Nobody Knows Anything

Two cinema visits this week, marked with a *, and both of them were doozies. There may be some swearing at the expense of the noble film bookers of the cinema chains of the British Isles, who receive a firm telling-off for some There Will Be Blood related ineptitude.

Beowulf (2007) *

For the record, this was a screening of the film in 3D at the Imax in Birmingham. The majority of people reading this will never have read anything in Old English, never mind Beowulf, perhaps the most famous of ancient OE texts. Well, I have wrestled with Old English, but found the barrier of the language was getting in the way of any literary appreciation of the story, so I never took it any further than the first year of my three year English degree course. So that’s where Beowulf comes from, as filtered through the imaginations of writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, both perfect choices for the job as far as I’m concerned – I started reading The Sandman in single issues around the time of #15 and I have a lot of time for Avary, especially after The Rules of Attraction (2002). Made using the same elaborate motion capture process as The Polar Express (2004) and Monster House (2006), but now both more refined and more complicated (there are more dots on the actors in their blue suits, there are more mocap cameras, the space in which they can act is larger), the film looks incredible, more real than real, yet at the same time more fake than fake. The rationale for doing it this way is really quite simple: the story requires the characters to do things that real actors could not do, and to even attempt to get real actors close to what would be required in those scenes would be so expensive as to make the film unfilmable. Much better to fake it and know that you’re going to be not just fixing it but making the film in post production. There are also a ton of amusing 3D effects, more than a few of which are designed to dump a load of blood in your face, so thanks for that. And it has the best yet CGI dragon, better than the dragons in Reign of Fire (2002) – and they were pretty damn good dragons.

There Will Be Blood (2007) *

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2nd and 3rd films announced themselves with such authority after the low key start of his 1st that great things came to be expected of him, a situation he dealt with amusingly by engaging Adam Sandler to be in his 4th film, just to piss off film critics I expect. However, PTA’s problem was this: though lauded by critics, his films (with the possible exception of Boogie Nights (1997)) have not set the box office alight, and this, the 5th film, was as difficult to finance as all of the others have been. Thankfully, it was more than worth the effort. It more than reconfirms that Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the best actors on the planet and that his Robert De Niro in the 1970s attitude of taking gaps in between parts and waiting for the juicy stuff is absolutely the right one. I don’t have the words to describe how extraordinary his performance is, but I’m convinced there are a lot of actors out there who’ve watched this film who are a) realising that someone has raised the game for everybody else and b) filling in his name on their Oscar ballots. These days, the quality of film reviewing has declined so far that the word masterpiece is strewn about like so much confetti and attached to movies written by people who couldn’t even spell masterpiece without a spell checker. But that’s what this film is. A masterpiece. Go see it.

If you can find it that is, since the cunts who run cinema bookings in this country appear not to have booked enough prints of it to go around, when they’re perfectly content to book multiple copies of fucking shit like Rambo (2008) because it’s got that punch drunk old has been attached to it. Fuck you, cinema bookers, and the fucking horse you fucking rode in on. Ahem.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

Second viewings of films are funny things. It took me at least three screenings of The Matrix Reloaded (2003) before I realised that it was a good film after all, when I was able to have absorbed the plot and enough of the Architect’s dialogue to work out just what the film’s intentions were, or at least the intentions as they appeared to me. And once you know a film is good, you tend not to revise that opinion unless you see the film 20 years later and realise you were mistaken. That may happen with the two Matrix sequels, but at the moment I’m confident enough in their brilliance to assert that they can’t be released on Blu-Ray soon enough.

Now the first cinema screening of The Black Dahlia was unsatisfactory, and not because I was sat next to someone crunching popcorn or slurping a giant Coke or using their mobile. I’m a big James Ellroy fan, and have even briefly met the man twice. But there was an awful lot of plot in James Ellroy’s original and brilliant novel, and although screenwriter Josh Friedman did a man’s job of reducing the amount of plot for the film, there was still an awful lot of plot in Brian De Palma’s finished film to get past before you can start seeing whether or not the film works as a whole. Things that pop out, like Hilary Swank’s curious English accent, or the ages of the protagonists (some people thought Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson too young for their parts) tend to magnify in that situation.

So it is with some relief that I can report that these first screening impressions were mistaken. Once the plot complications have been sorted out in your head, the strengths of the performances and the camerawork and the production design and the costumes and the music and the direction start to come to the fore. Brian De Palma has made a decidedly old school film with a lot of longish takes and sweeping camerawork and not that much editing, as well as a couple of Untouchables (1987) style set pieces and some disconcerting switches in tone. The second screening of The Black Dahlia reveals that the film hangs together a lot better than it did first time around.

And that’s not always the case. The second screening can end with you asking yourself: so why did I buy this on DVD? It doesn’t work. Oh dear.

No posts for three weeks and no cinema visits either. As is traditional in these parts, I’ve taken a Christmas break from watching films and have instead been reading books and watching DVD extras instead.

Boogie Nights (1997)

Paul Thomas Anderson’s sophomore film still astonishes with its virtuosity. I’ve yet to track down Legs McNeil’s harsh book about the realities of porn production in America in the 70s, but even in the John Holmes bio on the 2nd disc of Wonderland, there are hints that a very much rose-tinted view of the era is being presented here. Until the 1980s arrive, of course, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket. The clips of John Holmes talking to camera and defending porn are as hilarious as Mark Wahlberg’s deft impersonation of them (of course, Wahlberg had access to this material, as did Anderson, which allows them to recreate the “blocking the sex scenes” incident almost verbatim).

Wonderland (2003)

John Holmes was the kind of gleaming narcissist that actors of a certain type find immensely attractive, and Val Kilmer was absolutely the right choice to portray Holmes in this account of the Wonderland murders in which he may or may not have had a significant role. Since the travails of the porn industry had messed with his charismatic, dissembling, compulsively lying psyche, Holmes had a fresh story to tell about them to anyone who would listen. The truth was sacrificed, and no one has served any prison time for the murders. Wonderland is a tough good watch, and is successful on an artistic level rather than a financial one. The most startling moment comes with the introduction of Eric Bogosian as Eddie Nash, where it seems he has been styled after Alfred Molina’s Rahad Jackson in Boogie Nights. Or is it the other way around? Since Rahad Jackson is the fictional counterpart of Eddie Nash. The Region 1 DVD also includes the sobering half hour LAPD crime scene walkthrough video shot in 1981 with the bodies still in place, which may be more reality than any casual fan of the kitsch of 70s porn may want to face.

For Your Consideration (2006)

The take on this film is that it wasn’t quite as great as previous efforts from the team, and a little too “inside” for mainstream tastes. I don’t know, though, a lot of it seemed awfully funny to me on a first viewing, and I was certainly noticing enough bits that looked like they’d be even funnier next time through, the sure sign of a comedy for the ages rather than a comedy for right now.