film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Blog

  • Style v Substance: Danny Boyle Offers Both

    Style v Substance: Danny Boyle Offers Both

    Amongst film and media buffs, it’s the age old question. Does one favour style or substance? Form over function? These are generally seen as two separate areas, the difference between intellectual, in-depth films and those with strong artistic flair. Yet, in all reasoning, why can’t a film have both?

    On this subject, you’ve hopefully already seen the trailer for Trance, the latest cinema offering from Danny Boyle. If not, you should; the trailer is a perfect example of how a film can expand into both style and substance without losing its own identity. If done correctly, this offers something unique, a transient film that engages and stimulates across all areas and regions.

    Why is it unique?

    The unique factor of Trance, from what can be seen, has to be the fact that it’s a little bit of everything. The premise is based around a typical heist concept. A painting is stolen, but is lost in the process. This alone opens up a lot of crime themes and motifs. One could argue this is ‘substance’.

    Yet the film also boasts itself as a strong psychological thriller. Simon, played by James McAvoy, is the only person who knows where the painting is, but he’s forgotten. What is the answer? Hypnotherapy. This easily opens up more ‘substance’ but it gives way for a vast amount of ‘style’ and unique qualities when combined with the original dark and gripping crime aspects; something the British director hasn’t passed up on.

    The film contrasts and juxtaposes imagery. There’s Simon, who’s a polite intellectual, and then there’s the criminal underworld. Yet the trailer also threads more; we’re shown city environments and countryside spaces, all shown to suggest something more abstract and surreal. Given the fact that the film features hypnosis, this should be of no surprise. It all blends elegantly together to offer a strong combination of themes and elements seldom seen together.

    This is arguably the film’s strongest point, making for exciting potential. Not only is it thought-provoking, it’s also telling a typical crime story. There’s a little bit of everything for everyone. It might appeal to your peculiar tastes, but might just broaden your horizons and introduce you to something new. Time will tell on March 27th, when Trance is released to the public.

  • Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan

    Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan

    Stop the average man in the street and ask him to name the guy who did the special effects in Avatar, Avengers Assemble, The Hobbit or any other modern CGI-laden blockbuster and my guess is you’ll get a very blank look.  Ask him who did the special effects in Jason & the Argonauts and my guess is that you stand a good chance of being met with the answer: Ray Harryhausen.  Not only that but they’ll probably also be able to tell you the name of the technique with which he is inextricably linked: stop motion animation.  Almost certainly the most famous movie technician of all time, Harryhausen is a byword not just for a particular type of film but also for a bygone era of craftsmanship, quality and attention to detail.

    In Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan some of the biggest and most successful film-makers in history queue up to pay tribute Harryhausen’s work and the influence it has had on their own careers.  Told entirely by talking head interviews and Harryhausen’s own recollections, interspersed with clips from his work, the film is not so much an analysis of film craft – although it provides some fascinating insights into his mind-bogglingly painstaking method – as it is an expression of deep appreciation and affection for a remarkable individual.

    I suppose the test of a good movie documentary is how well it answers two key questions: does it tell you anything you didn’t already know; and, does it make you want to go back and re-watch some of the movies in question.  I’d say the answer to both of those questions is most definitely yes.  For instance, I had no idea that The Valley of Gwangi was originally a Willis O’Brien project that had been started in the 1940s but was shelved because of the war.  You can tell Harryhausen is fond of it as he talks wistfully of how it was a box office flop when it eventually made it to the screen in 1969 because the idea of ‘cowboys vs. dinosaurs’ was twenty years out of date.  It’s well worth another look I reckon.

    A great attraction of this documentary is the fabulous access it clearly had to Harryhausen’s personal treasure trove of stuff relating to his career.  It’s one thing to see the original model of Talos still looking impassively terrifying fifty years on; it’s quite another to see the models of creatures Harryhausen made before he even began his professional career.  We’re told that Harryhausen is quite particular about referring to his creations as “creatures” rather than “monsters” and I think that’s because he saw it as his artistic duty to imbue his models with personalities, identities, life itself.  And I also think it’s because he was so successful at achieving that goal that his creations are so memorable and, further, so fondly recalled, certainly by people of my generation.

    There’s an interesting moment when James Cameron makes the claim that were Harryhausen still working today he’d be using CGI like mad because he’s want to use the best available tools to get his vision on to the screen.  In the very next shot, Harryhausen poo-poos this notion by saying he’d still use his models and stop motion.  I think this goes to the very heart of the central idea behind this documentary: that models, as used by Ray Harryhausen and those he influenced, are really more meaningful and connect better with the audience than CGI effects.  Even some of the interviewees, especially Dennis Muren, who worked on Jurassic Park among others, make this claim themselves, despite the fact that they work in that digital medium.

    There has to be a reason why Harryhausen’s work has endured long beyond the point at which the methods he used ceased to be current and out of all proportion to the relative quality of the films themselves.  And I think this documentary ultimately comes to the view that it’s because Harryhausen was, in the final analysis, a magician:  using just simple tools and infinite patience he dreamed of the incredible and the impossible and brought them to life.

  • I’m Too Old For This Sh*t: Classic Movies, 20 Years Too Late

    I’m Too Old For This Sh*t: Classic Movies, 20 Years Too Late

    There are two things which, if a person becomes my friend, they will eventually learn about me. These aren’t the obvious, in your face facets of my personality (like my wit, charm and good looks), rather facts which usually require a certain amount of trust to have developed before I quietly slip them into conversation. But I’ll lay them on the table for you today:

    1. I had a childhood obsession with Xena: Warrior Princess. I watched it obsessively, and now own DVD boxsets, figurines, graphic novels and fancy dress costumes. That crazy homoerotic badass was my introduction to feminism, aged 9.

    2. This is the important one, which will probably make readers question how I have any authority to write on this site at all. Here goes: I have watched almost no “classic” films made in the period between the late 70’s and early 90’s.

    I was born just into 1990, so my childhood contained epic Disney films (The Lion King 4lyf) and my teenage years contained, on the whole, movies that came out in the noughties. This has resulted in SO MANY conversations in which somebody goes “You’ve seen [insert title of classic movie here] right?” followed by an awkward admission on my part and shock and horror on theirs. Seriously. I’ve only seen the films listed below in the past three years or so, and the majority of them in the last three months. I have still never seen: Terminator, Mad Max, Dirty Dancing, Pretty Woman, Predator… the list goes on.

    This feature, then, is about my experience of watching classic movies about 20 years too late. Are they actually any good? Or is it just collective nostalgia making people think they’re great? Was Mel Gibson ever really a decent non-anti-Semitic actor? Did Bruce Willis have hair? (I’ve now seen Die Hard 1 & 3 and I’m still not convinced).

    Jurassic Park
    This one I saw a few years ago now, at the behest of a boyfriend. I’m afraid that personally this falls into the “only so popular due to nostalgia” category. It’s not bad; it was enjoyable. But watching it now, as a) an adult, and b) an adult who has been brought up to expect amazing SFX and CGI, the dinosaurs lacked the realism I needed to fully engage with the plot. Saying that, it made me do a T-Rex impression, and T-Rex impressions are pretty much the most fun a person can have. Especially if you’re drunk.

    jurassic-park-1

    Rocky
    The same boyfriend that made me watch Jurassic Park also sat me down one evening and told me that it was high time I was introduced to one of his other favourite films. I had little knowledge of the plot of Rocky, apart from a vague understanding that there was a lot of boxing and a lot of Stallone grunting and running up steps. I was not disappointed, but I was also pleasantly surprised. All of it – the plot, the production, the acting – was a lot more subtle and nuanced than I was expecting. I have since seen the comedian Daniel Simonsen talking about Rocky, however, and he makes a good point: http://www.youtube.com/embed/nzgTM6ArASI?t=5m11s

    Die Hard
    I only saw Die Hard for the first time this Christmas just gone. That’s right, I made it through 22 years and 22 Christmases without ever watching this 1988 classic – and I love Alan Rickman (who doesn’t?) I was also lucky in that I lost my Die Hard virginity not in a dull, everyday front room, but in the packed out Prince Charles cinema in Leicester Square, watching it on the big screen with a cider in hand. Excellent. And it was excellent! Maybe action movies have just gone downhill lately, wrapped up in a self-congratulatory bubble of huge explosions and bulging muscles, but the way in which Die Hard combined brutal action, emotional tension and genuine humour really impressed me. Not to mention that the part at the end where McClane and Sgt. Powell’s eyes meet across the crowd as they walk slowly towards each other was the perfect moment for another cinema goer to shout “kiss him!” Also, Willis used to be pretty hot! Who knew?!

    die-hard-1

    Alien
    Released in 1979, Alien falls into the very beginning of my movie-void. I saw Alien vs Predator a few years ago, and, given its utter mediocrity, I unfortunately wrote off Alien as part of the same franchise. My current boyfriend, however, is a movie addict and works in a Forbidden Planet store, so he put on the first of his Alien boxset the other day and I sat down rather dubiously. However, it was brilliant. Most people reading this will probably be going “well, duh” right now, but I was genuinely surprised. It was dark and funny, and Ripley presents a fierce, multi-faceted heroine of the type that I wish there were more of. Considering it was made over 30 years ago the alien looks fantastic and is testament to the fact that modern technology can’t always outdo the efforts of a decent art department.

    Aliens
    Ah. Then it went slightly downhill. I did enjoy Aliens, but it was essentially just the same film as the first one, with more of stuff. More people, more aliens, more guns, more places to hide; but less plot twists. I felt like it was mainly the dialogue that kept it entertaining  – my boyfriend and I now can’t say the word “mostly” without doing it in the creepy voice Newt uses when she says “they  mostly come out at night… mostly” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B436avtEXzs) and she also had one of the best lines ever when the rescue team arriving on her decimated planet keep asking her where her parents are: “they’re dead ok?! Can I go now?”

    ripley
    Lethal Weapon
    I finally understand the “I’m too old for this shit!” joke! If nothing else, this film-watching has made so many references finally make sense. It’s also made me realise that some actors used to be attractive, before they got old and/or racist. I watched Lethal Weapon a month or so ago and although I remember enjoying it at the time, I now can’t really remember what happens, which is probably a reflection of its light-hearted, not-particularly-meaningful action genre. It’s alright, but I wouldn’t put it in the same pile as Alien or Die Hard, which I think do genuinely stand the test of time as a “classic” film.

    Robocop
    I had a similar reaction to this as to Lethal Weapon: it was briefly entertaining, but I think most of the “classic” status given to it is due to the nostalgic resonance that people have, particularly since a lot of boys I know had Robocop toys or comics as well. It’s part of that childhood or teenage experience which I can’t possibly hope to replicate as an adult woman. This is a little sad. Thankfully, I had Xena instead.

    Help, people! What other movies do I need to add to the extensive, ever-growing list? What should I prioritise? 

  • Simon Killer – Review

    Simon Killer – Review

    Heart broken Simon travels to Paris to be a douche-bag.

    Sounds curt and dismissive but that pretty much sums up the second film from Antonio Campos. Simon (Brady Corbet) arrives in France, still reeling from his recent break up with his longtime girlfriend. Increasingly lonely in a foreign land he seeks shelter in a strip bar where he meets prostitute Victoria (Mati Diop). Seeing her as his only chance for some kind of affection he begins to see her more before getting himself assaulted so that she will take him in. The pair begin to fall in love. In order to get some income Simon decides that they should blackmail Victoria’s clients. After a brief spell of the “good life” Simon’s eye begins to wander and his frustration with the world begins to boil over.

    Simon is a frustrating character to have to follow for ninety minutes. We meet him as a husk of a man following his split. Anyone who’s ever been through a bad break up can’t fail to identify with the hopeless loneliness that Corbet and Campos express. His duplicitous nature, sometimes lying for seemingly no reason and getting himself beat up so that he can emotionally blackmail his way into Victoria’s house are compelling character insights. Part you may think you’d do the same if you were desperate. As the story continues Simon’s action begin to worsen. Corbet’s performance doesn’t suddenly switch to crazy mode, but the character becomes more suitably despicable with every scene even if he doesn’t seem to realise it. Simon still thinks Simon’s a good guy, which truly makes him a sociopath. Whilst the character arc (or lack of) is fascinating in theory watching it unfold is much more irritating. Perhaps it falls down to Corbet’s performance. Simon comes across as such a frustrating weasel of a man that he becomes a chore to watch. Bravo for Campos and Corbet for creating a genuinely horrible character but it becomes a detriment to the film when you don’t want to be in that person’s company anymore. I don’t very often fell like that but I did watching Simon Killer.

    Mati Diop turns in a finely understated performance as Victoria. A prostitute with an obviously cruel past who does not act the victim or seductress. She is a woman who knows how to read people. To give them what they want so she gets what she wants. Simon clearly sees her as a damsel in need of rescue, because he’s a good guy but at times she appears to be the one pulling his strings.

    Some have compared Campos visual style to Michael Haneke. The camera keeps it’s distance – the tightest shots are mids. The screen often pans back and forth from events so you sometimes miss some of the action. It’s a cold, detached way of documenting Simon’s psychological collapse that at certain times borders on student film but it’s affect is noticeable  Even as the camera follows Simon through the streets of Paris we are kept at distance just enough to feel as though we are stalking him. It’s a cliched film critique to make, but sometimes you really do feel like a bystander watching events unfold in real life. Which is also thanks in part to the naturalistic style of the film. A nice touch worth mentioning is the use of music throughout. As most of the soundtrack is provided through the headphones Simon strolls around listening to, arbitrarily flicking tracks which instantly changes the mood of a scene. It’s a quirky yet realistic touch that should be used more often. It’s also a soundtrack I would like to own – not that you need to know that but writing it down will remind me to look for it.

    So Simon Killer. A film that some will admire, some will loathe. It depends how much you enjoy character studies of unlikable people shot with a steely hand. It’s a film that I’m glad to have seen but could live the rest of my life without ever seeing again. It’s moments of real ingenuity are often spoiled by amateurish feeling staging and an anti-hero who’s frankly too irritating to give the slightest shit about. Maybe I’m the cruel one here.

  • The King Of Pigs

    The King Of Pigs

    The King Of Pigs (Dwae-ji-ui wang) is an ultra-violent Korean animation set in a high-school world in which rich “dogs” rule over the “pigs”.

    The film is directed by Yeun Sang-ho and stars the voices of familiar Korean actors, Yang Ik-june and Kim Kkobbi from the internationally acclaimed Breathless.

    A festival favourite, this feature animation (aka Manwha) premiered at the 2011 Busan International Film Festival and has since played in various international festivals including the Director’s Fortnight 2012 making it the first animated Korean film to screen at the Festival de Cannes. The King Of Pigs was released theatrically in UK on January 2013,

    After murdering his wife, a businessman on the verge of bankruptcy, Hwang Kyung-min, finds an old classmate, Jung Jong-suk whom he hasn’t seen for fifteen years. During a reunion dinner they look back on their school days, hiding their present situations.

    Back then there were class distinctions among the pupils. The elite students – ‘The Dogs’ – rich, successful and particularly cruel, exercised a reign of terror over the weaker, poorer students – ‘The Pigs’.

    Jong-suk and Kyung-min were powerless against the ‘dogs’. When Kim Chul, one of their fellow pigs, stood up, he fast became their last hope to end the circle of fear.

    Fifteen years later, Chul remains a hero. But behind his figure, the two men recall the murky story of their bond and return to the site where the most shocking truth of what happened there is finally revealed.