Suffragette - Bringing history alive and making it relevant

As a progressive, Socialist and Feminist, it is with some shame that have to admit knowing very little about the movement for women's suffrage that swept across the United Kingdom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Obviously I know the headlines, that there was a movement called the Suffragettes whose direct action eventually brought about the introduction of votes for women in the early 20th century.  But aside from that - almost nothing.

I assume that I am in a vast majority of British people, and as such the production and release of Suffragette as a major film was welcome.  Starring Carey Mulligan in the lead role, she brings the required star presence the ensure that the film got reviewed more than just as a historical curiosity - well, her and Meryl Streep obviously.  Here Mulligan plays Maud Watts, a washer woman from East London living an ordinary working class life who experiences molestation at work at the hands of her boss and as a result gets swept up into the Suffragette movement.

This is a film that deftly tells a story of one woman's ordinary experiences, and by extension the ordinary experience of women throughout the decades and centuries that eventually lead to the birth of modern feminism.  It's a story of how political change is enacted - via political or direct means.  It's a story about the sacrifices made by those acting to create chance, as they are shunned by their own communities and families.  It's also a story about the role the police take in such matters, how does a police officer who largely agrees with your cause react to knowing it's his job to brutally repress it?  All of this ties in with contemporary protest movements, the daily realities of raging against the machine were the same then as they are today.

Let's turn momentarily to the casting of Meryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst.  Initially I was a little miffed that this part went to the American Holywood A-lister, for such a small role why not cast a British actress and allow her to take the limelight.  But then the power of using Streep becomes clear, because Pankhurst's celebrity amongst the Suffragettes is conveyed by Streep's screen presence and our reaction to her.  Similar to the way that Scarlett Johansson's casting in Under the Skin added to the unearthliness of her alien presence in suburban Glasgow, when Streep comes on screen we don't need anyone to tell us that this is an important moment in the politicisation of Maud Watts.

So my message to you Britain is to get out there and see (well, stay in and rent the DVD of) Suffragette.  It tells a side of history that I guarantee few of you are aware of.

It Follow - Old School Horror

A recommendation from two different directions drew me towards It Follows recently - which is an American independent horror / thriller with a distinctive 1980s feel to it.  Both my current favourite Youtube film reviewers RedLetterMedia and one Kim Helman (film-watcher in kind) told me that this was a film I needed in my life.

Given that this is the first film I've reviewed in the best part of 2 months, there was definitely something about It Follows that compelled me to log back into my much-neglected blog.  The plot is as follows: there is a curse which afflicts an individual, the curse is passed on when that person sleeps with someone else.  The curse is that an entity visible only to those who either have or have had the curse will slowly and relentlessly pursue you.  The entity can take on any human form, and will simply walk slowly in your direction until is catches you and dismembers you.  Then it will go after the next last person who had the curse.  Simple eh?

The film opens with a credit sequence that's straight out of the 1970s / 80s horror playbook, with suitably electronic score and graphics announcing the titles.  A foreboding tone is set very early on, and soon with the rules of the curse established we are in for an unsettling story layered with unsubtle towards of teenage fear of sex and AIDS.  For about 45 minutes it is great, but soon it becomes clear that there are only so many ways to film a sequence where the teenagers sit around worrying before IT starts coming towards them.  Eventually they decide that it must be possible to simply put a sheet over it and shoot it in the head, which is a bit of a let-down in terms of special effects and the supernatural quality of the plot.

Everything ends suitably ambiguously, but in order to get there we have to go through an extended sequence in a swimming pool that somehow manages to lose the tension that's been built up over the opening 2 acts of the movie.  It Follows is a very creditable horror film that I would heartily recommend, but I don't think it's quite yet polished article.  Congratulations to the makers of this film though, for successfully managing to capture the vibe of old school horror.

Devil - Not all Shyamalan's ideas are shit then!

Those who will permit me to pontificate at any length about films will eventually discover that I am extremely indifferent towards the work of M. Night Shyamalan.  I don't really understand why it is that The Sixth Sense captured the imagination of the zeitgeist in quite the way it did, and as a result elevated Shyamalan's stock to Holywood darling almost overnight.  The Sixth Sense is one twist.  The Happening is boring and nothing happens.  The Village's twist is telegraphed in the opening shot.  Signs is ok for a bit, but the final act is horrible.  People seem to like Unbreakable, but I'm just not into that superhero stuff like them.  Sure he has other work, but I'm going to judge him on what I've seen, and it ain't much cop.

I can't work out why it is that I ended up in possession of a copy of Devil on DVD.  Some vague Mark Kermode review I imagine.  It's a film that Shyamalan had nothing to do with the production of, but it is based on a story by him.  I know this because the DVD cover insists on telling me, such is the assumption that putting Shyamalan's name on a thing makes the thing more desirable.  It is only 80 minutes long, and tells the story of 5 people who are trapped in a lift, the police and workers in the building who are trying to save them.  The supernatural premise is that the people in the lift are being toyed with by the Devil, out to torture some undeserving souls and then kill them off for their mortal sins.  Fair enough, horror shlock here we come I guess!

For starters, the film wasn't what I was expecting.  I was imagining that we would spend most of the film inside the lift, and that how or why they were there would be a mystery.  Eventually it would turn out to be some sort of Jacob's Ladder thing and they all end up at the lift's destination - in hell.  In fact it is set in a very real lift in a very real building, in which there is a very real and overt supernatural force at work.  A spooky face even appears on the CCTV footage to prove it.  Cue Mexican guy doing Catholic prayers and telling mystical stories about the Devil coming to collect souls.  Better get the ethnic to be the mystical one, because that isn't racist.

Each of the 5 people in the lift are a bit of mystery, who they are and what they're in the building to do all eventually sheds light on why it is that the Devil wants their souls in particular.  It's not particularly shocking as far as horror goes, with a bit of blood and voice effects to make things seem nastier than they are, but the ending is quite satisfying - which surprised me a lot.

Maybe this is what Shyamalan needs to do for the rest of his career - just come up with the ideas and let other people flesh them out.  If you want 80 minutes of average-to-good 15-rated 'horror', give Devil a go.

Cocktail - not really for me

My journey through the back catalogue of film history took me further through my girlfriend's DVD collection at the weekend.  After Pretty Woman and Almost Famous, we are left with the remains in the bottom of the barrel - Cocktail.  I cannot say that having never heard of a film necessarily means I should be unsurprised it wasn't very good, that's happened a lot of times before.  But maybe I should make exception in this case.

Here Tom Cruise plays Brian Flanagan, recent returnee from the army who has no job, no prospects and no things.  He heads into the heart of 1980s Wall Street Loads-a-money capitalism seeking to make his fortune.  Somehow he gets a bunch of interviews in big city firms (with no qualifications -how?) but no offers.  Only when he takes a job in Doug Coughlin bar in suburban New York and discovers a skill for - what else - making cocktails does the future suddenly seem bright.

Coming just a couple of years after Top Gun, this is one of Cruise's earliest performances in screen, and his charisma is clear.  Sadly I can't say the same for the rest of this film, which is a little bit about 1980s monetarism and another little bit about being who you are rather than who others think you should be.  Mostly it is confused about its characters, the continuity of its own events and why its female characters especially act the way they do.  Most bizarre of all is Jordan (Elizabeth Shue - her off Back to the Future) who Flanagan falls for and for whom she falls back despite Flanagan acting like a total arse around her all the time.

By the time the end comes around and - spoiler alert - Flanagan gets his happily-ever-after as presciently predicted by Coughlin in one of his opening scenes; I was left wondering how all that had happened, and why it was meant to be interesting.  Certainly this is only one for fans of Tom Cruise or fancy cocktail-making to check out.  To be fair, assuming there are no stunt doubts going on here Cruise did really well to get though the flamboyant cocktail creation scenes - but that's not enough to cause me to recommend.  A curio from the 1980s you can happy pass by.

Despicable Me - What am I missing?

Why does everyone love this film so much?  I guess the answer lies in the little yellow indestructible goblins who bumble their way around the film helping out the comically evil super villain Gru carry out his bonkers plans.  But if you happen to no find the "Minions" funny, what else is there?

Despicable Me is set in a Looney Tunes cartoon world, where dastardly villains have to apply to the bank of evil for funding and people can have missiles shot in their faces, emerging only with a reddened face and little birds flying around their heads.  We follow the trials of the super villain Gru, as he tries to prove himself the most dastardly of all the villains by defeating the young upstart Vector.  After Vector steals the Pyramids of Giza, Gru decides that the only way to prove to the world he is the baddest of all the bad is to steal... The Moon.

So then we are set for silliness on overdrive.  Gru has all sorts of evil tricks and tools for stealing anything and everything, Vector has all sorts of ingenious ways of keeping Gru out of his evil lair.  All the while Gru is fending off the loving attentions of a trio of orphan girls he is trying to use to get inside Vector's lair.  Will they tug at Gru's heartstrings and get him to find his soul?  Does Gru's soul really lie in his thievery?  Does any of this matter - isn't the point to watch the Minions and chuckle at their silliness?

The main issue here is that I just don't find this sort of slapstick Looney Tunes cartoonery funny any more - and if where I do find it funny it is hard to find it funny for 100 minutes.  Yes the Minions are silly.  And yes they are funny with their silliness and funny speech and squishy indestructibility.  But that can't be all this film has going for it.  I guess maybe I'm just not quite the audience Despicable Me was aiming for.  It makes perfect sense that a sequel was made, and that there was a subsequent film focusing entirely on the Minions.  Universal Studios have stumbled on to something that has touched the current zeitgeist with these babbling yellow creations.  Good luck to them and their marketing strategies to milk as much profit as possible out of them, I shan't be handing them any more of my cash.

Inside Out - psychology through colour

Pixar.  The very name has become a byword for excitement in the film-going community whenever a new release from this studio is announced.  Since being taken over by Disney, the studio that brought you Toy Story and the rest appears to have been mostly left to its own devices in terms of coming up with new material.  And why wouldn't Disney want to let them carry on with a creative studio that's made millions over the last 20 years since digital animation came of age?  Disney hasn't made a shit tonne of money over the years by being bad at business.

The latest is Inside Out, a modern interpretation of the Numbskulls in which we follow the little elves running the show inside the brain of an 11 year old girl named Riley.  The film presents a beautiful vision of the way that emotions form inside our minds, via a number of brightly-coloured elves who operate the controls inside our heads and form memories represented by similarly-coloured balls.  The major emotions (Yellow = Joy, Red = Anger, Green = Disgust, Purple = Fear, Blue = Sadness) each play their part, but Joy is in charge.  When the family move to San Francisco and their world is thrown into turmoil, the elves react by trying to re-enforce the joy that Riley felt as she grew up.  Eventually though, they come to learn that joy is tempered and reinforced by the other emotions.  Joy and Sadness go on a journey of discovery through Riley's subconscious, coming to the realistation they emotions are much more complex than they thought, By the end of the film Riley is generating multi-coloured 'emotion balls', and the control panel of the elves is greatly expanded.  Just in time for puberty.

This is what Pixar has always done best.  It's a story that makes use of metaphor to explore growing up, complete with themes that kids and their parents will each love on different levels.  One could criticise the film for over-simplifying the development process when growing up, but this is what all metaphor does.  Inside Out is visually arresting, inventive, emotional and absolutely in line with the ambiance of Pixar's classics.  Have a go.  Have a watch.

Hunger Games Part 4 / 3b - An unfulfilling finale

It was a long time coming, but I finally caught up with the final film in the Hunger Games series on Sunday.  I am impressed with myself that I managed to avoid spoilers for several years, as such the final fate of Katniss Everdeen and the people of Panem was still an unknown to me.  I had made a lot of statements to friends of mine about how I wanted to see the series end, and how thematically the series could end in a consistent and powerful way.  But it didn't really turn out like that.  Spoilers ahead obvs!

 

The plot to this point is well-known by anyone following this series.  In the near-future dystopian version of America known as Panem, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the two-time winner of the gladiatorial Hunger Games - a post-modern reality TV soma that keeps the masses enthralled and oppressed districts of the nation under the control of the all-powerful capital.  Katniss' successes have become a rallying cry for revolution, powered by her strength of character, moral purity, dedication to her family and friends, and the unstoppable power of propaganda pushing her into the limelight.  The story here finally comes to a head, with the revolution she unwittingly powered invading the capital and bringing down the once-omnipotent president Snow (Donald Sutherland).

 

The first few Hunger Games films were highly politically savvy, and Katniss' strength of character was always enough to prevail.  Now she learns that idealism only takes you so far, and that to win the war the rebels have to use tactics as dirty as President Snow's.  The question is asked: what is right and what is wrong in war?  The rebels eventually prevail because they carry out a war crime involving the deaths of many children?  Is victory at any cost it worth it?

 

The film makes a valid and interesting point about the realities of a world full of shades of grey.  However the issue is that as a film, Hunger Games 4 is so messy that the message almost lost.  The tone and pace are changeable from start to finish, the return to the traps, tricks and dangers of the original don't work in a world that has turned to actual warfare, and finally the film drags to a conclusion with a series of epilogue scenes that aren't needed.  There are plot holes; if Katniss is so valuable to the rebel cause, then why exactly is she picking her way through the frontlines of the capital dodging deadly traps?  There are problems with pacing; a big fight between the rebels and a bunch of blind sewer-dwellers holds the narrative back at a crucial moment.  Put simply, this should never have been a two-part film, and in padding it out as such the makers have forgotten the art of the editing room.

 

In a bigger overall criticism of the story, I did not like the resolution to the Katniss / Coin (the president of the rebels - played by Juliane Moore) / Snow plot at the end of the film.  The theme of the whole series has been about the corruption of power, heroism through action, building strength and alliances through nobility and acting for the good of all rather than the self.  Thematically that completely contrasts against Katniss becoming Coin's self-appointed executioner.  Sure Katniss thought Coin was responsible for warcrimes, but doesn't she deserve a trial?  What if Katniss was wrong?  And didn't Coin's actions directly result in the rebels winning the war?  Do Katniss' actions give her the right to go all Judge Dread on her former ally?  Isn't this totally out of character for the noble justice-loving Katniss?  Is it ok because all she wants is to retire into the forest and have a couple of babies in peace?  I wish that the film had aired these questions in the final 10 minutes rather than just cutting to Katniss' happily-ever-after ending and Peeta reading letters from her mother.  And is the ending even a happy one?  All Katniss ever wanted to do was save her sister, a cause she was prepared to die for.  In the end her sister dies and Katniss gets to live on mincing around in a forest with babies.  She could have got all that by not volunteering to replace her sister in the first place.

 

The resolution to the Peeta / Gale love triangle is a tiny bit convenient too.  Katniss chooses Peeta eventually because she thinks Gale was in on Coin's warcrimes.  Essentially Katniss is allowed to kill Coin without trial if she thinks she can make the world a better place, but Gale isn't allowed to do the same.  At least he doesn't get an arrow in the face for his trouble, but it's a case of unmentioned hypocrisy that didn't correlate with the theme of justice that has threaded its way through the whole series.

 

Anyway, in the end I am more than a bit disappointed.  I think that the author decided the main character had to have a happy ending, and that meant getting to be with Peeta and all the authority figures copping it.  That might be a nice teenage fantasy, but with 4 hours of screen time to tell the story of the conclusion, it could have been thematically more coherent.  Katniss started out being a heroine, she ends up with babies after failing to do the only thing she really wanted - keep her sister alive.  Meh.