My latest DVD from Amazon was The Libertine with Johnny Depp in the eponymous role, the 17th century Earl of Rochester . It came out 2-3 years ago and I remember wanting to see it but never got around to it. I don't remember it being on for very long, so it slipped very quickly from view. I was intrigued by the prospect of JD playing an English aristocrat, so thought I'd catch it now.
Well, I didn't find it the most engaging of films; it sprawled about rather haphazardly, and I found myself losing concentration, dozing off at intervals. Depp was, though, extraordinary as usual, with an immaculate English accent. He did his best to carry the film, and did enough to make me decide to give it another go when I'm a bit more wide awake. So, I'll see it again before it goes back to Amazon, and produce a more considered appraisal then. I have to say it looked lovely, so will see if it's worth a second viewing.
Well, I did watch it again, not something I normally do with an Amazon DVD as I like to keep things moving, and it definitely repaid a second viewing. I was wide awake and kept my concentration this time.
Depp was in nearly every scene, and was more than adequate to the task of carrying the film. He was compelling throughout, a menacingly dangerous presence, and I liked John Malkovich as Charles II very much - I suspect he chooses these odd roles in the interests of experimentation, just to see if he can do them, and his watchful, baleful presence as the ageing 'Merry Monarch' was quite riveting, a presiding, intelligent presence, keeping a close eye on things, not giving anything away, and moving in for the kill when necessary.
The film is hard work for the audience, and it's not surprising that not many bothered to make the effort. It's the film of a play apparently, which explains its wordy script. This time I watched with subtitles, as I felt it was important to be fully aware of the dialogue, and much of it was difficult to catch. I find myself doing this quite a bit these days - I suppose my hearing isn't quite what it was, but many actors today can't, or choose not to, speak clearly.
I felt it fell apart towards the end and the grim spectacle of Rochester's descent into syphilitic decay and death was rushed through in about half an hour. JD's has a taste for the grotesque in his acting and does degeneracy very well. I liked the opening and closing scenes in which Rochester speaks directly to the camera, very much - JD carries off that sort of in-your-face performance very well.
Samantha Morton, as usual was an unglamourous, unconventional presence; compellingly intense, and the film looked lovely - shot in a colour muted to near monochrome with some nice settings that didn't overshadow the action at all, thank goodness.
So, a mixed bag. Interesting, but I can't think of many people who would enjoy it much. One for hardcore Depp fans only, I think. Of which I am one, of course.
Monday, 21 May 2007
Saturday, 19 May 2007
28 Weeks Later
Went to see 28 Weeks Later last night and really enjoyed it. I agree with my favourite film critic Mark Kermode that it's a perfectly good addition to the horror genre, with lots of gore, lots of screaming, children in peril, fast-paced, and armies of zombies hurtling round London. What could be better? I particularly liked its use of London as a setting. It really has become a stunning cinematic landscape - the Gherkin, the Eye, Docklands, Tate Modern, all jumbled up with the heritage. I've spent some time in the last year in Greenwich visiting a son who was living there for a while, and took a trip on the DLR through Canary Wharf. I remember frequent visits to friends who lived on the Isle of Dogs back in the very early 70s, when to get there, I had to take a long trip down the Central Line, followed by another lengthy bus ride from Mile End down West Ferry Road. It was a deserted, derelict wasteland, and my friends lived in a Victorian street surrounded by 1930s council blocks which I think was Cubitt Town. There were very few shops - I remember having my ears pierced in an extremely old-fashioned jewellers shop on West Ferry Road. The shopkeeper pulled out a chair, I sat down, he rubbed a bit of alcohol on my earlobes, quickly pierced them with a syringe, popped in a couple of gold rings and sent me on my way. It cost very little, I remember, and was a far cry from the hyper-sterile exercise it would be today.
Anyway, it's an entirely different landscape now, almost surreal, and it's ambience was captured very well in the film. Not a long film (Hooray!) and not an expensive one (even better - I'm losing patience with bloated, big-budget spactuculars that cost in the region of a nation's GNP.) So, highly satisfying in every respect.
Anyway, it's an entirely different landscape now, almost surreal, and it's ambience was captured very well in the film. Not a long film (Hooray!) and not an expensive one (even better - I'm losing patience with bloated, big-budget spactuculars that cost in the region of a nation's GNP.) So, highly satisfying in every respect.
Friday, 18 May 2007
children and cinema
I've been thinking about one's relationship with cinema, and how it is formed; recalling the history of my cinemagoing experiences and the impact they had on me. The first film I can remember going to see was Tom Thumb which was released in 1957 so I suppose I must have been very young. I can't remember too much about it, but I have far more vivid memories of Ben Hur and Spartacus, released, I think, in 1960 and 1963. My mother loved wide-screen spectaculars and we went together to see many others including King of Kings, Becket, The Fall of the Roman Empire and The Lion in Winter, all lavish historical/biblical epics. My father was fairly deaf, so rarely went - I remember him going to see Rocco and his Brothers, an Italian film about boxing which had subtitles, so was manageable for him, but not much else. He died 25 years ago - how he would have appreciated the subtitle facility available on television now! Not to mention movies-on-demand.
When I was old enough to go to the cinema without an adult I managed to see many of the best-known 1960s British films, Zulu, Morgan, a Suitable Case for Treatment, Far From the Madding Crowd, The Charge of the Light Brigade and many others, including B-films of all descriptions, mostly Hammer horrors and science-fiction. though I remember a sleazy little shocker called All Neat in Black Stockings. The B film, of course, was a major part of one's filmgoing life, mostly they were terrible, but occasionally proved an unexpected treat.
In 1969, I spent a summer working as an usherette in a local fleapit. I sold tickets, tore them in half, put them a length of string threaded through a darning needle, showed people to their seats and sold icecreams from a tray - everything, in fact. The films were usually double bills, ancient horrors, Swedish sex films, science fiction, a wide range of foreign films and old movies of all descriptions. I could, and did, sit and watch everything - I remember seeing chunks of Ingmar Bergman's Shame several times, but never succeeded in putting the various parts together. I still haven't seen the whole film. Towards the end of my time there the cinema closed for 'refurbishment' and reopened soon after as smartly redecorated multi-screened cinema, one of the earliest. I was hired for the opening night, and the first film to be shown there was Anne of the Thousand Days a stodgy, bloated historical epic featuring Richard Burton as Henry VIII. Things were never the same and I left soon after. I have very fond memories of the place (pre-rtransformation) - it was a haven for the old, lonely and dispossessed. I would regularly see an old chap sitting on his own on a quiet, wet afternoon in a near-empty cinema with a transistor radio clamped to his ears, happily listening to the cricket. The seats in the back row were doubles, something I'm sure hasn't existed for decades. The odd stink bomb would be set off, couples would snog away in the double seats, film fanatics were able to see the most obscure and esoteric foreign films and impoverished students could receive an education in the history of cinema. It was a small, local cinema which anyone could pop into at any time - it may have been down-at-heel, but it was well-loved, and provided a useful service. The regulars, I'm sure wouldn't have been welcome at its replacement, and probably couldn't have afforded it anyway. It was a happy summer.
The seventies, were, of course, a golden age. I remember going to see The Godfather, McCabe and Mrs Miller, and many others. I feel very proud that I saw the famous double bill of Don't Look Now and The Wicker Man, both great films, when first released. I went many, many times to the cinema - I was at college, there was a fleapit nearby and I often used to bunk off in the afternoon. I remember being the only person in the cinema for Fellini's Satyricon and seeing WR, Mysteries of the Organism several times, for some, now-forgotten reason.
My cinemagoing ground to a halt in the mid-Seventies when I started having children, but restarted as soon as they were old enough to go. To be honest, my memories of that period are somewhat hazy, but I do recall taking the older two to see Superman II when they were 3 and 5. It was the younger one's first film and he sat silent and awestruck all the way through its 2 hours - he's never looked back and remains a huge film fan.
Throughout the 80s all of them went to see everything - I asked my third son the other day what his first film was, as I'd forgotten, and he reminded me that their father had taken them to see ET but the queue was so long they couldn't get in, so along with many other weeping children, went to see The Dark Crystal instead at another cinema. They did, of course get to see ET eventually, along with The Return of the Jedi and many other 80s spectaculars. There was a fleapit down the road (now closed of course) so the three of them occasionally used to go on their own, and were sometimes the only ones in the cinema, watching stuff like The Emerald Forest; apparently someone would still go round with an ice-cream tray for their benefit.
Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts were other favourites. I always tried to take them to see as many reissues of old favourites as possible. Although they saw a great dela on TV there's nothing like the big screen.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a major event in our family. I'd read all three volumes to them at bedtime so we all went along during its first week. The cinema was packed an hour before it was due to start and a girl behind me started furiously kicking the back of my seat. I turned round and her apology was heartfelt - 'I'm sorry', she said, 'I'm just so excited!' The atmosphere was electric and the film didn't disappoint - I still feel the first one is the best, but I
suspect that's because it was the first and had the element of surprise - no one knew what to
expect.
My children remain film fans, though most of their viewing is done at home on DVD. But they still try to get out to the cinema and I often find myself providing a taxi service to the nearest multiplex. I don't really mind as it's an excuse to go to the cinema and I sometimes end up seeing films I might not otherwise have gone to. I'm drawing the line at Pirates of the Caribbean III, though - I went to the second one and was bored senseless. But I feel quite proud of teaching them to love film - I know it'll be something they always have.
When I was old enough to go to the cinema without an adult I managed to see many of the best-known 1960s British films, Zulu, Morgan, a Suitable Case for Treatment, Far From the Madding Crowd, The Charge of the Light Brigade and many others, including B-films of all descriptions, mostly Hammer horrors and science-fiction. though I remember a sleazy little shocker called All Neat in Black Stockings. The B film, of course, was a major part of one's filmgoing life, mostly they were terrible, but occasionally proved an unexpected treat.
In 1969, I spent a summer working as an usherette in a local fleapit. I sold tickets, tore them in half, put them a length of string threaded through a darning needle, showed people to their seats and sold icecreams from a tray - everything, in fact. The films were usually double bills, ancient horrors, Swedish sex films, science fiction, a wide range of foreign films and old movies of all descriptions. I could, and did, sit and watch everything - I remember seeing chunks of Ingmar Bergman's Shame several times, but never succeeded in putting the various parts together. I still haven't seen the whole film. Towards the end of my time there the cinema closed for 'refurbishment' and reopened soon after as smartly redecorated multi-screened cinema, one of the earliest. I was hired for the opening night, and the first film to be shown there was Anne of the Thousand Days a stodgy, bloated historical epic featuring Richard Burton as Henry VIII. Things were never the same and I left soon after. I have very fond memories of the place (pre-rtransformation) - it was a haven for the old, lonely and dispossessed. I would regularly see an old chap sitting on his own on a quiet, wet afternoon in a near-empty cinema with a transistor radio clamped to his ears, happily listening to the cricket. The seats in the back row were doubles, something I'm sure hasn't existed for decades. The odd stink bomb would be set off, couples would snog away in the double seats, film fanatics were able to see the most obscure and esoteric foreign films and impoverished students could receive an education in the history of cinema. It was a small, local cinema which anyone could pop into at any time - it may have been down-at-heel, but it was well-loved, and provided a useful service. The regulars, I'm sure wouldn't have been welcome at its replacement, and probably couldn't have afforded it anyway. It was a happy summer.
The seventies, were, of course, a golden age. I remember going to see The Godfather, McCabe and Mrs Miller, and many others. I feel very proud that I saw the famous double bill of Don't Look Now and The Wicker Man, both great films, when first released. I went many, many times to the cinema - I was at college, there was a fleapit nearby and I often used to bunk off in the afternoon. I remember being the only person in the cinema for Fellini's Satyricon and seeing WR, Mysteries of the Organism several times, for some, now-forgotten reason.
My cinemagoing ground to a halt in the mid-Seventies when I started having children, but restarted as soon as they were old enough to go. To be honest, my memories of that period are somewhat hazy, but I do recall taking the older two to see Superman II when they were 3 and 5. It was the younger one's first film and he sat silent and awestruck all the way through its 2 hours - he's never looked back and remains a huge film fan.
Throughout the 80s all of them went to see everything - I asked my third son the other day what his first film was, as I'd forgotten, and he reminded me that their father had taken them to see ET but the queue was so long they couldn't get in, so along with many other weeping children, went to see The Dark Crystal instead at another cinema. They did, of course get to see ET eventually, along with The Return of the Jedi and many other 80s spectaculars. There was a fleapit down the road (now closed of course) so the three of them occasionally used to go on their own, and were sometimes the only ones in the cinema, watching stuff like The Emerald Forest; apparently someone would still go round with an ice-cream tray for their benefit.
Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts were other favourites. I always tried to take them to see as many reissues of old favourites as possible. Although they saw a great dela on TV there's nothing like the big screen.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a major event in our family. I'd read all three volumes to them at bedtime so we all went along during its first week. The cinema was packed an hour before it was due to start and a girl behind me started furiously kicking the back of my seat. I turned round and her apology was heartfelt - 'I'm sorry', she said, 'I'm just so excited!' The atmosphere was electric and the film didn't disappoint - I still feel the first one is the best, but I
suspect that's because it was the first and had the element of surprise - no one knew what to
expect.
My children remain film fans, though most of their viewing is done at home on DVD. But they still try to get out to the cinema and I often find myself providing a taxi service to the nearest multiplex. I don't really mind as it's an excuse to go to the cinema and I sometimes end up seeing films I might not otherwise have gone to. I'm drawing the line at Pirates of the Caribbean III, though - I went to the second one and was bored senseless. But I feel quite proud of teaching them to love film - I know it'll be something they always have.
Sunday, 13 May 2007
Goodfellas
What an astonishing film Goodfellas is! I watched it last night on pay-per-view TV with my two eldest sons; one of them has seen it many times, the other has never seen it, in fact he saw his first Scorsese film, The Aviator, very recently, so he's in the fortunate position of having lots to look forward to as I introduce him to Scorsese's work. I am of course completely biased, as, to me, he is the world's greatest living film director. Now, I know all the standard arguments, that nothing he has made since Goodfellas has reached the dizzying heights of that masterpiece, and that may be the case, but frankly, I don't care. Like all fanatics I may have my favourites but all his work is substantial and repays repeated viewing.
Unlike many critics, I loved The Departed and saw it twice at the cinema. I luxuriated in all the Scorsese trademarks; the richness of the cinematography, the use of music, the risk-taking acting, and, most satisfyingly, the way he always manages to get the best out of his actors. Di Caprio, of course, is now a Scorsese muse, and is doing his best work for him now, but Matt Damon, another actor I admire, demonstrated the range and depth of his talent which I have always felt were there.
Goodfellas, however, is a major tour de force. The main set-pieces are well-known; the tracking shots, the vignettes of Italian-American domestic life, the famous scenes with the terrifyingly psychotic Joe Pesci - it was a treat to see them all again. It's been a long while it but it was great to experience that warm, comfortable feeling of seeing a dearly-loved old friend. Perhaps not the reaction Scorsese intended, but it's always a real treat.
I think we'll watch Mean Streets next, then Taxi Driver, but I think he'd also like After Hours (a favourite of mine). I must now confess that, shamefully, I've never seen Raging Bull, so that's a priority. Many, many treats to come.......
Unlike many critics, I loved The Departed and saw it twice at the cinema. I luxuriated in all the Scorsese trademarks; the richness of the cinematography, the use of music, the risk-taking acting, and, most satisfyingly, the way he always manages to get the best out of his actors. Di Caprio, of course, is now a Scorsese muse, and is doing his best work for him now, but Matt Damon, another actor I admire, demonstrated the range and depth of his talent which I have always felt were there.
Goodfellas, however, is a major tour de force. The main set-pieces are well-known; the tracking shots, the vignettes of Italian-American domestic life, the famous scenes with the terrifyingly psychotic Joe Pesci - it was a treat to see them all again. It's been a long while it but it was great to experience that warm, comfortable feeling of seeing a dearly-loved old friend. Perhaps not the reaction Scorsese intended, but it's always a real treat.
I think we'll watch Mean Streets next, then Taxi Driver, but I think he'd also like After Hours (a favourite of mine). I must now confess that, shamefully, I've never seen Raging Bull, so that's a priority. Many, many treats to come.......
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Elephant
Gus Van Sant's Elephant, my latest DVD from Amazon, is a strange, remarkable film. I'd had it on my list for a while and was briefly tempted to take it off after the recent highschool shootings in America, but in the end I was intrigued by how Van Sant would approach the subject, and I wasn't disappointed.
It's defies all one's expectations. There's no 'plot', no building of character; it simply establishes an atmosphere of menace from the beginning without any of the usual strategies. Although the setting ( a day in the life of a average American high school) is, on one level, perfectly 'normal', from the beginning it is clear that something is not quite right. There's no explanation, no suggestions of any possible motivation, just 'this is what happened'. This makes the killings much scarier, bolt from the blue, which is, of course how such occurences actually happen in reality.
I found it a deeply impressive film; unsettling and very frightening, as you get far closer to the reality of such terrible events. It apparently upset some people: Todd McCarthy in Variety apparently called it 'pointless at best and irresponsible at worst'. The distinguished critic Roger Ebert disagreed, saying that Van Sant had made 'an anti-violence film by draining violence of energy, purpose, glamour, reward and social purpose'.
So, a truly remarkable film which will live long in the memory.
It's defies all one's expectations. There's no 'plot', no building of character; it simply establishes an atmosphere of menace from the beginning without any of the usual strategies. Although the setting ( a day in the life of a average American high school) is, on one level, perfectly 'normal', from the beginning it is clear that something is not quite right. There's no explanation, no suggestions of any possible motivation, just 'this is what happened'. This makes the killings much scarier, bolt from the blue, which is, of course how such occurences actually happen in reality.
I found it a deeply impressive film; unsettling and very frightening, as you get far closer to the reality of such terrible events. It apparently upset some people: Todd McCarthy in Variety apparently called it 'pointless at best and irresponsible at worst'. The distinguished critic Roger Ebert disagreed, saying that Van Sant had made 'an anti-violence film by draining violence of energy, purpose, glamour, reward and social purpose'.
So, a truly remarkable film which will live long in the memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)