bookgazing (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bookgazing) wrote2011-11-30 04:36 pm
bookgazing) wrote2011-11-30 04:36 pm
Entry tags:
Movies Without Vampire Babies
Oh here’s the film post that I promised, what...two weeks ago?
To atone for the fact that even more of my money is going to the sparklepire empire in 2011, I have been trying to watch more smart people films over the past few months. Ok, fine, I did go and see ‘Arthur Christmas’ (rocking, get yourself to a cinema screen if the compulsory holiday cheer is already wearing you out) as well, but mostly it’s been classily shot film, marketed to my actual age range.
‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’
Warning: I have no critical thoughts about this film, it is all squee. I saw this film twice at the cinema. I know some people think it is kind of odd to see films multiple times on the big screen after you get out of your teens, but I still like to do it now and then and I will now use the way I feel about ‘TTSS’ to justify my spendthrift policy.
I avoided reading John Le Carre’s novel before seeing the film, Unsurprisingly I had a really hard time following the plot the first time. I am officially bad at plots and maybe I should have prepared by reading John Le Carre’s novel, so that I wasn’t constantly making the confused face. The reason I didn’t read the novel was because I wanted to be surprised. My reaction the first time: ‘This is ok. Who is Smiley? Hmm Cumberbatch’s hair, yay or nay?...’
....
‘HOLY... WTF, Mark Strong just killed an OWL? He killed an owl, with a meter ruler, in front of kids! I assume there is some kind of big spy reason for this...’ (there wasn’t) ‘What is this? HE KILLED AN OWL!’
I can’t explain, but once Strong killed that owl, for randoms, I was strangely committed. It was an iconic film moment.
The second time I saw it I could see how all the seemingly disembodied plot parts tied together. My brain wasn’t busy nagging me about the plot, about where everyone’s storyline was going so instead I was free to enjoy and analyse the character interactions, the performances and the shooting. My reaction the second time: ‘Must. Have. Dvd.’.
Highlights:
The stand out scene for me is George Smiley’s (Gary Oldman’s) monologue. He describes having met the Soviet spymaster Karla, before Karla reached a position of power and trying to turn him to work for the British Secret Service. His protégé Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) watches on as Smiley plays the encounter to an empty chair, as if he is right back in the moment. It’s stunning, stunning cinema, as Smiley becomes absorbed into the retelling, replaying gestures and replicating the inflection of voice he used at the time, as if he is responding to a person.
The flashbacks to a seminal Circus Christmas party, but especially the flashback of Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) smiling at Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), add a personal element to the film, while still advancing the viewer’s understanding of the investigation Smiley (Gary Oldman) is under taking. Marre tells me that Jim and Bill are in a romantic relationship in the book, to which I say eeeep and yay! Although the relationship is genorously hinted at in the film, I do wish it had been a little more explicitly stated.
Every time Jim Prideaux is on screen! OMG Mark Strong, you are delicious, I had forgotten how nice it is when you’re a good guy. I found the switches between his time working at the school and Smiley’s investigation really confusing the first time round, but on the second watch I could see how his timeline worked.
How can I not mention Tom Hardy, as Ricki Tarr. The part where he has to talk to Smiley about Irina, the girl he’s loved and lost to Russian spies, was soooo good. The thing is, he’s very actory in that scene, you can see him being the character, getting into it and fitting gestures in, while Oldman is playing Smiley extremely naturally, really pulled back. So, comparing the two, Oldman comes off more accomplished and you can sort of see where Hardy has to go in his career yet to become a true great, but I am a Tom Hardy fangirl and I imagine he will get there.
The beginning of the film where barely anyone speaks is awesome! It takes about ten minutes before Smiley utters one word, which builds up his character so easily (self-contained, quite, watchful, solid, careful in his reactions, a bit of a fixer type).
The soundtrack is cool. There are some off the wall, bouncy tracks, some classical. It’s a really clever mix that fits with the period of the film.
Cumberbatch as Guillam, is lovely even though he gets very little screen time really. God the scene where he has to send his boyfriend out of his life without telling him why is so quick and pulled back on emotion. He comes home, puts on his ‘something to tell you face’, cut to his partner leaving with a suitcase, saying ‘If there’s someone else, you can tell me you’. He leaves and Guillam just breaks down. That’s one of the really nice touches in this film, which is so controlled – there are moments of brutally unrestrained emotion. Ah which I guess leads on to the ending, where Prideaux precision shoots Haydon just under his eye, so controlled but soooooo emotional that it hurt my heart.
‘Good Night and Good Luck’
Did this really deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Not convinced at all.
‘Good Night and Good Luck’ tells the story of a CBS journalist Edward R Munrow, acclaimed for his socio-political reports on hard, topical issues. As General McCarthy’s hunt for communist becomes more unrestrained he decides to use his news show to stand against this injustice. This is undoubtedly a worthwhile subject for reinvestigation, as it doesn’t get quite the wide media coverage that other historical subjects receive. I’m not sure, however, that McCarthy’s trials are quite so obscure that the film needs introductory text to provide context for the viewer. And while I understand that placing grey text over the introductory scenes is meant to imitate old black and white historical films which used this technique, it feels rather clunky when used here. I’m a little sensitive about the use of introductory and closing text in films though (I think it could stand to be used more sparingly in general) so don’t mind me.
The film boasts a beautiful cast, who fit really well into a black and white film. Maybe this is just me, but I think some actors can have too modern a look for black and white films that are set in the past, even if they’re appropriately costumed. They look like Toby Maguire in Pleasantville, just slightly, deliberately off and out of step with reality. Film stars during the black and white era may have been gorgeous, but they were also usually wonderfully flawed compared to whats allowable for the stars of today (think Humprey Bogart’s deep frown lines, Katherine Hepburn’s rather tight face and lines). George Clooney, for instance, is left a little bit more mussed and natural than I’m used to seeing him and that allows him to slip into the black and white format without drawing attention to the fact that he is a modern actor being filmed in an old style.
David Straitham, as Murrow, gives the stand out performance. His thin, world weary looks are made for a black and white revival and lend him the gravitas to look serious and talk about issues of justice. He’s also got a dry whip crack voice reminiscent of classic Hollywood heros like Spencer Tracey. Most importantly, his emotions are clear in his face, but his expression never looks over done, or deliberately actory. He gives a very restrained performance, as he tries to portray a professional man, but there are bubbles of emotion and flashes of expression that fill the viewer with understanding And I do like to watch a man like that smoke. George Clooney, light that man’s cigarette again!
Ray Wise also gives a lovely performance as Don Hollenbeck, Morrow’s worshipful colleague, who will feel the full force of critical censure for his support of Morrow. The inclusion of his persecution by the media as a ‘pinko’ adds an interesting glimpse of the ruthless side to Morrow’s character, as viewers see him refuse to help Hollenbeck, because he needs all his strength to take down McCarthy.
If I were nit picking the choice of cast I’d say Robert Downey Junior looks a little too sharp, a little too self- conciously modelled on a fake, period ideal. He looks fucking gorgeous in black and white though and actually I think that shows up the main problem with this film.
The use of black and white cinematography is fantastic and sets ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ apart from other films about significant political moments in history, but I feel like the film relies on the fact that it’s easy for viewers to get caught up in the excitement of seeing a modern film shot in black and white. The storyline about Downey’s character, Joseph and Patrica Clarkson’s character, Shirly, hiding their marriage to dodge CBS rules about reporter relationships feels clunkily inserted and distracting, an odd, unnecessary addition to the film. It would probably have seemed even more of a bad fit if the theatrics of the black and white film hadn’t been there to woo the viewer, into being patient with the films flaws. There is some really dull dialogue in this film and I felt like some scenes, especially the stand off between Morrow and his boss where he gains the chief’s support, would have appeared obviously clichéd if they’d been shot in colour.
There’s also possibly a little too much reliance on actual footage from the decade. It’s an interesting addition to see small bits of footage from the trials. Archive footage is beguiling, like looking right back into history, but too much footage of McCarthy’s real life rebuttal to Morrow is played i one go. The point that McCarthy’s words damn him more than any political spin by modern film makers ever could is well made, but belaboured by the length of the clip.
At this point I’d like to take a moment to remind you of Feminist Frequency’s ‘Women’s Stories, Movies and the Oscars’ video, which takes a hard look at the low representation of women in films. It’s relevant because while both these films are great they are quite obviously lacking serious involvement from the ladies. ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ has five named female characters: three have speaking roles, two get reasonable parts (Kathy Burke as Connie Sachs andSvetlana Khodchenkova as Irina ). One of them is beaten up and later shot. One is set up as a kind of depressing joke about older single women. ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ has one named female character, who gets sidelined in that strange marriage storyline I described above.
‘TTSS’ only has Le Carre’s material to work with and I hear his female characters are sometimes problematic. ‘Good Evening and Good Luck’ could have found ways to include more significant female characters, even if the time period it’s set in imposes some restrictions. I suppose that makes ‘TTSS’ seem rather less culpable. Still, it’s tough to explain away explain the desicions that the creators of ‘TTSS’ took when they shot any scenes involving Smiley’s wife Anne? Her face is never shown, she never speaks and there is one really creepy part where she’s shot from behind, being groped by an as yet unknown stranger. The camera pans to his hands on her ass. Um… The less significant female characters are all either objectified (Belinda the Blonde), or again shown as younger, prettier versions of the desperate Sachs.
Remember when I said I felt like I was excited to see a lot of media about male relationships, but sad that these stories always seemed to push women into the corners. ‘TTSS’ is the film that sparked that post and ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ confirmed that I really needed to write that post. It really, really doesn’t have to be this way film industry.
‘Winter’s Bone’
This is another film that makes use of a muted colour palette to act in sympathy with the tone of the film. ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ wanted to create a feeling of tense seriousness, through the use of black and white film. ‘Winter’s Bone’ is filmed in colour, but it feels like sepia creeps into every scene, creating a close, dull, sometimes hopeless landscape, which reflects the lives the people the viewer meets in the film. The characters are always wrapped in plaid, or woollens and live in basic, rough made settlements. The landscape seems perpetually over cast and a lot of the high drama scenes take place in the dark. It’s a film of foreboding and high tension, despite the occassional moments of banjo music and singing.
Ree, the main character, has to navigate a violently unpredictable set of characters alone, in order to find her father (presumably dead) and prove that he didn’t skip bail, or the sherriff will take their house. What gives the film such a serious edge is that Ree must keep going no matter what happens if she wants to keep her home, as well as her brother and sister, despite the fact that no one in her community will help her.
If you think there are currently too many unbelievably strong female characters around (I mean JAMES BOND, but whatever), but you do want female characters who work through their problems (or you just like films where women are the focus) then I think you’ll love watching Ree. She is a strong person. She can shoot and wants to join the army, she’s brave, she brazens out trouble and she cares for others as well as she can. However, she’s brave because she has to be. She stands up to bounty hunters and her violent extended family, because there’s no other way. Everything she does is borne out of necessity. That doesn’t take away from what she does, although her determination appears pure reckless stubborness in some early scenes, because it becomes obvious that continuing on in the face of violence and threats is the only alternative to the route her mother appears to have taken (dropping out of the world all together). The fact that she chooses to continue on at all, instead of sitting down, or running away like her father might have done is courageous, but so simple that the bravery of her actions might easily be missed if the world she has to face up to weren’t so obviously disturbed (the ending). It kind of makes you want to sit down and re-evaluate just how our society characterises bravery.
This is one of the best films that I’ve seen this year and both Asking the Wrong Questions and bookshop explain why (although I was a little sadder about the ending than Abigail Nussbaum). And oh look lots and lots of women in this one. See it NOW (please).
‘Jane Eyre’
I won’t say too much about this one, because I might co-review it with someone in the future. I saw this twice in the cinema as well and again had two pretty different reactions. I had major problems with the balance between Rochester and Jane the first time I saw it, but I and my group of friends were trying to eat our tea in the screen due to the time of the showing, so I wasn’t really paying full attention to the first twenty minutes.
Watching the second time I concentrated on the opening scenes and saw it much more as Jane’s film, than Rochester’s (the clue is in the title, but this is as it should be). It’s always difficult going into a film with set ideas about the interpretation of the text, because although I may favour one flavour of critical approach there are still many more that exist. I would like to see a ‘Jane Eyre’ adaptation that faithfully reproduces all the proto-feminist elements of the book and I did feel like the ‘Reader, I married him’ equivalent in this film was fudged, which is always a bit of a let down. At the same time, much of the rest of Jane’s behaviour in the book was reproduced in a way which got across her self-reliance and her horror at dependency really well. The build up to the wedding was not quite right in that respect, but otherwise well done.
‘Capote’
It’s interesting to watch this film after reading litlove’s posts http://litlove.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/on-truman-capote/ ‘On Truman Capote’ and ‘In Cold Blood’. After I read the first post I thought Capote did not sound like the nicest of men and this film certainly recreates his character as a rather vain, self-obsessed, neurotic and often heartless man. Capote woos Perry Smith’s story out of him, by deliberately misleading Smith into thinking that he is advocating for the release of the two men who killed the Clutter family. He conceals the title of his book, because it presents just the opposite view and lies to Smith when he finds out about a reading where the title is revealed. When Smith and Dick Hickock are given repeated stays of execution, it delays Smith’s revelation of how the story ends and stalls Capote’s book. So, he wishes for them to be executed, apparently totally disconnected from the fact that he is wishing for the destruction of two people. It is hard not to feel that the mass murdering Smith comes across as more likeable in this film than Capote does, when perhaps both characters should have been balanced out a little more to make them each equally hard to sympathise with. It was challenging (especially because Seymour Hoffman’s Capote won’t speak UP) to watch a film focused on a self-obsessed character like Capote, but interesting as the viewer is rarely asked to empathise with him.
Of course Smith’s final account of what happened when he and Hickock burgled the Clutter family home, cuts any sympathy for him short, as Smith explains that he killed the first member of the family on some kind of a whim. Yet, Capote’s refusal to answer Smith’s telegrams and his near refusal to see the two before they die seems to restore some sympathy to his character. It is hard for the viewer to distance themselves entirely from Smith, especially as he is shown watching another man hang and Smith’s execution is shown in full. Having seen ‘Changeling’, which also features a long scene showing the state execution of a mass murderer, I suspect that the director of ‘Capote’ is commenting on the brutality of the death penalty for anyone and trying to advance a view that any character about to be executed should be granted a last wish. I don’t think there could be anything more likely to change public opinion about the death penalty in other countries than watching a drammatic recreation of a hanging.
That’s what films I’ve been watching. What have you seen recently and what should I watch next?
To atone for the fact that even more of my money is going to the sparklepire empire in 2011, I have been trying to watch more smart people films over the past few months. Ok, fine, I did go and see ‘Arthur Christmas’ (rocking, get yourself to a cinema screen if the compulsory holiday cheer is already wearing you out) as well, but mostly it’s been classily shot film, marketed to my actual age range.
‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’
Warning: I have no critical thoughts about this film, it is all squee. I saw this film twice at the cinema. I know some people think it is kind of odd to see films multiple times on the big screen after you get out of your teens, but I still like to do it now and then and I will now use the way I feel about ‘TTSS’ to justify my spendthrift policy.
I avoided reading John Le Carre’s novel before seeing the film, Unsurprisingly I had a really hard time following the plot the first time. I am officially bad at plots and maybe I should have prepared by reading John Le Carre’s novel, so that I wasn’t constantly making the confused face. The reason I didn’t read the novel was because I wanted to be surprised. My reaction the first time: ‘This is ok. Who is Smiley? Hmm Cumberbatch’s hair, yay or nay?...’
....
‘HOLY... WTF, Mark Strong just killed an OWL? He killed an owl, with a meter ruler, in front of kids! I assume there is some kind of big spy reason for this...’ (there wasn’t) ‘What is this? HE KILLED AN OWL!’
I can’t explain, but once Strong killed that owl, for randoms, I was strangely committed. It was an iconic film moment.
The second time I saw it I could see how all the seemingly disembodied plot parts tied together. My brain wasn’t busy nagging me about the plot, about where everyone’s storyline was going so instead I was free to enjoy and analyse the character interactions, the performances and the shooting. My reaction the second time: ‘Must. Have. Dvd.’.
Highlights:
The stand out scene for me is George Smiley’s (Gary Oldman’s) monologue. He describes having met the Soviet spymaster Karla, before Karla reached a position of power and trying to turn him to work for the British Secret Service. His protégé Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) watches on as Smiley plays the encounter to an empty chair, as if he is right back in the moment. It’s stunning, stunning cinema, as Smiley becomes absorbed into the retelling, replaying gestures and replicating the inflection of voice he used at the time, as if he is responding to a person.
The flashbacks to a seminal Circus Christmas party, but especially the flashback of Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) smiling at Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), add a personal element to the film, while still advancing the viewer’s understanding of the investigation Smiley (Gary Oldman) is under taking. Marre tells me that Jim and Bill are in a romantic relationship in the book, to which I say eeeep and yay! Although the relationship is genorously hinted at in the film, I do wish it had been a little more explicitly stated.
Every time Jim Prideaux is on screen! OMG Mark Strong, you are delicious, I had forgotten how nice it is when you’re a good guy. I found the switches between his time working at the school and Smiley’s investigation really confusing the first time round, but on the second watch I could see how his timeline worked.
How can I not mention Tom Hardy, as Ricki Tarr. The part where he has to talk to Smiley about Irina, the girl he’s loved and lost to Russian spies, was soooo good. The thing is, he’s very actory in that scene, you can see him being the character, getting into it and fitting gestures in, while Oldman is playing Smiley extremely naturally, really pulled back. So, comparing the two, Oldman comes off more accomplished and you can sort of see where Hardy has to go in his career yet to become a true great, but I am a Tom Hardy fangirl and I imagine he will get there.
The beginning of the film where barely anyone speaks is awesome! It takes about ten minutes before Smiley utters one word, which builds up his character so easily (self-contained, quite, watchful, solid, careful in his reactions, a bit of a fixer type).
The soundtrack is cool. There are some off the wall, bouncy tracks, some classical. It’s a really clever mix that fits with the period of the film.
Cumberbatch as Guillam, is lovely even though he gets very little screen time really. God the scene where he has to send his boyfriend out of his life without telling him why is so quick and pulled back on emotion. He comes home, puts on his ‘something to tell you face’, cut to his partner leaving with a suitcase, saying ‘If there’s someone else, you can tell me you’. He leaves and Guillam just breaks down. That’s one of the really nice touches in this film, which is so controlled – there are moments of brutally unrestrained emotion. Ah which I guess leads on to the ending, where Prideaux precision shoots Haydon just under his eye, so controlled but soooooo emotional that it hurt my heart.
‘Good Night and Good Luck’
Did this really deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Not convinced at all.
‘Good Night and Good Luck’ tells the story of a CBS journalist Edward R Munrow, acclaimed for his socio-political reports on hard, topical issues. As General McCarthy’s hunt for communist becomes more unrestrained he decides to use his news show to stand against this injustice. This is undoubtedly a worthwhile subject for reinvestigation, as it doesn’t get quite the wide media coverage that other historical subjects receive. I’m not sure, however, that McCarthy’s trials are quite so obscure that the film needs introductory text to provide context for the viewer. And while I understand that placing grey text over the introductory scenes is meant to imitate old black and white historical films which used this technique, it feels rather clunky when used here. I’m a little sensitive about the use of introductory and closing text in films though (I think it could stand to be used more sparingly in general) so don’t mind me.
The film boasts a beautiful cast, who fit really well into a black and white film. Maybe this is just me, but I think some actors can have too modern a look for black and white films that are set in the past, even if they’re appropriately costumed. They look like Toby Maguire in Pleasantville, just slightly, deliberately off and out of step with reality. Film stars during the black and white era may have been gorgeous, but they were also usually wonderfully flawed compared to whats allowable for the stars of today (think Humprey Bogart’s deep frown lines, Katherine Hepburn’s rather tight face and lines). George Clooney, for instance, is left a little bit more mussed and natural than I’m used to seeing him and that allows him to slip into the black and white format without drawing attention to the fact that he is a modern actor being filmed in an old style.
David Straitham, as Murrow, gives the stand out performance. His thin, world weary looks are made for a black and white revival and lend him the gravitas to look serious and talk about issues of justice. He’s also got a dry whip crack voice reminiscent of classic Hollywood heros like Spencer Tracey. Most importantly, his emotions are clear in his face, but his expression never looks over done, or deliberately actory. He gives a very restrained performance, as he tries to portray a professional man, but there are bubbles of emotion and flashes of expression that fill the viewer with understanding And I do like to watch a man like that smoke. George Clooney, light that man’s cigarette again!
Ray Wise also gives a lovely performance as Don Hollenbeck, Morrow’s worshipful colleague, who will feel the full force of critical censure for his support of Morrow. The inclusion of his persecution by the media as a ‘pinko’ adds an interesting glimpse of the ruthless side to Morrow’s character, as viewers see him refuse to help Hollenbeck, because he needs all his strength to take down McCarthy.
If I were nit picking the choice of cast I’d say Robert Downey Junior looks a little too sharp, a little too self- conciously modelled on a fake, period ideal. He looks fucking gorgeous in black and white though and actually I think that shows up the main problem with this film.
The use of black and white cinematography is fantastic and sets ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ apart from other films about significant political moments in history, but I feel like the film relies on the fact that it’s easy for viewers to get caught up in the excitement of seeing a modern film shot in black and white. The storyline about Downey’s character, Joseph and Patrica Clarkson’s character, Shirly, hiding their marriage to dodge CBS rules about reporter relationships feels clunkily inserted and distracting, an odd, unnecessary addition to the film. It would probably have seemed even more of a bad fit if the theatrics of the black and white film hadn’t been there to woo the viewer, into being patient with the films flaws. There is some really dull dialogue in this film and I felt like some scenes, especially the stand off between Morrow and his boss where he gains the chief’s support, would have appeared obviously clichéd if they’d been shot in colour.
There’s also possibly a little too much reliance on actual footage from the decade. It’s an interesting addition to see small bits of footage from the trials. Archive footage is beguiling, like looking right back into history, but too much footage of McCarthy’s real life rebuttal to Morrow is played i one go. The point that McCarthy’s words damn him more than any political spin by modern film makers ever could is well made, but belaboured by the length of the clip.
At this point I’d like to take a moment to remind you of Feminist Frequency’s ‘Women’s Stories, Movies and the Oscars’ video, which takes a hard look at the low representation of women in films. It’s relevant because while both these films are great they are quite obviously lacking serious involvement from the ladies. ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ has five named female characters: three have speaking roles, two get reasonable parts (Kathy Burke as Connie Sachs andSvetlana Khodchenkova as Irina ). One of them is beaten up and later shot. One is set up as a kind of depressing joke about older single women. ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ has one named female character, who gets sidelined in that strange marriage storyline I described above.
‘TTSS’ only has Le Carre’s material to work with and I hear his female characters are sometimes problematic. ‘Good Evening and Good Luck’ could have found ways to include more significant female characters, even if the time period it’s set in imposes some restrictions. I suppose that makes ‘TTSS’ seem rather less culpable. Still, it’s tough to explain away explain the desicions that the creators of ‘TTSS’ took when they shot any scenes involving Smiley’s wife Anne? Her face is never shown, she never speaks and there is one really creepy part where she’s shot from behind, being groped by an as yet unknown stranger. The camera pans to his hands on her ass. Um… The less significant female characters are all either objectified (Belinda the Blonde), or again shown as younger, prettier versions of the desperate Sachs.
Remember when I said I felt like I was excited to see a lot of media about male relationships, but sad that these stories always seemed to push women into the corners. ‘TTSS’ is the film that sparked that post and ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ confirmed that I really needed to write that post. It really, really doesn’t have to be this way film industry.
‘Winter’s Bone’
This is another film that makes use of a muted colour palette to act in sympathy with the tone of the film. ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ wanted to create a feeling of tense seriousness, through the use of black and white film. ‘Winter’s Bone’ is filmed in colour, but it feels like sepia creeps into every scene, creating a close, dull, sometimes hopeless landscape, which reflects the lives the people the viewer meets in the film. The characters are always wrapped in plaid, or woollens and live in basic, rough made settlements. The landscape seems perpetually over cast and a lot of the high drama scenes take place in the dark. It’s a film of foreboding and high tension, despite the occassional moments of banjo music and singing.
Ree, the main character, has to navigate a violently unpredictable set of characters alone, in order to find her father (presumably dead) and prove that he didn’t skip bail, or the sherriff will take their house. What gives the film such a serious edge is that Ree must keep going no matter what happens if she wants to keep her home, as well as her brother and sister, despite the fact that no one in her community will help her.
If you think there are currently too many unbelievably strong female characters around (I mean JAMES BOND, but whatever), but you do want female characters who work through their problems (or you just like films where women are the focus) then I think you’ll love watching Ree. She is a strong person. She can shoot and wants to join the army, she’s brave, she brazens out trouble and she cares for others as well as she can. However, she’s brave because she has to be. She stands up to bounty hunters and her violent extended family, because there’s no other way. Everything she does is borne out of necessity. That doesn’t take away from what she does, although her determination appears pure reckless stubborness in some early scenes, because it becomes obvious that continuing on in the face of violence and threats is the only alternative to the route her mother appears to have taken (dropping out of the world all together). The fact that she chooses to continue on at all, instead of sitting down, or running away like her father might have done is courageous, but so simple that the bravery of her actions might easily be missed if the world she has to face up to weren’t so obviously disturbed (the ending). It kind of makes you want to sit down and re-evaluate just how our society characterises bravery.
This is one of the best films that I’ve seen this year and both Asking the Wrong Questions and bookshop explain why (although I was a little sadder about the ending than Abigail Nussbaum). And oh look lots and lots of women in this one. See it NOW (please).
‘Jane Eyre’
I won’t say too much about this one, because I might co-review it with someone in the future. I saw this twice in the cinema as well and again had two pretty different reactions. I had major problems with the balance between Rochester and Jane the first time I saw it, but I and my group of friends were trying to eat our tea in the screen due to the time of the showing, so I wasn’t really paying full attention to the first twenty minutes.
Watching the second time I concentrated on the opening scenes and saw it much more as Jane’s film, than Rochester’s (the clue is in the title, but this is as it should be). It’s always difficult going into a film with set ideas about the interpretation of the text, because although I may favour one flavour of critical approach there are still many more that exist. I would like to see a ‘Jane Eyre’ adaptation that faithfully reproduces all the proto-feminist elements of the book and I did feel like the ‘Reader, I married him’ equivalent in this film was fudged, which is always a bit of a let down. At the same time, much of the rest of Jane’s behaviour in the book was reproduced in a way which got across her self-reliance and her horror at dependency really well. The build up to the wedding was not quite right in that respect, but otherwise well done.
‘Capote’
It’s interesting to watch this film after reading litlove’s posts http://litlove.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/on-truman-capote/ ‘On Truman Capote’ and ‘In Cold Blood’. After I read the first post I thought Capote did not sound like the nicest of men and this film certainly recreates his character as a rather vain, self-obsessed, neurotic and often heartless man. Capote woos Perry Smith’s story out of him, by deliberately misleading Smith into thinking that he is advocating for the release of the two men who killed the Clutter family. He conceals the title of his book, because it presents just the opposite view and lies to Smith when he finds out about a reading where the title is revealed. When Smith and Dick Hickock are given repeated stays of execution, it delays Smith’s revelation of how the story ends and stalls Capote’s book. So, he wishes for them to be executed, apparently totally disconnected from the fact that he is wishing for the destruction of two people. It is hard not to feel that the mass murdering Smith comes across as more likeable in this film than Capote does, when perhaps both characters should have been balanced out a little more to make them each equally hard to sympathise with. It was challenging (especially because Seymour Hoffman’s Capote won’t speak UP) to watch a film focused on a self-obsessed character like Capote, but interesting as the viewer is rarely asked to empathise with him.
Of course Smith’s final account of what happened when he and Hickock burgled the Clutter family home, cuts any sympathy for him short, as Smith explains that he killed the first member of the family on some kind of a whim. Yet, Capote’s refusal to answer Smith’s telegrams and his near refusal to see the two before they die seems to restore some sympathy to his character. It is hard for the viewer to distance themselves entirely from Smith, especially as he is shown watching another man hang and Smith’s execution is shown in full. Having seen ‘Changeling’, which also features a long scene showing the state execution of a mass murderer, I suspect that the director of ‘Capote’ is commenting on the brutality of the death penalty for anyone and trying to advance a view that any character about to be executed should be granted a last wish. I don’t think there could be anything more likely to change public opinion about the death penalty in other countries than watching a drammatic recreation of a hanging.
That’s what films I’ve been watching. What have you seen recently and what should I watch next?