Hunger Games 2 - Catching Fire

It is over 18 months since the original Hunger Games film was released, and in he meantime a lot has happened to Jennifer Lawrence.  Having achieved global stardom almost overnight after being cast as Katniss Everdeen, she starred alongside Bradley Cooper in the outstanding Silver Linings Playbook and walked away with an Oscar for best actress.  Rather than get carried away with her new superstar status, she is an actress with her feet firmly on the ground and she returns to reprise her role as the young heroine of District 12 in the second part of the Hunger Games series - Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

The film continues the story of the first by fast-forwarding one year.  Katniss and Peeta are now celebrities and are being wheeled out by the powers that be to tour the 12 Districts and play nice for the crowds.  But when both of them find it impossible to maintain the twin charades of being madly in love and supporting the president's (Donald Sutherland) regime, the powers that be come to realise that they're more dangerous than they're worth.  When the new Hunger Games are announced for this year, Katniss and Peeta soon discover that they will have to fight for their lives once more.

Once again I found this to be a very powerful film and an even more powerful story.  It's a story about a character of great strength and nobility who has become a symbol of hope for ordinary people.  In spite of this, Katniss is determined to reject what she has become, but finds it impossible to reject what she means to the people around her.  All she wants to do is the right thing, and it's that dedication to righteousness that gives her strength.  She never went into the Hunger Games with any intention to change the world or lead a revolution, just to sacrifice herself so that her little sister could live.  The simple act of being noble, righteous and incorruptible on a national stage is enough to upset the apple cart of a totalitarian dictatorship, the act of defiance and refusal to be bought out by the man is what the state fears the most.

A good hour at the end of the film is taken up by the new Hunger Games event.  It's the least interesting part of the film as even though its a different set up and different things happen, a lot of it is very similar to the first film.  It's the stuff towards the start of the film that I enjoyed the best, where we see what is going on in the provinces as people look to Katniss as a paragon of hope.  She gives a speech to the residents of District 11 on the sadness she felt when their daughter died in her arms a year ago, it's a speech that starts a riot that's brutally put down by faceless guards.  It's a scene that put tears in my eyes, showing how people will respond on an emotional level to each other regardless of their differences, and that the things that lead to revolution can never be predicted.

Again there are some nice science fiction touches and good special effects.  The crazy monkeys might be a bit much, but the burning dresses are impressive.  Burning dress, 'girl on fire', are these intentional nods towards Joan of arc?  The metaphors for what Katniss' character represents are one thing, but it would be over-simplifying the story to say that it's all about her.  It's all about what she inspires others to do.  It's about showing teenage girls an image of themselves that isn't defined by body image and boys, rather defined by nobility, quiet strength and moral courage.

Unfortunately the film's ending was even more flat than the last one.  Things just sort of stop when they look like they're building to a crescendo.  I guess that's typical 'middle film' syndrome, and I'm afraid there's going to be more of that with the final booking being distilled into two parts.  I just hope that the story doesn't lose itself trying to turn Katniss into some sort of badass warrior type.  Given the look in her eye in the film's final shot I'm worried that might happen: "Katniss Everdeen is here to kick ass and chew gum - and she's all outa gum..."  Hopefully not.

Hunger Games: Catching Fire isn't the greatest film in the world, it's not even the best film in this franchise.  But as a series these films mean so much more.  They act as a counter-point to the Twlight series (shame on Mark Kermode by the way for continuing to insist that Hunger Games could only exist because of some sort of trail that was blazed by Twlight - utter bollocks), one that young girls and boys can enjoy just as much as a fast-approaching-35-years-old grumpy amateur film reviewer.  Don't believe me?  Well believe the large group of boisterous teenage lads who sat behind us in the cinema last night.  Even they shut up through the emotionally charged bits.  Now that's power.

Alien - my favourite scene

With little to do last night aside from sit in the house and finish writing my contribution to the BAFRA annual exam, I decided to watch Alien again.  I've stated many times on this blog that Alien is my favourite film.  So this time I want to discuss out my favourite scenes from the movie.  Though the film's most iconic and memorable moment is the notorious chest-buster scene (I expect this video link will fail to work at some point - the Ridley Scott copyright police are fairly hot on this), my favourite part of the film is the opening sequence in which we are introduced to the ship and the horror of what might unfold is foreshadowed.

The film opens with a shot that pans across space and an unknown planet.  After the film's title disappears from the screen we see the now infamous ship - the Nostromo - drifting through the endless cold indifference of interstellar space.  If anything were to go wrong out here, there's no one to help.  We cut inside the ship, observe its empty, cramped spaces and are invited into the main cockpit where we see a fragment of an unknown transmission being received by the ship's computer.  As the transmission ends we cut quickly to black.  When the picture comes back in we are in a darkened corridor with the lights just turning on.  Almost as if it had been waiting there for months for just this moment, the camera pauses for a second before slowly edging towards the door ahead of it where the crew are awaking from their slumber.

This is the visual language of cinema at work and operating at its finest.  The scene tells us about the premise of the film, sets up the aesthetic, hints at the horrors to come and generates a foreboding atmosphere of the terror of isolation in space - all from a few shots before we see a single person or hear a single line.  The idea that the camera has been waiting for the crew to awake if the bit that sends the biggest tingle down my spine.  It's as if the ship's computer has been waiting for this moment, stealthily hiding in the pitch black corridor for endless time until it's able to wake its crew and send them to their doom with a disconnected indifference that's only possible for a machine - or perhaps a corporation - to express.

I don't know why I'm watching Alien again now that my Lovefilm subscription is providing me with an endless films supply of films.  Maybe because it's bloody brilliant.

Rambo - the new one

Not entirely sure why my housemate decided it would be a good idea to watch Rambo (the 2008 version) a few evenings back, but as the film got underway I had no idea quite how much material it was likely to provide for this blog.

Rambo is the story of John Rambo (known in the film mostly as 'Boatman'), a Vietnam war veteran played by Sylvester Stallone who goes into the jungle to shoot baddies, rescue helpless people and generally raise hell.  Here he goes to the Burmese jungle for some reason, and ends up joining with a bunch of other Western military types to try to rescue a bunch of hapless and wimpy charity workers.  This involves shooting, stabbing, bayoneting and blowing up as many Burmese military personnel as he can before the credits roll and anyone who's still alive can live happily ever after.  This is a Rambo film - what did you expect?

I always imagined that Rambo would be something like The A-Team in its style - this could hardly be further from the truth.  In actual fact Rambo looks a lot more like Saving Private Ryan, with its visceral depiction of violence and death.  People who get shot have their arms and limbs blown off.  People getting shot in the chest have clear holes blown clean through them.  A man who is shot at point blank range with a .50 calibre machine gun is reduced to a pile of red mush in seconds - from several camera angles.  Whereas in Saving Private Ryan these moments of horrifically bloody violence are used sparingly to underscore the terror of war, here in Rambo they're used all the time.  And I do mean all the time.  The official body count for the film is 239, which tallies in at 2.59 per minute.  That's an entire company of soldiers for fuck sake!  The majority of these deaths are shown in ludicrously gory detail.  By overdoing the realism the film loses any power it could of had.  By removing any concept of the terror of warfare and replacing it with video game cut-scene style visuals, the film undermines itself.

To be honest though I can't imagine the makers of Rambo were really thinking about making a film that puts the viewer though the psychological grinder.  Instead they wanted to make a film where Rambo shoots a Burmese militiaman in the neck with and arrow, then that militiaman falls on to a mine and explodes.  And to be fair to them, that's exactly the film they've made.  If you're looking for a popcorn film that kills 2 hours of time and shows you nearly 250 people being killed in a variety of stupid ways, then this ticks every box.  Citizen Kane it is not.

Lovefilm Update

Regular visitors to this blog will be aware that I have a subscription to Lovefilm.  I recently discovered that my subscription has been changed without me being made aware of it.  Normally when this sort of thing happens you would assume that you're about to get screwed over by the man, but in this instance the change has been quite beneficial.

Up until last month I have had the same plan on Lovefilm since I first signed up to Amazon's DVD-by-post scheme 8 years ago - 4 DVDs a month, 2 at a time.  From this month onwards my subscription has been changed to an unlimited number of DVDs per month (still only 2 at a time though).  Previously this was a slightly more expensive package, but I never went with it as I didn't think I would have much chance of getting through more than 4 films each month.  Now Lovefilm have upgraded my account to have this new package without charging any more money - great!  I'm already reaping the benefit as I've got my 5th DVD of November coming my way as I type.

The question of why this has happened and why now has sloshed around in my brain for a few days, and I've concluded that there are probably a series of reasons, but one major of those reasons is the biggest of all.  Two minor reasons for this happening are likely that a) Amazon have recently re-acquired Lovefilm and are looking to do something different with the business and b) Lovefilm no longer offer 4 DVDs a month to new customers and so to cut down on admin they're moving all existing customers on to new packages.  The big reason for this though is surely the thing that's staring down the barrel at the entire home entertainment industry at the moment - streaming and catch-up TV.

The future of home entertainment looks to be inextricably linked to the internet, smart TVs and services like I-Tunes and I-Player.  As more and more film and TV are available on demand via services such as Netflix, what will happen to the more traditional film rental industries?  Only this week Blockbuster announced that almost all its video rental stores are due to close after years of haemorrhaging money.  Is Lovefilm worried that its own business is heading in the same direction?  Perhaps the heads of Lovefilm are trying to re-invigorate the DVD rental market by giving all their customers a free upgrade?

It's impossible to know the real motives behind what Lovefilm are doing, but what I do know is that while coverage of the internet remains sporadic in parts of the UK and non-existent across much of the world there will still be a market for by-post rental services.  The future will no-doubt be in online streaming services, but as Microsoft discovered recently when they tried to force the games industry to accept that the new Xbox One will only operate with an active internet connection, most people aren't quite yet ready for a world in which you have to be connected to the web in order to exist.  Only when access to the internet starts to be treated more like a utility than a luxury commodity will that future start to materialise.

Captain Phillips

Every time I go to the cinema these days I get to thinking how I go less and less.  Last week especially it feels like months since I went.  With my new mobile phone in hand but still on the Orange network I made immediate use of the Orange Wednesday offer by sending my first text message with the new handset to get a free ticket.  One wonders how much longer this offer will persist now that EE have stopped the Orange Wednesday adverts before films in cinemas.  I guess while EE are still spamming out their Kevin Bacon adverts before films though they're still contractually bound to keep this offer in place, so I'm going to keep on using it.

The film that moved me to actually go to the big screen for once was Captain Phillips, Paul Greengrass's latest drama / action film that tells the story of an American-owned cargo ship that was hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009.  Tom Hanks plays the eponymous captain of the ship, who faces off against the unknown Barkhad Abdi who plays Muse - the leader of the small band of Somalis driven by some kind of local feudal lord into taking to the high seas in search of people to rob.  The film is an outstanding depiction of what happened; the director effortlessly generates tension and empathy as we follow the ship's journey around the horn of Africa, flight from potential hijackers, eventual hijacking, cat and mouse games between crew and hijackers on board the ship and lastly the psychological warfare that breaks out when the US navy arrives on the scene.

In addition to this though, this is a film that's about much more than simply one hijacking off of Africa's eastern coast.  It's about the sadness of what some people are driven to, about the facelessness of governments and economic systems when it comes to dealing with people, and how that contrasts against the care and empathy that normal people feel for each other regardless of their backgrounds.  The Somali chief who forces Muse to go out on to the open seas to look for cargo ships to hijack doesn't give a shit about him, he just wants his pay day and doesn't care if Muse dies in the process.  Similarly the captain of the US warship that arrives on scene has it made very clear to him that Captain Phillips is not to be allowed to set foot in Somalia - even if that means blowing him up along with his Somali hijackers.  We are left in little doubt that the American military might is not really here to save one man from kidnapping, rather to send a message to future hijackers to not fuck with Uncle Sam.  Contrast this to how Captain Phillips acts towards one of his teenage kidnappers, or the way that the medical orderly cares for him in the film's final scene.

The final scene is one that's so touching and emotionally powerful one wonders why more directors don't just copy what Paul Greengrass is doing.  The director seems to do so easily what all great dramatisations of real life should do, which is to present events in a way that are as even-handed as possibly, while at the same time forcing you to confront things you never really wanted to think about.  He's telling us that the world is far more complex than the black-and-white picture often presented in mainstream news, and to cap it all he's doing it with an awesomely-paced psychological thriller.  Captain Phillips is excellent, a film that once again confirms Paul Greengrass as one of the best directors around just now.

Carnage - famous people in a flat

Watched Roman Polanski's middle class rage-romp Carnage the other week before I went on holiday.  Just after I started watching the film my housemate Andy came in, saw the cast and quickly joined in after getting a synopsis of the first 5 minutes from me.  I think that this nicely sums up the reaction that I had to this film when I first saw it advertised.  I can't really imagine a situation in which a film starring Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, John C Reilly and Christoph Waltz would be bad, or even a bit indifferent.  Let's see shall we...

The premise of Carnage is that there are 4 people stuck in a flat, they all want out of it for a variety of reasons but somehow are unable to escape.  These 2 couples are brought together because the son of Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz has hit the son of John C Reilly and Jodie Foster with a stick - and they come together to work out some sort of reparation between them.  We see these boys very briefly in a long shot at the start and end of the film, but apart from that the film focuses entirely on the two middle class couples arguing their way around what has happened.

Because of the premise, this is a film that is naturally quite stagey.  Christoph Waltz is the mostly uncaring doctor who spends more time on his mobile phone than looking after patients, Kate Winslet is his highly strung wife who barely hides her contempt for his 'dedication' to his profession.  Jodie Foster is the wannabe liberal who hates the fact she lives in a city with any Republicans, John C Reilly her alcohol & cigar-loving husband who keeps his true opinions to himself - mostly.  Into this melting pot of modern angst is poured monetary tensions, some off-food, plenty of booze, a bit of vomit and a hell of a lot of people finally telling some home truths.  It's entertaining stuff on the surface, but when you think about what really happens over the course of 75 minutes and the cast at the disposal of the director, it's all comes out looking a bit empty.

By the end I was sort of engaged by it, but at the same time a little bit thinking "that's it?".  It makes sense that the script for the film derives from a play that was a minor hit on Broadway, given that it's all set in one place.  By all means give this film a go because of the stellar cast - the performances are very good after all; but try not to be too upset if you end up wondering why you bothered.