Mirror Mirror

Wow. I am glad I waited patiently until the end credits otherwise I would not have been blessed with such a great surprise, and one that sums up the oddity of this film - but more on that later.

Still trying to find the fairest of them all

Mirror Mirror is a re-hash of the familiar fairytale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (feels like it's not PC to say that). This time Snow White (Lily Collins) is an orphan princess locked in the highest room in the tallest tower (yes, really), she is the rightful ruler of her kingdom but her wicked stepmother (Julia Roberts) is one hell of a vain, evil queen. A charming prince rocks up (Armie Hammer) and in a series of strange plot twists ends up not really saving the day.

Director Tarsem Singh has created a beautiful, fantasical world for this fairytale but there's a real clash when he tries to decide its genre. It's not weird enough for fantasy, not funny enough for comedy (though there are some feeble attempts) and it's not emotional enough for tweenie romance. So what is it? Some horrible mish-mash in between.

I get it, it's a kids film and the plot does jog on at a pleasing, predictable pace with a mix of action, romance and 'comedy' to keep boys and girls interested throughout the 90 minutes. There's some mis-en-scene stolen from the mind of Tim Burton, costumes that nod to the outlandish outfits of the Panem Capital, and some beautifully shot woodland scenes which seem like a Disney version of Game of Thrones. Everything has a convincing layer of 'fake' about it, the snow, the makeup, but sadly, also the performances.

Snow White is annoying. You'd be forgiven for expecting at any moment for a cartoon blue bird to land on her shoulder. Her movements are choreographed carefully to be like a true Disney princess and her voice so saccharine I got toothache. This is intended to be tongue in cheek as the queen makes several references to how irritating she is, yet sadly Collins is a vase - lovely to look at but pretty blank on the inside. So when Snow White gets all bad-ass half way through the film it's too far a leap of faith for the audience to take - it's just not believable, even in a such an obvious fantasy world. It's a pity too, as like with Snow White and the Huntsman, there was a chance to hop on the feminist band wagon and create a sassy hero from an insipid, beautiful zero. Blink and you'll miss the 'comedy' when she asks the prince not to rescue her 'but it's been focus grouped and it works' and sadly, in this case it would have done.

However. All of this was forgiven when 'No Beard, No Sword, No Bean' Sean Bean turns up with a beard and a beard (it must be in his contract) as the benevolent, dispossessed King. This gruff northern star races through his five minutes of dialogue to round up this fairytale in a very predicable ending... well is it. There is one surprise up Singh's sleeve. A Bollywood ending which comes out of nowhere! No-one was more surprised that Sean Bean who stands awkwardly in the background while the whole cast chant 'love' and shimmy around him. Genius.

V for Vendetta

'People should not be afraid of their governments;
governments should be afraid of their people"

Pick up a pitchfork and get ready to threaten the establishment, a revolution is a-coming!

I re-watched this the other day as I was inspired by a TED talk on the 7 deadly sins - this one focussed on 'greed' and it was an eloquent talk by an American plutocrat who had made billions during the dot.com boom. Even though he was considered to be in the top 0.1 percent of wealth worldwide, I'd never heard of him. He even made that point. How can a man who owns as much money as him, not be on the average person's radar? His talk was the antithesis of the famous Gordan Gecko 'Greed Is Good' mantra - he said it's bad, it's corrupting as it isolates people from each other. The opposite of greed in his mind was community. How can you be part of a community where the gulf between rich and poor is as wide as it was prior to the French Revolution?

After this man's talk I realised a film like V for Vendetta was starting to feel far more real and present than Alan Moore intended when he wrote the graphic novel during Thatcher's rein.

In light of the London Riots a few years back, and other bleak 'austerity' news reports since, the premise is alarmingly realistic. A lone vigilante known a 'V' (Hugo Weaving) is the sole voice of resistance against a fascist, oppressive regime ('Norsefire') headed by former Tory and now High Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt). This is sold to the people through toe curling propaganda by the 'voice of London' Lewis Prothero (Roger Allam) and enforced on the people by Peter Creedy 'the finger' and head of the secret police (Tim Piggot-Smith). Just to make the point that every fraction of the establishment is corrupt, the church is headed by sexually dodgy Archbishop Lilliman (John Standing). In this world where homosexuality is a crime and non-conformity results in a mysterious deaths and disappearances, is media worker Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman). On a night out, she rebels against the curfew to enjoy a night out, only to be caught and threatened with rape by the secret police. Saving her from the scene is V, and from this point her life is manipulated until she 'sees' the truth of the brutal world around her that has been normalised through years of not-so-subtle enforcement.

I love the iconography of this film: the fascist looking banners of the ruling party, the strong contrast of red and black in a hostile set of banners not too indistinct from the Third Reich; the Guy Fawkes mask; the dystopian, gritty streets of London; and finally, of course, the Palace of Westminster ripe for the talking, glittering against the Thames. These icons exaggerate the themes of the film especially the Guy Fawkes mask, which naturally harks back to the original historic revolution, but also allows V to be a social representative. As the protagonist he could literally be anyone, or everyone, who's disenfranchised by the establishment. Evey's final lines even state this when she states 'He was all of us'. It's a trick authors sometimes use; give away as little as you can about the main character, so your reader can imbue themselves into the role.

The main theme is of course about civil liberties and freedoms being usurped by the state for our 'own protection'. If you believe a lie and absorb the fear created by the media, then it allows for the most terrifying injustices to take place while the public apathetically sit by. Hence the Nazi symbolism. It was apathy that allowed Hitler to get in, but this London shows that it's unfounded fear that allowed Norsefire to evolve from the Conservative party. This totalitariast party fuels the fear fire with hints about disease pandemics, CCTV, media manipulation, religious hypocrosy, foreign threats, terrorism, internet surveillance, torture, intelligence gathering, profiling. Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

Call it serendipitous, but the reason this film has got under my skin this week is because I also watched 'Inside the Commons' which exposed the Palace of Westminster as a juvenile public school club where policy and public interest is second to antiquated traditions and subsidised drinking. Almost prophetic then that the director James McTeigue stated the film "really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people."

Now... where's that pitchfork?

Drive

Oh my goodness me. It's been a long year away from blogging all things cinema - I blame a change of career and new life as an NQT.

So, let's start with one of my favourite films from the past couple of years - Drive.

Killer soundtrack 

Not just because of the ever so lovely, (everyone has a crush - yes, straight men too), Ryan Gosling, and not because of my favourite British actress, the understated Carey Mulligan. No, because it has been one of the few films in recent months which has hung about in my head - always a good sign.

First off its a cracking genre film, starting with that amazing hot pink choice of font which slashes boldly across the opening credits. Perhaps a metaphor for the way the violence in the film suddenly jumps out at you and smacks you across the face. Literally. And wow. I was not expecting that.

The scene in the lift is breath taking, not just for gosling getting those MTV award winning lips out to kiss Carey. No, just because you are not expecting it at all, and you really don't expect the way it continues. Oh right, you're kicking the guy... And now you're kicking in s head, and now his head is mush.... Oh my.

But as genre film it's an interesting metaphor, a kind of modern day fairy tale. Gosling is the hero, kitted out in white shining satin (armour) chasing the princess who needs rescuing. The problem is, The Driver, as he's only ever know, is stuck in a fantasy story of his own, one warped by his day job. I think the driver seems himself as a kind of knight, he's ultimately fighting to protect innocence at any cost. But just like a knight in a fairy tale the reality is warped. There isnt going to be a happyily ever after, as Mulligan's face confirms at ate end of the lift scene. The driver lives in a fantasy and his actions play out to prove this. Why else would he wear the mask to kill the evil Niño?

That scene at the beach stuck in my head for ages. Why does he go to the restaurant and look in the window wearing the mask? Why does he leave the car perched on the top of the cliff with the list shining? Why does he stalk the  dying Niño into the waters? I think because his mind as been lost - he cannot distinguish between what is real and what is a movie and by wearing the mask from his stunt scene, he literally becomes a superhero. He feels invincible. He is removed from his identity. The bad guy dies - the good girl lives - and he's at the centre of the action.

I love the detail of this film too. That statin jacket! What a great touch, like a suit of armour in a fairy tale it shines out thought the dark streets of LA, and like armour, through the film it becomes muddied with the evidence of battle. He never cleans it, it becomes a badge of honour. 

Also I like any director who hires Christina Hendricks to then blow her head up 10 minutes after she appears on screen. It seems like a waste, but then again, that's one point of the film: there's so much violence that we've resorted to treating it casually. 

Contagion - the bug should have won

I caught the fever for this film, went to see it and... it passed in one boring dose of cinema tedium. Call the doctor, I'm in a sweat - not from thrills and tension, but from boredom. Yawn.

Oh dear. Look at this cast. It should have been brilliant. Sadly, the Torygraph summed it up when it said, this is a viral apocalypse where you wish the bug had won.

Steven Soderbergh's Contagion starts on Day 2 with Gwyneth Paltrow looking peeky. She soon deteriorates and pops it in a foaming fit. Herein starts the 'action' as the big government agencies try to trace the origins of this touch-transferring super disease.

Soderbergh, under a pseudonym, is both director and director of photography. His choices mean you're well aware of what people are touching (close ups of hands which have been coughed all over, touching the hand rails on buses, credit cards, drinking glasses, napkins, the faces of children and loved ones....) yes, we get. We touch stuff a lot, and then our faces. Good job Kate Winslet is here to make that implicit knowledge explicit. But she doesn't last and unfortunately the best actress in this star-studded cast is lost too.

Throughout the whole film I had that expectation that something was going to happen. any.minute.now. Soderbergh's clever enough to add in little snippets of thrills so you sit back comfortably back in your seat, and think, 'right, here we go'. For example - the neighbour gets shot during scenes of looting reminiscent of 28 Days later or The Road - and we think the film's going to take off. But no, it then cuts to three days later in a lab with a person in a bio chemical suit looking intently at the bug through a telescope. For ages. For no reason.

This is a slow burn rather than a hot fever of a film. There's many stories. Too many stories. There's too many interwoven tales and none with a satisfying ending or explanation of why they were there in the first place.

The big reveal at the end is a 'blink and you miss it' moment unfortunately. It would have explained Jude Law's character motivations and how that related to the wardrobe choice in his teeth.

A miserable 1 out of 5. Just watch the trailer it's more exciting. Sadly.

Midnight in Paris

I was keen to see this, so much so, that I turned up the cinema wearing a jumper with the word Paris knitted right into it. Clearly, I had left the house that morning with a huge subconscious desire to part with my cash for this cinematic treat.

If you liked Vicky Cristina Barcelona, then you'll enjoy Woody Allen's latest offering. His sparkling wit is littered throughout and he's done away with the narrator, replacing instead with the ramblings of lead man Gil (Owen Wilson).

The plot is very simple, nothing complicated here, but don't let that fool you. Also, don't be put off by the snobbish critics who've been making out you need an English Lit degree to get all the 'in jokes'. You don't. It's obvious who people are, mainly because Gil incredulously keeps repeating their name. We get it. You're Ernest Hemmingway, you're Gertrude Stein, you're Picasso. A flashing red arrow above their head would have been less subtle, so fear not. Also, I have an English Literature degree (which specialised in American Literature) and I haven't read any Hemmingway, but it didn't make the film any less enjoyable.

And it was enjoyable. It's always nice to be reminded that American's aren't idiots, and this time Woody Allen has chosen to help us see that it's not just sophisticated New Yorkers who can turn a good phrase, appreciate a good book, or appreciate good art. Leading the LA blondes in this movie is Rachel McAdams as Gil's fiancée Inez. She's clever, appreciates intelligence (a little too much), but she's just not quite sophisticated enough. She's a patriot. Gil's a francophile

As the struggling, romantic, bohemian that Gil fancies himself to be, it's a little difficult to marry up why on earth he ever got involved with the forceful, opinionated Inez. Oh, she's beautiful. That's probably why. But for her, I'm not sure I bought the idea that she liked him for his Hollywood potential, not his artistic ambition.

That's neither here nor there. Every scene in this film is beautiful. It's dramatic irony at it's best. Gil is in love with the idea of Paris, and we as the audience, are presented with exactly that. Even the establishing shot sequence at the start of the film is filled with frame after frame of rain-drenched-starlit-cafe-covered Paris we all want to see. It's deliberate that you never see the graffiti in Montmartre, the litter in the streets, or the many, many, less than '5 star' hotels which cover the city. This is Woody Allen's version of Paris, which mirrors (almost frame for frame) his version of New York in 'Manhattan'. Perhaps an indication of his auterial style.

Loved it, will definitely buy it as the script is so rich, I've definitely missed many jokes - 5 out of 5.

Jane Eyre

This week has been pretty fascinating, as I started a PGCE and one of the perks was a day at The Broadway Cinema in Nottingham learning to analyse film. Well, I wish had undertaken that training before I watched the latest adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece, Jane Eyre.

What do I mean? We studied the importance of various techniques used in cinema to 'construct' the film. For example, the 'establishing' shot - usually a sweeping wide angled image which immediately lets the audience know where we are. Which then continues with use of sound, use of 'gaze' and close ups. So putting my new found skills to use, here's my 'reading' of Jane Eyre.

Unusually, Jane Eyre, starts with and establishing shot of the adult Jane, silhouetted in a dark door way, breathing in panic, before she bursts out into the rough gardens of Thornfield Hall and legs it for freedom across the moody moors. We can't place her location, or at what point in the drama this is. Then suddenly she flees (wide angled shot) and cuts a harrowing figure on the close ups of her 'plain' face as she struggles against the elements before collapsing at the doorway of St John, and his sister's, home.

I liked Cary Fukunaga's adaptation - it's dark, moody, not at all glamorous (like I suspect a Merchant Ivory production would make it) and, for as far as it's possible, he has tried to pick a 'small, plain' Jane from Hollywood in the form of Mia Wasiskowska. Okay, she's hardly plain, but she's not Anne Hathaway. She has something ethereal and non-standard about her. She's interesting to look at, and that's a good thing, as there's not a lot of dialogue or emotional register for a great deal of the film. Again. That's a good thing. Jane isn't hysterical. We need to see a resilient and defensive heart, relent and melt for a temporary high when she finally does succumb to Rochester's wild charms.

Michael Fassbender is an excellent Rochester, but he's far too easy on the eye. In my reading of the book, he was much more cantankerous, unpredictable, moody and offensive - but I guess, without casting someone so odious it's unbelievable, it's a difficult role to cast. As the audience, you do want them to get together, so he needs to be alluring.

Use of 'gaze' is very interesting - almost voyeuristic - as we stare intimately at Jane, or at what Jane is looking at. Her restrained face gives emotion away only in the close ups and the subtle variations in her eyes, or the very corner of her mouth. It's a very interesting technique for a big epic film, to focus on being so intimate.

Also of note was Jamie Bell, who's St John is equally awkward and subordinate as Jane is to Rochester. So you can tell from watching one what the other must feel. We know he loves her (even if you've not read the book) because he's mirroring her restrained, awkward behaviour we've witnessed with Rochester. Bell is proving to be a mighty screen presence - understated and memorable.

My only criticism would be the 'non-digetic sound' (eg the soundtrack) was over bearing in parts. Also, where was the happy ending. It was a interesting and pleasing directorial choice to snip away the 'baby and sight returning' bit, but if it's in the book, there's going to be a significant part of the audience waiting for it to appear in what was, on the whole, a faithful adaptation.

Talking of which, there's no spoilers here. If a book's been in print since 1850 then that story can be considered common knowledge. It reminds me when I went to see Baz Lurhman's Romeo & Juliet and I overheard one girl weeping hysterically, that "no one told me they both die." Honestly.

Anyway, I've waffled on. In summary, Jane Eyre is epic and understated, submersion and intimate, and one which I will happily watch again. And for a costume drama, it lends itself well to the big screen. Don't miss it in the cinema.

5 out of 5 - moody goodness.

What's Your Number? - Preview Screening

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say, I was 'lucky' enough to get tickets to a pre-screening of the latest rom-com offering from Hollywood - but I'm a student again and the tickets were free, so who am I to complain.

I've got mixed feelings about this one. The opening joke was not just the same, but identical to Bridesmaids, and I kind of feel that Kirsten Wiig did it better than Anna Faris. So that immediately put me on the back foot. But there is good stuff here, with jokes based on (gasp) women and sex. It's about how many conquests you've had ladies. And shock horror, we're in for some gender stereotyping.

Party girl Ally played (albeit well) by Anna Farris is up to a "staggering" 19 and Marie-Claire in it's infinite judging glare has branded anyone racking up more than 20 notches on the bed post a ... well, insert your favrouite derrogatory insult here. Oh, but, not if you're a guy. No that's fine. In fact, it's hillarious. Which is why neighbour Colin] played by XMen's Chris Evans is allowed to casually rack up so many notches his bed has fallen apart. *sigh*  Don't worry, I've climbed down from my feminist high horse now, we can crack on with what happens.

Predicitability factor is sky high on this film, you know exactly what is going to happen (and who the heroine will end up with) within the opening seconds of the film. And the plot mooches on at a predicatable pace too. Not that, that is awful - that's kind of why people like romcoms. BUT, there are some moments of comedy gold here (using the good doctor Kermode's code that more than 6 laughs, then it's a comedy). There's a great gay-joke and a bit with a puppet which might just haunt me. More than a snigger, a genuine LOL.

BUT, the problem is Anna Faris, (and I'm not talking about her botched surgery), it's her character. There was an interesting article on the New Yorker (see http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/10/03/111003sh_shouts_kaling?currentPage=all) which talks about the role of women in comedies. And I see Anna's character falling squarely into the 'Klutz' model. She's gorgeous. Killer figure. Nice face. Who wants to see that. OF course the guy will fall in love with her - the audience is not blind. So what's stopping her from finding perfect love? THE number. That haunting figure of 19 which is going to 'ruin' her for marriage. Yawn.

To mirror Mindy's sentiment "I regard romantic comedies as a subgenre of sci-fi, in which the world operates according to different rules than my regular human world. For me, there is no difference between Ripley from “Alien” and any Katherine Heigl character. They are equally implausible. They’re all participating in a similar level of fakey razzle-dazzle, and I enjoy every second of it."

And that's the problem, I felt like Faris and [name] probably sat in seperate trailors bitching about each other when they weren't on screen. Maybe even eating oderous garlic bread moments before the big kiss scene. For a rom com, the casting has to be key.

Still. If you're out on a girls night, this is not a bad choice. It's not as good as Bridesmaids - but it does follow that theme of trying to present women in a 'new' 1990s style ladette light. I guess the US didn't benefit from 'girl power' in the way brit pop did (the Word, Zoe Ball getting fired from Radio 1 for being hammered in Ibiza) so maybe it's a super risky concept?

Overal 3.5 out of 5 - nothing you don't expect, but some funny moments.