Blog

  • I Love Sarah Jane: An Unconventional Love Story

    I Love Sarah Jane: An Unconventional Love Story

    On first sights of the premise for I Love Sarah Jane, I was unsure of what to think about a love story set in a post-apocalyptic zombie wasteland. Although there are often romantic plots hanging around in the background of most great zombie movies, this short has that principle as its primary focal point of the story. Looking at director Spencer Susser’s comments, however, it is clear that the aim here was exactly that. To make a zombie film that didn’t have zombies as its main motivation. Ultimately it’s a romantic film. Main character Jimbo (Brad Ashby) just happens to experience his sexual awakenings during a zombie epidemic. Susser said, “What if not everyone was sick and, for those people, life had to go on?”

    The story cuts right in with thirteen year old Jimbo and his lanky friend Joey as they cycle through their wrecked neighbourhood in a passage that resembles one of the beginning scenes in Gummo. As the boys reach their destination we are presented with the film’s only featured zombie and it is not a disappointment. Unlike many recent depictions of sub-human, fast paced and slightly more believable undeads, Susser decided to chose a more extreme, Evil Dead style monster, creating a nice and refreshing reverence to the classics. However, as mentioned, the zombie was just a sideline to the longing of Sarah Jane, played by now well know actress Mia Wasikowska. After she initially retaliates against Jimbo, her heart warms, as does ours, as they open up about their fears, which are quite obviously more prominent than the average teenager’s.

    Although the gore in this movie is a little rushed and under budgeted, as admitted by Susser himself, there are some great moments, the climax being a zombie explosion leaving the top half still crawling along the ground. The effects are all man-made which is an admirable and valuable trait, particularly on the modest funding for Susser’s short. They also add a little comic releif to the otherwise stern atmosphere of the story.

    I love Sarah Jane proved a hit with film critics, winning awards at the Arizona Film Festival and the Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival. Although the movie itself contains many references to it’s predecessors, Susser seems to have brought up a rather innovative idea, making it one of the reasons it was such a hit. So much so in fact that he is now in the process of converting his work into a full-length feature film. Hopefully soon we will get the full picture of a love so powerful, not even your zombified Dad in the back garden can destroy it.

  • The Ellington Kid: A Short And Tall Tale

    The Ellington Kid: A Short And Tall Tale

    The Ellington Kid is one part to Vice’s recent collection of shorts. Amongst other well-received films including I love Sarah Jane and Death to the Tinman, this particular flick is a modern, less romantic take of a classic campfire urban legend.

    The film was released as a debut by London based writer and director, Dan Sully. And although the piece is only 5 minutes long, the cut throat, model horror plot juxtaposed with the comical and colloquial dialogue gives the viewer an insight into Sully’s cinematic passion which at a guess would be somewhere stuck in between dark, horror and comedy.

    The story involves two friends in a kebab shop, one narrating the reason of why he “only eats the chips” at said restaurant. The motive behind it involves a London gang, lots of knives and some very angry chefs. It’s evocative of stories your older brother would tell you at night, with a torch to his face and a smirk on his lips and for this Sully gives the perfect hanging ending. Adding to this, the film is well shot with the camera switching between the two friends and their tall tale, setting the scene with shots of carving knives of which are bountiful throughout the movie.

    Although you could argue Sully is trying to portray some more serious issues in his narrative such as violence within London gang-culture, where the camera follows an innocent victim as he stumbles his way through London after being attacked, this is soon quashed by the obviously comical raconteur as well as the U-turn the scene takes as he falls into the hands of some rather alternative kebab shop owners. I think the point Sully is trying to push with his short is a homage to horror comedy cinematographers set in a snippet of a world he is surrounded by. The sarcastic nature of the characters combined with the heavy back landing is almost reminiscent of longer pictures such as Severance, although this is just an assumption. Overall, it’s a good attempt at a British dark comedy and the shady kink at the end, a loved technique by so many authors, is what makes this an ideal short story. Although sensitive viewers be warned, you may not be craving a greasy kebab for a little while.

  • Mama – Review

    Mama – Review

    By Carys Dennison.

    In recent years, it has seemed to have almost become horror film protocol that characters are always moving into new suburban houses. These houses, of course, always seem to have a closet that should permanently remain untouched under all circumstances. In the newly released Spanish-Canadian paranormal horror Mama, it’s not just the new house or closet you should be wary of, you should really watch out for what’s hiding in those walls, too.

    Directed by first-timer Andrés Muschietti, Mama is the tale of two little girls who are followed by an angry spirit entity that will inevitably inflict many years of therapy upon those it terrorises. With Guillermo del Toro (creator of the critically acclaimed Pan’s Labyrinth) as executive producer, much of the haunting imagery throughout is beautifully executed with Toro’s renowned fairytale stylisation.

    Indeed, in true fairytale style, Mama even begins with the words ‘Once upon a time…’ (Of course, this is written in child’s handwriting, just for those extra creeps). Following the financial crisis of 2008, overwrought business-man Jeffrey (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has murdered his two business partners and his estranged wife. Later that day, Jeffrey hurries home, grabs his two daughters and is next seen frantically driving them through a snow-capped mountain path. Ignoring the pleas of his oldest daughter, Victoria (Megan Charpentier), to slow down, Jeffrey crashes the car and then leads his two children to an abandoned cabin in the woods. Once inside, Jeffrey tells Victoria to look out of a window as he unsteadily raises a pistol to the back of her head. However, before he has time to be hated by the entire audience, a supernatural force manifests itself, and, after making a lot of gargling noises, ultimately kills him.

    Five years later, Jeffrey’s twin-brother Lucas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has hired a search-group to find his supposedly lost brother and two nieces. All the while when this is going on, Jeffrey’s girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain) is just relieved to find out that she is not pregnant… little does she know what she is in for.  Soon after, Jeffrey’s search-group finds the elusive abandoned cabin, along with the two little girls. Needless to say, a lot can happen in five years, especially as the girls have now adopted an animal-like way of moving and now choose to only growl as a form of communication.

    The girls are soon taken into psychiatric care and, after some observation, psychiatrist Dr. Dreyfuss (Daniel Kash) concludes that the girls have manifested a make-believe maternal guardian called Mama during their time in the abandoned cabin. This theory itself would perhaps form the basis for a highly interesting psychological film, however, the genre of paranormal horror often forgoes any predominant logical rationality and it is therefore not a path meant to be explored. Reluctant by Annabel, Lucas decides to take the girls into his care and they soon all move into a new house that is given to them courtesy of the psychiatric institute. Thus, here begins Mama’s dark decent onto the new happy family and the terror and fright that she will undoubtedly cause.

    Brother and sister team Andrés and Barbara Muschietti wrote the script for Mama, and, although the screenplay is certainly not innovative in its content, it does cater well to what a modern audience would expect from a paranormal horror and remains loyal to the plot conventions of the genre. The characters within the film appear to be rather two-dimensional and mainly seem to only serve as torture toys for the antagonistic force of Mama, however, the character of Annabel in particular does in fact have a surprising character arc that indeed adds to the overall realism of the film.

    As in many paranormal horrors, the first three quarters of Mama are paced rather slowly to build up gradual suspense and allow for the obligatory jumpy and unexpected scares. Although slow-pacing seems to be a tried and tested formula within the paranormal genre, it only serves here to allow the actual ending of Mama to appear as noticeably rushed and very contrived due to its overly-fast execution in comparison to the rest of the film.

    The cinematography featured within the film is certainly very artistic and beautifully executed consistently throughout. Moreover, the colour-scale of Mama is also suitably dark and gloomy, allowing any use of actual colour to be an extra shock to the eyes. Although the panning of the camera can be painfully slow at times, it is effective in giving you those cliché jump-scares when something less than appetising pops-up in the frame. A particularly impressive segment of camera-work is featured in a scene where a first-person perspective is solely shown, allowing for a more personalised element to be created for those in the audience who like to get a little more up-close.

    Although the CGI used within the film is executed to a high visual level, it does perhaps detract from the visual ‘scare-factor’ of some of the characters and also the special-effects due to how obviously computerised they are. The visual appearance of Mama herself seems to be based on an amalgamation of previous paranormal antagonists from the past, for example; the token dark, long and unkempt hair (à la The Ring) and also backwards-crawling used as a mode of transportation (à la The Exorcist). Although these visual stereotypes are sure to be a crowd-pleaser for the modern horror audience, Mama herself is far from original in her conception and only serves to produce the same old scares.

    The sound effects used within Mama are the usual cannon-fodder you would expect in a paranormal horror, however they work well to build-up momentum by increasing in pitch and frequency when indicating that something is indeed about to go down. With original music by Fernando Veláquez (The Orphanage), the soundtrack is effective in placing an unsettling score that runs through the entire film.

    The acting featured within the film is generally well-executed, in particular Jessica Chastain, who plays the cliché tough-girl-gone-soft characterisation of Annabel with an actual sense of believability. However, special recognition should be given to Isabelle Nélisse, the child-actor of the character Lilly, who manages to repeatedly pull off an incredibly creepy smile that is arguably more chilling than any of the CGI used throughout.

    Although certainly not innovative in terms of plot and scares, Mama does stand stronger than most of the cookie-cutter paranormal horrors of our modern times. Also, despite the conventions of the horror genre restricting the development of some of the more psychological thematic elements of the film, Mama does indeed leave scope for the imagination in the future.

  • City Of Women – Review

    City Of Women – Review

    *Spoliers ahoy*

     

    Federico Fellini is a name synonymous with lyrical, almost ethereal film making. La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2 and Amacord (to name but a few classics) delved deep into everything from politics to sexuality to psychology, sometimes wrapped up in a demented bow, specifically Satyricon. Throughout the 1960s & 70s each film seemed to be as masterful as the last and because of this he rightly remains one of cinemas great auteurs.

    So how would Fellini fare as he headed into that tricky artistic decade we call the 1980’s. Don’t misunderstand me some amazing films came out in the 80s but it was also a decade where the established masters seemed to struggle with changing trends, although I might be thinking more about music here – Neil Young and Bowie spring to mind. In 1980 Fellini dropped City of Women on the world (sorry that sounded terribly ‘street’ of me). Re-teaming with his 8 1/2 male-muse Marcello Mastroianni, City of Women plays like a dreamlike road trip about a man who finds himself in increasingly bizarre situations after being lured off his train by an attractive woman. Along the way Snaporaz (Mastiroianni) gate crashes a feminists retreat, where the speakers engage in pantomine depictions of the house wife’s life, heated debates about sex acts and UN-like discussions of women’s role in society. Finding his way out he is then nearly raped by a buxom woman in green house before being taken on a wild joy ride by drug taking teenagers. Eventually he ends up at the mansion of Dr. Xavier Katzone, Snaporaz marvels at the sexual imagery adorning the walls and ends up staying for a party which his ex-wife seems to be attending. The party is broken up by an all-female police squadron led by his attempted-rapist. After trying to woo two half naked women with a Fred Astaire style dance he ends up in bed with his ex. Crawling under his bed to escape her he finds himself on a giant fair-ground slide. As he slides down he reminisces about all the women he has been infatuated with since childhood. He suddenly finds himself on trial for his crimes against women, he climbs a ladder up to a hot air balloon and then wakes up on the train from the films opening to discover that the entire film has been a dream. This sounds more bat-shit crazy when I typed it out than it seemed watching it.

    I must confess that before watching it I wasn’t aware of City of Women’s existence in the Fellini canon. It’s easy to see why  it seems to have been marginalized. Fellini has been prone to bawdy humour and a bit of smut here and there but City of Women plays like an out-and-out sex-farce. Who doesn’t love a sex-farce? They’re always the highest caliber of entertainment. Mastiroianni does away with his uber-chic image that he was so iconic for in favour of playing a pathetically sex-hungry lech. It’s very likely that this role  reversal on Mastiroianni and Fellini’s part is deliberate, by subverting his Casanova like image that they are putting the women on upper footing but it makes Benny Hill look suitable in comparison.

    It’s a tricky proposition to decide whether Fellini is attempting to further empower women with City of Women or mock extremist feminist attitudes. The opening act set in the hotel where a feminist convention is taking place presents the entire event as some deranged vaudeville show. Women quibble over the tiniest difference of what it is to be truly feminist, all at the top of their longs and seemingly mentally unbalanced. It’s quite clear that Fellini is mocking the militant, extremist side of the argument but it’s harder to decipher whether he agrees with the concept of feminism at all. It’s clear from his body of work that he loves women but does he respect them? The film is a gallery of untrustworthy, dominant women who seem to lead our “hero” down the garden path at every turn. He is a fool and they are, put simply… crazy. It’s not the most compelling group of characters ever assembled for a film.

    Thanks to the films road-trip style storytelling and extended dream, within dream sequence the film never seems to fully mesh together. The film feels like a series of short films loosely tied together by a saucy man in a suit trying to either catch a train or get  his leg over (Takeshi Kitano did this a lot funnier and sillier with Getting Any? fifteen years later). At nearly two hours twenty it’s hard to stay engaged for the whole time. Of course as it’s a Fellini film the photography and the colours look incredible. But the production design at times looks downright cheap. Which is odd because you tell a fair amount of money most have gone into sets and locations – but they just look bad. A particular moment sticks in my mind of a ginormous arse belonging to one of Snaporaz’s conquests – rendered in paper-mache and painted bright pink it looks like it was made by primary school kids. Yes the film is ultimately a dream but dreams don’t have to come from Poundland. But my main issue with City of Women is the “comedy” both slapstick and absurdest, either way it doesn’t work. Visual metaphors or trains going into tunnels to women who can telepathically suck coins into their vagina’s it’s just odd, dull and at times creepy. In it’s slight defense City of Women is a film that could be more succinctly dissected. A wealth of discussion could be had from role reversal, regret and shame and how our subconscious dream state brings these to the front. But to be honest I can’t be bothered because I’m not wasting my time on what was ultimately a sucky, sucky film. Yes technical critiquing here. Go watch Satyricon.

     

  • And Scene #1: LA Confidential – The Interrogation

    And Scene #1: LA Confidential – The Interrogation

    I was chilling one night long ago, listening the the ‘inside Breaking Bad’ podcast as a blogger with no life is wont to do, and the show’s creator Vince Gilligan sort of defined what I look for in TV and movies and maybe all of fiction. Paraphrasing, he said that all the work that goes into establishing, character, credibility, pace and building up the universe of a story and all the rest is ultimately about getting the most out of your moments of showmanship. That is to say the incredible  scenes and sequences that make up a film or a show are actually the point, and all that plotting and story malarkey is the merely the stage which enables you to dance. Whether you subscribe to this theory or not, I believe these ascendant moments in cinema are worth celebrating, be they buried in a film that otherwise didn’t work or epitomize the qualities of the masterpiece. Let’s do this.

    SPOILERS ARE POSSIBLE – SO BEWARE YE

    The first film I’ve chosen to to dissect a single scene out of for praise is Curtis Hanson’ s ridiculously perfect L.A Confidential. Ironic really, considering this film is high in the running to be called one of the most balanced and honed movies ever made, one thing that works complimenting another thing that works forming a complex tapestry of things that work. The sense of control and near supernaturally rewarding coherence is all the more amazing considering the book it’s based on may as well have ‘I wrote this on crack’ as a blurb, such is the level of the convolution and tangenting (still fun though) That said, I believe there is one scene that defines all that is holy about L.A Confidential, and it’s the scene where Guy Pearce’s Ed Exley simultaneously interrogates three suspects in the notorious ‘Nite Owl’ killings.  The scene runs only four minutes long, and while there other scenes that deal with greater revelations, greater surprises and bare more importance to the story, I don’t think any of them quite demonstrate what makes this movie a classic of our times quite like this, faultless grandstanding built on a foundation of such meticulous craft and completed homework.

    We enter after Exley and Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey) have apprehended three African American suspects of the afore-mentioned Nite Owl shootings, Sugar Ray, Lewis and Carl. Each sit in adjoining interrogation rooms, either shitting themselves or giving daggers to a single sheet one-sided glass, through which they can all be seen by the 20 plus cops stood behind it, including all our major players, Exley, Vincennes, Captain Dudley Smith (James Cromwell) and Bud White (Russell Crowe). The first stroke genius is in the mise en scene. We’ve all seen a thousand interrogations in movies, Law and Order’s, NCIS’s etc, so we know all the rhythm and rhyme of how these scenes work. But there’s two things that make this the final word of its type. The layout means the 20 or so cops act as a surrogate for the audience, they all mistrust and dislike Exley at this point just like we do -we’ve only see him be a rat and a goody two shoes so far – and we watch them being blown away by Exley’s hyper-competence just like we are. Exley bounces between suspects as he interrogates, having to take a walk in front of the gobsmacked cops each time he switches rooms. It’s a terrific device, because while most interrogation scenes play out long and slow, a duel between the suspect and the cop, this brims over with kinetic energy, and instead of a one on one we have a three on one, where the three are hopelessly outmatched, the one striding past his wowed audience after each blow he imparts, making it an act of theatre.

    Although L.A Confidential is nominally an ensemble piece, Exley is the hero of the story, a nerd hero in film noir no less, a genre perpetually in awe of street smarts and where academic intelligence is usually the highway to corruption or cowardice. Exley is the goody two shoes who is everything he expects others to be, and it turns out that his A grades and hours of study and hard work actually make him a better cop than everyone else. This scene is the scene to show Exley is everything he says he is, worthy of our respect and worthy of being the one too root for in this story. Russell Crowe is perhaps the biggest presence in the movie, but Guy Pearce’s subtle,  badass yet deceptively vulnerable performance as Exley is its secret strength. No more evident than in this scene, where he plays cold, understanding, fierce in a matter of moments. Whatever each suspect requires. I think the minor actors play their roles too to, particularly Jeremiah Birkett who plays the coolly accepting Sugar Ray. He repels Pearce’s nerd charisma well, and holds up his end of the scene.

    The second ingenious writing device is Exley being able to pick and choose what the other suspects hear and when via intercom, timing the snippets of the conversation so it appears each suspect is stitching the other up. Seeing Carl soundlessly begging Sugar Ray not to inform on their drug dealer is a striking visual image, but mostly it emphasizes Exley’s power of the situation, the level of meticulous control he has. Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson’s script is eternally making difficult look easy in this film, but the sheer level of perfection in the various practical elements of the scene, the tech, the layout, the presence of the cops, of the increasingly furious Bud White, Exley’s approach to each suspect, is its own kind of masterful. It means that within seconds we’re seeing something new and exhilarating in a scene that by rights should feel familiar and by the numbers, and the set-up is so well thought through and airtight in that ‘we wrote 4000 drafts of this’ kind of way. You can’feel them feasting on their own hard work, reaping the profits of getting the scaffolding perfectly in place, and allowing the scene to explode of the page.

    As we progress, Exley learns that although the suspects are fairly clueless when he brings up the nite owl, he gets them to confess that they are keeping a girl prisoner away in a house somewhere, that they kidnapped so Lewis, the suspect who is in a perpetual state of hysteria, could lose his virginity. They don’t know if she is dead or alive. White, who we know previously is particularly uncomfortable with violence against women in any variety, snaps and the scene ends as it must, with him bursting in, much to Exley’s chagrin, and getting her location by putting a gun in Carl’s mouth. Exley is undermined yet again, as is the right way of doing things, something which at this point of the story, Exley champions above all else.  But it is nonetheless such a strong character building moment that are alliegences switch from White, the thug with the heart of gold, to this snotty character that is his antithesis.

    In the course of this scene this is what we have accomplished, We’ve furthered the plot substantially, we’ve changed the perception of one of our three main characters, we’ve created a set-piece as thrilling as any action scene you care to name, and done so with everything feeling entirely organic and earned, all in 4 minutes. L.A Confidential’s genius is while it amazes, it amazes efficiently, every scene serves a purpose and there’s no undue sag or fat to be found anywhere. It’s complicated yet clear, rich yet pure. Thrilling yet intelligent. The interrogation scene is a microcosm of all these things working on all cylinders.

    Oh did I mention this movie is utterly fucking boss? Coz it is.