Saturday, 6 June 2009

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981)

Introduction
I am going to be honest, I have never been a big Indiana Jones fan - maybe if you like James Bond, Indiana Jones just seems to be a bit of a bland copy. Does he work for MI6? No - for a museum. Bo-o-oring. Does he wear a tuxedo? No (except at the start of Temple of Doom if I'm right?). But, saying that, the eighties was a bit of a drought in good James Bond films (damn you Old-Roger Moore and too-serious Timothy Dalton) so something had to fill the gap I guess. I re-watched this to continue my chronological viewing of Spielberg films and, alas, I was not impressed. Lets see how we go ...

Quick Synopsis

We open in the forest in South America, 1936. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) goes through a thoroughly impressive maze of traps and manages to get a gold idol and, narrowly escapes death, getting out of the temple. Waiting outside is Hovito Indians and Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman) - he steals the idol and the Indians try to kill Indy. But fail.

Indiana Jones is a lecturer at a University and Army intel explain how the Nazi's - some scary group of German militia - are beginning an archaeological search in Cairo looking for the Ark of the Covenant, aka the chest that carried the 10 commandments. If Nazi's get it they could take over the world because this Ark harnesses a powerful energy. Indy is sent away - picking up Marion (Karen Allen) - a clear parallel to Indy - on the way and eventually ending up in Cairo to meet Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) who helps them get the Ark again - they fail - and Belloq (now hired by the Nazi's) gets it again. Indy gets a plane and fights. Indy attacks a convoy holding the Ark - and gets the Ark. But alas, the Nazi's get the Ark again and both Indy and Marion are captured ending up on a Nazi island. They open the Ark, Marion and Indy close there eyes, everyone bar Indy and Marion die. Fini.

What I reckon ...

So, as I said, its a lot like 007. Well done Lucas with your rip-off script - "Hey Steve, I got an idea - its a rip-off of James Bond and it will make me, ahem, us, money". Anyway, the intro is action-packed and merely introduces characters - with no real link to the story itself. But it is like a brilliant, very complex row of dominoes - you see all these traps set up: boulders, arrows, poison darts, etc and Indy, carefully gets past them and then - on the way out - every trap goes off. Its not just one big explosion or lots of punching - it is complex separate traps going off one by one.

The one thing which is a little strange I thought was some of the comedy had an air of slapstick about it. The fights had huge expressive flips and it simply seemed a little contrived - Bond never had time for fancy moves! not to mention the choice for bad guys. Question: Who are seen as the worst group in history. Answer: Nazi's. Its all a big joke now really! Now, obviously James Bond is hardly deadly serious, but I didn't think it was that tongue in cheek. Maybe I should re-watch some Roger Moore Bond.

Some great references though. The Western regalia of Indy is a nice link to the one genre, while the bad guy Major Toht is the link to a different genre - Gangsters. In fact, there is a huge similarity between Cagney in 'The Public Enemy' in black mack and hat in the rain and Major Toht in black mack and hat in the rain. A great touch. While the final shot of the film has a nice recall of 'Citizen Kane' - the Greatest Film of All Time - with the boxes of storage mounted up in a huge room.

I think this is one of those films which, watched in the wrong way, is not as fulfilling. I watched this in a kind-of 'I have not watched this 'classic' for ages, so I have to be prepared for an important movie', when in fact it was not made to be a classic, it was made to be a lot of fun and not to be taken seriously. So don't take it seriously. It was new for its time and was well aware of the comparison to James Bond and, rather than ignore it, it just ran with it - referencing other films as it went. And now, it is a classic but simply because of the fun and games, the shits and giggles. But, I have to admit, I don't buy it now. I think it won't take long for it to fade away as just one of many blockbusters as there are so many and yes, I know it has had a further three sequels but that's why it has had its longevity and is now a franchise. And they're all fun so I can't knock them but ... I just think they have the same appeal as James Bond except not really as good. I got another three to re-watch and review and then I could summarise but this first one - other than the opening - is not actually that good. How 'privileged' we are for viewing the power of the Ark. Whatever.

Friday, 5 June 2009

The Sugarland Express (Steven Spielberg, 1974)

Introduction

Following my focus on Hitchcock, which hasn't failed - shall we say - simply stalled, I decided to move onto Spielberg. Lets be honest, any film cineaste/cinephile/professional generally needs to know their Spielberg and so I decided to hunt down the (very few) missing Spielberg films and watch them. 'Duel', 'The Sugarland Express' and 'Amistad' were amongst the purchases (always going for the double disc, and always paying as little as possible). Nevertheless, I was looking forward to this one. I'd watch the brilliant [cannot-believe-it-was] made-for-TV 'Duel', and was ready to watch the next one: 'The Sugarland Express' and my oh my, it is quite a film ...



Quick Synopsis


Right, we have Goldie Hawn playing the character Lou-Jean Poplin. This girl is very dominating and controlling - especially of her husband who resides at a pre-release jail. She literally orders him to escape with her and travel to Sugar land to get their child who has been taken into foster care. This is based on a true story though all characters have different names to their real counterparts which begs the question as to how honest the film has been ...



Nevertheless, Lou-Jean and Clovis (William Atherton) - her husband - within minutes of escaping the prison they take hostage Officer Slide (Michael Sacks) and the three begin moving across the 'Sugarland express' - a highway through Texas that ends in the city Sugar Land, Texas. The three of them become buddies t some extent though Police follow them the whole way, not wanting to have their fellow Officer shot. In the process, the media coverage give the couple fame, whereby towns en route begin to root for the 'couple-who-just-want-their-child-back'. At no point do the police have pity on the couple to the point of 'letting them go - obviously - and the film ends with tragedy as - akin to the true story - Clovis is killed, while Lou-Jean is placed in prison and the child given back to the family




What I reckon ...


The first important aspect to the film is how this was Spielberg's first cinematic release - as 'Duel' was made for TV (though given a theatrical release following its - and his - success), this was Spielberg aware of the huge cinema screen audiences would view this on. The film shows a classic Spielberg-shot (no, not the zoom-in in 'Jaws' that Hitchcock used on 'Vertigo'), but the 'Lawrence of Arabia' shot of police cars on the horizon distorting under the heat and slowly coming into focus. These cinematic treats are littered throughout the movie showing how, even at this point, Spielberg was a director to look out for. Spielberg won Best Screenplay at Cannes for this film, but ultimately - commercially - it flopped. Lets be honest - post 'Bonnie and Clyde' and 'Easy Rider', this was a bit, well, boring. There are a few parallels too - the celebrity status of the couple also evoke the Bonnie and Clyde story, which the tragic finale, though not a shootout, is i a similar vein (It is a shootout of sorts... just nowhere nears as impressive). Another production factor is John Williams score - I personally love film scores and this one I regularly listen to on a John Williams soundtrack. It has a real softness and yet catchy theme - justified no Indiana Jones - but it fits the story, showing John Williams skills as a composer even as early as this.

One thing which I gathered in this though - that is worth noting because it might be one reason why I have currently stalled watching Spielberg films (come to that later...), but there is no real exploration into the character Goldie Hawn plays - who is played brilliantly. She is sweet - but controlling, she has so many contradictions and at the same time seems wise enough to concoct the grand plan to escape, but fails to actually think-it-through: Did they think they would just take the child and get a house and live happily ever after? These themes don't need to be the story - they simply need to be explored ... this brings me to my final point. Maybe, just maybe, Spielberg just created this for pure entertainment. The simple box-office bucks. Why dwell on these issues when we could just have a good ol' car chase? A concern I shall raise in the future methinks ...

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Sunshine (Danny Boyle, 2007)

Introduction

As you are no doubt aware, from reading the 'A Life Less Ordinary' review, that I am a huge Danny Boyle fan and 'Sunshine' I have watched many times. I pretty much love everything about it and, for one, as soon as I get a HD-TV (a way off yet ... god damn overdraft), I feel that 'Sunshine' will be one of the first purchases. It looked stunning on a cinema screen and, no doubt, it will look stunning on HD. One thing I do love about Danny Boyle films is the little touches of spirituality explored and - according to Danny Boyle - the exploration of spirituality in a serious Sci-Fi movie is a must ...

Quick-Synopsis

Bear in mind, I am being brief and a little cynical in this synopsis, so I only advise you to watch the film and see how words cannot actually describe the brilliance of this movie so why bother explain it clearly when you should just watch it ...

We wake up on Icarus II a spaceship that has a job to do - shoot a nuclear bomb into the sun sun, thus reigniting it. This has been tried before, on Icarus I, but alas, their mission failed and no-one knows why. The crew are a diverse mix of professionals - amongst them Searle (Cliff Curtis) an on-board psychiatrist of the ship, Mace (Chris Evans), the macho-military engineer and, the lead guy, Capa (Cillian Murphy) a calm physicist who operates the 'payload'. There are many others on the ship: Kaneda, Cassie, Corazon, Trey and Harvey but that is all. The first act establishes all these factors until - oh, my, god - we hear a signal from Icarus I, breaking the equilibrium. It is unlikely that anyone is still alive, but is it worth going to the ship and having two 'payloads'? Doubling the chances of survival of the earth? Capa is given the choice and he decides 'yes' so off they go to Icarus I. They get to the ship with minor problems (well ... maybe not minor ... but ... ) and, once on board, they see that someone went mad and killed everyone. The ships captain Pinbacker (Mark Strong) who left a Kurtz-like message about God and failing missions. But he's dead so don't worry about it (well, he is burned from head-to-toe anyway). Then 'someone' separates the two ships from each other and a few lives are lost when they cross back to the original Icarus II. To finish Pinbacker turns out to be alive and well and sets off trying to kill everyone on board Icarus II and, after a lot of sharp razor-blade fighting, Capa manages to shoot his load (ho ho ho!) and Earth is saved.

What I reckon...

I make small cards every time I watch films and, for some silly - possibly pretentious reason - my first two 'lines' on this film were: "Ashes to ashes" - Sun, that is full of fire, "dust to dust" - Death and human skin. I don't know exactly what that means or where it came from. It just is what is, and I thought I'd share it with you.

One thing which is clear, is the appreciation of the beauty of nature, and how this links to a possible spiritual awareness. The Buddha-like pose of Corazon as she holds a part of nature is one such example, while the music itself from John Murphy and Underworld (Why, for godssaake, is the soundtrack only available for download!!!) is almost transcendent. But maybe, the almost-obsession with beauty makes people feel closer to God? The spiritual focus is primarily on Fundamentalism rather than glorification: Searle begging Kaneda 'What do you see?' as Kaneda, close to death, looks into the the light is the curiosity of God, opposed to the reality of His existence, while Capa - caught between the science and nature during the finale shows the awe of His creation. It all feels a little preachy, but I think this is part of the focus. Pinbacker on the other hand is Bin-Laden. He is the distorted - both physically by burns and visually by Boyle - version of a human, twisted and corrupted. Pinbacker himself breaks a certain element of realism that was established before his arrival, clarifying his strange existence - as I am sure we can all agree that the Taliban would be better off just not being here. One interesting point Danny Boyle raises in the commentary track for the film is that Searle is the complete opposite of Pinbacker in terms of faith - where Searle is willing to die for his faith, and indeed he does, Pinbacker will sacrifice everyone else for his faith. Pinbacker emerges from light when Capa first sees him and creates darkness in the ship with his distorted view - and that final act of the film with Pinbacker shifts the entire film into this fast paced, horror movie a credit to regular-Danny Boyle collaborator editor Chris Gill.

One thing that I found fascinating was the use of colour and the choice of colours to show the bleakness of inside the ship, while outside has so much colour and beauty you cannot help, akin to Searle, but be in complete awe of the sun and all its majesty - so a clap to cinematographer Alwin Kuchler for this! The overall tone of the film is influenced by 'Alien', '2001:A Space Odyssey' and Tarkovsky's 'Solaris' ('Solaris' being the only one I haven't seen...) and this is what makes it look so good - if you use such magnificent films to influence your work, then you can't go too far wrong. Might not be unique, but its how art progresses - art and influence.

Personally, films with a spiritual or destiny theme always intrigue me and I think this is why I lover this film so much! Why are we here? How can free-will and pre-destined fate exist together? How valuable is human life? These are big questions and Alex Garland regularly raises these topics.

One interesting note Danny Boyle made on the commentary: "Three Sci-Fi elements when you do serious science-fiction film: Ship, crew and signal (that changes everything)"

The Public Enemy (William A. Wellman, 1931)

Introduction

This is one of those often-quoted classic films in cinema. First off, in 1930 a Production Code was established to stop the growing amount of violence depicted in movies - filmmakers would get around this by placing prologue cards and epilogue cards specifying how a criminal life is not condoned by the filmmakers. 1931 - 'The Public Enemy' is released. 1934 and public outrage against the many violations of the code - namely 'Scarface' - came to a head. The Catholic Legion of Decency began a protest against violent films by picketing outside cinemas and putting lists of films together than they condemned - amongst them 'Little Caesar' and 'The Public Enemy'. I have yet to see ‘Little Caesar’ but it is being shown during a Gangsters month at the BFI in July, so I shall hopefully have tickets then – watching it ‘how it was meant to be seen’. Nevertheless, The Public Enemy' was made between these two points so now, you can watch it, without any edits or changes that back in, say, 1940, would be inevitable due to those bloody Catholics. These edits to films came due to a huge public outrage following these protests, whereby producers decided that a 'certificate' would be produced for each film released, judged by the Hays office, and this would hopefully give the audience an indication of the type of film a group would be watching. 'The Public Enemy' itself had a huge influence on filmmakers - specifically Martin Scorsese, who often says in interviews how he attended double-bills that showed ‘The Public Enemy’ and ‘Scarface’ when he was a child and it was part of many factors that made him the one of the greatest directors of all time, and in the first few minutes you can see the influence this has had on him.

Quick Synopsis and What I reckon ...
We start off in 1909, whereby a young Tom Powers (James Cagney) and Matt Doyle (Edward Woods) are stealing little things, pulling pranks on Matt’s sister and generally winding people up- so when you think about ‘Goodfellas’ with the chronological order of the story shown (Henry, Tommy and Jimmy Conway as young hoods) you can see the influence of ‘The Public Enemy’ on ‘Goodfellas’. Nevertheless, the ‘rise-and-fall’ aspect of ‘The Public Enemy’ is also a popular type of story that is clearly shown in both ‘The Public Enemy’ and ‘Goodfellas'. Anyway, enough of that – I’ll save the review of ‘Goodfellas’ for another time. At this point (the film begins in 1909) we are also introduced to Putty-Nose, a non-important hood who gives Tom and Matt their first real job, whereby not only does it go wrong (a fake Bear scares Tom… bloody Bears … ) , but ‘Limpy Larry’ is killed and Tom or Matt – probably Tom – kill a policeman. Tom and Matt swear revenge on Putty-Nose…

Its interesting to note that James Cagney and Edward Woods were originally up for the opposite roles – Cagney as Matt and Woods as Tom, but when Cagney was clearly better. This is really strange because when you watch the first sequence with the child actors playing the roles, it is clear that the young actor playing Matt is based around the look of Cagney, while the young version of Tom is based on Woods. Even the clothes are practically the same. Talk about a continuity error!

Like most of these early Gangster films – say ‘The Roaring Twenties’ – we obviously see the effect Prohibition had to the criminal underworld, and this provides the foundations for Tom and Matt’s breakout job, whereby they steal a load of alcohol in gasoline trucks. I ask this - if this is a used gasoline truck, how did they clean the inside of it fast enough and clean enough so that the alcohol wouldn’t be polluted because, I guess, if you drink gasoline, you die. Maybe it was a new truck. I know this is pedantic. I’ll stop.

I could spend so long looking at each narrative function, but alas, it would take too long. Maybe ‘The Public Enemy Review: Part II’ would be better. You have a brilliant character called Nails Nathan – a man who looks so sinister, his smile will keep you up at night. When he clarifies to a brewery owner how Tom and Matt are hired to make sure that no-one buys beer from anyone else, he snaps out of a very posh persona into a dog-like barking murderer. A businessman first and foremost – but he does remind me of Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) in 'The Untouchables'.

Two brilliant sequences to finish on (nothing to do with grapefruit and nothing to do with the finale itself which are most often recalled). Mike (Tom’s goody goody brother) returns from fighting in the war, while Tom has been making money off of the prohibition. During a family dinner we see Mike stewing over Tom’s criminal lifestyle. Here is Mike, tired and – probably tortured by the memories – with barely any money at all, while Tom has a new car, new suit and has provided, in the middle of the table (completely in everyone’s way may I add… oh, I get it, that’s the point) is a beer keg. As we waited for Michael Corleone to react to Kay’s abortion we wait for Mike to blow - which he does, telling Tom how ‘it’s not just beer in that keg … its beer and blood’ (The name of the book the film is based upon: "Beer and Blood"), shouting down Tom and Matt – the murderers and criminals that they are. Tom, referring to the war Mike has recently come back from, says Mike enjoys killing – “You didn’t get that medal for holding hands with them Germans”. He su-u-ure didn’t.

The second sequence is probably most influential one, specifically on the notion of film-noir whereby during an absolute downpour of rain, Tom decides to respond to the death of Matt by killing the rival gang. Dressed in a black mack, with the rain pouring down off his hat and jacket he walks in, we hear the shootout without seeing anything, and he returns out stumbling and trying to stand, he falls to his knees and eyes looking up he says “I ain’t so tough” and he collapses. This isn’t the end, and there is a treat in store – and everyone should try and catch this film to see that finale.

There is so much stuff going on in this film – family, US history, criminal morals, the law, etc – that it is still relevant and fascinating today. More importantly, like many of the classic films of this time, this film would not stand well remade as no-one could match James Cagney’s performance as the twisted, slightly crazy (though nothing in comparison to ‘White Heat’s’ Cody Jarrett) Tom Powers. This is a necessary watch for anyone who wants to know their Gangster genre … in fact, it would be the first, in a long line of films, to watch and understand the genre.

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Celebrity (Woody Allen, 1998)

‘Celebrity’, made in 1998, shows Woody Allen again attempting to tell us about old age and mid-life and, the problems with it. But this time Woody Allen is in the guise of Kenneth Branagh, playing Lee. Lee has been married 16 years and has decided to divorce his wife Robin (Judy Davis), a woman who was completely oblivious/unaware of Lee’s feelings – feeling’s rooted in lust. Another preoccupation of Woody Allen. We see the two try and restore some type of normality to their lives – akin to the initial happiness they had with each other I presume, except better. Obviously, someone is the dumped (Robin, upset, in some sort of religious retreat home …) and the other is the dumpee (Lee, happy as Larry successfully sleeping with many women). Bear in mind, Lee is a writer/reviewer for a celebrity publication with aspirations of becoming a screenwriter. It’s Kenneth Branagh doing a Woody Allen impersonation – is this the type of person a successful Hollywood A-list actress gives a blowjob too for no other reason except because she can? Or maybe this awkward I-don’t-think-this-is-very-realistic attitude should be turned into humour. Woody Allen often does this I find – Rebecca Hall in ‘Vicky Christina Barcelona’ convinced she will never cheat on her fiancé and then, because of a Spanish guitar she goes against this completely … again, not incredibly realistic, but you have to accept it. Mark Kermode and everyone else, seems to agree that a lot of Woody Allen films seem, to some extent, to be about him. You paint the picture … 1998, Woody has been in a relationship with Soon-Yi Previn for many years. He is 35 years her senior. If I am right, they actually got married in 1997. Then he makes a film about a guy, going through a mid-life crisis and who splits up from his wife for a younger model, and then splits up with a long term partner, for a younger model and he ends up, incredibly unhappy. As I felt with Manhattan, this film would be so much easier to take if Woody Allens own personal life did not have so many correlations.

Talking about ‘Manhattan’, ‘Celebrity’ is shot in black and white also, giving it a certain, classical edge. I guess this is against shooting it as colourful and flashy akin to a McDonalds Happy Meal … which, would probably be more appropriate. Does he deem celebrity culture to be a good thing? Eric Lax in ‘Conversations with Woody Allen’ gives the impression that Woody hates the celebrity culture, only going on the press junkets if he has to as part of a contract – but if he can shy away from them, he would. I cannot help but feel that Allen likes to create this beautiful look to a film – he knows how to do it well (so, a safe bet) and he has the supporting staff to make it happen. Namely Sven Nykvist – the cinematographer of many Woody Allen films, and more importantly, of Ingmar Bergman’s films. This is not ‘Cries and Whispers’. This is not ‘The Seventh Seal’. This is a Woody Allen [comedy] movie about a mid-life crisis. The balance is incorrect and doesn’t suit the tone of the script itself. To add to this, you have the – I don’t want to say it, but I will – pretentious music. I love the music, but again, it is hardly representative of the world he is trying to portray. Maybe this is another [unnecessary] classical edge to the film.

The cast on the other hand is second-to-none. I’ve harped on about Branagh enough, Judy Davis is brilliant – combining an element of distrust and lack-of-confidence just right to play off Joe Mantegna’s ‘Tony’, who is basically the perfect man: Italian, funny, unmarried, rich, intelligent, loving family – the lot. The tension is whether poor Robin will keep this guy, who she knows all too well, she doesn’t want to lose. Then there are the small cameos, but incredibly important, parts*. Specifically Leonardo DiCaprio in his first performance post-Titanic.

You have to wait a little for my ‘Titanic-is-a-fu*king-good-movie’ review, but nevertheless, he is flawless. While happy in a relationship, Lee attempts to sell his screenplay to successful film star Brandon Darrow (DiCaprio) while Darrow is having the time of his life at the peak of his success. He beats his girlfriend, he gets arrested, he travels to Atlantic City, he gambles, he takes drugs and he has orgies … and this is within the space of about 10 minutes and, most importantly, at no point do you feel that anything is false, he simply plays the role to a T. It is perfect. It is aspects like this that makes the film so good and, although it is unnecessary, it does look stunning and maybe, just maybe, I have got to stop assuming what should be done and accept what has been done. It looks good, it sounds good, they act well and the script is good … its just not great and, I’m sure, it could be.

*It is also interesting to mention, on a side note, that you get a little flavour of the TV stars just about to break out in the successful TV programmes of the future. Stars from The Sopranos (Paulie Walnuts and Janice Soprano), The West Wing (CJ), The Wire (Avon Barksdale) and even Hank Azaria makes an appearance (aka half the cast of The Simpsons)