There Will Be Blood (2007) February 12, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Paul Thomas Anderson
The films of Paul Thomas Anderson are a collection of rebellious features, proudly bucking the trends of mainstream cinema to bring audiences that oft requested (but rarely achieved) ’something different’. From Boogie Nights, his film about the 70’s porn industry, through the multi-threaded three-hour dramatic opus Magnolia, and on to the neurosis-filled world of Punch Drunk Love, he has consistently provided content that provokes even haters of his work - and like with all dissident filmmakers, there are plenty - to question their conception of how cinema should work. But if Boogie nights was built on defiant material, and Magnolia on its gruelling length, and Punch Drunk Love on a twisted anti-tone, then There Will Be Blood is the triumphant combination of all three. ‘Challenging’ is less its watch word than its all-out purpose.
Set around the turn of the 20th Century, the story is one of Daniel Plainview, a mining entrepreneur and ambitious oil man, working in California during a time of widespread oil drilling. He operates a family business with his young son, H.W. Plainview, and together they travel around looking for new leases. It isn’t until a tip-off about an untapped area of oil prevalence leads Daniel and his son to the Sunday Ranch that his fortunes really take a turn. The area is rich in oil, but his single-minded lust and greed for it ruin all the relationships Plainview makes, including the welcoming arms of the local preacher, Eli Sunday.
I wouldn’t consider myself a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. His previous movies have worked to push me away, rather than draw me toward, his idiosyncratic sensibilities. Unlike those other films though, There Will Be Blood comes with the knowing sense that it is here to be admired as much as it is to be enjoyed. Usually, that might come off as a little pretentious but its sense of self-importance is curiously absent, leaving behind a raw combination of script, setting and acting talent that is as simple in concept as anything I have seen. While not without its charming moments, most of the time you’ll be doing the work rather than the movie doing it for you. Luckily that’s made easy by a rather engrossing, yet sparse, plotline and probably the most extravagant performance you’ll see all year.
Daniel Day-Lewis eats the dialogue and spits it out with the kind of wild inflection that few others would ever dare try and pull off. He inhabits the man and gives a performance that keeps you constantly wondering which side of sincerity he’s on. As a self-confessed ‘hater of people’, Daniel Plainview is only a little less unlikeable than Hannibal Lecter at mealtime, and still Day Lewis makes you care if not for him, then at least about him. The way he plays it, you could watch Plainview sit in a blank room and still be fascinated by his actions. There’s a sting in that tail though and when it strikes, it strikes with all the mania of a man possessed by the devil. The voice, the mannerisms, the wild intonation - research suggests that the film may not even have been made without Day-Lewis’ involvement. Quite right too.
There’s one other performer who deserves your attention, however, and that’s Paul Dano, who uses this opportunity to grow as an actor and clearly takes tips from the lead as he stretches into a difficult supporting role. He was wonderful in Little Miss Sunshine [review] and continues to impress despite being drafted in at the last minute to play the film’s seemingly composed preacher, relating an aching innocence that pays off later in his dealings with the central oil-monger. Daniel Day-Lewis may be grabbing all the spotlight for his formidable performance, but light a candle for Dano, the timid balancing force of a movie that demands a challenger to Plainview, lest he consume everyone he meets without retaliation.
One other notable aspect that you may have already heard about is the musical contributions of Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood, who provides not just a score but a whole selection of sound to accompany the images. His music is deftly haunting and even if you don’t always appreciate the intrusion you can’t help but admit that it has intent above and beyond that of a normal film score. From the opening ensemble of noise - sounding not dissimilar to the THX logo theme - it bangs, crashes, and occasionally applies melody throughout most of the picture, bringing with it a recurring sense of foreboding and danger, even when there is no visual evidence to support it.
The script, by Paul Thomas Anderson himself, is loosely based upon a reading of Upton Sinclair’s novel “Oil!”. The dialogue is perfectly adequate and in keeping with the period setting, although I’d argue that it is elevated substantially by the way it is performed. Stories of a twenty minute dialogue-free opening sequence are greatly exaggerated; the film begins with just over ten minutes before the first lengthy land lease pitch by Daniel Plainview is heard. Anderson’s shooting style is similarly commanding, mixing wide sprawling shots of the barren landscape with tight close quarters compositions, while his often lingering camera fits right in with the single-shot dialogue scenes.
For all its admirable qualities there are some questionable choices to dispute, not least the fact that it is undeniably lengthy. You may not even feel it while watching, but there’s the lingering sense that 158 minutes were not entirely necessary to tell the tale in an absorbing way. It’s also a little disappointing that come the conclusion you are left without any form of statement about Plainview that validates spending so much time with him. Whether intentional or not, his final actions may prove to be one leap too far for a character that has been ruthless, but not maniacal, up until that point. Still, it’s a strong finale and one you’ll certainly remember long after it’s over.
What There Will Be Blood offers in excess is food for the brain. It will leave you with a whirr of images and sound that add up to little in the way of coherence, but remain resonating inside your head. Ask me what it was all about and I would struggle to tell you, yet I can still see the entire story as an image slideshow, set to Jonny Greenwood’s hard-working score. If Paul Thomas Anderson wants to be the voice of rebellious filmmaking, then he has made a strong case for his election here. His movies have always made a point of not being straightforward, or at least, that’s the way I’ve always seen them and I’ve never been convinced. This time, he hits non-conformity right on the head, and unlike the similarly successful No Country for Old Men [review], makes his rule breaking seem effortless and unprovoked. No Country took jabs at its audience’s expectations; There Will Be Blood never lets you form them. Challenging? Yes. But for once, a challenge that’s well worth the undertaking.
There Will Be Blood is currently showing in London & goes on UK general release from February 15th.
The Incredibles (2004) February 9, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Brad Bird
I’m an unashamed Pixar fan-boy. Though that’s the last time I’ll use the word ‘fan-boy’, because I think it holds connotations that don’t particularly apply to being an admirer of a company who produce such consistently high quality output. The Incredibles, particularly, was up against the difficult task of following family-audience successes Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo, while also being the first of their films to utilise human characters in the central roles. I have to admit that going in, I really thought this might be Pixar’s first misstep - but they sure made a fool out of me, producing maybe their finest feature to date.
Set in the superhero-filled world of Metroville, the tale sees all heroic activity by such ‘super’ humans banned, after their actions in the name of justice cause widespread damage. The government helps relocate all the heroes and provides them with regular identities, leaving ex-headline grabbing Mr Incredible and his wife Elastigirl, as Bob and Helen Parr. Some years pass and the couple start a family (all similarly ‘super’), though Bob is discontent with his mundane life and still dreams of his work in the old days with pal and ex-superhero, Lucius Best. He forces himself out of retirement, however, in order to take on a secret job that utilises his powers - little does he know that the figure behind the plot is more dangerous than he thinks, and will put both Mr Incredible and his family at risk to take a long-standing revenge.
It has been said a million times, but there’s no denying that Pixar’s charm lies in their ability to craft fantastic stories which enable you to care about the characters and draw you into their world. It’s a very ‘Disney’ ethos although we know that it was a Pixar-initiated ideal and one that has held them over for more than a decade now. The Incredibles is, of course, no different, flexing Pixar’s storytelling expertise into the sometimes dubiously plotted world of the superhero, where people can fly, stretch, or wield astonishing strength without anyone batting an eyelid. Ingeniously, the movie takes a very grounded approach to its superheroes, opening the film with them all being taken to court for the collateral damage that their acts of bravery usually incur (along with a sly wink at our compensation culture). It’s a brave move, but one that really helps set up the theme of the film: why force those who are different to fit in?
This film is the vision of experienced animation guru Brad Bird, who has worked on The Simpsons as well as helming the successful Iron Giant for Warner Brothers. His move to Pixar was based on a disagreement over the handling of that latter project, as well as an insistence from company chief John Lassiter that Pixar would welcome his talents. And what an asset he is: Bird both wrote and directed The Incredibles based on an idea he had been brewing for some time. Although that’s not to demean the efforts of the animation team, who produce stunning visuals as well as expertly crafted ‘shots’ with the virtual camera. Most notable is their accuracy in the capture of lighting – my favourite visual moment from this film sees Mr Incredible crash through a window at night, with some exceptional back-lit spotlighting. It’s Brad Bird’s clear passion for the project that shows through in the final product though, while actors who work with him are happy to rave about his attention to detail and seemingly endless energy during the recording sessions.
Which brings us to another strength of previous Pixar features: the voice casting. Their decisions are often quite unusual, scouring the periphery of celebrity talent to find that perfect vocal match. To their credit, they get it spot on - happily shunning the need for big name stars by using voices that you actually believe could be the character. In this film, Craig T. Nelson takes the central role of Mr. Incredible, while Holly Hunter is his flexible (literally and figuratively) wife known as Elastigirl. There’s some great work from Samuel L Jackson as a cooler-than-you superhero named Frozone, while Jason Lee gets the position of villain, playing the obsessive Syndrome with fantastic over-inflection. Bird’s reputation for getting the most out of voice actors is clearly founded, since it’s all top notch stuff (some of the best in the industry, in fact) and you rarely, if ever, think about the actual people behind the characters. The director even takes one very unique voice role himself and, maybe predictably, does it brilliantly.
You’ve got to hand it to Pixar: a company who knows that they are at the cutting edge of computer animation and yet don’t lean on that strength as the unique selling point of their films. Nothing in a Pixar film is ever ‘good enough’ and the attention to detail that is lavished on every frame is second to none. It’s a working approach that other studios are slowly trying to replicate, but while they might make frequent headway on the technological side, their ability to craft memorable stories or produce worthwhile (not money-spinning) sequels just never seems to improve [Read: Ice Age 2, Shrek The Third]. With The Incredibles, Pixar took another step forward. Their decision to shun the ultra-realistic human character models in favour of their trademark vibrant cartoon style might seem like taking the easy way out, but the final film is as visually exciting as any live action picture and it has a rip-roaring story to boot. Well played, Mr. Bird. I apologize for ever doubting you.
Big Nothing (2006) February 6, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Jean-Baptiste Andrea
Trying to localise this film is quite a difficult task. A French director, a two-thirds British central cast, shooting split between Wales, the Isle of Man and Vancouver, and a small town America story-setting all come together in a geographical mishmash of black comedy and crime cover-up. Pulling television stars from both sides of the Atlantic might seem like a good idea for riding on their past successes in both markets, but this cautionary tale about the consequences of crime serves only to warn that no amount of comic talent can save a bad plot.
That plot, incidentally, follows an out-of-luck guy named Charlie, who reluctantly takes a call centre job to support himself, his wife and his daughter. Although he immediately loses the job, he meets an aspiring conman in Gus, who has a put together a plan to blackmail the local ill-doing Reverend. Gus offers to bring Charlie on board and although initially unconvinced, his desperation for cash means he joins the team along with self-inviting scam artist Josie McBroom. Of course, the whole thing goes terribly wrong and Charlie quickly finds himself in over his head, dealing with everything from dead bodies to serial murderers.
Big Nothing is a tremendous debacle of a movie. Its intentions to be a black comedy are never founded since the darkness doesn’t add to the laughs. Instead, you find yourself wondering why everyone involved in the story is just so relentlessly inept. There’s a rather distressing body count, most of which come from murders (intentional or unintentional) caused in some way by the central characters, and hardly lends them to an audience. Plus, when such an inconspicuous plan suddenly turns so cruel without a credible reason, it ends up leaving a rather bad taste in the mouth.
About half way through it becomes clear that the film has no chance of ending well and that the approaching conclusion is either going to be ridiculously stupid, or laughably bad. Admirably, and clearly not wanting to do anything by halves, it is both. The supposedly ironic ending holds little weight and while I’ll admit that the central idea has promise, the film doesn’t manage to pull off anywhere near enough emotional resonance to make it work. It could be a tragic moral tale about right and wrong but, by its own doing, falls into the trap of becoming a moral-less wasteland. No character, regardless of their situation, ends up sympathetic enough to make you want them to pull through.
Actors David Schwimmer and Simon Pegg plod through the unnecessarily twisted plotline, with Pegg forcing an American accent which isn’t exactly bad, but more just completely unnecessary. They are joined by Alice Eve who plays a sassy accomplice, while Jon Polito shows up as a rather cartoon-like FBI investigator. Director Jean-Baptiste Andrea holds the visuals together well even when everything else is falling apart, although the chiefly night-time scene settings don’t allow for much variety. Meanwhile, the script (by Andrea himself along with Billy Asher) has its moments but is hardly a laugh riot, hindered rather than helped by the increasingly elaborate plotline.
In fact, it is the plot, with its numerous contrivances and totally unnecessary over-explanations, that really drags the film down. It seems that nothing, not even small character traits, can exist with some minutely detailed (often absurd) explanation. Charlie’s account of why he keeps relating random trivial facts is probably the worst of them, and the writers make no effort to work it into the story any other way. To be quite honest, I had happily accepted that he just likes facts – he had been a teacher in the past, after all. The story also throws in characters at odd moments, only to add them to the ever increasing body-count minutes later (the priest’s wife is an especially notable example). Plus, with only a few moments to go we get yet another needless character turn, revealing an as-yet unmentioned mystery killer – it’s all just so over-done.
Really, it’s actually a bit of a shame that the film descends into such a mess, since the opening 20-minutes at least hold the promise of something better. Comic actors of the calibre of Schwimmer and Pegg certainly deserve more, although they have since collaborated again on last year’s Run Fatboy Run, which received mostly generous reviews and even topped the UK box office for a few weeks. This film, on the other hand, slipped out on DVD without fanfare, hoping to be found by admirers of either actor. But I’m sorry to say that even the most hardened Friends fan, or devoted Spaced enthusiast, will have a hard time pulling the positives from this tiresome blunder.
Juno (2007) February 4, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Jason Reitman
It’s not difficult to call Juno this year’s Little Miss Sunshine; in fact, it’s very easy, hence the prevalence of the comparison. Even if you’d argue that the tone is different, or the stories have differing voices, it’s hard to deny that their journeys are at least similar. Both are feel-good comedy dramas with a distinct indie sensibility (a.k.a. low budget), both films had festival success leading to a wide release, and both films raked in the cash like there was no tomorrow. And now, Oscars: Sunshine won two, Juno has just been nominated for four. Once more, the indie movie crowd are on the warpath, proving that you don’t need the big boys to generate audience attention.
The story follows Juno McGuff, a cynical teenager who has just discovered (despite much protest) that her one-night fling with best pal Paulie Bleeker has left her pregnant. Unable to go through with the abortion process, she instead chooses to find a family for adoption, quickly settling on the seemingly perfect suburban duo, Mark and Vanessa Loring. With her parent’s support, Juno meets the couple and the deal is settled – one baby, no fuss. Or at least, that’s what they all hope.
There’s a reason films like Juno only make their mark every once in a while, and that’s because they require a deluge of sub-standard mainstream fare to come out before audiences are ready to be refreshed by such an alternative outlook . Juno lives up to its indie roots by being offbeat but at the same time very genuine, and by offering a strictly non-traditional position on teen pregnancy - there’s surprisingly little lingering angst or worry about it. The story has allusions to other high school-set indie flicks, taking a similar road to that travelled by Thumbsucker or even Napoleon Dynamite (without the outrageousness nerdiness), in that it centres entirely around the individual uncertainty of a high school kid trying to discover the ways of the world.
So what has Juno got to offer? Well long time blogger, first time screenwriter Diablo Cody’s script is razor sharp and chocked full of pop-culture references and sarcastic asides. A smart mouthed, wise cracking 16-year-old is going to sit badly with some, as this kind of adult-scripted teenager has been seen all too many times before. But Cody’s screenplay makes no concessions for the fact that her characters speak like wittier sitcom rejects with a Dawson’s Creek vocabulary; she merely presents them and then lets you draw your own conclusions as to how they got that way. It’s easy to nitpick but essentially this is the only way to get an audience to relate to these people - just think how painful the dialogue of an actual 16-year-old would be.
It helps, of course, that Ellen Page plays her with exacting plausibility, hitting her stride in the first few minutes of the movie and never letting up. She helps turn what could be quite a dislikeable smart alec with little regard for the consequences of her actions, into an enamouring character with whom it becomes very easy to care about. Around her, a great supporting cast including Juno’s father and step-mum played by J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney, who bring both compassionate and hard-nosed elements to their characters. The other couple and adoptive parents-to-be are Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman, who get a slow start but come into their own as we see more of them. Bateman’s role has been compared to the character he played in the superb TV series Arrested Development – and strangely, the exact same comment could be made about Michael Cera, who uses his expertise in teenage awkwardness (see: Superbad [review]) to play Juno’s best friend and unfortunate lover.
Director Jason Reitman has clearly been studying the indie-comedy world for reference. His last film, Thank You For Smoking [review], was a wonderfully scathing look at spin and public relations in the cigarette industry, but it was also a slickly shot, glossy picture. His direction here follows suit for the differing genre with a raw and in-your-face feel - quite literally when you see the number of extreme close-ups. He’s quickly becoming a rather exciting filmmaker, and one who chooses his projects based on content rather than potential acclaim – rightly, he has made good on both here. Another distinctive aspect is the film’s great soundtrack, crammed to breaking point with classic offbeat artists including The Kinks, The Mouldy Peaches and Sonic Youth. At times the soundtrack becomes a little overbearing, so even if I thought that it all contributed to the film’s obsession with culture (films, tv, music, comics), others will find the constant musical interludes distracting.
One very notable point about the story structure is its simplicity - there are no sub-plots or side stories to worry about, this is a pretty linear recounting of a single tale. I guess it helps alleviate complication in the tight 96-minute running time, but it could also be seen by more discerning viewers as slightly pedestrian. Plus, Juno’s voice- over comments, while funny, were too infrequent to feel like a real part of the movie - every time another single-line thought suddenly popped up it felt a little out of place, like being reminded we were inside her head as well as observing the story. These criticisms are merely light blemishes though, on what is an otherwise funny and assured movie from a first time writer’s script that shines, a cast who bring quality performances and a director that knows how to make the whole thing appeal to your better nature.
For better or for worse, the associations with similar movies aren’t going away. The truth is that Juno has garnered a very particular kind of ‘buzz’ around it during its stateside release. The public reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, as evidenced by a box office take exceeding $100 million (so far). This kind of public embracing of the indie world hasn’t been seen since, you guessed it, Little Miss Sunshine, and like that film it ends with the air suitably cleared and everyone in a slightly better place, including the audience. Juno is one of those movies that lets you feel a little bit better about just ‘being’ - which is the biggest part of the attraction for this money-spinning Little Train that Could. You won’t get a passionate depiction on the effects of unwanted pregnancy – because that’s Knocked Up [review]; and you don’t get to watch a family make good their differences – that’s Little Miss Sunshine [review]. What you do get is simply Juno – a film with many comparisons, but few competitors.
Juno is on UK general release from February 8th.