Thursday, 23 February 2012

"I don't cheat on my taxes...you can't cheat on something you never committed to."

Rampart 23/02/12
Director: Oren Moverman
Writers: James Elroy, Oren Moverman
2012

I am a sucker for bad cops and anti-heroes. Harry Callahan, Travis Bickle, anyone in almost any Tarantino film, these are people I support because they go their own way, have no time for fools, just generally kick arse. Maybe I am some lame Hollywood demographic and don’t know it, however I like to think that I pick my Unhinged Violent Male With Heart Of Gold film’s carefully. I am a discerning sucker. Rampart (2012) obviously aims for the UVMWHOG category, however with a bit more reality infused into it than some I have listed above.

            Set in Los Angeles in 1999, the film taps in to some of the criticism the L.A police department has faced in the real world about police brutality. So straight away my mind went to Bad Lieutenant (1992) which for me is the be all and end all of dirty cop movies, and a particular high point for star Harvey Keitel. For Rampart, director Oren Moverman managed to land Woody Harrelson who is one of my favourite actors and that was when I got really excited about this film. The film also taps in to the Vietnam veteran angle of unhinged, evoking memories from Taxi Driver (1976) and giving the film a bit more emotional weight than just a bent cop.
            In Dave Brown’s (Harrelson) circle of police officers, casual racism is, well, casual, and we see him happily putting a man’ s head through a window as a form of questioning. He never eats, but imbibes alcohol often. This is counterbalanced by a close-up of him alone in his cruiser, combined with melancholy guitar picking as he drives to his home in the suburbs. Is there more to him? That shot is often repeated (it is in fact the opening) and that guitar is a mainstay of the soundtrack, it implies that a pain or bad experience underlie the film and the man. That pain is undoubtedly Vietnam.
            So now we have him set up as a mean cop, but he does have a soul, and has reasons for being violent (are they justifiable?). His family, we learn, comprises of two daughters – the younger one adores him, the elder hates him – and their respective mothers...who happen to be sisters. His younger daughter asks if she is inbred. She isn’t, but still...come on dude. And they all live together in one big unhappy family. All in all this is interesting and endearing, I felt myself caring about his life.           

            Soon enough, one of those in-car thoughtful close-ups are interrupted – a car crashes in to him. He chases the driver, beats him brutally and ends up on the news as an example of police brutality. Up to this point I was enjoying myself, the film was a little quirky, well put together and had Woody Harrelson, I was set. However with this latest plot point came a mix of half explored characters, sub-plots and conspiracy theories. I had no need to see Dave brown become a puppet in some plot to depose the L.A.P.D. because his inner demons would do that for him. We meet an old friend of his father who provides sweeping insights into Dave’s personality, ok fine but why do it so clumsily? We meet Linda, a defence lawyer who starts an affair with Dave...to what end? She doesn’t change him, just makes him a bit more unhappy. I got the feeling that most of his descent into madness happened before we got there.

            As I said, the film is well put together and provides us with a realistic feel, objects are in the foreground in scenes of domestic unrest and we feel like a visitor in the home. The camera will zoom in on faces or wobble like a handheld camera, yet in other scenes that demand it more extreme low and high angles are thrown in.  However this switching of styles does create an inconstancy, it’s like there are two films; one where we are supposed to watch a damaged man fall apart and wonder if he is good inside or just a brutal cop; and one were a cop is a pawn in some conspiracy theory. I don’t know why the second part was there. Was this a case of bad script plus good director, or did everyone involved just lack experience to know when to stop? Harrelson got to shine in a few (too few) scenes and there is a good cast (note Ben Foster as a homeless veteran) but I was too distracted to really notice. This had potential but Bad Lieutenant’s place on the throne is in no danger.

Thursday, 9 February 2012

"Never repress anything"

A Dangerous Method   10/02/12
Director: David Cronenberg
Writers: Christopher Hampton (Screenplay), John Kerr (Book)
2012
Cronenberg delivers us in to the past with a jolt, and we see Keira Knightley acting hysterically. The fact that she is actually doing some acting is a nice relief from her stood looking pretty while pirates run around, even if I did find myself thinking it was a little contrived. To her credit, Knightley damn near pops her own jaw out of her socket while she contorts her face, depicting Sabina Speilrein who comes under the care of Carl Jung. He is played by Michael Fassbender, in juxtaposition to his patient he appears passive, intellectual and professional. Jung has been searching for a patient whom he can treat according to Freud’s theories and Sabina looks a likely candidate. Unfortunately he has to take a break for mandatory military service as a doctor, however this gives us chance to see more traditional, less understanding and more brutal treatment of Sabina. She makes no progress.
            Although his patient is reluctant upon Jung’s return, he finds her a job as his research assistant. Strangely performing research (through word association) on his wife, Jung sees Sabina’s flair for his work as she provides insights in to his unhappy marriage which is expecting a child. Jung and Sabina continue their analyst/patient relationship, and in their sessions we get an interesting idiosyncratic shot; Jung used to sit behind his patient in sessions to avoid distracting them, and this enables Cronenberg to have a two-shot where we see Knightley and Fassbender’s reactions fully. He can cut to a close-up of Fassbender and then to his P.O.V and back to the two-shot rather seamlessly and this helps the flow of such scenes, absorbs us in it, and it makes it more tempting for the audience to analyse Sabina along with Jung. We learn that her problems stem from physical punishment by her father and that along with that came sexual masochism.
            Jung goes to meet his hero; Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). They discuss Sabina, their profession, Jung’s dreams, in a conversation that lasts 13 hours. Freud believes that their approach to psychology will still be opposed in 100 years. Despite their friendship and many shared views Jung disagrees with Freud’s adherence to a solely sexual interpretation of the mind and this troubles their relationship.
            Meanwhile, encouraged by a fellow analyst and patient, Jung facilitates Sabina’s wish of gaining sexual experience in order to gain a better understanding of her new Psychoanalytical studies. They begin a relationship blending sex and therapy. It is not a well kept secret.
            The rest of the film is an exploration of Jung’s relationships with these two people. Will he agree with Freud that it is better to stick to a sexual interpretation than risk criticism by sceptics? Will he continue his affair with Sabina? Despite these issues there remains a lack of conflict in the film and I found myself losing interest.
            In some ways the subject of psycho analysis being such a large theme of the film encourages the audience to engage with the characters’ minds and essentially analyse them and the film’s subtext. Yet there is also a voyeurism which comes with seeing private therapy sessions and thoughts displayed, as well as the sex scenes between Fassbender and Knightley, and I think this removed me from the characters slightly. This is a very dialogue heavy film. It is well written and you find that one conversation follows another, despite being in a different scene and time, and this is how we get the film’s plot. Characters discuss themselves and relationships on therapy, with others or even their partners, but there is little emotionally content to the conversations.
It is all analysis rather than conflict. While I think this is representative of real life (conversations and consideration of events is more significant in moulding a life than big events) it makes quite plain material for a film. It was intriguing and at times absorbing, however this is not a film I would recommend for the cinema, it is not much of an experience. This is a film that you must analyse and actively engage in to get the most out of it, but even then I wonder how much it has to offer. However it is well executed and convincing, the three lead actors did well and Vincent Cassel’s all too brief role livened things up.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

"Who's the shrub?"

Hook          01/02/12
Director: Steven Spielberg     
Writers: J.M. Barrie, James V. Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo
1991
            What happens when a lost boy grows up? In this film we are told that all adults are pirates, and that pirates must be killed. From the original Peter Pan story we know that Peter Pan was all about the eternal youth thing, but in this version he finally grew up, into a fast talking, business running, suit wearing, cell phone craving, super adult lawyer. Robin Williams has the lead role of Peter Banning, and is joined by a great cast; Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts and Bob Hoskins are all known to audiences for good reasons and the less familiar faces are up to standard too.
            Opening with typically memorable John Williams music which never fails to supply a film with that sense of having something extra (in this case a mix of playful magic and adventure) we open on to a dimly lit room where children gaze mesmerised at something, not a cinema screen but a stage where a school production of Wendy and Peter is going on. So the children watching this film were watching children watch other children (one of whom is related to Peter Pan) act in a play of a book which in the film was a true story but also is a book in our reality....well that fits with the theme of magical worlds merging with the mundane reality.
            Many fantasy stories feature the children of our world travelling to another reality, and Peter Pan is one of those. This serves as a device enabling the viewer or reader to go on the journey with the character; it justifies the suspension of disbelief and makes the unreal as good as fact. Spielberg of course kept this element of the story, and spent half an hour dealing with the grown up Peter Banning (Williams) who is making business deals during his daughter’s school play and in a meeting when his son has a baseball recital thing. He builds to Neverland and its magic slowly, and the anticipation is every bit as important as the pay off just like a horror film. Banning is ironically afraid of flying, but is finally getting round to visiting Wendy in London, he promised every year, but it has been a decade.
            All of the scenes in London are meant as a shock to the system (from the scream when they open the door) and Spielberg is depending on London in the snow at night to seem older and more magical than the American setting. We meet eccentric characters like Tootles, who has lost his marbles, and we hear Banning’s wife (also Wendy’s grandchild) talk about the magical times they had in the house where J.M. Barrie was inspired. Then, accompanied by the magical soundtrack which seems to float in from another world, Wendy descends the stairs. She tells Peter that he has become a pirate. He doesn’t get it.
            We get further glimpses of magic in the children’s bedroom, it is slightly dark and mysterious, and with a skewed camera angle we see wallpaper depicting scenes of pirates and an island. We glimpse one pirate in particular. This is all leading to a payoff, heralded by a barking dog, an eerie wind and Toodles remembering how his followers chant his name....Hook. Now the music is invading the restricted and organised world of Banning, and so is Hook. He leaves beastly scratches in the door, a note pinned up with a dagger and takes Banning’s children. But we don’t see him, just a green smoke. Simple and effective.
            From here on in Banning’s world is broken down as he is confronted with his past, even if he tries to rationalise Tinkerbell with Freud. To save is children he will have to regress and learn to use his imagination. Spielberg has equated Pan’s resistance to growing up with the inevitable taking on of responsibilities to provide for a family, and it has come at the cost of having any fun. Banning’s wife (Caroline Goodall) tries to remind him that there are only a few years where children want to play with their parents.
            Apparently the director was disappointed with the end result of this film but I don’t see why. He got the mix of involving an adult audience as well as children right. The cast is great, I especially appreciated Hoffman playing Hook somewhere between a celebrity showman and a moody adolescent in pirates clothing. And there is a noticeable lack of CGI compared to family adventure films of today; Neverland is tangible with good sets and interesting design. Furthermore, I stopped taking notes for this review when Banning arrives in Neverland because from then on it is a chance for Williams to shine opposite Hoffman and humour and action to do their thing, all the set up was in the real world and here is the reward. The reason I reviewed this film is because it is a childhood favourite that actively celebrates nostalgia, even though it would stand up on a first viewing. If you saw it as a child, re-watch it. If not, watch it anyway.