Last House on the Left - Horrible Horror

Way back in the day when I was hardly into film at all, my friends were all watching a brand new exciting horror movie called Scream.  Scream took the world by storm, and I was informed by the film-reviewing world that Wes Craven had re-invented the horror genre.  What no-one stopped to tell me though, was that Craven had been here before, creating horror thrillers that inspired a generation of film makes over several decades.  With Craven's recent death, I am taking the time to watch some of his more famous back-catalogue.

Last House on the Left starts innocently enough, but by the end has degenerated into a bloody revenge fantasy in which a nicer-than-nice middle class family shows us how society is only a short step away from violent anarchy.  The plot is that middle class Mary of liberal upbringing and her more worldly-wise friend Phyllis go to see a concert, try to score some drugs, get kidnapped by a gang of sexually violent criminals - and then there's bloody horror.

With this - his first film - Craven set the template for a genre that has now become so ingrained in the minds of the movie-watching public, that it's hard to imagine a time before these tropes existed.  The movie is shot on grainy film stock, often with poor lighting, indifferent cuts and stunted chemistry between the actors - in other words trying not to look like a film, trying to look like real life.  Herein lies the true nastiness of it, rather than trying to tell a horror story or deliberately scare us, Craven is doing something much more animalistic than that.  He's trying to get under our skin by presenting us with youthfulness and innocence, and then ripping it to bloody pieces.

Of course the cleverness here is that even through this, the film is politically charged.  It plays into the fear of every liberal parent, that their liberalism contradicts that animal instinct to protects one's children above all, and that one's civilised exterior is only a front waiting to be washed away to reveal the darkness underneath.  When presented with something of unimaginable horror, such as the people who brutally killed your daughter, where will our civilisation go?  Who are the 'good guys' in the film - do we applaud the revenge of a murdered daughter, or do we shake our heads at the senselessness?

Looking back, it's a film that has been bettered by film-nasties since, but as a piece of film history it's clearly still relevant and seeing the opening shots of a genre that continues to draw huge audience appeal.

Spectre - More Bond!

The release of the latest incarnation of the James Bond franchise was greeted with the usual round of media frenzy over Daniel Craig's abs and teeth gnashing over product placement.  For me, the two most exciting things about this new movie is its title - implying a connection to Bond's most famous villainous organisation - and the fact that it kicks of a hugely exciting winter movie season, which will contain, of course, the new Star Wars.  How the audience gasped when the trailer for that came on (though it hardly seems likely none of those people hadn't seen the trailer already - an observation which might be worthy of a study in psychology).

Spectre does indeed do what one should expect it to from the title.  The movie goes to great lengths to carry out fan service and introduce Hans Blofeld's criminal organisation, complete with scar on his eyes, a white cat, a huge facility in the middle of nowhere and numerous other nods to Bond lore.  In this sense it is doing what this incarnation of Bond has tried to do from the start, which is to update a franchise that was strongest in the 1960s and 1970s for the 21st century.  Here is where is succeeds, with its strong opening sequence it makes effective use of the modern symbology of action films a la Jason Bourne, Bond certainly feels more relevant for the contemporary audience.

In addition to the ambitious and largely successful opening scene, there is a classic Bond super car chase through the streets of Rome, and other Bond tropes that others might struggle to pull off, but work because the audience is familiar with how these films are meant to work.  For example Bond and Bond girl Dr Swan take a train journey across an African desert, and have dinner in their evening wear on the first classic dining carriage.  Because such trains clearly come kitted out the Orient Express.  Oh how the world of Bond loves to suspend our disbelief.

But there are several 'buts', and here they are.  Spectre is far too long.  I noted in particular a scene in which Q (who is now perfectly cast as a modern latte-sipping Shoreditch start-up nerd) is chased for a bit on a ski-lift, but then just escapes without any peril,  100% filler in a 2.5 hour long film.  Spectre also wastes its villain.  Christophe Waltz is introduced as a darkened figure issuing orders silently from the shadows in a scene that has nods to both Thunderball and From Russia with Love, a true kingpin of the international criminal circuit, all rather wasted when we get to see him aimlessly torturing Bond for no real reason.  And consider motivation for a moment, what actually is the motivation for the bad guys in this film?  The plot tries to tie together all the recent Daniel Craig movies under the same umbrella and casts the Spectre organisation as responsible for them, but this in itself feels rather weak.  What's wrong with just stealing a nuclear weapon and holding the world to ransom like they used to?

On a deeper level, I wonder if Bond even works in the modern era of post-Bourne action.  Casino Royale worked and was the best film in the Bond franchise for decades, but it was brutal and unforgiving, Moore-esque eyebrow-raises were nowhere to be seen.  When trying to marry the excitement and visceral action of a modern spy thriller against the occasional camp that the Bond-going public eventually demands, the film plays dangerous games with its own tone.  Take note of a moment during the car chase in Rome.  Bond is being chased by a man who we have just seen horribly gouge someone's eyes out, so a moment when a slightly fat Italian man bump his fiat into a wall and sets off the airbag sort of ruins the drama.  All it does is break the 4th wall and remind us all this is a Bond film, which makes us wonder why we're bothering with all this visceral peril when we know Bond's going to win and get the girl.  Perhaps we were better off in the Moore era with its double-taking pigeons and "... attempting re-entry"?  Maybe not.

Spectre ends in a way that suggests the current run of Daniel Craig as Bond is over, and that the franchise is set up with all the components in place to tell many more Bond stories with many a different leading man wearing the dinner jacket.  As a lifelong fan of Bond I will continue watching these movies as long as they keep making them, but I just can't get out of my head the idea that this character would be better left in the age for which he was invented.

Macbeth - it's *really* grim up North

I will watch anything with The Fassbender in it, just keep plugging away mate - you'll get an Oscar one of these days.  When it was announced that a new production of Macbeth was to be released, with Michael Fassbender in the starring role, well this was a film I had to see.

I am reliably informed that this new adaptation is extremely faithful to the original 17th century play.  The plot hardly needs introduction, but here it is none-the-less.  It is the Dark Ages in Scotland, and the land is in the midst of a civil war.  King Duncan's most trusted general is Macbeth, a man who we see at the start of the film driven to the edges of insanity by the brutality of war and the loss of his sons.  When at the end of his latest victory, 3 witches appear to him on the edges of a misty moor to prophesise his future as king, Macbeth finds himself lost to the temptation of power.

Macbeth requires no analysis by me, many much more well-informed scholars over the years have analysed the play to within an inch of its life.  Personally for me, this is always the Shakespeare play that I found to be the most accessible and interesting as a teenager learning about The Bard.  The story is accessible and character-driven, resonates in the modern world and is uncompromising in its brutality.  Michael Fassbender is a great choice of actor for the lead role, his depth of intensity lends itself extremely well to it.  From the very start he plays Macbeth as a man for whom the constant churn of war and death have left him soulless and hollow.  Marion Cotillard plays Lady Macbeth, less overtly the 'bad guy' here than she is traditionally played - again she seems to be driven by numbness and sadness at the loss of humanity afforded by the bleak Scottish highlands over which the power struggle is played out.

And what about those Scottish Highlands?  Filmed off the west coast of Scotland, the land is a character all of its own here.  The rugged hill-tops are shot with dark reddish filters that create a tone of foreboding and doom - almost as if the human participants are driven to their fates by their dark environs.  Perhaps the 3 witches playing as trickster gods are the physical embodiment of the landscape, tormenting their inhabitants and showing them the human folly of thinking they can 'own' the land.

Fans of Shakespeare will find a lot of interest in this adaptation.  It is very faithful to the source material while at the same time adding an interesting spin to the motivations of Macbeth and his oft-vilified wife.  People who aren't familiar with Shakespeare might - as is ever the criticism of the original plays in a modern context - find individual lines of dialogue hard to follow, but everyone is talking English, and you just need to get used to the idea that you wont understand everything, just as long as you get the gist it's fine.  Sort of like listening to a foreign language.  Macbeth is a classic for a very good reason, take some time to check out this excellent modern adaptation.

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.

Whiplash

Billed to me as 'film of the year so far' by the fine people at RedLetterMedia (even though they didn't actually get around to reviewing it), I was very excited about finally seeing Whiplash - the film for which J K Simmons had his contribution to bit-part acting recognised by the Academy in February this year.  The role he plays here is one any actor would have been eager to get their teeth into, that of obsessive music teacher Fletcher at one of New York's biggest and most prestigious music schools.  Fletcher runs the school's elite jazz band, and expects rigorous attention to detail from his students.  He is revered and feared by all at the school, the students equally scared of being noticed or over-looked by him.

Miles Teller (who looks a lot like Will Wheaton, and who actually plays the drums) plays Andrew Neimann, an aspiring drummer who Fletcher brings into his band and is then driven by varying levels of obsession to succeed.  Initially fearful of his own talent and Fletcher's reputation, he is soon driven by an obsession to be the best drummer in the world - an obsession that Fletcher is all to eager to fuel.  Andrew clashes with his family, his classmates, a potential girlfriend and finally with himself as he is psychologically and physically pushed to Fletcher be the best.

Just taken on a purely dramatic level, this is a superb film.  It's about a clash between two characters who both want the same thing.  It's about excellence, and what it means to achieve that tantalising concept.  It's asks if true talent comes from the heart, the head, practice and dedication, or something deeper in your soul.  But not only this, like any great piece of music it swings back-and-forth before coming to a crescendo with an entirely unexpected denouement.  A final sequence of music plays out that's a battle of wills between characters and a comment on the creative process - "art from adversity" if you will.

Thankfully the Oscars took note of Whiplash when handing their awards out earlier this year, Simmons took an award for his acting, while the film was rewarded for its editing and sound mixing.  The award for sound is obvious, the award for editing becomes clear on second viewing when you realise how Andrew's view of the world and obsession with being the best is faultlessly built up from interesting framing, cuts and camerawork.  Would have been good to see it get the best film award given its simplicity in form that disguises a deep meaning in its heart - but you can't have it all.  Instead we have an outstanding film with an intense performance from J K Simmons that everyone should watch.