Forums - FAU: Film Appreciation Union (Message Board) - Samwel_X's Film Journal, Now Showing : ' ...
|
Jul 20, 2009 1:35 pm GMT
On second though, I'll break my film journal's rules on first post. I saw "Moon" over the weekend and will do a brief review of it now. Exclusively for FAU.
Moon is a Science Fiction film directed by Duncan Jones Aka Zowey Bowie. Of course you probably know that, in fact the amount of coverage it has received, mainly because of that, would mean you'd have to live under a rock not to have heard of the film. Moon is also very special. In a world that is weighed down by the Sci-Fi blockbuster it is refreshing to see a good sci-fi film come along. Instead of two hours of laser guns or giant robots, we have a sci-fi film that is actually about something. A film that follows ideas and has an interesting plot and doesn't rely on cheap thrills. Moon tells the story of Sam Bell played by Sam Rockwell, a man who is finishing his three years on the moon working for a corporate company harvesting energy for Earth. However, Sam begins seeing things, and perhaps not all is as it first seems. Of course the plot has somewhat more depth than that, but spoilers mean I cannot divulge anymore. The most striking thing about Moon is its homage. Since thoughtful and ponderous films have been dead for some time now (generalisation yes) Moon refuses to conform to the look and feel of the modern science fiction film. This owes little to Star Trek, and a lot to science fiction c1assics, from the interior design of the moon base being similar to that of "Alien", to the HAL 9000 inspired Gerty, or the psychological aspects of Tarkovsky's Solaris. Moon is a film perhaps made after it's time. But in the same way much like those films, it is timeless. Why? Because it plays on ideas and thoughts. All the best science fiction films are based around some kind of idea that troubles man. Moon concerns itself with ideas of the possibilities of modern science, corporation, love, loss, identity, and exploitation. These are all things very close to our hearts in this time period. These are all concerns we currently have. But because they are also quite vague ideas, the film should stand the test of time like the films pays homage to.
In terms of acting, Sam Rockwell is as ever brilliant. While playing one character, and taking almost all of the screentime he makes Sam Bell very mulitfaceted (more than figuratively). Playing the character from many different angles, and with incredible skill. Sam is a likable guy. A character with enough development to feel for him, again something lacking in most modern sci-fi. Even the computer, Gerty, as mentioned earlier, similar to HAL 9000 is a great character, voiced perfectly by Kevin Spacey. Duncan Jones is certainly a director to watch in future. For a debut film it is an excellent piece of work. The feel is just right, the tone too. There is this stillness during the whole film, which gives the film a dark edge. Furthermore Jones' choice to use models rather than CGI earned a mini internal applause during the film. Not only is that a homage in itself, it is a far better choice. Things can be produced more cheaply than a CGI **** fest, and inevitably looks better. Things look and feel more real, and immersion is created, although that is helped by Jones' fantastic story. Nathan Parker's screenplay based on Jones' original story provides perfect dialogue, which is filled with life. Making the characters three dimensional and mixing the right amount of dry humour with serious plot, all moved forward with expert pace.
Lastly, the score is by ex-Pop Will Eat Itself (and Nothing Records signee) Clint Mansell, whose work on Requiem for A Dream you almost certainly will know. As ever his scoring is brilliant, helping set the films tone. Great work indeed. In conclusion Moon is a film that is about something. And that is fresh in itself these days. Furthermore it is expertly crafted and really brings something exciting to the table. Immerse yourself in the film, and you will come out with something to talk about and marvel at. 8/10 
|
|
Jul 20, 2009 11:36 pm GMT
Word. I have two theaters within walking distance from me that are playing Moon...and yet I still haven't seen it |
|
Jul 23, 2009 6:53 am GMT
(2001) L.I.E. standing for "Long Island Expressway" is a film directed by Michael Cuesta about a boy living in a Long Island Suburb, who in the wake of the death of his Mother finds himself falling in with bad crowds. At the same time his Father is facing possible arrest due to corporate negligence, and a paedophile called Big John finds interest in the boy. It became all the rage at the start of the 20th century for actors to take the daring role of a paedophile... well, sort of. Dylan Baker played a paedophile in Happiness in 1999, Kevin Bacon played on in The Woodsman in 2004, and Brian Cox played one in L.I.E. It is a very risky choice to take. Yet all of these actors took the role by the reigns and did a great job of it. The film has no doubt of Big John's life$tyle choices. After Howie, the young protagonist, breaks into John's home, and John rips a pocket from the back of Howie's jeans, he looks for Howie while driving his car through suburbia, smelling the jean pocket. Brain Cox wasn't this menacing in Manhunter. Of course, the film attempts to walk a line that doesn't condemn Big John, but rather show two sides to the character. Yes, Cuesta shows the headline baiting side of Big John, one who grooms Howie, but also he attempts to show John as a real person too. A deeply flawed person, but not some sort of 2-D pervert type. The film does this by never showing any form of abuse in any detail, but rather using implication. This is a great tool of Cuesta's direction. Every moment Big John interacts with Howie there is this uncomfortable tension caused. Of course the film, rightfully so, offers no excuse of redemption for John, it does aim to show him as more than simply an evil pervert. Even John knows his own problems "I always feel ashamed of myself" he says. Had less good actors tried to take on a role of this type, they may have failed. The real skill behind Cox's performance lies in managing to produce a character who is both so horrible, but also, so human. Another success of the film is Howie, played by a very young Paul Dano, you know that guy from Little Miss Sunshine and more latterly There Will Be Blood. Again, incredible acting on his part. At such a young age to play a boy who clearly is aware of John's intentions, and also is coming to terms with his own sexuality, and his sexual attraction to another boy (Gary played by Billy Kay) is quite frankly amazing. He immerses himself in the role, he is troubled, but also very intelligent, he is a boy who could make something of himself, but refuses to do so. The film avoids the cliche of him making something of himself, because that would be so out of character for Howie, instead it stays with the cliche of boy who could do better if he wanted. It is a story that is very often told, but the quality of acting makes this a forgivable misstep. It seems fresh. In some respects it adds a dimension to Howie's character, but at the same time, it is too obvious a choice to work in the desired way. But Paul Dano does enough with it for the choice to be absolved. Visually, it feels a lot like Todd Solondz's "Happiness". It has the exaggerated blues and greens of that film, and the drab pale colours too. And in a sense the films have similarities, both look beneath the surface of suburbia to find something darker, although Happiness does so with somewhat more humour. Happiness is more daring than L.I.E. but the two do have these visual similarities. L.I.E. is very typical of American Indie (in places) its use of colour being one, undercranked shots of the Long Island Expressway over night, tracking shots reminiscent of Wes Anderson. But at the same time, bits of it feel a tad too music video. Michael Cuesta did direct plenty of music videos in his time, and parts of it feel a lot like that. This works in places as a good thing, fitting with the moments involving the youth, but when we have more adult scenes, and things that require more reflection I feel it doesn't work quite as well.
As for the scenes with the youth of the film, and the interactions between the young characters, well they feel straight out of Kids. This is a good thing. The choice of lexicon feels just right. Inarticulate, and cuss heavy. Angsty, but inexpressible. Also the look of the boys is again, straight out of Kids, skater types. In own scene we even have the four boys walking along the central section of Expressway, reminiscent of a scene where they do the same in Kids. Gary, played by Billy Kay is the only really developed teen (alongside Howie) he knows Big John and is making money to run away to LA by prostituting himself, something that sadly, is implied will continue when he gets to his destination. Yet the film makes little of Gary's ideas on what he is doing. He seems to have little on his mind aside from LA. If the screenplay had produced another angle to Gary's character, making it clearer that he had a dulled conscience then maybe the character would work better. There is little regard for the effects of paedophilia on him, something which was explored, and made the superior Mysterious Skin so good. The other boys lack any depth, and just seem to be tacked onto the main plot. Although one thing that annoyed me about the group was how young Paul Dano looked compared to the others. I mean, they were all supposed to be 15, but Dano looks about 12. Of course, while it could be reading too much into the intentions of Cuesta, it could have been an effort to show that Gary was building relationships with boys who, while they were the same age, looked younger, showing the way his relationship with Big John had warped his view of sexuality. Although I think that is looking too deep into it. I would claim that Dano was a casting mistake, but his performance is so strong I really can't say so. It seems odd when he is with others of his age.
L.I.E avoids becoming an exploitative and uncomfortable exercise by producing multifaceted characters. It does so with grit and realism. However, it does have its missteps which make it fall down from being a great film, to simply a good one. Mysterious Skin, which came out later, is the superior film of this type. Of course performances from Brian Cox (in what I might be so impressed as to call his best performance) and Paul Dano certainly make this worth a look. 6/10
|
|
Jul 25, 2009 6:40 am GMT
Lars Von Trier has never been one to shy away from controversy. Some would (probably rightfully) call him a provocateur. Antichrist is no exception. As always with Von Trier there is no easy answer, and his latest film is certainly going to split audiences. The film has also received negative media (well in the UK) based around it's closing scenes amid claims of the films misogyny, this review will look at the film, and I'll attempt to answer those claims with what I made of the film. So where to start. Well, first a little background. Von Trier claimed he wrote Antichrist and made it during a bout of depression. This is an important factor to consider when looking at the film as a whole so bear that in mind. In terms of plot, the film is very simplistic. He and She (played by Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) are grieving following the death of their son. She fails to deal with the grief, and they embark on a journey into the woods (called Eden) where increasingly strange and disturbing things begin to happen. There is a little more to this, but I'll mark it as spoilers although I'd imagine you are aware of the films content. The theme lying on the surface of the film is one of psychology. The way the couple deal with their grief specifically. She embraces it, and is strangled by it. He on the other hand looks at it from a psychologists point of view and distances himself from the situation at hand. Both are unhealthy ways of dealing with the loss of their son. These roles continue throughout the film. DeFoes constant psychoanalytical readings of his wife become infuriating after a while, and the most obvious way of looking at the film is perhaps Von Trier lashing out at psychiatrists like ones he saw to deal with his own depression. DeFoe's character is very heavy handed and arrogant in knowing what is best for his wife, and often forces her to confront her fears, whilst he too is seeing some very strange things occur in the woods too. As if Von Trier is saying psychiatrists have a way of looking at their problems, and distancing themselves, but they still have problems and you can't escape them forever, so helping others is absolute arrogance.
That is an obvious reading of the film that I think anyone could pick up on. Here is what I took from the film. I thought Antichrist was a meditation on grief, guilt and depression. Of course there were the ideas of grief on the surface, and the guilt that comes with it, all of which lead to depression. Gainsbourg's character is perhaps Von Trier. She goes through an exaggerated version of what he perhaps went through. All of the factors of depression are here, a desire to die (which I thought sparked off the final scenes), the destruction of relationships with others, the destruction of self, frustration, fear and anger. All of those aspects are in her character. Her acts often metaphors for those things. I can't really explain this angle without spoilers so our first tag is about to be used : SPOILER TAGS DO NOT WORK : SPOILERS BEGIN She's depression stems from her guilt. She effectivelly allows her son to die, and also begins to believe that as she is a woman she is evil, as all women are evil. Obviously she only believes this because of her own overwhelming guilt, she has to find a reason to hate herself, and she does. She follows this reasoning through. In the final scenes when she mutilates her own genitalia she is perhaps attempting to rid herself of her evil. This works as a metaphor for some of the reasons for self harm as a whole. Also the destruction of her relationship with her husband, on which she is dependent for most of the film shows a desire for independence. A want to distance herself from him. In the same way someone who was planning to kill themselves would perhaps distance themselves from others to lessen the impact, she says early on in the film that "She wants to die" hinting at this possible reading. This is effectively the beginning of the end for their relationship. You could even say (major spoiler begins) that she ruins that relationship so violently so that He will carry out the act that she cannot (major spoiler ends) SPOILERS END
Of course with Von Trier it is easy to doubt his sincerity, and a reading of the film like that would make the film sincere. Honestly, I believe it is his most personal and sincere film. But his sincerity is masked by his insincerity. This is where the claims of misogny come into play. Von Trier has been accused of misogyny before, and I think this film clearly satirises that. The scenes in question include a character coming to believe that all women are evil by nature. This is so over the top it is clearly a joke to answer previous claims of mysogny. Von Trier is almost certainly laughing at the fools who have failed to understand that. This is the mask of insincerity. I personally think this was included to cover up the trully personal nature of the film, which whether or not was supposed to be so truthful, I couldn't say. After that, I must congratulate Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg on performances that really do help carry the film. Willem DeFoe is cold and distant, as his character is. His voice is sometimes emotionless, although once his distance is denied in the final act he brings all his emotion into the performance. Immersing himself fully into the role. Charlotte Gainsbourg however gives a performance of such emotional intensity, it is incredible. The best performance by any actor or actress I've seen in some time. Even in the final chapter when she has gone insane she is fully believable, frightening, and at the same time, seems logical in committing the most illogical acts. That is a performance of incredible conviction, that nobody else could pull off. If any other person wins best actress at the Oscars they do not deserve it. A career defining role to be sure. She is also fearless in fully taking part in everything the story throws at her. And in a role that seems so alien, it also seems so human, and it connected with me and a strange level that I don't fully understand. As for the direction. I think is, stylistically, Von Trier's best film. From the opening black and white super slow motion sequence of He and She having sex while their son falls from a window, with hardcore porn shot that seems of little relevance until SPOILERS BEGIN She sticks her finger in a hole in He's leg in order to show the reversal of power in their relationship SPOILERS END to the brilliant Eden sequences. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle is, put simply, a genius. He also did Slumdog Millionaire, but his eye for the forest is just perfect here. Really amazing. Nature appears twisted really adding to the feel of an evil nature. One perhaps not created by God, but by Satan. Also the colour drain throughout the film is a brilliant idea. With each chapter of the film (there are 4) the colour is drained, and the lighting becomes increasingly darker symbolising the way the plot is going, and the increasingly dark and claustrophobic state of mind that comes with depression. It is also important to note that as the chapters go on, Eden seems increasingly smaller. This is done through some very clever cutting that makes everything seem closer to the cabin around which eden lies. You may have heard the film has a talking fox. Yes it does, and it works brilliantly in the films context. Out of context it seems silly, but in the film it just works. As do the other disturbing natural images of a deer with it's miscarriage hanging from it, and a crow beaten with a stone. These also add to the films atmosphere tenfold. The atmosphere the film creates is also perfect. Very similar to Zulawski's Possession, in more ways than just atmosphere, but that is what the film feels closest to. Also Von Trier's constant switching between his Dogme $tyle and a very wide stylistic palette works incredibly well. The film is also laden with subtle satanic imagery, and I mean very subtle, also Exorcist like subliminals, also adding to the films atmosphere of doom. All culminating to make the film a visual treat.
The soundtrack is built up of loud, overbearing, cacophonous sounds. Which are in themselves frightening. Further adding to the films feel. Making it a scarily immersing experience. Overall, I'm not going to recommend the film per say. Mainly because the film was designed to be polarising. It is difficult to watch, it is challenging, and I can almost guarantee will make different people have different reactions and thoughts regarding its content and intent. Personally I thought the film was brilliant, other people may not. The film spoke to me in a strange way, and seemed to be more than meets the eye. I'll certainly rewatch the film to take it all in fully, to properly understand what it is trying to say. What we have here is either something very special, or something very pretentious. Something either very sincere, or something very insincere. I can't put my finger on it. But I thought it was a film with a real staying power, built up of strong images and ideas. Lead by two incredible performances that deserve the highest recognition, and it is because of that I'm going to award the film a 10/10 I guess "Choas Regins".
|
|
Jul 30, 2009 4:49 am GMT
Two shorter reviews are on the cards today. One I've written today, and one some time ago to keep you all reading. Both are exclusive to the Journal, so enjoy. [No poster postable. Look it up if you want to see it] Ken Park (2002) Where to start with Ken Park. Well, I've always thought Kids was a pretty good film, and always thought Bully was Larry Clark's masterpiece. It is a great film, although the two of them do require some moral questioning on the side of Clark. Ken Park is his 2002 film, another story of teenage life, and one where he refused to let the camera look away. As a result we have explicit and unsimulated scenes of auto erotic asphyxiation, with added cum shot, urination and oral sex.
Many of you may not have seen Ken Park due to its distribution issues in many countries, US and UK included. The films plot follows the stories of 4 California youths. Shawn (James Bullard), Claude (Stephen Jasso), Peaches (Tiffany Limos) and Tate (James Ransone). The film on a wider scale is a critique of how sex has become more shocking that violence on celluloid. Tate's autoerotic scene earning more shocks than a grisly murder that occurs in the film. Each individual character comes from a certain cross section of American life, the religious zealot, the grandparents child, the perfect family, redneck alcholic family. Again, important in showing the disposition of sex and violence in the minds of a modern western society. This all adds up to a film with purpose. But, it is unfortunate that I only really found Tate's story particularly interesting. James Ransone (who later became Ziggy Sabotka in The Wire) steals every scene he is in, his story is not only the most interesting, but also the most important to the films overall point. His character seems the most real, and really deserves more screen time and development. Although his enigma is certainly part of his appeal. The other stories in the film, while important in making the films manifesto clear just didn't capture the imagination in the same way. The characters lacked the lifeblood of Tate. At times it even became a little cliche. The acting in the film is typical Larry Clark. Unprofessional youths reading lines in a naturalistic way. The Harmony Korine screenplay oozes with realism with dialogue very close to that of Kids. Which comes together to provide a strong sense of realism overall with the film, allowing its message to hit. The scoring is again, typical of Clark using modern music that the films characters would listen to, further adding to the sense of realism.
A note on Larry Clark. I've never been one to be offended by sex in films. I've always found the over prioritisation of sexuality in film as opposed to violence absurd. This is not me reacting to what Clark is trying to say. A brief thought on Clark is that his fixation with teenage sexuality is a little unsettling. Not the content of the film, but rather the content of all his films culminating in Ken Park. I can't help but feel that there is something far darker going on inside the head of Clark, and that is somewhat off putting with Ken Park. That fine line between making a point, and exploitation is possibly crossed. I wouldn't like to say it is all within Ken Park, but rather his filmography. Overall, some of the film works, some of it doesn't. The films message is important, and it is an interesting method of getting that message across. Some stories are great, others not so great. Kudos to James Ransone on brilliantly portraying Tate. Kudos to all of the young actors not being afraid to embrace their role fully. Ken Park is a bumpy ride with the mindset of Larry Clark in question. The film is not without its merits, but something deeply unsettling rests over all of Larry Clark's films, it adds to them, but also, turns you off them. 6/10 Coming later : Everything Is Illuminated
|
|
Jul 30, 2009 1:39 pm GMT
Everything is Illuminated
(2005) Now for something a little cheerier... emphasis on "a little". Everything is Illuminated tells the story Johnathan (Elijah Wood), or perhaps more apt "John-fen", a Jewish man who collects family memorabilia, and his trip to Ukraine to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. There is a reason I like this film so much. It is all in its plot and presentation. What is initially a typical American Indie flick becomes something much deeper and more personal. The film is a meditation on the affects of the Holocaust on Jewish families. Any Jewish family, including my own, have a story to tell in regards to the Holocaust. Of course it affected people in different ways, but the affects are felt even as far down the line as me, or the character of Johnathan. As a result I had an existing attachment to his character before the plot even began.
Everything is Illuminated is a film that relies very heavily on its characters who are brilliantly written. Eugene Hutz is Alex, Johnathan's guide around Ukraine. The funniest character in the film by far. He lives in some sort of warped 80s America, his attitude and obsession with artists like Michael Jackson, and breakdancing build his character up very nicely. He is also the person with the funniest lines. Elijah Wood is also very good as the awkward Johnathan, bringing him out of his shell as the film progresses. Alex's driver, and Grandfather is also excellent handling the later scenes of emotional intensity very well. The film is directed by Liev Schreiber and the story is obviously very personal to him too. The obvious indie touches are here, but so is a love for the characters and the plot, and a link between the director and his story. Also the colours are vibrant and it is a pleasure to look at. It is also nice to see a less drab Eastern Europe for once.
Overall, the film is well directed and acted. In places hilarious, and in places heartbreaking. The films personal connection with me may not be shared by everyone, but the story and characters alone are enough to make the film an enjoyable experience for anyone. 8/10 Told you they were short today.
|
|
Jul 30, 2009 1:42 pm GMT
|
|
Aug 11, 2009 12:18 pm GMT
After that suspension I'm back and ready to review, so here goes...
The Otherside of The Underneath (1972) Where to start with The Otherside of The Underneath. Experimental in the extreme. The late Jane Arden's 1972 film follows a woman's decent into schizophrenia and the psychoanalysis that comes with that.
The film utilised Arden's "The Holocaust women's theatre troupe" for its cast and was based upon Arden's play The Holocaust. In terms of its acting, it is clearly a script that all the players know very well, including Arden herself. As a result we have near perfect acting, of course in The Other Side of The Underneath, the acting is second to the films imagery, which certainly says more than the script. Some of the most hellish nightmare imagery is used, a lot of which is fairly unsettling, even by today's standards, all to show our protagonists decent into insanity. The brutish violence of the film, mixed with the films sexual imagery makes its passing uncut in 1972 go way over my head, particularly the sexualised religious allegories in the film. The film speacks volumes from a feminist perspective, Arden is saying that the protagonists mental state is caused by female repression in society, however, another interpretation is that the film reinforces the sexist notions of narcissism and mental instability. The protagonist must mentally die before rebirth can occur and so the idea that only through a form of madness can true sanity be restored, seems to be a temporary strategy in defence against male domination, rather than a politics that looks towards women finding a place for themselves within society. Of course the multiple ideologies of the film add to its quality greatly, giving it plenty of re-watch value.
As far as the films visual side goes the highly disturbing nightmare content fits wonderfully within its South Wales setting. A mixture of industrial dilapidation, and a form of cold British countryside that has been lost in time. The dark lighting, adds to the films effect, as does the swollen black appearance of the sky at all times. The low budget nature of the film further adds to this disturbing effect, in particular the films funeral sequence using lighting and colour brilliantly as well as introducing social commentary relating to politics and social situations of the era. Using a discordant soundtrack of scratchy violins, Arden manages to create an utterly convincing nightmare landscape, as well as add nostalgia through her shots of an industrial Britain that no longer exists, further adding to the films fantastical element. Overall Arden's film is extremely difficult to penetrate, I'm not 100% what to make of it, but I like it that way, what it has left me with is a series of images that are unforgettable, and extremely well put together. It is violent, and it is powerful, and while it is perhaps marred by its impenetrability, it is a beauty to watch and admire the symbolic images that it produces as well as see its comments on life in a Britain that pre dates myself. Although I will recommend a knowledge of Britain in the 1960s and early 70s is require to see the film to its full potential. Not perfect, but a scarily realistic portrayal of madness, that is angry and borders of nihilism from the Plath of the Avant Garde. 8/10
|
|
Aug 11, 2009 1:01 pm GMT
Novecento (1976) Have 5 hours to spare? I don't very often, but for the first time, found time to enjoy Bernado Bertolucci's epic, 1900 (or Novecento). The film follows two friends, Alfreado (Robert DeNiro) and Olmo (Gerard Depardieu), from childhood, to adulthood, through 40 years of Italian history. While Alfreado is the son of an Italian land owner, Olmo is the son of an Italian worker. As they grow older and their situations become more obvious to one another their friendship is deeply tested. The first as best thing about Novecento is Bertolucci's direction. Colour correction in particular is used to great effect (for example darkening every frame during a funeral), but also kudos to Vittorio Storaro in having found some of the most beautiful locations to film in. His cinematography makes the film a fest for the eyes, even over its huge running length. My desire to go to the Italian countryside had never been so strong as it was when I finished watching Novecento. The use of wide shots, and the interesting use of long shots also deserves some recognition. A film like Novecento could never be made now, simply because the areas they used to film either no longer exist due to urbanisation, or are too dilapidated to set foot in, and it is this vision of turn of the century Italy that is just amazing. Location filming benefits the film in a way that increases the films quality tenfold. Coupled with Ennio Morricone's oh-so rustic Italian score a real sense of 1900-1945 Italy is created. It is almost like being in the period. This is by far the most immersing aspect of the film.
The acting is second to the films visuals. DeNiro's role appears to have been forgotten by many, and while I'm not sure it is his best, it certainly isn't his worst. His acting appears to improve as the film goes on. He becomes a more brooding character, a darker character, and less naive character, and these changes all are brought across wonderfully by DeNiro. While the role could have become a walking cliche he manages to steer clear from the obvious choices in his acting and makes the role his own. His character on the whole is probably the strongest, with the most depth. Depardieu is less good, as Olmo, a character with equal depth, but a character who doesn't change enough over the films running time to merit any real worth. While his character is integral to the film, I feel in the latter half he is neglected a bit, doing all his development in the forst 2 and a half hours, becoming in no way jaded or different. His actions throughout the film lead very naturally to the films closing scene, so Depardieu does give his character some flow, but ultimately, his character is lacking the multifaceted appeal of DeNiro.
In terms of the supporting cast. Some are great, some are not so great. Donald Sutherland is the most mixed performance of the film. His character taking on the role of an Italian fascist who varies between genuinely evil and frightening, and pantomime villain. At times he seems genuinely menacing (see execution scene) but other time he overracts and is cartoony (see murder of the young boy). Stefania Casini is excellent as an epileptic girl and Laura Betti is good as woman who introduces Socialism to Olmo, but ultimately both of these characters are underdeveloped and it is difficult to care about them as much as I otherwise could. Dominique Sanda is brilliant as Alfreado's wife, and like DeNiro manages to bring a deep performance to the table. As well as giving a female perspective to everything that is unfolding infront of the characters. While the film's story unfolds slowly, and has a pace that seems to fit just right, like a good book, it is marred by its political side. Of course a film charting Italy between the 1900s and the 1940s is going to have a political edge, it was a time of great political change, and I think it is excellent until about the last half hour in which the political side takes over, and some of the films pace is lost in favour of this fascism against socialism element. But of course, in a film of such length it is forgivable, but it just makes Novecento seem a little overlong.
Another element that annoyed me was the spaghetti western $tyle. Meaning, bits of it were dubbed, horribly. Some actors were obviously speaking their native language, but the DVD audio track was only in English, others had obviously mouthed their lines in English and been overdubbed, again horribly. Of course, in a film with such vision I suppose it was forgivable. In conclusion, Novecento is a visually stunning film, with some mixed performances, and some terrible production, it also has some of the mot impressive visuals I've seen in some time, and a story that is engrossing. Like a good book. If you ignore the final political statement, which is present throughout the film, but more as part of the story and as background rather than an agenda, there is something for everyone to enjoy. Of course it isn't perfect, and it is perhaps too long, but it is a rewarding watch, and you might learn a little something about Italian history a long the way (despite several inaccuracies). Recommended if you have the time. 7/10 If not dubbed, 8/10.
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 7:10 am GMT
Videodrome (1983) What can be said about Videodrome that hasn't been said before? Nothing really, but this is my love letter to a film I've adored for so long. The story follows Max Renn (played by James Woods), a TV exec who runs an underground television channel that boasts the most violent and sexually explicit material going. In his search for the next big thing for his channel, he comes across Videodrome. A show in which there is no plot, just torture, death and mutilation, however, everything is not as it seems and he soon becomes tangled in a plot where by a businessman, Barry Convex, aims to create a new world order using television. Videodrome is very much a film of its time, and much of its cult success lies in era. Coming out in 1983, in the UK in particular, its timing was perfect. A moment of televisual change. 1983 was the year that morning television was launched, before that TV shows only started running after educational programmes started around midday, also it was the moment Channel 4 began, a channel that much like the one run by Max Renn, aimed to show alternative programming. Although this consisted of overly arty bollocks rather than extreme violence, but the two as concepts can work. Also it was the period where the video nasties panic in Britain was ready to explode, and one of Videodrome's themes, that of censorship, was also at the forefront of people's minds. In a nation where TV was a changing entity, becoming more and more entwined with people's lives, and a huge moral question was looming over the violent content of film, it is no wonder that Videodrome became such a cult smash.
Videodrome is probably the best of Cronenberg's body horror films. And while it fails to fit comfortably in any genre, the sign of any truly brilliant film, lost somewhere between sci-fi and horror, Cronenberg's self created genre is the best way to define Videodrome. Concerning itself with horrors relating to the body such as disease. The film concerns itself with a more human edge, to make its themes of violence on TV, and censorship all the more real. Taking things that are already at the forefront of a populations mind, and combining it with a nightmare vision is part of Body Horror's charm. This wonderfully realised, could happen factor. Of course the film has this mixed with Cronenberg's early surrealism, all of which makes the film more of a twisting, turning ride to enjoy. Also entertaining, as well as providing food for thought. Aside from its wonderful story, the film has some great direction for its modest budget. Making use of special effects most brilliantly, and while certain scenes were never filmed due their complexity, what has been created are some very homey special effects that endear the film further. Of course groundbreaking for 1983, now they look dated, but add to the films charm. There is nothing quite like seeing a man break apart in the way it happens in videodrome, or watching stop motion screws embed themselves in James Woods wrist. The effects are a magnificent sight to behold, and full kudos goes to Rick Baker who was the director of effects on the film. Cronenberg himself sets the films atmosphere perfectly with his vivid vision, everything flows nicely and everything looks the part. The dim claustrophobic scenes in Max Renn's apartment in particular, with the television dominating his room, with his lighting set up around the TV screen as well as his furniture, as a statement of human dependence on television, and how it was beginning to take over people's lives.
Cronenberg's script also deserves some kudos, as well as his awesome ability to name characters (Professor O'blivion, and Optician businessman Barry Convex). The screenplay moves with an appropriate pace giving making events unfold at just the right point allowing the film to have a seamless flow, as well as earning an "edge of seat" factor thanks to its punchy pacing. Some great dialogue is also within the film, some of it a touch hammy, but again, all part of its charm. Max Renn looking for something a little more "tough" or Professor O'Blivion's typically insane clap trap on the TV chat show. All great stuff. Also hilarious watching Max ask out Debbie Harry's character on the same chat show. The acting as well, has ups and downs, but is all part of the films charm. James Woods is great as Max Renn, and Videodrome still poses the question, where are James Woods eyebrows? He seems suarve enough as well as arrogant enough to be the perfect TV exec, as well as handling the hallucinatory confusion later on with real finesse. Debbie Harry as well deserves praise for her first major film role.
I think Videodrome is certainly David Cronenberg's second best film (behind the brilliant Crash if you didn't already know that) and a masterc1ass in creating cult cinema. Released at the perfect time, but taking a message that is timeless and even applies nowadays as TV has become further centric our existence. With some awesome special effects, a great story and its dry sense of humour Videodrome never ceases to impress or amaze me. Put simply, I love it. There is little that can be said about Videodrome that hasn't been said before, and excuse the lack of eloquence here, but - Videodrome is awesome. 10/10
|
