Michael Clayton (2007) April 13, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Tony Gilroy
Some may argue that the rise of Tony Gilroy has been coming for some time, but it was only truly cemented last year by two strong pieces of work that lead to the utmost praise and critical applause. While co-writing the screenplay for The Bourne Ultimatum (a franchise he has been with since the start) was the project that set box-offices alight over the summer, it is in fact this low-key character drama that displays his true talent. As writer and first time director, Gilroy has managed to create a film that saw him personally nominated for Oscars in both categories, as well as for Best Picture. An astounding achievement and one that raises the profile of this worthy feature to a level that almost implies pending disappointment.
Its titular character is a typically flawed man, both well regarded as a problem fixer for a major law firm and troubled by his own financial problems as well as those of his brother, whom he must bail out from a loan shark. But he still has work to do, so when Arthur Edens, one of the firm’s top litigators, takes a dramatic turn and falls into a questionable mental state, Michael is called in to take control of the situation and make sure that the years-long case is not lost. The task comes with more danger than usual, however, with the underhand dealings of a large corporation putting Michael’s life at risk, as he delves deeper into their true motivations.
Sometimes described as a ’slow burner’, in reality there are much slower dramas out there. Try watching something like The Good Shepherd [review] before commenting on what constitutes as a slow burn, because Michael Clayton is quite adept at forwarding its plotlines, be it the investigation into Arthur Edens trauma, or Clayton’s own personal problems. Where I think where the distinction lies is that the film can be somewhat quiet, rather than slow, utilising a ‘less is more’ sensibility when it comes to the action-oriented moments. This is a dialogue-focused movie though, and there’s nothing wrong with that when it’s done with the intellectual class and grounded sense of character shown here.
It did, in some ways, feel like the only best picture nominee from last year without a gimmick - Atonement and There Will Be Blood [review] have their period setting, No Country for Old Men [review] has its bleak, drawling Texan landscape, and Juno [review] has its independent underdog status. Michael Clayton, on the other hand, is just a drama about regular people trying to get through a set of problems and make it out the other side as unscathed as possible. Everyone has an agenda, but nobody is a superhero, even Clayton whose ‘best in the business’ reputation is questioned by his own personal struggles. For a fixer, he could benefit from turning those talents to his own life.
The humanity in the character of Michael Clayton is brought home by a good performance from George Clooney, whose natural charisma certainly lends itself to a person who is supposed to be instantly relatable but still coolly intimidating. It is Tom Wilkinson, however, who provides the strongest performance as the mentally disturbed Arthur Edens. He skilfully keeps the moments of madness and rationality at a balance, and gives just enough unhinged logic to the role that you remain undecided as to how affected he has become by his illness - exactly what the story needs to keep up its sustained intrigue. The film also features Tilda Swinton as the morally broken businesswoman whose desire to keep her job ends up compromising her respectability as a human being. Luckily Swinton has a fragility that makes her character’s comedown all the more believable, and shows up the other strong characters, including Sydney Pollack as the head of the law firm Clayton works with, for the questionable souls they are.
The overall strength of the acting is in no doubt apparently, with Clooney grabbing an Oscar nomination for best actor, while Wilkinson and Swinton received well-deserved nominations for supporting actor and actress. For those who are counting, that’s six nominations so far, but there is a seventh - to James Newton Howard for the film’s stirring original score. Even though only Swinton would go on to win, you don’t get seven nods lightly, so Gilroy can rest assured that his simple but effective cinematography and confidence in his actor’s abilities has paid off. His script too, is notably grounded and presents a story that jumps the complicated intricacies of his Bourne movies [review] for a more down to earth, but still intellectually provoking, piece of thriller fiction. You have to give the guy props - there is plenty to enjoy during the two-hour running time.
It’s not flawless, but the problems are few compared to many in the genre. You might find yourself questioning the flash forward opening, or becoming confused by some of the ill-explained plot - Clayton and the horses comes to mind first. The ending too is a paradox; brilliant but at the same time a little formulaic - I still can’t make up my mind because the ambiguity in the Michael Clayton character is presented such that you don’t quite know his intentions, and yet the actual process that occurs has been done a million times before. Still, the film left me with a smile, not least because of the inventive way they handle the end credits. For Tony Gilroy, it’s hard to believe he could go up from here, although if all the attention helps more people to see how good a standard, dialogued-driven, modern day drama can be if handled properly, then he has little to lose. It will inevitably be labelled as ‘over-hyped’, but that’s not to say that it should be under-appreciated.
In Bruges (2008) April 10, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Martin McDonagh
“‘Get the f*** out of London you’s dumb f***s - get to Bruges’. I didn’t even know where Bruges f***’in was… It’s in Belgium.” Colin Farrell’s opening speech to this black comic drama sums up both the plot and the film’s casual attitude to swearing in less than a minute, but what unveils over the following hundred and seven is not always what you’d expect. Relaxingly low-key, yet supremely engaging, it’s got the kind of dark-souled inner turmoil that makes David Cronenberg wring his hands with glee, but balances it out by frequently delivering on the humour front too. Oh, and there’s swearing. Lots and lots of swearing.
The story opens with two men, the pedantic Ray and the dependable Ken, arriving at the titular destination. As hit men for a dangerous London mobster, they are supposed to be hiding out after Ray botched a run-of-the-mill job; his first, in fact. But while Ken wants to follow their orders and do some light sightseeing, Ray just wants to go home and so spends his time racked by the guilt of his mistake – accidentally killing a young boy. It isn’t until Harry, their London-based boss, calls Ken with some ’special’ orders that things start to get awkward. Drugs are taken, shootouts fought and dwarves filmed, in the strangest Christmas tale Belgium has ever seen.
In Bruges is a bestowed with enough wit and humour to be classed as a comic tale, but it’s a darkly comic tale, manifested in the kind of black comedy that sees violence, regret, and suicide as sources of its motivation. By mixing a sarcastic sense of humour with the wild-at-heart Irish sense of spirit, we see all sides of human emotion, especially through Ray: Colin Farrell’s guilt-stricken hit man. Spending the movie with permanently arched eyebrows, his childish nature and youthful charm makes Ray the antithesis of everything his travelling companion isn’t, and probably explains his lack of success in the gangster trade. With a coat done up to the nines and the kind of wayward stare that suggests he would rather be breaking rocks in hell than trapped in Bruges, Ray is the centre of the narrative but not strong enough to be the most sympathetic character. That task befalls Brendan Gleeson, as the ever more reliable Ken, who is forced to choose where his loyalties lie and what he really believes in.
With characters that need both humanity and comedic timing, the casting of Farrell and Gleeson seems perfect, and the two play off each other with natural ease. Add in the presence of Jordan Prentice as the star of an artsy movie shooting in the city, with Clémence Poésy who acts as a beautiful distraction for Ray, and you have a varied, slightly non-typical cast who all work to make the film an enjoyable watch. Ralph Fiennes’ character, Harry, is the only stereotype; his hard cockney accent and uptight demeanour mark him out as a typical gangster boss right from the off. Fiennes shows himself to have a keen sense of villainary, however, mixing the Michael Caine vocals with a devil-eyed menace that at least makes him a threatening figure when he needs to be.
The film is notable for being the debut feature from an already acclaimed director. Martin McDonagh’s short film Six Shooter won him an Oscar in 2006, so he brings this movie to the table with expectations attached. It’s actually quite refreshing that McDonagh has chosen to go with such an offbeat and potentially unlikeable piece of work as his first foray into mainstream theatres, and although I’ve never seen Six Shooter you can tell that he has confidence in his work. As director, he shoots the cold air of central Bruges and all its historical resonance with a consistent moodiness that reflects both Ken’s idealistic outlook on the city and Ray’s derivative opinion about it all being “old buildings and that”. As writer, his script features sniping banter between Gleeson and Farrell matched only by the off-the-wall conversations that punctuate the more serious moments.
It’s also remarkably quiet at times, with a distinct lack of backing music except for a sudden guitar thrashing outburst during the foot-chase sequence and a foreboding piano piece that creeps up on you every now and again. This certainly helps keep the film uncluttered and since it reflects the quiet emptiness that Bruges holds for the central characters, you never really miss a constant soundtrack. What you may long for is a firmer sense of story or scale, rather more like the Guy Ritchie movies that kept the humorous gangster movie alive. 
In Bruges is much more self-contained than any of the Ritchie films, and relies on simplicity in its plotting rather than a cavalcade of characters and story threads. Between this and the dark violent streak that runs through the conclusion, it may put some less patient audiences off. But as its ‘18’ certificate suggests, this is strictly an adult-oriented tale - and that goes both for content, and tone.
So, this is not the frantic heist flick you may think of when you hear there are London gangsters involved. Nor is it just another pessimistic black comedy. In fact, it’s much better than both of those. Even when the violence makes an appearance, there’s still a liberal dose of humour thrown in, including a gun-toting standoff that is reminiscent of John Cusack and Dan Akroyd in the wonderful (and similarly themed) Grosse Pointe Blank. This film has a moody nature that plays very effectively on screen, while the emotive moments sit surprisingly well alongside the comedy. Where McDonagh succeeds is not by taking wild chances or doing something startlingly original, but by tackling a difficult genre and wrestling it into submission. Both undeniably dark and laugh-inducingly funny, In Bruges ticks both boxes in a genre that’s duplicitous nature makes it all too easy to misjudge.
In Bruges is on UK general release from April 18th.
Control (2007) April 7, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Anton Corbijn
You’d be forgiven for thinking that British-made movies were entirely niche dependant these days, although the phrase ‘brit flick’ seems to have categorised them into a sub-set of their own in more recent times. Turn-of-the-century success for Guy Ritchie lead to a heightened awareness of London-set gangster flicks, and we’ve never stopped plugging away at the charming comedy bracket ever since Four Weddings and a Funeral broke through. But while we hit home in a specific genre every so often (The Descent, for example, was a fantastic horror movie), we’ve been anything but consistent. Expect in maybe one area. For a country with such an influential musical history if there’s one genre that shouldn’t pose a problem, if for nothing other than fascinating content, it’s the music biopic.
Control is the story of a small band from Macclesfield and specifically its lead singer, one Ian Curtis. Joy Division were part of a growing Manchester music scene spearheaded by the late Anthony Wilson, although the band’s troubled front man never really got a chance to achieve his full potential, seemingly held back by an early marriage and his unpredictable fits of epilepsy. Even after he begins a freeing affair while on tour, and with his lyrics and stage performances clearly influenced by his life condition, Curtis feels that the pressures of fame and performing may well be too much. As a result, Joy Division is divided way before its time.
Photographer and music video director Anton Corbijn attacks this film with his very own sense of visual flair, providing both a guiding hand for the look of the frame as well as a passion for the subject that belies his Netherlands origins. It is most notable for being entirely black and white, which is a bold decision and yet one that works in the film’s favour rather than as an unnecessary artistic choice. The lack of colour adds bleakness to what is, essentially, quite a bleak story, and presents Macclesfield to the audience in exactly the way Ian Curtis describes it: “grey”. Corbijn puts his music photography training to good use and drops in some fantastic compositions that resonate the most memorable images in the film.
Even with such visual distraction, the strongest element of this movie is still the disturbingly real central performance from Sam Riley. His short acting CV does no justice to the qualities he brings to Ian Curtis, making him both relatable and a youthful outsider. There are moments of soul-searching desperation that are captured without a hint of falsity, and it really adds weight to the film overall that Riley performs all the classic Joy Division songs himself. A fact that is true for the rest of the band too: Joe Anderson, James Anthony Pearson and Harry Treadaway all learnt to play their appropriate parts for each song. Supporting that cast are Samantha Morton as Ian’s long-suffering wife Debbie, Toby Kebbell playing the band’s mouthy manager Rob Gretton, and Craig Parkinson taking the role of Manchester’s music mogul, Tony Wilson.
The script was written by a newcomer to film, Matt Greenhalgh, and adapted from the events presented in Deborah Curtis’ autobiography “Touching from a Distance”, which relates the story of her late husband. Although the dialogue itself can be infrequent at times (Curtis wasn’t overly talkative), what is there does the job adequately. What is most prominent is how the increasing fame of Joy Division gets played down. We rarely see quite how successful they have become, although there are glimpses, like the shot of Curtis on the cover of NME magazine that is shown briefly in one scene. Furthermore, not only is fame not an issue, but the music scene in general is second fiddle to a story that shows how a musician’s lifestyle was the least of Ian’s problems, and that his greatest concerns were built-in (like his epilepsy), or a result of decisions made too young.
The praise lauded on Control is well deserved, although I think there’s a limit to what level some will enjoy it rooted in how much you revere Ian Curtis. Corbijn clearly does. For those who share his enthusiasm, this is a hard-hitting film and not one that is never overly dramatic or showy. For everyone else, it is still a moody and affecting biopic and even if it follows suit for the genre by telling another tragic tale of tortured musical genius, there are plenty of moments both visually and in the narrative, to keep you interested. If we’ve learnt nothing from this and 24 Hour Party People, it’s that Britain has a fascinating musical history that works absorbingly on film. So let’s ditch the lukewarm rom-coms and start making some real ‘brit flicks’ - one’s that are actually about Britons.
This Is England (2006) April 5, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Shane Meadows
Roland Rat, Margaret Thatcher, Space Invaders, and Nightrider. The first four images in Shane Meadows’ English skinhead drama clearly define its place in history, but go on to tell the tale you think you know from an entirely different viewpoint.
Shaun is a 12-year-old schoolboy whose relative size and cash-strapped clothing options make him a bit of a target at school. His brash temper allows him to hold his own though, which is exactly what endears him to an older teen skinhead gang who he meets on the way home from school. They take Shaun under their wing and for once he starts to feel accepted. But when a violent, bitter, racist ‘old friend’ returns from prison, the contented group starts to fracture as they are torn apart by opposing views about the importance of national pride. Shaun is allured by the respect of Combo, the dangerous gang leader in question, and joins his troop. But little does he realise what he is getting in to and how quickly his new friends can turn nasty.
Writer and director Shane Meadows has built a career on creating films about ‘real England’ - a concept that other directors, even British ones, often fail to capture. As a follow-up to his acclaimed last feature film, Dead Man’s Shoes, this movie is yet another step in the right direction for British heartland filmmaking. In This Is England, Meadows creates a wholly encompassing 80’s working class England that doesn’t just ring true so much as screams its authenticity through everything from fashion, to dialogue, to housing and decor details like the gang’s greasy cafe hangout. It’s so realistic in fact, that the period setting almost fades into the background - as merely the location for this remarkably honest story.
The film presents an entirely different look at skinhead culture and barely hits any of the beats you expect it to - giving even its most vicious and seemingly unredeemable characters an emotional complex that, if not warms you to them, at least acknowledges their humanity. There’s plenty of menace, but little actual violence - the UK 18 certificate is questionable (which Meadows did, and two borough councils overturned it). The mere knowledge that Shaun is slipping deeper into a world that he is not yet ready for provides tension enough. If you’re expecting something from this movie based on its reputation as a British gang drama then set your expectations aside, because This Is England holds true to a core set of values that are never sacrificed for the sake of making it a more marketable story.
Part of that ethos comes from Shane Meadows’ filmmaking style, while his script mixes wonderfully pitched comic moments (like Shaun’s trip to the shoe shop) with scenes that help define the conflict and turmoil of Combo’s presence in the group. One stand-out scene occurs as Combo tells a story right after returning from prison - the camera stays on the faces of those around him, we don’t even hear the full story; their faces tell us everything we need to know about this hate-filled man and their anguish at what his return means for their happy troupe. All of this is brought together by various songs from the day, along with acoustic reworkings of classic tracks like ‘Louis Louis’ and ‘Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want’ by The Smiths, which tone perfectly alongside the rather solemn piano pieces that serve as the film’s signature - hinting at the presence of darkness and always appearing at appropriate moments.
Holding the film together is a superb cast, not least the young boy who portrays Shaun, first-time actor Thomas Turgoose. He displays just the right amount of bullishness while never losing the character’s innocence which is so necessary to the plot. And even though he makes the movie, that’s not to discount the efforts of Stephen Graham who is both frightening and emotionally open as uber-nationalist Combo, or Joseph Gilgun who plays kind-hearted group leader Woody with humorous warmth. The rest of the cast (Andrew Shim, Vicky McClure, Rosamund Hanson, and Andrew Ellis, to name but a few) play with the slightly off-the-cuff improvisational dialogue style in their scenes together, while Jo Hartley has the thankless task of wearing an over the top 80’s hairstyle in order to portray Shaun’s mum.
Even if the final moments are a little explicitly symbolic for a film so rooted in real life values, Shaun’s final glance to camera is there to remind you that you can make up your own mind as to how you interpret those events. This Is England doesn’t shy away from its allusions to skinhead gangs as a family and manages it in a way that entirely contradicts many of the other ‘real life’ looks this particular subculture. It doesn’t deny the horrors - they are made present for all to see - but it makes the point that working class England wasn’t all racism and “kicking people’s ‘eds in”. Chances are you won’t see a finer British film this decade (either from, or about), so take the chance to revisit 1983 through the eyes of a young Shane Meadows. Tour guides don’t come much better than him.
Son of Rambow (2008) April 1, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Garth Jennings
Two children play innocently in the woods; one dressed as an army colonel, the other as a vigilante throwback, complete with cotton vest and brown cloth bandana: “I am the son of Rambo!”, he screams, in the clearest illustration of childhood playfulness captured so perfectly by Garth Jennings’ heartfelt coming of age tale. Of course, while the carefree nature of this scene shows the film’s core focus, for the characters, it stands only as a front to the problems both boys face in their young lives.
Brash problem-child Lee Carter is a wayward schoolboy who, in the absence of his parents, lives only with his older brother and dreams of being a young filmmaker - his colonel costume is all part of the film he is currently shooting for a BBC TV Screentest competition. Quiet Will, on the other hand, is a reserved child who keeps his dreams quiet by doodling in his bible and on toilet walls. He is somewhat trapped by a religious fraction called the Plymouth Brethren, to which his family belongs and who don’t allow him to even watch films, never mind star in one. But Will’s imaginative mind is too strong, so star in a film he does, after a chance meeting with Carter brings the two together in an unlikely friendship. Along the way they learn about the trails and tribulations of trust, and deal with all the jealousy and heartbreak of growing up.
Like Shane Meadows’ This Is England, here is a British movie that’s not afraid to be British - and we certainly need more of those. Also like that film, its setting around the time of First Blood’s theatrical release means the film harkens back to a period in the 80’s lost by the selective memory of time, but still retains a warm sense of nostalgia through clothes, music and film. I think that the scene which really pushes these things to the fore is a little overdone - a menagerie of the 1980’s represented all in one place in a way that is a little too knowing - but the general locations and the VHS simplicity of the whole film do more for the period setting than a million smelly rubbers or rub-on tattoos.
By genre, this is a comedy, and there are laughs in there if you choose to find them. The poster declarations that this is “the funniest British movie since Hot Fuzz” may not be leading audiences in quite the right direction, however. Son of Rambow does not have the comic sensibility of the Pegg/Frost/Wright films, nor does it want to, happily letting its story play out with the odd joke here and there for good measure. It doesn’t necessarily pander to your comic side, but lets you discover the humour if you want to. For some, this will be to the detriment of the movie as a whole - not consistently funny enough, may be the criticism - but for others, it lends the film a sense of honesty and realism: not everyone’s life is a laugh riot, but the situations shown here display enough absurdity to invoke mirth.
Any film that deals with a childhood story lives or dies by the performances of its young actors, but luckily for Jennings he has managed to uncover two strong new talents. Bill Milner, playing Will, is effectively innocent and charming as the centre of the film’s depiction of an unbounded imagination, but it is Will Poulter as Carter who really impresses. His cocksure attitude and sarcastic delivery are spot on and he gives the most convincing performance in the movie, never feeling artificial as can be the case with some child actors. Meanwhile we get Jessica Stevenson playing Will’s mother and a host of other British talent appear to play school teachers and the like, though the relatively small cast keeps most parts outside of the leads to a minimum.
You could argue that Jennings has channelled the spirit of Michel Gondry’s Be Kind Rewind [review] in the homemade filmmaking ethic that runs through this movie, although in truth he shot Son of Rambow back in summer 2006. Legal issues have apparently held up the film’s release (that extra ‘w’ in the title is no mistake), including the rights to use much-needed actual footage from First Blood. As writer / director though, he also puts together a good script, with a firm sense of its story and characters who appeal even with limited screen time - take note of how the exchange partner of Didier slowly copies his style over the course of the film. That’s not to take away from his direction though, which strays far from the TV-like cinematography sometimes present in British movies, and makes for a thoroughly cinematic visual treat. The mood-lit scene in which Will is lead into a church to view an unusual audition shows just how capable a director he is.
The film has some failings though. Will’s stylistic hand-drawn dreams were a differentiating touch, but they appear too few and far between to really have an impact and so just look a little out of place. While the story works its way up to a fantastic emotional breakdown but then ends all too quickly. Further still, it would be easy to question the too-cool-for-school character that is Didier (played by Jules Sitruk), but at least his seemingly extraneous story works its way nicely into the main plot and even helps to burden the growing relationship between Carter and Will in a way that leads to the film’s most engaging moment. It is their friendship (or, at times, anti-friendship) which carries most of the movie after all, alongside the rather cumbersome issue of Will escaping from the claustrophobia of his uptight religion.
Son of Rambo is film that has, at its heart, very genuine values, and that’s an increasingly hard thing to find in our popcorn-generating multiplexes. Many British movies are often trying so hard to emulate their American counterparts that they loose sight of the unique benefits of making a film in this country. Britain can do this kind of childhood innocence and fantasy, and it’s a similar feeling to that which Danny Boyle tapped into when he made Millions, or that everyone engaged with when Billy Elliot become such a smash hit. Director Garth Jennings has done the wide-appeal British movie thing (his big-screen adaptation of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy came out in 2005), so his judgement is better than most when it comes to choosing a more personal story to shoot in the English countryside. Where he triumphs is by wearing his heart on his sleeve, without falling into the realms of being twee or precious about the child characters he creates. And even with a slight naivety about how much the religious angle adds, you can’t deny that there’s an expertly crafted youthful charm to this film which makes you want to throw on a cloth bandana and spend a carefree summer afternoon in the woods.
Son of Rambow is on UK general release from April 4th.