learningthelingo Reviews

The Blind Side (2009)

Vehicle film? Football film? Or Stevie Wonder biopic? What is The Blind Side?

[7/10 · 1 March 2010]

There's a certain time of year when I attend the cinema's on a very frequent basis. This time in Australia is usually the summer period. However, I am not usually frequenting to the cinema to see the summer blockbuster releases, like the good majority of cinema patrons. Summer cinema release does not mean summer blockbuster to me, but instead equates to the Academy Award contenders.

In this time, I see pretty much any film that is a sure fire flick to be nominated for an Academy Award. This surge in cinema viewing that occurs across the world can be seen as one of the huge upsides to the very controversial award giving group that is synonymous with shaky and questionable choices.

In this time leading up to the Academy Awards, I became aware of an advance screening of John Lee Hancock's The Blind Side, a football family drama about a Southern family who takes in a disadvantaged black youth and aid him along with love, support and encouragement all the way to the NFL.

This is not my usual type of film that I attend. The family friendly feel good, "you can do anything if you have love" story does not usually fly on my radar for too long before I wipe it off, let alone a sports film. However, The Blind Side had a leg up being nominated for Best Picture Oscar, and having its star, Sandra Bullock, as the frontrunner to win the Best Actress prize. So with this reason in toe, I speed off to see it in it's advanced release. And boy did it surprise me.

Set in Memphis, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy (played by Tim McGraw and Bullock) discover Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) walking in the rain one night, with a dirty shirt in his plastic bag as his only possession and nowhere to stay. You can pretty much guess what happens from here on end. The usual conflicts and resolutions follow in a very neat order, which is to be expected of a Hollywood produced film with a Hollywood superstar as it's leading attraction. And yet, somehow, I found myself continually smiling and wanting to bursts out into applause for many different reasons. Most importantly, there is the issue of representation of race.

The last year in cinema has seen two different and interesting portrayals of disadvantages black youths. In Lee Daniel's Precious, we see an physically and sexually abused and overweight 16 year old girl, who is pregnant with her second baby from her father, and who cannot read. With the aid of a teacher, she manages to breakthrough and discover above all else, the power of love.

The similarities are seen within The Blind Side in this regard, which A. O. Scott sees in an article he wrote a few months ago in the New York Times (click here to read it). Scott notes that both films portray the disadvantaged youths as overcoming their obstacles with the help of teachers (in Precious) and a rich Southern white skinned family (in The Blind Side). The message that seems to be reiterated in the final moments of The Blind Side, is that without this aid, these kids would just be another causality in a poor, disadvantaged, ghetto life.

There have also been critiques, which Scott among others acknowledge, that see Precious as further perpetuating a negative stereotype, whereas The Blind Side is being more delicate about the issue of race, yet at the same time propelling an idea of a fairytale saviour through the guise of a wealthy white family.

After seeing these two films in a period of a week, I would have to strongly disagree that either one perpetuates any negative stereotype regarding race. While these issues are questioned, both films instead swim in the notion of overcoming adversity through the support of well wishing and benevolent forces.

To this matter, both of these films are based on true stories, with The Blind Side being explicitly based on the story of Michael Oher, and Precious being based upon an amalgamation of many girls like the main character, written by "Sapphire" (a pseudonym for Romona Lofton, teaching in the projects of Harlem).

Being made for a fairly modest Hollywood budget of $27 million dollars, The Blind Side has received extremely successful critical reception as well as impressive box office takings. In it's opening weekend, it came second only to New Moon raking in $34 million. However, in it's second weekend, the film took in $40 million, a large step up, which is so rarely heard of. The Blind Side has also been the first film to make over $200 million with having a female name receiving sole top billing over the film.

The film has been Bullock's most successful box office draw and has drowned her in awards from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (the Golden Globes), Critics Choice, Screen Actor's Guild and what I predict (although an easy prediction to make) an Academy Award.

The Blind Side is rounded off with very good performances by Aaron, McGraw, Kathy Bates and Ariane Lenox (who plays Michael's drug addicted mother, and who in real life won a Tony Award for her portrayal of Mrs Muller in the Original Broadway production of John Patrick Shanley's Doubt).

While it is a cliché filled film, it still succeeds in presenting all the necessarily elements of a successful family sports drama. Great story, great performances, and leaves you with a great warm feeling.

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

Revisit a classic this Valentine's Day

[10/10 · 10 February 2010]

I first saw When Harry Met Sally a few years ago. I liked it. I did not love it. It was one of the occasions where I have to unfortunately admit that I just didn't get it. The second time I saw the film, I understood it more. More recently, a few months ago, feeling solemn and down I watched the film, and it lifted my spirits up so high, that I felt like I'd seen it for the first time. So when I watched this film again for what must have been the forth or fifth time, it proved to have not lost its charm.

The film starts with and is interspersed with elderly couples discussing how they met, which naturally foreshadows the most probably future for our main characters. The story begins in 1977 where Harry and Sally share a interstate road trip from Chicago University to New York City. They had not met before this time, and only knew each other through Harry's girlfriend whom is also Sally's friend. The car trip does not go well, and by the time they reach New York, they cannot wait to get away from each other. Another 5 years later, they meet again on a flight, and once again have a butting of heads meeting, but of less headstrong based naivety. And then finally, another 5 years later, they meet again and become best friends after both of their long term relationships fall apart, which naturally progresses to something more.

What is quite the successful achievement via the actors is the character development from the Chicago University in 1977, to the current 1988/9 time setting that the majority of the film takes place in. And this is where we acknowledge our leading actors.

Meg Ryan is irresistible. Her neuroses are so wonderfully put against such an innocent pretty appearance that figuratively shouldn't have anything at all to worry about, which just adds delightful humour to her character and her performance. And it is the chemistry between Ryan and Crystal is charming and adorable.

Billy Crystal plays both the familiar comedic role that we are familiar with in his roles previous and following this film, and the much more down to earth, heartbroken and sensitive male. And yet somehow, through this melancholic display, his vulnerability, particularly after his divorce, is very charming.

We can see When Harry Met Sally being a slightly updated Annie Hall, (especially if you look at the first image, where we see Ryan looking a lot like Keaton in the costuming) but very different and one that concludes in a more standard classical Hollywood ending. It has a linear storyline, and the couple do not break-up in the end. Despite this seemingly formulaic film, there is the genius of Nora Ephron (who I adore!) behind it's writing, who credits Ryan, Crystal and also director Rob Reiner for some of the idiosyncrasies of the film. Ryan is credited for coming up with the orgasm scene, which naturally, cannot go without notice, as it unfortunately sticks as the most memorable scene in the film. Also, with one of the most memorable lines in any film: "I'll have what she's having", being said by Reiner's mother. I say unfortunately as I see this film as the whole package; the ultimate rom-com as it's got something for both the guys and the gals.

The film dissects the idea that popular culture tells us that "Men are from Mars, and women are from Venus." According to Harry, men and women cannot be friends without the sex getting in the way. In these conversations that continue to flow throughout the film, we see a predated Sex and the City lunch sex conversation. Our famous orgasm scene predates a storyline from Sex and the City by about 10 years in being just as on the mark with frank sexual discussion in the mainstream.

Rob Reiner and his genius in the small details is seen where Harry is describing to his writer friend of when his wife left, and after each blow, the stand up and do the Mexican wave, adding comic relief to a very sad story. The phone call conversation between Harry and Jess and Marie and Sally skilfully shows off Reiner's comic timing and the scene is simply hilarious. Also very noteworthy is the New Year's Eve party when both Harry and Sally discover that they have an attraction is just heartbreakingly cute, as it is tragic, mainly, because it ends in just a peck on the mouth.

But among all of the funny scenes, the one that sticks out with me the most is just after Harry and Sally have had sex for the first time. The different facial expressions on Harry and Sally is simply amazing. She is content and happy and his face reads "What have I done?" and also brings the audience back to the conversation that occurred in the first part of the film where they drive from Chicago to New York, where Harry tells Sally that he wonders how long he has to hold the girl before he can leave. From here, we know that part of their relationship is, if not doomed, then at least troubled.

If I can pass on any advice, do yourself a favour and this Valentine's Day, do not go and see Valentine's Day in the cinema, but go rent or buy When Harry Met Sally.

Nine (2009)

Nine Reasons to See Nine (nah, not really, just a review)

[9/10 · 1 February 2010]

Every now and then a film comes along that reminds you of the golden age of Hollywood. Rob Marshall's Nine is one of these gems. Iwas slightly hesitant in seeing Marshall's latest offering, after not so glowing reviews and his previous work Memoirs of a Geisha (which was good, but not of the Chicago caliber.) However, this was dispelled from seeing the masterpiece that is Nine.

There are eight wonderful performers on show here; Guido (Daniel Day Lewis), his wife (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penelope Cruz), his muse (Nicole Kidman), his dead mother (Sophia Loren), the journalist (Kate Hudson), the whore from his past (Saraghina) and his costume designer (Lili). I'm not going to ruin the plot of the film, but doing the math and adding all the main characters together, it comes to one short of the title of the film. After some further research to demystify this quandary, I discovered that the "nine" refers to the addition of the songs to Fellini's masterpiece 8 1/2 on which Nine is based upon. Fellini considered this masterpiece his 8 and a half piece, as he had completed 6 feature films, 2 short films and had co-directed a film. The number nine is also of central significance when we consider the age of young Guido, when seen in flashbacks. It is quite plausible to say that Guido never really grows up from this age. He is constantly trying to prove himself in a much similar way to a child.

So, with the title issue resolved, the rest of the film can be looked at as a theatrical masterpiece. It is not often that you see a musical which is so inherently theatrical. Musical numbers take place on a stage, in different costumes and with reality paused. The usual convention is to continue through the plot as if nothing is different, despite the fact that everyone is singing. It is this element that really blew the socks off me. The characters are introduced in one mega opening scene, with characters from the past and present, living and dead, all circling our protagonist Guido. In the final scene, these same characters all appear again (all bar one) as if taking a bow.

Daniel Day Lewis shows us that while he is as Irish looking as a potato, he so wonderfully convinces us that he is Italian. He has an apt singing voice that was well above my expectations. However, it is the women of the film that are to be in awe of. Penelope Cruz shows the pizazz and vulnerability in Carla, and she is just oozing of talent. Marion Cotillard presents perhaps the strongest voice next to Fergie and gets to play both the dutiful and heartbroken housewife as well as a bit of a minx in one particular song. Judi Dench shows us a side that is not often seen in her recent work, despite her theatrical roots (and a role as Sally Bowles in the Original British production of Cabaret.) Sophia Loren looks stunning, but lacks the real punch to pull off her song effectively, as does Nicole Kidman.

Now, as much as I love Nicole Kidman, (which seems to be something to be ashamed of these days) she isn't given the chance to truly shine in the same degree as Cruz, Cotillard and the other ladies. She looks absolutely stunning, but it's her song "Unusual Way" that is lackluster, and devoid of real punch and pizazz; something that the rest of the film is dripping in. She reportedly replaced Catherine Zeta Jones who wanted the part made bigger. It's not wonder why.

But as for the performances that retain in the mind long after you leave the cinema, the award goes to….It's a tie! Kate Hudson, for her bouncy, catchy song with lyrics that sound like they were pulled straight from a cinephile's dream. Fergie (or Stacey Ferguson…what is she going by these days?) looks quite unlike anything we've seen from the Black Eyed Peas singer. Doning an an Italian (female equivalent) stallion look, Fergie has "Be Italian", one of the songs that was on repeat in my brain after seeing the trailer, and then of course, the actual feature film.

It is the work of Rob Marshall and third time collaborator, Australian Academy Award winning cinematographer Dion Beebe. Bebbe, who won the cinematographer Oscar for Memoirs of a Geisha and previously nominated for Chicago is working with Marshall for the third time, and his work looks amazing, as per usual. The luminous skin of each actress that is cast in the film looks good enough to kiss, if not eat. They look delectable.

With the close of Miramax, the Weinstein Brothers have moved their talents elsewhere, and show that they are champions for the best of the best in film-making. Hollywood simply does not make films like this anymore, and it is puzzling to think why. The film received some negative reviews, but the award bestowers could not resist acknowledging it, and I am fully behind them. Nine is fun, looks theatrically crisp and delicious and thrusts non stop entertainment at you!

It's Complicated (2009)

A complicated experience, but not a complicated film

[8/10 · 13 January 2010]

For me, it was an aptly complicated experience seeing Nancy Meyer's It's Complicated. Being a long time fan of Meyer's work, starting with Father of the Bride (for me that is, her screen writing career officially started with Private Benjamin in 1980) I did not hesitate in seeing her latest on screen venture. I shall get onto the actual film itself in a second, but before I do so, I do have to chronicle the experience of a 21 year-old male (albeit cinema studies graduate) attending such a screening.

So naturally, going up to the ticket box is a nervy and testing time when seeing a film that possibly questions your sanity, sexuality and chances of ever getting with the box office girl. And this time proved to be no exception. There was of course a pretty girl standing there waiting for patrons. Up I came, and then uttered the words "Could I get a ticket to It's Complicated at 3.30?" I'll give the girl credit, as she hid her amusement, disappointment, and or general humiliation on my part fairly well, but I could still see that air of "…" Thinking that this was the height of the embarrassment when seeing a film that is marketed and mostly attended by the middle aged women category, I entered the cinema with slight trepidation, but with thoughts that it's not like it could get any worse. I was wrong. I entered the cinema fairly early (probably the first mistake) to which I see a moderately populated sea of mostly 60+ women. As I walk across the front of the cinema (second mistake) almost parading in front of them to get to the furthest place from the door in which I entered (third mistake). I am noticed and it was not my paranoid neurotic brain that was imagining this, because as I ascended the stairs I am loudly greeted with "Oh, he's back again!" The first place my mind goes is "Shit, they've seen me come into a similarly older aged marketed film alone, and they haven't forgotten me!" Naturally, this was not the case, as it turns out I was mistaken for a cinema usher. One who they thought had returned to come and chat to them (because that's what teenage cinema ushers love to do in their spare time).

As I positioned myself in the furthest reaches of the galaxy (or the theatre) I could hear little mutterings from the previous encounter of old ladies that went something along the lines of "Oh, isn't he cute…." Emotionally unstable and feeling partly dejected from my youth, manhood and general sensibilities, I was probably in the most appropriate mood for seeing a Nancy Meyers film. Vulnerability is something that is so central to most of her leading characters, so naturally, I was in the right place.

In her latest piece, Meyer's has Meryl Streep playing Jane, a baker who after 10 years of being a divorcée has taken control of her life, is about to start major renovations to her house, and then out of the blue, has an affair with her ex husband Jake (played to perfection by Alec Baldwin). But at the same time, she starts to fall for her divorced architect (played also to perfection by Steve Martin) and thus is born the decision of who to pick.

It's Meyer's characters that are of particular interest. She creates perfectly flawed, vulnerable and detailed people. What's also interesting about these characters is that we see the reasoning behind their affluence. Similar to Father of the Bride, Baby Boom, What Women Want and Something's Gotta Give, the main characters are successful people. But in these films, we see their workplaces, thus establishing a plausible logic behind the rather large affluent surroundings that the characters exist in. In It's Complicated, Jane is a baker. We learn that Jane went to Paris in her early 20s for a short cooking course and ended up staying on as an apprentice baker. We see Jane make copious amounts of food, including the start to finish process of the makings of a chocolate croissant. This placement of food, which could possibly be a character of the film itself, features a commonality with Streep's other 2009 release, Nora Ephron's Julie and Julia. And the food looks delectable and irresistible too! The three stars of the film shine. There are scenes that remind me of this 180 degree turn of the feminist film "male triple gaze" theory, with Baldwin being the one who is gazed upon, and not necessarily as a sex symbol, but at a point of amusement and comic relief. Diane Keaton's nude 3 second appearance in Something's Gotta Give can slightly be compared, in so far as the comic relief idea, but the difference is that she looked great, whereas Baldwin's character is shown to be the result of 10 years without Meryl Streep's character. Steve Martin for the most part of the film plays the straight guy, with the exception of one hilarious drug induced scene, and it is wonderful to see Martin almost playing against type. Both he and Baldwin bravely show such deep unexpected vulnerability, and thus create the decision of Streep's character seem all the more challenging. Streep herself, is a powerhouse too and proves why she was nominated for a Golden Globe in the performance (where she faces stiff competition from Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Marion Cotillard and of course….herself in Julie and Julia.) So while it was a complicated experience seeing It's Complicated, there were no complications at all in sitting back and being entertained by the best.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

The audience effect of watching Paranormal Activity

[5/10 · 12 January 2010]

Perhaps I could write an interesting and informative piece about the film that I just saw. And maybe part of this review will do so. After all, there is something to talk about in this dribbly piece of hogwash, however, I think it's more interesting to talk about the circumstances under which I viewed the film.

So let's set the scene. Tuesday night. Cheap Tuesday of course. The movie has been out for almost a month, so it's not at the hugely populated Avatar level. However, being a suburban multiplex in the holidays on the cheapest night for cinema tickets, there were enough people populating the cinema to give it the appropriate atmospheric tension.

The atmosphere that I speak of consisted of what I almost lovingly refer to as bogans, a wannabe hippy couple and very scared tweens (and one very scared 20 year old who groped me throughout the progression of the film. Luckily I she drove me, so the gropage was acceptable.) Throughout the film, there were the proverbial squeals, awkward and nervous laughs that follow the squeals and the judgmental "I'm not buying this" comments. While these actions from the surrounding patrons were quite the distraction from the actual film itself, they also proved to be an interesting factor when looking at what can help make or break a movie: the audience.

So while the actual film, which was trying its damned hardest to be a carbon copy replica of the 1999 small budget hit The Blair Witch Project, was not the best piece of cinema I'd ever see, it nonetheless managed to be on par with what I expected from this kind of film, and maybe a little more. I recently ran into one disturbing DVD at my local JB (of which I work at. Boo yeah!) It was a recent film release called Crush starring Chris Egan (from those old Home and Away days back in the early naughties. And yes, it's sad that I remember) which was the usual kind of teen thriller that ultimately amounts to nothing. However, the DVD back cover featured a review that noted the film as being "a notch above the films in the genre". And this lovely review is how I see Paranormal Activity.

It's not a great film in not such a great genre. However, it is a piece of popcorn fun that can make you feel like you're 16 again, where you may not have cared about special effects, narrative structure, or even a good ending. Mind you, when I was 16, I did expect, crave and need these things. So perhaps the film allows you to step into another world. That of the uncaring and unbiased tween expectations. And if, in this new tween age group, my choice is between this Twilight or Paranormal Activity, then the latter will always reign supreme.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

The Lovely Lovely Bones

[9/10 · 12 January 2010]

So reactions upon my friends seem to be fairly mixed. But one thing that Alex and I do agree on, is that we think that The Lovely Bones is lovely.

Over a year ago, I read one of the "must read" that had been floating around on bestseller lists everywhere around the world. Alice Sebold's story of Susie Salmon, a fourteen year old girl who was raped and murdered and thus watches and aids her family from heaven into discovering the perpetrator who lives just houses away.

The book blew me away. It was gruesome and yet funny, melancholic and yet uplifting, and a true page turner. I have had friends who have also loved the book, and when we heard news of the book being turned into a movie, skeptics summoned their opinions. Mine? It's in Peter Jackson's hands. Can you get someone who has been more faithful to a piece of literature? Now, I admit, I'm not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan (but I would like to be….give me time!!!!) However, I've seen Jackson's other work before LotR which featured a gruesome ghoulish ghost story The Frighteners and a lesbian melodrama murder mystery in Heavenly Creatures, just to name a couple. Jackson is such an interesting filmmaker, and it is this blending of the wonderful scripts, co written by long time collaborator Phillipa Boyens and even longer time collaborator and wife of Mr. Jackson, Fran Walsh.

So came time for viewing the movie. I did so on my birthday, and to me, this was the perfect birthday film. I took along five friends, all bar one who were slightly surprised at my choice of seeing this as an enjoyable birthday film. The one who wasn't surprised had also read AND loved the book, so we were quite anxious and nervous as well. But I kept thinking, it's alright….Peter Jackson.

It was, for all intents and purposes, heavenly. While the story is not the lightest of stories, it dealt with the running emotions of grief in such an honest way, whether Hollywood-ised or not, that it was quite the experience going through the film. Luckily, the two dedicates of the book were pleased. However, my other friend did not feel the overwhelming desire to see the film again, simply because it was an almost traumatic experience. This I accredit to the suspense that Jackson brings to the story, and is most painfully (and wonderfully) exercised in a sequence which has Susie's sister inside the house of the man that killer her, just as he comes home to discover someone in his house. The thing that made it so suspenseful was the soundtrack. Or lack thereof I should say. I was literally sitting in my seat in awe, completely under the spell of thinking that Jackson is a genius. His closeups and the mood that surrounded them were just simply amazing to one, who seems to be either imitating Hitchcock, or simply becoming his modern protégé.

As for the acting. Once again, blown away. Saoirse Ronan (the young Academy Award nominated actress from Atonement) had such a central and significant part to the story, and thank god handled it so honestly with vulnerability, humour and just sheer talent. I was skeptical about the casting choice of Mark Whalberg, but he even managed to slightly impress me. I think the boy has talent! Rachel Weisz broke my heart in the aftermath of grief that came after the police informed of Susie's death. Susan Sarandon was brought in so effectively for comic relief and as the glue which held together this extremely fragile story (and look great as an alcoholic bad ass grandma!) And of course, Stanley Tucci (who I think is one of the main contenders for the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award in this performance) was one of the creepiest characters I've seen portrayed on film, probably since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.

An interesting point to consider, and one that I think saw polarising my friends who I saw the film with and others whom have seen in since, is the films idea of heaven. The film (and the book) give off an strong impression of a "between place" and a heaven, thus propelling an idea of an afterlife forward. Naturally, bring up religion, and you're gonna get opposing opinions. However, what I liked about this take of the "in between place" is that is subjects the audience to an idea of energies being present of those who have passed within those who remain. This idea, while perhaps more subtle than the computerised Avatar style projections of heaven (and boy did it look amazing too) is the one that has the lasting impression to me, and follows the themes of the story as well.

So there, I've said it. I see Jackson as a modern Hitchcock. I don't know he is going to continue in such a suspenseful arena, however, I would love to see more. And also, look out for his Hitchcock style cameo in the mall. And his poster for a certain famous book trilogy in the window of a mall too….Genius!

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Christmas Classic in New York

[10/10 · 12 January 2010]

Macaulay Culkin – one of the most famous child stars since Shirley Temple – returns as Kevin McAllister in the 1992 nostalgic and sentimental slapstick Christmas classic that has not dated since its original release.

As the sequel of the highest grossing comedy of all time, Home Alone 2 is one of the biggest Christmas films of the 90s. Along with its predecessor, the story is all about Christmas. While the familiar Christmas vacation is shown as chaotic and stressful, it is the essential family element that brings us back to the films main themes of togetherness and (paradoxically) independence.

Becoming separated from his family once again when leaving for a Christmas holiday, Kevin is left alone to his own devices, this time in New York City and causes chaos and mayhem when he bumps into the freshly escaped "Wet Bandits", who are once again, out to get him.

The original cast return with Culkin in the lead, Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern as the hilariously dumb, yet slightly endearing criminals with a heart of coal and the fantastic Catherine O'Hara as the mum every child wants, played with just the right amount of fear, guilt, determination and love that is needed. Another noteworthy return is the sequel of gangster spoof Angels with Filthy Souls, Angels with Even Filthier Souls (a reminiscent construction of Angels with Dirty Faces with James Cagney.) New characters are brought to life by Tim Curry, Brenda Fricker, Eddie Bracken, Dana Ivey and a young Rob Schneider.

Film critics such as Roger Ebert gave the film negative reviews and saw it as portraying violence as too cartoonish. Despite this fact, the mainstream popularity of the film saw it as a success and to most children of the 90s, the second instalment in the Home Alone series is often seen as equal in quality if not better than the first.

This film has been monumental in my life. I cannot remember how I first saw it, but I know that thanks to VHS I watched it a million times. It formed my quintessential idea of New York by using Central Park, Carnegie Hall and the Plaza Hotel as central plot settings. It is as much a Christmas film as it is a New York City film and this familiar touristy promotion shows New York as being a unique "White Christmas" town.

So in the cheery Christmas words of Johnny the Crook from Angels: Merry Christmas you filthy animal…and a Happy New Year.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Eat Your Heart Out Laura Mulvey: A New Moon Reading

[3/10 · 12 January 2010]

Like millions of other people, I flocked a screening of New Moon in its first week of release. I knew that I wouldn't enjoy it after what the first movie offered me, so saying that I did not enjoy it is like saying I went to a funeral and found it sad. Despite this, I still chose to be a sheep and follow along with the crowd to help break box office records.

The only way to experience this movie (in my humble opinion) is in an audience filled with swooning girls, just to really soak up the atmosphere that the film projects. That was my intention, and luckily I succeed by going to a screening early enough after the films release. I could tick the audible sighs and swooning sounds box on my expectations list, and soon to follow was the obligatory chest shots.

Without going into boring synopsis of the film, which would be as simple as a bus full of Miss America contestants, I can put forth a much easier description. Perhaps only students of film, scholars, academics and cultural critics and theorists will understand it, but regardless, here's my synopsis: Laura Mulvey, eat your heart out.

Mulvey's seminal theory (Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema) discussed the idea of the triple male gaze in the mid 1970s. This triple male gaze is the projection of a woman through a male characters eyes, put forth by a male author (director/writer) for a male audience. In New Moon we see this turned around. It is not the female that is the object of desire anymore, and instead it is the men who are subjected to the "to-be-looked-at-ness" aspect of Mulvey's claims. Her theories have been subverted, and not for the first time (let us not forget Casino Royale with Daniel Craig coming out of the water, like an Adonis, a la Ursula Andress style.) As we see this idea the idea of the triple maze gaze being turned on its head as at least a double female gaze now, if not even triple with Stephenie Meyer's book, the character of Bella and her male contemporaries (or should I say pieces of meat/eye candy.) But despite this, the Bella is still a dull girl who relies on the comfort of vampires and werewolves to stay amused and happy.

Consensus among female teenage (or tweenage) viewers finds the film "hot" and "steamy". Edward is "dreamy", Jacob is "ripped, but 12" and there is an instant divide between Team Edward and Team Jacob (one that could result in heads being ripped off and a ritualistic sacrifice in the name of the Twilight.) Perhaps it's because I've been watching too much True Blood, but the Twilight films leave something to be desired for me. I require that big bite that Twilight and New Moon lack in their "nothing much happens" plot lines. I don't consider myself an action chasing adrenaline junkie, but in I needed some proverbial action and I needed it desperately. Luckily New Moon offered me more than the previous instalment, but I was still not as satisfied as the tweens and "twi-hards", who seem to be feeding on some kind of unexplainable and unquenchable supernatural level.

An Education (2009)

Lessons in An Education

[9/10 · 11 January 2010]

Director Lone Scherfig and Nick Hornby's adaptation of British journalist Lynn Barber's memoir of the same name follows 16-year-old Jenny Miller (Carey Mulligan), a bright Twickenham school girl who is on her way to studying literature at Oxford.

During her final year, while taking A levels, Jenny fortuitously meets the enigmatic thirty-something David (Peter Sarsgaard) in the rain, who then subsequently shows her the life that she's dreamed of; full of music, art, culture and even Paris with the aid of his uber trendy friends (Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike).

Confined by the early 1960's pre-Beatle mania, Jenny is a hostage of the times, to which David ultimately shows her a way out. Her father (Alfred Molina) does not allow her to play music, and wants her to study so she can get into Oxford and meet a nice man. As David charms both Jenny and her parents, he becomes the eligible husband that her parents were hoping for, and studying for Oxford becomes redundant, which ultimately brings the biggest question that the film poses: is an education necessary for Jenny to experience her desires and yearnings.

The two lead characters are played with perfection by American indie star Sarsgaard (Kinsey, Jarhead, Garden State and Orphan) and newcomer Mulligan, however it is the latter that steals the show. So rarely is such headstrong determination, vulnerability and such a true desire to experience such joie de vive encapsulated in a performance, but Mulligan nails it, and I predict an Oscar nomination for her, if not a win.

The film is complete with beyond competent direction by the Danish born Scherfig and a smart screenplay from Hornby (only his second screenplay, and first that is not adapted from one of his own stories) along with stunning performances from a strong supporting cast, with notable mentions to Olivia Williams as Jenny's teacher, Alfred Molina as Jenny's overbearing and yet anxious and vulnerable father and scene stealing moments from Emma Thompson and Sally Hawkins.

Expect to see An Education at the top of the upcoming "best" lists of 2009, and even at the Kodak theatre in February next year, with high chances of collecting Oscar gold. It is also, without a doubt, the ultimate must see film for a liberal arts student.

Bright Star (2009)

Come frolic in ye fields of splendor

[7/10 · 11 January 2010]

There seems to be one image that the new Jane Campion film seems to be running with. And it is this image that has continually stayed in my mind since seeing the poster art, and will probably continue to persist in my mind when I think of the film. I have included this picture below, and I won' t lie when I say that it was this dark blue/possibly purple field that partly attracted me into seeing this film.

The other attraction was the interesting filmmaker Jane Campion. Over the last few years, I have attempted to take in the occasional Campion film. I must say that I do find Campion's films to be quite subtle and can take some time to actually resonate in my own mind. My first viewing of a Campion film In the Cut (2003) was my must see film after the car crash disaster of an interview between British interviewer Michael Parkinson and film star Meg Ryan. That film itself, to this time has been my most enjoyable Campion film, ranking above the Oscar winning epic The Piano (1993), Campion's feature film debut Sweetie (1989) and the Henry James adaptation Portrait of a Lady (1996).

Actually, to be honest my favourite Campion piece was the accompanying documentary to Portrait of a Lady which showed a very fragile Nicole Kidman, Barbara Hershey as the actor that Campion seemed to forget about, John Malkovich almost playing the John Cusack version of himself that is portrayed in Being John Malkovich (1999) and a completely crazy Shelley Winters (I'm talking Elizabeth Taylor/Liza Minnelli crazy!) This cannot be more highly recommended, and if you've seen and enjoyed the video diaries that accompany Lars von Trier's Dogville (2003), then you DEFINITELY MUST see this!!! But alas, we come to Bright Star (2009) which centers around two lovers Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the muse to poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) who's love affair lasted for three years, starting in 1818. Both actors bring capable and honed performances that stay true to the core of Keats poems, the times, and the theme of love itself. Cornish displays a love so intense that her agonising feelings of separation between herself and Keats is beyond palpable. And on a superficial level, Whishaw manages to successfully don a Noel Fielding hairdo (Mighty Boosh style) that appealed to my eyes throughout the film.

Campion has a knack of bringing us these period pieces of Bright Star, Portrait of a Lady and The Piano that are reminiscent of the Merchant Ivory films of the early 1990s with Emma Thompson. But The Piano and Portrait of a Lady seem to have an inherent theme of sexuality and treachery (respectively) that is a little more intense than these usual Merchant Ivory films. The less thematically intense Bright Star (which is rated PG in Australia) seems to fall pray of the same enduring love theme that we have seem repeated again and again over the years in the likes of the Emma Thompson/Jane Austen/Merchant Ivory films. So why does Bright Star even need to be put forth to a cinema going audience, one might wonder? It's all about the poet and his muse.

Poetry could be called fairly unrepresented on the silver screen in terms of films that are written about famous poets. We have an endless amount of films that are based on famous British authors, and an even more endless array of adaptations of these famous British authors stories. But what we seem to miss is the works of the famous English poets such as Keats, Blake, Wordsworth and Byron. These Romantic poets are mentioned in Bright Star, and it is this love of poetry that Campion shows as something beautiful in the words of Keats.

"Bright star, would I were steadfast as thous" was the poem that the title comes from, which is used so effectively to drive the films romantic and undying love themes. Campion has faithfully put Keats words to screen, with a story that manages to stay in my mind and I'm sure when I think of Keats, I shall also think of Brawne. Along with the success of Campions script and direction comes excellent cinematography from Greig Fraser, which is shown in the image included in this review. Mark Bradshaw also brings us an interested and an almost isolated soundtrack that is most highlighted by a sole violin and an a capella choir of men that brings the classical English sound to be a modern film.