American Sniper - A surprisingly balanced view

So, an American film about macho gun-ness directed by Clint Eastwood.  When the Hollywood darling of the US Republican party directs a film called American Sniper that chronicles the exploits of the US army's most killingest sniper in the Iraq war, you can be sure that guns are going to be on the agenda.

Eastwood - though resolutely Republican - is fiercely in favour of gun controls.  Though of course in the US being in favour of gun controls generally means just banning M16's and allowing anyone to carry a pistol so long as they fill in a form - but whatever.  At least it means we're likely to get a balanced view of the matter from a US viewpoint, and that's pretty much what American Sniper delivers.  Bradley Cooper leads the movie as Chris Kyle, a US army sniper who is shown growing up in Texas learning from his father that might is right and that guns are part and parcel of life.  He goes off to join the army soon after the destruction of the World Trade Centre and before long is a sniper operating on the rooftops of nameless towns in Iraq.  Kyle dispatches nameless Iraqi fighters, while grappling with his conscious over what to do in situations that don't meet his expectations of what to find in a war-zone.

Overall, American Sniper is remarkable even-handed.  It manages to neither pass judgement on the Iraq war or US foreign policy, nor on the individuals involved.  Instead it presents a neutral view of events from the point of view of someone who is clearly a gun-enthusiast, but who understands the power he wields.  As is typical with many war films, there is very little focus on the 'other side'.  There is little difference here, and the presence of a single Iraqi sniper with whom Kyle can duel to the end of the film does little to redress that.  But then this is an American film, and Eastwood does have form the other way (he directed Letters from Iwo Jima), so I think it can be forgiven.

I think it would be easy to go into watching a film like this expecting an agenda from it, and believing that agenda to be confirmed.  I think that indicates a good balance to it.  It's a film that's very well-constructed, edited to maintain a good right pace in the battle sequences and heart-felt where it needs to be.  The montage that plays out with the closing credits could be seen as being pro-gun, but in reality it simply showcases a very American subculture without disdain or veneer.  However the outside world might feel the need to judge the American pro-gun lobby we cannot deny that the movement is strong and deeply-rooted.  American Sniper comes with a recommendation from me.

Pretty Woman - you read it right: Pretty Woman

No one can ever be able to accuse me of being a film snob - last weekend I watched Pretty Woman.  Now though many a man might at this point feel the need to defend their manliness and point out that they watched said film with their girlfriend (which I guess I am sort of doing with this statement), I am happy to hold my hands in the air and state that the film selection was mine.  Having seen the DVD in her collection, and being aware that I had not seen it, the film-junkie that kicks around in my brain took over and I found myself suggesting that we might watch Julia Roberts and Richard Gere enter the 1990s with a classic of the Chick-Flick genre.  Clearly no further persuasion was required, and the DVD (extended version - very much not required fyi) was set to play.

The very first thing that struck me about the film is how much Richard Gere has appeared to have aged since it was made, whereas Julia Roberts seems less-touched by the passing of 25 years.  I suspect that this is because if you want to maintain film star status as a woman in Hollywood, you have to (with a couple of notable exceptions) look young, whereas men are allowed to age.  Whatever else I thought about the film, it is interesting to think on it in this way - as a comment on early 21st century celebrity culture.

The plot is classic boy-meets-girl, Julia Roberts is Vivian, and Richard Gere is Edward.  He is an ashen-faced corporate mogul who's boardroom dealings have left him bereft of humanity tired of life.  She is an articulate prostitute operating on the streets of LA, her profession has left her unable to see the good in good in humanity or a future for herself.  A chance encounter puts them in the same hotel room when Edward decides he wants some company (conversation only mind) for the evening, from there the plot writes itself.  I am told that the charm of the film derives from the chemistry between Roberts and Gere, however the special edition that we were watching left me feeling rather cold towards them.  Their initial encounter in the hotel room felt quite tedious and strung out, while revealing precious little about the characters.  A classic case of film editing as an art form, and where simply adding more scenes doesn't help, and trimming back is what is needed.  Fewer or shorter sequences within a scene like this can add to the pace, improve the tone and add a bit of sparkle to the characters.  Less really is more.

We actually get very little character development throughout the film.  There is little to tell us how Vivian got into the situation she is or why Edward decided to become a financial mogul.  Neither character seems to suit the career they've allowed themselves to fall into.  We are left to fill in a huge number of gaps and (I assume) project ourselves and our own values on to these characters.  I guess therein lies the secret of the popular success of movies like this, that the audience is allowed to fill in the back-stories of the characters however they wish - a complete escapist fantasy.

All films are political - even Pretty Woman.  On one hand you could be kind to the film and say it is a rejection of monetarist politics; witness our two characters, each of whom has forgotten how to connect on a human level because of their career choices - each of which involves making money by dehumanising people and being dehumanised in return.  On the other hand you could say that film focuses very much on Vivian's material transformation, in which she becomes more of a real person when she's able to express herself through Edward's money.  In this sense it's unsurprising that there's so little depth to the characters, they are foils for the politics of the day, a politics championed by Thatcher and Reagan that idolised monetary gains beyond anything human.  Whatever else the film does, it appears to be a rejection of the idea that money is worth more than people.

The film ends exactly as one might predict, with each teaching the other a lesson about the world and Edward turning up to whisk Vivian away on the modern equivalent of the white horse of her medieval fantasy.  It's not Citizen Kane, but then no-one should expect it to be.  I'm not an idiot, I do get that films like this are designed as female escapist fantasies, in which our every-woman is whisked away by a gentleman wearing a suit.  There are enough popcorn male fantasy films out there, so there's nothing wrong with a bit chick-flick balancing things back the other way.

A little over-long and clunky in places, Pretty Woman is a film I wont be falling over myself to see a second time.  However it is watchable and certainly funny in places.  It's status as a touchstone film for 1990s pop culture, means I am very glad to finally be able to give an opinion.

Foxcatcher - a showcase for acting?

So I rented Foxcatcher because it's one of those films that the movie world told that that I 'had' to see.  Not really sure what any of it was about, which if I am to believe the hype is the best way to enjoy it.  Here Channing Tatum plays Mark Schultz, a US wrestler who won a gold medal during the LA Olympics in 1984, and Mark Ruffalo plays his brother David, who also won gold.  The film tells the tale of how the brothers were persuaded to train under the tutelage of eccentric millionaire John Du Pont, the heir to the Du Pont chemical empire, and how their relationships with each other broke down over the course of the years.

This is a film that's little more than a showcase for acting talents.  Steve Carell plays Du Pont, a man who's eccentric behaviour and attachment to his mother have stunted his social development in a world that should be his playpen.  Essentially it's about the American upper classes.  Du Pont is the heir to an empire, and as such should have the world at his feet.  Instead he is miserable, psychologically stunted and only capable of forming relationships by throwing his money around.  I'm sure stories like this have more resonance in the US, but over here in the UK our upper classes operate in a different way.  Over here it's all about privilege and secrete codes and behaviours that signal one class over the other; a film that's a study of a character who has nothing more than his money going for him and never grew up - well it doesn't really do anything for someone like me.

Add to this the fact that Foxcatcher is incredibly slow-paced and I can't really say I enjoyed my experience.  I can see what they were trying to do here, but I think they dropped the ball by going too far down the film-as-art route.  This isn't a film that needed sloth and time staring out of a window, it's a film that needed to focus a little more on the US culture of 'money wins' that it's trying to analyse.  Admittedly it does do that, but ultimately I just don't think this is a subject that required a film.

At best it showcases a couple of actors in roles you don't normally expect to see them.  Tatum usually plays the tough dufus and Carell has never done anything other than comedy.  That in itself might be enough to bother, but I'm not convinced.  At its worst it's a painfully slow depiction of a character who that isn't really that interesting.  Take care when choosing to watch this film.