Tag: novel

Categories
Uncategorised

Judy (2019)

Based on the last years and concerts of Judy Garland’s life, Judy is one of the most talked about films going into this awards season thanks to the starring turn by Renée Zellweger in the titular role. Biopics have always been a popular go-to for actors who want to subvert casting types and show their range and this seems to be no exception for Zellweger who foregoes her famed reputation as the comedic gem in Bridget Jones. As an avid fan of Judy Garland, I was really interested to see whether Zellweger pulls it off and it truly is a film that revolves around the performance and acts as an Oscar lull for the actress who has mainly stayed out of the spotlight for years. Directed by Rupert Goold, a director renowned for his theatre work with a script written by Tom Edge based on the musical The End of the Rainbow by Peter Quilter, Judy is the heartbreaking reality of a faded star who longs to stay in the spotlight but is plighted by a lifetime of abuse which finally catches up with her in the form drug and alcohol abuse. Flashbacks to her youth which see Darci Shaw play a young Garland (superbly I might add) in which she is constantly berated for her appearance whilst also experiencing harassment, forced drug use and general anxieties in terms of how she must eat and act at all times.

Goold’s direction is intensely focused on its star. When we see Judy perform for the first time, the camera never leaves her, instead focusing on each movement and mannerism that Zellweger conjures up. There is a distinct use of palette used in the film as the Hollywood scenes of Judy’s youth are bright and playful whereas the London setting for her concerts in the present day is darker and drearier. The illusion of fame has long since faded which Goold brings across. The decision to bring in events that didn’t happen in real life is something that I am unsure about. A life as eventful as Judy Garland’s isn’t in need of any fictionalisation and I feel that the inclusion of these scenes detracts from the film. The main fictionalised event was the inclusion of gay couple, Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira) who wait for Judy at the stage door and have dinner with her in their flat. I understand the inclusion of these characters as it is a way to show Judy’s support for the gay community and the performances from Nyman and Cerqueira are heartfelt and sincere. My only concern is the ending scene in which they start a singalong to “Over the Rainbow” when Judy breaks down on stage. This event didn’t happen and the effect that it had as the theatre audience all joined in made it a bit cringey to watch, knowing that this didn’t happen in reality. Judy’s longing to be remembered and her final lines do pack a punch though as you feel the impending fate that awaits her as she dies 6 months after the concerts. There are plenty of moments in the film, particularly the Hollywood scenes, that are fantastically shot and Goold’s experience as a theatre director comes into play. His focus on the character’s expressions and use of light and shade is phenomenal and it’s exciting to see what he picks as his next cinematic project.

judy4

Now onto the star of the show. Renée Zellweger is nothing less than stellar as Judy. The Judy she plays is one that looks back on past fame and fortune whilst dealing with the reality that she does not have the same financial luxury or influence she once did. The only way she is able to keep herself financially afloat is by performing in London where her fan base is loyal. Garland is a character with many layers and Zellweger manages to communicate this with a melancholy glance. The physicality of the role may not seem demanding at first but particularly when performing, you see the physical struggles Judy has. Zellweger’s Judy is one who cares about her impact and legacy, wanting to ensure that she will be remembered. Her motivation is ensuring financial security so she can spend time with her children who are living in the US with their father, Judy’s ex-husband Sidney Luft (Rufus Sewell). There are so many scenes that are captivating and it’s mainly when she is on stage. The passion that Zellweger throws into the role is spilled out heart and soul into the songs. Offstage, Judy is disabled by her mental health and increased alcohol consumption. Her anxiety overrides everything causing a huge lack of confidence and yet she longs for validation and the applause. Her refusal to allow her younger children to enter the world of showbiz only demonstrates the hatred for her own upbringing and eventual rise to stardom. She longs for the normal life but can never truly have one now.

The supporting cast is led by Michael Gambon and Jessie Buckley as theatre owner, Bernard Delfont and assistant Rosalyn Wilder, respectively. It’s always nice to see veteran actors acting alongside rising stars and both do a wonderful job. At the end of the day, their roles are to support Zellweger’s starring turn. This is a film that has an intense focus on Judy. There are very few scenes that don’t have Judy in them meaning that this makes it hard for other people to truly shine because she does grab the attention. But as I said, in a film like this, we’re not meant to focus on these supporting roles. That being said, there is a scene between Judy and Rosalyn that is particularly fiery when the latter tries to encourage the former to go onstage. Judy lashes out and claims that Rosalyn doesn’t care about her which to an extent is true. She may seem that she does care but at the end of the day, Judy’s wellbeing comes second to her concerts. Rosalyn’s job is to ensure that Judy makes the concerts on time.

judy-garland-renee-zellweger.jpg

Judy is a film with its flaws but much like the film’s subject, it certainly puts on a show. Zellweger has made herself a serious contender this awards season and definitely could walk away with Oscar number two. I think it’s a film worth watching just for the performance but the direction should not be overlooked either. In a post #metoo world, it’s horrific and tragic to see how Judy was treated from a young age as she was verbally and physically abused and forced to fit an ideal that she did not naturally conform to. She clearly despised and reviled any attempts to change her and yet was forced to hate her background. Comparing the two Judys we see in the film, we see that culmination of abuse from all angles in Zellweger’s.

What did you think of Judy? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Quentin Tarantino: Film Ranking

If you asked a group of people for their favourite living filmmaker, there is a strong chance that a large percentage of them will say the name: Quentin Tarantino. One of the greatest and most original minds to come out of the film industry in the history of film, Tarantino practically defined 90s cinema with his look into the gangster underworld of Los Angeles. His films are known for their strong use of language, gratuitous violence and the iconic writing style that Tarantino brings to his dialogue. The owner of two Best Original Screenplay Oscars (for Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained), he has yet to win a Best Director gong. With the release of this year’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, could this be another successful awards season for Tarantino?

Tarantino had always stated that he intended to make 10 features. Counting Kill Bill as one, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood would be his ninth and, therefore, penultimate picture. I thought it would be a great celebration of his work to revisit his films old and new and see how I would stack them up when compared to each other.

Here are the reviews for the films of Quentin Tarantino:

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Possibly one of the most (if not the most) iconic debuts ever to be delivered by a filmmaker, Reservoir Dogs follows a group of men who are given colour code names such as Mr. Orange and Mr. Brown and their attempt to carry out a diamond heist. A pretty simple plot but the genius of the film comes from Tarantino’s decision to not show the heist itself. What we are presented with is the run-up to the heist and it’s consequences when it goes wrong. Featuring a brilliant cast including Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen and Tim Roth. My favourite performance comes from Steve Buscemi who plays the fearfully paranoid Mr. Pink. Among the men, Pink is clearly the outsider from the beginning when he refuses to give the waitress a tip. The script may seem simple but it is anything but. There is a rhythm and style that would come to define a Tarantino feature such as extensive allegories and numerous pop culture references. The soundtrack for this film has also become somewhat of a legend in its own right and has become a reference point for a lot of modern filmmakers. Tarantino himself claims that this film is the closest to being a “perfect” film which although I see the argument for, I would say that he has managed to make even better films. It would be a shame to think that his first film was his best.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

If you had to say one film that defines the 1990s, I think the majority of people would say Pulp Fiction. From the iconic poster design, extreme violence and brilliant dialogue, Pulp Fiction catapulted Tarantino to the top of the A list, winning him the Palme d’Or at Cannes Film Festival as well as an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Starring John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson as suave hitmen Vincent Vega and Jules Winnifield who work for drug lord Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) and his cocaine-addicted wife, Mia (Uma Thurman in her most recognisable role). Pulp Fiction is bigger and better than its predecessor with an even more starry cast, bigger budget and killer direction. Even 25 years on, it is still commonly referenced for its costumes and standout scenes such as Jules’ biblical recitation before blowing the brains out of a man who attempted to double-cross Wallace. It is undoubtedly Jackson who is the shining star of this gangster masterpiece as he brings his trademark attitude. You know you did a great job when the person who beat you to the Oscar says that you should have won. There’s a reason why Pulp Fiction marked the start of the iconic collaborations between Tarantino and Jackson. Their love of action, violence and strong language makes the perfect pairing. Besides every time Jackson is onscreen, my favourite scene is Christopher Walken’s iconic monologue as Captain Koons, an Army veteran who survived the war and is gifting his son, Butch (Chandler Lindauer and Brue Willis playing the younger and older versions, respectively) his prized watch. Only Walken could deliver the monologue with the sincerity and conviction that his does.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Jackie Brown is one of those films that finds itself among the top of people’s favourite Tarantino films or worst. Sadly, it is among the bottom of my list but not because it is a bad film by any means. It is simply because of its nature as an adaptation. When I watch a Tarantino, I want to see the usual quirks in the dialogue which I think isn’t there as much as other films. Following Pam Grier as the titular air stewardess who becomes embroiled in a smuggling scandal, Tarantino relies on a great cast to carry out this complex web and pulls it off which include Samuel L. Jackson with a fantastic haircut. Known for her starring roles in Blaxploitation flicks, Grier herself is amazing and had such a powerful presence onscreen. She doesn’t just give a great performances, she becomes Jackie. It’s one of my favourite performances in the Tarantino catalogue but I just feel that there are elements such as the odd pacing that let the film as a whole down. It would be nice to see Tarantino reunite with Grier on a new project, perhaps his 10th (and supposedly last) feature. The film is grounded in reality a bit more than the others and I think the fact that any director could have made this film is why it ranks low. When I watch a Tarantino film, I want it to be distinctively Tarantino but I don’t get that from this film and as previously stated, I think that comes from the fact that it is an adaptation. The man thrives from his originality and it’s what the audience loves.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)

I remember watching Kill Bill for the first time and being blown away by the strength of the protagonist. The film follows the vengeful ex-assassin The Bride who seeks revenge on her former colleagues when they kill her wedding rehearsal party on the orders of Bill, the man who runs the group. Kill Bill is intended to be watched as one film but due to running length was divided into two volumes. The first volume is seen as the Eastern installment as The Bride ventures to Japan to face the first assassin O-Ren Oshii (Lucy Liu). There are so many reasons why my love for this film is unequivocal such as the clear appreciation for Japanese cinema and culture, the amazing use of animation within the film and most of all, the wide abundance of fleshed out female characters. This film is known for its extreme violence and high body count but don’t let this put you off. Playing the woman who lost everything, including her unborn baby, Thurman’s performance is undeniably ruthless, unapologetic and emotionally charged to the max. Even though she seems unbreakable and unemotional on the surface but you sense her pain underneath the surface from the opening scene with Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox). Tarantino uses various elements such as sound mixing and colour giving the film its flamboyance and elevating it beyond realism and into fantasy.

Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

Following on from Vol 1, Kill Bill: Vol 2 takes us back to America where the Bride has the second half of her list left to kill in the form of Bill’s failure of a brother, Budd (Michael Madsen), the merciless Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and Bill himself (David Carradine). This installment has a larger focus on the Bride’s background before the massacre took place and her journey to becoming an assassin. I love how both films have become a genre of their own. The body count may be a fraction of its predecessor but it still includes some of the most terrifying scenes in film (insert buried alive segment here) and is captivating in its own way. We see the Bride’s emotional journey and her guard slips as she makes some unexpected discoveries in her quest for blood. I think that together, Kill Bill makes for a fantastic saga and would definitely be among my favourite films of the 21st century so far.

Death Proof (2007)

I know there are some people that wouldn’t put Death Proof in the list due to it being part of a two-part feature titled Grindhouse with fellow director and friend, Robert Rodriguez directing Planet Terror (2007). Death Proof is a Texan action led by Kurt Russell as a stuntman who murders women with his car. The film is split into two parts with one group of women’s fates determined the first half and another group in the second half. Death Proof is often viewed as Tarantino’s worst and it is but it’s not a bad film. It is entertaining and Russell is brilliant as the killer in the “death-proof” car. It’s not as complex as other Tarantino films and doesn’t perhaps have the gumption or wow factor that the others have. That being said, for what it wants to be, it delivers in spades. The soundtrack is great and Rose McGowan and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are great in their roles as Pam and Lee, respectively. It’s pretty great that Tarantino and Rodriguez cast McGowan in a leading role in both films to spite Harvey Weinstein for what he did to her. McGowan shines in both films and it would be great to see her make a return to films in roles as amazing as the Grindhouse duo.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The first Tarantino film I watched and boy was it a great pick. Undoubtedly one of the best opening scenes in film history, Tarantino manages to create tension with a glass of milk. The film is a reimagining of Nazi-occupied France during the war with Brad Pitt playing Aldo Raine who leads a group of men known as “The Basterds” who are set on killing Nazis and collecting their scalps. Inglourious Basterds also includes what I would argue is Tarantino’s best character today in the erringly charismatic SS Officer, Hans Landa. Played spectacularly by Christoph Waltz in a role that would see him in his Hollywood breakthrough and take home every Supporting Actor Award including the Cannes Film Festival, BAFTA and the Academy Award. Landa is a character who commands your attention. He’s despicable and manipulative, the sociopathic changes are intriguing to watch such as him loving his nickname “Jew Hunter” in the opening scene when intimidating a local farmer, to despising the name when realising that the Nazis are set on losing the war. His motives and outlook can never be understood because he is such a whirlwind character. He seems to take his job seriously one moment then not at all the next and flits the fate of others with ease, not finding it difficult to kill if he sees fit. I don’t think there’s a character that has unsettled a global audience as much as Hans Landa has and yet you long for him to be on the screen because the character is so engaging. Tarantino’s screenwriting is possibly his best, which he clearly knows from the final frame when Aldo looks into the camera and says “this might be my masterpiece”.

Django Unchained (2012)

Bringing his love for spaghetti westerns to the frontline for this Civil War epic, Tarantino’s 3 hour Django Unchained follows Jamie Foxx as the titular character and his quest to find his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) in the Deep South were slavery is very much a thriving business. With the help of bounty hunter Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), Django’s adventure sees Tarantino using an endless amount of fake blood and a controversial multitude of n-words throughout which faced criticism from individuals such as Spike Lee. I do think this is a film plagued with indulgence and excess in its violence, language and numerous endings but it does have very strong points. The cast are perfect in their roles particularly Christoph Waltz as Schultz and Leonardo DiCaprio as plantation owner Calvin Candie. Waltz is charismatic and charming as a man set on freeing slaves and hunting killers and would go on to win a second Best Supporting Actor gong although I personally think his role is a lead not supporting performance. DiCaprio’s performance on the other side is chilling and captivating as he relishes in torturing the slaves.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Concluding the western trilogy in Tarantino’s catalogue, we venture to Wyoming in the aftermath of the Civil War. There’s a heavy blizzard and eight murderous brutes are trapped in Minnie’s Haberdashery including the honourable John “The Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell), country hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and a career-best from Jennifer Jason Leigh as the disgustingly brilliant Daisy Domergue who John is bringing to Red Rock to hang. Like all Tarantino films, this one is also a mash-up of genres. It is primarily western but is also murder mystery, comedy and thriller. The film’s composer, Ennio Morricone stated that he wrote the score for a horror film which would end up being the film’s strongest point and leading to Morricone’s long-awaited Oscar. It’s a truly brilliant soundtrack and elevates the rhythm of the dialogue which is so important in the moments of extreme tension. Tarantino’s writing is tight and every character has been fleshed out, admittedly some more than others, but each one is memorable in their own way. It’s an interesting inclusion and the film shows a maturity in Tarantino’s filmmaking. There is violence, granted, as expected but Tarantino is more focused on his script and positioning of characters than the actual violence.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

I have already written an extensive review on this one (which you can read here) so I won’t go into too much detail. What I will say is that it has a very good chance of scoring some nominations and potential wins going into awards season. It’s nice seeing Tarantino returning to California for his penultimate film and it seems like a film that he was destined to make. The personal touches are definitely here in what seems to be a return to the place where he grew up.

So we’re all up to date and I eagerly await to see what Tarantino has up his sleeve for his tenth and supposed final feature. Undoubtedly, it will be one of the biggest events in film history with actors and crew members alike clambering at the chance to work with him. There’s only one Tarantino and there certainly won’t be another director like him again.

With all that said and done, here is my final ranking:

1) Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)

2) Inglourious Basterds (2009)

3) Reservoir Dogs (1992)

4) Pulp Fiction (1994)

5) Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

6) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

7) The Hateful Eight (2015)

8) Django Unchained (2012)

9) Jackie Brown (1997)

10) Death Proof (2007)

I know it’s probably shocking having Kill Bill: Volume 1 at the top, but there is something incredibly empowering to me seeing a female character leading a blockbuster four hour saga. I hope people refer back to this when people claim that audiences don’t want to see women in film.

Which Tarantino is your favourite? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Paul Thomas Anderson: Film Ranking

Paul Thomas Anderson is known for his experimental and fearless quest into exploring characters in ways that are unflinching and at times, uncomfortable.

With the exception of last place (I really struggle with the age-gap in the relationship), I’ve watched these films multiple times and some of them are among my favourite films of all time.

Here’s my ranking for the filmography of Paul Thomas Anderson:

  1. The Master (2012)
  2. There Will Be Blood (2007)
  3. One Battle After Another (2025)
  4. Boogie Nights (1997)
  5. Phantom Thread (2017)
  6. Magnolia (1999)
  7. Inherent Vice (2014)
  8. Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
  9. Hard Eight (1996)
  10. Licorice Pizza (2021)

Which PTA film is your favourite film? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Top 5 Andrew Garfield Performances

Andrew Garfield is one of the most exciting millennial actors out there with a huge resume under his belt that boasts film, theatre and television. Since his breakout role in David Fincher’s The Social Network, Garfield’s talents have gone from strength to strength and his career has brought him an Academy Award nomination, two BAFTA nominations and a Tony Award for his performance in the Broadway production of Angels in America. He’s a fearless actor and clearly wants to stretch himself and show off the range he has.

His filmography isn’t as extensive as his television and stage work but this proves the care that he takes in selecting his roles. One his earlier roles that I absolutely adore is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) which in true Terry Gilliam style is utterly bonkers but Garfield is wonderful as troupe member, Anton. The fact that that performance doesn’t even make the top 5 just shows his skill as an actor.

Without further ado, here are my top 5 Andrew Garfield performances in chronological order:

The Social Network (2010)

The one that gave him his big breakout into the mainstream, Garfield plays Harvard student, Eduardo Saverin a seed investor for Thefacebook, a website created by fellow student and friend, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). In this biopic following the founding of the world’s biggest social media platform, we see Garfield in a significant supporting role in which sees him as a crucial part of Facebook’s inception and then ultimately his ownership is reduced and his profit is minimal. Bolstered by a stellar script by Aaron Sorkin and brilliant direction by Fincher, the part of Saverin is already a meaty role but Garfield goes the extra mile and makes the most of his limited screen time. Even when he is not on the screen, his impact is felt throughout the film. It shows that even at the early stages of his film career, Garfield is looking for risky roles. Not to mention the perfect delivery of the line: Sorry! My Prada’s at the cleaners! Along with my hoodie and my ‘fuck you’ flip-flops, you pretentious douchebag!

Never Let Me Go (2010)

Based on the novel of the same name by Nobel prize winner Kazao Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go is a nostalgic dystopic story about unknowing clones who are raised and brought up to be harvested for their organs. Following the three protagonists Kathy H (Carey Mulligan), Ruth C (Keira Knightley) and Tommy D (Garfield) who are three donors. We watch their journey from their innocent childhood to fully aware adults and the deterioration of their friendships and their lives as they are forced to donate their organs and start dying in the process. Garfield holds his own against this starry cast which also features Charlotte Rampling and Sally Hawkins to name a few. Tommy D is such a complex character as he begins to express his feelings through art in the hope that this will save him and Kathy H. At the start of the film, Tommy is an angry young boy who doesn’t know where to project his frustration but the adult Tommy is more restrained. You can see the tension bubbling to the service with Garfield’s performance and the climactic scene in which he breaks down is heart-breaking to watch. Watching the desperation as Tommy accumulates years and years of art in which his love is expressed and ultimately rejected makes for one of the best performances of the year that was sadly overlooked.

andrewgarfield

99 Homes (2014)

Now for my favourite Garfield performance. Fresh off the back from starring as Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man and it’s subsequent sequel, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Garfield would be starring in blockbuster after blockbuster. However, he not only starred but also co-produced his next film 99 Homes, an indie following construction worker, Dennis Nash (Garfield) and his struggle to keep a job which leads to his family being evicted from their home. The eviction is led by the ruthless Rick Carver (Michael Shannon) who Nash starts to work for and begins to be led down a rabbit hole of corruption and deceit. It shows the desperation to survive in a failing climate and what people will do in the pursuit of security. Nash commits awful criminal and moral activities but we don’t judge him for it because we know the background behind this and the intentions. When Dennis is forced to carry out an eviction, his reaction is the complete opposite to Rick’s emotionless demeanor. Whereas Shannon thrives portraying impenetrable characters, Garfield’s characters always wear their heart on their sleeve and none more so than Dennis Nash. Shannon definitely dominates the film as a whole and also provides one of his own career bests but Garfield’s performance should not be overlooked because of this. Seeing him play a young, struggling father who is also tasked with taking care of his mother (Laura Dern) demonstrates his range and versatility.

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

The biggest performance of his career so far and one that cemented him as a reliable leading man, Garfield leads this biopic about Desmond Doss, a pacifist soldier who acts as a doctor during the Battle of Okinawa at Hacksaw Ridge. Doss refuses to engage in any violent act and even goes into battle without a weapon to protect himself. He was renowned for savings the lives of countless soldiers on both sides. The film itself was a bit overrated as a whole in my opinion (it felt like an imitation of Full Metal Jacket in the first half and is overall an oddly paced film) but Garfield shines in the lead role. There are some unbelievably brilliant scenes such as the climb up the Ridge when the soldiers realise that the rope ladders is soaked with blood. The film is definitely worth a watch just for Garfield’s performance alone and was well worth the Oscar nomination it received. The film was met with controversy thanks to Mel Gibson’s involvement as director and his subsequent awards attention. In my opinion, however, I find his direction a bit too indulgent in this film and not one of the highlights. This is a film that Garfield alone elevates, telling the story of a peacemaker’s experience in the eye of a bloody war.

hacksaw_ridge

Silence (2016)

2016 was unarguably a brilliant year for Garfield. His second feature of the year sees him working with Martin Scorsese in an adaptation of Silence as Father Sebastião Rodrigues, a Portuguese priest who ventures to Edo era Japan to seek out fellow priest Cristóvão Ferreira (Liam Neeson). The film is set during the Shimabara Rebellion that sees Christianity outlawed and anyone who refuses to denounce Christ tortured or killed. Accompanied by Father Francisco Garupe (Adam Driver), Sebastião’s faith is tried and tested throughout as this 3 hour epic follows the trials and tribulations of a suppressed community in a land where they are outsiders. The film is a slow burner but it is a deeply layered film with rewardingly textured performances. Both 2016 films see Garfield play devout Christians in war-torn Japan at different eras but the performances couldn’t be further apart. The psychological effects of torture that Sebastião is forced to endure is shown perfectly by Garfield. We feel Sebastião’s inner turmoil as his reluctance to denounce Christ harms not only himself but others around him.

It’s exciting to see an actor unafraid to showcase a diverse range in a multitude of mediums. He has achieved a lot in a relatively short amount of time and it’s exciting to see what projects he takes on next.

Which Andrew Garfield performance is your favourite? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)

Continuing on in my Favourite Film series, this post looks at the films that opened my eyes to filmmaking and made me realise my passion for film. Based on the huge novel by J.R.R Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings trilogy consists of Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King and follows Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), a respected hobbit who lives with his adventurous Uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm) who is forced to carry the One Ring to Mordor where he must destroy it in the fires of Mount Doom before the evil Lord Sauron claims the Ring and uses it to rule over Middle Earth. Frodo is accompanied by the Fellowship that consist of his best friend, Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin), fellow hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), men Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean), elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Frodo must resist the lure of the ring and cross Middle Earth in a bid to save mankind from ruin. The trilogy also features a strong supporting cast with Hugo Weaving as elf Lord Elrond, Liv Tyler as his daughter Arwen who is Aragorn’s love interest and Miranda Otto in badass form as Éowyn. I know it seems a bit unfair to cram the whole trilogy in one post but it is impossible not to consider the vast achievement and scope that Peter Jackson has achieved.

It cannot be underestimated how well these films did upon release. The trilogy well surpassed the $1 billion mark and became instantly iconic around the world with masses of people en route to the premieres at their local cinemas. All three won big come award time with Fellowship of the Ring winning four Academy Awards, The Two Towers winning seven and The Return of the King sweeping the board with eleven nominations and eleven wins, tying with Ben-Hur (1959) and Titanic (1997) for the most wins at the Oscars. All three were critical and commercial smashes and boasted a spectacle despite being a film with fairly indie roots. It was different from other mainstream films because of this and I think the story’s message of fighting for good and friendship is one that resonates with a lot of people.

The cinematic releases see the films lengths at a minimum of 150 minutes per film but the extended editions bring the total running time an amazing 12 hours and what a 12 hours it is. The film achieved critical and commercial success upon release, has dated extremely well and remains one of the best loved franchises in history. Everything about it is perfect to me. I think it is a brilliant adaptation of the books and think the changes and omissions that were made were completely justified for the big screen. I know some people have trouble with the multiple endings at the end of the third film but remember that it is the end of one extremely long epic and that the ends need to be tied nicely. I think it’s a credit to the brilliant screenplays written by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens that each member of the Fellowship is loved and has their own story. The films are so spectacular and huge that it becomes an immersive experience for the viewer. Jackson contrasts this with moments charged with emotion such as Sam’s speech at the end of The Two Towers which gives the film its heart and separates it from other blockbuster films that have come before it. I couldn’t tell you how many times I have watched these films and I am still noticing new things every time. It’s such a rewarding experience to watch these films and I think Jackson’s direction captures the imagination that Tolkien gives in the novels perfectly.

Sam

The film is cast brilliantly. There are three main storylines when the Fellowship splits with one following Frodo and Sam, another following Merry and Pippin and the third following Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. Each actor embodies their character personally, particularly Mortensen and McKellen as Aragorn and Gandalf, respectively. Aragorn’s transition from outlaw Strider to the King is amazing as we see him emerge from the shadows and take the lead in the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers (I will be discussing Helm’s Deep in further detail soon). On the other hand, we see Gandalf undergo a physical transformation as we shifts from being Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White, giving him even stronger powers. Frodo’s development from a hobbit who has never left the Shire to crossing lands and encountering creatures that he would never have seen before. Much like his Uncle Bilbo, Frodo’s sense of what is right helps to combat his fears but his morality is tested when the manipulative Gollum (Andy Serkis) “assists” in helping him reach Mordor. The rapport between the cast offscreen is reflected onscreen and makes for great viewing in scenes such as the Fellowship’s inception and the scenes when they are forced to split up. The intensity of the Fellowship’s bond is so strong and the direction is so intricate that the audience feels as though they are going on the same journey. When watching the climactic scene of The Return of the King unfold, you can’t help but feel relieved when everything is over.

One of the aspects that also makes these films so spectacular are the special effects which are provided by WETA. Led by the amazing Richard Taylor, CGI is only used when an effect is humanly impossible. The behind-the-scenes on the extended editions are fantastic and well worth watching as we watch the creation of Middle Earth unfold. Richard Taylor is the best of the best when it comes to special effects (his multiple Oscars reflect this) and his team are super brilliant and creative. From the intricate details in the designs and the make-up, every single aspect of the film is thought out and executed beautifully. Taylor and his team tie together the make-up, the props and the special effects together that enhances the fantastical elements in the film. Even the effort that goes into collecting short sounds for sound editing and mixing and the process behind it is remarkable to watch. Seeing the passion and the heart that the crew put into the film is touching as everyone has a respect for each other no matter what job they do. Howard Shore’s score for the trilogy is also something that seems revolutionary and new in film. Somehow, he captures the tone perfectly and created that perfect violin solo for “History of the Ring” that is instantly synonymous with the film itself. My favourite piece in the trilogy is “Riders of Rohan” from The Two Towers because it captures that anticipation for battle perfectly and grandeur of marching. The use of delicate strings contrasting with a strong brass sound helps to elevate the film to its epic heights. Shore is one of the best film composers out there and he knocks it out of the park with these scores.

helmsdeep

I don’t think I could justify discussing these films in length and not bring up the brilliance in structure and execution of the major battle scenes. Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers is probably the best battle in film history. Everything about it is remarkable from the set design to the intricate detailing in the costumes and props and then the performances are on top form to boot. It comes at a point in the story where Sauron has managed to accumulate a large 100,000 strong Orc army thanks to the evil Wizard, Saruman (Christopher Lee). The odds are stacked against the soldiers of Rohan but they still vow to battle until the very end. The arrival of the elves from Lothlórien, led by Haldir (Craig Parker), marks a significant shift in the Middle Earth universe as elves infamously refuse to involve themselves in war but the threat of darkness forces them to fight alongside. It makes for an epic battle and one of the most devastating deaths in the trilogy as Haldir meets his end defending Aragorn. Other scenes that are remarkable include Boromir’s death in Fellowship of the Ring which I remember being the first death that I encountered in film and being perplexed that a “good guy” could die in a film. The great thing about The Lord of the Rings trilogy is that it does not patronise the audience but it is suitable for all audiences (maybe not smaller children but from around 6/7 upwards). Even the ending is bittersweet as Frodo sails off for the Undying Lands, leaving the others forever. It isn’t afraid to delve into serious topics while remaining in that fantasy universe and being larger than life.

I would be lying if I said that these films didn’t change my life and my outlook on film. I watch the extended editions every few months and fall in love more and more. There is a strong argument that they are among the greatest films in history and deserve their place one of the most renowned series for its depth and scope. I remember seeing them for the first time in the cinema and being scared and in awe at the same time. I was so captivated that I would watch them on a loop for months on end. It’s amazing to think that these films were such a huge part of my childhood but they are so important to me and I’ll never stop loving them.

What do you think of the The Lord of the Rings? Which installment is your favourite? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Adapting Roald Dahl

There are few people who manage to capture the imagination of a global audience in the way that Roald Dahl does through his stories. Over the years we have seen numerous adaptations in a wide variety of mediums and genres through the eyes of a huge spectrum of visionaries. From directors including Danny DeVito and Tim Burton and genres stemming from Mel Stuart’s musically charged classic to Wes Anderson’s progressive stop-motion animated masterpiece. The scope of adaptations made to date only adds to the genius of Dahl’s creativity and highlights the strength of the imagination the man in the shed conjured. Watching the 1971 adaptation, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory feels just as timeless as Tim Burton’s take in 2005 despite the films bringing a polar opposite aesthetic to the novel.

Originally, I was going to try and list my favourite adaptations but much like the films of directors such as Kubrick or Paul Thomas Anderson, each one is unique for particular reasons and I found it impossible to come up with a reasonable list that sums up my love for Dahl’s stories. Netflix announced in November 2018 that they were going to adapt a number of his works and the excitement and hype ever since has been astrominical. Anne Hathaway is rumoured to have been cast as the Grand High Witch (who was brilliantly played by Anjelica Huston in the original film) in their production of The Witches. This particular remake is being directed by Robert Zemeckis to boot showing the demand around these projects.

Dahl wrote both children and adult books but is probably more known for the former. However, it was his experience and openness to discuss an array of topics (including his autobiographies Boy – Tales of Childhood and Going Solo) that allows him to approach his writing with a fearlessness, bringing a new and exciting perspective to literature. Even when creating his own universes and language, Dahl never patronises the reader and I think this is what has translated so well into the film adaptations such as Nicolas Roeg’s The Witches (1990) and Danny DeVito’s Matilda (1996). Both are great examples of films that are primarily aimed at children but are perfectly suitable for adults as well. No one is excluded from a Dahl tale. Also, the nostalgic draw also undoubtedly contributes to the hype as adults of today probably read his books as children. Dahl has become synonomous with Western (particularly British) childhoods.

I am hugely excited to see what these Netflix adaptations bring as they promise to show a more faithful and darker side to the Dahl bibliography that perhaps has been left out in previous adaptations. Not that has is a bad thing as each adaptation has brought something unique in the way that Dahl has in each of his books but it’ll be interesting to see The Witches with its original ending and a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the right balance of book loyalty and darkness (the Tim Burton one slightly overdoes it in my opinion). I am mainly looking forward to The BFG however as that is the one that captured me most as a child. I found the giants absolutely terrifying and I am looking forward to seeing how Netflix adapt it. I enjoyed both adaptations but I feel that the Steven Speilberg take was a bit sillier than it needed to be (although I completely appreciate that The BFG as a character is rather silly). I would probably say that if pushed to choose, my favourite films adaptations would be either Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), The Witches (1990) or Matilda (1995) which is odd because none of the films are 100% faithful but the final cut doesn’t compromise Dahl’s vision and that is the most important thing.

Which is your favourite Roald Dahl book and/or film adaptation? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Based on the Edward Albee stageplay of the same name and marking Mike Nichols’ directorial debut, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? follows older couple, Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) and George (Richard Burton) as the cracks in their relationship between to crack and crumble with the arrival of newlywed couple Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis). Very much like the stage production, the film itself is minimalistic and relies on the strength of the actors’ performances which is provided in spades. Elizabeth Taylor who gives her best performance since her Tennesee Williams duo with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Suddenly, Last Summer (1959).

The screenplay is nothing short of amazing. Adapted by Ernest Lehman and there are only minor differences to the film, largely due to location. The Albee play is set only in Martha and George’s house whereas the film gives us a short break in a local roadhouse. It’s not a change that creates any detriment to the film and makes for an opportunity to see how these characters act outside of the comfort of the homely setting. Martha and George’s son is given a name in the film, Nick, in the film adaptation but does not have a name in the play. Again, this is an understandable change as it creates a more emotional charge for the audience as it feels more “real” and relatable when giving him a name. This is similar to the narrator in Truman Capote’s novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s who is given the name, Paul Varjak, which probably makes it easier to confirm especially when protagonist Holly Golightly refers to him as “Fred” after her brother. Changes as small as these don’t compromise the vision of the film and in Lehman’s case, it brings a different dimension to Albee’s play and enhances it in some ways.

Taylor had had her fair share of turbulance with the press and public as her lifestyle and general sexuality was judged and she was seen as a poor role model but this film allows us to see that she isn’t afraid to “deglamourise” and get gritty when needed. She has always been a brilliant actress as previously proven but portraying Martha gives us a chance to see the darker side as Martha manipulates and instigates. She is such an unlikeable character but Taylor has such a presence that it is impossible to feel Martha’s power as she dominates with her physicality. She manipulates the audience into feeling how she wants them to feel, gaining sympathy when needed and repulsion when required. Her performance is nuanced and showed that her career was far from over.

Richard Burton on the other hand plays the oppressed husband waiting to explode as Martha provokes again and again. One of the best actors of the Golden Age of Hollywood, Burton was seriously undervalued during his lifetime and found himself without an Oscar despite seven nominations under his belt. This was indeed one of those performances and despite his brilliance, this really is Taylor’s film. That isn’t to say that his performance isn’t excellent because it is among his best of the best and shows the potential that he was capable of being succombing to alcoholism.

The supporting actors, Segal and Dennis shine as the young couple seemingly in love. The longer they spend time with the miserable elders, they start to see parallels in their own relationship. Sandy Dennis is particularly eyecatching as Honey, the initially subdued housewife who then begins to disagree with her husband. It captured the Academy’s attention as well who award her with the Best Supporting Actress gong. The arrival of the young couple gradually means that the film becomes a game of Chinese whispers as secrets are thrown around to the wrong people and conflicts happen every five minutes. It’s a spiderweb of the complexity of relationship and ultimately seeks to find the foundation of their relationship and destroy it. The ending then leaves the question of what happens next as their years of marriage and lies lay bare in front of them.

The film is a great example that plays can be adapted successfully to the big screen without making big compromises. The film allows the actors to bounce off each other rather than blending into a spectacle. Seeing Taylor and Burton onscreen is always a treat as well and to see such volatile performances makes the film raw and honest. It’s a film that feels enormously progressive for its time as the couple grieve over the death of their son, deal with their bad habits and open up about their tumultuous marriage. The characters are not trying to be likeable because they react as their character would react rather than catering to a Hollywood audience as the big studios would play it.

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