"Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb   21/01/12

Director: Stanley Kubrick        Writers: Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George

1964

            I have a strained relationship with the work of Stanley Kubrick. I know that he is a technically gifted director, and that he mixes together scenes with hilarity and absurdity right next to dark and deadly serious violence. That quality is why I enjoyed his 1987 Vietnam War film Full Metal Jacket, and it is why, in my head at least, I know that he was the right director to adapt Stephen King’s The Shining, which is one of my favourite books. Yet for some reason I can’t seem to get around to watching The Shining (1980) and can’t make it through more than a few minutes of A Clockwork Orange (1971) at a time. I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) after being a lifelong science-fiction fanatic and hearing nothing but good things; however I was underwhelmed by it.

            I don’t know what mental barrier is in the way when it comes to those last three films, but I was scared it would be present when I watched Dr. Strangelove (1964), a film I knew little about when I settled down for a viewing. I imagined a more serious and heavy hearted commentary on nuclear war, but what Kubrick and his colleagues did was realise how heavy a subject nuclear war already is. Nobody needs to be reminded that these are weapons which eradicate cities all at once, and that have long lasting environmental effects. I learned this week that the term MEGADEATH is actually a unit of measurement, referring to a million deaths by nuclear explosion. These are weapons so destructive that we needed a new unit of measurement to grasp the scale of human lives lost. So what did Kubrick, Southern and George do with the script? They made a farcical comedy starring Peter Sellers.

            In the wrong hands this could have been disastrous. Thankfully Terry Southern was the kind of writer that could work on films as gripping as Easy Rider (1969) and as ridiculous as Barbarella (1968) after this, and so was up to the task. And as for Peter Sellers, he needs no introduction, and in this film he was allowed to treat audiences to not one, not two, but THREE different characters in one film, all with their own wonderful moments. Also starring was George C. Scott, who had already blown me away in Patton (1970) and plays a slightly (but only slightly) less intense military commander in the cold war rather than WWII. So Kubrick got the right men for the job.

            From the start we see early examples of Kubrick’s famous inspired use of music, and this continues throughout, mainly in the form of “When Johnny Comes marching Home” building intensity and adding tension. There is a documentary style introduction to the American B52 bomber planes, apparently utilised to provide a 24/7 airborne force 2 hours from their respective targets in Russia. They each have enough nuclear bombs to level their primary target and a secondary. The crew we are introduced to features cowboy hat wearing pilot Maj. “King” Kong, and they receive the order to execute “Plan R”, meaning that a sneak attack has been perpetrated by the Communist forces and it is time for retribution.

            For a while we only know what the B52’s know, and are clueless as to the nature of the sneak attack. Even totally English, stiff-upper lipped Group Capt. Mandrake (Sellers) is in the dark, relaying the order from his superior, American Brig. Gen. Ripper. It turns out that Ripper isn’t quite himself, and gave the order without a sneak attack, leaving the President (Sellers again) and Gen. Turgidson to deal with the political situation that comes with attacking first in a cold war, as well as trying to recall the planes, and Gen. Turgidson having to use the war room phones to deal with his horny secretary.

            Every single actor with more than 2 lines in this film is brilliant. The dialogue is witty and full of opportunities for Sellers and Co. to make us laugh. Through the satire and the absurdity we realise how convoluted the political and military world is, and how it is ridiculous that millions of lives can be in jeopardy through misuse of simple legislation. The point is there to speak for itself, and the only way Kubrick highlights it is by juxtaposing it with fantastic humour. This results in a point being made while the film is still enjoyable. The film has aged well and I think deserves to be mentioned as one of Kubrick’s best works (for the fact that he could edit around actors cracking up at Peter Sellers improvisations alone). But then again I have trouble identifying what is and is not Kubrick’s best work, so watch this for yourself and see if I am wrong.

"It's a burrito!"

Real Steel   11/12/12

Director: Shawn Levy              Writer: John Gatins

2011

           

            As a film with its roots in a Richard Matheson short story, many parallels to Rocky (1976) and a $110, 000, 000 budget, this film has lots of potential to live up to. It is also a film aimed at kids from around 7-13 so as a critic one must let a few bad lines of dialogue and an awkward plot point slide now and again. Plus it has Wolverine, it must be good right?

            Well I will start with the good points. This is a film with giant fighting robots and so jumps on to the back of the Transformers (2007) bandwagon (that presumably turns in to a robot itself) but for me that is not necessarily a good thing. However in this case I am proven wrong, CGI fight scenes with giant robots can have some semblance of realism, it is possible for me to follow what is happening during the fight and know which robot is a good guy and which is not. In this point if nothing else Michael Bay could learn from director Shawn Levy. Also the robots are fancy enough that they are interesting and simple enough to comprehend.

            Another good point is that, while to begin with I thought the writers were trying to portray Hugh Jackman as an all American tortured soul who is an alcoholic because he wakes up with two empty bottles of Budweiser on the floor, they went for a less clichéd route of making him a money loving morally bankrupt egotist who shows no emotion when he finds out that the mother of his child is dead, and is happy to sell off the custody of the child. I genuinely wondered how they could redeem him. On top of this, the film looks really great, the soundtrack is pretty reasonable and I can see how kids could get sucked in to this film, especially by the first robotic fight in a cool car factory.

            Alas there are bad points slapped right alongside the good. The film looks great, but the editing is stagnant and arbitrary, failing to build pace when it needs to yet happily cutting four or five times for no reason from a mid shot to a crowd shot. I am probably being picky, but it took me out of the scene where Jackman’s original robot is about to fight a bull (which seemed unfair on the animal) and he is too busy looking at a pretty blonde lady to avoid having his robot made in to scrap by the bull’s horns. So now he is even further in debt (for a man at least 50k in debt he has a fancy phone) and has no robot...enter his dead girlfriend and his son, whom he is willing to sign over to the child’s Aunt for a tidy 100k, but for whatever reason he has to look after the kid for a few weeks first. Half the money up front buys him a pretty awesome robot, who gets decapitated in a good scene, again due to Jackman’s ego. At this point I was wondering why we should support him at all; I want a film about the Mr. T looking robot instead.

           

            Like any responsible adult Mr. Jackman brings the kid along to break in to a scrap yard hoping to build a new ‘bot. This is one of the scenes where we are spoon fed the back-story of characters and this roboty world, but in case this gets too boring the writers chuck the kid off a cliff. Long story short, they find an old robot and start fighting, and winning. We get a montage and scenes where Jackman and kid bond, which is all well and good. Eventually they get a shot at a league bout, at which point the ‘villains’ are introduced. The enemy composes of Zeus (best robot fighter ever), his builder Tak Mashido (enigmatic and confident and Asian) and the manager Farra Lemkova (all...well...sexy and Russian I suppose). Apart from them being quite up their own arses, which I would be if I had the best robot fighter ever at my disposal, I never understand why we are supposed to dislike them. Then again it is an underdog story, even though said underdogs are a seemingly heartless egomaniac and a bratty kid who doesn’t like hamburgers (WTF) and grabs the mike off the announcer after winning one league fight to ask for a title challenge.

            If I sound like I am not interested, that’s because I wasn’t. Despite what I said about letting things slide I could not take how plot points are clumsily walked through one at a time, how characters will change their entire outlook based on one event, and the emotional crux of the film (Jackman giving the child to the Aunt) is made to be unspeakably lame. If there was more emotional depth and a little more happening in the plot the film would improve dramatically. For example, the love interest for Jackman comes in the form of Evangeline Lily. This woman is not a bad actress and is beautiful; she should be able to add something to the film. However she is reduced to the tough but lovely girl stereotype present in many action films, she is feisty at first to get our respect, but when a child comes along her whole outlook reverses.  All of her emotionality is coming from one source (her dead father) penned in for that sole reason, and apart from that, which is never explored, she is just there to prop up the other actors. I didn’t even notice when she and Jackman went from having an antagonistic back story to being back in love.

            I wanted to like the film, but it got dragged down by it becoming just about the kid and the robot, and about scooping together everything that children that age like (robots, fighting, video games and rap music apparently) and putting it on camera in a flashy enough way to keep their attention. I wanted to know about how actual boxers feel when they are taking massive amounts of damage in the name of making money for the manager and entertaining children, maybe the robot could have been sentient? Maybe all the robots could rise up and destroy the statue of liberty? I would watch that. 

"Playing with dolls"

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey 04/01/12

Directors: Constance Marks, Phillip Shane    Writers: Phillip Shane, Justin Weinstein

2011

            I don’t think there are too many people below 50 years old that haven’t seen Elmo in action. As I child I loved Sesame Street (1982-2009), and I still love the Muppets. Sesame Street was distinctly American and set on an inner city street, but this didn’t matter because the pieces of fur and foam managed to engage children and make a connection through a screen. To be honest, Elmo was never my favourite (I was more interested in Cookie Monster) however for so many kids he was. As we see in this documentary parents were treating Tickle Me Elmo dolls like I treat the last cookie in the jar....

            This documentary explores the hand (and arm and mind) behind that red fur, a man named Kevin Clash. We first get to talk to him when he is showing us a polluted piece of water near his childhood home in Baltimore. He tells us about how he used to dream of going to Disneyland but his parents never had the money. Instead he would watch magical characters on TV, sitting close to the screen. His favourite was a puppet show called Captain Kangaroo. The seed was planted.

            He made his first puppet from ripping up his Dad’s coat, without permission. Fortunately his Dad refrained from breaking his neck and he went on to make more. He was teased for staying inside and playing with dolls instead of playing basketball, however he was becoming obsessed with getting his stitching as flawless as Jim Henderson, the king of puppetry. Eventually, while on a class trip to New York City he managed to visit Kermit Love (Yes KERMIT) the designer of many famous Henson characters. Slowly but surely Kevin made his way in to TV and on to Sesame Street, puppeteering minor characters. One fateful day, another puppeteer threw a red furry shape into Kevin’s lap, claiming to not know what to do with it.

            Kevin returned to Baltimore with the burning question of what this puppet should be about, what should define it? His solution was simply love, hugs, making a kid feel needed. And that is what works about Elmo, that he makes people feel good through his affection.

            While I would prefer this documentary to have gone a little deeper in to Kevin’s life, such as how him spending so much time away entertaining the children of the world impacted his daughter, there are a few touching scenes. When we see a young Kevin visiting a school for disabled children with his puppets, and how much those children appreciate his enthusiasm, it shows us that they are more than just pieces of cloth. It is also remarkable, and very sad, when we see one of many terminally ill children meet Elmo as her wish. Kevin comments that it makes Elmo “bigger than me” and that is true.

Kevin himself is quite a shy person, however his puppets seem to give him a stronger voice, even when sandwiched between his idols Henson and Frank Oz playing a ‘perfect employee’ puppet, I found that ironic. We see him give his daughter her sweet 16 birthday message as Elmo, and I couldn’t help thinking if he should be doing that as himself instead. This is, unsurprisingly, a quite touching and fluffy documentary, with just enough hard content to keep the interest up. However I am really glad I watched it, I smiled lots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRotWuJNIQA