This was supposedly an attempt to film the "unfilmable" novel The Life and Times of Tristram Shandy. Although it almost completely ignored the plot of the book (such as it is); It was a film about making a film of the book - terribly post-modern - and I guess it stayed true to the novel's spirit.
Now, I haven't actually read Tristram Shandy. Fortunately the Guardian did a little piece about the importance of the book and its unfilmability a few months beforehand, so I kind of knew what to expect. As the book deals with Tristram Shandy writing a book about his life and portraying 'himself' as a deeply flawed character, so the film deals with a group of people making a film about the book of Tristram Shandy's life, the main actors playing caricatures of 'themselves' as deeply flawed characters.
It was quite difficult to dislike, as any criticism that could be levelled at this film (mainly its self-indulgence, as well as lack of any consistent narrative), could be seen as knowing references to the style of the book itself. That said, some parts did drag on and the continued irreverance sometimes became tiring.
Some of it, however, was genuinely very funny, particularly the excerpts from the Tristram Shandy film itself, and Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon et al are always delightful to watch. Now, there are a lot of films, like this one, which eschew a traditional plot and aren't really about anything. Some of these just don't come together at the end (see Magnolia, Lost In Translation & Crash, amongst others) and some do, I can't really explain it. This one did, however. I did enjoy it: gets 7.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Jarhead - 25th January
I have to say I am not a fan of War Films. I can quite happily watch them, it's just I have difficulty relating to the whole macho world on which they are based.
It had all the usual bits of a war film - the training scenes (which were done to perfection in Full Metal Jacket, so why even bother?) and then the War, in which nothing really happens. But then, like with most war films, nothing ever happening was kind of the point... (Nichts Neues im Westen as a prime example.)
I don't really think it was supposed to 'say' much about the concept of war in general or even the Gulf War specifically. If it was I must have missed it, all I remember is the beautiful shots of endless desert and the bizarreness of it all: the shock of seeing any other people for the first time and the beautifully surreal scenes of walking through the raining oil.
I guess instead of being a commentary on War, Jarhead gave a more personal view of what it is to be a soldier. One thing I did notice was the bright, sharp, immediacy of the picture during the time in the desert, even when nothing was going on; compared with the dull, anaesthetised, almost insignificant views of life back on civvy street.
Jarhead was nice to watch for a few hours, it did annoy me a little how much importance was put upon Jake Gyllenhaal's girlfriend leaving him, it almost felt like it was the centre of the film. But apart from that, and the fact I'm not the biggest fan ever of War Films, I did enjoy it. It gets a 7
It had all the usual bits of a war film - the training scenes (which were done to perfection in Full Metal Jacket, so why even bother?) and then the War, in which nothing really happens. But then, like with most war films, nothing ever happening was kind of the point... (Nichts Neues im Westen as a prime example.)
I don't really think it was supposed to 'say' much about the concept of war in general or even the Gulf War specifically. If it was I must have missed it, all I remember is the beautiful shots of endless desert and the bizarreness of it all: the shock of seeing any other people for the first time and the beautifully surreal scenes of walking through the raining oil.
I guess instead of being a commentary on War, Jarhead gave a more personal view of what it is to be a soldier. One thing I did notice was the bright, sharp, immediacy of the picture during the time in the desert, even when nothing was going on; compared with the dull, anaesthetised, almost insignificant views of life back on civvy street.
Jarhead was nice to watch for a few hours, it did annoy me a little how much importance was put upon Jake Gyllenhaal's girlfriend leaving him, it almost felt like it was the centre of the film. But apart from that, and the fact I'm not the biggest fan ever of War Films, I did enjoy it. It gets a 7
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - 18th January 2006
In the interest of balance, the week after Brokeback Mountain we went to see a film beloved by the Christian Right. And I can see why. I think the reason I has such problems with the film was that I had read too many reviews and articles about C.S. Lewis beforehand and so had a head full of pre-conceptions about the sermonising religiosity of the film.
I suppose the question with which I struggled, was whether a film version of a book should stay true to all its underlying political, religious and social ideology. If the answer was yes then The Chronicles of Narnia... did a good job. I did, however, find all the Jesus stuff hard to swallow and took exception to some of the stuff it was preaching which seemed to be at odds with accepted modern values.
I think it was the some of the stuff I'd read, but I couldn't help noticing the kind of white superiority message and underlying misogyny of the film. Also something which I don't think was in the book was the glorification of war and fighting. I suppose it would have been acceptable if this had been an exclusively fantasy battle but there were obvious parallels between the battle for Narnia & WWII, which seemed to me to be decidedly dodgy. Also: it's supposed to be for kids! You can accuse rap vidoes of glorifying violence but when Father Christmas appears handing out weapons of war to kids something seems to be a bit wrong. Or maybe it's just me.
On the plus side it was a very pretty film, everything looked nice. The battle scenes were lovely to watch with a nice mix of mythical creatures. One thing I didn't understand was the arbitary division of animals between Good and Evil. (Why were the tigers Good and leopards Evil?) It set me thinking about which side different animals would be on (are giraffes Good or Evil? What about sloths?) so didn't pay much attention to the end of the film.
The kids were annoying and impossibly twee, Tilda Swinton was good but I couldn't get over her weird dress and Steve off of Shameless was fantastic as Mr Tumnus. Probably the best thing in the film.
So, it was alright to watch for a few hours but did annoy me a bit. Also, nothing could compare to the low-budget BBC series from the 80s, watched with child-like ignorance of the underlying, frankly quite dodgy, ideology. It gets 5
I suppose the question with which I struggled, was whether a film version of a book should stay true to all its underlying political, religious and social ideology. If the answer was yes then The Chronicles of Narnia... did a good job. I did, however, find all the Jesus stuff hard to swallow and took exception to some of the stuff it was preaching which seemed to be at odds with accepted modern values.
I think it was the some of the stuff I'd read, but I couldn't help noticing the kind of white superiority message and underlying misogyny of the film. Also something which I don't think was in the book was the glorification of war and fighting. I suppose it would have been acceptable if this had been an exclusively fantasy battle but there were obvious parallels between the battle for Narnia & WWII, which seemed to me to be decidedly dodgy. Also: it's supposed to be for kids! You can accuse rap vidoes of glorifying violence but when Father Christmas appears handing out weapons of war to kids something seems to be a bit wrong. Or maybe it's just me.
On the plus side it was a very pretty film, everything looked nice. The battle scenes were lovely to watch with a nice mix of mythical creatures. One thing I didn't understand was the arbitary division of animals between Good and Evil. (Why were the tigers Good and leopards Evil?) It set me thinking about which side different animals would be on (are giraffes Good or Evil? What about sloths?) so didn't pay much attention to the end of the film.
The kids were annoying and impossibly twee, Tilda Swinton was good but I couldn't get over her weird dress and Steve off of Shameless was fantastic as Mr Tumnus. Probably the best thing in the film.
So, it was alright to watch for a few hours but did annoy me a bit. Also, nothing could compare to the low-budget BBC series from the 80s, watched with child-like ignorance of the underlying, frankly quite dodgy, ideology. It gets 5
Brokeback Mountain - 7th & 11th January 2006
First of all I cannot believe this did not win Best Picture at the Oscars. As a film it was a thousand times better than Crash, which I found confused and irritating.
Despite all the hype & controversy, Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay cowboy" film, it is a love story in its purest sense, one that was beautifully written, acted & shot; I think this will remain one of my favourite films of the year.
I went to go and see this twice and very almost cried both times. The only reason I managed to stop myself was that if I'd have started, I would have been blubbing all the way home on the train. This was especially the case during the second viewing, when I knew what was going to happen, and was all the more aware of the overwhelming sense of despair that is present throughout the film.
For it is not only the film's (perhaps inevitable) conclusion that is so tear-inducing. From the moment the cowboys are forced to leave the peaceful idyll of Brokeback Mountain and begin to lead "normal" lives, away from each other, there is an ever-growing sense of despair and injustice. All the time they spend trapped within the confines of family, work, normal society; is time they are spending away from each other in unhappiness. Even the time on the mountain is tinged with sadness: the ephemeral nature of their happiness is all too apparent. You know that it will not and cannot last forever.
This is why Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay" film. It is a story of two people struggling against society's (and their own) pre-conceptions. The path of true love... and all that. It's important that the two cowboys are very much your typical, macho cowboys and not presented in the least as effeminate or camp, which would have rendered the movie farcical.
This love that dare not speak its name (or even be mumbled by Heath Ledger) was shown to be pure and natural, much more so than the artificial and sterile "civilised" society it contrasts with. Just compare the breath-takingly beautiful shots of the mountains whenever the two cowboys are together, with the claustrophobic, dreary and plain ugly shots of the towns and houses where the two cowboys live. The mountain's colours are so bright and sharp whereas the tones used for the scenes of civilised society are either dull sepia or horribly garish. Take, for example, the final scene (I think) with Heath in his tiny, dirty brown caravan. Framed in the window are the beautifully green mountains against a clear blue sky, perhaps representing hope for the future, and a lovely theme on which to end the film.
I think it is a sign of the moving and provocative nature of the film that even thinking about this it, several days later, sat in work, brought a tear to my eye.
I understand that it may seem a little slow in parts and it is only for this reason it doesn't score higher. My first film of the year gets 8.5.
Despite all the hype & controversy, Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay cowboy" film, it is a love story in its purest sense, one that was beautifully written, acted & shot; I think this will remain one of my favourite films of the year.
I went to go and see this twice and very almost cried both times. The only reason I managed to stop myself was that if I'd have started, I would have been blubbing all the way home on the train. This was especially the case during the second viewing, when I knew what was going to happen, and was all the more aware of the overwhelming sense of despair that is present throughout the film.
For it is not only the film's (perhaps inevitable) conclusion that is so tear-inducing. From the moment the cowboys are forced to leave the peaceful idyll of Brokeback Mountain and begin to lead "normal" lives, away from each other, there is an ever-growing sense of despair and injustice. All the time they spend trapped within the confines of family, work, normal society; is time they are spending away from each other in unhappiness. Even the time on the mountain is tinged with sadness: the ephemeral nature of their happiness is all too apparent. You know that it will not and cannot last forever.
This is why Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay" film. It is a story of two people struggling against society's (and their own) pre-conceptions. The path of true love... and all that. It's important that the two cowboys are very much your typical, macho cowboys and not presented in the least as effeminate or camp, which would have rendered the movie farcical.
This love that dare not speak its name (or even be mumbled by Heath Ledger) was shown to be pure and natural, much more so than the artificial and sterile "civilised" society it contrasts with. Just compare the breath-takingly beautiful shots of the mountains whenever the two cowboys are together, with the claustrophobic, dreary and plain ugly shots of the towns and houses where the two cowboys live. The mountain's colours are so bright and sharp whereas the tones used for the scenes of civilised society are either dull sepia or horribly garish. Take, for example, the final scene (I think) with Heath in his tiny, dirty brown caravan. Framed in the window are the beautifully green mountains against a clear blue sky, perhaps representing hope for the future, and a lovely theme on which to end the film.
I think it is a sign of the moving and provocative nature of the film that even thinking about this it, several days later, sat in work, brought a tear to my eye.
I understand that it may seem a little slow in parts and it is only for this reason it doesn't score higher. My first film of the year gets 8.5.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Welcome to Kinoland
Taking inspiration from my good friend cinemafool I have decided it is time for the world to hear what I have to say about our weekly cinema trips. And maybe it will stop her stealing my ideas... Since I've clocked up fifteen films this year, expect a quick recap of each film: not sure if I remember them very well but here we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)