Tag: act

Categories
Uncategorised

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

With the hype of awards season in full swing, I thought I would take a look back at some older favourites of mine. Inspired by the Judy Garland biopic, Judy, what better way to connect the current awards season with a favourite classic of mine and discuss the wonderfully magical The Wizard of Oz (1939). Commonly seen as the film that propelled Judy Garland to stardom at the tender age of 16, cementing her legacy in Hollywood for years to come. The film is adored by fans of all ages and a regular watch at Christmastime. Following Kansas teen Dorothy Gale who is whisked away in a tornado along with her dog, Toto and landing in the mysterious land of Oz. Dorothy must team up with the unlikeliest of friends and find the great Wizard to find her way home. The film was mainly directed by Victor Fleming who left the production to direct Gone With the Wind and the remaining work was taken over by King Vidor. The screenplay was written by Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson and Edgar Allan Woolf and based on the classic children’s book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz is a masterclass in classic Hollywood cinema.

Judy Garland is absolutely breathtaking as Dorothy. Probably one of the most perfect casting choices in film history. From her brilliant expressions and sheer talent for being an all-rounder, it’s hard not to feel moved by Garland’s performance, particularly when she sings “Over the Rainbow”. Garland’s background and the tragedy behind her experience filming this is well-known. The trauma Garland went through during the filming was sure to have had a lasting effect on her for the rest of her life. This makes the performance even more heartbreaking watching in retrospect. Dorothy has enough bravery and courage to face her enemies and stand up for herself but there is still vulnerability there and a maturity that makes her seem older than her years while at the same time bringing in that childlike innocence.

In terms of the supporting cast, the most iconic comes in the form of Margaret Hamilton’s brilliant turn as the Wicked Witch of the West. She’s just a plain nasty character and her only motive is ensuring that Dorothy doesn’t succeed in her quest. Hamilton’s voice and characterisation is a performance of legend and has resulted in one of the most identifiable villains in film history. Whether it is one of her trademarks such as “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too” to the iconic melting scene in which we see the Wicked Witch defeated after Dorothy throws a bucket of water over her. Out of the three friends, my favourite is the Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr), mainly because I love the costume design so much and his performance of the song “If I Were King of the Forest”. It’s a film that is rich in distinguished characters that, although simple, does a good job of giving them enough screen time to be distinguishable.

I don’t know where to begin to talk about my love for the use of colour in this film. Aside from being iconic thanks to its amazing switch from black and white to brilliant technicolour with the simple opening of a door. There is so much to look into beyond Kansas representing the normal and dreary everyday and Oz being somewhere completely different. The location and setting for Kansas is natural with realistic looking prop whereas Oz is crammed full of fake creations. Munchkinland in particular is the epitome of the Oz aesthetic. It makes for a fantastically striking entrance into the land of Oz. Maybe it’s because we’re adjusted to the black and white set up that makes the colour pop out the screen even more, the design of Oz is truly spectacular. Also, the use of colour for the characters is beautifully done. From the contrast between the ruby red slippers that Dorothy wears with the Wicked Witch’s green skin and the metallic hue of the Tin Man’s paint with the Cowardly Lion’s golden mane. Oz is a land that although entirely built from imagination, also includes a multitude of texture.

I’ve already touched on the music before but it deserves a section on its own. The film is crammed full of brilliant songs that have stood the test of time. Undoubtedly, “Over the Rainbow” is the most popular but most people would also be able to sing or hum along to the likes of “Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead” and “If I Only Had a Brain”. It is undeniable that Garland’s voice is beautiful and flawless, striking the perfect amount of emotion in her songs. Looking through the soundtrack, it is amazing to think that so many songs have gone down in cinema history as classics. A lot of the legacy from The Wizard of Oz comes from its Academy Award winning score by Herbert Stothart. Not to forget that “Over the Rainbow” also won the Oscar for Best Original Song for Harold Arlen and Yip Harburg. It’s a whimsical soundtrack that allows its audience to escape to Oz with Dorothy.

I am sure given that I love films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and The Red Shoes that I am just as fond of this one. The Wizard of Oz is an outstandingly beautiful cinematic achievement and a prime example of a film that is suitable for all ages and all cinematic tastes. It is a film that combines drama, comedy and musical while also not fearing to delving into themes of loss and friendship. Dorothy is ultimately on a journey to finding out who she is and discovering her place of belonging. It’s this relatability that makes the film so identifiable with audiences around the globe.

What do you think of The Wizard of Oz? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

The Two Popes (2019)

The first film I watched this decade is a surprising choice in the form of biopic The Two Popes following the conservative Cardinal Ratzinger (Anthony Hopkins) who becomes Pope Benedict XVI and his eventual friendship with the more liberal Cardinal Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), who later becomes Pope Francis. Directed by Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles with a script written by Anthony McCarten based on the latter’s novel The Pope, The Two Popes manages to successfully avoid falling into the trap of becoming another studio churned out biopic. There is no doubt that the two leads are the stars of the show and contribute a lot to the film’s overall acclaim but Meirelles control on the tone of the film and McCarten’s deeply intense script make The Two Popes a thrilling watch, particularly scenes when it is the two gentleman by themselves. The film’s strength comes in its constant shift in dynamic. The opening scenes follow the death of Pope John Paul II and the deciding vote on who will be his successor and the differences between the two eventual popes are crystal clear. Cardinal Ratzinger does everything in his power to become Pope and succeeds by persuading his fellow Cardinals during breaks from voting whereas Bergoglio is discomforted by the prospect of becoming pontiff. There seems to be a projected rivalry on the two men which Ratzinger seems to act on but Bergoglio is perplexed by this narrative.

The power from this film comes from the brilliant screenplay by McCarten. His script reads like a power struggle at times as the dynamic shifts between the two popes’ favour throughout. The inclusion of flashbacks and context into their histories also helps the film to avoid being just a simple story of one Pope’s decline and another’s ascension. There is no bias for either one as we are just presented with facts such as Ratzinger’s admission that he knew about the molestation within the Church before the scandal came to light. Despite the two men being a part of the same religion, they have completely different viewpoints. Ratzinger feels that resigning is the only way to seek absolution whereas Bergoglio thinks that he should remain Pope and see the scandal through to the end. Bergoglio’s upbringing and story is filled with a lot more turmoil than Ratzinger who seems to have had a more privileged upbringing. Their conflicting interests and differing politics result in Bergoglio coming across as more compassionate than Ratzinger because he is more accepting and open to change. The ending scene with the two men watching the football is funny to watch and makes for a light tone to suggest that their friendship is on good terms.

The two leads excel in their roles as expected. Jonathan Pryce is absolutely brilliant in the leading role as Bergoglio who is the quietly outspoken of the two. Constantly having to justify his stance on controversial topics that differ from the conservative Church teachings, Bergoglio is seen equally as a disgrace and a revolutionary within the Church. It comes to light that this has been the case all his life with his complicated background during the Argentinian militaria regime. Whereas Ratzinger revels in the tradition and opulence of the Catholic Church, Bergoglio is happy with what he has. He doesn’t understand why those high up in the Church live in such luxury. Pryce is perfect casting in both his appearance and his characterisation, truly becoming the future pope. You never know what he is going to do or say next because he is unpredictable. One minute he will be conversing in Latin with Ratzinger and the next he will be teaching him how to tango.

Anthony Hopkins’ performance is his best in film for years. Bringing out mannerisms subtly with an understated accent and acting that seems effortless but is really meticulous, Hopkins is fantastic as the newly elected Pope. Ratzinger is not necessarily a likeable character because he is so set in his ways and has many dated opinions that don’t fit in with the times. He is clearly a highly intelligent man and extremely well-read but also detached from modern society. In some ways Bergoglio tests him to embrace the present world more and try to adapt. We don’t see as much of Ratzinger’s background as Bergoglio’s but Hopkins gives us enough to know that he has always been a lonely figure. The scene in which Ratzinger gives Bergoglio his confession is fantastic. The audience lingers on Hopkins’ words as he reveals his difficult time growing up and being saved by God.

In terms of awards buzz, The Two Popes has garnered attention for Pryce and Hopkins’ performances. I don’t think either will win due to strong competition in both categories but they are deserved nominations. I didn’t think I would find this film particularly enjoyable but I was pleasantly surprised. The performances alone are enough to the grip the viewer but it proved to be even more. It’s not a film about religion but more of a character study about two very men who are connected because of that religion. There were many gripping scenes filled with tension as the two popes debate about various aspects of the church. I also wasn’t expecting the film to have so many funny moments as well and it doesn’t feel too heavy in subject matter. I think following it primarily from the point of view of Bergoglio was a smart choice as we see the events from both the inside and the outside depending on what is happening.

What did you think of The Two Popes? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

mother! (2017)

This is a film that you will either love or hate. There really isn’t an in between on this one. Darren Aronofsky’s mother! is a biblical retelling through the unconventional setting of a home as the sole location. Featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem as mother and Him, a married couple who live in a huge house built by the former while the latter works on his writing. mother is decorating the home and longs for a family but this is refused by Him, who is consumed by his own work to care about what mother wants. Compared to previous offerings by Aronofsky such as Black Swan, mother! is a literally and figuratively contained film. At no point do we lose sight of mother as we follow her perspective as chaos ensues. At first, the house seems open and spacious but this quickly shifts to a claustrophobic palace of mayhem as mother’s space is literally invaded by outsiders. When mother falls pregnant, she is forced to endure the increasing attention for her husband and the exposure that leaves no stone unturned in the house.

Directed and written by Aronofsky, mother! is a film that plays out like a mystery. Because we don’t see the outside world, we don’t know what or who will come next. This makes it one of the most shocking films to watch, especially when the first casualty plays out. Definitely one of the best filmmakers today, Aronofsky leaves the meaning of the film and his own intention to the imagination of the author. One can watch it from religious, feminist and even mental health angles. It’s a film that is left wide open for interpretation. There is a clear argument for the conflict between mankind and nature. The brutality and expressionist approach to the film can make it uncomfortable for viewers which is probably why it split critics and audiences alike. However, I was one of the viewers who was left in awe from the brilliance in every aspect.

Jennifer Lawrence draws out a brilliantly and fully dramatic performance that we haven’t seen since Winter’s Bone. In between the aforementioned and mother! there was an increased focus on characters with a comedic side with Lawrence starring in dark comedy-dramas as well as protagonist Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games franchise. It’s a performance that demands a lot on expression and physicality as mother is a character of few words. We see her initial comfort turn into catastrophe and panic as more and more people invade the house and ruin what she has built. Javier Bardem is yet again fantastic as the villainous Him. He is perfect at playing such a manipulative character whose motivations are inspired only by himself for himself. Him is careless and seemingly the reasonable one but even as he loses control, he cannot let go of the admiration of the visitors. Their love for him is more important than the love given to him by mother.

The supporting cast is led by Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris as woman and man, respectively, who both pull off menacing performances as the initial outsiders who enter the house. Immediately, mother is discomforted and disturbed by their visit and Him’s insistence that they stay for as long as they like. Pfeiffer particularly is so magnetic and draws in a deeply sexual performance that equally disgusts and intrigues mother, who is puzzled by their lax attitude towards sex and openness in conversation. As mother observes, we see woman and man worship Him whilst simultaneously break house rules and venture where they shouldn’t.

There are so many scenes worth delving into but none left me speechless in the way that the shot following mother as the house descends into chaos did. Each room has a different form of punishment with herod (Kristen Wiig) shooting people in one and a SWAT team bursting through the windows and beating people up. Despite the increasing tension, the bloody violence still comes across as shocking and unexpected. Equally as heartbreaking is the scene that follows after mother gives birth. As we witness her descent into madness and the end product that the destruction has had on the house, the realisation that there is no way to repair what has happened is still heartbreaking. It’s a film that knows its pace and doesn’t desire to fit into the mainstream.

Overall, mother! is a film that allows Aronofsky to be experimental and reject the basic beginning, middle, end linear structure with a clear plot. I think it is a film that shows Aronofsky at his best. He has always been great at developing complex female characters with an expressionist approach to direction. He has a classical eye when it comes to inspiration and is inspired by music, art, ballet, film. He is brilliant at finding beauty in the ugly and drawing that out, contrasting what we are seeing with new ideas. This is evident in mother! as the mere inspiration and idea of seeing the Holy text contrast with the horrific events is something that hasn’t been done before.

What do you think of mother!? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Moonlight (2016)

One of the best Best Picture winners in Oscar history, Barry Jenkins’ coming of age tale follows Chiron, a young black man coming to terms with his homosexuality through three key stages in his life. Split into three segments: Little (Alex Hibbert), Chiron (Ashton Sanders) and Black (Trevante Rhodes), we follow Chiron’s ascendence from bullied child to a successful drug dealer. Sadly, the infamous confusion between the true winner of the Best Picture award when La La Land was wrongly announced. Moonlight’s win was monumental for being the first film to openly discuss themes of homosexuality as well as featuring a predominantly black cast. Aside from its record-breaking and importance in film history, it holds merit as a captivating piece of cinema with innovative direction, emotionally charged writing and characters that hold influence for the entirety of the film despite limited screen time. This is a film that will be remembered for the ages.

It’s incredible that this is Barry Jenkins’ debut feature. It is one of the best debuts in film history and caused a lot of hype going into awards season. Jenkins’ vision comes across fantastically by presenting Chiron as an outsider in his own community. This is important because Chiron’s story is ultimately about being in a minority within a minority (gay within the black community). Moonlight is made up of shorter scenes that give us a glimpse into Chiron’s life. Following Chiron limits our view of the world at large but we still get the struggles across as we see him attending high school and being badly bullied. Jenkins doesn’t feel the need to explain a character’s absence and allows this to come out naturally in the script. Jenkins co-wrote the play with Tarell Alvin McCraney based on the latter’s unperformed play, In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue. Together they reflected on their upbringings in Miami and were able to apply their own experiences into the script to ensure that it was as real and human as can be. Because of the authenticity and the knowledge of the area and its people, Moonlight doesn’t fall into the trap of including stereotypes that are often seen in films.

The cast all do a superb job of telling Chiron’s story, particularly Mahershala Ali as Juan, a drug dealer who takes Chiron under his wing at a young age. Juan is living with his girlfriend Teresa (Janelle Monae) and the two act as surrogate parents as Chiron’s mother becomes more abusive and neglectful. Juan subverts the tropes that drug dealers are given in film. He is wise, thoughtful and considerate. More importantly, he is sensitive and completely understanding Chiron’s situation almost immediately. Despite only featuring in the first part of the film before his untimely death, Juan’s presence is felt through the film. Ali’s performance is one of tenderness and paternity. What also comes across is Juan’s confidence in himself and his identity. Jenkins is subverting stereotypes and showing a perspective that is needed and long overdue.

The score by Nicholas Britell is among the best of the century so far. The soundtrack is brilliant mix of rap, classical excerpts from composers such as Mozart and original music. The original music is truly stunning with beautiful use of single violin solos to exemplify Chiron’s loneliness. What Britell does is give a separate theme for the three Chirons we see in the film. The themes aren’t distinctly different but feel like an evolution through the film until we get to Black’s theme much like Chiron’s development and understanding of his own self. At times it feels as if the music reflects Chiron himself in the specific scenes as the pace quickens in moments of adrenaline and then eases off in moments of relaxation. Chiron and the music go hand in hand making the music an entire experience through Chiron’s eyes.

Moonlight is a film that stays with you and one that is difficult to forget. It doesn’t shy away from showing the brutality of modern society and the struggles that minorities face. Jenkins solidified himself as one to watch with this film and followed it up with the excellent If Beale Street Could Talk. Moonlight is truly in a league of its own and has brought a new voice to cinema that is needed and valid. Scenes in which Chiron is rejected by his own mother (Naomie Harris), an abusive drug-addict, are revealed bit by bit as they coincide with Chiron’s own understanding of the situation. As his mother uses homophobic slurs against him, Chiron too becomes accustomed to that way of thinking and distances himself from his desires as an adult. Moonlight is one of those films that you can watch time and time again and find something to admire while reaping in the rewards of this cinematic masterpiece. It’s not often when smaller films are exposed to high levels of publicity but Moonlight thoroughly deserves it and is such an important film to note in the way of diversity in its cast and crew, providing a new perspective and a new wave of films that make way for different cultures told by those from those cultures.

What do you think about Moonlight? Let me know in the comments below!