Been a bit busy of late, thus the lack of updates - so I have uploaded three new reviews tonight for your reading pleasure:
1.the controversial Only God Forgives (http://nincronyreviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/only-god-forgives.html)
2. the disappointing Kick-Ass 2 (http://nincronyreviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/kick-ass-2.html)
and 3., the better-than-it-needed-to-be The Wolverine (http://nincronyreviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-wolverine.html).
The Coen Brothers Retrospective will continue with the duo's classic screwball comedy Raising Arizona, which should be uploaded within the next week.The Big Lebowski will follow.
I intend on lining up a re-watch of The Vengeance Trilogy within the next couple of weeks in lieu of writing my article on the films.
So yeah, there's whats coming up. Enjoy the new reviews and new updates will be coming soon.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
The Wolverine
Short Verdict: A solid, well constructed action-adventure
film that puts the X-Men film
franchise back-on-track for Days of
Future Past.
Some spoilers follow
The X-Men series
finally moves forward, as the story picks up years after the events of The Last Stand. Logan, or more famously
known as Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), is a hermit in the
“middle-of-no-where-America trying to null the pain of the loss of Jean Grey (Famke Janssen),
the woman he loved and was forced to kill (long story). An opportunity is
presented to Wolverine to travel to Japan to visit an old-dying friend whom he
saved at Hiroshima and maybe a chance to redeem himself. Yashida (Hal Yamanouchi), now a very
successful businessman, offers Wolverine a chance to pay him back for saving
him – a chance rid himself of his immortality, which Logan views as a curse.
What follows is a high-octane action-adventure which sees Wolverine embroiled
in a chase across Japan, becoming involved in company conspiracies, yakuza dealings and the secret of
Yashida’s inheritance. Supporting him is Yashida’s grand-daughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) and
step-grand-daughter Yukio (Rila Fukushima), a mutant with the power to foresee the future.
When superhero films are becoming increasingly about shared
continuity post-Avengers, it is
genuinely refreshing having just a stand-alone story in a wider universe. While
there are loose connections to the previous films (and future ones....no
spoilers though), The Wolverine can be enjoyed as a stand-alone action-adventure
film that hits all the right beats. This is particularly comforting given the
quality of the recent X-Men films – The
Last Stand was a limp conclusion to the original trilogy, X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed at
almost every level (except for producing unintentional humour) and X-Men: First Class, while an improvement
and all-round decent flick, glossed over many key plot elements that make it
fail as a prequel. The Wolverine is
content to tell a smaller-scale story which serves as a proper showcase for
Hugh Jackman’s dominance of the character. 14 years down the line (man, I feel
old), Jackman still has the sarcastic wit and physical prowess to keep playing
one of the characters that defined comic-books.
Moving at a good pace, the film makes full use of the Japan
as opposed to just background eye-candy. It actually works in ronins and the nature of samurai to tell
a story of redemption for Wolverine. Some of it is pretty ham-fisted, but it just
about succeeds in developing the character. It ending up doing a lot more than
I initially expected, setting him up to take the stage for Days of Future Past. However, rather than feel like a place-holder
film (Iron Man 2), The Wolverine has great action, a fun,
gripping story that takes full-advantage of the Japan setting and a serious
tone, but without stepping into Nolan territory of pretension, leaving room for
some light-hearted moments. It completely gets how to entertain a mass
audience, something which a surprising number of blockbusters fail to get. The
sparse use of action is also appreciated, where a good chunk of the film is
dealt with dealing with Wolverine’s actions and atoning himself. The action
scenes themselves are very well-thought and quite unique, again taking
advantage of the setting and Wolverine’s powers – a fight on top of a
bullet-train, where basically physics and Wolverine do battle, is particularly
clever, as a great deal of it is spent planning the next move and careful
judging each act. It’s pretty neat stuff and refreshing, especially when
compared to the constant onslaught and mindless dirge of Man of Steel’s action scenes in the final third. The Wolverine remembers that pace;
building-up and setting-up; are key components when putting an action film
together. The plot itself just about holds together until the final 15 minutes
when it digresses into mindless action schlock. Fortunately, the ending doesn’t
do this u-turn as poorly as previous superhero films (Iron Man, Man of Steel, Thor) however in a film that has
portrayed Wolverine in a mostly grounded matter, it is pretty jarring. But then
again, this is what comic books are made of and the rest of the film more than
makes up for it.
However, the film isn’t really about the plot (though there
are enough twists and turns to keep the audience interested) and rather opts to
presents entertaining high-octane action-adventure that is really constructed
and executed, while following the exploits of Wolverine. The plot just about
holds together for presenting these two elements. The Japan setting is used
surprisingly well and goes a lot deeper than expected into its culture and the
nature of death and redemption (in the best way a mass produced Hollywood film
can do). As a smaller-scale standalone superhero film, The Wolverine is genuinely refreshing, especially when continuity
is becoming too important (just see
the mixed fan receptions to Iron Man 3 – managed to reference the entire
trilogy in one review!). Understanding exactly what kind of film it is, The Wolverine charges forward with a
fun, if garbled, plot, inventive action scenes and a myriad of great Wolverine
moments.
Long Verdict: Hugh Jackman returns to the role that defined
superhero films and in the process redeems previous X-Men follies, making a
statement for standalone superhero films in the face of ‘interlocking/shared
universes’ and for producing an
entertaining action-adventure film, with inventive action scenes, strong pace and
memorable moments. Completely understanding what kind of film it is, The
Wolverine is deliriously entertaining, but intelligently made.
Rating: 7/10
Kick-Ass 2
Short Verdict: Bigger, broader and more infantile than the
original, Kick-Ass 2 loses much of
the wit and charm of the original.
Kick-Ass exploded
onto the superhero scene in 2010 presenting this idea: “What if a superhero
existed in real life?” While other films have done this idea better since (Super in particular), it is a different,
quirky idea for mainstream audiences back in 2010 (especially in the face of
continual superhero sequels). Dave Lizewski (Taylor Aaron-Johnson), comic-book
geek, asks why aren’t there any superheroes in real-life? Deciding to take it
on himself, he dons the mask of Kick-Ass. He quickly becomes involved in a war
between mafia crime bosses and Big Daddy (played with Adam West glee by
Nicholas Cage), along with his profanity spurting daughter, Hit-Girl (Chloe
Grace-Mortez). Kick-Ass 2 picks up the story as more superheroes are appearing
in New York, mostly in response to Dave’s heroic acts in the original film. Deciding
it is difficult to work solo, Dave joins a super hero team, led by Jim Carrey’s
Colonel Stars and Stripes. Meanwhile, Hit-Girl is struggling to adapt to
high-school social life (Big Daddy died in the original), while Chris D’Amico
(Christopher Mintz-Plasse) the son of the mafia boss re-emerges as a
super-villian, seeking revenge for the heroes’ actions. All out war begins to
occur and it is up to Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl and the members of Colonel Stars and
Stripes’ team to make the important choices one must make as a hero.
Kick-Ass 2 plays
out like a bigger version of the original, upping the stakes and presenting
difficult challenges for the characters. As a sequel to the original, Kick-Ass
2 continues to present high-octane, colourful and brazen action and violence.
However, the issue with the sequel is that it does not attempt anything really
different with the main story. In fact, the B-story, of Hit-Girl struggling to
adapt to high-school, has more heart and humour than the main story. Dealing
with the cliques and cruelty of teenage girls, Hit-Girl tries to become part of
this world of popularity. Not wanting to give plot away, though those familiar
with the character, will probably guess that doesn’t pan out, eventually ending
with a Troma-esque scene of revenge. However, the main plot simply does not
have the same drive or interest. While the new heroes (and villains) are fun in
their patheticness (with the exception of the imposing Mother Russia) and Jim Carrey’s performance is as
delightfully mad as you want it to be, the story feels like it is just tying up
the loose ends of the original and not really pushing the story and themes forward
in new directions. The exception to this is, of course, the Hit-Girl subplot,
which is strong enough it could be its own films. The original was a surprisingly
tightly-plotted film, while the sequel meanders from kinetic action scene to
the next. The action scenes themselves are well-presented and shot, in particular
the finale, it just lacks the drive and momentum of the original. The
performances overall are fine, in particular from Mortez, however Taylor
Aaron-Johnson’s central performance lacks any kind of charm, making it
difficult to latch onto the main plot.
Ultimately, fans of the original will be happy with this
gleeful return to the blood soaked world of Kick-Ass
– there is enough bizarre moments, funny lines and character moments to keep
most going. However, for those wanting to see the story progress further and
build upon the ideas of the original, you may want to wait until the,
inevitable, third film. Kick-Ass 2
feels too much like closing the plot points of the original without really
doing anything different with them. The B-plot dealing with Hit-Girl fitting
into high-school society is strong enough to hold interest, and builds upon the
ideas of the original. Otherwise, Kick-Ass
2 falls into the problems of many sequels – making it bigger and better,
while adhering to the original too much and not building upon it. The violence
in particular comes across as more infantile than the original – while the
original used it to subvert comic book traditions (if a superhero existed in
really life, he probably get beaten into a bloody pulp!), the sequel falls into
the realms of the medium it was trying to subvert.
Long Verdict: Kick-Ass
2 is a vibrant and bloody action film which fails to build upon the
original. Lacking much of the drive and heart of the original, the film
squanders in presenting wackier and crazier characters and ideas without really
trying something new. The exception to this is the Hit-Girl subplot, which sees
the character struggling to adapt to school-life. The rest feels like an empty
whole, as the plot lurches crazy action scenes to the next, without any of the
tight-plotting of the original. There are great moments littered around the
film, however the whole just doesn’t hold up.
Rating: 5/10
Only God Forgives
Short Verdict: A neon-lit, blood soaked nightmare of a film
and all the better for it. A somewhat misunderstood film, Refn and Gosling
return is a divisive and difficult trip into the dark heart of Bangkok.
Under a sea of controversy, Ryan Gosling and Danish
filmmaker Nicholas Winding Refn reunite to tell a tale of revenge, family,
justice and violence in the harsh Bangkok underworld. The story follows Julian
(Gosling), who uses a Thai kick-boxing club as a front for a massive drug
smuggling operation, along with his mother Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas), who
tries to seek vengeance for the murder of his (truly despicable) brother. The
paths of Julian and Crystal are crossed by the omnipresent, sword-wielding, policemen
Lt. Chang (Vithaya
Pansringarm), who is also seeking to bring
justice to the crimes committed by Julian’s brother (and also authorised his
murder). The characters themselves are blank, traumatised slates, but this
works within what Refn is trying to create – the extreme violence these
characters commit informs the audience of their character and motivations. We
can only learn about these characters through the horrific acts they commit. In
this regard, Only God Forgives can be
a very tough watch, especially for those converted by Refn’s previous film Drive, which put an emphasis on a
blooming romantic relationship in the middle of escalating violence. However,
the violence of Only God Forgives,
much criticised by many in the press, serves a purpose in both examining its
effects on people and for those watching the film.
Only
God Forgives is a
beautifully shot film, soaking in deep pools of red and blood against the
rain-soaked city of Bangkok. Here, the city offers no escape for the characters
and hostile to outside influences. However, Refn completely embraces the city
for his thematic concerns, right down to the use of Taiwanese titles for the
credits. Another criticism given of the film is the use of long slow takes of
characters. However, again, this works within Refn’s treatise on violence. The
long takes make us question the character motives, leaving us wanting to get to
the next violent action scene and when it happens, we are subjected to long
uncut acts of violence – and what does that say about us as viewers? Nothing
shows this off more than the long, drawn out fist fight with Julian and Lt.
Chang towards the end of the film (overlaid by the stunning Cliff Martinez
synth-organ music) which directly throws the viewer in the act of committing
violence. Rather than lingering and cumbersome, the long take serves to work
within the thematic framework Refn is working with. As previously touched upon,
Cliff Martinez’s soundtrack is beautiful, bringing back some of the synth
elements from Drive, but overlaying
it with traditional Taiwanese instruments and sounds. This again helps to put
the viewer directly into the world Refn is trying to create. The use of music
is surprisingly sparse and only helps to inform the creeping, cold nature of
the story and the themes.
This is further supported by the blank
nature of the characters, all very intentional. Gosling plays Julian as an
impotent fighter, struggling through the conflicts of his own personal choices
and his relationship with his family (especially his mother). Having even less
dialogue than his career-defining role in Drive, Gosling plays Julian as
expressionless, empty and troubled. A particularly great scene follows Julian
and his encounter with a prostitute. He can only sit and watch her, completely emasculated.
In contrast to this, and arguably the only character with a kind of passion, is
Crystal, Julian’s mother, played with ferocity by Kristin Scott Thomas. Playing
the dominant mother in the relationship, Crystal plays a part in Refn’s staging
of this oedipal drama. His entrance into the film, coldly stating that she has
come to collect her son’s body while harassing a hotel worker, clearly
demonstrates her dominance – for her, violence seeks to serve as vengeance for
the loss of her son and only leaves her cold, empty and hostile. The third
major player in the film is Lt. Chang, played with cold intensity by Vithaya
Pansringarm. Lt. Chang feels like he has stepped out of an old samurai film,
wielding his sword, treating it with reverence and enacting his form of
cold-cut justice. Once again, violence has caused this character to retreat
into withdrawal – even though he uses it in the name of his own form of
justice, he is left traumatised by his acts having only karaoke confessionals
to admit to his murders (and yes, you read that right – these scenes also help
to inform elements of the characters, in a similar vein to Tsai Ming-Liang’s The Hole).
Only God
Forgives is an exceptional film, an odd blip in the cinema going
experience. Much more in line with Refn’s previous work as opposed to Drive, the film opts for a more arthouse
style. As a cinema going experience, it is engrossing, polarising and
difficult. Some audience members may leave the cinema alienated from the story
and the characters, however this is arguably the point. While it has been
criticised by some for its violent content, Only
God Forgives is actually an intelligent look at its effects on people and
we as a cinema audience. It directly involves us in the horrific acts and
offers up the question of why we watch it. While it doesn’t answer this, it
provides a great launching point for its place in cinema. Gosling and Refn have
created a difficult, often times unwatchable, film that challenges its audience
to explore the dark heart of humanity.
Long Verdict: Intentionally difficult and off-putting, Only God Forgives will not please all
audience members, especially those expecting Drive Part II. In fact, it plays out like the dark, twisted
reflection of Drive. Dealing with
difficult themes and emotionally distant characters, the film is not for
everyone and may alienate many. However, those willing to go into the dark side
of Bangkok will find an intelligent assessment on violence and its relationship
to people and the audience. A misunderstood film that deserves a closer look
than some critics have been giving it.
Rating: 9/10
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Coen Brothers Retrospective #2: Barton Fink Early Impressions and Critical Musings
SPOILERS LIE AHEAD.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Every now and then, a film comes
along that completely taps into your own musings about the world around
you. For some, Blade Runner completely tapped into their own personal vision of
the future – dystopian, cold and hopeless, where the lines of culture have
blurred into one. For others, Cloud Atlas
tapped into notions of Buddhism and spirituality across the space of 250 years
of history, which clearly has resonated with a number of people given the
film’s mixed reception. Barton Fink,
the subject of this blog, feels like a movie almost tailored to my interests
and ideas and I’m bereft to think of why I haven’t watched it sooner (it has
been on my shelf for nearly two years now). The film taps into my ideas of the
history of Hollywood’s supposed ‘Golden Age’ (tip: it wasn’t all it was cracked
up to be), post-modernism, deepening madness and obsession (almost Vertigo-esque), wrapped in a
black-comedy style played out by bizarre characters in an almost-dreamlike
world. Yeah, I have weird taste in film. The fact that Barton Fink can support my own readings and a multitude of others,
such as fascism, religion, high and low brow debates and slavery, is testament
to the film’s quality. The Coen Brothers offer multiple readings that can be
interpreted by the viewer’s own experiences. I wonder what Milhouse and Bart’s other
friends got out of the film?
Hollywood’s Golden Age is the subject of much
adoration amongst older film critics but has been brought into light by historians
and other critics. Douglas Gomery writes that “Hollywood is first of all an
industry, a collection of profit-maximizing corporations operated from studio
headquarters in the United States”.[1] This
notion is most definitely reflected in the keys players of Capital Pictures.
The boss, Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner) seems to take little interest in the
artistic integrity of film. He sees only profit and producing as many low-grade
pictures as possible. Thomas Schatz points out that “while the ‘creative-control’
and administrative authority of studio film-making in the 1930s steadily
dispersed throughout the producers’ ranks, the industry remained as
market-driven and commercially motivated as ever”.[2] The
almost flippant way in which Barton is assigned the ‘wrestling’ picture is
laughable. The various workers around the studio offer Barton tips on how to
write the film, which boils down to basic Hollywood screenwriting 101: villain,
love-interest, obstacle etc. Barton does not want to adhere to formula just as
much as the studio has no interest in presenting the actual real-life account
of the wrestler they are basing their film on. For Hollywood, reality becomes
fantasy. This would appear to put Barton in good stead, with his belief in the
‘common man’. Only it really doesn’t. Leaning towards his high-brow tensions,
Barton makes it his mission to note the plight of the ‘common man’ but never
really grows to understand them. At the end of the film, Charlie lambasts
Barton for never really listening to him, serving merely as a vessel for
Barton’s own thoughts on the nature of reality. While Barton believes he is
writing for the ‘common man’, he is merely creating his own fantasy, just as
Hollywood does so.
With this Hollywood setting and
their (as well as Barton’s) attitudes to reality, notions of ‘post-modernism’
can be introduced to the film. This is, of course, a huge complex subject, that
I will attempt to simplify (I do not in any way completely understand these
theories!!). In particular, Barton Fink
produces an interesting look at the post-modern theory of hyperreality. Gary
Aylesworth describes hyperreality “as a copy or image without reference to an
original. In postmodernism, hyperreality is the philosophical result of the
technological mediation of experience, where what passes for reality is a
network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is
represented is representation itself”.[3]
Fundamentally, this debate begins with Jean Baudrillard’s Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976). In it, Baudrillard uses
previous notions of the symbolic, the imaginary and the real to develop the
concepts discussed above, while attacking the orthodoxies of the political Left
– he argues that their assumed reality of power, production, desire, society and
political legitimacy have become simulations, signs without any referent,
because the real and the imaginary have been absorbed into the symbolic.[4] For an
example, The Simpsons can be viewed
as post-modern show. With its numerous references to pop-culture, many of the
viewer’s first experiences with a product or piece of art could be through The Simpsons, with no reference to the
original text. Heck, that’s how I first heard the name Barton Fink. Many of the iconic moments of cinema, such as the
opening of Citizen Kane and the
type-writer scene of The Shining, I
first experienced through The Simpsons, again with no (initial) references to
the original text. TV, the internet, film, comics, radio and so on have created
a world of hyperreality, where reality and fiction are seamlessly blended
together leaving no clear distinction between where one ends and the other
begins.
Clearly, Barton Fink can fit into this kind of reading. As previously
discussed, both Barton and Hollywood are attempting to make their fantasy
versions of reality appear on the big screen. The original experiences of the
wrestler, on which the film is going to be based, are lost to the machinations
of these two entities. Neither side directly experienced the life of this
particular wrestler but attempt to create their own versions of it. Barton, in
fact, takes little interest in the world of wrestling. This can also be
extended to Barton’s pretensions of writing about the ‘common man’ when he
can’t really express this (he even admits that maybe his first, and only, play
was a fluke). M. Keith Booker claims that Charlie torments because of his
obliviousness to the common people, whom he claims to so passionately care
about – while the film does look at the sleazy dealings of Hollywood execs, its
principal censure is aimed at Barton, who is portrayed as an intellectual
completely cut off from the lives of the common people.[5] However,
despite this lack of direct experience, Barton believes he can make socially
relevant comments. Booker suggests that the Coens, “although they do not
suggest a preferable alternative within the film, …. Clearly indicate that the
kind of socially engaged cinema Fink hopes to create is pretentious and silly”.[6] On the
other hand, R. Barton Palmer suggests that the film, and the Coen’s (then
current) work represents the artist in a postmodern situation: either produce
high-culture art which could distance himself from an increasingly
commercialising culture or formula production for the mass culture meaning he
would be complicit in it.[7] Conform
or be cast out. Either one of these readings can be used to feed into the
film’s ultimate conclusion.
This forming of hyperrealities in
Barton Fink can be viewed from the
impending madness of the titular character. Fantasy and reality are slowly
beginning to blend together. This is ultimately represented by a key symbolic
device used in the film, a portrait hung on Barton’s wall. When Barton arrives
at the beach, he finds a girl in a position exactly the same as the picture. He
asks if she is movies and claims “Don’t be silly”. Is this a final sign of his
madness? Have reality and fantasy completely clashed together? Booker opinions
that the ending is a “final enigmatic comment on representation and the
relationship between art and reality in general”. [8] Further,
he sees it as a comment on the genuinely ‘weird’ nature of if art were to
reflect reality in such as accurate way.[9] Palmer
reflects that the conclusion represents the artist in a crisis – having
experienced inauthentic fantasy and cruel reality, does he then channel this
into his art or does he feel he has gone as far as he can?[10]
Breaking hyperreality can reveal the true nature of reality. To round off,
Booker claims that the Coens did not intend to make a factual representation of
1941 Hollywood, but rather “representing [it] as a collection of art deco
images derived not from reality but from films, magazine covers, and other
visual art of the period”.[11]
Hyperreality is an embedded part of this post-modern take on Hollywood. The
ending suggests that artists are stuck in this world, surrounded by a
hyperreality formed from a lack of direct experience. Again, in the words of
Rush, “Conform or be cast out”.
The best thing about Barton Fink is that that is just one
avenue of thought brought on by the setting. There is so much more to say that
other writers have more eloquently put than myself. Due to this myriad of
ideas, theories and readings Barton Fink
is a film I will most definitely be revisiting soon. It has an enigmatic
quality, powered by excellent performances, darkly funny script and brilliant
direction. Its look at a postmodern world inspired by the forming of
hyperrealities presents a dark conundrum for artists of any generation. It
works on so many different levels that multiple viewings will most likely offer
different ideas and perspectives. Like I said in the beginning, it offers so
many interesting critical ideas to myself (such as the representation of
history, madness, postmodernism) I was overwhelmed by it, both as a film
(story, character, technique) and on a critical level. There is so much to say,
so much to explore, Barton Fink is a truly excellent film.
RATING: 10/10
“I’ll write blogs about 500-800 words for each film in the
Coens retrospective” …. 2000 words later.
[1] Douglas Gomery, ‘Hollywood as industry’ in John Hill
and Pamela Church Gibson (eds) The Oxford
guide to Film Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 245.
[2] Thomas Schatz, ‘Hollywood: The Triumph of the Studio
System’ in Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (ed.) The
Oxford History of World Cinema (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p.
225.
[3] Gary Aylesworth, ‘Postmodernisn’ in Edward N. Zalta
(ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#6
(accessed 11/08/2013 22:54)
[4] Ibid.
[5] M. Keith Booker, Postmodern Hollywood: What’s New in
Film and why is Makes Us Feel so Strange (Westport CT ; London : Praeger, 2007), p. 143.
[6] Ibid.
[7] R. Barton Palmer, Joel and Ethan Coen: Contemporary
Film Directors (Urbana and Chicago : University of Illinois Press, 2004), p. 114.
[8] Booker, p. 144.
[9] Ibid, p.
145.
[10] Palmer, p. 128.
[11] Booker., p.144.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)