After almost a year of blogging (if you include the facebook origins) I decided I'd like to have a go at editing together some footage of my own. Just a short story, something frivolous. And so, inspired by the Youtube videos of Patrick Boivin I present Spartan-II Review Episode 1
How whimsical. Here is a 'Making of'.
What I like about this Patrick Boivin fellow is that he makes incredibly professional stop motion animation using the resources available to anyone (anyone who can afford a digital camera and a computer). He's also kind enough to show us how he does it:
Flick through his Youtube channel and you'll find a lot of excellent animation, but all of them are missing something: narrative. The majority of Patrick's animated films involve fighting or dancing or skateboarding, but no story beyond the activity taking place. This is a petty criticism considering the quality of his work and bearing in mind they are just short films destined for Youtube, but it's a reminder that story is more important than spectacle - Aardman and Pixar don't win Oscars just for the quality of their animation.
As I have been discovering, shooting and editing footage in stop motion is tricky enough without having to worry about a coherent narrative. My story is simple enough: three toy Halo figures appear in my front room and start watching DVDs, the next few episodes will be a review of a film by each of the cast (I plan to make three more but we'll see how that goes). Animating the figures was straightforward enough but once I separated them from each other and they were no longer all in the same shot, it became problematic. I hope it makes sense that the yellow one climbs up onto the TV and then onto the DVD shelf. Animating it would not have been impossible, just very time consuming. Shooting against a green screen makes it easier but there's no way of knowing how it will tun out, and a lot of work can be for nothing. Ultimately, it's a question of how much time is worth putting in for the end result.
Hopefully I'll finish episode 2 sometime in January. Check out my Youtube channel.
It's not often that I'll give up on a film. I'm the eternal Movie Optimist; I can almost always find something to like about even the worst films. But sometimes a film will defeat me.
Kingdom of Heaven - 2005, Ridely Scott I almost regret not sitting through this one, and one day I might try again because I didn't even make it as far as Edward Norton who I like a lot. I watched the first hour or so on the TV recently, I'm not even sure which version I was watching; the original (and derided) cinematic version or the supposedly much more coherent director's cut (good old Ridely and his director's cuts). It's too easy to blame Orlando Bloom for KOH, even if he is woefully miscast. I don't mean to knock the guy, but there is a definite place for Orlando in the Cinematic world, and the lead role in historical epics is not it. I think the reason I so disliked KOH was because I so adore Troy. Orlando's performance in Troy is awful (along with Eric Bana's) but the whole thing is just the right level of camp for it to work. KOH also has an ensemble cast of famous 'great' actors, but it takes itself very seriously. If you get a load of well respected British actors to grow beards and dress up like knights to deliver po faced performances, it had better be Shakespeare, else it could easily be rubbish.
I'm Not There - 2007, Todd Haynes I can handle pretentious bullshit, sometimes I even like it, but four/five actors all playing 'Bob Dylan' with varying degrees of self satisfaction was too much. A bunch of famous actors sitting around talking out of their arses may actually be the best way to represent the life and works of Dylan, but it ain't half boring.
10,000 BC - 2008, Ronald Emmerich It was a while ago that I watched/abandoned this one and I have almost no memory of it, which is a surprise because I normally have a good memory for film (in place of being able to remember useful things). Something to do with cavemen mumbling to each other about someone who was kidnapped, and maybe a dinosaur. The action sequences were very boring and very expensive looking. It must be a massive disappointment for a director (and his financial backers) to watch the sequences he so carefully storyboarded, shot, and CGI-ed to the max, only to realise that the final shot is desperately uninteresting. 'Oh no' they must cry, 'This is meant to be the good bit'. Some of Ronald's early low budget West German sci-fi films look quite interesting though.
Rocket Science - 2007, Jeffery Blitz Soulless Indie Comedy by the numbers.
The Zombie Diaries - 2006, Kevin Bates and Michael Bartlett Stop getting the Zombie Apocalypse wrong! I love zombie films and the whole Dawn of The Dead zombie scenario in general. In fact, I sometimes fantasise about the dead rising and society falling. I'd relish the zombie Apocalypse, I think I could make it. For this reason I hate it when characters in zombie films start screwing up. I enjoyed The Walking Dead series on FX recently, but I still get annoyed when they get angry and shout at each other. Stop making so much noise. Stop wasting ammo. How could you not notice that zombie slowly staggering toward you?...and so forth. The Zombie Diaries is full of such stuff, but there was something else that put me off. TZD is a low budget British film (something to be applauded and supported) made with (I assume) amateur actors. At least I hope they were amateurs because they were all awful. This is the problem I have with home grown super-low-budget film; bad British actors seem worse than bad actors from other countries because I'm so used to British accents that I can easily tell when someone is 'acting' because it sounds staged and insincere (like the actors on Hollyoaks). Bad acting in non domestic films doesn't seem so bad to me because it's unfamiliar and so doesn't seem so obviously like acting. I suppose a zombie film where everyone creeps around in silence and never loses their heads might not be much fun to watch though.
Known as Otesanek in the Czech Republic (and given the incredibly lame title ‘Greedy Guts’ in some territories), this creepy little film is based on some Eastern European fairytale about a childless couple who, in their desperation to have a baby, raise a tree stump.
It’s not as dynamic as that trailer makes it look, but it’s certainly disturbing (the version I saw on FilmFour had no English dialogue, I assume it was just put on the trailer). An infertile couple are having a miserable time coming to terms with the fact that they will never have children. In an attempt to raise his wife’s spirits the husband presents her with a ‘baby’ fashioned from a tree stump he dug up from the garden of a cabin where they spend their weekends. The wife immediately starts treating the stump like it’s a real child and wraps it up in a blanket to take it home with them. Thus begins the downward spiral of a woman’s passion for motherhood. The wife tells the neighbours she is pregnant and the husband resigns to taking her to the cabin on weekends to see ‘the baby’, until one day, a mothers love (and obsession) brings the stump to life.
Baby Otik is animated by stop motion and puppetry. It’s creepy but it never gets as scary as it threatens to, it’s certainly not gruesome. The part of the film before the stump comes to life is probably the best. The husband’s despair at his wife’s delusion is affecting because it’s so believable. A genuine horror that his wife has gone mad and loves a stump like it’s her own child (what will the neighbours think?). The fantasy elements become more humorous than horrific as the film progresses. The animated sequences and creature effects (such as they are) have clearly been achieved on a budget, but it’s all been very lovingly made, which makes the anticlimactic ending all the more disappointing.
Considering the film was made in the Czech Republic a few years after the break up of Czechoslovakia, there are a couple of interesting subtleties; there is a lot of food in this film. It’s easy to associate Eastern Europe with queues outside shops where food is in short supply. Come to think of it, the use of food in Little Otik isn’t really very subtle at all; probably a comment on the other base human compulsion after reproduction – feeding. Otik’s a hungry baby, so hungry in fact that nothing and no one edible is safe.
I know there’s a lot more to the history of the former soviet block than rationing, but the shortage of food seems to have had an effect on the psyche of these film makers; there’s a lot of goulash in Lille Otik. Also, when Little Otik’s appetite extends to include a craving for human flesh and people start disappearing, there is a moment where they might be making a comment on the bad old days. I don’t know how bad Czechoslovakia was as far as other post war Soviet states, but there were at least a few purges apparently.
On the whole it’s a good one, but don’t watch it if you’re pregnant.
There are a handful of authors who are, or have been, very popular in Hollywood. Top of the list is Stephen King who has a list of media based on his works as long as both his arms and growing. King’s ‘great work’ the Dark Tower series will inevitably be adapted for film or TV or both.
The late Michael Crichton was equally prolific and would no doubt still be writing for the screen if he were still alive and now Dennis Lehane is setting himself up as the next Crichton (with less science fiction): Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, a couple of episodes of The Wire and of course 2010’s warm up to Inception; Shutter Island.
I can only assume that it is a coincidence that two films were released within a few weeks of each other, both starring Leonardo DiCaprio and both having such a strong ‘it’s a film about films’ vibe. SI is an ode to classic 40’s thrillers and mysteries, Inception a tribute to Hollywood movie convention and a demonstration of how it doesn’t have to be all bad. Inception is of course open to, and subject of, intense debate about its meaning. A lot of people tired of the praise, then the backlash, and the following argument (summed up best here), but I’ll never tire of Inception or the great debate.
Shutter Island was lauded as a great film and rightly so, but it was never the beneficiary/victim of as much hype as Nolan’s film and so never sparked much debate. The other thing about Shutter Island is, without giving too much away, it is not open to interpretation. It’s a mystery, but all is revealed unambiguously at the end.
It’s precisely because it is not open ended that SI is so entertaining. Scorcese’s not-so-subtle-but-not-quite-obvious touches compel the audience to really pay attention. Some of the necessary elements that allow the viewer to form a theory about what is really going on are a tad obvious, but this is definitely a film that warrants a second viewing to go back and spot all the clues.
SI is one of the best ‘spooky thrillers’ I’ve seen (I’m desperately trying to think of a similar film...The Others maybe?) DiCaprio’s character’s motivation is clear and his behaviour is believable. I find that the most annoying thing about a lot of thrillers and horrors is the unbelievable or inconsistent way the protagonist behaves, all for the sake of moving the story forward of setting up the shocks, doing dangerous or ill judged things for no reason. In SI, all the secrecy and strangeness that surrounds Leo compels him to probe deeper into the events on the island, putting himself at greater risk, but not without reason.
I found to be a Shutter Island is a satisfying film. Some may think that the big twist at the end is either predictable or unoriginal, and they’d have a point, but they’d also be missing the point. Shutter Island is a popcorn movie. It’s a big budget studio picture starring an A-Lister in the lead and directed by a successful and well established director, and it’s as good as such movies get.
I suppose the only negative is the ‘they had too much money to spend’ factor that can effect films nowadays. The film looks very good but it’s very obvious that a lot of shots were filmed in front of a green screen.
The theory behind extensive green screen shooting is that it is cheaper to create stunning exterior locations digitally. Why bother scouting a location then setting up a shoot and waiting for just the right light when The Magic Hour can be created on a computer? It’s good, but not completely believable. It doesn’t detract from the experience, but there are a couple of scenes that look out of place because of the awkward transition from location to studio within the same scene. This is just nitpicking, Shutter Island is well worth a watch, and proof (as if it was needed) that Scoresese can do more than just Gangster Montage. It would be interesting to see what Guillermo del Toro would have made of it.
NB. It’s very easy to mistype the title of this film.
I often count myself lucky that I went to school before WEB 2.0
Can anyone remember what the hell they did online before Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia? I have a vague memory of reading funny stories on poorly designed websites that my dial up connection could download without too much trouble, and trying to find a decent NBA news website.
Enough has been written about the internet and its effect on kids to fill a thousand blogs, so I’ll keep my observations brief:
I’m sure that if I was in year seven or eight at school today, I would be a huge Facebook bully. I’ve never experienced any aspect of cyber-bullying, but I think it would have appealed a lot to me as a youth. The internet seems to have created a two-tear system of bullying. Poor rough kids don’t have the internet so they bully kids at school. Nice middle class kids have the internet so they bully other kids online, sometimes they don’t even do it anonymously. I was a nice little boy at school, and my educational experience was a pleasant one, but if I had had the opportunity to live out a second life, to carry out online whatever petty adolescent vengeance I may have harboured, who knows how I might have turned out.
Rob, the central character in Afterschool, is a nice upper middle class boy who has become an internet voyeur. He doesn’t need to do any bullying; he is satisfied just to watch. He likes to watch violent porn and real videos of school kids fighting. The internet allows him to become withdrawn and detached without getting bored or feeling like he’s missing out on much.
The well-to-do mixed boarding school where Afterschool is set is populated with teenagers who appear not to really like each other, but this may just be Rob’s perception. Rob is a bit of an outcast but he’s not completely friendless, he still manages to pull a nice girl, but no one else he hang’s about with seem like they care for him much.
Whilst shooting some footage for a video arts class, Rob is the only witness to the drug induced death of two beautiful senior twins who are the most popular girls in school. Their death is caught on tape. The bulk of Afterschool follows Rob as his video project becomes a memorial to the girls, officially sanctioned by the staff.
The popularity of the twins and the way the staff at the school turned a blind eye to their drug use, and that of other pupils, is a subtle critique of the way glamour and any level of celebrity is seductive, even to those who should know better. Specifically in the way the staff put the reputation of the school above the wellbeing of the pupils. Rob’s failing is that he is a voyeur, but this is no greater fault than of those who find glory by mere association with the popular twins.
The only character who seems to have a shred of sincerity is the school counsellor, but to begin with he seems creepier than the other members of staff because he’s so keen to talk to Rob about his thoughts. This reflects the modern notion that any adult who displays any concern about the wellbeing of a child should be treated with suspicion.
Reviews for Afterschool are very mixed. It’s a slow film, but it’s incredibly atmospheric. Very uneasy from beginning to end, it’s very well shot and directed; one of the best debut films I’ve seen. Scenes are often framed with the actors just out of shot and with an economy of camera movement that reflects Rob’s apparent detachment from the world, even when he is involved in a very serious situation. The young cast provide understated and believable performances.
The original cinematic cut of the film was 107 minutes long. Unfortunately the DVD version (the one available on LoveFilm at least) is 142 minutes long. The slow pace is therefore drawn out to a degree that makes parts of the film a tad boring. I enjoyed and recommend it, but I’d definitely prefer to watch the shorter version if I get the change to see it again.
Antonio Campos hasn't made any other films since. I hope he has something in the works though, as he’s clearly one to watch.
Tokyo Story – 1953, Yasujiro Ozu (136 min) Memories of Matsuko – 2006, Tetsuya Nakashima (130min) Tokyo Sonata – 2008, Kiyoshi Kurosawa (120 min)
The very dapper Yasujir Ozu was a prominent Japanese film maker who achieved recognition outside Japan only after his death. His films are placed on the shelf labelled ‘Masterpieces’ along with the work of Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard et all.
The biggest criticism that is ever made of Ozu is that no one can tell one of his movies from another, and this is never made scathingly, it seems more of an observation of the fact that all of his films are equally outstanding. There’s no doubting it, Ozu could frame a shot. Every shot in every scene of Tokyo Story is a perfect composition. When reproduced in greyscale, Jan Vermeer’s 17th century oil The Art Of Painting is very reminiscent of Ozu’s style.
(well La-Di-Da)
Equally remarkably, Ozu’s camera almost never moves (there is one tracking shot in Tokyo Story and no pans as far as I recall) and interior shots are almost always from waist height (because everyone’s sitting on the floor). This humble minimalism makes Ozu’s films seems alien and creates the impression that his films have an immense sense of ‘Japanesenes’ to them, when in fact, as far as Tokyo Story goes, the story and characters are completely universal.
This film is about an elderly couple who travel to Tokyo to visit their children and grandchildren. They spend their time trying not to inconvenience their children, who in turn make little effort to spend any time with their elderly parents who have made a long trip to see them. Lack of respect for one's elders and unconditional love for one's children are the themes.
Clearly sad and bleak by design, but I found it hard to tell if the elderly couple who are the central characters were supposed to be comical. They maintain the same puzzled expressions throughout, even during the gloomy conclusion. The other character of most prominence is their daughter in law who was widowed when her husband went missing, presumed dead during the war. She also maintains the same expression almost the whole time, her's a face that always smiles politely even when she is dying inside.
She is genuinely tragic, maintaining a strangely optimistic acceptance that her life is already over.
I suppose I’d recommend Tokyo Story, but I won’t be seeking out any of Ozu’s other work any time soon. That said, as one of the giants of Japanese cinema, his influence presides over a lot Japanese film I’ve seen. Even violent and horrific Japanese films have moments of utter calm and tranquillity than can perhaps be traced back to him. He is an observer. His camera gives us the view of a silent character in his film sat on the floor like everyone else. There is no escape in his films.
This film is basically a pantomime, a film that want’s to be a pop video. To me this films appears to have been made by westerners trying to make a Japanese style film. Some scenes are actualy pop videos intentionally, but all the quirky stuff detracts from the drama, so by the end it’s straining to strike an emotional chord. Some bits are very funny but they come at the expense of the drama...like it’s worried about taking itself too seriously.
Memories of Matsuko is very imaginative and the director has clearly brought his vision to life with a relatively small budget, however...
This film is basically ‘Japanese Bullshit’. If you surf the web a lot you’ll be familiar with Japanese Bullshit and probably have your own interpretation of what is bullshit and what isn’t. I’m often the first to defend a lot of films that might be considered bullshit. And a lot of Japanese stuff isn’t Bullshit in my opinion, but increasingly, there things that come out of Japan that are held up as examples of excellent art/film/whatever that are, in fact, bullshit. I strive to keep my blog free of my cynical and ill-conceived opinions on modern culture, so I’ll stop ranting now, but I will point you in the direction of this slideshow on the overrated Japanese artist Yoshitomo Nara.
Tokyo Sonata is a film that is exactly what I expected, yet still entertaining. This film is about the interesting phenomenon of Japanese salary-men who are laid off but don’t tell their families. The leave home every day as if they were going to work. ‘Sonata’ is about one such guy who can’t bear to tell his family the truth, yet is infuriated by the lies his wife and children tell.
Just as slow as Story but the fact the camera actually moves makes it more interesting. In this sense the film serves as a critique of Ozu’s style, there can be such a thing as too much stillness, particularly when so many scenes take place in a domestic setting. The lead actor (who has a small role in MOM) is really good. In fact the whole cast are good. This film contrast very well with Tokyo Story (they would make two halves of an excruciating double feature) showing the difference between Japan today and of 50 years ago. No one will ever call it a masterpiece, but it looks good and the camerawork compliments the pace of the story. The humour comes across better in this one, probably because it’s more contemporary and less confusing.
Tokyo Sonata is a film about deceit within a family. Tokyo Story is a film about a family growing apart. Both are good.
I recently watched Charly (1968, Ralph Nelson) which is an adaptation of the little known sci-fi novel Flowers for Algernon.
It’s not Space Opera, and it was set during the time of writing, but it qualifies as sci-fi through the use of fictional medical techniques. Reading the synopsis of the novel you’d think it sounded like a strange one to adapt into a film; retarded man undergoes a medical experiment that makes him incredibly intelligent, but emotionally detached from the rest of the world, the results are only temporary and he finally lapses back into a child like state of mind.
But then I found out the driving force behind the film was Cliff Robertson, the lead actor whose portrayal of the titular Charly won him the best actor Oscar in 1968. I’m not absolutely sure but maybe this was the fist example of Oscar success attained through playing a retard (without, of course, going ‘Full Retard’). Cliff is more recognisable as Peter Parker’s uncle Ben in the Spiderman films (I always thought it was that guy from Highway to Heaven).
Charly has the same kind of vibe to it as a film called Bigger Than Life in that it’s well made on a modest but not tiny budget, and without attempting to cause too much controversy, it deliberately questions the state of contemporary American society. Charly plays it completely straight throughout, although the following ‘drug-fuelled-bender’ sequence from the middle of the film is very out of place;
A clear example of a director stepping out if his depth.
There have in fact been eight adaptations of Flowers for Algernon and according to Wikipedia there is one in the works with Will Smith in the lead role (you’ll win that Oscar yet Big Wille).
This got me thinking about a few sci-fi novels I’ve read that would make good films;
Galaxies Like Grains of Sand, 1960 by Brian Aldiss This is a collection of short stories, a lot of sci fi novels, including Flower For Algernon started out as shorts published in science fiction periodicals. Each story is set farther into the future than the last, following the evolution of mankind, much like Olaf Stapledon’s First and Last Men, only GLGOF doesn’t make the mistake of trying to predict the near future and getting it very wrong.
I think this particular collection would suit the ‘Animatrix’ style treatment that has become slightly popular. A series of short animated films set in a particular universe is a medium that worked well for Batman and Halo....speaking of which....
Ringworld , 1970 by Larry Niven If you’ve played any of the Halo games you’ll be familiar with the concept of a Ringworld; an artificial ring so vast that the surface area of the inner face is a million times greater that of the surface of the Earth, at the centre of the ring is a star. The titular constructions from the Halo series are the same idea but on a smaller scale without a central sun. The best sci-fi novels are the ones which have the most imaginative ideas and Niven’s most famous work is full of them. Science fiction writing is often categorised (somewhat unfortunately) as ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ depending upon how closely the laws of physics are adhered to and how accurate the use of known technological constraints are. In the wake of Avatar, the sci-fi epic is in vogue again, but I don’t thing Ringworld will likely be adapted anytime soon for the reason expressed in the following equation:
If someone wants to adapt an ambitious story about large artificial ring shaped orbital bodies, they’re probably going to pick the far more recent and popular property.
The Forever War, 1974 by Joe Halderman Joe Halderman was drafted and served in Vietnam, while he was there he may have read Starship Troopers. When he returned to the States he wrote The Forever War based upon his experience of returning as a veteran of an unpopular war. In the novel, the protagonist boards a star ship to fly off and engage an alien enemy light-years from earth, then makes the return trip. Though only a few months have passed from his perspective, due to relativity and all that jazz, 10 years have passed on earth and nothing is the same as it was when he left. This one was apparently close to being made by Ridely Scott, but he’s working on the Alien prequels now.
Neuromancer, 1984 by William Gibson I recommend this novel the most, and would most like to see it faithfully adapted. A lot of this one has already made to the big screen in a round-about way. Neuromancer is set in a future Earth known as The Sprawl, Gibson wrote a three novels and a collection of short stories set there. One of the shorts ‘Jonny Mnemonic’ became a 1995 film staring Keanu Reeves (the character Jonny is referenced in Neuromancer). A few years later the Wachowski brothers wrote The Matrix, which for all its originality ‘borrowed’ extensively from various sci-fi sources (in Neuromancer the central character is a guy who plugs his brain into a huge computer network called ‘The Matrix’). The whole cyberpunk thing started with Gibson.
The Forge of God, 1987 by Greg Bear I mentioned this one in my last post. The Forge of God is good, if slightly depressing story about the destruction of the Earth by robots from outer space. ‘Knowing’ and ‘2012’ have pretty much covered the whole destruction of the earth theme, so a similar film probably won’t be made in a while which is a shame as ‘Forge’ would have made a far better film than either of them. I didn’t care much for the sequel novel ‘Anvil of Stars’ though.
Felon – 2008, Ric Roman Waugh What was the last prison drama that didn’t go straight to DVD? Probably the one staring Robert Redford and James Gandolfini. Oh, and A Prophet. And that Brazilian one... OK, so a lot of prison dramas do get a cinema release, but for each one of those there must be at least ten prison dramas starring JCVD or Steven Seagal or Ving Rhames that are destined straight for Blockbuster Video. ‘Felon’ is better than the typical straight to DVD prison romp. Very well made considering the tight budget and featuring good performances from Val Kilmer and, surprisingly, Mr Bad Boyfriend himself Stephen Dorff.
Over The Top – 1987, Menahem Golan Mr Golan directed a whole load of films, including everyone’s favourite Chuck Norris film The Delta Force (which is well worth checking out, B-Movie fans). Over The Top is basically Rocky with Arm wrestling. There’s less focus on training, more on trucking and the relationship Sylvester Stallone’s character has with his son. Sly’s character is very understated in this one, kind of like the big softy John Rambo might have been if only General Troutman hadn’t chipped away at that special stone in order to reveal the ultimate killing machine within.
Run Lola Run – 1998, Tom Tykwer I should like it but I don’t. It’s a good idea, and it’s always good when a film is bold and mixes it up like this film does, but...I just can’t put my finger on what I don’t like about this film. It’s got a dated German-nes about it that is best summed up by Moritz Bleibtreu’s face:
Unbreakable – 2000, M. Night Shyamalam My favourite M. Night Shalamawhatever film. It’s very predictable, in fact if finishes so abruptly after the twist at the end it seems like he knew it was so predictable and it would be better not to dawdle. But I still like everything about it. The whole ‘tell a story about comic book heroes but in a realistic way’ has gotton old over the last ten years which is a shame. Maybe when everyone grows bored of the Iron Man/Avengers movies that are surely going to peak over the next couple of years, there will be another film like Unbreakable.
Capricorn One – 1978, Peter Hymas Josh Brolin’s dad James plays the lead in this thriller about a faked mission to land men on Mars and the effort to cover it up. The story is good, but the film could have been so much better. The plot seems very underwritten and it gets a bit confusing towards the end due to bad editing; it’s hard to tell if some events that tale place are supposed to be occurring concurrently. The pacing of the final act is a bit off as well, Hymas’ later film Outland suffers in the same way. Nice little turn by Telly Savalas though. O J Simpson was a strange casting choice.
Idiocracy – 2006, Mike Judge As you may already know, Mike Judge is the guy behind ‘Beavis and Butthead’ and ‘King of The Hill’. He also made the very popular (but in my opinion overrated) ‘Office Space’, and more recently a film called ‘Extract’ starring the almost-ubiquitous Jason Bateman. The films and TV shows that Judge makes tend to divide people. I’ve never been a massive fan of anything he’s been involved in, but I am very keen on Idiocracy. This film was criminally under promoted by a studio that got cold feet. This film isn’t really very profound or controversial, but its’ intelligent critique of the dumbing down of society was enough worry the wrong people, and it was all but shelved. It’s original and funny and thoughtful at the same time, I highly recommend it.
Days of Heaven – 1976 Terrence Malick OK, I get it now. Terrence is an excellent director. His films are massively self indulgent, and yet they turn out well. I’ve watched my share of worthy-ass-films and I’d say that Days Of Heaven just about beats them all insofar as it has a loose plot that appears to have come together during the edit (a-la Wong Kar Wai) is beautifully shot in an amazing location (Wim Wenders) and has a dream like quality without being a fantasy (Peter Weir). I suppose being American meant Malick got a lot more recognition that the others...shame he doesn’t make more films.
Conan The Destroyer – 1984, Richard Fliescher Not a patch on the first one, although this one does have a tongue in cheek tone that is far more suited to the whole crazy violent fantasy that takes place. It makes Conan The Barbarian appear to take itself too seriously, but I still think ‘Barbarian’ hits the nail on the head. This one is far more Swords and Sorcery with a bigger ensemble cast of misfit fantasy types; Virginal Princess, Amazonian Warrior Woman, Comic Relief Sidekick and Really Tall Dude (NBE legend Wilt Chamberlain) who’s a good guy, but obviously going to have a fight with Arnie at some point. I think Schwarzenegger spends more time with his shirt off in this film that any other. The Conan tradition of abusing animals continues.
Basic Instinct – 1992, Paul Verhoeven Paul Verhoeven is an excellent director and worthy of a lot more credit than he gets. Paul is all about excess, mainly excess violence; Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers. But in Basic Instinct he’s all about excess drama. This film basically screams ‘I AM AN EROTIC THRILLER Y’ALL’ at the top of it’s lungs for 127 minutes. I watched it for the first time and I was surprised at how much I liked it. If ever a film was dragged down by brief flash of minge, this is it. It may never have been as successful without it, but it has detracted from the films legacy, even though it doesn’t detract from the film itself. It’s testament to Verheoven’s skill as a director that he can make a film where a bird showing her clunge doesn’t seem out of place. I wonder if there’s a special edition somewhere that has a freeze frame so you don’t have to bother pausing it?
Actually it’s Hiroshima the comic book. Barefoot Gen was written by Keiji Nakazawa who was born in Hiroshima in 1939 and survived the atomic bomb. He wrote Barefoot Gen which was published in Japan between 1973 and 1985 and was based upon his experiences of growing up in wartime, the atomic bomb, radiation poisoning and post-war Japan.
Lots of Japanese manga comics are adapted into feature length animated films. They tend to be as good as the source material, the best ones receiving international cinema release, or at the very least an English dub video release. This can be used as a barometer of which manga are the best and which are the most culturally important in Japan, where comics are more widely read that anywhere else. The importance of Barefoot Gen is demonstrated by the number of adaptations; at least one TV drama, three live action films and two animated films based on the various volumes of the manga.
The first animated film is probably the most widely seen internationally, deservingly so. It starts off as a happy tale about Gen and his family living during The War; rationing, air raids, mucking in and getting by reminiscent of the fondly remembered wartime spirit that arose during The Blitz. There’s lots of fun and japes with most of the humour derived from the fact that Gen and his younger brother are so hungry all the time. The proud Japanese work ethic is espoused through Gen’s hardworking parents.
When the bomb is dropped the tone changes dramatically. The second half of the film makes for grim, almost difficult watching, but it’s incredibly compelling. After he is left alone to care for his pregnant mother, Gen remembers his father’s words and works tirelessly for her, coming up against all the horrors that came in the aftermath of ‘Little Boy’.
Barefoot Gen is an important story about an important subject. The cultural impact that two atomic bombs will have on a nation is a topic too significant for any mere blogger to attempt to cover or even summarise in a single post. The same goes for the subject of how comics can help a society express its shared but unspoken thoughts and emotions.
I will however muse upon the effect of nuclear war on a certain niche of Japanese comics and animated films. Barefoot Gen is explicitly about the bombing of Hiroshima, but another famous and successful amine is certainly inspired by the Japanese post-war experience; Akira.
Akira is a film about change. In the film there is political unrest in Japan, the government is almost powerless, and mankind itself may be on the verge of some kind of evolution. The film’s climax is the mutation of Tetsuo into a huge mass of pulsating flesh (famously parodied in a certain South Park episode).
But on a deeper level Akira is about the change each generation notices in the next. The generation born in Japan in the 40s and 50s were malnourished and downtrodden, but they worked hard after the war and were able to see their children live in much better times. The difference physically between the two generations was remarkable. Imagine if almost every child born in a generation grew to be considerably bigger and stronger than their parents. Daunting to say the least, and this has had an effect on Japan culturally, the best evidence of this (in my opinion) is Akira.
A lot of Japanese animation is worthless guff about lesbian schoolgirls, but the good stuff is really worth checking out. It’s a shame that it’s so easy to dismiss due to the bad first impression it often makes; there’s a lot more to Ghost In The Shell than just a naked bird with big tits running around shooting people, but I’ve given up trying to explain that to people at parties.
I know that Jean-Claude Van Damme’s films are crap, but I still like them. I don’t feel I have to excuse myself for watching bad films anymore, I’m such a movie optimist that I’ll watch almost anything that I think might have a single redeeming feature. I can always find something to like. This is the attitude that allowed me to watch AWOL and Fighting within a couple of days of each other. Obviously Fighting is about fighting, and any film starring JCVD is going to have a lot of fighting in it, but I was surprised at just how similar these films are.
The following summarises the basic plot of both movies: The leading tough guy gets involved in a fight whilst trying to make some money. A small time hustler sees him in action and tells him that he could make a lot of dough if he had the right manager. The badass main character is reluctant at first, but his increasingly desperate situation and the lure of a large payday are enough to make him fight ‘Just this one time’. The fight is arranged in a seedy location full of seedy types, yet lots of rich classy folk are there too, betting large sums of money on the outcome of the fights. Looks like there’s some kind of underground bare knuckle boxing taking place. Our hero wins against a seemingly unbeatable foe and pockets the cash, stating ‘No more fighting’. We are lead to the predictable showdown with the ultimate bad guy. Along the way some bird and her young daughter get involved and become the beneficiarys of the main characters underground fighting. The last big fight is surely un-winnable, but with the odds against him, our hero comes out on top, and makes loads of money after betting on himself.
Watching these films it’s clear that Fighting is the least awful (like a low-key Rocky without the training montages), though both have the same basic elements. Fighting benefits from over 30 years of crappy action films; it’s far better informed. Today’s Cheesy Bullshit is far better made than that of the 80s/90s action heyday. But taking AWOL into context as a film that’s now twenty years old, it’s actually no worse then Fighting. The newer film has better developed characters and a (slightly) more believable story (though there’s nothing fantastical taking place in either) but the real difference is aesthetic.
In Fighting almost everyone is stylish and handsome, even when they’re rolling around on the floor fighting in the style of MMA / UFC fighters that has become fashionable in modern films. I know Kung Fu fighting is unrealistic, but it looks better that the real thing. Fighting is dripping with ‘urban chic’ or whatever you call it. The glamorous lifestyle the target audience aspire to is on screen; ‘hoes’ and ‘clubs’ and ‘hip pop’ (far more attention is paid to the soundtrack of such films nowadays). And the hero gets the girl of course, by which I mean he nails her. This is the least noticeable evolution in the action type film; the good guy doesn’t just save the girl, he has sex with her and we get to watch. When did Stallone or Schwarzenegger or JCVD actually get laid in any of their films?
Films like this aren’t supposed to be anything other than entertaining, like all of JCVD’s films (with the exception of JCVD) AWOL isn’t looking for anyone’s respect. Fighting on the other hand is so careful to avoid the slightest hint of ‘goofiness’ that has the air of a film that takes itself too seriously (I’d hate to think the people behind Fighting thought they had another Raging Bull on their hands). Everything about Jean-Claude is goofy, from the lump on his forehead to his incredibly high waistline into which he forever tucks his shirt (necessary for all those crotch defying high kicks). JCVD watch anyone?
Perhaps I just begrudge the fact that the action films I grew up with and so adore have aged badly, and while modern audiences only appreciated them in that ironic post 80’s way, I still hold some of them in the same regard as ‘good’ films, perhaps for all the wrong reasons.
Hmm...I’m suddenly reminded of how long it’s been since I went to the cinema.
Until I watched and then read up on Witness, I couldn’t name an Australian director other than Baz Luhrmann (wait... Phillip Noyce, he’s one too) . This is an injustice to other Australian directors. Luhrmann has only made about four films, his most recent being the poorly received love letter to Hugh Jackman ‘Australia’
Peter Weir has made thirteen films at a consistent rate of one every three years or so since his debut in 1974. If you check out his filmography you’ll recognise a few of them and have probably seen at least one.
Years ago I borrowed a book about screenwriting from my mate Geoff. It was full of interesting stuff about structure and pace and character and whatnot and the author frequently cited Peter Wier’s Witness as an example of how things should be done. Witness, Witness, Witness all the way through, so I finally got round to watching it. Afterwards I though I’d dig on Weir for a while, particularly because his upcoming film looks interesting in an Oscar baiting kind of way:
Weir was part of the ‘New Wave’ of Australian cinema (how many New Waves have there been, has every country had one?). According to Wikipedia, this particular wave started in 1971, lasted for almost twenty years and included the first two Crocodile Dundee films. Excellent as Paul Hogan’s Dundee films are (the first is still the highest grossing Australian film, take that Baz), I would say that the Aussie New Wave begins in 1974 with Weir’s ‘The Cars That Ate Paris’ and ends in 1981 with his WWI film ‘Galipolli’.
‘The Cars That Ate Paris’ is about a small town full of creepy hicks who cause car accidents then profit from the scrap industry and perform some questionable medical research on the survivors. It’s a very independently minded film but not completely avant-garde
There’s a conventional narrative taking place concerning one of the would-be victims, although a lot of things are left mysterious and open for the audience to speculate about what’s going on. Very much a film made by a director finding his feet it’s a tad disjointed, like two different films with competing ideas; a cross between Mad Max (lots of raggedy young men driving around in knackered cars) and a David Lynch film (strange, sinister characters getting up to unexplained and immoral activities). Creepy in the way only rural Australia can be.
And so many cars! The film is clearly a low budget indie affair but they managed to coble together loads of old motors, working and wrecked. You’d think the outback was full of them. This film predates Mad Max by five years but it may have had some kind of influence.
Filmed in New South Wales, most of the TCTAP takes place in a familiar, dusty outback type of town, but it starts off in a very green almost English Country Landscape. The opening sequence is deliberately idealised, shot like some kind of satire of TV advertising which contrasts the rest of the film quite well.
If someone had said to me before I had watched this film “Imagine an Australian Cult Classic from 1974” I might have pictured something pretty close to this. While it’s certainly original and interesting, it’s not particularly remarkable. There are lots of nice touches and the cast are very believable (they certainly look the part), but it’s a bit unsatisfying that so much goes unexplained. Wier clearly wasn’t interested in making a conventional film; he took the freedom that independent production brings and ran with it, which is always commendable.
Next, Weir made the critically acclaimed adaptation of the Australian novel ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock’. A dream within a dream long before Inception, but not literally about dreams, in fact it’s as far removed from Inception as a film can be. Again it feels like two films in one; the opening act is dreamy and free flowing, almost as though Weir shot it to be viewed while listening to Lou Reed’s ‘Perfect Day’, then the film takes a dramatic turn and becomes a slightly sinister mystery which is compelling enough even without the backdrop of Victorian schoolgirl erotic awakening(!). Again a lot is open to interpretation though this probably comes from the source material as much as Weir’s own input.
PAHR is one of Australia’s most culturally important films, they screen it every Valentine’s day at Hanging Rock apparently. The Blu-Ray I watched features a two hour documentary on the film, longer than the film itself (I admit I didn’t watch much of it). I was reminded a little of The White Ribbon, Weir’s film is no where near as dark or disturbing, but it has the same theme of children being treated very strictly by repressed adults.
Like TCTAP, ‘Picnic’ demonstrates that no matter how much soul a film has, almost every movie benefits from having a well rounded story. From here on the films that Weir made were far more conventional, probably due to the pressure that came with larger budgets, but then again doesn’t every film maker want to tell a story? I don’t think Weir abandoned his youthful artistry when he went on to make his recent ‘popcorn’ movies; he just wanted to make a bigger emotional impact. He certainly succeeded with Gallipoli.
Based upon the Australian involvement in the Gallipoli Campaign (where the British Empire and the French landed on the Turkish coast with the intention of capturing the Ottoman capital) most of the film follows a couple of Western Australians who volunteer to go to war. A young Mel Gibson plays one of them in his first role after Mad Max (there’s something about the young Mel that I’m not too keen on. I much prefer the older, craggier, mullet sporting Mel). The ‘War Film’ bit only happens at the end, it’s more of a ‘Going to War’ film.
It’s quite a big film, shot almost entirely outdoors, mainly in deserts, with Port Lincoln doubling for the Turkish coast. Yet after having seen ‘Saving Private Ryan’ et all, Gallipoli is refreshingly un-epic. This is mainly because of the small budget (it was still only an Australian film remember, made before Crocodile Dundee) but less is definitely more. As I think I’ve mentioned in a previous post, the sign of a good director is that they can do a lot with limited money and resources. The music also takes away from the grandness of the film, there are a couple of dramatic moments that play out to the sound of orchestral strings, but some of the score is slightly lame, particularly the bits by Jean Michel Jarre, which are very out of place.
Like PAHR, parts of Gallipoli take place in upper-class turn of the century Australia. This is a side of Australia that has rarely been shown on screen ever since Mick Dundee appeared on the scene to cement the Australian Stereotype in the minds of a cinema-going generation world wide.
Peter Weir co-wrote this one and was involved with the project from the beginning, whilst it is a far more conventional film that his earlier efforts, it still has a uniqueness to it. It’s not at all a Hollywood film (unlike the films Weir made afterwards) although the drama is strained a little at the end, and there is some historical inaccuracy, all for the sake of a big climax. But the rest of the film is good enough for these failings to be forgivable.
After Gallipoli, Weir and Mel teamed up again for ‘The Year Of Living Dangerously’ which I’ve not seen but it appears to have been the stepping stone to Hollywood for both of them. Weir made ‘Witness’ next, his first film made entirely outside Australia, and with an already established lead; Harrison Ford.
It’s not a bad film. The performances are all good, particularly from the guy who played Karl in Die Hard. It’s exactly the type of film someone might point out as well crafted, particularly from a screenwriter’s perspective.
It’s about a tough city cop who has to hide out in an Amish community (fish out of water). While there he falls for an Amish woman, who falls for him too, but because of the circumstances they can’t act on their impulses (forbidden love). The cop comes to appreciate the peaceful, non-violent way of life on the farm (light-hearted comedy set pieces) and becomes a father figure to the Amish woman’s young son (feel good bonding moments). When the bad guys track the cop down and show up at the farm, the cop has to prove that sometimes, violence is necessary (dramatic climax and possible subliminal message about how firearms are necessary for home protection and every true American should own one).
It seems that Weir had little input beyond directing. An original screenplay, but unoriginal in the sense that it is almost a film by numbers. A typical Hollywood screenplay; written by a screen writer whose first concern is to write screenplays that sell, then re-written by other professional screen writers who work for the studio. Once they’ve got a script they’re all happy with, the studio goes looking for a star whose name they can stick on the poster, and a critically acclaimed yet inexpensive director who want’s to make a film in Hollywood.
I’m sure Weir applies the same enthusiasm and artistic intention to each of his films, but he is proof that not even great directors can always defy The Studio. Studio scripts or studio friendly adaptations produced by the studios rely on the passion and skill of the director to maintain the integrity of the initial concept. Hopefully Weir's ability and vision will be evident in ‘The Way Back’.
1982 was a vintage year for films, these are a few of my favourites;
Tron – Stephen Lisberger All Pixar slapstick humour comes from here. That’s quite a statement but it’s clearly evident from a particular sequence about half way through Tron in which Jeff Bridge is trying to fly the broken down space invader thing. He is accompanied by a ‘byte’, a floating spark/ball thing that can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Jeff comically flies the ship through the Tron landscape crashing into things, having a funny back and forth with his little sidekick, until he ultimately breaks his ship into pieces. It’s a well timed comedy sequence with the perfect rhythm that seems to be facilitated by the medium of 3D animation. Timing, like scaling, is easier in 3D than 2D. The speed at which something is animated can be timed perfectly in 3D animation; physical comedy can be easily animated to the millisecond before the final rendering of the image is created. A gag can be viewed from multiple angles and the funniest one chosen whereas traditional 2D animation relies on the director making the right choice to begin with. Looking forward to the sequel.
The Dark Crystal – Jim Henson and Frank Oz The Dark Crystal is an amazing achievement. I’m tempted to say it’s on the same level as Peter Jackson’s Lord of The Rings trilogy and Avatar as far as the creation of a wholly realised ‘other world’ goes. Of course the most impressive thing is that it was made in the pre-digital age that I’m always harping on about; the cast is made up entirely of puppets, who occupy a detailed and ‘believable’ planet that was painstakingly created. I’m sure there were budgetary restrictions but it’s hard to tell, which is testament to the skill and ingenuity of the people who made it. Watching a childhood favourite again as an adult can often be disappointing, but when I saw it recently I was able to appreciate all the details that I missed as a child. In particular the villains of the film are incredibly compelling; they are more interesting and ‘fleshed out’ than the protagonist or any of the other good guys. I hope they get round to making a sequel, or even a remake.
Conan The Barbarian – John Millius It took me a while to realise it but this is one of my favourite films. I must have watched it least once a year for the last ten years, not because I decided to it, but because whenever it’s on TV, I can’t help but watch. By far one of the most quotable of Arnie’s films, but some of the best lines belong to James Earl Jones. James camps it up to the max in his ridiculous wig, but he adds incredible dramatic weight to the film. He’s one of the few actors to portray a worthy nemesis to the big Austrian.
This was Schwarzenegger’s seventh film but his career basically started here. It’s as though the Conan creation story (as presented in this cinematic adaptation) is a metaphor for the life of Arnold himself; born into a poor family who lived in great hardship, perhaps in the wake of a great war, Conan’s youth is stolen from him as he is forced by a seemingly uncaring authority to become greater than his peers in every way. Conan embraces this life and eventually achieves physical greatness unparalleled by any man. Conan’s body becomes his life and livelihood, until he is freed, possibly against his will, and forced to flee to a far off land to take what he can from life. He is reduced to a petty thief, but eventually becomes the biggest thief there is (in every respect) before he finally settled into a position of power, ruler of a great land, feared and respected in equal measure.
Rocky III – Sylvester Stallone I live my life by the mantra of Clubber Lang: ‘I train alone, and I fight alone, and I win alone’ Hard words from a hard man. In my eyes there is no debate as to which is the best Rocky film (Rocky IV), but the ground was laid with number III; Fight, Training Montage, Fight. Rocky III has a greater legacy than most give it credit for. The Karate Kid and all it’s imitators follow in III’s footsteps. Far from taking the great Rocky and dragging him through the mud, Stallone achieved a kind of cinematic purity with III and IV. Like Stallone’s physique, these films were trimmed of all fat and honed to perfection.
First Blood – Ted Kotcheff Ditto. Stallone made his big comeback with The Expendables, which I enjoyed, but it was far too experienced, it lacked the joyful rage of the Rambo films. I suppose after taking us to a darker place with John Rambo (Rambo IV) Sly wanted to make a more complete and contemporary picture. The Expendables would have benefited from having a simpler story with less emphasis on character development. In fact, if I could create my dream cinematic pairing it would be Stallone directed by Terrence Mallick. Screw conventional narrative and dialogued, all we need is to be able to tell basically what’s going on and watch incredible scenes of Stallone destroying the landscape. Such a film would truly be thunderous and stately.
Wong Kar-wai is a Chinese film maker whose films encapsulate the whole ‘overrated Asian art house film’ thing that I for one have a bit of trouble with. He makes critically acclaimed films that make you doubt yourself for not recognising that they are works of cinematic genius and majesty.
At first viewing I’ve not been too impressed with the films of Wong Kar-wai, but the more I find out about them the more I appreciate them. Like a true auteur he doesn’t make films using anything as conventional as a script. He has an idea and a cast and a camera and away he goes.
His career hasn’t been able to completely escape the Hong Kong movie staples; films about gangsters hit men, as well as a kung fu film, but almost all HK directors earn their stripes with genre pieces. Wong has built his career making films about love and loss, time and regret. Some viewers may regret the time they spent watching his films due to their slow pace and lack of structure, but like all ‘alternative’ film, the story isn’t important.
As well as Chunking Express, I recently watched Days of Being Wild (1990), a love story (in the loosest sense) set in 60’s Hong Kong, starring some of China’s best know actors (to Western audiences at least).
True to the dream like nature of his films Wong Kar-wai has claimed (or admitted) that 60s Hong Kong wasn’t really like the way it is depicted in his film. The details of the setting, like the story, come a distant second to the mood. The plot is simply explained; Yuddy, played by Leslie Chung is a bit of a player. He seduces Maggie Chung’s character, dumps her, and seduces Carina Lau’s character, eventually dumping her too. The reason he’s such a cad is because he was adopted and his foster mother (who was once a call girl, now a sugar mommy) has never told him who his real mother is. This may well be the deepest back-story any character in a Wong Kar-wai film has ever had.
The story hangs on the fact that the two female lead fall madly in love with Leslie, who is supposed to be some kind of James Dean type (Days Of Being Wild’s Chinese title translates literally as ‘The Story of Rebellious Youth’ which was the title given to Rebel Without a Cause when it was released in Hong Kong). The problem with this is that while Leslie may be some kind of heart throb in HK, he’s not as good as other Chinese actors of his generation, notably Andy Lau who plays the supporting male role, and The Worlds Finest Actor Tony Leung. Tony appears in the final scene of the movie in what was supposed to be the prelude to a planned sequel that never transpired.
Maggie and Carina fall madly for Leslie, setting up the trademark meditation on loss that is the essence of most of Wong’s films. The girls do well, Maggie Chung is, I think, a slightly overrated actress given she almost always plays the down-trodden or otherwise withdrawn victim/girlfriend, but the reason she does it over and over is because she’s so good at it. She certainly looks the part.
But Leslie just doesn’t have the charisma or presence to play the lead in a film that is so free flowing and sparse. Films without much by way of plot or dialogue live or die by the quality of the actors.
Wong Kar-wai is one of those filmmakers who works with the same cast over and over. Do the actors work with him because of the freedom he gives them, or the kudos from working with an acclaimed director? Most Hong Kong actors are so hard working that they are probably keen to make the occasional international-festival-circuit-shoe-in to offset all the films they appear in that will never be released outside China or even Hong Kong. Ever since this film, Wong’s status is such that he can assume that each of his films will receive a high profile Cannes debut if he wants it to.
Wong would be the first to admit (I hope) that the critical and artistic success of his films is equally due to his long time collaborator; Australian cinematographer Christopher Doyle. Making a film with the great director can be very difficult, as Doyle himself chronicles in his diary of filming Happy Together. Scripts, screenplays, shooting schedules and storyboards don’t exist in the world of Wong Kar-wai. The vaguer the plot, the more demanding the cinematographer’s job becomes, and Doyle has more than earned his status by effectively creating the trademark Wong Kar-wai ‘look’ for him.
Of course, a film is made in the editing suite, and this is where a director will really earn his reputation, but the style of shooting that Wong uses means that sometimes he just doesn’t have the footage to create the sequence he wants. This seems to be the case at the end of DOBW. Some may perceive his quick, disjointed cutting during pivotal moments as edgy in a French New Wave kind of way, but I can’t believe something so choppy was completely intentional.
Wong is quoted in the DVD liner notes as saying “What is essential is that I want my audience to leave the cinema having enjoyed the film, and that means the whole world to me.”
I’m sure almost all directors would express the same sentiment, but coming from Wong Kar-wai it sounds a bit deluded. He is clearly more concerned with achieving his vision and creating thoughtful beauty. Hong Kong directors who want to please the audience make violent gangster flicks and comedies full of local humour; that other famous Wong, the prolific Wong Jing is a typical example. Incidentally, Wong Jing is quoted as saying “Only rubbish people would call my movies rubbish”. You tell ‘em Jing.
I’ve only seen two of his films, and I have my reservations about both, but Wong Kar-wai’s movies are clearly like no one else’s, so if I’m happy to dedicate so much time to the work of that other auteur Steven Seagal, I should really focus as much of my attention at the other end of the cinematic spectrum.
I count myself lucky to have grown up in a time when there was no internet and satellite TV was a rarity. In those days there were only a few people in charge of what was broadcast on the four TV channels available in the UK, and looking back, they made some good choices. According to my rose tinted recollection, every weekend afternoon of the 1980s and early 90s at least one of the following would have been on telly: a handful of Loony Tunes or Tom & Jerry cartoons, a Laurel and Hardy film, a Three Stooges film or least often but still occasionally, a Chaplin film.
All of those things form a ubiquitous part of my childhood which I’m sure is missing from the collective consciousness of anyone born in the UK after 1990. It may sound like a self satisfied justification of the prejudices every generation has toward the one that comes after it, but... maybe the reason kids nowadays are such poor idiotic saps is because they weren’t exposed to the excellent short films produced in the first half of the twentieth century, like wot I was when I were a young un. It taught me an appreciation of the simple things. There is a purity to slapstick that is all but lost nowadays. The only place it seems to appear any more with any quality are Pixar films.
It’s easy to either forget or be unaware of how important Sir Charles Chaplin is to the history of cinema. It’s only since I got round to Attenborough’s biopic that I first looked back at Chaplin’s life and work with any real interest. The story of Charlie Chaplin is similar to many a biopic; born into poverty, tragic upbringing, emigration to America, massive success that ultimately doesn’t bring happiness, years in the wilderness, eventual happy ending. There’s a lot of ground to cover in the life of Chaplin, and it certainly warrants a Ghandi style biographical epic directed by the great Dicky Attenborough.
Like all such films, things pick up when the subject’s career takes off and Chaplin makes his way to Hollywood. Rather annoyingly the film skips over how Chaplin was discovered; he literally goes from watching a silent film projected onto a sheet in a saloon somewhere in the Mid West, to wandering into the middle of a shoot in California after being summoned by the great Mack Sennet (well played by pre-career-meltdown Dan Ackroyd).
It’s Chaplin’s rise to become one of the most successful and powerful filmmakers of pre-golden era Hollywood that is of most interest to Richard, leading up to his eventual exile from the USA during the height of McCarthyism. Attenborough’s directorial style changes noticeably as the film progresses through each era of Chaplin’s life. Early on during the scenes in London he makes heavy use of George Lucas style wipes between scenes, which is very off-putting, but it doesn’t last long.
Robert Downey Jr does a great job of mimicking Chaplin’s physical performance and his portrayal of Chaplin as a young man is fine, but Rob was only about 27 when the film was made, so when he portrays the elderly Chaplin, he falls short. They should have used an older actor to play the older Chaplin, rather than trying to make Downey look like someone else.
Anthony Hopkins plays the role of a fictional editor who visits an elderly Chaplin in Switzerland to discuss his autobiography. This plot device allows the use of a reflective voice over that is in context with the life of Chaplin as it plays out on screen. It works quite well but I think it was a bit unnecessary. Milla Jovovich has a small role as Chaplin’s first teen bride. Chaplin liked them young you see, much like those other renowned creative talents Polanski and R Kelly. Richard Attenborough’s Chaplin is very kind to the subject when covering his four very young brides; Chaplin didn’t see what all the fuss was about and Dicky would rather dwell on Chaplin’s tortured genius than his controversial love life.
I liked this film, but I hesitate to recommend any film over two hours long unless I really enjoyed it, so instead, if you’ve got an hour to kill, you could do worse than watching one of Chaplin’s most celebrated silent works The Kid, which like a lot of Chaplin’s films is easily found online. Maybe the youth of today will do themselves the favour of stumbling upon it.
The silent era is born again online. I’m quite interested in watching some of the great silent films that paved the way for all the great movies that I enjoy, but not so interested that I would seek them out beyond a brief search on the web. Maybe I’ll work my way round to Max Linder one day.
There’s a wikipedia page titled ‘List of Films Considered The Worst’ which makes interesting reading. One of the films in the list, under the section ‘Star Vehicles’ is a film called ‘Burn Hollywood Burn’ about a director making a movie that is so bad he wished to discredit himself from it. BHB was so bad that the director discredited himself from it. This ironic affair highlights the difficulty in making a self referential film that is not self indulgent or uninteresting, and explains why when such films are made, they tend to be labours of love for those involved. The Stunt Man is one such heartfelt and earnest production.
The Stunt Man took at least ten years to get made. It was director Richard Rush’s magnum opus, such was his obsession with the film and it’s legacy that he eventualy financed and filmed a documentary about it’s production; The Sinister Saga of The Making of The Stunt Man. The Stunt Man is quite a good film, but it doesn’t warrant the devotion that Rush has for it. Sadly, the lack of success his great work achieved put Rush off directing, he only made one more film, and that was after a gap of fourteen years.
When it was released in 1980, The Stunt Man provided a somewhat groundbreaking insight into the world of film making. Rather cleverly the stunts and action sequences of the film-within-the-film that are being taken so seriously by the fictional director, are presented as screwball, madcap affairs played out to a comedy Buster Keaton style score. The satire is well layered and Rush probably deserved his Best Director Oscar nod, and Peter O’Toole wholly deserved his Best Actor nomination for his portrayal as the manic director. Unfortunately for them both, Raging Bull was also up for a couple of awards that year.
The Stunt Man is let down by a poor supporting cast, which is something that you could never say about The Player, with over 40 cameos by big names from over thirty years of Hollywood history. This one was also a labour of love; Robert Altman had made critically successful films without much financial success for years, and The Player, a film about a ruthless and paranoid movie studio executive, was drawn from the personal experience of many movie makers. It’s quite an average thriller really, but it stands out in the way it ridicules the people decide which films get made. It’s also clearly been made by a man who loves films, the famous 7 minute opening shot can be considered a short film in itself.
I love the way movie pitches are mocked. “It’s Out Of Africa meets Pretty Woman.” The rest of the film doesn’t really live up to that shot. The Player has a deliberately unconventional ending and originality should be applauded, but ultimately it comes across as a little too pleased with itself.
The best movie about movies that I’ve seen is Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. It was written and directed by Shane Black. Shane Black wrote the screenplay for Lethal Weapon when he was in his early twenties and sold it for a quarter of a million dollars. He went on to command extravagant fees for a few lacklustre movies including a reported million dollars for a mere re-write of Last Action Hero (another movie about movies).
In a sense, all of Blacks screenplays were movies about movies because they adhered so rigidly to movie conventions (specifically action movie conventions). I once read the first act of Lethal Weapon online and it’s an excellent script, a masterclass in structure and narrative description, but it is far from revolutionary. Black’s style of writing ‘blockbusters’ eventually became boring to even him and he took a ten year break before returning with KKBB.
This one is the least explicitly about moviemaking (although the film industry does provide a background) yet it does the best job of holding up in front of the audience all the formulaic ingredients of Film (in this case Film Noir) and saying “This is how a film is written”. Yet at the same time, the satire and exposition is all part of the plot. The tone is perfect, it’s very clever without being smug and features excellent performances by Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr.
Movies about movies seem to be made by experienced directors toward the end of their careers, maybe because they feel they’ve got nothing left to lose. I reckon George Lucas is considering one to get back at the most obsessive of all the Star Wars fans.
