“Poisonous Valentine for Hollywood” – Mulholland Drive

This week I start a new film course at the Broadway in Nottingham, this time the theme is David Lynch. Ouch. I could have picked Hitchock and studied movies with clear constructs and narratives which follow a logical path, but where would be the fun in that? So last night I decided to watch Mulholland Drive (2001) and get stuck into the surreal workings of Lynch’s mind and films.

For anyone who’s seen the film you may well have had the same reaction to me when it ended; WTF. Well, exactly, it’s no clear story. This morning I decided to seek the advice of professionals and hit Google hard. It seems to be fairly conclusive that most critics assign the narrative to be first a dream sequence and second a gritty reality of the characters.

Betty (Naomi Watts), a “gee golly wiz” girl from Ontario arrives in LA to stay at her Aunts Sunset Boulevard apartment, on arrival she finds the injured doe, “Rita” (Laura Elena Harring), who’s suffering amnesia from a car accident the night before. In the process of trying to find out whom “Rita” really is and what the blue key opens Betty auditions successfully for a film role and the two women fall in love. Their story ends at the eerie club Silencio where on returning to the apartment with the blue box Betty found, “Rita” turns the key, Betty disappears and the audience are sucked into the black hole.

This section does seem dream like to me – Betty’s lines feel so “wholesome” and out of synch with those around her, her upbeat nature, her inability to feel fear, her extremely talented performance at the audition (smooth transition from naive girl to Hollywood seductress) all point to an idealistic attitude towards life. The beautiful “Rita”, a genuine 50s bombshell who’s dependant and submissive in nature, yet wiley and astute enough to work out how to break into Aunt Ruth’s apartment undetected. The fact the two girls are called Betty and Rita (harks back to 50s Hollywood), the easy way in which they break into Diane’s apartment and the fact they’re unfazed later that night by the horror of what they had seen. Lynch’s camera angles drift upwards as the characters speak (symbolising an out of body experience?) which gives the scenes a surreal edge, as do the winding (almost drunken) views of walking through the corridors of Aunt Ruth’s apartment.

The second half of the film depicts the sad, embittered life of Dianne (Naomi Watts) and her unrequited relationship with the cruel, beautiful and teasing Camilla (Laura Elena Harring). The audience sees her hung-over (drink and drugs?) tired and lack being awoken by the terrifying cowboy figure (twice, so we know things have gone wrong - his earlier warning to the director Adam, played by Justin Theroux) and in her morning stupor hallucinating that the Camilla has returned to her. Her sad tale at Adam’s party forces her publicly announce her failed movie dreams and re-live the broken promises by industry professionals while the twisted and successful Camilla openly taunts her (kissing another woman and fawning over Adam). The reality is Dianne works as a waitress and the vicious rejection she receives forces her hand to hire the assassin to kill Camilla, unable to live with her guilt she shoots herself. The camera angles change in this section too, no high angles (out of body style), no soft focus stylised close ups – rather the opposite, intimate, uncomfortable angles which show every imperfection.

Well, what about the old couple? Diane could be haunted by her own conscious, a failure to herself and her parents? Or are they simple demons in disguise? Are Betty and Rita the dream of what Dianne really wanted - her subconscious desire, her daydream? Or did everything really happen and all four characters exist together in some parallel universe?

Mulholland Drive is like the road itself, a winding, twisted route through Hollywood with some clear pointers and clues along the route, which, if you chose to ignore them do not stop you getting to your destination. Perhaps that’s the point, there are clues like the red lamp, the ashtray, the blue keys the people at Winkies but ultimately if you see them or miss them you’re none the wiser at the end, having reached the conclusion of the film with hopefully your own interpretation. I think it’s always a good film if you spend days afterwards thinking about it, and perhaps that’s the point as Lynch has never offered an explanation – maybe it’s one huge joke, made up as he went along like Twin Peaks to frustrate and tantalise the audience – the clues are not there to be sensibly analysed but rather to anchor the narrative with traditional repeated metaphors? Who knows?

I loved it; I need to watch it again but hopefully this film course will throw up some good insights along the way.

Best scene: the scary as hell club “Silencio” where we are told in several different languages that, “it’s all an illusion.”

In the Loop Film Sneak

Well, I’ve been delivered a treat this month in GQ (for work purposes, I’m not usually a fan of man mags) by reading an interview with political satirist and general comic legend Armando Iannucci about his new film “In the Loop”. In The Loop is a dry, honest and balanced portrayal of what happens in Washington. There’s no glamorous women, no noble presidents, no dramatic, witty dialogue and you won’t see a sniff of Rob Lowe or Charlie Sheen. No, this film appears to want to show the startling reality of political mechanics in America, the fact that decisions are made by fallible, frightened procrastinator who are just like the rest of us. A scary thought, especially when you realise the film is showing the decision making process in the lead up to a war in an “middle eastern country”. Well, I think Iannucci is keen to show just how involved the Brits are in the “special relationship” or how screwed Blair really was. I’m looking forward to seeing Peter Capaldi’s foul mouthed portrayal of a brash British spin doctor (definitely not Alistair Campbell!) and James Gandolfini’s pentagon general (I wonder if the Sopranos star will draw on his mob acting background to add fuel to the role?)

In the Loop is released April 17^th 2009.

Trailer: http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4681277/12509678

The Young Victoria Film Review

I'm a bit late with this review, but definitely still worth mentioning. If you’re a fan of The Dutchess then this film won’t disappoint, but it also won’t promise the excitement and fraught drama which the walls of Chatsworth offered Kiera Knightly’s film.

The Young Victoria paints a (albeit overly romantic) portrait of Britain’s Victorian monarch from the age of 17 through to her first years as ruling leader.

The film brilliantly shows how youth can benefit and hinder for those blessed with leadership. Victoria’s youth gives her the confidence and fight to stand up to those wishing to take it from her and also the arrogance and pride to fall blindsided to those who wish to manipulate it through her. Emily Blunt is admirable as Victoria, excellently portraying the balance of emotions the young queen faced - apathy at court rituals, pride and ambition to protect her rightful throne, naivety and inexperience with parliament and playfulness and passion for Albert, played by the endearing Rupert Fiend.

I wasn’t a fan of Fiend in Pride and Prejudice, I felt his portrayal of Wickham wasn’t nearly as nasty as it could have been, in contrast his portrayal of Albert is sweet and understated and perfect for The Young Victoria. Albert understands the Victoria, the rules and politics of court and the inevitable tasks which lie ahead, but without apathy he confidently entrusts her to do the ruling (unlike the other men in her life) and is happy to pursue a more noble task of setting the foundations for a welfare state.

Paul Bettany’s Lord Melbourne, is the Iago in this drama. His villainous behaviour is understated and deliberate – a flickering sneer, a softly spoken controlling voice and yet, unlike Iago, he shows the heart broken resignation that the better man won.

I loved the film, it’s beautiful to watch, the clothes and fashions are exquisite and it’s refreshing to see the playful, mischievous and desperately romantic side of a Queen usually portrayed as a fat, miserable frump. Even though some of the film’s events fall short of reality (Albert never took a bullet for Victoria) it does help cement the idea their love story was genuine and something rare and precious at the time.

Next time I’m visiting London I think the architecturally acclaimed Albert Memorial in Hyde Park and the existence of the V&A will now have a more poignant meaning.

Best scene: Jim Broadbent’s rant at the King’s dinner party, Miranda Richardson’s quick exit and the snide, whispered conversations of the surrounding guests.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona Film Review

Woody Allen’s latest offering sees him steer away from the metropolis and the disaffected types who dwell in New York and London. Instead, Allen seeks to explore how the Europeans live and he presents a comic clash between American sensibilities and European liberalism.

The stubborn and sensible Vicky (Rebecca Hall) has come to Spain to research Catalan culture for her thesis, the transient and passionate Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) joins her for the summer. One evening, in a tapas bar, Cristina, love-struck by Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) throws caution to the wind and agrees to a spontaneous weekend away with this passionate painter. The weekend ends, leaving the obstinate Rachel frustrated and questioning her future with her chino-wearing-investment-banking fiancé. Herein starts the love triangle.

The addition of Juan’s ex wife, the explosive, chain-smoking Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz) adds a new dynamic to the narrative with the sharp tongued, fast paced conversations she and Juan have, or should I say, shout. Cruz’s character is there to show the despair, passion, freedom and restraints that encircle every relationship. Maria Elena is an exaggeration, but Cruz’s is not – her acting is fantastic in this film and worthy of her awards.

The characters are all likeable, even the smooth talking, womanising Juan. Each one has pre-conceptions of love and each fail to realise it. It’s not sad, it’s more a reflection of the true nature of love – it does change, it doesn’t always meet our expectations, we always search for perfection.

There’s the loveless marriage of companionship living vicariously through their young guests, the artist who seeks to replace and destroy the love he has for his ex-wife, the ex-wife who cannot live with or without love, the idealist who dreams of something intangible, the New Yorker who loves normality and security and the insecure girl who loves the idea that she could be more exciting than her friend.

The setting is a bit kitsch. Having been to Barcelona, I’m pretty sure there’s more to the city than Gaudi, tapas, Picasso and Spanish guitar – but this film would make you think otherwise. The colours are vibrant - reds, oranges and warm hues that saturate each scene signalling the undercurrent of passion seeping out the edges of each scene.

I wouldn’t say this film is a triumph, and will not appeal to fans of classic Allen hits like Manhattan, but the subject matter is interesting and the acting superb; with a special mention to Oscar winning Penelope Cruz.

Best Scene: Marie Elena's acid tongue Spanish comebacks having lunch with Juan and Cristina in the garden of his house. The enraged Javier and the innocent hospitality of Cristina.

Film Review: Watchmen

Leaving the cinema after watching Watchmen was a unique experience. I’ve never felt more void of love for the human race and simultaneous re-awakened to how precious and miraculous earth and mankind is. Strange doesn’t come close to explaining how I felt last night.

Watchmen as a film is beautiful to look at – the opening sequence is original, engaging and draws you into what is a cinematography triumph and a neat way to show 40 years of character back stories.

Set in an alternative 1980s where the Doomsday clock is symbolically indicates the imminent threat of nuclear destruction we watch as a disbanded group of vigilantes, re-unite in a fractured manner to solve the mystery of “The Comedian’s” death and the biggest joke of all – saving the pond scum of mankind from self destruction.

As a fan of graphic novels, Watchmen as a film doesn’t quite work – it felt disjointed. Like the original serialisation of the comic book the story changes to focus on individual characters intermittently during the film, but as a film medium this makes it harder to tie all the characters together. I like the way you can flip back through the pages in a comic to see how symbolism or narrative repeats itself and interlinks, it’s a bit harder to do that at 24 frames a second. However, Zak Synder is clearly a fan of the graphic novel Watchmen and that’s why he stayed (relatively) true to its form.

Sex is a theme which throws some light on the messages of this film. The romantic tryst between the overweight Daniel Dreiberg (Night Owl 2) and awkward Laurie Jupiter (Silk Spectre 2) is one of humble honesty reflecting awkward realities. Once re-awakened to their superhero duty and casting aside the “fears” they have as good citizens (the war and being stalked by a killer) they celebrate in leather clad, theatrical, confident and passionate form (hilarious symbolism in the climatic gas explosion). I’m not sure Alan Moore was trying to say that if you live your life to fight for what you believe in and not succumb to the propaganda and fear that the institutions of society create then you’ll have better sex, but it was implied!

The backdrop to this metropolis shows a society rife with nude shows, xxx clubs, prostitution, rape and child molestation. Society devoid of hope (no religion, leadership) living with the imminent threat of nuclear war and ruled by a corrupt president has lost all morals. Even the god like Dr Manhattan who cannot bring himself to fully indulge his sexual desire with his lover Laurie claims, in his Mars exile, he no longer cares for the human race.

Man has become a cancer to himself. This is what the beautiful, restrained Ozyimandias see and uses as motivation to set his drastic and ruthless plan of redemption into action. Of course Dr Manhattan is blamed as Ozyimandias has replicated his unique energy to destroy and save the world – a mirror to the real life Manhattan Project – developing the A Bomb to end one war and star another.

I’m naieve. The Watchmen made it clear to me that Chris Nolan is not as clever as I thought he was. The Dark Knight and Watchmen could be mistaken for being a genre of ‘new’ superhero movies, except it’s a concept Moore thought up 20 years ago. By turning the idea of a superhero on its head Moore, and the mixed bag of hero/ villains/ saviours that he created as the Watchmen, simply shows an age-old distrust and apathy for government and ruling institutions.

Moore mocks the concept of the traditional superhero – even though the Watchmen wear the fantastical costumes of traditional DC heroes, their roles are darkly more complicated and disturbing. Both realistic and absurd. The Minute Men who preceded the Watchmen were ex cops and themselves masked vigilanties. The next generation has Dr Manhattan, a supernatural being created by a man made nuclear accident.

Dr Manhattan rejects ‘costumes’ and is nude – his godlike status shows he has no man made constraints. Like a god he has the power to change the outcome of real events (Vietnam War and presidency of Richard Nixon) yet he is the one who needs to be convinced of mankind’s worth. As a godlike character, he ironically needs a miracle to be convinced of mankind’s worth. In recognising the random, chaotic way in which cells merge to make life he realises the value of man. But after 2 hours of watching the violent scum of society I was too depressed to share his enthusiasm.

I’m off for a dose of Disney to cheer myself up.

Best scene: Ozyimandias set to destroy the world from his polar temple, in full costume, stood atop a fabricated pyramid claiming “I’m not a comic book villain”. The irony was not lost on me.

Watchmen Trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091

Trailer Week - Terminator Salvation etc

One week off, a trip to the snow covered Alps and I’ve missed the Oscars. Oh well, there’s always Hello magazine to catch up on the fashion and Empire for the reviews.

Whilst in France I was surprised to see how many posters were up for Terminator Salvation (or Renaissance if you’re French) so once off the plane and safely back at the flat I logged onto Yahoo Movies to catch up.

So last night, feeling out of the loop on the film front I logged onto Yahoo Movies and caught on the trailers. Christian Bale’s voice over is sufficiently tough guy ‘gruff’ but a whiff away from ridiculous. I guess we need to see how the years have hardened John Connor from wayward teenager to military master. The trailer gives a glimmer of fantastic action sequences and star performances (Bryce Dallas Howard) and exciting directing (McG) so we know we’re in for a blockbuster treat. The only confusing issue is Connor’s (Bale) response to a ‘human’ Terminator – surely this would be obvious to him (you’d think his experience with Arnie would have made a lasting impact) but all in all Terminator Salvation looks set to quench the thirst of every Terminator fan who wishes to forget the terrible Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Out 5^th June. See it here http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/t/Terminator-Salvation-The-Future-Begins/index-6276340.html

Next I checked out “The Boat that Rocked”, Richard Curtis’s film about a team of pirate radio stars in the swinging 60s. I’m not a fan of Richard Curtis, for me, the less said about “Love Actually” and “4 Weddings” the better. However, I am glad to see Curtis has ditched his favourite leading man (the gibbering Grant) to take on some great new talent (though Bill Nighy did slip through the net).

I’m excited to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Nick Frost (Spaced, Hot Fuzz, Sean of the Dead) appear together as the star DJs of this pirate radio station. I read an interview with Frost who claimed Hoffman had such a presence on set that the other British actors didn’t know how to behave around him, so after a couple of days he just said “Oh, stop going on about your Oscar” and successfully broke the ice.

Based on the trailer it looks dangerously close to becoming a parody and potentially borrowing some ‘shagadelic’ Austin Powers’s style jokes. Let’s hope not. I think Hoffman and Frost could save it so I’ll make the effort to go.

Out 1^st April 09. Watch the trailer here http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/b/Boat-That-Rocked-The/index-6385571.html.

Valkyrie Film Review

After months of reading about Valkyrie I finally went to see it this weekend. It was supposed to be launched last June, but United Artists’ marketing campaign flopped and in typical movie mogul style they held off for a more positive audience response. I’m glad they did, as I liked Valkyrie and took it for what it is - a Hollywood movie – it’s not an arthouse, authentic, gritty indie film, it’s a movie, entertainment, showbiz. So, it’s a bit strange to read some critics moan about the historical inaccuracies and the use of British and American accents. It’s a star-studded film, with Cruise at the forefront, what did they expect?

Well, of course Valkyrie isn’t historically accurate, these kinds of films rarely ever are. Director, Bryan Singer’s, taken a good story and made it accessible and entertaining for a wide audience and manages to offer an insight into the rarely portrayed Nazi side of the war – he gets across the story, after all it’s not a documentary.

I remember by GCSE History lessons, so I sympathise that it’s difficult to make a thriller when the audience knows the outcome. Which is why Singer does an excellent job with Valkyrie. He keeps the film exciting and engaging and the characters human and not cartoonish. Even the baddies aren’t pantomime villains. Hitler seems wizened and feeble, not monstourous and insane, and the German Captain of the Reserve Army seems apathetic and inpatient for the war to end – not a dedicated idealist of the Fatherland.

It’s unusual to see a mainstream film from the ‘German perspective’ (though I am aware of the many German protests about this film) but to show the ‘Nazi’s’ to have heart, even the ones who aren’t involved in Valkerie. Tom Wilkinson’s Colonel General Friedrich Fromm shows the attitude, I’m sure many Nazi party members had, the struggle for survival. Who is the right side to be on? It’s not about ideology; it’s about self-preservation.

The accent issue is conveniently side stepped with a nice German to American montage at the beginning (according to Cruise on the Jonathan Ross show, he does actually speak German as a result of his dedicated research as part of this film). Yar, vot a neat vay to zide ztep a potentially laughable mistake. Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard and Cruise are excellent and I think it’s because they’re free to concentrate on their performance without the distraction of maintaining an accent.

Interesting how Tom Cruise was filmed. As the ‘big’ star, Singer’s direction has nicely levelled Cruise with his contemporary’s. There are few glory shots (upwards, heroic) and his natural height is not hidden with clever angles, though he did have a conveniently Cruise-sized sidekick, but that’s fair enough.

If anything Valkyrie made me sad my grandparents had lived through such a fearful and terrible period of history and sadder still that they never wanted to talk about it with younger generations.

Best scene: Taking the revised plan of Valkyrie to Hitler’s lair to have it signed, very tense and the fake eye is creepy.