This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over at The Film Experience features Danny DeVito in Ruthless People, The War of the Roses and Batman Returns.
Take One: Ruthless People (1987) DeVito wants Bette Midler dead and gone in Ruthless People.
The sooner the better preferably, with a minimum of fuss and personal
expense. Sam "spandex mini-skirt king" Stone's wife Barbara (Midler) is
kidnapped by the nicest people to ever venture to the criminal side,
Judge Reinhold and Helen Slater. When, over the phone, Reinhold relays
his strict rules regarding heiress Barbara's ransom, DeVito’s face
brightens by the minute at the idea that she will be killed if he
disobeys their orders or if any police intervention is suspected. Cue a
fleet of cop cars and every news channel in LA reporting on the story.
Cut to: Sam popping a champagne cork with filthy glee...
Read the rest here
30 July 2012
23 July 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Eva Mendes
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over at The Film Experience features Eva Mendes in Live!, Hitch and Last Night.
Take One: Live! (2007)
Building on her dramatic work in We Own the Night the same year, Mendes took on another (semi) serious role, one deviously tinged with delicious black comedy, as TV executive Katy in Bill Guttentag’s Reality TV mock-doc Live! Perfectly styled in sharp attire and a coffee ‘to-go’ in hand, Mendes' Katy is ambitious, ruthless and most likely hollow on the inside. She has grand ideas. One of them kick-starts Live!’s plot: six members of the public will play Russian roulette live on air; the sole survivor is the winner...
Read the rest here
Take One: Live! (2007)
Building on her dramatic work in We Own the Night the same year, Mendes took on another (semi) serious role, one deviously tinged with delicious black comedy, as TV executive Katy in Bill Guttentag’s Reality TV mock-doc Live! Perfectly styled in sharp attire and a coffee ‘to-go’ in hand, Mendes' Katy is ambitious, ruthless and most likely hollow on the inside. She has grand ideas. One of them kick-starts Live!’s plot: six members of the public will play Russian roulette live on air; the sole survivor is the winner...
Read the rest here
17 July 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Vincent D'Onofrio
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over at The Film Experience features Vincent D'Onofrio in Full Metal Jacket, Impostor and Staten Island.
Take One: Full Metal Jacket (1987)
The first thing I think about when I think about Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket is D’Onofrio’s face, sunken into a foul grimace by deep hatred – of himself and everything and everyone around him – as he sits on a toilet in the starkly Kubrickian military ‘head’ in the dead of night, loaded rifle by his side. “Hi joker,” he says, in a decidedly creepy fashion, as Matthew Modine shines a torch on his face. Somethin’s up. He’s not quite... there. "I AM... in a world... of shit!” This exchange draws us into one of the film’s most powerfully effective scenes, one that stays wedged in your mind...
Read the rest here
Take One: Full Metal Jacket (1987)
The first thing I think about when I think about Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket is D’Onofrio’s face, sunken into a foul grimace by deep hatred – of himself and everything and everyone around him – as he sits on a toilet in the starkly Kubrickian military ‘head’ in the dead of night, loaded rifle by his side. “Hi joker,” he says, in a decidedly creepy fashion, as Matthew Modine shines a torch on his face. Somethin’s up. He’s not quite... there. "I AM... in a world... of shit!” This exchange draws us into one of the film’s most powerfully effective scenes, one that stays wedged in your mind...
Read the rest here
16 July 2012
At the Cinema: Magic Mike
Magic Mike (Steven Soderbergh/2012/110mins)
The promise that Steven Soderbergh’s Magic Mike is 110 chunky minutes of Channing vigorously shaking his Tatums at the screen is tempered slightly by the fact that it does actually have a story to sketch out in between the ab-flashes and slipped-out nips. Decent guy stripper/roofer/bespoke furniture-maker Mike (Tatum) reluctantly introduces The Kid (Alex Pettyfer, not credited with a proper name so I may as well call him Mike too) into the life of the Tampa Bay strip circuit: at first times are fun; then times are bad. This is the gist of it all. There’s some hazed yellow-tinged Florida scenery (courtesy of DoP Peter Andrews aka Soderbergh himself) balanced with many sweaty-chested interludes to wink-nudge us along on this nearly-rags-to-kinda-riches tale. It doesn’t quite nail the cosy sleaziness that made Boogie Nights a tragic yet game example of the boy-(eventually)-makes-good genre, nor does it have its staying power, but it does have pocketfuls of charm. Tatum’s skittish romance with The Kid Mike’s disapproving sister Cody Horn is entirely winsome and shows that these two could fill a whole film of their own, in the manner of Before Sunrise/Sunset, with just their idle flirty banter. Matthew McConaughey as the strip club’s still-fit veteran honcho plays his scenes with raffish poise. He’s such an accomplished performer that any director must breathe a sigh of relief when he signs on to their project; fuss-free professionalism comes as standard with him. The rest of the strippers played by Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello, Alex Rodriguez and Kevin Nash (let’s call them all Mike) don’t get much of a look-in personality wise, but they do play, respectively, a Ken doll, someone with a big dick, a fireman and Tarzan very capably.
The plot flip-flops between sunnier days (everyone drinks copious amounts of beer anytime, anywhere) and a few grim nights (everyone does copious amounts of drugs anytime, anywhere) with rapidity. We get an essence of struggle and a sliver of bleakness, but nothing substantially dramatic enough to fully invest in those straining in the dark. But Soderbergh knows that a handful of becoming characters frequently and affably delivering some decent lines with little haste means we won’t necessarily dwell on anything too sinister lurking in the background. (Was the girl played by Riley Keough dead the morning after the blow-out party? The film leaves her fate oddly unexamined.) The stresses of the current economy is touched on briefly (“The only thing distressed is you,” says Channing-Mike to a flustered female bank teller who won’t give him a loan), but Soderbergh is mostly generally happy to just get playful with his direction to show us how shabby-glam the whole scene is: low shots of the stripping stage put us in the thrill pit alongside hen-party hecklers; skewed-angle or close-up shots in flaring reds and blues make intoxicatingly abstract imagery of faces and bodies. There’s fun to be had with these people, especially Tatum’s Mike and McConaughey’s Dallas, and there’s one shot which visualises with icky daftness the very notion of the term ‘pig sick’.
Also, check out my Magic Mike-related article on 'male strippers in the movies' in the latest issue of Attitude Magazine.
The promise that Steven Soderbergh’s Magic Mike is 110 chunky minutes of Channing vigorously shaking his Tatums at the screen is tempered slightly by the fact that it does actually have a story to sketch out in between the ab-flashes and slipped-out nips. Decent guy stripper/roofer/bespoke furniture-maker Mike (Tatum) reluctantly introduces The Kid (Alex Pettyfer, not credited with a proper name so I may as well call him Mike too) into the life of the Tampa Bay strip circuit: at first times are fun; then times are bad. This is the gist of it all. There’s some hazed yellow-tinged Florida scenery (courtesy of DoP Peter Andrews aka Soderbergh himself) balanced with many sweaty-chested interludes to wink-nudge us along on this nearly-rags-to-kinda-riches tale. It doesn’t quite nail the cosy sleaziness that made Boogie Nights a tragic yet game example of the boy-(eventually)-makes-good genre, nor does it have its staying power, but it does have pocketfuls of charm. Tatum’s skittish romance with The Kid Mike’s disapproving sister Cody Horn is entirely winsome and shows that these two could fill a whole film of their own, in the manner of Before Sunrise/Sunset, with just their idle flirty banter. Matthew McConaughey as the strip club’s still-fit veteran honcho plays his scenes with raffish poise. He’s such an accomplished performer that any director must breathe a sigh of relief when he signs on to their project; fuss-free professionalism comes as standard with him. The rest of the strippers played by Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello, Alex Rodriguez and Kevin Nash (let’s call them all Mike) don’t get much of a look-in personality wise, but they do play, respectively, a Ken doll, someone with a big dick, a fireman and Tarzan very capably.
The plot flip-flops between sunnier days (everyone drinks copious amounts of beer anytime, anywhere) and a few grim nights (everyone does copious amounts of drugs anytime, anywhere) with rapidity. We get an essence of struggle and a sliver of bleakness, but nothing substantially dramatic enough to fully invest in those straining in the dark. But Soderbergh knows that a handful of becoming characters frequently and affably delivering some decent lines with little haste means we won’t necessarily dwell on anything too sinister lurking in the background. (Was the girl played by Riley Keough dead the morning after the blow-out party? The film leaves her fate oddly unexamined.) The stresses of the current economy is touched on briefly (“The only thing distressed is you,” says Channing-Mike to a flustered female bank teller who won’t give him a loan), but Soderbergh is mostly generally happy to just get playful with his direction to show us how shabby-glam the whole scene is: low shots of the stripping stage put us in the thrill pit alongside hen-party hecklers; skewed-angle or close-up shots in flaring reds and blues make intoxicatingly abstract imagery of faces and bodies. There’s fun to be had with these people, especially Tatum’s Mike and McConaughey’s Dallas, and there’s one shot which visualises with icky daftness the very notion of the term ‘pig sick’.
Also, check out my Magic Mike-related article on 'male strippers in the movies' in the latest issue of Attitude Magazine.
3 July 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Alfre Woodard
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Alfre Woodard in Passion Fish, The Forgotten and Crooklyn.
Take One: Passion Fish (1992) After dismissing a string of unsuitable nurses, recently paralysed TV actress May-Alice (Mary McDonnell) opts to hire Alfre Woodard’s mysterious Chantelle in John Sayles’ Bayou drama Passion Fish. Chantelle enters the film out of nowhere, off a bus and into May-Alice’s house. She doesn’t let on any overt details about her life, but there’s a hint of intrigue about her, something amiss and troubling. It's evident in the slightly trembling nervous manner in which Chantelle goes about her new position. McDonnell’s icy actress will gradually thaw as a result of her dependency, but not before she attempts to make life miserable for Chantelle – who’s having none of it...
Read the rest here
Take One: Passion Fish (1992) After dismissing a string of unsuitable nurses, recently paralysed TV actress May-Alice (Mary McDonnell) opts to hire Alfre Woodard’s mysterious Chantelle in John Sayles’ Bayou drama Passion Fish. Chantelle enters the film out of nowhere, off a bus and into May-Alice’s house. She doesn’t let on any overt details about her life, but there’s a hint of intrigue about her, something amiss and troubling. It's evident in the slightly trembling nervous manner in which Chantelle goes about her new position. McDonnell’s icy actress will gradually thaw as a result of her dependency, but not before she attempts to make life miserable for Chantelle – who’s having none of it...
Read the rest here
26 June 2012
Take Three @ TFE: John C. Reilly
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features John C. Reilly in Terri, Step Brothers and Magnolia.
Take One: Terri (2011) The last couple of years have brought Reilly a trio of great dramedic roles. He showed real range in a slight but noteworthy career shift from his usual broader comedies to Cyrus, Carnage and Terri. The third film which is about the lonely life of an overweight high school outcast (Jacob Wysocki) was a particularly great role for Reilly. He was unassuming, believable and much more curiously sombre than in most of the roles we've seen him play to date. (He also played Tilda Swinton’s husband in We Need to Talk about Kevin last year, though his role was largely, though I'd argue unfairly, labelled as miscasting.)...
Read the rest here
Take One: Terri (2011) The last couple of years have brought Reilly a trio of great dramedic roles. He showed real range in a slight but noteworthy career shift from his usual broader comedies to Cyrus, Carnage and Terri. The third film which is about the lonely life of an overweight high school outcast (Jacob Wysocki) was a particularly great role for Reilly. He was unassuming, believable and much more curiously sombre than in most of the roles we've seen him play to date. (He also played Tilda Swinton’s husband in We Need to Talk about Kevin last year, though his role was largely, though I'd argue unfairly, labelled as miscasting.)...
Read the rest here
19 June 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Cécile De France
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Cécile De France in Haute tension, Hereafter and The Kid with a Bike.
Take One: Haute tension/Switchblade Romance (2004) De France brings an entirely new meaning to the term ‘Final Girl’ in Alexandre Aja’s Haute tension (or, to give it its more exploitation-happy title, Switchblade Romance). Spoiler Alert: Although we see Philippe Nahon doing the relentless butchering throughout the film, it emerges toward the end that he’s merely a projection of De France’s Marie’s imagination; he’s the product of pent-up sexual urge in Marie to create a marauding male monster in her mind. It all gets very muddy before becoming incredibly bloody...
Read the rest here
Take One: Haute tension/Switchblade Romance (2004) De France brings an entirely new meaning to the term ‘Final Girl’ in Alexandre Aja’s Haute tension (or, to give it its more exploitation-happy title, Switchblade Romance). Spoiler Alert: Although we see Philippe Nahon doing the relentless butchering throughout the film, it emerges toward the end that he’s merely a projection of De France’s Marie’s imagination; he’s the product of pent-up sexual urge in Marie to create a marauding male monster in her mind. It all gets very muddy before becoming incredibly bloody...
Read the rest here
6 June 2012
At the Cinema: Prometheus
Prometheus (Ridley Scott/USA/123mins)
*Spoiler warning – Major plot points are revealed below*
Ridley Scott’s return to science fiction filmmaking was always going to be full of anticipation and awe – and perhaps a bit of trepidation. Several decades after he created one of the benchmarks in sci-fi/-horror filmmaking with Alien, he decided to go back to the stuff of dark, otherworldly beings, space travel and the threat from within. With Prometheus he’s made a film of audacious and inspired breadth, one full of tantalising suggestions and themes, and vast ideas to chime with its many scenes of tense action. It of course relates to Alien, though does so in a variety of interesting ways. But it also veers off on an intriguing tangent, keener to explore what could be expanded from one previously undeveloped thought within Alien (where did that bizarre, fossilised being sat in the pilot seat of the derelict ship actually come from?) than in pursuing a rigorously direct line toward Ripley and co’s future findings. However, comparisons are inevitable and unavoidable: Prometheus acknowledges the world of Alien, is indeed set in that universe, and yet works diligently to creatively swerve around it. Scott posited this plan from day one and in his own steadfast way he’s followed through on his promise in a grand, fascinating manner. The word ‘prequel’, though, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The plot begins on a planet, probably Earth, at the dawn of time: a cloaked human-alien figure (called ‘Engineers’ here, but ostensibly the ‘Space Jockey’ character in the pilot’s chair) drinks something that violently disagrees with him and he falls – and falls apart – into a waterfall, thus very likely seeding life on earth; a massive spaceship ominously tilts overhead and life adapts in the depths of the water. Zipping to 2089, two archaeologist-scientists, and lovers, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshal Green) find cave pictograms suggesting alien visitation on the Isle of Skye: is this a map or an invitation? Corporate honcho Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) pays their interstellar fare and then they’re both cryo-sleeping their way to a far-off moon, LV-233, along with 15 other crew members aboard the exploratory ship Prometheus to investigate just what those mysterious inscriptions might mean and hold for life on earth. The outlook isn’t good: they’ve been invited to a weird, bad party where the hosts are less than hospitable. Shaw and Holloway are joined by an android servant, David (Michael Fassbender), duplicitous Weyland suit Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), jovial ship’s captain, Janek (Idris Elba), and a support crew that comprises botanist Millburn (Rafe Spall), geologist Fifield (Sean Harris) and medic Ford (Kate Dickie).
Prometheus is full of tantalising suggestion, through which it offers up more than a few thoughtful questions regarding its key themes: human inception; faith in, and attempts at playing, gods and “makers”; the necessity and drive to search for bigger answers to our creation. Scott and his writers (the script was originally written by Jon Spaihts, and then later reworked by Damon Lindelof) evidently wanted to create a new sci-fi arena, and perhaps turn it into a fresh saga, by focusing on a different set of questions than what were pondered in Alien. Why repeats the exact same thoughts and ideas from 33 years ago? It is both an “Alien film”, part of the canon, if you like, and an entirely new enterprise; but it works best if you dial down your desire for it to perfectly dovetail with the exact events of Alien. It doesn’t strictly segue into that film and I very much doubt it was ever intended to, evident by the way in which the plot is left unarguably open-ended. But it does lay foundations which lead up to it. I appreciated the move away into a fresh terrain (literally, this isn’t LV-426, the planet where the action of Alien/Aliens occurred), whilst still admiring that it retained, as Scott himself mentioned in the release preamble, “strands of DNA from the first film.” It largely succeeds with its many elusive references, and motors wilfully along throwing them open to sometimes follow through on them and occasionally leaving them hanging. This could be due to a slightly muddled script, a by-product of the editing working to accommodate a plethora of diverse dramatic content or some sheer bloody-mindedness on Scott and co’s part. It’s entirely open for debate.
One of the criticisms of the script is that there are gaps in the plot and characters aren’t well enough developed. These are fair concerns, but not entirely justified. The script rejig is evident at certain points in the film – there are leaps made in the narrative that feel as if scenes had been written then discarded or perhaps filmed then edited for brevity – but, even so, a relatively thorough through-line is present. Actions and consequences build in fine fashion, enough to outlay the film’s intentions, but halt just shy of telling us everything. The alien ‘contamination’, spread of infection and eventual revelation as to what it results in (the cycle that begins with the gooey, black organic substance contained in cylindrical ampoules that the crew discover arranged in strange patterns in the ‘alien temple) follows a logical and organically just path as it did in the Alien films. The race to meet a satisfying conclusion does sometimes make impractical narrative bounds to get there, but an element of vigilant confidence on our part is required. Had Scott and his writers filled in every blank, and casually mistrusted an audience to supply for themselves the somewhat easily intuitable events on screen, then the film would’ve been judged for being overly complex or too obvious. Some of the dialogue does fall to the ground with the thud of a space helmet, but I saw this as the something to enjoy in the cheery, cheesy spirit of, say, a b-movie one-liner of old, instead of idly bemoaning its lack of Shakespearian depth.
There are many instances where the actors reveal more telling aspects to their characters than initially apparent. With seventeen cast members and a lot of ground (quite literally) to cover, some characters were never going to get the time to play out their individual arcs. (Alien had 7 characters; Aliens just over twenty.) One or two barely speak and serve as bystanders or mere background padding (the Weyland security team who loiter around the ship’s deck) and a few are perfunctory presences (the unnamed guy that Fifield, after “turning”, kills first; the always-armed Weyland bodyguard). But many of the key crew members experience moments, however fleeting, that enhance our understanding of them and show curious or subtle character interaction; these are the kind of details that may get lost within the throng of on-board elation or panic. The way Scott directs – particularly in the first forty-five-or-so minutes – and the way he structures scenes and certain shots positions characters together to interact in ways that establish links: David and Ford talking idly on the ship’s approach; Millburn’s and Fifield’s awkwardly humorous early pairing; Shaw and Janek sharing moments of amiably complicit bonding before the ship’s landing. The script sets up such small, almost throwaway moments of interaction so they can be brought narratively to fruition later: David and Ford are joined in their complicity with Weyland after it’s revealed that she’s solely on board, not to simply be the ship’s medic, but to act as Weyland’s personal doctor (and of course David is Weyland’s “son”); Millburn and Fifield continue their banter until a shared fear of the team’s discovery leads to mutually unfortunate fates for both; and Shaw and Janek seem to almost intuitively know that it will take the biggest sacrifice of all to stop “death” being delivered to earth. Such connections are made early and cemented – albeit in piecemeal fashion – later on. The thread linking characters is there to be picked up on.
The performances of the main cast complement one another well. Lighter moments on the ship come courtesy of hearty Elba and his squabbling co-pilots Chance (Emun Elliott) and Ravel (Benedict Wong). Theron acts as an unsettling embodiment of corporate shiftiness regarding the threat that awaits them; she’s always lurking mysteriously but, as she loses her grip on events and comprehends the implications of what’s in store (and is shunned from daddy’s affections) she softens somewhat, and becomes more fascinating as a character. Marshall Green does cocksure science bragger well enough to warrant his prime position among the cast. Guy Pearce adds to his earlier cameo by popping up to sport some excessively wrinkled makeup and reveal just why he’s funded this doomed expedition. And Fassbender commands in his pivotal role, one in which the frosty charm seen in some of his other work (Shame, Fish Tank) is put to fine, apt use as a robot who has his own terrible plan to execute. But it’s Rapace’s film. Her arc is the one that connects the narrative together. The prideful, open-faced curiosity and eagerness of her earlier scenes (in the cave and during the debriefing after hypersleep) is deftly offset by what happens to Shaw later. After a scene of, how to say, unpractised surgical conduct, Rapace has to mentally and physically wrench Shaw along; she exerts palpable fear at the mounting disaster the expedition has become and desperately wrestles with a nagging internal conflict regarding her faith. (Notice how blankly she reacts to David at the end when he says, “Even after all this, you still have your faith?”; and watch how both her expression and her demeanour visibly sours when she puts on Charlie’s ring as she stands in front of a mirror – the realisation of what this has all lead to, and the big decision as to What Happens Now, irrevocably dawns on Shaw in a devastating way.)
Visually Prometheus is an astonishing achievement. The vast set design created on a grand scale for the inside of the tomb-like temple – the one which houses the a collection of ominous vase-like containers, arranged in similar fashion to the eggs in Alien, that spread out beneath the huge stone humanoid head, as seen in the promotional campaign – is an astounding technical feat. It allows the cast to interact integrally with their surroundings and impress upon viewers genuinely awed reactions (depending, of course, on what takes were used). Dariusz Wolski’s photography makes highly effective use of muted, hazy-neon hues and bright whites to highlight the ship’s slick interiors and crepuscular lighting for the industrial-eerie layout of the “Engineers” ship; a suffocating air is convincingly conjured in both locations in impressive, differing ways. Pietro Scalia edits everything with keen efficiency, making the multi-stranded action within the two main locations coherently and dramatically thrilling. Marc Streitenfeld scores everything with, alternately, appropriate low-droning tension and shifts into grandiosity; his score adds playfully hopeful notes to certain scenes too. And the special effects are top-drawer and maintain perfect-pitch throughout; there isn’t one scene which contains less-than-stellar effects work. Scott brings a long career of well-observed directorial judgments onto Prometheus with him. He makes sly nods toward his previous sci-fi work, yet finds fresh ways to visualise an environment of both exploration and dread. Whether it’s seeing the expanse of the USCSS Prometheus cut a sliver through a planet’s atmosphere from afar or following the crew as they investigate confining, unfamiliar labyrinthine corridors, Scott directs with inquisitiveness of a newcomer; it feels, with each scene, that he’s wholly and progressively fascinated with this world he’s exploring.
It’s not without flaws. Some narrative decisions do seem slightly baffling and some lines clang. And there’s occasionally the sense that some aspects were possibly a touch over-thought-out in pre-production. Events aren’t tied up in way that those wanting absolute closure or All the Right Answers will be satisfied by. But who’s to say they needed to stop the story dead here. The threads left hanging inspire as much curiosity as they do bewilderment. But its successes far outweigh its issues, and even its few imperfections are interesting and healthy topics for further thought. (I noticed many of the problems easily fall away on a second viewing.) But let’s see if there’s any lasting passionate debate with well-measured consideration behind it – and with maybe a dash of hindsight, say, and some space to let the thing play out widely first – before consigning it as a ‘disappointment’. For now, it's an ambitiously fascinating and near-endlessly compelling slice of science fiction filmmaking carried out with considerable skill. It’s entirely striking, often exhilarating and driven by interesting questions. I'll happily take audacious, inspired, messy, elaborate and involving cinema, which attempts to strive for ideas to work alongside its sublime thrills, over many other films that don’t even have the balls to try any day.
*Spoiler warning – Major plot points are revealed below*
Ridley Scott’s return to science fiction filmmaking was always going to be full of anticipation and awe – and perhaps a bit of trepidation. Several decades after he created one of the benchmarks in sci-fi/-horror filmmaking with Alien, he decided to go back to the stuff of dark, otherworldly beings, space travel and the threat from within. With Prometheus he’s made a film of audacious and inspired breadth, one full of tantalising suggestions and themes, and vast ideas to chime with its many scenes of tense action. It of course relates to Alien, though does so in a variety of interesting ways. But it also veers off on an intriguing tangent, keener to explore what could be expanded from one previously undeveloped thought within Alien (where did that bizarre, fossilised being sat in the pilot seat of the derelict ship actually come from?) than in pursuing a rigorously direct line toward Ripley and co’s future findings. However, comparisons are inevitable and unavoidable: Prometheus acknowledges the world of Alien, is indeed set in that universe, and yet works diligently to creatively swerve around it. Scott posited this plan from day one and in his own steadfast way he’s followed through on his promise in a grand, fascinating manner. The word ‘prequel’, though, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The plot begins on a planet, probably Earth, at the dawn of time: a cloaked human-alien figure (called ‘Engineers’ here, but ostensibly the ‘Space Jockey’ character in the pilot’s chair) drinks something that violently disagrees with him and he falls – and falls apart – into a waterfall, thus very likely seeding life on earth; a massive spaceship ominously tilts overhead and life adapts in the depths of the water. Zipping to 2089, two archaeologist-scientists, and lovers, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshal Green) find cave pictograms suggesting alien visitation on the Isle of Skye: is this a map or an invitation? Corporate honcho Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) pays their interstellar fare and then they’re both cryo-sleeping their way to a far-off moon, LV-233, along with 15 other crew members aboard the exploratory ship Prometheus to investigate just what those mysterious inscriptions might mean and hold for life on earth. The outlook isn’t good: they’ve been invited to a weird, bad party where the hosts are less than hospitable. Shaw and Holloway are joined by an android servant, David (Michael Fassbender), duplicitous Weyland suit Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), jovial ship’s captain, Janek (Idris Elba), and a support crew that comprises botanist Millburn (Rafe Spall), geologist Fifield (Sean Harris) and medic Ford (Kate Dickie).
Prometheus is full of tantalising suggestion, through which it offers up more than a few thoughtful questions regarding its key themes: human inception; faith in, and attempts at playing, gods and “makers”; the necessity and drive to search for bigger answers to our creation. Scott and his writers (the script was originally written by Jon Spaihts, and then later reworked by Damon Lindelof) evidently wanted to create a new sci-fi arena, and perhaps turn it into a fresh saga, by focusing on a different set of questions than what were pondered in Alien. Why repeats the exact same thoughts and ideas from 33 years ago? It is both an “Alien film”, part of the canon, if you like, and an entirely new enterprise; but it works best if you dial down your desire for it to perfectly dovetail with the exact events of Alien. It doesn’t strictly segue into that film and I very much doubt it was ever intended to, evident by the way in which the plot is left unarguably open-ended. But it does lay foundations which lead up to it. I appreciated the move away into a fresh terrain (literally, this isn’t LV-426, the planet where the action of Alien/Aliens occurred), whilst still admiring that it retained, as Scott himself mentioned in the release preamble, “strands of DNA from the first film.” It largely succeeds with its many elusive references, and motors wilfully along throwing them open to sometimes follow through on them and occasionally leaving them hanging. This could be due to a slightly muddled script, a by-product of the editing working to accommodate a plethora of diverse dramatic content or some sheer bloody-mindedness on Scott and co’s part. It’s entirely open for debate.
One of the criticisms of the script is that there are gaps in the plot and characters aren’t well enough developed. These are fair concerns, but not entirely justified. The script rejig is evident at certain points in the film – there are leaps made in the narrative that feel as if scenes had been written then discarded or perhaps filmed then edited for brevity – but, even so, a relatively thorough through-line is present. Actions and consequences build in fine fashion, enough to outlay the film’s intentions, but halt just shy of telling us everything. The alien ‘contamination’, spread of infection and eventual revelation as to what it results in (the cycle that begins with the gooey, black organic substance contained in cylindrical ampoules that the crew discover arranged in strange patterns in the ‘alien temple) follows a logical and organically just path as it did in the Alien films. The race to meet a satisfying conclusion does sometimes make impractical narrative bounds to get there, but an element of vigilant confidence on our part is required. Had Scott and his writers filled in every blank, and casually mistrusted an audience to supply for themselves the somewhat easily intuitable events on screen, then the film would’ve been judged for being overly complex or too obvious. Some of the dialogue does fall to the ground with the thud of a space helmet, but I saw this as the something to enjoy in the cheery, cheesy spirit of, say, a b-movie one-liner of old, instead of idly bemoaning its lack of Shakespearian depth.
There are many instances where the actors reveal more telling aspects to their characters than initially apparent. With seventeen cast members and a lot of ground (quite literally) to cover, some characters were never going to get the time to play out their individual arcs. (Alien had 7 characters; Aliens just over twenty.) One or two barely speak and serve as bystanders or mere background padding (the Weyland security team who loiter around the ship’s deck) and a few are perfunctory presences (the unnamed guy that Fifield, after “turning”, kills first; the always-armed Weyland bodyguard). But many of the key crew members experience moments, however fleeting, that enhance our understanding of them and show curious or subtle character interaction; these are the kind of details that may get lost within the throng of on-board elation or panic. The way Scott directs – particularly in the first forty-five-or-so minutes – and the way he structures scenes and certain shots positions characters together to interact in ways that establish links: David and Ford talking idly on the ship’s approach; Millburn’s and Fifield’s awkwardly humorous early pairing; Shaw and Janek sharing moments of amiably complicit bonding before the ship’s landing. The script sets up such small, almost throwaway moments of interaction so they can be brought narratively to fruition later: David and Ford are joined in their complicity with Weyland after it’s revealed that she’s solely on board, not to simply be the ship’s medic, but to act as Weyland’s personal doctor (and of course David is Weyland’s “son”); Millburn and Fifield continue their banter until a shared fear of the team’s discovery leads to mutually unfortunate fates for both; and Shaw and Janek seem to almost intuitively know that it will take the biggest sacrifice of all to stop “death” being delivered to earth. Such connections are made early and cemented – albeit in piecemeal fashion – later on. The thread linking characters is there to be picked up on.
The performances of the main cast complement one another well. Lighter moments on the ship come courtesy of hearty Elba and his squabbling co-pilots Chance (Emun Elliott) and Ravel (Benedict Wong). Theron acts as an unsettling embodiment of corporate shiftiness regarding the threat that awaits them; she’s always lurking mysteriously but, as she loses her grip on events and comprehends the implications of what’s in store (and is shunned from daddy’s affections) she softens somewhat, and becomes more fascinating as a character. Marshall Green does cocksure science bragger well enough to warrant his prime position among the cast. Guy Pearce adds to his earlier cameo by popping up to sport some excessively wrinkled makeup and reveal just why he’s funded this doomed expedition. And Fassbender commands in his pivotal role, one in which the frosty charm seen in some of his other work (Shame, Fish Tank) is put to fine, apt use as a robot who has his own terrible plan to execute. But it’s Rapace’s film. Her arc is the one that connects the narrative together. The prideful, open-faced curiosity and eagerness of her earlier scenes (in the cave and during the debriefing after hypersleep) is deftly offset by what happens to Shaw later. After a scene of, how to say, unpractised surgical conduct, Rapace has to mentally and physically wrench Shaw along; she exerts palpable fear at the mounting disaster the expedition has become and desperately wrestles with a nagging internal conflict regarding her faith. (Notice how blankly she reacts to David at the end when he says, “Even after all this, you still have your faith?”; and watch how both her expression and her demeanour visibly sours when she puts on Charlie’s ring as she stands in front of a mirror – the realisation of what this has all lead to, and the big decision as to What Happens Now, irrevocably dawns on Shaw in a devastating way.)
Visually Prometheus is an astonishing achievement. The vast set design created on a grand scale for the inside of the tomb-like temple – the one which houses the a collection of ominous vase-like containers, arranged in similar fashion to the eggs in Alien, that spread out beneath the huge stone humanoid head, as seen in the promotional campaign – is an astounding technical feat. It allows the cast to interact integrally with their surroundings and impress upon viewers genuinely awed reactions (depending, of course, on what takes were used). Dariusz Wolski’s photography makes highly effective use of muted, hazy-neon hues and bright whites to highlight the ship’s slick interiors and crepuscular lighting for the industrial-eerie layout of the “Engineers” ship; a suffocating air is convincingly conjured in both locations in impressive, differing ways. Pietro Scalia edits everything with keen efficiency, making the multi-stranded action within the two main locations coherently and dramatically thrilling. Marc Streitenfeld scores everything with, alternately, appropriate low-droning tension and shifts into grandiosity; his score adds playfully hopeful notes to certain scenes too. And the special effects are top-drawer and maintain perfect-pitch throughout; there isn’t one scene which contains less-than-stellar effects work. Scott brings a long career of well-observed directorial judgments onto Prometheus with him. He makes sly nods toward his previous sci-fi work, yet finds fresh ways to visualise an environment of both exploration and dread. Whether it’s seeing the expanse of the USCSS Prometheus cut a sliver through a planet’s atmosphere from afar or following the crew as they investigate confining, unfamiliar labyrinthine corridors, Scott directs with inquisitiveness of a newcomer; it feels, with each scene, that he’s wholly and progressively fascinated with this world he’s exploring.
It’s not without flaws. Some narrative decisions do seem slightly baffling and some lines clang. And there’s occasionally the sense that some aspects were possibly a touch over-thought-out in pre-production. Events aren’t tied up in way that those wanting absolute closure or All the Right Answers will be satisfied by. But who’s to say they needed to stop the story dead here. The threads left hanging inspire as much curiosity as they do bewilderment. But its successes far outweigh its issues, and even its few imperfections are interesting and healthy topics for further thought. (I noticed many of the problems easily fall away on a second viewing.) But let’s see if there’s any lasting passionate debate with well-measured consideration behind it – and with maybe a dash of hindsight, say, and some space to let the thing play out widely first – before consigning it as a ‘disappointment’. For now, it's an ambitiously fascinating and near-endlessly compelling slice of science fiction filmmaking carried out with considerable skill. It’s entirely striking, often exhilarating and driven by interesting questions. I'll happily take audacious, inspired, messy, elaborate and involving cinema, which attempts to strive for ideas to work alongside its sublime thrills, over many other films that don’t even have the balls to try any day.
5 June 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Ida Lupino
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Ida Lupino in The Bigamist, On Dangerous Ground and Jennifer.
Take One: The Bigamist (1953) The Bigamist probes unseemly marital behaviour and stews on moral sorrows. At its centre is Edmond O’Brien toing and froing between two wives. But behind the camera as director, and in a supporting role as O’Brien’s second, San Francisco wife Phyllis Martin, is Ida Lupino. Her unfussy direction creates lean drama and her performance beautifully matches it, with nary an unnecessary furtive glance or superfluous line spoken. She’s a woman bored on a bus tour of Hollywood stars’ homes, chatted up by O’Brien’s depressed bigamist Harry Graham...
Take One: The Bigamist (1953) The Bigamist probes unseemly marital behaviour and stews on moral sorrows. At its centre is Edmond O’Brien toing and froing between two wives. But behind the camera as director, and in a supporting role as O’Brien’s second, San Francisco wife Phyllis Martin, is Ida Lupino. Her unfussy direction creates lean drama and her performance beautifully matches it, with nary an unnecessary furtive glance or superfluous line spoken. She’s a woman bored on a bus tour of Hollywood stars’ homes, chatted up by O’Brien’s depressed bigamist Harry Graham...
Edmond as Harry: "Haven’t you any interest in how the other half lives?"
Ida as Phyllis: "No, not particularly.
I’m just crazy about bus rides – gives me a chance to get off my feet.”
Read the rest here
30 May 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Toby Kebbell
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Toby Kebbell in War Horse, Wilderness and RocknRolla.
Take One: War Horse (2011) There’s a plethora of male British thespian talent in Steven Spielberg’s equine weepie War Horse: Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Mullen, Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Marsan, Liam Cunningham and David Thewlis all add their tuppence-worth to the tale of Joey the one-stallion battalion and his toilsome travels through WWI. But Kebbell’s scenes, late in the film, were among the most subtly affecting...
Read the rest here
Take One: War Horse (2011) There’s a plethora of male British thespian talent in Steven Spielberg’s equine weepie War Horse: Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Mullen, Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Marsan, Liam Cunningham and David Thewlis all add their tuppence-worth to the tale of Joey the one-stallion battalion and his toilsome travels through WWI. But Kebbell’s scenes, late in the film, were among the most subtly affecting...
Read the rest here
21 May 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Grace Zabriskie

It was Grace Zabriskie’s 71st birthday last week. She’s achieved a lot in her vast career, with over the 34 years of acting: she had a daughter with oversized thumbs (Even Cowgirls Get the Blues); paid River Phoenix for sex (My Own Private Idaho); been killed by Chuckie (Child’s Play 2); ran on a brothel (The Brothel); evangelized about vampires (Blood Ties); had a asteroid named after her (Armageddon); performed a voodoo sex-killing (Wild at Heart); fought for workers' rights (Norma Rae); navigated b-movie space horrors (Galaxy of Terror); and turned mourning into a mad maternal art (Twin Peaks). And that's just ten of her 93+ screen roles.
Take One: The Passion of Darkly Noon (1995) Mad maternal mourning aptly fits Zabriskie’s part in Philip Ridley’s strange fable, The Passion of Darkly Noon. She plays a forest-dwelling recluse named Roxy, who has only a shotgun, a Rottweiler and her own unhinged beliefs to keep her company. The film is a sinister hotbed of religion and retribution set in a secluded and surreal Southern state. Roxy believes her estranged daughter Callie (Ashley Judd) to be the witch who led her husband astray, and a force to be expelled from her uneasy Eden. When Darkly Noon (Brendan Fraser) stumbles upon her trailer home, she encourages him to do just that. “I am still here,” she tells him with teeth-gritting fury, “waiting for her to be punished.”
Read the rest here
14 May 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Chris Cooper
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Chris Cooper in Adaptation., Breach and The Muppets.
Take One: Adaptation. (2002)
Cooper was up against a quartet of big names in the 2003 Best Supporting Actor Oscar race: Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can), Ed Harris (The Hours), John C. Reilly (Chicago) and Paul Newman (Road to Perdition). As the then least weighty name, his nomination didn’t necessarily guarantee success. But, conversely, his fifteen prior award wins and a further 5 nominations for the role spoke volumes. He emerged victorious, yet, inexplicably, Adaptation remains his only nod to date...
Read the rest here
Take One: Adaptation. (2002)
Cooper was up against a quartet of big names in the 2003 Best Supporting Actor Oscar race: Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can), Ed Harris (The Hours), John C. Reilly (Chicago) and Paul Newman (Road to Perdition). As the then least weighty name, his nomination didn’t necessarily guarantee success. But, conversely, his fifteen prior award wins and a further 5 nominations for the role spoke volumes. He emerged victorious, yet, inexplicably, Adaptation remains his only nod to date...
Read the rest here
8 May 2012
At the Cinema: The Lucky One
The Lucky One (Scott Hicks/USA/101mins)
Zac Efron appears to be playing the ideal man in The Lucky One. He’s a politely moody, lightly brooding ex-Marine who oh-so earnestly values the lives of others. He walks across entire states just to thank a lady he’s never met. He reads highbrow literature (Moby Dick). He plays the piano beautifully. He can fix old tractors and boats, bathe old dogs and fix up old crumbling yet still picturesque lakeside mansions. He has thoughtful greeting-card-slogan tattoos (“All Glory Is Fleeting”). His eyes, muscles and, most likely, his very soul seem to gleam in the perfect Louisiana sunlight. I actually thought there might be a rug-pull twist near the end where it’s revealed that he’s actually playing Christ. Or some kind of ‘higher alien being’. Or, perhaps, a stalker (as inferred by one character late in the film). Of course he’s merely ‘perfect Zac-fron’: wounded war hero, loner and dab hand at looking mournfully chiseled. Was there even a question that single Southern belle Taylor Schilling wouldn’t consider nailing him in place when she first claps eyes on him?
She doesn’t because she has boring unresolved emotional issues. But you can see from the way she washes pots as if she’s masturbating, and can’t unglue her peepers from his arse at all times, that she’ll, by any god available, get him at banged some point soon. From the moment he leaves his tour of duty after finding a photo of Schilling (an act which inadvertently saves his life) to the moment he embeds himself in her life and, er, bed, it’s all a heated dash through run-of-the-mill wish-fulfilment fluff of the kind mechanically peddled in every Nicholas Sparks adaptation (see The Notebook, Nights in Rodanthe, Dear John). What sets it ever-so-slightly apart is the manner in which director Scott Hicks frames the story. He has a deft hand with frame composition that elevates any given instance of romantic sun-dappled cosiness. His direction often positions characters at unusual angles and distances within the film frame that effectively assist the cheese-baked narrative; it even helps usher events forward as efficiently as possible within the just-a-bit-too-long running time. The cinematography was the real standout, however: Alar Kivilo lights everything with a crisp beauty that doesn’t lean too heavily toward treacle or too longingly on the homely visual arrangements. All that golden, gleaming daylight is – rather surprisingly for a Sparks flick – held in check via Kivilo’s uncommonly spare work. I was impressed how handsome the film looked and how it restrained from too much schmaltzy over-indulgence.
As it goes, Efron plays it all in firm fashion, if a bit on the rigid side. He brightens when he plays chess with Schilling’s kid (he’s good at chess too!) or when he frolics with her dogs; but he darkens again when her cop ex-husband comes sniffing round looking for trouble. Efron’s two competing emotions are befitting a recently-traumatised marine, but perhaps more personality – like what he displayed in 17 Again – would’ve perked his character up a bit. Schilling does a lot of exasperated hand acting. Blythe Danner (as Schilling’s grandmother) does a lot of exasperated hair acting. Supporting characters come and go – all too fleeting to make much impact upon the plot or intrude upon the industrial-sized ‘crush zone’ built up by Efron and Schilling. But that’s precisely what many women and men go to a Sparks adaptation for. Hicks and his filmmaking team ensure this goes without nary a snag or an ugly shot in sight. They do just about a better job than anyone else previously. Not that this says much: the Sparks Insta-Romance (with Minor Breezy Complications) Plot Generator chugs along as per usual.
Zac Efron appears to be playing the ideal man in The Lucky One. He’s a politely moody, lightly brooding ex-Marine who oh-so earnestly values the lives of others. He walks across entire states just to thank a lady he’s never met. He reads highbrow literature (Moby Dick). He plays the piano beautifully. He can fix old tractors and boats, bathe old dogs and fix up old crumbling yet still picturesque lakeside mansions. He has thoughtful greeting-card-slogan tattoos (“All Glory Is Fleeting”). His eyes, muscles and, most likely, his very soul seem to gleam in the perfect Louisiana sunlight. I actually thought there might be a rug-pull twist near the end where it’s revealed that he’s actually playing Christ. Or some kind of ‘higher alien being’. Or, perhaps, a stalker (as inferred by one character late in the film). Of course he’s merely ‘perfect Zac-fron’: wounded war hero, loner and dab hand at looking mournfully chiseled. Was there even a question that single Southern belle Taylor Schilling wouldn’t consider nailing him in place when she first claps eyes on him?
She doesn’t because she has boring unresolved emotional issues. But you can see from the way she washes pots as if she’s masturbating, and can’t unglue her peepers from his arse at all times, that she’ll, by any god available, get him at banged some point soon. From the moment he leaves his tour of duty after finding a photo of Schilling (an act which inadvertently saves his life) to the moment he embeds himself in her life and, er, bed, it’s all a heated dash through run-of-the-mill wish-fulfilment fluff of the kind mechanically peddled in every Nicholas Sparks adaptation (see The Notebook, Nights in Rodanthe, Dear John). What sets it ever-so-slightly apart is the manner in which director Scott Hicks frames the story. He has a deft hand with frame composition that elevates any given instance of romantic sun-dappled cosiness. His direction often positions characters at unusual angles and distances within the film frame that effectively assist the cheese-baked narrative; it even helps usher events forward as efficiently as possible within the just-a-bit-too-long running time. The cinematography was the real standout, however: Alar Kivilo lights everything with a crisp beauty that doesn’t lean too heavily toward treacle or too longingly on the homely visual arrangements. All that golden, gleaming daylight is – rather surprisingly for a Sparks flick – held in check via Kivilo’s uncommonly spare work. I was impressed how handsome the film looked and how it restrained from too much schmaltzy over-indulgence.
As it goes, Efron plays it all in firm fashion, if a bit on the rigid side. He brightens when he plays chess with Schilling’s kid (he’s good at chess too!) or when he frolics with her dogs; but he darkens again when her cop ex-husband comes sniffing round looking for trouble. Efron’s two competing emotions are befitting a recently-traumatised marine, but perhaps more personality – like what he displayed in 17 Again – would’ve perked his character up a bit. Schilling does a lot of exasperated hand acting. Blythe Danner (as Schilling’s grandmother) does a lot of exasperated hair acting. Supporting characters come and go – all too fleeting to make much impact upon the plot or intrude upon the industrial-sized ‘crush zone’ built up by Efron and Schilling. But that’s precisely what many women and men go to a Sparks adaptation for. Hicks and his filmmaking team ensure this goes without nary a snag or an ugly shot in sight. They do just about a better job than anyone else previously. Not that this says much: the Sparks Insta-Romance (with Minor Breezy Complications) Plot Generator chugs along as per usual.
7 May 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Piper Laurie
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Piper Laurie in Hesher, Twin Peaks and Carrie.
Take One: Hesher (2010) Laurie has played the grandmother figure a few times in recent years (Hounddog, Eulogy, The Dead Girl), but she best conveyed matriarchal feeling last year in Hesher. The film uses the familiar narrative coupling of a loveable old person and unruly younger person connecting despite obvious differences. This time it's carried out with keen subtlety because the people involved are Laurie and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who make this arrangement work in a delightfully fresh way. Their friendship isn’t the main thrust of the narrative, but a key characterful diversion, and the genuinely heartfelt union elevates the film with tiny moments of tender affection...
Read the rest here
Take One: Hesher (2010) Laurie has played the grandmother figure a few times in recent years (Hounddog, Eulogy, The Dead Girl), but she best conveyed matriarchal feeling last year in Hesher. The film uses the familiar narrative coupling of a loveable old person and unruly younger person connecting despite obvious differences. This time it's carried out with keen subtlety because the people involved are Laurie and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who make this arrangement work in a delightfully fresh way. Their friendship isn’t the main thrust of the narrative, but a key characterful diversion, and the genuinely heartfelt union elevates the film with tiny moments of tender affection...
Read the rest here
30 April 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Michael Rooker
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three
performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over
at The Film Experience features Michael Rooker in Slither, Cliffhanger and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
Take One: Slither (2007) Rooker has a very bad time of it in Slither. For starters, he plays a brute and tyrant, and is almost pathologically cocksure of his local status as a small-town car dealer. He’s horrible and unfaithful to his wife and his name, Grant Grant, is doubly dumb. So when he’s “killed” by an alien parasite in a meteor which re-animates him as a mind-absorbed, ET-hosting slug-mutant, you don’t exactly sob over his lot in life. But things get worse: he has a future as the head of a fleshy multi-person blob – the kind of thing that Brian Yuzna or David Cronenberg might cook up after particularly eventful dreams – to look forward to. Before that, Rooker leaves a slime trail of extraterrestrial carnage...
Read the rest here
Take One: Slither (2007) Rooker has a very bad time of it in Slither. For starters, he plays a brute and tyrant, and is almost pathologically cocksure of his local status as a small-town car dealer. He’s horrible and unfaithful to his wife and his name, Grant Grant, is doubly dumb. So when he’s “killed” by an alien parasite in a meteor which re-animates him as a mind-absorbed, ET-hosting slug-mutant, you don’t exactly sob over his lot in life. But things get worse: he has a future as the head of a fleshy multi-person blob – the kind of thing that Brian Yuzna or David Cronenberg might cook up after particularly eventful dreams – to look forward to. Before that, Rooker leaves a slime trail of extraterrestrial carnage...
Read the rest here
23 April 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Anne Heche
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over at The Film Experience features Anne Heche in Birth, Cedar Rapids and Psycho (1998).
Take One: Birth (2004) Whilst watching Birth I’m sure you, like me, were thinking: just what the heck is Anne Heche doing in Central Park? Near the start of Jonathan Glazer’s reincarnation baffler Heche acts in mysterious ways. She suspiciously sneaks out of a hotel lobby and onto the snowy streets of Manhattan. She’s rustling around in the bushes, digging a hole. Is she burying the gift intended for Anna (Nicole Kidman)? Is it even a gift? It looks like some sort of proof, evidence. Her character, Clara, holds the film’s secrets from the get-go. In accordance with the way Glazer structures the script in these early scenes, fragmented by Sam Sneade and Claus Wehlisch’s editing, Clara becomes an enigma we know we'll worryingly come back to later...
Read the rest here
Take One: Birth (2004) Whilst watching Birth I’m sure you, like me, were thinking: just what the heck is Anne Heche doing in Central Park? Near the start of Jonathan Glazer’s reincarnation baffler Heche acts in mysterious ways. She suspiciously sneaks out of a hotel lobby and onto the snowy streets of Manhattan. She’s rustling around in the bushes, digging a hole. Is she burying the gift intended for Anna (Nicole Kidman)? Is it even a gift? It looks like some sort of proof, evidence. Her character, Clara, holds the film’s secrets from the get-go. In accordance with the way Glazer structures the script in these early scenes, fragmented by Sam Sneade and Claus Wehlisch’s editing, Clara becomes an enigma we know we'll worryingly come back to later...
Read the rest here
17 April 2012
Take Three @ TFE: John Hurt
This week my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three performances in a supporting/character actor's career) over at The Film Experience features John Hurt in Brighton Rock, Dogville and The Elephant Man.
Take One: Brighton Rock (2010) Hurt has alternated starring roles with supporting performances since he began acting in films with The Wild and the Willing in 1962. The amount of quality supporting turns he’s delivered over the years is vast: 10 Rillington Place, Midnight Express, The Shout, The Hit, Scandal, The Field, Contact, The Proposition, Melancholia, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy are a mere few. His fine turn as accountant Phil Corkery in the Brighton Rock remake (backing up Helen Mirren, Sam Riley, Andrea Riseborough and Andy Serkis) is a recent solid addition to the list and deserves due credit...
Read the rest here
Take One: Brighton Rock (2010) Hurt has alternated starring roles with supporting performances since he began acting in films with The Wild and the Willing in 1962. The amount of quality supporting turns he’s delivered over the years is vast: 10 Rillington Place, Midnight Express, The Shout, The Hit, Scandal, The Field, Contact, The Proposition, Melancholia, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy are a mere few. His fine turn as accountant Phil Corkery in the Brighton Rock remake (backing up Helen Mirren, Sam Riley, Andrea Riseborough and Andy Serkis) is a recent solid addition to the list and deserves due credit...
Read the rest here
15 April 2012
Top Ten Films of the Year 2011 #1: POETRY
First, here's a rundown of films 10-2 in my best of 2011:
10. Snowtown
09. A Separation
08. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
07. Julia's Eyes
06. 13 Assassins
05. Bridesmaids
04. The Messenger
03. Drive
02. Melancholia
And finally, 01...
The opening scenes of Lee Chang-dong’s Poetry set up an intriguing premise that the rest of the film delicately, and at times unnervingly, goes all out to provide an answer for. A distant object floats down a wide river; it’s not until it nears the camera (positioned in the water itself) that we realise it’s the body of a murdered girl. Yang Mija (an excellent performance by Yoon Jeong-hee, who came out of retirement to be in the film) is a grandmother in her sixties living in Busan. She’s suffering from the recent onset of Alzheimer’s and the trials of looking after an unruly grandson (who has been implicated in the assault and death of the girl from the opening). She has little money, is on welfare and also looks after an elderly male neighbour. Old age isn’t quiet or content for Mija. Her life is more fraught with tricky decisions than a lady her age deserves. But she’s also fresh to the joys of poetry, having joined a class that she manages to fit into her already hectic existence. Whilst seeking out the answers to the girl’s death, Mija begins to see the world around her in new ways. She slowly begins to fill her notebook up with words and thoughts for her class.
This may all sound overly sentimental, but Poetry is anything but saccharine in its approach to its narrative. Its tone is elegant, simple, frank. The way Chang-dong plays out the central drama of his plot is smartly measured (Poetry is one of the most beautifully paced films I’ve seen in a long time) and, crucially, by the end heart-rending. Everything works to the advantage of the story. We experience in tandem with Mija what she does; we gain insight into her choices, her actions and the particulars of her life. Poetry utilises the tools of filmmaking in beautifully effective ways to achieve this: Hyun Seok Kim’s photography highlights the pleasures and terrors of Mija’s journey with an extraordinary lightness; Hyun Kim’s editing creates sensitive ebb and flow throughout; and Chang-dong’s direction - perhaps the best of any film from last year – contains the right amount of thoughtful, subtle agency. Each and every shot tells us something more, something integral about the story. The whole film is leavened, brought alive most, by Jeong-hee’s bright, delightful performance. Her reaction to the turn of events, and the way she commands attention even with the most minute of gestures, is captivating. Her lilting laugh and delicate manner stayed with me well after I’d left the cinema. Poetry makes good on its title in its final scenes too. It has spent over two hours detailing one woman’s immersion into new ways of seeing the world, but then it shows us its own lessons in poetic perception. This is a sublime film.
10. Snowtown
09. A Separation
08. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
07. Julia's Eyes
06. 13 Assassins
05. Bridesmaids
04. The Messenger
03. Drive
02. Melancholia
And finally, 01...
Poetry Shi (Lee Chang-dong/South Korea/139mins)
The opening scenes of Lee Chang-dong’s Poetry set up an intriguing premise that the rest of the film delicately, and at times unnervingly, goes all out to provide an answer for. A distant object floats down a wide river; it’s not until it nears the camera (positioned in the water itself) that we realise it’s the body of a murdered girl. Yang Mija (an excellent performance by Yoon Jeong-hee, who came out of retirement to be in the film) is a grandmother in her sixties living in Busan. She’s suffering from the recent onset of Alzheimer’s and the trials of looking after an unruly grandson (who has been implicated in the assault and death of the girl from the opening). She has little money, is on welfare and also looks after an elderly male neighbour. Old age isn’t quiet or content for Mija. Her life is more fraught with tricky decisions than a lady her age deserves. But she’s also fresh to the joys of poetry, having joined a class that she manages to fit into her already hectic existence. Whilst seeking out the answers to the girl’s death, Mija begins to see the world around her in new ways. She slowly begins to fill her notebook up with words and thoughts for her class.
This may all sound overly sentimental, but Poetry is anything but saccharine in its approach to its narrative. Its tone is elegant, simple, frank. The way Chang-dong plays out the central drama of his plot is smartly measured (Poetry is one of the most beautifully paced films I’ve seen in a long time) and, crucially, by the end heart-rending. Everything works to the advantage of the story. We experience in tandem with Mija what she does; we gain insight into her choices, her actions and the particulars of her life. Poetry utilises the tools of filmmaking in beautifully effective ways to achieve this: Hyun Seok Kim’s photography highlights the pleasures and terrors of Mija’s journey with an extraordinary lightness; Hyun Kim’s editing creates sensitive ebb and flow throughout; and Chang-dong’s direction - perhaps the best of any film from last year – contains the right amount of thoughtful, subtle agency. Each and every shot tells us something more, something integral about the story. The whole film is leavened, brought alive most, by Jeong-hee’s bright, delightful performance. Her reaction to the turn of events, and the way she commands attention even with the most minute of gestures, is captivating. Her lilting laugh and delicate manner stayed with me well after I’d left the cinema. Poetry makes good on its title in its final scenes too. It has spent over two hours detailing one woman’s immersion into new ways of seeing the world, but then it shows us its own lessons in poetic perception. This is a sublime film.
13 April 2012
Interview: Travis Mathews / Review: I Want Your Love
Last week I was asked by Fringe! Film Festival to interview director Travis Mathews and review his debut film, I Want Your Love.
This week sees the return of the Fringe! Gay Film Festival to East London. From the 12th to the 15th of April a wide range of films (new features, experimental shorts, premieres) are showing alongside a host of parties, shows and events. This year’s opening film was I Want Your Love, Travis Mathews’ (In Their Bedroom – Berlin) poignantly affecting and intimately explicit debut feature. It stars Jesse Metzger as Jesse, a love-lost San Francisco performance artist about to leave his life and career frets behind for a fresh start in Ohio. We see him hang out with friends, and follow how their lives reflect, and differ from, Jesse’s as they prepare to throw him a leaving party...
Read the interview and review here at The Film Experience
Jesse Metzger in I Want Your Love
This week sees the return of the Fringe! Gay Film Festival to East London. From the 12th to the 15th of April a wide range of films (new features, experimental shorts, premieres) are showing alongside a host of parties, shows and events. This year’s opening film was I Want Your Love, Travis Mathews’ (In Their Bedroom – Berlin) poignantly affecting and intimately explicit debut feature. It stars Jesse Metzger as Jesse, a love-lost San Francisco performance artist about to leave his life and career frets behind for a fresh start in Ohio. We see him hang out with friends, and follow how their lives reflect, and differ from, Jesse’s as they prepare to throw him a leaving party...
Travis Mathews, director of I Want Your Love
Read the interview and review here at The Film Experience
8 April 2012
Take Three @ TFE: Melissa Leo
This Sunday my "Take Three" column (every Sunday, three write-ups on three performances in a supporting/character actor's career) returns for its third and possibly final series over at The Film Experience. First actor up is Melissa Leo in Red State, Mildred Pierce and Frozen River.
Take One: Red State (2011)
Leo gives an ugly yet riveting supporting performance as Sara in Kevin Smith’s Red State. She’s the matriarch with no maternal manners of the Five Points Trinity Church and wife to Michael Parks’ Phelps-like religious nutjob. We first see her open a trailer door to three horny teens who, we eventually gather, she entraps with the promise of a ‘good time’. She’s chugging a beer, resignedly eyeing these unsuspecting victims, playing her part in their “punishment”. Leo makes Sara immediately unlikeable. She’s a fully paid-up cult member either lost in ecstatic zeal (when Parks’ Abin spouts his bile-filled sermons) or riddled with utter contempt for ‘outsiders’ (all other times). But at no point does Leo deliver a two-dimensional portrait of hatefulness...
Read the rest here
Take One: Red State (2011)
Leo gives an ugly yet riveting supporting performance as Sara in Kevin Smith’s Red State. She’s the matriarch with no maternal manners of the Five Points Trinity Church and wife to Michael Parks’ Phelps-like religious nutjob. We first see her open a trailer door to three horny teens who, we eventually gather, she entraps with the promise of a ‘good time’. She’s chugging a beer, resignedly eyeing these unsuspecting victims, playing her part in their “punishment”. Leo makes Sara immediately unlikeable. She’s a fully paid-up cult member either lost in ecstatic zeal (when Parks’ Abin spouts his bile-filled sermons) or riddled with utter contempt for ‘outsiders’ (all other times). But at no point does Leo deliver a two-dimensional portrait of hatefulness...
Read the rest here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)