I've just been to see Michael Clayton - I often find evening screenings a bit of a struggle and there's usually 5 minutes or so when I lose concentration completely, but not this time. I was thoroughly engrossed and wide-awake all the way through.
There's no-one better than George Clooney for portraying self-loathing, but you're always aware that underneath the world-weariness there burns a fierce intelligence. Tom Wilkinson was, as always, superb, as Clooney's colleague who flips, suddenly tearing off his clothes during a business meeting. Wilkinson can always be relied upon, and is particularly good at portraying frayed, damaged personalities.
I was less sure about Tilda Swinton; I was, and still am, in two minds about her. On one hand, her character was unconvincing - would someone as badly-groomed ever get near her position as counsel for a giant corporation? Surely she would be turned-out like a bandbox, and have perfect hair. I think she was probably supposed to be an emblem for the flakiness of the company, but she just wasn't smart enough. We saw her practising her lines and perfecting her appearance, but the result simply wasn't realistic on any level. And her accent wavered all over the place.
On the other hand, her slightly manic demeanour and nervy, brittle persona was highly watchable and made the film less conventional. Swinton has made a career out of taking risks and breaking convention, and can only be admired for having a go. I'm still not sure about British actors playing Americans. I like some of them very much, (Hugh Laurie in particular) but I don't want to be distracted by thinking how good/bad their accent is. I can think of too many examples of dodgy American accents, though, to be fair, there are far more examples of bad British accents by US actors.
Back to the film - you really had to put some effort into keeping track of what was going on in this film. A couple in front of us walked out halfway through - they probably thought 'Oh great, George Clooney', thinking it would be a kind of Ocean's 11, a piece of light entertainment, only to be asked to put some work in. I like a bit of mindless entertainment - who doesn't? But I also like to be asked to think. Certainly the first half-hour of this was tricky, and I found myself wondering at times what the hell was going on, but was rewarded with a knotty, gritty, well-worked film. Executive producers, I noticed, were Anthony Minghella, Steven Soderburgh and Sydney Pollack, as well as Clooney himself. Clooney seems to be very good at getting people on board to help him get good films made. It's clear that the Oceans films enable him to do this kind of stuff. One last thing - it's always good to see actors happy to display their grey hair and absence of botox. Clooney's ageing very well, as is Wilkinson - similarly unenhanced. Would that others were so confident in their acting ability.
Grey hair rules!!
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Kagemusha (again)
Well, I watched this again, and enjoyed it even more. Having read a bit about it, and having seen it the first time, I had a much better idea of what was happening and who everybody was. my concentration was better, as I watched in the afternoon, instead of Saturday night, not the best time to have a clear focus. Usually, the only thing I'm fit for on a Saturday night is one of those Channel 4 '100 Best' list programmes.
Once again, I found myself sitting back and glorying in the sumptuous visuals. I've read that Kurosawa admired John Ford, and certainly there's not a wasted shot in either director's films. Each one in Kagemusha is perfectly composed and balanced, and some are awe-inspiring. I've rarely seen anything as beautiful as the shot of the soldiers marching across a high ridge against the setting sun, near the beginning, and there are many other visual treats.
I'm developing quite a taste for Kurosawa's films - a friend is similarly hooked, so I can discuss them with him. More to come......
Once again, I found myself sitting back and glorying in the sumptuous visuals. I've read that Kurosawa admired John Ford, and certainly there's not a wasted shot in either director's films. Each one in Kagemusha is perfectly composed and balanced, and some are awe-inspiring. I've rarely seen anything as beautiful as the shot of the soldiers marching across a high ridge against the setting sun, near the beginning, and there are many other visual treats.
I'm developing quite a taste for Kurosawa's films - a friend is similarly hooked, so I can discuss them with him. More to come......
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Kagemusha
I've just seen Kagemusha, directed by Kurosawa. Watching a Japanese film is a strange experience -it's not easy to engage with them, but some of Hollywood's most famous film's are heavily influenced by, and indebted to Kurosawa's. Indeed, Kagemusha has Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas as executive producers, and Lucas has made no secret of the fact that the Star Wars opus was influenced by Kurosawa's films, notably his 1958 film The Hidden Fortress.
Of course Kurosawa himself was indebted to western cinema and this is evident in Kagemusha. The sweeping, panoramic battle scenes are set to an score highly reminiscent of spaghetti westerns. I caught the final hour of A Few Dollars More on TV yesterday and experienced the strange sense that movie language is even more intermingled and intertwined than I had suspected. And I'm not the only one that thinks that the battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings trilogy owe a major debt to Kurosawa - I typed Kurosawa alongside Lord of the Rings into Google and was overwhelmed by an avalanche of articles and reviews making comparisons between them.
Anyway, I watched it on a rented DVD - we're advised not to post anything due to the 48-hour postal strike starting today, so I might just take the opportunity to watch it again after having read a little bit about it. Some of the scenes are so visually beautiful and arresting that I have to see them once more. Japanese films require a great deal of concentration, as, to be blunt, it's not always easy to work out who is who. But they offer a rewarding glimpse into a history and culture of which we are largely ignorant.
What marks out Kurosawa's films as exceptional, though, isn't just their visual spendour. It's their humanity and compassion. The fate of the common thief conscipted into impersonating the mortally-wounded warlord, Shingen, in order to deceive his enemies, is ultimately heartbreaking, desperately sad.
It's whetted my appetite for more - I'm ashamed to admit that I've never seen The Seven Samurai, so that's got to be next....
Of course Kurosawa himself was indebted to western cinema and this is evident in Kagemusha. The sweeping, panoramic battle scenes are set to an score highly reminiscent of spaghetti westerns. I caught the final hour of A Few Dollars More on TV yesterday and experienced the strange sense that movie language is even more intermingled and intertwined than I had suspected. And I'm not the only one that thinks that the battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings trilogy owe a major debt to Kurosawa - I typed Kurosawa alongside Lord of the Rings into Google and was overwhelmed by an avalanche of articles and reviews making comparisons between them.
Anyway, I watched it on a rented DVD - we're advised not to post anything due to the 48-hour postal strike starting today, so I might just take the opportunity to watch it again after having read a little bit about it. Some of the scenes are so visually beautiful and arresting that I have to see them once more. Japanese films require a great deal of concentration, as, to be blunt, it's not always easy to work out who is who. But they offer a rewarding glimpse into a history and culture of which we are largely ignorant.
What marks out Kurosawa's films as exceptional, though, isn't just their visual spendour. It's their humanity and compassion. The fate of the common thief conscipted into impersonating the mortally-wounded warlord, Shingen, in order to deceive his enemies, is ultimately heartbreaking, desperately sad.
It's whetted my appetite for more - I'm ashamed to admit that I've never seen The Seven Samurai, so that's got to be next....
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
Humphrey Jennings
Humphrey Jennings' documentaries were shown at the Watershed cinema in Bristol last weekend and I went along to the Sunday screening of Words for Battle, Spare Time, Listen to Britain and The Silent Village. I know his work well from studying British cinema from the 30s and 40s, but I'd only seen excerpts of his films, so this was a wonderful opportunity, especially as they'd all been digitised and remastered. The quality was superb, and it was a real treat to see such old films in such glorious condition. Jenningswas an exceptionally fine film-maker, and as well as being part of the famous documentary movement of the period, he was a surrealist. Rather fittingly, then, he met his premature death in 1950 at the age of 43 by falling backwards off a cliff as he attempted to get the right shot for a film he was making. Tragic, yes, but also bizarre.
Anyway, his films remain beautiful examples of the quality of British film-making of the period. His wartime films are lovely, and provide a remarkable picture of everyday life during the war, but, for me, I was struck most by Spare Time, made in (I think) 1937. It's a depiction of ordinary people, working and middle class, at leisure, in an era when most people had very little time off work, and it's a fascinating window into a vanished world. We're familiar with many of the wartime images, but the pre-war era, even with its radios, cars and bikes, still retains startling traces of the Victorians and Edwardians. The commentary was by the poet Laurie Lee, a voice which, in spite of his attempt at BBC English, still kept traces of its Gloucestershire burr.
Jennings' visual images are unforgettable and I found them very affecting. The close attention to the everyday lives of ordinary people, making them visually beautiful as well as interesting, is unparalleled. A wonderful afternoon.
Anyway, his films remain beautiful examples of the quality of British film-making of the period. His wartime films are lovely, and provide a remarkable picture of everyday life during the war, but, for me, I was struck most by Spare Time, made in (I think) 1937. It's a depiction of ordinary people, working and middle class, at leisure, in an era when most people had very little time off work, and it's a fascinating window into a vanished world. We're familiar with many of the wartime images, but the pre-war era, even with its radios, cars and bikes, still retains startling traces of the Victorians and Edwardians. The commentary was by the poet Laurie Lee, a voice which, in spite of his attempt at BBC English, still kept traces of its Gloucestershire burr.
Jennings' visual images are unforgettable and I found them very affecting. The close attention to the everyday lives of ordinary people, making them visually beautiful as well as interesting, is unparalleled. A wonderful afternoon.
Friday, 28 September 2007
David Miliband (again)
It's time to check out David Miliband again, as the Labour Party conference ends. He's just started a new blog at last - he kept one while he was Environment minister and there was a long hiatus after he became Foreign secretary. but at last a new one is up and running, complete with YouTube videos.
There's been pages of publicity in the press in the last week or so - profiles, transcripts of speeches etc etc. Something that stands out is his ackowledgement that military intervention isn't always the solution; that Iraq was divisive in the party and country. Good intentions weren't enough.
He's clearly distancing himself from the Blair regime, as I expected he would, plus he's reinventing himself as a serious, heavyweight politician. This has meant talking slowly and ponderously in an attempt to seem profound. Nevertheless, he hasn't quite been able to rid himself of the Fotherington-Thomas 'hello birds, hello, bees' impression he always manages to give. There's a feeling that emanates from him that if we were all a bit nicer to each other the world would be a better place. This is certainly true, but it's not politics, which is, and always has been , dirty in the extreme.
There's been pages of publicity in the press in the last week or so - profiles, transcripts of speeches etc etc. Something that stands out is his ackowledgement that military intervention isn't always the solution; that Iraq was divisive in the party and country. Good intentions weren't enough.
He's clearly distancing himself from the Blair regime, as I expected he would, plus he's reinventing himself as a serious, heavyweight politician. This has meant talking slowly and ponderously in an attempt to seem profound. Nevertheless, he hasn't quite been able to rid himself of the Fotherington-Thomas 'hello birds, hello, bees' impression he always manages to give. There's a feeling that emanates from him that if we were all a bit nicer to each other the world would be a better place. This is certainly true, but it's not politics, which is, and always has been , dirty in the extreme.
Tuesday, 25 September 2007
The Good Shepherd
I, unlike most critics, found The Good Shepherd an enthralling and engrossing film, throughout it's 2 hours 40 minutes. I usually get irritated by over-long films, but this was an exception. I've just had a look at some of the reviews, and not many liked it, and some were unnecessarily abusive, especially about Matt Damon. What is it about Damon that irritates so many? I think he's getting better and better, and maturing extremely satisfactorily. The Bourne films have shown that he can do action, but even in these he retains a riveting, buttoned-up intensity. Here he's frozen by his background, his sense of duty, his father's suicide and his failed, loveless marriage, and is utterly convincing throughout.
Most of the critics found the film impossibly long and tedious, though yet again, Philip French was one of the few exceptions and appreciated the film's strengths. Yes, there's a weighty ponderousness at times, but is that such a crime? It's far outweighed by intelligence and seriousness of purpose. French likens it to the masterly TV serialisations of John Le Carre's novels and he's absolutely right.
I need to see this film again, as I watched it at home on Saturday night, and I'm always fighting sleep at this time of the week. I didn't drift off but my concentration wavered at times. I watched it with my son who found it gripping as well. Critics - gaaaahhhhh!!!!!
Most of the critics found the film impossibly long and tedious, though yet again, Philip French was one of the few exceptions and appreciated the film's strengths. Yes, there's a weighty ponderousness at times, but is that such a crime? It's far outweighed by intelligence and seriousness of purpose. French likens it to the masterly TV serialisations of John Le Carre's novels and he's absolutely right.
I need to see this film again, as I watched it at home on Saturday night, and I'm always fighting sleep at this time of the week. I didn't drift off but my concentration wavered at times. I watched it with my son who found it gripping as well. Critics - gaaaahhhhh!!!!!
3.10 to Yuma
I went to see 3.10 to Yuma the other day at my local cinema. I remember seeing the original many years ago on television, so long ago I think it was in black and white. I had a quick look at the trusty IMDB which confirmed that it was released in 1957 and starred Van Heflin and Gleen Ford, in the parts played in the new version by Christian Bale and Russell Crowe.
I like these these two actors very much, though Crowe's career has been marred lately by poor career choices, while Bale, on the other hand, hasn't, as far as I'm aware, made a single bad decision, ever. I can't thinkof any off-hand anyway. He has the knack of submerging himself in whatever part he's playing, the definition of the character actor, whereas Crowe tends to be Crowe whoever he's playing. This wasn't always the case, however, as demonstrated by his performance in The Insider, and I think it's simply because he's become so famous that his personality has come to dominate.
Bale however, has no public persona whatever, so has retained an anonimity which means he becomes his character more effectively. I'm always impressed by the level of fierce commitment he always brings to his performances and this was no exception
Here, though, Crowe managed to let his larger-than-life star persona slide into the background and allowed the character of Wade, the outlaw to shine through. I've just been looking at some of the reviews of the film, and my favourite critic, Roger Ebert, perceptively observed that Crowe's portrayal suggested an intelligent man who has become bored with being an outlaw, bored by the expectations place on him by others, a man fascinated by the varieties of human nature.
Several of the reviews have expressed dissatisfaction with the ending, and I have to agree. It lacked clarity and consistency and, by killing off Evans (Bale), its moral compass came askew, and it's an unsatisfactory mess. Obviously complexity, post-Unforgiven, is essential in westerns nowadays, but we were left with confusion rather than ambiguity. My response was 'What just happened....???'
Philip French in the Observer points to the huge influence of Deadwood, the western series set in a frontier town just at the point at which the West was beginning to be colonised by white settlers. Deadwood is far too black and scabrous to be shown on terrestrial TV, unfortunately, but, with its baroque language and lack of moral absolutes, astonishing period detail, it's an extraordinary evocation of the West that is surely much closer to its reality. I don't have Sky One any more since Virgin Media ditched it but I intend to catch up and rent the DVDs, switching on the subtitles to experience the dialogue in all its glory.
I have to confess that I didn't recognise Peter Fonda as the bounty-hunter McElroy, and that's maybe a tribute to him. Anyway, his presence was another major plus, as was Ben Foster's as Wade's brutal sidekick, a closet gay clearly in love with his leader. Philp French descibes his performance as 'terrifying' and I have to agree - truly demented.
So, a handsome production, enjoyable, entertaining and compelling. I'd like to see it again, though - that ending! Bleahhhhhh
I like these these two actors very much, though Crowe's career has been marred lately by poor career choices, while Bale, on the other hand, hasn't, as far as I'm aware, made a single bad decision, ever. I can't thinkof any off-hand anyway. He has the knack of submerging himself in whatever part he's playing, the definition of the character actor, whereas Crowe tends to be Crowe whoever he's playing. This wasn't always the case, however, as demonstrated by his performance in The Insider, and I think it's simply because he's become so famous that his personality has come to dominate.
Bale however, has no public persona whatever, so has retained an anonimity which means he becomes his character more effectively. I'm always impressed by the level of fierce commitment he always brings to his performances and this was no exception
Here, though, Crowe managed to let his larger-than-life star persona slide into the background and allowed the character of Wade, the outlaw to shine through. I've just been looking at some of the reviews of the film, and my favourite critic, Roger Ebert, perceptively observed that Crowe's portrayal suggested an intelligent man who has become bored with being an outlaw, bored by the expectations place on him by others, a man fascinated by the varieties of human nature.
Several of the reviews have expressed dissatisfaction with the ending, and I have to agree. It lacked clarity and consistency and, by killing off Evans (Bale), its moral compass came askew, and it's an unsatisfactory mess. Obviously complexity, post-Unforgiven, is essential in westerns nowadays, but we were left with confusion rather than ambiguity. My response was 'What just happened....???'
Philip French in the Observer points to the huge influence of Deadwood, the western series set in a frontier town just at the point at which the West was beginning to be colonised by white settlers. Deadwood is far too black and scabrous to be shown on terrestrial TV, unfortunately, but, with its baroque language and lack of moral absolutes, astonishing period detail, it's an extraordinary evocation of the West that is surely much closer to its reality. I don't have Sky One any more since Virgin Media ditched it but I intend to catch up and rent the DVDs, switching on the subtitles to experience the dialogue in all its glory.
I have to confess that I didn't recognise Peter Fonda as the bounty-hunter McElroy, and that's maybe a tribute to him. Anyway, his presence was another major plus, as was Ben Foster's as Wade's brutal sidekick, a closet gay clearly in love with his leader. Philp French descibes his performance as 'terrifying' and I have to agree - truly demented.
So, a handsome production, enjoyable, entertaining and compelling. I'd like to see it again, though - that ending! Bleahhhhhh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)