London Film Festival. Show all posts

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Adore (Anne Fontaine, 2013)

Sex, sea and a highly commended cast; one would imagine Adore to be a sultry and deeply affectionate take on lust and love. Two actors from the critically acclaimed Animal Kingdom, the scene-stealing Robin Wright from House of Cards should bode well. Instead, Adore is a weak romance with a clunky and laughable script. Smug direction believes that holding on a character that looks to the mid-distance will automatically generate a heightened sense of emotion. It doesn’t and the forced attempt at passion rings false.

In New South Wales, off the coast of Australia, Adore immediately switches sharply from girls playing on the beach (is this about childhood?) to a funeral (is this about death?) and finally to the relationships at hand (is this about love?). Roz (Robin Wright) and Lil (Naomi Watts), in the first scene, lust after the “God”-like bodies of their sons Tom (James Frecheville) and Ian (Xavier Samuel). A small-cast indicates that we may be in a similar territory to Closer. A foursome – made five by Harold (Ben Mendelsohn), Roz’s husband – may find themselves switching roles throughout the film to dramatic and passionate effect. Unfortunately, this is an expectation that is not met. Instead, Harold disappears for the majority of the film, while the director charts the relationships between the remaining four characters.
 
These strapping young men, and Frecheville carrying himself like Michelangelo’s David with his curls, defined nose and chiselled torso, seem to lack any social skills. The young boys are confident enough to successfully bed their mothers friends, with smooth, sexy exchanges such as – “Have you forgotten something”, and he replies “yes…” before kissing her. But it begs the question where the young, beach babes of Australia have hidden away. For example, towards the end, we join a 21st birthday party and, it turns out, they are not complete recluses. Attractive friends we have never seen before seem content in swilling the drinks on offer – are these friends oblivious to the incestuous relationships brewing behind the scenes?
 
Adore plays to an older crowd, sexualising the younger men for the gratification of the voyeuristic audience, but this only highlights how Roz and Lil are powerless to their desperate urges. The young men place pressure on, and convince, their respective mother’s mate to sleep with them. Tom even takes it upon himself, without consent, to sleep in Lil’s bed. He is aware that his abs cannot be resisted by the desperate old-lady Naomi Watts. Certainly, this relationship only emerges through the reveal of Roz and Ian’s trysts – as if Lil and Tom are only sleeping together out of spite. As incredibly attractive, mature and intelligent women, Lil and Roz aren’t shy and should choose to initiate the sexual exploits. Instead, the loner sons - whose idea of a fun weekend is getting drunk with their Mum and her friend – are the initiators.
 
The jumps between years are flippant and skip past moments we are keen to see giving no sense of pace. We plod along with an early awareness that resolution and a satisfying conclusion is not on the cards. All actors try so hard at weaving truth into the lines that awkwardly shape the story. But when a montage of the relationships in full-swing is followed by a dull conversation, as Roz and Lil matter-of-factly state how they feel, you know there is a serious problem. In fact, that particular sequence was met by a loud laugh from the entire audience I was with during the London Film Festival.  That can’t be good. Adore is a drawn-out mess of a film. The perfect beaches and rippling waves only remind you that, rather than sitting inside a dark room, maybe a couple of hours on a beach is what we all need. In fact, a production on a stunning beach for a couple of weeks, may be what attracted the cast in the first place – because it sure as hell wasn’t the script.
 
This London Film Festival review was originally written for TQS Magazine.

Monday, 15 October 2012

Rust and Bone (Jacques Audiard, 2012)

"I liked being watched..."
 
Introduction

Jacques Audiard completely shook the foundations of the Cannes Film Festival in 2009 when A Prophet competed against Michael Hanekes The White Ribbon. A Prophet won the Grand Prix whilst The White Ribbon took the Palme D'Or. This year, we are in a similar position whereby Audiards Rust and Bone is released the same year as Amour – Hanekes latest film. Amour won the Palme D'Or whilst Rust and Bone left Cannes with nothing.

Dangerous Creatures

Rust and Bone, unlike the sprawling A Prophet, is a personal story centred around two characters; Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts), who is violent, lacks effective parenting skills and ignores the expectations of the law and Stephanie (Marion Coitillard), an Orca Whale trainer who is a victim to a freak accident when a Marineland Orca Whale show goes wrong. Within the first thirty minutes, Stephanie loses her legs and incredible special effects win you round to accept Coitillard as an amputee. She swims and uses a wheelchair – shots are so natural and fluid, that you constantly ask yourself how Audiard and Coitillard managed to perfectly capture the reality of the situation she is in. If you didn’t believe she had lost her legs, the film would surely lose its credibility in the opening act.

Thankfully, it doesn’t. Both Schoenaerts and Coitillard deliver performances that are utterly convincing. The initial opening portrays Ali with his child, Sam (Armand Verdure), on a train eating the leftovers from other commuters. Is he a tramp? Is this a twisted, less-Apocalyptic version of The Road? Appearances are deceptive as both Father and Son have escaped to his Sisters home to provide a safe haven for the child, we are told. When we first see Stephanie, she has been assaulted in a club and Ali intervenes to protect her. The parallel between the Orca whales and Ali are immediate; Ali’s imposing and dominant figure, his soft-voice though alluring hides an aggressive edge that, when cornered, will attack. We see it first-hand as he assaults his own Son.

Outstanding Performances

Though stealing every scene she is in, Coitillard is not the centre of the story (though I wish she was), it is about Ali. It is Ali who is strengthened by Stephanie – we see him in an illegal street-fight and, at the point whereby he is struggling to defeat his opponent, it is Stephanie who emerges and inspires him to rise-up and win. Stephanie’s personal struggle to cope with her disability is supported by Ali, but in turn, she supports him. She likes the attention and she craves his passing-desires – but he, in turn, sees her physical challenge as an impetus to succeed.

The Channel Four coverage of the Paralympics 2012 broke many boundaries as we became comfortable with disability – specifically the comedy-show The Last Leg, managed to break down stereotypes and assumptions the general public may have towards those with a disability. Rust and Bone manages to highlight how limited that perspective truly is as Stephanie is clearly stronger than Ali. We see Stephanie build her life and re-establish who she is after an event which could force you to turn to suicide (Indeed she considers it). Ali, in the process of supporting her, ignores his own child and places himself ahead of his own Son time and time again; he directly affects his Sisters life too, only threatening her when confronted.

This is a film which manages to capture the arrogance of humans –whilst also showing the struggles people can overcome. Audiard has created a film that, through multiple watches, I’m sure will provide more scope and depth than it initially lets on – but on a first viewing, I can commend what it attempts and I would recommend viewing the film for Marion Coitillard’s performance alone.

Sunday, 14 October 2012

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?
 
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Monday, 26 September 2011

START UP: London Film Festival 2011

Shocking. Truly shocking. I had a huge bunch of films I was hoping to get this year, but alas, I cannot get them now. Priority booking for BFI members began about a week ago and general sale is today. So I thought, with my BFI membership, I would get a bunch of tickets I wanted ... but no. This year, before the tickets even go on general release loads of films are sold out.

We Need to Talk About Kevin - SOLD OUT
Shame - SOLD OUT
A Dangerous Method - SOLD OUT
Carnage - SOLD OUT
The Ides of March - SOLD OUT
Wuthering Heights - SOLD OUT
The Artist - SOLD OUT (except two tickets at £18 each!!!)

I found a few though but the higher-price ticket put me off. Don't get me wrong, I would be happy to part with a £14 ticket if I wanted to see it before the titles were announced (namely - all the films above) but, as a rule, I don't want to just randomly pay £18 for a film that will either (a) be released soon enough (The Artist) or (b) may be run of the mill international fare. I didn't know enough about The Kid with a Bike (the new Dardenne Brothers film) or La Acacias (an award winner at Cannes) to suddenly stump up the cash. Alongside all the other tickets too! The Artist nearly forced me to part with £18 for one ticket but I thought, it will eventually be released and all the hype will guarantee some sort of theatrical release in the art-house cinemas (Picturehouse chain probably...). I think, if I was given the chance, I would've paid up to £14 (maybe more) for tickets to A Dangerous Method, Shame, We Need to Talk About Kevin and Carnage.


At any rate, it does show that the film festival clearly caters to a much more affluent crowd. A crowd I do not reside within. No 'see-a-bunch-of-films' wrist-band offers here (Unless you are press...). Each film is individually priced and individually bought - Saturday night screening in Leicester Square is top price, matinee-screenings are low price. Thank God I'm a teacher and half-term falls appropriately.

I chose 4 films in total and only the first film I had planned to see from the outset, the other films I chose on good faith - and a secondary glance once I realised I wouldn't get the tickets I had hoped for. Bear in mind that, due to this, all tickets cost £7 each which is indeed a bargain. 

Martha Marcy May Marleneat Vue Screen 7, Monday 24 October 2011 at 15:00
Some interesting reviews from everywhere - but ultimately positive press. Apparently a film that sits well alongside the cult-focussed Red State by Kevin Smith

Trishna
at Vue Screen 5, Tuesday 25 October 2011 at 12:15

Michael Winterbottom's latest. Not normally my bag, but I know that he is a credible filmmaker with a following, so this may be the start of a fully fledged interest in his filmmaking. We shall see.

The Art of Love
at Vue Screen 3, Wednesday 26 October 2011 at 15:30

Last year, I saw Little White Lies and I was impressed. One of the actors features in this film and, from the description, it has a little reference to the wit of Eric Rohmer and Woody Allen. This therefore, interests me.

We Have a Pope
at Vue Screen 5, Thursday 27th October 2011 at 15:00

I was born and raised a Catholic, so this is a 'tragi-comic' exploration of the selection process of a new Pope. I hope I will get some of the in-jokes but, if not, I can appreciate the architecture and art in the Vatican which is bound to feature.

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Sunday, 3 October 2010

TSAJS: 02/10/2010 'Buried' and 'The Other Guys' and much more!

This week, back to the beginning, as we record from the Ritzy in Brixton. Jo has travelled into London, via Durrington, to reflect on the week with some film news, the London Box-Office and his choices for The London Film Festival.

The main reviews are two-fold. Simon managed to watch Roderigo Cortes claustrophobic film Buried with the inevitable opinion of Sarah. There are no spoilers whatsoever for this film so feel free to listen knowing that your film experience won't be tainted. Jo finally watched Adam McKay's The Other Guys with an all-star cast in Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Steve Coogan and the stunnign Eva Mendes amongst others. Michael Keaton for one.

Trailers





Music

A varied selection due to the lack of soundtracks for Buried and Devil. The Other Guys does not seem to have a soundtrack available to the UK, but no matter, Simon hunted down the tracks by TLC - Waterfalls, Creep and No Scrubs - used, the Rage Against The Machine cover of Maggies Farm, The White Stripes Icky Thump and, what appears to be the only song officially linked to The Other Guys in Eva Mendes featured appearance on a track by Cee-Lo Green called Pimps Don't Cry. All tracks available in a bunch of places.

Links

Obviously, you can find us on Twitter and Facebook (links on the left-hand side) and our email is simonandjofilmshow@gmail.com

We discuss the one-star review from Fandango Groovers and, I finished the podcast mentioning Mark Kermodes reviews of Buried and Devil...

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson, 2009)

"I'm saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? Who am I? And how can a fox ever be happy without, you'll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?"

Introduction

I was initially very excited to see this - I like the indie-Wes-Anderson style and I was keen to see a new adaptation of a Roald Dahl book. The adverts looked impressive - stop-go-motion effects with meerkat-posture foxes and then, suddenly it was given this credible publicity campaign as it was billed for the opening night gala for The London Film Festival. The voices were big guns - George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman - the list goes on. I am keen, I am excited and - following Jo's recommendation, at the Barbican, I managed to watch it ...

What I reckon ...

From the first moment you see the foxes you are chuckling to yourself - they walk with a prim-delicate touch. Pointy feet and, as stated, posture like you see of meerkats. Seeing Mrs. Fox and Mr. Fox run around - their slender bodies zipping up and down, suddenly up-close, suddenly far away and talking with the speed of their movement. Its such a funny sight - and so unique. I have no idea what other director could create such characters - the stop-go-motion adds to the rural unique atmosphere and, therefore adds to the comedy.

Mark Kermode mentioned a 'smug' and 'talkative' attitude and it is very chatty - but that is more a trait of the foxes themselves and the animals. They are plenty of examples of visual comedy - one sequence as the foxes rob a house you see their actions through video-camera feeds only. Reminded me of the start of Snatch actually. Another sequence as Fox and Rat fight and electricity lights up sporadically while they do so. Even some stunning silhouettes of characters - such as a wolf on a hill and as Beansy lighting a cigarette in a doorway - visually engaging. Yes they are chatty but its hardly a bad call on Wes Andersons part - it just happens to go against the target audience that is children.

Children shouldn't really have to work out what the word 'Cuss' replaces (four letters, begins with F...) because that is adult in its content. Comedy about existentialism isnt easy for kids to understand funnily enough. Those jokes when a character talks for long periods and then all the other characters look at the character in awe/shock and its funny - for kids, they would probably assume that they just don't get the joke. Referring to animals by the latin-name ... is this really comedy for kids? I don't think the bugs in A Bugs Life would do such a thing. Having listen to Adam and Matty's Filmspotting podcast on Where the Wild Things Are they discuss how the darkness of Jonzes' movie is missed often with kids movies -and he's right - but one thing most childrens-filmmakers don't forget is the language kids understand - the actual words they hear and whether they understand it. I'm a teacher and I wouldn't use a word like Existentialism without explaining what it means to 16 year olds!

This is a kids film that seems to target educated young adults. We see the 2D rolling pans that I recall in NES and Sega Master System computer games - even Abe's Odyssey and Abe's Exodus had 2D rolling movement as the game progressed - but suddenly showed the 3D layers of the environment much like Fantastic Mr. Fox did. Retro-computer games methinks ... then we have the point-of-view of the dogs running around - as if we control him in some sort of shoot-em-up game. These link not to current children - but the children ten, fifteen years prior. Morricone-style music as a Western as the film finishes ... really what kids like to see? Ultimately the theme of capitalism is something that, as adults we see more of in our life than kids. The idea "I dont want to be poor" " but we are poor" - greed and materialism of the eighties and nineties. Though simple concepts - they are not concepts or issues children have to face. Children get their money from their parents. Maybe the one aspect kids would relate to is Ash and Kristofferson - the idea that, akin to Buzz and Woody, a new kid comes into town who is, ultimately, better than you. Then again, the role of the father is an important aspect - and more importantly how the child looks up to his flawed father so much is also worth mentioning.

It does look fantastic - and that rural tone, as first mentioned, is the biggest plus point and is something that is unique to this. The corduroy jackets and patchwork and textured land reminds me of the textures on Woody's clothing in Toy Story. I always remember stop-go-motion as the effects-that-never-were on Jurassic Park before Stan Winston and ILM stampeded over Phil Tippetts stop-go-motion possibilities. Clearly stop-go-motion and Phil Tippett are still in the job and can make stunning films (not Starship Troopers 3) without having to concede defeat to CGI.

Monday, 26 October 2009

Osadné (Marko Skop, 2009)

Bigger projects are a utopia for smaller towns
Introduction

First off, I want to note how I feel that the coverage I gave of this on the latest podcast could have been alot better. "Farthest point of Slovakia" - east? west? north? south?. Rusyn people - who and what are Rusyn people? I would like to think that this is my opportunity to correct that. I saw this film alongside Juraj and Jana, Slovakians themselves who managed to inform me that in some places, the representation by Marko Skop of Osadné is 'so like Slovakia'. Jana apparently came from a similar town. Right lets get it right this time ...

What I reckon ...

To clarify, yes, Osadné is on the farthest point east of Slovakia and what is important about this, is that it is the fartest point of the European Union. Though very lonely, the effects of Slovakia joining the EU will hit Osadné last. It is a very lonely town in the middle of nowhere and, obviously amongst many aspects of the EU, one of them joins all these European countries together - and, in the process, places like these get very little representation. The folk of Osadné are of Rusyn origin. There are only 55,000 people who 'associate themselves as having' Rusyn ethnicity (see wikipedia for that possibly inaccurate fact) - mainly based in Romania and Slovakia. Osadné has a population of 210 according to Wikipedia - and in the last five years the priest has buried 50 people and christened 2. This Greek Orthodox priest and the Mayor - a man who has been Mayor of Osadné for 36 years - have decided to use this link to the EU to fight for the survival of the village. Both hope to make Osadné a tourist destination - a monastery and a chapel of grief is what these towns people hope to build but they need funding ... from the EU.

It is an incredibly funny film as there is a drinking culture in Osadné - so every time epople celebrate or make a decision they clink and drink shots. The amount of times I saw clinking and drinking in this movie is in double figures -and each time it happened everyone in the audience chuckled as it was so regular and clearly an important part of the culture in Osadné. Maybe why so many people died. At one point, the Mayor is taken to hospital but there is no exploration as to why ... but apparently he must give-up something and have a fresh start. Maybe this was alcohol...

We also meet Fedor Vico - vice-chairman of rhe Rusyn Revival movement. He joins the Mayor and Priest on their trip to the EU parliament in Brussels is equally strange and comedic as the Priest and Mayor are. In Brussels we see funny shots of the three staring up at obscure abstract art pieces - in some cases discussing how the pieces would look fantastic in a field outside of Osadné. It is these sections that reminded me of The Big Lebowski. I felt that a Hollywood producer would watch this film and, pretty much, remake it but with famous actors. Akin to the mockumentaries by Larry Charles and Sacha Baron Cohen. Fact is, this is reality and these are actual people. In Brussels, they offer the ambassadors invites to Osadné whereby they can go hunting ... the liberal ambassador politely declines.

We regularly see public gatherings - two funerals, one christening and the revealing of the Rusyn notice board (a bear ... that was originally considered to be a large owl) and, at these points, we are shown fantastic shots of the older folk of Osadné. I feel that this recalls Bergman who often showed faces of people that were rarely seen - incredible faces with detail. Upon resigning themselves to the notice board - upset about the reality of monasteries and Chapels of Grief being only a dream - the Priest and Mayor explain how 'bigger projects are a Utopia for smaller towns' and maybe this is true of the film. The potential for a comedy based upon the same factors would be successful and yet, it will remain as an unknown documentary on the international festival circuit. Unless some Hollywood mogul finds it and see's what I see ...

I would recommend it, but be prepared for a strange, awkward-laughter viewing - a similar feeling to when people first viewed the unknown offerings in TV series The Office and feature-film Borat.

Un Prophète (Jacques Audiard, 2009)

"Lock-up time"

Introduction
This film was billed by many as the speciality at Cannes – where it got its worldwide premiere and won the Grand Prize of the Jur. The ‘introducer’ on the the viewing I saw explained how, he felt, it was the best prison drama ever and the LFF programme explained how it superseded Mesrine and Public Enemies in depth, realism and quality. No doubt then, that this screening was sponsored by Sight and Sound. I had few expectations – only read the info in magazines and publications and yet, it turned out to be the best film I have seen at the festival – possibly the best film of the year itself!

What I reckon ...

The Prophet the film refers to is Mohammad, peace be with you, of Islam. The central character we are introduced to is Malik El Djebena, an Arab who, as established in the first five minutes, has no religious connections really. Either way, it is not long in that we realise that his quiet demeanor and calmness is inevitably abused by prisoners around him and, he is singled out and abused as gangs do not initially accept him – he does not attend services with the Muslims and is not accepted by them, and the Corsicans see him as a ‘dirty Arab’ and is excluded as he should be with the Muslims. But, due to an advance by a different prisoner - Ryad - Djebena is approached by the Corsican gang – led by César – and is told he must make friends with this prisoner – in fact, he must accept his advances and then kill him. This all happens quite quick and Djebena's is fearful of completing the crime – in fact, the first thing he does (what I was thinking he should do) is tell the warden and guards. Obviously, the guards are on César's payroll and we see an exceptionally difficult-to-watch scene as he is suffocated by a bag. I had my hand to my mouth in horror – he was in such a difficult position and thus is forced to train himself to kill this prisoner. He learns to hold a razor blade in his mouth so he can sneak it into the cell with him to kill him (the sequences as he fails to quickly produce the blade from his mouth make incredibly difficulty viewing). I won’t go on much more with the plot, suffice to say, we see his six years in prison and how, through the prison system, he becomes an intelligent and impressive criminal – much moreso than how he was upon his initial entrance.

We are constantly reminded on the racism and abuse suffered by prisoners in French prisons. Specifically how Djebena has difficulty being fully accepted by every group in the prison - whether it be Muslim, Arab, Corsican or Italian. The whole film is rooted in realism and has a documentary feel to it - something that the scriptwriter Abdel Raouf Dafri who was at the screening mentioned at the start. Though documentarian in style, the film tries a broad range of camerawork expressing a range of facets that push it away from being exclusively documetary in influence. We often see sections in a fish-eye pespective ... as if a torch is barely lighting up what Djebena can see. We also see the murderered Ryed appear throughout the film at different points- haunting Djebena. In some striking scenes Ryed spins around chanting 'Allah', while in another we see him smoking and the smoke exhaling from the neck wound Djebena made to kill him. These slightly surreal qualities give this film a more deep quality - as it jars with the realism outside of these sequences. They are not explicit dreams - but clearly are just that. Imagination and dreams reflected on screen.

An incedible parrallel to this film is, stranegly enough, Goodfellas as it charts a character who cannot be fully accepted into the gangs (Hill was half-Irish and could never join Cicero's Italian Mafia) but, instead, learns from his leaders - eventually becoming more powerful than the leader who trained them. César constantly reminds Djebena of how it is Djebena who needs César, opposed to the other way around. Cicero (Sorvino) in Goodfella's never explicitly stated his authority over Hill (Liotta) in the same way - but towards the end of both films both Hill/Djebena double cross their leader - in both cases dealing and taking drugs and then dealing them behind their leaders back. I do remember a specific point in Un Prophète whereby I was sure of a specific shot that evoked Goodfellas but, alas, I cannot remember it.

To close, Un Prophète shows us a version of life in prison that is real and shows how criminals - and the choice to become a criminal, is a reality. Djebena gets to a position whereby he can watch TV, pay for prostitutes in his cell, have a DVD player and even set up his own business from the inside of a jail. He gets his one-day leave but uses these opportunities to gain contacts. Obviously the prisons are not exclusively at fault, but it is clear that the corrupt guards on the lower ranks destroy any hope of rehabilitiation prisoners have - and, in fact, change priosners to become more dangerous and become deeper into the underworld. It is a film about education primarily, but not the positive life-affirming education we might expect. An incredible film that is worth hunting down at the earliest opportunity.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 25/10/2009

Lots of 'Saw' movies and Horror chat this week ...

"This week we wrap up our musings on the LFF with a look at Kinatay and Osadne. Then a Halloween special focus on the first five Saw films in preparation for the sixth installment which will be seen on Wednesday!"

Enjoy if you dare! Mwah-ha-ha!

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Kinatay (Brilliante Mendoza, 2009)

"Jesus is the way, the truth, the life" - [On a sign]

Introduction

Since watching this film I have become more and more positive about the experience. J. Hoberman in Sight and Sound said that this was the most hated film at Cannes - not Antichrist or Gaspar Noes Enter the Void. Roger Ebert said it is now the worst film ever shown at Cannes. Variety said the director is a fraud. Truth be told, I was exceptionally scared about watching it ... especially since I watch Antichrist and then questioned the necessity of such a film ... I wondered whether this film was the same.

The pictures didn't help - the awkward lighting and silhouettes of some gagged woman. Incredibly unnerving. The director even felt that this film would not be released theatrically (hmm... we'll see if the studios are content with that...) and felt it should go straight to schools (what???) and Universities (phew... educational institutions would sound better). For obvious reasons, Sarah wasn't watching it with me and Jo tagged along knowing very little about the story. Seconds before it started I did mention to him that, apparently, there was 45 mins in real time of a victim being beaten, tortured, raped, sodomised, murdered and dismembered ... this didn't help his expectations. Turns out it wasn't as bad as expected ... and though I would never show this to my Mum, the links and parrallels to Catholicism and Gibson's Passion are something that tempts me ...

What I reckon ...

It starts off showing our lead character, Peping (Coco Martin) with his girlfriend and young child. We see the hustle and the bustle in the Philippines - Chickens sliced and diced and food being cooked. Peping is a happy guy who is the funny-guy in the police work force. The mood is upbeat. Second act begins and Peping tags along with fellow police trainee Abyong as they conduct a night shift. They meet a prostitute who owes them money and the film literally and emotionally gets darker - she is beaten in the van. We sit, alongside Peping, for the long journey as they 'Sarge' and 'Chief' talk to each other: "put your foot on her head" etc. The whole film is shown in hand held - and the camera shuffles and moves throughout. This van experience is clouded over with the lights from outside the car and shadows - we don't know exactly whats going on. We have a pretty good idea - but its not clear and, as Peping does, we stay silent. This direction is so personal and rough it sets the audience expectations and so, when it dos get more violent it isn't that explicit because the film isn't made in that style - as Hoberman points out: "No money-shots here". Opposed to the very deliberate shots in Antichrist.

What is incredible is that - even though we are cultures apart - we are with Peping on this journey. He is an accessory to this murder but he does not kill her himself. He looks on - and like us - is unsure what to do. call the police? It is a group of police who are doing this! We are 'along with him for the ride' and, if I'm honest, I have no idea what I would do if I was in his position. He is helpless.

The music is percussion-led and makes us feel that much more uneasy. The clanker and slow,high-pitch noises give it an almost animalistic feel. The police are animals - treating this Madonna like the chickens cut up at the start. There are also two songs played at very specific moments - one track when Peping is on his way to marry his girl in the opening act and another when they are in the van on their way to murder this prostitute. In both cases, Peping is a part of a life changing situation and yet, in both cases, he will continue his life with these memories in his mind.

An interesting finale as Peping and the police eat, Peping vomits in the toilet and leaves early. To the police it is just a days work. To Peping, though horrified he can only go home. He is in a taxi and the tire bursts. He waits to try and get another taxi on a main road. Nothing stops - he is ignored. His crimes are ignored and people move on with their lives. We find out that these murders are regular and it is the way of life. Truly shocking.

We have to do the obvious and think about Antichrist. I state here and now that I feel that Kinatay is a stronger film. The violence is the only comparison really, but my feelings upon leaving the cinema was more positive after Kinatay. Antichrist, as I left the cinema - and wrote on my blog - frustrated me. Is there a purpose for such a film. Yes, Von Trier doesn't care much for what the audience think of it so I think to myself, maybe he doesn't deserve an audience. Its all fair and well calling it art - but if a work of art has no audience it has little necessary future. Can we take anything away from Antichrist? Can we use Antichrist as a starting point to explore a deeper artistic meaning? I don't think we really can. maybe discussing its 'right' to be in cinema - but anything can be can't it? In 1963, Warhol had a man sleep for a fair few hours and that was his film - and, yes, it is art. So maybe Antichrist is art - but is it any good? When I think about how Kinatay was so careful in its execution that, by the time the violence became exceptionally strong, you were involved enough with the character to appreciate the position he - and us - are in, is a testament to the director and writer. With Antichrist you knew it was graphic and, akin to cheap bursts of horror, you are suitably shocked and turn away, you have to question why. Could the issue of mourning be dealt with more ... non-graphically? More subtle? More aware of the different aspects other than horror? I preferred Kinatay because I left the cinema thinking about about Peping ... and the position he was in, whilst amazed that we were party to it. All aspects to the film itself. Whilst I left Antichrist disturbed by sequences and shots that felt too much - and made me question my film criticism as to what, indeed, makes a film. Something that does not involve narrative, tone and character. It is an external feature that the BBFC consider - not a film critic.

If you have watched this, I am really interested in your views on the film and the comparison with Antichrist.

Sunday, 18 October 2009

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 18/10/2009

The latest podcast from Jo and I:

"Live from the Southbank for The Times London Film Festival. We discuss the top 6 films in the UK including Halloween 2. Also in-depth chat on Film festival releases Double Take, I Fought the Law (Shorts), Fantastic Mr Fox and Kinatay."

I put this online just before watching Kinatay. I am scared. Wish me luck.

Double Take (Johan Grimonprez, 2009)

"If you meet your double, you should kill him"

Introduction

In the last few years I have made a concentrated effort to watch a lot of Hitchcock movies and managed to see the vast majority of American films (Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Topaz, Torn Curtain, and the many, many more) he made and the 'big ones' he made in Britain (The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes) and then I have [still not watched] all the early silent films that are available (The Farmers Wife, The Ring and the others...). So, when I was reading the options for The 53rd London Film Festival this looked interesting... now there is only so much to say so i shall move on swiftly...

What I reckon ...

First off, it is an art piece first and foremost. Would I call it 'entertainment' or, better still, a 'yarn' as Hitchcock himself would say? No. The majority of footage seems to have been prised from the archive of material from the Alfred Hitchcock Presents ... series. A fair bit also from the fantastic trailer for Psycho as Hitchcock walks around the set, teasing us about what the film includes without showing us the footage itself.

For me, I haven't seen much of Alfred Hitchcock Presents ... but it does interest me as you do see a fair few of Hitchcock's regular actors turns up - such as Joseph Cotton amongst others. In terms of Hitchcock, this film merely seemed to use his thriller style to set the scene for the real focus of the Cold War. By using a vast majority of footage from The Birds there is an indication of impending doom that shadows the film - and makes an interesting contrast to the possible doom that Nixon was entertaining with Khrushchev. Throughout the film, it often stopped and white text on black would pop up to inform us on the history of the cold war: "1969, Nixon signs ... " etc. The film shows all this historical footage alongside a carefully shot film explaining a situation whereby Hitchcock met himself on the set of The Birds. The parrallel again between these doubles - and Nixon and Khrushchev as doubles themselves - was made that much more sinister as we were constantly told that "If you meet your double, you should kill him" - a plan that Nixon and Khrushchev were attempting to do. Destroying the world in the process.

The film then moves on and, as Kennedy becomes president in the historical story, the film focuses on Topaz - a film set within the Cold War. The producer spoke in a Q&A after the screening and explained that the majority of footage used was taken from free-footage that is in the public domain - so the trailers for Hitchcock's movies are in the public domain and we are then subjected to alot of trailer footage: "Shock, horror, beware of The Birds".

It is simply a non-stop barrage of information. News footage, advertising footage, trailers - bam bam bam - and to top it off, there is a strong use of Herrman's strings from Psycho which constantly forces you to be on edge. It happens so much, you eventually climbatize and the tension wears off. We also have these interspersed advertisements for coffee which adds a little relief before going straight back into footage of Nuclear bombs going off and Nixon and Khrushchev mocking each other and then Hitchcock: "Good Evening ..." and then theres more - we meet Ron Burrage a Hitchcock lookalike whose birthday is the same as Hitchcock's! Not to mention the story about Hitchcock meeting his double. The film is juggling all these different threads and, in the end, its just too much.

As discussed with Jo on the podcast, this would not be out of place in an Art Gallery whereby you can appreciate the mixture of media used - and people who love Cold War stuff and Hitchcock movies can stay for the duration. Hitchcock was an entertainer first I felt - and thats not to say there was no depth (as Vertigo shows) but he ultimately wanted people to enjoy and be entertained. Thing is, as much as Double Take might capture Hitchcock's 'tone' of conversation and ethos towards life and how humour and horror go hand-in-hand, it is hardly a good contrast to his films themselves. I would rather watch a Hitchcock movie any day to this strange analysis on Hitchcock.

I Fought the Law (Various, 2009)

"Every Hero Has His Day." - Tagline for The One Last Time

Introduction

This is the beginning of a filmmaker - Weintrob might be the mext Spielberg, Ammo might be the next McG. The tagline above suits these filmmakers appropriately as this is where they start off - they have made it into the film world, but can they continue? I have had a few ideas for shorts myself lately and I thought that The Times Film Festival would give me an opportunity to watch some shorts that have 'made it'. A book I am reading has given me the impression that film-shorts merely showcase your talent for a feature film and, in the case of Fetch you can see that these filmmakers are aware of this facet. The cinema we watched it in introduced the directors to a few and they were obviously very pleased with themselves with the odd friend-of-the-film acting a little too arrogant for my liking. Then again, if I was there, I may just act the same. There are a few to get through, so I shall keep this short. There is an epilogue to this post to summarise the films watched

What I reckon ...

All the films were to some extent to do with law-breakers and criminals in a different context: hence the title given, but they all 'went about it' in a different way. from the Blue Gordini's surrealism through to Fetch's hyper-realism. So, in [pretty much] the order we watched the films in:

X Returns (Ammo, 2009)

Set in Sydney, this is some Matrix-inspired action piece that, is ultimately awful. The only film that didn’t warrant clapping post-credits. Then again, it was the first film shown so maybe noone knew whether to clap or not. Strangely enough, Holly Valance (Kiss Kiss single, Flick-from-Neighbours … vivid teenage memories of her…) was in the film as some double-crossing … person. It was all unclear. It was non-linear – showing ‘X’ with a gun to Valance’s head before falling off the building at the start and then showing a conversation between Valance and some good guy? Bad guy? It’s never explored. ‘X’ has been imprisoned for 40 years because he contracted some Alien DNA … is he bad? Is he good? How did he survive the fall? Nothing is answered. Even the conversations seemed to be shot badly - from Over-the-shoulder shots to direct face shots ... no purpose, just uncomfortable. Awkward silence when the credits came up and the text was blurry.

The Man in the Blue Gordini (Jean-Christophe Le, 2009)

Stunning animation from Jean-Christophe Lie. Surrealist story as a world soaked in different shades of orange, cream and brown are attempting to deal with a criminal who sports a blue top. Has a real European flavour and, I think the animation reeks of Quentin Blake’s drawings – thin Giacometti-like legs, heavy-topped characters. None of the characters wear clothes on their bottom half so we are lucky enough to see penis’ waggling throughout. Until the blue people rebel and wear trousers. Its funny and a lot of fun with an interesting subtext about what people see on the outside opposed to what is inside – people being arrested and caught, etc for ‘looking different’. Racial issues? Police discrimination? These issues are raised in a fun trouser-less world.

Harvest (Alex Winckler, 2009)

Two thieves are trying to rob an old pig-farmers house. The one thief is a late thirties, early-forties man and has a family – but is ultimately trying to support his family through theft, while the other lad is a younger chap who is FUBAR. He craps in the old peoples house, he tries to nick everything that could get him money (something he could get a couple of quid for he, off-the-cuff, states ‘a beer’ … complete tramp) and ultimately tries to rape the old woman who lives there. Without going further then that in the plot, this film seems to look incredible – great tones and clearly sets the tone in such a rural landscape, but falls flat on the more technical aspects of film-making. Lots of obvious fade-to-blacks and sudden sounds to jolt us back into the film. The whole rape section is a bit unnecessary – especially because there was no need to show a specific ‘revealing’ shot. Its not explicit but the idea that ‘some things are better left in the imagination than shown’ is something director Alex Winckler didn’t feel appropriate. If the film was about rape then fine, but it wasn’t about rape – it was about petty thieves and the tables being turned on them.

The Odds (Paloma Baeza, 2009)

An incredible short that utilises every aspect of a ‘short film’. Set in one room. Two actors (Mark Strong and Ian McDiarmid) and a very simple start: Strong is a casino manager while McDiarmid is a gambler who has won a freakish amount of games. It was rooted in drama and the tension flips from one character – we start unsure about who is ‘playing’ who and then it switches and switches again always putting you on edge – while an incredible finale finishes the short. I hope to see this film again and even Sarah is keen to hunt down a script to use with her pupils in Drama lesson. The picture I found above reminds me of McQueen's Hunger and the inrecible discussion between the priest and Bobby Sands. Truly flawless.

Le Petit Dragon (Bruno Collet, 2009)

It looks like stop-go-motion or incredibly sharp computer animation. The smoke of a dragon ‘awakes’ a Bruce Lee toy figure. To some extent it reeks of a Toy Story off-shoot, while Lee tackles different figures and bit-by-bit destroys himself. His ‘features’ remind me of Buzz's’ push-button selections. Though it explores a little bit more nostalgia than Toy Story as Lee comes face-to-face with not only the plastic toys (which he is not – he appears to be made out of those stress-relief materials) but, eventually a computer game which has, to some extent, taken over the role toys play in our family homes. Incredibly shot and clearly a work of art – I hope it is stop-go-motion because if it is incredible SFX then … actors are redundant.

Fetch (Jyri Koski, 2009)

A short that appears to be taken from feature length movie. Small-role actors from Martin Scorsese and Guy Ritchie's movies indicate that this hardly short of budget or contacts. Like a combination between Snatch and The Sopranos, we see an Afro-American gangster named Caesar (the actor Ade who plays Tryone in Snatch) come across OG’s – Original Gangster – Italians Vinni (Looks a lot like Uncle Jun’ from Sopranos) and henchman Tony to complete a job for them. A post-credits voice-message reveals what Vinni and Tony should have known … they don’t know much it turns out and we see quite the finale to a mistake at the end. Incredible acting and incredible roles that showcase the talent Jyri Koski has … I only hope that Koski creates a feature-film with the punch of this short. It would be difficult to pull-off though.

Trunk (Chrostopher D'Elia, 2008)

Very simple story as two Uni Students set off on a road journey that escalates into chaos. It stars Zachary Ty Bryan from – recently watched Held for Ransom - taking a potential frat-pack on a journey. It has you initially eager to see where it will go ... but then descends into a comedy. It is very funny but, at some points, the second actor Kyle Gallner, seems a bit too passionate for such a funny situation. I wouldn't be averse to watching it again, but there was something that lacked ... maybe credibility. No second layer - just fun and games.

The One Last Time (Scott Weintrob, 2009)

An incredible short that, even though the last one shown, I would be prepared to say is the 'best'. IMDB seems to state that director Weintrob is now on a feature called Bleed opposed to Ammo whose X Returns put him in a position to do ... well ... nothing currently in production. This film seems inspired by Nolan's beginning to The Dark Knight whereby the Joker and co - masked as clowns - raid a bank. The characters in this short raid a bank, masked in a similar way, but as the Wizard of Oz characters ... only to find halfway through that another group are raiding the bank themselves. It looks so sharp and incredible showing this classical building raided by gun-toting bank robbers ... it could be the start of an incredible comedy-action movie but, as it progresses it utilises the nature of a short to finish exquisitely.

Epilogue

When I watched Dead Mans Shoes and Saw I realised that you can see how some directors, writers, actors, etc have planned creatively to make a film that gives them an opportunity to showcase their talent within a realistic set/schedule, etc. The best shorts used a small cast and/or one set which would require very little shooting. Yes, some films clearly had money behind them but not all of them. Fetch had money - yet we only saw one room, 5 actors during the same 10 mins. The animation ones are more difficult to navigate as they ahve alot more work involved but can be worked on consistently by the filmmakers. The Odds - one set, one very simple set (a basement!) for that matter and two actors. Nothing more. X-Returns and Harvest were trying to be feature-length films condensed into 10 and 22 mins respectively. A great experience and i fully recommend hunting down my top 3 from the selection: The Odds, The One Last Time and Fetch.

Sunday, 11 October 2009

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 11/10/2009

So, the 3D special! Begun at the Barbican and finished in 'the kitchen: Check it out!

"This week Jo and Simon talk about 3D films and the latest releases - with a specific focus on Pixar and Disney. Films discussed are Toy Story and Up in 3D and Zombieland amongst brief discourse on the back-catalogue of Pixar studios."

That's the description ... enjoy!

Sunday, 4 October 2009

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 04/10/2009

So, round two - another overview on the weeks films with Jo and myself!

"The latest films discussed by your London-based film reviewers. Specifically focussing on Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson's 'The Invention of Lying' and Lars von Trier's 'Antichrist'."

That's the description ... enjoy!

Monday, 28 September 2009

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast

The first of many, I would like to think. In this podcast we discuss this weeks releases - District 9, Fishtank, (500) Days of Summer and Dorian Gray while also focussing on the work of Sam Mendes.

In time, I would like to think that you can download it direct from this site but currently you can only 'subscribe' and all that stuff via the 'mypodcast' website which is the link above. Works perfectly for me but I strongly advise you to have a listen!

Its the first one so be kind -but tell us if you think we could improve something!