Quiet easy to mislabel with deceptive press and blurbs, Joe Wright's high octane thriller is not the simple gimmick action flick you may have been lead to believe. It is, however, highly uncoventional.
Wunderkid Saorise Ronan is the Hanna of the title, a sixteen year old German girl living with her ex-CIA operative father, Erik Heller (Eric Bana) in isolation at their Finnish woodland cabin. She has never seen electricity, internet, or another person's face. Instead, her years have been spent going through intensive survival, combat and linguistic training, all with one specific mission in mind. To kill her father's former boss, Marissa Viegler (Cate Blanchett).
After concoting a plan that will see Hanna surrender herself to a search team when they locate their hideaway, in order to get inside the system, and then meet her father in Berlin after her mission is done, she is thrust into a strange military base in the desert, it's iron doors and multiple cameras completely alien to her. Despite the culture shock, she completes her objective, before making a daring escape, fleeing into the harsh terrain of a mystery location.
Little does she know, however, that the woman she killed was a double, and it is ever more clear to Viegler that Hanna has to die. Concerned also at the fugitive status of Heller, she takes off after her old colleague, dispatching flamboyant homosexual assassin Isaacs (Tom Hollander) and his skinhead lackies after the girl.
Using her fluency in multiple languages and immense fitness to mount a continent scaling roadtrip, Hanna encounters and befriends a British holidaying family, comprising daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden), son Miles (Aldo Maland), and mother and father (Olivia Williams and Jason Flemying), and subsequently befriends Sophie, and uses that newly found friendship for hijacking purposes as she heads for Europe. Along the way, she discovers shocking facts about her existence and origins, while stuck in a world she does not know.
It's fairly clear from the offset, with the film's title flashing up as a bizzare, childlike rendering, that Hanna will not follow the tropes and rules of similar movies, although at it's heart it is a good old fashioned romp. While the script is quirky, it is in the direction and presentation that the film develops a uniqueness which mainstream helmers strive for. While the jump cuts and sharp editing may be standard, the use of angles, stylish slow motion and unusual camera focus give it a strange world vibe, completely in tune with the story, and also dollops out the eccentricity for each of the characters (the only straight archetypes are pretty disposable). The pounding, piercing soundtrack from the Chemical Brothers (another odd choice) adds both pace and beat, as well as injecting a sense of stress of strife.
The film also provides a very diffirent challenging proposition for the prodiguous Saorise Ronan, a young actress who fits the role like a glove and brings a fractured humanity and emotional, naive vulnerability to the near super human teenager. Much of the film, particularly in the climax and with the revelations about her background, hinges on her holding the audience's sympathy, and as dysfuntional as she is, you want her to see it through. Maternal and paternal instincts don't always apply to films we watch, so this is a crux. Also of note in the young actors department is Jessica Barden who, based on her humurous and authentic showing here, is destined for a big future.
The grown ups also fair well, with Eric Bana sympathetic and charismatic as the mysterious father who clearly has not divulged all facts to give, and Tom Hollander both funny and creepy as the psychotic, ridiculous Isaacs. His introduction is the most bizzare that will ever be given to a hired killer for years. Cate Blanchett, though steely and conflicted as the dark agent Marissa, does occasionally struggle with her probably unneccessary Southern drawl, but makes up for it in more significant departments. Olivia Williams and Jason Flemying are solid, as you would expect.
But the film has a character of it's own, a highly unconventional approach to a fairly ludicrous story, which is perhaps the most appropriate way to approach the picture. Played straight, it would be too daft. Played for laughs, it would be too camp, too corny and frankly out of place. Instead it goes for a mix, creating a bizzare hybrid in mood reminscent of Ravenous, which always pushes itself into different areas. It's a little like watching a gung-ho adventure directed by an arthouse auteur, which in many ways is what's happened here.
A little confusing for the sensibilites, and on occasion rupturing plausability, Hanna has the double bonus of being both entertaining and intoxicating, creating it's own identity and dealing with a spectrum of themes and recurring notions. Somehow a thoughtful, challenging conspiracy thriller married to a high octane chase action blockbuster. Mindless, it ain't.
7/10
A window into one man's cinematic odyssey, a never ending journey through the ever changing face of film, for better or worse.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Advertising Fraud & Idiot Sales - Rant
RANT TIME!
Maybe it's because I've been immersing myself in films and writing lately, and I've become cut off from bullshit reality, or maybe it's just because of a certain mood overcoming me. Maybe it's because I've stopped taking my diazepam for reasons I can't seem to remember. Actually, I can't seem to remember anything about what's...
But whatever the cause, I have something in my sights for the first rant in a while, and the chance to, you know, live up to half of my blog's title.
So, yeah. Advertising.
I've had a lot of feelings about this subject for a while, but it really got my goat lately when I saw an advert on TV for the new Battlefield game. Battlefield, in case you're wondering is a series of mostly mutiplayer shoot-em-ups using real world weapons and shit, like grenades and medical people, and is mostly played by pinheads who have invented their own language of bizzare, obnoxious shorthand and general rape of the English language. Lol, wut a nooob, pwned...They sound a little like The Clangers. God, that was a weird show. What the fuck were pigs doing on the moon...
Anyway, this advert was very shiny and nice, and I would have enjoyed it hugely if I had the mute button on. I usually do. I find not having to listen sometimes helps TV seem less like drivel than it really is. But sadly, for whatever reason, I was using my ears (probably so I could hear the sex line numbers), and the music comes on, as tends to happen in adverts. I was a little confused when Jay-Z's song 99 Problems was used as it's soundtrack. I thought I'd dropped acid by mistake again.
Again, in case you're like me in the sense that you're a human backwater, Jay-Z is some kind of hugely rich rapper (not the kind you open to eat your ginsters disposables) with a similarly rich Latino baby momma who has a similar problem with spelling her name.
The song, from what I gather, is about how Jay Zhee (making an assumption here) is far better at women than most people, how he has lots of problems but not in the trouser department (not bowel related), and how he pities us. No, that is not a Mr T reference.
I have to bite the bull by the horns here, because my metaphors are rubbish and I'm worried about a word limit on Blogger. There's always a word limit. Everywhere. You even lose your voice after a while of just talking and talking and talking and talk...
WHY IS THIS SONG RELEVANT?
I'm no stickler for this sort of thing, I promise. Music and killing virtual people go hand in hand, I understand this...By the way, killing virtual people is fine, virtually killing people is not. It's attempted murder.
And I also understand that the lyrics don't neccesarily matter if the music itself goes well with the action on screen. Most people don't even listen to lyrics anyway. A song could be about grounding limestones and people would still listen, if it sounds good...Mind you rap is basically just talking in rythm...sometimes not even in rythm...50 Cent.
Point is, the music doesn't fit either!
There's no beat that suggests hard conflict and shitting out your lungs in the midst of a mustard gas attack, and the tone is not of shooting an Arabic man in his sternum. Three times.
You get fan made videos on this little website I sometimes frequent called YouTube, which tend to mash up footage of their killing frenzies (again, fine, because it's technically not real, although the other soldiers are actually virtual avatars for real people with similar aggressional and educational problems...philosophy, anyone?).
These videos are invariably terrible, less fun to watch then my childhood home videos. Most childhood home videos don't include Fred West masks, but that's not the point. They're terrible.
Which is fine, because they're harmless. You don't have to watch, and probably never will. When you see a link to a Saving Private Ryan video with Linkin Park songs, common sense prevails. How could that be good? Even if you are disturbed. I'm not. I don't know why you said that. I suppose all that shrapnel around would save on buying straight razors...
BUT THESE AREN'T ON TV!
This isn't the first time either. I remember a whiles back when another action game came out, called Assassin's Creed 2. It's about medieval guys and Templars and sneaking around, and basically being Solid Snake back in dem days when you took a shit out the window and died at the age of 30 from sneezing too hard.
A little like the 1960's...
Anyway, the trailer for this game I saw on the box had some kind of Urban Techno track, which again DIDN'T FIT THE TONE but also didn't SUIT THE TRAILER!
So why is this happening?
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!
Did they forget to make the real advert and remember while they were getting munchies an hour before the deadline? Then throw together some shit quickly and decided it sounded great because they were FUCKING HIGH?! I know I would have done something that stupid when I was munted, although I wasn't being paid. Oh green dragon, what yearnful times we shared...
Anyway, there is a cause for this, two in fact. One of them is called precedent (not the black guy who runs America), the other is called laziness.
Anybody ever hear that song Mad World? It's a pretty blue piece of music by Tears for Fears, then redone by Gary Jules. It got famous again when it showed up at the end of Donnie Darko. Speaking of weed...that film didn't know whether it was New Year or New York...
Butt chances are that ALL OF YOU have heard it, and the reason is that it was used in the trailer for another game, a shoot em up in the future with bad guy heroes and weird alien creatures and the world ending and all that noise. It was called Beers of War, I think. For some freak reason I can't figure out, it worked really well, despite the song being not of the sort. The game sold really well, not because of the trailer purely, but it helped.
Ever since then, this has become a template to the advertising dudes who are supposed to be pretty creative. Supposedly. Apparently. Maybe. Ok, not at all.
You see, when something works, the option on how to follow it up is either to emulate it, or allow it to inspire you to think out of the box. And it's pretty clear which option was followed up. Lets just say they're still in that box, thinking away like crickets. Wait, do crickets think? Because I'm sure I once saw...
But this rationale goes deeeeeeeeeeeper. Deeper than I did the other night, when I...
Anyway, there's more to it than that. You have to remember that those in TV advertising, and often just TV in general, think that YOU are an idiot.
They have no respect for your intelligence, and no faith in your taste. They don't think you can stand watching a drama unless the people in it are are immaculate and gorgeous, and they don't think you can appreciate an advert unless it has one of your favourite songs in it. And these songs I mentioned are popular. Then again, so was Noel Edmonds, and look what happened to him. Twice. Buy bigger trousers, Noel. And shave. And die.
So by putting an inappropriate Jay-Z song into a trailer, it's actually a marker to get your attention. It's a way of letting you know that this is for you, this is YouTrailer. 'Buy this game if you like this song'.
A lack of taste means Good thing+Good thing=Reeeally awesome thing, man!
A third reason is that it works. It's uglier than a fight between a lion and a combine harvester, but it still works. Alot like the combine.
Copies are sold, and the advertisers make money.
LETS BUY A MONEY TREE!
The irony is that it costs more to buy the rights to a popular song, because of something called demand. They could have saved money by making an advert dat makes da sense! In fact, they already had one. I've seen some proper trailers on YouTube for the same game that uses its own music and they work. Unlike my liver, if my new skin colour is anything to go by...
But it doesn't end there. Keep digging, follow the money. No, the fact I'm called Deep Throat isn't of a sexual nature or suspicious at all...
The other problem with advertising is that it's misleading on purpose. This is really obvious when it comes to films, something I know a little about as a result of knowing little about anything else.
There's this film that I love called In Bruges. It's got a great witty script, sad story and some tearjerking and some general jerking and some Irishmen in Belgium and it's violent and it's a pretty dark drama with a little black comedy in the dialogue and it's got a midget and it's great.
But I wouldn't have guessed I'd appreciate it as much, if I'd gone just by the trailer. Or for that matter, or the cover art on the DVD for that matter (see right). It suddenly looks like the Guy Ritchie film that was never released because he was too busy with his crazy wife making movies about some guy and some girl and it's not real, and Ray Liotta shows up and he cries. Again. It doesn't look like the film I saw. Maybe I was on valium...
There are others too. I saw another little film, once. It was called The Girl Next Door, and I watched it entirely by accident. It's possible I had paralyzed myself when it came up on TV. Anyway, I remembered it's marketing making out that it was an American Pie style gross out wacky comedy with teenagers and drinking spunk and fucking baked goods.
But the reality was that it was just a nice, easy to digest (unlike the spunk...I'm told) slice of escapism with some humourous touches. It's not very deep, but it's definitely more respectable than Sean William Scott playing a human. Or is it William Sean Scott? Or Scott Sean William? Or maybe it's Sean Scott William. Or Wiliam Scott Sean...
Anyway, as I was saying the film didn't do too well, which isn't a surprise, even though it was released around the time those types of films were doing well. I was going to say 'those types of comedy', but I'd be stretching language to Val Kilmer's face proportions. Seriously, what happened to that guy's face? It looks like a balloon with Val Kilmer's features painted on it...
I digress.
This is where there's an odd paradox in the idea. Advertisers want to sell the film, and in the case of films its harder to bring viewers to the film than it is to bring the film to the viewers. So they edit it together with wacky music and suddenly it looks different. Throw in blurbs like "Hilarious - The Sun" or "I was left speechless - Roger Ebert" and it has gravitas, you HAVE to believe this is the kind of film you like. So they make huge bucks on cinema tickets by convincing movier goers that they're paying to see something else.
Or Scott William Sean...
But there's a flip side here! FLIP SIDE!!
The moment the audience realises they're watching a film about moral servitude, or fantasy escapism, or being stuck in sadness and in Japan with an increasingly melted Bill Murray, they'll get pissed off. They bitch to the their friends, to their work colleagues, to their families, to their customers, to their pets. What? Nobody else discusses movies with their dog? Bunch of fucking nutjobs!
Point is, word of mouth spreads faster than the clap in an Essex nighclub and the illusion is suddenly shattered. It's a totally flawed policy. It's like me telling my kids we're going to Disneyland, and they get excited because kids love merchandise, and so we get in the car but actually we go to the Western General Hospital and they watch me get a colonoscopy.
One of two things will happen: A) The film gets some credibility back, and gets the right audience. B) The film's reputation is destroyed, it sinks in the gross markets, and is ultimately forgotten about and mislabelled for years. Sadly, B is more common. The marketers end up causing the film to lose money because they chose a strategy due to fearing it would lose money. There's an expression that covers this. I think it's "Asshole! You fuck up my shit!". Is that Oscar Wilde? Because it sounds like Oscar Wilde...
I'd start having a go at TV adverts about products, but I'm tired and that wall over there talking with a Yonkers accent is getting on my nerves, I have to go bash his freaking skull.
But I'll just compare one of the most original and memorable adverts of all time, yes, the Guinness tick followed tock horses and surfers advert to the current 'memorable' commercials we have on the idiot box. Go Compare and Compare the Markets, borderline offensive charicatures. Because nothing says "buy my product" like "fuck you, immigrant!"
I suppose my point is that people in advertisement aren't trying any more, aren't bothered about having new ideas or getting creative in selling stuff, and frankly don't know what the fuck they're doing. If something works once, it must be milked. If something works for idiots, everyone's an idiot. If I don't stop typing, I'll black out and wake up in Aberdeen again. And I don't even fucking like Aberdeen!
This was a waste of everybody's time.
RANT OVER
Maybe it's because I've been immersing myself in films and writing lately, and I've become cut off from bullshit reality, or maybe it's just because of a certain mood overcoming me. Maybe it's because I've stopped taking my diazepam for reasons I can't seem to remember. Actually, I can't seem to remember anything about what's...
But whatever the cause, I have something in my sights for the first rant in a while, and the chance to, you know, live up to half of my blog's title.
So, yeah. Advertising.
I've had a lot of feelings about this subject for a while, but it really got my goat lately when I saw an advert on TV for the new Battlefield game. Battlefield, in case you're wondering is a series of mostly mutiplayer shoot-em-ups using real world weapons and shit, like grenades and medical people, and is mostly played by pinheads who have invented their own language of bizzare, obnoxious shorthand and general rape of the English language. Lol, wut a nooob, pwned...They sound a little like The Clangers. God, that was a weird show. What the fuck were pigs doing on the moon...
Anyway, this advert was very shiny and nice, and I would have enjoyed it hugely if I had the mute button on. I usually do. I find not having to listen sometimes helps TV seem less like drivel than it really is. But sadly, for whatever reason, I was using my ears (probably so I could hear the sex line numbers), and the music comes on, as tends to happen in adverts. I was a little confused when Jay-Z's song 99 Problems was used as it's soundtrack. I thought I'd dropped acid by mistake again.
Again, in case you're like me in the sense that you're a human backwater, Jay-Z is some kind of hugely rich rapper (not the kind you open to eat your ginsters disposables) with a similarly rich Latino baby momma who has a similar problem with spelling her name.
The song, from what I gather, is about how Jay Zhee (making an assumption here) is far better at women than most people, how he has lots of problems but not in the trouser department (not bowel related), and how he pities us. No, that is not a Mr T reference.
I have to bite the bull by the horns here, because my metaphors are rubbish and I'm worried about a word limit on Blogger. There's always a word limit. Everywhere. You even lose your voice after a while of just talking and talking and talking and talk...
WHY IS THIS SONG RELEVANT?
I'm no stickler for this sort of thing, I promise. Music and killing virtual people go hand in hand, I understand this...By the way, killing virtual people is fine, virtually killing people is not. It's attempted murder.
And I also understand that the lyrics don't neccesarily matter if the music itself goes well with the action on screen. Most people don't even listen to lyrics anyway. A song could be about grounding limestones and people would still listen, if it sounds good...Mind you rap is basically just talking in rythm...sometimes not even in rythm...50 Cent.
Point is, the music doesn't fit either!
There's no beat that suggests hard conflict and shitting out your lungs in the midst of a mustard gas attack, and the tone is not of shooting an Arabic man in his sternum. Three times.
You get fan made videos on this little website I sometimes frequent called YouTube, which tend to mash up footage of their killing frenzies (again, fine, because it's technically not real, although the other soldiers are actually virtual avatars for real people with similar aggressional and educational problems...philosophy, anyone?).
These videos are invariably terrible, less fun to watch then my childhood home videos. Most childhood home videos don't include Fred West masks, but that's not the point. They're terrible.
Which is fine, because they're harmless. You don't have to watch, and probably never will. When you see a link to a Saving Private Ryan video with Linkin Park songs, common sense prevails. How could that be good? Even if you are disturbed. I'm not. I don't know why you said that. I suppose all that shrapnel around would save on buying straight razors...
BUT THESE AREN'T ON TV!
This isn't the first time either. I remember a whiles back when another action game came out, called Assassin's Creed 2. It's about medieval guys and Templars and sneaking around, and basically being Solid Snake back in dem days when you took a shit out the window and died at the age of 30 from sneezing too hard.
A little like the 1960's...
Anyway, the trailer for this game I saw on the box had some kind of Urban Techno track, which again DIDN'T FIT THE TONE but also didn't SUIT THE TRAILER!
So why is this happening?
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!
Did they forget to make the real advert and remember while they were getting munchies an hour before the deadline? Then throw together some shit quickly and decided it sounded great because they were FUCKING HIGH?! I know I would have done something that stupid when I was munted, although I wasn't being paid. Oh green dragon, what yearnful times we shared...
Anyway, there is a cause for this, two in fact. One of them is called precedent (not the black guy who runs America), the other is called laziness.
Anybody ever hear that song Mad World? It's a pretty blue piece of music by Tears for Fears, then redone by Gary Jules. It got famous again when it showed up at the end of Donnie Darko. Speaking of weed...that film didn't know whether it was New Year or New York...
Butt chances are that ALL OF YOU have heard it, and the reason is that it was used in the trailer for another game, a shoot em up in the future with bad guy heroes and weird alien creatures and the world ending and all that noise. It was called Beers of War, I think. For some freak reason I can't figure out, it worked really well, despite the song being not of the sort. The game sold really well, not because of the trailer purely, but it helped.
Ever since then, this has become a template to the advertising dudes who are supposed to be pretty creative. Supposedly. Apparently. Maybe. Ok, not at all.
You see, when something works, the option on how to follow it up is either to emulate it, or allow it to inspire you to think out of the box. And it's pretty clear which option was followed up. Lets just say they're still in that box, thinking away like crickets. Wait, do crickets think? Because I'm sure I once saw...
But this rationale goes deeeeeeeeeeeper. Deeper than I did the other night, when I...
Anyway, there's more to it than that. You have to remember that those in TV advertising, and often just TV in general, think that YOU are an idiot.
They have no respect for your intelligence, and no faith in your taste. They don't think you can stand watching a drama unless the people in it are are immaculate and gorgeous, and they don't think you can appreciate an advert unless it has one of your favourite songs in it. And these songs I mentioned are popular. Then again, so was Noel Edmonds, and look what happened to him. Twice. Buy bigger trousers, Noel. And shave. And die.
So by putting an inappropriate Jay-Z song into a trailer, it's actually a marker to get your attention. It's a way of letting you know that this is for you, this is YouTrailer. 'Buy this game if you like this song'.
A lack of taste means Good thing+Good thing=Reeeally awesome thing, man!
A third reason is that it works. It's uglier than a fight between a lion and a combine harvester, but it still works. Alot like the combine.
Copies are sold, and the advertisers make money.
LETS BUY A MONEY TREE!
The irony is that it costs more to buy the rights to a popular song, because of something called demand. They could have saved money by making an advert dat makes da sense! In fact, they already had one. I've seen some proper trailers on YouTube for the same game that uses its own music and they work. Unlike my liver, if my new skin colour is anything to go by...
But it doesn't end there. Keep digging, follow the money. No, the fact I'm called Deep Throat isn't of a sexual nature or suspicious at all...
The other problem with advertising is that it's misleading on purpose. This is really obvious when it comes to films, something I know a little about as a result of knowing little about anything else.
There's this film that I love called In Bruges. It's got a great witty script, sad story and some tearjerking and some general jerking and some Irishmen in Belgium and it's violent and it's a pretty dark drama with a little black comedy in the dialogue and it's got a midget and it's great.
But I wouldn't have guessed I'd appreciate it as much, if I'd gone just by the trailer. Or for that matter, or the cover art on the DVD for that matter (see right). It suddenly looks like the Guy Ritchie film that was never released because he was too busy with his crazy wife making movies about some guy and some girl and it's not real, and Ray Liotta shows up and he cries. Again. It doesn't look like the film I saw. Maybe I was on valium...
There are others too. I saw another little film, once. It was called The Girl Next Door, and I watched it entirely by accident. It's possible I had paralyzed myself when it came up on TV. Anyway, I remembered it's marketing making out that it was an American Pie style gross out wacky comedy with teenagers and drinking spunk and fucking baked goods.
But the reality was that it was just a nice, easy to digest (unlike the spunk...I'm told) slice of escapism with some humourous touches. It's not very deep, but it's definitely more respectable than Sean William Scott playing a human. Or is it William Sean Scott? Or Scott Sean William? Or maybe it's Sean Scott William. Or Wiliam Scott Sean...
Anyway, as I was saying the film didn't do too well, which isn't a surprise, even though it was released around the time those types of films were doing well. I was going to say 'those types of comedy', but I'd be stretching language to Val Kilmer's face proportions. Seriously, what happened to that guy's face? It looks like a balloon with Val Kilmer's features painted on it...
I digress.
This is where there's an odd paradox in the idea. Advertisers want to sell the film, and in the case of films its harder to bring viewers to the film than it is to bring the film to the viewers. So they edit it together with wacky music and suddenly it looks different. Throw in blurbs like "Hilarious - The Sun" or "I was left speechless - Roger Ebert" and it has gravitas, you HAVE to believe this is the kind of film you like. So they make huge bucks on cinema tickets by convincing movier goers that they're paying to see something else.
Or Scott William Sean...
But there's a flip side here! FLIP SIDE!!
The moment the audience realises they're watching a film about moral servitude, or fantasy escapism, or being stuck in sadness and in Japan with an increasingly melted Bill Murray, they'll get pissed off. They bitch to the their friends, to their work colleagues, to their families, to their customers, to their pets. What? Nobody else discusses movies with their dog? Bunch of fucking nutjobs!
Point is, word of mouth spreads faster than the clap in an Essex nighclub and the illusion is suddenly shattered. It's a totally flawed policy. It's like me telling my kids we're going to Disneyland, and they get excited because kids love merchandise, and so we get in the car but actually we go to the Western General Hospital and they watch me get a colonoscopy.
One of two things will happen: A) The film gets some credibility back, and gets the right audience. B) The film's reputation is destroyed, it sinks in the gross markets, and is ultimately forgotten about and mislabelled for years. Sadly, B is more common. The marketers end up causing the film to lose money because they chose a strategy due to fearing it would lose money. There's an expression that covers this. I think it's "Asshole! You fuck up my shit!". Is that Oscar Wilde? Because it sounds like Oscar Wilde...
I'd start having a go at TV adverts about products, but I'm tired and that wall over there talking with a Yonkers accent is getting on my nerves, I have to go bash his freaking skull.
But I'll just compare one of the most original and memorable adverts of all time, yes, the Guinness tick followed tock horses and surfers advert to the current 'memorable' commercials we have on the idiot box. Go Compare and Compare the Markets, borderline offensive charicatures. Because nothing says "buy my product" like "fuck you, immigrant!"
I suppose my point is that people in advertisement aren't trying any more, aren't bothered about having new ideas or getting creative in selling stuff, and frankly don't know what the fuck they're doing. If something works once, it must be milked. If something works for idiots, everyone's an idiot. If I don't stop typing, I'll black out and wake up in Aberdeen again. And I don't even fucking like Aberdeen!
This was a waste of everybody's time.
RANT OVER
Saturday, 15 October 2011
The Tree of Life - Film Review
Still one of Hollywood's most mysterious and baffling filmmakers, Terrence Malick returns to the fold after a, by his standards, fairly brief hiatus of six years to give as The Tree of Life, a Palme d'Or winning film I'm having much difficulty describing in conventional terms, and perhaps one of the most enigmatic films of it's generation.
With the philosophical pondering of The Thin Red Line, displaced moral antipathy of badlands, and the astonishing visuals of The New World and Days of Heaven, Malick focusses all of his unconventional energy into this, his own flagship film.
Using a narrative which ignores walls built by filmmaking convention, and often actual physical possibility, The Tree of Life mainly centres on the contrasting childhood and adulthood of Jack (Sean Penn as an adult, Hunter McCracken as a child), spending most of it's time observing him growing up in 1950's Texas with his mother and father (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt) and two brothers, Steve (Tye Sheridan) and R.L (Laramie Eppler). But it's not a coming of age film, it's more of an exploration of life and existence using this particular setting as a condensed example, while asking questions of God's wrath and nature's grace.
The film opens with a quote from The Book of Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation ... while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy", and this immediately is installed as a running theme, the notion of questioning why suffering occurs, particularly in reference to the death of one of the brothers, despite not fully grasping the purpose of such a life in the first place, questioning the unquestionable. We see such life birthed by the cosmic ballet which sparked it, and the early stages, featuring pre-historic creatures, and later the asteroid impact which caused the ice age, nature resetting.
Jack O'Brien is a successful architect, but is deeply troubled by the world around him, finding himself constantly bemused and disturbed by the modern reality he is incased in. After seeing a tree being planted in front of his office building, he begins to reminisce about his upbringing. From here, we see his birth, infancy, and then his brothers also being born and becoming part of the family. We finally settle, and through questioning prayer like narration from Jack, his mother and father, as well as metaphorical imagery, we get a sense of their inner sides. Although Jack's mother is an almost ethereal, graceful and peaceful presence, loving though lenient, his father is a conflicted man, proud but harsh, full of idiosyncracies and contradictions and prone to taking out his frustration on his boys.
Over time, Jack experiences more of the world, seeing an increasing number of events and and experiencing new feelings for the first time, gradually growing a perspective and personality which makes him question his parents, and the meaning of loss and pain. He disovers rebellion as a method of expressing his confusion, fighting back against his strict father despite the consequences. In essence, the growing pains of youth. We see these events up until the family move out of their house, signalling the end of childhood.
Much of The Tree of Life doesn't make sense in the traditional sense, expressing itself more as question than an answer or theory, and allowing for the sort of ambiguity which rarely is allowed to be presented on film. Virtually every key event is subjective to the viewer, as is their understanding of the film's purpose, the message it is trying to convey. It is one part an exploration of the wonderment of childhood, another a more general and longful stare at the stars, asking through prayers. There is no real plot to speak of, none of the normal idioms and tropes of regular storytelling, because it's not really a story. If anything it's a poetic impression by way of motion picture. Malick, after all, is an artist first, film director second.
Similar in many ways to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain (a film clearly inspired by Malick's other work anyway, also reviewed here on my blog), rather than taking a specific idea or emotion and breaking boundaries to express it fully, The Tree of Life is more sweeping, almost without a true focus. Although we see the growing up of Jack, and the impact it has on his adult life, it is never really the point of the piece, more a tool. If you'll excuse the use of metaphor, Jack's life is the paintbrush. Considering the intentions, it's no wonder the first cut of the film came in at a mindboggling eight hours.
But in looking at the piece in the more traditional, box ticking sense, there's a lot here to appreciate without having to feel challenged. As you would expect given the director, the cinematography and imagery is astonishing, some of the finest put on screen. The use of editing and angling is both unique and startlingly hypnotic, a haze built as we look at rather basic surroundings, such as fields of long grass and trees in a garden, with a feeling of beauty. It's a feast for the eyes, to say the least, and the wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat underlines emotions and tensions without need for highlighting.
As is the case with a Malick film, the actors have to be top of the range, true thespians who can convey so much with facial expression. After all, the script is minimalistic to say the least. Luckily, the cast pull it off wonderfully. Sean Penn, who's screen time is limited, brings so much to the film with very few lines, his hangdog expression and pensive body language enough to let us know that older Jack is hardly a settled man. Rising star Jessica Chastain has a glow of innocence around her, a real beauty almost too fragile, naive and pure. Brad Pitt continues his renaissance with a rounded, subtle and complex performance as the father, an ex-navy trying to make his way as an inventor, a loving man blunted and misshapen by his perceived cruelties of the world, desperate to make his sons greater than he ever will be.
But the real stars are the children, particularly Hunter McCracken as young Jack, and Tye Sheridan as his younger brother. Again, so little is expressed in meaningless lines of dialogue, but rather physical interraction and expression. It's some of the finest child acting you will ever seen, completely authentic and never forced, hugely expressive but not over the top. It's easy to forget these kids are acting, that they have a screenplay to follow.
It's impossible to discuss The Tree of Life without touching upon the words on the lips of every filmgoer leaving the cinema the end: What does it mean? As can be expected, there are dozens upon hundreds of differing theories and explanations no doubt, each one making it's case well and not one better or more valid than the next. Is it about coming to terms with existence? Is it questioning God's methods, for better of worse? Is it about the restless pursuit of knowledge? It's all of these and more, a human driven and emotionally focussed probe taking ginger steps into the sea of the unknown. The comparisons to 2001 are valid, if not a little simplistic.
What we have though, is a hugely ambitious and intoxicating, and never less than breathtaking voyage into the very line of questioning we will surely never get answers to, a film which challenges absolutely everything from the bounds of known science to the strength of one's faith, the firmly walled norm of filmmaking, and finally the viewer. You may not understand it, and there's a good chance you won't like it, but you must see it.
9/10
With the philosophical pondering of The Thin Red Line, displaced moral antipathy of badlands, and the astonishing visuals of The New World and Days of Heaven, Malick focusses all of his unconventional energy into this, his own flagship film.
Using a narrative which ignores walls built by filmmaking convention, and often actual physical possibility, The Tree of Life mainly centres on the contrasting childhood and adulthood of Jack (Sean Penn as an adult, Hunter McCracken as a child), spending most of it's time observing him growing up in 1950's Texas with his mother and father (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt) and two brothers, Steve (Tye Sheridan) and R.L (Laramie Eppler). But it's not a coming of age film, it's more of an exploration of life and existence using this particular setting as a condensed example, while asking questions of God's wrath and nature's grace.
The film opens with a quote from The Book of Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation ... while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy", and this immediately is installed as a running theme, the notion of questioning why suffering occurs, particularly in reference to the death of one of the brothers, despite not fully grasping the purpose of such a life in the first place, questioning the unquestionable. We see such life birthed by the cosmic ballet which sparked it, and the early stages, featuring pre-historic creatures, and later the asteroid impact which caused the ice age, nature resetting.
Jack O'Brien is a successful architect, but is deeply troubled by the world around him, finding himself constantly bemused and disturbed by the modern reality he is incased in. After seeing a tree being planted in front of his office building, he begins to reminisce about his upbringing. From here, we see his birth, infancy, and then his brothers also being born and becoming part of the family. We finally settle, and through questioning prayer like narration from Jack, his mother and father, as well as metaphorical imagery, we get a sense of their inner sides. Although Jack's mother is an almost ethereal, graceful and peaceful presence, loving though lenient, his father is a conflicted man, proud but harsh, full of idiosyncracies and contradictions and prone to taking out his frustration on his boys.
Over time, Jack experiences more of the world, seeing an increasing number of events and and experiencing new feelings for the first time, gradually growing a perspective and personality which makes him question his parents, and the meaning of loss and pain. He disovers rebellion as a method of expressing his confusion, fighting back against his strict father despite the consequences. In essence, the growing pains of youth. We see these events up until the family move out of their house, signalling the end of childhood.
Much of The Tree of Life doesn't make sense in the traditional sense, expressing itself more as question than an answer or theory, and allowing for the sort of ambiguity which rarely is allowed to be presented on film. Virtually every key event is subjective to the viewer, as is their understanding of the film's purpose, the message it is trying to convey. It is one part an exploration of the wonderment of childhood, another a more general and longful stare at the stars, asking through prayers. There is no real plot to speak of, none of the normal idioms and tropes of regular storytelling, because it's not really a story. If anything it's a poetic impression by way of motion picture. Malick, after all, is an artist first, film director second.
Similar in many ways to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain (a film clearly inspired by Malick's other work anyway, also reviewed here on my blog), rather than taking a specific idea or emotion and breaking boundaries to express it fully, The Tree of Life is more sweeping, almost without a true focus. Although we see the growing up of Jack, and the impact it has on his adult life, it is never really the point of the piece, more a tool. If you'll excuse the use of metaphor, Jack's life is the paintbrush. Considering the intentions, it's no wonder the first cut of the film came in at a mindboggling eight hours.
But in looking at the piece in the more traditional, box ticking sense, there's a lot here to appreciate without having to feel challenged. As you would expect given the director, the cinematography and imagery is astonishing, some of the finest put on screen. The use of editing and angling is both unique and startlingly hypnotic, a haze built as we look at rather basic surroundings, such as fields of long grass and trees in a garden, with a feeling of beauty. It's a feast for the eyes, to say the least, and the wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat underlines emotions and tensions without need for highlighting.
As is the case with a Malick film, the actors have to be top of the range, true thespians who can convey so much with facial expression. After all, the script is minimalistic to say the least. Luckily, the cast pull it off wonderfully. Sean Penn, who's screen time is limited, brings so much to the film with very few lines, his hangdog expression and pensive body language enough to let us know that older Jack is hardly a settled man. Rising star Jessica Chastain has a glow of innocence around her, a real beauty almost too fragile, naive and pure. Brad Pitt continues his renaissance with a rounded, subtle and complex performance as the father, an ex-navy trying to make his way as an inventor, a loving man blunted and misshapen by his perceived cruelties of the world, desperate to make his sons greater than he ever will be.
But the real stars are the children, particularly Hunter McCracken as young Jack, and Tye Sheridan as his younger brother. Again, so little is expressed in meaningless lines of dialogue, but rather physical interraction and expression. It's some of the finest child acting you will ever seen, completely authentic and never forced, hugely expressive but not over the top. It's easy to forget these kids are acting, that they have a screenplay to follow.
It's impossible to discuss The Tree of Life without touching upon the words on the lips of every filmgoer leaving the cinema the end: What does it mean? As can be expected, there are dozens upon hundreds of differing theories and explanations no doubt, each one making it's case well and not one better or more valid than the next. Is it about coming to terms with existence? Is it questioning God's methods, for better of worse? Is it about the restless pursuit of knowledge? It's all of these and more, a human driven and emotionally focussed probe taking ginger steps into the sea of the unknown. The comparisons to 2001 are valid, if not a little simplistic.
What we have though, is a hugely ambitious and intoxicating, and never less than breathtaking voyage into the very line of questioning we will surely never get answers to, a film which challenges absolutely everything from the bounds of known science to the strength of one's faith, the firmly walled norm of filmmaking, and finally the viewer. You may not understand it, and there's a good chance you won't like it, but you must see it.
9/10
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Your Name Is Justine - Film Review
Celebrated by numerous international film festivals, Franco De Pena's excursion into Polish cinema none the less is barely known to English speaking movie goers, a real shame because Your Name is Justine (Masz Na Imie Justine) is a real gem.
The film centres on the harrowing journey faced by the young and idealistic Mariola (Anna Cieslak, in her film debut), who despite having just landed a job at an abbatoir, decides to throw caution to the wind and embark on a European trip with new boyfriend Artur (Rafal Mackowiak), leaving behind her grandmother and friends.
The pair only get as far as Berlin, at which point Artur turns her over to a prostitution ring run by German businessman Gunter (Mathieu Carriere). After a night of being violated by Gunter and his men, she is imprisoned in a decrepit old apartment, the only occupant of an abanonded building, with doors firmly locked and windows bricked up. She is forced upon a new career path as a sex worker, under the name 'Justine'. Following a botched attempt to fight back against her captors, Gunter offloads Mariola on his lackie Niko (Arno Frisch). The deal is simple. Mariola must work for Niko until she has earned him enough money to warrant her freedom, and her cooperation will ensure her grandmother is not hurt by the group.
As you would expect judging by the subject material, Your Name is Justine is at times very difficult to watch, in particular due to the very genuine scenario that unfolds in such sudden, unexpected nature. The traumatic first night, and Mariola's near constant solitary confinement, resorting to eating mould ridden bread and with barely any clothing to keep her warm, are akin to torture, and the contrast in light and colour from her hopeful origins to her hopeless plight are genuinely affecting. But importantly, De Pena does not resort to cheap caricatures and cliched stereotypes to get the story across, instead focussing on the sense of injustice and slow character change in Mariola as her suffering mutates her warm, glowing persona.
In this, Anna Cieslak is a revelation, an unsettlingly natural and believeable performance and completely unreserved in it's emotion expression. Her transition over the ninety minutes is truly the horror of the film, as she morphs from completely vulnerable to spiteful and cunning, using what little power she has to get one over on her owners. It truly is a remarkable debut, and as a sidenote it's impressive to see a novice actress manage to bring such feeling to every word when over the course of the film she delivers lines in Polish, German and English.
Arno Frisch, known for his spine chilling role in the original Funny Games, is also excellent and highly composed in his role, the conflicted and fluctuating Niko, a man who though not evil or bad by person is playing in an evil game. Matthieu Carrriere and, in a small cameo role, Dominique Pinon are also effective with subtle characterisations, while Rafal Mackowiak manages to convince both as the charming boyfriend and detestable professional scout.
A well thought out story and authentic script which aims for character study instead of a morality tale, and excellent direction from De Pena build a good framework for the film, shying away from making a point which doesn't need to be made. There is also some fascinating use of imagery and symbolism (the opening shot of pigs in a abbatoir is hugely effective in this sense), while at times the camera work is beautiful, picking all the right moments and all the right places to zoom in on. An effective score, relying on a repeated, homely piece representing all that Mariola has lost, underpins the need for the nightmare to cease.
Lost within the low profile standing of Polish cinema, Your Name is Justine is a superior and highly poignant film which blasts similar Hollywood fare out of the water. Although it is short in running time, which is both a blessing and a shame for differing reasons, the emotional journey is conveyed fully and superbly. At times tough watching, but worth every moment none the less, even if for nothing more than Anna Cieslak.
8/10
The film centres on the harrowing journey faced by the young and idealistic Mariola (Anna Cieslak, in her film debut), who despite having just landed a job at an abbatoir, decides to throw caution to the wind and embark on a European trip with new boyfriend Artur (Rafal Mackowiak), leaving behind her grandmother and friends.
The pair only get as far as Berlin, at which point Artur turns her over to a prostitution ring run by German businessman Gunter (Mathieu Carriere). After a night of being violated by Gunter and his men, she is imprisoned in a decrepit old apartment, the only occupant of an abanonded building, with doors firmly locked and windows bricked up. She is forced upon a new career path as a sex worker, under the name 'Justine'. Following a botched attempt to fight back against her captors, Gunter offloads Mariola on his lackie Niko (Arno Frisch). The deal is simple. Mariola must work for Niko until she has earned him enough money to warrant her freedom, and her cooperation will ensure her grandmother is not hurt by the group.
As you would expect judging by the subject material, Your Name is Justine is at times very difficult to watch, in particular due to the very genuine scenario that unfolds in such sudden, unexpected nature. The traumatic first night, and Mariola's near constant solitary confinement, resorting to eating mould ridden bread and with barely any clothing to keep her warm, are akin to torture, and the contrast in light and colour from her hopeful origins to her hopeless plight are genuinely affecting. But importantly, De Pena does not resort to cheap caricatures and cliched stereotypes to get the story across, instead focussing on the sense of injustice and slow character change in Mariola as her suffering mutates her warm, glowing persona.
In this, Anna Cieslak is a revelation, an unsettlingly natural and believeable performance and completely unreserved in it's emotion expression. Her transition over the ninety minutes is truly the horror of the film, as she morphs from completely vulnerable to spiteful and cunning, using what little power she has to get one over on her owners. It truly is a remarkable debut, and as a sidenote it's impressive to see a novice actress manage to bring such feeling to every word when over the course of the film she delivers lines in Polish, German and English.
Arno Frisch, known for his spine chilling role in the original Funny Games, is also excellent and highly composed in his role, the conflicted and fluctuating Niko, a man who though not evil or bad by person is playing in an evil game. Matthieu Carrriere and, in a small cameo role, Dominique Pinon are also effective with subtle characterisations, while Rafal Mackowiak manages to convince both as the charming boyfriend and detestable professional scout.
A well thought out story and authentic script which aims for character study instead of a morality tale, and excellent direction from De Pena build a good framework for the film, shying away from making a point which doesn't need to be made. There is also some fascinating use of imagery and symbolism (the opening shot of pigs in a abbatoir is hugely effective in this sense), while at times the camera work is beautiful, picking all the right moments and all the right places to zoom in on. An effective score, relying on a repeated, homely piece representing all that Mariola has lost, underpins the need for the nightmare to cease.
Lost within the low profile standing of Polish cinema, Your Name is Justine is a superior and highly poignant film which blasts similar Hollywood fare out of the water. Although it is short in running time, which is both a blessing and a shame for differing reasons, the emotional journey is conveyed fully and superbly. At times tough watching, but worth every moment none the less, even if for nothing more than Anna Cieslak.
8/10
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Darren Aronofsky Special: Reviews & Musings
It can at times be a fickle business, film directing. While many veteran auteurs and money makers continue to produce sellable, and occasionally revered, pieces while hidden by obscurity behind the camera and DVD commentaries, others become bigger than their stars, the real selling point of their films.
As of Autumn 2011, there are a few 'hot' Directors in Hollywood, highly sought after and who's every announced project is greeted with drooling anticipation. There's Christopher Nolan, there's David Fincher and then there's Darren Aronofsky, an art house filmmaker in a mainstream game.
Aronofsky's rise to the top of Hollywood Producer's shortlists follows the trend of unconventional and unpredictable main men, a similar path to the likes of Martin Scorcese and Terry Gilliam. Rather than simply making films, he makes Aronofsky films, highly distinctive pieces jam packed with metaphor, suggestion and most significantly, humanity. His filmography is varied, differing and original, but each effort always has his brand, not so much an egotistical Tarantino esque touch, but an indefinable quality hallmarking his mastery of the screen. It's what every up and coming Director strives for, to be able to make anything, to make it well, but to always gain the credit, to be the unseen other star of the show.
His 1998 debut Pi, an odd ball thriller about a mathematician seeking the perfect equation, budgeted at just $60k, made up mostly by donations from family and friends, and ended up making $3m. By contrast, his next film will be Noah, a $100m epic retelling of the Noah's Arc story. Not bad progress in twelve years, but the recurring theme is often Aronofsky's ability to concoct visceral, screen breaking imagery and storytelling on a modest scale, often relying on a single camera approach to get closer to the characters, putting you in their world, while never giving up on distinct visual style and memorable narrative.
Noah may be his first bank busting effort, but Aronfsky is no stranger to this field. He was the original choice for rebooting the Batman franchise, long before the Nolanverse came to being, and his interpretation of Frank Miller's comic Year One certainly tore up the form book. In a pique of bizzare Hollywood thinking, the reboot was dropped in favour of developing Batman vs Superman, and Aronofsky left the project. His third film, the complex and polarising but ultimately brilliant, The Fountain (reviewed elsewhere on this blog), was originally mooted as a $70m project and remained in limbo for five years before production went ahead, the budget halved. It's a testament to Aronofsky's visual flair that the film looks a huge budget piece, a feast for the eyes. Logic would dictate the biblical saga of next year appearing to be mind blowingly expensive.
Interestingly, the New Yorker's career growth can be best defined by three of his films, incidentally the highest rated of his flicks, with particular stages of the rise to trust in money being layed out. In an attempt to map out the journey, I've reviewed each of the three films and analysed their significance in creating a superstar Director.
The one that got him noticed....
Requiem For a Dream
A soap opera without the soap, Requiem For a Dream is a sombre, restless and utterly tragic tale of four people, dominated by their respective addictions and tortured by delusions and fantasy sharply contrasting their miserable, hopeless existences, based on the novel by Hubert Selby Jnr.
In Brighton Beach, NY, heroin addict Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto) and his friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) plot a money making scheme, using Ty's gang connections. With the cash, he hopes to buy a clothing store for his designer girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). Meanwhile, Harry's mother Sara (Ellen Burstyn), a shut in who's own addiction is an over the top gameshow, receives news she has been chosen to appear on television, and quickly begins a diet program to reel back the years and ultimately fit into the red dress her late husband was so fond off.
After a bright and hopeful summer, with everyone seemingly heading for better things, events begin to spiral out of control, with Sara slowly becoming hooked on diet pills and losing grip on reality, as no word arrives of her day on the screen. Harry and Tyrone's enterprising is blown out of the water by a gang war, and Marion's addiction leads her towards providing sexual favours for cash. By winter, their lives are falling apart at the seams, leading into a brutal, unforgiving and despairing conclusion as their weakness finally takes it's toll.
Employing speedy, dizzying editing and sharp visual metaphor, Aronofsky avoids the cliched grit and all depiction of drug use, instead focussing on the human cost inflicted on the souls of the four characters. Ultimately sympathetic people with an unstoppable dependency, their downfall is charted not by long monologues and disposable subplots, by the blurrying of the edges of their reality, and their switch from peaceful and contented dysfunctionals into desperate, ragged lackies.
Backed by a rapier, minimalistic script (written by Aronofsky and Selby himself), the powerful and aptmospheric score of Aronofsky stalwart Clint Mansell and superb choice of cinematography and visuals, a bubble is created within the world, in which the characters live, an isolation which is torn into at the fabric by dire consequences. Burstyn (who received an Oscar nod) is superb, a deeply authentic characterisation as the dottery Sara, who quickly descends into psychosis, and Leto sheds the singer-actor stigma with a portrayal full of pathos and subtle touches. Wayans, so often comic relief in lesser films, is charismatic and likeable in a straight role, a strong man dragged down by weakness, while Connelly, in her big break, gives a fully rounded, horribly believable turn.
And, in keeping with the themes and messages of the piece, the finale is a horrifying, heartbreaking and excrutiating endgame to the struggles which precede it. A sledgehammer final message perfectly in keeping with the flow of the story, and the relentlessness of it's execution. The ultimate human cost of the actions perpetrated, the touch paper finally lit.
A visceral, swinging and enthralling piece, albeit full of sickening home truths and reality checks, Aronofsky sucks you into it's world, before delivering a gut shot that leaves the powerful emotional journey etched into your mind for some time. Difficult, stunning, soul detroying film making.
9/10
The one that made his name...
The Wrestler
Follow up to the distorted reality epicness of The Fountain, The Wrestler is a strange direction to take for auteur Aronofsky, going for documentary style framing and fly on the wall biography of a fading force.
Randy 'The Ram' Robinson (Mickey Rourke) is an ageing wrestler, a spent force with his best days behind him. As a career of physical pain finally begins to catch up with him, he faces his mortality and the lonely world he has created for himself.
A big star of the wrestling scene in the 1980's, Randy now exists in the shell of former glories. Reduced to selling autographs at conventions and working part time at a deli to make ends meet, his castle is a trailer he often fails to deliver rent on, his only real friends the fellow fighters he sees from time to time in the ring. After a reunion bout ends with Randy in hospital, he discovers that he has a heart problem akin to angina, making another bout potentially fatal. Realising how limited his life is, he makes efforts to rebuild a relationship with his daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), who he hasn't seen since she was small, as well as trying to find some closeness with single-mother stripper Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), also at the wrong end of the age spectrum within her profession.
However, in spite of his efforts, he is a deeply flawed man who makes mistakes, and he finds it almost impossible to lead his life outside of his old haunt. He is ultimately left to risk everything in his attempt to find a happy ending, one way or the other.
Adopting a mockumentary style approach, using handheld cameras to follow Randy and his movements, and focussing on small, personal touches to give us a full angle view on a man on the slide, Aronofsky uses the piece to give us an intimate, in depth character study. With no music, it is left in the actors' hands to bring the emotional workload, and this is where the film comes into it's own. It's not enough to simply say that Rourke is brillinat, because what he brings to the story and to Randy is surely an element nobody else could ever carry off. With a chequered history himself, and similar background (albeit boxing), Rourke brings authenticity at every corner, becoming one with the character, disappearing from view. A tragic and sympathetic, but never self-pittying portrayal, Rourke makes his comeback complete, an unforgetable performance making him a sought after actor once more. He is assisted here by Tomei, who provides a warts and all performance which reminds us her long ago Oscar win was no fluke.
As much as The Wrestler is indeed a character piece, a story of one man's dying livelihood and existence, it is never really about wrestling. You could transplant the tale onto many an other background, it is more a study of mortality and hindsight, about how somebody's prime, no matter how glorious, can ultimately make the twlight years all the more painful and barren. Although Randy never ducks responsiblity for his wrongs, he also never makes excuses, fully aware that what really mattered was once in his hands, and that he traded it in. The end, where he finally comes to terms with his only lasting home, is both heartbreaking and heartwarming, a bizzare paradox totally fitting of a dysfunctional and inperfect character.
Moving in places, bluntly focussed in others, The Wrestler poses the serious questions of the fade from grace and then some, acting as a requiem for a soul far from ever being perfect, and completely human.
9/10
The one that made him a star....
Black Swan
Taking an unconventional setting for a torturous psychological thriller, the world of ballet, and approaching much of it with realistic 'in-their-faces' grittiness which defined The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky here paints a picture of self-destructive strive for perfection with a clear focus of characterisation.
Young, insular and naive dancer Nina (Natalie Portman) lives for her art, with no room for anything else in her life, still locked in a childhood with cuddly toys in her bed and living with her former dancer mother, Erica (Barbara Hershey). When she earns the lead in The White Swan, it is the proudest moment of her life. However, as production begins, her world begins to fall apart as reality blurs with fiction.
Always poised and synchronised, Nina is a superbly gifted dancer, but frustrates her Director, Leroy (Vincent Cassell), who seeks a more spontaneous, sexually alluring side. Initally heartbroken at her inability to channel a darker side, she finds a strange, literally biting side which manages to convince him that she can pull of the duel role as both the Black and the White Swan.
As rehearsals begin, she struggles to discover her other side, to used to a buttoned up, limited lifestyle. As well as this strain, she is troubled by the warning sides sent out by self destructive former star Beth (Winona Ryder), who has been ousted for being "too old", and also at the arrival of the more natural, carefree Lily (Mila Kunis), equally talented but far darker, acting almost as her muse. When she begins hallucinating, and is tortured by emotional stress, it becomes clear she is on the verge of destroying herself in finding the black side to her personality.
Perhaps offputting for some, the ballet element of Black Swan is, like all Aronofsky films, simple a means to an end in telling the story. Indeed, the original script was named The Understudy and it's setting was stage acting. However, the thing that sets Black Swan apart from traditional psychological thrillers is it's self-referential subtext, using the White Swan's story as a theme throughout Nina's odyssey, as well as the plot for the film. Nina's fall from sanity in her attempts to find the dark spirit is ironically not a failed effort, simply a far greater stretch of herself than anticipated. That we feel her struggle so intimately is, like The Wrestler, down to the use of often intrusive single hand held camera approach, ditching standard artistic framing in favour of audience participation. We as the viewers often feel like flies on the wall rather than distant observers.
With slight of hand, Aronofsky is also able to create a brooding, sinister aptmosphere, one that raises continuously startling imagery and common themes and leaving a question mark after every event, confrontation and conversation. It occasionally veers into the realms of disturbing, rather than simply troubling, with some moments verging on horror not thriller. Visual metaphor, once more, is hugely significant and utilsed superbly, leaving us in no doubt of the Director's origins and intentions.
Portman, waifer thin and fragile, is in brilliant form, well deserving of her Academy Award. The saga plays out through her, and she share her frustrations at not being able to find a more sensual, alluring side to herself. Painfully shy at times, and infuriatingly unable to stand on her own two feet, she is still doubtless symapthetic and you share her desperate wish to make sense of the fog around her. Cassell is his usual, flamboyant, charismatic and effective self, completely authentic as a ballet director, while Kunis perfectly represents a nemesis figure for Nina, beautiful and graceful in a completely contrasting sense, the mirrored end of the spectrum. Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder also thrive in significant supporting roles.
A dark, breathless and often claustrophobic descent into madness, Black Swan sends us on an emotional rollercoaster as we attempt to make sense of the character's world, while subtextually it is one of the most ingenious and ambiguous films of the decade.
9/10
As of Autumn 2011, there are a few 'hot' Directors in Hollywood, highly sought after and who's every announced project is greeted with drooling anticipation. There's Christopher Nolan, there's David Fincher and then there's Darren Aronofsky, an art house filmmaker in a mainstream game.
Aronofsky's rise to the top of Hollywood Producer's shortlists follows the trend of unconventional and unpredictable main men, a similar path to the likes of Martin Scorcese and Terry Gilliam. Rather than simply making films, he makes Aronofsky films, highly distinctive pieces jam packed with metaphor, suggestion and most significantly, humanity. His filmography is varied, differing and original, but each effort always has his brand, not so much an egotistical Tarantino esque touch, but an indefinable quality hallmarking his mastery of the screen. It's what every up and coming Director strives for, to be able to make anything, to make it well, but to always gain the credit, to be the unseen other star of the show.
His 1998 debut Pi, an odd ball thriller about a mathematician seeking the perfect equation, budgeted at just $60k, made up mostly by donations from family and friends, and ended up making $3m. By contrast, his next film will be Noah, a $100m epic retelling of the Noah's Arc story. Not bad progress in twelve years, but the recurring theme is often Aronofsky's ability to concoct visceral, screen breaking imagery and storytelling on a modest scale, often relying on a single camera approach to get closer to the characters, putting you in their world, while never giving up on distinct visual style and memorable narrative.
Noah may be his first bank busting effort, but Aronfsky is no stranger to this field. He was the original choice for rebooting the Batman franchise, long before the Nolanverse came to being, and his interpretation of Frank Miller's comic Year One certainly tore up the form book. In a pique of bizzare Hollywood thinking, the reboot was dropped in favour of developing Batman vs Superman, and Aronofsky left the project. His third film, the complex and polarising but ultimately brilliant, The Fountain (reviewed elsewhere on this blog), was originally mooted as a $70m project and remained in limbo for five years before production went ahead, the budget halved. It's a testament to Aronofsky's visual flair that the film looks a huge budget piece, a feast for the eyes. Logic would dictate the biblical saga of next year appearing to be mind blowingly expensive.
Interestingly, the New Yorker's career growth can be best defined by three of his films, incidentally the highest rated of his flicks, with particular stages of the rise to trust in money being layed out. In an attempt to map out the journey, I've reviewed each of the three films and analysed their significance in creating a superstar Director.
The one that got him noticed....
Requiem For a Dream
A soap opera without the soap, Requiem For a Dream is a sombre, restless and utterly tragic tale of four people, dominated by their respective addictions and tortured by delusions and fantasy sharply contrasting their miserable, hopeless existences, based on the novel by Hubert Selby Jnr.
In Brighton Beach, NY, heroin addict Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto) and his friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) plot a money making scheme, using Ty's gang connections. With the cash, he hopes to buy a clothing store for his designer girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). Meanwhile, Harry's mother Sara (Ellen Burstyn), a shut in who's own addiction is an over the top gameshow, receives news she has been chosen to appear on television, and quickly begins a diet program to reel back the years and ultimately fit into the red dress her late husband was so fond off.
After a bright and hopeful summer, with everyone seemingly heading for better things, events begin to spiral out of control, with Sara slowly becoming hooked on diet pills and losing grip on reality, as no word arrives of her day on the screen. Harry and Tyrone's enterprising is blown out of the water by a gang war, and Marion's addiction leads her towards providing sexual favours for cash. By winter, their lives are falling apart at the seams, leading into a brutal, unforgiving and despairing conclusion as their weakness finally takes it's toll.
Employing speedy, dizzying editing and sharp visual metaphor, Aronofsky avoids the cliched grit and all depiction of drug use, instead focussing on the human cost inflicted on the souls of the four characters. Ultimately sympathetic people with an unstoppable dependency, their downfall is charted not by long monologues and disposable subplots, by the blurrying of the edges of their reality, and their switch from peaceful and contented dysfunctionals into desperate, ragged lackies.
Backed by a rapier, minimalistic script (written by Aronofsky and Selby himself), the powerful and aptmospheric score of Aronofsky stalwart Clint Mansell and superb choice of cinematography and visuals, a bubble is created within the world, in which the characters live, an isolation which is torn into at the fabric by dire consequences. Burstyn (who received an Oscar nod) is superb, a deeply authentic characterisation as the dottery Sara, who quickly descends into psychosis, and Leto sheds the singer-actor stigma with a portrayal full of pathos and subtle touches. Wayans, so often comic relief in lesser films, is charismatic and likeable in a straight role, a strong man dragged down by weakness, while Connelly, in her big break, gives a fully rounded, horribly believable turn.
And, in keeping with the themes and messages of the piece, the finale is a horrifying, heartbreaking and excrutiating endgame to the struggles which precede it. A sledgehammer final message perfectly in keeping with the flow of the story, and the relentlessness of it's execution. The ultimate human cost of the actions perpetrated, the touch paper finally lit.
A visceral, swinging and enthralling piece, albeit full of sickening home truths and reality checks, Aronofsky sucks you into it's world, before delivering a gut shot that leaves the powerful emotional journey etched into your mind for some time. Difficult, stunning, soul detroying film making.
9/10
The one that made his name...
The Wrestler
Follow up to the distorted reality epicness of The Fountain, The Wrestler is a strange direction to take for auteur Aronofsky, going for documentary style framing and fly on the wall biography of a fading force.
Randy 'The Ram' Robinson (Mickey Rourke) is an ageing wrestler, a spent force with his best days behind him. As a career of physical pain finally begins to catch up with him, he faces his mortality and the lonely world he has created for himself.
A big star of the wrestling scene in the 1980's, Randy now exists in the shell of former glories. Reduced to selling autographs at conventions and working part time at a deli to make ends meet, his castle is a trailer he often fails to deliver rent on, his only real friends the fellow fighters he sees from time to time in the ring. After a reunion bout ends with Randy in hospital, he discovers that he has a heart problem akin to angina, making another bout potentially fatal. Realising how limited his life is, he makes efforts to rebuild a relationship with his daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), who he hasn't seen since she was small, as well as trying to find some closeness with single-mother stripper Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), also at the wrong end of the age spectrum within her profession.
However, in spite of his efforts, he is a deeply flawed man who makes mistakes, and he finds it almost impossible to lead his life outside of his old haunt. He is ultimately left to risk everything in his attempt to find a happy ending, one way or the other.
Adopting a mockumentary style approach, using handheld cameras to follow Randy and his movements, and focussing on small, personal touches to give us a full angle view on a man on the slide, Aronofsky uses the piece to give us an intimate, in depth character study. With no music, it is left in the actors' hands to bring the emotional workload, and this is where the film comes into it's own. It's not enough to simply say that Rourke is brillinat, because what he brings to the story and to Randy is surely an element nobody else could ever carry off. With a chequered history himself, and similar background (albeit boxing), Rourke brings authenticity at every corner, becoming one with the character, disappearing from view. A tragic and sympathetic, but never self-pittying portrayal, Rourke makes his comeback complete, an unforgetable performance making him a sought after actor once more. He is assisted here by Tomei, who provides a warts and all performance which reminds us her long ago Oscar win was no fluke.
As much as The Wrestler is indeed a character piece, a story of one man's dying livelihood and existence, it is never really about wrestling. You could transplant the tale onto many an other background, it is more a study of mortality and hindsight, about how somebody's prime, no matter how glorious, can ultimately make the twlight years all the more painful and barren. Although Randy never ducks responsiblity for his wrongs, he also never makes excuses, fully aware that what really mattered was once in his hands, and that he traded it in. The end, where he finally comes to terms with his only lasting home, is both heartbreaking and heartwarming, a bizzare paradox totally fitting of a dysfunctional and inperfect character.
Moving in places, bluntly focussed in others, The Wrestler poses the serious questions of the fade from grace and then some, acting as a requiem for a soul far from ever being perfect, and completely human.
9/10
The one that made him a star....
Black Swan
Taking an unconventional setting for a torturous psychological thriller, the world of ballet, and approaching much of it with realistic 'in-their-faces' grittiness which defined The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky here paints a picture of self-destructive strive for perfection with a clear focus of characterisation.
Young, insular and naive dancer Nina (Natalie Portman) lives for her art, with no room for anything else in her life, still locked in a childhood with cuddly toys in her bed and living with her former dancer mother, Erica (Barbara Hershey). When she earns the lead in The White Swan, it is the proudest moment of her life. However, as production begins, her world begins to fall apart as reality blurs with fiction.
Always poised and synchronised, Nina is a superbly gifted dancer, but frustrates her Director, Leroy (Vincent Cassell), who seeks a more spontaneous, sexually alluring side. Initally heartbroken at her inability to channel a darker side, she finds a strange, literally biting side which manages to convince him that she can pull of the duel role as both the Black and the White Swan.
As rehearsals begin, she struggles to discover her other side, to used to a buttoned up, limited lifestyle. As well as this strain, she is troubled by the warning sides sent out by self destructive former star Beth (Winona Ryder), who has been ousted for being "too old", and also at the arrival of the more natural, carefree Lily (Mila Kunis), equally talented but far darker, acting almost as her muse. When she begins hallucinating, and is tortured by emotional stress, it becomes clear she is on the verge of destroying herself in finding the black side to her personality.
Perhaps offputting for some, the ballet element of Black Swan is, like all Aronofsky films, simple a means to an end in telling the story. Indeed, the original script was named The Understudy and it's setting was stage acting. However, the thing that sets Black Swan apart from traditional psychological thrillers is it's self-referential subtext, using the White Swan's story as a theme throughout Nina's odyssey, as well as the plot for the film. Nina's fall from sanity in her attempts to find the dark spirit is ironically not a failed effort, simply a far greater stretch of herself than anticipated. That we feel her struggle so intimately is, like The Wrestler, down to the use of often intrusive single hand held camera approach, ditching standard artistic framing in favour of audience participation. We as the viewers often feel like flies on the wall rather than distant observers.
With slight of hand, Aronofsky is also able to create a brooding, sinister aptmosphere, one that raises continuously startling imagery and common themes and leaving a question mark after every event, confrontation and conversation. It occasionally veers into the realms of disturbing, rather than simply troubling, with some moments verging on horror not thriller. Visual metaphor, once more, is hugely significant and utilsed superbly, leaving us in no doubt of the Director's origins and intentions.
Portman, waifer thin and fragile, is in brilliant form, well deserving of her Academy Award. The saga plays out through her, and she share her frustrations at not being able to find a more sensual, alluring side to herself. Painfully shy at times, and infuriatingly unable to stand on her own two feet, she is still doubtless symapthetic and you share her desperate wish to make sense of the fog around her. Cassell is his usual, flamboyant, charismatic and effective self, completely authentic as a ballet director, while Kunis perfectly represents a nemesis figure for Nina, beautiful and graceful in a completely contrasting sense, the mirrored end of the spectrum. Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder also thrive in significant supporting roles.
A dark, breathless and often claustrophobic descent into madness, Black Swan sends us on an emotional rollercoaster as we attempt to make sense of the character's world, while subtextually it is one of the most ingenious and ambiguous films of the decade.
9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)