Honest ImpressionsThoughts on Contemporary Cinema
|
Here we have yet another crime-drama based on real life gangsters—Reginald and Ronald Kray, two of England’s most notorious crime bosses. Tom Hardy stars in this film, playing both twin brothers à la The Parent Trap. Understanding this before viewing Legend, I predicted that it was either going to be horrendous or brilliant. Thankfully, it was the latter.
Some criticisms of the movie have claimed it is too violent and difficult to watch. However, it is one of the least graphic and most watchable gangster movies I’ve seen (also, how does one decide to watch a gangster movie and not expect violence?). Director Brian Helgeland shows that the Kray brothers’ lives were plagued with violence, but he clearly makes an effort to keep graphic images to a minimum. The camera will move, for example, to the face of the attacker or to witnesses’ reactions in the middle of a violent scene, making it more effective because the audience is left to imagine the brutality ensuing. The camera doesn’t draw attention to itself in the movie, which also makes it watchable. Tracking shots follow the characters so that the audience feels as though they are part of the movie, but Helgeland doesn’t shake the camera or exaggerate this perspective like Darren Aronofsky did in Black Swan. Perhaps most importantly, Hardy’s acting was masterful. He captured the physicality of both brothers, which is evident if you watch the movie and then view images of the real Kray twins. Hardy manifests differences in the way each man stands and speaks, and even moves his mouth differently depending on the brother he’s portraying. The build and stature of each brother is also differentiated in the way Hardy adjusts his posture. Finally, he makes the audience sympathize with the Krays, which becomes an incredibly difficult task as the movie progresses. Legend had a number of memorable lines. It is an undeniably funny movie, much of which is owed to Hardy’s comedic timing. Emily Browning is also a breath of fresh air as Frances Shea, Reggie Kray’s wife. Frances begins as a significantly bolder mob wife than what audiences are used to, and narrates the movie as well. This could have been an exciting perspective but was more often distracting and corny. The line “The Queen would survive, but God save the rest of us,” stands out as especially out of place, and would have been amusing if it had been said almost anywhere else in the film. We witness Frances’ deterioration as the movie goes on, and Browning manifests this subtly yet strongly. When she asserts her devotion to Reggie in the end, calling him her “prince” despite the fact that he attacked her, it is difficult to tell whether the movie seeks to display the tragic, perverse logic of an abused wife or whether it means to laud Reggie as a misunderstood hero. Hopefully it is the former, but I’ve yet to discern what the true intentions were. Nonetheless, it seemed uncharacteristic and disconcerting, which speaks more to the movie’s writing than Browning’s acting. Legend has all the British humor of a Guy Ritchie movie, all the rise-and-fall drama of a Martin Scorcese film, and the insane yet memorable leading characters of Brian De Palma’s Scarface. The usage of Frances Shea as a narrator was a great idea with disappointing results, but the narration is not constant and is therefore forgivable considering the captivating acting of the cast. Any fan of gangster movies should give this film a chance. Grade: A
0 Comments
Saoirse Ronan stars in the new historical-fiction drama, Brooklyn. The movie provides a different look at Irish immigration to the US than what we’re used to, as Brooklyn takes place in the 1950s rather than during the Potato Famine of the 1840s. I expected a fresh perspective on an arguably underrepresented era of immigration, and although the movie did this in some ways, it was filled with melodramatic stereotypes and overly-common film tropes.
Moving to a different country is dramatic in and of itself, but director John Crowley intensified this drama to an overbearing degree. For instance, when Eilis (Saoirse Ronan) first steps into the United States, she walks through a door that floods the screen with light upon opening. A Christmas scene at the soup kitchen also stood out as similarly melodramatic. Although it was touching, I couldn’t help but feel like it was some educational program on the merits of community service. My other main issue with this movie is that its women are generally one-dimensional. Eilis, for instance, is a steadfast symbol of hard-working, conservative values. On the other hand, her fellow female boarders in America and her best friend from Ireland are depicted as materialistic, shallow, and corrupting. The way they dress and speak is clearly supposed to determine their intelligence and general capabilities. Mothers in the film are also one-dimensional, depicted as sexless, strict pillars of morality and judgment. I would be remiss to leave out what I liked about this movie. Emory Cohen’s acting stole the show with his charming delivery of lines and attention to physical minutiae. Ronan’s acting is also naturalistic, although I have my reservations about the extent to which she stares off blankly into space. Although the film’s main conflict has largely been pitched as Eilis having to decide between two romantic interests, this is a film about homesickness. Eilis reconciles the complicated feelings of nostalgia for her old home, love for her new home, and the maturity that comes with living in a new place. This film was not so much about romance as it was about learning to deal with the complications of moving to a different place. Finally, I enjoyed the fact Eilis considered moving back to Ireland and realized that there could be a life for her there, because it avoided pitching America at the best and only option for every immigrant. This movie will resonate with anyone who has moved somewhere and found themselves in culture shock, only to go home and find that they have irrevocably changed. It is also entertaining, and therefore worth seeing. However, if you’re sensitive to heavy-handed stereotypes and typical film tropes, it might get on your nerves. Grade: C+ After seeing "Brooklyn," I had the opportunity to interview Saoirse Ronan in a college conference phone call. Here are the highlights from the conversation.
Moderator: Okay, there they go. First we have Jasmine Kantor with College Time. Saoirse: Hi, Jasmine. Jasmine: How are you? I was just wondering, how emotionally invested do you think you were in the character of Eilis since you and her both come from New York and Ireland? Saoirse: I mean initially that was the real personal connection for me was the fact that my mom and dad had made that trip over from Ireland to New York and had gotten married in City Hall just like Eilis and Tony did, and I was born there. Yes, these two places really very much made up who I am, but by the time we actually made the film which was maybe a year or so after I had signed on. I had moved away from home and was living in London and was going through home sickness myself and still trying to figure out where I stood in the grownup world. It’s a very daunting feeling I think, and I was right in the middle of that while we were making the film, so it meant that every kind of stage that we see Eilis reaching and overcoming, I was going through myself. It was very scary because of that, because there was sort of nowhere to hide, but by the same token, once you actually get through something like that there’s nothing more gratifying. Kate: This is your first role or one of your first roles playing an adult woman in a coming of age story where she’s adapting to a new country, could you speak about the role and the character, and how you feel about moving beyond juvenile roles? Saoirse: I mean it’s interesting because even when I was a kid, I never was involved in children’s films apart from maybe one or two. They were always quite grown up, and so when I got to the age of about 18 and 19, I was really ready to play someone older, and certainly by the time I reached 20. It’s a tricky time because there’s a lot of execs and writers and studios and all the rest that can’t really pinpoint exactly what a journey would be for a young woman between the ages of 18 and 21, so it’s a tricky time to get the role that is interesting and still kind of matches your maturity and where you’re at in your own life. When Brooklyn came along, it was perfect, and it was like a bloody guardian angel or something coming down and kind of going, “Okay, you’re ready now.” I think just going through that experience, I felt quite changed afterwards, but I was very much ready to take that step. Moderator: Next is Kelly Wells with Emerson College. Kelly: …my question is, when people go to see this movie what do you want them to take away from it? Saoirse: I think honestly, I mean John has put it really well whenever anyone’s asked, just to be kind to people. I think the real—if there’s any message with this film, apart from the personal connections that everyone has seemed to have to us in one way or another, the heart of this movie is that she gets on well in life and she grows, and she grows into this amazing young woman because the people around her have been kind to her and they’ve helped her and they’ve shared advice and wisdom and their experience. And because of that, she has been able to, as I said, ultimately stand up and announce who she is and realize that she needs to make a choice. She wouldn’t have been able to do that at the start of the film, she wasn’t there yet. It’s really—it’s the people around her that helped her to come out of herself in order for her to get the confidence and have that security in who she is. Moderator: Next up we’ll go to Gabrielle Ulubay with Northeastern University. Me: Hello! I’d like to start by thanking you so much for taking the time out to talk with us today, I really do appreciate it. My question is that Eilis arguably undergoes both a physical and an emotional transformation in this movie because she becomes confident, she becomes older, she’s more comfortable, she’s stronger because of what she’s been through, and you do a really great job in the movie of manifesting this physically. So I was wondering what preparation you took in preparing for this role and manifesting her physicality? Also, does it differ from the preparation you’ve taken before other roles? Saoirse: When I did a film called Atonement a few years ago when I was about 12, the director on that, one of the first things that we worked on apart from the accent, was the way a character would walk. And so that’s always been quite important for me, and I think from that it naturally meant that a character’s emotional face really reflected and fed into their physicality as well, and it kind of naturally starts to happen. Yes, I guess it was just one of those things that sort of naturally, as you say, manifested through the course of the script, but the more confident emotionally the character was, I guess I just kind of naturally stood in a different way. I think when a character has purpose as well, when a young woman has purpose and she knows where she’s going, your walk is going to always reflect that. And so I think it was just one of those things that really kind of happened naturally. I could feel that like when we brought Eilis back home to Ireland in the second half of the film, she was more in control of herself. She, as you said, has been through quite a life experience since she’s been away, has gone through fear and grief and love, and has taken on so much responsibility for herself. And so, just like it would in real life, that just kind of naturally reflects or feeds into the way you hold yourself, I guess. Me: Thank you so much! Saoirse: Thank you! No amount of background research could have prepared me to watch Alice Rohrwacher’s The Wonders. This portrait of a beekeeping family in the Tuscan countryside is quite realistic, immersing you in the rough natural world of the film. There isn’t an entirely discernable plot, but that doesn’t seem to be Rohrwacher’s priority.
Music is used sparingly in the movie—only during scenes in which music is actually playing in the characters’ world, or when these rural farmers are dealing with the modern world. A lack of music may be unappealing for some, but in The Wonders, it only made it that much more noticeable and meaningful when music was playing. White noise is used extensively, but it would be wrong to say that the movie is at all silent. The bees, the wind, and other diagetic sounds create an auditory combination that’s a soundtrack in its own right. The buzzing of bees is so frequent and loud that it creates a sense of anxiety and stays with the viewer after the film is over. It’s also interesting to notice how calm the characters are around the bees, and how mundane these potentially dangerous scenes seem to them. It’s a testament to the acting and the directing that scenes so boring to the characters can generate such discomfort and suspense in the audience. The plot is the trickiest concept in this film. In other words, there’s rather little of it. The movie doesn’t so much have a main conflict as it has several important conflicts that culminate in stressful, uncomfortable emotional states for the characters. Therefore, this lack of a main idea can’t really be a weakness in and of itself because it accomplishes exactly what Rohrwacher’s intention seems to have been: to create a portrait of a specific family in a certain time and place. This quality does, however, make the movie feel long and directionless towards the end. The Wonders is stunning to watch and to listen to, and worth it to any movie-goer who enjoys realism, or just an aesthetically well-made European film. Stay away if you’re in the mood for a tightly wound plot and satisfying resolution, or if you want something fast-paced. This is more of a rainy day movie. Grade: B- |
Gabrielle UlubayWriter, artist, filmmaker. Archives
August 2017
Categories |