The Town

Apparently, after some dubious lifestyle choices (namely JLo) Ben Affleck kind of lost his cool in Hollywood. Not satisfied with the unchallenging film roles he was being offered he decided to 'Good Will Hunting' himself... again.

And I would say The Town is equally innovative, suprising and poignant. I was more suprised that someone has the capacity to do this twice in a career. Afflect wrote, directed and stars in this gritty heist/ human drama set in Charlestown, Boston. This little suburb, we are told, is home to 90% of bank robbers in the state. This particular crime is treated like an art, a skill, passed down through the generations, with each subsequent delinquent getting more sophisticated in how they obtain the money.

The opening scene show's how the 'trade' is done, with Affleck's character 'Doug MacRay' adding a human touch to scenes of brutal violence, as he tries to calm manager Claire Keesey (played by the brilliant Rebecca Hall) as she unlocks the vault. The event is almost as slick and professional as FBI Agent Frawley (played by John 'don draper' Hamm) bemoans, until Keesey spots the distincitve tatoo of MacRay's bff 'Coughlin' and there starts the drama as MacRay's character pursues her to check she won't squeal.

Of course, without giving much away, it's his involvement with Keesey which leads him to question the choices he's made in life. He starts to hope for a new life, an escape from all those around him. That's why this film isn't what I expected, it's not an all guns blazing cops and robbers action-fest (like Bad Boys), neither is it a smooth, stylist heist (like Oceans's 11). It's most definitely a film about human drama, the life we're born into, the dreams we dare to have. MacRay's sudden and unexpeted involvement with Keesey, show's him how the violence, deceit and petty criminality which is so ordinary to him, is so destructive to others.

Keesey is refreshingly a normal girl. MacRay is not her knight in shining armour, though she does question her motives for getting involved with this 'blue colour' bad boy immediately after her kidnapping. Neither does she run off to mummy in the suburbs - rather she stubbornly goes about her day to day life and tries to put the past behind her. We see her working in the community garden, volunteering at the ice-rink kids club - maintaining her independance and not letting the dark sides of society get her down. She's a realist, not an optimist. She accepts people are flawed, people make violent choices because of where they've come from.

I could relate to Keesey, though I'd be much more chicken than she is (I would probably at least find a house mate after surving an abduction) but she also serves a good contrast to the other woman in the film played by Gossip Girl Blake Lively.

Lively's character Krista Coughlin, is the tragic character in this drama. Vulnerable with no self-worth, she throws herself at any man who seems kind to her. She's in love with MacRay (who might be the father of her child) but living up to the 'tough girl' attitude of the town, she hasn't revealed her feelings, or the paternity, to him. In contrast to Keesey who is managing just fine, Keesey so desperately needs rescuing. She begs MacCray to start his new life with her - she longs for the escape as much as he does - and cries out claiming 'I'll be any girl you want me to be' - it's literally the saddest scene in a movie I've seen in ages. You know she won't leave, you know no-one will ever respect her, you know the life which waits for her is one without love. She's played her last card and had it thrown back in her face.

After watching this Affleck has proved that Good Will Hunting and Gone Baby Gone were not flukes, but that he's got real eye for making compelling drama. At least, I hope Hollywood see that, because I'd like to see more.

4 out of 5 - mainly because I was so suprised it wasn't a generic heist movie

Crazy Heart

Everyone’s gone country. From Gwyneth Paltrow promoting new flick Country Strong on Glee with Dixie Chix covers, to fashion on the high-street. Everyone’s in love with the deep south. So it’s high time I publish my thoughts on Crazy Heart – and maybe dig out my cowboy boots.

Scott Cooper’s music-drama features Jeff Bridges as down-and-out country music star ‘Bad Blake’ who tries to turn his life around after meeting journalist Jean Craddock, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal.

This tragic film is one of uncomfortable voyeurism. We’re introduced to Bad Blake as he orders a drink before his low budget gig, in a tacky bowling alley in the arse end of nowhere-ville. The admiration he receives from everyone ensures we understand he’s fallen from grace, and his smooth talking in the liquor store ensures we know how.

Cooper takes a realistic and inglorious approach to portraying alcoholism – there’s no witty one-liners, no ‘loveable rogue’ when Bad Blake’s been at the sauce. Rather, intimate camera close-ups and unflattering angles help form a sense of confusion and disgust - which accurately reflects Blake’s current state of mind.

The tipsy car-crash, violent sickness and barely intelligible gigs mould an atmosphere of foreboding, which culminates in the shopping mall scene when Jean’s son Buddy goes AWOL. The audience is routing for Blake, but you know it’s all about to go horribly wrong. That scene was more uncomfortable to watch than the drunken bender which followed.

But why? Because, it was a knife-edge moment. If Blake could only keep himself together, then a lifetime of happiness could await him with the lovely Jean and Buddy. But he can’t. And we know he can’t. Addiction is horrible thing – it’ll lead you to water, but leave you twice as thirsty afterwards.

Like all artists, Blake’s talent is open to abuse and waste. While lamenting the loss of Jean he writes some of the best music of his career, and it doesn’t go unnoticed. Former protégée Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) is hoping to advance his already successful career by buying the rights, but he offers no solace or help. Neither does his long-standing agent, who’s only priority is Tommy and getting Blake to sell up on song rights.

Sweet’s character is an obvious indictment of the manufactured ‘country’ stars in America. Big on style, small on god-given talent. Blake represents the old, soulful core of country, while Sweet is the clear, commercial future. And we see which one wins, when Blake ultimately sells him his best song, to then donate the money to Buddy. One final act of redemption on his (hopefully) final road to sobriety.

Any Kurk Cobain/ James Dean/ Marilyn fan can appreciate how tragic it is to see talent, more so, a life, wasted – and it doesn’t matter if it’s a music idol, or your next door neighbour.

Coen brother’s favourite, T-Bone Burnett, stamps out another impressive audio footprint with a heart-felt, reflective and entertaining soundtrack (some performed by Bridges and Farrell). Aside from the drama, the music really allows Bridges to dazzle us with this Oscar winning performance – his natural charisma shines out when he sings – especially title track, ‘The Weary Kind’, which stands out for its haunting, choked melancholy.

True Grit

Tron seems to have kick-started a Jeff Bridges revival in my house this week. So, first on the list was True Grit, the Coen brothers remake of the 1969 John Wayne classic.

Not dissimilar to Crazy Heart, Jeff Bridges adopts an almost unintelligible accent to play US Marshall Reuben J ‘Rooster’ Cogburn. The audience is introduced to this one-eyed renegade, during a trial where his testimony has an almost Dickensien disregard for the law – pointing out the obvious failings of the legal profession with off-hand, changeable comments.

His slouched, easy stance is kept in shadow by the bright window light behind him – the effect is to produce a distinctive sillouette of this ‘shady character’. To be expected, the humour in the script is typical Coen, and the quick banter between Rooster and the lawyer was reminiscent of the rhetoric between Clooney and the law in ‘Oh Brother Where Art Thou’.

Clearly, the way characters use language is something the Coen’s have added to their auteur specifications. And interestingly, it’s Hailee Steinfeld’s performance as Mattie Ross which leaves the strongest impression. In the original Charles Portis novel, 14 year-old Mattie dominates as the first-person narrator. In the film, Mattie’s vocabulary reflects that of the written word, she doesn’t abbreviate, she doesn’t use slang, or mish-mash a sentence. Every word uttered is as considered and precise as her appearance. The obvious contrast in dialogue between Mattie and Rooster, apart from being comic, is a metaphor for their moral stance in life. Retribution versus revenge.

Critically, this film was considered a risk for the Coen’s. John Wayne’s legend as the ultimate American (western) hero speaks strongly to the national identity – mess with it at your peril. Personally, I’m not a fan of Westerns, I can’t think of one (other than No Country for Old Men) which I’ve paid to go and see, so the very fact that the Coen’s can guarantee an audience in any genre must be a sign this film has wide appeal.

I enjoyed it. The cinematography is wild and epic – the final chase scene a refreshing variation on the traditional western shoot out – (horse chases across open plains seems to remind me of LOTR) which makes the more intimate moments more intense (Mattie down the snake pit felt very claustrophobic).

A film with this many ‘characters’ runs the risk of alienating an audience – it could become too difficult to find any of them believable – but luckily we don’t in True Grit. Matt Damon, delivers a hugely understated and excellent performance as the Texan Ranger LaBoeuf.

Over all 3.8 of out 5 (so pedantic I know)

Tron Legacy

Well, I’ve really not been on for a long time. No excuse, just a few lifestyle changes and laziness. Whoops.

So I’ve missed reporting on my favourite views since, well, goodness me about two years. Many things have happened all of them good – Inception, Shutter Island, and it’s not just the Leonardo DiCaprio films I liked last year, up there was Toy Story 3, The Hurt Locker, A Single Man, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and many more I can’t even remember. That’s how good they were.

Summer is almost here which inevitably means a tedious season of blockbusters and kids flicks, so it’s back to Love Film to catch up on some goodies I’ve missed. The first of which is ... Tron: Legacy.

Aside from the jarringly bright and optimistic Disney logo on the film poster, this film is a true dystopian epic. Not as good as Blade Runner, as it’s nowhere near as clever, but up there with other sci-fi adventures like the Matrix.

The best bit, clearly, is the Dude and, as he describes it, the ‘bo-digital jazz’ of a soundtrack – Daft Punk of course. The other thing, is the pure beautiful design of the ‘Grid’ – something which director Joseph Kosinski was clearly keen to promote as something not of the ‘future’ but just the best of current aesthetics.

There’s nothing really ‘futuristic’ as such about the cars, venues, homes, clothes of the Programmes and Users in the Grid – much of it feels like you’ve seen it before, just maybe in an art gallery, or architects webpages. Kevin Flynn’s Japanese inspired minimalist house is an enviable bachelor pad, and the villain ‘Clu’ lives in what could arguably be a top airline’s first class lounge – just with a couple of ominous bikers strutting about in leathers.

Costumes have a clear nod to the previous film, but just like the graphics and even the atmosphere (it rains in the Grid) there’s a sense, that just like in the real-world, live has moved on, progressed and got harder, better, faster, stronger (bad in joke for DP fans). But I couldn’t get past the wetsuit look of them (but maybe that’s because I’ve just back from a week of surfing).

Overall the story is somewhat weak and predicable, but that’s not what makes this film enjoyable – it’s the style and the immersion into a different world. There’s some excellent character performances (Michael Sheen has a real injection of energy half way through) and some fairly terrible (Garrat Headland – Sam Flynn).

I think it’s clear this, like so many of Bridges films, will be a bit of cult hit and a marmite classic, some will cherish and others won’t.

3.5 out of 5

Encounters at the End of The World

Werner Herzog documentary, about life at an Antarctic station, makes the sweeping polar landscapes look eerie and the people he meets even stranger.

McMurdo station has a population of 1000; made up of scientists, forklift drivers, computer techs and a penguin analyst, all of whom are really philosophers and dreamers masquerading as professionals. These travellers all agree that meeting at the South Pole seems to have been build into their destiny, the logical conclusion to years of trekking the globe looking for answers to life.

The station is clinical, climate controlled and complete with Frosty Boy ice-cream machine, much to Herzog’s disgust. But the home comforts and practical necessities of living in the frozen landscape of Antarctica don’t seem to distract those living there as to why they chose to be there. Almost everyone is studying an area of pole life; penguins, active volcanoes (more accessible than the Congo due to political unrest), icebergs the size of Texas or the amoebas existing under the 12ft thick ice they stand on.

Peter Zeitlinger’s photography creates beautiful, almost space like imagery of the ice-frosted landscape. The underwater world of swimming clams, strange phosphorus creatures and shy, tentacled fish glimmers in the lights from the divers in this dark, undiscovered Atlantis. Then there’s the Volcanoes, it’s contrasting fiery heat, spews gases and steam from its icy crater. These steam vents over the years have created a Labyrinth of tunnels to explore, carving up the ice under the scientist’s feet, leading the cameras through like mice in a run.

I loved this film, Herzog’s commentary is dry and witty as usual but with acute observations. Like all good films the mystery to his question “do penguins ever go mad, get fed up and feel like they just want to leave the colony” seem perplexing at first, (after all this was not “another film about penguins” as Herzog states at the beginning), but are answered later in the film leaving the viewer with a haunting image of life for one penguin. However combined with the beautiful imagery, the individuals he speaks to seem blissfully at peace with the landscape and state of mind quite enviable to those sat in an urban city centre cinema.

Best scene: under the ice diving, the deep walls of ice which appear around the magical Antarctic creatures.

Score: 4.5 out of 5

The Fountain (2006) Sci-fi religious fun

A film which is 484 on Empire’s list of 500 Greatest Films you’d think, even for it’s low rank, might have achieved more widespread acknowledgement, but having bought Darren Aronofsky’s 2006 sci-fi adventure for £3 this weekend, no-one I’ve spoken to seems to have heard of it. To be fair neither had I, but for £3 I thought it was worth a watch.

Originally, The Fountain started filming in 2002 with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett on a huge studio funded budget, which was slashed and the project abandoned when Aronofsky wouldn’t incorporate Pitt’s script amends. Production started again in 2005 with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz as the leads and a severely reduced budget – all of which promoted a creative flair for effects without (refreshingly) the need for CGI.

The Fountain follows three interwoven narratives that take place in the age of conquistadors, the modern-day period, and the far future. Jackman’s character is a futuristic astronaut, a modern day research scientist and Spanish conquistador, who journey’s through time attempting to stop the fate of his beloved “Izzi”. The film discusses themes of life, rebirth, mortality and our eternal relationships.

Aronofsky uses a quote from Genesis to start The Fountain making clear reference to the two trees in the garden of Eden; the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The latter was hidden and protected after the fall of man. The fall of man separated man from maker with “death” ultimately being what makes us unique as only we can experience it and it is the force which re-unites us with our maker.

Jackman’s character as the conquistador literally seeks the Tree of Life out of the Guatemalan Mayan pyramids and jungles. As a scientist, he desperately seeks the scientific knowledge to “cure” death, treating it like “any other disease”. It’s only as the yoga-practising, futuristic astronaut, haunted by visions of Izzi, that he accepts that death is the only way to be re-united with both maker and his eternal love. Ironically as an astronaut he travels with a tree, similar to the Tree of Life in the Mayan temple, which dies moments before he chooses his fatal ending.

There is a precise and calculated use of repeated imagery throughout The Fountain: the stars hanging in the distance space behind the orb-space craft, the hanging candles of the Spanish palace and the astrological research Izzi delights in at the lab all show a hidden agenda between showing the relationship between light and dark: life and death. The use of light is also part of the physical presence of the actors with Jackman existing in the shadows and Izzi highlighted and pinpointed by shards of light (in the snow filled doorway, in the museum sunbeam, in the palace throne) to further separate the two lovers.

The film ends as Xibalba (the dying star of the Mayan underworld) collapses and supernovas destroying and scattering the astronaut’s body into the dead tree rejuvenating it. In the present day the scientist is seen planting a tree seed over Izzi's grave, symbolising his acceptance of his wife's death. At the same moment, in the sky above, we see Xibalba's supernova event.

The Fountain is difficult to get into, this is coming from someone who loves films which don’t offer easy or obvious narratives, so you can understand my point. The narrative feels too jarred to seamlessly interweave the three stories. The use of imagery and effects is impressive, especially for the creative alternatives to CGI, but the cinematography of the film is a bit overbearing at times.

I get that we are steadily taken from darkness into light, it’s just that that dichotomy is too broken by having to switch from the dark and light parts of the story. The visual style obviously has to be sacrificed in order to interweave the narrative, otherwise it would be very boring, predictable and linear. It’s just the conquistador’s Mayan adventure is sooo dark and the supernova moment with the astronaut is sooo light that’s it’s unpleasantly obvious.

I love the idea that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchet were almost the lead roles, it seems impossible they would have been appropriate after watching Jackman and Weisz. Blanchet I think would have been too ethereal and mysterious (too tempting to slip into ‘Galadrial’ I suspect) for the role of Izzi - this would have made it so much harder to relate to her as real, dying person. Pitt, even though I think he’s a credible actor, wouldn’t have managed the broody, dark persona that Jackman seems to so easily create. Not that Jackman turns into a pseudo Wolverine, far from it, there are glimmers of genuine vulnerability and innocence in his performance, I think it’s more his onscreen, physically presence is far more suited than Pitt’s.

Best scene: Hugh Jackman entering Xibalba and his body pouring away like sand, it reminded me of ‘Sunshine’ and is a mind-etchingly vibrant moment in the film.

Score: 3.5 out of 5, very interesting to try and work it out and lots of great acting, just not sure I got the point of it without the help of the Internet.

Digital Lynch: The end?

After Mulholland Drive (2001) Lynch is “done” with film. Celluloid is slow, big, cumbersome, disjointed, scratched, and “ancient technology” so Lynch decides to tackle his latest shiny, new toy and is like a puppy at Christmas with the idea of digital film making. Digital, in contrast, is lightweight, smooth, fast there is an immediacy which is almost addictive, instant editing, autofocus all allows for the full artist's freedom from the clunky technical requirements of celluloid.

For Lynch you can see why this is so important, the ability to zoom in close to a scene (without the constraints of a boom operator, grips, camera men) the financial freedom of knowing a scene can keep going without the audio whirl of money being spent (celluloid films are expensive which is why we can “thank” digital for making programmes like Big Brother financially viable.). The organic nature of digital seems to fit Lynch’s creative vision so well, if a director can keep focused on a scene, keep seeing what is unveiled from the actors, the subtle changes in pace, emotion or tension then the end result will surely be better. There’s no one likes to dwell on a scene more than Lynch, his love of “quiet” space to jar so aggressively against “loud” space in his films is unique and as a auteur it’s almost what defines him.

Digital production

So as we’ve established digital production allows for self indulgence. With whizzy cameras and the right editing software digital film-making has been blown open to the masses, allowing everyone to edit, prepare and distribute at a click of a button their film to a potential audience of millions with little cost. For Lynch, this means two fingers to the studios who for so many years tried to control his vision, making it available to the masses, but on their commercial terms. As an auteur Lynch in a digital world is completely free and don’t we know it.

Inland Empire is a film you can appreciate but not love, easy to respect as an experiment, hard to sit through. Without the outside perspective of a studio boss, Lynch’s freedom runs wild, his love of fractured identities, disjointed stories (Twin Peaks style) takes on an existentialist quality of its own, leaving even hardcore Lynch fans somewhat hungering for closure on at least one storyline.

Much like Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire started out as an experiment, a series of monologues with leading lady and Lynch favourite Laura Dern. Fragments which become feature.

Digital quality

What is lost with digital? The compressed nature of digital files means that the “warmth” of film has been coldly wiped away, one megapixel at a time. The richness that comes from analogue distortions has been replaced with cold technical silence (there’s no background click, buzz or whir or the camera in those “silent” moments). As an audience we de-value digital – it misses the “luxury” quality we associate with celluloid – we like our TV to look like film afterall (Sopranos, ER etc)

Digital distribution

With little cost involved with production, surely digital ensures a healthy profit when it comes to distribution? Inland Empire was distributed by Lynch but as with all new technologies not all cinema’s had caught up with the digital trend and as such as limited ways to show the film. Using the Internet to launch the marketing, Lynch has used viral, communities and blogs to his advantage to gather the force of hardcore fans to leave their home comforts and head for the cinema. But why? A digitally produced movie, using digital components to edit, produce and add a digital soundtrack, using digital mediums to drive traffic and interest and then ask people to leave their digital arena and watch it in a cinema? A holistic effort gone too far. These digital fans were already with Lynch, they were sat there waiting for the film, in an instant he could have uploaded the movie and in another instant millions could have seen it.

Digital reception

Nope. This is not how Lynch wants you to see the film. He’s old school at heart. The tiny nuances of his soundtracks, his imagery, his cinematography, the painstakingly hand-carved film sets are not there to be viewed on your MP3 or PC. Hell no. This is a “putrified, false” experience according to Lynch.

The freedom of digital comes with a price. Death of the auteur, in a digital world a director has even less freedom to control how people view his work. What makes movies great is the tension between artistic freedom and business between culture/ industry. Let’s face it, a I pod with great headphones will probably let you hear those tiny nuances better than an old cinema with fading Dolby surround sound.

The question is now, is Lynch done with film? Will he next turn full circle and with the artistic and financial freedom of digital return to “moving pictures” will the artistic ambitions of youth finally be realised?