War! What is it good for?!

The Hurt Locker (2009) Dir. Kathryn Bigelow






I have to be honest, the prospect of yet another war film set in the middle east was not especially at the top of my list of potential cinema trips. In fact I had made the bold decision to skip The Hurt Locker entirely despite the fair amount of oscar buzz that has preceded it. In the end however, due to the sheer amount of positive press it received I decided to swallow my predjudice and give it a try...

The film focuses on three U.S Army bomb squad members in Iraq and the challenges they face in dealing with diffusing said bombs, alongside attempts at insurgency from the local people and of course their own individual internal battles with their personal demons. Bigelow is an interesting director; as one of the few prevalent female directors working in Hollywood her films could not be further from the lighthearted froth provided by such contempories as Nora Ephron or Nancy Meyers. Her works take place in typically masculine settings (Point Break, K:19) and The Hurt Locker is no exception. The film is concerned with the psychology of the three characters and their response to their extreme situation yet refreshingly, it does not slip down the predictable route of focusing on the misery and destruction that is so often the product of war. To the contrary, in the form of Sergeant William James, Jeremy Renner portrays a man who clearly revels in the excitement and adrenaline rush that arises from his participation in conflict.

One of the film's strengths is that it follows a bomb disposal unit which clearly lends itself to scenes of unbearable tension and rather than making use of a developing plot, the audience is offered a succession of these excrutiating vignettes. Camerawork is at times frenetic, shaky and often handheld greatly contributing to the authenticity and overall 'docu-drama' feel that is another of the its strong points. The senses are assaulted throughout by the sounds of gunshots and explosions, the sight of the parched deserts and streets of Jordan (an ideal stand-in for Iraq the borderline of which was a mere 10 miles away from their location of filming) and one can almost feel the punishing heat and physical exertion imposed on the soldiers. The characters are presented well by the three main cast members who each represent a differing attitude to their position in the conflict but it is Renner who steals the limelight with a challenging portrayal of a man seemingly lost when at home with his wife and child, but totally at home with machine gun in hand and life in serious jeopardy.
The lack of a plot is a slight weakness as the succession of predicaments that the soldiers find themselves in slowly start to outstay their welcome with their effect beginning to feel less shocking and more wearying. It cannot be denied though that The Hurt Locker is a kinetic and exhilarating piece. Viewers are thrown into the action right alongside the men and the experience is real: no-one is guaranteed survival, war means different things to different people and perhaps most intriguingly, it sure as hell can be exciting.

4/5.

A witch, lost in time.

As a huge Tori Amos fan I got very excited last week when the press release for her forthcoming Christmas/Solstice album was unveiled. Entitled Midwinter Graces, it will be her second album of the year (after her 10th studio album Abnormally Attracted to Sin was released in May) so we really are being spoiled. My anticipation is particularly high thanks to the news that, for the songs, she has employed not only the harpsichord (which hasn't been present in her work since 1996's Boys for Pele) but an orchestra. Hopefully this will give the songs a good shot of the intensity and drama that I love about her best works... Below is the interesting cover art alongside the tracklisting. Can't wait for this!






Midwinter Graces

01 What Child, Nowell
02 Star Of Wonder
03 A Silent Night With You
04 Candle: Coventry Carol
05 Holly, Ivy & Rose
06 Harps Of Gold
07 Snow Angel
08 Jeanette, Isabella
09 Pink & Glitter
10 Emmanuel
11 Winter’s Carol
12 Our New Year

3 amazing women.

Whilst growing up in the very late 80's I was opened up to a lot of the big American soap operas thanks to my mum and so I have distinct memories of the huge hair, shoulder pads and sensational women of Dallas and Knots Landing. After already revisting season 1 and 2 of Dallas I thought it was about time I went back to the cul-de-sac. Knots is probably the one that sticks in my memory the most and this is likely down to the fact that the BBC messed it around in the schedules, first moving it from an evening to a lunchtime slot and taking it off air for three years meaning British audiences were always way behind the American timeline. It also has an amazing theme tune.
So I have decided tp invest in the first season on dvd and am really enjoying it. In contrast to Dallas it focused on a handful of households in California who were well off, but not exactly rolling in the money and decadence of it's Texan counterpart. It was obviously aiming to be a more grounded soap and seems to centre on the women and their personal and emotional problems- imagine Desperate Housewives without the biting satire. Much like the first half of Dallas season 1, each episode is a self contained story that is generally resolved in the 45 minute running time, which I'm not a huge fan of as I don't feel it gives the writers room to develop storylines well and can at times seem rushed and contrived. Its strength however lies with the characters and it is clear that seeds are being planted which will no doubt blossom into cracking plots when the series becomes a continuing drama and the stories become more outrageous.
Above are the three best characters as far as I'm concerned. In black and white, is Laura Avery played by Constance Mcashin who is the seemingly unhappy, slightly repressed housewife of businessmen Richard. With the dark hair is Karen Fairgate played by the brilliant Michele Lee- she is the upbeat, community activist, loving mother and perfect housewife (I'm sure things won't stay that perfect) who is fast becoming my favourite character. And finally the blonde is the one I remember the most explicitly, Joan Van Ark who plays Valene Ewing, the sweet and innocent but put-upon wife of tortured Gary, black sheep of the mighty Ewing dynasty. It's a shame that this is not as well remembered as Dallas, so if a camp, dramatic 80's soap opera takes your fancy, seek it out!

A film to inspire more blogging!

I recently went to a special preview screening of Julie and Julia. As one of the film's storylines centres on an extremely dedicated blogger, I have been inspired to keep my own blog maintained and update with more reviews more reguarly (I realise this is like the fourth time I've made this claim...).

Julia and Julia (2009) Dir. Nora Ephron

Apart from the hugely successful Sleepless in Seattle and the lesser You've Got Mail, the output of Nora Ephron has hardly set the world alight. Her last feature, Bewitched was a critical and commercial disaster for both herself and star Nicole Kidman so she is undoubtly hoping to erase that from memory by drafting in the might Meryl Streep who here, plays real life celebrity chef Julia Child (just imagine the American Fanny Craddock). The film charts her rise to fame as she takes up cooking lessons in Paris and tackles the inbuilt snobbery of the business. Simultaneously, Amy Adams places the Julie of the title, a modern day woman working in a stressful and uninspiring job. In need of boost of creativity and self worth, she decides to write her own blog where she makes all 524 recipes of Julia Child's debut cookbook in just 365 days.

As Child, Streep delivers another masterful performance embodying the character in appearance and voice but also supplying her joyful, whimsical facade with extra layers of longing, ambition and regret (the scene when she learns of her sister's pregnancy is particularly affecting). The only negative is that the impact of her portrayal is diminished by the very fact that Child is not exactly a household name in the UK. Her scenes, which largely take place in Paris and trace the roots of her passion for cooking and rise to domestic goddess are filled with warmth and humour and she is ably supported by Stanley Tucci as her devoted husband, adding a considerable amount of heart to the proceedings.

The film's main problem however, arises with the other half of the storyline. As Julie, Amy Adams has clearly drawn the short straw- being handed a far less engaging premise and a character who, in stark comparison to Julia, is dowdy, miserable and frankly, a bit wet. The opportunity to display a huge array of tantalisingly scrumptious foods and recipes, (which is taken advantage of in films such as Waitress or Chocolat) is completely wasted here and the preoccupation lies predictably with the effect her blogging is having on her life and relationship with her husband. This is a shame as Adams has previously proven herself to be a delightful screen presence. Here though, she is royally trounced off the screen by Streep.

Despite this unevenness, Julie and Julia largely serves as an inoffensive, satisfying and often touching account of two women's mission to find some purpose in their lives. It could have just done with a bit more food porn...

3/5.

Hmmm

I'm not doing very well with updating regularly am i? Oh well, here's review no.3!

Antichrist (2009) Dir. Lars Von Trier.

During his latest assault on the Cannes Film Festival, Danish director Lars Von Trier declared himself the world's greatest filmmaker. This surely makes his latest offering an unmissable experience? Well, this is clearly contestable for with Antichrist, Trier has produced his most troubling and at times baffling filmic experience. Numerous articles leading up to the release of the film have centered around the contraversial final act which has prompted outrage and motions for the whole picture to be banned. This reaction is unsurprising due to the truly disturbing nature of certain moments and images that have now been well documented. Whether the action leading up to these development is as worthy of an audience's attention is another question entirely.

Focusing on Charlotte Gainsbourg (Her) and Willem Dafoe (Him), the film begins with the death of their child and traces the effect that this has on their relationship and Gainsbourg's increasingly fragile state of mind. Dafoe, a psychologist decides to treat his wife himself and they retreat ti a cabin in the woods of 'Eden' where events spiral into incredibly dark territory. The film starts strongly with it's prologue, a startlingly beautiful and tragic sequence entirely in black and white and accompanied by a haunting score (however, a very early explicit shot during the couple's lovemaking is particularly jarring) and scenes following Gainsbourg's descent into extreme mourning and Dafoe's troubling indifference are intriguing. Unfortunately, the main bulk of the film gives the feeling of being languorously guided through a clinical psychology program as Dafoe administers a number of mental tests on his wife and analyses every action she takes or word she speaks. Whilst not being your average horror movie, the director is using the language of horror here and without doubt the forest setting is used effectively, and there are moments of inspired shotmaking from Von Trier but frankly, it is just not enough to overcome the often overbearingly dullness of certain scenes.

The film is jolted into it's final act of gore and carnage by the proclamation "Chaos Reigns" provided by a self mutilating fox voiced by non-other than Von Trier himself. This moment serves to elicit nothing but a few giggles and twitters but the same cannot be said for the final thirty minutes of film.

It's important to stress that if easily shocked, then Antichrist is one to avoid. There are some truly harrowing sequences and images that are presented in grizzly close up. The disconcerting effect of them is not really down to the prowess of Von Trier's abilities but simply due to the horrific nature of the acts. There is also something very troubling with regards to what the director is attempting to say with this piece (if indeed he intends to send out a message at all). On numerous occasions the label of misogynist has been flung at Von Trier and these claims have understandably been raised again here with some outrageous pondering over the fundamental evil nature of women. There is no denying that Antichrist makes for an interesting and challenging watch but as the final shot faded into darkness the most prevalent feelings I had were of confusion, discomfort and distaste. Which is not what I attend the cinema for.

2/5.

The Return

Well I'm back. Apologies for the lack of updates, but made a very last minute decision to go traveling in Thailand! Hopefully I will be putting film reviews much more frequently- i'll try my best anyway but am trying to get employed at the moment which is the priority...

So anyway, here we go with review no.2. This one has been causing a lot of controversy so thought I would put my own reaction forward.

Bruno (2009) Dir. Larry Charles

After the huge success of Borat,Sacha Baron Cohen returns for a similar slice of excrutiating comedy with the arguably more outrageous Bruno. An Austrian TV personality from the fashion world, he is camp, brash and downright rude. The film follows his exploit to achieve worldwide fame in a number of increasingly shocking scenes which take him from the continent, to the U.S with a thankfully brief visit to the middle east.

The first issue to tackle is Cohen's depiction of a the gay central character. A few gay rights campaigners have vocalised their problem with this stereotypical portrayal and these facets are undeniable- Bruno is bitchy, often preoccupied with sex and flamboyant. However, in the same way that Borat was not attempting to make a comment on the Kazakhstan people, Bruno does not really supply any form of social commentary. There are of course moments which highlight rife homophobia in the US (the climactic scene being the most obvious) but it generally, it seems that Cohen's only intention is to elicit laughs in the most outlandish way possible. In this respect he pretty much successful- there are some genuinely funny moments including an interview with the Paula Abdhul and scenes involving Bruno's newly adopted African baby. Whether it generates as many laughs as Borat is questionable and this is largely down to the simple fact that it is following in it's footsteps meaning that the originality is no longer present and some sections appear suspiciously staged (an encounter with an extremely aggressive dominatrix springs to mind). The film also seriously raises the bar in terms of uncomfortable and extreme set pieces and the film truly merits its 18 certificate so in that sense, Cohen should be lauded for the way in which he pushes the envelope and even puts himself in serious danger.

Not all of the humour is successful though. Littered through some parts of the film are the juvenile and obvious homo and anal jokes that one would expect in a school playground and this is disappointing because it gives the sense that Cohen is pandering to the more bigoted members of the straight community. Despite these problems, Bruno is still shockingly entertaining and offers another superb comedic performance from Cohen. The only question now is, what does he do next?

3/5.

My first review...

So here we go with my first critique for the blog!

Cheri (2009) Dir. Stephen Frears. Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Friend, Kathy Bates.

The return of Michelle Pfeiffer to acting in 2007 (with both Stardust and Hairspray) was definitely a welcome one. As one of Hollywood's most beautiful, enchanting actresses she is one of the very few who can feasibly maintain a successful career in film despite the inevitable lack of decent roles on offer for older women. Cheri touches upon the idea of the displacement of the older woman. What happens to the once young, alluring and popular lady as she ages and her looks, for which she is famed for, begin to fade? Unfortunately it is a subject that is not really explored in any depth highlighting the film's prime flaw.

Set in 1900s Paris, the film tells the story of an affair between a retired courtesan, Lea (Pfeiffer) and a flamboyant young man Cheri (Friend). Their long term but casual relationship is ended when Cheri becomes engaged to a much younger woman at which point the pair realise that perhaps they mean more to each other than was first presumed. The title character is an effete, shallow and not a particularly likable character with Friend looking fairly pretty throughout but never providing . Pfeiffer as Lea is more successful, subtley portraying a rising insecurity as she realises her time as one of the worlds most desirable courtesans is coming to a close. Despite the fact there relationship supposedly spans six years it is one that is entirely unconvincing as it is never really given any space to develop onscreen. On the contrary, a huge chunk of the story involves the two main characters separately yearning to be together which is clearly an issue for an audience who have little emotional investment. So, as with a number of themes and issues that are hinted at there is very little exploration of the couple's affair and like the film itself the whole situation comes across as empty and insignificant.

Any drama between the two main protagonists is further undermined by a consistent lightheartedness that runs throughout. Not to say that this comedy is not welcome however as the humour in the film provides the most entertaining moments (particularly some delightful scenes between Pfeiffer, Bates and their other eccentric acquaintances). The problem is that there is such a confused tone- it doesn't seem sure if it's a frivolous, sexy, Parisian romp or a genuine romantic, period drama. Despite an intelligent and worthy performance from Pfeiffer it not successful in either respects.

2/5

Wilkommen.

Hello All and welcome to my blog!

I have been meaning to set this up for quite a while now but I often get distracted by various things (such as cake baking and trashy TV). Anyway, this blog will largely consist of some film critiques, comments on music that interests me and generally any interesting stuff that will more than likely have something to do with pop culture (the high and the low). It's also a project for myself to help me improve my writing skills....

Hope you enjoy! Please leave lots of comments and get in touch if you so wish!