Showing posts with label period piece. Show all posts
Showing posts with label period piece. Show all posts

06 March 2011

WWQTW?

***Disclaimer and open letter to Blogger.com: I wrote this review yesterday, complete with photos and quotes and the whole nine yards. Then, Blogger, in its infinite wisdom, didn't save any of it. Thanks. You'll just have to take my word for it that the original post was hilarious and insightful. I'm not sure what can be said about this one.***

2005 was another year in which the majority of the public and, it seems, journalists; thought the Academy got it wrong. That year, "Crash" beat out critical favorite "Brokeback Mountain"; as well as "Munich", "Capote", and our film last night: "Good Night, and Good Luck". I'm not saying "Good Night" should have won, that place in my heart belongs to "Brokeback Mountain", but it is another example of when good films don't win. The sting hurts all the more that a movie that is basically an open casting for L.A. and two-steps from Lifetime won instead. Oh well.


"Good Night" was also nominated for Best Director- George Clooney, Best Actor- David Strathairn, Best Orginal Screenplay- Clooney and Grant Heslov, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematographer. The cast, from the leads down to the day players, is heavy calibre talent: Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, Matt Ross, and more.

What I liked best about this movie was the use of archival footage from the McCarthy trials and from interviews with the senator. For those unfamiliar, Sen. Joseph McCarthy lead what many considered a witch hunt through the ranks of America looking for communists and communist sympathizers. What made this probe even more intersting was its wide ranging scope. Not only citizens in government employ were targeted, but actors, writers, directors, and civilians. The U.S. was a scary place to live at the time. Clooney's decision to use real footage helps remind those of us too young to remember that what we are seeing is real.


The choice to shot in black and white also helps keep with the period in which the film takes place. Oscar winning DP Robert Elswit ("There Will Be Blood") camera work reminded me of a Cohen brothers movie ("The Man Who Wasn't There")- long static shots on unmoving faces, hand held through the news room, and often focusing on a background player while the actor speaking is out of focus. It sounds odd, but it really helped keep the audience fixated on what was important; namely the words and not the actions.

If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. At about 90 minutes, it's a clear and concise view of the only TV channel that stood up to McCarthy (CBS) and the men who helped bring him down.

**** (4.5 stars)

30 November 2010

Centurion

**** (4.5 stars)


It makes me nervous to say that Neil Marshall has never let me down. Having written and directed some of the most interesting horror films of the past 10 years, he continues to push the boundaries of what defines him as a filmmaker. His first feature film, “Dog Soldiers”, is on all of my personal lists: Best Horror, Best Movie You May Have Never Seen, etc. It is without question one of the best werewolf movies ever made. Following that, he took us spelunking in “The Descent” which managed to creep me out even though I watched the making of first! “Doomsday” is an underappreciated homage to apocalypse films like “Mad Max” and “The Road”. His newest release, “Centurion” departs from the unapologetic gore that earned him membership in the “Splat Pack”.

[side note: Other members of the “Splat Pack” include Alexandre Aja, “High Tension”, Darren Lynn Bousman, “Saw 2-4”, Greg Mclean, “Wolf Creek”, Eli Roth, “Hostel”, James Wan, “Saw”, Leigh Whannell, executive producer of the “Saw” franchise, and Rob Zombie, “Devil’s Rejects”. You can read more about them here.] 

“Centurion” tells the fabled story of Rome’s 9th Legion, one so deadly and feared, they were considered unstoppable. As with all things given such a grand title; they were eventually lost in the woods of Scotland and believed defeated by the Picts. Quintus Dias (the always amazing Michael Fassbender) is a Centurion who escapes capture by the Pict leader Gorlacon and joins up with the 9th while on the run. Shortly after, they are ambushed and General Titus Virilus (Dominic West) is captured. What is left of this great army must now fight to retrieve their fallen leader and escape back to the Roman stronghold. The Picts are not a passive people, and they hunt the Romans with equal virile and the help of their best scout, Etain (Olga Kurylenko). Kurylenko shrugs off any patina from her Bond girl days to play this tortured and mute tracker.


This film got a lot of attention due to its violence level (something we can surly expect from Marshall) and not for the interesting story, great camera work, and fine acting. The complexities of the relationships between the soldiers often mirror that between the Romans and the Picts. Of course its violent and gory, but much of it appears just off screen or from behind: A sword connects with a man’s head, but the camera is behind him so we never really see it connect. Here we have the Roman’s, a civilization that at that time controlled most of Europe and parts of Asian, up against the one enemy they can’t seem to tame, the Picts (Rome met equal resistance from all of the Celtic people). Is it any bloodier than “Glory” or “Saving Private Ryan”? Not really. The difference here is we are fighting with swords and bow and arrow. It’s always unsettling to me how a movie about war can be bloodless. Is this what we should be teaching our children? Not that children should see this movie per se, there is a lot of profanity and gore. (Don’t even get me started on the frequent use of the word “fuck” which was not recorded until the 16th century).


Filmed on location in Scotland, the cinematography of Sam McCurdy (Marshall’s longtime collaborator) is breathtaking. No establishing shot is wasted (*cough* *cough* Harry Potter), and is instead used to transport the viewer to the freezing tundra, dark and damp woods, or through a raging river. When coupled with Chris Gill’s editing (“28 Days Later”) it creates a tight 90 minutes of action and suspense. Make-up artist Paul Hyett (another frequent Marshall contributor, “Hunger”) has outdone himself as well. Legs are wacked off, heads severed from their body, gashes carved into the torsos of fallen soldiers. Bloody and disgusting.

If you haven’t already seen “Centurion”, I highly recommend you add it to your queue today!

15 November 2010

WWQTW?: Orlando

Friday night was the last meeting of WWQTW? for 2010. I am so thankful to lead this club and love all the great discussions we've had over the last few months. I am working on some really cool movies and surprises for next year, but until then you're on your own! Check out my list of movies everyone should have seen (and the basis for what we watch in the club) here, or just click on the "wwqtw" label at the bottom to fill your days during the holiday season.

Back to Friday! We had a great turn out and even better eats! I'm going to have to start taking pictures of the spread: stuffed phyllo assorted bites, stuffed brie, crab dip, pizza rolls, Olive Garden salad (love!), and French silk pie to finish. My Sausage Tempeh Puff Pastries were a big hit as well and I will post the recipe on my food blog this week. I wanted to continue along the same themes as last meeting where we spoke about gender and identity from the perspective of "Queer Cinema", but this time I wanted to focus on female/feminist film.

"Orlando" (1992) was written and directed by Sally Potter and based on the book by Virginia Woolf. The novel itself was a love letter to Woolf's mistress Vita Sackville-West, herself an accomplished poet. The film begins in 1500 with the young Orlando (Tilda Swinton) becoming the confidant (and lover?) of Queen Elizabeth I. It is Elizabeth that urges Orlando to "...not whither, do not fade". Here the theme of immortality is introduced in the film. After the deaths of the Queen and Orlando's parents, he falls a sleep for some time and awakens in 1610 ("Love") and begins an affair with Sascha, a Russian noble woman. Later, in 1650, he begins a poem ("The Oak Tree") about his love and hatred of Sascha and women in general. In 1700 ("Politics"), Orlando is made the liaison to Constantinople and remains there until war forces him to rethink his priorities. When we next meet Orlando ("Society"), he is now a she. "The same person, no difference at all, just a different sex". The Lady Orlando now makes her way in the world of upper-crust society as a woman. The limits to her freedom and privilege as a woman are all the more harsh as she still thinks of herself as a man, or if not male than as equal to men. In 1850 ("Sex") she has a brief affair with Shelmerdine (Billy Zane) that ends when she is forced from her estate for being an unmarried woman. Now in the section named "Birth", we see Orlando as a successful mother who is only now able to live the life she always dreamt and be the person she always wanted to be.


The main themes of Orlando are love, immortality, and gender roles. When Orlando is a young man, he is a hopeless romantic more interested in love that station. It is not until he is in love that he recognizes the "treachery of women" and the pain that comes with pleasure. "I can find only three words to describe the female sex. None of which is worth expressing". He is happy then to live a quiet life, alone at home, meditating in the far East, or sitting in a salon (though now as a woman his opinion is worth less). Love comes knocking again in the guess of an American adventurer whom she proposes to upon first meeting. He, however, recognizes her spark and refuses. They have a wonderful conversation about what it means to be a "real man" or a "real woman". When he leaves, she has the exact conversation with him as she did with Sascha, only now Orlando speaks the woman's part and Shelmerdine speaks Orlando's. It is useful to note that the two loves of Orlando's life are both tied to the weather- Sascha must leave when the ice cracks and her ship can sail, while Shelmerdine must leave when the wind changes direction. It is a not so subtle metaphor, yet one that works.

Immortality is another theme of the film. Orlando lives over 300 years and sees and experiences the world in a unique way. He falls in love, breaks his heart, goes abroad, changes gender, falls in love, breaks his heart, loses his home, and generally looks for the meaning in all of it. It is finally in modern times that she is "no longer trapped by destiny" and can live as a free spirit.

Gender is obviously a theme here. Orlando lives multiple lives as both a man and a woman, but it is the female gender that he eventually sticks to and seems to have been working towards his whole life. It is as a woman that he can express himself more freely and avoid the things he finds distasteful. A woman can speak of love, avoid war and conflict, be the mistress of her own home, and an independent person. It is fascinating to see the history of the world played out over one persons lifetime. The way each subtle changes hits Orlando plays across his face. He winks, knowingly toward the camera.

Potter is known for her avant-garde film making style. Her films often seem to follow no discernible plot, characters break the forth wall, and the fantasy of the mind becomes reality. She is also regarded as a feminist filmmaker, though I don't hear her male counterparts labeled as misogynist filmmakers like a badge of honor. Her first film starred Julie Christie as a movie star who tries to understand her roots. It has no real plot and the script is a bit weak. She spent 9 years working on the "Orlando" script, trying to show her detractors that she was capable of a good script. She succeeds here and makes one of my favorite, little appreciated movies here. She followed it up with "The Tango Lesson" in which she also stars. It's better than "The Gold Diggers" but her refusal to write in the Hollywood standard of 3-arch narration may turn many viewers off. Truth be told, the only other movie of hers I liked was "The Man Who Cried" starring Johnny Deep and Christina Ricci. It tells the story of a Russian Jew (Ricci) who is separated from her family as a child. As an adult, she becomes a professional singer, falls in love with a gypsy (Deep), and searches for her father as the Nazi's invade France. Her most recent film, "Rage", is the story of a murder at a fashion party told through the interviews a blogger conducts on the scene. There is no set, only a plain brightly coloured backdrop and the actors speak directly into the camera. While it is an interesting concept, it quickly becomes tiresome and boring.


Tilda Swinton is one of my favorite actresses in history, hands down. She (finally) won an Oscar in 2008 for "Michael Clayton", and has been nominated for several awards for her work in "Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons", "Burn After Reading", "Young Adam", and "The Deep End". I also love her as the angel Gabriel in "Constantine". She is a fearless actress and great talent. The whole club was in agreement that we could not think of any other actor to play the role of Orlando. Her voice subtly shifts up a register when she becomes a woman, and the knowing looks she gives the camera take on a whole new meaning. She would have to be sympathetic for the film to be successful and she is.

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards in Costume design and Art Direction. It is amazing to think this film was made for roughly the equivalent of $8 million. Costume designer Sandy Powell would go on to win 3 Oscars for her work in "Shakespeare in Love", "The Aviator", and "The Young Victoria". It truly is a beautiful film to watch, though the DVD transfer is sometimes a bit sketchy. Maybe it was just my copy. The transitions between decades/chapters was often done on screen and followed by a title card instead of the other way around. This seemed to confuse some of the club (While running through a hedge labyrinth and going from 1750 to 1850: "Where did she find a change of clothes?" -"There was a hedge of requirement?").

Further viewing: The Gold Diggers, The Man Who Cried, Mrs. Dalloway, Thelma & Louise (the male perspective to feminist film), Hedwig & The Angry Inch, Transamerica, The Fountain, Looking for Mr Goodbar, Frida, Lovely & Amazing, The Piano, The Virgin Suicides, The Namesake, Gas Food Lodging, Personal Velocity, Brief Crossing,

12 May 2010

Robin Hood

*** (3 1/2 stars)

Last night Word-of-the-day Jennie and myself attended an advanced screening of Ridley Scott's latest epic "Robin Hood". Be warned, possible spoilers are contained below (though I doubt they'll do much to dissuade you).


I couldn't have been more excited to win passes courtesy of Gordon & the Whale (a pretty neat movie site). I was even more excited when we actually got into the movie- a lot of people were turned away. The story of Robin Hood is one I love and remember fondly from childhood. The adventures of a rag tag group of misfits and thieves who steal from the rich to give to the poor fuel so many of my fantasies and dreams. Surely an origin story would be amazing as well.

[side note: The original title of this film was "Nottingham" and was supposed to show the story of Robin Hood from the perspective of the Sheriff. What I wouldn't give to see that script (much less that movie)!]

My problems with this movie are many and varied. First, it doesn't play like a Ridley Scott move, but more like an introspective Bruckheimer flick. That's not necessarily a bad thing mind you, we love violence and explosions, yet it is handled unevenly and jars the mind from story to action instead of enhancing it (or in the case of Bruckheimer- dominating it). The fight scenes could have been worse (remember "The Bourne Supremacy"? Who was fighting who?); the quick cuts from close, medium, and long shot are often distracting in film. However, I was able to determine the majority of what was going on, even when mud and sand made them all look the same.

Second, the film maker's are not afraid to tell us we're idiots. Case in point: title cards. I love a good title card. There's nothing worse than watching an historical drama and having no idea when in time you are. Or an espionage tale that takes us to Madrid, then Zurick, then Moscow. I do not, however, need to be constantly reminded of an unchanging location. Title card: Blah Blah France. Robin and his merry men are fighting for King Richard the Lionheart in France. Something happens and they must escape to the cost to catch a boat home. Title card: Some French forest. Robin and him men are in an ambush. They proceed towards the coast. Title card: Coast of France. Robin and his men ride into view. Seriously? I KNOW THEY'RE IN FRANCE. How dumb do you think I am? Wait, don't answer that.

Third, remember when story was king, especially when the story being told was based on books and legend? Me too. I wonder who shot, killed, and mounted Story. I miss it.

Forth, faux feminist agendas. Maid Marion (Blanchett), a far cry from the young naive girl implied in other versions of the story, is a tough as nails, take no prisoner, horseback riding (men's style!), woman left to tend the farm and the land. Sure, I'll buy it. Women left at home while the men are at war are forced into roles they would normally not find themselves. I'm not sure why that means she's lost all semblance of breeding and manners, but that's for another time. What bothers me greatly is this: Why is Marion dressed in armor (wow, they had her size!) and showing up to battle the French? Does plowing fields make you a worthy contributor to war? Is she an expert swordsman? We saw in the opening frames of the film she's somewhat proficient with a bow, but archers are rarely in hand to hand combat. It would have made more sense for her to station herself on a ridge and shot arrows all day. Of course, Robin is all for this- yea, sexy! And of course, Marion cannot hold her own wait and almost gets herself and Robin killed. Drama! Except it isn't. It's stupid and does nothing to move the story further (see above).

Fifth, yea casting! Boo casting! By the time Robin Hood would have been Russell Crowe's age, he would have been a well-established outlaw. Same holds true for Maid Marion. This doesn't particularly bother me too much as the ages of the other players was set according to its stars. They fit. Sometimes, it's exciting. look! It's Max von Sydow as Sir William (the real Robin of Loxley's father). I heart him so much. Hey! It's that guy from "er" with an interesting accent (Scott Grimes, you did alright. Be proud) and Friar Tuck was on "Still Standing". Good for them. Then, there are my problems. King John is played by Oscar Isaac (who as far as acting goes does a fine job), however his bright blue contact lenses were a distraction. Isaac is from Guatemala, a land not known for it's Saxon heritage. Were there no English actors who could play the part? I kept wondering, is King John adopted? There is no way he's related to Danny Huston nor the son of Eileen Atkins. Seriously? I also feel bad for Matthew MacFadyen who must have thought he was getting an amazing role as Sheriff of Nottingham, instead only to find his screen time greatly diminished and he was forced to wear the most unfortunate wig that no man who's played Mr Darcy should be forced to wear.


Final thoughts: Rent it.