White Noise is the latest movie from director Noah Baumbach, who has had a rather successful career thus far. Baumbach brings a lot to the table this time around and unfortunately it feels as if he brought a little too much to make it work. This is a movie that tries to pack so much into it that ultimately it feels like not everything is executed well enough to be a success. That’s not to say that there aren’t things here to praise or enjoy, however the story and structure are so convoluted that it ends up being a disappointment.
There are moments throughout White Noise that will have you scratching your head. The story tries to give you a little bit of everything. It’s a comedy, a drama, a thriller and even has a little bit of sci-fi and horror elements to it as well. Trying to juggle all those elements just doesn’t work here the way you would hope for. Baumbach’s direction seems too disjointed, and it never feels like he’s getting across everything he wants to. He’s a competent director but here it’s not enough to push the movie over the edge into greatness.
One of the biggest problems with White Noise, outside of the overstuffed plot, is the way the characters are written. The characters have a unique way of talking and interacting with one another that comes off as jarring at times. This movie is based off a book and the characters in the book may be written this way, but it doesn’t translate well to the screen. Characters will have conversations with one another and never even be talking about the same topic and none of it feels natural. there are moments where the dialogue works well and the characters themselves are quirky enough to let some of it slide but most of it feels too awkward at times.
Some bright spots are the performances here. Adam Driver gives a great performance as the lead, Jack. He has a strong presence and delivers some of the more humorous moments of the movie. Greta Gerwig is great as Jack’s wife Babette. Her character is one of the more outlandish parts and even though all her story doesn’t work she still gives it her all in the performance. Don Cheadle is fantastic as Jack’s friend Murray. While he’s not in it as much as he should be he steals every scene that he’s in. The rest of the cast from the kids of Jack and Babette to the other side character are do well in their performances. Everything about the movie looks great as well. It’s all competently shot and has some great uses of color throughout. Be sure to watch all the way through the end credits as it has one of the best dance sequences and is one of the best parts of the movie.
In the end, White Noise ends up being more of a disappointment than not. While it does have some great performances and it all looks good the convoluted plot and odd character moments keep it from living up to its full potential. There are some flashes of genius but not enough to make it all worthwhile.
Developed from the play written by multi-award-winning Broadway producer Jim Kierstead, Borrowed is a dark psychological drama-thriller jointly directed by Carlos Rafael Betancourt and Oscar Ernesto Ortega. A deeply troubled reclusive artist, David (Jonathan Del Arco), has invited a young man, Justin (Héctor Medina), to his secluded home. With overt flirtation beginning immediately upon Justin’s arrival, it’s clear that the two are attracted to one another. Over the course of the evening, Justin models for David as he paints, and the two have an almost romantic meal together. The intention behind the occasion of Justin’s visit is somewhat unclear; has David invited him with the pretence of purely doing some casual modelling, or was a dinner always planned?
At the end of their meal together, Justin announces his departure, but is stopped by David, clearly yearning for his company. David continually prevents Justin from leaving, and proceeds to hold him captive for the next few days, during which they get to know each other. The premise is strange, because Justin alternates between desperately attempting to escape, and then being affectionate towards his captor. Escape attempts are made in some instances, but left untried in other instances in which there’s ample opportunity. It’s difficult to ascertain whether he has some form of conflicted Stockholm Syndrome, or is simply biding his time.
As we spend more time with the pair, we learn that David has a drug-addicted son whose whereabouts are unknown, and that Justin has daddy issues – naturally, these issues affect the dynamic between the two, with them acting as strange surrogates for those missing in one another’s lives. Perhaps the most interesting exchange between the two happens towards the end, with Justin handcuffed and David angrily painting; Justin points out that David’s projection of his own issues unto Justin will do nothing to solve them, and won’t bring him any closer to his son. A glimpse of possible hope is offered towards the end, and the audience is left to decide whether or not David will get the help and closure he needs.
The cinematography is stunning, Del Arco and Medina are outstanding in their roles, and some interesting ideas are placed into the shifting power dynamics between the two, but something about their exchanges feels unnatural, especially on Julian’s part, making the overall film feel somewhat unfulfilled. His toing and froing between attraction and desperation go beyond confliction, and instead come across as downright confusion. Greater consistency of his feelings towards his predicament would’ve been more effective, and would’ve avoided the emotional whiplash. The film shines brightest when David’s veneer of control begins to slip, and his vulnerability becomes more apparent to Justin. Despite its inconsistencies, Borrowed is an engaging thriller, and provides some thought-provoking moments.
Erin’s Guide To Kissing Girls: Raindance 22 Review. By Joe Muldoon.
Based on the 2018 short of the same name, Erin’s Guide To Kissing Girls is Julianna Notten’s latest directorial feature. Recently having enjoyed a European premiere at the Raindance Festival as well as going on to win 2 awards at other festivals, it’s a charming queer coming-of-age drama, and one I predict will very likely be greatly enjoyed by its prospective young audience.
With the thunderous success of dramas such as Dear Simon and Heartstopper, and the impressive LGBTQ+ representation in Sex Education, it’s safe to say that Erin’s Guide To Kissing Girls is the right film at the right time. ”I want to use my voice as a filmmaker to tell the stories of those who aren’t often represented in the media”, says Notten, and she has succeeded in doing so with her latest work.
In their impressive breakout film role, Elliot Stocking plays the titular Erin, a gay middle-schooler, and the only out person in her year group. Joining Erin amongst the characters are Liz, her fellow comic book nerd and best friend (played by Jesyca Gu), and Sydni, the new girl in school who finds herself in Erin’s eyes (played by Rosali Annikie). The plot is sweet and simple: as their time as middle-schoolers draws to a close, Erin and Liz’s friendship is challenged by Liz’s acceptance to a private school and by Erin’s infatuation with new girl Sydni.
“Do you even know if she likes girls?”, asks Liz of Erin upon her declaring her growing crush, before the camera pans to show Sydni wearing a crystal necklace, a tarot shirt, Doc Martens, reading a copy of Virginia Woolf’s Orlando – the smatterings of humour throughout didn’t fail to elicit a few chuckles from me. Stocking, Gu, and Annikie have genuine chemistry together, and their performances as teens going through the awkward transition into the final stages of school feel real.
As far as coming-of-age dramas go, Erin’s Guide To Kissing Girls is nothing new, but that’s the point; all teenagers face the same struggles with identity, interpersonal relationships, and growing up – queer or not. As a heterosexual man, the film wasn’t made from me – I’m far from its clear intended target audience. To me as an audience member, this was simply a pleasant indie drama, but to its prospective teen audience, it’s a highly important piece of representation of queer adolescence, and one that deserves to be seen.
The Woman In Black, Fortune Theatre: Play Review. By Joe Muldoon.
Prompted by the sad announcement of its 33-year West End run ending soon, I decided that, having been a long-term fan of the novel and film adaptations (excluding the frankly pointless 2014 sequel), it was time to consummate my love of The Woman In Black by watching it on stage. Despite being a self-professed lifelong horror connoisseur, I had yet to actually read a horror play, let alone attend a show. Having some money saved, I booked my ticket rather last-minute, and made my way down to London on Tuesday 29th November, eagerly awaiting a show I had foolishly put off of watching for several years.
As I was to discover during the course of the play, the fear experienced at the theatre is vastly different to that at home or at the cinema; reading a novel or watching a film, we’re able to put the book down or hit pause – at the theatre, there is no reprieve. We’re sat for the duration and there’s no screen through which we’re separated from the terror. At the theatre – and particularly at such a wonderfully intimate building as the Fortune Theatre – there exists no separation, for we share the same physical space, and we must confront the horrors head-on.
Having admittedly not read the play before attending the show, I had only a rough idea of its premise (namely that the novel’s protagonist, Arthur Kipps, has hired an actor to help him dramatise his harrowing story), so had only the novel to go by. Judging by the fact that the vast majority of the audience consisted of GCSE-age schoolchildren, I was possibly the only brave soul who was totally unaware of what was to come. The palpable tension surging through the audience before – and throughout – the show should have been a rather substantial clue to me.
Considering the fact that I attended the show alone and misguidedly booked a premium stalls aisle seat, I had unwittingly set myself up for the most hair-raising experience possible. Do I regret it? Absolutely not. Did I regret it in the moment in which I realised that an unwanted silent visitor was briskly descending upon the aisle, heading straight towards me? Absolutely.
As far as theatre adaptations of novels go, Stephen Mallatratt did an excellent job of adapting Susan Hill’s classic ghost tale, and this adaptation was truly brought to life by the two current principal cast members: Julian Forsyth as Arthur Kipps, and Matthew Spencer as The Actor. Horror can be an incredibly difficult genre to get right, and so it truly takes a great deal of acting strength and chemistry for a simple stage setup of two actors and a few props to properly capture the unnerving atmosphere of a supernatural horror and to elicit the fear as intended by the playwright – Julian and Matthew carried out the task to perfection. To me,
it’s testament to the acting on display that, during a scene in which a dog (Spider) finds herself in mortal danger, the devastating distress displayed by Matthew felt so real that I momentarily forgot that I was watching a play and that there was never a small dog onstage, only two actors and a whole lot of imagination.
Perhaps most impressive about the stage adaptation is that a relatively large rural setting with a fair number of characters is condensed into a (mostly) two-man play with a rather basic stage setup, all without doing so at the expense of the story, not losing any crucial plot details in the process. The success of each show rests squarely upon the shoulders of the two actors, as each man carries out the roles of several very different characters – no space is given for reliance upon other cast members to turn a potentially poor performance into a successful one.
With a quick costume and accent change between character swaps, it was as if the power of a strong ensemble had been concentrated into two men performing the roles of twenty. I’ll be sure to keep my eye out for any future plays featuring the two actors, as they truly did an exceptional job – the deafening applause they deservedly received at the end of the show suggests that I’m not alone in my sentiments.
Upon leaving the theatre (after having hung around at the stage door to ask for autographs from Julian and Matthew, both of whom graciously signed my programme), I started to reflect upon the 1989 and 2012 film adaptations; having now seen the play, do I still find the films as comparatively scary? Yes – that said, I find the 1989 version to be rather less unnerving. Despite only having a 12A certification, the 2012 version is, to me, one of the most terrifying films of all time.
I typically find the prominence of jumpscares to be a sign of compensation for poor tension-building, but they work to complement in The Woman In Black; the blackened hallways of Eel Marsh House and the sea mist-shrouded causeway between it and Crythin Gifford serve as settings ripe for such visceral scares to be thrown at the audience.
Though it finds itself being generally disliked (or viewed with relative indifference), I’m personally a big fan of the 2012 film adaptation, famously starring Daniel Radcliffe. “[He] looks like someone who would have horrible things happen to him”, Julian wittily mused to me, as we chatted at the stage door post-show about the various adaptations of The Woman In Black – after some thought, I have to agree with him. At the time at which the film was made, the naturally innocent-looking Daniel was roughly the same age as the young Arthur in the novel, and to me, that’s what made him look so right for the role of Arthur. Given his love of theatre, it would be nice to see him reprise his old role, this time for the stage.
After learning that there have been stage adaptations of William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist and Stephen King’s Carrie, I expect that my love of horror has now found a new blossoming friendship with theatre. By all accounts, I hope that The Woman In Black will become a play whose company I enjoy many times in the coming years, even if sadly not at its long-term home.
Was it worth the painful 5-hour coach ride down to London? Absolutely. The brilliance of The Woman In Black is something that cannot be replicated by reading the play from within the confines of a classroom, it is something that must be experienced first-hand – there exists no better environment for enduring the most heart palpitation-inducing play than at the Fortune Theatre. Be sure to make the journey to Eel Marsh House before it’s too late.
Smile More: Short Film Review. By Afonso Kol Almeida.
How do we broach the complicated issue of race and bullying at school? Integrate UK has tried to answer this question with the release of the short film ‘Smile More’. The film follows a young black boy, Noah, a boxing enthusiast who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates due to his race. Noah then must navigate the options presented to him. Deal with it through official channels, or take matters into his own hands.
The film offers a hyper stylised portrait of the reality many minorities face at school. From insulting chants to subtler digs, the filmmakers are able to effectively place the viewer in the mindset of someone who is constantly struggling with this persecution. The scene is set from the beginning when young Noah has his boxing practice interrupted by a group of bullies that throw milk at him. Following this incident, he finds the word “MONKEY” etched onto his locker in the changing room. At first Noah seeks the advice of his boxing coach, who encourages him to simply let it go and focus on himself. Not feeling vindicated, Noah attempts to report the incident to his school officials. Here he is met with a barrage of solutions that don’t address his problems. The advice ranges from him trying to find ways of coming across less aggressive, to simply “smile more”. The conflict crescendos until Noah decides to face up against one of his main aggressors and use his boxing skills to get even.
‘Smile more’ achieves a lot in its 9 minute runtime. It creates a good effective sandbox by using the confides of school life to present us with this problem we can’t escape from. Even those who have been fortunate enough not to have experienced any sort of discrimination, will feel the unsettling familiarity of having a crisis happening during their school days as an inescapable problem. The choice to give the bullied character the tools to deal with his conflict through violence was also very interesting. Historically, films that portray bullying will have a character suffer abuse due to his or her weak stature in relation to the pack. By making Noah a boxer, that assumption is removed. We are no longer dealing with the question of does he or does he not have the strength to face his abusers, but rather should he? ‘Smile More’ offers us an interesting moral conundrum here. Through the removal of the question of strength, the one we are dealing with is the one of how should we address this type of adversity. Noah finds no catharsis or resolution in employing his prowess over his bullies. He comes to understand that negative retribution will never offer him peace of mind, and the only approach one can take is to focus on themselves and working on what is within their grasp.
The scene in the school office is one of particular note. And as it should be, the film is named after it. In a project that portrays the overt and aggressive ways in which children can experience discrimination, the infuriating way in which the school officials deal with our protagonist’s struggle is one of the more mature and well achieved moments in this film.
There are a couple of minor details in the film that were perhaps a misfire. The use of narration is not very effective for one. The young actor portraying Noah offers a mature and poised performance, which is offset but his narrating. The film could have been exactly the same without a single second of narration and would have been more effective for it. Additionally the sound mixing does come off as a bit distracting at times. It seems to have been included in an effort to propel the momentum of the film and signal the rising tension within Noah, but similar to the narration, it distracts rather than adding to the film
Ultimately, ‘Smile More’ does exactly what it set out to achieve. It offers a grounded if stylized look at discrimination, managing to leave behind enough hard hitting scenes for the audience to go away reflecting on what was presented.
