Honest ImpressionsThoughts on Contemporary Cinema
|
Jeremiah Tower: The Last Magnificent is a biographic documentary about famous (or perhaps infamous) chef Jeremiah Tower, who influenced contemporary American cuisine and operated the “Stars” restaurant from 1984 to 1999. While watching, I couldn’t tell whether I disliked the movie or if I just disliked Tower himself—I soon realized it was both.
The film begins with choppy shots of Tower inexplicably wandering Mexican ruins and saying dramatic axioms such as “I need to stay away from human beings, because somehow I am not one.” At this point in the film, we do not know where Tower is, why he is there, or why these ruins are relevant. Film-goers may not even be sure who he is in the first place. This opening thus feels bizarre and confusing, and its over-dramatic tone is downright laughable. When the documentary informs us that Tower mysteriously disappeared during his career and moved to Mexico, the scenery make slightly more sense, but the sequence continues to be theatrical and borderline nonsensical. The shots of Tower looking over the ruins from the top of a pyramid, his feet walking along the sand, are totally unnecessary. There are even images of unidentified children, which only seem remotely appropriate when Tower discusses his childhood. The documentary depicts Tower in such an unfavorable light that I wondered if we were supposed to dislike him (it soon becomes unbelievably apparent that we are meant to sympathize with him). Tower begins to talk about his privileged, opulent childhood by saying that the worst thing to ever happen to him was not being an orphan. However, after expressing a desire to have been an orphan he describes how his parents’ wealth enabled him to live a lavish life, including the ability to order plate after plate of luxury food that directly inspired his culinary career. Tower may not have been so successful were it not for his parents and the privileges his family name afforded him, yet he whines that he would have been better off without his parents. He proves to be even less relatable as the film goes on, laughing about the fact that when civil movements were coming to fruition in the 1960s, he was “too busy cooking” to be a revolutionary. Not everyone needs to or should consider themselves revolutionary, but Tower seems apathetic when he boasts that while people were fighting for their rights (and his rights, for that matter, because Tower is homosexual) he was drinking champagne and expensive wine, cooking dinner for his friends, and throwing a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied building in the middle of the night on a joyride with his friends. The filmmakers clearly want audiences to feel sorry for Tower when, at the age of 30, his parents stop giving him an allowance hefty enough to support his frivolous lifestyle, but I couldn’t help but think he deserved it. It is also hard not to sympathize with his friend-turned-lover-turned-enemy Alice Waters, who clashed with Tower when he turned her affordable hippie restaurant into an expensive, high-class business. The documentary was difficult to watch because the editing and narrative were disjointed and confusing. Modern day interviews were juxtaposed with shots of Tower participating in merry activities (such as snorkeling, yachting, and shopping) while talking about how sorry he feels for himself, which were combined with mysterious shots of the ruins and dream-like sequences of childhood flashbacks. The film also switched back and forth between time periods without explanation, jumping back to unrelated events that took place in the 1980s, then forward to 2014, then back again. When the documentary discussed the “Stars” and “Tavern on the Green” restaurants, the filmmakers for the most part focused on one linear time period and theme—and those parts were the most enjoyable to watch. It would have been an infinitely more enjoyable film if they had edited in a linear, sensible manner and scrapped the clichéd, melodramatic shots of Tower gazing pensively over the Mexican landscape. Tower also, while clearly an influential genius, is not a relatable or particularly likable person, and the film could have done more to humanize him. You will learn a lot if you watch this documentary, but you will also likely leave the theater confused and annoyed.
0 Comments
In a summer filled with summer-blockbuster-sequels, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is refreshing. It was interesting to watch a movie that takes place in the unique location of the New Zealand bush, and the relationships that the movie focuses on are seldom studied in popular culture. In the movie, a troubled young orphan named Ricky is forced to survive in the wilderness with his foster uncle Hec, who initially dislikes him. The two soon find themselves on the run from the authorities, who believe Hec has kidnapped Ricky.
This film had the potential to be depressing: The main characters have heartbreaking backstories, the harsh reality of foster children is painfully evident, and director Taika Waititi employs realistic visuals for shocking events including the slaughter of a pig and the death of a dog. Ricky, played by Julian Dennison, also suffers the death of his beloved foster aunt, Bella (played by Rima Te Wiata). However, there is sufficient comic relief in the movie to save it from being an emotional endurance test. Bella’s funeral is marked by the priest’s ridiculous speech, punctuated by uncle Hec’s evident incredulity. Furthermore, serious scenes are often accompanied by comedy. For instance, Ricky’s somber attempt at running away from home is nearly thwarted by floorboards that creak laughably with his every move. Certain poetic scenes were admittedly heavy-handed, such as when Ricky sentimentally announced that he’d never had such a birthday celebration before or when uncle Hec held aunt Bella’s body for an uncomfortable amount of time, but the film’s mood was largely kept from becoming oppressive. Visually, the film is stunning. The natural world is used to convey the passage of time clearly and without over-emphasis. A later montage of Ricky and uncle Hec evading the search party stands out as especially beautiful, with the camera rotating so it appeared all the characters are trapped in a snow globe, close but still unable to detect each other. I also applaud that Nina Simone’s Sinnerman played over one of these montages. Hunt for the Wilderpeople entertains a largely unexplored, alternate idea about highly publicized criminal stories. It was unlike any film I’ve seen before, and I encourage everyone to give it a chance. For a cartoon about animals, this movie had a lot of realistic commentary. In fact, some illustrations of subversive urban forces were perhaps more realistic than depictions in most live-action movies.
At several points during the film, I asked myself if it was entirely a commentary on race relations. The animal species were treated like different races or ethnicities in contemporary society. This resulted in a number of heavy-handed messages of tolerance and spot-on jokes about racial sensitivity. Particularly fun was the jest that bunnies could call other bunnies cute, but that if a different species did so it was insulting. Other references were more obvious, including stereotypes of species and we-didn't-always-get-along rhetoric, but they needed to be. It is important that adults watching this film remember that it is made for children, and as a result the lessons will seem overtly obvious. There are still plenty of relatable references to and satires of society and popular culture, such as "Rat Pack" music, Godfather quotes, and Breaking Bad references. And let’s also not forget the remarkably relatable illustration of every DMV employee being a sloth. I will excuse obvious morals because Zootopia is a children's movie, but there were other eyeroll-worthy aspects of the film. Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) is an innocent good girl who goes toe-to-toe with sly bad boy Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Haven’t audiences seen more than enough of this? Most of the plot is also based on the overdone idea of a naive farm girl moving to a city in hopes of achieving her dreams. It's likely common in film because it's common in real life, but that doesn't mean audiences don't tire of it. Judy Hopps, the protagonist, is initially annoying in this respect. The extent of her optimistic naïveté is unbelievable, especially considering how often she repeats that in the city of Zootopia, anyone can be anything and all species live in harmony. Perhaps this can again be attributed to the fact that this is a cartoon for children, but it seems more like a lack of originality because Disney doesn’t deviate at all from the trope. There are enough movies about naive Country Bumpkins moving to the city and meeting a bad boy with a heart of gold— we don’t need any more. The bully scenes in this movie from Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps' childhoods are somewhat horrifying. They probably aim raise awareness for bullying because of how dark they are, but subtle bullying would have been more realistic because that's how most bullying occurs. A vast majority of children realize that violence is wrong, but not all realize what real bullying tends to look like (i.e., comments, exclusion, etc.). It seems that every children's movie aims to raise awareness about bullying, but none depict it accurately. We must ask, then, how effective these overt bullying scenes are in the first place. Zootopia's animation, however, was phenomenal. The animators were able to use traditional gendered mannerisms and physicality to express age, sex, and personality in these animals. Considering many of the characters were not always dressed in gendered clothing, this accomplishment is impressive. Characters were so well-illustrated and moved so realistically that I was able to stop regarding them as animals and regard them more as people (or at least personalities). I enjoyed Zootopia. It’s well-made, well-timed, and entertaining. There are film tropes it succumbed to that it would have been better off without, but they’re negligible in light of the movie’s better qualities. Watch this film because it’s fun and it’s important, but let’s hope for more originality in the next Disney movie. After seeing "Zootopia," I got the chance to interview Nick Orsi, one of the artists at Walt Disney Feature Animation who worked on the film. Check it out:
Me: First, thank you so much for meeting with me! NO: Thank you for having me! Me: To start off, which characters did you play a part in designing? NO: Let's see: Judy, Nick, Bogo, Gazelle, the Tiger Dancers, sheep, polar bears.... Those are the big ones. A lot of different people work on these characters though, so it wasn't just me. Me: What was the most difficult animal to animate? NO: The giraffe, definitely. You have to make the animals distinct, even from far away, so a giraffe couldn't be this long, blurry form. The mice are a good example of that too, actually. Me: Yes, I figured that. I was impressed during the movie because during the mice scenes there were so many of them, but it wasn't just this indistinct cloud of shapes. You could tell it was just masses of mice. NO: Exactly. There were a lot of those crowd characters in this movie. Me: What was character design like for scenes of that scale? NO: It was a challenge. Crowd characters like are tricky because they need to complement the main character and make him or her stand out, but they also need to be distinct. We use a lot of tricks like motion blurs, camera tricks to move them, clear silhouettes, clear shapes, shape identifiers, arching--tricks like that. It's fun, but challenging. Me: I can imagine! And what was designing Gazelle like? How does one make a long, skinny animal like that look anything like Shakira? NO: [laughs] When Shakira expressed interest in playing Gazelle, we had to give the character more hips and make her more like Shakira. Shiyoon [Shiyoon Kim, one of Disney's animators] had the task of making a sexy gazelle while still keeping it a gazelle, which is a tough line to tread. It's hard enough to make the gazelle stand upright because of how weird their joints are, and it's even more difficult to give it curves! Shiyoon has been there a long time and was definitely up for the task, though. Me: Right, I would assume that sexy gazelles aren't exactly intuitive. In your artistic process, do you often watch people in real life and use their gaits, mannerisms, and so on to create characters? NO: For me and what I do, it was more of the overall character. I don't focus much on movement. I focused most on how they look, how they're shaped, and what that says about them. They're animals, so I try to find the personality and design more of that person and what makes them special, what makes them a character. I try to pull that inner character out and sort of write it on their forehead. Me: The animals' ages and genders were also pretty clear just from how they looked and behaved, which is interesting because they weren't always wearing clothes that clarified those things. How did you manage to accomplish that? NO: There's all kinds of animation tricks that help with that, actually. Usually broader characters look more masculine. If you streamline drawings, give the animals more subtle curves, and soften their features, it makes them more feminine. On the other hand, there are specific chiseled features that make a character appear male. Me: I saw Zootopia in 3D. It's not jump-out-at-you, 3D, though. Now, 3D seems more about realism--there's nothing flying out of the screen at me. How does animating for that sort of depth compare to animating for 2D features? NO: Everything has a 3D option now, so we just take that into account regardless. It's definitely more about depth rather than being in-your-face. It's not about having something pop out at you. From a broad sense, lighting and modeling are effected the most in 3D animation. Lighting has to do with how everything is colored and textured, and modeling is more about the actual construction. In other words, the character has to look good from all angles. Most character design--which is what I do-- has to do with rigging, modeling, and animation. Me: Finally, there's definitely a social message in this film. NO: [smiles] Yes. Me: During your presentation earlier, you mentioned that you began working on this movie four to five years ago, and that's before a lot of the civil rights issues that are garnering a lot of attention today. Was it frightening this year to release Zootopia in the midst of so much social unrest? NO: It wasn't frightening because these issues were still a problem then. Me: Right, they just have more visibility now. NO: Yes. Disney has such a huge audience, so doing a film like this with such a strong message will reach both the average little kid and their grandma and grandpa. These families are then going to go have these conversations at dinner with the kids, and we think it's really important that these messages reach these varied audiences and that these conversations happen. Me: Thank you so much for taking the time out to speak with me! NO: Of course! Thank you! Michael Moore’s ideological crusade in this movie was to point out everything the United States is doing “wrong” by showing how well a random smattering of countries are doing by contrast. Moore travels to Italy, France, Tunisia, Slovenia, Portugal, and others, claiming to invade them in order to “take the things we need from them.” He juxtaposes narration lauding the US with footage disproving the validity of these compliments, such as of police brutality, poverty, dilapidated infrastructure, and discrimination. The movie had a lot of potential, but both its structure and its messages were disappointing. Frankly, Americans whining about how insecure they are about being American is becoming overdone and irritating.
This documentary felt more like a list than a movie. The countries Moore chose and the order in which he visited them seemed random, neither building on nor relating to each other. The escapades themselves were organically funny, relying more on people’s reactions to Moore than to Moore himself, which saved this critic from becoming especially impatient as the movie progressed. A generally comedic tone gave way to the movie’s more serious roots when Moore eventually visited the Berlin Wall and reminisced with an old friend about when the wall fell, but then the film seemed to return to its previous light-hearted, didactic nature and I found myself wondering where Moore was going with all of this. While his actual journey around the world might have been directionless, his film should not have been. However, my biggest qualm with this movie is the extent to which Americans are demonized. Self-hating Americans and American-hating foreigners, hear me out: The United States is not perfect, but neither is any other country. Indeed, there are strategies that the US should at least consider adopting to combat its domestic problems, but the countries Moore advertises are also imperfect. In addition, it is not so easy for the United States to adopt some of the policies Moore praises because this is a large, populated country and consequently policies that work in smaller countries might be logistically inappropriate here. Many Americans also oppose certain policies, and whether the policy works or not, it cannot and should not be installed in a country whose majority is against it. Moore speaks here as if the United States is the only country with lacking educational funding, racial tensions, and violent crime. America is not perfect, but it is likely not populated with hordes of apathetic sadists. Moore brags about other countries’ successes in social movements (i.e., women’s rights, racial equality, and students’ rights) as if people in other countries succeeded because they simply tried harder. His narration erroneously implies that protesters in America eventually shrugged and surrendered to the status quo due to fear, laziness, ignorance, and lack of leadership. Obstacles for social movements differ country by country, and it was pathetically self-hating on the part of Moore to dismiss Americans in such a way. Moore’s theme that the United States should claim other countries’ ideas as its own was clever, as was the quip that America typically steals from others and then claims the stolen item as American. However, he also roundly dismissed Americans and claimed that the United States was founded on quasi-utopian ideals that are now embodied better by foreign countries. Each of these proclamations ignorantly lacks political, historical, and ideological nuance. Listing everything America does wrong doesn’t make Moore artistic or edgy, and it certainly doesn’t aid a country that needs real solutions rather than self-hating sensationalist journalism. Where to Invade Next? If you must, invade this country. Solve problems here instead of comparing us to everyone else. Grade: C- I don’t know what people were expecting from this movie. A lot of the critiques I’ve heard stating that the movie was too awkward, immature, or under-developed put me under the impression that some expected some operatic epic. I was under no impression that Zoolander No. 2 would be any less immature or random (and I say that with great affection) than the first and you shouldn’t be, either. This sequel is certainly not the first movie, and doesn’t have the same novelty as the first did, but it also doesn’t pretend to do those things. Zoolander No. 2 is what I hoped it would be: a continuation of the first movie’s storyline, with new challenges for the main characters and acknowledgement of the time that has passed since we last encountered Derek Zoolander, Hansel, and Mugatu.
I’m still relieved that Ben Stiller retained the original cast—even Christine Taylor, whose character (Matilda Jeffries) is dead in the sequel. The additions that are included in Zoolander No. 2, most notably Kristin Wiig and Penelope Cruz, were hysterical but not perfect fits. Wiig’s big laugh was her nearly incomprehensible accent/speech impediment, but it wavered. The joke was inconsistent because at times she would lose the accent, and that came off as an irritating lack of focus. Cruz's character, Valencia, took herself too seriously. Cruz herself acted well, but her character did not have any of the awkward quirks that Zoolander characters typically have. Even Matilda Jeffries was laughable in the first film. Simply put, Valencia was too perfect of a character for the Zoolander movies. She was too suave, too smart, too sexy--her only "flaw" was that her breasts were too large for her to be a runway model. Cruz pulled that joke off well, but it wasn't self-deprecating enough for her character to fit in with the rest of the ensemble. Otherwise, the humor in this movie was well done. Zoolander No. 2 took buzzwords from popular culture and adapted them to the slapstick sense of humor characterizing the first film. Characters mentioned "farm-to-table" wifi, repurposed human waste, intentionally tasteless tattoos, and hashtags. The film mocks not only fashion, but everything that contemporary society has become (even though the hashtag joke is over-done at this point). I especially enjoyed the ongoing ridicule of the contemporary habit of dismissing everything as uncool or mainstream, even if they like it. Of course, Zoolander No. 2 also spends a substantial amount of time poking fun at the fashion industry, but it does so in a different way than the first movie did. Zoolander No. 2 adjusts its quips to fit in with the current state of fashion, pointing out the fickleness of the industry in the process. The movie suggests that the fashion industry is killing itself, and at the end brings in some of the most famous modern fashion designers and mocks them to their faces. Zoolander No. 2 is a fun movie. There are enough references to the first movie (i.e., the orgy scene) to please fans, but this sequel does not pretend to be the first movie. Expect some great laughs and plenty of satire about popular culture, but don't take it too seriously. It's Zoolander, not Casablanca. Grade: B 10. Black MassI know a lot of people didn't like this movie, and that it was especially contentious in Boston, but I enjoyed Black Mass. It truly struck me as Johnny Depp's comeback role after a lot of bad press on his acting, and I also thought it was an interesting new way of filming gangster movies. 9. LegendTom Hardy’s performance in this film as both Kray brothers was incredible. His physicality, comedic timing, and nuances in speech were striking. The movie itself is also well-filmed and undeniably emotional—ranging from hysterical to rage-inducing to tear-jerking. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a hell of a gangster movie. 8. The Big ShortThe Big Short is difficult to watch if you or anyone you know was negatively affected by the financial crisis in the late 2000s (so nearly everyone). However, it is important that this movie was made. Most people don’t know or understand what caused the economy to collapse, and this movie exposes the truth without preaching or being too sentimental. The main characters balance each other out and are written in such a way that no one seems too obnoxious or too righteous, and there are no distinct good or bad guys. The contentious topic is helpfully explained by a smattering of stars featured specifically for this purpose (i.e., Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez), which also lightens the mood. This movie is entertaining, educational, and perhaps most importantly a warning. 7. CarolCarol (based on Patricia Highsmith's The Price of Salt) was a poignant, beautifully filmed depiction of two women's love for one another when all odds and circumstances were working against them. All the actors, especially Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, did a phenomenal job portraying the difficulty (if not impossibility) of resolving their respective conflicts. The film was also dream-like, like a half-faded memory of a forbidden 1950s romance. 6. Mr. HolmesMr. Holmes is a movie that will linger in your consciousness long after you’ve finished it. At once heartbreaking and heartwarming, it is a new take on the sarcastic Sherlock Holmes of popular lore. We’re all familiar with the Holmes that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about (who was catapulted back into popular culture through Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films and CBS’s Elementary)—but what happened when Sherlock became old and disillusioned? What happens when Sherlock has to face the fact that his cynical intellect can have disastrous consequences? Mr. Holmes is a worthwhile meditation on age, memory, and family. 5. Inside OutInside Out is first and foremost an intelligent movie. It takes one of the most emotionally difficult stages in a child's life and makes sense of it, including visual and verbal references to how the brain actually works. Some of my favorite parts of Inside Out are the sequences that run during the credits, when minor characters' inner psyches are also delved into. The movie discourages the idea that one should feel strange for being depressed or insecure, and these end sequences really drive that home. It was a smart, well-made movie with an essential message for people of all ages. 4. Ex Machina2015 was a quite a year for Alicia Vikander. I love this movie’s subversion of traditional themes and complete reversal of so many narrative expectations. The film is delightfully ominous, due in part to masterful auditory editing. Ex Machina’s sound design is so memorable that I can still recall the chilling sound of the robots’ rustling machinery. 3. The Hateful EightThe Hateful Eight embodies many reasons I love film. The cinematography is stunning, with jump cuts, long shots, tracking shots, and close ups juxtaposed together in a way that attracts attention without being too jarring. The dialogue is witty, daring, and just what we need in a culture paranoid about political incorrectness. It sheds light on historical tensions without shying away from their ugliness, and that quality is what gives The Hateful Eight its ability to effectively spread a message of racial tolerance. It could not have done this if Tarantino had used kinder language. The acting was also believable; you could really feel how cold that blizzard was. Tarantino veterans Kurt Russell, Samuel L Jackson, and Tim Roth performed well, as expected, but Jennifer Jason Leigh and Channing Tatum’s performances stood out to me. It was refreshing to see Leigh so uninhibited, and I always enjoy the opportunity to see Tatum show off his acting chops rather than his abs. I could go on about this movie, but that would need its own article. 2. The Man from U.N.C.L.E..This movie is so much fun. Directed by Guy Ritchie, a notoriously witty filmmaker, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an homage to the 1960s television show of the same name. Movies based on television shows tend to be hit or miss, and thankfully this was a hit. Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, and Henry Cavill deliver their lines and manifest physicality in such a funny way, without losing any of the suaveness expected from spy movies. 1. TrumboJay Roach’s Trumbo was everything an audience could ask for—it was funny, moving, based on a true story, and fun. It educates people about a time not too long ago when free speech was stifled by mass paranoia-turned-hysteria, teaching a lesson that many would do well to learn today. Trumbo sheds light on a phenomenon that will amuse, surprise, and grip audiences, and perhaps most importantly piss them off. I’d recommend this film to anyone and everyone.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a film that can’t decide what it wants to be. As a fan of both Pride and Prejudice and of zombie movies, I was looking forward to it. The trailer is enticing and the movie even starts with a play on Jane Austen’s opening line in the novel, leading me to hope that the film would be a depiction of the 19th century story with zombies entwined cleverly with the existing plot.
This was not the case. The narration at the beginning of the film tried to tie the zombies into history, which was interesting but didactic (it was also ironic that the zombie virus came to Europe from the Americas, when historically the Europeans were the ones who spread disease to the area—but I digress). The movie’s writing was overly-exhibitionist in its attempts to be consistent with Austen’s original characters. They address each other by full name even when situationally inappropriate and explain relationships in too much detail, so nearly every action and relationship in the movie felt contrived. Other characters appear so out-of-the-blue that viewers who have not read the book(s) will undoubtedly be lost. In short, this movie did everything that writers are not supposed to do There were some scenes and lines that were taken directly from the novel(s), but they were taken out of context. Essential character traits were also drastically changed to suit the film. For instance, Elizabeth Bennet (Lily James) throws a tantrum after Mr. Darcy (Sam Riley) rejects her, which never happened in Austen’s book and derails Elizabeth’s independent, cynical personality. The zombie aspect of the movie was not as gripping as I’d hoped. The undead were inconsistent—some fast (like in 28 Days Later), some slow (like in Night of the Living Dead), and some just like the living. The zombies were also neither scary nor funny. Some scenes would have fit in a horror movie, but most inspired pity for the zombies. In addition, the zombies at first seem capable of passing as normal people, then others were deranged, some cruel, some unintelligent, and some kind. These qualities can work on their own, but it seems as if director Burr Steers could not make up his mind. I still can’t decide if Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was meant to be funny or not. The original was always intended as comedic, but many of the novel’s funny scenes are left out. In any screen adaptation of literature, scenes must be cut. But the choice in scenes was bizarre. Mr. Collins’ (played by Matt Smith) proposal to Elizabeth, for example, was funnier in the original book. Jokes also missed their marks: Mr. Darcy’s declaration of “Darcy, Colonel Darcy” was an over-played Hollywood trope that’s rarely funny anymore, and was especially irrelevant in this context. The ending also struck me as ridiculously idealistic (absent of zombies despite supposedly taking place during a zombie apocalypse) and lacking any indication of satire. It was uncomfortably out-of-place. Finally, there was great focus on the sexual spectacle of women fighting zombies. If this had been a consistent theme in the cinematography, it would have some artistic merit. Yet the camera didn’t call enough attention to it for it to be thematically exhibitionist while the sexual attention was not subtle enough to go unnoticed. Lily James’ breasts seemed to occupy center-screen more often than her face. Here, sexual focus came off as a thinly-veiled, artless attempt to use the actresses’ physical appeal as marketing for the movie. It seems as if Director Burr Steers ambitiously took on a lot of great things at once (i.e., Pride and Prejudice, zombie movies, comedy). This gave him many areas in which he could have excelled—but Pride and Prejudice and Zombies fell short of expectations in each of these areas. It had none of Jane Austen’s wit, zombie films’ horror, or satire’s comedic timing. Even the period film aspect of the movie was unsatisfactory: note that Mr. Darcy imitated James Bond in addition to mysteriously donning a leather jacket for most of the movie. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was entertaining enough, but I do not advise buying a ticket for this movie. Grade: D- 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 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+ |
Gabrielle UlubayWriter, artist, filmmaker. Archives
August 2017
Categories |