Some films, like Tarantino's Django and Hooper's Les Mis, do not really need an Oscar to increase peoples awareness of their existence as they have sufficient marketing funds. On the other hand, some films need that Oscar to give them a helping hand in getting the word out. Last year, the only way I heard about Asghar Farhadi's brilliant Iranian film, "A Separation" (2011) was due to its Oscar win. Foreign films (and by foreign, I mean films that are not directed, produced and written by America or Britain) always seem to be on a different emotional level compared to the standard Hollywood blockbuster- so this year I decided to focus some more attention on the Best Foreign language section of the Academy Awards.
Doing this has brought my attention to Max Manus's Norwegian film, "Kon-Tiki" (2012).The narrative tells a story that I was previously unfamiliar with: the 1947 expedition of the explorer Thor Heyerdahl from Peru to the Polynesian Islands across the Pacific Ocean. He did so in a mission to prove his scientific theory (that has since been proved incorrect) that South Americans travelled across the Pacific and settled on the Polynesian islands over 1,500 years ago. Heyerdahl and five other crew members built a raft out of natural resources, loaded it with basic essentials such as food and water, in the same way they believed the Southern Americans would of done those many years ago. In addition they brought modern technology like a radio, a film camera, a life boat and various other objects used to document the journey, items that undoubtedly never existed when the original travellers embarked on their travels. He named the raft the 'Kon-Tiki' after the Inca sun God, Viracocha-said to be the idol of the original settlers and whose face, painted on the rafts sail, looms over the new explorers as they take their deathly voyage across the Pacific.
The trailer for the film is immense (watch below) and the story is one that definitely needs to be told. But broken down- five men, one raft...could get a bit like 'Open water', where the viewer gets bored and seasick just from watching two people bob around the ocean for what seems like an eternity, before they eventually get eaten by sharks. Then I remembered, this film not only has a point, but was written by someone with actual intelligence with a real story that's second to none. The film manages to paint a true portrayal of the struggles and mysteries of sea life. It is a film of substance rather than trying to turn the voyage into a cheap 'scary' horror film.
Even so, the audience still fears for the explorers life every second. It is a tense viewing experience. From the opening sequence when the protagonist falls into frozen water, right until the end when the raft just doesn't quite dock onto the islands as smoothly as planned. Whilst the audience watches every shot of the film thinking how insane these people must of been, the characters themselves seem to lead a very bohemian lifestyle on this raft. They all grow manly beards, get fantastic tans, play tunes on a guitar, write novels on typewriters and take lots of artistic film shots of the raft sailing, of them catching different types of fish and smoking tobacco (lets say it is, just for the kids). After all that, eventually Heyerdahl manages to prove the cynics wrong, and demonstrates that it is possible to sail from South America to the Polynesian Islands on a hand made raft, even if the Southern Americans never made this actual voyage in the first place. In any case, Heyerdahl came out with only a couple of scratches and an amazing story to tell the grandchildren. The actual Kon-Tiki raft can now be found in a museum in Oslo, if you were wondering.
...and he is not dragging around a coffin this year.
*WARNING: THIS FILM IS VIOLENT. IT IS A MEAN, CRUDE, GUT WRENCHING, TOMATO KETCHUP SPILLING, FIST FIGHTING, ALL GUNS BLAZING, WESTERN. NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED.
I knew I would like this film. I mentioned it as one of the films I was most excited to watch in 2013, and discussed the origins of the original 'Django' here. Tarantino, for me, can really do no wrong. He essentially draws his influences from forgotten, lets face it, shit films of the 70s, predominantly from Italian cinema and passes them off as new masterpieces. He is an artist, with Django being one of his best yet most controversial pieces to date.
'Django Unchained' focuses on a subject that has become almost a taboo to discuss in England, Racism, more specifically racism against blacks. If anyone comes out with the N word, the response is usually 'oh no you can't say that it's racist!' Well Tarantino does say it, he lays the word on so thick and fast throughout the film that it almost becomes acceptable to use it, and if it makes one feel uncomfortable they will just have to evacuate the cinema. The film deals with the tricky issue of the slave trade from many different angles and in ways that people (black or white) may not want to face in present day but the film should definitely not be taken as a true historical portrayal of the trade.
If the viewer is concerned about the 'racism' in the film they must remember that Westerns have never been the most PC of films anyway; think of the original Django with Mexicans being exploited and treated like bait used in a game as they ran away from a shotgun or having their ears cut off and being made to eat them. So expect Tarantino's Django to be explicit. As I previously said, Tarantino uses different ways to exploit the slave trade- one way is through the use of comedy, where the viewer is forced to laugh at a scene which really is PC at all for example the scene with the KKK trying to fix their hoods. The other is fear. No one expresses the fear quite as well as Samuel L Jackson does in his character. He hit the nail on the head when he stated in a recent interview that predominantly "slavery was perpetuated through fear and intimidation"- Tarantino certainly uses 'fear and intimidation' to ensure that none of his characters are ever safe from getting their insides splatted across a wall or eaten by a vicious dog. Before going to see it I was discussing with a friend just how violent Tarantino would go- we referred to "Inglorious Bastards" and the carving on the Nazi swastika on the scalps- but Django does not even compare. Even I, myself found one scene particularly difficult to watch, as it seemed to be a never ending fist fight with sound effects and extreme close ups, making the scene so uncomfortable. Although it might of been distressing to watch, this scene does well in illustrating the exceptional cinematography used throughout the film.
A lot of critics are focusing on the film as a Blaxploitation film. I don't believe it is. It is first and foremost a sort of Western, with side elements of comedy and romance. I describe it as a sort of Western because it does not technically adhere to the most fundamental requirement of the Western genre. The cowboy always has to be a figure who walks alone. Having lost his one true love he may find women along the duration of the film but the closing shot is usually of him riding of into the distance solo- he cannot be tied down. Tarantino's Django is a free man, free slave as they say, but he is most certainly tied down. He gets his revenge, but he is married and rides of with his wife at the end of the film- so independent lone cowboy he is not. Thus the film is more of a crossover of various genres rather than just one.
With the film being one of Trantino's best box office films to date and two Golden globes under his belt, time will only tell whether Django will receive any of those Oscar's. The film is up for:
Best picture;
Best supporting actor, Christopher Waltz;
Best cinematography, Robert Richardson;
Best sound editing, Wylie Stateman;
and Best original screenplay, Tarantino.
Weinstein has already stated that his lack of publicity for Django may have lost Tarantino a Best director nomination, but regardless of this, Django is sure to pull at least one award. Best original screenplay for one and maybe best picture/ or best cinematography since Christopher Waltz already won Best supporting actor at the Golden Globes this year. Then again even if Tarantino doesn't win any more awards one thing is for sure, Django Unchained has definitely caught some attention.
New Year, new start as they say- and in my case: It's a new year so let's try and publish at least one new blog post this year. New Years resolution. And here it is:
The months of January and Feburary are always an exciting time for film buffs and buffettes- why? because of all the lovely, polished and always (always) well deserved multiple award statues that are going to be handed out to a small collection of the same actors and actresses for a tiny selection of films which have been released from October untill January.
Thanks to the Guardian,* I have been able to compile a list of the six popular films, which have been nominated for all (okay, most) of the categories running in all the award ceremonies:
1. "Django Unchained"
2. "Skyfall"
3. "Life of Pi"
4. "The Hobit: An unexpected journey"
5. "Lincoln"
6. "Les Miserables"
Now, two important questions: Is anyone really surprised about the selected nominees? NO: and er would anyone like to bet that if Baz Lurhman had released his upcoming masterpeice adaptation "The Great Gatsby" (2012) now instead of Summer 2013 that he would also be in for the running? It is as if, as soon as these films were released they were automatically propelled into award winning status.
The lack of surprise continues as the Oscar Nominees are being released this very second. See Telegraphs live feed update. Don't get me wrong- I am very excited for the release/ going to see all of the films mentioned/ going to be nominated, but it has to be said- the whole 2013 season is, so far, very predictable.
Tim Burtons latest directing project “Dark
Shadows” (2012) seems to have failed to win over viewers. This is due to two reasons: firstly, people seem to be getting tired of seeing Johnny Depp in Tim
Burton films and secondly, avid viewers of the television series from the 1970s that the film is based on, are disappointed in Burtons’ lighthearted take on
the supposedly dark tale. Nevertheless with a star studded cast and Burton
being in his cinematographic comfort zone surely the film can’t all be that
bad?
So here’s the basic plot: Johnny Depp plays
Baranabas Collins, the son of a wealthy family who move from England to America
to make their fortune. The Collins family set up a small fishing village called
Collinsport in Maine where they also build the family home, Collinwood.
Barnabas initiates a relationship with the enchanting maid Angelique (Eva
Green) who unfortunately turns out to be a witch. Baranabas falls in love with another woman, Josette.
Angelique, in a jealous rage, puts a curse on the Collins family that turns Baranabas
into a vampire, imprisons him in a coffin and forces him to live with losing
his true love, Josette, for all eternity. A century passes, it's 1972, the
Collins family has lost their power in Collinsport and Angelique is now running
the town.
There are some strange characters now residing
in Collinswood: Michelle Pfeiffer plays Elizabeth Collins Stoddard who is
having trouble maintaining her grip on the family, Chloë Mortez plays her
daughter Carolyn Stoddard, and Helena Boham Carter plays the resident
psychiatrist Dr. Julia Hoffman. There
are some other characters, but all in all the family is dysfunctional and
‘quirky’. Meanwhile some construction workers accidently stumble on Baranabas’ coffin and
free him. On his return to Collinwood, Barnabas is on a mission to return the
Collin’s family business to its former glory whilst trying to bring down
Angelique. Depp, Pfeiffer, Green and Boham-Carter do a fantastic job playing
their assigned characters, but I wouldn’t have expected anything different, and
Chloë Mortez does a questionable portrayal of a 1970s teenager who seems to be
constantly stoned without smoking anything. Yet it is clear why Burton choose these high
profile actors, as without them the film would have probably flopped completely.
The plot is weak, in no way ‘dark’, and falls
down some obvious pitfalls that have led the film to receive only two or three
stars on review sites. The narrative does, sort of, start off bleak and mysterious
like the television series; there’s tragedy, death, murder, black magic and the
viewer feels Baranabas’ pain as his world crumbles around him. However once the
story moves into 1972, the serious tone projected in the television series is
forgotten and the film becomes lighthearted with the viewer being subjected to
hearing script lines that are silly and moronic, written by John August and
Seth Grahame-Smith.
The change to the light hearted tone
could be due to Grahame-Smith not wanting “Dark Shadows” to compete with the
other ridiculous vampire film released this year, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire
Hunter”. Safe to say the witty lines, mainly used in the trailer, are spread
thinly over the course of the film. Another
pitfall is the use of the very obvious choice of 1970s tracks in the soundtrack mixed with a score composed by the Grammy Award winning, Danny Elfman, who took inspiration from
the original television score, and 1970s jukebox classics. The outcome is an
omnipresent cheesy mash-up that contradicts the dark vampire tale of blood
thirsty love and revenge. The songs chosen are songs that are too obvious and
even an appearance from Alice Cooper doesn’t seem to add any vibes to the film,
apart from begging the question: when will this film end?
Nevertheless, the main reason “Dark
Shadows” fails to make any impressions is because it is not memorable. Overall, it is a boring film and followers of Tim
Burton’s work will not see anything new. I myself, am usually a fan of Tim
Burton’s directing exploits but even for Burton standards “Dark Shadows”, I’m
sorry to say, fails to deliver. So, in the words spoken by Johnny Depp in the
film: “I’m terribly sorry, you cannot imagine how thirsty I am”, well, I’m
thirsty for Tim Burton to sink his teeth into something fresh that will
astonish me. However with the announcement of a production of “Beetlejuice 2” on
the cards, it seems Burton is going back to his roots
and proves that he is not ready to leave his comfort zone, just yet.
Julie Delpy’s quirky and incredibly French
alter ego, Marion, invites an audience to New York City to spend another two
hectic days with her and her wacky relatives in her new film “2 Days in New York” (2012). This film is the sequel to “2 Days in Paris” (2007) starring
Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg.Julie Delpy
not only stars in both films but also directed and wrote the scripts; and it is
safe to say that Delpy does not write your average rom-com. After experiencing
“2 Days in Paris” I knew that the two-day madness in New York I was going to
witness after pressing that play button, was going to be full of witty lines,
French banter and awkward real life scenarios.
Even if you haven’t seen the prequel, the
plot of “2 days in New York” is fairly easy to follow. The audience is invited
into Marion’s apartment in New York where she is now living with her son from
ex-boyfriend Jack, Lulu, her new boyfriend, Mingus (played by Chris Rock), and his
daughter from a previous marriage, Willow. Into this full house, Marion invites
her father and sister over from Paris to spend a few days together.
The screws begin to loosen as soon as
Marion’s father lands in New York and he gets detained for four hours after
trying to smuggle in thirty pounds of sausage. In addition, Marion’s sister
Rose, is now dating Marion’s ex-boyfriend Manu, and has brought him on this
holiday without thinking of the consequences. Marion describes Rose to Mingus
as an ‘ex-nympho,’ and Mingus is subjected to Rose’s charms as she struts
around the house naked within seconds of meeting him.Obviously with an unconventional family like
this, problems soon arise, and the tension between Marion and Mingus grows as
he becomes more frustrated with the frankness of Marion’s family. The film
contains: open conversations about sex, an art show about fading relationships,
Marion selling her soul and a few Thai massages to try and relax everyone.
Delpy is a great storyteller, mainly
because she focuses on two themes that the audience can relate to: love and family
relationships.In “2 Days in Paris” the
viewer meets her parents for the first time and Marion speaks about the success
of her two-year relationship with Jack but she has problems committing. Jack
describes Marion in Paris like a hamster, 'collecting men like nuts'.
In “2 days in New
York” the audience can see the development of Marion’s character, who is now
thirty-eight, and in a more mature relationship with Mingus, possibly inspired
by her parents’ many years of marriage. In New York the audience sees more of a
glimpse of the troubles of family life, as Marion is dealing with the death of
her mother.Moreover, anyone who has
grown up in an international family with different languages and cultures will relate to the perfect, although sometimes clichéd, representations that
Delpy has written in.
Delpy’s films work because they run at the
pace of life and awkward conversations take place over the most mundane tasks,
like making a cup of coffee or picking up breakfast. Julie Delpy proves that a film does not always
need to contain epic, action sequences with special effects or scary dragons as
she states, that sometimes, “life is way harder to handle than any dragon.” “2
Days in New York” definitely confirms this statement, and is just as action
packed with doses of explosive reality as any Hollywood action movie.
*note: I originally wrote this article for an online publication but as it has been taken down there I decided to post here, so apologies if you have already read it!
Being in the same position as thousands of
other graduates in this current job climate definitely takes its toll.
Especially being on the receiving end of not-so-constructive, bordering on
ridiculous, criticism such as: dressed too casual, dressed too smart, looked too
serious, and the personal favorite, ‘too ambitious.' Thus my self worth has taking
a brutal bashing over these past months. Thankfully, cinema offers an escape and most
of the films I raved about last month have hit the big screens. YES! However I haven't had the chance to see any of them yet (dammit).
One person that I hadn’t heard from recently
was Diablo Cody, the writer of the Oscar winning “Juno” in 2010. I thought; ‘she
writes films about young teen/ adolescent women who are having massive life
issues in quirky and funny ways- why not watch some of her stuff to lift me out of my slump. So I decided to watch Cody’s film “Young Adult” (2011), directed by Jason Reitman – and it really did make me feel so much better, lift my mood and make
me think: ‘thank god my life isn’t like Charlize Theron’s character.'
“Young Adult” (2011) is about Mavis Gary
(Charlize Theron), a woman in her late 30s and in the mist of a mid life crisis.
She is recently divorced and unable to make it as a famous writer. She is
currently a ghostwriter for a series of Young Adult fiction, a job which she has held for a couple of years. At the beginning, Mavis
appears to be a person who, although complains a lot, is living the life that
she has always wanted. She is living in the big city- in this case Minneapolis,
which compared to the little town Mavis comes from, is the big city; she has no
attachments like a 9-5 job, or a husband; and a beautiful modern apartment.
Being a ghostwriter for a series of Young Adult literature, Mavis is used to writing in a particular style that is marketed for ages between twelve and eighteen. This particular readership group can usually relate to the protagonist within YA (Young Adult) novels, who also tends to be within this age bracket. The genre focuses on a range of themes such as identity, sexuality, drug and substance abuse, bullying, and family troubles. Essentially they are coming of age stories, about youth rebellion and finding 'ones self', the transition from troubled teenager to affluent adult. Cody's “Young Adult” film embodies all those themes but the protagonist is not within the above age bracket, she doesn't go through any real transition at all, and there are definitely no life lessons learnt throughout the film.
Mavis doesn’t fully realize until
the end of the film that she might be unhappy and a bit mentally unstable. Her daily routine comprises of her waking
up, writing a couple of lines or staring at a blank page, playing the WII, and eating her way through a
nutritious array of ready meals. Her life is thrust back into gear as she
receives a picture of her ex-high school boyfriend, Buddy Slades, newborn baby,
and she decides to pack her bags and head back home to her old small town of
Mercurary, Minnesota, to try and win Buddy back, despite the fact that he has
just become a father and is happily married.
There are several clues that indicate that Mavis may not be emotionally stable- okay, okay so throughout the whole film the viewer is waiting for Mavis to have her mental breakdown. It’s a good breakdown- in the sense that it provides good entertainment value: its awkward, upsetting, yet funny and just plain embarrassing, which brings me back to my point- thank God my life is better than Charlize Therons character.
Marvis is stuck in the past, unable to see beyond the bounds of her high school years when she was in her prime. She cannot understand why her popularity is wearing thin. Her inability to move forward is highlighted in several ways: she constantly replays the same song that Buddy gave to her on a mix tape years before, ‘the concept’ by Teenage Fanclub, she listens in to teenagers giving advice about relationships, she wears hello kitty t-shirts, ignores all of the responsibilities an adult should have and finally whats the strongest clue that she is mentally instable? She persistently watches episodes of the Kardashians.
If the viewer is looking for a film with
some form of conclusion, a finale, a happy-ending then “Young Adult” (2011) is…not the film.
The whole film is stuck in a time zone and many/ almost all of the characters
don’t make any progress in their lives. As per usual Charlize Theron creates a great character that the viewer will love to hate. The film delivers funny witty lines written by Cody and in conclusion is watchable but probably not the most memorable film you will watch in your life.
*note: since writing this entry I'm officially out of the rat race to find a permanent job. So many people to thank! Thus my woes may officially be over...for now anyway.
