The Iron Lady & War Horse

I know I haven’t been reviewing as much as I usually do, but I have been making podcasts for another site and sadly they can’t be put on this one, but fear not, below is a link so you can listen to them yourself and not miss out on my pearls of wisdom.

The Iron Lady & War Horse Podcast

Howl

Guest Writer Dean Newby

Howl is a film concerning the 1957 obscenity trial of Alan Ginsberg’s poem after which the film is named. It is written & directed by film-making partners of over 20 years Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman and co-produced by Gus Van Sant (‘Milk’, ‘Good Will Hunting’). It stars James Franco as the now legendary but, at the time, little-known poet, Alan Ginsberg, as well as a host of other well known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels, and Jon Hamm.

I have to admit from the offset, that I am a massive Ginsberg fan. Not just of his work (some of his poems being my favourite of all time), but also of the man, what he stood for and how(l) and why he wrote. With that in mind, I had 3 questions when I entered the cinema to watch ‘Howl’:

1. Will non-Howl/non-Ginsberg fans or those who simply do not know his work like or get anything positive from the film?
2. Will the film remain true to the poem, the trial and the man (Ginsberg)?
3. How can a poem such as ‘Howl’ be successfully portrayed on-screen?

The answers in short, are a resounding: Yes. Yes. Brilliantly & Beautifully.

The film opens in black & white with Franco’s Ginsberg on stage preparing to read his poem. The room is filled with people, with a haze of cigarette smoke hanging in the air. The audience is waiting, some clearly with bated breath.

When Franco begins speaking his voice higher than usual, with a touch of nervousness. His pitch, intenation, and rhythm all contribute to the feeling that at times, one could actually be listening to Ginsberg reading his poetry – as I have courtesy of a ‘Voice of the Poet’ CD of his work. There is a tenderness to Franco’s performance that cements his portrayal as Ginsberg, he deals with the reading of the poem with the same energy and passion as Ginsberg, and his interview with the same calmness and confidence. This shows the two sides to most people: the performer and the ‘real’ person.

We’re soon introduced to scenes of real-life colour, alternating between Ginsberg’s interview and the current trial of 1957. There are also animated sequences which act as a visual interpretation of the poem. Reminiscent of Van Gogh in their swirls of colour, they are juxtaposed with scenes in black and white. In contrast they seem like silent snapshots of memories past.

The film carefully balances several scenes: Ginsberg’s interview with an unidentified interviewer, the trial, his past and the animated poem, and it does so perfectly, which considering the number of scene-changes, is an extremely skilled thing to do. There is enough imagery & speech that the viewer doesn’t get bored or lose interest, but not so much that they are left feeling dazed or lost somewhere between Franco laying in on some steps and animated penises floating through the night sky.

The film is bigger than ‘Howl’, Ginsberg, or the trial. It skillfully delivers the message that art often outlives all of us, and lives eternally in a world beyond time. This is shown beautifully in a scene of the past in which the only object of colour is a painting in a gallery Ginsberg is visiting. If black & white is the past, and colour the present, then this painting displayed in Ginsberg’s past continues into his present, into our present.

Of the many things this film has to offer; superb acting, some of the most beautiful animation I’ve ever seen, and a story of a man who wrote what he saw at a time when many were blinded by anger and fear, I think one of the most important is a renewed interest Ginsberg and his work. That can only be a good thing.

While testifying at the trial, Treat Williams’ character, academic Mark Schorer, states that ‘poetry cannot be translated into prose’, but having watched ‘Howl’ I think it’s fair to say that it can, in this case anyway, indeed be translated into film.

1st

Cinematically beautiful with an honesty and appreciation of history

that is too often overlooked in today’s ‘quick-buck’ film industry.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The King’s Speech

A rich man getting over a speech impediment doesn’t sound like a particularly impressive feat, at least not one that should have audiences and the academy in such a buzz. However, if you think about how public speaking is one of people’s biggest fears and listening to a bad public speaker is one of the most painful experiences, it starts to make a little more sense. Oh and did I not mention it? The protagonist is the King of England. Now you can see why such a premise might become a national issue.

For those who are not up to date on the history of the British monarch (what do they teach you these days?) the film is set in the late 1930s in the years running up to World War 2.  George V (played superbly by Michael Gambon) is reaching the end of his reign due to failing health, but his heir is causing a constitutional crisis. The then King Edward VIII wants to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, but since he is head of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce, it would be considered an immoral marriage This causes the famous change in the course of history that sees King Edward VIII abdicate the throne and Prince Albert, Bertie to his family (played by Colin Firth), become King George VI. However, the poor prince was never meant to become king and has a serious stammer that stops him from making any sort of inspiring public addresses, so there is little confidence in his being able to lead the country. To get over the stuttering Bertie goes to radical speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), and while all this is happening Hitler is slowly gaining more power in Europe.

The relationship between Bertie and Lionel is the key component to the film and is an easy and moving one to watch. The great dynamic between the two men comes from the great difference in social standing and the unseen class divide that this creates. At first the two act very awkward around each other with Lionel treating Bertie like any normal client, even going as far as to use his familial nickname, which of course infuriates the prince.  But as the barriers start to come down a real, touching friendship develops that lifts the movie up to another level. This friendship feels much deeper than the usual Hollywood ‘bromance’, in fact using such a term to describe it is an insult to its unique perfection.  The relationship causes many of the unexpected funny moments in the film that had the entire packed audience laughing in their seats. For instance seeing a prince of England, as well as a national treasure, roll around on the floor or swear worse than a drunk Essex lad has everyone in stitches.

Firth and Rush both play their parts brilliantly (I think I may soon run out of complimentary adjectives). Firth is perfect as a regal prince, in control of his emotions to reflect what is expected of him, but also able to show a vulnerable side that tugs at the heartstrings. Firth handles the emotional side of Bertie’s character, the pain and torment he had growing up in the royal household, and with exceptional skill shows just enough to seduce the audience without making it all feel like a melodrama. Rush equally stands out in the film and is on par with Firth in his supporting role. It is a shame that he likely won’t get as much recognition as Firth, but he provides a lot of the comedy and insights into the royal character. This is probably one of Rush’s best performances to date.

The film outside this friendship is filled with great actors, all amazing in their own right. Michael Gambon, as already stated, is very good as no nonsense George V while Timothy Spall plays a convincing Winston Churchill. Australian Guy Pearce is also very good as King Edward VIII, choosing to come across as shirking his responsibility rather than giving up the thrown purely for love. However, the actor who really stands out in a supporting role is Helena Bonham Carter, who for once is playing a serious and non-quirky role and is exceptionally good at it. You can certainly imagine her Queen Mother being both supportive, but also full of all the royal diva stories that have come out over the years.

The rest of the film, the costumes, the music, the locations are all equally stunning, but in the end what really matters in this film is the exceptional acting talent at its core. All the surface factors could be cheap, tacky and falling apart and the film would still be exceptional due to its cast. The only slight problem I had, and it is so slight that I almost forgot to mention it, is how the film tries to be smart by making slight references to future events. For instance Lionel tells Bertie that smoking is a disgusting habit and will one day kill him, which is a reference to the fact that King George VI died young due to throat cancer. There are a few others, such as references to Hitler and also princess Elizabeth, but as I said it is an almost forgettable fault that I mention to simply fulfill the role as ‘critic’.

The film has all that the academy council could possible want; a period piece by one with experience a great historic backdrop; class boundary issues; and conquering ones personal demons-it is a shoe in for Oscar gold. But for the audience all that really matters is the incredible acting at the heart of the film that has each character appear deep and also stand out from the crowd.  This is certainly a film that is on a pedestal and all others should aspire to be like.

Degree: 1st

This film is practiaclley perfect in everyway. A great start to 2011 and one that deserves all

the hype and awards that it is receiving

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Social Network

First off this ‘The Social Network’ is as much about Facebook as ‘The Queen’ was about the death of Princess Diana; it really isn’t about it at all. Instead the film looks at the relationships and dynamics of the key players and what happened between them while Facebook was founded; anyone who doesn’t have a Facebook page (do such people still exist?!) can still enjoy it without feeling they are missing a crucial bit of information. This comes as no surprise when you see that the writer is Aaron Sorkin who made ‘The West Wing’ watchable for those who are not interested in American politics. With ‘The Social Network’ he has made a film that doesn’t require a degree in computer science to understand, and has also managed to capture the thoughts and feelings of a very recent part of history which Hollywood is usually very slow at picking up on.

Adapted from Ben Mezrich’s non-fiction book ‘The Accidental Billionaires’ the film moves along three different time lines. Zuckerberg is in the middle of two different, simultaneous lawsuits, one by the Winklevoss twins and their business partner Divya Narendra, and the other by his best friend and former CFO Eduardo Saverin. During the discussions around these lawsuits the story of Facebook’s founding comes out. It all starts off in Harvard 2003 where Mark Zuckerberg is unhappy with his present social standing, and wants to become part of elitist society by being a member of a Final club (think Oxford’s Bullingdon Club or Yale’s Skull and Bones). He gets the attention of club members Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss after his site ‘FaceMash’ crashes the Harvard servers, and they ask him to write the code for a social website exclusive to Harvard students. Zuckerberg takes this idea and turns it into Facebook; from there the film follows what happens next, from the website expanding to a few schools all the way to it reaching 1 million members. Between all this the film mainly concentrates on the relationships surrounding Zuckerberg and how he pulls people in and pushes them away.

The film for me was made by the great characters who are all very well developed and layered, but also don’t fit with the usual film dynamic; the ones you end up rooting for are not necessarily the ones you expected when you walked into the cinema. The stand out performance was easily Jesse Eisenberg who delivers Sorkin’s zingy dialogue expertly and shows a very complex picture of Zuckerberg. It would have been too easy to demonise the Facebook founder since a lot of what he is portrayed as doing was sneaky and underhanded., however Eisenberg manages to show enough of a weak side to make him relatable. There is a very cold, logical, calculating side to him and this side is what made him a genius, but there is also a side that is incredibly insecure and human. For instance I have found out since watching the film that the reason Facebook is predominatly blue is because Mark Zuckerberg is colour blind and blue is the most obvious and clearest colour he sees.  He just desperately wants to be cool, popular and recognised, as he believes that is the gateway to a better life, but does not have the social tact to do so. He is clever, there is no doubt about that, but he can’t seem to properly connect with other people, at least not in the conventional way, so he created a medium he would be able to do it in. The greatest irony is even when he has all the success, is the world youngest billionaire and is recognised by millions of people he still can’t be the life of the party or connect with those who matter to him and this makes an ultimately tragic character.

The true victim of the story, at least it seems from the film, is Zuckerberg’s friend and CFO Eduardo Saverin, who stuck with him through everything, but was forced out of the company when his shares were diluted a thousand fold. It will always be a complete mystery to me why a guy as caring and compassionate as Eduardo would be around someone as self centred as Zuckerberg could be. Andrew Garfield plays the part fantastically well and allows the audience to sympathise with him as he gets slowly pushed aside without forcing it on us. These sympathetic feelings cannot be placed on the other major male lead that is Justin Timberlake’s Sean Parker. Parker is the co-founder of Napster and Timberlake portrays him as cool, swathe and enticing, but he is ultimately the antagonist of the film. He manipulates and blinds Zuckerberg and never accepts responsibility for the damage he causes and the rift he creates between Mark and Eduardo.  The most surprising characters for me turned out to be the Winklevoss twins. Both played by Armie Hammer, at least one was Armie Hammer and the other one was Hammer’s head digitally placed on another’s body, these twins seem to have it all; looks, money, brains (they are in Harvard after all) and a sporting career that saw them in the Olympics and more recently row for Oxford in the Oxford Vs Cambridge boat race. However given all this they come across as likable because in the end they are also victims of Zuckerberg. They came up with a similar idea and approached Zuckerberg with it and he then stole the idea. Originally the twins did little to stop him as they saw themselves as gentlemen and above any rumour spreading or cashing in, but as soon as the website went global they snapped and demanded they got the recognition they deserved. Their gentleman like behaviour redeems the two character in the audiences’ eyes and makes us root for them as much as we do Eduardo.

Not only are the characters and actors superb, but the entire film fits together beautifully and this all down to director David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven). All the cinematography, music and on site shots fit perfectly together to give the film a sense of grandeur, which it rightly deserves since it is the origin story of something that has changed and defined a generation. With the help of Aaron Sorkins’ script the film does have some hi-tech jargon, but this is only used to demonstrate the characters’ knowledge and expertise and is easy to follow. The multiple time lines also fit really well together and don’t become skewed or hard to follow as can often happen. Neither of these two men have Facebook accounts or any interest in Facebook so they were able to create a film that did not concentrate too heavily on the subject matter itself, but more on the websites effect on people and on a generation. It is strange to think of a world without Facebook, but it is in fact a world that we have all lived in. Stranger still is going on Facebook after you know all the blood, sweat and tears that went into making it.

Degree: 1^st

A fascinating insight into the lives and tribulations of three geeks as they

revolutionise 21^st century communication. The only thing missing is

the real Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

You Have 2 New Friend Requests

Social networking has revolutionized the way we live and altered communication, advertising and most recently the law. So it comes as not surprise that the experience and dangers of social cyberspace have been made into a film; 2 in fact. There is ‘The Social Network’ which I have already mentioned and there is also ‘Catfish’, which looks at the darker side of it all.

Catfish is a fly on the wall documentary about  New York photographer Nev Schulman who pursues an online relationship with Megan Pierce who he meets after her half sister Abbey sends him a picture of one of his photos. We are shown, through the perspective of Nev’s friends, how the relationship grows as they start to text, call and email each other constantly. But with a the title of the film meaning ‘ a person who pretends to be someone they are not using online social networks’ we know it won’t be ending well. In fact the ending has been described by ‘JoBlo.com’ as ‘an emotional roller-coaster ride that you won’t be able to shake for days’, while the Financial Times said the film was ‘ the best Hitchcock film that Hitchcock never directed’. With such great recommendations it is a shame that UK viewers will likely never get to watch it, but I would love to hear from an American readers what the film is like. It will be released state side on 17th September 2010.

Luckily for UK audiences we will get to watch ‘The Social Network’ which will be out in the UK 15th October 2010. However, until then here is a sneak preview of some of the film’s scenes.

127 Hours

After the Oscar, critic and box office acclaimed success of his last film, Slumdog director Danny Boyle’s  new project has a lot to live up to. Fortunately ‘127 hours’ certainly looks on paper as if it will. With James Franco as the leading role and critics at the Toronto Film Festival giving it great write ups, the biopic of Aron Ralston’s remarkable adventure certainly seems to be on its way to more Oscar gold. The movie will show the life changing 5 days of Ralston after a falling boulder crushes his arm and leaves him trapped and isolated in a canyon. The Uk release date is January 7th 2011.

The Social Network

It’s Facebook the Movie! Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfiled and Justin Timberlake star as the feuding geeks behind the phenomenon that has changed a generation, revolutionised communication and made sure the Internet isn’t just for porn. Gone With the Wind it isn’t but the trailer certainly makes it look epic. ‘Like’. The movie will be out 15th October 2010.