It’s unfortunate that the writing in The Runaways (2019) often times leans too heavily on pretention, because it’s stellar cast hits every beat to perfection.
Despite being written and directed by English filmmaker Richard Heap, The Runways reminds me cinematographically (and to a smaller extent, plot wise) a lot of American midwestern indies of the mid 2010s (Joe, Midnight Special). There is an ominous and meditative tone to The Runaways that suits the Yorkshire marshes well.
The cast of Mark Addy as Reith, the drunken but well-meaning father; uprising star Molly Windsor as disgruntled and moody Angie; and a gobsmacking stand out performance by Tara Fitzgerald as Maggie, the seemingly bipolar mother. The only performance I was not impressed by was Lee Boardman as the thief cum uncle, which I found often over acted and campy.
Overall though, I was impressed with the casting for this film, however there are moments when the writing, while usually consistent and has some sparks of genius, can veer into pretention. The plot starts off when Reith’s younger brother Blythe visits town after being released from prison. Reith dies that night from alcohol poisoning and Blythe wishes to steal something of his. The kids are left with no parent and Blythe threatened to send them into foster care.
With no other option the kids choose to trek across country to find their mother who left them when they were young. Before they do so they decide to give their father a water burial – this is where Ben, played by Rhys Connah gets his jumper caught on the ropes holding the body and falls to the bottom of the sea. When he comes back, he says, “he sings”. While it ties in with a motif where the children continue to see their dad throughout the story, it felt jarring here and unnecessary.
In more redeemable moments, there is a frustrated train post man that is being harassed by Ben who is incredibly relatable. “Thank you,” says Ben. “Yes. Thank you too.” Says the frustrated guard. Also there is a moment, I won’t spoil too much, where a donkey is squealing in a toilet and the person outside of the toilet is terribly confused.
I was also impressed by the writing of the character Maggie, I could gather her mental illness without being told explicitly, though there is one moment where she does do an act which I felt could have used more lead up.
Overall The Runaways was a mixed bag, but I
think the writer director has a lot of potential and is hitting on some
interested and moving themes. The cast was undeniably stellar making this film
hard to rate.
A Look at the Lasers of Star Wars: Your Guide from AT-ATs to X-wings. By Linton Lewis.
The galaxy far, far away has gotten a lot of mileage out of lasers and similar technologies over the years, and there’s been a lot of creativity put into making each device interesting, visually engaging, and distinct.
Let’s take a look at some of the key types used by your favorite Jedi, Sith, rebels and imperials.
Blasters
Blasters are powered by a substance called dedlanite and operated by way of plasma energy, the same energy utilized in lightsabers. With their variable power settings (from stun to kill) and their versatility by being able to be crafted into pistols, rifles, and more, blasters are one of the most utilized weapons in the Star Wars galaxy.
They aren’t perfect, though, since they are unable to stand up to magnetic seals, deflector shields, and lightsabers.
One specialized form of blaster most fans are familiar with is the bowcaster, or laser crossbow, the weapon of choice for Wookiees, specifically Chewbacca. This weapon is more powerful and accurate than traditional blasters, and due to its size is often difficult for humans to master.
Laser Cannons
Virtually all of the starships and vehicles with defensive capabilities seen in the Star Wars universe feature laser cannons, which are either fixed in place or mounted on a directional turret.
Examples of craft with lasers include:
X-wings, B-wings, and A-wings
The Millennium Falcon
Imperial Star Destroyers
The Ghost
AT-AT and AT-ST Walkers
TIE Fighters
These lasers are a distinct technology from the plasma tech found in blasters, and utilize various types of gases of different colors. Red gas is the cheaper option, while green gas is the costlier, high-quality option. Notably, the Empire, with its significant funds, uses green, while the “held together by duct tape” Rebellion utilizes red.
One type of laser cannon is the turbolaser, which is a turret found on large spacecraft like the Death Star and Death Star II.
Ion Cannons
Another major defensive weapon is the ion cannon which can fire ionized particles in a beam that results in the disruption of electronic systems on ships.
Examples of this type of tech include the rebel turrets seen during the Battle of Hoth and the cannons mounted to Y-wing starfighters.
The Death Star Superlaser
Powered by a hypermatter reactor and focused through eight kyber crystals – the same material utilized in the construction of lightsabers – the Death Star superlaser is a formidable challenge for the Rebel Alliance.
When the crystals are directed into a single beam, the superlaser is capable of destroying an entire planet, as it does with Alderaan, but can also be used to target a specific regional area, as it does on both Jedha and Scarif.
With Death Star II’s creation, some improvements were implemented. Firing time was increased and greater precision in targeting was achieved. This latter aspect allowed Death Star II to target small, individual starships, something that the original Death Star was unable to do.
According to Forbes, the cost of construction for the Death Star could approximate to 825 quadrillion dollars. Meanwhile, British energy supplier Ovo provided an estimate of 7.8 octillion dollars to run the space station for a single day.
Axial Superlaser
One of the most recent technological advancements seen in the Star Wars universe has been the introduction of the axial superlaser, a cannon outfitted to the Xyston-class Star Destroyers of the Final Order, as presented in The Rise of Skywalker.
These superlasers utilize miniaturized Death Star tech, allowing them to destroy a planet, although their smaller size requires a sustained laser burst rather than a single shot to accomplish this.
Superlaser Siege Cannon
Another offshoot of Death Star tech, the siege cannon fires a sustained burst of laser energy to obliterate a fortified target, acting as a sort of futuristic battering ram.
Its use is seen during The Battle of Crait featured in The Last Jedi as the First Order attempts to enter the Resistance stronghold.
Starkiller Base
Significantly larger and more powerful than both the Death Star and Death Star II, Starkiller Base would drain a nearby star to produce energy blast lasers that could reach great distances, split into different beams, and destroy planets.
Lightsabers
Utilizing the laser-like technology of plasma, the same tech featured within blasters, lightsabers produce a sustained, repeating beam of energy. Lightsabers are powered by long-lasting and rechargeable diatium power cells, with the energy then focused by way of a kyber crystal. Most lightsabers are made from various metals, though some Jedi selected wood from the dense Brylark tree to make casings.
In addition to their offensive and defensive capabilities, lightsabers have been shown to:
Cut through or melt dense materials
Operate underwater with no difficulty
Deflect blaster fire
Be utilized as a light source
Lightsaber colors vary and are determined by the kyber crystal selected by a Jedi, or, in the case of Sith’s red sabers, “bled” from a different colored crystal.
A breakdown of saber colors and some of their users include:
Blue – Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, Rey Skywalker
Green – Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa
Red – Darth Vader, Darth Sidious, Darth Maul, Kylo Ren
Purple – Mace Windu, Darth Traya
Orange – Bastila Shan
Yellow – Rey Skywalker, Ahsoka Tano
White – Ahsoka Tano
Black (Darksaber) – The Mandalorians, Sabine Wren, Moff Gideon
Along with their color options, lightsabers also are available in a variety of forms. These include:
Protosaber – Sometimes referred to as a laser sword, this prototype lightsaber includes an attached battery pack for its power supply. Recently, a team of dedicated engineers actually made a functional protosaber facsimile!
Training lightsaber – Used by younglings, these sabers are incapable of cutting through matter and can merely lightly burn skin on contact. Grown Jedi do not utilize a fully powered lightsaber until they construct one themselves as part of their training.
Shoto lightsaber – These miniaturized lightsabers are utilized by smaller Jedi, such as Yoda, or for those who prefer twin-bladed fighting styles, such as Ahsoka Tano.
Great lightsaber/lightsaber club – These oversized lightsabers are used by Jedi of significant size and feature more powerful lasers and a length of over two meters.
Curved-hilt lightsaber – The hilt design of these sabers is preferred to that of standard lightsabers by Jedi who incorporate more slashing and lunging during battle, as the sabers allow for more finesse.
Crossguard lightsaber – An ancient form of lightsaber, the crossguard saber features the standard central blade along with two secondary blades emitting perpendicularly at small ports.
Cane lightsaber – Used for discretion, this form of lightsaber is concealed within the handle of a cane.
The Darksaber – The only one of its kind, the Darksaber is the creation of the Madalorians and features a black, shorter blade that more closely resembles the look of a traditional sword than standard lightsabers.
Dual-phase lightsaber – These lightsabers feature two or more kyber crystals, which permit its blade to be lengthened or shortened during a duel.
Double-bladed lightsaber – With its central staff and two blades emerging from either end, this variant makes for a formidable weapon when wielded by a skilled opponent. A similar model is the lightsaber pike.
Lightwhip – Unlike standard lightsabers with their rigid blades, the lightwhip features a flexible blade several meters long. Though their energy is weaker and cannot cut as standard lightsabers do, they are effective for entangling enemy combatants.
Contained energy axe – Utilizing a diatium power cell like a lightsaber, these axes emit a suspended, arced laser blade.
Lightsaber pistol – This variant lightsaber features a hilt that incorporates a blaster. This allows for both concealment of the lightsaber and the ability to switch between the two weapons when needed.
Lightsaber rifle – This weapon uses a standard lightsaber as a type of fuel, being able to produce five powerful blasts of energy before a lightsaber is melted and destroyed.
As you can see, padawans, there are many types of lasers out there in the galaxy. I hope you’ve enjoyed this in-depth look at all things that go pew pew and vooooom.
Linton Lewis works with LaserGear and TYKMA Electrox, leading manufacturers of industrial laser marking systems located in Ohio. Some of his favorite movies include Inglourious Basterds, Dr. Strangelove and the Back to the Future series.
Parasite’s Oscar Success Is So Important: There is one simple truth that nobody wants to admit: the Oscars do matter. Perhaps not in the way that many might think, but they do matter in one very significant way: publicity.
Love them or hate them, the Academy Awards are the most talked-about event on the showbiz calendar and they generate a lot of conversation in film journalism, on social media and even on mainstream news. For many of the lesser-known nominees, a win on the night could make their entire career.
For this year’s Best Picture winner, Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite, this means more than perhaps any of the 91 others that came before it. Make no mistake: history was made on Sunday.
It’s important to note that Parasite‘s not the first international film to win Best Picture. Silent filmThe Artist, which took home the prize in 2012, was a French production, and the UK has had its fair share of glory in the past, with films such as Slumdog Millionaire and The King’s Speech. Parasite is the first winner to not be in the English language and, considering the general public’s natural aversion to subtitles, this is a far greater achievement.
Over the past 92 years, 563 films have been nominated for Best Picture, and only 11 of them have not been in the English language. That’s about 1.9%. Isn’t it a little arrogant to truly believe that the best films of the last 91 years just happen to have all been in English?
The discussion around diversity at the Oscars is a continuous one, but these conversations rarely take into account the Academy’s near-exclusion of films in any other language. A Best Picture win for a foreign film is perhaps the biggest mountain to climb, and Parasite‘s just reached the summit.
Most mainstream audiences are reluctant when it comes to foreign films. Sadly, cries of ‘ergh, I hate subtitles, I don’t want to read when I’m watching a film…’ are all too common. The truth is that this isn’t the public’s fault. So, whose is it?
An article last week quoted someone claiming they didn’t think foreign films should be nominated in the same category as ‘regular films’. What does that make them? Irregular? This is where the problem lies: the industry hasn’t normalised them.
International films are kept out of most mainstream cinemas. They get very little financing or marketing and, at most ceremonies, are recognised in separate awards. Most audiences don’t hear about them until they’re inevitably remade by an American studio. For many reasons, these remakes fail to capture the same magic, leaving the viewer unimpressed and unwilling to check out the original, which they may very well have enjoyed.
For Parasite, Bong Joon-ho, and many other filmmakers from overseas, this win, and the publicity that it will generate, is hugely significant. It goes beyond Parasite’s winning a prestigious award. This is good for the entire industry.
A Best Picture win normally sees a significant bump in viewership for the film being awarded. It’s worth noting that Parasite‘s already a financial success before this. The buzz for the film has been ongoing since its Palme d’Or win at Cannes in the summer and, following its wide release in October, it is now approaching $40 million at the US box office alone. This might seem like a small figure compared to some of Hollywood’s biggest hits but, for a subtitled film with a limited release, it’s extremely impressive. In fact, Parasite is already one of the most successful non-English films in US history.
That said, when it comes to the boost an Oscar win can provide, the numbers speak for themselves…
On Monday 10th February, the day after the Oscars, Parasite‘s grossed around $501,000, almost tripling the $159,000 it grossed the previous Monday. On Sunday 9th, it grossed $433,000, thereby increasing by 15.7% the day after winning Best Picture. This is despite the fact that an average Monday will see a drop of at least 70% from the day before, and is the biggest post-win increase since The King’s Speech in 2011.
For contrast, 1917 grossed around $800,000 the day after the Oscars, a drop from the day before, in a weekend that saw it gross over $9 million. It’s also worth noting that Parasite‘s only showing in 1060 US cinemas, compared to the 3548 showing 1917. As a result of its success, Parasite is now expected to expand to 1800 cinemas this weekend; the most of its theatrical run so far.
Parasite’s already out-grossed Moonlight. It’s not far behind Spotlight or Birdman, and none of these films had the same perceived disadvantage of subtitles. Let’s not forget that these numbers are only for the US. Worldwide, the film has already grossed over $160 million, and only received a wide release in the UK last week.
(My local cinema wasn’t showing the film at all last weekend but, as a result of this win, will be holding at least 3 showings a day next week).
Both Amazon and iTunes also listed the film as their #1 movie rental the day after the awards. This is virtually unheard of for a subtitled film.
Many people are saying online that they’ll see the film now that it’s won Best Picture, many of whom claim to have never even heard of it as recently as a week ago.
When looking at these numbers, you’d find it difficult telling Bong Joon-ho that the Oscars don’t matter. The film is getting a wider release now than before, and is attracting people who previously weren’t even aware that it existed, and who likely don’t watch subtitled films all that often.
The Oscars are important because they have the potential to give small yet brilliant films the time and recognition that they never received before. Joker has already made over $1 billion. 1917 is doing exceptionally well and is proving to be a much beloved film. A Best Picture win doesn’t make or break movies like Joker, 1917 or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; films that already have an audience. For films like Parasite, this is invaluable publicity. The fact that it also happens to be one of the year’s finest films is just a bonus.
The Academy also has a history of playing it safe, often awarding the least controversial films as opposed to the very best, and ignoring films that are perhaps braver and more unique. Parasite is an unpredictable, bold, daring, original and sometimes violent film, and is perhaps as far removed from ‘Oscar Bait’ as one could imagine. This isn’t just a win for subtitled films. It’s a win for any filmmaker with new ideas in an industry that usually ignores them.
This win could lead to more people checking out Parasite who, if they enjoy it, might be inclined to seek out other subtitled or independent films. If the numbers prove this, it will encourage more risk-taking in a mainstream industry that’s already terrified of originality.
This is beneficial for cinema as a whole; both for those who make it, and those who consume it. Everybody wins.
It has become apparent in recent weeks that some people don’t think foreign films should be eligible for Best Picture. YouTuber Robert Storms went viral this week after he expressed anger that the award had not gone to an American film. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle recently wrote that allowing foreign films to compete for both Best Picture and Best International Feature Film gives them ‘an advantage over domestic films in that they can win twice, but an English-language film can only win once.’
When fully aware of the fact that Parasite is the only non-English film to win Best Picture in 92 years, it’s funny to think that anybody could even attempt to make a convincing argument for a supposed advantage. Also, this discontent has been strangely silent in the past when animated films have been nominated for Best Picture as well as Best Animated Feature Film. Would Storms or LaSalle have been as angry if Toy Story 3 and Up had won both prizes?
It’s also worth noting that foreign films don’t even have the potential to win two awards anyway, seeing as the Best International Feature Film prize goes to the country of its origin. The filmmakers themselves can still only take home Best Picture, so if you want to award them, that really is the only way to properly do that.
If anything, the existence of the Best International Feature Film places foreign productions at a disadvantage. There is less pressure to recognise them in the Best Picture category when confident they’ll also be taking home another prize. It’s almost become a token award. The best solution would be to get rid of it all together, forcing voters to consider these films for Best Picture if they wish to recognise them at all.
Storms seems particularly furious that the film has won what he considers to be an American award. Setting aside the aforementioned fact that Parasite isn’t even the first international production to win, this idea that the award is only for American films is inherently false.
Plenty of non-British films have won Best Film at the BAFTAs. Plenty of non-French films have won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, including Parasite.
A film does not need to be American to win Best Picture; it simply needs to have been released in American theatres. It’s an award for the best films released in the states that year. That is all.
The Academy is an international body. It has never been exclusively American. It consists of 8000 members, almost 20% of whom are international. If international filmmakers are allowed to vote, doesn’t it make sense that they should also be able to win?
The truth is that Storms and LaSalle would’ve probably been fine if Toy Story 3 had won Best Picture, just as they have been fine with British films winning in the past. The issue here isn’t about American films not winning. It’s about films in a different language, and the only reason the general public has any issues with subtitled films to begin with is solely down to the industry’s aforementioned exclusion of them. This is exactly the problem that Parasite’s win can help to counteract. This can only be a good thing. Cinema is a global art form and it should be treated as such.
Most people who say ‘films aren’t as good as they used to be’ likely don’t watch many films from anywhere but the UK or the USA. The idea that there aren’t any good films anymore is simply not true, and less people would believe it if they were willing to spread their wings a little. There are great films being made every single day if you’re prepared to look for them. As Bong Joon-ho said himself at the Golden Globes: ‘Once you overcome the 1-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.’
Sunday’s ceremony was special. Jane Fonda announced Parasite as the winner to the most euphoric response from an Oscars audience in years. It was a massive surprise, but a happy and welcome one. As Anne Thompson from Indiewire puts it: ‘I’ve attended many Oscars, and while Moonlight comes close as an independent film that the Hollywood community rallied behind and pushed for the win, I’ve never seen the rousing energy, the celebration, the cheering and stamping and yelling that Parasite inspired. Everyone, it seemed, even rival studios, wanted Bong Joon-ho to win.’
Few were more shocked than the man himself who, upon winning his first award of the night, was caught staring and smiling at it with glee. When the cast and crew took to the stage for the Best Picture win, they all passed the awards along, looking at them in awe.
These are people who don’t get to do this every year. They just seemed happy to be there; to even be a part of it at all. How refreshing it was to step outside of the Hollywood elite; away from the familiar faces who attend the Oscars nearly every year, either as a nominee or a presenter. How wonderful it was to see people genuinely moved by the mere mention of their own name, and spellbound by the site of that world-famous statuette.
Politicians in South Korea are now even proposing a statue of Bong Joon-ho, a museum dedicated to him and his body of work (which includes fantastic films like Okja, Snowpiercer and Mother) and are even suggesting roads be named after him.
Sir Sam Mendes was winning Oscars 20 years ago. He’s been here before and he’ll likely have plenty of chances again, much like Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese and many others. For Bong Joon-ho, this may just be it, and he knows it. That’s what made it so special.
In the words of Justin Chang, film critic for the LA times: ‘Parasite’s dealt a much-needed slap to the American film industry’s narcissism, its long-standing love affair with itself, its own product and its own image. It has startled the Academy into recognising that no country’s cinema has a monopoly on greatness.’
This is an enthusiasm that has been felt throughout the industry. Director Ava DuVernay said: ‘The world is big and beautiful, and films from everywhere deserve to be on that stage winning the Academy’s highest honour. This is wonderful and right.’
Owen Gleiberman, film critic for Variety, said: ‘On Oscars night, Hollywood sent out a message to the world about the kind of movie that it’s chosen to represent the industry, and in honouring a film that wasn’t even made within the industry, it was saying: we can look to lights from outside.’
Perhaps the most wonderful thing about Parasite’s win isn’t even the significance of it at all, but rather the fact that a film universally agreed to be among the very best cinema had to offer last year actually walked away with the top prize. This isn’t as common as it should be, but this year it happened. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in the industry who didn’t think Parasite was a worthy winner.
Director James Gunn said: ‘Parasite’s the first film I remember winning that most cinema-loving folks would generally agree is truly the best film of the year. It’s the first time my favourite film has won since Unforgiven, and I for one am really happy that more people will go and see it now.’
Take Gunn’s advice. Go and see Parasite. Give the film your time. It deserves it. If you’re lucky, you might even enjoy it.
Cars on Film: Fiction Versus Reality. By Frankie Wallace.
High-speed chases, street drag races, incredible driving stunts, and even accidents that get your heart racing are all par for the course when it comes to cars on film. As a society, we’ve gotten used to (and even expect) how cars are depicted in movies in somewhat elaborate and exaggerated ways.
While most car chases and accidents portrayed in movies aren’t exactly realistic, they can definitely be entertaining. The Fast and the Furious franchise has built upon people’s love for that kind of action for years, bringing in over $5 billion for all of their movies.
As entertaining as car chases and accidents in movies might be, it’s important to be able to differentiate fact from fiction. The reality is, most car accidents don’t happen because of police chases or drag races. Alcohol, speeding, and reckless driving are the biggest factors when it comes to crashes in the U.S., and unfortunately, about 6% of those crashes will end in fatalities, which is something else that isn’t often portrayed on film.
To get a better look at fiction versus reality when it comes to cars on film, let’s talk about a few notable car movies and scenes, and then cover how they differ from real-world situations.
Cars, Cast, Chases, and Crashes
Most car chases, races, and accidents tend to happen in action films. That’s been the standard in the movie industry for many years. Sometimes, a car in a film can completely steal the show. After all, what’s a James Bond movie without an Aston Martin? What’s Back to the Future without a Delorean? That’s the first fact vs. fiction idea to keep in mind; cars are often a part of the cast in movies. Whether the main character has a specific vehicle they drive, or the car takes center stage by allowing the driver to pull off specific stunts, go at faster speeds, etc., you’re probably not going to feel the same way about an exciting car scene if someone is driving a station wagon. The reality? The type of car you drive doesn’t really have an impact on whether you get in an accident or not. So, while a Shelby Mustang on film might look cool speeding away from the police, that’s a bit more unrealistic in real life.
Even some of the best car films of all time don’t necessarily depict scenes you’d see in real life. The original version of The Italian Job focuses on three British Mini Coopers. In one dramatic scene, the vehicles ride through shopping malls, go downstairs, and even drive on rooftops. While it’s not impossible, it’s highly unlikely someone could do that without being a professional driver and without some “movie magic” involved.
In 1971, The French Connection secured its spot as one of the best car movies ever made, too, but it doesn’t follow realistic rules, either. While the scenes involving a detective taking over a Pontiac LeMans to chase down a hitman are exciting, it’s not hard to see that just about every traffic law imaginable is being broken, and it’s hard to believe that by running stop signs and lights and ignoring pedestrians and cars, the driver doesn’t get into a serious accident. In fact, the entire scene was set up to rhythmically fit the beat of the song “Black Magic Woman,” by Carlos Santana. 2017’s Baby Driver followed a similar pattern with incredible car chase scenes set to a specific soundtrack.
Are Any Car Movies Realistic?
For as many elaborate and exaggerated chase scenes that grace the silver screen, there are also plenty of more subdued and realistic car films and scenes. They can actually be more difficult to watch since they portray a closer look at reality instead of boosting your adrenaline for entertainment purposes.
One of the best examples of a realistic crash on film is from 2007’s No Country for Old Men. Javier Bardem’s character is in a side-impact accident and is the lone survivor of the crash. What’s really interesting, though, is the acting in the aftermath of the accident. Bardem’s character is visibly shocked and in a lot of pain, despite refusing medical attention. He’s limping and shaken from the scene. Some films with similar crashes might have their ‘hero’ of a character simply walk away unscathed, but Bardem plays the part in a more realistic fashion.
Another more realistic depiction of cars on film can be found in the Danish movie, The Guilty. A police dispatcher makes a connection with a woman who is being abducted. Part of the film depicts a car chase and kidnapping that you don’t even see on the screen, but it feels like you’re peering into something very private and very real, which is what makes the movie so thrilling.
The Reality of Car Accidents
Most car accidents in real life don’t happen for crazy reasons. As stated above, things like texting, using substances, or other distractions are often to blame. That’s one of the biggest differences between reality and film. The other big difference is what happens after an accident.
More often than not, a car isn’t going to blow up as it does in a movie. If you’re lucky, you’ll walk away from an accident without any injuries, but you certainly won’t walk away from the scene of a crash and go about your day like actors in film sometimes do. At the scene of a crash, you’ll have to work with law enforcement to explain what happened, and you may even need to speak with a forensic nurse that’s working with law enforcement if someone caused the crash and, subsequently, your injuries. And that’s just the injuries to yourself, the damage to your car isn’t going to be an easy fix either.
Movies have a tendency to gloss over vehicle damage, or ignore the pain and suffering your wallets going to feel when you try to get your baby back in shape. I think we can all remember when Edward Cullen used his bare hand (and vamp strength) to simply pop a dent out of Bella Swan’s truck in the first Twilight movie. If only it were that easy. Sadly, even a minor dent isn’t typically something you should try to fix by yourself, and depending on how bad the damage is, it can run you several hundred, or even thousands to get fixed, and a heck of a lot more time than it took Edward.
Another thing we don’t often see in movies is how car accidents can affect people on a long-term basis. If you get into a serious accident, you could have lasting physical injuries. If an airbag strikes you or glass from the windshield caused damage to your face, you may need realistic cosmetic surgery or other reconstructive procedures. Accidents can also cause mental and emotional trauma, and may even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder that requires the help of a mental health professional.
So, while cars in movies often look cool weaving through the streets, and even getting into explosive accidents, it’s not usually a realistic portrayal of what that kind of driving would look like in the real world. But, if the success of action films with cars has taught us anything, it’s that people aren’t going to stop watching any time soon, so pass the popcorn and buckle up for more classic car scenes in the future.
By Naseem Ally. Diego Armando Maradona. It could be argued that he’s perhaps the most divisive figure in the history of world football. Adored by millions, despised by many. Well, maybe just the English.
Asif Kapadia, director of the documentary films ‘AMY’ and ‘SENNA‘ follows up both servings, with an intimate tell-all story of one of, if not, the greatest football player of all time – Diego Maradona. This film is filled with a vast array of ‘never seen before’ archive footage of Diego Maradona. From his come up in the shantytown of Villa Fiorito, making his professional debut for Argentinos Juniors, his short but ‘spicy’ spell at Barcelona, through to his messiah-like status during his time at Naples.
And of course, the infamous 1986 World Cup.
What I appreciate most about this documentary film, is that it separates itself from all the others that are based on specific individuals, by the fact that in this film, the viewer never sees the ‘subject’ as it were, answering any questions or talking about their life directly to the camera. Throughout the whole film, Diego is off-screen giving his input on key stages and moments in his life. We only hear his husky voice, laced with a strong, patriotic tone from his Argentinian roots.
This is also perhaps a reflection of his age and his fondness for the finer things in life, like Cuban cigars. When he speaks, there’s a feeling that the wisdom gained over the years from looking back on his life, leaves him with a sense of slight remorse. I repeat, slight remorse. It’s almost as if is he wants to ask himself ‘Diego, what could you have done differently?’
But, he’s quick to brush this off because after all, he’s Diego Maradona, and in his eyes, he can do no wrong.
You could say, he views himself like an Argentinian ‘Robin Hood’ or as one of cinema’s most iconic characters, Tony Montana. It wouldn’t be outside the stretch of the imagination to picture Diego Maradona deliver the words ‘I always tell the truth, even when I lie’ on the big screen. Diego really feels at home in this film, and I think Asif has given him the freedom to ‘roam the pitch’ when talking about his life, as it never feels forced.
Diego Maradona moves at his own pace. He gives himself time to pause and think, calculating every word, almost ‘Machiavellian’ in his approach.
There are some great quotes in this film. He delivers them in such a way that they don’t hit you immediately, but you have to sort of, let them ‘marinate’ for a few seconds before you reach an ‘aha’ moment.
Diego talks with such nonchalance and bravado, bordering on the line of arrogance. He knows how to keep your attention. But at the same time, he doesn’t necessarily crave it. In other words ‘you can either take it or leave it’. It never feels like he’s trying to sway your opinion of him one way or another. He’s just being…Diego.
In reference to this, those closest to him have described him in the film as having two personalities. There is Diego, and then there is Maradona.
Diego is the family man, the prankster, the mama’s boy.
Maradona is crafty. Audacious. But most of all, he’s the underdog.
What I appreciate the most about this film is that it’s a very fair and honest take on the man. I haven’t seen anything this frank since James Toback’s ‘Tyson’. Both Diego Maradona and Mike Tyson share similar stories. Two underdogs, who are propelled out of adversity to reach heights that they themselves, couldn’t have even imagined.
However, as time has unfolded both men have had to bear the burden of handling enormous success at such a young age. ‘Diego Maradona’ is a documentary film done right. Too many of them are overpolished.
But not with this, it doesn’t pull any punches. A perfect case in point is Cristiano Ronaldo’s movie ‘Ronaldo’. It’s just too…well, perfect. This comes as a surprise as Asif is credited as a producer on ‘Ronaldo’. In ‘Ronaldo’ we hardly see his flaws or weaknesses. However, I understand the likes of him and Messi are playing in a much more squeaky clean era of football, compared to Maradona’s.
His era was a lot more like Studio 54 turned up to eleven. Diego was one of the last of a generation of footballers that weren’t overprotected by PR teams. Perhaps the only footballers left that could receive this kind of documentary treatment are, the ‘Original Ronaldo’ of the late nineties and mid-noughties, and the all smiling, samba dancing ‘Ronaldinho’. Both, marvellous players on the pitch but also no strangers to the fast life.
They both played in a time where footballers had an air of mystique about them. In the current age of social media, we already know what a footballer ate for breakfast and which new hairstyle they’ll debut for their next match. We know way too much about them, and it takes away that ‘mystique’ which is what makes this film on Diego Maradona so fascinating.
This documentary is very raw and gritty, leaving the viewer with a lot of information to dissect. It’s not a holiday brochure for you to quickly gloss over. No stone is left unturned. In this, you see Maradona struggling to balance his private life, due to the overbearing affection of the supporters.
He’s not superman by any stretch of the imagination, nor is he trying to be.
Case in point, there’s a scene of him in a brawl during his time at Barcelona, which looked like something straight out of a ’70s Kung-Fu flick. You can hear every thump and kick from a tackle, and every flick and dribble of the ball. It’s awe-inspiring and a testament as to what can be done in a documentary film with a compelling subject like Diego Maradona.
In a day and age of pc culture and cookie-cutter athletes, I don’t know of too many active athletes who would be able to bring something to the table, quite like this. Perhaps Lewis Hamilton or Mario Balotelli?
Whether that happens or not, ‘Diego Maradona’ has set the bar.
It’s just unfortunate that this film didn’t walk away with the Bafta gong for ‘Best Documentary’ before the final whistle.
