A good friend of mine posted the below to their Facebook page today:
"I watched the video for Lily Allen's new song today - it's a good pop song with a great message but here's a really spot on critique of her use of black female dancers as sexual props"
First of all here is a link to Lily Allen's new single, which I encourage you to watch
Secondly, here is a link to the blog post linked by my friend
I started writing the below as a response to the Facebook post, and it mutated into the below. I decided to turn it into a blog post.
I disagree with many of the points raised in this blog post. A bigger racist problem for me is how Twerking is just the latest example of white appropriation of black culture in America, which goes back decades. There are countless examples of so called 'coloured records' in the 1950s being re-recorded by white artists and becoming the first big rock and roll records (e.g. Big Joe Turner's Shake Rattle and Roll vs. Bill Haley and the Comets version). Two of the major landmarks on the explosion of Rap and Hip Hop on the pop charts were Run DMC's cover of Aerosmith's Walk This Way, and Ice Ice Baby (The first Hip Hop single to top the Billboard charts, performed by one of the whitest men in the history of the planet). Basically there is a long history of white artists adopting elements of black culture, which then 'legitimises' this culture in widespread media. Twerking too has its origins in black culture, notably in the Bounce music scene of New Orleans. Bounce has been around for 25 years, but predictably only came to greater prominence only when a white girl starts twerking at the VMAs. Twerking has not been a problem to the white dominated media previously, but as soon as white folk start doing it we start nervously tugging at our handkerchiefs.
A lot of the criticism in this article seems to centre around the contrast between how Allen is portrayed in comparison to the dancers. Basically she hasn't shown enough flesh or skanked it up enough to 'earn' the right to satire. This seems to me an odd line to take especially considering the intro to the video, with a couple of white men discussing how much she has 'let herself go'. To suggest by not exposing enough skin she has exploited the dancers is to ignore the fact that Allen is still dressed in sexualised clothing of her own choosing, presumably to an extent she is comfortable with, and not one dictated by a male record executive. The take home for me is that female pop stars can still be sexy to market themselves, without needing to go to the extremes many current female popstars deem necessary (and symbolised in western white media by Miley Cyrus). The contrast between Lily Allen's appearance in this video and those of her dancers is instrumental to this.
I also believe that the shots selected have been specifically selected for the reasons the author of the above post lists. Yes they are voyeuristic and gross. They take the types of things seen in many pop videos today, and amplify them far beyond this to the absolute absurd. Look at the scenes with the champagne being sprayed in slo-mo, or the double handed ass slap (don't get to type that every day). The extreme nature of these coupled with the hyper slo-mo lingering nature of the shots exposes such things for how absolutely ridiculous and exploitative such things really are. To take selected screen grabs to complain about shears them of the context the moving image affords them. Shot selection and editing are crucial elements of what gives moving images meaning. Without them, we merely have collections of random images. (For more info on this I encourage research on Soviet Montage Theory).
As a final note, I definitely reject the final sentences of the article which I quote below:
"On that note, FUCK you Lily Allen and who asked you to drag your ass out of musical retirement in the first place? Despite loving your music (and finding this song catchy), I sure as hell want you to take your ass right back there ASAP."
Telling those you disagree with to shut up and go away is vile behaviour, and akin to bullying in my eyes. Threats, or attempts to silence efforts at actual discourse are always to be abhorred and will always lessen a persons arguments in my eyes.
OK, that's enough Andrew. What started out as a pithy response to a Facebook post has turned into a full blown blog rant. As always, when discussing feminist or race related topics, I realise as a cis white male I may not be in the best position to fully understand all the facets of the arguments. I expect to be wrong in a number of ways, and welcome any criticisms or comments you have below. It is the only way I'll learn!
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
or: How I learned to stop worrying and love writer's block.
Its been a couple of weeks since I posted something new. It isn't that I haven't watched anything recently (I have), or that real life has intervened (despite job dramas and the release of GTA V). Instead, having watched The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, I find myself having greatly enjoyed a film, and yet having little of interest to say about it.
This lack of an angle of approach has meant I've sat down to write something on multiple occasions to write something, and gotten bogged down after a paragraph or two. (Indeed as I write this, it is above the carcass of another DOA attempt, kept for now in case I can cannibalise any of it for this attempt!)
Do I talk about the terrific performances? Humphrey Bogart is terrific as the venal Fred C. Dobbs, the penniless miner who loses his soul to greed for gold. Walter Huston provides the definitive portrayal of a grizzled gold prospector, right down to his madcap jig performed when they strike gold. Hustons performance was so good he won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here.
I could highlight the familial connection in the film, with John Huston directing his father. Huston junior won the Academy Award for directing, making it the first time father and son had been honoured for the same film. John Huston also has a cameo as the affluent American Dobbs pesters for money at the beginning of the film.
Perhaps I could talk about the escalating sense of dread and unease which builds throughout the film. As Dobbs paranoia grows, and he acts more and more erratically, we are drawn into the twisted web of his madness. The audience is given less space to breathe as the film progresses, and the final act of laughter comes as needed catharsis.
I haven't even mentioned Tim Holt as the third member of the gold mining crew, or the fourth American to join the group and the fateful decision to which it leads our principals. I could discuss the depiction of the Mexican people in the film, and how it will appear racist and anachronistic to a modern audience. But is it fair to nit-pick over what is admittedly a minor part of the film?
At the end of the day this is a compelling film, anchored by some virtuoso performances. It remains as taut and fraught today as it would've in 1948, and is highly recommended to any and all film enthusiasts. Just don't ask me to write about it!
Random Acts of Criticism will return with Witness for the Prosecution
Its been a couple of weeks since I posted something new. It isn't that I haven't watched anything recently (I have), or that real life has intervened (despite job dramas and the release of GTA V). Instead, having watched The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, I find myself having greatly enjoyed a film, and yet having little of interest to say about it.
This lack of an angle of approach has meant I've sat down to write something on multiple occasions to write something, and gotten bogged down after a paragraph or two. (Indeed as I write this, it is above the carcass of another DOA attempt, kept for now in case I can cannibalise any of it for this attempt!)
Do I talk about the terrific performances? Humphrey Bogart is terrific as the venal Fred C. Dobbs, the penniless miner who loses his soul to greed for gold. Walter Huston provides the definitive portrayal of a grizzled gold prospector, right down to his madcap jig performed when they strike gold. Hustons performance was so good he won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here.
I could highlight the familial connection in the film, with John Huston directing his father. Huston junior won the Academy Award for directing, making it the first time father and son had been honoured for the same film. John Huston also has a cameo as the affluent American Dobbs pesters for money at the beginning of the film.
Perhaps I could talk about the escalating sense of dread and unease which builds throughout the film. As Dobbs paranoia grows, and he acts more and more erratically, we are drawn into the twisted web of his madness. The audience is given less space to breathe as the film progresses, and the final act of laughter comes as needed catharsis.
I haven't even mentioned Tim Holt as the third member of the gold mining crew, or the fourth American to join the group and the fateful decision to which it leads our principals. I could discuss the depiction of the Mexican people in the film, and how it will appear racist and anachronistic to a modern audience. But is it fair to nit-pick over what is admittedly a minor part of the film?
At the end of the day this is a compelling film, anchored by some virtuoso performances. It remains as taut and fraught today as it would've in 1948, and is highly recommended to any and all film enthusiasts. Just don't ask me to write about it!
Random Acts of Criticism will return with Witness for the Prosecution
Sunday, 15 September 2013
The Great Dictator
One of the great debates when it comes to silent cinema is that of who was the greatest silent comedian. On one side you have the great Stone Face, Buster Keaton, and on the other Charlie Chaplin and his Little Tramp (Poor old Harold Lloyd doesn't get much of a look in, unfortunate chap.) I'm always a little bemused by the debate, because to me it seems like trying to decide whether spare ribs or fried chicken is better. Either way, you're going to be well fed.
The recognition of their silent genius is very important when it comes to appraising Chaplin's 1940 film, The Great Dictator. This was the maestro's first ever full talkie picture, and aimed to poke fun at no less than Hitler's Nazi Germany. Chaplin himself plays two roles, both the Dictator Hynkel of Tomania, who is the film's Hitler stand in, and also a poor persecuted Jewish barber living in one of Tomania's Jewish ghettoes.
As Chaplin's first foray into sound pictures, it really confirms what a terrific silent comedian he is. The parts of this that really shine are the silent comedic scenes that could have fit into any of his previous masterpieces. The barber's scene shaving a customer to the sound of Brahms' Hungarian Dance No. 5, and Hynkel's maniacal dance with the inflatable globe are both fully worthy of any other Chaplin film. Chaplin himself remains as nimble as ever, hilariously able to spring into a chest and hide in mere seconds at one point.
The attempts at spoken comedy fall a little more flat. One of the main gags with Hynkel and the Benito Mussolini counterpart, Napaloni, relies on their accents, with the main joke appearing to be 'listen to these guys, they have funny foreign accents'. It can be understood perhaps, considering the political state of the world at the time, but has dated very badly in the intervening years. Partly because of this, the Hynkel scenes are the least enjoyable parts of the film, with those featuring the Barber generally more entertaining. This can be attributed to the fact that the barber is a variation on his lovable Tramp character, and thus more prone to the silent comedy he does so well.
The other section of the film that has unfortunately dated is for more historical reasons. Depictions of life in the Jewish ghettoes and the Nazi concentration camps are very far from the reality of the situation in Europe at the time. There was no way Chaplin could have known this when he made the film, but it makes the scenes far more poignant and melancholy because of it. Whilst he was showing what he thought was the extent of the suffering for the Jewish people, the extreme suffering and deprivation we now know them to have suffered is absolutely sickening in contrast. Chaplin himself stated in his autobiography that had he known the extent of the horrors of the concentration camps, he never would have made this film.
How to judge The Great Dictator then? Best to view it as a historical curiosity. It is an excellent example of a wartime propaganda piece, and an important documentary testament to the American and European understanding of the reality of life in Nazi Germany at the time. As a comedy it is somewhat less successful, with the moments of genius leavened with parts that really have dated badly. This is certainly not where you should start if you had not watched any Chaplin yet, rather one for the completionists only.
The recognition of their silent genius is very important when it comes to appraising Chaplin's 1940 film, The Great Dictator. This was the maestro's first ever full talkie picture, and aimed to poke fun at no less than Hitler's Nazi Germany. Chaplin himself plays two roles, both the Dictator Hynkel of Tomania, who is the film's Hitler stand in, and also a poor persecuted Jewish barber living in one of Tomania's Jewish ghettoes.
As Chaplin's first foray into sound pictures, it really confirms what a terrific silent comedian he is. The parts of this that really shine are the silent comedic scenes that could have fit into any of his previous masterpieces. The barber's scene shaving a customer to the sound of Brahms' Hungarian Dance No. 5, and Hynkel's maniacal dance with the inflatable globe are both fully worthy of any other Chaplin film. Chaplin himself remains as nimble as ever, hilariously able to spring into a chest and hide in mere seconds at one point.
The attempts at spoken comedy fall a little more flat. One of the main gags with Hynkel and the Benito Mussolini counterpart, Napaloni, relies on their accents, with the main joke appearing to be 'listen to these guys, they have funny foreign accents'. It can be understood perhaps, considering the political state of the world at the time, but has dated very badly in the intervening years. Partly because of this, the Hynkel scenes are the least enjoyable parts of the film, with those featuring the Barber generally more entertaining. This can be attributed to the fact that the barber is a variation on his lovable Tramp character, and thus more prone to the silent comedy he does so well.
The other section of the film that has unfortunately dated is for more historical reasons. Depictions of life in the Jewish ghettoes and the Nazi concentration camps are very far from the reality of the situation in Europe at the time. There was no way Chaplin could have known this when he made the film, but it makes the scenes far more poignant and melancholy because of it. Whilst he was showing what he thought was the extent of the suffering for the Jewish people, the extreme suffering and deprivation we now know them to have suffered is absolutely sickening in contrast. Chaplin himself stated in his autobiography that had he known the extent of the horrors of the concentration camps, he never would have made this film.
How to judge The Great Dictator then? Best to view it as a historical curiosity. It is an excellent example of a wartime propaganda piece, and an important documentary testament to the American and European understanding of the reality of life in Nazi Germany at the time. As a comedy it is somewhat less successful, with the moments of genius leavened with parts that really have dated badly. This is certainly not where you should start if you had not watched any Chaplin yet, rather one for the completionists only.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Wreck-It Ralph
Ever since 2001, when an Academy Award for best animated feature was first awarded, animated films have been undergoing a mini-renaissance. Now that a shiny gold statue is up for grabs, most studios have started releasing more and more animations of greater quality, and encroaching on what was almost solely the preserve of Disney. If the award had been given for the entire life of the Oscars, Disney would surely have multiple wins, but since it dates to a more modern age the past masters of the animated film have yet to take home the statue. (This is largely down to the dominance of Pixar studios. Disney, realising when they were licked, purchased Pixar in 2006).
The most recent contender from Walt Disney Animation Studios was Wreck-It Ralph, which managed a sixth nomination for the studio, but again lost out on the big prize to Pixar's Brave. Had I had a vote, I'm not sure which I would have chosen. Unfortunately this is because whilst both films are good, neither is truly great in the way that some of the previous winners have been.
Anyway, what of the film itself? It tells the tale of Ralph, who has the misfortune to be the bad guy in an arcade game named Fix-It Felix. Lonely and frustrated after 30 years of villainy and ostracised from the other inhabitants of the game, he embarks upon a quest to earn a hero's medal of his own. There are plenty of little in-jokes and Easter eggs for geeks like me to spot (Leeroy Jenkins graffiti!) especially in the opening half hour or so. Disney really hit the bullseye by licensing an extensive background cast of actual video game characters. Whilst it would have been easy to populate the background with knock off characters that alluded to the classics, by using real characters the world feels much more authentic.
Unfortunately the middle third of the film, when Ralph begins exploring the worlds of other games really sags. The sequence in the Hero's Duty particularly feels underdone, merely an excuse to inject a MacGuffin of motivation for Ralph. It is ironic that the representation of the most hi-def, up to date titles feels most two dimensional. The candy themed Sugar Rush kart racing title also fails to quite hit the mark, although is more fleshed out than Hero's Duty.
Thankfully by the final third things pick up again, although the traditional Disney saccharine moral-of-the-story parts are particularly egregious in the environs of the candy kingdom. In the end, this will be a great film for kids, and there is enough here for geeks to enjoy, but this is by no means compulsory viewing.
The most recent contender from Walt Disney Animation Studios was Wreck-It Ralph, which managed a sixth nomination for the studio, but again lost out on the big prize to Pixar's Brave. Had I had a vote, I'm not sure which I would have chosen. Unfortunately this is because whilst both films are good, neither is truly great in the way that some of the previous winners have been.
Anyway, what of the film itself? It tells the tale of Ralph, who has the misfortune to be the bad guy in an arcade game named Fix-It Felix. Lonely and frustrated after 30 years of villainy and ostracised from the other inhabitants of the game, he embarks upon a quest to earn a hero's medal of his own. There are plenty of little in-jokes and Easter eggs for geeks like me to spot (Leeroy Jenkins graffiti!) especially in the opening half hour or so. Disney really hit the bullseye by licensing an extensive background cast of actual video game characters. Whilst it would have been easy to populate the background with knock off characters that alluded to the classics, by using real characters the world feels much more authentic.
Unfortunately the middle third of the film, when Ralph begins exploring the worlds of other games really sags. The sequence in the Hero's Duty particularly feels underdone, merely an excuse to inject a MacGuffin of motivation for Ralph. It is ironic that the representation of the most hi-def, up to date titles feels most two dimensional. The candy themed Sugar Rush kart racing title also fails to quite hit the mark, although is more fleshed out than Hero's Duty.
Thankfully by the final third things pick up again, although the traditional Disney saccharine moral-of-the-story parts are particularly egregious in the environs of the candy kingdom. In the end, this will be a great film for kids, and there is enough here for geeks to enjoy, but this is by no means compulsory viewing.
Friday, 13 September 2013
Paths of Glory
War films usually fall into one of two camps. The first is the gung-ho, war as adventure pro war film, with plenty of explosions, feats of derring-do and lantern jawed heroes. The second is the more sombre war-is-hell anti-war film showing all the horrors, the deaths, the disfigurements and the loss of humanity to be found on the battlefield. Paths of Glory is one of those curious films that can show how both these attitudes can coexist, whilst firmly falling on the side of anti-war.
Telling the story of French soldiers in the trenches of World War I, the film manages this feat in a very clever way. Whilst many war films focus on a soldier or small group of soldiers to tell its story, PoG widens its focus to show us the contrast between the war experiences of the grunts on the ground with those of the Generals, well behind the front lines. The contrast could not be more stark. The soldiers in the trenches encounter a dirty, hellish existence, literally living in holes carved from the ground, under constant artillery barrage and metres from a corpse strewn no-mans land. Meanwhile, the Generals occupy opulent palatial ballrooms, festooned with expensive paintings and outfitted with the very finest of furnishings.
This contrast is where we can observe how this difference in realities can lead to decisions, made in clear conscience, which leads to the senseless slaughter of thousands of men in the trenches. The generals decide to capture the "Anthill", a heavily defended area of German territory. This decision comes in full acceptance of casualties to over 50% of their own troops, and without much thought to the reality of whether their already battle weary troops could accomplish their impossible task. That these decisions are made for the progression of the Generals' own careers only confirms our disgust.
We then see the troops undertaking the assault, which of course fails miserably, with great casualties being suffered. Straddling the divide between the separate worlds of command and operations is Kirk Douglas' Colonel Dax. When men under his command are accused of cowardice in the face of the enemy, Dax defends them personally, and is the only character to truly understand both realities. It is Dax's human responses to the horrors he has to face that allows this film to firmly fall in the anti-war camp.
Paths of Glory is arguably the first great film Stanley Kubrick made, and started a run of probably unparalleled genius in the Cinema of the second half of the 20th century. Often overlooked in the face of his better known and more lauded pictures, PoG remains a tightly wound and exceptional picture. In these ages where men in comfortable rooms continue to make decisions that lead to the senseless slaughter of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and all for their own personal gain, it endures as a film as alive and relevant today as it was in 1957.
Telling the story of French soldiers in the trenches of World War I, the film manages this feat in a very clever way. Whilst many war films focus on a soldier or small group of soldiers to tell its story, PoG widens its focus to show us the contrast between the war experiences of the grunts on the ground with those of the Generals, well behind the front lines. The contrast could not be more stark. The soldiers in the trenches encounter a dirty, hellish existence, literally living in holes carved from the ground, under constant artillery barrage and metres from a corpse strewn no-mans land. Meanwhile, the Generals occupy opulent palatial ballrooms, festooned with expensive paintings and outfitted with the very finest of furnishings.
This contrast is where we can observe how this difference in realities can lead to decisions, made in clear conscience, which leads to the senseless slaughter of thousands of men in the trenches. The generals decide to capture the "Anthill", a heavily defended area of German territory. This decision comes in full acceptance of casualties to over 50% of their own troops, and without much thought to the reality of whether their already battle weary troops could accomplish their impossible task. That these decisions are made for the progression of the Generals' own careers only confirms our disgust.
We then see the troops undertaking the assault, which of course fails miserably, with great casualties being suffered. Straddling the divide between the separate worlds of command and operations is Kirk Douglas' Colonel Dax. When men under his command are accused of cowardice in the face of the enemy, Dax defends them personally, and is the only character to truly understand both realities. It is Dax's human responses to the horrors he has to face that allows this film to firmly fall in the anti-war camp.
Paths of Glory is arguably the first great film Stanley Kubrick made, and started a run of probably unparalleled genius in the Cinema of the second half of the 20th century. Often overlooked in the face of his better known and more lauded pictures, PoG remains a tightly wound and exceptional picture. In these ages where men in comfortable rooms continue to make decisions that lead to the senseless slaughter of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and all for their own personal gain, it endures as a film as alive and relevant today as it was in 1957.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
City Lights
When I first started seriously trying to knock down the IMDB top 250, probably the films that gave me the most pause were the smattering of silent classics. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Fritz Lang and Harold Lloyd all sounded more like homework than fun. Surely these films from the twenties and early thirties would have dated hideously, of interest to a film historian but not poor old me.
I finally bit the bullet and sat down to watch Chaplin's The Kid. I was instantly transported to a world of pure entertainment, and was cured of my aversion to silents. Since then I have caught other candidates when I can, with the venerable Astor Theatre being my loyal companion in this quest.
The most recent addition to this marvellous cavalcade of whimsy was Chaplin's City Lights. Released in 1931, when the talkies had taken off and silent films were going the way of the dodo, City Lights remained a massive financial and critical success, cementing Chaplin's place as one of the masters of silent film. That it remains an early masterpiece of the romantic comedy genre is testament to his genius as writer, director and star.
It tells the story of his iconic Tramp character, who meets a blind flower seller, and is instantly and irredeemably smitten. Through a series of misfortunes, the girl believes the poor tramp to be a millionaire, a façade he tries to maintain in order to woo her successfully. The remainder of the piece follows his various adventures as he keeps the charade going, whilst befriending the real millionaire and trying to raise funds for a revolutionary operation to restore the girl's sight. The final scene where the girl, sight restored, meets the tramp for the first time and sees him for who he really is remains one of the most touching, honest and sweet scenes committed to film to this day.
I could go on and on about this marvellous movie. The virtuoso boxing sequences is one of the finest silent comedy sequences I have seen, fully the equal to the cannon sequence in Keaton's The General and Chaplin's own factory sequence in Modern Times. If you haven't seen any Chaplin yet, this is a terrific place to start, particularly because none of the set pieces have really entered the cultural consciousness in the way that parts of Modern Times have. This is a vital and alive film, and one of the cinema's enduring greats.
I finally bit the bullet and sat down to watch Chaplin's The Kid. I was instantly transported to a world of pure entertainment, and was cured of my aversion to silents. Since then I have caught other candidates when I can, with the venerable Astor Theatre being my loyal companion in this quest.
The most recent addition to this marvellous cavalcade of whimsy was Chaplin's City Lights. Released in 1931, when the talkies had taken off and silent films were going the way of the dodo, City Lights remained a massive financial and critical success, cementing Chaplin's place as one of the masters of silent film. That it remains an early masterpiece of the romantic comedy genre is testament to his genius as writer, director and star.
It tells the story of his iconic Tramp character, who meets a blind flower seller, and is instantly and irredeemably smitten. Through a series of misfortunes, the girl believes the poor tramp to be a millionaire, a façade he tries to maintain in order to woo her successfully. The remainder of the piece follows his various adventures as he keeps the charade going, whilst befriending the real millionaire and trying to raise funds for a revolutionary operation to restore the girl's sight. The final scene where the girl, sight restored, meets the tramp for the first time and sees him for who he really is remains one of the most touching, honest and sweet scenes committed to film to this day.
I could go on and on about this marvellous movie. The virtuoso boxing sequences is one of the finest silent comedy sequences I have seen, fully the equal to the cannon sequence in Keaton's The General and Chaplin's own factory sequence in Modern Times. If you haven't seen any Chaplin yet, this is a terrific place to start, particularly because none of the set pieces have really entered the cultural consciousness in the way that parts of Modern Times have. This is a vital and alive film, and one of the cinema's enduring greats.
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
The Usual Suspects
The problem 'twist' movies often have is, if someone spoils the twist for you, your enjoyment of the entire film is often compromised. I still haven't forgiven the guy who spoiled the twist of The Sixth Sense for me the DAY AFTER it came out in the cinemas, directly after I told him I hadn't seen it and was really looking forward to it. What an ass.
This fact is the main point I put forward in defence of why I hadn't seen The Usual Suspects up until now. I won't spoil the twist here in case any of you folk haven't seen it yet yourselves, but I seem to recall reading the twist in the tail in a film magazine many years ago. Watching TUS then was more of a chore I thought, something I'd better get through to complete my IMDB top 250 quest.
Boy was I wrong. What a terrific movie. The Usual Suspects inhabits a grubby, grimy Los Angeles straight out of an old Noir movie. In fact it shares a lot of its DNA with the old Noir films. They were often made as 'B' pictures, using a bunch of character actors from around the studio lot quickly and cheaply. The resulting film would then be shown on the undercard of a double feature, with the main event starring the biggest movie stars the studio could muster. In many cases these grubby little noir films are now better remembered than the insipid star vehicles that followed.
Like its cinematic precursors, TUS eschews movie stars for a collection of well regarded character actors, and Stephen Baldwin. That's perhaps a little unkind, but we ARE talking about the man who was Barney Rubble in The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas, so I'll let it stand. Even Kevin Spacey couldn't be regarded as a leading man at this stage of his career, but the Oscar he won here for Best Supporting Actor started him on the path to where he is today. The lack of stars helps ground the film in its gritty cinematic world, and prevents proceedings turning into a mere action film or thriller.
The thing with the twist is that, despite knowing it, my enjoyment of the story wasn't lessened in any way. Sure it would've been great not to know, but the twist seems more like a cherry on the top of a particularly delicious sundae, as opposed to the entire raison d’être for the piece. The interrogation of Spacey's conman, Verbal Kint, by Chazz Palminteri's Customs Officer, Dave Kujan, is the heart of the piece. It gives us a coherent throughline to the whole piece, and also a reason to care. Kujan is the representative for the Audience's point of view. We know what he knows at all times, and his revelations are our own. The screenplay is absolutely terrific, and deservedly won writer Christopher McQuarrie an Oscar.
Apart from the screenplay, and some of the acting (Spacey and Palminteri especially), the rest of the building blocks are solid and workmanlike, if unspectacular. Somehow though, through a mystical cinematic alchemy, these blocks come together to form a magnificence greater than the sum of its parts. The Usual Suspects is a modern Noir classic, and I am a little ashamed it took me this long to discover it.
This fact is the main point I put forward in defence of why I hadn't seen The Usual Suspects up until now. I won't spoil the twist here in case any of you folk haven't seen it yet yourselves, but I seem to recall reading the twist in the tail in a film magazine many years ago. Watching TUS then was more of a chore I thought, something I'd better get through to complete my IMDB top 250 quest.
Boy was I wrong. What a terrific movie. The Usual Suspects inhabits a grubby, grimy Los Angeles straight out of an old Noir movie. In fact it shares a lot of its DNA with the old Noir films. They were often made as 'B' pictures, using a bunch of character actors from around the studio lot quickly and cheaply. The resulting film would then be shown on the undercard of a double feature, with the main event starring the biggest movie stars the studio could muster. In many cases these grubby little noir films are now better remembered than the insipid star vehicles that followed.
Like its cinematic precursors, TUS eschews movie stars for a collection of well regarded character actors, and Stephen Baldwin. That's perhaps a little unkind, but we ARE talking about the man who was Barney Rubble in The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas, so I'll let it stand. Even Kevin Spacey couldn't be regarded as a leading man at this stage of his career, but the Oscar he won here for Best Supporting Actor started him on the path to where he is today. The lack of stars helps ground the film in its gritty cinematic world, and prevents proceedings turning into a mere action film or thriller.
The thing with the twist is that, despite knowing it, my enjoyment of the story wasn't lessened in any way. Sure it would've been great not to know, but the twist seems more like a cherry on the top of a particularly delicious sundae, as opposed to the entire raison d’être for the piece. The interrogation of Spacey's conman, Verbal Kint, by Chazz Palminteri's Customs Officer, Dave Kujan, is the heart of the piece. It gives us a coherent throughline to the whole piece, and also a reason to care. Kujan is the representative for the Audience's point of view. We know what he knows at all times, and his revelations are our own. The screenplay is absolutely terrific, and deservedly won writer Christopher McQuarrie an Oscar.
Apart from the screenplay, and some of the acting (Spacey and Palminteri especially), the rest of the building blocks are solid and workmanlike, if unspectacular. Somehow though, through a mystical cinematic alchemy, these blocks come together to form a magnificence greater than the sum of its parts. The Usual Suspects is a modern Noir classic, and I am a little ashamed it took me this long to discover it.
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Once Upon a Time in the West
(My first time doing this, but trigger warning for some discussion of sexual assault in the context of plot points from a movie. Any advice on if I am doing this wrong much appreciated in the comments!)
I went into this one with a small measure of anticipation. I had watched and enjoyed a couple of the Sergio Leone 'Dollars' trilogy, and enjoyed them greatly. Whilst OUATitW may lack the steely gravitas Clint Eastwood provided those films, the triple threat of Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda and Jason Robards was sure to be ample compensation.
Sure enough, the film opens with a opening scene both laid back and tense, all at once. Ennio Morricone puts us right back in the old west instantly with another iconic score. Leone is in top form, showing us three bandits taking over a sleepy rural rail station, and waiting for the train to arrive. All the directors signature tools of the trade are in evidence as the virtuoso sequence climaxes in a shootout between the bandits and Bronson's laconic antihero, Harmonica.
Soon we are introduced to the delectable Claudia Cardinale's character, the widow Jill McBain. I would hesitate more over describing Ms Cardinale as delectable, if the film didn't take great pains to highlight her character's main positive quality as being her eroticism (both in terms of story and production choices). This despite her character being formidable in many ways, and all the more interesting for it.
More problematic still is how the three main male characters interact with the Widow McBain. I'm afraid to say it all gets a little bit rapey. OK, a lot rapey. A few selected moments:
It is a shame, because the film has some terrific set pieces and otherwise would be a terrific companion to the Dollars trilogy. As it stands though it is difficult to recommend. Probably one to leave back in the sixties, where it belongs.
I went into this one with a small measure of anticipation. I had watched and enjoyed a couple of the Sergio Leone 'Dollars' trilogy, and enjoyed them greatly. Whilst OUATitW may lack the steely gravitas Clint Eastwood provided those films, the triple threat of Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda and Jason Robards was sure to be ample compensation.
Sure enough, the film opens with a opening scene both laid back and tense, all at once. Ennio Morricone puts us right back in the old west instantly with another iconic score. Leone is in top form, showing us three bandits taking over a sleepy rural rail station, and waiting for the train to arrive. All the directors signature tools of the trade are in evidence as the virtuoso sequence climaxes in a shootout between the bandits and Bronson's laconic antihero, Harmonica.
Soon we are introduced to the delectable Claudia Cardinale's character, the widow Jill McBain. I would hesitate more over describing Ms Cardinale as delectable, if the film didn't take great pains to highlight her character's main positive quality as being her eroticism (both in terms of story and production choices). This despite her character being formidable in many ways, and all the more interesting for it.
More problematic still is how the three main male characters interact with the Widow McBain. I'm afraid to say it all gets a little bit rapey. OK, a lot rapey. A few selected moments:
- When Harmonica 'surprises' McBain in her barn, he forcefully and aggressively tears the lace collar from her dress, tears her sleeves open and pushes her to the floor, restraining her there. Once it is clear he is dominant and in total control of her, he lets her up and flatly orders her to fetch him some water. I should point out that Harmonica is ostensibly the good guy of the piece.
- Henry Fonda plays Frank, a villainous 'fixer' in the employ of a crooked railway baron. He was responsible for the death of McBain's husband. Later, when he has kidnapped McBain she is forced to have sex with him whilst he taunts her about responsibility for her husbands death. Even more disturbing, McBain is shown responding to these advances with outright arousal, as Frank says"You'll do anything to save your own skin." Sure, she hates the guy, but she is rendered helpless by the touch of a man, any man it seems.
- Jason Robards is probably the most respectful of the three, despite his character being the most morally neutral. As the bandit leader Cheyenne, he ends up coming down on the side of good. Towards the end of the movie, he advises McBain to bring water to the thirsty crew of railroad workers who are building their tracks towards her property. He continues "Can't imagine how happy it makes a man to see a woman like you. Just to look at her. And if one of them should pat your behind, just make believe it's nothing. They earned it." Apparently a hard days work is all it takes for a man to be able to ignore a pretty woman's personal boundaries and body autonomy. Sure enough, Cheyenne gets his ass pat in before he leaves.
It is a shame, because the film has some terrific set pieces and otherwise would be a terrific companion to the Dollars trilogy. As it stands though it is difficult to recommend. Probably one to leave back in the sixties, where it belongs.
The Next Random Act
Hi all!
Have let the blog lie dormant for far too long, so in an effort to fire things up will start posting some random thoughts on various (mostly old) films I watch. This is an addendum to my long running quest to watch all of the IMDB Top 250 films list. I've knocked down 200, fifty to go. Stay tuned for the first instalment: Once Upon a Time in the West
Have let the blog lie dormant for far too long, so in an effort to fire things up will start posting some random thoughts on various (mostly old) films I watch. This is an addendum to my long running quest to watch all of the IMDB Top 250 films list. I've knocked down 200, fifty to go. Stay tuned for the first instalment: Once Upon a Time in the West
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
PAX Australia Tickets exchange!
OK, here's the deal.
I have two 3-day PAX passes. Like chumps, my buddy and I double booked the weekend with an unmovable engagement.
HOWEVER! We can still attend PAX on the Friday.
Where do you come in?
You are ideally a poor soul who could only obtain two Friday passes for PAX. You wish in your heart of hearts that you could attend the whole weekend, but your dreams were thwarted by the tickets selling out.
What I propose we do is trade tickets, with you paying for the difference in price between your Friday ticket ($55) and the Three Day Pass ($130). 130-55= $75 per ticket.
You get to go three days, we get to go Friday, everyone has paid the cover price of the tix, everybody is happy.
If you are interested, or have any questions, email me at luverly_5pam (at) Hotmail (dot) com.
Thanks, and see you at PAX!
I have two 3-day PAX passes. Like chumps, my buddy and I double booked the weekend with an unmovable engagement.
HOWEVER! We can still attend PAX on the Friday.
Where do you come in?
You are ideally a poor soul who could only obtain two Friday passes for PAX. You wish in your heart of hearts that you could attend the whole weekend, but your dreams were thwarted by the tickets selling out.
What I propose we do is trade tickets, with you paying for the difference in price between your Friday ticket ($55) and the Three Day Pass ($130). 130-55= $75 per ticket.
You get to go three days, we get to go Friday, everyone has paid the cover price of the tix, everybody is happy.
If you are interested, or have any questions, email me at luverly_5pam (at) Hotmail (dot) com.
Thanks, and see you at PAX!
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Resolution Elocution
Here we are then, 2013. After a rather mild New Years Eve, and a relatively trauma free return to work, I find myself staring down the barrel of another 365 days of action packed, white knuckle thrills. Or failing that, mild excitements to break the tedium. Also, to be absolutely technically correct (the best kind of correct), there are a mere 362 or so days remaining. Time flies, etc. etc.
The removal of the old, graffitoed monthly time keeping device and its replacement with a pristine new calendrical wonder is seen as an opportunity by many to pontificate uponst the wicked turns their life has taken, and resolve to be A Better Person in the year to come. I have usually avoided such navel gazing, making such resolute non-resolutions as; To resolve to keep my New Years resolution, and; To fight evil wherever it may arise.
This year though, I have an actual, honest-to-goodness New Years resolution. Perhaps it is the looming spectre of my 30th, or my rapidly approaching 5th Wedding Anniversary, but it sprung up in my mind of its own accord, fully formed. It is as follows:
- To write more in 2013, to write a greater variety of pieces, and to write primarily for my own personal enjoyment.
Past attempts at writing more often have had varying attempts of success, usually getting bogged down in dissatisfaction at the form or format I have chosen. This year, instead of having a prescriptive goal of 'write X words per week' or 'write X blog entries per month', I am taking things a little easier and trying to simply be aware of and take opportunities to write, if and when they arise. This goes very much against the grain of what I train people when covering goal setting in the classroom.
The accepted dogma for goal setting in my workplace is the SMART goal formula, and the above resolution certainly doesn't fit the SMART template. At this point in a class I would exhort my trainees that the goal is therefore Doomed To Failure. I dunno though, we'll see. I feel the less rules and restrictions I have, the more I'll do.
I am excited by the opportunity to explore other forms and styles of writing. Most of these experiments will probably never see the light of day, but I anticipate much enjoyment, tempered with a healthy amount of frustration in their creation!
As these be new waters I propose to navigate, I don't exactly have a lot planned to start out with. I have been looking into on line and printed resources for writing exercises and the like. If anyone has any good suggestions for where to find these, or resources they have found useful, I would be very grateful for them. I find myself pondering whether I should join a writers group/club, and whether they would accept a fairly rank beginner into their midst. Ah well. Perhaps these meandering musings are meant for another day and another topic. Exciting times!
The removal of the old, graffitoed monthly time keeping device and its replacement with a pristine new calendrical wonder is seen as an opportunity by many to pontificate uponst the wicked turns their life has taken, and resolve to be A Better Person in the year to come. I have usually avoided such navel gazing, making such resolute non-resolutions as; To resolve to keep my New Years resolution, and; To fight evil wherever it may arise.
This year though, I have an actual, honest-to-goodness New Years resolution. Perhaps it is the looming spectre of my 30th, or my rapidly approaching 5th Wedding Anniversary, but it sprung up in my mind of its own accord, fully formed. It is as follows:
- To write more in 2013, to write a greater variety of pieces, and to write primarily for my own personal enjoyment.
Past attempts at writing more often have had varying attempts of success, usually getting bogged down in dissatisfaction at the form or format I have chosen. This year, instead of having a prescriptive goal of 'write X words per week' or 'write X blog entries per month', I am taking things a little easier and trying to simply be aware of and take opportunities to write, if and when they arise. This goes very much against the grain of what I train people when covering goal setting in the classroom.
The accepted dogma for goal setting in my workplace is the SMART goal formula, and the above resolution certainly doesn't fit the SMART template. At this point in a class I would exhort my trainees that the goal is therefore Doomed To Failure. I dunno though, we'll see. I feel the less rules and restrictions I have, the more I'll do.
I am excited by the opportunity to explore other forms and styles of writing. Most of these experiments will probably never see the light of day, but I anticipate much enjoyment, tempered with a healthy amount of frustration in their creation!
As these be new waters I propose to navigate, I don't exactly have a lot planned to start out with. I have been looking into on line and printed resources for writing exercises and the like. If anyone has any good suggestions for where to find these, or resources they have found useful, I would be very grateful for them. I find myself pondering whether I should join a writers group/club, and whether they would accept a fairly rank beginner into their midst. Ah well. Perhaps these meandering musings are meant for another day and another topic. Exciting times!
Monday, 17 December 2012
Cheer up emo kid...
I haven’t posted anything on here in a while, almost six
months in fact. I’ve been meaning to write for a short while now, but for
various reasons have put it off. This particular piece is a post that I’ve been
turning over in my mind for a while, but has been exceedingly difficult to
write, even to just sit down and start to write. I guess the reasons will
become clear as I go through, so apologies in advance if this is all a bit of a
brain dump!
The last piece I wrote was a review of the Game Masters show
for Gabe McGrath’s wonderful Just One More Game site. At the time I was also
starting to write regularly for Dusty Cartridge, and about to start submitting
reviews to Australian Gaming Network. Outwardly it probably seemed everything
was going great, and to start with I was certainly pleased to have opportunity
to write, which I enjoy very much. Internally however, I was starting to notice
some very concerning symptoms, symptoms I hadn’t encounter for around eight
years.
The symptoms were ones I recognised from an episode of
depression I experienced during my Uni years. Obviously this was quite
worrying, so I visited the Beyond Blue website in order to gather some more
info. Using the symptom checklists there I gauged where my mental state was
currently. A score of 5 or higher indicated probable depression. I scored 8 out
of a possible 9. Obviously not good.
Now I’m not writing this with the intention of making it a
weepy tell-all tale of ‘my struggles with depression’ or anything as
melodramatic as that. There are plenty of other much better writers than I that
have written very good accounts of depressive illness, and I have no wish to
add to that. I have been percolating some various related thoughts though, and
think it would be valuable to me to explore them further on paper.
To start with I am immensely lucky and thankful for many things
in relation to this episode. Firstly I am inordinately grateful for the support
I have at home from Kate. When I wasn’t able to get out of bed, feed myself, and
make sure I was presentable to the world she was there to either give me
sympathy or a boot up the arse as the situation required. Many people who
experience periods of mental ill health aren’t so lucky. I am also extremely
glad that I could recognise the symptoms early and seek help. I have an
excellent GP who has me on a treatment plan that is working well, and is regularly
checking in to ensure I am on track. I also had very supportive and
understanding bosses, who prioritised my wellbeing and made adjustments to my
work role in order to ensure I was still able to make a meaningful
contribution.
I am very, very lucky that I received support in from these
three areas. Unwavering support at home, at work and medically have been very
real and concrete reasons why I have been able to move towards recovery fairly
rapidly, and these supports are something that a person who is experiencing
mental ill health do not always receive. Family members often don’t understand what
is required to support a mentally unwell person. Workplaces are often not even
aware of their legal obligations with relation to reasonable adjustments, let
alone in breaking the mindset that a worker ‘just can’t be bothered’ or ‘is
trying it on’. There are many doctors who are more than happy to write out a
prescription for antidepressants, but don’t bother to take the time to work out
a more holistic treatment plan (Aside: this isn’t me being against
antidepressant medication BTW. They are an important part of my treatment plan.
However there are many other considerations such as talk therapies, cognitive
behavioural therapy or CBT, sleep hygiene, nutrition, support networks etc.)
For those playing at home that takes the grand total of
people I informed of my depression to four (Kate, Dr, 2 bosses). What you don’t see in there is any great deep
and meaningful chats with friends. I’ve always been an extremely reserved
person, and not prone to spilling my guts with others. The stupid thing is I
have plenty of friends I believe I could have such discussions with, but the
thought of it fills me with dread, to be frank! Just writing this post is quite
out there for me. I still noticed concern from friends at the time, as I was noticeably
not myself, and enquiries as to my wellbeing were received, but when asked if I
was OK, I would invariably respond ‘fine, thanks’ and change the subject. If I
fobbed you off in this way, rest assured it’s not you, it’s me!
I do worry about impressions I may have made during my worst
period. Unfortunately, even though I started treatment fairly rapidly, I did
get worse before I got better, and for a time was purely focused on making sure
I was barely adequately doing my job. There are times I know I will have just
seemed like I was being lazy, or antisocial, or waspish, or aloof. I had also
made various commitments to people to complete various tasks to people, some
writing projects etc. Many of these did not get done as I simply didn’t have
the energy, and I am ashamed to say in many cases I couldn’t even write to
apologise or explain. It is one of my goals for the new year to write some
emails of apology to those I may have let down.
I guess that last paragraph is a bit of a window into
something which is a major factor in depression, guilt. Guilt is a very common
feeling in those experiencing depression. There is always the knowledge that
you aren’t doing things that you ought to be, often fairly basic fundamental things.
There can be guilt at the amount of help and support you receive from others. It
is sort of the idea that you can’t look after yourself, so why should they have
to waste their time picking up the slack. Dealing with guilt and other
unhealthy thought processes are one of the major challenges someone with
depression has to face, and one that medication alone cannot easily overcome.
CBTs are very useful here.
I’ve probably almost rambled on quite enough for one day but
the one last thing I wanted to cover is some advice I could give to people if
they do suspect someone they are close to is experiencing mental ill health,
and how to broach the subject. In my experience, most people will say something
like “How are you?” or “Are you OK”. These sentences are great for showing that
you are concerned about someone for sure. However, they are also very easy for
a person to deflect, by simply responding that they are fine.
They are particularly weak because they are closed
questions, questions to which binary responses are available (in this case
good/bad, yes/no respectively). Being closed questions, it is easy for a person
to respond with the best case scenario answer.
A much more effective way of broaching the subject is with
an “I have noticed...” statement, followed by a question. An “I have noticed...”
statement starts, funnily enough, with the words ‘I have noticed...”. You would
then follow this with a specific concerning behaviour that you personally have
noticed, for example “I have noticed you have been running late quite often
recently.” This is the followed by a question, for example “is there anything
going on that you’d like to discuss?” By starting with the “I have noticed...”
statement, you make your query less confronting and will make it seem less like
you are asking if there is something wrong with them. There is still a lot of
stigma and misunderstanding attached to mental health issues, and people will
often be reticent to talk because of fear of being misunderstood or adversely treated.
By focussing on a single behaviour, as opposed to the whole picture can often
be a bridge to start building trust and understanding.
Caveat: if somebody doesn’t feel like talking, don’t try and
force the matter. They may not be comfortable talking now, but when they are
ready, they may remember you as a potential friendly ear.
OK, I’m starting to feel like I’m getting a bit too Sally
Jesse Raphael here, so I’d best quit while I’m ahead.
When writing this, I think I have started to realise some of
the reasons I wanted to have a crack at this piece. I am tired of being scared
that people will find out. I am tired of being ashamed. I am tired of feeling
guilty. I am proud that I managed to notice things were going bad and act,
fast. I am proud that I was well prepared and had ensured that structures were
in place in my life to be able to deal with mental ill health. I am proud to be
writing again, after almost six months off. I am ready to whole heartedly sink
my teeth into 2013. I am feeling good.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Meeting the Gods of Gaming
New article alert! I wrote a review of ACMI's delightful new exhibition, Game Masters. All the details can be found over at Just One More Game
http://justonemoregame.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/special-guest-review-games-masters-at-acmi/
http://justonemoregame.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/special-guest-review-games-masters-at-acmi/
Thursday, 12 July 2012
OUYA? OOO Yeah.
So, the latest buzz topic in gaming is the OUYA and its highly impressive Kickstarter numbers. How impressive are they really though? I investigate over on Dusty Cartridge.
http://dustycartridge.com/features/ouya-the-revolution-will-be-televised/
http://dustycartridge.com/features/ouya-the-revolution-will-be-televised/
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Proteus preview up!
Quick note: I wrote a preview of upcoming indie gem Proteus, the fine folks over at Dusty Cartridge have it up now!
Check it out here:
http://dustycartridge.com/features/peaking-world-proteus/
(P.S. I didn't write the headline, using 'Peaking' instead of 'Peeking' is setting my teeth on edge... :-S)
EDIT @10:30PM Headline all fixed up, feel a bit goobery for complaining...
Check it out here:
http://dustycartridge.com/features/peaking-world-proteus/
EDIT @10:30PM Headline all fixed up, feel a bit goobery for complaining...
Thursday, 5 July 2012
RAOC 2.0!!!
Welcome back, to all the ghosts of blogs past who may still frequent this place.
So, the last time I tried to kick this off I lasted, what, 2 weeks? The first problem came when I undertook to create those accursed film diaries! What at the time seemed like a great way to give my blog a point of difference, in the end seemed a little too much like hard work...
So, things are going to be different this time. I have recently had offers to write content for a number of gaming blogs, a challenge which I was all too happy to accept. This blog then will stand as a centralised hub of my various writings. If I write something that appears on the internet, rest assured it shall be linked here!
To kick things off, at the below link you will find a piece I wrote on the trials and tribulations of waiting for indie classic Fez to be patched. It was published on The Age's Screen Play blog last week:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/blogs/screenplay/your-turn-fezstration-20120628-213hk.html
Plenty more in the pipeline, stay tuned!
So, the last time I tried to kick this off I lasted, what, 2 weeks? The first problem came when I undertook to create those accursed film diaries! What at the time seemed like a great way to give my blog a point of difference, in the end seemed a little too much like hard work...
So, things are going to be different this time. I have recently had offers to write content for a number of gaming blogs, a challenge which I was all too happy to accept. This blog then will stand as a centralised hub of my various writings. If I write something that appears on the internet, rest assured it shall be linked here!
To kick things off, at the below link you will find a piece I wrote on the trials and tribulations of waiting for indie classic Fez to be patched. It was published on The Age's Screen Play blog last week:
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/blogs/screenplay/your-turn-fezstration-20120628-213hk.html
Plenty more in the pipeline, stay tuned!
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Melbourne Film Diary 01 Feb - 05 Feb
Welcome to another week of the Melbourne film diary, and I'm afraid things are not off to a great start! A couple of days late, and not only that but I have decided to fiddle with the format after a single solitary week. Rather than a top five of the weeks cinema, instead from now on the diary will offer a daily highlight, the must see movie on any given day in this fine city. So, on to the diary!
Wednesday 01 February
Summer continues, and that means outdoor cinema. Tonight's top pick is that evergreen classic, Casablanca. Showing at the rooftop cinema in Swanston St, watch Bogie and Bergman in one of the all time greatest romantic tales.
Casablanca, Rooftop Cinema, 9:30PM, Adult $20 + BF, Concession $16 + BF
http://www.rooftopcinema.com.au/screening/41
Thursday 02 February
It is Oscar season, which means the next month or so will see a steady stream of nominated and should've been nominated films. Today sees the release of a couple of doozies. First up, in the shoulda-been-nominated category, is film festival darling Martha Marcy May Marlene. Starring Elizabeth Olsen in a star making turn, this film deals with the struggle of a girl to pick up the pieces of her life after being ensnared by a cult. Secondly, in the definitely-nominated and current Best Picture front runner, The Artist. This French silent film took Cannes by storm and has since been going gangbusters on the American awards circuit. A must see for amateur Oscar pundits.
Martha Marcy May Marlene, The Artist. Both showing at Hoyts, Village and Palace Theatres.
Friday 03 February
Friday sees a return of the gleefully awful and the deliciously catty world of Cinema Fiasco at the Astor Theatre. To the uninitiated, CF features a tragically poor film, alongside the delightful commentary of hosts Geoff Wallis and Janet A. McLeod. Tonight's offering is the Blaxploitation/Horror mash up, Sugar Hill. The plot features both the Mob AND zombies! Awesome as that sounds, Thankfully it is not the plot you turn up for.
Sugar Hill, The Astor, 8:00PM, Adult $19, Concession $17
http://www.astortheatre.net.au/films/sugar-hill
Saturday 04 February
Back to the Astor for the second day running! Today they are showing the 2010 re release of Fritz Lang's masterpiece, Metropolis. This version is the extended version made with restored lost footage obtained from newly discovered prints in Argentina and New Zealand. Last time the Astor showed this film it was an absolute sell out, so be sure to get in early to grab a ticket. Doors open at 6:30PM.
Metropolis, The Astor, 7:30PM, Adult $15, Concession $14, Child/Pensioner $13
http://www.astortheatre.net.au/films/metropolis
Sunday 05 February
Sunday afternoons mean Sunday sessions, and where better than at The Shadow Electric? Located at the Abbotsford Convent, doors open at 3PM on Sundays with a full bar, comfy deckchairs, food available at the Convent, and table tennis for the athletically minded. This is all followed at sundown with a film. Tonight's showing is Submarine, a quirky British comedy directed by Richard Ayoade better known perhaps for his role as Moss on TV's The IT Crowd. Free entry until 7PM, after which a film ticket is required to stay.
Submarine, The Shadow Electric, Sundown, Adult $19, Concession $16, Child/Pensioner $14
http://shadowelectric.com.au/film/submarine
New Release films
All new releases opening Thursday unless otherwise noted.
The Artist - Hoyts, Village, Palace
Chronicle - Hoyts, Village
Man On A Ledge - Hoyts, Village
Martha Marcy May Marlene - Hoyts, Village, Palace
Bolshoi: The Sleeping Beauty - Village
Friday, 27 January 2012
Tropical Traumas
The Descendants
Director: Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Matthew Lillard, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges
Hawaiian Lawyer and Property mogul Matt King's (George Clooney) life is overturned when his wife, Elizabeth is critically injured in a boating accident. Distraught by the condition of his comatose wife, Matt can barely concentrate on an important property deal for which he is the sole trustee of his greater extended family. On top of this, he is in sole charge of taking care of his youngest daughter for the first time in his life, as he says himself, he was very much the 'back up parent'.
So the plot stands after the first 20 minutes or so, and thus far is no different from the many other soapy melodramas available for your viewing pleasure. However, after this introductory 20 minutes, the movie really steps up a gear and shows why Alexander Payne is such a well regarded screenwriter.
Anyone who has seen previous Payne penned films will know how good he is at crafting fully realised, flawed and complex characters. A speciality, especially in his past few films has been creating older characters coming to key crossroads in their life, and realising that their system of values may have been slightly awry all this time. In About Schmidt Jack Nicholson played the titular character as a man utterly despondent at the course his life had taken, whereas in Sideways Paul Giamatti's wine snob Miles is consumed by bitterness and rage at the emptiness and failure of his life thus far.
Clooney's portrayal of King is almost the polar opposite of the wine soaked Miles. A man for whom success oozes out of every pore, King is the wealthiest and most successful member of his clan, and has worked hard to achieve this. His achievements have come at the expense of his relationships with his family, which he will spend the majority of the film trying to untangle. His focus on business is notable in an opening voice over in which he complains about how Hawaii is not like it seems in the movies, with people having the same problems as everywhere else. He goes so far as to note that he hasn't been on a surfboard in 15 years. This is a symptom of his disconnection with the lands of his forefathers, and his gradual awakening to the paradise around him is one of the major signposts of his personal growth. This is some of Clooney's finest work, burying his usual demeanour of smug certainty beneath the grief and anxiety that the twists of plot provide.
To focus too much on the performance and character of Clooney is almost criminal in a movie packed with such rounded characters and stunning performances. Every character has there own particular problems and flaws, and the actors do wonders with the meaty parts given them. Particularly notable are a pair of performances from Matthew Lillard and Judy Greer, of whom both are better known for comedic or lighter roles. Here they provide ample evidence of their dramatic chops in roles that are absolutely pivotal to the plot. Shailene Woodley is terrific as older daughter Alex, and indeed the movie only really comes alive when she enters the picture. She was terribly unlucky to miss out on an Oscar nomination for this breakthrough performance. Veteran actor Robert Forster has several small but key scenes as Elizabeth's grieving father, and is electric in them. I must also make a special mention of Nick Krause's ludicrously stereotypical spaced out beach bum, Sid. It is a mark of the quality of this film that even this character is shown to be deeper than he originally appears.
The backdrop to all of this is a Hawaii which is not the picture postcard island of countless surf and beach movies. Instead it is a Hawaii of a more rustic, primeval beauty. The choices made in cinematography show a lush island that makes one understand how it could be described as a paradise on earth.
All this sounds suitably superlative and yet... All the parts are there for a very satisfying film experience, and indeed it is highly entertaining. However, it never really takes off and becomes something that transcends its genre. Alexander Payne's screenplay is as terrific as always, but the direction is merely competent. The characters are well written and the actors are in top form, but which characters have really changed by the end, and by how much? Whilst a very well crafted and well acted drama, it lands somewhere above a TV disease of the week movie and below a truly amazing cinematic experience. Eminently watchable, but by no means compulsory.
Recommendation:
Director: Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Matthew Lillard, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges
Hawaiian Lawyer and Property mogul Matt King's (George Clooney) life is overturned when his wife, Elizabeth is critically injured in a boating accident. Distraught by the condition of his comatose wife, Matt can barely concentrate on an important property deal for which he is the sole trustee of his greater extended family. On top of this, he is in sole charge of taking care of his youngest daughter for the first time in his life, as he says himself, he was very much the 'back up parent'.
So the plot stands after the first 20 minutes or so, and thus far is no different from the many other soapy melodramas available for your viewing pleasure. However, after this introductory 20 minutes, the movie really steps up a gear and shows why Alexander Payne is such a well regarded screenwriter.
Anyone who has seen previous Payne penned films will know how good he is at crafting fully realised, flawed and complex characters. A speciality, especially in his past few films has been creating older characters coming to key crossroads in their life, and realising that their system of values may have been slightly awry all this time. In About Schmidt Jack Nicholson played the titular character as a man utterly despondent at the course his life had taken, whereas in Sideways Paul Giamatti's wine snob Miles is consumed by bitterness and rage at the emptiness and failure of his life thus far.
Clooney's portrayal of King is almost the polar opposite of the wine soaked Miles. A man for whom success oozes out of every pore, King is the wealthiest and most successful member of his clan, and has worked hard to achieve this. His achievements have come at the expense of his relationships with his family, which he will spend the majority of the film trying to untangle. His focus on business is notable in an opening voice over in which he complains about how Hawaii is not like it seems in the movies, with people having the same problems as everywhere else. He goes so far as to note that he hasn't been on a surfboard in 15 years. This is a symptom of his disconnection with the lands of his forefathers, and his gradual awakening to the paradise around him is one of the major signposts of his personal growth. This is some of Clooney's finest work, burying his usual demeanour of smug certainty beneath the grief and anxiety that the twists of plot provide.
To focus too much on the performance and character of Clooney is almost criminal in a movie packed with such rounded characters and stunning performances. Every character has there own particular problems and flaws, and the actors do wonders with the meaty parts given them. Particularly notable are a pair of performances from Matthew Lillard and Judy Greer, of whom both are better known for comedic or lighter roles. Here they provide ample evidence of their dramatic chops in roles that are absolutely pivotal to the plot. Shailene Woodley is terrific as older daughter Alex, and indeed the movie only really comes alive when she enters the picture. She was terribly unlucky to miss out on an Oscar nomination for this breakthrough performance. Veteran actor Robert Forster has several small but key scenes as Elizabeth's grieving father, and is electric in them. I must also make a special mention of Nick Krause's ludicrously stereotypical spaced out beach bum, Sid. It is a mark of the quality of this film that even this character is shown to be deeper than he originally appears.
The backdrop to all of this is a Hawaii which is not the picture postcard island of countless surf and beach movies. Instead it is a Hawaii of a more rustic, primeval beauty. The choices made in cinematography show a lush island that makes one understand how it could be described as a paradise on earth.
All this sounds suitably superlative and yet... All the parts are there for a very satisfying film experience, and indeed it is highly entertaining. However, it never really takes off and becomes something that transcends its genre. Alexander Payne's screenplay is as terrific as always, but the direction is merely competent. The characters are well written and the actors are in top form, but which characters have really changed by the end, and by how much? Whilst a very well crafted and well acted drama, it lands somewhere above a TV disease of the week movie and below a truly amazing cinematic experience. Eminently watchable, but by no means compulsory.
Recommendation:
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
'Seven thumbs up'
One of the curious idiosyncrasies of a reviewers craft is the perceived obligation to boil a film experience down to the cold hard number of a review score. Whether using a star rating, marks out of ten, letter grading or even just giving a particularly fine film 'Q pineapples out of ampersand', a scoring system basically renders a reviewers careful constructed critiques moot in the face of an arbitrary concrete number. Human beings have a remarkable love of comparisons and all the lovely arguments that they can provoke, as evidenced in comment threads throughout the internet when a reviewer is considered too generous or too mean with a score.
Here on Random Acts of Criticism I will be taking a slightly different tack. Whilst I will give every film I review a mark, it will be one of my own choosing. Numerical based ranking systems miss the point of the main reason that I read a review. This reason is chiefly to suggest the following; is this a movie I would like to see? If so, how much would I be willing to spend?
With this focus on recommendation rather than ranking, I will award each film reviewed one of the following four ranks. (An implied lesson from this ranking is that no movie is so bad that it should never be watched, it all just depends on the circumstances under which you watch it.)
Cinema: Only the best films reviewed will get a Cinema ranking. What this means is that, given the opportunity, you should do what you can to see this film in a proper theatrical setting. Going out to the movies is an expensive trip these days, no point wasting cash on dreck!
DVD: There are plenty of films out there that, whilst not being amazing, are still a couple of hours of good entertainment. Whilst not being 'must see' movies, they are certainly worth spending a few dollars on for a big night in at the movies.
Television: So, you're stuck at home, with nothing to do, no DVDs to watch. Flick on the idiot box and see if any of these films are playing. Certainly not worth paying for, and by no means the height of filmic achievement, these films aren't worth seeking out, but it still beats Home and Away.
Aeroplane: Here we are folks, the bottom of the barrel. These are the sort of films you should only watch only if you are imprisoned in a metal tube hurtling through the skies and your only choice of film is the god-awful few they force you to watch as part of the in-flight 'entertainment'. You have been warned.
And that concludes the entire rating system. Stay tuned tomorrow for the first film to be reviewed on Random Acts of Criticism, Alexander Payne's The Descendants.
Here on Random Acts of Criticism I will be taking a slightly different tack. Whilst I will give every film I review a mark, it will be one of my own choosing. Numerical based ranking systems miss the point of the main reason that I read a review. This reason is chiefly to suggest the following; is this a movie I would like to see? If so, how much would I be willing to spend?
With this focus on recommendation rather than ranking, I will award each film reviewed one of the following four ranks. (An implied lesson from this ranking is that no movie is so bad that it should never be watched, it all just depends on the circumstances under which you watch it.)
Cinema: Only the best films reviewed will get a Cinema ranking. What this means is that, given the opportunity, you should do what you can to see this film in a proper theatrical setting. Going out to the movies is an expensive trip these days, no point wasting cash on dreck!
DVD: There are plenty of films out there that, whilst not being amazing, are still a couple of hours of good entertainment. Whilst not being 'must see' movies, they are certainly worth spending a few dollars on for a big night in at the movies.
Television: So, you're stuck at home, with nothing to do, no DVDs to watch. Flick on the idiot box and see if any of these films are playing. Certainly not worth paying for, and by no means the height of filmic achievement, these films aren't worth seeking out, but it still beats Home and Away.
Aeroplane: Here we are folks, the bottom of the barrel. These are the sort of films you should only watch only if you are imprisoned in a metal tube hurtling through the skies and your only choice of film is the god-awful few they force you to watch as part of the in-flight 'entertainment'. You have been warned.And that concludes the entire rating system. Stay tuned tomorrow for the first film to be reviewed on Random Acts of Criticism, Alexander Payne's The Descendants.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Melbourne Film Diary 23rd Jan - 29th Jan
Welcome to the first edition of the RAOC weekly Melbourne film diary.
THE WEEKLY TOP 5
1. This week represents your last chance to catch ACMI's excellent Star Voyager exhibition.I expected to see more props and so forth from space based films (of which there are still several), but instead found myself enthralled with footage and artifacts from actual space exploration. My highlight is a camera that was attached to one of the Apollo lunar landers, displayed next to a monitor showing moon footage shot with that very camera. A must see.
Star Voyager, ACMI, 23rd-29th Jan, Full $16.50 Concession $14 Child $9 Members $11
2. Thursday is Australia Day, and and discerning cinemas around Melbourne have your ocker movie needs covered. The least whelming of these offerings is the three movie Australia Day Eve marathon at the Village Coburg. For $25 you get to see Underworld: Awakening, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Jack and Jill. Starts 9PM. Also on the day before the big one, Rooftop Cinema is showing Muriel's Wedding. On the day itself ACMI is serving up a smorgasbord of local film. Take your pick from Strictly Ballroom, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Muriel's Wedding and Mull. Pick of the crop however is The Shadow Electric, with an outdoor screening of Ten Canoes at the Abbotsford Convent.
Australia Day Eve Marathon, Village Coburg, 25th Jan 9:00PM $25
Muriel's Wedding, Rooftop Cinema, 25th Jan 9:30PM Full $20+BF Concession $16+BF
Various Australian Movies, ACMI, 26th Jan various times, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
Ten Canoes, The Shadow Electric - Abbotsford Convent, 26th Jan Sundown (circa 8:30) Full $19 Concession $16 Child $14 Pensioner $14
3. Pick of the crop at the marvellous Astor Theatre this week is Wednesday night's double feature. A pair of critically acclaimed recent releases are lined up in the form of Take Shelter, followed by Moneyball. Both films have been attracting strong notices, particularly for their leading men, Michael Shannon and Brad Pitt respectively. As an added bonus, Wednesday is the Astor's cheap night, so you can see both these gems for a mere tenner!
Take Shelter / Moneyball, The Astor, 25th Jan 7:30PM, All tickets $10
4. ACMI is continuing to shine this week with a pair of documentaries covering very different subjects. Firstly Being Elmo looks at the story of Kevin Clash, who created and handles the fuzzy red Sesame Street star. This is the second run for this doc, and has returned due to popular demand. In a very different vein, The Interrupters is the much anticipated new documentary from the creators of 1994's Hoop Dreams. Tickets have been selling fast for The Interrupters, with new sessions having just been announced. Book soon to avoid disappointment.
Being Elmo, ACMI, 25th Jan - 30th Jan, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
The Interrupters, 23rd Jan - 5th Feb, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
5. The summer heat has arrived making it the perfect time to visit on of Melbourne's fine outdoor or rooftop cinemas. Top option for this week is the Rooftop Cinema showing of We Need To Talk About Kevin. Starring the always great Tilda Swinton, this harrowing film examines the bond (or lack thereof) between a mother and her troubled teenage son. If it all sounds a bit maudlin, just remember the attached bar will be open after the film until 1am to drown your sorrows.
We Need To Talk About Kevin, Rooftop Cinema, 27th Jan 9:30PM Full $20+BF Concession $16+BF
NEW RELEASES
Slim pickings this week, with a wedding based British romcom, a 3D video game inspired action fourquel and a Clint Eastwood picture that has been getting mixed reviews at best. This week is a lull in the usual Jan-Feb glut of Oscar Bait pictures.
A Few Best Men: Hoyts, Village, Palace, Greater Union
Underworld: Awakening : Hoyts, Village
J. Edgar : Village, Palace, Greater Union
THE WEEKLY TOP 5
1. This week represents your last chance to catch ACMI's excellent Star Voyager exhibition.I expected to see more props and so forth from space based films (of which there are still several), but instead found myself enthralled with footage and artifacts from actual space exploration. My highlight is a camera that was attached to one of the Apollo lunar landers, displayed next to a monitor showing moon footage shot with that very camera. A must see.
Star Voyager, ACMI, 23rd-29th Jan, Full $16.50 Concession $14 Child $9 Members $11
2. Thursday is Australia Day, and and discerning cinemas around Melbourne have your ocker movie needs covered. The least whelming of these offerings is the three movie Australia Day Eve marathon at the Village Coburg. For $25 you get to see Underworld: Awakening, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Jack and Jill. Starts 9PM. Also on the day before the big one, Rooftop Cinema is showing Muriel's Wedding. On the day itself ACMI is serving up a smorgasbord of local film. Take your pick from Strictly Ballroom, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Muriel's Wedding and Mull. Pick of the crop however is The Shadow Electric, with an outdoor screening of Ten Canoes at the Abbotsford Convent.
Australia Day Eve Marathon, Village Coburg, 25th Jan 9:00PM $25
Muriel's Wedding, Rooftop Cinema, 25th Jan 9:30PM Full $20+BF Concession $16+BF
Various Australian Movies, ACMI, 26th Jan various times, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
Ten Canoes, The Shadow Electric - Abbotsford Convent, 26th Jan Sundown (circa 8:30) Full $19 Concession $16 Child $14 Pensioner $14
3. Pick of the crop at the marvellous Astor Theatre this week is Wednesday night's double feature. A pair of critically acclaimed recent releases are lined up in the form of Take Shelter, followed by Moneyball. Both films have been attracting strong notices, particularly for their leading men, Michael Shannon and Brad Pitt respectively. As an added bonus, Wednesday is the Astor's cheap night, so you can see both these gems for a mere tenner!
Take Shelter / Moneyball, The Astor, 25th Jan 7:30PM, All tickets $10
4. ACMI is continuing to shine this week with a pair of documentaries covering very different subjects. Firstly Being Elmo looks at the story of Kevin Clash, who created and handles the fuzzy red Sesame Street star. This is the second run for this doc, and has returned due to popular demand. In a very different vein, The Interrupters is the much anticipated new documentary from the creators of 1994's Hoop Dreams. Tickets have been selling fast for The Interrupters, with new sessions having just been announced. Book soon to avoid disappointment.
Being Elmo, ACMI, 25th Jan - 30th Jan, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
The Interrupters, 23rd Jan - 5th Feb, Full $15 Concession $12 Member $11
5. The summer heat has arrived making it the perfect time to visit on of Melbourne's fine outdoor or rooftop cinemas. Top option for this week is the Rooftop Cinema showing of We Need To Talk About Kevin. Starring the always great Tilda Swinton, this harrowing film examines the bond (or lack thereof) between a mother and her troubled teenage son. If it all sounds a bit maudlin, just remember the attached bar will be open after the film until 1am to drown your sorrows.
We Need To Talk About Kevin, Rooftop Cinema, 27th Jan 9:30PM Full $20+BF Concession $16+BF
NEW RELEASES
Slim pickings this week, with a wedding based British romcom, a 3D video game inspired action fourquel and a Clint Eastwood picture that has been getting mixed reviews at best. This week is a lull in the usual Jan-Feb glut of Oscar Bait pictures.
A Few Best Men: Hoyts, Village, Palace, Greater Union
Underworld: Awakening : Hoyts, Village
J. Edgar : Village, Palace, Greater Union
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments