film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Blog

  • What I’ve Learnt From Terrence Malick

    What I’ve Learnt From Terrence Malick

    Terrence Malick: What I’ve Learnt – By Tomas Gold.

    Terrence Malick. His career has spanned more than forty-five years, directing ten feature films, winning multiple awards and earning praise & adulation from critics, audiences and filmmakers around the world. This has cemented his reputation as one of the most celebrated and revered directors in the history of cinema. 

    Since the early 1970s, Terrence Malick has directed a wide range of feature films, including Badlands (1973), Days of Heaven (1978), The Thin Red Line (1998) and The Tree of Life (2011). Throughout his career, he has sought to tell stories that push the boundaries of filmmaking and to explore alternative cinematic techniques. In making To The Wonder (2012), for instance, this meant forgoing a formal script: In A Hidden Life (2019), he used only wide-angle lenses to film. These are just a few examples of how Malick has been able to create a distinctive body of work, often receiving considerable praise for its beguiling cinematography, philosophical themes and poignant, introspective voiceover narration. These approaches explain my own adoration for Malick’s films. 

    I also admire his creative approach. As a filmmaker myself, I have been inspired by Malick’s eagerness to experiment with traditional narrative structure, the way he encourages actors to improvise & follow their own ideas, and his determination not to be restricted by the “rules” of filmmaking. Malick is by no means the first director to diverge from a conventional filmmaking process, however there is something about my experience of watching his films that leaves me captivated, enthralled and feeling I have gained a deeper understanding of the world around me, in a way that other films do not. They are philosophical, poetic journeys, filled with life, energy and beauty, that I do no try to fully understand objectively, I question what they mean to me, how it makes me feel, what my interpretation of the work is. 

    He is a maverick, ready to make films that go beyond  conventional expectations, on his own terms. This has influenced how I approach my own work. One of the most important aspects of filmmaking that I feel I have learnt from Malick’s approach is to not hold onto your pre-conceptions of how a film should be made, from pre-production, filming, and to post-production. If you are not beholden to those pre-conceptions, your creativity can flourish because you are not limiting yourself, you are able to explore new ideas and angles.

    In a rare public appearance at the 2017 South By Southwest festival, Malick mentions “I find it very hard to execute anything that is too pre-conceived, or storyboards, I’ve never been able to work from a storyboard.”[]He goes on to explain that to him “You always have a little feeling that you’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.” For me, what I take from this is that sometimes if you plan with too much detail, mapping out exactly how the finished film will be made, you can in fact arrive at the opposite conclusion. In this situation, you start filming and when things aren’t going in the direction you hoped it would, although they seemed great during pre-production, it becomes apparent that certain aspects are ultimately not suited to the realisation of your project.

    You are constantly attempting to replicate very specific visions and details (which can leave you with very limited options if unsuccessful), whereas if you approach an idea with the expectation that on the filming days you may diverge from the script or shooting schedule, and focus on capturing the essence or feeling of that idea, you can do what feels right on the day, follow your instincts and work with the cast & crew to embody that direction. 

    This method of course does not work with everyone or every type of production, but what I want to emphasise is that from my perspective, Malick has taught me that there are many possibilities & directions when making a film, and that they should be explored as much as possible, because you may find something wonderful that you wouldn’t have planned for. Don’t stifle creativity based on a formal understanding of the work, be free to create your own path.

  • Let’s Watch The Paranormal Activity Franchise: Part 3

    Let’s Watch The Paranormal Activity Franchise: Part 3

    I Dislike Paranormal Horror Films…So Let’s Watch The Paranormal Activity Franchise: Part 3

    Every Halloween, I always make sure to watch specific horror films: ‘Saw’, ‘Trick ‘r’ Treat’, ‘Jeepers Creepers’ and ‘Tusk’ are all watched every year to the point where I probably know the script by heart. However, I wanted to do something different this year, and step out of my comfort zone a bit. 

    One of the horror subgenres that I dislike the most are Possession films. Films like ‘Devil’s Due’, ‘Amityville Horror’ and ‘The Last Exorcism’ never seem to hold my interest, and even a classic like ‘The Exorcist’ took me a few days to finish because I kept losing interest. So, I want to give myself a challenge: at the end of each week this month, starting today, I will be watching all of the ‘Paranormal Activity’ films, with the last four acting as a double upload on the last two weeks of October.

    ‘Paranormal Activity 3’ was released in 2011 and takes place in 1988. After a supposed earthquake disrupts the family of Katie and Kristi Featherston, Dennis, their guardian, puts up multiple cameras around the house. He also speculates that the girls’ imaginary friend, Toby, is actually real.

    This is yet another prequel revolving around sisters Katie and Kristi Featherston, which is extremely disappointing to see, considering the last entry’s ending set up an interesting plot point. This film’s only goal is to tell its audience why the demon has clung to the Featherston family. And, while this may sound interesting on the surface, Part 2 already gave viewers a theory on why they probably should’ve called an exorcist ages ago. 

    Which brings this article onto its second point: there is hardly any subtly in this film. While some foreshadowing is given via dialogue, e.g.: the grandma, Lois, wanting her daughter to have another child, in the hopes that it’ll be a boy, most of the information given are things that would’ve worked better had it been left for speculation and theorizing. The ending which reveals that that Lois had, in fact, made a deal with a demon (like Ali suggested in the previous film) was interesting and answered some questions that fans may have had. However, I would’ve preferred if these questions had not been answered at all. Whether the detail about Lois and her coven of witches comes up in a later film, we will have to wait to find out. But, for now, this was a detail that I did not need to know. 

    This film also didn’t make sense motivation-wise and production-wise. While I didn’t enjoy ‘Paranormal Activity 2’, the motivation behind the security cameras made complete sense; the family were trying to catch, what they thought, would be a burglar and happened to film something supernatural instead. This film, however, had an extremely weak motivation: after a small earthquake hits their town, Dennis notices something in the tape that he’d been using to test out his new camera. Compared to the previous films, this was a somewhat lazy explanation as to why the cameras had been set up around the house. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90r3CnPI0AM&list=PLIEjQ77b3P_PyC6rndVGtvmO9VMtmFW-Z&index=50

    The editing towards the end made no sense either. The film is edited because Dennis edits the footage that he films as he goes along. However, he’s killed at the end, which begs the question: who is editing the third act to the point where there are random jump cuts when there shouldn’t be? This sound like a nitpick, however, if a found footage film wants to fool its audience in believing it is found footage, then it needs to be filmed and edited as if someone found it and is piecing it together. One positive that can be taken from the cinematography is a scene in which Dennis attaches his camera to a broken electric fan stand. This means that one of the cameras is constantly moving left to right and back. This camera is where the tension really shines; the audience may not want to look around that corner, but they’re going to whether they like it or not!

    Unfortunately, it can’t be denied that ‘Paranormal Activity 3’ is a boring and unnecessary prequel. Not only was the plot not needed, as part 2 gave its audience all the information it needed, but it’s a confusing film, production-wise. A pattern had also started to form: all three films have gotten interesting in its last 15-20 minutes. While the first film had interesting story and character development, it’s undeniable that the first film falls under this comment too. However, ‘Paranormal Activity 3’ does not need to be part of the franchise, and I would’ve happily avoided it.

  • Shirley: Review

    Shirley: Review

    Shirley is a biopic of dubious intent. It is impeccably made – excellent performances, evocative camerawork and absorbing sound design, but to what end? It presents a fictionalised account of Shirley Jackson – the noted author of The Haunting of Hill House – and depicts not her talent but her supposedly twisted arrogance. It is uninvolving work that says very little about its reimagined subject.

    Inspired no doubt by Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the film contrives a warped psychodrama between Shirley (Elisabeth Moss), her husband Stanley Nyman (Michael Stuhlbarg) and a newlywed couple Rose and Fred Nemser (Odessa Young, Logan Lerman).

    Stanley, a gregarious professor at Bennington College, asks Rose if they could help around the house, offering the couple room and board. They accept, realising the opportunities this presents. The whole thing is a ruse, however, for Shirley and Stanley plan on tormenting the couple, driving a wedge between them as they shame Rose for her ‘shotgun wedding’ and Fred for his ‘derivative’ academic abilities.  

    We see that Jackson has serious issues even before the sick campaign against the Nemsers. An agoraphobic, she is rude, haughty and dysfunctional, with a dash of jealousy to boot. She delights in others’ misfortunes and is visibly excited by opportunities to criticise and ridicule. Her personality goes beyond just bad intent, she is mentally ill, and the film skillfully depicts her maladjustment with extreme close-ups and oppressive diegetic sound – the hum of a light, the chirping of crickets. The score, too, reflects her anxieties, with neurotic piano and plucked strings interspersed with sorrowful choir and fraught double bass.

    Stanley appears to be her opposite: sociable, good humoured and enthusiastic. However, he proves to be every bit as nasty and underhand, lavishing Fred with praise only to crush him with a mocking appraisal of his dissertation. “I am insulted by mediocrity”, he proclaims, exuding a most contemptible arrogance. When he’s not pontificating he is a letch, handsy and kissy with a cross-section of the Bennington campus. Shirley, wallowing in her own filth, is too torpid to care.

    There isn’t much to consider outside of these horrible characters, we certainly see little of Jackson’s talent. This is due, in part, to the inwardness of writing; the depth of an author’s prose does not transfer to the screen like a boxer’s punch or a dancer’s agility. So, like The Shining and Adaptation before it, we see the odd scene of Jackson at her desk, recording her thoughts before they flitter away, but this tells us little about writer’s canon and legacy.

    Indeed, many viewers will leave Shirley with more questions than answers. Are we witnessing fact or fiction here? As someone who knows little of Shirley Jackson, I want to know. The film’s departure from reality, inspired by the non-chronology of Jackson’s texts, is more frustrating than compelling. The Jackson family isn’t happy, either. Laurence Hyman Jackson, Shirley’s son, commented that audiences with no knowledge of his family will “leave thinking my mother was a crazy alcoholic and my father was a mean critic”, adding that the film also failed to portray his mother’s sense of humour. Incidentally, Jackson’s four children are neither featured nor even mentioned in the film, written out of history for some curious reason.

    Again, Shirley is skillfully made. Elisabeth Moss continues her streak of winning performances, while Michael Stulhbarg gives another memorable turn. What results, though, is less than the sum of its parts, with the strange imaginings of Susan Merrel’s novel, on which the script is based, a kind of literary defamation.

  • Expulsion: Review

    Expulsion: Review

    Scott (Colton Tapp) and Vincent (Aaron Jackson) work for a company called Cicero Market Technologies Corporation that makes technology that the world may never know about. Tasked with developing new technology and testing the boundaries of what’s possible, they take some of it home and it’s not long before Scott makes a breakthrough.

    Working on theories about portals and parallel universes, Scott invents a literal door to another world and although he knows how potentially dangerous this discovery may be, it’s not long before his curiosity gets the better of him as he passes through to the other side.

    That’s where he meets Other Scott (Colton Tapp) who has been expecting him and warns him about the dangers that are ahead of him if he continues his work. However, Scott doesn’t realise that Other Scott has ulterior motives that may put his life in danger.

    Expulsion is a science fiction movie written and directed by Aaron Jackson and Sean C. Stephens. Following in the tradition of many science fiction stories that have been written about parallel worlds and scientific discoveries gone wrong, Expulsion seems to know exactly what it wants to do and how to do it.

    With a clearly limited budget and resources, it may be easy to write off Expulsion but thankfully the script is the thing that holds it all together, giving the movie no more and no less than it needs to tell its story.

    The acting is also of the low budget variety and often it seems that the script may be better served with performances that match its preciseness. However, the actors do what they can with the script and although the scenes and dialogue may be very familiar, the fact that the movie was done on such a low budget shows that often it’s the script that matters most.

    Expulsion is the kind of science fiction movie that has been done many times before in both television and cinema, but those fans of the familiar tropes and themes of this subgenre of science fiction may feel comforted to know it’s still done well.

  • Love And Monsters: Review

    Love And Monsters: Review

    YA adaptations used to be all the rave, yet the genre has descended towards an irrelevant pathway. These former franchise-starters are few and far between now, and the entries that do get released are often met with unceremonious reactions (The Darkest Minds and The Mortal Instruments went by without much fanfare). Paramount’s long-delayed project Love and Monsters feels like a relic of that bygone era, though that’s necessarily a bad thing. Imbuing its narrative trappings with an endearing charm, this YA vehicle offers a welcomed VOD surprise (originally was scheduled for 2021 theatrical release).

    Set in a post-apocalyptic future, Love and Monsters follows Joel Dawson (Dylan O’Brien), an anxious man spending his solemn days living in a bunker community. When he hears his old girlfriend Aimee (Jessica Henwick) on the radio, Joel sets out for a daring journey to cross the inhabited land, encountering several gargantuan creatures in the process.

    Most films approach their post-apocalyptic setting with a nihilistic dread, which makes director Michael Matthews playful sensibility a welcome change of pace for the genre. Whether it’s Joel’s sardonic narration or clever cartoon montages, Matthews isn’t afraid to color the genre’s trappings with a deft self-awareness. This decision shapes an imaginative voice behind Love and Monsters’ presentation, displaying a film that isn’t eager to play it safe inside its genre construction (similar to Warm Bodies, this film conveys its dark realities while juxtaposing that with a dry sense of humor).

    It helps that Love and Monsters impresses with its sturdy craftsmanship. Matthews and his crew design some well-constructed monster designs that whisk audiences into the film’s uncanny world. These super-sized creatures represent lurking dangers at their worst, yet some of them serve as empathetic forces that reflect the kindness of the world around them. Credit is also due to the film’s central stars, as Dyan O’Brien captures the earnest affability behind Joel’s skittish delivery. Jessica Henwick is a star in the making, elevating Aimee’s standard-issue design with her commanding presence.

    Love and Monsters gets by on its scrappy earnestness, though its strengths cant cover up the lingering sense of familiarity. Duffield’s iteration of the script has been collecting dust since 2012, dating itself with simplistically-drawn character work and contrived plot detours (a third act twist can be seen coming from a mile away). It doesn’t help that the movie approaches its parable on empathy’s worldly impact with a hockey self-seriousness that derails any thematic impact.

    Still, I can’t deny Love and Monsters innate charms, employing enough smarts and good-will to elevate its formula.