The Very Best of Bond

Posted on October 19, 2013 by Sam S-P

skyfall

I’m not going to lie, I’ve not always been a fan of James Bond. In fact, up until a few years ago, my Bond knowledge was limited to CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY and…OCTOPUSSY. They just weren’t part of my formative years like they were for so many. My parents were never particularly interested in them, and I’m sure for many born during the Bond hiatus of the early 90s, they would have first been introduced to the films by family members who were around in Bond’s glory years, and keen to revisit them for nostalgia’s sake. But I’m a convert. A housemate at university was a Bond fanatic, and introduced me to a few, and I was given the delightful gift of the James Bond 50th Anniversary Box Set for Christmas last year, so I’ve been slowly but surely working my way through the rest. Nothing is quite like a Bond film. What follows is my selection of the very best of the James Bond movies, those elevated above the rest of the series, the “5 Star” Bonds, if you will.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963)

In his second performance as Ian Fleming’s suave super-spy, Sean Connery reportedly blew the author away, and obliterated any previous doubts that he was the only actor for the role. A truly epic espionage road trip that was far ahead of the times in terms of scale, ambition and the visceral nature of the action, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE takes 007 from Istanbul, through Eastern Europe and to Venice in his mission to retrieve a Cold War technological McGuffin, all the while pursued by assassins. It’s sharply plotted, intense, action-packed and features a surprisingly brutal fight in a confined train carriage between Bond and Robert Shaw’s “Red” Grant that wouldn’t look out of place in a Jason Bourne movie.

GOLDFINGER (1964)

GOLDFINGER is a great old-fashioned and gleefully over-the-top thriller. It has all the elements that would become icons of the Bond series – the gadgets, the Aston Martin, the colourful henchman, the ridiculous villain torture scene, and a knock-your-socks-off theme song from Shirley Bassey. Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe) is one the great flamboyant Bond villains, uttering arguably the series’ most famous retort of “no Mister Bond, I expect you to die!”. He also has one the very best raving villain master plans – breaking into Fort Knox to contaminate the gold reserves and cause economic chaos – it’s completely illogical when you stop to think about it, yet makes a weird kind of sense. The film’s sexual politics haven’t aged well (like in much of the series), but that doesn’t detract enough from the end product to spoil the fun.

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977)

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is not only Roger Moore’s best Bond (performance and film) but also the best-looking classic-era Bond movie. The filmmakers seem to have taken extra care with the shot construction, and the featured locations, particularly Egypt look stunning. Add to that one of the most memorable Bond henchmen, the hulking Jaws (Richard Kiel) and a really unusual relationship dynamic with Russian agent XXX (Barbara Bach). The Roger Moore films especially tend to look sexist to modern audiences in their treatment of female characters, but Bach’s character gratifyingly holds her own against Moore’s 007.

LICENCE TO KILL (1989)

LICENCE TO KILL is violent, brutal, pleasingly simple, but with appropriately ridiculous action when required. It features a solid central performance from Timothy Dalton portraying the most human Bond. Dalton’s 007 is engagingly flawed – you believe he can handle himself, but he takes a beating, and goes through a well-developed and emotional character arc. He gets cocky, he gets (really) angry, he mourns. Often, the plot of Bond movies become convoluted, but some of the best of the series have simple stories, and Licence to Kill is one of them. It’s basically a revenge film, with a few twists and turns plus some shockingly nasty villain deaths  thrown in for good measure.

SKYFALL (2012)

SKYFALL was a difficult balancing act to pull off, and Sam Mendes and co. met the challenge in fine style. It’s a near-perfect blend of character beats, action spectacle and Bond franchise fanfare. A fittingly grand tribute to 50 years of James Bond films, with some witty and playful references to past instalments, but thankfully it’s not restricted by that function. The story is a relatively stripped-back, no frills affair, elevated by thematic complexity, self-awareness and a striking, arty aesthetic courtesy of Roger Deakins. The most visually stunning scene is undoubtedly Bond’s (Daniel Craig) fight with an assassin (Ola Rapace) in a Shanghai skyscraper in silhouette, illuminated by flashing, colourful projected advertisements. The real highlight of Skyfall in comparison to the other Bonds is the quality of the characterisation – Bond and M’s (Judi Dench) relationship is allowed to evolve, Javier Bardem’s villain Silva is an unusual and incredibly memorable, like a flamboyant lion with a laptop, and Bérénice Marlohe, as briefly as she’s on screen, brings something seldom seen in Bond performances – subtlety.

There you have it – the very best of the James Bond movies. Do you agree with the selection, or have I missed off your favourite? Look out for the worst of Bond in the future, as soon as I’ve re-appraised the later Roger Moore appearances…SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Top 10 Screen Sword Fights

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Sam S-P

duellists033

Who doesn’t love a good sword fight? An essential element of classic swashbuckling adventures, this type of action set-piece lives on as a way to liven up any film by pushing two or more characters (usually a “goodie” and a “baddie”) into passionate, personal, and violent conflict. When these sequences are well choreographed, they become things of beauty; art in the form of flashing blades and fancy footwork. I’m avoiding big battle scenes here, trying to limit my selection to duels and smaller affairs of the blade. Here’s my top ten favourite sword fights on film. The list is based on the quality of the swordplay, how memorable the fight is, and perhaps most importantly of all, how cool it looks. And before you ask, yes lightsabers count as swords!

10. Blade (Wesley Snipes) vs. Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) – BLADE (1998)

At number 10 it’s the final showdown from BLADE. It always helps when your actors are in great shape, and Snipes and Dorff certainly know how to convincingly swing a sword at each other. After giving off an air of subdued menace throughout the film, it’s rewarding to finally see how deadly an adversary Frost is as he engages the Daywalker. The stakes of the fight – revenge and salvation for the human race – couldn’t really be higher, and it’s pretty remarkable the fight came out so well, as it was a last-minute addition to the film.

9. Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) vs. The Man in Black (Cary Elwes) – THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987)

This one’s popular with audiences and critics alike, and it’s only this far down my list because I saw THE PRINCESS BRIDE for the first time earlier this year. I enjoyed it, and the fight is great, but I’m not particularly attached to it yet. One man made this and countless other filmed sword fights happen – the legendary swordmaster Bob Anderson. Inigo and his masked opponent play an entertaining game of cat-and-mouse in their duel, along with leaping about and showing off their fencing tricks, and it’s all an extended build-up to a truly brilliant gag that I won’t spoil for those who haven’t seen the film.

8. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) vs. Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush) – PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

I don’t know why the Pirates series doesn’t get more recognition for the quality of its swordplay. CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL is the highlight of the series on these terms (as well as most others), before the extensive training in fencing the lead actors went through was overshadowed by unnecessarily elaborate special effects and Johnny Depp acting silly. The Jack vs. Barbosa fight is a great pay-off to the mutual hatred the characters have for each other, and it balances impressively quick swordplay with some clever quips.

7. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) & Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) vs. Darth Maul (Ray Park) – STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)

A visually stunning, staggeringly complex two-on-one lightsaber fight since dubbed “Duel of the Fates” after that operatic segment of John Williams’ score for THE PHANTOM MENACE. Great effort was put into developing the fighting style of a Jedi/Sith in their prime for the STAR WARS prequels, rather than the slightly clumsy and sluggish previous duels between old men, amputees and boys in the original trilogy. This scene is one of the only reasons most people still watch The Phantom Menace. Though the fight loses impact as it drags on, Darth Maul’s double-bladed lightsaber, wielded with dizzying proficiency by the Kendo-practicing Ray Park has quite rightly become iconic.

6. Jason (Todd Armstrong) vs. Skeleton Warriors (Ray Harryhausen) – JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS (1963)

This one is something special. The final battle in JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS involves Armstrong’s Jason and two of his cohorts locked in battle with a squad of supernaturally resurrected skeletons, brought to vivid and terrifying life by the absurdly talented hands of Ray Harryhausen. The man-hours involved to convincingly portray a man fighting a stop-motion animated skeleton is almost incomprehensible – Harryhausen had to essentially become an actor and make his skeleton characters’ movements react appropriately to the actions of the real actors, and both elements of the sequence had to be blended seamlessly. Mostly, it still holds up as an imaginative, thrilling and unique fight scene.

5. Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) vs. Cunningham (Tim Roth) – ROB ROY (1995)

The end fight in ROB ROY pits Neeson’s proud Scotsman against a foul, foppish gent (Roth), who represents everything he and his countryman hate about the English nobility. The contrasting fighting styles of the diminutive, agile and controlled Cunningham versus the towering, angry and brute-force-driven Rob Roy makes for a fascinating duel pumped full of class-war passion. Rob wants nothing more than to cut Cunningham’s snooty head off and reclaim personal, and national dignity, but Cunningham toys with Rob before he lands a lethal strike. The fight is painstakingly constructed in every detail, and glues you to the screen.

4. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) vs. Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen)  – STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

I know Yoda and Palpatine are scrapping simultaneously with this one, but their fight is silly and mostly CGI, so doesn’t make the cut. McGregor and Christensen, on the other hand really are that fast. It’s the fight we’ve been dreaming of for 30 years, ever since it was hinted at in the original trilogy, and miraculously George Lucas and co. delivered the goods. Anakin is driven by hatred of his old master, and by pride, Obi-Wan by a sense of duty, and anger at himself for failing to guide his pupil. The clash between them is appropriately apocalyptic, with fire and brimstone raining down around them, their pained expressions exaggerated and  lit up by the flashes of their lightsabers. This one was worth waiting for.

3. Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang) vs. Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) – CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (2000)

A brilliant expression of control from Zhang and Yeoh, Ang Lee’s action flows like poetry, with blindingly fast sword flashes mixed with slow-motion segments and floaty wire-work. Who cares if Yeoh’s character cheats by grabbing an assortment of increasingly ridiculous weaponry throughout, and Zhang treated the scene like a dance routine (due to a lack of martial arts experience), it’s still a stunning duel. Feminine, deadly and beautiful, this fight sequence leaves a lasting impression.

2. Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) vs. Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone) – THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938)

Probably the best example of fencing skills on the list, Flynn and Rathbone move like lightning in this equally ferocious and playful fight. Robin and Gisbourne are out to kill each other, certainly, but not before they humiliate their opponent and assert their superiority. It’s a test of endurance and dexterity as the actors move around the massive castle set, under, over, and around obstacles, their eyes and their blades never leaving their opposite number. As the fight wears on, and the flashing swords move faster and faster, it becomes about one thing only: survival. The technical limitations of THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD also means  you’re never in doubt it’s really the actors moving that quickly.

1. The Bride (Uma Thurman) vs. O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) – KILL BILL: VOL. 1 (2003)

Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL films have been called many things, but rarely are they considered beautiful. The katana duel in the snow between The Bride and O-Ren Ishii really is an achingly beautiful, perfectly paced sequence. It’s the build-up that makes it work so well – first there’s silence, then Tarantino’s incongruous music kicks in as the combatants prepare themselves, then finally they cross swords. The fight is broken up into movements, more like a musical symphony or a ballet than a duel, and after each stage, the camera takes in their expressions, the emotion and the drive behind each of these powerful, dangerous women. The balance of power shifts several times in the fight, and the characters’ hatred for each other develops into grudging respect. We have a final pause, then an abrupt and powerful conclusion. It may not be the finest screen fight ever in terms of pure choreography, but artistically, and dramatically speaking, it’s my absolute favourite. Watch it below:

Honourable mention: D’Hubert (Keith Carradine) vs. Feraud (Harvey Keitel) – THE DUELLISTS (1977) 

I couldn’t neglect to mention Ridley Scott’s feature debut THE DUELLISTS (see above image), a film built almost entirely around the rivalry, honour and series of duels between two Napoleonic French soldiers. It’s a great representation of 19th-century duelling, and one of the best films ever about flawed masculinity. Why didn’t it make the cut? Taken individually, the fights aren’t particularly exciting or memorable – the final duel in the film is fought with pistols rather than swords for crying out loud! Far more interesting than any of the swordplay is the character development between the action.

Agree with my list, or have I missed off your favourite screen sword fight? Feel free to comment. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond the Valley of the Casting

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Sam S-P

It’s been announced that various independent film companies have banded together to make yet another film about making a film titled RUSS & ROGER GO BEYOND. Set to tell the story of the collaboration between trash auteur Russ Meyer and respected film critic Roger Ebert on BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1970), like Meyer’s cult favourite, the end product will no doubt be…interesting.

Such an unusual and fascinating real-life tale seemingly lends itself well to a dramatic re-telling. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was a semi-spoof-psychedelic-musical-comedy-drama-horror (try saying that in one breath) and despite studio clashes and the near-impossible task to market the film, it was a financial hit in the USA. It’s unclear at this stage what the film’s plot will focus on – the many challenges of the filmmaking process, the unlikely friendship and working relationship between Ebert and Meyer, the contrasting private and public lives of the men themselves, or all of the above. I sincerely hope they don’t spread themselves too thin and try to cover all of these angles – that was what destroyed HITCHCOCK as a film; it became bland and non-committal.

One of the main problems with films about films is that we’ve likely already seen the end product that we’re supposedly watching being made on-screen. We know the ending, so there’s zero tension. The only thrill we can possibly attain from a film where we already know the ending is witnessing how the journey affects the characters. For it to work, the characters have to engage, and because they’re usually actors playing real people, they have to utterly convince in their portrayal of that real person. We know Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was made, it was massively successful, and its popularity with audiences only increased over time. Beyond the quality of the screenplay (by Chris Cluess), which has to at least be engaging, it’s going to be down to how good our two lead actors are.

So, who should play Russ Meyer and Roger Ebert? That’s a tough one. While you could probably get away with slapping a pervy moustache on just about any larger-framed character actor to play Meyer (he was reclusive and rarely gave interviews), Ebert poses a real challenge for a casting director. He was arguably the most famous, and most frequently heard English-speaking film critic in the world. Whoever gets to play the late, great Ebert will have to do an uncanny impression of his voice and mannerisms. No-one immediately springs to mind to play Ebert, but I could see someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman – with a bit of hair dye – playing “The King of the Nudies”.

I’m really not sure about this one. It’s a great story to tell on-screen, and Roger Ebert and Russ Meyer were undoubtedly fascinating, insanely talented men, both iconic, in different ways, players in film. It’s all down to who they cast, and what direction their story goes in. A bit of artistic flare wouldn’t go amiss, either – I’d love to see a biopic in the luridly colourful visual style of Meyer’s later career, maybe with some Meyer-brand camp humour thrown in. No word on when Russ & Roger Go Beyond will be cast, filmed, or released, but I await it with equal parts excitement and trepidation. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Film Confessional #4: Lost in Translation

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Sam S-P

lost-in-translation-pic

I have a confession to make…I really don’t like LOST IN TRANSLATION. Sofia Coppola’s critically applauded, Oscar-winning mediation on life, love and other stuff not only didn’t connect with me on an emotional, intellectual, or philosophical level, but I often found it offensive and rage-inducing.

Now, before anyone bites my head off, I’m not denying that Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson are both excellent, probably the best either of them ever have been, and their characters’ relationship is unusual and (mostly) endearing. I’ll also concede that the film looks lovely, it’s beautifully filmed and Coppola clearly has a meticulous eye for detail. But beyond that, everything else just rubs me up the wrong way.

I find much of the film tortuously slow and incredibly dull. Now I’m all for filmmakers taking their time in order to really engross an audience in a world, to get to the heart of complex characters, but too many scenes in Lost in Translation go nowhere, and don’t really advance anything. I guess we’re just being given more time to admire how Coppola frames her shots.

An element a few critics have picked up on, and I’ll admit it’s the main reason for my hatred, is Coppola’s criminal cultural insensitivity. I’d hesitate to call her views outright racist, but they’re certainly patronising towards the Japanese. Coppola’s view of Japan is that of an American (much like Murray’s character) ignorant of another culture and not making any real effort to understand it. By depicting on film a steady procession of carefully cherry-picked Japanese “oddities” and stereotypes – their high-tech bathrooms, their unfailing politeness, massages, karaoke, their traditions and rituals of day-to-day life – it seems as though one of Coppola’s main objectives is to say “hey, come laugh at the silly Japanese, they’re not like Americans at all”.

A recurring, and increasingly painful joke in the film is the mockery of the Japanese speech pattern which replaces the letter “r” with the letter “l”, often making their attempts at speaking English sound comical to Western ears. This gag is barely funny the first time it is used, but it is then reprised four or five more times throughout the film. In one of the key “comedy” scenes, Murray’s character struggles to comprehend the instructions of a heavily accented Japanese director during a photo shoot, and he decides the best course towards understanding is mocking mimicry of the poor man’s voice each time he speaks. I know Murray’s character isn’t meant to be the nicest guy in the world, but this gag isn’t even particularly funny, just embarrassing, akin to the lack of logic behind an English-speaking tourist abroad raising his voice and speaking slowly to make themselves understood to non-English speakers.

The title annoys me too. Yes, speaking poetically, it’s the story of two souls “lost” in their own lives, drifting from place-to-place and forever struggling to make and maintain, or “translate” any real human connection, until they meet each other. But the film’s setting, Tokyo, also brings into the common cultural meaning of the term – an unintended misunderstanding coming out of using two different languages. But Bill Murray’s struggling actor Bob Harris can’t have lost anything in translation as he mopes around the Japanese capital, as “lost” implies an unintended accident, human error. Bob makes no effort to understand Japanese culture, and remains steadfastly, wilfully ignorant. Put aside the romance, the poetry. In the age of globalisation, on a cultural level, Lost in Translation should be called “The American Who’s Too Lazy to Understand”.

I’m sorry if you, like many critics, loved Lost in Translation. I can’t dispute that it’s nice to look at, or that the two leads play interesting characters well. But I personally can’t get past the wilful, almost malicious cultural ignorance that’s on display for apparent comic effect. Largely thanks to the dominance of Hollywood filmmaking on the world stage, our perceptions of other countries are filtered through an American lens. America isn’t culturally ignorant, but their movies often are, lazily relying on stereotypes and highlighting anything that is different to English-speaking, Western society as the “other”, something to be mocked or commented on. Lost in Translation is this cultural insensitivity elevated to an art form, something to be admired, which I find somehow worse, and which kills the film for me. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I fully understand if you passionately disagree. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Doomsday (2008)

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Sam S-P

Film Title: DOOMSDAY

DOOMSDAY is by far the weakest link in British writer-director Neil Marshall’s career so far. Following a pair of highly original horror films DOG SOLDIERS and THE DESCENT, Marshall endeavoured to continue his run of success, and sadly as soon as he brought sci-fi and action elements into the mix, he seems to have stumbled.

Following the outbreak of a deadly virus, Scotland is quarantined from the rest of Britain and survivors left for dead, until a specialist military team venture across the boarder decades later in search of a miracle cure, and soon find themselves fighting for their lives. A promising enough premise, you might think, but you’d be wrong.

The script is bad, even by trashy apocalypse film standards, featuring such classic dialogue as David O’Hara’s “This is a GPS tracker, it’ll tell us exactly where you are” – that one line repeated the same piece of information three times! The editing in the action scenes choppy and confusing, too, and the acting sub-par, even from veterans Bob Hoskins and Malcolm McDowell, who are both running on autopilot and seem to have just turned up for the paycheque. Rhona Mitra just about gets by on her physicality, and David O’Hara does a very good impression of David O’Hara. I’m not asking for high-calibre performances across the board, but you’ve at least got to make your characters memorable, and I’m really struggling to remember a single character’s name, let alone their motivations.

Doomsday as a whole is far too derivative. The first half of the film is a cross between 28 DAYS LATER and RESIDENT EVIL, but with cannibalistic Glaswegians instead of zombies. The film then becomes an ultraviolent version of the BBC’s ROBIN HOOD as the protagonists are imprisoned in a Scottish castle, before becoming MAD MAX for the final set-piece (though to be fair to Marshall, he does at least acknowledge the heavy influence of the latter).

I will say that Marshall’s trademark love of gory death is still present and correct (Sean Pertwee’s fate is particularly nasty), when his budget allows for real carnage he delivers, and a smile is raised now and again when his more surreal ideas rear their head, such as when the terrifying leader of the cannibal tribe (Craig Conway) takes to the stage before his legion of bloodthirsty followers dancing the can-can.

You can’t really tell whether there was meant to be a deeper message behind the film, either, or if it was always intended to be just a trashy B-movie. I guess you can see the ever-popular moral “the government are bastards”, and maybe a half-hearted comment on the Scottish independence issue (there’s a really big wall separating it from the rest of the UK), but it either needs to be more explicit, or interwoven into the plot, or more central to the characters’ motivations to make any sort of impact. As the film is, it just looks like Marshall toyed with including social commentary and bottled out halfway through.

From a run-of-the-mill filmmaker, as a bit of dumb fun, Doomsday might be more acceptable, but from Neil Marshall, who hasn’t put a foot wrong before or since (CENTURION and his GAME OF THRONES episode are definitely worth a look) it’s a real disappointment. Here’s hoping his next big-screen undertaking, the US remake of TROLL HUNTER, is more rewarding. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Flight (2012)

Posted on October 4, 2013 by Sam S-P

FLIGHT-600x369

FLIGHT is a solid high-concept drama for the most part, and is certainly the best thing Robert Zemeckis has done in a long time.

The story of William “Whip” Whitaker (Denzel Washington), a skilled airline pilot with a severe dependence on alcohol, cocaine and pills, who manages to save a crashing plane with minimal casualties despite being intoxicated. An extensive investigation into the crash begins, and Whip faces jail and the ruination of his career and heroic reputation if his condition during the flight comes to light.

Washington proves that he is still one of the most talented and versatile actors working in Hollywood today. He makes Whip haggard, self-destructive and tragic. We want to hate him for his selfishness, for what he’s doing to himself, and the chain-reaction effect on others his self-abuse has, but he always remains compelling and if not exactly sympathetic, then pitiable. There’s a particularly powerful scene when Whip explodes at a fellow addict he’s begun a relationship with, Nicole (Kelly Reilly) after she tries to confront him about his excessive drinking. Whip starts ranting angrily about how he “chooses to drink” despite what it’s doing to his life, and that his wife and son cut him off because he “chooses to drink”. This scene really hits home the fact that no matter how much help you offer addicts, they have to want to stop.

Reilly makes an impressively mature Hollywood debut as Nicole, a heroin addict trapped by her substance dependence. She makes for an interesting contrast with Whip, as she is determined to cut drugs out of her life after a bad overdose, whereas Washington’s character’s downward spiral is accelerated if anything by his near-death experience. Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood are both good as Whip’s lawyer Hugh Lang and friend from navy service Charlie – both becoming increasingly exasperated and angry at Whip’s refusal to change, even with the impending trial.

Pretty much every critic has applauded the film’s opening plane crash set piece, and I’ll concur that it is visually spectacular, relentlessly tense and emotion-fuelled. Some of the quieter scenes make more impact on a dramatic level, though. My favourite involves Whip, Nicole and a cheery cancer patient (James Badge Dale) smoking in a hospital stairwell contemplating life, death and God’s plan (or lack of). It’s an incredibly intimate, moving and darkly funny moment.

The rest of the film moves along nicely, with a good amount of impactful, often upsetting character beats as Whip confronts his demons and witnesses the wider impact of his actions balanced with the odd lighter moment (usually when John Goodman is in a scene).

I did have a few issues with Flight – the ending is idealised, bordering on sanctimonious which is at odds with the rest of the film which is relatively gritty and grounded. John Goodman’s character, a drug-dealing shady friend of Washington’s Whip, while providing a few laughs to a pretty bleak film, is a distracting presence, looking like he’s wandered in from the set of a Coen Brothers film. I was also disappointed with the lack of resolution with Reilly’s character Nicole, as she just leaves the story without much warning. In the end, it’s not her story, it’s Whip’s, but they’re both confronting (or avoiding) issues with substance addiction and I’d have liked to see whether she got clean with the help of her AA fellows, or whether her relapse was inevitable, like Whip.

Flight is a good film. It explores the vicious circle of substance addiction in an engrossing fashion, and Washington and Reilly give memorable performances under the sure and steady direction of Zemeckis. The film doesn’t pull punches in talking about an upsetting subject, but never surpasses the captivating first act of the plane crash and immediate aftermath.

If one major criticism can be levelled at Zemeckis and his screenwriter John Gatins it is their need to tie up a story too neatly, to push for a happy(ish) ending when in many cases real people with problems like Whip don’t get one. What is left of Whip’s life when you take the alcohol away? Does he even like being sober? But that’s Hollywood for you, and maybe this is just me being incredibly cynical. Still, give Flight a watch, it proves that Zemeckis back on form, and certainly deserves your attention. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Bad: A Very Filmic Television Experience

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Sam S-P

breaking-bad-heisenberg

BREAKING BAD has now come to a glorious end, and it really was a television marvel. The show, about a cancer-stricken chemistry teacher cooking crystal meth to secure his family’s future, was thematically layered, beautifully performed, perfectly paced, artfully filmed and ingeniously scripted. American Television drama has been through quite a renaissance over the last decade, and Breaking Bad represents the absolute pinnacle of the form.

I titled this piece “A Very Filmic Television Experience” not because I see TV as necessarily inferior to film (there is now very little separating the two), but simply because of the common stylistic trends of the two mediums. More often than not, film is stylistically extrovert, aesthetically bold and striking, and generally speaking television is more restrained. Putting aside the amount of money those involved in the respective industries have to put up on screen, this could partly be due to who tends to hold the power in TV and film.  Film is traditionally a director’s game, TV is a writer’s. A filmmaker has far less screen-time to make their mark in a feature film – every shot really does count, and directors and their cinematographers want you to notice how clever and artistic they’re being. With TV you want to be as stylistically unobtrusive as possible – nothing should detract from the story that you are spending so much time to tell, the characters that you are slowly but surely developing. Series creator Vince Gilligan smartly opted for a visually high-concept show.

One of the most striking things for me about Breaking Bad was how close to cinematic fare it looked. It was paced like television, and benefitted from the slow-burning drama potential of the small screen, but it always looked big. Every shot was carefully composed and packed full of symbolism. Tilted camera angles and POV shots were used extensively to emphasise characters’ spirals into oblivion. There were several really quite beautiful extended montages throughout the series that would have pleased Eisenstein. It takes stylistic, character and plot cues from big-screen genres and trends – a heist from a crime thriller, a desert shootout from a western, morally ambiguous, lying characters from film noir.

It’s often been noted (with much amusement) by avid fans of the show how much Marie (Betsy Brandt) loves the colour purple, from her clothes, to her household furniture to her kitchen kettle, but in fact every character on the show has a signature colour that in some way symbolises their personality. Walt (Bryan Cranston) started off wearing beige and sickly green because he was a dull and unfulfilled middle-aged man, but as his storyline progressed and he truly “broke bad” his clothes got darker, stronger. Skyler (Anna Gunn) began the show wearing gentle, motherly blues, but started wearing Walt’s shades of green as she became more heavily involved in the meth business. The amount of thought put into small details like this elevates Breaking Bad above pretty much every other TV show, and a lot of films, too.

TV and film, previously so disparate, now swap talent on a regular basis. Bryan Cranston has argued his film career wouldn’t be in such an advanced stage without Breaking Bad, without Walter White, and many big-name film directors now seem keen to try their hand at working in TV. Rian Johnson, one of the most inventive independent filmmakers of the last decade directed three of the series’ most spectacular and memorable episodes – the trippy character study FLY (2010), the complex FIFTY-ONE (2012) and the powerful OZYMANDIAS (2013).

With shows of the quality of Breaking Bad being made, the film industry really is fighting a losing battle. No wonder audiences are staying at home, streaming high-concept TV drama on computers rather than trekking to their local multiplex. No wonder Steven Soderbergh now prefers to work in TV if film executives aren’t prepared to take risks. Cinema isn’t dead and buried yet, but filmmakers need to push for original narrative ideas and technical innovations to effectively compete with the small screen. Now television looks about as good as film, the need is ever greater for visionaries to make their art form stand out from the crowd.

I’ve never really been an avid watcher of the small screen – I can take or leave 9/10 shows on at any given time, but I’ll rush to see most big cinema releases without fail. Breaking Bad has made me reassess my position, and see television as an art form, just like its flashy big screen brother. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Smaug Speaks!

Posted on October 1, 2013 by Sam S-P

 

Behold! We’ve been offered another peak at Peter Jackson’s second chapter of Bilbo’s adventure THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG, and it looks pretty promising.

We get glowering Legolas, again played by Orlando Bloom (looking noticeably chunkier a decade on), a glowering Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans), a stoic elven King Thranduil (Lee Pace), peaks at the spiders of mirkwood and Beorn in his bear form (Mikael Persbrandt) and the build-up to a massive battle or two.

The big reveal is of course Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) who was given a face in the last teaser, and now has a truly memorable voice – equal parts rich, menacing and playful.

Still no sign of Billy Connolly’s Dwarf leader Dain Ironfoot, despite him being listed among the cast, though he’ll presumably play a larger role in the third film where The Battle of Five Armies will in all likelihood dominate. We’re also yet to see Stephen Fry’s Master of Laketown.

It’s nice to see Jackson and co. seem to be keeping the lighter tone of the previous film (I particularly love how they’re avoiding the outright reveal of the One Ring), though obviously the action and certain characters’ roles have been beefed up a bit for the sake of spectacle. It looks like elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), specially created for the film will have a major part to play in the action, and maybe she’ll even steal Legolas’ traditional “moment of sheer elven awesomeness”. I really hope the rumours of her becoming an unlikely romantic interest for Thorin (Richard Armitage) are true – that could be really interesting, and presumably a first for Middle Earth.

It also looks like they’re preserving the extreme animosity between Bilbo and Thorin as they reach the Lonely Mountain that existed in Tolkein’s book (Thorin’s cold “I will not risk this quest for the life of one burglar”). How this comes about after the two ended on amicable terms in the previous film remains to be seen.

Anyway, colour me impressed by this latest trailer – I enjoyed AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (though it did go on a bit) and I’m looking forward to the next chapter immensely. Desolation of Smaug is released December 13. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: The Sessions (2012)

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Sam S-P

the-sessions_2012-1-1600x900_scroller

THE SESSIONS may well be one of the most honest and unabashed discussions of sex and disability on film.

John Hawkes gives a remarkable performance as the real-life severely disabled journalist and poet Mark O’Brien, who having lead a miraculous and remarkable, yet unfulfilling life following his debilitation from polio as a child, seeks to finally lose his virginity with the help of sex therapist Cheryl (a nuanced Helen Hunt). Hawkes makes Mark incredibly likeable; with an intelligent, articulate and witty nature confined to a body with both emotional and physical limitations. Hunt brings across the challenges and complexities involved in a career as a sex surrogate; the difficulty of remaining detached, yet human enough to make a connection with her patients. Clearly, Mark would traditionally be a subject of pity, a near-hopeless case, but instead she seems to see him as just another patient, if a challenging (and fascinating) one. She deservedly received an Oscar nomination in 2013, though why the second-billed performer in a film was nominated in the Supporting Actress category is beyond me. Needless to say, Hawkes should also have been nominated.

Strong support for the two leads comes in the form of Moon Bloodgood, unrecognisable as Mark’s kindly and no-nonsense carer Vera, but perhaps the weak link in the cast is William H. Macy, who coasts in his role as Father Brendan, an easy-going priest who dutifully listens to the graphic descriptions of Mark’s latest sexual therapy sessions. Macy isn’t bad as such, he just doesn’t really make an impact, and he could probably have performed this role in his sleep.

The tone of the script thankfully never feels patronising, and never makes you feel like what you are watching – a disabled man’s sexual exploration – is somehow unsavoury or unpalatable. After Mark and Cheryl’s first encounter, you hardly notice the sexuality of the scenes, and their characters always shine through. Having the disabled writer-director Ben Lewin, who himself suffered from polio as a child, at the helm has seemingly proved invaluable. Lewin isn’t interested in spectacle, or saying anything particularly shocking, he’s simply saying, quite rightly, that disabled people have sex lives too! If that makes a viewer uncomfortable, then it’s their issue.

The Sessions makes a connection because you’re given time to get to know the characters of Mark and Cheryl. Every scene advances their relationship, how they view themselves, or how others see them in one way or another. It’s a human, spiritual film. One of the recurring themes is the role of religion in our lives – Mark, a devout Catholic wonders if his physical condition is a punishment from God, Father Brendan gives Mark “God’s permission” to seek sex out of wedlock due to his unfortunate circumstances, and Cheryl converts to Judaism towards the end of the film out of love for her husband. Religion is always present in The Sessions, but it’s not an essential part of enjoying the film – it’s a story built on humanity, spirituality, rather than religious belief. There’s a scene later in the film when Mark has a near-death experience, and after coming round in hospital jokes with a volunteer nurse that he could never not be religious because he “would find it intolerable not to be able to blame someone for all this”. Faith is an essential part of Mark’s life, and despite his unfortunate situation, he still looks on the bright side, that he is still alive, and that is one of the most positive messages a film about disability can deliver.

The Sessions is a uplifting, inspirational comedy-drama that is warm, funny and sometimes quite rude, but never to the extent that it becomes distasteful. It wittily re-tells a remarkable true story (with inevitable film embellishments), and both Hawkes and Hunt give the performances of their lives. An entire other film could (and still can) be made about Mark O’Brien’s advocacy for the disabled, particularly his championing of disabled writers, but the focus of The Sessions quite rightly remained “Mark O’Brien: The Man” rather than “Mark O’Brien: The Symbol”. Equal parts frank, unashamed and romantic, The Sessions is a delight. SSP

 

 

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Willkommen…

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Sam S-P

WC242595_942long

Something a bit different to usual, this blog entry is (mostly) about musical theatre. I saw a stage production of the musical CABARET a few years back, and I found it a very enjoyable night out. What intrigued me the most was realising how different the original musical is to the Liza Minnelli film version from 1972 (which I’ve been watching for over half my life). Last weekend I went to see another, much glossier and extravagant production, with Will Young (yes, that Will Young) as the Emcee. Again, it was a completely different take on the source material, Christopher Isherwood’s GOODBYE TO BERLIN. Not only did it differ drastically from the film version, but from all other incarnations of the musical (to the best of my knowledge) in its core message. This got me thinking about the issue of adaptation.

The musical follows a down-on-his-luck American writer Cliff Bradshaw arriving in Berlin in the early 1930s and beginning a turbulent relationship with a  performer at the local Kit Kat cabaret club, Sally Bowles. In the background of their complex relationship is the rapid rise to power of the Nazi party, and the drastic and terrible social impact it had on millions.

Bob Fosse’s film places much of the focus on the emotional turmoil of Liza Minnelli’s Sally Bowles, and the character of Cliff Bradshaw is Anglicised as Brian Roberts (Michael York) in the film (as Sally was Americanised), though their respective character arcs remain largely unchanged from the original musical. The main sub-plot of the stage musical involving a doomed romance between a Jewish fruit seller and an elderly German landlady is changed to the doomed relationship between a younger German couple who are both Jewish in the film. Fosse’s film is notable for his distinctive dance choreography and for confining all but one of the musical numbers to the stage of the Kit Kat Klub, and telling the rest of the story in standard narrative drama form.

The portrayal of the character of the Emcee (Master of Ceremonies) at the club varies greatly across the various adaptations. Acting as the face of the Kit Kat Klub, he interacts with the audience, sings, dances and provides commentary on the key events in the story. He often appears omnipotent, even supernatural, and fully aware of his, and Germany’s current position and future as much as the watching audience. He’s usually camp, flamboyant and implied to be sexually deviant. He serves as narrator, host and guide in Cabaret’s story.

It’s the portrayal of the Emcee I’d like to focus on here. He was most famously played (creepily, but sympathetically) by Joel Grey in the film, but Will Young’s take on the character in the latest UK revival is something entirely different. Young portrays Emcee as an abusive, grotesque, tormented and tormenting demon. Whereas the character is usually an innocent victim of the Nazi’s rise (promoting as he does very anti-Nazi ideals), here he is shown to be a facilitator, a collaborator. He’s the National Socialists’ man on the inside, a corrupting influence in Germany’s entertainment industry to fit the party’s own ends, despite presumably being on their list of undesirables. Though he’s more of an outright antagonist in this latest production, you can’t help but sympathise at the end when it is revealed his steadfast support of the Nazis didn’t absolve him of his lifestyle choices in their eyes. Young’s Emcee is what makes the 2012-13 production so distinctive, impactful, even terrifying, and proves that the pop star has real acting muscles ready to flex.

The 2012 Cabaret revival is an angry and passionate production, an unexpected gut-punch. It demonstrates the unstoppable force, the horrific power and influence of the National Socialist Party in early 1930s Germany, and implies their coming to power was all-but inevitable, whereas previous versions of the story emphasised a more subtle, slow corruption of Germany. Cabaret has always been a dark musical, but never this black and blatant, and it effectively shocks because of these artistic decisions.

You could perhaps argue that this latest production lacks elegance, and certainly argue that it lacks subtlety compared to previous productions and Fosse’s film, and that’s true – the heartbreaking, powerful and eerily beautiful Nazi rally song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” is here sung by Young’s Emcee atop a pulpit whilst controlling dancers on stage with swastika-topped strings. Then again, you could also argue that is thematically appropriate for the story, as there was nothing subtle about the Nazis’ rise to power.

While no-one will likely dare to tackle Cabaret on film again any time soon (Fosse’s adaptation is just too iconic), the stage show will be continually revived in different forms for years to come. A Broadway revival is due next year, enticingly starring Alan Cumming and Michelle Williams, and directed by Sam Mendes.

Cabaret is the kind of story that benefits from repeated reinterpretation – it’s a layered and complex tale of humanity and inhumanity that can be read in a variety of ways. The 2012 UK show will stay with me for a long time because it dared to do something different with a well-known story. The songs and orchestration were all present and correct, but the story trappings were in a new form, all to fit a particular purpose. I don’t see it as superior to Bob Fosse’s film adaptation, it’s just very different. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Theatre | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment