TV, the new film?

I watched the first episode of Todd Haynes’ HBO miniseries Mildred Pierce and I was not disappointed. After reading a few reviews describing it as ‘plodding’ and ‘nothing really happens’ I was a little worried but I was captivated throughout. As usual Kate Winslet brilliantly portrays the restrained emotional turmoil of the titular character in her beautiful face and we are introduced to Mildred’s two daughters, Veda and Ray, and their current monetary predicament as Mildred’s husband leaves them. We see Mildred struggle with her class issues and eventually she degrades herself by taking a job as a waitress. This is a very human Mildred Pierce and it is shot beautifully; the opening scene objectifying a lemon meringue pie and lingering on the detail and pride Mildred takes in her baking. The colours depict the 1930s Depression era perfectly and the attention to detail is what we have come to expect from these lavish television productions such as the preceding Boardwalk Empire, which Martin Scorsese produced and he also directed the first episode.
With David Fincher’s House of Cards and Michael Mann’s Luck coming soon it seems TV is the next step for successful Hollywood directors. Due to less studio constraints and more time to explore storylines in detail it’s not surprising really and in recent years television really has soared to new heights in terms of budgets and production values, Hollywood stars, epic storylines and that all important narrative hook that leaves the viewer begging for more. It seems television is at its peak and I am loving it. With the new series of Mad Men out later this year as well as new series’ of Dexter, Boardwalk Empire and Fringe to look forward to I find myself more excited by these than most films coming out this year. The Americans do certainly know how to make a great television series but let’s not forget that we Brits can do it to. Series’ like Luther and The Shadow Line prove that the BBC can produce dark, original and captivating television. More please.

All About Eve

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042192/

It is not all about Eve, it is in fact all about Margo, Margo Channing that is, brilliantly portrayed by Bette Davis who is the driving force of this film. 20th Century Fox’s 1950 backstage drama draws the viewer in right from the narrated beginning at an awards ceremony and utilises the flashback to tell the rest of the story of how Eve infiltrates a group of theatre darlings, including aging stage actress Margo, and charms her way to the top. As Margo Channing Bette Davis produces one of her most memorable performances and is often compared to Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard of the same year, Margo is not as over the top but is certainly in the same league. Anne Baxter as the conniving Eve Harrington is perhaps not as strong and believable as the manipulating character but this actually works in her favour as the audience is fooled by her to begin with as well. The cameo by Marilyn Monroe as an up and coming starlet is entertaining and George Sanders as Addison DeWitt gets some of the best one-liners ever.
All About Eve features an amazing script that showcases Joseph L Mankiewicz’s writing talent, he also directed the film, and there are moments that are rather profound. Mankiewicz opts for conventional camerawork and keeps things simple meaning this film is often overlooked as a great classic to study. However, the simplicity works beautifully with the electric script and can be seen as almost a homage to theatre. The film won 6 Academy Awards, although surprisingly Davis did not receive one, and is a brilliant example of Classical Hollywood filmmaking. At 138 minutes I thought I would get a little bored but I was absorbed throughout, it has a perfect ending and I could watch it again and again. This is a timeless classic that is particularly relevant today due to our celebrity obsessed culture and is full of witty, sharp dialogue with some great performances. Film doesn’t get much better than this, “fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!”.

Never Let Me Go

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1334260/

Based on the book written by Kazuo Ishiguro and the screenplay written by Alex Garland this film has plenty of literary kudos. That said I was reluctant to see the film as it stars two actresses who tend to annoy me, Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan. However, both are perfectly cast as Ruth and Kathy, children who grow up in a strange but idyllic boarding school to be told by a new disobedient teacher that all is not what it seems. Tommy, played movingly by Andrew Garfield, completes the love triangle that dominates this unusual genre hybrid story and we follow the characters as they learn of and accept their fate. Most will be aware of the sci-fi elements within this love story and it certainly becomes profound and moving. Acceptance is the most shocking thing about this story and we see no sign of rebellion or resistance, just acceptance and this may be the most moving aspect of the film.

Never Let Me Go has a very British feel to it and stylistically it is incredibly interesting. Whether it is the muted browns and turquoises that dominate the palette or the vintage inspired objects that give the film a timeless quality, each shot is carefully considered and beautifully constructed. The final decision of how to depict this alternative reality is restrained and thought-provoking and the haunting music by Rachel Portman really complements the visuals and emotions conjured up. There is also the resistance to build up and reveal the truth in a dramatic ‘Hollywood’ way which means that it is almost possible to miss or misunderstand the information as it is revealed and this could be extremely disconcerting for the viewer. As an audience of films today with plots that are deliberately built up, spelt out and dramatically revealed it is surprising for this to not happen in this film and also extremely refreshing. Never Let Me Go is brave and original, with great performances and painfully beautiful shots that echo the story and the emotions of both the characters and the audience of the film.  

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1298650/

Of course you don’t have to have seen the first three Pirates films to follow this fourth instalment but firstly it helps, for fun comparisons if nothing else, and secondly who hasn’t seen the first three Pirates films? So the first one was the surprise hit, the second one suffered from sequel disappointment and the third one, well, what a mess of overcomplicated narrative strands that was. So my expectations for the fourth film, On Stranger Tides, were pretty low. Although I convinced myself that the absence of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom meant that the film might actually be good and the presence of Penelope Cruz might inject it with some edge. I wasn’t completely wrong with these assumptions and the film is enjoyable for a large percentage of the time. However, it is too long, again, and the plot is stretched out and made more complicated than it actually is.

Jack is back, and so is Barbossa and they are searching for the fountain of youth along with the Spanish and the legendary Blackbeard. I love the supernatural elements included in the Pirates franchise but the zombifying of Blackbeard’s crew is only briefly mentioned, as is his supernatural sword and the voodoo doll, all feel like they are plot conveniences more than anything else. The fight scene between Jack and his impersonator feels straight out of the first film and that is the problem with this film, it feels like it has all been done before, which it has. The beginning scene in London was the most interesting and the mermaids are brilliantly creepy with their vampire teeth but these are the only highlights of the film. Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp, is as charming as ever but it is an act that many will have tired of already, myself included. On Stranger Tides does not do much to bring the franchise back to life but it also doesn’t damage the sinking ship anymore. It is relatively entertaining and if you want more of the same formula you will not be disappointed.

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233219/

My oh my, two of my favourite directors working together and I have only just got around to watching this film, shameful! Directed by Werner Herzog and executively produced by David Lynch, My Son My Son... is a crime mystery set in a pastel suburbia inspired by true events. Michael Shannon, recently seen in the brilliant Boardwalk Empire, plays Brad, a disturbed individual who adores his mother but for some reason ends up killing her. The film explores the events leading up to this mysterious act of violence and we see that Brad has an obsession with pink flamingos, Greek tragedy and believes God is the man on an oatmeal can.

My Son My Son... is visually stunning with dreamlike qualities and surreal motifs. Although Lynch reportedly had nothing to do with this side of the film it certainly feels like a Lynchian nightmare. Shannon, Chloe Sevigny, as Brad’s patient wife and Willem Dafoe as the sympathetic cop, all offer amazing performances and Grace Zabriskie is incredibly creepy and vulnerable at the same time as Brad’s mother. The film has experimental qualities that remind the viewer of Herzog’s presence, with tableaus paused for excruciatingly long periods of time, so long that you can see the mother’s arm shaking and eyes wandering. There is the surreal focus on animals such as ostriches that we have come to expect from Herzog, things are certainly not cut and dry in this world and it is a world I would like to revisit again and again. I have read a few reviews of this film which were not bad but described the film as a weaker or mediocre Herzog fare. I have to disagree, the film is subtle but it is intoxicating and after watching it only the other day I already want to watch it again.

I found all aspects of this film satisfyingly good from the slow disclosure of events to the beautiful shot compositions and attention to detail. Shannon deserves particular praise for another outstanding performance that goes to the dark side in an unobvious and truly chilling style, his distinctive face is one I would love Hollywood to embrace. IMDB has listed the film’s genre as drama but there are deadpan black comedy moments throughout and it is this lack of conforming to one particular genre that makes this film work. Overall, an outstanding piece of filmmaking and one of my favourite films I have seen so far this year.  

Hostel

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/

So I finally got around to watching Hostel (2005), only six years too late but with the Human Centipede debacle still raging it felt appropriate. As one of the catalysts for the torture porn genre I had high hopes for the shock factor of Hostel and its predecessor Saw (2004) did a cracking job of utilising shock values with a big twist and a strong story. The notion behind Hostel, of a Slovakian Hostel that lures backpackers in with the promise of beautiful sex obsessed females only for the backpackers to become part of a sick ‘art exhibition’, is original and suitably torture filled. The build up is very slow and for the first half of the film it felt more like Eurotrip than a horror film, the second half truly delivers though and I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It was not as gruesome as I was expecting, with only one extremely cringe worthy moment involving an eye, but I was rather glad of this lack of graphic visceral gore.

Hostel will satisfy a torture porn horror film craving but it is by no means shocking or surprising. The acting is pretty good on all parts and the locations are well thought out, although the film doesn’t paint Slovakia in a very good light. The story is not predictable and it was refreshing to see a main protagonist who used his head and made truly human decisions. However, this is not an affecting psychological horror film that will reach your core and haunt you for weeks after, it is merely a physical endurance test; how much torture can you handle? With 2 more parts to the Hostel series I cannot imagine what they have to offer that hasn’t already been dealt with in the first film and I probably will not watch them to find out. Hostel is nowhere near as first-rate as Saw but it is good at what it does do which is to offer an original story with lashings of what you would expect from the genre and a little of what you wouldn’t expect.

Neds

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560970/

Let me begin by saying this is not the film I thought it was going to be. By this I mean I was expecting a few mildly delinquent children getting into a bit of trouble and it generally being quite a light film. It is not. This is hard-hitting stuff, grittier and darker than I had anticipated and that is by no means a bad thing. Neds has correctly been described as somewhere in between Trainspotting and This Is England, but with a little A Clockwork Orange thrown in. The film follows John McGill, played astoundingly by Conor McCarron, who we see as a young bright boy starting secondary school in the 1970s but he is at a disadvantage, due to his violent elder brother being in trouble with the law, and therefore teachers have preconceived notions of his abilities. John proves his teachers wrong and he manages to progress at school and makes friends with a middle class lad, Julian. However, after being stopped from seeing his new friend by Julian’s disapproving mother, John gets involved with the wrong crowd and the film becomes about street gangs and fighting. We see the anger that John feels and his downward spiral triggered by a small incident. There are some shocking and harrowing moments in this film but they did all feel necessary, never gratuitous, and as a viewer you never know where the film will take you.

This is a gripping and surprising story but there were points where I found it a little difficult to follow perhaps due to the authentic Glaswegian dialogue. There are moments of sheer stylish surrealism, notably one with a statue of Jesus coming to life, and these help the film to stand out and possibly become a cult classic. The finale is iconic and mesmerising and without giving too much away I have included a still, below, from towards the end of the film. Neds explores the elements that can lead to the possible deterioration of an intelligent and promising youth; class, family, teachers, the system, peers and the self. It is a thoroughly interesting exploration if perhaps a little too long and is beautifully shot. Peter Mullan writes, directs and stars in the film as John’s abusive alcoholic father and Neds does have an autobiographical feel to it but there is much more to this film. I urge people to go and see this film, or buy it on dvd now, as it is important films like this do not get forgotten.

Archipelago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527835/

A middle class family reunite at a holiday cottage on Tresco, one of the Scilly Isles. Tensions run high as the family await the arrival of the father, learn to paint and explore the island out of season. There is a lack of music soundtrack to this film; instead there is varied and beautiful bird song which contrasts with the quiet and limited encounters between the family members. The camera is extremely static and tonally the film is very neutral. We only learn of family developments and issues through their interactions with each other and their live-in cook, Rose, and their artist friend who teaches the mother, Patricia, and daughter, Cynthia, to paint.  Shot in script order Archipelago is interesting filmmaking and I think deserves a second viewing. I was rather disappointed with the way Tresco is depicted, a truly magical place that looks rather mediocre in the film, but perhaps this is the viewpoint of the family? It is neither a tropical paradise nor a stormy dramatic landscape, both can be said of the Isles of Scilly, and it is this mundane middle-ground that is really focused on within the film.

There are moments of humour, generally centred around the son Edward, and at points I found myself getting lost in the family’s isolated world which is both physical and psychological. The film is perhaps a little self indulgent in parts but there are some genuinely great performances from the actors. Archipelago is a subtle and intelligent film but there doesn’t feel like there is enough depth and substance to the plot and what is played out on screen. There are moments where you feel like you are starting to get it and then they disappear again. I like to be completely absorbed in a film and unfortunately I wasn’t with this.

The big censorship debate

Having just found out about the BBFC banning The Human Centipede Part 2 (interesting article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/jun/07/human-centipede-sequel-ban-sexual-sadism?CMP=twt_gu ) it got me thinking about censorship today. I was actually rather surprised to hear of the BBFC's decision as it feels that in this day and age anything goes. With films such as Irreversible (2002) depicting graphic rape scenes and many more explicit and violent scenes in gore porn films like the Saw franchise surviving the final cut we are not used to films being 'banned'.
The 1984 Video Recordings Act meant that Straw Dogs (1971) was banned by the BBFC due to the violent rape of Amy, and more notoriety and controversy was to follow in 1999 when an edited version of the film was again refused certification by the BBFC as it believed there was "the clear indication that Amy comes to enjoy being raped". In 2002 an unedited Straw Dogs was finally certified for DVD as the inclusion of the second rape scene, according to the BBFC, showed Amy did not enjoy the act of violation. Incidentally, Hollywood has remade Straw Dogs and it is to be released later this year. I am not going to discuss this remake in terms of 'why remake it?' as yes I do not feel it will offer anything new or improved on the original but that is digressing from my point. Instead, I am interested in how they have dealt with that inevitable rape scene and if Amy will 'enjoy' it. Will there be censorship issues for this Hollywood version?
So just how much can film get away with today? It seems there remains certain limits, particularly surrounding sexual perversity, but do we need censorship? If we don't want to watch a horror film with horrific acts in then we don't have to, we can make our own decisions can't we? With everybody now discussing the banning of The Human Centipede Full Sequence (2011) there will be a mass of people wanting to see it and no doubt going out of their way to see it illegally, so what has this censorship really achieved other than a great marketing ploy for the film?