Thursday, 6 March 2014
Thursday, 6 February 2014
When he was a young child, director Alfred Hitchcock was sentto the police station with a note from his father. A desk sergeant read the note and locked young Hitchcock in a cell for several minutes. He was eventually let out and was told by the officer this is what happened to boys who did bad things. This incident stayed with Hitchcock his entire life and provided a central theme to his filmography- that of the “wrong man,” an innocent man out to prove his innocence, which was the foundation for light escapist fare such as North by Northwest (1959), The 39 Steps (1935) and Saboteur (1942). Hitchcock treated this theme most seriously in The Wrong Man (1956), the only Hitchcock film based on a true story. The film tells of a New York musician named Manny Balestrero (Henry Fonda), who was mistaken for criminal.
Thomas Vinterberg’s The Hunt can be seen as a companion film to Hitchcock’s overlooked thriller, as well as an extension of Hitchcock’s favourite theme. The film concerns a Kindergarten teacher named Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen) who, after a remark by Klara, one of the Kindergarten children, is accused of molesting her. The small Danish town in which Lucas lives then turns against him. The title can refer to the hunting by Lucas that occurs in the woods but the deeper significance of the title refers to how the story of the film becomes that of a modern day witch hunt- a The Crucible for the 21st Century.
While we understand the town’s disgust at the crime they believe Lucas committed- child molestation is a despicable crime- but the film shows how morality and outrage at horrible acts can slowly turn us in to monsters ourselves. There is a turning point- albeit a highly manipulative one- in the story where the town crosses a line and loses our sympathy. Even so the film never forgets these are human beings. This is what makes the film so unsettling. How far can seemingly sane people go when confronted with what they view as one evil man?
The film also asks the question, as did The Wrong Man, of what an innocent man can do when he is accused of something he didn’t do. It’s not as easy as saying “I’m innocent.” In the court of public opinion, once the seed of distrust is planted, it grows until it takes over the heart and mind. And why would Klara lie? I’m sure some will criticize the film for showing a young girl to be untrustworthy regarding matters of sexual abuse. But I don’t believe the film is suggesting we should never listen to children when it pertains to this crime. Rather, the film is showing us one remark can set off a chain reaction that can’t be stopped.
I like that before Lucas comes under fire we get a little of his back-story- he’s a divorcee who wants his teenage son Marcus to live with him and not his mother. This back-story adds some texture to Lucas’ character and makes him more than a blank slate victim. The fact Klara is the daughter of Lucas’ best friend Theo adds to the anguish of the film. How can Theo ever look at his friend the same way? It’s devastating and the shows the depths of pain Klara’s remark makes.
It’d be easy for the film to be played histrionically- and there are several very heightened and intense moments- but the film knows how to restrain itself- due to Vinterberg’s minimalist visual style as well as Mikkelsen’s performance. There’s a scene in a church near the end where we’re allowed to take in Lucas’s emotions- just through Mikkelsen’s wearied and broken down face.
As The Hunt enters its final scene we begin to think we’re in for a neat ending. But the final moments and image suggests the shadow of the previous year will always be there. There’s no turning back from the feelings we experience and the events we go through. They’ll always be there- regardless of guilt or innocence.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
The Academy Award nominations were announced earlier this morning. As always there were the sure things, the occasional surprise inclusion or "snub" as well as the complete shut outs. These will be my brief thoughts on the major categories. I haven't seen every film nominated so I won't be judging each performance in terms of whether it "deserves" to be nominated- this will be more about what direction I think the race will be going in each category. So, without further ado, the nominees...
Bruce Dern, Nebraska
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club
Certain pundits weren't sure if it'd be Bruce Dern in Nebraska or Robert Redford in All is Lost- both are Hollywood veterans- that'd get a nomination in this category, or if both would be shut out. Dern has taken the veteran slot, with Redford shut out. Dern has the veteran card but he faces stiff competition, particularly since the film, while nominated for Picture and Director, still seems a little under the radar.
I'm happy Leonardo DiCaprio made it, especially since there was some doubt about his chances around the time The Wolf of Wall Street was released. If you remember, the academy screening of the film ended with one member blasting Scorsese, leading to people believing the film was too edgy for certain members. Of course that didn't stop the film from gaining several nominations this morning. This is DiCaprio's first nomination since 2006's Blood Diamond and I feel he's been shut out a few times since then, particularly for 2010's Shutter Island. I really think DiCaprio should win. I'm not going to lie, DiCaprio is a favourite actor of mine and this may be his best performance yet. While some may say the performance is just showboating I think DiCaprio nails the character of Jordan Belfort and that his theatrical/method style of acting is more perfectly suited for this character than his previous roles.
I also wouldn't mind see Chiwetel Ejiofor winning. He's one of those hard working actors who's paid his dues and definitely deserves to be here. In another year, he'd absolutely be the frontrunner for his portrayal of Solomon Northrup, a black man born free but sold in to slavery- a man who attempts to retain his humanity and his sense of self under inhuman conditions.
Despite America Hustle being a frontrunner in several categories, including Best Picture, I don't see Christian Bale winning. I think Matthew McConaughey, particularly after his Golden Globe win on Sunday, may take it. That's right, we may soon be living in a world where Academy "Award winner Matthew McConaughey" will start being heard and seen in movie trailers. I haven't seen Dallas Buyers Club yet but his role in the true story of a man who was diagnosed with AIDS while helping other AIDS patients get hold of a medication that can prolong their lives- just sounds like the type of role that wins an actor an Oscar, especially since he lost more than 40 pounds to play the part. It'd also cement his career reinvention.
Will Win: Matthew McConaughey
My Pick: Leonardo DiCaprio
Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine,
Sandra Bullock, Gravity
Judi Dench, Philomena
Meryl Streep, August Osage County
Back in August when Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine was released it really felt like the Best Actress Oscar was Cate Blanchett's in a walk. And more than 4 months later, despite some heavy hitters in the race, Blanchett still appears to be the frontrunner. Her role as a former socialite- who has to live with her adopted sister after her husband (Alec Baldwin), a Bernie Madoff inspired businessman goes to prison- is a devastating portrayal of a woman unable to embrace reality. Some feel the performance is too hammy but I don't think a role like this would work unless it was broad.
Sandra Bullok brings humanity to the spectacle that is Gravity- and certain pundits suggested she could win her second Oscar after winning for The Blind Side in 2010 but I feel that her competition is a little too strong for her to win a second time.
Poor Amy Adams can't catch a break. In a weaker year she could've walked away with the Oscar. This is her first nomination in the Best Actress category after four nominations in the Supporting Actress category. Though you never know. Some voters may feel she's due, which could lead to her upsetting Blanchett.
Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress for 8 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare In Love. But many voters probably want her to win for a more prominent performance. Like Adams, Dench may be the upset in this category.
Meryl Streep is on her 18th nomination for August: Osage County. I think this is more of a obligatory nomination for Streep rather than a nomination that'll lead to a win. Though no doubt Streep will eventually win a fourth Oscar.
Will Win: Cate Blanchett
My Pick: For now, Blanchett
Bradley Cooper, American Hustle
Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave
Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club
A big congratulations to Barkhad Abdi, who made his film debut as the Somali pirate leader who hijacks the merchant ship in Captain Phillips. Abdi was a limousine driver and disc jockey before starring in the film. It's a great little story and I'm happy for him.
Michael Fassbender, who many felt was shut out for his role as a sex addict in Shame received his first nomination this morning for his performance as Northrup's most ruthless slave master. It's a performance that's both ferociously evil but layered and if I was voting I would cast my ballot for him.
Jonah Hill was a bit of a surprise but he has really come in to his own as a genuine actor with this role. Cooper scores his second consecutive nomination at the Oscars, showing that his first nomination for Silver Linings Playbook, another
David O. Russell joint, wasn't a fluke.
This is Julia Roberts' first nomination since her Oscar winning role for Erin Brockovich. In another year she'd have a better chance but this may very well be Lawrence's to lose.
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence
My Pick: Sally Hawkins
Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave,
Alexander Payne, Nebraska
David O. Russell, American Hustle
Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street
The Best Director category didn't offer too many surprises. Scorsese made it, which is good. While there's not as much pressure on the Academy to honor him after finally giving him an Oscar for 2006's The Departed, Scorsese definitely deservers to be a repeat winner. Winning for The Wolf of Wall Street may actually be a more "deserving" win than The Departed. At 71 his film had more pure cinematic energy than ones made by directors half his age.
Alexander Payne's due factor in this category is growing but he was more of a contender for 2011's The Descendants.
If Alfonso Cuaron won Best Director it'd be the second year in row a director won for helming a 3D film. Last year Ang Lee won for Life of Pi. Cuaron won the Golden Globe on Sunday but the Golden Globes haven't matched with the Best Director Oscar that often these past several years. David Fincher won the Golden Globe while losing the Oscar to Tom Hooper. James Cameron won the Golden Globe for Avatar but Kathryn Bigelow- his ex-wife no less- won the Oscar for The Hurt Locker. And some voters may view Gravity as more of a technical achievement than a brilliantly directed film. Still, he has a good chance since many view his work on Gravity ground-breaking.
If Steve McQueen won he'd make history as the first Black director to receive the Best Director Oscar. If I was voting I think I'd go for McQueen, not just for history sake but because his direction was nothing short of stunning. The shot of Solomon hanging in that tree for what seems like a lifetime may be the most unforgettable cinematic image of 2013.
Last year I though David O. Russell could possibly win for Silver Linings Playbook but he walked away empty handed. American Hustle is viewed as the frontrunner so this could be his year. Though if there's a split between Picture and Director someone else could win over Russell even with American Hustle winning Best Picture.
Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron
My Pick: Steve McQueen
Dallas Buyers Club
12 Years a Slave
The Wolf of Wall Street
This past September 12 Years a Slave was deemed the frontrunner for Best Picture. In a more just world it'd still be the frontrunner. 12 Years a Slave will be looked back on as one of the most important and essential films made about American slavery and a lasting testament to the story of Solomon Northrup. I feel that if America Hustle wins future generations will look back and say "That won?" As I mentioned earlier, Gravity may be deemed more of a spectacle than a genuinely great film, which may hurt its chances. The Wolf of Wall Street may still be too edgy and raunchy for older viewers. Philomena and Nebraska seem a little too small scale to win Best Picture and Her has a better shot in the Original Screenplay category. Dallas Buyers Club's big wins will be in the acting categories. For now, I'll go with American Hustle for the win, with Gravity and 12 Years a Slave as its biggest competition.
Will Win: American Hustle
My Pick: 12 Years a Slave
Spike Jonze, Her
Bob Nelson, Nebraska
Erin Warren Singer and David O. Russell, American Hustle
Craig Borten and Melissa Wallack, Dallas Buyers Club
If Her doesn't strike Oscar voters as too weird Jonze has a good shot at taking this. Woody Allen's last win in this category was for 2011's Midnight in Paris. While Blue Jasmine's script is arguably even stronger than Midnight, I feel either Her or America Hustle will take it. There's also the resurgence of the controversy surrounding Allen's personal life after Ronan and Mia Farrow's tweets during last Sunday's Golden Globes.
Will Win: Her
My Pick: For now, Blue Jasmine, but it'll probably be Her after I've seen it.
Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, Before Midnight
Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope, Philomena
Billy Ray, Captain Phillips
John Ridley, 12 Years a Slave
Terence Winter, The Wolf of Wall Street.
I would love for Before Midnight to win here, despite feeling that it's a bit odd that a sequel automatically considered adapted, though I guess it's understandable. Linklater and his actors know Jesse and Celine so well that the ark of this screenplay feels completely organic. Winter's screenplay may be deemed too scattered and not focused enough. I feel Before Midnight does have a good chance at the win though Ridley's screenplay could win if 12 Years a Slave is voted Best Picture.
Will Win: Before Midnight
My Pick: Before Midnight
So, those are my initial thoughts on the nominations. I'm disappointed Inside Llewyn Davis and its star Oscar Isaac were shut out, as well as Blue is the Warmest Color not being deemed eligible for Best Foreign Language film. So, what are your thoughts on the nominations and the Oscars in general? Who was snubbed and who are you happy for? The Oscars will air on March 2nd, 2014 with Ellen DeGeneres.
Monday, 6 January 2014
These past few years, I always find it a tad difficult to do a top ten list at the end of the year. Not being a professional critic I haven't seen everything. That, and I find that I often have to give certain films a second look before I can be sure how I feel about them. A lot of the time I enjoy a film more on the second watch. There's also the question I always face, which is, what films from this year did I truly love and stood out to me? What are the ones I'll want to go back and watch as the years go by? It's a difficult question, especially when you don't know how a certain film will age or how you'll feel in five years about a film you love now. All that being said, here are my favourite films of 2013, starting with number 1 and proceeding alphabetically.
1. Blue Is the Warmest Color
When I saw Abdellatif Kechiche's film back at the Atlantic Film Festival here in Halifax this past September I immediately thought it was the best film I had seen in 2013. While I may have seen better films over the next few months, this is still my favourite film of 2013, a love story both of our time and timeless, a film that captures the pain and joy of love better than many other films I've seen. It tells the story of a young high school student named Adele (Adele Exarchopoulos) who falls in love with a fine arts student named Emma (Lea Seydoux). The two embark on a passionate love affair that changes both their lives. The film is seen through Adele's eyes, who, through her attraction to Emma, discovers her sexuality. While Emma has known her own sexual identity for years Adele is only beginning to understand herself.
The term "coming of age film" has become somewhat of a cliché but Blue Is the Warmest Color painfully and beautifully portrays a woman "coming of age" in ways both positive and heartbreaking. Exarchopoulos' performance is a big factor in why we feel Adele's transformation so deeply. Exarchopoulous seems to age and grow right before our eyes, and we feel we're on the journey with her. Sadly, Exarchopoulos probably won't be nominated for an Academy Award for her magnificent performance.
After viewing Before Midnight this past summer, the third in Richard Linklater's series chronicling the relationship between Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy), I walked away somewhat disappointed, despite admiring the acting and writing on display. I think it was due to wanting to see more in the style two films in the series, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, whereas I viewed this film as the "couple fighting" installment. I also felt the structure of the film was "off." It was only on a second viewing and third (with commentary by Linklater, Hawke and Delpy) that I truly came to appreciate how excellent this film truly is. Hawke and Delpy give lived in performances- they've known these characters for almost 20 years and surely Jesse and Celine have not only become their signature roles but integral part of their lives. It's hard to imagine any one else playing either of these parts.
What's fascinating about Before Midnight, in contrast with the previous two films, is while those films showed us the only two instances these characters met, Before Midnight picks up after nine years of living together, of conversations and complications. This is immediately clear during a extended long take during a car drive (a virtuoso feat of filmmaking with only one cutaway) where Jesse and Celine's conversation no longer feels like it's betwee just two young people who've jut me. Instead the dialogue captures the rhythms of people who've lived together and know each other well. There are still talks of philosophy that remind us of the first film- notably during a dinner at a writer's villa in Greece, where we're introduced to a few new characters- a change of pace from the mostly Jesse/Celine format of these films. But most of the conversation in this film between Jesse and Celine deal with their own personal issues as a couple, notably Jesse wanting to move to Chicago to be with his son from his first marriage.
I mentioned earlier that I was disappointed this film had Jesse and Celine fighting. I think I missed the way they talked in the first two films. But the hotel sequence which climaxes the film is truly amazing in how it's structured, the way the dynamic changes and how it tempts us in to choosing sides. But we really can't. Both Jesse and Celine are flawed people who both fight in ways that stop communication from flowing. Celine is overly passionate while Jesse is sarcastic and dismissive. Before Midnight strips away the idealized nature of Before Sunrise and shows us the organic evolution of this relationship, which can be almost painful to watch. But Before Midnight isn't really cynical about love and marriage, just honest, funny, and ultimately hopeful, albeit cautiously about the future.
One of the most effective horror films in recent memory, The Conjuring demonstrates how a talented filmmaker can take familiar genre elements and make them fresh and exciting. The Conjuring is based on a real life case from the files of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) concerning the haunting of a house occupied by the Perron family. I love old fashioned haunted house films so The Conjuring definitely appealed to my sensibilities. Director James Wan crafts sequences that are as horrifying and nerve shattering as anything in the classic horror movie pantheon, all while allowing his actors to give well defined portraits of good people confronting evil.
I'm still not sure how well Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity works as actual movie but as an experience (I saw it in IMAX 3D) it's one of my favourite film going memories of 2013. In an age where blockbusters have numbed us and taken the wonder out of big budget spectacle, Gravity was genuinely mind-blowing. Love it or hate it, for better or worse, I think this film is a game changer and I can already see a young kid watching this film and sparking a passion for filmmaking.
While it's largely a technical achievement, the film isn't soulless. The film has a deeply spiritual core. Stranded in space, astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) goes through a rebirth as she struggles to survive, all while remembering the death of her young daughter. Bullock and George Clooney, perfectly cast as veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski ground the film and give it humanity. Gravity is at once a revolutionary exercise in spectacle as well as timeless and inspiring tale of human survival.
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Coen Brothers returned this year with a quiet triumph of a film. Inside Llewyn Davis chronicles one week in the life of folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac), circa 1961, as he struggles to make it big . Unfortunately for Llewyn, artistic success doesn't seem to be his future. This is before Bob Dylan came on the scene and ignited the folk music genre. Inside Llewyn Davis is essentially a film about being unsuccessful- but instead of being depressing it has a perfect sense of melancholy that never completely dips in to tragedy or optimism. I don't believe the Coens view Llewyn as a failure but they do believe- and demonstrate- that even a talented artist won't always become a legend. But while Llewyn may never become a legendary musician like Dylan, Inside Llewyn Davis is a film for the ages.
Asghar Farhadi's follow up to A Separation is, like that film, both a family drama and a mystery. In both films the mystery isn't simply a whodunit but an existential quest for truth and a exploration of morality and responsibility. It tells the story of Ahmad (Ali Mosfatta) an Iranian man who returns to Paris after several years due to his wife Marie (Berenice Bejo from The Artist) wanting a divorce. Marie is in a relationship with an Arab man named Samir (Tahar Rahim from A Prophet), whose wife is in a coma. Marie and Ahmad's daughter does not approve of Marie's relationship with Samir, which complicates matters. While The Past tells a somewhat familiar story and its plot can verge on what some naysayers call "soap operish," The Past is adult filmmaking at its best, examining the complexities of family dynamics and the inability to find an objective truth about events. And like A Separation it's also a very accessible film for those who haven't seen many foreign language films
The Place Beyond the Pines
While I knew the structure of The Place Beyond the Pines before viewing the film I was still quietly blown away and shaken by where this film begins and eventually ends. It's rare that films have this type of expansive scope. The Place Beyond the Pines explores a simple and old theme, that of persona; choices reverberating throughout the years, particularly in terms of fathers and sons. Motorcycle stuntman turned bank robber Luke (Ryan Gosling) and rookie cop Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) cross paths one fateful day, changing the course of Avery's life and of Luke's newborn son Jason. Director Derek Cianfrance has crafted what may eventually be called an American film classic.
This Is the End/The World's End
Both This Is the End and The World's End are- on the surface-comedies about the end of the world and alien invasions- but at their heart are actually painfully honest films about broken relationships and wanting to get back what's now in the past. In This Is the End, Seth Rogen and Jay Barachel (playing versions of themselves) deal with Jay's outsider status amongst Seth's L.A. friends, including James Franco and Jonah Hill (also playing themselves). While Seth, Jay and others are holed up in James' house, tensions come to a head and the meta humour of the actors playing themselves gives us as the audience insight in to these men's lives
In The World's End, the final film in Edgar Wright's Cornetto Trilogy, after Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Gary King (Simon Pegg) wants to recapture his youth by finally finish a famous pub crawl he and his friends didn't complete after high school graduation. He gets the old gang, including Andy (Nick Frost) and Oliver (Martin Freeman), back together. While Gary's friends have grown up he still hasn't moved on from his high school days. As the film goes on we realize what a tragic character Gary is. While I don't love The World's End as much as Hot Fuzz, it may actually have the most depth of the Cornetto Trilogy. I think The World's End is a better film than This Is the End- it's a narratively tighter film- but both are two of the smarter comedies in recent memory.
12 Years a Slave
It may come across as cliché to call 12 Years a Slave an important film, as well as making the film seem stuffy, but 12 Years a Slave is truly an important piece of filmmaking by director Steve McQueen. Not just because it deals with one of the most horrific crimes against humanity in our history but because it's one of the most essential documents of American slavery on film. The film portrays the inhuman treatment of men and women in a brutal and uncompromising fashion. The film is based on the memoir of the same name by Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a black man born free in New York who was kidnapped and sold in slavery. Ejiofor, in the role that may win him an Academy Award conveys dignity in the face of inhuman treatment as well as the emotional toil life as a slave takes on him. Michael Fassbender, as one of Solomon's several masters, shows us a horrifying vision of true evil. While period pieces can sometimes feel a little dry cinematically, McQueen's visual style makes this a truly cinematic film. A long take of Solomon hanging by a tree may be the most unforgettable and powerful shot of the year. As the film ended, after Solomon is reunited with his family and words are unable to describe the emotions in that room, I was overwhelmed in a way I rarely am by a film.
DiCaprio gives what is arguably his best performance of this career thus far. As much as I like DiCaprio he can come across as trying too hard with some of his performances but here, as with last year's Django Unchained, His theatrical style of acting perfectly suits the character of Belfort. He creates a vivid portrayal of a man who in any other film would be self destructive- but as addicted to cocaine and sex as Belfort is, he never really gets his comeuppance or experiences any kind of moral epiphany. Belfort may not be the deepest character DiCaprio has played but it allows him to be freer as an actor. The "lemmons" sequence also demonstrates what a great comedic actor DiCaprio can be.
The film has been criticized a condoning the actions of Belfort and his cohorts. I think the film, while entertaining, ileaves it to the audience to both have fun watching the insane antics of these men but also acknowledge the immorality and stupidity of several of the characters. By doing this the film avoids being hypocritical and trusts the intelligence of its audience.
It can't be said enough how amazing it is that Scorsese, at 71, can still make a more exciting and purely cinematic movie than most filmmakers half his age. While one does feel the three hour length and it is a little meandering the film never really drags. The film is tinged with so much energy and hilarity that the three hours move by pretty quickly. The fast paced nature of the film is not only due to Scorsese's live wire direction but also the editing of frequent collaborator, Thelma Scoonmaker.
While I'm still partial to DiCaprio and Scorsese's last collaboration, the underrated Shutter Island, The Wolf of Wall Street is still a vital and bold film, and one of the most entertaining films of 2013.
Some other films I liked: Much Ado About Nothing, Drinking Buddies, Iron Man 3, The Wolverine, Man of Steel, Insidious Chapter 2, Warm Bodies, The Heat, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Now You See Me, Mud, Evil Dead, I Give It a Year, To The Wonder
Still need to see: Frozen, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Spectacular Now, Short Term 12, The Act of Killing, American Hustle, Dallas Buyer's Club, Her, Fast and Furious 6, All is Lost, Nebraska
Looking forward to: Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Inherent Vice, Gone Girl, Godzilla, The Hobbit: There and Back Again, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
The Davies Awards:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Martin Freeman, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Oscar Isaac, Inside Llewyn Davis
Adele Exarchopoulos, Blue Is the Warmest Color
Olga Kurylenko, To the Wonder
Jane Levy, Evil Dead
Favourite Supporting Actors:
Benedict Cumberbatch, Star Trek Into Darkness and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Charlie Day and Burn Gorman, Pacific Rim
Tom Hiddleston, Thor: The Dark World
Danny McBride, This Is the End
Matthew McConaughey, The Wolf of Wall Street
Favourite Supporting Actresses:
Kat Dennings, Thor The Dark World
Carey Mulligan, Inside Llewyn Davis
Margot Robbie, The Wolf of Wall Street
Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity
Joel and Ethan Coen, Inside Llewyn Davis
Abdellatif Kechiche, Blue Is the Warmest Color
Terrence Malick, To the Wonder,
Nicholas Winding Refn, Only God Forgives
Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave
Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street
James Wan, The Conjuring and Insidious Chapter 2
Favourite Cinematography: To the Wonder
Favourite Action Sequences:
The barrel sequence, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Plane rescue, Iron Man 3
Bullet train fight, The Wolverine
Superman vs. Zod, Man of Steel
Happy Anniversary Awards: The Exorcist, Badlands and Mean Streets, 40th Anniversaries, Die Hard, 25th Anniversary, From Russia With Love, 50th Anniversary, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, 20th Anniversaries, A Nightmare Before Christmas, 20th Anniversary, Return of the Jedi, 30th Anniversary.
Friday, 6 December 2013
Rejoice true believers. As you all pretty much know, the first official trailer for Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 dropped yesterday. I had, a little shamefully, already watched the leaked Comic Con trailer from this past summer, so I was unsure if I wanted to watch anymore footage, especially since the CC trailer had already shown quite a bit of footage. Still, I was curious to watch the official trailer since it'd be better quality- and when it comes to something like Spider-Man, I just couldn't resist.
The official trailer is actually strikingly different than the CC one. The biggest difference for me is the focus on Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), childhood friend of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), than Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx). While Electro is said to be the main antagonist of the film, this trailer gives me the sense Electro may only be a pawn in a larger plan, a plan that'll lead to the Sinister Six in either the third or fourth film in this franchise. Before the trailer debuted, we pretty much got confirmation that Harry would be the Green Goblin before his father Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper), who we learned in the previous film, and see in this film, is dying. This confirmation came in the form of the close-up of the new poster for the film:
And the trailer also confirms Harry will be our first Green Goblin. DeHaan looks very good in the role, conveying a slightly sinister vibe- though I wonder if it was a little too soon in the series for Harry to go down the bad guy route, particularly when he already had a Harry as GG two movies ago. I know Harry eventually becoming GG is part of the Spider-Man mythology but he wasn't the bad guy right off the bat. Then again, maybe Harry won't be that evil but another pawn of his father Norman and the "evil empire" (as Webb calls it) known as Oscorp.
Cooper has confirmed that this is an introduction to Norman, and I'm starting to get the feeling that Cooper will only have a brief part. The only footage we've seen so far is him in the hospital bed, talking to Harry and telling him, when asked about Peter, "Not everyone has a happy ending." Will this be his only scene?
I'm also getting the feeling the film will go down a route vaguely similar to that of The Dark Knight. Remember in that film the Joker was the main antagonist but once he was out of the picture the film concluded with the confrontation between Batman and Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who was manipulated by the Joker. I think that while Electro may be the central villain, once Spider-Man defeats him, the film will conclude with the confrontation between Spider-Man and Harry/GG. However, it'll be the reverse of The Dark Knight since, as I mentioned, earlier, Electro will the pawn.
I do wish we got more of Electro's back story in the trailer since if you're not aware of the backstory we've been told by Foxx, we don't get much context for Electro's speech near the end of the trailer about a world without Spider-Man.
I'm still wondering how much of a threat Aleksei Sytsevich/Rhino (Paul Giamatti) will present in the film. I previously assumed he was only there at the beginning of the film but I think that after Spider-Man defeats him the first time he may come back with his mechanical Rhino suit, which will tie in to Oscorp.
In regards to Oscorp, I think the biggest take away from the trailer was this image of who I presume is the shadowy figure from The Amazing Spider-Man's mid-credits teaser walking past some familiar items:
Those do appear to be Vulture's wings and Doctor Octopus' arms, which is pretty awesome. Colm Feore was rumoured to be playing Adrian Toomes some time ago. It was never confirmed but I think it's a possibility. I don't know how I feel about all these villain being connected to Oscorp however. I understand they're trying to create an interconnected and expansive universe but somehow, and this has mentioned by others, having everything connected to Oscorp makes this world feel smaller rather than larger. It also somewhat betrays the fun and randomness of those early Spider-Man comics, when the creators would just make up random and bizarre characters without much connection to each other. Also, I hope this series isn't just about eventually making a Sinister Six film. While the concept of the Sinister Six have been around since the early Spider-Man comics, this isn't like The Avengers where they're a central part of the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man stories should never put Spider-Man in the background.
The trailer also brings back Peter's father, Richard Parker (Campbell Scott). My biggest criticism of the previous film was how the film didn't do enough with the story of Peter's parents disappearance, but rather shamefully made it a mystery to be played over the course of the series. Ideally I would hope the mystery gets closure in this film.
I wrote an article a while ago concerning why it'd be wise to keep Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) alive throughout The Amazing Spider-Man 2: http://whatculture.com/film/amazing-spider-man-2-7-reasons-makes-sense-keep-gwen-stacy-alive.php, though I assumed that without Norman as GG she'd probably live until the third film. While I still stand by my points, I have a feeling Gwen may meet her iconic fate in this film since we are getting an actual GG. There's a shot in the trailer, which I assume is from the fight between Spider-Man and GG at a clock tower, where Spider-Man shoots his webbing downwards, as if to catch something, or someone:
Could he be trying to save Gwen? I think so. While I think Norman's presence in this series may be weakened
if he's not the one to actually knock her off a great height, I could see Gwen's death actually working in this film.
We also get our first, brief, look at Felicity Jones' role unnamed role, said to be someone with a romantic relationship with Harry. I feel Jones's role will be small. Unfortunate since Jones is a splendid actress. I hope I'm wrong and she gets some significant screen time.
So, the trailer definitely has me intrigued, and that final sequence between Electro and Spider-Man does look cool. Though I wonder if the movie will just be "cool" or if it'll be something that'll be a genre classic. I sometimes wonder if the great irony of the superhero movie boom will be that not many of them live on in 50 years. Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 opens on May 2nd, 2014. See you there.
Thursday, 5 December 2013
After watching Andrea Arnold’s magnificent Wuthering Heights I began to think about the difference between adaptation and interpretation. What is the difference? For me, adaptation means a filmmaker or artist is adapting a work to another medium, like film or television, but interpretation is when the filmmaker takes the source material and approaches from a different angle, changing something within the source material to fit their vision. This is common in superhero films where there is much leeway in adapting certain characters to the screen. Of course, this can be very controversial when source material is altered but it can lead to interesting results. A film, or what have you, can be both an adaptation and an interpretation at the same time, with some leaning more towards a literal “book on film” approach.
Arnold’s Wuthering Heights is more of an interpretation than merely an adaptation. Moreover, one has to put aside any expectations he or she may have about literary adaptations, particularly adaptations of Emily Bronte’s immortal classic. Her film is the exact opposite of the stereotypes we associate with period pieces- stodginess, awards bait, dry- this is a raw, naturalistic yet lyrical and sometimes unsettling work. It trims down, like other adaptations of Wuthering Heights, the plot, but instead of feeling abridged for truncated, the piece feels like a whole- it feels like an actual film, richly cinematic, almost a silent film (the dialogue is very sparse)- almost Malickian in its appreciation and focus on nature.
From my memory of Bronte’s novel, not much of the plot is changed, but we never feel the film is just the book on screen. As I mentioned earlier, it’s not heavy with dialogue, and I don’t believe much of the dialogue is actually from the novel. Coming back to the theme of what makes this more of an interpretation rather a strict adaptation, Arnold approaches the novel from a strictly cinematic perspective. It communicates its emotions through visuals and mood. It’s a film we really need to pay attention to- to watch and soak in. I wish I had been able to witness this film on a large theatre screen. The images are so beautiful and textured that I want to get lost in them. I feel the cinema screen is always the best way to experience film, particularly a film like this.
One of the most significant interpretative elements in this film is Arnold’s casting of black actors in the role of Heathcliff (Solomon Glave as young Heathcliff and James Howson as the older Heathcliff). At first glance, this seems like a major change-and it is- but at the same time, making Heathcliff black while keeping the other major characters Caucasian feels truer to the spirit of Bronte’s novel. While Heathcliff wasn’t black in the novel, he was intended to be of an unspecified ethic origin (a gypsy I believe) which is why he was an outsider in this world. I don’t believe Heathcliff was supposed to be the image of a matinee idol like Laurence Olivier. With the casting a black actors, Arnold gets to the heart of Bronte’s fascination and empathy with the idea of the outsider. Critic David Fear, in his video essay on the DVD, parallels Heathcliff with Bronte, highlighting the fact that Bronte herself was an outsider in her time. Despite being a male character, Heathcliff was a very personal character for Bronte.
By making Heathcliff black, Arnold not only gets (arguably) closer to Bronte’s conception of Heathcliff, she re-contextualizes Heathcliff’s sufferings as the sufferings of people of African descent- despite the film not taking place in the United States. I think Heathcliff being black allows for a more relatable and contemporary entry point for audiences. And the film, despite taking place in the same era as the novel. It can be difficult making a period piece feel modern- the easy way out would be to set it in modern day- which was Arnold’s original intent. But Arnold finds the balance between setting the film in the past as well as making it feel contemporary. I think she manages this by using a hand held camera work, putting the audience right in the middle of events, making us feel like we’ve been transported in the past. Arnold’s work with cinematographer Robbie Ryan makes the moors of Wuthering Heights feel real to us, allowing us to view this world as a realistic place that existed for people- that was modern and common. I think that’s the key to Arnold’s mastery of modernizing the past.
Tuesday, 24 September 2013
Just this week, Alex Kurtzman, co-writer, along with frequent collaborator Bob Orci, of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, went on record that the film will address the questions left unresolved by last year's controversial reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man:
“It’s interesting because the first movie asks all these questions and what I loved about it in so many ways is that it didn’t answer them. Part of what we were drawn to and intrigued by was wanting to know the answers to a lot of those questions.
“The villains emerge from a lot of unanswered questions at the end of that movie and none of them are random at all, they are all tied together by a theme, an idea, and I think they come from our curiosity about what was going on in the life of Peter Parker and his parents.”
My chief criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man was it seemed about concerned with setting up plotlines for future films rather than just being a standalone, so I can't say I share the same enthusiasm for what it was doing. The film's marketing, and the film's first act, suggested the main drive of the film was to be Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) investigation in to why his parents disappeared when he was a child, how Peter's father was connected to Peter's eventual gaining of spider-like powers, as well as how Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) relationship to Peter's parents. But the film pretty much drops these plot threads halfway through the way, only to remind us, in a mid credits stinger involving Connors and a mysterious man played by Michael Masse, that "Hey, come back for the sequel if you want to get any answers."
I understand what the filmmakers, most notably director of Amazing 1 & 2, and most likely 3, Marc Webb- they want to achieve what Marvel Studios has done and continues to do among its franchises, which is bringing expansive, comic book style continuity to the big screen- expect in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, the want to create an expansive universe in a singular franchise. It's an ambitious and admittedly exciting idea. There's 50 years of Spider-Man continuity to draw from, with almost limitless possibilities, and it appears this franchise is leading up to Sinister Six film, a reverse-Avengers, if you will.
But this brings up the difficulties of telling a serialized narrative in film. When you sit down to watch a film, even a film like The Amazing Spider-Man, where you know it's going to be the first film in a franchise (the second film was announced well before the first film hit theatres), as well as mostly a retelling of the Spider-Man origin story, you still expect a mostly standalone film. But I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was designed to be a standalone film. In many ways, it mostly serves as a 2 hour pilot. This is not a pejorative swipe at TV mind you, I'm just highlighting how I think this film doesn't work as a film. I don't feel Peter has a character arc or that the film has a firm dramatic arc regarding its stories. This would work if the film was a pilot for a TV series, or the first few issues of a new Spider-Man comic. But it's neither of those things. It's a film, but it's not thematically well rounded or satisfying on its own terms the way a film, particularly an origin story, which in most superhero's case, especially Spider-Man's, are usually dramatically very pure and straightforward.
Compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which, as the title suggests, is about Batman becoming Batman. It's focused almost entirely on Bruce Wayne's childhood, the death of his parents, his training and establishment as a vigilante in Gotham City, fighting corruption and forming a relationship with Jim Gordon, one of the few good cops in the city. But while a film like this could feel like just a set-up, which in some ways it is, Batman Begins still works very well as a standalone film about how someone goes from a child crouching over the bodies of his dead parents, to a figure of hope and fear. When that Joker card is revealed, it works as both an organic lead in to the next film as well as a great moment by itself, even if we didn't get a sequel. And the film genuinely feels mythic, despite Nolan' goal to set the film in a more stylistically and visually realistic universe than the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series. I feel The Amazing Spider-Man lacks that kind of mythic nature, and while I think the film wants to be the Batman Begins of the Spider-Man, and while I think in some respects it is successful in that respect, I don't feel it works as a standalone film the way Batman Begins does. And going back to Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film in 2002, even that film, while leaving room open for a sequel, ends on a strong not that concludes Peter's (Tobey Maguire) character arc.
Now, I'm not saying serialized storytelling can't work in film. The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars made it work, and serialized storytelling, in whatever medium, can be rewarding. But I feel The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't as interesting a film as it could've been. The film had such rich thematic potential in regards to the mystery surrounding Peter's parents, how his father potentially gave birth to Spider-Man, and Peter's relationship to a man (Connors) who knew his parents and may have taken part in their murders (?) But the film doesn't truly explore this material, I think. To be fair, this film did suffer from post-production tinkering by Webb and/or the studio, which resulted in several scenes being cut out, one in which makes clear the fate of Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan).
I'm glad Kurtzman says the villains will be tied to the themes and questions of the first film. One of the things I really liked about Nolan's Batman Trilogy was how the villains were representations of the each film's themes. Of course, we know Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) has a connection to Peter's parents, though I assume he won't become the Green Goblin until the very end of this film. I wonder how Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx) will be connected to Peter, since he seems more thematically and emotionally connected to Spider-Man than Peter. I'm interested to see how the film juggles its multiple plot threads and relationships, including the continuing relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the reappearance of Peter's childhood friend Harry Osborn, (Dan DeHaan), Norman's son, as well Felicity Jones' still mysterious role as the "Goblin's girlfriend."- Harry or Norman? I'm still a little disappointed that Shailene Woodley's minor role as Mary Jane Watson has been cut and I hope she comes back for the third film.
While it's nice that Kurtzman has implied questions will be answered, I think the film should be more than just answering questions, just as how the first film was as its best when it wasn't just asking questions. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs to explore what these questions mean for Peter and the other characters, as well what consequences the answers will have. It needs to blow us away emotionally, visually and thematically. I hope it does. The superhero genre and this franchise has a lot of potential, and it'd be great if this film fulfilled that potential