A sight that has become all the more common is the video call screen. It’s not just the increased time using any such service over the pandemic, but the emergence of films likeUnfriended and Searching, studio productions which were shot entirely over one of these services using computer webcams.
Dear Hacker, the debut film of French artist and Paris 8 University researcher Alice Lenay, also utilises this format. While at times it feels so hyper-real that its easy to conclude that it must be fictional, it is in fact a documentary. The fledgling film maker proves a congenial host and, like her namesake of Lewis Carroll’s seminal novel, enters a rabbit hole much larger than it was expected to be, taking the audience along with her.
Lenay begins by explaining her goal: to work out why the green light on her webcam keeps turning itself on and off. Is it just a glitch? Has she been hacked and someone is spying on her? Or is it something more? To try and find out the truth, she conducts a series of interviews with people who know more about such matters than she does, though Lenay seems to be after more than just tech advice.
It is not made entirely clear what the aims of Dear Hacker are. Lenay raises more questions than her film answers, some of them far-removed from the technology itself. While to begin with she is asking whether or not someone has invaded her privacy and what to do to prevent it, she starts going into more existential territory, trying to determine if what each interviewee believes is wrong is in fact down to their personal beliefs.
Her subjects are given no introduction with which to explain why they are there to talk about the subject, but they all give levels of insight and expertise in a number of areas to qualify themselves. Each do well to answer Lenay’s line of questioning, even though some are visibly dumbstruck by the depth of conversation they have suddenly found themselves in.
Dear Hacker raises some interesting discussion points, namely how computers have changed our personal relationships. When video calling someone instead of communicating with other people, we are talking to cameras and screens, making this supposed personal exchange in fact very impersonal and inhuman. It also touches on how fragile our reliance on technology is when hardware can easily break and connections to the online space can be lost.
In addition to the main topic points, there are also some amusing moments: Lenay striking provocative poses for her potential stalker, a technician calming a fussy client’s concerns over their supposedly malfunctioning computer by putting a cactus on their desk.
The film is barely an hour long but there are some clear pieces of padding, such as background shots of Lenay’s empty apartment and a clip of Brian Cox talking about the universe. Moments like this make it an even more confusing experience, whether or not that is supposed to be the point. If it is exploring the subject of how easily our personal devices can be hacked then it, than it falls short. If in fact it is trying to play with the documentary format and provide a somewhat surrealistic mediation on technology, Dear Hacker succeeds for better and for worse.
In April Story, Uzuki Nireno (Takako Matsu) is fulfilling the dream of every parent for their child: she is going off to study at a prestigious university. The film begins with her leaving her native northern Hokkaido to the capital of Japan, where she is to begin studies at Musashino University. While it should be the happy start of a new chapter in her life, instead everything feels somewhat sad and stilted.
The film, which gets its name from the time when the university year starts in Japan, is modest in its ambitions, scale and goals. Written and directed by Shunji Iwai, its story is simple and its themes are easily accessible, which is what makes it engaging throughout.
While sometimes it is a bad thing when a film doesn’t aim high, the earnestness of April Story is what makes it work. All it sets out to do is tell a simple story, one that many who have been or will be in a similar situation can relate to and find reassurance from, and do it well. It does all of this well enough to overcome its bigger flaws, such as ambiguous sequences and a somewhat corny ending.
Iwai’s subject, Uzuki, makes for an interesting character study: she is always upbeat and positive despite constantly looking and feeling out of place in her new surroundings as well as regularly coming up against roadblocks and disappointments since moving to Tokyo.
When she first arrives in to her student digs, some of her belongings she has to send home as there is not enough room. This leaves her apartment feeling very small, but also very empty, with no room for her to welcome guests. Her sat alone with barely anything around her serve as a visual reminder of one of the major themes of the film: loneliness.
While Uzuki is ready to make new friends, despite being good natured and congenial, doesn’t find it easy talking to her peers. Her interactions with others can be cringe-inducingly awkward and she never seems able to make any real connections.
She makes just one friend, Saeko Sono (Rumi), though her companionship seems to come from a place of pity. Uzuki tries to reach out to her neighbour, who is just as bad at interacting with others, and she also joins the university’s fly-fishing society even though her interest in the activity is minimal.
It can be very uncomfortable watching such scenes, as they can feel very raw and real. Yet as awkward as these moments can be, it’s vital to pay attention to them all. Every minor detail, from dialogue to visual inserts, provides key clues as to where the story is heading. In particular, the fact that Uzuki’s isolation seems to lead her into visiting the same book shop every day and make purchases that are of no interest to her. It ends up being a big part as to what she is there in Tokyo for.
Brisk at just sixty-four minutes, April Story doesn’t feel especially short, but there are moments which seem superfluous and time-consuming for such a short film. A not insignificant portion of the film has Uzuki sat in a cinema watching a samurai film, where a stranger tries to make a move on her. As it seems not to serve any larger point and is generally unsettling, its presence in the film seems questionable.
April Story was first released in 1998, but looking at it today you would not believe it. First the subject matter it deals with is just as relevant today as back when and recognisable even for people not in a similar situation to Uzuki. More so it is very well made, with clear and crisp photography that doesn’t betray its age and showing a high level of craft. In short Iwai has made a timeless film.
A hit at festivals the world over, Beyond The Infinite Two Minutes is a highly entertaining, brilliantly made and thoughtful sci-fi comedy whose seventy-minute run time is made up of one extraordinary continuous shot.
There have been other films made likewise, the entire narrative taking place in a single take: Russian Ark is possibly the best-known while others like Hitchcock’s Rope and Inarritu’s Birdman tried to re-create the effect by disguising cuts. This film is not an exercise in clout however, plotted and executed so intricately, Junta Yamaguchi’s film uses the format of one unbroken shot to its full potential.
The film begins by following sulky cafe owner and struggling musician Kato (Kazunari Tosa) to his second-floor apartment, where he finds someone video calling him from the computer in the cafe below. Somehow it is him two minutes in the future, instructing his present self to head downstairs, where he has the exact same conversation only this time with his past self.
What follows is a constant stream of two minute trips between the computer in Kato’s apartment and the one downstairs, conversing with the past and the future. At first he, waitress Aya (Riko Fujitani), promoter Komiya (Gota Ishida) and two cafe patrons (Yoshifumi Sakai and Masashi Suwa) try to work out why this is happening, before their thoughts turn to how they can use it for their own gain.
Being able to see what can happen two minutes in the future isn’t a very useful, but by facing the two screens against each another, they create a Droste effect of seemingly endless looping images bridged by two-minute intervals. (The Droste Effect is the sensation of a picture being included within itself, creating a seemingly infinite loop of images. It gets its name from the brand of Dutch cocoa powder, whose original packaging incorporated in a smaller version of the image itself. It’s worth being reminded of this going into the film, as it plays a central part to the plot.)
Now able to communicate with themselves seemingly far into the future, they have scope to use this glimpse into the future to their advantage. Of course thoughts first turn to financial gain, but of the group Kato is hesitant to play along. While the others gain greater assurance and confidence knowing what is to come for them, the owner, having seen many disappointments in his time, does not want to know how future events will unfold. At least that leaves open the possibility for hope.
The rest can only see good things come of this happenstance, but start to realise they are being lied to by their future selves and end up lying to their past selves only so as to not create a time paradox. Eventually things start to take a more dangerous turn, which is when the ability to see into the future ends up coming in very handy.
It sounds confusing but in practice it is really easy to follow. Credit is definitely owed to screenwriter Makoto Ueda, whose script is so intricately plotted and is able to take complicated subject matter and makes it clear and easy to understand. His subject matter is effortlessly clever and characterisation and dialogue are both consistently funny.
On a technical level, BTITM is impeccable. The single tracking shot which constantly follows the characters conversing with past and future selves with no lag shows minutely designated timing and planning to create the illusion perfectly. The behind-the-scenes clips that play during the end credits, while not giving too much away, show the depth of planning that went into the film as well as revealing astonishing details, such as the whole film being shot on a smartphone and without green screens. Seeing these moments made me want to see a making-of version where we see the film being made in real time.
As well as being technologically marvellous, BTITM feels like a very good Twilight Zone episode: high-concept but presents its complex subject matter succinctly and making the most of its conceit for the right amount of time. An hour and ten minutes may seem short but it doesn’t stretch itself beyond beyond telling the full and complete story. BTITM has all the makings of a cult classic, but its ambition and execution is deserving of as big an audience as it can get. It is worth seeking out and, appropriately, watching again and again.
Still, a third film was on the horizon but on it there were a lot of doubts cast, from both outside and within – Karl Urban, who portrayed Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy in the first two films, said he didn’t want to reprise the role. He did though, as well as the rest of the Enterprise crew, and after some delay full of troubling events – a lot of back and forth between the filmmakers which saw foreign investors and a new director brought in – the film that became Star Trek Beyond was finally set for international release in the Summer of 2016.
During that period however, an uneasy feeling had grown among onlookers that this reimagining of Star Trek was moving away from creator Gene Rodenberry’s original intentions and instead shifting to a more action-centric, mainstream model. Early news reports seemed to reaffirm this: first the hiring of Fast and Furious doyen Justin Lin to direct; then Simon Pegg, now co-writer in addition to playing the part of Montgomery ‘Scotty’ Scott, saying the studio wanted his and fellow scribe Doug Jung’s script to be re-worked after deeming it, in his words, “too Star Trek-y”.
The poor reception that was met with the first trailer, which seemed to confirm anxieties that the unique qualities of the property had been forsaken, proved to be the final straw and dampened any chance at generating more hype. This was seemingly confirmed by its later performance: despite plenty of favourable reviews, it did not make the box-office returns needed for it to be an outright success.
Some of the early criticisms levelled again Star Trek Beyond are valid, but looking at the final product, while it is geared for wider audiences, is a spectacular thrill-ride, made as a film with a lot of love for what inspired it. To some it appeared that Star Trek had been turned into something that it is not, but that may have worked in its advantage.
One way Beyond does this is by paying homage to old ideas, but not re-hashing them. The previous film, Into Darkness, may be fun but when looked at subjectively is more or less just a re-tread of 1982’s The Wrath of Khan. The tension there suffers at the moment when Benedict Cumberbatch’s true identity is revealed. After that, only those with no prior knowledge of Star Trek could not tell what was going to happen next. (Even then it was obvious as to what would happen next.)
It could be said, then, that Beyond is more aligned towards the Trek faithful on the grounds of it not trying to pass off old plotlines as new ones. Its story is definitely reminiscent of many classic episodes of the show that inspired it: a voyage to a distant planet and a battle of minds and muscle with a megalomaniacal foe bent on wreaking destruction.
What’s more, those behind this third film do a better job of fulfilling the brief. JJ Abrams did well in his duties to update Trek when he first came on board, but by Into Darkness it was clear he didn’t seem to know where to take it. As evidenced in that film, his “mystery box” style of storytelling doesn’t work in all instances and his insistence on using lens flare as much as possible proving to be an annoying distraction.
While Justin Lin was not a popular choice for the next custodian of Star Trek, he brings a new energy, strikes a good balance between action and story and does not dilute or sell the source material out short. He is also responsible for putting together Beyond’s many exciting action sequences. Beginning with the Enterprise, attacked while on a rescue mission near the remote planet Altamid, coming under attack from a swarm of alien ships, the action continues at a brisk and constant pace for the remainder.
Yet the filmmakers know what makes Star Trek work is not just its effect sequences, but the camaraderie between the Enterprise crew. The first two films focused on Kirk and Spock, perhaps rightly so as Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto had both nailed their respective roles. Here they give all of the main characters a chance to come out from the background and into the fore front, allowing the audience more insight into each of them.
There are new characters to contend with as well; feisty Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), stranded on Altamid like the crew, who find her resourcefulness and wits of great use in their survival mission. It’s on this strange new planet they all find themselves at the mercy of the villainous Krall (There’s no point in naming the A-lister who portrays him, as it could be anyone under all that heavy makeup). In many ways a classic Star Trek villain: megalomaniacal, destructive, with a grudge against Star Fleet and looking somewhat like a man in a rubber suit.
Beyond is not all throwback, though, as it tries to put its own spin on old tropes and give new situations and dilemmas for its characters to overcome. For example, the previously adventurous Kirk has grown tired of exploring the never-ending expanse of space and through the events of the film, re-learns what it was that first made him want to explore the universe. As with all series, Star Trek was in danger of becoming repeatedly treading old ground and Beyond invents new directions for all involved, making it a more intriguing joruney.
Well-written and made with expertise, the biggest selling point of Star Trek Beyond is that it is, pure and simply, good fun. It has the feel of a time before all studio films became dour and serious, but while this film is serious in wanting the audience to care about what happens, the tone is not a dour one which causes events to drag.
Unfortunately on release it was not met with the audience it needed or deserved, which was disappointing and also bringing this new Star Trek series to a grinding halt. A sequel to Beyond was on the cards but has failed numerous times to get off the ground, even with some of the biggest names in the game attached to it. As of summer 2021 Paramount have stated a follow-up is on the horizon, but it’s uncertain what the eventual final product will look like.
Another reason for the post-Beyond stagnation may be the loss of a main cast member. Not long before the film’s release, Anton Yelchin died in tragic circumstances at the age of 27. His performance as Pavel Chekov in all three of these Star Trek films was his most visible and for him to have gone so young left an air of sadness over what was to be his final performance in the series. His absence would have to been addressed in any further films, as he would have to be re-cast or written out.
Star Trek Beyond‘s difficult birth saw it miss out on its chance to enthrall the world even more than its two predecessors did. With everything firing on all cylinders, it’s easily the best of the three films made to date. It is ripe for re-discovery – and what better time than its five-year anniversary.
20 Years In The Making: A New Look At Jurassic Park III – It’s understandable why there will be little fanfare for the twentieth anniversary of Jurassic Park III. The arrival of the first film, which marked a new milestone in film special effects and won over audiences across the globe, will rightly be noted and celebrated. Its second sequel was not as much of a technological advancement and, making nearly half at the box office what the in-between entry The Lost World: Jurassic Park did, it is the lowest-grossing film in the franchise to date.
If looked at objectively though, in this writer’s humble opinion, it is the best film of the whole JurassicPark series. There is one simple answer for this, one which made critics sniffed about during its theatrical run: it is almost entirely action scenes with dinosaurs. Good ones at that.
The dinosaurs have always been the best part of any Jurassic film, and while it has come up with some memorable human characters over time, they were ultimately best used as live bait. At ninety-five minutes long, as well as not overstaying its welcome, JPIII has maybe the highest dinosaur-to-minute ratio in cinema. Taking over the director’s chair from Steven Spielberg, Joe Johnson cuts through all the dead weight and gets to the USP of the series: dino action.
Almost from the start the filmmakers here show an understanding that is what they and the audience are both here for. At this point in the Jurassic Park series we all know there is an island inhabited by dinosaurs, ones some of the best technical crafters in the business have made to look so believable. All that’s needed is a reason for the characters to be there and even that is discussed in as little detail as possible.
Sam Neill is back to headline this film as Dr. Alan Grant (Laura Dern reprises her role as Dr. Ellie Satler for a cameo). Along with his assistant Billy Brennan (Alessandro Nivola), he heads back to dinosaur-strewn Isla Sornar under false pretences: to act as guides to an adventurous wealthy couple. In fact, they are looking for their thrill-seeking son who went missing in the area while parasailing.
Yes, it is preposterous, but it’s also the first fifteen minutes of JPIII. From there on it is what we came for: seeing this party at the constant mercy of the island’s dinosaur inhabitants. The most memorable is the big baddie of the piece, the Spinosaurus. Outweighing any other dinosaur in the series – both in its CGI form and as an animatronic, which was the largest every built for a film – it has a voracious appetite for humans and makes for an imposing and tenacious enemy.
The Spinosaurus makes its presence first felt when it plucks the heroes’ crashed plane out of a tree with its teeth and, in the ensuing chase, ends up taking on the star reptile of the Jurassic Park universe, the T-Rex. It’s not done yet, though: later it turns up to give chase to the human party at a moment when things are starting to look up and later ambushes them at a river in the middle of a storm.
They are also pursued by a pack of velociraptors and come across a mysterious, fog-strewn enclosure they hope is empty, but soon though soon find themselves face-to-face with the inhabitants: Pteranodons. Unlike the others, these are foes the party can’t escape on foot – fortunately they have a discarded parasail they can put to use in the most memorable, gleefully absurd and exciting of JPIII’s action set pieces.
While the dinosaur action is the main focus of the film, that’s not to say it is a completely brainless exercise and some moments of character are allowed. For example, the couple who instigate the expedition to the island, Paul and Amanda Kirby (William H Macy and Tea Leoni) are divorced and have to work together in order to find their son, despite it being awkward for them at first.
Both wanting to re-united with their son, they learn to work together and, in surviving the island, newfound respect and admiration for one another grows. At the same time Dr. Grant wants to get back to civilisation as soon as possible, which leads to tense disagreements with Billy, who sees this as a big opportunity to learn more about dinosaur behaviours. The doctor does start to find a new appreciation for the reborn beasts with help from the best of the new characters, Eric Kirby (Trevor Morgan).
JPIII may not have the deepest character arcs but they are enough to want to see these characters through and everything the film sets up, it goes on to resolve. The third film understands trying to add character complexities which are pushed aside in favour of action is unnecessary. It knows the characters need just one primary motivation: to get off the island alive.
Joe Johnson’s film is not without its problems: its breezy pace doesn’t do much for resonance and the dialogue ranges from perfunctory to trite. (One exchange goes: “It’s a birdcage,” “For what?” Well, what normally goes in a birdcage?) In a sense that isn’t so important, JPIII knows exactly what it is: dumb, absurd fun, a fact is never shies away from and with no higher aspirations than that.
It’s not the most sophisticated actioner around, but that’s not what people come to a Jurassic Park film for. They come to see desperate protagonists in a series of increasingly desperate life-or-death clashes with dinosaurs, on which Jurassic Park III delivers. It is a much-maligned entry in the series but now, twenty years on from its first release and in the wake of far inferior follow-ups, the time has come for Jurassic Park III to have its dues.
