Having left it a bit too late for reviews or
discussions of each individual film, instead I thought I would collect all of
my January big screen visits into one article.
So behold! The January Film Roundup!
(Upon writing this however, things got quite
long so I ended up splitting it into two parts.)
Martin Scorsese returns to our screens with his
reputedly ‘decades in the making’ passion project, an adaptation of Endo
Shusaku’s novel of the same name - largely concerning the persecution of Christians
in 17th century ‘Sakoku’ (isolated) Japan.
Or to put it in simpler terms: Spider-man and
Kylo Ren are dispatched on a mission to find the whereabouts of missing Qui-Gon
Jinn after rumours that he had abandoned the way of the Force.
In all seriousness though, not only is the
material handled well, the film is also beautiful to look at. The rural vistas
of Japan especially look gorgeous - from the wild sea to the foggy mountains
and muddy villages. Visually it’s a feast. Good performances all round too,
despite the weird ‘Portuguese’ accented English that is occasionally a bit
off-putting (after a while it feels like they just give up trying), but that's only
a minor gripe.
The numerous torture scenes, long running time and
occasionally overly ponderous tone may be a turn-off for some – but it’s an interesting
and thought provoking watch. Not a Scorsese ‘masterpiece’ in my book, but a
passion project that features some great performances – especially from the Japanese
actors, in particular Tadanobu Asano (The Interpreter) and Issei Ogata (The
Inquisitor).
The Big Question: Is this a pro-Catholic faith message movie?
Not nesse-celery. Although the film starts out
with the ‘Kirishtans’ being portrayed as an unjustly persecuted minority, there
is plenty of ambiguity throughout on the subject of faith and interesting questions
are continually brought up as the story goes on.
For example: is the deafening silence of God in
the face of all this suffering, proof that he is not a merciful and loving God?
Is it right that these priests refuse to renounce their faith, despite their
actions directly leading to the continued suffering of many others? Have these missionaries
misled these poor villagers and given them a skewed message of hope in a
context of salvation that they don't really understand? Is the culture ‘swamp’ of
Japan such that a monotheistic religion with all its included beliefs are
fundamentally incompatible and simply cannot take root - and to relentlessly
pursue these missions would be a futile affair? Are these missionaries in fact
more like invaders to a foreign land, blinded by their pride and self
righteousness?
It’s not all as cut and dry as it first seems –
which makes it all the more fascinating to watch.
A faithful adaptation of the Patrick Ness novel
of the same name, A Monster Calls is about a young boy who is experiencing loss
and is struggling to process all these overwhelming feelings – all the while
being visited by a giant tree beast whose intentions are initially unclear.
The
film features great performances from the human cast (the young lead Lewis
MacDougal is terrific), as well as Liam Neeson lending his booming timbre for
the voice of the monster. Sigourney Weaver’s British accent is decent (though
distractingly clipped at times), but her performance is good enough that you
forget about it as the film goes on.
I can’t say too much without spoilers -
but this film belies its superficial fantasy elements to be about something
much more human and real, and as a result it is heart-breaking and uplifting in
equal measure.
The Big Question: Why did hardly anyone see this?
Well I think, in part, it’s because it was a
hard film to market properly. Is it a fantasy adventure? A horror targeted at a
younger audience? A teen angst drama? A British coming of age heartwarmer that
just so happens to feature Groot’s bigger badder brother? It’s kind of all
these things – and whilst that’s not such a big problem for a YA book, films often
need to be summed up in a single tagline or image to be sold to an audience -
and this is such a wonderful amalgam of different elements it’s hard to do this
effectively.
I know that this is in absolutely no way an
answer to this particular problem, but my
tag line would have been: ‘It will destroy you.’ (with an image of the monster
standing over the boy). Get it? Because
the monster is initially regarded as something ominous, but then the film
actually turns out to be really sad… No?
Okay never mind then…
Seriously, if the ending of this film doesn't bring a
tear to your eye then I put it to you Sir/Madam that you have a heart of stone.
Actually a December 2016 release – but I
thought I would catch it before it went. It’s a great story premise: a guy
wakes up from hypersleep in the middle of an interstellar journey (meaning
he’ll be spending the rest of his life alone and be dead by the time they get
to the intended destination).
Performances are good on the whole – Chris
Pratt is great at playing the everyman and is always relatable, although
Jennifer Lawrence seems less and less interesting in her performances the more
films she seems to be in. Michael Sheen is great as always as a robot barkeep
(though I would argue his design here is a bit too human – something that kind
of undermines the effectiveness of one of the themes of the film: the crushing loneliness
that comes with being the only person on board the vast spaceship).
It's a shame the end result of the film is a
bit predictable and pedestrian. It had great potential, but it just feels too
bogged down in the rather forced romance aspects and the all too obvious ‘running
about to save the ship’ in the final act, when really it would have been better
as a more quiet and thoughtful meditation on the themes of loneliness,
desperation, deceit and guilt. Instead it feels like the film was dumbed-down
and actioned-up to appeal to a wider audience. ‘Cos guess which one is easier
to sell, right?
The Big Question: Okay then mister smarty-pants – how would you have
done it better? (WARNING: STORY SPOILERS!)
Well, like I said, the set-up of Passengers is great.
However I feel that the order the story plays out is where they missed out on
some great dramatic opportunities. In very simple terms, the plot plays out
like this: Chris wakes up, realises he is the only one (and therefore going to
die alone), eventually succumbs to his loneliness and so decides to wakes up
Jennifer. At first he pretends that it was also a malfunction that woke her up
(and not by his hand) and after she is consigned to her fate and they spend
time together they fall in love.
Eventually (of course) she finds out, falls out with him, but then as other things start to go wrong on the ship they must work together to fix things in order to stop the ship from exploding. And yes – it’s all played out in chronological order.
Eventually (of course) she finds out, falls out with him, but then as other things start to go wrong on the ship they must work together to fix things in order to stop the ship from exploding. And yes – it’s all played out in chronological order.
Now I would have presented the story in a
different order. Have the film start with Jennifer waking up, have Chris there
to explain the situation to her, then we can go ahead and do all the romance
stuff. Then when his secret is exposed – boom! - it will be just as shocking to
us as it is to her. Get it? Because we
(as the audience) are experiencing the same revelations through Jennifer’s character
– she is our cipher. Then we can go back (through an extended flashback
sequence) to see what really went down from Chris’ point of view, so that what
was initially considered an outright monstrous action is now an arguably more
sympathetic one as we now get to
witness all the despair and crushing loneliness he had to go through before
finally succumbing to the temptation of deciding to wake Jennifer up.
This
simple change in the order in which we learn of these events, helps us to inhabit
the emotional headspace of the characters more (for both characters), and lends
more drama to the story (allowing for more tension, surprises, second guessing,
foreshadowing etc…). Instead, because the story is played out chronologically
and we know the situation between the two characters so explicitly, much of the
film seems to feel plodding, like we are just biding our time, waiting for the
inevitable plot beats to come around.
Oh, and we can get the rid of the running
around to save the ship malarkey too – we can still have the same resolution to
the film without having to go through all that stuff.
Although the hype is about 90% real – I wish I
had just been able to go into this cold – after Chazelle’s incredible Whiplash,
I was bound to watch it anyway. Put simply, La La Land is a really joyous
experience. From the opening dance number on the LA freeway, right up to the
choke-you-up finale, this is the real deal. Not necessarily in that it's a perfect
movie – there are still flaws – but I haven’t seen a film in a long time that
has just resonated with me so much and kept me grinning like an idiot
throughout.
Anyway, I’m not going to go on about it much
further before asking…
The Big Question: Is it really worthy of all the awards attention it
is getting?
So as you probably know, this film has been
doing very well in terms of awards. At the time of writing, it swept up at the
Golden Globes (winning in every single
category it was nominated in) and has the most Oscar nominations ever in history (an honour shared only with
Titanic and All About Eve), plus a whole slew of other accolades from basically
everywhere else. So is all the hype actually real?
Well, in a word: Yes. But probably not for the
reasons you think. You see, the thing about La
La Land is that it isn’t your typical ‘Oscar-bait’ film. It never feels
like any part of it was made to win awards. It’s just something unique and
fresh – a fun film that Chazelle wanted to make that just so happens to have
great heart – and subsequently captivated audiences everywhere.
Let’s talk expectations versus reality. It’s a
love story with comedic elements (but doesn't feel like your typical
by-the-numbers crowd-pleasing rom-com). It’s a musical with some fantastic numbers
that emulates aspects of old MGM musicals (a much touted feature) but arguably never
pretends to actually be one. Things are scaled way back in this regard. There
are only really two big song and dance numbers (and both happen within the
first 15 minutes of the movie). The rest tend to be intimate and emotional:
either with just Gosling and Stone together or sometimes even just one of them
alone. Not really into musicals? That’s not such a barrier either – it seems as
the film goes on, more time is spent with the drama between the characters (to
the point where we almost forget it’s a musical that we are watching for the
latter half of the film). It’s a fresh combination of things that feels
familiar yet new – accessible to everyone, yet unlike any film you've seen
before.
On a technical level too, this film is astounding:
shooting during magic hour, often on location, the long single takes, inventive
cinematography – the imagination and confidence it displays is incredible – especially
considering that the budget wasn't that huge either (estimated 30mil).
But perhaps the most telling is the sheer
amount of heart the film has. Gosling and Stone are both incredible in this
–elevating their roles to incredible likeability through use of sheer charm,
comedic timing and bravely giving it their all with single take sequences of singing
and dancing. So what if they aren’t the best singers/dancers? Doesn't matter –
you can see they are enjoying it and completely selling the shit out of it.
Their chemistry together is astounding (it doesn't hurt that they have been
paired in a few films together before), and you root for them both to achieve
their dreams despite their flaws and foibles.
At the end of it all, it feels like this is the
exact kind of movie that Chazelle wanted to make – pandering to neither
convention or with awards season in mind. It just so happens that it has
captured the heart of so many with its inventiveness, whimsy and joyous
celebration of those fools who chase their dreams, despite the inevitable sacrifices
that may come with that.
Not a flawless film by any means, but a very special
one that absolutely deserves all the love that it’s getting.
Join me
soon for a few more films in Part 2 of the January Round-up!
7th Feb 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment